Light does not cause sight

 Light does not cause sight

Open eyes do not cause sight

Closed eyes in a dark room want darkness

Open eyes in a dark room crave light

How often have we tried to show light to those whose eyes are still closed, only causing them to close tighter? 

One of the best ways to open a person's eyes is to live a godly life in front of him. 

Open his eyes first, and then show him light. 

This is why the way we carry out our everyday lives, (separate from the church), is so important. How we parent, how we love, how we relate, how we vote, how competent we are at our job, these are all things that open eyes. 

*All ideas from Jim Wilson's "Taking Men Alive"*

Temptation

 Does Temptation's pull increase with each consecutive failure to hold it at bay, or does it increase more with each consecutive instance at which it is held at bay? 

Because we have experienced personally no other reality than the former, in which temptation has been given into, we might say that temptation grows - as we have experienced the indulgence of sin and hear its beckoning call. But this is all we have ever known. We have not known the force temptation brings to bear as it is continually discarded in favor of obedience to God. 

Jesus is the only example we can look to in order to shed light on the alternate. 

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens - Jesus the Son of God - let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted every way as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in time of need." Hebrews 4: 14-16

He was tempted in every way we are and yet remained obedient and without sin. C.S Lewis Explains the contrast quite clearly between the strength temptation has on those who have already relented and those remaining firm in obedience. 

“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness — they have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means — the only complete realist.”

Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses because he did not give into them. If this were not the case then the text would read that he could empathize. He does not confirm our temptations as an empathic person would, only our weakness; however, he can have compassion on us, and on those ignorant and going astray because he also was subject to weakness.  

The longer we hold temptation at bay the stronger its pull will become, and the more its truth will be made known to us. Vs. 8 in Hebrews 5 says that Jesus learned obedience from what he suffered and that through this he was perfected, becoming the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. 

Continue to walk against the wind.

Let the needles hit the ground

     Storms are not generally anticipated with a demeanor of eager giddiness. Both storms that occur in nature, and those that present themselves in our lives. But storms are purifying, and they reveal truth. Take, for instance, the picture Jesus gives us of the two houses. One built on solid rock and having a firm foundation, and the other built on sand. From the street, these two homes would look quite the same, indistinguishable in fact without further inspection. The pivotal difference is not revealed until the moment of crisis. The storm exposes at the most foundational level the validity of that which the homes are both built on. One collapsing under its false claim of being structurally sound, and the other standing against the thrashing of the wind and rain. The point I am getting at is that in order to discern what is true and standing, sometimes we need a storm. Those trying to sell the home built on sand will have a rough go at it after the storm, as it's masquerade has been unequivocally revealed to all the families currently on the market for real estate.

 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matt 7: 24-27

    Aliken the storm mentioned above to the experience of buying a Christmas tree. Bear with me. If you happen to visit an old Christmas tree farm to enjoy the process of cutting down your own tree you might see an oddly elongated contraption that's sole purpose is to shake the tree. After having been cut down the tree is placed horizontally on the contraption and with the start of an engine is shaken. The purpose of this is to remove all the dead pine needles from within the tree so that only the living, green, attached ones remain - saving your vehicle, and home from a plethora of dead pine needles which will fall out upon any disturbance. Once again we see that a (storm, struggle, or general shaking up of things) tends to distinguish dead from living, truth from facade. 

    This realization has given me great hope and contentment. For the shaking that we see all around us in the uncertainty of the times, the political divide, and the unruliness of 'scientific fact' is all happening under God's authority - And when God shakes things, he does so to reveal to us how those things which can not be shaken will remain. So I say let the needles fall. 

"See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth but also heaven.”  Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain." Hebrews 12: 25-27

Facebook Delimma

"There are only two industries that call their customers users: illegal drugs and software."

When does technology cross the line from existing as a tool used to increase our productivity, to a temptation that drains our productivity?

The cultural mandate given to Adam and Eve in the garden (to exercise dominion over all creation) necessitated the use of tools. We cannot exercise dominion over the grass in our front yard without the use of tools, let alone the fish in the sea. When we stop looking to use technology in this way, to exercise dominion over some task, to be more productive, to further our reach, or to bring things closer to home that otherwise would not be - we would do well to take a step back and evaluate.

"Tools make it possible for our radius of fruitfulness to extend much further than it otherwise would."- Douglas Wilson: Ploductivity

Sin is inherent in man, not in tools. When we sin, however, in close proximity to a material object, we find it convenient to blame the tool - Weapons for murder, alcohol for drunkenness, slow traffic for the anger, photography for lust, the list could continue into oblivion. This makes no more sense than for us to blame the baseball bat for missing the pitch. 

Meghan and I evaluated our use of Facebook and found it to be a tool that we were no longer using to 'extend our radius of fruitfulness'. In fact, we were not using it as a tool at all. It had become something reaching out to us, begging for attention. Facebook again is not all bad, the sin is not in the tool but in the man. This does not negate the fact that some tools should decisively be placed in the back of the shed, amongst the cobwebs. 

Lawlessness

 "Your thone, O God, is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the 

scepter of your kingdom.

You have loved righteousness 

and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You 

With the oil of gladness more

than Your companions" - Hebrews 1: 8-9, quoting Psalms 45: 6-7

Loved Righteousness and Hated Lawlessness. Hate is not a word used in the Christian community often, especially not in association with God.  But righteousness and lawlessness are mutually exclusive, completely. In order to truly love some things, other things must be hated. But in this question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, we can definitively say it is the love that superseded the hate. We do not hate lawlessness for the sheer pleasure of it, but because it stands to destroy that which we first loved, righteousness. A general disdain however was not strong enough. In order to love righteousness, we must hate lawlessness. 

What is lawlessness? I can see several different cases. First Lawlessness could refer to breaking any myriad of laws imposed by the civil authority appointed over us. (See Romans 13 to begin the intricate discussion of to what extent we need to obey the civil magistrate). Lawlessness could reach to a more foundational level and refer to the breaking of God's law. What I think is the most fitting explanation is that lawlessness refers to not a mere act but a state of being, the state of lawlessness - The state of an individual living a life privy to no authority, with no love for discipline, who sees his own truth as the only truth, who thinks that one plus one, in fact, equals three. A person who has chosen to, in life, turn from even the most fundamental laws and refuses to believe that an XX genotype creates a woman and an XY genotype a man. For are not even the most basic laws that govern this world the creation of God? Did the apple not fall on Newton's nose because God made it so? 

The love of righteousness necessitates the hatred of the kind of thing that abdicates God's law. 

Subsidization

"You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you penalize. Over time, what you subsidize and what you penalize reveal what you are actually after." - Douglas Wilson, Father Hunger

The things we detest with our tongues we should detest with our actions. The principles we profess with our tongues we should profess with our actions. Over time, what we truly believe in will be revealed by our actions, and not proven by way of our tongues.

What does modern culture subsidize and penalize by way of the family, and what does that say about modernity's view of fathers?

Though many say they value commitment, they subsidize flight. Roe v. Wade established that whether he be a committed father and husband with every intention of raising a child, or he be a wanderer who happened to stop in for a night with no intention of pursuing responsibility, he has equally no legal say in the life or death of his child. Furthermore, the state offers to take care of the mother only if she does not marry the father and then wonders why illegitimacy (and its associated social recourse) is so prevalent. You get more of what you subsidize.

Have you ever heard a woman complain about finding a man willing to commit? Could it be in fact that our culture of leisure, sexual indulgence, and flight by way of social acceptance subsidizes an abhorrence to commitment?

We should find ourselves in direct conflict with anyone seeking to profiteer off of male irresponsibility - and with a quick glance, we can see that the vulgarians abound.

Christen men should be utterly opposed to this, but it is not just a problem with culture, modernity, or the state.

"But in most normal cases of family joys and sorrows, the State has made no mode of entry. It is not so much that the law should not interfere, as that the law cannot. Just as there are fields too far off for law, so there are fields too near; as a man may see the North Pole before he sees his own backbone." - G.K. Chesterton. 

Men should not be opposed to irresponsibility solely because they are reacting to others who support it. We are not defined by what we are against but by what we are for. If we are always reacting then we always respond to an Enemy who is taking the initiative on us. The most decisive form of warfare is the offense because it is defined by our own initiative, not a reaction to our opponents. It is the only way we impose our will. Therefore obedience to Christ is not described as doing the opposite of what the antitheist does.

"Liberty is to be defined by God and not by what irritates me." - Douglas Wilson, Father Hunger

"But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." - James 1:25

"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." - 2 Cor. 3:17

A Good Samaritan in 2020?

 Love, and how to go about spreading it - whether genuinely or in mere appearance - seems to be a highly contested topic today. It deserves to be highly contested for it emphatically shapes the way we respond to the suffering we see in others, and ultimately how we live our lives each and every day. 

A recent sermon tackled this topic by citing the Parable of the Good Samaritan found in Luke chapter 10, verses 25-37. To provide a brief orientation, a particular lawyer or scribe questioned Jesus on what he must do to acquire eternal life. Jesus responded by pointing him to the law, of which the lawyer knew well. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." Being the good lawyer he was, he questioned further, seeking a definition of who exactly was defined as his neighbor. To which Jesus cited the familiar parable.

'Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among [i]thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”'

• When asked about love, Jesus pointed straight to the law. We can not claim to embody love while remaining lawless. The law does not serve to highlight our own righteousness, but to point us towards love.

• Some use religion as a hiding place from loving their neighbors, some seek definitions not to strengthen their capacity to love but to limit it. Likely the lawyer was not seeking to find out who was his neighbor, but rather who was not his neighbor. Religion does not serve to excuse a lack of love.

• The Preist and the Levite specifically passed by the wounded man on the far side of the road. From afar the man may have looked dead, and if they passed at such a distance as to not reveal the expansion of his chest with each breath, they could remain guiltless. In order to love, we cannot run from suffering or pretend it doesn't exist. We have to look closer, we have to intentionally inspect. 

• When the Samaritan saw the wounded man and decided to help, he had a decision to make. He had to decide what use of his resources would actually be helpful to the man. Notice he did not decide to chase down the robbers responsible in order to enact some sort of justice, for justice would not bind the man's wounds. Eternal justice belongs to the Lord alone, and we are in no place to attempt to seize his authority. The Samaritan's love constituted soulely of assisting the one who was wounded and his specific needs, he concerned himself not with blame for those responsible. 

• Jesus does not give us permission to be indifferent to others' issues, problems, and sufferings. Taking an isolationist view is clearly not love. But in the parable, all parties were in agreement about what healthy looked like - it looked like cleaned wounds, and all parties were in agreement that being healthy is a more preferred state than being unhealthy. Today what we see, are parties who are not in agreement on what 'healthy' looks like or even if it is desirable. Many would prefer to remain on the side of the road, and would argue that loving them would mean enduring the same treatment they were subject to and lying by their side, having sustained similar wounds. This goes back to our culture's idea of empathy having more weight than sympathy. This causes us to lose grip of objective truth and rely on individuals' own subjective versions of the truth. The Samaritan knew the truth of what health looked like, and sought to bring the man back to it. To love clearly means in this text to bring others back to a level of health or truth. This becomes difficult when 'health' is not an agreed-upon desirable state.

• Love did not mean providing for the injured man indefinitely. The Samaritan nursed him back to health, returned him to his two feet, where he could sustain himself, and return to work, and then was on his way. The culture of the day necessitated that each man understand his responsibility to provide for himself. Love did not mean in this scenario tossing handouts to the man in order to make him dependent for the rest of his life, but to bring him back to a state of independence. 

• Love did not mean throwing money or bandages at the issue. Mere bandages do nothing to help a man so injured as to lack the physical ability to apply them. The Samaritan bloodied and dirtied his hands, and provided for the actual wounds, addressed the actual cuts and bruises specifically. Had he only given the man Neosporin it would have been of no use to him, had he only given him water and food it would have been no use to him. Again, love brought the man back to health and addressed the wounds keeping him from said level of health specifically.

• Love does not look like allowing people to continue on in their deprived states, nor agreeing with them that these deprived states are 'normal' or 'healthy'. Love does not seem to manifest itself in throwing items at police officers, or looting businesses for the sake of the wounded. It seems to look like specifically bringing the wounded back to health. Love also does not seem to look like pointing at rioters or political parties and demeaning them. The Samaritan did not declare the man's state to the masses, he simply rolled up his sleeves and began to help. 

So much of the current climate could be eased by clarifying definitions. Love especially. The only definition of love that carries any weight is found in the Bible. Ultimately we must understand that regardless the emphasis we place on loving our neighbors and healing their wounds, eternal wounds cannot be mended by mortal hands. Eternal death can only be conquered, and has been conquered by and through Jesus Christ. To some extent, we need to relinquish our perceived control of problems that only he has the authority over. 

Ready to Fight Tonight

 Doctrinally the Marine Corps professes that the "6 Fs" are the key components to leader development. In my upbringing in the Corps, we have spoken about the 6 Fs often.

- Fidelity: Faithfulness to core principles, actions aligning to words. "Semper Fidelis - Always Faithful"

- Fitness: Physical, Mental, Emotional, and Spiritual.

- Family: For the Marine Corps to succeed families must be resilient, they are the bedrock. 

- Finance: Responsibility in this area mitigates stressors, prepares us and our families for deployments, etc

- Future: Goals and intentionality about personal progression. 

- Fighter: Tactical and Fundamental skills that enable us to win the fight. 

    Meghan and I recently had the privilege to host a couple we met at church for dinner. He happens to have just retired from a 33-year career in the Marine Corps, also happens to have 7 children, and also happens to be an elder at said church. In conversation, he mentioned that he actually wrote the 6Fs for the Marine Corps. This is the first time, and likely the only time, that I will meet the exact source behind Marine Corps Doctrine. Being the source he obviously has a depth and richness in the meaning behind the 6F's that most do not know. When asked to come up with Leader Development material he reverted back to the notes he sent to his family every day of his deployments following his morning bible reading. The 6Fs were actually a guideline he had written for his own family. He regularly discussed these ideas with his wife and children. I always find comfort when I discover writers of military doctrine who fear the Lord. 

    He went on to say that "Fighter" encompasses the other five F's. He would hound his Marines with the phrase, "Ready to fight tonight". In all other areas, they needed to be ready that night to take the fight to the enemy. That means that each day all other areas are in check, and in balance, allowing a Marine to deploy at any time and not leave wars left to be fought at home. Ready to fight tonight... We would all benefit from this mentality. Imagine husbands, before they were even husbands, ready to fight that night for their wives and marriages. Imagine fathers ready to fight before they even have children for their discipline and upbringing. Imagine Men ready to fight their temptations before they were tempted. 

So many prepare to fight only after we have been hit. Only after hearing the bugles in the night. If as a warfighting institution we understand that proactive training and diligent preparation is the only type that breeds victory in our nation's wars, how much more so in our everyday lives do we need to understand that the battles we face can only be won through preparation and a readiness to fight at any moment. After all, what is life but a struggle between opposing wills, a Zweifkampf?.

"Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. " Ephesians 6:13

I urge you to be ready to fight tonight. 

"Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." Matthew 24: 44

Unintentional Bias

You cannot require order while at the same time do nothing to squelch disorder. - how fitting for our current times. 

This would be like taking out 1/4 of a dam and being surprised that what was once a lake is now a stream. Sliding back the cap of a coffee mug while holding it upside down and being astonished that your liquid gold is now splattered across the floor. What is more valued today, Truth or opinion/perspective? 

Is our focus perspective or is our focus truth? This goes back to our general culture valuing empathy much more than sympathy.

Calling something a Bias that is actually a standard being upheld will expediently lead to lower standards and a less capable Corps. 

Over the course of the last few years, the Marine Corps has begun implementing education on a topic called, "unintentional bias". I could not help but find several points of contention with the material briefed.

Unintentional Bias is defined as a bias that is not purposeful, it exists innately within you as a result of a particular upbringing, life experiences, and worldview. It is an inherent inclination to a particular thing. As an organization the Marine Corps is no stranger to bias, in fact, one of our common slogans in officership is to "have a bias for action". I would cede that some biases can present themselves negatively, but no bias purely based on its existence is necessarily a bad thing, it is what we do with it that makes it negative or positive. 

The briefer stated that the numbers present in the Marine Corps alone are evidence that we are biased as an organization. She was referencing the fact that 64% of Marines are white, and 8% percent are female. I feel slightly strange even typing the statics out - I joined the Marines, and everyone else I know joined the Marines, to win our Nation's battles, end of the story. The last time I took an index, the color of my skin had nothing to do with my ability to close with and destroy. Why make diversity in the statics a major goal of the Marine Corps if it has no effect on the ability of the Marine Corps to carry out its mission? If there was something in place that hindered a particular subset from joining the Marine Corps then I could agree a problem exists, but any citizen is just as able to put themselves against the entry standards as the next. Equality of Opportunity exits, Outcome does not have to be equal. Especially if standards have to be dropped in order to do so. 

I have a very personal connection to maintaining Marine Corps standards. When joining I was denied twice for an out of regulation Tattoo. My Tattoo was too long and if I wanted the chance to be a Marine I would have to get rid of it. Where is the backlash against the Marine Corps discriminating against people with tattoos? The fact is that I had no right to be a Marine, it was a privilege and if I wanted that privilege I would have to change something to be able to fit the standard. Sadly that standard would not have applied to me if I was a minority or a female. Plenty of people who fall into those categories had no issues getting waivers for things much more detrimental to service than a simple inch of tattooed skin. This scenario highlights an instance where a suspected bias was overcompensated for to the detriment of qualified individuals. 

Where does this idea that someone is "owed" the right to serve in the military come from? Let alone the Marine Corps. No one has the "right" to be a Marine. That is something that is earned if an individual is able to meet the standard, which by the way applies (should) to everyone equally. If the new idea is that all diversity metrics in the Marines have to level out what we will see is an organization that is vastly unprepared to own the battlespace all for the sake of meeting an esoteric metric. A law deeming that Marijuana use is illegal is not a biased or discriminatory law. It applies to me just as much as it applies to my neighbor who smokes Marijuana. Just because he is found to be breaking the law does not make him a victim of discrimination, only one of his poor choices. In the same way a PFT standard, a hike standard, a standard for carrying weight, shooting a target, dragging a body, is not a biased standard as it applies to me just as much as it does to an unfit individual. (unless of course, you are a female - then you can do vastly worse and still be just as if not more eligible for the same position - But that is a conversation for another time.) The point is that for equality of outcome to be achieved the only solution is to either lower standards or reject qualified individuals to make room for unqualified but diversified individuals, all culminating in a less lethal Marine Corps. 

I first believe there is no bias in the Marine Corps as an institution against Minorities or Females, unless of course individuals fitting those criteria do not meet the standard in which case I am glad the Marine Corps is biased against unfit individuals. The ability for me to come home to my family at the end of the day depends on it. As does yours. 

Citing the numbers does nothing except to highlight the number of individuals from different backgrounds who were able to meet the standards or had the desire to do so, and should not be used in any way to create policy. The only number that should matter is the number of qualified Marines - neither our weapons nor the enemies' care about diversity metrics. They affect flesh, and we all bleed the same. 

Upholding a standard has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.  - A play on Chesterton's quote about Christianity. Much the same, those things in life that are difficult - truly difficult, requiring sacrifice - usually do not appeal to the masses over the course of time. 

Walking With Weight

Put on your boots, your blouse, your trousers. 

Drape your flak across your shoulders and fasten it across your stomach. Feel the plates press against your chest and back, feel the security provided by the weight. 

Dawn your Kevlar. Withstand the pull your neck now experiences while executing mundane tasks like bending over. 

Now that you are bent over, clasps your hands on your main pack. Flip it onto your shoulders and cinch it down over the straps of your flak. 

Sling your Rifle across your shoulders.

Feel the weight of it all bearing down your traps. 

Now Walk. A simple task, now made infinitely more challenging by what lies on your shoulders. Your arms may go numb as the straps restrict circulation past your shoulders. Your feet will begin to ache and blister as they sweat. But continue to walk. The more you walk under the weight the stronger you will become, the more comfortable you feel under adversity, and the further you will be able to go. 

Every ounce of water, every piece of food, shelter, ammunition, that is added to the pack adds to the burden on your back. However; each item will also sustain you when you reach the objective. What may seem like a burden will sustain your life. The more weight you carry of essential gear, the longer you will be able to take the fight to the enemy. 

Take a man who has never carried weight and give him the full load and he will crumble. Build him up a little at a time and he will flourish. Give him the necessary burden of responsibility and it will sustain his life. Let him walk with nothing, and when he reaches the objective he will be sleeping in the elements, scrounging for food and water, and upon taking fire will have no means to defend himself. 

Weight is good. Revel in its burden, and revel in the sustainment it surely will provide. But pack carefully, for some burdens do not sustain. 

Galatians 6:5 "For each will have to bear his own load."

Gen. Patton's Hospital Incident: Toxic or Tough

Is tough leadership "good" and at what point does it cross the threshold and become Toxic Leadership. In a recent discussion, the incident of Patton's visit to a hospital was brought into question. The topic was poised, however, with the outright assumption that Patton was at complete fault and that the incident tarnished his name. The incident is referenced below:

Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, commander of the Seventh U.S. Army, visited a military hospital in Sicily on Aug. 3, 1943. He traveled past the beds of wounded soldiers, asking them about their injuries. Coming to the bed of a soldier who lacked visible signs of injury, Patton inquired about his health.

The soldier, 18-year-old Pvt. Charles H. Kuhl, had been tentatively diagnosed as having a case of psychoneurosis. He told Patton that he couldn’t mentally handle the battle lines. “It’s my nerves,” he said. “I can hear the shells come over but I can’t hear them burst.”

Enraged, Patton slapped Kuhl across the face and called him a coward. As Patton left the tent, he heard Kuhl crying and turned back, striking the soldier again and ordering him to leave the infirmary tent.

Toxic vs. Tough is difficult to pinpoint as each individual has different thresholds for what level of ‘tough’ they are willing to endure in the name of mission success. Often when that threshold is reached a person might change their view of their leader from viewing them as tough to viewing them as toxic. Mission success and warfighting capability being the reason the Corps exists, a leader who takes action in adherence to these principles might maintain a level of grounded toughness while one seeking personal career glory might slide into a toxic form of leadership. Take the reference to General Patton. The specific example depicts Patton's outrage as he witnessed what he believed to be cowardice. Patton’s intention might have been mission success - “we need all the men we can get for this fight” – and if this patient had simply missed his family, feared for his life, and claimed an ailment to leave the frontlines, then would you not say Patton had every right to be furious. Notice he walked past countless beds of soldiers missing limbs and dying before coming to Pvt. Kuhl. Is a man, one who is called to fight, surrounded by countrymen and brethren laying down their lives, who fears death and lies in order to gain special treatment and safety, not a coward? And is it not possible that Patton has met many men before Pvt. Kuhl who claim ailment to escape the horrors of war while other men, also fearful for their lives, persisted? The problem is we do not know the legitimacy of his ailment, and at the time there was no way for Patton to know either. Before making such a statement as he did it would have been important to know the facts. But I do not think we can outright barrage him with titles of toxic leadership for his disdain of what he perceived to be man skirting his duties and responsibilities - at least not without a length discussion first. You may point to the distasteful treatment of the patient, but men conducted themselves differently during the mid 20th Century and the outrage is not against the fact he slapped a man, its that he refused to accept the man to be a victim - taking the victim's side without clear discussion and review is all too common.  Wasn’t Patton's fury out of love for those men who were dying on the lines? Those men who also missed their family, and feared death and war, but fought nonetheless, and in spite of it? What talk of that love is mentioned in this scenario? – often none. I think toxic leadership and tough leadership both exist prevalently in the military today, however, I think often times we are quick to get so enamored with our comforts and feelings that we too quickly default to claiming toxicity. 

After all, look at Patton's own words:

"It has come to my attention that a very small number of soldiers are going to the hospital on the pretext that they are nervously incapable of combat. Such men are cowards and bring discredit on the army and disgrace to their comrades, whom they heartlessly leave to endure the dangers of battle while they, themselves, use the hospital as a means of escape. You will take measures to see that such cases are not sent to the hospital but dealt with in their units. Those who are not willing to fight will be tried by court-martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy."— Patton directive to the Seventh Army, 5 August 1943

Clearly, he is operating not out of hate for the victim but out of love for those he left behind.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for Patton's actions to be duplicated, nor am I even claiming they were just - but I do believe its an important discussion to have in order to understand the motives from each perspective.

Eisenhower did well to confirm Patton's motives but condemn the way he carried them out. He wrote to Patton several days later:

“I am well aware of the necessity for hardness and toughness on the battlefield. … But this does not excuse brutality, abuse of the ‘sick,’ nor exhibition of uncontrollable temper in front of subordinates,” Eisenhower wrote.

Who's fault is it anyway?

The question of: to what degree a parent- or more applicable to me, a father - is responsible for the actions and the spiritual life of his children has come to the forefront of many of my thoughts. In speaking on this matter I believe it is important to know that Christ alone saves, not mom and dad. And that if the Authority to save were to be ours, that would diminish what was done on the cross and the power of the Holy Spirit. That being stated, there is a weighty aspect of the conversation that can be likened to the yield of a crop. Does the harvest not speak to the planting, and the planters? To what extent can a parent be held accountable for the actions of their children? Are they responsible for everything the child does up until the age of 18, up until they move out, up until marriage, and responsible for nothing after?

This is two-fold, children are responsible for obeying their parents, parents are likewise responsible for teaching said obedience -

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." - Ephesians 6:1-4

 Knowing parents are responsible for the training of children, the next question that naturally presents itself goes something like, "But is it my fault if they stray?" 1 Samuel provides a helpful example of this concerning Eli and his sons.

"Then the Lord said to Samuel: “Behold, I will do something in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” - 1 Samuel 3:11-14

It is evident here that God judges both children and parent. Eli's responsibility after having raised and taught his sons to fear the Lord was to restrain them from living in sin.

"We may learn from Eli how cruel paternal laxity is, and how fatal mischief may be done, by neglect of the plain duty of restraining children. -- He who tolerates evil which it is his province to suppress, is an accomplice, and the blood of the doers is red on his hands." - Alexander MacLaren

Fault is not a prerequisite for being held responsible. Laxity can be likened to the sin of passivity, and we know from the very beginning what comes from Passive men.

 

 

Intent

"Learning is developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes through study, experience, or instruction. It is a never-ending progression that includes understanding why something is important—the intent of learning." - MCDP-7 Learning

 Knowing that something is important is not as important as knowing why it is important. Simply knowing the fact is a foundation without the concrete, a defense without depth, a frontal assault with no use of combined arms, an infantry platoon with no logistical support. It will not last, it will not withstand repeated assaults, and make no mistake we live in the midst of an enemy that will never rest his attempt to win a war of attrition, and weightless facts will not hold the line. Knowing why you shoot the rifle allows you to orient on the correct target and is much more important than the simple ability to hit the target.

Too often we stop at the realization of a priority or of knowledge but fail to understand why it is a priority or what we can do with said knowledge. The intent of learning is similar to the commander's intent. If the plan goes awry, and as it is the first casualty of war it always does, you rely on the intent to accomplish the mission through decentralized violent decisions. If you are wrong, your world will not be shattered because you understand why you are learning in the first place, to what end you seek knowledge.

"Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God." Romans 12: 2

Two Dimes and Nickel for Meggers

Happy Birthday, Meg! Today you turn 25, a quarter of a century. I have started the POI at TBS and thus you will spend most of the day today in our new home in Fredericksburg without me. I'm sure you will receive many Facebook posts and calls today from loved ones and friends, and I'm sure the dogs will have some kisses for you as well! We will celebrate together tonight with cake, but I want to share something I found in our emails from 2018. As you will remember well, two days after returning from our honeymoon I left to spend the summer in Oman. That period of time was very challenging for both of us, as we didn't get the chance to establish our marriage the way we would have hoped. We learned a valuable lesson during that time - that we would never intentionally choose to be away from each other, or the family we would start. That regardless of how short a duty was, we would always move everything so I could come home to you at night. If family truly is a priority we were going to live that way. We have grown so much since that summer, but I wanted to share a little metaphor I sent to you through email, and as cheesy as it sounds, remind you that you are still the bees to my world! I love you and happy twenty-fifth Birthday!

"this may be dumb but i wanted to share it with you because i had it as a thought today. if i am like a world, with thousands of plants acting as the parts of me that give me life, that grow and that nourish. the parts of me that produce fruits, all that is good about me comes from the parts of me that are alive, and their deep roots. from my begginning i have always had roots, but in order for me to grow, and to thrive. in order for my life to spread, the plants in my world to reproduce and for me to become a man I needed something. YOu are like millions of bees coming into my world. you take the best of the plants I have, the best most important aspects that most others dont even see, and you come into every part of my life, the good the bad the secrets the fears and you polinate them, you make me grow, you allow me to produce fruit and to become a world that is green and vibrant. I know that was dumb but i just thought today about how much you have pushed me to be a better man meghan, and how blessed i am to have that. thank you so much for challenging me and caring about even my worst aspects enough to give them life. "

Time Reveals

During this period of lockdown and the overblown response to COVID-19, one thing we all find ourselves in abundant possession of is time - The coveted aspect of our lives that we never seem to have enough of in order to pursue our priorities. A man can appear saintly when speaking of his priorities, but speech alone does not validate, only time can do that. By looking at a man's schedule, how each minute of his day is spent, especially those minutes in which external demands are absent, true priorities shine through. God and Family are on the top of this list for many, but how often are their days filled with the pursuit of worldly success, or sheer laziness. Fight against the evil of laziness, as this period presents an opportunity to truly transform the priorities professed by your mouth into those proven by your time. 

"Go to the ant, you sluggard!

Consider her ways and be wise,

Which, having no captain,

Overseer or ruler,

Provides her supplies in the summer,

And gathers her food in the harvest.

How long will you slumber, O sluggard?

When will you rise from your sleep?

A little sleep, a little slumber,

A little folding of the hands to sleep—

So shall your poverty come on you like a prowler,

And your need like an armed man."

Proverbs 6: 6-11

Poverty does not only exist in checking accounts but also in relationships both with God and Man. 

Abortion

I want to share two things I've recently learned about the implications of the way our society has embraced abortion and the planned parenthood clinics that propagate the action.

1.) Margaret Sanger - principal exponent of modern feminist movement, known for her leadership in the abortion movement and establishment of planned parenthood as we know it today.
       Previously unbeknownst to me, Sanger was a believer in eugenics, "improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those individuals with genetic characteristics judged desirable." Surely this Eugenics could not have anything to do with the profoundly socially upright institution of planned parenthood - It does emphatically.

"To this day, the majority of planned parenthood's abortion facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. The dream of the eugenicist is being realized as black and Hispanic women, for example, who make up less than 25 percent of the population, account for nearly half of the abortions in America. If there was ever an argument to be made for latent institutional racism, the abortion movement is the place to start." - Voddie Baucham

2.) The abortion of the Father - When the mother was given full autonomy to make the decision on if her and his child lives or dies, we put a gun to the father's head as well as the mother's stomach.  The role of the father has been diminished to the point where not only is he demeaned for being a provider and protector of his family, but he doesn't even have the right to be part of the discussion before his child's life is taken away.

Fish World

"Does a fish know that it is wet?" - Aristotle?

What cultural waters do you swim in, and are you aware there is another world waiting outside its boundaries? This is a powerful yet simple question that strikes at the heart of illuminating the impact of one's worldview. Worldview can change perspective; however, it will never be able to change truth.


Regardless if the fish knows he is wet or not, he is in fact wet.

Grunts

"Grunt: A United States Army or Marine footsoldier; one who does routine unglamorous work"

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The most powerful, effective weapon in modern war is a well-trained, well-armed, and well-led infantry soldier. It is quite easy to get caught up in the malevolent power of technologies deadly birthlings: nuclear bombs, biological weapons, nuclear powered and armed submarines, laser-guided smart bombs, unmanned combat aircraft, not to mention the plethora of land weapons. Each of these presents a tantalizing one-click simplicity to fighting and winning wars. The side with the most sophisticated weaponry and technology should automatically win. 

From the invasion beaches of Guam in 1944 to the patrols in twenty-first century Iraqi heat, the guy with boots on the ground and a weapon in his hand almost always takes the lead in carrying out the war aims of Washington policymakers, not to mention their success or failure.

"A war is not over until the Infantry is done with it.... finished moving on foot more than the other, finished killing more than the other. And when it is all done, and the Infantryman is taken home again, some of him will remain in that place forever." - An anonymous WWII soldier. 

There is no greater evangelical weapon aside from Christ than a well-trained, well-armed, and well-led Christian.  The ministry capability that exists today due to technology is incredible. The songs, the movies, the large buildings, the podcasts, the youtube channels, the apps - all for lost if not for the Christain well-trained in scripture, well-armed with the Word, and well-led by Christ. 

Sympathy Vs. Empathy

Which is more highly valued? Sympathy or Empathy? The average person today I would wager would answer "Empathy" at least that answer is indicative of societal and cultural trends and norms.

I believe we have all been hoodwinked into viewing Empathy as the more inclusive and loving of the two.

Doug Wilson presented a helpful visual tool when contrasting the two. He says something along the lines of the following: Imagine your friend is downing in a river. Sympathy would be you standing on the shore grabbing on to a nearby limb, maybe placing one leg in the river, but ultimately reaching out to him in order to save him. In order to pull him out. Empathy, however, is jumping into the river and drowning with him.

Empathy calls for the deepest sense of feeling in that it necessitates your agreement with the victim. Sympathy can invoke the same sense of understanding however with the actual intention to really help the victim. Therefore sympathy exemplifies a true loving nature as it is based on the premise that there is dry land, there is a shore to stand on from which to pull a victim back to, whereas empathy is based on subjective realism, that the shore no longer exists, there is no principal, no foundation and that we must all drown together.

A problem with Empathy at least in our current time is that only the group with the loudest cry is allowed to deem victimhood and therefore channel other's empathy. This could be for better or for worse, but a sympathetic outlook solves for this problem as it is based on objective truth, and does not call questioning or the search for truth blasphemy.

To Love someone is to Help them. If I were drowning in a river I would much prefer a hand to pull me back to shore than a friend to accompany me under the current. In order to Love we must know truth, and we must be able to pull people back to it.

Love Your Neighbor

Statement: "Jesus would advocate for open borders"

Reason: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"

When presented with this statement I found it to be very interesting. Aside from the application to the policy, I think many view this command in Isolation and in keeping with modernity and have come to lose sight of its meaning. 

As a friend of mine Todd keenly pointed out, "Love" is defined by God alone, not by us, and definitely not by our neighbors. The importance of this clarification is striking but should be natural to comprehend. If my neighbor defines what Love is, and his/her definition differs from my neighbor on the other side of the street, in a short time a conflict of interest will present itself (Imagine the contradiction of the Love of my wife and the love of Peggy Sue next door). Surely defining the love of one's neighbor needs to have an objective root and not be subjective to the neighbor. 

We clearly know that to discipline children is to love children. But if a child were to define what love is, he/she would most likely spend the year eating jelly beans, watching television, and not allowing you to leave the house to go to work - In which case the television would be of no use when the power is cut off, the Jelly bean supply would dry up, and ultimately the roof over the childs head would be lost. Love does not necessitate handouts, appeasement, or even tolerance, often it necessitates discipleship, teaching, assistance, and yes discipline. 

Look to scripture for the definition of Love, not to the heart nor to impulses. 

 Jesus explains what lies in wait to those who embrace natural impulse.

Matthew 15:18-20 

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man.." 

Your Name - Aspen

Our first addition to Team Blansett will be Aspen Laurelai, due to join us in this life on June 22, 2020. Hopefully, her generation will not be called the "Coronials"!

I would like to say that it was very difficult picking out a name for our first daughter, that we spent hours mulling over ideas, searching for a title to encapsulate all that she will be - but your name came naturally and first and foremost because of its beauty.

Ralf Nosic and his wife Beth, who we originally met at Crossfit Como took us on a trip to Colorado. Meghan and I were in awe of the beauty of the Aspen trees we saw as we hiked, we felt their smooth white stands of bark, and leaned our weight against their strength. I believe it was at that moment Meghan asked, "what do you think of Aspen as a name?"

ASPEN

One aspen tree is actually only a small part of a much larger organism, for it is sustained by its extensive underground root system, connecting all individual trees into a single structure.

 Meghan and I both come from broken families, our root systems have been immensely damaged if you will. But Aspen you have the opportunity to carry on a new Legacy in the Blansett family, one not plagued by brokenness, but one sustained by an extensive root system (a connected family) planted firmly in the teaching of our Lord and Savior.

Colossians 2:7 

"Plant your roots in Christ and let him be the foundation for your life. Be strong in your faith, just as you were taught. And be grateful."

 Even if the trees of a stand of Aspens are decimated, it is very difficult to permanently extinguish an Aspen's root system due to the rapid rate in which it reproduces. 

Psalm 127:3-5 

"Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate."

Of the many variables for a healthy cluster of Aspen trees, the one that cannot waver is the need for abundant sunshine. 

Aspen may you always seek wisdom from the words of God and know that true life begins in Him.

Matthew 4:4

But He answered and said, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."'

LAURELAI

Your middle name, to be quite frank, does not "mean" anything at all. Not at least in the sense that it derives from another word, or directly represents one. We chose the name Laurelai because that name has become synonymous with characteristics embodied by Laurelai Rush Van Voorst, the daughter of Todd and Paige, one of nine members of Team VanVoorst - Whom you will meet one day. Laurelai Rush will be six years older than you but she will be delighted to tell you about how she prayed every night for you, and how her faith was unwavering that you would join Team Blansett. In this sense, Laurelai as a middle name means, "like Laurelai", who at an incredibly young age is already a beautiful young lady, servant-minded and Christ-loving. 

Aspen Laurelai Blansett - Thank you. You will always be a treasure to me, for you have given me the gift and the opportunity to be a Father, and I will always be grateful to you for that. It has been one of my deepest desires. 

-Your Mother and I discovering your name-

Contrite Heart

"You do not want a sacrifice,

or I would give it;

you are not pleased

with a burnt offering.

The sacrifice pleasing to God is 

a broken spirit.

You will not despise a broken

and contrite heart, God." - Psalm 51: 16-17

     My wife and I are going through a Lent devotional put forth by a leader at our church. An introductory quote read, 

"Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet."

    If we think highly of ourselves, that we are our own saviors, then there is no reason for Christ. One must merely open their eyes to see that we live in a fallen world, and that a savior is needed. Often we fall into the line of thinking that our good outweighs our bad, and therefore we are on the right trajectory. If receiving a report card we would be getting A's and B's and the parents would be jolly. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for us to progress from F's across the board because the standard is perfection and we are totally depraved. This knowledge should create in us a contrite heart concerning our brokenness, and only then do we understand the magnitutde of God's grace. 

    So where does this originate, this inability to grasp the bitterness of our sin? Pride

The acknowledgement of sin would threaten our pride and therefore it must be rejected. 

Douglas Wilson in his book, "Future Men" sums this up precisely under his heading "Counterfeit Masculinity",  

"Because the 'Masculinity' is a matter of pride, not humble acceptance of responsibility, then anything which threatens that pride must be rejected. One of the things which always threatens pride is any kind of failure, and the way that insecure males deal with this is through making excuses. True masculinity accepts responsibility, period... Fending off a threat of wounded pride through excuse-making is typical of males in sin, and yet is thoroughly unmasculine. A refusal to make excuses is right at the heart of scriptural masculinity."

True Masculinty would seek to acknowledge sin and failure, to be humbled by the brokenness, and to accept full responsibility. 

Relative and Absolute

"Speed is the rapidity of action. It applies to both time and space. Speed over time is tempo-- the consistent ability to operate quickly. Speed over distance, or space, is the ability to move rapidly. Both forms are genuine sources of combat power. In other words, Speed is a weapon. In war, it is relative speed that matters rather than absolute speed. " - MCDP 1 Warfighting

In a race, it does not matter how fast I am running unless I am running faster than my opponent, (assuming, of course, my objective is to actually win.) 

In a fight, it does not matter how skilled I am in throwing my fists unless I am more skilled than my opponent. 

In a marriage, it does not matter how much I love my wife, unless I love her more than any other. 

In a survival scenario, it does not matter how long I can live, unless I can outlive the circumstances acting against me.

We all know this to be true, the importance of relative speed over absolute speed, but so often we focus our efforts on the absolute. Focusing on the absolute is helpful if it is absolutely faster than the adversary - This presupposes we have done our research on the enemy. A fallacy I have encountered is focusing on how often I am reading my bible, how often I am in prayer or intentional thought and practice of the gospel, all of which is in vain if my mind is more devoted to the things of the world. The relative love, as opposed to the absolute measure of love of Holiness needs to be pursued. My love of Holiness bears no fruit if my love for wordiness outweighs it. 

The humor in Facades

In a recent staff meeting, the topic of our rifle/pistol team surfaced. Many stores do not sell target pistols and only carry more tactical higher caliber guns. The joke was made "yup, everybody is a warfighter right?" - to which all in the meeting enjoyed a good laugh. To those not familiar with the current culture in the military it seems as though every third person you talk to was a navy seal, a green beret, or a sniper. But you need not ask - for you can perceive their former status from the clothes they wear, the beards they sport, and the high-caliber, attachment heavy guns which they carry. So why the humor?

Everyone is humored by transparent facades. Especially when those perpetuating the facade have been tricked of its opaqueness themselves. People like to appear to embody certain characteristics that would elevate others' perceptions of them, but do not themselves possess the experience, temperament or respect for that which they claim. In Christian circles it pays to appear a more devote Christian than those around, this I feel is why many high school and college students crave the "summer mission trip" - They achieve their status and only have to live their faith for a few weeks. It pays in the military sphere to appear to be combat-hardened, and the claim to certain communities or the wearing of certain gear, the growth of a particularly thick beard can achieve this status. They can live their fantasy without making the sacrifices it takes to actually join one of those communities, or see combat. The problem, however, as we can see with culture, is that if America were invaded they might be the first to adhere to the new communist regime rather than risk their lives to stand for our freedom. A good friend and mentor of mine, Todd Vanvoorst likes to say there are a lot of boys with beards in this country. This example works well, as many "men" would like to appear manly but do not love their wife, or shepherd their children, or accept responsibility. We live in a world that is under an epidemic of the facade.

OBJECTIVE

For an objective to be effective it must be clearly defined, decisive, and attainable. The objective speaks to or says something of the severity of the situation, as well as prescribes the necessary or acceptable level of violence of action to be used. Objectives, similarly to decisionmaking, do not exist in a vacuum but instead in an environment in which an adversary is also forming objectives aimed at deteriorating your ability to resist his will. Objectives themselves then are not fleeting but the means in which they are achieved will be and are required to be adaptable. There are a great deal of jump-off points in a conversation about objectives - I want to focus on the first qualifying attribute - that of clear definition. The description of "clear definition" assumes an existing objective in some form or another and advances the definition to define it as not just existing but also being specific. I would advise to be very intentional about understanding your own objectives, daily, weekly, yearly, and across the scope of your life. A godly objective, clearly defined, will create a much different result than an objective aimed at the folly of the world. The means needed to achieve the former primarily consist of the fear of the Lord for, 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

Proverbs 1:7

while the latter primarily consists of the embrace of sinful desires - which do nothing to evade the certainty of death. 

Getting treasures by a lying tongue is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death.

Proverbs 21:6

If the objective is worldly treasure - hapiness based on consumption and esteem - then the price tag of buying a ticket out of eternal death is way over budget. 

Without a clear definition of your Objective, can you take a temperature reading on which route you are pursuing, what means you are employing, and if the objective will achieve a decisive result? I would argue without the intentionality of a clear definition your inherent depraved heart will take the lead of your life and knowingly or not, you will follow a selfish pursuit of worldly happiness into the vast chasm of eternal death. 

This is the severity of the situation that the objective reveals. That of Eternal death. Violent action (in a metaphorical sense) is needed to shift our own and others' pursuits away from fleeting fantasies and towards fear of the Lord. 

MASS

The first of the nine principles of war, Mass, involves the effective concentration of combat power at the decisive point, place, and time, to achieve the decisive result desired. This concept makes sense. In a fight, if one man gains leverage on another's arm, the application of his mass at a decisive point can yield very painful results to the other. Unless of course the man was deceived about just how decisive this point was, and having devoted his mass completely is now off-balance and vulnerable to the counterattack that is sure to respond. This is what we experience when we devote our Mass - our time, energy, and money - to life's ultimate decisive point Happiness, only to discover life has deceived us and devoting these efforts to something as meaningless and fleeting as happiness leaves us vulnerable to life's counterattack - the emptiness and loneliness of fruitless pursuits. I urge you to devote, commit and employ your mass towards life's true decisive point, the belief of God the Father.

What truly is your Main Effort

My wife and I made a trip to VA this weekend and were able to have dinner with some friends of mine currently attending TBS. During our conversation, the obvious MOS questions arose as MOS assignment is the climactic moment of the course and directs the rest of one's military career. One friend, previously a "Diehard Infantry Hopeful" or a "Hater of POGs" if you will, expressed his top picks, none of which included Infantry.

This is a common theme amongst students at TBS, exclaiming Infantry as their destiny only to change their minds when actually undergoing the course. One reason mentioned for this drastic change was that, and I quote - "You can never talk to an Infantry officer without them speaking in terms of or bringing up MCDP 1 Warfighting." I understood the point he was making, while at the same time shocked by it.

This is the equivalent of a Christian - when speaking to a group of friends about why he doesn't like to spend time with a fellow Christian brother (say Theopolis) - saying "Ehh, I don't care for Theopolis, he is always bringing up the bible, he's just too.... Christian". I think we all can relate to this example and how absurd but yet alarmingly widespread it is. If being a Christian is your utmost desire, and serving and worshiping the God who breathes scripture is your intent, then why on earth would you cite a reason for abstaining from a relationship with someone to be that they embody your very own expressed pursuits and beliefs of said scripture?

Back to my original focus, and purpose of providing the exhaustive example above - 2nd Lieutenants at The Basic School shy away from becoming Infantry officers because Infantry Officers live in accordance with and in light of MCDP 1, the defining doctrine of the Marine Corps - In other words, they are too Marine.  MCDP 1 being hailed as the Bible of the Marine Corps strikes the parallel between the two scenarios above all too well. People tend to create distance between themselves and others who shed light on their own weaknesses and shortcomings, especially those that they would rather keep hidden. Such as not living under the constant authority of Scripture as a Christian, or not taking MCDP 1 seriously as a Marine. The Infantry Officers embodied what my friend knew he didn't and what he would have to sacrifice too much in order to gain. Time, self-comfort, and constant intentional intellectual thought in light of the conduct of war: and thus, reluctant to pursue what he knows he wants to pursue or dare I say should pursue, he makes the claim that they are, "Too into MCDP" Just as a Christian might complain that his Christian brother is "Too into the Bible" - In other words, "their actions prove what they say with their mouths, and mine do not, therefore they make me feel uncomfortable."

Disclaimer - Obviously other MOSs in the Marine Corps are vitally important, I am not making the claim that Infantry should be placed on a pedestal above all else. Infantry is, however, the Main Effort,—"the focal point upon which converges the combat power of the force. "

 Like the commander's intent, the main effort becomes a harmonizing force

for subordinate initiative. Faced with a decision, we ask ourselves: How can I best support the main effort?" - MCDP 1 Warfighting

Don't Plateau at the Status Quo

Falling into the thought pattern that the worst deeds of men and the worst deeds of government and culture come about from the direct evil actions of individuals. Is this true? Or could it be that the greater detriment to humanity lies not in localized evil deeds but in the passive failure to emphasize or prioritize the correct ones? If man is wicked and fallen, then the status quo is wicked and fallen. Doing nothing will obviously result in detriment. When we indulge in the world - not even in outwardly harmful things such as Pornography, Adultery, and Murder - but more mundane, everyday things such as "The American Dream", or the famed, "Pursuit of Happiness" something as simple as working long hours filling every aspect of your week with getting ahead of the curve economically - we can plateau at the status quo.

 "There is nothing that will destroy family life more insidiously than hectic schedules and busy lives, where spouses are too exhausted to communicate, too worn out to have sex, too fatigued to talk to the kids. That frantic lifestyle is just as destructive as one involving outbroken sin. If Satan can't make you sin, he'll make you busy, and that's just about the same thing." - Dr. James Dobson

"We have somehow got hold of the idea that error is only that which is outrageously wrong; and we do not seem to understand that the most dangerous person of all is the one who does not emphasize the right things." - D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones 

We can see how blatant sins such as Sodomy, Adultery, and Abortion originate not in a vacuum but in an environment in which God's outline for Marriage and Family are not emphasized and our status quo is left to reign. The Sin of Omission.

"'We will not return to our homes until each of the israelites has taken possession of his inheritance. Yet we will not have an inheritance with them across the Jordan and beyond, because our inheritance will be across the Jordan to the east.' Moses replied to them, 'If you do this - if you arm yourselves for battle before the Lord, and every one of your armed men crosses the Jordan before the Lord until he has driven his enemies from his presence, and the land is subdued before the Lord - afterward you may return and be free from obligation to the Lord and to Israel. And this land will belong to you as a possession before the lord. But if you don't do this, you will certainly sin against the Lord; be sure your sin will catch up with you.'" - Numbers 32: 18-23

"So whoever knows the right thing to do but fails to do it, to him it is sin." - James 4:17

Boys to Men

Steven Pressfield's "The Warrior Ethos" summarizes a stark distinction between the ways boys were cultivated into men (ie warriors) in one of the most widely recognized cultures of revered warfare (the Spartans) and how boys are weened into manhood today. Even in the greatest military in the world, men do not undergo anywhere near the level of adversity inculcated in the rites of passage (Callusing of the Mind) that mere children did in the Spartan Culture. Men of that time might have a good laugh at our attempts to apply austere conditions to our warrior trainees. Does the situation we face today call for less? Or in our intellectually superior age have we deemed these practices too savage to render necessary in preparing men for the inherent savagery of war. Reading the excerpt below - though extreme, inserts a slight feeling of longing to the trials that created those great men of battle. Marines all crave adversity and the enduring of punishing environments. 

Chapter 10 - "Boyz 2 Men"
- When they were boys, Alexander and his friends were forced to bathe in frigid rivers, run barefoot till their soles grew as thick as leather, ride all day without food or water and endure whippings and ritual humiliations. On the rare occasions when they got to rest, their trainers would remind them, "While you lie here at ease, the sons of the Persians are training to defeat you in battle."
     In Sparta, boys were allowed to stay with their mothers till they were seven. At that age, they were taken from their families and enrolled in the agoge "The Upbringing". This training lasted till they were eighteen, when they were considered grown warriors and were enrolled in the army. 

 "The boys in training were given one garment, a rough cloak that they wore all year long. They slept out of doors year-round. Each boy carried a sickle-like weapon called a xyele. They were allowed no beds but instead had to make nests of reeds gathered each night from the river. They were not permitted to cut the reeds with their sickles but had to tear them with their bare hands."

Food for the boys was pig's-blood porridge. A visiting Persian envoy was once given a taste of this gruel:

     "Now I understand Spartan Courage in battle. For surely death is preferable to dining upon such slop."

Bad as the food was, the boys got little of it. Instead, they were encouraged to steal. Stealing was no crime, but getting caught was. A boy who got caught was whipped. To cry out was considered a sign of cowardice. It was not unheard of for a Spartan boy to die of a beating without uttering a sound. 

          "In my day [said the first-century historian Plutarch], tourists traveled hundreds of miles to witness these scourgings, and to behold the courage of the boys enduring them in silence.  

There was a footrace in sparta each year among the boys. They ran ten miles, barefoot, carrying a mouthful of water. The boys were not allowed to swallow any of the water but had to spit it all out at the end of the race. Spartan boys were not permitted to speak to their elders unless spoken to. When addressed by their seniors, they stood in their rough cloaks, hands respectfully inside the garment, with their eyes on the ground.

                        Once a Spartan boy stole a fox and hid it under his cloak. Some grown Warriors stopped to question him on an unrelated subject. Beneath the cloak, the fox began gnawing at the youth's belly. The boy made no sound but allowed the beast to bleed him to death, rather than cry out or reveal his deed.  

Obviously I would not advocate for the reinstatement of Spartan culture - but I would advocate for taking a much closer and more intentional look at what we require of young men, escpecially those entering the service. By lowering standards and requiring men to endure less, we are doing them a disservice, not protecting them. 

Who is responsible for the trials we face?

I was told recently by an acquaintance that, “Trials and Tribulations are from the Devil, he tries to steer you away from God”

            -Trials are not an abomination to God, in fact, they are from him. As a direct result of the fall, the curse given to man was to toil and to endure thorns and thistles. Saying that trials are from the devil assumes that he has some sort of control over what happens to you in your life and that we can blame our shortcomings for being a victim of his endeavors. He has no control. He doesn’t even control Hell. God does. People like to say that anything not convenient to their comforts comes from Satan. And that only comfortable convenient things are from God. This is a long shot from what we see all throughout scripture. What does this line of thinking do to misinform our image of God? Is this perhaps why many don’t give eternity the priority it is due - because many serve a sissified Christ far removed from enacting judgment upon the world?

Genesis 3: 17-19 “And he said to the man, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’: The ground is cursed because of you. You will eat from it by means of painful labor all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return to the ground, since you were taken from it. For you are dust, and you will return to dust.”