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.