The Widow's Mite

The Widow's Mite

There is a logical link between last week's sermon, "Render Unto Caesar" and today's meditation on the "Widow's Mite"; the quality of the gift is the hot issue, and I hope we will be able come to some conclusions about the spiritual component of giving, specifically, and the more general, overarching principle of "service."

Since coming to Alaska, my artistic isolation out in the bush has denied me very much contact with the so-called upper echelon of musicians in this admittedly "bushy" state, but when I was in California it was my pleasure and honor to play with, conduct, and write for many high-level, internationally recognized musicians. At the same time, then as now, I was developing relationships with many more amateur musicians in instrumental ensembles and choruses. The question naturally came up, "whom do I like working with more?"

I must confess, there is a kind of ecstasy associated with standing up in front of a group and actually having it "sound good"; but when I look beyond the surface features of a performance, into the level of spiritual outpouring, that takes place whenever music is channeled from its divine source into the physical, I have to admit that my amateur groups are very competitive with the pro groups. Now, the very best musicians ALWAYS give their best, but there is a class of middle-weight musicians who are well-trained, competent, and experienced, who tend to "play the gig" and take home their checks with a level of blase indifference that results in a spiritual channeling by far inferior to the amateur, in terms of the "quality" of the outpouring. It's the same principle I have spoken of many times before: the harder you try, the more you get; the fact that pro musicians don't have to try as hard as their amateur counterparts, means that they tend to channel spiritual energy of a lower vibratory frequency.

As a conductor, I can FEEL when the members of the group are attempting to transcend their physical limitations and penetrate to the divine realm. It's like I mentioned before in my sermon on the prophet not being recognized in his own hometown:

". . . Robert Hichens, the noted painter of the sea, once sought a boy whose face might reflect the wonder of the sea. After searching he discovered that he could not find such a lad in one of the sea-coast towns of England. In order to find a face that reflected wonder in connection with the sea he had to choose a boy from the slums of London, a boy who had never seen the ocean before. Familiarity breeds contempt. A prophet is not without honor save in his own country and in his own house."

The amateur, who is often discovering the magic of a particular piece for the first time, will always experience a higher degree of intensity than the pro musician who has played that same piece a dozen times. Again, referring to my job at the Urbana Country Club:

". . . I used to play this piece, the Aria from Bach's Goldberg Variations, at my piano gig in Illinois. It is a very ornate piece, and the embellishments can be very affecting, but if you play them the same way every time it sounds false. So, every time I play this piece, including this one, I first remind myself to experience it as though I had never played it before. This keeps the music fresh and sincere--but, every time, I have to remember to say to myself, "You should always look at life as though you were coming out of a tunnel." Reminding yourself is the key--being totally conscious is the key."

From my sermon on "Entering the Kingdom of God as a Child", I made this comment:

"I find this passage extraordinary just in terms of its PSYCHOLOGY. Jesus is giving very precise instructions for integrating the two polar opposites of our dualistic nature (remember the sphinxes?) into one synthetic consciousness state. He is not saying that ignorance is bliss, that childlike cluelessness is preferable to advanced knowledge, he is saying that, at whatever level of consciousness you find yourself,  at any given moment, you must integrate all your personal histories into a single point of view—LIKE A CHILD. Thus, no matter how much we know, or think we know, that singleness of perspective must necessarily result in a kind of innocence."

Always, it is childlike innocence that we require, to get the most out of spiritual experience. Clearly it is easier for an amateur to have that innocent outlook that the pro who has eaten of the tree of knowledge time and time again.

Notice, as we proceed, that, as in the "Render Unto Caesar" sermon, I am less concerned with the money aspect of the gift than I am with the spiritual aspect of the gift, of which the money is merely a symbol. Indeed, this symbolic dimension of money is not to be ignored. I have made a case for the idea that much of my success is attributable to my willingness to do things for free; I HAVE, DO, AND ALWAYS WILL PERFORM LOTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR FREE. That doesn't mean I do everything for free. Just as my gift of time to the community represents compassion for the devotee, so does money paid to me by the devotee represent respect; without respect, the gift becomes devalued, not to say worthless. Here in Alaska, as in any backwoods place, where the normal high water mark of culture is some maiden lady at the church who "gives pianuh" for a pittance, people often don't appreciate the monetary value of professional music teachers. I demand a medium-high fee for my teaching services (always lower than some pro teachers at my level, but higher than the maiden lady at the church who gives pianuh) not because (as Humphrey Bogart said) "I can get it," but because the investment of money raises the profile of my teaching in the mind of the student. Thus in this one scenario, money can be seen to SYMBOLIZE compassion, respect, and profile, just to name a few. It is the abstract values which we attach to money that determines its real value, which, thereby determines the true qualitative value of its sacrifice.

Now, the "widow's mite" texts:

Mark 12:41-44

 41And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
 42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
 43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
 44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Luke 21:1-4
 

1And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
 2And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
 3And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
 4For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

Lesson of the widow's mite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A bronze mite, also known as a Lepton (meaning small), minted by Alexander Jannaeus, King of Judaea, 103 - 76 B.C.

The Lesson of the widow's mite is presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4), in which Jesus is teaching at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Gospel of Mark specifies that two mites (Greek lepta) are together worth a quadrans, the smallest Roman coin. A lepton was the smallest and least valuable coin in circulation in Palestine, worth about six minutes of an average daily wage.
In the story, a widow donates two small coins, while wealthy people donate much more. Jesus explains to his disciples that the small sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than the extravagant donations of the rich.

In Jesus' times in Israel, the small copper coin was called a lepton; there actually were no coins called mites. However, there was a mite in the time of the King James translation. The denomination was well known in the Southern Netherlands. Both the duke of Brabant and the count of Flanders issued them and they were sometimes imitated in the North. Originally, the Brabant mijt (maille in French) was 1/76 stuiver, the Flemish mijt 1/48 stuiver. When the two areas were united under the dukes of Burgundy and later under the Habsburgs, the rate of the mijt was set at 1/32 stuiver. More important, they were the very smallest copper coins. By 1611, they were no longer minted, but they were still in circulation.

In the society of 1611, it was almost a social obligation to give a silver coin at church collections, for there were many framed money galleries and armored safes in churches that needed to be filled. Only the very poor could get away with giving a copper coin and only the desperately poor would give a copper coin as small as a mijt, as their social status could hardly sink any lower. A widow would in principle have to live without any income. The translator probably may have had a beggar and a contemporary widow in mind. All this would have been self-evident to the readers. All of the contributions of silver were made "to be seen of men" as noted below, not as contributions to the church.

Explanation
Witnessing the donations made by the rich men, Jesus highlights how a poor widow donates only two mites, the least valuable coins available at the time. But, Jesus observes, this sum was everything she had to her name, while the other people give only a small portion of their own wealth.
In earlier times, a number of Christians, especially the Gnostics, Ebionites, Waldensians, and Franciscans, argued that the passage is an encouragement to live in poverty, and not seek riches.

In the passage immediately preceding this in both gospel accounts, Jesus is portrayed as condemning the religious leaders who feign piety, accept honor from people, and steal from widows (perhaps feigning piety in order to gain the trust of widows, and thereby gain access to their assets). Although most Christians understand this as criticism of the actions of certain individuals, racist groups have historically argued that the passages in question justify anti-semitism, particularly as the Gospel of Mark argues that severe punishment awaits those who follow such actions (Brown et al.).

Taken literally, the widow's donation of one mite could have been by obligation, because she could not have given any less. Following this reasoning, some interpreters suggest that Jesus sits down in judgment "opposite" (over against, in opposition to) the treasury; the lesson drawn emphasizes that, while people are impressed with the large sums that are put in, they did not notice that the Temple took half of what the "poor widow" had to live on. Connected with the passage about the destruction of the Temple that immediately follows it in both gospels Mark 13:1-2, "there will not be left one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down", the lesson is then interpreted as promising the overthrow of any worship of God sustained by robbery.

A more likely interpretation has a different focus. Since in any case the woman would have been under no obligation to give the second mite, when she gave "all her living" she could not have given any more. Thus, the traditional interpretation of the passage is that God accounts the value of a gift not by how much is given, but by how much is kept back. Hence, the poor widow is counted as having given a great gift, having kept nothing for herself, while those who give out of their abundance but keep plenty for themselves are counted by God as having given very little. While the passage may or may not be an encouragement to live in poverty, it is certainly an encouragement to give generously."

[I would like to interject a comment here on the subject of "keeping back": as I mentioned at the outset, my take on the "widow's mite" scenario is from the standpoint of a music director; I have said that the pro musician tends to give less than all he has, out of tired worldly experience--for many musicians, "the thrill is gone" long before they play their last note. Thus, instead of pushing themselves to discover the music as the fresh innocently exhilarating event they knew as children when they were first drawn to music, they "hold back" their enthusiasm by simply limiting their identification with the newness of the spiritual manifestation--a manifestation which is necessarily an anomalous event in the newness of time and in their own subjective experience.

How often do we hold back our engagement with experience because it is the "the same old thing?" How often do we deny the people around us the opportunity to share in enthusiasms which ought to inspire spiritual excitement, but turn into drab re-enactments of dried-up formulae? More on this later. Back to Wikipedia:]

"Coming as it does immediately after the condemnation of the religious leaders of the day--who sought and enjoyed the praise of people while "devouring widows' houses"--there is also likely a second implication. When someone does something to be "seen of men" (Matthew 6:5, 23:5), they have their reward, as the rich who made an ostentatious show of their generosity. They certainly impressed each other and those watching. But it was the quiet "small" gift of the poor widow that impressed the Son of God. If we do our works to be seen of men, we have our reward. If we do our works as the poor widow, if we are wholeheartedly devoted to God instead of seeking the praise of people and instead of spending riches on our own pleasures, we will receive a far greater reward which He has for us."

Thus, as in the "Render Unto Caesar" sermon, we see that the rich, by giving less than they might (haha), are rendering unto Caesar; the ostentatious show they put on, to inflate their sense of righteousness in the eyes of their rich friends, has nothing of spirituality in it, and it is certainly not a gift to God. Jesus repeatedly spoke out against the shallowness of worldly prestige, which, as we know, is one of the primary commodities that money buys.

On November 13, 2006, Herb Ely wrote:
Should The “Widow’s Mite” Story Make Us Feel Guilty?

"This gospel passage led to extensive discussion among my friends at lunch on Friday and at home over the weekend. Here are some observations:
• In the gospel Jesus offers a criticism of the scribes,
• Jesus recognizes – but does not criticize – the rich for contributing large sums, and
• He contrasts the behavior of both with the widow.
    The behavior of the three reveals a spiritual reality about wealth. The possession of wealth can be poison, making one so grasping that it leads to power and glory-seeking as well as a willingness to defraud the poor. Wealth can lead to contributions of large sums – presumably on-going behavior on the part of the rich people. The widow’s willingness to “contribute all she had, her whole livelihood” is also a reflection of psychological and spiritual reality. Most of us are willing “to turn over our lives and wills to the care of God” only after we have been through a dark night and learned that our wealth cannot save us. One wonders what led the rich people to be so generous.
These observations led to a set of questions:
• How should any of us decide how generous we should be with our funds?
• Assuming that the “rich people” know that the scribes were mis-spending funds“ on honor and glory, even to the point devouring the houses of widows,” what was their responsibility?
• How do we choose among contributions to the temple or to other worth-while charities?
• What happens if we interpret the phrase “all that she had” to mean more than just finances?
    We get some help on the first question from 2 Corinthians 8. (Note that this letter is Christianity’s first direct mail solicitation of funds!) Paul praises the Macedonians who gave
“according to their means, I can testify, and beyond their means, ..”(2 Cor. 8:6)
Then he gives the people of Corinth some different advice on how much to give:
"For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have; not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality."

This advice doesn’t let the Corinthians off the hook. While they need not impoverish themselves, they – and the rest of us – still need to determine how much is surplus.
2 Cor. 9:6-7  offers more advice on how to how to discern how we should contribute, and on where we should make our contributions:
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

C.S. Lewis wrote in his book Mere Christianity (Book 3, Chapter 13)….

“I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small.”

This quote from an unknown author is fun:

Interest on the Widow's Mite
"It is estimated that if the widow's mite had been deposited at the First National Bank, Jerusalem to draw four percent interest semi-annually, the fund today would total $4,800,000,000,000,000,000,000. (Four sextillion, eight hundred quintillion). If a bank on earth could multiply the widow's mite to such an astronomical figure, think what treasures this dedicated woman will have in heaven where "moth and rust doth not corrupt."

from Shawn Blanc's internet article, The Reality of Our Widow’s Mite
we hear:

"We read the story of the widow’s mite and we think; “How noble. She only had two pennies and she gave them both. She gave all she had. When I am in that situation I hope to do the same.” But if you think about it, aren’t we all in that situation? All of us only have a widow’s mite to give God. If you have built up the biggest ministry on the block it’s still just a goofy looking crayon drawing with stick-figured purple haired folks when we compare it to the majesty of God. What makes our offerings mean something is if we give them with love in our heart. The reality of our life is that no matter how ‘successful’ or ‘productive’ we are, it’s all just a meager offering to God. What matters is not “deeds of righteousness,” but to engage our hearts in love to God."

Indeed, it is pride that sullies the radiance of the pro musician's gift of music. Pro musicians can parade their gifts like self-bestowed medals, puffed up with vain self-satisfaction, and STILL not give all they have--as if a small fraction of their best effort were enough! So few of us stand on the verge of eternity and contemplate the possibility that this may be not only the FIRST TIME we are doing something, but possibly the LAST TIME. If we played our songs every day, as if it were our last chance, would we invest any more in them than if we thought we would soon be home in our beds watching TV and munching popcorn, preparing to go to tomorrow's gig for $30/hr?

People who believe in reincarnation (similar to those who believe in predestination) have the comfortable thought-cushion of second chances--if we screw this up, we can try again. Jesus never mentions reincarnation, which is not an argument for or against its existence; but He does convey a sense of urgency about the significance of the present moment; everything in His ministry points to the idea that we have to commit everything we have to the pursuit of spiritual knowledge RIGHT NOW, not later, not when our T-bills mature, not when the economy settles down, not when our children have gone off to college, not when our mortgage is paid off, but NOW. The widow does not put in all she has when it is comfortable, she faces eternity in the present moment and gives her all IN THAT PRESENT MOMENT. Faith in the future protection of the saints imbues her act with serenity and calm, because she knows her reward in spiritual coins is worth four sextillion times more than the two mites she throws into the pot.

Now in the first paragraph of this sermon I mentioned the "overarching principle of service". It's time we got to that. The question, for the purposes of this Sunday morning worship service is not, "Why do we play music?" but, "WHY DO WE DO ANYTHING?" It is impossible to ignore that fact that, in giving our all, we are affirming our own existence in this vast cosmic drama, that we are opening to our own sight the glories of spiritual reality; but remember that, as disciples of Jesus, using Him as our example, we most effectively affirm our own existence by affirming the existence of our neighbors. By giving of our best selves to any mundane activity, we can open the view to cosmic terrains to those around us. We can inspire our neighbors with the motivation to join us in our quest for enlightenment--we can join with them in higher cosmic identity.

Remember that every time we touch the spiritual mind state with our lower minds, we expand ourselves outward into a diffused but heightened ego state. I do not mean this figuratively--we literally grow, like a bursting sun, to encompass those around us with the radiance our our inner spiritual identity. My music students often tell me they love me. I do not believe this; it is not that the connecting arms of divine love do not enfold us into one being, it is that they do not love ME. It is the God in me that they love. I may have been the channel for this manifestation of divine love, but that same love transcends us both. The good feeling they get from me is not of me, it is beyond me, beyond us both. Thus the "they" they identify with, is more than they, and the me to which they attribute the experience is beyond me. It is gratifying to hear such words, but I cannot accept the credit nor the identification--it is an experience richer than the puny worn-out words "I love you."

The work of the widow who gave all she had is not done. She will rise again, the next day and the next, and give all she has again and again, because the all she has, given freely in the present moment must necessarily replenish itself as she becomes, every day, a channel for divine love, love that blesses the giver, the givee, and the gift.

Let us pray: Jesus thank you for the opportunity to give. Thank you for placing us in the middle of a chain of causes which allows us to transmit divine reality into the physical dimension. Remind us, ever, of the source of these gifts, and the ultimate receiver of these gifts--it is all You first and last. Amen.

Render Unto Caesar

Render Unto Caesar

In creating the format for the Sunday worship service I included an offering sentence, an offering hymn, and the Doxology. Recently, there have been times when no offering was taken, but we have gone through the ceremony anyway, because, for some of us, the form our offerings takes won't fit in the offering basket. In almost 40 years of doing church work I have never put a dime in the offering basket because I have always been contributing to the church in other ways; to me my time is my money. Today's sermon takes a look at Jesus' instruction to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

As we shall see, this saying came in response to a trap the pharisees were attempting to lay for Jesus; they were trying to get Him to make some seditious statement or other, that would put Him in the power of the Romans. The Romans had no interest in Jesus' status as the Jewish Messiah, but they were very concerned with quelling the political rebellion of the Zealots; thus, if Jesus were to admit to an alignment with this dangerous, violent faction, the Jews would have a legal excuse for turning Him over to the Romans for violating a Roman law. The story is cited not only for its spiritual insight, but as an example of how Jesus was always able to give His enemies the slip if He wanted to--that He was not only spiritually enlightened but also street smart; it just goes to emphasize the fact that Jesus' ultimate surrender to the Romans was completely self-motivated, a part of His plan for sacrifice and redemption.

Now, the scriptures:

Mark 12: 13-17

13  And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Hero'dians, to catch him in his words.
14  And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man; for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
15  Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16  And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
17  And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

Matthew 22: 15-21

15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
 16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
 17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
 18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
 19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
 21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Luke 20:20-26
 

20And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
 21And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

[Notice how sneaky they are trying be, flattering the Master, pretending to be humble students of truth, lacing the spider's web with honey to catch the fly. I'm sure Jesus had to smile at that.]

 

22Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
 23But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
 24Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.
 25And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
 26And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

Render unto Caesar...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

""Render unto Caesar…" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”) (Matthew 22:21).
This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about under what circumstances it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority.

Context
The Bible states that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman occupation. They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, for Luke’s Gospels explains their purpose was “to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.” The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of Rome's taxes in Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark, the additional, truly provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?" Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar’s tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose name and inscription were on it. They answered, “Caesar’s,” and he responded “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” His interrogators were flummoxed by this authoritative (though ambiguous) answer and left disappointed.

The Pharisees and the Herodians
The Jewish Encyclopedia says, of the Zealots:
When, in the year 5, Judas of Gamala in Galilee started his organized opposition to Rome, he was joined by one of the leaders of the Pharisees, R. Zadok, a disciple of Shammai and one of the fiery patriots and popular heroes who lived to witness the tragic end of Jerusalem…. The taking of the census by Quirinus, the Roman procurator, for the purpose of taxation was regarded as a sign of Roman enslavement; and the Zealots’ call for stubborn resistance to the oppressor was responded to enthusiastically.

Accusations of tax resistance against Jesus
At his trial before Pontius Pilate, Jesus was accused of promoting resistance to Caesar's tax.
Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king.” (Luke 23:1-4)

One of the theses of an essay by Ned Netterville entitled, Jesus of Nazareth, Illegal-Tax Protester, is that the principal reason why Pilate crucified Jesus was his opposition to Rome's taxes. Evidence of Jesus' guilt could have been presented showing he had interfered with Rome’s collection of taxes by calling Matthew (a.k.a. Levi) away from his tax booth in the midst of his duties (Matthew 9:9). Pilate may have known or could have been told that Jesus had induced one of his chief tax collectors, Zacchaeus, to repent and resign his leading position in a Roman territory where Pilate was personally responsible for tax collections (Luke 19:1-10). Evidence could have been introduced showing that Jesus spoke disparagingly of tax collectors on several occasions (Matthew 5:46, 18:17), even equating tax collectors with prostitutes (Matthew 21:32). Jesus was known to enjoy the company of tax collectors, for instance at dinners in the homes of Matthew and Zacchaeus, so he may have influenced others to quit their profession to follow him. Jesus showed compassion for tax collectors as he did to other vilified groups, such as prostitutes.

Interpretations
The gospels say that when Jesus gave his response, his interrogators “marvelled, and left him, and went their way.” They were unsuccessful in getting Jesus to unambiguously come out either in favor of paying the tribute to Rome or in favor of tax resistance. Advocates for either argument could interpret his words in either way.

Time has not resolved this ambiguity, and people continue to interpret this passage to support positions that are poles apart.

False dichotomy, adroit avoidance of trap
Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes in hope that he would answer "yes" or "no". Answering "yes" would have left him open to the accusation that he was in opposition to Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation and therefore (given the assumption by the Jews that they still held privileged nation status with God at this time) against God too. Answering "no" would have given those present an opportunity to report him to the Roman authorities as someone who was trying to incite a revolt. His questioners had assumed that there was an inevitable (and hazardous) dichotomy between discharging one's obligations to the state and discharging one's obligations to God, but Jesus refused to confront the dichotomy as framed by his hostile questioners and instead pointed to the assumptions behind it.

Some people consider this parable as not primarily instructional but as an example of Jesus’s skill in thinking on his feet. His questioners tried to trap him between the horns of a dangerous either/or question, and he deftly gave an answer that seemed to meet the question head-on but actually avoided taking a position.

Leo Tolstoy wrote:

“Not only the complete misunderstanding of Christ’s teaching, but also a complete unwillingness to understand it could have admitted that striking misinterpretation, according to which the words, ‘To Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s,’ signify the necessity of obeying Cæsar. In the first place, there is no mention there of obedience; in the second place, if Christ recognized the obligatoriness of paying tribute, and so of obedience, He would have said directly, ‘Yes, it should be paid;’ but He says, ‘Give to Cæsar what is his, that is, the money, and give your life to God,’ and with these latter words He not only does not encourage any obedience to power, but, on the contrary, points out that in everything which belongs to God it is not right to obey Cæsar.”

Highlighting the dangers of cooperating with the state
Some see the parable as being Jesus’s warning to people that if they collaborate too closely with state, as distinct from God's, authority (for instance, by using its legal tender), they become beholden to it. Henry David Thoreau writes in Civil Disobedience:

"Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. “Show me the tribute-money,” said he; — and one took a penny out of his pocket; — If you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; “Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God those things which are God’s” — leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know."

Mennonite Dale Glass-Hess wrote:

"It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would teach that some spheres of human activity lie outside the authority of God. Are we to heed Caesar when he says to go to war or support war-making when Jesus says in other places that we shall not kill? No! My perception of this incident is that Jesus does not answer the question about the morality of paying taxes to Caesar, but that he throws it back on the people to decide. When the Jews produce a denarius at Jesus’ request, they demonstrate that they are already doing business with Caesar on Caesar’s terms. I read Jesus’ statement, "Give to Caesar…" as meaning “Have you incurred a debt in regard to Caesar! Then you better pay it off.” The Jews had already compromised themselves. Likewise for us: we may refuse to serve Caesar as soldiers and even try to resist paying for Caesar’s army. But the fact is that by our lifestyles we’ve run up a debt with Caesar, who has felt constrained to defend the interests that support our lifestyles. Now he wants paid back, and it’s a little late to say that we don’t owe anything. We’ve already compromised ourselves. If we’re going to play Caesar’s games, then we should expect to have to pay for the pleasure of their enjoyment. But if we are determined to avoid those games, then we should be able to avoid paying for them."

Mohandas K. Gandhi shared this perspective. He wrote:

"Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap. He was in no way bound to answer it. He therefore asked to see the coin for taxes. And then said with withering scorn, “How can you who traffic in Caesar’s coins and thus receive what to you are benefits of Caesar’s rule refuse to pay taxes?” Jesus’s whole preaching and practice point unmistakably to noncooperation, which necessarily includes nonpayment of taxes."

Of course, Ghandi would attach a political resonance to this story, and it cannot be denied that Jesus' teachings always include a practical component--they point us to right action--in this case, INACTION. However, I am less interested in the the offering that is NOT given than I am in the offering that IS given.

From The Threefold Social Order, Joel A. Wendt writes:

"In the process of the thinking which has led to these observations, I spent some time wondering just what was meant by that verse in the Gospel of Christ Jesus which says: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.". Over time I came to realize the following. The State has no existence but what the humans, who conceive it and act it out, make it to be. Unlike sense perceptible objects, the State is a social form entirely built up out of man's ideation and deeds. The principle remains the same, even though in many instances certain individuals or groups are able to form the State according to their particular individual vision. Thus, when Christ admonishes us to "render unto Caesar", we are being directed to understand and appreciate that the State has its being and its nature from what we give to it.Where we withdraw in apathy, or otherwise seek from the State only that which benefits us, we give to the form of the State just such characteristics. For example, as much as we might think that America is what it is out of the Constitution, it is much more important how Her people behave presently. As long as most people "render" unto the State only what they must, and then only for their own purposes, the State in its being and nature can only reveal such characteristics."

Most of these commentaries quibble over, not necessarily WHAT to render to Caesar, but HOW MUCH to render to Caesar. As citizens of the world, we have to use the same money as everybody else, so the question naturally arises, "How much of our worldly goods is Caesar's and how much is God's?" Embedded in this question is the hidden agenda, "How much of our worldly goods is Caesar's and how much is OURS?" The coins of the realm are marked with Caesar's image, he makes a claim on it by virtue of this identification. The real question is how is God's currency marked, whose image is marked on His currency? How do we identify God's cut? To what degree (if, indeed, it can be described as a matter of degree) do we identify with Caesar's currency, and to what degree do we identify with God's currency. The dualistic nature of human existence is always nagging us for an answer to these questions--where does the physical end and the spiritual begin?


I have used this C. S. Lewis quote at least once, recently, maybe twice:

"A man may have to die for our country: but no man must, in any exclusive sense, live for his country. He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself."

C. S. Lewis is insistent upon this one point: in the spiritual world, Caesar's claims amount to exactly NOTHING. Furthermore, it can be suggested that, to the spiritually-minded man, Caesar's claims on our physical world is, if not nothing, very, very little, not because bread, and gas, and electricity are free, but because we should attach very little importance to these things. I know people who are totally freaked out about the state of the world economy, the threatening doom of our current standard of living--the future looms like a horrible nightmare of deprivation and loss. But to the spiritually- minded man, the state of his outer world should hold no threat, because the important currency of life is in the realm of the spirit, which must ever remain unaffected by economics. My faith does not allow me to imagine some terrible world in which life is not worth living because some material luxury is denied me. People always adapt to conditions, and the spiritually minded man can always lean on the protection of the saints, when everybody around him is crying havoc. The spiritual realm provides constant protection from adversity, no matter how apparently bad the outer circumstances may be. If I allowed my self to succumb to the negativity rampant in the current economic climate, I would be rendering my PEACE OF MIND unto Caesar; I say to you, Caesar HAS NO CLAIM ON MY PEACE OF MIND.

FromThe Gospel of Christ's Humanity, Rudolph Steiner writes:

"The reason why this sojourn in the Great World dazzles and bewilders is that, in the material world of the senses man, is accustomed to altogether different conditions. In the world of the senses he is accustomed to consider everything from a single viewpoint; and if he comes across something that does not tally exactly with the opinions he has formed from this one viewpoint, he regards it as false. This is quite suitable for life on the physical plane but if he were to attempt to pass out into the Macrocosm through Initiation still holding the opinion that there should be conformity in this sense, he would never find his bearings. His mode of life in the world of the senses is such that he places himself at a particular point and from this point — as though it were his snail-house — he judges everything. But when he undergoes Initiation his consciousness passes out into the Great World."

For quite a long time, I have based my dealings with the world on the principle that: you cannot give anything away. Whenever you try to give away something, it always comes back to you. A good example is how I stumbled into college teaching:

In 1987, my family escaped the madness of California, and wound up in the Pacific Northwest. I had a job conducting a Presbyterian church choir, I got into the Spokane Symphony, and I had ONE student. Christmas 1987 was a dreary, anxiety-ridden affair. That spring, 1988, I saw an ad in the paper concerning a community orchestra that had been led for the past 20 years by a medical doctor, whose musical expertise was practically nil, but whose pocketbook kept the group going; the deal was, he would conduct the townspeople for a few months, and then hire some pro musicians from the university to come down and carry them through the concert. Well, he was retiring, and the group was disbanding. I went down there and offered my services for free to keep the group going. One thing led to another, and soon I was leading them in a room donated by the small state college there. I also got permission to teach a few private lessons before rehearsal, in a room down the hall from the head of the music department. After he heard me jamming on the piano before class, he practically begged me to join his college jazz band. I was a big hit, and, before I knew it, I was the private piano instructor, and I was teaching music appreciation. By the end of my stay there, I was doing more teaching than either of the "full-time" instructors. On the strength of all the experience I accumulated at that college, I got a job teaching at the big university up the road, and when I left Washington for Illinois, I got a job for two years at another Jr. College in that area. I am now teaching music appreciation online for Prince William Sound Community College--a gig which adds substantially to my monthly income. All this because I was willing to conduct a ragtag community orchestra for free. If I had insisted on getting money for my services, I would have been rejected, and a whole huge component of my professional career would have never manifested.

I understand that if you play the stock market you can make money by investing here and cashing in there. I suggest that a similar karmic tit for tat exists in the world of spiritual currency, where the intersection of spiritual motives and material effects creates our personal dualistic blend of spiritual and carnal reality. I submit that in rendering to either Caesar or God, Karmic cycles of attachment are initiated which play themselves out in the associations we maintain in our daily dealing with these two higher and lower worlds. Furthermore, it is the character of this blend of mundane and divine that results in the ultimate quality of our existence as we straddle the gap between these two worlds.

There is no standardized blueprint for the "right" relative proportions--as in all things, these proportions are a matter of choice; moreover, some of these choices have already been made before the world began, so that, even if we wanted to, we would be incapable of changing some of our limitations and potentialities in this regard. Some of us have had the world of spirit opened up to us in dramatic one-time events, while others of us follow a somewhat tedious, step-by-step course along the spiritual path. Nevertheless, for each one of us, the relationship of God to Caesar in our lives is a unique combination of higher and lower mind states, the sum of which is who we are and who we will become. And all of us have, at some point been faced with a Rubicon moment--a moment when we had to choose God or Caesar--and from that moment all subsequent moments have logically, inexorably ensued. The quality of the offerings we place on each of these opposing altars determines the level of our identification with those altars, our level of commitment to them, and our ultimate Karmic reward.

Let us pray: Jesus thank you for the opportunity to live in this marvelous natural world in which many THINGS come to us for us to use and enjoy. Let us never lose sight of the divine presence resonating in our palaces and in our garbage cans. Let us invest appropriately in the savings accounts of earth and heaven so that the coins of Karma might eventually add up to a wholesome balance that satisfies our mundane needs, but also adds to our store of spiritual treasures. At the end of all our speculations, as at the beginning, let us render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. And please lend us the wisdom to tell which is which. Amen.

Glennallen AK,
October 2, 2011

For Whom It Is Prepared

For Whom It Is Prepared

This sermon started out to explore the question of "Who is chosen to sit at the right hand of Christ Jesus in Heaven?" But it has developed into a deeper discussion of predestination versus free will.

First the pertinent scriptures:

Matthew 20:20-23
 

20Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
 21And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
 22But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
 23And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

The following passage from Mark does not mention the MOTHER, but it is pretty well understood that it was a Jewish mother looking out for the best interests of her sons that initiated this exchange:

Mark 10:35-40
 

35And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
 36And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
 37They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
 38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
 39And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
 40But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

I am interested in the problem posed by the idea that "many are called but few are chosen" (a subject for a later sermon to be sure), so the secretive statement that honors in heaven will be dispensed to those for whom those honors are prepared (the implication is, "prepared in advance"), is very alluring to me. I began searching for commentaries on this subject, but they all led back to the larger problem of predestination. The "Foundation of the World" seemed to be a Big Bang as far as predestination is concerned. Constant reference is made to this point in time (the beginning of time) when all things were foreseen:

Matthew  25:34

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'"

John   17:24

"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world."

Ephesians 1:4

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

2nd Timothy 1:9

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

James   2:5

"Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?"

Luke   12:32

"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom."

These scriptures clearly speak of a divine foreknowledge of people and events in advance of the great cosmic clock of time initially ticking its weary way into the private vastness of eternity and evoking material existence.

Many people have fanatically believed in the doctrine of predestination and have composed one dogmatic monograph after another in support of it.

In the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, Article XVII reads as follows:

"Of Predestination and Election.
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed. which [sic] we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God."

Predestined for Free Will © 2004  by David Bennett is a lengthy article, crammed full of pro and con arguments from the earliest Christian writers up to the present day. It is clear what Bennett's opinion is at the outset, and his conclusions, if there are any, are tantalizingly predestined (ha ha) in the title, although I can find no real resolution of the problem beyond the fundamentalist penchant for sidestepping the issue. Nevertheless the background provided in this article is useful:

"WHAT IS PREDESTINATION?
Predestination is doctrine which teaches that God predetermined who would go to heaven and who would spend eternity in hell. Furthermore, it teaches that each person has absolutely no choice in accepting or rejecting salvation through Christ. Every move you make and everything that happens to you, good or bad, was predetermined by God.  If you reject Christ it is because you never had a chance or option to believe.

Those who espouse predestination claim that if we have the free will to accept God’s salvation then we have earned our way into heaven.
Therefore we’re not saved by grace but by our own merit-- we caused our own salvation, not God. . . .

WHAT IS FREE WILL?
Free will teaches that when presented with the facts of God’s plan for salvation that every individual person has a choice to make, to either accept or reject God’s gift of salvation. God desires that every person accept His gift. What was predestined was God’s plan for salvation through Jesus for those who accept it. Therefore if you accept that Jesus died for your sins and you have made Him Lord of your life then you are a part of the predetermined plan. . . .

Consider what Calvinist Loraine Boettner has to say about the early church leaders. Boettner, author of The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination acknowledges that the early church fathers did not ascribe to the doctrine of predestination:

“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century....They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination...They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will...”

Free will acknowledges that God is active in our lives and that He does intervene and cause certain things to happen as evidenced by the prophecies in the scriptures. Other things that happen to us are a result of choices we make. While yet other events happen because of sin that is in the world, we can’t control the events, we can control how we react to them. Free will teaches that because God is sovereign and active in our lives He can use any event for our benefit, even those events He does not directly cause to occur. . . .

Gift: The Bible calls salvation a gift. A gift without acceptance is not a gift.  If you force a gift on the receiver it is no longer a gift. In business law to have a legally binding contract or a legal transaction you have to have an offer and an acceptance. Another element to a legally binding
transaction you must also have consideration, that is, something of value or a price has to be given. In the case of our salvation, Jesus paid the price.

• But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! --Romans 5:15
• For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  --Romans 6:23
• For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- Ephesians 2:8
• There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words-- John 12:48
• Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. --James 1:21 . . . .
WHY DID JESUS NEED TO DIE?
Jesus did not die a painless, quick, clean, and honorable death. In taking on the sins of the world Jesus in fact suffered a very painful, lengthy, bloody and ignoble death. If God was going to predestine some to be saved and not others, why set up a scenario where Jesus had to die a horrible death on the cross for the sins of the whole world? Why not just create perfect obedient people in the first place without the capability or opportunity to sin? The reason is simple. Jesus died because God created us with free will. Jesus did not die for sins God created and predestined us to have, He died for the sins we willingly commit."

The article concludes by simply rejecting the idea of predestination outright, and introducing the power of God's love as a panacea for all difficult concepts. We have here powerful arguments in affirming salvation through grace, but we still don't get any explanation for the NUMEROUS biblical passages referring to foreordination from the foundation of the world.

A much more broadminded and helpful article appears in good ol' Wikipedia:

Free Will
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A simplified taxonomy of the most important philosophical positions regarding free will.

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.
Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. . . . .

Metaphysical libertarianism
Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that a non-physical mind overrides physical causality, so that physical events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation. This approach is allied to mind-body dualism in philosophy. According to this view, the world is not considered to be closed under physics: extraphysical factors can influence decision-making. As a matter of free belief, an extra-physical will may be decided to exist. Depending on the way the decision turns out, such views may or may not accept an independent soul said to make decisions and override physical causality.
Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior – theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.
Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane, where he hypothesises that,

"In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposes—a hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort".

Although at the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles, (and physical indeterminism was only in the initial stages of acceptance), he stated the logical possibility that if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. . . .

Rudolf Steiner, wrote The Philosophy of Freedom, which focuses on the problem of free will. Steiner (1861–1925) initially divides this into the two aspects of freedom: freedom of thought and freedom of action. He argues that inner freedom is achieved when we bridge the gap between our sensory impressions, which reflect the outer appearance of the world, and our thoughts, which give us access to the inner nature of the world. Acknowledging the many influences on our choice, he points to the impact of our becoming aware of just these determinants. Outer freedom is attained by permeating our deeds with moral imagination. Steiner aims to show that these two aspects of inner and outer freedom are integral to one another, and that true freedom is only achieved when they are united. . . .

Physics
Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic, and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories. Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Theory of Everything, and open to many different interpretations. . . .

In Hindu philosophy
The six orthodox (astika) schools of thought in Hindu philosophy do not agree with each other entirely on the question of free will. For the Samkhya, for instance, matter is without any freedom, and soul lacks any ability to control the unfolding of matter. The only real freedom (kaivalya) consists in realizing the ultimate separateness of matter and self. . . . A quotation from Swami Vivekananda, a Vedantist, offers a good example of the worry about free will in the Hindu tradition.

"Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here."

. . . .

In Islam the theological issue is not usually how to reconcile free will with God's foreknowledge, but with God's jabr, or divine commanding power. al-Ash'ari developed an "acquisition" or "dual-agency" form of compatibilism, in which human free will and divine jabr were both asserted, and which became a cornerstone of the dominant Ash'ari position. . . .

Free will, according to Islamic doctrine is the main factor for man's accountability in his/her actions throughout life. All actions taken by man's free will are said to be counted on the Day of Judgement because they are his/her own and not God's.

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard claimed that divine omnipotence cannot be separated from divine goodness. As a truly omnipotent and good being, God could create beings with true freedom over God. Furthermore, God would voluntarily do so because "the greatest good ... which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to be truly free.""

I get a kick out the fact that even Wikipedia turns to C.S. Lewis for insight into problems of Christian dogmatics. Here is my collection of quotes for the day:

In The Problem of Pain, Lewis writes,

"I am going to submit that not even Omnipotence could create a society of free souls without at the same time creating a relatively independent and ‘inexorable’ Nature.... The freedom of a creature must mean freedom to choose: and choice implies the existence of things to choose between."

In Mere Christianity, Lewis said,

"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.... The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.” . . .

The business of becoming a son of God, of being turned from a created thing into a begotten thing, of passing over from the temporary biological life into timeless ‘spiritual’ life, has been done for us. Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work — the bit we could not have done for ourselves — has been done for us."

"The bit we could not have done for ourselves"--hmm--is THIS our elusive predestination? Are we spiritual beings caught in a transient twilight zone between physical and spiritual realities, all powerful in our imitation of Christ, but still just a LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THE ANGELS? Angels, indeed, are described as lower than Man precisely because they have no free will. Are the priorities of this declension a little skewed? Do we really have to indulge in relative ranking when we look eternity in the face?

In Out of the Silent Planet Lewis's hero, Dr. Ransom is said to observe that,

"Predestination and [human] freedom were apparently identical. He could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on this subject."

One more quote from Mere Christianity:

"If that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time- line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as we call ‘today.’ He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him... In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already ‘Now’ for Him."

1st Peter 1:20 is a deep little scripture that contributes to this discussion. Here are some varied versions and comments:

1st Peter 1:20

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you."

1st Peter 1:20  (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

"It is true that He was chosen and foreordained (destined and foreknown for it) before the foundation of the world, but He was brought out to public view (made manifest) in these last days (at the end of the times) for the sake of you."

Below are two elucidating comments on 1st Peter 1:20 taken from the Institute for Creation Research website:

"1st Peter 1:20
1:20 foreordained. “Foreordained” (Greek proginosko) is the verb form of the noun (prognosis) better translated as “foreknowledge” in I Peter 1:2. Just as God foreknew that Christ would become the Savior, because the triune God had so ordained, so He also foreknew those who would be saved by Him.

1st Peter 1:20
1:20 foundation of the world. Before God ever created the world, in the mind of God, Christ had been sacrificed, and the names of the redeemed were known)."

These two quotes pretty much sum up my take on the subject: before time began, all that was to be, already was--time just made it stop happening all at once. Therefore, how could God NOT KNOW all that was to be? This idea does not contradict free will because the essence of the spiritual journey of all the soon-to-be-manifest beings was, at the creation of time, still a potentiality--TO THEM. Their choices were yet to be made. The fact that God knows what we are going to do doesn't mean that WE know. We are still choosing all the time. Furthermore, if we puny creatures of material illusion learn to step out of time maybe we can even change the past and the future in one fell miraculous swoop. Are there any other miracles in the Bible that negate this possibility? If faith in miracles is the last resort of the squamous mind, why not faith in this?

Gopi Krishna on Grace versus Pre-Determinism says: 

" ...There is a class of scholars who, though themselves intensely religious and God-fearing, refrain from the inquiry on the plea that the sacramental and the holy should always remain beyond the touch of reason, and that the ways of God and the prophets are not amenable to intellectual investigation.  Such an attitude of mind is not one of submission but of antagonism to the laws of God, for if He had decreed that reason should not meddle in the affairs of faith, then religion would have remained confined to the spirit alone and never encroached upon the province of the flesh.  But since every prophet and inspired sage tried to regulate the behavior of the body so as to make mortal life in harmony with spiritual laws, this constitutes an invitation, even a command, to the intellect, which is a part of the body, to aid in making this harmony not only possible but also fruitful.  For a number of reasons the modern intellect has shown an apathy toward the investigation of the phenomenon of religion which is completely at variance with the zeal evinced by it in other directions.  The upshot has been that many infantile beliefs, dogmas, and practices still continue to obsess the mind of a large proportion of the human race, which is not only incommensurate with their intellectual stature, but also positively dangerous for their survival.  The fact that a few intellectuals here and there put forward what appear to be rational interpretations of the religious idea and belief in defense of faith, does not serve to change the general atmosphere of doubt toward the expression of what is one of the fundamental urges of the human mind."

The intellect's will to meet the mental challenge of the Predestination/FreeWill dichotomy is ultimately an expression merely of one more vanity of the ego in search of a rational justification for itself; but will is everything, and, although we know we can never fully understand it with our puny physical brains, to throw in the towel on this point is to deny the material mind a vital point of intersection with a transcendent mind state which may provide us with an entry point into the infinite. We are talking about infinity here. In the infinity of timelessness why must we conclude that there is only ONE possible sequence of Time when it finally manifests? Why not Time manifest again and again, one sequence in an infinite sequence of sequences? God not only exists outside of Time, but the scope of Time itself must also be contained in the Mind of God, an environment of infinite dimensions. As the Sequential Mind steps into infinity, who is to say there is not more than one possibility? Perhaps Free Will is the entry of the Sequential Mind into the infinite Mind by stepping out of the material, outside of time. Perhaps our lives are played out an infinite number of times with all possibilities manifested at some sequential point or other.

William Blake wrote:

"Infinity is in love with the forms of time."

Indeed, as the Christ Consciousness plays over an infinite landscape of possibilities, the choice of one moment or another may coexist with all other choices, resulting in ABSOLUTE FREEDOM for the chooser, and ABSOLUTE INDETERMINACY for the chosen. It is thought by many that the whole point of physical incarnation is to refine the spiritual qualities of the soul. Thus, if the character of the soul is the active participant in this vast cosmic drama, every separate manifestation of time might constitute a new opportunity for the soul to choose, as the soul confronts every new situation AS IF it were the first time. The idea of parallel universes is firmly established in contemporary physics; perhaps free will is stepping outside time to choose the actions of a me in one universe offer another; I'm willing to accept the possibility of many acts of myself, but as to the me of me, the spirit of me, I think, like God, there can be only one.


 In Perelandra, Lewis describes the temptation of that planet's Eve. In this scenario, the hero, Ransom, is sent to intervene between the weakening Eve and merciless Satan:

"In vain did his mind hark back, time after time, to the book of Genesis, asking "What would have happened?" But to this the Darkness gave him no answer. Patiently and inexorably it brought him back to the here and the now, and to the growing certainty of what was here and now demanded. Almost he felt that the words "would have happened" were meaningless --mere invitations to wander in what the Lady would have called an "alongside world" which had no reality. Only the actual was real: and every actual situation was new. Here in Perelandra the temptation would be stopped by Ransom, or it would not be stopped at all. The Voice-- for it was almost with a Voice that he was now contending-- seemed to create around this alternative an infinite vacancy. This chapter, this page, this very sentence, in the cosmic story was utterly and eternally itself; no other passage that had occurred or ever would occur could be substituted for it."

We cannot, in this plane of existence, hope to achieve an ultimate realization of this quandary, to make an ultimate peace with this paradox; but we can exercise our free will to make choices beyond our ability to understand them, take responsibility for the present moment, illusory though it may be, and meet our Maker in His proper dwelling place, and make His Home our Home. As to claiming a place that He has prepared for us, at His right hand, or elsewhere, He has told us that in His house there are many mansions. I'm sure that wherever mine is situated, in the vast hierarchy of the divine architecture, it is a groovy place, and I, for one, can't wait to move in.

Let us pray: Father take our lives and let them be ever more consecrated, Lord, to Thee. Give us the strength to do what we ought to do in every moment here and now, and the patience to await true understanding of your inscrutable ways later on. Amen.

Glennallen, AK
Sept 18, 2011

Vow of Poverty

Vow of Poverty

Today's sermon is a sort of combination "Confession" cum "Apologia". The general theme is "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," but you will quickly ascertain that I am using myself as an example of the rich man who "went away sorrowful" although I hope that by the end you will see that my sorrow is my joy.

Now, to begin.
I am a professional failure. I mean that in two senses of the construction:
1. I am a failure in the professional world, that is the world of reputed, money-making wise men (whose identity will be clarified later in a quote from Nietzsche), and
2. I have made failure an avocation, a commitment to a philosophical and value system in which money is very much a side issue; that is to say, I have chosen worldly failure as a path whose value I "profess" to be ethically superior (for me) to that other path that would have garnered me riches and reputation on earth.

One wonders about the idea of "choice" in the fate that has unfolded before me, because I have the definite impression that if I had truly had any choice in the matter I would have "chosen" to be famous, influential, and financially well-off. True, I did make conscious choices, each of which contributed to sustaining my state of poverty and anonymity, but when I stand back to take in the big picture, the grand design of my life seems to have been plotted out by hands other than my own. When I see the people I care about (and feel responsible for) suffering because I am incapable of supplying their earthly needs, I feel guilty for making those "choices", but, then again, there is something in me, some kind of self-love, that always "chose" to put the salvation of my own soul ahead of theirs. This calls to mind the end of the Mahabarata, (the long story of warring families that comprises the cornerstone of the Hindu Bible, so to speak), wherein the king of the victorious family, Yudhishthira, rejects heaven in order to join his family members in Hell. A classy choice, to be sure, but I just couldn't do it, I couldn't make that huge of a sacrifice; and although I have my regrets, it is really pretty easy to forgive myself because I feel, in this regard, the calling of fate was way beyond my power to choose or not to choose. (Anyway, after Yudhishthira chose Hell, it was then revealed that they were really in heaven, that this illusion had been one final test for him. Whew!)

Anyway, it just goes to show that every choice we make impacts all those around us, and choosing the path of poverty definitely had deep repercussions in my life and the in the lives of my loved ones. It is very easy to attach negative connotations to many of those repercussions, to wonder if I did the right thing; and so I turn to Holy Writ to seek justification and comfort.

The pertinent scriptures are these:

Mark 10:21-22

 21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. . .
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:18-23
 

18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
 19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
 20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
 21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
 22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
 23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Matt 19:24

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

There is some controversy over this expression, "the eye of a needle".
The traditional interpretation says that when Jesus was speaking of a camel going through the eye of a needle He was speaking of a gate in the wall to Jerusalem where only by getting on its knees could a camel go through it.

The writer on the The Straight Dope website disagrees. He clearly has an axe to grind, and his "Gospels for Dummies" style is kind of off-putting, but he has a point worth presenting:

"First, the text itself. According to Matthew, a certain rich young guy comes to Jesus and asks what one thing he has to do to have eternal life. Jesus says it's fairly simple: keep the commandments. The young man asks which particular commandments and Jesus says the ones about not murdering, stealing, lying, or committing adultery; honoring your mother and father and loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself --those commandments. The kid persists and says that he has *always* done those things, even when he was a child; there must be something else he needs to do. Jesus says, "Okay, I'll tell you what: if you want to be perfect, go sell what you have, give the proceeds to the poor and you come follow me." This is thought to be a suggestion that the rich young man was kidding himself if he thought he had kept the law perfectly. Odds are, like most of us, he loved himself a little bit better than he loved his neighbor.
ANYway, the kid hears that and goes away sadly "for he had great possessions." (Matthew 19:22) Then Jesus utters the famous line (Matthew 19:24) about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Next, the history and archaeology. The notion your Baptist friend has picked up apparently comes from a single ninth-century commentary which asserts that in first-century Jerusalem there was a gate called the Needle's Eye which a camel could only get through on its knees. (Sort of like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "only the penitent man will pass...") A cute allegory, but there's no archaeological or historical evidence for the existence of such a gate."

[Sidebar:

Considering that Jerusalem has been conquered, destroyed and rebuilt numerous times since the 9th century, this factoid is neither surprising nor compelling; such a gate may certainly have existed in Jesus's time and then ceased to exist before proper "archaeological evidence" could be compiled. Also, as we shall see in a moment, Jerusalem was not even the original location of the needle's eye, nor the main inspiration for the expression. This is an example of how committed people are to bending facts to support their own agenda--but never mind--going on:]

"There's a good brief discussion in the article on "kamelos" in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, pp. 592-594 (one of the standard works on New Testament language.) TDNT, and other commentators with an interest in history, point out that there are several parallels in later rabbinic language about the impossibility of getting an elephant through the eye of a needle: it's a way of describing something which is so impossible that it's grotesque."

[Sidebar:

This is the author's main point, "it's a way of describing something which is so impossible that it's grotesque," and it is a perfectly valid point, except for the fact that such figures of speech often have their basis in fact. I feel a little petty arguing about this fine distinction, but, as you will see, in a moment, there is one aspect of the needle's eye, the real physical, not the figurative, needle's eye, that is of no trivial significance.]

"So the "Gate of the Needle's Eye" notion has no firm historical basis. It looks like a way of getting around the plain (but inconvenient) meaning of the text.
Setting the text in the whole New Testament context, wealth is consistently presented as a *problem*. I suspect the modern notion owes less to the Bible than to the Puritan theory that success in economic life was a sign of God's blessing.
Now, the theology. The message was viewed by the disciples as pretty bleak. In 19:25 -- just after Jesus uses the comparison -- the disciples respond "Then who can be saved?" "By human power, it is impossible," says Jesus. Then adds hope: "With God, *anything* is possible." Even the salvation of the rich. As a miracle."

Hooray! God can squeeze a rich man through the eye of a needle, just like Santa Claus can come down the chimney. Thus the miraculous justifies the spiritual reality! Blah, blah, blah. I swear these fundamentalists and their commitment to miracles as their own excuse for being really pisses me off. It's as though these people take a perverse pleasure in believing in things that demand faith; it's a passive aggressive, superior, elitist posturing that seems to point to the Bible as a Disneyland of special effects, whose inexplicability somehow makes them true. I have said before, that miracles are my stock-in-trade, a part of my daily routine, so I am not nearly as impressed by the miraculous events in the Bible as I am by the eternal realities, to which the Bible points a patient, steadfast finger--realities above and beyond the world in which miracles are unusual.

This quote about the eye of a needle is taken from a website conveniently entitled: The Eye of a Needle.

"...the eye of the needle, a small door fixed in a gate and opened after dark. To pass through, the camel must be unloaded. Hence the difficulty of the rich man. He must be unloaded, and hence the proverb, common in the East. In Palestine the "camel"; in the Babylonian Talmud it is the elephant".

This is the point I am driving at. The image of a camel going through the eye of a needle need not necessarily refer to some grotesquely impossible magic trick, but merely to the necessity of UNLOADING our worldly goods. Remember the Zen story I recently quoted from the age-of-the-sage.org website:

 

"A University Professor went to see Nan-in, a Zen Master, to find out more about Zen.
  As their meeting continued Nan-in was pouring Tea and continued to pour even though the cup was overflowing.
  The Professor cried. "Enough! No more will go in!"
  Nan-in replied "Like this cup you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?""

As usual, the admonition of Jesus to His disciples is expressed in language that is both elevated, and poetic, yet of composed of extremely down-to-earth imagery. In order to enter the Kingdom of God we must UNLOAD. We don't need a MIRACLE from God to shrink us down to size, we need to get shut of our worldly attachment OURSELVES; we must perform an act of will OURSELVES; we must UNLOAD OUR OWN CAMEL.

This is why I was willing to quibble with the previous website author's leaning to the miraculous interpretation of this text: because people often use FAITH as an excuse for not taking responsibility for their own opinions. To me, Jesus' instruction to give away all you have is of practical import; he does not refer to the needle's eye to inspire wonder, but rather to plant the image in His disciples' minds of the mundane ACT of unloading the junk off their camels' back that keep them from getting through the gate. True, faith is involved, but this seems to me to be much more an issue of discipline, rather than faith--perhaps it describes some common ground where faith and discipline meet. People like to face a problem, then throw up their hands and give up trying to solve it, and turn to FAITH for their answers. Thus, whatever their peer group has determined, as a matter of policy, to be true becomes, not an article of mental laziness, but FAITH. Jesus has offered His help, but he NEVER said, "Take up thy cross and put it on MY back." Jesus says, "Take up THY cross and follow Me." Your cross is uniquely yours, and must not be mistaken for some idealized, or, rather, conventionalized communal cross. Conventional opinion is constantly confused with faith. Balderdash--that is not faith, that is weakness, for which the reward in heaven will be slight.


From New Advent: The moral doctrine of poverty, we read:

"Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth; for He himself had rich friends. Patristic tradition condemns the opponents of private property; the texts on which such persons rely, when taken in connexion with their context and the historical circumstances, are capable of a natural explanation which does not at all support their contention (cf. Vermeersch, "Quæst. de justitia", n. 210). Nevertheless it is true that Christ constantly pointed out the danger of riches, which, He says, are the thorns that choke up the good seed of the word (Matthew 13:22). Because of His poverty as well as of His constant journeying, necessitated by persecution, He could say: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20), and to the young man who came to ask Him what he should do that he might have life everlasting, He gave the counsel, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:16-21). The renunciation of worldly possessions has long been a part of the practice of Christian asceticism; the Christian community of Jerusalem in their first fervour sold their goods "and divided them to all, according as every one had need" (Acts 2:45), and those who embraced the state of perfection understood from the first that they must choose poverty."

Indeed, "Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth; for He himself had rich friends." The question is who is in charge--do you possess your possessions, or do they possess you? Spirit demands freedom from ALL earthly attachments not only "stuff" like cars, and houses, and VCRs, but more ephemeral "stuff" like reputation, position, social standing, etc. Wealth is assessed in terms of many different kinds of currency, and the wealth of fame can just as condemning as wealth of dollars.

In this quote from C.S. Lewis we hear:

"In the midst of a world of light and love, of song and feast and dance, [Lucifer] could find nothing to think of more interesting than his own prestige."

We have spoken many times of the dangers of a too-compressed ego-definition. Clearly, Satan is the paradigmatic ego-maniac of all eternity, a black hole of ego definition that blocks out the light of God's love to all those who join with him in joyless self-involvement; and every time we indulge in ego-centric thoughts or behaviors, we are aligning ourselves with his demonic camp.

Anything that binds you to the physical dimension limits your potential for spiritual advancement. If you let your "stuff" take possession of you, you become like Marley's ghost, earth-bound, heavy, and imprisoned. You become IDENTIFIED with your "stuff" and lose your true self in its carnal bonds. And, obviously, the more "stuff" you have, the longer it will take to unload.

--in Lewis's The Voyage of the 'Dawn Treader' we read:

"Sleeping on a dragon's hoard with greedy, dragonish thoughts in his heart, he had become a dragon himself."

On a different note, in A Preface to Paradise Lost, C.S. Lewis says:

"It is by human avarice or human stupidity, not by the churlishness of nature, that we have poverty and overwork."

Here we have a redefinition of the word "poverty." To Lewis, poverty is not a physical condition, but an ATTITUDE, and a STUPID ATTITUDE at that. Only the small-minded man need come to the conclusion that the absence of STUFF in his life is necessarily a bad thing. Thus, poverty is much more a state of mind than a physical condition. Or, if we think of our CAPACITY to POSSESS ANYTHING as limited by the size of the camel's back, perhaps Jesus is saying that we can only load SO MUCH on our camel, and if we have the camel loaded with spiritual treasures, there is simply no room left for worldly treasures. Perhaps a rich man has simply chosen the wrong "stuff" to load up his camel with.

--in The Problem of Pain Lewis points out that:

"He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself..."

and:

"Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire."

This quote is from Barack Obama:

“Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.”

The question is whether this is an earthly realization or a heavenly realization.

From Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

"It was ever in the desert that the truthful have dwelt, the free spirits, as masters of the desert; but in the cities dwell the well-fed, famous wise men--the beasts of burden. For, as asses, they always pull the people's cart."

I rejoiced when I read that because it helped affirm my impoverished self as a cool dude. I have long thought of myself as a voice crying in the wilderness, and it felt good to have that image validated. Nietzsche's "well-fed, famous wise men" are referred to sarcastically; they are figures mentioned in a previous long section of the book, about men the world upholds as wise, who they are really only pompous. These "wise men" pull the people's cart; they serve the low visions and aspirations of common men who have no loftier goals than to think themselves better than their neighbors. Now, much of Nietzsche's writing is, quite frankly, sour grapes--clearly not ALL great men are without acceptance by the world--and yet the desert must ever be the dwelling place of true greatness because it will always remain inaccessible to the common man. The great man who is also successful has merely brought his desert to the city with him.

What follows is a piece I wrote when I first created my freemantlemusic.com website:
Escape from Success

"The Freemantle Music Conservatory just presented another baroque music concert

on June 13. The presentation was an artistic success; all the performances were solid technically, and very listenable by any standard. I played two concerti, the Bach Am Violin Concerto, and the Telemann Viola Concerto in G. I was once again asked the question that I have been asked many times since I came here, "What the heck is a musician of your level doing in this tiny, insignificant, backwater town?" It is a question I stopped asking myself years ago, but it is one that deserves an answer, because it is basic to what I am about, and what I am trying to do with my life.
One of the hardest lessons I have learned in life is that success depends not on what you can do, but who you do it for. In other words, success is only possible in the big city where all the main cultural venues are situated, and where, for better or worse, all the best people are forced to live. It took many years, but I eventually decided it was more important to me to live my everyday life in a place that was sane and safe. I'm sure my Asperger's condition has a lot to do with it, because I have never been comfortable with people in social situations; an over-populated environment was always a constant reminder of my inadequacy as a person, and an agonizing stress which, with age, became more and more unbearable. I had to choose between success before the footlights and a walk in the woods in my back yard. It was that simple.

I began my musical life in Chicago where I played with the Chicago Youth Symphony, and heard many top international classical music stars; my high school class boasted at least ten students who went on to major professional careers--my best friend, not one bit more gifted than I, is now recognized as an important American composer. After four years at the University of Illinois, where I studied with some of the world's most well-known composers and teachers, I went to Los Angeles.
In L.A. I worked with another group of front-line musicians, including David Raksin, the composer of the jazz standard, Laura, one of the most recorded songs in history; Raksin was taking me under his wing and recommending me for low-budget film music gigs, which, if I had followed through, would have given me a solid foot in the door of the film music business. After getting my M.A. in music composition from UCLA, I turned my back on an assistantship offered to me, an opportunity that would have permanently ensconced me in the sheltering arms of academia, for the balmy beaches of Santa Cruz, a place, which was, compared to L.A., a haven of calm. In Santa Cruz, once again I rose to the top of the heap, and was pretty well-known as a composer, conductor, and performer; I played with and wrote for some of the top musicians in San Jose and San Francisco.
And, although I enjoyed the notoriety and the recognition, not of the public but of these few famous people who respected me and considered me one of their own, I was still not satisfied with the world I lived in--a world of smog, traffic, noise, and psychic pollution; eventually I couldn't even walk to the beach anymore without being assailed by an army of skateboards and flying frisbies. When a high-speed police chase ended in a smashed car right in front of my house, just yards away from where my infant son was playing on the porch, I knew I had to escape further into the backwoods, and further away from success. I went to the Northwest, Pullman, Washington, and began another chapter in my flight from fame.
I admit that there is an element of arrogance involved in my escapist behavior. I was a child of the 60s, a long-haired hippy, and it was easy for me to reject all the established values of the 50s, including social respectability, and material acquisition. I placed a higher value on my freedom than on acceptance. My Asperger's condition already had condemned me to an outcast state, and the social rejection I suffered at the hands of insensitive, judgmental people colored all my ambitions--I felt there was no hope, so why try. I also realized that my gifts were extraordinary and that, for better or worse, I was ever so slightly ahead of my time. As my compositional accomplishments developed, it became clear to me that my work was beyond the ken of most of the people in bureaucratic positions who might have helped me if they wanted to. I didn't even enter composition competitions, which is the way many composers make their reputations, because I was sure that my music, outside the mainstream, would not be accepted.
Shortly after I moved to the Pacific Northwest, I stumbled into several activities that renewed my interest in success. Through my connection with the Spokane Symphony (I got a job playing section viola) I had a piece for piano and strings played by Stephan Koszinski, a pianist and conductor who has achieved some national fame. I met and collaborated with Portland composer Jackie T. Gabel, on several performances of my music, in exchange for my performance of his piece Hellenic Triptych for viola and electronics; Gabel also included a set of piano pieces of mine on a CD put out by his recording company, North Pacific Music. But most importantly, I hired on at Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston Idaho as adjunct faculty. I taught there for eight years, establishing several community ensembles, including the college/community orchestra. By the end of my stay there I was doing much more teaching than either of the so-called full-time faculty, and had people traveling more than a hundred miles to study with me and play in my groups.
Unfortunately, when I dropped out of the Spokane Symphony, my opportunities in that town dried up, and my success at LCSC inspired me to do the singlemost stupid thing of my career--I left town to get a doctorate. I figured that if I could do so well teaching adjunct, I might as well get an advanced degree and get a REAL job. Little did I know that my Asperger's personality would condemn me once again to disappointment and failure. I distinguished myself in many ways at the University, and got many job interviews on the basis of my adjunct teaching experience, but when the smoke cleared, nobody would hire me for a permanent position and I wound up back in Pullman without even an adjunct appointment to show for my pains.

Alaska blew into my life on the winds of fate, and here I sit an anomaly of the Chugach Mountains. Here, I experienced the worst personal disaster of my entire life, but I also found myself a home. Many people have advised me to go to Fairbanks or Anchorage, as if that represented a move to the big city, but I remind them that I have already been to the big city--that's why I'm here.
Since leaving the Copper River School District I have begun several outreach activities, the most significant one being this website. But, in 2007, I also sent out e-mails to music teachers all over the state, and the result was a lovely performance of a piece I wrote for the Fairbanks Flutists, Dorli McWayne's flute choir, Aurora; this was the first quasi-professional performance of my music I had had in over five years. Through an odd stroke of luck I got connected to another flute choir director, Gail Edwards, and she played Aurora, in San Francisco in 2009, and again at a national flute conference in 2010. I also entered a few composition competitions; I received an Honorable Mention from an international flute composition competition in San Jose, and won a prize from the National Marimba League, resulting in my first and only publication. It seems that the world is catching up to me, and my musical style might actually be entering the mainstream at long last. I have always thought it would be possible to make it in the big city via long distance, and connections are now being forged with big city musical entities that appear to be hungry for what I have to offer. This after I had given up all hope. Go figure.
But let's face it, most of you out there in Mooseland couldn't care less about the struggles of a composer trying to carve out his niche in the temple of fame--you care about what he is doing for you and your kids. It is the most startling surprise of my life that I became a teacher and not an ivory tower recluse like my afore-mentioned best friend. That my highest ambition these days is to create performing musical organizations in Glennallen, Valdez, and Anchorage is astonishing beyond reason. And yet, it makes so much sense: I have always thought it was the man who made the music, not the music that made the man; and my sense of responsibility to distribute my gifts where they are most needed is the moral center from which the humanity of my music springs. Therefore, it is not for my career that I remain here, but for you, and you make me more myself. This can only result in better music. And if I never achieve the reputation of my peers in the big city, I know that in the daily activities of my life I am justified, and in heaven my reward will be great."

Thus, my vow of poverty, my PROFESSED FAILURE, has given me a sense of well-being; it has affirmed my best self as a SERVANT of God, and my camel's burden of mundane goods is light, while spiritual treasures crowd my world and point me toward heavenly immortality instead of a temporal reputation which, at the most, might stake a claim for me in the temple of fame worth mere minutes, or hours, or years by anybody's reckoning. Years, in a landscape of eternity--what a crummy deal! I thank God for sparing me the temptations associated with worldly success, because I have always thought of myself as weak; if God had not intervened and denied me the recognition I no doubt deserve, in one sense anyway, I might have traded my integrity for money, and that would have yielded a life of self-loathing instead of self-exaltation. If God knows my worth, what greater reputation do I need?

As to my physical necessities, I seem to be hobbling along okay--my family is not starving, and they all seem to be doing something worthwhile with their lives. I which I could have given them more, but perhaps that would have packed more "stuff" onto THEIR camels. I think that Jesus and the Saints habitually provide their workers in the field with JUST ENOUGH, and just enough, for me, is enough.

Let us pray: Jesus, thank You for all You have given us, and for all You have NOT given us. We commend ourselves to Your protection, and accept our daily bread in humble gratitude. Amen.