I'm only a young man. I haven't seen much in my meagre 23 years. I haven't experienced or done much, either, but this is something that I'm beginning to understand the gravity and magnitude of that I think needs to be better understood by men at large.
Previously, I've clumsily typed my way around the red-herring modesty debate (I'm not going to link it, but it's somewhere here on this site), thinking that was a good approach to take, to chip in my two cents that men need to be proactive and work to prevent what many merely tell women to react to, that is, lust. Equally clumsily, I've spoken with friends who are feminists, trying to ascertain their positions (didn't quite get it, but hey, I was trying, right? [wrong attitude]).
I finally got around to looking at the #YesAllWomen making its rounds. It took me a while, because I'd dismissed it as "just another feminist outrage," but what caught my eye was that men I know whom I have never seen post anything feminist were sharing it, posting it. So, I gave it a look. To me, it was nothing flooring, but it piqued my interest. I did a bit of searching for articles about the movement, read a few of the latest twitter feed posts and realized something crucial - I don't understand.
I don't understand why my sister had to wait until she was older and still take a dog with her to go running, whereas I could've gone on my own whenever.
I don't understand the pressures of the media on women to look beautiful; after all, men's health puts the same standard on us men, right?
I don't understand why women don't feel comfortable walking to the shop after dark for a few quick necessities.
I don't understand why women have to say they have a boyfriend/fiance/spouse for their "no" to be heard.
Just to name a few.
Let me flip this scenario on its head:
Men, you are now the physically weaker sex. Society has relegated your role (traditionally) to cooking, cleaning, and minding the home. Some concessions have been made, however, and you can find work, though you might not be paid equally and you might be discriminated against. In fact, you might be hit on, harassed, or sexually assaulted by someone of the opposite sex who, being stronger than you physically and in the unwritten perception of society, is able to take their way with you, leave you, and still, no-one will fully believe you, stating that you were "asking for it" because of how you were dressed, had led the person on, hadn't said "no," etc.. You face pressure from part of society to change the way you act and dress because you're "making them lust." Conversely, you face pressure from the media and the market to fit an ideal of beauty because, let's face it, regardless of how smart or strong you are, everybody's only truly going to regard you based on how pretty you are; the applicable attributes only begin applying secondarily.
Swap shoes for a moment. Can you truly say "I don't understand" any longer? How about if I told you that the originator of #YesAllWomen is being bullied and pressured by the internet community, or that #YesAllWomenJokes has been made and is making its rounds. Can you not see the discrimination riding on the unwritten undercurrents of Western society?
I send my appreciation to the authors of #AllMenCan and #EachEveryWoman as they seek to keep this discussion on the table.
I'm only a young man. I haven't seen much in my meagre 23 years. I haven't experienced or done much either, but as I grow and (hopefully) become a father, I will teach my sons this message. Will you teach yours?
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
A Systematic Exposition of Salvation
It has occurred to me that while I may speak of or reference different aspects of salvation, I have not actually put to writing a systematic discourse on my beliefs and reasonings relating to salvation. Therefore, this post has been written. Take from it what you will. If you are here to deride, scorn or belittle, I bid you good day. If you are here out of curiosity or a search for understanding, welcome!
At the beginning is God, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, who, merely with his speech, brought forth into existence time and space, giving everything form and functon for the express purpose of displaying His attributes, an action which, in any other being would be blasphemous and arrogant, but, as God is the supreme being, there is none higher for Him to give service to, making it, therefore, reasonable for God to act towards his glory, spurring the creation of time, space, the details, and man, the pinnacle of His creation, who was imbued with the ability to glorify God in the freest, fullest of manners: by free will, a gift which, at the moment of testing, was used to choose disobedience over obedience, marring the perfection of God's creation, separating mankind from God, because God, being infinitely perfect, righteous, and holy, cannot, by His nature, bear the presence of our then newfound imperfection, but instead, acting out of time, ended the scourge of disobedience at a set point in time foreknown to give Him the most glory, while, acting out of mercy, love, and grace for His creation, inside the flow of time, providing a temporary means of expiation of this disobedience, this imperfection, this sin, through the lifeblood sacrifice of a pure, unblemished animal, setting the stage for the future, permanent atonement for the fallenness of His creation, which occurred through the sending of Jesus, the son of God, who, being fully God, yet fully man was able to identify with and understand the burdens and cares of man, yet was able to live a life pure and without sin, providing a lifeblood sacrifice in accordance with the law set in time previously, the difference being that Jesus, being fully God, is not temporal, is not finite, but, rather, is infinite, able to atone for the sins of humanity past, present, and future and, after his death, was buried, but, three days later, He was returned to life, thereby breaking the necessary consequence of sin, that is, death, as the final part of His sacrifice such that whosoever accepts this sacrifice has his or her sins paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus such that under the eyes of God, it is as if he/she has never sinned, allowing him/her to be rejoined in communion and relationship with God.
Thus ends my expounding of the justifying action of salvation in one sentence.
At the beginning is God, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, who, merely with his speech, brought forth into existence time and space, giving everything form and functon for the express purpose of displaying His attributes, an action which, in any other being would be blasphemous and arrogant, but, as God is the supreme being, there is none higher for Him to give service to, making it, therefore, reasonable for God to act towards his glory, spurring the creation of time, space, the details, and man, the pinnacle of His creation, who was imbued with the ability to glorify God in the freest, fullest of manners: by free will, a gift which, at the moment of testing, was used to choose disobedience over obedience, marring the perfection of God's creation, separating mankind from God, because God, being infinitely perfect, righteous, and holy, cannot, by His nature, bear the presence of our then newfound imperfection, but instead, acting out of time, ended the scourge of disobedience at a set point in time foreknown to give Him the most glory, while, acting out of mercy, love, and grace for His creation, inside the flow of time, providing a temporary means of expiation of this disobedience, this imperfection, this sin, through the lifeblood sacrifice of a pure, unblemished animal, setting the stage for the future, permanent atonement for the fallenness of His creation, which occurred through the sending of Jesus, the son of God, who, being fully God, yet fully man was able to identify with and understand the burdens and cares of man, yet was able to live a life pure and without sin, providing a lifeblood sacrifice in accordance with the law set in time previously, the difference being that Jesus, being fully God, is not temporal, is not finite, but, rather, is infinite, able to atone for the sins of humanity past, present, and future and, after his death, was buried, but, three days later, He was returned to life, thereby breaking the necessary consequence of sin, that is, death, as the final part of His sacrifice such that whosoever accepts this sacrifice has his or her sins paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus such that under the eyes of God, it is as if he/she has never sinned, allowing him/her to be rejoined in communion and relationship with God.
Thus ends my expounding of the justifying action of salvation in one sentence.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
13 Signs that You Need Restoration
So, credit goes to my pastor for these, but they really stood out as gems, so I wanted to share them with you.
- Prayer is no longer a vital part of one's life
- Questing [his word, not mine] for Biblical truth has fallen by the wayside
- Biblical knowledge is possessed but no inwardly applied
- Pleasure becomes a necessary, compelling factor
- Gain dominates one's thinking
- Hymns and words are mouthed without any heart
- One finds oneself watching and reading morally corrupt content
- Breaches in one's church bring no concern
- The slightest excuse is sufficient to keep one from one's duty
- One is content with the lack of power and fillings of the Holy Spirit
- The music in one's soul and heart is no longer present
- One is gladly adjusting one's lifestyle to that of the world
- The tears have run dry and conviction of sin is absent
If, while reading this, you find yourself moved inwardly, saying, "that's me," then I encourage you to take some time, now, and drop to your knees, praying and asking God for a renewal of spirit, for the restoration that He brings, so that, once again, or for the first time, your heart might be moved to the passions and urgings of a God who loves us deeply and intimately, yet who also is a God of perfect standard that cannot be obtained and met by our feeble, dirtied attempts at perfection, but who, in a display of His mercy and grace, paid the debt of perfection and the punishment of its failure in a manner consistent with His law by providing a sacrifice sufficient to pay such an infinite debt through the sending of his son, Jesus, the Messiah, who, being fully God and fully man, lived a life of sinless perfection, endured the mockery of his peers and countryfolk, the ignominy of torture and death, the weight of eternity's sin and punishment, and the rejection of God, his Father, for the sin he carried and yet, having paid in full the price of sin for all mankind, he rose from the dead, breaking the chain of sin and death and has since risen to the Father's side, where he presents our cases on our behalf and prepares a place at the Father's table for those who, seeing they cannot ever pay their debt in full and are thus deserving of the punishment given for sin, have turned in faith to him, accepting his sacrifice, and committing their lives to following him.
(Yes, that's one grammatically correct sentence)
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Twisted Mirrors: Lust
Lust is something not very well defined today in the church. This is possibly because it is one of the largest skeletons in almost everyone's closets. Very few want to talk about it and, if they do, even fewer are candid.
The basic definitions that I have found portray lust as wanting something or someone you don't and might not be meant to have [1] or, from a more Augustinian perspective, the perversion of love. While the former is valid, it is not fully complete; the latter is closer to the mark, but only if a very complex, manifold view of love, its attributes, and attitudes is applied.
For simplicity's sake, I shall write from a perspective that, to me, is equally close to the mark, if not closer: lust is the perversion of desire.
Desire is not evil, not in its original intention. Desire seeks something to satisfy it, to appease it. Ideally, this should direct us to God or the God-given fulfillment of that desire. Classically, lust is defined as misplaced or perverted sexual desire, the desire for objects in general and for others' possessions and situations, being greed and envy, respectively.
How, then, does lust play its hand? It presents itself as a temptation, a counter-offer to God's provision for a particular need. In this context, the need could be one for some sort of intimacy, whether it be emotional, physical, relational, etc.. Lust presents itself and its subsequent actions as a source of satisfaction, but being mere perversion of God's provision, it cannot properly fulfill said need.
Lust offers a temporary, hollow, cheap alternative to the proper meeting of our desires. as a result, we can find ourselves delving ever deeper into its offerings as we seek for better fulfillment. In doing so, we condition our hearts and minds to turn to lust's offerings first, becoming addicted as does an alcoholic or a narcotic. Why? Because it provides a thrill, a temporary meeting of a desire for little cost, we continue to seek it out, becoming ever entrenched in its workings.
We're dealing not just with sin, but addiction and, unfortunately, the substance for this addiction is all around us. Advertisements, billboard, magazine, television, or otherwise, provide plentiful source material for the satiation of lust in some degree. Fashion, too, can play a part. So can the media through film, books, and even the radio. Sex sells and, unfortunately, it sells well.
So, if lust's source material is all around us, how does it take place? How does it offer its wares for the individual's "satisfaction"? Visually/mentally and physically.
Visually/Mentally
The basic definitions that I have found portray lust as wanting something or someone you don't and might not be meant to have [1] or, from a more Augustinian perspective, the perversion of love. While the former is valid, it is not fully complete; the latter is closer to the mark, but only if a very complex, manifold view of love, its attributes, and attitudes is applied.
For simplicity's sake, I shall write from a perspective that, to me, is equally close to the mark, if not closer: lust is the perversion of desire.
Desire is not evil, not in its original intention. Desire seeks something to satisfy it, to appease it. Ideally, this should direct us to God or the God-given fulfillment of that desire. Classically, lust is defined as misplaced or perverted sexual desire, the desire for objects in general and for others' possessions and situations, being greed and envy, respectively.
How, then, does lust play its hand? It presents itself as a temptation, a counter-offer to God's provision for a particular need. In this context, the need could be one for some sort of intimacy, whether it be emotional, physical, relational, etc.. Lust presents itself and its subsequent actions as a source of satisfaction, but being mere perversion of God's provision, it cannot properly fulfill said need.
Lust offers a temporary, hollow, cheap alternative to the proper meeting of our desires. as a result, we can find ourselves delving ever deeper into its offerings as we seek for better fulfillment. In doing so, we condition our hearts and minds to turn to lust's offerings first, becoming addicted as does an alcoholic or a narcotic. Why? Because it provides a thrill, a temporary meeting of a desire for little cost, we continue to seek it out, becoming ever entrenched in its workings.
We're dealing not just with sin, but addiction and, unfortunately, the substance for this addiction is all around us. Advertisements, billboard, magazine, television, or otherwise, provide plentiful source material for the satiation of lust in some degree. Fashion, too, can play a part. So can the media through film, books, and even the radio. Sex sells and, unfortunately, it sells well.
So, if lust's source material is all around us, how does it take place? How does it offer its wares for the individual's "satisfaction"? Visually/mentally and physically.
Visually/Mentally
- Ogling - the visual stripping down of a woman for some degree of sexual power or satisfaction. It is the perversion of appreciation and admiration, both of which, in their pure, intended roles seek to praise God for the beauty of His creation.
- Pornography - the seeking of sexual satisfaction from media. This can be in the form of single images, film, or written text. This also does not have to be depictions of sex and/or nudity. It varies depending on the individual; for one, just the image of a woman in a scoop-necked top could be porn as it incites lust and the temptation to then seek satisfaction therefrom. It is the perversion of the desire for sex with one's own spouse in addition to the perversion of the appreciation and admiration which is to be reserved for said spouse.
- Replay/Fantasizing - the mental recall or projection of a particular image or individual that incited lust. This can be intentional or unintentional, but it is more than simply the image popping into one's head, but rather, the dwelling or expounding upon said thought. This is a perversion of the regard with which one thinks about another, particularly the way one should think about one's spouse only.
Physically
- Masturbation - the seeking of the gratification of physical sexual desire by oneself. Straight up, it is a perversion of the desire given to us which should be for our spouse only in addition to the perversion of the form intended for said gratification. Single or unmarried individuals, sorry, but the only proper gratification for this desire is to wait patiently for your spouse.
- Adultery - the seeking of physical sexual gratification with one not one's spouse. Again, the perversion is fairly clear, it is the twisting of what was meant to remain in the confines of a marriage with one's spouse.
As we can see, lust has many faces, some of which may even seem innocuous, but what happens is that one addicted to lust finds oneself completely lacking satisfaction from that which should fulfill it. Relationships, particularly those with one's spouse and with God become cheapened [2], [3]. It is an issue of the heart, then, of the very core of our being.
How, then, can we overcome lust? Not by our own strength. Convicted of what I had read thus far, I sought to stay pure from lust during my shift at work. The number of times I was tempted to simply ogle an ad, coworker, or customer was surprising, not to mention the number of times a thought from my previous foolishnesses tried to bring itself to the fore. I quickly became convinced, in a more-than-head-knowledge kind of way of the necessity for God's intervention. Sure, I could have kept it up myself, but the strain from just 5 hours was immense. I'm under no illusions that I would have burnt out within a couple of days at best.
We need to become broken. That's Christianese for "We need to realize our helplessness in the face of our sin, discard any last vestige of pride, and humbly come to God in genuine desire for freedom." It is, after all, a hear issue. We need to come, asking for God to restore our hearts to their proper orientation - towards Him. We need to desire God above the false satisfactions of lust. Only then will the war begin to turn. Unfortunately, we cannot change our hearts. We have the unfortunate predilection for sin, the disobedience and turning away from God. It is ONLY through God that we can even be able to come to Him, to obey Him, to truly desire and give glory to Him.
Why, then, do we persist in the illusion that lust and its faces are simply our personal issues, never to be shared with anyone? Why do we enslave ourselves to empty fulfillments and addictions. Let us instead cry out to God. Let us reach out to one another and hold each other accountable for our addictions and trials.
I am human. I lust. I want out.
Twisted Mirrors: Introduction
Twisted Mirrors is going to become an ongoing series, ultimately to cover the 7 classical Deadly Sins. This idea was spurred by my own investigation of my struggles with Lust and my discoveries thereupon (personal and research).
So, I hope you enjoy and learn from what I'm learning.
I won't necessarily be posting these in regular sequence, but they will all eventually be posted with the "Twisted Mirrors" tag.
So, I hope you enjoy and learn from what I'm learning.
I won't necessarily be posting these in regular sequence, but they will all eventually be posted with the "Twisted Mirrors" tag.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
The Worship Dilemma
So, there's something I've been noticing that I really think needs to be addressed beyond the "grumble to peer" medium and that's the self focus of much of the modern worship songs sung in churches today.
Now, I'm not talking about something along the lines of this video, but it does provide an exaggerated counterpoint.
What I am seeing more often from a number of services, particularly youth- and young adult-aimed services, is a prevalence of pop music which praises God in relation to self. We praise God for what He's doing to/with/for us. When we're praying, we praise God for how He's never left us instead of for his unending faithfulness. It's a subtle difference, but it makes an impact.
There are far too few songs that worship God for being God, for His attributes. We don't find many new songs extolling God for His omnipotence, fidelity, righteousness, or justice and what few we do are, more often than not, calls to worship where the song is encouraging the church to come and praise God because of who He is. Still, though, the focus is less on God and more on the call to worship.
What do I suggest, then? I suggest we return to the theology-rich, thoughtful poetry of hymns. I'm not saying we need to sit through piano, organ, and choir droning on at a trudging pace, but rather that we return to poetic song that praises God for God, not for how He has moved in relation to us. Let us praise him with rich thought and intense vocabulary. Let our somnolent tongues become renewed as they extol the richness of God's nature itself, without constant allusion to the self.
Yes, there comes a time in which to praise God for what He has done with/to/for us, but that should not be the bulk of our praise, but a mere part.
To those churches I have attended which worship God for God and not for us, I thank you and encourage you to continue as you were.
What I am seeing more often from a number of services, particularly youth- and young adult-aimed services, is a prevalence of pop music which praises God in relation to self. We praise God for what He's doing to/with/for us. When we're praying, we praise God for how He's never left us instead of for his unending faithfulness. It's a subtle difference, but it makes an impact.
There are far too few songs that worship God for being God, for His attributes. We don't find many new songs extolling God for His omnipotence, fidelity, righteousness, or justice and what few we do are, more often than not, calls to worship where the song is encouraging the church to come and praise God because of who He is. Still, though, the focus is less on God and more on the call to worship.
What do I suggest, then? I suggest we return to the theology-rich, thoughtful poetry of hymns. I'm not saying we need to sit through piano, organ, and choir droning on at a trudging pace, but rather that we return to poetic song that praises God for God, not for how He has moved in relation to us. Let us praise him with rich thought and intense vocabulary. Let our somnolent tongues become renewed as they extol the richness of God's nature itself, without constant allusion to the self.
Yes, there comes a time in which to praise God for what He has done with/to/for us, but that should not be the bulk of our praise, but a mere part.
To those churches I have attended which worship God for God and not for us, I thank you and encourage you to continue as you were.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
The Lumpy Pot
So, in my 3 1/2 years now of living in the US, I've noticed something that strikes me as both odd and sad. Americans are not American.
Or, at least, they don't identify as such.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I were to go to any number of random people on the street and ask them directly if they're American, they'd say "Yes." What I'm referring to is the phenomenon wherein Americans self-identify as only partial Americans, as X-Americans.
I remember reading a blog by an Irish traveler and polyglot a few months ago wherein he recounted his run-in with an Irish-American (See, the X-American strikes). When the author mentioned he was Irish the obviously American individual replied stating that he was, too.
News flash: the second man was no more Irish than me.
Oh yes, I can play the heritage card: 1/16 Cherokee, a smattering of Irish, English, Norman, and Scandinavian with a dollop of "I don't know" and voila, me. Do I claim to be Irish, Norman, English, Cherokee, or Norse? Heck no! To claim a nationality is to also claim its culture; I don't share any of those cultural attributes and traditions.
Now, do Irish-Americans have distinct customs? Kind-of, but they're not Irish.
A bit closer to home: African-Americans. I'm sorry, but you're honestly less African than me. Unless you or your parents (possibly your grandparents, if they strongly instilled their culture and tradition in you) lived a substantial portion of your/their life/lives in Africa, you're simply American. You're Americans with a different ancestry and sub-/culture from other Americans, but you're American nonetheless.
So, what's the beef?
To use the lumpy pot allegory from the title: America has long been described as a melting pot, but I would argue it's not, not completely. In a melting pot, everything melts together completely, every aspect of every ingredient losing its individual cohesion and combining with its neighbours. America has been more like a lumpy soup. There are aspects and flavours from the immigrant cultures that have diffused into the mix, but the cultures as a whole have remained fairly individual, some, like the Pennsylvania Dutch, mutating into a completely new flavour separate from both the mix and their origin.
Because of these lumps, the American identity is fractured. While all nationals will identify as American, there is no common, overarching culture that is America, which would serve to connect Americans from one part of the country or people group with another from another. The subculture is not. The subculture has been allowed to become a co-culture.
Let me draw your attention to my home: South Africa is a melting pot, too, but I would argue that they are such in a more true sense of the term. Were I to ask an individual, white, black, or coloured, if he was African, if she was South African, the answer would be unequivocably "Yes." (and perhaps accompanied by a look questioning your sanity/intelligence). Yes, there are English- and Afrikaans-speaking whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Venda, Malay, Indian, and Griquas, to name a few, but the individual subculture has integrated into the mix such that one can look to the other and say that they are still one, united people. You see, "South African" and "Afrikaaner/Xhosa/YouNameIt" are not equal co cultures. Rather, the former supercedes the latter. This, America, is what you lack.
So, I ask and beseech you, Americans, look beyond your individual identifications and begin building the national identity, the national culture that America has sorely lacked, especially in recent years. Acknowledge your differences and overcome them. Acknowledge your misinformations and fears and address them. Acknowledge the wrongdoings of your cultural forebears and seek not redress or recompense, but reconciliation. Acknowledge the right doings and achievements of your cultural forebears and celebrate them. Acknowledge the right doings and achievements of your fellow American's cultural forebears and celebrate them alongside him. Acknowledge the God who made each individual, people, culture and language, who made then not only good, but very good and praise Him.
Only then will Americans come together. Only then will the lumps smooth into the pot.
Or, at least, they don't identify as such.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I were to go to any number of random people on the street and ask them directly if they're American, they'd say "Yes." What I'm referring to is the phenomenon wherein Americans self-identify as only partial Americans, as X-Americans.
I remember reading a blog by an Irish traveler and polyglot a few months ago wherein he recounted his run-in with an Irish-American (See, the X-American strikes). When the author mentioned he was Irish the obviously American individual replied stating that he was, too.
News flash: the second man was no more Irish than me.
Oh yes, I can play the heritage card: 1/16 Cherokee, a smattering of Irish, English, Norman, and Scandinavian with a dollop of "I don't know" and voila, me. Do I claim to be Irish, Norman, English, Cherokee, or Norse? Heck no! To claim a nationality is to also claim its culture; I don't share any of those cultural attributes and traditions.
Now, do Irish-Americans have distinct customs? Kind-of, but they're not Irish.
A bit closer to home: African-Americans. I'm sorry, but you're honestly less African than me. Unless you or your parents (possibly your grandparents, if they strongly instilled their culture and tradition in you) lived a substantial portion of your/their life/lives in Africa, you're simply American. You're Americans with a different ancestry and sub-/culture from other Americans, but you're American nonetheless.
So, what's the beef?
To use the lumpy pot allegory from the title: America has long been described as a melting pot, but I would argue it's not, not completely. In a melting pot, everything melts together completely, every aspect of every ingredient losing its individual cohesion and combining with its neighbours. America has been more like a lumpy soup. There are aspects and flavours from the immigrant cultures that have diffused into the mix, but the cultures as a whole have remained fairly individual, some, like the Pennsylvania Dutch, mutating into a completely new flavour separate from both the mix and their origin.
Because of these lumps, the American identity is fractured. While all nationals will identify as American, there is no common, overarching culture that is America, which would serve to connect Americans from one part of the country or people group with another from another. The subculture is not. The subculture has been allowed to become a co-culture.
Let me draw your attention to my home: South Africa is a melting pot, too, but I would argue that they are such in a more true sense of the term. Were I to ask an individual, white, black, or coloured, if he was African, if she was South African, the answer would be unequivocably "Yes." (and perhaps accompanied by a look questioning your sanity/intelligence). Yes, there are English- and Afrikaans-speaking whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Venda, Malay, Indian, and Griquas, to name a few, but the individual subculture has integrated into the mix such that one can look to the other and say that they are still one, united people. You see, "South African" and "Afrikaaner/Xhosa/YouNameIt" are not equal co cultures. Rather, the former supercedes the latter. This, America, is what you lack.
So, I ask and beseech you, Americans, look beyond your individual identifications and begin building the national identity, the national culture that America has sorely lacked, especially in recent years. Acknowledge your differences and overcome them. Acknowledge your misinformations and fears and address them. Acknowledge the wrongdoings of your cultural forebears and seek not redress or recompense, but reconciliation. Acknowledge the right doings and achievements of your cultural forebears and celebrate them. Acknowledge the right doings and achievements of your fellow American's cultural forebears and celebrate them alongside him. Acknowledge the God who made each individual, people, culture and language, who made then not only good, but very good and praise Him.
Only then will Americans come together. Only then will the lumps smooth into the pot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)