November 20, 1977

Recommended by Chaunce, and gifted by Sarah’s mom, The Violence of Love has become a devotional of sorts as I’ve woken up to these snow-filled mornings. The book consists of quips and excerpts from the multitude of homilies Oscar Romero issued via radio while serving as the Archbishop of El Salvador from 1977-1980, before being assassinated. As stated by Chaunce, if you want to know true liberation theology, look to this man.

I’m not looking to discuss liberation theology, however. Instead, below is an inspiring passage both for myself and those who sometimes wonder at the purpose of their working life, or simply their life in general. For myself, monotony is more present now than it ever was in school, and with the day-to-day grind, I’ve slowly become numb to daily routines.  But that numbness doesn’t have to exist, especially with the value that each day holds. Though the context to which Romero is speaking is different from my own, he nonetheless provides a lucid picture of what it means to witness:

“How beautiful will be the day
when all the baptized understand
that their work, their job,
is a priestly work,
that just as I celebrate Mass at this altar,
so each carpenter celebrates Mass at his workbench,
and each metalworker,
each professional,
each doctor with the scalpel,
the market woman at her stand,
is performing a priestly office!

How many cabdrivers, I know, listen to this message there in their cabs;
you are a priest at the wheel, my friend,
if you work with honesty,
consecrating that taxi of yours to God,
bearing a message of peace and love
to the passengers who ride in your cab.”

the humble(d)

Referenced by several friends as of recent, here’s a quote I greatly enjoyed from an interview by a significant blogger within my favored blogosphere community (Context being an interview with a gay Christian):

From Dawn: Given all the nasty rhetoric that has been aimed at the LGBT community — and in that sense, at you personally — by Christian and Christian political leaders, what is it about Christianity itself that’s so compelling that you haven’t been turned off completely by so many of its messengers?

One word: Jesus.

The church is human, and we make mistakes. Sometimes we don’t represent God very well at all. But Jesus represented God perfectly as the incarnation of God. He loved the people his culture didn’t love, he interacted with people he wasn’t supposed to interact with, and he refused to distance himself from the people others called “sinners.” Jesus’ harsh words were aimed at the religious leaders of his day who, in their zeal for correct doctrine, were pushing people away from God. He didn’t run for office or yell at sinners through a bullhorn. He loved, healed, and fed people, and then he let them beat him and hang him on a cross.

That’s my God.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I grew teary-eyed after reading that last line of humanity’s love and betrayal of our Savior. I still do now. If there are any people to help put in perspective the great depths of God’s love for us, found in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, it would be the ostracized, outcasts, minorities, oppressed, and poor. For they are the ones who show us just how much we need that love to thrive.

Glory is found in the humble(d).

unseen tides

I was fortunate enough to have the author of one of the articles I referenced last weekend comment on my blog. It took me aback, particularly because prior to the message I had spent some time hunting down his curriculum vitae and had planned on contacting him later this week. Naturally, I responded with additional feedback of what I drew from his article, but also asked him a question I’ve slowly been developing over the past couple months.

And his response was excellent. Please allow me to share:

Me: “Hey, thanks for the comment on my blog! I was greatly surprised to see it, not only because I didn’t think my link would notify you, but because I had planned on emailing you later this week to show my appreciation for your article. It resonated with me immensely as the term ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ has been quite predominant in my own life over the past couple years, but hasn’t been something I’ve ever felt comfortable explaining or living out within my own church culture. As such, and if you don’t mind, I’ve got a quick question for you if you have the time:

As both a studied academic of biblical hermeneutics, and layperson of what I perceive to be a nondenominational (possibly evangelical?) church, what have you found to be best when interacting with evangelicals who have never encountered the subject of hermeneutics? In other words, how do you healthily apply your advanced education within the church setting when your understanding of Scripture typically gets you labeled as ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal,’ and thus not taken as seriously. I mean, you have personally been dubbed as, ‘straying from the message of Christianity and Church X’ for bringing up the challenges that appropriate hermeneutical studying demands…”

Professor Simmons: “It is nice to virtually ‘meet’ you.  I am very pleased to hear that others out there are wrestling with the same questions as I am and it is a pleasure to be in dialogue with you.  You ask a VERY difficult question and it is one that I am afraid I don’t really have a great highly intellectual answer to.  Nonetheless, I am happy to at least give you some insight from my own experience and perhaps it will be of some use to you.  So, a few things:

(1) It is important to know your audience.  The average evangelical church is not a university and so it is not appropriate to expect that the folks in the pews have read Gadamer, Ricoeur, or Derrida.  In fact, there are often times in church when I am quite happy not to be surrounded by people who do read such texts!!  That said, it is good to separate issues of hermeneutics that attend to ecclesial life from technical discussions of hermeneutics in postmodern philosophy.  So, I think that everyone in church at some point asks themselves whether the Bible is trustworthy.  Whether their pastor is someone who should demand their attention. What will happen to their non-Christian friends after death, etc. etc. etc.  In other words, everyone asks questions having to do with difficult matters of interpretation, community, and tradition.  That most people don’t know how to frame these questions very well doesn’t mean that they aren’t wrestling with them.  So, I rarely find it helpful within my church community to use the language that I use with my students and colleagues.  Be ok with trying to hear the questions behind the questions that people in your church ask.  Then, help them to see that there are those deeper questions that are worth thinking through.

(2) Given that audiences are different depending on one’s context, it is important to have different dialogical expectations depending on context, too.  What I mean by that is that you can’t expect realizations like ‘Ah, I guess I should be a postmodernist’ to be frequently proclaimed at the end of conversations with church people.  However, something like, ‘Hmm, so postmodernism doesn’t mean that there is absolutely no absolute truth?  That is interesting.’  Helping people to think a bit more intentionally about those urgent questions with which we all deal is an important accomplishment.  Thinking that we have the answers that they need to come to is usually just as problematic (and dangerous) as is the evangelical resistance to deep thought so frequently displayed in church.  It is CRUCIAL to take what one does seriously, but it is just as crucial not to take oneself seriously while doing it.  Most of the harm I worry about in evangelicalism is due to the epistemic arrogance with which they engage others with whom they disagree.  Displaying that arrogance in a postmodern/liberal/progressive direction is just as harmful to genuine dialogue.

(3) Following from my encouragement to speak different languages to different audiences (which is something St. Paul was quite keen on telling us), is the idea that philosophical positions can be rephrased internal to evangelical discourse.  So, for example, I often give talks in churches where I never mention postmodernism or hermeneutics, but talk a lot about the ‘noetic effects of sin’ – in other words, ‘we see through a glass darkly’ and ‘God’s God and you and I are not’, etc.  All of those are ways to say that we should be hermeneutically aware, but they broach that topic in a way that is not threatening to the norms and values already operative in the evangelical community.

Anyway, I really hope that this helps, even in some small way.  I wish you well as you keep working this out (with fear and trembling, no doubt) in your own life and internal to your own communities.  Let me know how things go.  Again, I struggle with this stuff every day and I fully expect that you will be able to help me as well…”

With a quick stroke of unexpected fortune (and spirit-filled revelation?), I find myself humbled and eager to pursue a relationship with the Church that I haven’t felt for quite some time. Oh, I’m overflowing right now. He was also gracious enough to leave the offer open for more conversation in the future. So perhaps this is only the beginning. Thank You, Lord.

main titles

It’s been quite some time since I last made an appearance here; and I really do have a lot to say, but I’m thinking a more concise and structured format different from free flowing thought would be best. Also, during this little hiatus from writing, I’ve realized through reading a series of other blogs that those I appreciate most are either of friends I hold dearest, or those that reference articles, books, or current events, which help to quench my insatiable curiosity of the human experience. As such, I hope my blog from here on out provides one or both of those essentials. Please bear with me if this gets a little excessive.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Rather, what I hope to show is that evangelicalism, in reaction to the modernist-fundamentalist controversies, pursued a strategy for survival via a defense based in the autonomous structures of modern reason and politics. In the process, we gave up the true core of our Christian politics – the person and work of Jesus Christ – and set ourselves up for a fall by in essence becoming a form of “religious ideology.” We in essence emptied our social politic of its core in Jesus Christ for a politics buttressed by the temporary structures of modernity.”
- The End of Evangelicalism by David Fitch

Why this is important: The foundation of evangelicalism is based on what it is against rather than what it is for. And when this happens, no matter the context, weaknesses, shortcomings, and an incompleteness eventually makes its rise to the public face. So I ask: How does one tread the line between choosing to abandon the structurally ideologically unsound for the hopes of something not as blindly reactionary, or reconciling and renewing it as one would a wounded family member who has a history of subtle, hidden abuse?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Deconstruction glorifies ‘the never to be reached’ and sucks us into a ‘bad infinity.’
- The End of Evangelicalism by David Fitch

Why this is important: The past seven months of my life have been about the deconstruction and reconstruction of my own faith; however, the process has been terribly lopsided with the former taking up the majority of my thoughts. It wasn’t until I read this that I felt inspired to more intentionally pursue the reconstructive process with a fervor not unalike my first coming to faith. Deconstruction left me haughty. And so I am humbled.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“The final response was simply that I was sliding away from the ‘message’ of the Bible.  I then asked the minister with whom I was speaking whether he took the Bible to be clear about how social issues are meant to be addressed and his answer was an uncompromising ‘yes.’  I then commented that apparently a very specific view of biblical hermeneutics (also not explicitly recognized in our communal statements) was somehow being included in the ‘essentials’ Now, though I substantively disagree with the pastor, in no way do I mean to say that the position held by this pastor of Church X is necessarily irrational, unthoughtful, or even wrong.  Rather, my concern is, again, one of hermeneutics.”
 - “We Are Still Them: Non-Denominationalism and the Hermeneutics of Silence” by J. Aaron Simmons

Why this is important: An ingenious piece, Simmons critiques his church and simultaneously advocates the need to stay present with that in which you disagree. I can’t nearly talk about all I’d like for this article, but if the keywords “hermeneutics of suspicion,” “political theology,” and “evangelical” are of any interest to you, please give this writing a bit of your time. Moreover, Simmons is such an encouragement to those who want to fully participate in church leadership, but feel different or at odds with the collective thought. And he’s only in his early thirties. Splendid.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“None of you will go to America. None of you will work in supermarkets. None of you will do anything, except live the life that has already been set out for you. You will become adults, but only briefly. Before you are old, before you are even middle aged, you will start to donate your vital organs. And sometime around your third or fourth donation, your short life will be completed… You have to know who you are, and what you are. It’s the only way to lead decent lives.”
- Never Let Me Go (Film) directed by Mark Romanek

Why I love this: Don’t worry, I haven’t given away any secrets of the story. I’ve simply quoted the beginning of it. A harrowing tale that evoked more tears than I’d shed all year, I found myself quietly saying, “no, no, no, please no…” while only minutes prior smiling with delight along with every character on screen. I’ve since bought the soundtrack and listen to it daily. Such beauty will be hard to replicate in any near-future films I see.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Traditional Christian sexual ethics is not only inadequate in that it fails to reflect God’s reign of justice and love which Jesus died announcing, but its legalistic, apologetic approach is also incompatible with central Judaic and Christian affirmations of creation, life, and an incarnate messiah. Because the Christian sexual tradition has diverged from this its life-affirming source, it has become responsible for innumerable deaths, the stunting of souls, the destruction of relationships, and the distortion of human communities. The Christian sexual tradition uses scripture and theological tradition as supports for a code of behavior which developed out of mistaken, pre-scientific understandings of human anatomy, physiology, and reproduction, as well as out of now abandoned and discredited models of the human person and human relationships,. The churches are still today teaching theological conclusions originally based in ignorance of women’s genetic contribution to offspring, ignorance of the processes of gender identity and of sexual orientation, and of the difference between them, and ignorance of the learned basis of most gender differences—ignorance which has allowed and supported patriarchy, misogyny, and heterosexism, the assumption that heterosexuality is normative.”
- Body, Sex, and Pleasure by Christine Gudorf

Why this is important: I think she speaks clearly enough for herself. What I appreciated about this book was that it went straight to the origin of why traditional Christianity believes what it does about sexual ethics, instead of trying to refute the matter with solely modern-day sensibilities. In other words, she critiqued the foundation of what frustrated her instead of trying to argue about it with knowledge contextualized within a vacuum.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“If there is a single most important characteristic which distinguished Jesus from the established groups of his own time, it was his inclusiveness. He did not exclude sinners from his company or his concern, as did the Pharisees, whose very name meant “separate ones.” Neither did he exclude the physically imperfect, as did the Essenes, or the poor and needy, as did the wealthy Sadducees. His vision of the reign of God was broader than the narrow nationalism of the zealots; it included much more than expelling the Romans and reforming the Temple elites. It included reforming the entire society from the bottom up, toward inclusive care. Jesus did not exclude, but rather championed women and children, who were defenseless property in his society. He did not despise the crippled and sick, shunned as possessed and unclean by public opinion, but he touched and healed them. Even prostitutes and tax collectors, viewed as the most serious of sinners, were welcome at his table. For Jesus, nothing was so grievous a sin against his Father’s love as exclusion.”
- Body, Sex, and Pleasure by Christine Gudorf

Why this is important: This is the Kingdom at hand! This is the gospel! Inclusion! Discerning how to live out the Christian life often becomes convoluted and disparaging because of poor hermeneutical practices and misinterpretations, but it’s when words like this are spoken that gets me excited for the rich tradition I have chosen to participate in. And to the majority of my readers, that being privileged, middle-upper class Americans – never have we been in such a great place to practice inclusion than right now in the midst of great economic disparity.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“In order to maintain a fuller understanding of Jesus, we need to hold together in a dialectical tension the concept of the victorious Christ, who is able to vanquish evil, with the concept of the healing Christ, who is able to make all things new. It is important to balance these two concepts because an overemphasis on one or the other leads to a misunderstanding of who Jesus is for us. On the one hand, an emphasis on the victorious Christ tends to lead our theology towards an overly triumphant and domineering God who has little space for our frailty and humanity. On the other hand, an emphasis on the healing Christ tends to lead us toward an assumption that love and healing is equivalent to blind acceptance and inclusion of all people, regardless of sin or what one of my friends calls “holiness issues.” Instead, we need a more robust middle way that combines the warrior and the healer in our understanding of the hero.”
- “Hobbits, Heroes, and Football” by Chelle Stearns

Why this is important: Here, Stearns confronts the ever-present debate of Jesus vs. Paul and how we have interpreted and given weight to the messages found in both the gospels and epistles. But she does so beautifully by demanding we find our resting place in the middle, not leaning too far to each side. Furthermore, she implicitly states that one does not have to accept universalism if they whole-heartedly believe the overarching message of Scripture is that of love, restoration, and inclusion. That’s a good reminder.

LinkedIn

Finally created an account:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ckyle

Next: Twitter

Maybe

here i am, Living One

This book was referenced via an unlikely Tumblr account, and because I had some money left on an Amazon gift card from graduation (thank you, Jack and Cindy Moore), I decided to buy it with little thought.

Apparently the author, Katie Roiphe, received acclamations from prestigious reviewers, but the majority of amateur comments and criticisms spoke – and continue to speak – otherwise. This book was published in 1993, and over the years essentially became the equivalent to a one-hit wonder because she then stepped outside of the feminist debate; but she has recently come back into play with a short opinions article in the NY Times. If you decide to read the piece and end up getting frustrated, please note that this book provides a much more expanded and complete insight to her thought process – insight I found constructive and convincing in between moments, I assume, of prejudice stemming from her privilege.

What’s interesting is that I stumbled across this book (it’s about the ambiguity surrounding the definition of rape and sexual harassment, by the way) inside a context completely separate from all the news surrounding Herman Cain, Penn State, and this article. And I use the word interesting because here I’ve found a voice that advocates under the feminist umbrella, yet disagrees with many of her passionate peers to create a storm of converging intellectualisms. Moreover, it’s at a time now when the term “sexual harassment” functions simultaneously as a cultural taboo and within society’s commonly spoken vernacular.

So what does she actually say? Read it for yourself; you’re welcome to borrow it. The purpose of this posting is actually in light of something different. Yes, I wanted to inform you of Roiphe and her extreme, obscure, yet somehow thoughtful philosophies, but I also wanted to share this quote written in her final paragraph:

“I sometimes wished the world could be like Shakespeare, the way they teach it to you in the seventh grade, with good and evil in opposition and patterns of imagery so clear that when the natural order is destroyed you know it because the horses are eating each other.”

Since graduating I’ve learned the world isn’t black and white like suburbia and the culture of my private college schooling made it out to be. I’m thankful I no longer live with that formulaic mindset – most of the time, that is – but the grim reality isn’t much better. “Horses eating each other.” It makes about as much sense as the financial contagion plaguing Europe, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and nearly everything else people decide to debate and converse over. It wasn’t until halfway through my eschatology class that I realized ideologies truly affect how people make choices; and by the end of it I was wrecked with the idea that most everything we believe is incomplete and relative.

What do I mean by this? I know I’ve stated it before, but the way we think, and the processes of how we get from y to z, is forever fluid. For example, theologies change because lines of thinking change, and lines of thinking change because different people with different experiences give words to their beliefs as time continually progresses. Modernist thought changes into post-modernist, and now we are in the process of transitioning to post-post modernism. I wish everything would freeze for a second, or we could come to a consensus in saying, “Hey, this is it! This is the truth!” But that won’t happen, because it’s never happened.

So I wonder, “Am I the only one who is seeing this, or have people somehow found purpose in the participation of these broken, incomplete systems?” I’d hardly call it humility to agree that the first option can’t be true, and this article about Cornell West gives me hope that maybe I can put some stock into the latter alternative. I’m not so sure any more about this concept of “calling” Dr. West references, but he’s obviously allowing space to pursue an intangible force. And I like the sound of that.

All that said, arguments and debate over this and that are still wearying to me, and may be for quite some time; but the actions of others give me hope for eventually finding unquestionable value in why we must fight for our beliefs.

This is my post-graduate drama. We’ll see how long it lasts.

on and on and on it goes

This last month has been a mixture of scrounging for work, eventually finding it, adjusting to the transition, and gaining perspective on elements of life I – and many others, I’m sure – take for granted.

First, I’d simply like to say that Fred Hutch is a brilliant place. I find myself enjoying work day in and out, and though I am 20+ years younger than all my coworkers, I’m continually treated with respect. People are incredibly and unbelievably friendly, and never have I found myself intimidated, pressured, demeaned, or invalidated on any accord. I feel as if I’m becoming disillusioned about what typical American work culture looks like. But then again, most perceptions I have on the matter stem from media, so who knows. Regardless, I’m extremely and utterly thankful for this opportunity.

Theology. Bah, I still don’t know what to say or do about this word, as it both frustrates and intrigues me depending on what first fills my head. I’m not as embittered as I once was at the subject since graduating, but I’m nowhere near a healthy, reconciled point that drives me to study it once again. However, when asked at work what I studied in college, my ability to say Christian Theology has sparked some interesting and thoughtful conversations. I’ve met a fair amount of Christians that way, too. In the meantime, I’m simply trying to figure out what it means to be faithful in what I believe to be true. Here’s a brief list I wrote out while at church today:

1)      God loves us (and me)

2)      All things either have, can and/or will be redeemed through Christ

3)      We are made in the image of God

Each has some fairly powerful implications that come with them. Christianity is, after all, the richest, most vibrant tradition/concept/organism I’ve ever encountered.

Jake was in town this weekend. We spent a fair share of our Saturday night feasting on the nostalgia met in Bellevue Square. However, in between it all we attended his church that got me hooked on this song. It was good to see the guy. I hadn’t realized how much I’d missed him.

I’m starting to have questions on social class disparities once again, and what my (our) role as a Christian(s) should be to systemic injustices. The difference between now and the past, however, is that I’m seeing the oppression against people I know instead of having to work from mere theory like I used to. As such, and this actually deals more with the topic of race (though race and class are and forever will be intimately linked) I’m starting to read Age of Iron by J.M. Coetzee to help get me back into the frame of mind for what will most likely be another heavy season.

Lastly, some marvelous developments with Tent City are in the midst of us. I hope to speak more on the issue by the end of the week, but for now we’ll just have to wait, like usual. Perhaps for the last time, though…

of new beginnings

And 34 job applications resulting in 13 separate interviews at 5 different organizations later… I find myself gainfully employed. With a gracious employee referral by my beloved housemate and friend, Michael Frank, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has hired me on as the Facilities Planning/Construction Program Assistant. I’ll have a vast array of responsibilities, some of which include clerical, accounting, and logistical work, as well as Sharepoint development and training.

The craziest part? I was interviewed on Friday, offered the job three hours later, and start tomorrow at 8AM! I always knew employment came swiftly, but I wasn’t expecting this. So in the morning I’ll be getting on a bus and commuting as a young professional semi-fresh out of college.

Again, thank you employers who kept me on as a painter even when you said you couldn’t afford it. I really appreciated that. However, I am more thankful than ever to have bagged up and thrown away the clothes I’ve been wearing to your respective houses for four months. It’s the start of a new era.

Thank You, Lord.

bring us back to You: further dialogue

Here are some additional, more cohesive thoughts to what was hastily written below (inspired by an indirect prompting by Sarah Baggs):

Don’t worry, I’m not thinking America is on the verge of some anarchical tirade. The Guy Fawkes comment – though I still believe the masks to be a message not fully cohesive with the protesters’ demands – was meant to be more of an intro and segue to my latter thoughts. However, the sudden, intermittent, and selective use of the mask also provides clear evidence of a group of people who seek collective action, but are still learning how to do so effectively.

And this makes sense. I mean, mass amateurization in all facets of life has been made real through the Internet and social media; the problem is, we are all still learning how to harness this newfound ability. I read this book for school nearly a year ago titled Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations by Clay Shirky. A line that continues to stick with me reads, “Social tools don’t create collective action – they merely remove the obstacles to it.” Back during the Great Depression, when our economy had tanked just as much as it has now, never would OWS have existed. Except now that we have the means of creating collective social action, it’s become a predominant force in protesting the great disparity of wealth.

Finally, and in light of the quote above, this is where my warning comes in: OWS, an idea I believe stems from the Egyptian revolution, is in a period of shifting from social phenomenon to status quo. In other words, it’s an idea that is excitingly new and fresh to society, but becoming a regular form of action that will change the way humanity functions as a whole. This is good; I fully approve and encourage the idea. Except what must be recognized are the hiccups and inadequacies that trudge along with this changing pattern. OWS is tackling a HUGE issue within America – an issue that must be addressed. What’s difficult to watch, though, is that it’s utilizing a system still under construction to express its voice.

Sadly, I’m not sure what other route can be taken nowadays. We’ve realized this new potential with social activism, but the system’s not going to improve unless we participate within it. I just wish something as important as OWS could operate with a more developed tool to express itself. So, in reevaluating my own thoughts, my warning isn’t out of dismay; rather, it’s to encourage further thought towards the effectiveness of a group acting on a necessary endeavor.

That said, sorry for the cynical tone of my last post. I’m just a little unsettled about the slow crumbling of American government and economics. Amongst other things. Sigh…

And so we go.

bring us back to You

I am as equally intrigued by the Occupy Wall Street movement as I am frightened by it.

This worried impression is greatly because I don’t have the full picture or clearest sense of what these protestors hope to accomplish, but perhaps what’s most disconcerting is that they don’t appear to have a definitive objective of what they want, either. I’ve read a multitude of articles and blogs attempting to make sense of this modern uprising, all of which creating a gamut of responses ranging from complete idiocy to noticeable thoughtfulness; but what pushed me to make a post was this article from BBC about the Guy Fawkes masks.

Some claim it’s a means of solidarity. Others recognize the subtle irony behind the purchase and lash out at the now-labeled hypocrites . Whichever you choose, I think the mask is inherently anti-government – one may go as far as dubbing it a symbol of anarchy – thus adding another nuance to this already muddled situation.

People are unhappy. That much is obvious. However, before reading this article I never associated the protesters with anti-governmental wants. If anything, I found them to be a people of great determination, longing for governmental action to address the corrupt practices of our corporate nation. Now, and as it’s spread to many major cities in America, the heart of these people is slowly beginning to reveal itself, whether or not they are aware of it. I wouldn’t say collective libertarianism is on the rise, but it certainly appears to be seeping into the public (sub)conscious. And for what I shall call a post-Christian nation, this is only going to make approaching social matters all the more urgent for both the government and Church in America.

Don’t worry, this isn’t some attempt at political blogging; instead, what I’m trying to get at is this concept of rules. The idea of governance. I finished reading Lord of the Flies a couple weeks ago, and there was this single line that continues to resonate with me. Before I post a short excerpt below, the context of the conversation is of the protagonist, Ralph, arguing against an unspoken, yet imminent uprising by the haughty antagonist, Jack:

“The rules!” shouted Ralph, “you’re breaking the rules!”
“Who cares?”
Ralph summoned his wits.
“Because the rules are the only thing we’ve got!”
But Jack was shouting against him.
“Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong — we hunt! If there’s a beast, we’ll hunt it down! We’ll close in and beat and beat and beat — !”

Because the rules are the only thing we’ve got… If you read the whole story, I can guarantee this line will have a profoundly greater effect on you than what this little snippet provides. For when I ponder on what Ralph is saying, it reminds me that unless there is a something greater than ourselves to which we abide, chaos will inevitably consume our lives. I could offer my spiel on how the Church is hope and Christ is the anchor of love that offers life to our gasping breaths – because I believe this is the true governing that will bring light to darkness – but you can find that anywhere else in this blog. No, this is more a warning than anything else. Because if our “greater than ourselves” conception is founded in masks of symbolism, fleeting ideologies, or disjointed communal action, then we’re going to be sorely disappointed. These aren’t but empty vessels. Please, we must continue to hunger for justice and redistribution, but we can’t put so much stock in ourselves as to think these notions are enough to warrant a governing that substantiates change and wards off pandemonium.

After all, even Ralph begins to forget why the rules were put in place in the first place.

(save us from our ways, oh God, oh God)