The Agony and the Epiphany

"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." - John 17:18

"And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one..." (v.22)

An experience a Christian should encounter at some point is a crisis in one's life when a decision means a conflict of feeling. One day there will be a drive and will to do something that both has the potential to bring great joy and repute and at the same time great suffering and infamy. It is a decision of the cross, and a decision to live like Christ.

When the tears flow from a knowing heart and you wrestle with the fear of never gripping the peace you thought you once had, you will also know then that all powers of earthly life and death cannot wrangle from you the greatest joy and hope you have ever experienced in mortal life.

You will know the awful thing that is to come and you know that your loving Father knows; but that will not stop
the agony
and the epiphany
of eternal glory

Award Winning Towel Tossing

Sometimes I hold off on watching films that the general populace regards as brilliantly done, yesterday I finally sat down and watched "Million Dollar Baby", the Clint Eastwood film about a grizzled trainer who reluctantly takes on a girl to train up as a serious boxer. Hollywood deemed fit to award best director, best actress, best supporting actress and best film academy awards to this work and I thought what the heck, it has to be half decent. Coming from Hollywood, I should have known better. What I ended up watching was a schmaltzy comedy.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

The film culminates in a celebrated defense of euthanasia, where Clint Eastwood's character is seemingly redeemed through rebellion against the church and is martyred for the cause of his trainee Maggie's wish for a "fight out of life, much as she got into it". The result is a twisted and deluded conception about what is valuable in life, who your life belongs to and about truly fighting to win.

My issue is not primarily here with the larger question of euthanasia, I have issues myself with the difference between killing and letting die, and the gnarly question of when to pull the plug is not really my point of contention. What I will talk about certainly leads into an anti-euthanasia stance, the main point of discussion however, regards a Christian attitude about life.

In the film there were some very clear and sad misconceptions about the value of life and what it means to have a quality of life. In my mind, one short monologue pretty much sums up the entire deluded story,

"I can't be like this frankie,not after what I've done, I've seen the world, people chanted my name, hell, not my name, some damn name you gave me, they were chanting for me, I was in magazines, you think i'd ever dream that happen? I was born pounds / ounces, daddy used to tell me i'd fight to get into this world, and i'd fight my way out, that's all i wanna do frankie, i just dont want to fight you to do it,I got what i needed..."

1. Your Life Isn't Yours.

Somewhere in popular culture we derived the myth, probably from champions of metaphysical free-will, secular existentialism, and generally speaking long before then, human pride and arrogance, that we are the champions of our own destiny, that our souls are ours to barter with, that we are the masters of our own domain. The truth is, the human soul is borrowed capital. Everything we own is borrowed. Our bodies are borrowed. Everything we are as human beings is borrowed,

Ezekiel 18:4 reads, "Behold all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."

We have been loaned, and are responsible for, everything...including this planet, of which we are supposed to be stewards. Saying, "I don't want to live any longer" is fine, we all feel like that sometimes. Deciding to destroy yourself because you don't like the deal you have been dealt or more likely dealt yourself, is not an option. It is like a laborer complaining about his backhoe not working properly and summarily firebombing it. He's going to be fired. Literally.

Maggie fought to get into the world, certainly. But hypothetically speaking, God let her into it, and it wouldn't have happened any other way. You're here because somewhere down the line, God wants you here and cares about your existence.

2. Life Isn't About You

It's terribly disturbing and downright offensive to us human beings that as part of our subordinate position to God, that life isn't about us. In fact, contrary to the health and wealth gospel you commonly hear from televangelists, God really isn't primarily interested in your happiness. Happiness is a product of circumstance, God is interested in your joy, which is linked to an eternal satisfaction in Him, in His purity and eternal love. Jesus said "My peace I leave with you" I'm tempted to argue that we leave out the last part, "not as the world gives".

God cares about your dreams, but a great many of them that pass through the minds of the human race, He isn't interested in fulfilling. God isn't interested in your vision for a better world, or how you think you would best be of service, or what you seem to think your best talent in life is, or how perfectly situated you are to do this or that. He is interested in His plan. His is best.

Maggie's character recollects the joy of being famous, of having people "chanting my name" and being known as a great boxer. That's nice. Excel in something, great. But if the source of value in life has no derivative value in God, then it has no value at all. It is meaningless, and passes away like everything else. Nothing really changes. Solomon saw this years ago. (see Ecclesiastes).

Worse still, Maggie's despair over having once been famous resonates with the temptation of Christ from the devil. It was Satan who promised the world to Jesus if he would but worship him. Jesus refused, quoting scripture and saying "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." Jesus had his priorities straight, he was headed for eternity, and entirely uninterested in the false glitter of a world passing away in sin. Maggie said "I've seen the world" and despaired because as a paralytic she couldn't see it anymore. Jesus saw the world and pitied it.

The truly tragic aspect of the film is that Swank and Eastwood's characters have found a true father and daughter relationship, that could have continued. Many individuals would long for companionship, even from a person unable to walk or care for themselves, and the joy and life so evident in the relationship they had with each other was thrown aside by the callous request of Maggie to throw it away. It mystifies me as to how someone could script such a film based around the value of human relationships and the need for forgiveness and reconciliation, only to suggest in the end that personal fame and power are really what determine quality of life.

3. Perseverance & Fighting is About Adapting Through Defeat and Adversity

You can hear that Kierkegaardian despair in Maggies' voice at the start of the monologue,

"I can't be like this Frankie, not after what I've done, I've seen the world, people chanted my name"

Ah, yes, the despair of not wanting to be oneself. When we see ourselves with spiritual honesty we see a dead thing, an ugly and powerless creature, paralyzed by sin, and we have a decision to make- to despair and look away, living in ignorance, or to boldly approach Christ in humility and repent. Hilary Swank's character Maggie cannot face what she has become. She cannot accept her paralyzed condition, and opts to terminate her own existence. She claims that she will fight to get out of life: yes she is fighting, but out of despair. Her fight is now against the fight itself because she has given up. Her first words are "I can't"; it is the voice of a quitter, not a champion.

Hence what is supposed to be a heroic-tragic character becomes a comical one. The idiotic contradiction of a relentless prizefighter giving up on life is the only thing that really adds anything unique to the film. It's uniqueness is truly born out of stupidity.

How many people, how many films have we rightly praised as worthy of our admiration because a hero or heroine chose to beat the odds, even after grave setbacks? Is it unchained victory that makes the hero a role model, or is it his perseverance of character?

Imagine Arnold Schwartzenegger, at the prime of his powers, winning a thousand wrestling matches with drooling preschoolers; would this be worthy of celebration? Does he possess a heroic character?

Now what about a young shepherd boy, against the advice of his entire nation, faces a huge armoured giant with nothing more than a sling? That takes character. That is, at least at the level of personal character, heroic.

A hallmark of heroic performance is by dutiful necessity facing odds that are impossible with resolute determination. Human history celebrates and remembers better the defeated who stood with courage. The 300 Spartans at Thermopylae are proof of that.

I am not fooled by Maggie's initial heroic start: a girl, discriminated against and mocked for wanted to pursue her dream. The plot is engineered to at first create sympathy and genuine heroic interest for Maggie. But in the end, she proves a mediocre character, no better than any other man or woman.

It is easy to pursue relentlessly a dream when it is in our own interest, when we have a fantasy that is all about us, when we're all about getting our own way, when the knockouts keep coming with our efforts. But what makes a heroic character is what he or she does when things DONT go his or her way. When the battle goes against you, do you surrender? When you fail a test, do you leave the course? When somebody else beats you, do you quit? When you can't do what you want anymore, do you throw in the towel? When you can't work your way out of it, can you rely on grace? When you don't succeed, do you try again?

God is constantly calling us into situations which challenge our conception of who we think we are, who we think we should be and what we think we should be doing. The Christian believer, when rightly grounded, finds his or her meaning, purpose and joy in doing the will of God. These two facts combined make the Christian an impossible enemy to conquer. Islam, for example may conquer a decadent and godless west, that I can conceive. That Islam, or any other force on earth could conquer Christ or a Christian, that I laugh at.

Conclusion

In prison or in freedom, in a hospital bed or at the gym, on his knees or standing upright, the person grounded in God always has a reason for living, and for living joyfully. The pagan may fight for heroism, the heathen religious may fight for his salvation, but the Christian fights for God for the sheer pleasure of doing so; and I'm fighting to win.

"For a righteous man falls seven times and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity." Proverbs 24:16

"...Run in such a way that you may win. And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way as not beating the air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." 1 Cor. 9:24-27

Coming Clean versus Copping Out

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self indulgence! You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." (Matthew 23:25-26)

1. This was Jesus Christ, speaking to the Jewish religious leaders, the Pharisees about their preoccupation with all appearances of good and righteous conduct. Through a great many added laws and moral prescriptions these leaders thought they had achieved good standing in the eyes of God. They cleaned up the outer appearance, but the inner remained filthy.

Jesus denounced their blind rule following as not only the wrong way to righteousness, but also utter hypocrisy: the Pharisees frequently performed their man-made rules at the cost of true morality. Any honest or dishonest lawyer can tell you that simply the correct application of law does not at all necessarily entail morality or justice.

The Pharisees denial of Jesus as the Messiah, or the Saviour, came from their other commitment. They had a strong commitment to a standard of righteousness which had been invented by themselves and their forefathers the rabbis. It touched their conduct, true enough, but it did not result in morality and more importantly, it did not resurrect their souls from sin.

2. "And when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."

Pontius Pilate washed his hands of Jesus Christ, literally, as well as figuratively. When the Jewish mob threatened to riot (John 19:12) if Jesus were not crucified, Pilate gave in. He was unwilling to stir the Emperor's wrath nor have an unruly lot on his hands, so he knowingly condemned an innocent man (Matt 27:23, John 18:38).

Pilate knew that Jesus was no ordinary man, but his denial of Christ was a decision to remain agnostic. Jesus said to Pilate, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears My voice." In response to the living example of the "Way the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6), Pilate responded, "What is truth?" (John 18:38). In Christ's wrongful execution, as well as in response to Christ's claims to be God in the flesh, Pilate attempted to cast off the decision.

But there is no such thing as agnosticism with Jesus. The words, made famous by former president George W. Bush were actually spoken by another "tyrant" first: Jesus Christ. "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with me, scatters." (Matt 12:30)

Pontius Pilate did not wash his hands of Jesus, he denied Jesus.

3. "...There was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, and standing behind Him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the heair of her head, and kissing His feet, and anointing them with the perfume." (Luke 7:37-38)

This unnamed "immoral woman" from the gospel of Luke had the gall to approach Jesus in the home of a Pharisee no less. This was most certainly not kosher. A great many things could be said about how this woman behaved toward Jesus: gratitude, tenderness, humility, submission; all of these certainly. However, the end result is what I am interested in here, and that is love.

As a result, Jesus tells the woman her sins are forgiven, that she is saved and she may "go in peace" (Luke 7:48, 50).

Conclusion

The Pharisees tried to clean themselves, as did Pilate; but the sinner washed Jesus' feet in humiliating repentance. The Pharisees were condemned, and Pilate executed Christ, but the woman was saved. There is another great washing in the New Testament I have not mentioned: Christ washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:5), and at first Peter is reluctant to be considered worthy of the honour.

The lesson I draw from all these washings is that Jesus is willing to wash me; if I would but only be willing to admit that He alone can make me truly clean.

A Communique from Zombieland

Zombieland (2009) is, suffice to say, not a family film; but I was struck by its surprising moral undercurrent. In the last ten years or so, the idea of zombie hordes overrunning the planet has achieved greater cultural interest in North America. The numerous films, varying in budget, have captured the imagination of especially teenagers and twenty somethings. I can't give you any great stats to back up this claim, its just something I've been noticing over the years and I am willing to bet you have too...if you at all have any interest in the horrific idea of undead zombie hordes devouring the living; and not just in film.

In fact, some books have detailed with meticulous interest and disturbing, albeit fictional, hypothetical accuracy, tongue in cheek scenarios for survival ("Zombie Survival Guide") and worldwide catastrophe ("World War Z"). Marvel Comics has released zombie themed issues, and Jane Austen's (1775-1817) Pride and Prejudice (1813) has been parodied in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2009).

I'm not sure about this next claim, but it would seem to me that zombification of the entire world is being given far more careful attention, detail and marketing than the classic 'B' movies of yesteryear. Maybe you horror buffs can correct me if I'm wrong.

Zombie films I have seen have a strong moral (or rather amoral) undertone. A world overrun by zombies is a world that has totally lost its "humanity". Nobody is innocent, nothing is sacred, survival is everything. The moral dilemmas presented by wasting zombies who were formerly family members or those commonly regarded as "the innocent" of society is frequently an issue; (as well as an excuse to create some dramatic tension).

Ironically, the greatest threat to survival comes not from the zombie hordes, but from the fellow living. (SPOILERS AHEAD) George A Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978) illustrates this by the scavenging gang of thugs which finally dismantle the relative safety and comfort of survivors holed up in a shopping mall. In Zombieland, betrayal is commonplace, though the zombies themselves pose marginal threat themselves to intelligent and sensibly cautious wanderers.

Concurrently, both films contain radical critiques of the stupidity and emptiness of material culture. Woody Harrelson's character craves a Twinkie snack cake but in a world of endless material goods he is willing to smash anything to curb his frustrations. In "Dawn of the Dead" the zombies putter stupidly around the mall doing as they had done as the living. What results is a thinly veiled but powerful critique of consumerism. In a world of survival, the stuff of great worth is utterly devalued and rendered comically meaningless.

The zombie phenomenon is worth great cultural examination: it is a symbol of the current 20th-21st century post-modern wasteland in which we live. It is the nihilism after the great failure of secular existentialism to re-value all values. It's cynicism is the bitter but sober and truthful disbelief of the humanist hucksters who would sell us false bases for our, or nature's supposed intrinsic worth.

The zombie wasteland takes no prisoners. There is no rank, no wealth, no great hero, but simply a tragic-comical waste of human life and existence combined with wanton bloodshed. The shotgun and chainsaw become the weapons of a generation frustrated, bored and only too eager to take up arms to a worthy cause- so long as it is not classified as murder (killing the living).

But zombie films are also about re-discovery - and redemption. In "Zombieland", "28 Days Later" (2002) and "Dawn of the Dead" we see people banding together. In a world that no longer has the blind optimism of modernism, but has seen the ugliness of blind postmodernism, human relationships and the spiritual moral law seem to pop up with new strength. One can bury the dead, but one can't bury what isn't dead. What isn't dead is the human spirit, absolute moral law and the drive to selfless deeds. Where "Columbus" in Zombieland formerly had a personal survival law to "Don't be a hero" he realizes that to save the emo-hot chick and forsake his "World of Warcraft" dominated life, he must adapt and overcome, he must "Be a hero". Where formerly the party knew only cutthroat cold indifference, they learned to band together as family.

No zombie film I know ends with a perfect fairy tale ending, there is one bloody awful mess left in the wake of the metaphorical "disaster" (postmodern death, nuclear annihilation, new world order etc.). This is an ugly world. It is bloody, it is sexually perverse and violating, it is horrific, and full of demonic threats.

The hard but necessary realization? We have done it. The good news? Not even the age of "non-supernatural" zombies (zombies resulting from viruses or some even more ridiculous nonsense than the occult explanation) can eradicate the supernatural order underlying all things.

The message is, don't let yourself be found as the walking dead; in the words made famous by one zombie smasher, "Hail to the King baby."

Instr. for Revolution 4: Get Intel

If you've gathered no intel and are already “shooting” you've adapted the ludicrous Hollywood-style strategy a friend of mine likes to call the “S.A.C.” or “Scream and Charge” strategy. I have news for you, this only works if you have some idea what is waiting for you on the other side. You might think this is pretty obvious for a battle, though it is far less obvious for human relationships. In attempting to win the friendship or good will of persons who have repeatedly repulsed your advances, spoken ill of you and have no respect for you; dropping by for a random visit or a giant bear hug are probably going to be heavy handed 'weapons' for winning them over. The result may be about as pretty as charging a machinegun nest across an open field.

What do we look for against our tyrannies? Vulnerabilities. The random drop by is only going to work on a needy person, a vulnerable person, a person willing to genuinely admit “defeat” (wrongness, illegal actions or what have you.). It is no coincidence that Jesus won souls from those who were willing to admit they were “sick”, He didn't come to heal the healthy (the self-righteous, the spiritually rebellious, the spiritually “undefeated”) but rather the sick.

It is necessary therefore, to be sensitive to persons, to listen to the data, hear the recon, listen to the reports etc and appraise where your enemy stands. Remember that you do not need to annihilate an enemy to win the battle. Seeking out vulnerabilities is not to destroy and enslave your tyrant, that would again, merely be to make oneself a tyrant in his place. Seeking out vulnerabilities in personal relationships is not for the purpose of exploiting them cruelly. Listening to information and using it to pull someone out of deception and delusion is one thing, listening to information and maybe embellishing it to everybody else is another.

Similarly, utterly destroying an enemy's army by means of tactical maneuver from good intelligence is not cruel, it is simply good fighting. Even a defeated soldier can respect, in principle, the superior strategem of his enemy (should it have been the genuine cause of defeat).

Gloating likewise, is worthless. Fighting for bragging rights is the stuff of unruly schoolboys, and even invites the judgement of providence. Superior strategem does not always win over time and chance, which are far more powerful. Khan's army sank before it reached China. Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by the Russian winter. A host of historical horrors should be enough to hold the haughty in humility.

The bottom line is this: get intelligence about your enemy and take it seriously. Don't let arrogance, sentimentality, emotions or memories of the past lead you into terrible defeats. Listen to everyone, even your opponent may give away a hint about his or her weaknesses. Take counsel and advice. Listen to everybody, but do not trust everybody. And remember, you are gaining knowledge to destroy tyranny, not to take it over.

Inst. for Revolution 3: Don't be Defeated Early

You will probably succumb at first to the temptation, in your moral outrage, to use the wrong weapons for the task. It is human to become angry for combat; but combat is best waged without the heat of emotion and rather with the coolness of calculation and cunning. For interpersonal relationships, anger against tyranny all too frequently results in an unwarranted escalation of force. Using the wrong kind of force has the potential to weaken or even destroy your cause, or at least to destroy its credibility.

For example, those wishing to impose a supposed moral Sharia Law upon a people, and these same people attempting to achieve this end by suicide bombings on women and children must be treated as fundamentally deranged in their thinking.

But just as some weapons are categorically wrong for the wrong kind of battle, so also can some weapons be unproductive, inhuman(e) or cruel. Strangely enough, even some weapons of physical warfare bear this stigma, such as anti-personnel mines (landmines) or chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, suicide attacks, torture. By contrast, in relationships these categorically 'cruel' weapons are used all the time: threats, insults, lies, gossip etc. In politics; blackmail, lies, smear campaigns. In spiritual battles; lies, intimidation, threats, temptations, accusations, discouragements and so on. If you resort to these weapons, you are perpetuating the tyranny. Life is full of combat, but there are ways to fight, and there are ways not to fight. Don't let your moral outrage turn into a vicious revenge. Even if you win, you have lost.

You will probably also succumb at various points to the temptation to despair. One of the best, most common, and most rotten ways evil uses to defuse attacks against itself is simply convincing others or the attacker himself that he or she is the evil one. One of the greatest ways of achieving this is to make pretences of peacefulness and then accuse the opponent of perpetuating the conflict when he or she refuses to accept a compromise with an untenably evil state of affairs. To word this again differently, the enemy will pretend to be your friend or have your interests at stake when really they have none, and when you refuse to compromise, they will attempt to make you look like the bad guy. Terrorists (Hamas), communists (Mao) and fascists (Hitler) have been pulling this for years, being diplomatic with one handshake and firmly clasping a dagger in the other hand.

I have always loved Ezra 4 as an illustration of how evil operates. The enemy will always try to identify his evil with your cause, appearing to put you on similar ground (destroying the purity of your values and thus attempting to undermine your will to fight). If that fails, they will resort to any amount of lies, intimidation, threats and fear mongering to destroy your morale.

This is why when one enters into combat with tyranny, the firmness of one's values must be continually remembered. “It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not good and clean, you will hesitate in the moment of truth.” as the foul mouthed Sergeant Hartman says in Full Metal Jacket. He's right. If you don't know why you're there, or your commitment is weak, you're already finished. The enemy will find its way into your mind, defuse your will to fight and you will fail.

Furthermore, if you start the fight thinking that it is merely a disagreement, and not combat, you are really in for a world of hurt (see: “The Little Black Book of Violence”). Your enemy has probably “killed” before, he's a tyrant after all. Don't lose your stomach when the fight isn't cordial or pretty anymore, when the enemy then accuses you of being the malicious monster “he always knew you were after all”. It is a scare tactic designed to throw you off your game, and you off his back. Your enemy is trying to “kill” you (control you, exploit you, enslave you, whatever the tyranny may be), don't kid yourself. Combat is not the time for hesitation. Bring out your appropriate and/or sanctioned "weapons", stand your "ground", establish your "beachhead".

Instructions for Revolution: 2. Choose Your Weapons Carefully

The sparks of revolution are predicated by moral outrage and/or despair. The unreasonableness and outright immorality of tyranny reach a fever pitch, provoking the oppressed and/or offended party to action. This is when “violence” begins.

In speaking about the kingdom of heaven and the tyranny of the Old Testament Law, Jesus said,

“...from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John (Matt 11:12-13, See also Luke 16:16).” Jesus was speaking on the one hand, about the pharisees, who had been trying to force their way into the kingdom of heaven through their personal righteousness, by trying to obey the prophets and the Law. But Jesus Himself denied that it was possible to reach the kingdom of heaven with the righteousness of the pharisees. On the other hand, Jesus was speaking about the violence with which His true followers were entering the kingdom of heaven. Martin Luther, the spiritual reformer, spoke of the aggression and boldness with which the Christian was able to enter the Kingdom of God due to the death and resurrection of Christ, the violence, he might say, of entering the kindgom of God by grace through faith alone. As Ephesians 3:12 states, “we have boldness and confident access through faith in Christ.”

The lesson here in particular is the kind of violence being used. You cannot access spiritual victory over tyranny by means of physical, emotional or mental labours. Just as you cannot be reborn or have a revolution into a new system by means of a likewise tainted source, neither will corruption overcome corruption. The project of the pharisees therefore would inevitably end in failure. Using the law to combat spiritual death was a lesson in futility. It is incomparably absurd, like literally trying to destroy a tank with a team of lawyers; what we would call a categorical error. Violence must be of the right degree, as well as the right kind if it is to end tyranny.

Jesus knew the right weapon against the power of death: Himself. When accused (unjustly) of being the 'rule of demons', Jesus simply stated that if Satan was casting out his own demons, his kingdom of death would not stand (Matt12:26). With His miracles and status as the incarnate God, Jesus indicated that He Himself was not just a force against the tyranny of sin and death, but also the only 'weapon' against such forces,

"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's home and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters (Matt 12:28-30)."

If this were anybody but God in the flesh, I guarantee you he'd be another tyrant, amongst other not so good things. It's no coincidence that then Jesus stated the consequence of forsaking the Spirit of God as sure damnation (Matt 12:31). Crudely put, if you discard your only effective weapon against a deadly threat, annihilation is only a matter of time.

My point is this, you must accurately appraise the kind of threat being posed by the tyranny you face. Is it physical, mental, emotional, spiritual? Is it other or self or both? A tyranny may in fact pose a threat to all of these, but the tyranny itself, the source of the tyranny must be identified and uprooted. Sometimes it is necessary to uproot one tyranny before dismantling another. It is quite common that before spiritual, mental or emotional liberation can occur, physical safety or health is necessary. But this is not always the case. Once you know what you are destroying, then you know what to pick up, the pen, the Bible, the rifle, or a plate of cookies.

It is my belief that spiritual tyranny is the root cause of all tyranny. This kind of tyranny cannot be directly combatted by any other means than the gospel. However, there are now other moral challenges and realities we must face in a world devastated by human moral failure and rebellion against the rulership of God. Spiritual death has afflicted every part of human existence; there is now also a moral imperative that there are mouths to feed, broken hearts to nurture, minds shattered and helpless people to protect. To ignore one is to ignore another. But that's a topic for an entirely different post.

Hoped you enjoyed this slice. More to follow.