Lots of randomness

Here are a bunch of random thoughts for the last couple months. I think I might can offend some people with this one. I hope it is only the truth that offends and not incorrect thinking on my part.

I've taken a bit of break from reading theology, though The Fountainhead is a bit more heady than the typical fiction I enjoy (think Louis L'Amour westerns). It's by Ayn Rand, who was supposedly a pretty big deal. Her most popular work is Atlas Shrugged. I may read it as well, we'll see. I'm still not sure whether I like the book or not (or rather the question should be whether I think it's a good book or not), but I'm only a bit over half way through with it. There's much that I agree with in her worldview (Objectivism), but in the end it all ends up being totally arbitrary just like all other false views. I flatter myself, but in several ways I remind myself of her hero Howard Roark. I remember, at least in my adolescent years and perhaps before, thinking of how I wanted to be and consciously trying to make myself. I only achieved it to a certain degree (thankfully), but I think my goal was not too far from who Roark actually is. Whatever the case, the book definitely makes me contemplate myself. Again whether that's good or bad I'm not sure yet. It makes me either want to kill myself or do something, but never be one of the masses. But enough of that, maybe I'll write more when I finish.

Let's see what else? I've read several of Randy Alcorn's books of late (that's why I'm taking a break from theological books, that's all I've done for about the last 2 months) The first two were Safely Home and Lord Foulgrin's Letters. Here's a copy of my thoughts on them soon after finishing them.

“I just finished Lord Foulgrin's Letters by Randy Alcorn. It is, as he readily admits, a modern book in the vein of CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. While I greatly enjoyed that book last year and thought it had tremendous insight into the temptations I face, I even more heartily enjoyed Lord Foulgrin's Letters. It, just as Safely Home (also by Alcorn), not only brought me to actual tears running down my cheeks (a couple at least), but is extremely motivating . Alcorn appears to be heavily influenced, or at least in great agreement, with John Piper. Piper's theme of Christian hedonism often comes up in the demon's correspondence, and Piper himself is even mentioned by Lord Foulgrin as one whose books the humans must avoid. This is perhaps why I enjoyed and I trust benefited so much from it. While CS Lewis was a brilliant man and writer, I disagree with him on some major theological points that invariably come out in his writing. Lord Foulgrin's Letters and Safely Home are fiction books written from a worldview I agree with and tout the theological ideas that most echo my soul's cries.”

After finishing those I ordered The Purity Principle, Restoring Sexual Sanity, In Light of Eternity; Perspectives on Heaven, and Money, Possessions and Eternity all by Alcorn. The Purity Principle and Restoring Sexual Sanity were both good, In Light of Eternity was okay, but Money, Possessions and Eternity was one of the most influential books I've read. I'd read a very small book of his, The Treasure Principle, that has the same basic premise (Jesus doesn't condemn us for storing up treasure. He condemns us for storing it up where rust destroys and thieves steal - earth. He then commands us to store it up where rust doesn't destroy and thieves can't steal – heaven.), but Money, Possessions and Eternity was so thorough and compelling. Providentially I was reading it right before and on my way to Haiti. Alcorn, or rather Paul's idea from 2 Corinthians 8:14 that “but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality:” could not apply more aptly to the abundance I have and the lack in so many Haitians. Indeed this is why I have been given wealth, not that I can indulge myself or look down on others, but so that I might redistribute it. God certainly could have made all men equal in all things, but then the relationship that can exist between me and a Haitian student who has no means of going to college save the generosity of others, would never be formed. Without the inequality my Haitian brother would not receive the humility of having to ask and depend on others and I would not receive the blessing of giving, prove my heavenly citizenship and have the responsibility of being depended upon. There is so much genius in everything (that may be the most profound thing I've ever said, that and “There's no excuse for disobedience”). I remember hearing Pastor Russ say (I believe referring to something Bavink said in The Doctrine of God) that the universe was as perfect as it could be. This is hard to believe with all the sin and suffering, but only when one has a such small view of God. If, and I maintain that He has to be, God is most concerned with His glory, then the greatest good is for Him to be most glorified, then whatever brings Him the most glory is best, regardless of it's effects on us. And God, again if He is truly God and not an idol we make, could not let anything happen that would not bring Him most glory. So all the sin, all the worst that we can imagine, all the clever sadistic things we do, all the marring of His image, is somehow exactly what must happen to bring God most glory. It may be the glorification of His wrath by seeing justice at last done and every deed repaid, or the the glorification of His love in pouring out His wrath on Christ for our sakes and imputing His righteousness to us. We will all glorify God, it's simply a question of how. Personally I think I am one who will show the breadth and depth of God's grace and love. If He can and does forgive such a sinner as I, who can and will He not forgive? I wonder if some I know will be trophies of His wrath. Men and women much more moral than I, whose lives are not cesspools of sin, who care for others, who speak with the tongues of angels, who give all they have for the sake of the poor, who render up their bodies to be burned, they do all this, but one thing they lack, love and trust in Christ. They will burn forever, an eternal testament to the unquenchable wrath of God, that even these, the best of men, are not righteous enough for God. That's what I've been thinking at least.

I also read To the Golden Shores The Life of Adoniram Judson. He was a missionary to Burma, in fact the first American foreign missionary. It was fantastic. Maybe not the best thing for me since I romanticize all the pain and suffering he went through (it's easy to do when you've never experienced persecution), but I thought it was great. I also began a biography of Hudson Taylor, but couldn't get into it. The writing just sucked. Another excellent book I read was God's Smuggler. It's about Brother Andrew, just a regular guy who smuggled Bibles into communist countries. It borders on mysticism, but I think he just has tremendous faith in God. Our abundance dispels our faith in God because it affords us so many precautions. Yes, I depend on God, but only if I lost my job, then all my savings ran out, then all my friends got tired of me, then the church failed me, the my family turned me out, then the government denied me, then, if all of that happens and only if all that happens, then I'll really pray to God for my daily food. Then I'll really depend on Him. It was so refreshing to read of someone who really trusted in God for everything, money, life, a home, a wife, and God provided. I think, no, I know, that God can be counted on, but I never really give Him the chance to do anything miraculous because I have such abundant natural means. That's an almost unstated premise of Money, Possessions and Eternity, you can give all you've got away like the widow with the two mites, you can give out of your poverty like the Macedonians, we have a God who owns everything. Now I say all this, but don't get the idea that I have done it. I haven't. I want to. I think it'd be amazing. Even if I died of starvation, I think self-starvation for the sake of others would be a great way to go. I get very little encouragement, though in this area. Everyone is quick to talk about what the Bible says about saving and investing and storing up and providing and a whole bunch of other circumstantial or proverbial evidence, but I haven't heard any good exegetical explanations of what the equality of 2 Corinthians 8:14 means besides “the state or quality of” “having the same amount”. Or why the reason we have been made rich is different from the reason God made the Corinthians rich in 2 Corinthians 9:11. I say all this as someone who would love to be convinced that I'm wrong. I love to indulge myself. I love having everything I want. The Canon 5D Mark II looks like an awesome camera. I'd like to have it. The 500/F4 or 600/F4 are both amazing lenses. I'd like to have at least one of them. I am if anything not an ascetic. But I'm also about the most rational person I know, and rationally I just don't see how I can justify it. Honestly I don't see how you justify it either. Oh, I'm not talking to just anyone, but how do you justify it if you honestly believe the Bible? I think it's one of those things that we all feel a bit guilty about because we all suck at giving (even though Paul commands the Corinthians to excel in the grace of giving 2 Corinthians 8:7) so we don't think about it. When the thought does come creeping into our head, we don't rationally justify ourselves, we just think of everybody else who is just as selfish as we are and who also has no rational justification for their indulgence, but has also pushed his guilt to the back of his mind. But enough on that.

Another book I read, quite a while ago but one I never got to write about, was The Five Love Languages. I did enjoy it. I thought it had some good insight, but it also had one glaring omission. His basic premise that we all have our preferential love language is true. His other premise that to express love we must do it in the recipients language, not our own, for it to be received as love is also true. A more general way of stating it is that the the object of affection determines the appropriate means of expressing affection. This is ultimately true of God who is only bound by Himself in how He determines such expression, but also true in human relationships as well, though limited by God's commands (you can't express, even if they want you to, your love to someone by murdering them). Understanding that and the practical helps in determining a person's love language I thought could be very beneficial. In fact the practical examples of couples trying to do that was the best part of the book to me. This whole idea was nothing profound as I had come to the above generalization independently long ago (though that particular phrasing came from Professor Glodo of RTS Orlando where John's going to seminary). So on those points I agree.

His five love languages are words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service and physical touch. Even this I found helpful as I had not really thought of some of those as ways people actually experience love. For example words of affirmation mean little if anything to me. I know what I am. I know what I'm not. Your affirmation or denial of that does nothing to affect the reality of what I am (though I admit I can be wrong about it, in general I think I know myself better than you do). Acts of service also mean fairly little to me. What you did for me I probably could have done for myself, and while I appreciate you doing it, it doesn't communicate love to me. It just says that you like to or at least obediently serve others. Same with gifts. Pretty much anything bought says very little to me. Again, not that I don't appreciate it, but it doesn't say “I love, you” to me. A homemade gift may depending on how much time went into it. This though is because I think of the time value it signifies, which is also why quality time does mean something to me. With my family and with few closest friends, the time we've spent together (whether playing games, doing nothing but talking, driving, camping out, eating, whatever) are what give me a feeling of being loved. Physical touch is also important to me (he explicitly refers to this as non-sexual, which I'll get to later). Those I love I enjoy even just giving and receiving a hug from or fitting five people on a couch. So all of the above I found helpful, and had he written the book with no specific audience, but just a general “This is how you can relate to anyone and everyone better.” then I would think he succeeded. However, every (as far as I can remember) example and case study is of a married couple. Not that I'm saying what he's written doesn't apply to all relationships, but it is clear that the book is targeted at improving the relationship between a husband and wife. Again, nothing wrong with that, but how can you write a book talking about marital love and the ways of speaking it and not talking about sex. It's like talking about communication and the means of communicating through sign language, and letters, and body language and never talking about speaking actual words with your mouth. It is the supreme expression of love in marriage. If you disagree with that, then you're wrong. Oh I'm sure you're being honest when you say that it doesn't feel like the supreme expression of love, but as in everything else, your feelings having absolutely zero bearing on what is true. Deep down everybody knows this, but for whatever reason they don't want to admit it ad try and deny it. Take a married couple for example. A husband doesn't often hide when he's going out to spend quality time with his friends or family (unless of course he's going out to lust or commit adultery, which only proves my point more) nor is the wife usually hurt by this. A husband doesn't hide his affirmations of a friend or coworker (again unless it's an attractive female, which only proves the point again). Nor does a husband hide gifts he gives to friends and family (unless it's an attractive female, which only proves the point yet again). With all of the afore mentioned love languages, you can find examples of where they can and ought to be spoken to those we come in contact with. Not so with sex. It's only supposed to be spoken to one's spouse and when it's spoken to anyone else, whether that a closest friend or a prostitute, there's hell to pay. For most people it's probably the most hurtful thing one can do. This only makes sense if sex is in fact the supreme expression of marital love. Otherwise why can't I go have sex with anyone I want just like I can give someone a word of encouragement or spend quality time with them? Sure, God said I can't and that's sufficient reason enough, but do you really think God's that arbitrary? It's not like if God hadn't said adultery was wrong wives would be fine with their husbands bringing home some hot 20 year-old every night to have sex with in the guest room before he came to sleep them. The reason God has given so many restrictions is because it is supreme. It is the most powerful, both positively and negatively. I really just don't understand why people won't admit what they experientially know.

I hadn't intended on ripping on women, but I think I'm about to. I used to think that women in general were much less selfish than men in general. Maybe that's still true of men and women in general, but as far as good Christians go, men seem much more the ones concerned with pleasing their wives than the wives pleasing their husbands. The Christian men I know who have or are preparing to or even thinking about marriage, have at least somewhat of an understanding of the responsibilities that it evolves. Now certainly they don't have a full understanding but they know that there's more responsibility and in a lot of ways it's going to suck. They can't do whatever they want anymore. They have to sit and listen to things they think are stupid. They have to be patient when she gets offended for no reason. He has to try and explain things that seem self explanatory. He can't buy his favorite toys anymore. He can't spend 12 hours playing computer games. He can't camp out for the whole summer. He can't go backpack for a summer in Europe. I could go on and on about things guys anticipate having to give up when they get married. Some guys aren't willing to give up these things, and I'm sorry that women have become so desperate that they marry guys like that, but the solid Christian guys I know are committed to being a man in their marriage and giving up things, even though in a lot of ways they know it's going to suck. Even the secular “ball and chain” terminology is evidence for it. Guys go into marriage knowing in some ways it's like going to prison. But just as Christ endured the cross “for the joy set before Him.” guys are willing to get married for the joy set before them. That's great. I commend the men I know who love and serve their wives sacrificially. If anybody should, it should be solid Christian men who show the world Christ's sacrificial love. As far as I can tell though, women have no concept of this. From the very beginning it's all about what she'll get, not give. From the pointless waste of an expensive engagement ring to an extravagant wedding ceremony, it's all about how can she be served. You can even tell from the incredible silliness and plain stupidity that girls get when one of them gets engaged that they have no idea of any of this. In the midst of showing off their rock, do they have any idea that they've agreed to enter into the most difficult relationship humanly possible? I don't think so. And here I'm talking about supposedly solid Christian women. With this mindset it's not surprising that in every marriage I know of, it's always the wife whining and complaining about something. How she's not being served. Getting upset for the most childish reasons. It's almost embarrassing when I hear men speak of how their wives act. Unconverted children know better than to behave like that, and here are Christian wives acting like the spoiled kindergarten kid who nobody liked. Of course I can understand her being disappointed when she thought she was entering into a life of get, get, get and now she's being asked to give. Did she really not know that the primary reason guys get married is for sex? It's the “joy set before him”. That's the reason he's willing to deal with all the stuff that makes men think women are stupid.
It's interesting that God doesn't give a whole lot of things for a wife to provide her husband. She's a helpmate, but that's providing help in what he's already doing. She's to provide children, but even then she's got to have a sperm and that's sexually related. She's to be a homemaker, but that's being, not providing. Off the top of my head, the only, or at least the biggest thing, I can think of that she has the responsibility to provide is sex. Obviously good wives could provide more, but the only responsibility is sex. I don't know what Greek word is used so I'm not sure if this applies, but if he who does not provide for his own household is worse than an unbeliever, then what is she who does not provide for her own husband? But besides what the Bible might say, if it's true that the object of affection determines the appropriate means of expressing affection, how many wives are very concerned with how their husbands want them to express their love? Lots I hope, but few I fear.

You may say that I don't really want a wife, I just want a sex slave. Ha. You haven't even begun to understand me. Your right, I do want a sex slave, but not merely a sex slave. I want a slave in every area of life. And not just a slave, but one who is joyfully committed and obsessed with making me happy. And not only is that what I want but it's the only thing I would accept. Now before you condemn me for an egotistical maniac, isn't that what the call to marriage is? Isn't that what love is? As Piper said, “overflowing joy in God that gladly meets the needs of others.” That's all I want is to be loved. Someone who has such joy in God that it overflows and happily meets my needs. And if I ever say “I do” I won't simply be saying “I do agree to marry you” but that I'm committed to joyfully and obsessively make you happy, regardless of the cost to me for the rest of my life. That is the only true marriage. It's not my view that disgraces marriage, but any and every other view.

I'd say this is probably the biggest reason I'll never marry. Very few women would I accept, and even fewer would accept me. So basically you've got a very small probability times a very small probability which results in an incredibly small probability. Only at times is this troubling. As wonderful as marriage is in my imagination, there's no actual physical marriage I've ever seen that I'm envious of. That is a shame. Not just for me, but for Christendom - that Christians can put nothing forward that is enviable or encouraging. When Jonathan Edwards was dying, he wrote a letter to his wife (who to be so praised by Jonathan Edwards, must herself have had an incredible disposition of holiness) about their “uncommon union” that was so sweet it must have been of a spiritual nature and would exist in heaven. But, I am talking about Jonathan Edwards, so who am I to suppose that I could have such a union. I have a half finished blog about the many reasons I won't marry. If I finish it I'll post it.

On my trip to Haiti I also wrote my obituary. I think it a healthy exercise and recommend it to you all. Apparently Alfred Nobel, who before coming up with the Nobel Peace Prize, had made his fortune inventing or marketing dynamite. At his brother's death, a village accidentally printed Alfred's obituary. It condemned him for growing rich on death and destruction. After seeing this it dramatically changed the course of his life and we have the Nobel Peace Prize due in large part to this change. What follows is mine.

William Seth Walters March 22, 1980 to March 1, 2009. Survived by his parents and siblings. Seth was one of the supreme examples of those who “have done so little with so much.” Marked by pride, arrogance and selfishness, he lived his life with little if any regard for the thoughts, feelings and needs of others. His distorted view of God's sovereignty made him almost totally apathetic to the conditions of others, though he himself basked in God's good providences. He did virtually no good for the cause of Christ. His Christianity was primarily of an intellectual and philosophical type with little affect on the way he lived. He is almost certainly in heaven now, but has almost just as certainly suffered incredible loss when before Christ he was shown the massive amounts of wasted time, talents, possessions and opportunities that could have been used for the sake of Christ. He would have been a great man if his selfishness had been eternally rather than earthly minded, or if he had followed through on any of his untold number of good intentions. The only lesson one can take from his life is if God was willing to save one such as he, surely He can save one such as you.

Part of writing that was was also due to reflecting on my upcoming birthday. It is, even for me, hard to believe that I am now twenty-nine years old. It seems like yesterday that I was thinking about thirty being so far away. It seems like the last decade has been just a blink, and I could well believe it, seeing as can't think of anything that I can genuinely look back on with pride in these last ten years, but alas, I am sure there have been ten years, each with 365.25 days for me just as for everyone else. And yet despite the gloom of the past, for what may be the first time ever, I feel some real motivation to live. The motivation I've had in the past has for the most part been, “I'm alive so I might as well live for something or at least do something to occupy the time and this seems as good as anything else.” but I wouldn't call it real motivation. It's in large part due to Alcorn's books and the more full understanding of heaven I've gotten from them. The biggest being that heaven won't be the same for everyone. There'll be levels there just as in hell. Some will rule, some will be ruled. Some will have great treasure, some will have none. Now what all this treasure will be used for and what type and size of mansion we'll each have, I still don't know, but just using the word treasure means it's a good thing. As of right now I don't have much treasure. I want a lot of treasure. You can try and be all holier than thou and say that you don't care about treasure, but it's Jesus who tells us to store up treasure in heaven and gives us the motivation. Even more so than this however is in thinking about experiencing fullness of joy in God in heaven. Obviously everyone there will be full of joy, but the capacity or size of the container will be different. Right now I think it would take about a teaspoon to give me “fullness of joy” while with men like Paul, Edwards, Brainerd, McCheyne and Piper, God will have to empty out the oceans to fill them. I want to have my capacity stretched. To be honest, I want it to be stretched to the limits of what God allows the human heart to be stretched. I imagine this must be painful, as any stretching is, and suffering is the key. It's so hard to voluntarily suffer though. Richard Wurmbrand, author of Tortured for Christ, said something to the extent of ninety-five percent of Christians pass the test of suffering while ninety-five percent of Christians fail the test of prosperity. I have thus far definitely failed the test of prosperity. Coming from someone who spent fourteen years in prison, that is somewhat comforting hearing that I would likely pass the test of suffering if presented with it. But it's so hard to suffer when you don't have to. We, and me more than most, are such slaves to our comfort. Really, that's what it is. We are in bondage to our own ease. I can't do this because it would hurt. I can't do that because I'd be uncomfortable. For all our talk about money giving us freedom to do this and that, I think it keeps us from doing more than it enables us. When John Wesley was told that his house had burned down, after careful contemplation he said, “The one I have been living in belongs to the Lord, and if it has burned down, that is one less responsibility for me to worry about.” I want that attitude. By God's grace I shall have it.

Sorry for the randomness, just had a bunch of stuff I wanted to put down on paper.