On Heaven as it is on Earth

“On Heaven as it is on earth.”

I do recognize that this is a direct misquotation of the Lord’s Prayer. Forgive me for that.   I hope this is in no way sacrilegious or dishonoring to the magnificence and glory that we will surely one day encounter in heaven.  But I think it is a pretty powerful thought.  Let me explain.

The other night—a sleepless one, where there was nothing in particular restraining me from sleep, yet a continuous sequence of nothings rendering the fading hope of a little kip as elusive as a vanishing cloud under the burning summer sun—I found myself visiting a blog that I had read through just over a year ago.  Many, to be sure, may have also been exposed to the incredible journey of Katie Davis—a 21-year old adoptive mother of 13 little Ugandan daughters, founder of Amazmia Ministries, currently (and most permanently) living in Uganda.  Along with thousands of others, I have at times been quite drawn to her bold story of love, sacrifice, obedience, and blessing.  At 19 years of age, she left home, her boyfriend, everything she knew, and took on the role of Mommy to 3 precious little girls.  I don’t mean to glamorize her life, or exonerate her sacrifice above any other.  I certainly don’t think everyone needs to move to Africa (not to mention, alone) and adopt 13 children, but I do think her example is living proof that we can give EVERYTHING to God.  Absolutely everything.  Nothing could ever be too much.  Katie’s life is so completely full.  Every day is a mission field.  Every day seems to hold incredible adventures, blessings, and trials.  Yet, in some ways, her life is even normal.  She loves her daughters as they love her, they read stories together—laugh, play, get sick, get better, and eat dinner together.  I imagine Katie even has days, just like I do—where we wake up (or lie awake) and think—“What in the world am I doing here?”  I am sure there are, or have been, days where Katie wanted to quit.  I am sure there have been times where her heart felt like it was ripped out of her chest, where the hurt was so deep or loneliness was so great that even breathing became a chore.  And then, there may have been times where her heart maybe even felt numb, or almost desensitized to the world moving around her.  I am sure there are days Katie almost talked herself into packing up and moving home—that her sacrifices there weren’t really needed, or that perhaps the easier road was really where God wanted her.  (I realize I am speaking for her quite a bit here, but even the Savior of the world asked God to “take this cup from [him].”)  But then, looking at the pictures of Katie, surrounded by her loving, precious, happy family—I thought of how incredible it will be one day, when all of those souls are gathered around her in heaven and are no longer her adopted children, saved by grace after enduring trials we have never even imagined, but they will be whole creations, at one with her in the Creator.  I thought of her whole family in a mansion grander than any on this earth.  I thought of the love and fullness that Katie and her family would experience in heaven because of their obedience, sacrifices, and love here on this earth.  And I prayed for a second, “Lord, on earth as it is on heaven…”  And that is when it clicked.  

Bounce back.

Almost 3 years ago, I went on my first study-tour to the Near East with George DeJong.  We actually began our journey in Egypt, and worked our way over to the Sinai Peninsula, through Jordan, and up to Israel.  We followed the journey of the Hebrews as they were taken out of captivity in Egypt and in to the Promised Land.  A year later, I joined Ray Vander Laan on a trip through Israel and Turkey.  There, on the rugged Turkish hills—land forgotten and unnoticed by most “visitors” to the country, land that our feet came to know so well, and land that taught me so much about the story of our God and His people—I remember a small little faith lesson that I believe was a bit unplanned (as so many of Mr. Ray’s are).  I think we had passed a bit of trash on the road, or—given the scorching desert heat—perhaps his stance on global warming came in to question.   But I remember he was commenting on our role as Christians to be good stewards of the land, the earth.  He said that we had been given dominion here to rule over the resources God placed here in a way that would honor and glorify the Creator.  Now—this particular concept was not necessarily new news, as I had been working for a youth mountain hiking ministry in Colorado for the previous 7 summers.  There I developed an appreciation for the land and learned about our relationship with the natural world—the Creator, and His creation.  Mr. Ray also told us how diligently the Hebrews would work and tend to their land.  They saw their land as God’s charge to them and their purpose would be fulfilled in the honor with which they tended the land.  They would pass on their fields generation to generation, always hoping to leave the land better, more fertile for the future generations.  

But what Mr. Ray said next was new.  It did bring entirely new light to my idea of Godly Purpose on this earth.  He said that part of the reason the Hebrews were so diligent in their tending of the land was because of their dutiful commitment to their God-given dominion over the earth, but another aspect was a result of their their understanding of the Covenant.  Part of God’s promise to Abraham was certainly referring to a Promised Land land flowing with milk and honey, where they would not be enslaved.  But the other Hebraic understanding included the comprehension of a place to serve God, and then extend His kingdom.  Each square foot of land that the ancient Jews would work, was a square foot of land that had been reconciled to God.  The Jews thought of their service as literally bringing down the Kingdom of heaven, in accordance with the ancient prayer, “on earth as it is in Heaven.”  

And I have never been one to “get into” end times studies or even postulate too extensively or concretely on the reality of heaven, but this next discussion made a lot of sense to me.  Mr. Ray said that perhaps (just perhaps—always only a suggestion), there wasn’t a new place that we would ascend to in order to enjoy eternity, but maybe this earth was really it.  Maybe this earth was also part of the “all things reconciled to Him…” from II Corinthians 5, or from Acts 13, “Repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of the restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.”  

God’s ordained Words, the very Words of God—a period of restoration, not recreation.  

We will dwell on the new earth—yet, perhaps not an entirely new world or some floating pearly city in the sky. 

And this realization gave me a renewed sense of purpose.  The work I do here is actually aiding in the restoration and reconciliation of “all things.”  Under this interpretation, I can participate in the ushering in of the new earth.   I can be a part of that force that Rv. 21 refers to as the new Jerusalem descends like a bride on this earth.   

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”  (Rv. 21.2)

What we do really matters.   This understanding makes the purpose of God’s creation, salvation, and reconciliation so much more relevant and immediate.  I can be a part of this “on earth as it is on heaven.”

***Disclaimer:  I am not saying the above is necessarily “correct” Biblical interpretation, but I am merely suggesting (per Mr. Ray) that this is perhaps a layer of how we can understand Heaven, earth, and our place there within.

Which is where I jump back to Miss Katie’s story.  She is doing it.  For her, it is happening.  She is ushering in the grace of God and the reconciliation intended for us all.  She is serving with the diligence, determination, and immediacy that the descent of the new Jerusalem and the establishment of the new earth will require of us. In going back to her blog to confirm a few details for this post, I noticed for the first time that the tab of her blogspot reads "on earth as it is in heaven."  My heart is pricked with the ironic confirmation of her work.  In her daily, constant, loving, tried, and true efforts, Katie is partnering in God's story to bring a piece/peace of heaven to this earth.  And even now, the truth is evident--in so many ways, her world already resembles what I envision to be the nature of heaven.  How cool is that. For Katie, perhaps it may be “in Heaven as it is on earth.”

And maybe, someday, for me as well.

Thanks for reading.  Stay Dusty.

*b.Nicole

**Disclaimer:  If I have misrepresented the views of either Katie Davis or Mr. Ray Vander Laan, please feel free to let me know (if you are either of these two--highly unlikely!!, if you were there, or if you can provide me with the correct details from a reliable source).  Gracias.

Freedom is as Freedom does.

What is Freedom?

It was my third hour in the less-than glamorous La Guardia Airport just outside New York City. After exhausting all installed distractions and attractions in the single corridor of the LGA terminal, I found my departure gate and dipped in to my “Mary Poppins Bag” to find some distractions of my own. After MadLibs got old by my lonesome, I had wasted enough doodles on my 3-D notepad, and the malfunctioning fire alarm system siren had kept me from reading, I gave up my activity-driven occupiers, and settled in with some thumb-twiddling and people-watching. But with over an hour left before Elite and Assisted boarding began—which I was not--I used a lifeline and “phoned a friend.”

The conversation turned rapidly from a brief recap of my trip to a consideration and appreciation for my ability to travel with such freedom. And there it was. The word. Freedom.

I should be grateful for the freedom to travel?

For some reason, the verbiage struck me as odd.

Of course, by law I am granted liberty to travel—but pending my adherence to certain documents, fees and rules. There is an awful lot I have to comply with if I am going to have the "freedom" to take a trip to New York that I am not quite sure I feel comfotable toggling to my association of freedom. For example, I need a government ID to board a plane; I need a way to make money to pay for my airfare; I need to understand the rules of aviation travel and go through certain security measures in order to be allowed access through the airport. I also must hope that the pilot shows up, that the flight isn’t overbooked, and that there isn’t too much traffic on my way to the airport. So there are quite a few contingencies to this “freedom” that I arguably possess in order to travel--and some of them are completely beyond my control.

And then I begin to wonder—is this really freedom at all?

Sure—my questions may set us on a bit of a rabbit-hole race through Semantics Grove. And perhaps a pointless pursuit, but I do believe there is something profound beneath the conventions of our cultural freedoms which allude to our assumptions of the idea. And even more so, such usage and associations shed light on our conceptions of Freedom (capital “F” on this one, for those less-than-OCD readers--ME!).

Words such as these: Love, Goodness, Truth—the words that are really ideas—are quite precarious in our modern culture. The versatility in the application of even the word "Love" ranges from the candied lips of a pre-adolescent mall rat expressing her enthusiasm for the Hello Kitty bracelet at Claire’s, to the tender, profound look between the seasoned wrinkled eyes of the golden-anniversary lovers.

And me?  Well--I love my phone. I love your shirt. I love that song. I love my friends. I love my mom. I love the Lord.

Notice a problem?

We do not have a linguistic distinction between how we feel about our cell phone and how we care for our parents. Admittedly, I think we all recognize the variant nature of the word love, and no one really asserts that one’s love for a technological device and the love for a mother are really even that similar. We are cognitively aware of the difference, but my question of distinction would point more to the reciprocal relationship—do we ever “love” our mothers like we “love” our cell phones? When our cell phone saves us, we love it! When our cell phone works normally, we often forget about it. And when our cell phone breaks, or isn’t working properly, or is the vessel of an unappreciated conversation or interaction, we despise it and sometimes mistreat it.

So is this really “love”? And I do not intend to infer that if we had a different word for cell phone and mother-love that we would always treat our mothers with the Love that we should bestow upon them, but perhaps our idea of love would be a little less murky and a lot more meaningful.

And I regress to the idea of freedom. Perhaps we have done similar damage in our cultural exploitation of the idea. Our country was established on the premise and promise of freedom. But is freedom really freedom if there are things we have to do—or even more devastatingly, things that must be done—in order to remain a beneficiary?

I would venture to say that freedom and compliance are mutually exclusive. I could get myself in to some trouble here, so allow me to preface my thoughts—I believe with all of my heart that Freedom is absolute dominion, but within our will, we can choose freely to comply. Thus, freedom can often turn to bondage, masquerading as religion or righteousness, if we do not first understand the nature of freedom. And I may not at all understand Freedom today as it will one-day be revealed to me, but I see no circumstance that could entail any form of requirement. Otherwise, such prerequisites would contradict the very essence of Freedom—complete dominion. But I will explicate this idea at a later point.

My primary concern is that the colloquial usage of the word freedom carries certain requisites or contingencies that should not be attached to the true idea of Freedom. Notably, the conceptual application of Freedom to freedom does not construct such compromise as the unintended consequences incurred by the application of freedom to Freedom.

True Freedom does not have strings.

And God repeatedly emphasizes this in His Word. But we still somehow miss it. And I think part of this is because there is nothing, apart from Freedom in Christ, that is really Freedom at all. Our ideas of freedom are limited and distorted by the experiences we associate with the idea of Freedom. Our perception is instructed by how we classify our experience. We have municipal freedoms, social freedoms, financial freedoms (which many of us understand more in relationship to its opposite) and religious freedoms. We even hold strong mental images of freedom with white doves, broken shackles, unbolted cages, and whimsical winds.

But none of these are the Freedom God offers.

There is nothing we could ever do, nothing we could ever find, and nothing that we could ever truly compare to what Absolute Freedom must look like.

So how can we begin to understand freedom?

Well, I read a book once about a woman’s experience in Rwanda, Africa during the civil war between two tribes—the Hutu and Tutsis. The woman was a Tutsi, and was hiding in a bathroom with seven other women for 91 days. The women—over the three-month period—had to sit on top of each other just to fit in the tiny space, rotating positions throughout the day and experiencing all of the issues of normal women throughout the months. Her situation seems to me, something like Hell. But in her book, Immaculee tells one story that floored me. After she was freed from hiding, she came in to contact with the person that killed her family and then left her to hide in a bathroom for three months—she looked him in the eyes and said, “I forgive you.” And I believe her. But more than my vote of confidence towards the woman’s display of grace, and incredible sense of lightness overcame me when I considered the beauty in her words and her heart.

I remember thinking to myself—“This is Freedom.”
Yet such a picture of freedom would seem so contradictory to traditional interpretations. The woman was locked in a bathroom. She was being persecuted. She barely had room to sneeze, much less the ability to take a trip to visit her sister or buy a car. Even her sister had been taken from her. Nothing really was within her control. Not even her own life. She would either die in that bathroom, or be there until she was set free. And there is it—the word free again. Something she seemingly did not have. But when I reflect on this story, my heart fixates on her Freedom, and I would imagine her heart would sing a profound sense of Freedom, as well.

Therefore, Freedom cannot be contingent upon anything. Our Freedom is a gift, to elect or reject.

When we understand Freedom in this context, the implications can be profound.

To begin at the beginning, God’s story records, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” And then, he assigns His Good Creation to rule “everything that has the breath of life in it” (Gen 1). If we have been given dominion over all that breathes, we are also given dominion over ourselves. We are, in a sense, our own principalities. So this should be enough for freedom, right?

But then we somehow compromise our freedom when we take advantage of freedom in a way that God did not intend for His Creation. We again found ourselves in bondage. In order to re-discover Freedom, we needed salvation.

And this is where the story of the Cross becomes incredible.

People always question the difference between the story of God and our Messiah Christ and all of the other religions. I can be the first to admit that there are a lot (a LOT) of similarities. This prospect used to threaten me, but I know say, “Of course.” My heart finds such consolation when I recognize that we are all searching for the same thing. God even promises us that there is enough of Him in everything for every man to witness to the Creator. In our attempts to satisfy our insatiable inner magnetism towards God, we find ourselves at variant points along the continuum of understanding. I do not think any one of us have “arrived,” so I rest with the peace that God is moving each of us along within the unique circumstances of his evolutionary Creation. But I digress. The difference in our story is that our Freedom, our Salvation, is contingent upon nothing other than the sacrifice of Christ that has already been made—that God foresaw at the establishment of the Universe. The only true Freedom is in Christ.
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5.1).
And when we really understand—I mean really, really try to grasp—that we could do absolutely nothing to earn this gift of Freedom, I think we finally merge the great divide to something like accessing it.

We give up all self-righteousness when we find true freedom. We give up on pride when we find true freedom. We eliminate all sense of insecurity, self-hate and envy when we discover true freedom. And when we are no longer bound by the patterns of this world, we become a whole lot more like Christ. We adopt His mind and His will when we live within the freedom that has always been available to us.

Freedom is as Freedom does.

Thanks for stopping by.
Stay Dusty.
*b.Nicole

Response: Suicide and Eternity

Anonymous said...

How do you feel about suicide and heaven? If you repent before you well do the deed do you still get into heaven?????

August 18, 2011 2:50 PM

Response:

I will say, I appreciate your comment more than you could know. I also must note--I am just a human, with human knowledge, dealing with real human problems. I will begin more traditionally by sharing some of the specific places the Text deals with these issues… but then I will follow up with what the entire narrative--within the full context of how I understand the story of God and His creation-- tells my heart.

There are seven recorded instances of suicide in the Bible. Probably the two most well-known occurrences are the acts of Judas Iscariot (the one that betrayed Jesus, recorded in the synoptic gospels) and Samson (the Jewish judge that was essentially the ancient-equivalent of the 9/11 bombers, recorded in the book of Judges). (If you are not familiar with these stories, I would encourage you to follow think link to both Judas and Sampson and familiarize yourself with this content. A brief reading could lay foundational context in approaching this subject.) Interestingly, Judas’s choice was committed in shame, remorse and guilt and the Bible does not seem to approve of his act. Yet in contrast, Sampson’s act was spurred by his request to God for great strength—strength enough to pull down the supporting pillars of a temple—on top of himself and many more Philistine “rulers and people.” It seems atrocious, but God is recorded as approving of Sampson’s sacrifice.

So we have two forms of suicide within these stories, as well as two different divine reactions. The problem of suicide (from a biblical perspective) does not seem to revolve around the “act” itself as much as we may have originally considered. Perhaps there is something larger, or completely different at play.

Without diving too deep into the nature of God, the problem of Good and Evil/Heaven and Hell, it seems that Anonymous is asking about suicide within the context of the eternal existence that the Bible refers to as “heaven.” Since biblical terminology has been introduced, I can only assume the regard for the Bible that I possess.

I think the Bible is Absolute Truth. Now, my own human understanding of this Truth is an entirely different subject, but I can only continue allowing the Text and this life to influence and expand my understanding. Also, when I refer to Absolute Truth, I do not mean historical, nor scientific, accuracy. To explain--although there probably never existed two little German children named Hansel and Gretel that left a trail of crumbs on their way to play, the story may contain Truth—in the capital “T” sense. There may be a lesson within the story that deems the fable worth telling. Also, instead of dissecting the individual segments of the Bible (although this vein of study can be beneficial, as well), when I consider Universal or Ultimate Truth, I try to consider the entire story. From my understanding of the entire story, I believe God is Good. Perhaps I cannot understand His Goodness, but my hope informs my faith of this, even in my lack of understanding, and I trust in the Text that affirms my hope. I also believe in the full reconciliation of the Creator to His Creation. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [speaking of Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself [God] all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” God wants everything to be reconciled to Him. I believe this with all my heart. That said… here are a few considerations.

What is wrong with suicide? I would venture to say that suicide is playing God. I would consider suicide in the same “category of transgression” as murder. Taking a life is taking a life, whether someone else’s or your own. There are many atrocities of terror that, as in Sampson’s case that appear as martyrdom—a single soldier with a sure fate running to the front line of a battle to save his platoon, or the lone astronaut that stayed behind on Apollo 13—but these have a diametrically distinct sentiment to the acts we most often refer to as suicide. The latter are normally characterized by shame, guilt, depression, hopelessness and loss. When someone takes their own life in this state, I feel as though they have lost faith in God--lost faith that His Goodness, although not synonymous with happiness, will see them through. Life seems to be some kind of training ground, full of lessons and obstacles to bring us closer to the image of Christ. Many Christians live for the Afterlife, and become focally fixated on heaven and hell to the extent that they ignore, what I see as, an intricate part of God’s intent of Creation. So, although this life may be “fleeting,” there must be some eternal aspect or significance to it that gives it any validity.

I see Jesus’ ministry as much more immediate and with far more emphasis on the life we have here on earth, than the Christian perspective tends to embrace. I also see our purpose here as a partnership in ushering in the eternal—that somehow we are a part of “all things being reconciled to himself.” God has given us ways to be a part of this. He has shown us how to be a part of this in Jesus—whom is our Salvation. Our salvation seems to be in taking part of His plan and abiding within His will. (Salvation here is not in the eternal sense, but in the freedom offered in the life God offers.) Cutting out early is missing out on the opportunities to be a part of this incredible story. And this is where I think the tragedy lies.

So is suicide sin? In 1 John 3.4, sin is considered a “transgression of the law” or anything “unrighteous” (1 John 5.17). Then Paul adds in Ephesians, that “what is not of faith is sin.” To me, I see sin as anything outside of God’s will. I would consider suicide a sin. Many people attach this particular sin, because it is a finality I would assume, as an act that would exclude the sinner/victim from the eternal existence outlined in the Bible. Yet, there is only sin the Bible lists as unforgivable--blasphemy against the Spirit. This unforgivable transgression is referenced in all three synoptic gospels. Therefore, suicide is forgivable. And then the question may arise, "But if repentance and acceptance of Christ as Savior is necessary for salvation, when would someone who had killed themself have the opportunity to repent?"  But there must be many that have died with unrepented sin.  And if the person were so deeply lost in the darkness without a sight of Hope, yet all their life, they saught out the Goodness in God and this world and they recognized and knew Christ as Saviour, will they face eternal condemnation?  I struggle here, but my heart hopes for a God larger than death and time.

Such logic, of an arbitrary judgement, disregards the eternal nature of God. We are bound by a directionally limited existence—we can only move forward in time, like one-direction ray. In eternity, this concept of time in progression would be unnecessary. Eternity is not bound by time as we are. Therefore, the ordinal chronology of repentance and sin may be irrelevant.

In my understanding of God’s ultimate plan for reconciliation, my heart would hope that all would be brought into his eternal existence. I think He certainly wants this, as well. I do not know what would happen eternally to a person that takes their own life, but I know God must mourn the loss of hope in His creation as my own heart mourns the brokenness and destitution of suicide.

But most of all, to really “answer your question,” this is not my call. I know that brings us back to square one. But I am not Judge. All I can do is seek to understand the life He calls me to today—in this life—and hope that His life in me will bring others into this incredible plan, as well. And although I could never know for certain in this life whether or not there is an Eternal Heaven and Hell, I live my life considering that there may be. But without focusing on where I (or others) will end up, I focus on how I can live THIS LIFE as a part of His Creation. I don’t know how much this would help, but this trajectory is where my heart brought me. If you have more questions, please continue the conversation. Your heart for people is very apparent, Anonymous. Thank you.
Stay Dusty.
b.Nicole

 

RESPONSE: Has anyone ever stopped and asked...

Comment from Original Post:


       Anonymous said...

YES!!! I've asked that question to the point where it's caused me great anxiety! Why would Jesus have to die and how does that save me? I mean, this is the very core of our faith, isn't it? This is the first time I've had it explained to me this way and it was quite encouraging and thought-provoking. So, thank you!

I still have a lingering question or two. For example, who wrote the rule/law that there must be a sacrifice made or that the consequence of sin is death? Why did Abraham and his people have to be perfect to be blessed?

Thanks again!

Hello, there "Anonymous." :) Thank you for your words.. and your questions. I am going to attempt this, but please understand that I am in no way claiming to "have it figured out..." I ask a lot of questions, too--and when I start digging around and exploring the context of the Text, I sometimes end up with a few "ideas," but I normally find myself in a mountain of entirely new questions. So I completely relate.  

As for your questions... I don't know that there is a "law," per se, that requires a death sacrifice (that is, before the covenant with Abraham), but the blood covenant I refer to in this post is a cultural tradition that still exists in Bedouin culture today. The blood covenant is most often associated with the marital customs, but there are also times when a business deal or land dispute would necessitate a blood covenant. The greater party would be the groom's father and the lesser would be the bride's father (or grandfather). If the bride did not keep her promises--she wasn't a virgin, she didn't stay faithful, etc.--you would more than likely find her father or grandfather dead in a wadi, with bloody footprints dancing over the ground of his blood. Same scenario with the groom--if he did not provide for his bride, treat her well, provide the promised dowry--you would be sure to find the groom's father's body slung out in the desert, again with the mark of bare feet in his blood. This was simply the nature of the covenant.  

Now, in reading Genesis 15, God has promised Abram some very wonderful blessings. Abram is a righteous man of faith, and he tries to call God's bluff. Abram asks for some sign that he would know that God intended to keep his promise.  

Then, God commands Abram to go get a few very specific animals. (Later in the Hebrew Bible, these become the acceptable animals of an atonement sacrifice.)  

And next verse, Abram cuts the animals in half and lays them across from each other... This seems bizarre. There is no recording of God instructing Abram to do anything specific with the animals; God simply says, "Go get them." But God seems to be pleased, or at least not surprised, by Abram's actions, so it seems that God has approved of this ceremony or was expecting it. And to be fair-- perhaps God did instruct Abram to do this, and the Bible just has not recorded God's directions.  

But I believe there is another possibility.  

To me, when God asks Abram to gather the animals, and Abram knows exactly what to do with them, suggest that there must have already existed a custom in Abram's day that involved these specific animals. I grab my dog's leash and she runs to the door, wagging her tail in frenzied expectation. She knows what is coming, and I believe that at this point in Genesis 15, Abram knows exactly what is coming, as well.  

Thus, in the Covenant, the terms were not, "Abram--I give you all the heirs, a land to serve me, and and the blessing of the Messiah. So I will die for you to keep my promise." The covenant was, "Abram, I bless you with all these things, and in exchange, you and your offspring must be blameless." The CONSEQUENCE for not following through with a covenant--by default of EITHER party--would call for the blood of the transgressor. The covenant would then be null and void, and neither party would have any obligation to the other.  

And now, the incredible pictures in this story begin to unfold... God, the greater party, passes through the bloodpath first, sealing His promise to Abram. Next up would traditionally be Abram, being the lesser party. But if Abram steps one teeny-tiny toe into the blood, he essentially voids the transaction and will pay with his life.  

In this moment, I imagine Abram-- about to sentence himself to death--and God throws His strong, gentle arm in Abram's beating chest, and with the sage gravity of a martyr says, "No, my son. I've got this."  

And the terms all of a sudden change.  

God still says, "Abram--I give you all the heirs, a land to serve me, and and the blessing of the Messiah," as well as, "Abram, I bless you with all these things, and in exchange, you and your offspring must be blameless." But the difference is that God walked through the bloodpath path twice. Therefore, God ultimately says," If you, Abram, and your offspring are not perfect, YOU may do this to ME."  

And this is actually what I view as the necessity for God/Christ's death. He had to fall at our hands. And with His death, a new covenant is made. Hebrews 7 refers to this, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." Abram and his offspring failed, as we fail. We have sinned, and our sin sentenced Jesus to death on the cross. But this was God's gift to us. And in the completion of the Old Covenant, we can rejoice in the New Promise. '

So, this was long, but I was good for me to review all of this, as well. If you had these questions, I am sure others did, as well--even if they have not expressed or even fully formulated them. Thanks again...  

And as always, be encouraged.  
Stay dusty, 
*b.Nicole

Life in 3-D: The God Eye See

I don't own a TV.  I rarely take notice of  this missing household amenity, except when walking first-time visitors through my home.  On "The Tour," I offer such insightful commentary as, "This is the kitchen;"  "This is my living room;"  This is the study/play room;" and "Here is my bedroom," and we end up at the back of my house in my laundry room, at which point we wander back to the living room the over little compulsory reactions and observations.  

Normally, about the time we re-group on the sofas, a few moments will pass and inevitably, someone speaks up with courteous curiosity --"So... do you not have a TV...?"  I explain that I actually "do not" have a TV, but I love movies, and have become quite the collectionista of Blockbuster finds.  But my computer is quite a capable viewing source, so this negates all necessity of a TV for me.  

Yet, to be honest, my abeyant MovieWatcher card would not reflect my proclaimed admiration for the cinema. The movie experience has somewhat lost its luster for me amongst the rising prices, rambunctious company--and then I would have to resist the convenience of viewing a movie in my own home and on my own time-frame, as well.  Effectively, I don't see many TV ads or trailors, so the anticipation of a premier doesn't lure me in to the big screen, either.  But occasionally, I am willing to buck all pretension and inconvenience for a movie that just "should be" experienced with more punch than my computer monitor and speakers can provide.  

Just two nights ago, I went to the theater to see the new Harry Potter movie.  I have never read the books or seen a previous film, but this one would be in 3-D, and apparently would be worth the experience.  Without digressing into a review of the cinematic legitimacy of the film, I will say--I was impressed and entertained.  For an IMAX film, the movie theaters always provide those ridiculous plastic "3-D glasses--" which results in my immediate time-port to my elementary years and the days of field trips to NASA, with "futuristic" IMAX special-venues of Space Exploration Films.  I remember even, how throughout the duration of any-given IMAX picture, the glasses would inevitably agitate me to the point that I would have to take them off.  And the same remains true today.  Even today, within the hours of an IMAX picture, I will feel the nagging urge to remove my glasses, just to endure the blurred dual-image projected before me, until I can eventually don my glasses once more.  

Well, I reached this point in Harry Potter.  Typically, I am frustrated with myself at the point that I begrudgingly remove my glasses for a reprieve.  But this time (perhaps a slight gesture towards maturity), I actually tuned in to the multilayered images, even so much as to develop an endearing appreciation and intrigue for their intentional distortion.  

During my momentary retreat, I somewhat lost touch with the plot and began experimenting with the passing images in an attempt to create the desired image, sans glasses.  I went through a serious of very scientific variable tests in my research--I tried crossing my eyes, squinting, closing one eye.  I even called upon my previous experience with the Illusion picture books that contained hidden 3-D images in the page designs.  The "squinting technique" would sometimes work then on difficult images, but I found my transferred skill to be far less successful at the cinema.  I have since realized the folly in my methods, but at the time, I considered my means to be plausible.  

Yet in my own silly science lab at a Harry Potter picture show, I began to formulate an idea that would take shape over the following days, and profoundly resonate with me in my understanding of this world.  With visions of grandeur, I even took the glasses home (with permission) to continue my exploration post-cinema through assessing the glasses visual impact upon the actual 3-D world.  

In the aftermath of this experience, I stumbled across some down-time and did a bit of research on the construction of a 3-D clip, specifically as compared a standard film.  Today, a 3-D image is often created by polarizating the light of dual images, tripling the frames per second as compared to a standard film, and projecting these images simultaneously on the same screen.  The immediate affect produces the blurred multiplicity I described earlier, but with a pair of eyes and a set of LCD shutter glasses, the images converge to add the illusion of depth, the lost dimension in standard 35mm films.   


The film is shot with two different lenses--one angled to record the images as viewed by the left eye, and the other to singularly capture the vision of the right eye.  The two sequences are layered during production and then projected at variant linear polarizations at the time of viewing.  


Those "ridiculous 3-D glasses" are actually specifically designed with left and right polarized lenses that project only the image intended for that eye, while concurrently block the other eye's image. 


Essentially, 3-D filmation reverses the cooperative efforts of our visual and central nervous system by separating the images in 2-D.  

Think of your 5th-grade lesson on sight.  Your teacher more-than-likely asked you to create a triangle with your two hands outstretched before you, and then instructed you to pick an object within the scope of the triangle.  You were then advised to close one eye.  All of a sudden the image would pop to a position outside of your triangle.  When tested with the other eye, the image would be somewhere in the vicinity oppositely congruent to its previous location.  


In case you got distracted making your best friend hop around your peripheral and missed the application that day, this exercise displays the functioning of our nervous system as it process the two images created on the retinae of our two eyes.  Vision is a pretty incredible sense.  Our eyes actually just record the data sequencing of the light reflected by all the objects in our scope of sight.  The data is burned on to our retinae at the back of our eyes, and the brain works to process this information by conceptualizing mere representations of the scene.  


Thus, when the object of our vision is a projection of light on a flat-screen, the convergence of empirical perceptions has already taken place, and the third-dimension is lost.  


In order to achieve depth perception (the third dimension) within a 2-D projection, the eyes must receive both simultaneous and singular input on each retinae, creating the illusion of an authentic perception.  Then, the physiological manifestation of sight may processes the images as if these "3-D" objects and images were actually before them.  

I have learned about the functioning of the visual system before, but I outlook was refreshed by my new understanding in light of a 3-D film experiene.  And with this idea of sight, light, and dimension, my mind began its churning.  


Our eyes perceive the light reflected by objects.  Our eyes collect the data from this input and create two variant representations on our retinae.  Our brain receives the two separate images from our visual system and processes the details in the form of a streaming image.  


A singular image from just one eye would capture only two-diminsions, but our visual system maintains the reality of the 3rd dimension with the help of the central nervous system and the addition of a supplementary sequence of a simultaneous event.  


Our world contains three perceivable dimensions, yet receptive optical systems are only able to capture two of these dimensions on their own.  Consider a camera as an optical system similar to our own.  The input data is in three dimensions, but the capturing space can only contain two of them.  The brain detects depth perception in a picture by drawing on our visual experience with depth and proportion, but the film space itself only provides for two dimensions--length and width.  

Theorists are eternally claiming that time is the fourth dimension--and I tend to subscribe to this hypothesis, with the understanding that our linear position within time is probably more of an illusions than a reality.  So if time functions anything like light, our perception can only be achieved by assuming a duality in perception, as displayed by the visual system.  Have you ever noticed how a minute can seem like a lifetime, but a year can seem like the passing of a second?  Perhaps our placement and perception of time allows for this discrepant evaluation.  And although the relationship between time, dimension and perception intrigue me, there remain uncharted issues that, for me, are more provocative when I consider sight.  

The Text tells me that God created Light in this world before anything else.  And Jesus calls himself the light of the world.  Our eyes, the primary contributor to processing our perceived world, depend on light to "accurately" perceive the physical world.  The individual eye can only detect the images captured as a 2-D movie screen captures the light projection of a film. Our visual system, however, compensates for our own limitations in capturing images and the two recordings of our 2 receivers by allowing one image to enhance the other.  Interestingly, a 3-D movie actually disables the work of the visual system by merging the right and left-eye images before the data is collected.  However, in sight, each eye is only recording the images from its perspective.  In an IMAX film, both eyes are processing both angles.  Thus, to the naked eye the picture looks disjointed and distorted, and the eyes have no means of recognizing their individual projection.

There is so much in this world that I don't understand.  There are so many truths that seems to disagree much like a 3-D IMAX Film.  The inconsistencies in my understanding of my spiritual sight can sometimes leave my vision hazy.  

But then I consider God's truth--Truth refers to the ultimate reality.   We have been given the tools to perceive and process His reality--He has promised this.  We depend on the light of the first day to distinguish the physical reality,  so there must be a spiritual source which allows us to comprehend Truth.    

And yet, Jesus is the Light.  In our reality, the sun is our greatest source of light.  Jesus is the Son.  Light in this world allows us sight; perhaps the light of Jesus is the source of sight in the spiritual world.  If Jesus, the light, is our salvation, perhaps salvation is in being able to perceive and project the Truth of God's nature.  What if the redemptive nature of Jesus' ministry was to illuminate the nature of God.  As our eyes process the physical world, our hearts may be the eyes of our souls, perceiving the Truth of God. 

But even with the gift of this salvation, my spiritual vision sometimes feels a bit more like watching a movie than experiencing His nature first-hand.  I often have the spiritual sense that what I am involved in is something more than the "two dimensions" I am perceiving on the movie screen.  Just as our vision carries limitations--we can only capture and project a restricted reality of the images within the physical world--my hypothesis would be that these same barriers cripple our spiritual capacity to capture and project the reality of the ultimate world.  

I must wonder if there was ever a time when His truth was accurately and fully perceivable.  

Perhaps, at the creation of the world, at the birth of light. And if at the foundation of the Earth, all truth and fullness of God was both perceivable and projectable, when did our spiritual eyes adopt their limitations?  

There is a certain story of a certain man and woman in a certain garden, eating from a certain tree.  I cannot resist the situational irony presented by the description immediately following the couples' dinner menu choice--"and their eyes were opened."  I am struck that their eyes were not glued shut through their sin.

But then I remember what happened when I removed my special glasses at the theater.  Maybe the screen of God's Glory was already being projected into this world--not as a standard film--but as an IMAX film, intended to reflect the height, breadth, and depth of His Truth.   Maybe God has always chosen to reveal himself in "3-D."  But in our sin, we lost the special glasses when our eyes "were opened." 

But then I remember the Messiah.  Healer of the blind.  Light of the world.  The Way to the Father.

Maybe we do have the keys to the kingdom.  

Perhaps Jesus is the light in the sense that the light of the burning sun causes need for sunglasses.   Could His ministry have been to exude such blinding light as to give rise to adorning spiritual glasses, and ultimately offering us sight.  After all, caking mud on a blind man's eye seems a curious method for offering sight.  But after the man's commitment to Jesus' instruction to wash in the Pool of Salome, the man could see.  Maybe our faith commitment is in the choice to wear our glasses.  God's picture may have never changed.  We just may need the right set of eyes to see the Light of the Truth.  

Questions from Humans: the Rob Bell/Heaven+Hell Controversy

We are the body. And we are imperfect. But we must never abandon Love. We must never forsake correctness for Unity. Unity can embody differences. The church can encourage disagreements. We can believe with a Holy passion in the truths which God has revealed to us, yet to divide the church, or summon condemnation seems a hateful perversion of our commission as followers of Christ. First and foremost we are children of God. Always, we are his and dearly loved. As His children, gripped by the evil in this world, we are offered salvation on Christ. We follow His son, and build His church. His banner over us is love.

There have been several high profile discussions over Rob Bell's recent book: Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. I would never want to stifle the discussion of such eternal principals; however the trajectory of these blog commentaries seems minimally hateful and malicious. My heart is heavy and my spirit is saddened. Satan will use ANYTHING. He is quite resourceful.

I have not yet read the book, so I hold no position to comment on the content. However, my current understanding is that there are far more questions posed than answers offered. If this is the case, what are we all so afraid of? If we seek the Truth, does not God tell us thT He will reveal Himself. For even the mountains and rocks cry out the name of the Lord! Anyhow, as stated, I have not read it, so I have nothing further to say regarding Bell's book.

What I can observe, however; is the response of the Christian community. We are breaking apart. This is a tragedy that burns me to my core, in far proportion to incorrect doctrine. Although, if I were in tue opposition, this travesty would pain me greatly, as well.

There are many blogs. But this particular blog is the one I have gotten involved in, for whatever reason. I have posted the link, not to point fingers, but because I do feel there is a lot of very valid content from both sides. I mourn the egos that emerge, but if you are seeking textual support and opposition for Bell's claims, there are some very knowledgeable sources from both sides.

http://www.dennyburk.com/rob-bell-outs-himself/

Please aim not to just adapt anyone elses view, but understand that we have been given (each of us) the mind of Christ to discern truth. Let us listen to our teachers and consider what God has placed in our heart and be willing to engage on an exploration of the truth that only God can reveal to us.

As always, thanks for stopping by. And please, friends... Stay Dusty.

*b.Nicole



Love


Please pray that the power of love does win, as promised.

A prism, A God, and this world.

I used to serve a god.  Now I think I serve God.  

Bold statement for both my past and present associations, I know.  But in a whirlwind of hurt, chaos, selfishness and pride, I somehow found vulnerability, peace, love, and humility.  Needless to say, through this kenosis my perception of God has been completely transformed.  

I grew up in the church, and I am eternally blessed for the heritage of faith that I formulated within that community.  Yet, as most of us do in almost aspect of life, I took for granted the traditions and ideas that I received.  I do not mean to insinuate that there is any innate fallacy in my inherited faith, but I adopted the doctrine and interpretations of pastors, teachers, and professors without investing the necessary effort to evaluate for myself what God would have me hear in His Word.  I felt a strong connection to God, and I developed strong ideas within my faith about who God was, and who I am in Him.  I held to these ideas with a bona fide conviction that informed what I saw in the Text and how I interpreted my purpose in this world.  I sought Truth and I wanted righteoussness.  But--and, I would guess we have all felt this--there was some indiscriminate or inexctable fiber within the makeup of my beliefs that was just unresolved.  Not that there was doubt.  Not that there was blatant disregard, or even discontentment, but if we are talking about the God of the Universe and the Creator who reigns eternally, is there any validation for having any fiber, and moment, any formulation of thought that is not completely sold to this Being?   But all I knew was what I had been taught.  

And although I had questions, and sought answers whole-heartedly, my ideas guided my discoveries instead of the truth.  A scientist would even say that removing biases from an experiment is nearly impossible.  It is the ultimate goal of the Scientific Method to use empirical methods of observation, but we all know the results we are seeking when we care enough to structure an experiment, so creating an open environment where Truth emerges from the variables, is both necessary and arduous.  So, I would not completely condemn my previous understandings because I am aware that they have brought me to the point at which I presently stand.  Also, they were formulated from a genuine desire to know and understand God, which I thought was something I could achieve.  I think this whole journey (a.k.a: Life) is about pushing forward towards new ideas and better "us"es, so I allow for this shift in thought and regard, rather than regret, the tread stones that led me to today.  

Yet at a certain stone in my not-so-distant past, I experienced a world that had been somewhat hidden from my formative years.  As I looked to the world around me, I saw hate and evil to the same proportion I witnessed good.  I saw violence and favoritism from a god that claimed benevolence and a love for the whole world.  He says he is the Alpha and Omega, as the Beginning and End, but I began to doubt that he cared much for the other 20 Greek letters, or the entire middle section, for that matter.   And as the friction between my beliefs and my experience grew stronger, the discomfort in my spirit brought me to a moment of absolute humility.  

If God is the eternal Truth, and His Word is the primary source by which He reveals Himself to me, I should not be afraid to earnestly seek the Goodness within His Text.  If I opened myself to Truth, I trusted that truth would be revealed.  And So I decided to shed everything I ever thought I knew about God.  Not reject, but shed.  And I would allow Him, for the first time in my life, to tell me who He was, and to share with me the secrets in His Word.  This was scary because I was not sure whom I would discover, and what that would mean.  If God could harden Pharo's heart and drown Egyptian soldiers, and send His own creation into a burning furnace away from Him for eternity, I couldn't be certain I would want to server Him for the rest of my life.  And as if this apprehension were not sufficient means to abort, I was incredibly aware of my daunting role in receiving His revelation.  I was going to have to dedicate myself fully and thoroughly to this task.  I had no clue what I would find, or where to begin.

So I started with Genesis.  Seemed logical enough.  And when I began to read the opening scenes of creation, for what I would consider "the first time," I found myself so engrossed and in awe that I read the first four chapters no less than twenty times before I even wanted to move on.  Each time I reread our story, I found something so precious and new, that I wanted to read it again, in case I had missed something else.  This Supreme Being within the narrative of the created world was so much more than I had ever dared to dream.  The surreal realization of His greatness and majesty and mystery left me inspired by His awesomeness.  And then I saw my downfall.  I wanted to know God.  To understand Him and confine him within the limitations of my mind.  But I could never know or understand God.  Who did I think I was? Not even Jesus knows the mind of God.  So if I could not know, I had a decision to make.  Would I reject the ideas of Goodness, Perfection, and Immutability that I had grown up with?  Or was there another option?  Because this God of Genesis is incredible. If God is all He says He is, then He is everything.  Everything.  The good.  The Bad.  The beautiful.  The whole world--in both concept and matter.  For, in the beginning there was God (only God).  Therefore, He is the only substance of creation.  Every single aspect of this world we experience must be a realization of Him.  This may seem like blasphemy, but if His Word is True, and He is God, this is Him. So, how am I to reconcile that what I see in God and His creation does not appear to always be Good?  Well, who are we to question the Potter and how He molds the clay?  And who am I to assume I could ever exact any complete conception of Goodness.  If I cannot know God, and God is Good, how then could I even know the nature of Eternal Goodness?  Perhaps I cannot.  And when I accepted this God, I saw the world in a completely new light.  So I read one more time, our story of our God.  And this is what I see.  

In the Garden of Eden, God's creation ate from a tree that granted them the "knowledge of Good and Evil,"  making them "like gods."  

Point No.1: The "knowledge" of Good and Evil.  Adam and Eve did not create evil, or introduce evil into this world.  They received a perception that allowed for the distinction between Good and Evil.  Evil had always been there--creation simply could not separate it from the Good.  To Adam and Ever, there was no Good or Evil.  Only God.

Point No.2:  The tree was within God's garden.  God had planted it there, and even given instructions as to not eat the fruit.  Adam and Eve discovered a part of God that He had contained in the fruit.  This knowledge was not outside of Him.  

Point No.3:  God had wanted to intentionally disclose this knowledge from His creation.  God knew the effects of this knowledge.  He had a plan for His creation--that it be a perfect extension of Him.   He offered salvation in obedience, by not eating the fruit of the tree.

Point No.4:  God wanted His creation to choose.  Just as God is dynamic and changing, He wanted us to evolve and make choices with the same freedom that He himself has as Creator.  We are, after all, created "in His image." Therefore, He planted a tree that contained the wisdom of gods.  Yet knowing the burden of such understanding, God instructed His creation not to eat of its fruit, as to protect them from this knowledge, while still offering them the dominion to choose either obedience and Shalom, or disobedience and Chaos.  

I think we all know the rest.  

God must have realized that His light could always reign on this earth, if He preserved the recognition of the darkness.  But He could not just eliminate this aspect of Himself, and still achieve a full expression of His image within His creation. He had to offer the sovereignty to toy with the proportions and hues of God's character.  And did we ever.  Let me explain. If we consider white light, and its passage through a prism, we can access a metaphor for this transition.  White light could be compared (as it is in His Word) to the Love and Goodness of God.  God dwelt among His creation, and had complete dominion, so long as His people followed His commands.  Yet, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and the veil was removed, their eyes were opened and they saw the variations within the colors of God's light.  It is as if in that moment, God saw that they no longer chose Him, and He coated this world with an atmosphere of separation, dividing the physical from the spiritual realm.  God was no longer the ruler; therefore, He handed over the goodness of His creation to its own devices until a time when He could redeem it.  Redemption is the Reconciliation of God's creation--an hour when Shalom rules and God can reclaim His creation.  But until then, He allows His creation time to again chose Him, but must hide His fullness from the imperfections of our own misconceptions.  And our misunderstandings are the results of the atmosphere. Remember the prism?  If God's love is Light, and our disobedience required the installment of this atmospheric prim, the there is a change as His light enters our world.  When God's eternal Purity and Goodness pass through the earth's prism and fall to the world below, the light separates, and we see the many colors within the spectrum of His Providence.  Blue and Purple, Orange, Vermillion.  Each color could be seen as a point on the spectrum of Good and Evil.  We have gained perception of such a distinction through our disobedience, and now the character of God is difficult to conceive, as we would have to create a vortex that would combine every color in perfect proportion to again perceive the white light.  Through obedience, God could again lift the prism from our atmosphere. Yet we failed.  Time and time again, we failed.  God is so patient.  But He must have recognized our tendency towards evil, as we act foolishly in the knowledge that was never intended for us.  So He decided that He would enter our world and be the instrument of convergence.  He would lead a blameless life, and we could see the true form of God.  Sound familiar?  Well... we have established the effects of passing light through a prism.  The light is refracted, and separates into different colors.  But what could recombine these colors?  Incredibly, if we pursue this analogy a step father, it turns out that God uses the very same material to display his white light that was used to disperse it.  When light passes through one prism, it is separated.  When light passes through a second prism, it is recomposed.  Thus, if we are to at all access an understanding of God, we must first recognize His presence in every color.  And secondly, look to Jesus for any image of His Goodness.  And when I assumed this perception of the function of God's Goodness in our world, I grew hungry to imitate the life of Christ, as I fell in awe of the incredible mystery of God.

And in this new discovery, I encountered a God much greater and hardly recognizable to the god I knew before.  When I looked to the god I had accepted, I understood why my heart did not burn for His Word and His will.  I had created an idol, a counterfeit--he may as well have been Ashura or Baal.  My own little god was who I needed, and wanted to follow.  He loved me, and protected me, and justified many of decisions that were rooted in a heart of pride, conceit, and resentment.  But when I honestly assessed the cubicle I built for my god to live in, he did not seem to be any kind of a Creator of the Universe.  I had him figured out--more like an imaginary friend that fit in to my agenda.  But this God.  This God, I am incredibly aware that I can never fully know.  Not until he lifts the prism and His Goodness descends on this earth, at least.  And God wants to reign again.  So desperately.  Our only salvation is in the atonement of Jesus, who lived to be the example for a live of Shalom--everything exactly as God has willed it.  Then the world will again belong to Him. Every color will be reconciled unto him as the most glorious light--with vivid hues that we know exist, but can only experience and not perceive.  This is the day I live for.  When all the colors combine.  But for now, I live everyday in the light of the second prism.  Seeking the Goodness, Humility, Sacrifice, Vulnerability, and Authenticity that is undeniable in the Christ.  

Thanks for stopping by.

Be encouraged.  Seek the Light.  Walk in the dust.

Stay dusty.

b.Nicole 

    

Like a Kite: Flight of Identity + Environment

I promised more. Funny how things just develop when we allow them to. I think Freud called it Free Association, but I call it FreeThink. If you are not really a Freud enthusiast, my sentiment may somewhat align with yours--the guy seems largely over-venerated. But I must say, I am totally a fan of this practice. So hang with me because here we go.

Identity is a funny thing. We are supposed to have a strong sense of it, yet it is not concrete. Within the framework of Identity, lies a dynamic cord of change and evolution. We are all products of our tendencies, environments, and choices--and two of the three factors, we have little-to-no control over. When we go to battle in this world each day, we choose the banner we will fight under--for that banner is our identity, and worth our lives. ("His banner over me is love," anyone?). But how are we to recognize our banner when the whipping winds beat against our flag in a raging war parade, hiding the emblem that gives us our name?

Abandoning pretension--how are we to understand the evolving nature of our identity?

Well, I imagine a kite. Yup. Childish, I know. And quite a shift of metaphor, at that. But I love kites, and this seems to work for me.

To begin, a kite soars with brilliance and majesty in high winds. A kite in flight, seems to function as a working (used as "functioning appropriately") identity. The winds of our environment act as the force that keeps a kite in flight. Yet in a moment, this same force can also send a kite spiraling towards its demise.

Interestingly, Greek mythology dedicates an entire team of gods to the shifting nature and awesome power of the winds. The four Anemoi (wind gods) are given sovereignty over the seasonal weather conditions--each residing in the realm from where their respective winds originate. Boreas blows a cold northern chill through the winter. The gusty blows from Old Man Eurus travel west across the Atlantic bringing warm rain and often a stoke of ill-fortune. Notus' deep, stormy whippings from the south usher in autumn and build anticipation of the fall harvest. And then Zephyrus, the messenger of spring, sends promises of renewal with his soft, gentle breeze from the west. 


The elaboration of these four winds may seem a bit frivolous, yet this variation speaks to me when I equate the mood of the winds with the situations or circumstances in life.  The four seasons embody clearly distinct climates, yet within each season, the environment also varies from day-to-day.  Similarly, in life, we may identify a certain "season" as a cold winter's frost, yet during the grey winter, the sun may and peek out, as if mimicking the groundhog, just to check if it is time to break from its hibernation.  For neither does life persist in a torrential, stormy autumn eternity, nor will it result in an everlasting string of balmy spring days. Life parallels this seasonal mix with days spanning the spectrum from devastating to jubilant, and every shade of melancholy in between.  Yet in each season, carried in by the breath of the winds, kites can fly.  And in this realization, I am boldly reminded that the circumstances of our life do not seem to affect our kites ability to fly. Circumstances do affect us, but the success of our identity is not contingent upon the season.  

To ground this analogy (No pun intended. Just kidding. Of course, "Pun intended."), the kite (which I see functioning like our identity) may sail through any of four the winds. Sure, the unpleasant whipping winds of Boreas are cold and may seem unbearable; but even so, their angry motion holds our kite up in the sky. And then the gentile Zephyrus graces our flight with subtly, and offers a chance to comfortably soar. This is the quintessential vision of a father and son flying kites at a park--a reassuring image and a comfort to follow the storms.

Yet I would propose that these soft summer winds offer perhaps the greatest threat to our sailing kites. More so even than the rage in an autumn storm. So beware--because a grounded kite is not mostly the result of gusty blows. The spring may be the most pleasurable interval, yet this season's comfort can be artfully deceiving. Even in the blue-skied felicity, we can find ourselves, for lack of wind, fighting to stay in flight. And under the most unremarkable of circumstances, we may find that the subtle winds that granted us rest have suddenly died, and there is no wind to hold us in the air.

Yet, this is where the analogy really works for me. I see points of maintaining the flight of a kite that transition into practices that will allow us to maintain a strong sense of identity. Firstly, we must learn to read and interpret our environment. So often, we become comfortable sailing in the spring winds. We enjoy the blue skies and and ride easy in the passivity that often accompanies pleasure. Let me be the first to say--take in the blue skies. Breath deep the fresh, easy winds. Appreciate the halcyon serenity that finds you. This confirmed--do not become a latent kite, ignoring the indications of egress. For when, and if, the vitalizing winds die, how will your kite continue to fly? Will you fall victim to the caprice of the changing winds? Will the sudden stagnancy send you spiraling towards the ground? Or were you embracing the good flight, yet also continuing your good practices of assessing your surroundings. 


Contrastingly, a raging storm, although frightening, rarely grounds an unaware victim. We know of the coming threat, are alerted to the building danger, and are diligent in finding safety. We are looking for the darkening clouds and listening for the coming rain and thunder.  Yet peace often lends itself to latency. Therefore, even in the balmy rhythm of springtime, we must practice the same diligence, observation, and assessment of threats and coming danger. When in doubt, we seek a safety zone that will keep us in flight. Even in the sunshine, always seek the place where the leaves still rustle in proof of the wind and the wild flower continues to sway in humble submission. Then, when the wind dies down, or the storm becomes too violent, let the breeze move you there, where the winds will still hold you up.

Also, consider the parts of a kite and it's construction.  A kite is designed to fly--not to swim or skim dry land. We, too, should pay mind to our composition and find the habitat that will allow us to function at our optimum. 


Also, a kite has someone on the ground at the other end of our tether, helping direct our flight. Who do we trust to help maintain our line?  A tree would probably not keep a kite sailing for too long. Nor would a 3-year old.  If we are acting as the kite, we may choose the person that stands below us holding the spool of our line.  I see the kite-flier as a mentor figure--someone primarily to offer a different perspective.  Also, a mentor should be person that has an interest to see us fly and will invest in our well-being.  And perhaps most importantly, we must find a confidant whom will use his discernment to offer us more slack on the line, or be willing to give a hard yank on our spool to keep us in air.   

Now, the circumstance of flying a kite has a few stipulations.  We need wind. We need an aerodynamic crafty construction.  And the kite must be connected to a line that can be maneuvered from the ground.  For, we do not classify releasing a loose diamond-shaped construction into heavy winds, "flying a kite."  No...that is more appropriately termed "littering."  A kite must have a line tying us to the ground.  Sure, a kite without a string may float across swirling winds for a short time, but the changing winds will carry the unanchored sail far away from it's launch pad. And most frighteningly, the severed flight of a kite unhitched, will terminate in certain injurious grounding. 


Without any rope to help reign in the momentum of a crushing descent, the inertia of a careless flight will only decrease the odds of repair. Resilience's is a gift to humanity, and there is much we can overcome, but the crash of a loose kite may be the equivalent of a totaled car.  


In our lives, we should not ever trust that capricious winds will sustain the flight of our kites. We must remain connected and grounded. The earth will always be below us, and will forever be the launch pad of basic foundations of our flight. Even when we find ourselves meeting the dusty floor time and time again, our base is always available to see us off for another round. The gravity that pulls us back to the earth is the very law that makes the flight of a kite magical. The opposing forces of inertia, gravity and motion all result in a task that although rewarding, requires work.

Becoming us isn't easy, but then again, do we really have another option? A kite in a closet deserves to fly. Perhaps its time I regard the task of being me as an equal entitlement.

Well, thanks for reading. Be encouraged. Seek Good and do Love.

Stay dusty.
Britt*