Jim Elliot, Waiting On God

"Surely God is good to his Israel." Jim Elliot

In 1945 with the world war now behind, the nation turned herself to other matters; a young man, Jim Elliot commenced his studies at Wheaton College, an esteemable Protestant Christian bible college located in Wheaton, Illinois. Apart from Bible scholarship, Wheaton is perhaps best known for its conservative views, prohibiting drinking, dancing and smoking among its students.
As a protestant, Christian institution it offers a solid education in bible learning, Greek, Latin and other modern languages as well as subjects which support christian missionary activities and ministries. His education prepared him well for the experiences which were about to come to him.

Against this backdrop, Elisabeth Elliot edits her husband's journals, including their chronicle of his later work in South America in the high Andes, The Journals of Jim Elliot. She writes in the foreword that what becomes most prominent in these journals is his dedication to his Lord, his ministry and his "consuming thirst to do what he saw as the will" of the Creator.
He reminds us not to "bind down the word of God... it's (the Spirit of the Lord) free to say what it will." He also makes it clear that quiet and solitude are important to develop ones' spiritual, inner life.

While his life was cut short, in his 29 years, he demonstrated a remarkable young faithfulness and other character traits such as determination and sensitivity to the working of the Spirit as he recognized them.
Indirectly, he asks the questions of trust or mercy, faith or belief which many before and many after him have also pondered.
And he addresses the great question of love.
Like many others before, he met his end steadfastly and ignominiously as a Christian, martyred in the wilds of the Andes by members of the Auca Indians, natives to the region in which Elliot felt called to minister.

Contrasting the sincere devotion of Elliot there are those persons, past and present who represent a different face of Christianity. Some may come to accept their particular views, while others may not.
Recently this Simple Mind had the occasion to hear the speech of a radio preacher.
Clearly a person involved in a segment of the Protestant Christian tradition as opposed to the Orthodox-Catholic Christian traditions, he was in the midst of espousing the abhorrence of "meditation as an evil" due to its apparent complicity with the evil spirits and demons of the world.
Using a bible verse and applying an interpretation of said verse, this man claimed that the Bible was clear, that meditation was evil due to its tendency to free the mind of extraneous thoughts, thereby giving evil the opportunity to enter and possess a soul.

Now, is one to accept this thinking because "we say so," or is one to further study its source or implication to determine true motive? Will Relativism or political correctness accept his thinking because it's his thinking, thus one can't judge, or are we to act to discern the meaning and intention of such a claim?

If this claim is true for the limits of the particular individual, then it is not unreasonable to presume that this person is also contemptuous against all denominations of Buddhism, much or all of the mystical Judeo-Christian tradition and Hinduism, for starters. Well, what's does that leave off the list? His speech sounds like an exercise in Calvinism, possibly or Puritanism, also related to Calvinists.

The take away for this Simple Mind is that truly there are those of many different stripes; the prime commandment for the Christian is not to demonize but to "love your neighbor as yourself, to love one another -- even your enemy." Anything less falls short of the disciples which the Christ called for and commanded. A Simple Mind questions this preacher and his (lack of) education. Ironic, isn't it?

Two + Two Equals Five

"Death is a dogma. It can't be debated or explored rationally. Those who do, don't seem to return to quantify it."  --Simply thinking

Relatively speaking, in the realm of mathematics, preciseness can be relied upon, science too. There is the "scientific" method; we all have been more or less indoctrinated with it from our school years. That in the world which is measurable, quantifiable can be sure; it can be said to be true. So there are absolutes in life.

By mathematical, demonstrable methods, because we can see actual objects, count them, the sum of two and two is known. It can be argued for a "truth." The rising and the setting of the sun, the seasons of the earth, they too can be argued for as "truth." Many readers will quickly, instinctively argue that two and two is four! Why? Because it's true!

What is truth? Is it my way or your way? Is truth what a powerful person says it is, or do I decide, choose my truths?
The Webster dictionary defines truth simply as: the state of being, the body of real things, events and facts. Its more archaic definition interestingly is: fidelity or constancy.

G.K. Chesterton who wrote on many philosophical subjects early in the last century reprises again in The Complete Thinker, the words and ideas of Chesterton edited by Dale Ahlquist. Alquist quotes Chesterton, “Thinking means connecting things.” He writes of Chesterton that 'he wants to know and to connect everything.'
 Instead today we, "want religion kept out of politics. We want it kept out of economics. Well, we want religion kept out of everything! But we have also separated meaning from art, and art from beauty. We have separated health from human dignity, and have separated the family from the home. We have separated the big questions from the little questions and neither is getting answered very well." Chesterton argues that it is today, 'the current failing of man to engage in thinking clearly.'

Things then aren't going very well for the "oneness" under this scenario, now are they? There is, instead, more and growing dichotomies, dualities and increasing egos to match. "You have yours and I have mine," is a prevalent mindset. When much of life is "relative," we, each of us, may fall into the notion that we are the dictators of ourselves, the centers of our own universes. Our feelings, transient as they may be, become the arbiters of existence in the worldly realm. If it feels good, makes us happy, well then--do it!

Without "natural law", the slippery slope that is life becomes entirely negotiable; there is no good or bad. So why isn't the sum of two and two five? How can anyone say that's wrong??

 "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me" – the habit of saying this is mere ego. A universal philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a universal philosophy is constructed to fit a universe. Each person can no more possess a private belief than one can possess the sun and moon privately." --Chesterton

*In other words,
John's truth is relative, while Bob's truth is absolute; therefore John accepts Bob's truth. Bob does not accept John's truth.
OR: It's true for everyone that nothing is true for everyone.
In logical/mathematical terms:
If A, then B.
If B, then not/negative A.
Therefore, if A, then not -A.
This form of argument is called a hypothetical syllogism, a statement of deductive logic which here proves false, because one cancels the other out, though many believe it in its simpler, verbal forms. To put it in mathematical symbols:
 x=y, y=z, therefore x=z.

Think about that.

*To review the truth or falseness of this type of statement, see the classic text on the subject, Copi's Logic.