my life

Diana,

“There but for the grace of [your favorite providence] go I.”

Kind of humbling, isn’t it? Having received a much-needed dose of humility today myself, your point is very well taken here.

Dave

Good morning, Dave. :)

I’ve always loved the idea of that phrase (not to mention the pleasing rhythm of it). In order to avoid suggesting a faith I don’t have, I might say “There but for the grace of Luck go I,” although I admit it doesn’t have the same ring to it.* ;)

* Although it makes more sense. If you say “There but for the grace of God go I,” then you necessarily imply that you are getting a special favor from God while the less fortunate–from all times and places–are not. I always thought the grace of God was for all, but “There but for the grace of God go I” suggests the poor sap “there” who never had a chance isn’t benefitting from God’s grace–which makes his situation God’s fault. It’s a somewhat egotistical thing to say, when you think about it–the idea that God favors me but those helpless millions out there are just screwed.

In contrast, luck just happens indiscriminately. No one is to thank and therefore, no one is to blame for those who don’t have it.

Humbling is a good word, although I reserve that more for moments when I’m looking at the stars, or standing on the beach gazing at the point where the Atlantic Ocean and the sky meet, or when I remember for a fleeting moment how many people there have been and are everywhere doing everything imaginable, and see myself and my insignificant life in relation to them. I can’t think of a better word for the realization that anyone who can read this post is luckier than he imagines, though, now that you mention it. :)

It makes me feel…responsible, I guess–not for the lives/feelings/thoughts of others so much as my own, and where I go and what I accomplish. In the realm of health and time and learning, I have practically infinite resources at my disposal. What does it say about me if I don’t avail myself of them?

You had a much-needed dose of humility today? I’m afraid to ask, and fear it may be rude to do so. I hope it wasn’t an unpleasant experience.

d

Diana,

I’ve known people who denied the existence of luck as fervently as some people deny the existence of God. I was trying to be non-denominational in a smart-assed way. (Grin)

“Grace of Luck” does have a nice meter to it, but to me grace implies consciousness which isn’t something I normally associate with luck. I guess it’s because I equate luck with chance, even though they aren’t the same thing. (To me, luck is something that happens when chance says it shouldn’t - like flipping heads eight times in a row.)

As I understand how God’s grace works, He doesn’t grant life, health, prosperity, and such because of anything we’ve done to deserve it. He grants it for his own purpose, although sometimes that purpose is just to be nice to His own, and even nonbelievers get the benefit. (No doubt you’ve heard the claim that America has been so prosperous because it was founded by devout Christians. Personally I think it was a little more complicated than that.)

Maybe humbling isn’t the word for what I was trying to say. (The situations you describe definitely inspire humility.) I was thinking of how frail our position is in this world; how easily our health, wealth, freedom, or lives can be taken away. None of us are exempt. Some of us are just lucky.

My own brush with humility was surprisingly painless - nothing embarrassing, and I don’t think you’d be rude in asking. I sometimes get in a state where I feel like my time is better spent on “important” things like work instead of taking care of a sick wife & child. But last night after grumbling my way through getting everyone their medicine and into bed, I sat on the porch to look at the stars and remembered that just because some things are urgent they aren’t necessarily important. I made up my mind a long time ago that the family comes first. I just forgot.

Dave

Amen

Good morning, Dave. :)

First, I understand the “priorities” problem. Sounds like you have your head on right (not that I doubted). I think we all get sucked into our schedule and plans and sometimes forget what’s important, but as long as we catch ourselves, I think we’re doing all right.

I think the “deny the existence of luck/God” sides of the fence correspond to the “theist/atheist” sides. Y’think? :)

I agree with you on the “Grace of Luck” problem. That might be why it fails to resonate.

I think of “luck” as the condition in which “chance” happens in my favor. (But looking in the dictionary, they can and often do mean the same thing.)

On how God’s grace works…is there any way to distinguish it from sheer chance, then?

Yes, I heard that America has been prosperous because it was founded by devout Christians, or some form of that. I wrote a paper on it a couple of years ago, as a matter of fact. I’m sure this comes as no surprise to you. ;)

It suffers from a couple of problems, that claim. First, people tend to conflate the Pilgrims with the men who fought the Revolutionary War and wrote the Constitution, although almost 300 years separated them. The Pilgrims didn’t found squat; they were British and liked it that way. Those who fought the Rev War did it despite the clear direction in Romans 13. The Constitution was written so as to pointedly exclude the Christian God and any requirements for Christianity for holding office, and was penned by an outspoken deist. Despite all these historical oversights of those who would make that claim, it’s just classic post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, anyway.

So I agree, of course. It’s far more complicated than that. :)

“Frail.” That’s a great word. Yes. That’s the idea.

d

Diana,

“God is to Theist as Luck is to Atheist"? I’ve never seen that one on an IQ test. (Grin) I’m not sure there’s a 1:1 correspondence - some people claim to make their own luck.

I suspect if you did a rigorous statistical analysis you’d find God’s grace and good luck happen with about the same regularity.

I think a society will prosper if it holds to “Christian” values like hard work, compassion for others, forgiveness, and placing the good of the whole above the self. Christianity hardly owns such concepts, but they are the basis for its teachings on how to live day-to-day. People who have the self-discipline to follow these don’t need a lot of governing, and thus can be free to find novel ways to be productive.

That’s a good point about the Pilgrims (and Puritans) being good British subjects. I believe the Puritans had tried to gain influence in the Parliament but were unsuccessful, and their outspokenness against the king and the Church of England was the reason for their “persecution.” They couldn’t tell England how to believe and behave, so they came here. (I hope I got that right. It’s been a while since I read about that.)

[Amusing (to me) tangent: I was talking to a co-worker from Northern Ireland last spring while he was working in our office. He commented on the difference between typical television programming here and in the UK, especially regarding sexual topics. He attributed it to the fact that New York had been settled by the Dutch. I told him it was actually the influence of the Puritans, and he said “Same thing isn’t it? The Dutch have the reputation for being the most boring people in Europe.” I never thought of Puritans as dull; I always thought of them as control freaks preaching self-denial. You know the definition of a Puritan, right? “A Puritan is someone who lies awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere, is having a good time."]

300 years sounds like a bit much. Jamestown was founded in 1607; Plymouth in 1620, Salem in 1626. The Revolutionary War started in 1775. I get about 150 years. It’s still a long darned time.

Dave

Diana,

Argh. I just lost 2 hours’ worth of comments. The blog software threw an “invalid comment” error and when I came back here it was blank. I had a URL in it - maybe that spooked the software.

Anyway, to rephrase:

My co-worker’s remarks were about the people of the Netherlands, not their business exploits.

Christian equivalents of bad luck: a lesson, a trial of faith, God’s effort to bring one closer to Him, an example for others. (One’s faith during the trial is the example, not the trial itself.)

I agree that the Puritans were being persecuted, but they seemed to have some official recognition. There were a few in Parliament, and some were present at a conference held by King James that started work on what became the KJV Bible “to consider the complaints of the Puritans.” They were very outspoken Reformers; maybe they didn’t think the Church of England went far enough and wouldn’t keep quiet about it.

You’re right about picking values that made sense, although the ones you mention aren’t inconsistent with “the good stuff.” (I’ll spare you the details for now.) Christianity doesn’t prescribe a government or an economic model, just rules for living within them. Your mention of a republic reminds me of something I heard a few years ago: in the early days of West Point cadets were told that they may be asked by foreign officials what kind of government our new nation had. The correct answer was “a republic.” “Democracy” was the wrong answer because it was considered mob rule, and wasn’t regarded highly.

Dave

And along these lines–but more in keeping with the OP–I consider myself very lucky indeed to not have been born into Europe during the Dark Ages/Crusades/Inquision, or into any early American settlement. I fear my lack of faith wouldn’t have gone over well.

By the same token, the same applies to Christians who have the luck of not having been born in ancient Rome or modern Soviet countries. (And if you’re a Protestant of any sort, you can add Dark Ages/Crusades/Inquisition and any early American settlement.)

We’re lucky/graced to be living in a place and time where we have freedom to question and live as we believe openly–not unlike ancient Greece (only our “agora” encompasses the world).

It’s mere coincidence, as far as I know, that I’m pursuing these thoughts so close to Thanksgiving. It might be conditioning, but it might just be the weather. There’s something about cooling and shortening days that make you start putting things away for the winter and settling more and more into your cozy den, where you find yourself thankful for basic things like being dry, warm, and well-fed.

Particularly well-fed. :)

d

Diana,

Warm dry and well fed: Can’t argue with that. And I agree with you about living in a place where we can have differences of beliefs without getting the authorities involved.

I’m not sure I follow what you were saying about Protestants and early American settlements, though. The English settlements would have been Protestants: Puritans, Quakers, even the Church of England. I suspect Catholics would have had a tougher time. Or do I misunderstand what you said?

I don’t think Protestants existed during the Dark Ages or Crusades. They were probably called heretics then. That’s small comfort at the end of a sword, though.

That’s an interesting article on the Church of Christ. Well written, informative without being judgemental. Their way of using examples from the Bible makes sense, but examples have to be regarded in context.

Dave

P.S. How do you make a hyperlink in the blog? Does the ‘a’ tag work? D.

Good afternoon, Dave. :)

May I saw, a propos of nothing, that I quite enjoy our friendship, regardless of how much we agree or disagree. You’re kind and you make me think, and you make me laugh–and you remind me to be kind. I shouldn’t need reminding, but I do. Thanks.

On the Protestant thing….I was thinking that today’s Protestants would have been run out of town on a rail in early American settlements, so different are today’s doctrine’s from those of the early settlers. Those settlers, as you well know, lost no time in establishing their own little “church-run” communities, that members were obliged to support through taxes, as well as take oaths (regarding the creeds) in order to hold public office (and I think testify in court). I was attempting to say that those with strong doctrinal beliefs today would not blend, even a little, with the beliefs of those making the rules then. There are some examples (that I’m sure you’re also well aware of) of people questioning the status quo using scripture, and being run out of town for it. Those who simply accepted the status quo fit in nicely and played by the rules. It was those people who did their own thinking that were a problem.

I’m doing a paper on some alleged “proto-Protestants” at the moment, as a matter of fact, who originated circa 1170. I’m confused on why they weren’t simply “Protestants,” though, to be honest. I always thought “Protestants” were Christians who rejected Catholicism. Here’s Encarta’s definition: “a member or adherent of any denomination of the Western Christian church that rejects papal authority and some fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, and believes in justification by faith. The formulation of Protestants’ beliefs began with the Reformation in the 16th century.” Does this mean that, by definition, anyone who met these conditions before Luther weren’t Protestants? I don’t get it. What’s the difference between a Protestant and a heretic? The time period in which they lived? M-W’s definition: “a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church.” These seem to assume there were no Protestants before Luther. Of course there were. What am I missing?

When I finish the paper I’m writing on the Waldensians right now, I’ll post it if you’re interested (and I may post it anyway, even if you aren’t :)).

On the context thing, it’s my experience that any undesirable action can be disregarded through appeal to context as easily as desired actions can be affirmed through the same method. The trouble is in determining objectively, without regard to what one has already decided is right/wrong, what the bible says about it and how you should change your life, accordingly.

d

Oh…the href tag works, except when it doesn’t. Does that help? :)

d

Diana,

Thank you for the kind words. I occasionally say too much and sometimes regret it later. I’m glad I haven’t done that enough to annoy you excessively. (Please tell me if I do.) It’s rare (at least in my circle) to find someone who can debate a topic without taking it personally or dismissing the other completely.

And I make you laugh, it’s just because I haven’t started repeating jokes yet.

I understand now what you meant about the early settlements. I think you’re right - modern believers would have a hard time fitting in. Free thinkers have always been a problem for established authority. While some societies were remarkably receptive to novel thinking (you mentioned Greece before), most people weren’t as tolerant.

My understanding was that the Protestant movement began with the Reformation. I’m not sure who created the term, but Protestantism did have some organization to it and it survived the Church’s efforts to quash it. I wasn’t aware of any organized efforts to reform the Church before that, although there were plenty of people who rejected it. I think they all got lumped together under the term heretic. Maybe Protestants were just the ones who survived.

I’d love to see your paper when it’s done. (How’s this for a “small world” event? I Googled “Waldensians” and the first hit was here. When I first became a believer I went to this guy’s Bible teachings a few times. I was impressed with his scholarly approach to Biblical events.)

You caught the danger I neglected to name (but thought about) when it comes to context - that it’s a matter for interpretation.

Dave

Apparently I don’t have the magic HTML touch. When I said “first hit was here,” the “here” was supposed to be a link to

Dave

Ahem.

http://www.xenos.org/essays/waldo1.htm

I think I’ve hit upon the definition problem I keep running into, Dave. You said, “I wasn’t aware of any organized efforts to reform the Church [before the Reformation].” I’m guessing most people conflate “Protestantism” with “Reformation.” Indeed…the dictionaries seem to sing along.

I wasn’t aware that Protestantism needed to be an effort to reform the church, but that seems to be the case. The Waldensians didn’t try to reform it. They disagreed with it on many points (more as the years went by), and simply had their own underground sect. Instead of raising holy hell (so to speak) about differences of opinion with the Church, they went through all the necessary motions (after the first century or so) to avoid persecution, and thus survived the Inquisition. They didn’t survive the Reformation, though–with the same doctrines they’d had before, anyhow.

This may be why the Waldensians aren’t considered true Protestants. When faced with persecution or secrecy, they went with secrecy.

d

Diana,

I just had a thought, and I’d like your opinion on it before it dies of loneliness. Reformers thought the Church had serious problems and wanted to correct them; Protestants thought the Church had serious problems and separated from it (since the Reformers didn’t have much luck fixing it).

In that sense the Waldensians sound like they should have qualified as Protestants, but I don’t think the term was used until after the Reformation started.

Dave

I think you’re right, Dave. It’s just a name game. They were what we’d consider “Protestants” today, except the name hadn’t been invented yet. So calling them “Protestants” is a bit like saying that dates prior to “AD” were “BC.” Oddly, we can use BC with impunity, but just try calling a pre-Reformation “heretic” a “Protestant.” :D

I have to wonder if using “Protestant” isn’t politically-charged. I think the Church still prides itself on having the sole* claim to antiquity.

* Historically supportable, I mean.

Also, the proto-Protestants were compulsory Catholics, on threat of torture and death, so the Church can legitimately claim that they really were members. There they are on the church register and everything!

d

Diana,

Not many people can coin two phrases in one sentence: proto-Protestants and compulsory Catholics. I like them both, despite that they sound like something from a really strange science fiction movie. (Or maybe because of it.)

Hmmm… “Inquisition 5K: Revenge of the Heretics, coming soon to a theater near you!”

I don’t know about being politically charged, but I’ve never ever seen Protestent with a capital P used to refer to anyone before the Reformation. I guess “you just had to be there.”

(Ugh - now I have that song from The Music Man stuck in my heard, sort of. “That starts with P and that rhymes with T and that stands for Trouble!” Sorry, it’s been a long weekend.)

I don’t think anyone denies the Catholic Church’s claim to antiquity. But not everyone is impressed by it, either. The Reformers took Scripture as the standard and anything that did not comply with it lacked authority, no matter how old it was.

It’s kind of funny - some people will go to great lengths to contrive a history to gain credibility, while others go to similar lengths to claim they’re “new and different” even though what they’re selling (and they’re always selling something) is the same old crud in a new wrapper. (I see it a lot in the computer industry. We joke about the latest fads being FBC: Fully Buzzword Compliant.)

Dave

I wish I could take credit for the proto-Protestants and compulsory Catholics, but I pull both from scholarly articles/books with which I wrote my last paper.

The Church of Christ claims to be the original first century church,* and claims the Catholic church was man’s abomination of what Jesus intended. Further, they believe there has been an unbroken line of true believers throughout history. This is why I qualified my statement about the Catholic Church having the only historically supportable claim to antiquity. ;)

* I should expand on this claim, lest I be taken to task. They teach that they are THE church that Jesus founded. I was grown and had left the church before I learned that they’re Campbellites, a sect that splintered from Presbyterianism in the early- to mid-19th century.

This paper was quite interesting to me in that the scholarly work I read in preparing it pointed out that, at the time (12th C and forward), the accepted wisdom was that a religious belief was more legitimate if it could be demonstrated to be old. Thus, some of these “heretics” went to great lengths to prove that their sect hailed back to the 1st or 2nd century. (To be fair, I still routinely hear this Appeal to Antiquity argument from well-meaning Christians.) Apparently, the urge to “prove” your beliefs are older and therefore “more legitimate/authentic/correct” is an enduring fallacy.

Yeah…isn’t it funny how some people can be just as easily swayed by the “new and improved!” argument as others can be swayed by the “old and proven” argument.

FBC. That’s great!

d

Diana,

I guess “new and improved” works better for laundry detergent than for religion - unless the people you’re marketing your religion to are completely fed up with the available choices.

I’ve never encountered a church (other than Catholic) that claimed an “unbroken line” all the way back to the first century - not that I’ve been in many churches to begin with - but the ones I did attend claimed to adhere to Scripture and not the human pronouncements and distortions of other churches.

I guess it’s possible for a church to have it both ways - they’re “new and improved” because they’ve “rediscovered what God really intended for the church as set out in Scripture.”

Dave