Punctum Saliens

An excellent post over at the Jesus Creed on the “Sanctity of Life” and I agree with the author of the letter. It seems that the Sanctity of Life only refers to unborn, American babies. Once those babies are born and have life and the danger of abortion is over, there’s no time to worry about the sanctity of that infant’s life — do they have enough to eat, or will they be abused, or will they live in poverty? Likewise, Sanctity certainly does not extend to life in other countries, especially if that country is Muslim or African or has something we want. War is, somehow, not a violation of the Sanctity of Life — someone please explain that one to me. Denying health care or education is not a violation of the Sanctity of Life — uh, what??

I’ve posted on the whole Circle of Life being broken and now the Washington Post (thanks to A Thinking Reed) is talking about the same thing. It’s more than just global warming or just extinction or just melting ice. It’s the feedback loop involving them all and how that loop is “breaking up, it’s breaking up” like Steve Austin’s plane.

I don’t get that many people hitting my site with interesting/funny/bizarre search terms. But one recently was a little surprising. The search term was “devo.” Now, I have a post from March 2007 where I showed a Devo record album cover because that album contained the song “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” which was the title of my post. Now, nothing against Devo (I personally don’t know much of their music) or Devo fans (I personally only know one and he is a bit off — but in that cool, nerdy way. He is actually a Master of Wine and Master Sommelier — very rare) but this visitor actually stayed on my site for 4:10 and looked at 4 pages! Surprising but “thank you” and I hope they return.

This quote from Just Genesis via a comment on Chris Tilling’s blog:

The silence was broken again, this time by a middle-aged man. “I’ll tell you the meaning this story has for me. I’ve decided that I and my family are looking for another church.”

“Why?” I asked in astonishment. “Why?”

“Because when I look at that God, the God of Abraham, I feel I’m near a real God, not the sort of dignified, businesslike, Rotary Club god we chatter about here on Sunday mornings. Abraham’s god could blow a man to bits, give and then take a child, ask for everything from a person and then want more. I want to know that God.”

If you read the rest of the post, you’ll see a classic example of an archetype at work. A Sunday School class views a movie about Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and the reaction is unexpected, unfounded, and totally un-comprehended — all the tell-tale signs that something from the unconscious is rearing its ugly head.

But the man’s reaction I quote above is particularly interesting to me. This man essentially is longing for a return to the monster-God of the O.T. If he characterized any human with the same words, that human would be a merciless tyrant. But that’s what this man expects from a God. Why would someone long for the kind of God who “tests” people the way the Christian God “tested” Job? Or Abraham? Why regress so far into the past when we have the God of the N.T.? Is it because it is easier to follow the O.T. concept of God in the same way that it is easier for a toddler to obey his parents? The toddler, you see, has no relationship with his parents because there is not enough consciousness for a relationship. There is simply a list of rules to follow and a list of consequences if the rules are not followed, a.k.a. The Law. (Having just written that statement, I’m instantly reminded of The Island of Doctor Moreau where the “beasts” are reciting The Law.) There is less freedom and so we don’t have to be conscious in order to please that kind of God. Of course, we also don’t have much of a relationship with that kind of God — what relationship there is is simply awe and fear and trembling and worry that our sacrifices are not good enough. We’ve come so far in our relationship with God but that means it’s harder work and so some would rather go back to the way it was.