Previously, I wrote that “enchantment is the opposite of entitlement.” These words of Chris Rice tell of enchantment. He is enchanted with life, lemonade, and love.

Lemonade
(Listen to it here) 

So go ahead and ask her
For happy ever after
‘Cause nobody knows what’s coming
So why not take a chance on loving?
Come on, pour the glass and tempt me
Either half-full or half-empty, yeah
‘Cause if it all comes down to flavor
The glass is tippin’ in my favor 

Life gave me lemonade
And I can’t imagine why
Born on a sunny day
Beneath a tangerine sky
I live life without pretending
I’m a sucker for happy endings
Thanks for the lemonade
Thanks for the lemonade 

Now take your time to answer me
For the beauty of romancing
Is to calm your trembling hand with mine
While beggin’ love to fill your eyes
I can hardly breathe while waitin’
To find out what your heart is saying
And as we’re swirlin’ in this flavor
The world is tilting in our favor 

Life gave me lemonade
And I can’t imagine why
Born on a sunny day
Beneath a tangerine sky
I live life without pretending
I’m a sucker for happy endings
Thanks for the lemonade
Thanks for the lemonade 

I’ve got it made, rest in the shade
And hold my love while God above
Stirs with a spoon, we share the moon
Smile at the bees, more sugar please
He really loves us after all
We’re gonna need another straw
We’re gonna need another straw 

‘Cause life gave me lemonade
And I can’t imagine why
Born on a sunny day
Beneath a tangerine sky
Life gave me lemonade
And I can’t imagine why
Born on a sunny day
Beneath a tangerine sky
I live life without pretending
I’m a sucker for happy endings
Thanks for the lemonade
Thanks for the lemonade 

Yeah, yeah, yeah
Thanks for the lemonade
Thanks for the lemonade 

Songwriter: RICE, CHRISTOPHER M.; Published by Lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

Those of us born here in Canada have been given lemonade. We have already won the global lottery: born in one of the richest countries on the planet, a place with extensive freedoms, a situation in which we can make choices about our destiny, and a position that allows us the blessing of helping others. So, “Come on, pour the glass and tempt me Either half-full or half-empty, yeah ‘Cause if it all comes down to flavor The glass is tippin’ in my favor.” Like all lottery winners, I now must make the difficult choices of how I will use the tremendous resources available to me. “‘Cause life gave me lemonade And I can’t imagine why.”

Another quote from Flannery O’Conner is instructive in her understanding of life.

There is a question whether faith can or is supposed to be emotionally satisfying. I must say that the thought of everyone lolling about in an emotionally satisfying faith is repugnant to me. I believe that we are ultimately directed Godward but that this journey is often impeded by emotion.1

O’Conner knew of suffering; she was diagnosed with Lupus when she was 26 years old and died from complications of the disease at 39 years of age. Her novels tell stories of people who are changed by difficult circumstances in life.

However grotesque the setting, she tried to portray her characters as they might be touched by divine grace. This ruled out a sentimental understanding of the stories’ violence, as of her own illness. O’Connor wrote: “Grace changes us and change is painful.”2

1 Flannery O’Conner in a letter to Betty Hester, September 6, 1955. http://theamericanreader.com/6-september-1955-flannery-oconnor/
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flannery_O’Connor

In 1955, Flannery O’Conner1 said, “Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul.”2 I wonder what she would say about the whole world today. 2014 is a time in which we are “post-everything.” Many have given up on the Catholic Church, given up on Evangelicalism, given up on the Emergent Church, given up on logic, given up on science, given up on truth, given up on God. We go through the motions, looking like we are alive but the distinction between life and non-life is blurred. Consciousness is seen as a by-product of chemical and electrical processes. Is it any wonder the concept of zombies is enjoying a resurgence?

O’Conner shared her theological perspective on the laws of the flesh and the physical in a letter to her friend Betty Hester:

For you it may be a matter of not being able to accept what you call a suspension of the laws of the flesh and the physical, but for my part I think that when I know what the laws of the flesh and the physical really are, then I will know what God is. We know them as we see them, not as God sees them. For me it is the virgin birth, the Incarnation, the resurrection which are the true laws of the flesh and the physical. Death, decay, destruction are the suspension of these laws.3

Starting in July of 1955, O’Conner wrote a number of letters to Hester, a woman to whom she became a spiritual mentor. O’Conner was Hester’s confirmation sponsor in the Catholic Church, continued to engage her in theological dialogue, and tried to sustain her friend’s faith. When Hester later left the church in 1961, professing agnosticism, O’Conner is said to have been deeply disappointed.4






1 Mary Flannery O’Connor (March 25, 1925 – August 3, 1964) was an American writer and essayist. An important voice in American literature, O’Connor wrote two novels and 32 short stories, as well as a number of reviews and commentaries. Her pen name was Flannery O’Conner.
2 Flannery O’Conner in a letter to Betty Hester, September 6, 1955. http://theamericanreader.com/6-september-1955-flannery-oconnor/
3 Ibid.
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Hester

Apple has released a 90 second commercial that features a Walt Whitman poem and narration by Robin Williams. The end of the poem asks the question, “What good . . . [is] me, [is] life?” The answer given is, “That you are here—that life exists and identity, That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” (Watch the commercial here.)

O Me! O Life!
(Walt Whitman)
Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring,
Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish,
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle ever renew’d,
Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me,
Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined,
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?
                                       Answer.
That you are here—that life exists and identity,
That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.
– Leaves of Grass (1892)

Whitman can be given credit that there is a kernel of truth in what he said. Every one of us indeed gets to contribute a verse to the great poem of the universe; but, is that a sufficient answer? If life is a play in which I exist, have individuality, and can contribute a verse, who is the audience to whom I play? Is it enough to contribute to something that, in the end, does not have a purpose? Another poetic work says,

So God created human beings in his own image.
    In the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” Genesis 1:27, 28 (New Living Translation).

Psalm 23:6 (in the King James Version for those who, like me, memorized it in this poetic way) says,

The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil;
My cup runs over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord
Forever.

Taken together these last two poems suggest that men and women who view God as Lord and shepherd over humankind will look after life on earth and then live with God forever. That is a verse worth contributing. Let those who have ears, hear, and choose the path of life.

Leaving the Incarnation aside, the very notion of God’s existence is not emotionally satisfactory anymore for great numbers of people, which does not mean that God ceases to exist. M. Sartre finds God emotionally unsatisfactory in the extreme, as do most of my friends of less stature than he. The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. A higher paradox confounds emotion as well as reason and there are long periods in the lives of all of us, and of the saints, when the truth as revealed by faith is hideous, emotionally disturbing, downright repulsive. Witness the dark night of the soul in individual saints. Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul. Flannery O’Conner in a letter to Betty Hester, September 6, 1955.1

1 http://theamericanreader.com/6-september-1955-flannery-oconnor/

Ben Harper is a great singer songwriter and “Diamonds on the Inside” is one of his best.

Diamonds on the Inside
(Listen to this song here) 

I knew a girl, her name was Truth
She was a horrible liar
She couldn’t spend one day alone
But she couldn’t be satisfied 

When you have everything
You have everything to lose
She made herself a bed of nails
And she’s planning on putting it to use 

But she had diamonds on the inside
She had diamonds on the inside
She had diamonds on the inside
Diamonds 

A candle throws its light into the darkness
In a nasty world so shines a good deed
Make sure the fortune that you seek
Is the fortune that you need 

So tell me why the first to ask
Is the last to give every time
What you say and do not mean
Follows you close behind 

She had diamonds on the inside
She had diamonds on the inside
She wore diamonds on the inside
Diamonds
Diamonds 

Like the soldier long standing under fire
Any change comes as a relief
Let the giver’s name remain unspoken
Well she is just a generous thief 

But she had diamonds on the inside
She had diamonds on the inside
She wore diamonds on the inside
She wore diamonds 

(Diamonds)
Oh diamonds
She had diamonds
(Wore)
She wore diamonds
(Diamonds)
Diamonds 

Ben Harper; © EMI Music Publishing

This song represents a personification of the concept of “Truth.” Ben Harper is writing in an ancient tradition of taking an idea like truth and writing of it as if it were a woman. The great king Solomon did something similar in Proverbs 8 where he personified “Wisdom.” Harper ascribes many things to truth.

Lies are obvious; truth is a horrible liar.
Truth only exists in relationship with others.
Truth is never satisfied; Truth is never complete.
Truth is everything; when you have it you have everything; when you have truth you have everything to lose.
Truth requires severe discipline.
Truth is beauty on the inside.
Truth is light in a dark world.
Truth is true fortune.
Truth is the first thing for which we ask but find that it is the last thing given.
The untruths we speak follow us closely.
Anything that feels like truth is quickly embraced; for, after all of the darkness, it feels like a glimmer of light.
Truth can be a generous thief: stealing from one and giving to another.

Wisdom and truth are closely linked. Consider the following verses from Proverbs 8:1, 32-36.

Listen as Wisdom calls out!
    Hear as understanding raises her voice! . . .
“And so, my children,  listen to me,
    for all who follow my ways are joyful.
Listen to my instruction and be wise.
    Don’t ignore it.
Joyful are those who listen to me,
    watching for me daily at my gates,
    waiting for me outside my home!
For whoever finds me finds life
    and receives favor from the Lord.
But those who miss me injure themselves.
    All who hate me love death.”

Many are talking about entitlement. It has become the recognized sin of our time. A provincial premier uses taxpayer’s money for expensive airfare and the media speaks of an environment of entitlement within the government. The Boomer generation feels entitled to an affluent retirement after years of hard work. The Millennial generation feels entitled to start out on their own with at least as much prosperity as they had in the household in which they were raised. North Americans believe they are entitled to a degree of safety that is far beyond what is achievable in most other parts of the world.

Guy Kawasaki says, “Entitlement is the opposite of enchantment.”1 I like that. When I read those words I hear them in the opposite order: “Enchantment is the opposite of entitlement.” I want to live with a sense of enchantment; to be enchanted by the beauty of this country; enchanted by the good in people; enchanted by every breath I get to take; enchanted by forgiveness; enchanted by self-sacrifice; enchanted by love. That might just cure me of my own sense of entitlement.

1 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/guykawasak458318.html

I just finished reading Barbara Kingsolver’s latest novel, Flight Behavior. As usual, this Kingsolver book is about the concept of “home.” In this particular narrative, she speaks of the tenuous nature of the “home.” She weaves a story that describes the tension between the draw toward home and the desire to fly away to something else. If we are honest with ourselves, we have all experienced this tension. We build ourselves a warm and cozy life only to find ourselves just a little bored and wondering what someone else’s life is like. I am convinced that this partly explains the tremendous popularity of movies and other forms of entertainment. They briefly allow us to escape and immerse ourselves in the other life.

Along with the tension of home versus flight, the author looks at “conformity” versus “difference.” In one scene, we find the protagonist, Dellarobia, considering her son, Preston, her boss, Ovid Byron, and her best friend, Dovey.

[Preston’s] earnest expression and level brow moved Dellarobia to a second sight: Preston would go far. Maybe he’d be a vet, farmers were crying for them around here. Or even the kind of vet that looks after elephants in zoos. For all her worry about his lack of advantages, Preston would be like Ovid Byron. Already he seemed set apart by a devotion to his own pursuits that was brave and unconforming. People were rarely like that, despite universally stated intentions. Most were like herself and Dovey, the one-time rebel girls with their big plans to fly out of here. Her boldness had been confined to such tiny quarters, it counted for about as much as mouse turds in a cookie jar. . . . But here sat her lionhearted son. Maybe it wasn’t a decision, something drawn from the soup of birth. A lightning strike.1

Kingsolver shows great depth of knowledge of the human spirit. She tells of Preston, a boy who is “set apart by a devotion to his own pursuits that was brave and unconforming;” and then points out that people are rarely like that. Oh sure, the universally stated intention is that people want to be different from the crowd, but the fact is, most conform to the crowd. That’s what makes it the crowd.

How important is conformity or non-conformity? Is this part of our desire to find a comfortable home? If we “fit in,” things can be more comfortable for a time; but, what happens when we start to think for ourselves; what happens when we diverge from the herd? I must ask myself, “In what ways do I conform?” “In what ways do I diverge?” “How much am I truly thinking for myself?” These are large philosophical, ethical, theological, and lifestyle questions. Barbara Kingsolver has been successful in drawing me into reflection upon these questions. That is the value of a good book.

1 (Kingsolver 2012, 265, 266)

Work Cited:
Kingsolver, Barbara. Flight Behavior. Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2012.

Jesus knew very well that “the medium is the message.”1 Therefore, he did not come to establish a new religion; he came to establish a new community. Peter Steinfels said,

The work of Jesus was not a new set of ideals or principles for reforming or even revolutionizing society, but the establishment of a new community, a people that embodied forgiveness, sharing, and self-sacrificing love in its rituals and discipline. In that sense, the visible church is not to be the bearer of Christ’s message, but to be the message.2

Do I bear the message or am I the message? What happens when I feel I must choose between speaking the message and modeling the message? To which do I naturally default, bearing or embodying? Let us confess our answers one to another.

1 Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan, McGraw Hill, 1964.
2 Peter Steinfels, On John Howard Yoder, qtd. in The New Christians: Dispatches From The Emergent Frontier, Tony Jones, Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Brilliant words from N.T. Wright:

I think it’s important that Christian theologians give a fully Trinitarian account of God’s action in the world, in which, though God may be thought of as a pure spirit, it is vital for our knowing who God is that he is the father who sends the son and who sends the spirit of the son (Galatians 4.4-7). He is capax humanitatis, because humans were made in his image. His action in the world is not to be thought of as invasive, intrusive or (still less) ‘interventionist.’ . . . God is always at work in the world, and God is always at work in, and addressing, human beings, not only through one faculty such as the soul or spirit but through every fibre of our beings, not least our bodies. . . . Why should the creator not relate to his creation in a thousand different ways? Why should brain, heart and body not all be wonderfully interrelated in so many ways that we need the rich language of mind, soul and spirit to begin to do justice to it all?

The concept of capax humanitatis is new to me and a very helpful description. This explains that God is “capable of holding all of human nature.” Because God made humans in his image, God is fully capable of holding, within himself, all human nature. This is particularly useful as we consider the Son of God: Jesus. In Jesus, we see a person who holds all of human nature within himself; yet, is fully God at the same time. He holds all of human nature; he is the ultimate and complete human; and still has room to be more than human.

Work Cited:
“Mind, Spirit, Soul and Body: All for One and One for All Reflections on Paul’s Anthropology in his Complex Contexts” By the Rt Revd Prof N. T. Wright University of St Andrews. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_SCP_MindSpiritSoulBody.htm