Purim

Foyle's War is an English TV detective series which I enjoy. It is set in the town of Hastings, in the WWII era and deals with a policeman's own war on crime which is very much affected by the larger (or perhaps smaller?) war which overshadows England. In the second episode the story revolves around a hotel where a group of those with Facist leanings start to gather. Their leader is a charismatic man who attempts to recruit Foyle's sergeant to his cause. He distributes some literature, amongst which is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Of course I looked this up. You can find a good summary at Wikipedia. It is an appalling read, as one realizes the horrible & tangible effect that false information can have.

There is a particularly haunting passage found there:

"I am the only living witness but I must say the truth. Contrary to the opinion of the National Socialists, that the Jews were a highly organized group, the appalling fact was that they had no organization whatsoever. The mass of the Jewish people were taken complete by surprise. They did not know at all what to do; they had no directives or slogans as to how they should act. This is the greatest lie of anti-Semitism because it gives the lie to that old slogan that the Jews are conspiring to dominate the world and that they are so highly organized. In reality, they had no organization of their own at all, not even an information service. If they had had some sort of organization, these people could have been saved by the millions, but instead, they were taken completely by surprise. Never before has a people gone as unsuspectingly to its disaster. Nothing was prepared. Absolutely nothing." - Nazi leader Erich von dem Bach-Zelewsky

I couldn't help thinking of Esther and the entirely different outcome there.

"Haman immediately sent proclamations to all the king's land. These declarations, sealed with the royal signet ring, ordered the people to rise up against the Jews and kill them all – men, women, and children – on the following 13th of Adar."

It wasn't just the placement of Esther as queen that changed things, but perhaps more to the point the fact that all the Jews were aware of what was happening and fasted and prayed for deliverance, on Mordecai's urging. Throughout the Jews history there had been this cycle - deliverance into the hands of their enemies because of forgetting God; crying for deliverance, God raising up a deliverer who often together with some miraculous power routed the enemy. The end result in Esther's day was a new decree simply allowing the Jews to defend themselves. There wasn't any change to the original anti-Semitic decree, but the ability to defend themselves along with, perhaps, the evident backing of the king & queen (sure, we have a decree saying we can kill any Jews we want to - but what will happen to us if we do? Is this some kind of a trap?).

Carter Conlon recently did a series on Esther, here is one example. This reminded me of the musical that I co-wrote with Emerson Eads which can be seen here. It is something that I am still quite moved by, considering myself to have been more used than author as far as credit goes - discovery vs invention.

This is of course an incomplete thought process. Make of it what you will!

Fault Lines

It is amazing how much the passage of time plus education can change one's perspective. You can of course also pass time without learning anything.

I am looking back at my post "when is a cult not a cult" and am not so sure of it any more. "I was younger then". I will let it stand because it contains some good things, one being an effort to avoid blaming other people for ones own foibles.

Here is an article about cult behavior. Or rather, it is an article about a book called "The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behaviour in American Society" by Dr Arthur J. Deikman. It may be worth noting this quote before reading,(which comes further down in the article): “Eventually, we in the seminar were unable to maintain the belief that cults were something apart from normal society." In other words, there is no black and white border between being in a cult and out of one, but rather a scale of grey which finds most people in normal society (as the article says) involved to some degree in the ways of thinking that typify a cult. (So similar to mental health problems!) “What I wish to stress is not that every group is a cult, but that cult thinking is the effect of psychological forces endemic to the human mind, and that these forces operate in the everyday life of each of us; they distort perception, bias thinking, and inculcate belief.”

Having read and thought this (and other material) over I am not convinced that it is fair to blame people for getting trapped in what we might term "cult thinking". After all, that is a part of what my last cult post boils down to - don't blame the cult, blame the cultist.

A useful definition of the boundary between cult and religion concerns an improper measure of control imposed by some on others.

One cannot blame those being controlled since the invitation was not worded in that way. In fact mentioning an invitation at all suggests that someone actually knows what is going on - those who were "in control". I'm not so sure of this - at least in terms of what is being fore brained, premeditated. Instead it seems to me that there are roles which it is naturally easy to fall into. Roles of leadership ("I am a study group leader" - Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass) and roles of submission. I suspect then that one cannot blame the controllers either.

Submission is in itself a potent drug which deserves its own post.

Did Hitler understand his power, his charisma? Did he consciously abuse it and manipulate people for selfish reasons, or did he truly believe in his fated role as the leader of the master race into a bright new future and world domination?

"Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton. I have heard this modified this to "power may not actually corrupt, but it does always reveal what was there from the beginning". What I am hoping to suggest in this blog post is that there is a real need for us to know and understand our fault lines, our natural tendencies. These are things that I do believe only God can help us with, but I also believe that he has set various natural laws in motion: the easiest to hand being "what you sow you reap". These laws may be used to our advantage.

Although the USA has a fairly corrupt government I do admire the idea of a system of "checks and balances" which seeks to stop runaway trains in any of the various branches of government. An interesting study in one such is Watergate, of which I've recently listened to a really interesting podcast: Slow Burn. it covers many details of the whole affair which I had no idea about. Overall I had no idea of the scale of corruption involved. Near the end the narrator talks about how close Nixon was to pulling the whole thing off and never getting stopped, and about whether Watergate was clear proof of the system of checks and balances working - or not. His conclusion was that yes, it worked - but only because of a series of fortunate coincidences without which it likely would not have worked. Agree or not as your own erudite knowledge would lead you, I still wish to point out that balance is a precarious yet precious thing which should be guarded - "keep your heart, for out of it are the issues of life".

Here is a particularly poignant speech that came out of Watergate. "It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision." - Barbara Jordan. More on reason later.

No Better than my Fathers

Since the Fall we have all
Struggled to return.
But on the road to Eden stands
An Angel with a flaming sword.

There is a sort of shanty town here, built in safety
Just beyond His reach.
Diverse inhabitants -
United only by our certainty
That each will be the one to find
A new and better path to freedom.
Poor lost circus performers,
Donkeys, who drew back;
Actors, lost in character -
We share this common cry:
"O, Let not our God speak to us for fear we die!"

Some choose complete abandon
Let go their inhibitions as if that wild and will-less Baal worship
Could translate them into Reality
(Frenzied flopping in a Goldfish Bowl.)

Some choose a solemn pruning of Habit and Demeanor
Attempt to act out life in Eden, bring it down to them on Earth.
A last-ditch effort; Hail Mary
(The blind rehearsing what they never saw.)

For there is no path from here to there but through the flames
No way back but through that sword
We will remain but squatters in this twilight place
Until we learn to cry
"O Lord, Take away my life -
I am not better than my fathers!"

When is a cult not a cult

To this point, I've lived most of my life in a Christian community and so I know that the label "cult" is a negative one and what it tends to mean to people. I remember that people would accuse us of being one, and we would laugh about it, knowing how far the accusation was from reality. "Cult" implies a certain level of people being controlled in an improper way.

A few disclaimers before going any further. Firstly I want to stress that I don't regard the community I used to live in as a cult or a place where people are controlling other people improperly. Secondly I recognize that such places do exist and very sad things have happened to people in them. The following thoughts are not intended to deny such experiences or attempt to explain them away. The exposure of lies should illuminate truth, not cheapen it.

Leaving community as I now am, I've been mulling over many things and this is one of them. When is a cult not a cult? My answer is that it takes two to tango, and a cult cannot truly exist without members. Furthermore, you can have all the structure and form of a cult in place - down to the tyrannical despot in charge - and yet someone can live in these surroundings and not be living in a cult.

Contrariwise, there can be a community which is set up perfectly with no hint of "cult-ness" about it, and people can live there and be living in a cult.

"I lived in a cult" can therefore sometimes be received as a confession - "I lived", rather than a denunciation - "in a cult".

How you receive is the key to what seems like a contradiction here. "Take heed how you hear" Jesus cautions. "For with the same measure that you use to measure, it will be measured to you".

As for myself I'm finding a strange mixture inside. While the vast majority of what I've learned from my past experience has been wholesome, I am having to detox from certain assumptive ways of thinking; yet while understanding that any such poison has been from my own measuring cup. The assumptions I took on board were never what the community was supposed to be about, never why it was begun: they were only natural byproducts of a certain logistical setup if you will, and supposed to be recognized as such and rejected. Much like how the body recognizes and eliminates toxins it takes in. Perhaps if I could fault one thing in the organization I speak of it would be a lack of clearer teaching warning about such natural assumptions.

Because of course, this whole subject is really about how you receive - take in - eat... There are a few interesting studies about how gratitude can actually make you more healthy. Just think about it - being thankful while you are eating junk food might actually be better for you than being ungrateful while eating health food!

Following on from this I think is the state in which "no deadly thing shall harm you". This is not a promise to be taken lightly: it involves and relies on a complete paradigm shift; a complete abandon to a new life. Jesus said about himself "the prince of this world comes and he has no claim over me / no power over me / has nothing in me". Water off a duck's back.