Timing is Everything
Note: I didn’t take the time to refine my prose in this post. Please forgive its sloppiness and potential incoherency. I don’t even know whether I’m really saying anything profound here but it is certainly something that was good for me to write, for my own well-being. I look forward to your comments.
What does it really mean to say that timing is everything? How long must one wait for something to occur? I’ve been waiting for much too long now and yet something is beginning to happen. Something new. Something risky. Something completely unanticipated. For now, I will refer to it as the Factor. I do not want to disclose what that is at this time. So don’t ask. But why now? What kind of meaning is there to the sequence of events in one’s life? What is the meaning of the time in-between the soul-changing events?
Is there perhaps a space in the so-called Christian life for the unexplainable, the unpredictable, even perhaps, the “sinful”? If we are to describe the Christian life as a life that is Christian then perhaps we have neglected the “dark side” of Christianity. Why? Because that is the essence of life: the dark and the light, the good and the bad, and everything in-between. We don’t really get to choose where our path (or “destiny” if you wish) might take us. What we do get to choose is whether we will accept or deny one’s life situation and where it might take them. Do we allow our beliefs/standards to inhibit such a necessary part of the journey or do we allow them to be integrated into the larger story? Now, in many ways, this post is extremely premature, at least as far as the personal element is concerned. The Factor hasn’t really happened just yet. But it has at least given me at last the final sense that something bigger is happening and it has been all along.
For some time now, I have undergone a major transition in my life, namely my “spiritual” life. What happened is that my spiritual life, at least its interior aspect, pretty much just disappeared over the past few years. I have been going through a spiritual dark stage of sorts, taking it step by step, letting it be what it needed to be. I have tried not to avoid the natural journey into the dark. For some time now, I have for all practical purposes pushed God out of my life. And yet the entire time there has been a part of me that has known that that is precisely what I needed to do. I needed to let a part of me die, truly die, so that it could become something else, something that it needs to be. In many ways, this process led me to the conclusions concerning the church in the earlier posts. The vice versa is true as well. My thoughts concerning the church have shaped the way I interpret my life. Where I am personally is exactly where I need to be right now. It just is what it is. For those who wish to frame it in a Christian context, it could be said that “God has led me” into this dark stage.
I have experienced many things within the past year that most would consider to be very non-Christian. And in many ways, perhaps they’re right. But what’s missing from that idea is the larger concept of the story. I think this is precisely where our idea of individual, isolated “acts” of sin goes awry. It’s like the “What Would Jesus Do?” fad that was in a few years ago. It assumes that we come upon a certain situation and make a decision as to whether it’s right or wrong. But sin, in my perception, is far more contextual. We live in a sinful world. We can’t escape it. From the clothes we wear to the houses in which we reside to the country in which we live, we cannot escape sin. We must therefore make decisions as to where we will spend our energy. We have to pick and choose our battles in life because if we try to fight them all, we will lose more than we win. Take the sex discussion for example. Do we spend all our energy focusing on trying not to lust after another woman or is that energy better spent in areas that are more focused on the “other” (and not ourselves)? Do we really think God’s primary concern is our sexuality? Or our language? Or our sources of entertainment? Isn’t he perhaps more concerned about guiding us through our respective lives and thereby leading us to help others? This is why I do not concern myself with such things anymore. They're just not important in the grand scheme of things.
The main point that I wish to express here is that we should be more concerned with the journey and direction of our lives rather than its status on the scale of sin. For sometimes sin is a necessary evil that must be experienced and not just looked upon. Perhaps this is the precise meaning of the cross: sin is not to be avoided per se, but engaged. And as a result, we must accept the consequences of that engagement, wherever they might lead. And if that engagement takes months and even years, so be it. Sometimes we just have to let life be what it is. Some of it is within our control, some is not. You could lose everything at the drop of a hat and be left to pick up the pieces. And then on the flip side, you could happen upon the meaning of life by turning left instead of right. Call it what you will but in the end, timing will refuse to be anything other than everything. So give it the attention it needs...for if you don’t, you might miss something great, something beyond your imagination, something that makes life worth living...

24 Comments:
A character in the novel I'm writing said something that I think is relevant to this post:
"But, as I often say, I don’t really believe in coincidences anymore. Life is a bit like a spider web. If you make all the right connections, you construct a pattern and secure yourself a place in the world. At some point, the pattern will be torn apart to be created anew by another life. The challenge is, of course, making the connections and perceiving the pattern. Although it often feels that life is more like a puzzle with no pieces. You’ve already started...and you’ve already finished..."
12:38 AM, April 20, 2005
I had forgotten Luther's words. Thanks. The meaning lies in its experience. It's the stuff of life. Bittersweet.
1:09 AM, April 20, 2005
“It assumes that we come upon a certain situation and make a decision as to whether it’s right or wrong.”… “Sometimes we just have to let life be what it is.”
This weekend I talked with a friend I hadn’t in a long while. We were talking about a lot of things, but he was saying how people are always categorized and put into boxes. I think also you are talking about our need to define everything. We have to decide whether something is right or wrong, or whether someone is a Christian or not, or whether our own lives are what we want them to be. Those decisions don’t have to be made all the time.
1:32 AM, April 20, 2005
Hey amigo, sorry I've been awol myself so much lately. busy times away from the computer. Looking in the near future, I can't promise that will be different in the near future...it's busy times for my vocation. That being said, I'm still very interested in the conversation here, and reading it consistently even if I haven't digested it properly enough to contribute. Honestly, the conversation interests me by its own merits, but of course my greater interest is keeping conversation with my friends.
Now on the post. There are a couple of things I wanted to comment on it it. The first is, I question the leap from the proposition that entertainment, sexuality, and language are not God's primary concern to the conclusion that that makes these things unimportant and not valid concerns. Sure, they're not the most important things in the universe, but that doesn't mean they're useless. My real concern isn't with these particular domains as much as the reasoning.
Can we so easily abandon the idea of signficance of isolated acts? It seems to me that without such concreteness the story doesn't come together very well. Now where I do agree with you is that we can abadon the story by becoming preoccupied with particular instances of success or failure in our lives, and lose sight of the most primary concepts of our journey. But does "these things are not as important" really equal "screw 'em"? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that in most relationships. Aren't relationships with friends, spouses, coworkers, employers all dependent on both the big picture and the details in which that picture is worked out? If I tell my wife, "babe, the important thing is that I'm committed to sharing my life with you and loving you until we croak...But by the way, I'm never doing the dishes again." Does that mean our marriage is over? Probably not, but does that mean I'm making anything close to a good choice? No, because the important thing is reinfocred by the not so important things.
Now you may be saying, "Yes, but that paves the way for a legalistic perspective, the same old crap we've always heard." The difference may be in keeping our eye on the big picture, on the larger scope, the weightier matters if you will. but neglecting the smaller things? I dunno.
The reason I'm critiquing this from the perspective of the reasoning instead of the domains is that there is another discussion about what is really right/wrong within those domains, and that clouds the issue. to me there's a big difference between saying, "We have overdrawn the line, and this thing that we used to say was wrong is really morally good or neutral" and saying "This thing that we've always heard was wrong is in fact still morally wrong, but it's not as wrong as some other things or attitudes so I'm not going to worry myself with it." To me in these domains you've listed of sexuality, entertainment and language there may be many places where we say the first thing, but I don't know that the second statement is valid.
Yes, sin is all pervasive and we can't, of our own power, free ourselves of all culpability. but does that mean that our sanctification becomes limited to only trying to help other people? Seems doubtful to me, at least as far as I read the book.
Crap, I have more to say, but I'm already beyond commenting to ranting. That means I should leave it be at this, and come back for more later.
I think this thought is important, amigo, and I want to understand where you're coming from on it.
10:18 AM, April 20, 2005
leigh botts,
"Those decisions don't have to be made all the time." You're exactly right and this sentence is a good representation of what I'm trying to say.
dante,
Just haven't got around to it really. It's taken all I have to post on my own site! Was there something specific you wanted me to say on there?
12:34 PM, April 20, 2005
stevepvc,
Side note -- You should probably remember to sign your comments as "thesystem" lest anyone refer to you as such.
I should probably start off by saying that I'm not trying to make a comprehensive statement concerning the nature of sin in the world. That would require greater nuance and far more writing.
I really don't see the jump of reasoning that you're claiming I'm making. I never once said that those things were "useless." I'm simply saying that for far too long the Church has been treating these things as if its very existence depends on people approaching them right from every angle. I just think that there are more important things going on in the world (like hunger, starvation, and plague, for example) than whether someone happens to be straight or gay or whatever the hell they are.
Dude, where did I ever say "screw 'em"? Or even imply that they should be outright disregarded? I'm not even really sure what you're reacting to here! The details are important, yes - that's exactly what I'm saying! But if those details end up being something other than "virtuous" or "righteous" then are we willing to accept them? That's the real question. I'm saying we shouldn't preoccupy ourselves with their relative sinful or virtuous nature and just accept them for what they are. I'm not encouraging any denial or "neglect" here whatsoever.
Something to consider: why do we always err on the side of individual sin rather than contextual? Because it's a wonderful distraction. We'd rather sit around, beat our chests, and pour ashes on our heads than actually figure out what the hell is really wrong with the world. Sanctification is certainly not limited to helping other people but it also doesn't hinge on whether I (or you) think that having one too many beers is a wise thing to do. I would far rather see the church err on the side of it potentially limiting sanctification to helping people. That's one sin I could live with the church (and me) making.
Thanks for your comments. Hope things are going well with the job. I take it that it's your turn to wash the dishes?
1:38 PM, April 20, 2005
It's always my turn to wash the dishes. (just kidding, babe.)
5:03 PM, April 20, 2005
I'm trying to look at this VERY hypothetical (so far) series of questions from the point of view of trying my doggonedest to be as much like Jesus as humanly possible - having that "Be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect" goal in mind, and not settling for less - and I just can't see dancing on the line of prudent/permissible as part of that scene.
Which don't mean that once in a while I might not look around to see if anybody's watching and then running to put my toe across because I just had a world-class aching to. Is that an act of defiance? Or just weakness?
Because if somebody I'm trying to nudge (or better yet, point) toward Jesus is watching, there's a chance that my credibility is blown for good. Is it worth it?
Maybe I can re-inflate it a little by being transparent and owning up to it. Should I risk it?
Then there's my whole relationship with the Big Guy. Doesn't He deserve better than my utleast when He gave up His Highest for me and everone else?
I know these are modern arguments in a pomo blog. But they're still real concerns to me; I'm still trying to make the transition to a different century.
Gimme a break. I turn 50 this year!
7:14 PM, April 20, 2005
Just as a matter of curiosity, how many things does Jesus directly classify as "sin"?
I can think of very few. Verbal abuse (calling a brother "fool"), speaking carelessly (does that include blogging carelessly?), blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, turning Him over to Pilate, Pilate condemning Someone who is innocent. Maybe judging others.
How do we define "sin," then?
Do we assume He was just touching up the jots and tittles (I love that word) and iotas of THE LAW, then? So if we're not in compliance with that, we get hit with a cease-and-don't-exist?
I know this is banging on the door of a whole nuther issue, but I'm curious about what all you bright minds think.
1:16 PM, April 22, 2005
kb and hobbes,
I'll try to respond on Sat. before work. If not, then asap.
schiamachy,
Welcome to thesecondchance. All newcomers are entitled to a drink on the house...especially if you're giving stevepvc due props.
2:16 AM, April 23, 2005
Patrons of thesecondchance,
The Factor develops...
If you think thewalrus is a force to be reckoned with now...wait til the Factor comes to fruition. It may be soon, it may be later, only time will tell. And believe me, time will tell. I'm walking a tightrope here folks so fasten your respective seatbelts and prepare for a ride...because if it happens and you're along for the ride, it won't stop...and hell itself will tremble...
2:28 AM, April 23, 2005
eskimofriend,
It's becoming more and more one of my goals in life just to figure out who the hell you are. Regardless, thanks for being a regular and I'll confess that I might be getting a little hooked on the haikus...
The Factor is the Factor...and can never be reduced to one person... That's all I have to say for now.
3:17 AM, April 23, 2005
When the Factor does in fact come, will we be told? Or will it be just as mysterious as it is now? I certainly can't wait to know.
In other news I might get employed at the fireworks place.
7:33 PM, April 23, 2005
my friend the walrus has always been a master of developing his own curiosity and that of the folks lucky enough to witness his kung-fu action. Can you create a post where second chance patrons guess about the factor for a while? that would be a fun game.
10:36 PM, April 23, 2005
walrus,
Sorry I'm just getting around to responding. vocationally, things are pretty great right now! academicaly, all will be well by the end of the week. (somebody should be typing something else right now!)
Okay, before I go back to the earlier comments, there was something else I wanted to ask about. It seems that this post reflects a more deterministic view than I think I've heard from you before, particularly in the third paragraph. does this represent a change in your thinking, and how recently? (it may have been years ago, but I didn't think that was where you were.) that theme really is a major part of this post, but hasn't been discussed very much. If that is the case, then it probably relects a more radical difference in our thinking than the other discussion, which I think is largely semantic (though not unimportant).
(why do I insist on over-using paretheses?)
I agree with much of what you say in the above response, particularly regarding a distorted emphasis of preoccupation of individual sin and its effect of leading us to neglect action to correct contectual evil. How does that preoccupation and the neglect it creates fit within the deterministic view though?
Second issue:
I need you to clarify what you mean by accepting the details of our lives. Do you mean in a retrospective sense, as we encounter our memory? In other words, that we accept where we've come from and all that has constitudted our lives? If so, then I am more inclined to agree. If you mean in our present agency, or that we accpet what we are currently choosing to do because this just happens to be part of us experiencing sin, then I think I disagree. If I am accepting what I am currently doing, and am always bound to do this, then my life has no direction, and I cannot become anything intentionally good. I will become more like what the world wishes me to become, with the consent of my flesh. As a disciple, though, I learn and follow, I choose to imitate. In moments I choose to reject certain courses of action and pursue others, not just because they are defining, but more because they are sculpting.
Third issue:
primary concern vs. periphery
this is more what I addressed earlier, but I think I can say it better now. Why is this an either/or matter? perhaps my earlier comment stated it too harshly, but can you really not see what I was responding to? Your original post definitely implies that certain choices don't merit our concern. Explicitly, you write, "we must therefore make decisions as to where we will spend our energy. We have to pick and choose our battles in life because if try to fight them all, we wll lose more than we win." how am I supposed to read that, except as an argument to minimize or eliminate some elements from our understanding of discipleship on the basis that there are more important things to worry about. Yes, there are more important things to worry about, and yes, there are some serious misunderstandings of the nature or content of "sin" (yes, Keith!). But does the greater importance of some matters necessarily mean that we shouldn't attend to the peripheral ones? I see no other way to read your original post except as making that argument, because you do it on the basis of an economy of our personal energy...we must choose one because we can't do both. Is that really so? I don't think so. It seems that energy expended on one should contribute to the other. The perception of imbalances or wrong emphases does mandate a correction of those emphases both in the focus of personal piety and in the public speaking and teaching of the church. Please trust that I pursue this imperfectly, but honestly. Those foolish emphases are so imbedded!
Okay, in debatalk, that's my negative block (that's why I got to go so long. you only have five minutes..better group some stuff.)
the part of "the system"
was played by stevepvc.
11:53 PM, April 23, 2005
Timing is everything...and when it comes to the Factor, it is all the more. Just order another round folks, you'll be at this a while. Nothing is ever what it seems...
lb,
Look forward to working with you at Shelton's. I'm preparing for an overall interesting summer. The Factor is merely in development now as I have many other variables to account for, but yes, it will be revealed in due time.
stevepvc,
I know I missed the deadline but I need a 2-day prep for the 1AR, not 5 minutes. I'm too old for that now...and too many other things happen. But I'm still up for the challenge nevertheless. I'll consider the Factor post. I'll get to a response to your comments asap. I have to work a double tomorrow so it may be Monday before I get to it.
3:47 AM, April 24, 2005
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Hector Louis Berlioz
1:55 PM, April 24, 2005
anonymous,
If that were true in my case, I would have been dead a long time ago.
3:05 PM, April 24, 2005
man, I'm pretty sure I didn't understand that.
4:25 PM, April 24, 2005
I don't know what the Factor is, but as far as I'm concerned, only a real-world brick-and-mortar Christian "bar" where people could fill up on spiritual-but-real-world conversation and encouragement could beat this virtual one and if that "factors" into the equation, I'm going to start praying for it. Heck, I'll start praying for it even if it doesn't factor in, because I don't know anybody more qualified to tend it than thewalrus.
Okay, maybe the guy in the last two episodes of Quantum Leap - but Sam thought that bartender might be God (even though he denied it), and he was just a character in a teleplay.
(I still can't put out of my mind that final scene of the series, where Sam is weighing the possibility that he could go home - if he could remember anything about home - rather than leaping to the next life he could help ... and the bartender sits down beside him, puts an arm around him, and tells him - almost with tears of admiration - "Sam, you've done a lot of good ....")
7:53 PM, April 24, 2005
Hi, new disembodied voice here. Just finished reading through ya'lls comments and request your best beer on tap.
I am very intrigued by yous guys thoughts and reflections and hope to enter the conversation for education and inspiration and to have a damn good time.
If I have your permission, I would like to be Dr. Bull Shit, today.
I think I am "familiar" with the walrus (one can really never know), which seems to be a common connection in this bar--since he is the owner and all. By the way, do you know what role your giant tusks play in the life of an animal like you, Mr. Walrus? Clearly, they are too big for being useful as a predator. From what I hear, they help to pull your fat ass out of the frigid water and onto the snow/ice covered land. You are graceful and elegant in the water...but a bit frumpy on land. Maybe you should go with Corona Light tonight. However, I venture to say that those mighty tusks are quite intimidating and even useful for opening long necks. As I ponder my next sentence I have realized that possibly the walrus is not a walrus because of a "fat ass." Perhaps, just perhaps, we have another layer of meaning here...possibly a metaphorical bridge in order to convey some existential commonality with a walrus? I have diarrhea of the mouth.
I must admit that I wish I would have entered this conversation a few blogs back. I am very interested in what has already been said. In fact, I just finished perusing through most of the whole dialogue since it's inception. Your thoughts are precise and witty--even when apparently inebriated--or at least with a tankful.
Concerning our current discussion, it seems like we are moving through this discussion of the "darker side" of Christianity with a straight-jacket. We are confined in our discussion because we are talking about sin, virtue and the universe as if these things are ordered in a moral cosmos. Well if you are playing this card, I say "Bullshit!" Show me your cards and then take that fat ass stack of cards in the center of the table. Mr. Walrus, are you bullshitting too? I feel compelled to weakly say yes. But, maybe no. It seems to me that we are talking about sin as a referent concept. Sin, in this referential way, is missing the mark of the ideal virtue. That is to say, there are these floating ideas/principles that revolve around our earth and order the world--the moral world. Sin refers badly to these virtues. So a religious person spends much preoccupation with aligning the soul with these principles/virtues. It seems like the only basis for any kind of ethics isn't in a code but in the other. I think we could find warrant backing for this in the sacred scriptures (if you are so inclined to do so as--that's were I come from). Sin isn't about offending the moral code intrinsic in the universe. Sin is more of a descriptive word--relating to a chaos between bodies. So perhaps, Walrus boy, you have actual found a more ethical way, yet still are trapped in a paradigmatic cosmos that says you are sinning.
I might with temerity, suggest that the walrus has entered a place which cannot be named. Words fall. In a nameless place, ethical landscapes, paradigmatic edifices disintegrate. Meaning is less and thinner in such places. In fact words tend to operate more like paint thinner which stripe the color from our paintings and the world goes gray (of course I am naming right now, aren't I?). Yet this world isn't blank. It isn't nothing--it's just shadowy. The vocabulary and conceptual mapping of previous life remain--just in shadow. Religious language is farce or worse, jargon. Contemporary religiosity in this place we call america is spoken in a language without a grammar. There is no unifying structure. Of course we continue to build structures of words--but in nameless places these things fall. What remains. Well, I again with temerity, venture to say that the face of the other never loses color (in nameless places strictly speaking--other places where ideology and gnosticism have sex it is quite easy to discolor or even erase the face). Words fall, but the face remains. Even in insanity provoked by nihilism, Nietzsche's horse remains. We can't escape. But when we try...that is sin. Pandora's box is opened.
However, let me briefly deconstruct myself. I am worried about one thing walrus. Our ability to focus on the other is often preserved by our sanctification. Sanctification helps us face the other. When we are stripped and put in nameless places, we often are more animal like. Surviving often becomes more important. But again, perhaps we could re-find the fact that ethics derived from Jesus are ethics derived from a life that moves to death--not survival. Consequently, all of our values should be either related to our ability to hear and perceive the other or they should be named for what they are--a religous hegemony which promotes imperialism with a superficial smile and is enacted like masturbation--hands clutch and control and such clutching brings sensory pleasure. I think more of what the american race calls church is this form of oppression. Which then causes me to ask, how do you publicly close the church when they have kidnapped the word?
In the end, we should just live our life with everyone--fully. American religiousity is a suburbian experience. What is so deceptive about the suburbian experience, the walrus identified. This world is submerged in sin--actions which try to escape the other and thereby mar the world. The suburbian mindset says flee the other for we will be entangled in sin--yet such fleeing is the root of all sin. If sin is at root relational, then no matter where we go our judgment is declared by our posture to the other. Innocence is defined solely by our posture--who we face. (it seems the recent movie The Village speaks marginally about this).
Sorry, I came in with a big sledgehammer--I leave it with you mr. Walrus. After this, I hopefully won't have so much to poop out of my mouth.
Show me a sane man and I will cure him (Jung)
11:18 AM, April 26, 2005
Man, this place never ceases to have surprises.
You guys are outpacing me a bit in this thread. I'm working on the responses, trust me. But keep the comments coming. I'm digging the bullshit.
squanchum,
Welcome to thesecondchance. Glad you caught up on the reading. I look forward to your future comments and (hopefully) posts. I'll respond soon.
6:06 PM, April 26, 2005
Good design!
[url=http://npzqdyxf.com/qefu/vvnp.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://lqxgacxa.com/schy/jfhs.html]Cool site[/url]
4:37 PM, September 18, 2006
Nice site!
http://npzqdyxf.com/qefu/vvnp.html | http://jewrmobe.com/jpvf/rchh.html
4:41 PM, September 18, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home