But Men at Whiles are Sober

One of the more sobering passages for any Christian comes in the Sermon on the Mount:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21–23)

In verse 22, Jesus notes that many, not just some, will find themselves at the last day thinking that all this time they had thought they were doing many wonderful works in the name of God and find out that Jesus does not recognize them or their works. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of piety: "whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." (John 16:2). A thoughtful Christian probably should be doing as the apostles did, becoming "exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?" (Matthew 26:22).

The passages immediately preceding and following this section from the Sermon on the Mount help to set it in context. The one before says:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:15–20)

Jesus tells his followers that there will be false prophets (and we should remember that the term for prophet in both Greek and Hebrew meant spokesman--a prophet is a spokesman for God) who will come to them. The term translated as ravening has alternate translations of presumptuous (if you are looking at Syriac) or rapacious, usurping (if you are looking at Greek). They can be recognized by their fruits, that is, their works. Are they productive, peaceable, good, or are they contemptible, clandestine, corrupt?

In the following section, Jesus says:

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:24–27)

In Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 7:24-27 the emphasis is on those who actually do the will of God. That will of God is announced by prophets, but not false ones.

Still a Christian ought to ponder, at least occasionally, that it takes more than claiming that one is a Christian to be recognized as one by Christ.

 

Today's Maxwell Quote

From A More Excellent Way (1967), 108:

Lazy leaders will find it easy to rationalize too many times the possible gains in group effectiveness to be achieved by deliberate involvement.

The assertion that directive action by the leader saves time is not always borne out by the facts, especially when continuing compliance in spiritual things almost always involves building a commitment which will stand up under the pressure of time and circumstance.

Telling the Terrible Tale

Recently a colleague exasperatedly asked me why my blog covered such dreadful things all the time.

Well, forn spǫll fira means the ancient story of man. If it had been the forn gods spǫll, that is the ancient story of God, then it might be different. Men make a mess of things in ways that God does not. Men generally have not and do not treat their fellow mortals in a godly fashion. History reflects that. To contrast the way of God and the way of man, we actually have to look at both and see the differences; they are not hard to miss.

The fact that we repeat the same mistakes again and again show that we clearly have not learned from the past. One illustration of that is Paul Simon celebrating in not just one but two songs his ignorance. "Don't know much about history," he sang in one. "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all," he sand in the other. Granted Paul Simon is a bit dated, he was singing these things about the time the parents of today's children were born. Studies show that today's students are actually studying considerably less than they were when Paul Simon extolled the virtues of knowing nothing. History repeats itself, depressingly so.

But telling the ancient tale of man is actually telling a story. The narrator's art, or lack thereof, can make some difference, but there is the actual story itself. A first rate storyteller, J. R. R. Tolkien, put it this way:

Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway. (J. R. R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, chapter 3.)

What makes a story good to listen to and good to live in are usually not the same things.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Power is most safe with those, like Washington, who are not in love with it! A narcissist society, in which each person is busy looking out for number one, can build neither brotherhood nor community.

A.D. 328

A.D. 328 was the official consecratio of the new capital of Constantinople, the symbol of the new direction in which Constantine was taking the Roman empire. Constantine had planned it for some time, and construction had actually been proceeding for a couple of years. Now, it was official. Constantine rejected the old capital of Rome, and indeed, had always neglected it. Four years later, the bread distributions that had been a staple of Rome were transferred to Constantinople; the grain revenues that had supported Rome for so long now flowed in a different direction, just as the sources for that revenue began to dry up (quite literally, the canal system in the Fayyum was clogging up from neglect).

Indications of Constantine's new direction could be seen from a number of items.

In A.D. 311 Galerius issued an edict of toleration in the Eastern Roman Empire which stopped the active persecution of Christians. In A.D. 313 Constantine made Christianity legal. This is sometimes known as Constantine's edict of tolerance, but it turns out not to have been so tolerant. In 324, in the Egyptian city of Panopolis, Horion, son of Horion, applied for the familial post of prophet of the temple of Min. Constantine's government, however, rejected the application, and forced the whole family to relinquish their ancestral occupation (and the revenues) and find employment elsewhere. (The story is told in this book.) Christianity might be tolerated but the priesthood of Min would not be.

Actually, even Christianity would not be tolerated. Philosophical differences in the church of Alexandria caused a division in the Church. Constantine decided to settle the dispute, even though he was neither a philosopher nor a Christian, and did not really know anything about the subject. As a result of Constantine's meeting in A.D. 325, half of the Christians were condemned to persecution by their fellow Christians. The Christian world was also burdened with having to figure out and explain a poorly-thought-out and incoherent philosophical term.

Eusebius, a partisan of Constantine and his beneficiary, writes of Constantine in glowing terms, as though Constantine were the greatest thing to ever happen to Christianity, and had single-handedly ushered in the millennium. Alas, it did not prove to be such.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Mortal choices need not necessarily be wicked in order to do harm. Some choices are diversions more than they are transgressions. As a result of these diversions, the sins of omission mount up. And they constitute a real deprivation because of what we withhold from our fellow human beings. Perhaps it is unintentional, but without that first commandment, some things get omitted.

An Academic Scandal Handled Correctly

While it is far too easy to find poorly handled academic scandals these days, it is actually a pleasure to see a major problem handled correctly. This report of a botched final exam at NYU created a big problem and was totally unfair to the students. The professor, Rick Pildes, however, handled the problem the best that he could, and serves a model of how to handle such a scandal. The report deserves to be read if not studied, but the solutions can be summarized:

1. He acted immediately, within half an hour of the discovery of the mistake.


2. He apologized and expressed his sympathy to the victims.


3. He explained, as best as he could reconstruct, exactly how the problem occurred. He did not stonewall or dissemble.


4. Even though he was not entirely at fault he took the blame and full responsibility for what happened.


5. He assured the victims of a prompt solution and resolution even though he had to consult authorities and even if he had not worked it out yet.


6. He apologized again to the victims.


7. He worked out a reasonable solution and restitution that could be resolved within the week.


8. He gave the victims reasonable options and a chance to make informed choices.


9. He did extra work to make things right and the victims knew it.

Imagine how things might have turned out if other university scandals were handled this way.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

One of the worst consequences of severe selfishness, therefore, is this profound loss of proportionality, like straining at gnats while swallowing camels (see Matt. 23:24; see also JST in footnote 24a). Today there are, for example, those who strain over various gnats but swallow the practice of partial-birth abortions. Small wonder, therefore, that selfishness magnifies a mess of pottage into a banquet and makes 30 pieces of silver look like a treasure trove.

How Administrators Deal With Differing Points of View

Anthony Watts has unearthed an interesting story. At San Jose State, Allison Bridger (Chair of the Department of Meteorology and Climate Science) and Craig Clements (an Assistant Professor in the department) have decided that certain alternate views do not deserve to be heard. They have decided to literally burn books they disagree with.

The rewriting of history by destruction of the older records has a long history; the examples from ancient Egypt are too many to recount. But it does not always work the way the censors would like. Think of how effective Diocletian's burning of books was at destroying Christianity. No matter how competent Diocletian may have otherwise been, he is remembered first and foremost for his persecution of the Christians, burning their scriptures and other books, confiscating their property, and killing many of their leaders. They survived anyway. (This is not to minimize the destruction he wrought, just to point out that he did not eradicate the movement, he only destroyed his reputation.)

That modern academia would think that the destruction of books would be (a) effective, and (b) ethical leaves one to wonder what their knowledge of history and commitment to academic freedom really is. I guess some points of view are more equal than others.

The other curious thing is that the professors in question actually bragged about their deeds on their department website (though Watts reports that it has since been taken down). That is certainly one way to broadcast one's tolerance to the world.

Perhaps they thought they could do this because Dr. Bridger is a university administrator, many of which seem to think themselves unbound by ethics, morals, or laws. Perhaps they are simply following the subliminal messages from the pictures in the background. But that would mean that they were simply mindless automatons, incapable of independent thought.

In this case, one wonders what this did to Drs. Bridger's and Clements' carbon footprint. Shredding the book, while as intolerant and Orwellian as burning it, would at least not have increased the now allegedly lethal levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Aren't these people supposed to be against increasing carbon emissions?

Some of the first hundred or so comments on the story are worth reading.

Reading Yahya ibn Adi III

In his Reformation of Morals, Yahya ibn Adi extols the virtue of fidelity:

Fidelity . . . is steadfastness in what a man expends of himself and for which he gives his word as a pledge. It is leaving behind what gives him security, even if it is to his own detriment. One is not reckoned faithful who incurs no harm by reasons of his fidelity, even if it is only small. Whenever stepping forward into something he judges to be for the good of his soul brings him harm, one is the more developed in fidelity. This moral quality is laudable; everyone will profit from it. Whoever is known for fidelity will be taken at his word in everything he promises. Whoever is taken at his word has great dignity. However, the advantage for kings in this moral quality is greater, and their need for it is stronger. For, when some of them are known to have little fidelity, they are not trusted when they make promises, their objectives are not achieved, and their army and their officials do not have faith in them. (Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, trans. Sidney H. Griffith [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2002], 34-37.)

The Arabic term for this is wafā' which comprises notions of integrity, faithfulness, loyalty, fidelity, good faith, and even the discharge of a debt.

The opposite of this is perfidy:

Perfidy . . . is reneging on what a man will spend on his own accord, all the while guaranteeing the payment of it. This moral quality is to be deemed repugnant, even if there is some advantage and profit in it for the one possessing it. It is more repugnant in kings and leaders, and for them it is most harmful. No one relies on, and no man puts his trust in, any king known for perfidy. When he proves to be unreliable, the good order of his reign is vitiated. (Yahya ibn Adi, The Reformation of Morals, 50-51.)

The Arabic term is ġadr which also means treason or betrayal.

Someone could write a book on this subject, indeed a friend of mine already has.

Yahya discusses the penalties resulting from perfidy. The penalties he discusses are not legal penalties though at certain times and in certain societies they might carry such. They are the social consequences of betrayal. Nothing has changed in that regard in the millennium since Yahya wrote.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

At a university it is not inappropriate to remind you that that first commandment includes all of our heart, soul, and mind. The mind must surrender to God, too. It is my impression, looking about the world, that there are comparatively more knees bent in reverence to God than there are minds bent in reverence to Him. That human stubbornness tends to show up in terms of our unwillingness to submit our minds to Him.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Today, in place of some traditionally shared values is a demanding conformity pushed, ironically, by those who eventually will not tolerate those who once tolerated them. While incremental iniquity may not cause a huge decline all at once, the same somber direction is nevertheless continued, subtly and carefully, with no arousing jolts or jars (see 2 Ne. 28:21).

Two Worthless Books

Occasionally I run across a book where I wonder what was going through the mind of (a) the author to write such a work and (b) the publisher to actually put it in print.

As an undergraduate I ran across an Old Norse Esperanto dictionary. Here is an utterly useless book, good only in that exceptional case where you want to translate a dead language into an invented one. (I guess the library finally figured out that it was worthless because it is not in the catalog anymore.)

The other one is an English translation of the Septuagint (yes, such a thing actually exists). The Septuagint is simply the translation of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament into Greek, albeit it was done over two thousand years ago. The Septuagint is worth reading, but anything you would want to consult the Septuagint for, such as word choice or phrasing, will be lost in translation. Yes, there are some interesting textual variants, but they too will be of most use in the original; many of them will simply disappear in translation. So an English translation of the Septuagint is like having an English translation of the Tongan Bible. I cannot imagine why anyone would waste their money buying one.

Another Academic Scandal

These days it does not seem like much time goes by without another revealing story about higher education making the news. The latest is a report on the lawsuit on Nasar v. Columbia. This concerns Sylvia Nasar, the John S. and James L. Knight professor of business journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and her lawsuit against Columbia University. Nasar accuses Columbia of diverting the funds from her endowed chair to purposes other than those intended by the donors. An audit by KMPG claims that “it appears that the Graduate School of Journalism did not abide by the original terms and spirit of the grant agreement.” Columbia argues that "Nasar’s suit is without merit and that even if all her allegations were true, the university could not be found to be in violation of the law." The reporter, Peter Berkowitz, concludes "if all of Nasar’s allegations are true and the courts of New York are unable to grant relief, it would mean that New York state law permits university administrations to disregard their written agreements with impunity and behave deceitfully when called to account." (Another account here.)

Sylvia Nasar has issued a statement on the lawsuit where she argues that "a great university must be able to assure donors that it will honor its promises." It is hard to argue with the sentiment or the logic.

In response, Columbia has gotten the donor to change the terms of the agreement so that it can still spend the money how it wants to rather than how the donor originally specified. I suspect that Columbia will do everything it can to settle this out of court as it would be bad news for university administrators if they actually had to spend endowment money the way they were supposed to.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Another insight that seems to recur again and again in confirmation is that the todays of life constitute the holy present. We can't fix the past. We may be able to repent of it, but we can't change past events. We can fashion the future, and we do that by using what someone has called the holy present, which indeed it is.