The Harvest

Continuing in the vein of seeds and sowing, let us consider the parable found in Matthew 13:24-30. Christ describes for us the kingdom of heaven, showing us whose it is, what it includes, and what is removed. By implication, the location of the kingdom is also shown.

'The kingdom of heaven is like a man that sowed good seed in his field.'

At once, we see that one entity possesses the entire farm: the field, the barn, and all else. It is the farmer. In other words, it is the one who has invested himself into the labor. This farmer has bought land, built a barn, prepared the field, and put his best seed toward his goal.

We can see a clear connection between the farmer in the parable and God in his kingdom of heaven. What we must also be able to see is that God is not a flesh and blood farmer. He is a spiritual farmer, who plants spiritual seed in a spiritual field. If it has anything at all to do with flesh and blood people like you and me, it has to do with our spirits – that is to say: our minds.

What might be the goal of a spiritual farmer? If he prepares our spirits, and plants spiritual seed there, he himself being spirit, he expects a spiritual harvest: a matured spiritual product, or the end result of growing spiritual seed in the field of our spirits. This harvest will see two ends. One is storage for reuse, while the other is consumption.

As the story continues, the flesh and blood farmer of the parable slept, and while he did, his enemy sought to spoil the harvest by planting among the wheat a weed that is fit neither for consumption, nor again for reuse. The tares of the parable are a plant that is almost identical to the wheat. At maturation, however, it proves its uselessness with an obvious lack of fruit. The enemy went his way, the hired help noticed the tares, and the farmer concluded that his enemy was to blame.

What might this part of the story say about the spiritual truths to which Christ points? Does God sleep? Is the devil waging a war of attrition? Is the planting of tares part of a cycle – to which we must ask, are there enough good seed to insure a continued and flourishing enterprise? The spiritual nature is indeed one of cycles. Those who attend such truths, like the servants in the parable, approach the matter only through a genuine interest in the outcome, and despite natural passions, will always defer to the wisdom of the farmer.

Many of us picture this parable as a depiction of the end (the one in which the angels come forth and sever the wicked from among the just.) We tend to see our souls, that is to say: our personal identities, as the harvest. If that is the case, then we must also assume that the tares are almost identical to who we are: pseudo-souls, almost-people, not-quite-folk. They walk among us.

On the other hand, it is safe to say that a spiritual entity, who plants spirit in spirits, is not planting people. It is also safe to say that people are not the desired harvest. What is the good spiritual seed of a spiritual farmer? God is God, good is good, spirit is spirit, mind is mind. There is only the One. What we see in the parable is the mind of wheat as opposed to the mind of tare. We see a fruitful mind as opposed to a fruitless mind.

It is true enough to assume that our identities are not the same as our souls – for as we see in the Biblical creation story, a living soul includes a body of flesh and blood. Still from our point of view, we are very much attached to our spiritual allegiances. We either think and act like what God is working toward, or we think and act like the thing Satan planted in the field – which field still very much belongs to God.

The final determination of the parable is that both wheat and tare develop together. The wheat becomes more wheat-like, and will never change its nature. The tare becomes more tare-like, and its nature cannot be changed. If the tare is in your mind, God will bundle all such thinking together to be burned (and here, my suggestion is to view that not as hell and damnation, but as a source of fuel.) If the wheat is in your mind, the fruit will be consumed spiritually to maintain and magnify the spirit, while some of that fruit will be stored, to be planted in new fields.

I alluded to the location of the kingdom of heaven at the beginning of this study. Like the farmer, who has his field and barn and seed and hoped for harvest, all of this work being his – heaven's kingdom is where the work of God is enacted. It is all here, in the thoughts of our minds, and all around us in our works, for it is we the servants who watch the fields.

As a man thinks

Now we turn to farming. 'A sower went out to sow'. We see intent; we see the purpose – but not necessarily the sower's qualifications. Instead, we see that this sower throws seeds anywhere and everywhere. Perhaps he is not the farmer, but a hired hand. This parable is found in Matthew 13:3-9.

Some fell: by the way side, on stony ground, among thorns, on good ground. Seems this guy was in a hurry to get through. Impoverishment was not an issue, neither scarcity of seed. The process seems disorderly, yet a certain amount of seed does appear to fall within the parameters of 'good ground'.

Each final location of sown seed, of course, is meant to represent a measure of human reception. All are measures of the human condition, and show plainly not only that all of us receive the same seed, but also illuminates what each of us might do with what we receive.

Way side? Too busy. Stony ground? Uncommitted. Thorns? Hanging with the wrong crowd. For the way side, the parable states that the gift is trampled down without concern, that it is fodder for the wild animals. Some variations of the parable also show the gift being eaten by worms, or in other words, spoiling and becoming foul.

For the stony ground, the parable expresses a lack of moisture and depth of earth. It cannot find a place to take root, and thus becomes a pitiful attempt that ends in harsh failure. Does the seed fail? No, It is of the same stock that falls into good ground. No, it is the stony ground that fails. And for thorns, the parable shows us that the fruit can only be choked out – thwarted by the proliferation of everything other.

The parable gives us only one winning combination: seed falling into good ground. In certain variations of this parable, the 'good ground' is put forth as ground that has been prepared for the seed. Let us take a moment to consider the standard for successful farming.

Firstly, it cannot be the way side; prepared ground is ground dedicated to one purpose. Stones must be removed so that the seeds can take root. The thorn bush must also be removed: the farmer wants no competition with his seed as he has dedicated the good ground only to his own seed. So then, the entire field must be worked to insure that the seed gets equitable amounts of moisture and sunshine.

In this parable, the seed sprang up and increased. Some thirty, sixty, and a hundred fold. Let us briefly consider seeds that produce ears – like wheat or corn. How many ears can a single ear reproduce? Here in the Midwest, I see huge fields of corn, and know that each ear contains the potential to make hundreds more.

Is it only a coincidence, then, that Christ concludes with “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear?” I think not. Let us imagine that the seed is the mind of God. All of us receive it, not just the Christian, but Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and every other mind set. What we do with it is what makes of us 'way side' or 'stony ground' or 'thorns' or 'good ground'.

Since we have assumed that the seed is the mind of God, let us further consider that the 'good ground', or prepared ground, must be an adequate habitat for such mentality, and that the preparation is Christ's closing statement. The more one trains his ear to hear, the more that ear will receive. What we hear takes root in our minds. Proverbs 23:7 tells us, 'As a man thinks, so is he.'

Mind of God

Christ speaks of his relationship with Satan in Matthew 12:29, so naturally, we want to know the meaning of this parable. He had just told his audience that a house divided cannot stand, for they, including Pharisees, at least thought, and perhaps voiced the bold assertion that Jesus cast out devils by the power of Satan.

On the most basic level, none of us can do two things at once – if those two things are opposites. I can face forward, but not forward and backward. In fact, no matter how fast I might try to spin around, my back will always be behind me. How then can I both gather, and scatter abroad?

So Christ gave an example of this conundrum in a parable. It immediately points out both the problems of the situation, and the planned focus inherent in such problem solving. Not only must one map out one step at a time, but one must place those steps in their proper order. 'First, bind the strong man, then spoil his house.'

In this, Christ presaged his coming conflict with Satan, moreover his intent to take from Satan what he was guarding. Christ foretold his victory in the clear steps of the parable. Luke 11:21-22 is an alternate telling of the parable that illuminates the attributes both of the standing enemy and the coming conqueror.

The strong man armed to guard his palace represents Satan. His palace was this world, and his goods were the allegiances we made with him, and the practices we held in common. He had not only armed himself with handy weapons, but also with supposedly superior armor. If you think your armor is good enough, you feel distanced from attack. You feel safe, in a place all your own, and untouchable.

Christ said of himself, 'When a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he takes from him all his armor wherein he trusted'. This shows us that Satan had built not only his palace, but indeed, his entire kingdom, trusting in armor that could be defeated. If he trusted in it, then so did his legions of enslaved minions, associates, and collaborators.

So then, what is the fall of such a strong man? The leader of the host is both shamed and destroyed; he is displayed as a public example. Then, the legions are judged. They are stripped of all advantages afforded by the former association, and they are punished in a manner befitting their former association. What was taken from them is divided among the new regime. The spoils of conquest are an intrinsic element of war. What side are you on?

Now, there was a moral to this story, for the teaching of Christ often extends past the parable to a closing argument. In this case, Christ points out the difference between the host of the strong man, and the host of the conqueror. It is a difference that damns the one and blesses the other.

Matthew 12:31-32 is the summation in Christ's own words. “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”

So, was that the armor that Satan trusted in? Was that the price of collaboration with the strong man armed to guard his palace? What was that armor, and that perceived advantage? What were they all hiding behind? A lie will always evaporate under the conquering light of the truth.

Essentially, Christ's closing argument compared Christ with the Holy Spirit. We must be certain we have not overlooked this telling point. From the human point of view, the Trinity occupies a single entity. We may recall that Christ is, at times, portrayed as a messenger bringing a message from a higher authority. We must ask, what makes Christ the son of man, if indeed he only referenced himself?

Jesus was a man imbued with the mind of God; that is to say the spirit of God. How such a thing comes together in a man is seen in two truths. God is a spirit named Holy. And, the Holy Ghost is a spirit named Holy. Picture the host of the strong man, and also the host of the conqueror. What we actually see is what one group encourages and the other does not – a Holy mindset: the mind or spirit of God. It is both the nature and message of the messenger. You can dis the messenger, but not the message.

New wine

Matthew 9:16-17 is where we find our next parable. It speaks of sewing, cloth, wine and bottles. By now, I sincerely hope that all of us know that the language of a parable is symbolic. Parables are not merely quaint; parables use what we already understand to help us understand things we don't understand – things we're not even thinking about.

I bundle myself tightly in my work. I sit in an easy chair with my computer in front of me, my legs up, and a mouse and keyboard in my lap. It takes about a minute if I need to get up or reach something. Sometimes, what I need to reach is frustratingly just out of reach. Fortunately, I have a back scratcher sitting on my portable office nearby. It is about a foot long, and with it I can easily extend my reach.

Those things that are taught in a parable are just out of reach. The parable is a tool that extends our reach – so when Christ tells us about sewing a new piece of cloth onto an old garment, he is speaking of a common problem that many of us are already acquainted with. We, then, become equipped to reach the higher spiritual problem he wants us to pick up.

He tells us the same thing a second time using a variant, but still common problem: putting new wine into old bottles. There is a problem in both of these scenarios. It is a problem that hinges on the difference between success and failure.

What is the meaning of putting new cloth on an old garment? Firstly, it is an attempt at repairing a problem – it is a cheap fix realized through chewing gum and paperclips. The problem not only remains unresolved, it actually gets quite bad. In the illustration, the rent is made worse: the breach opens wider, and the new cloth is lost. Loss, here, is the point. Had an old piece of cloth been used, and the tear opened again, both fabrics were suitable as they were both already closer to loss than the new.

The old garment must run its course. It is meant to be lost. Old can never be made new – but new can be preserved. Adding new to old in an attempted rescue is a waste of the new. It is like casting pearls before swine. Then, there is the wine. Some cheap souls might attempt to reuse an old wine bottle, but the pressure of the new will always prove to powerful. As the Luke 5:37 variant of the parable goes: “the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.”

New goes in new, and both are preserved. Meaning: a thing is meant to reach its end; it cannot be unnaturally preserved past its time and purpose. However, it may be renewed, by which I mean something new is spawned from the old. Something new is made to replace the old. Saving is not about the old garment, but about the type of it. Life, and eternity is not about dragging the old bottles along. Its about something totally new, and totally different.

There is a contention between success and failure – between the new and old. Success is keyed into the new and failure is keyed into the old. We naturally want to patch our favorite old jeans. Luke 5:39 tells us that our very nature strives to hang on to the old, the dear, the comforting – what we have had for so long, and invested so much of ourselves into. Any one who has tasted the old wine, will resist the new, and say the old is better.

So then, that spiritual problem just out of reach. Let us extend our reach, and take hold of it. Christ is a messenger with a new message. To put it in the old invites certain failure. Christ is life communicating life –how then can we hope to make it fit in a thing that must perish? If sight for the blind is preached, it must be preached to seeing eyes. That is the paradox. The definition is this: a way is opened only to those who are open to the way. New light for new eyes, a new message for new ears, new life for a new body. Salvation is that way. What will you make of it, failure or success?

Do the Math

Next parable, Luke 12:16-20. 'A man with a large harvest thought to pull down his old barns and build new'. It's that point many of us know and want. The upgrade; the one-up. In a sense, exchanging several old inadequate barns for one large state-of-the-art storage facility is comparable to the merchant who sold his little pearls in order to buy the pearl of great price.

'I have no room where to bestow my fruits'. It was a simple matter of logistics. The fact that he had a large harvest – what does that tell you? It tells me that he was not scratching out a simple existence. More likely, he sold his goods. The fact of several smaller barns speaks of expansion. The new storage facility speaks of a level of success that permitted the business to take the next logical step.

These elements are not the story, merely the backdrop. The story is the man's attitude of pride, his selfish driven quest for more, and of course, the blind spot in his reasoning. With greater storage filled to the max, he got cocky and proud. He thought he could live off his plenty for years, but he didn't know he was soon to die and leave everything to others.

'I will say to my soul' is a statement comparable to the pat on the back one gives oneself upon reaching a personal milestone. Such markers are reached in due time, and through no small measure of hardship. Doubtless, the man in this parable was an older man who had worked hard for many years to get where he was. He looked forward to many more years, years of ease, living off the fruit of his labors, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that – except the math.

People die. They died sooner back then. Everyone of us faces such a point in our lives: namely the end of our lives. Many of us are hard workers, and frugal, saving up for our retirements – hoping for a few good years of ease. But, in every case where one of us dies, what we acquired in life is always left to those who remain. Sometimes, we plan it out, and other times it falls to chance.

The part about our life's work being left to others is never a problem for those who are in the habit of sharing, of caring for others. None of us know the day or hour; no one makes it out alive. But, is there room in our attitudes for other people. In our drive to be successful, have we made a place for fullness of life? The sad part of this story is not that the man died, but that he was so consumed with his plans and purposes that he overlooked the joys of the time he lived in.

What is the meaning here? Live now, love now. Do the math.

Listen to the Ages

The present was made to be a past. When you finally reach your future, it will be present but for a short time.

D L Herring

The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.

Abraham Lincoln

It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see.

Winston Churchill

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.

William Shakespeare

Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.

Malcolm X

Memories are the key not to the past, but to the future.

Corrie Ten Boom

Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.

Nikola Tesla

We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the past; and we must respect the past, remembering that it was once all that was humanly possible.

George Santayana

A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.

Jean de La Fontaine

The secret of your future is hidden in your daily routine.

Mike Murdock

No work or love will flourish out of guilt, fear, or hollowness of heart, just as no valid plans for the future can be made by those who have no capacity for living now.

Alan Watts

Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

Marcus Aurelius

The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.

Winston Churchill

Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you.

Jim Rohn

The future ain't what it used to be.

Yogi Berra

Even though the future seems far away, it is actually beginning right now.

Mattie Stepanek

Hold fast to the Bible. To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future.

Ulysses S. Grant

It is not enough to understand, or to see clearly. The future will be shaped in the arena of human activity, by those willing to commit their minds and their bodies to the task.

Robert Kennedy

My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there.

Charles Kettering

The future influences the present just as much as the past.

Friedrich Nietzsche

The essence of optimism is that it takes no account of the present, but it is a source of inspiration, of vitality and hope where others have resigned; it enables a man to hold his head high, to claim the future for himself and not to abandon it to his enemy.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Choose your friends with caution; plan your future with purpose, and frame your life with faith.

Thomas S. Monson

Without forgiveness, there's no future.

Desmond Tutu

For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.

John F. Kennedy

I can look at the future with anticipation. And it's comforting to know that someday, as Christians, we'll be able to look back and have a little more clarity on why certain things in life happened.

Amy Grant

You know when you're young you think you will always be. As you become more fragile, you reflect and you realize how much comfort can come from the past. Hymns can carry you into the future.

Andy Griffith

We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.

George Bernard Shaw

Let us make our future now, and let us make our dreams tomorrow's reality.

Malala Yousafzai

Prayer fine-tuned

In Luke 11:5-13, Christ begins a short parable with a question to his disciples. He had just taught them how to pray. In other words, he had taught them how to approach God with a personal request. Using their own experience, he presented a scenario, and asked them how it would most likely play out.

These are the elements of the query: approach a friend and ask for help at an inconvenient hour, the friend has settled his household for the night, his children are asleep in bed.

The scenario is easy to visualize. I see a man clutching his night clothes answering in whispers from an upstairs window: “Shoo! Go away,” he says, “You'll wake the children.” At that point, the friendship matters less than his family obligations.

From my own experience, I can say, the whole day is filled with more convenient times. When I get home from work, and I am resting – enjoying and making the most of the few hours left to my day, I am less likely to accept a visitor, or even a phone call.

Likewise, my wife settles into her evening hours after a day spent in cleaning, ordering her house, working in the yard, and other activities – all of which tax her reserves of energy and patience. In the evening, she likes to watch her soaps. She is hard pressed to take a call even from a brother or sister.

The householder in the parable is reluctant to be disturbed. Yet, he sees that the most effective return to his ordered peace is to give his friend whatever he wants, and send him quickly on his way. Christ points out to his disciples that even though the householder is not motivated by the friendship, he is moved by the importunity.

It is a life lesson many of us already understand. But, there is more. The parable falls between two important points. The first was the prayer Christ had just explained to his disciples. The second was his affirmations on asking, seeking, and knocking.

He continued by asking his disciples a series of questions with obvious answers. This he did to show natural consequence. The obvious answers were things that occurred commonly – rather like the cause and effect of family ties. The point was, if they could give what was asked for, being sinners, then surely a righteous God could.

The entire exchange relayed through these verses targets prayer, or making a request of God. It is put forth that God is not subject to importunity, as the householder of the parable was. The relationship between God, our heavenly Father, and man is also put forth. Moreover, it is not only the asking of prayer that is considered, but seeking and knocking as well.

The topics of seeking and knocking may be dealt with separately – suffice it to say that the iterated 'asking' is shown to be something not broad and general, but rather, a thing fine-tuned and specific. The point that Christ comes to is specific, and relates to the initial prayer that he taught his disciples. The point is precisely this: one thing is asked for in prayer, that being the Holy Spirit (the mind of God.)

Are you a Samaritan?

“How do you read what is in the law?” That is my own paraphrase. Indeed, how do we read what we read? Not everyone gets the same thing out of reading the same thing – even though the words are all there before us in black and white. They are the same for us as they are for others – exactly the same. So why don't we get the same thing?

This parable comes to us from Luke 10:26-37. Some of us read from strength; some of us read from weakness. Some of us read from freedom while others read through bars and chains. We get different things, not because the law, or the words are different, but because we are different.

So, we sit in conversation, and compare our different takes on what we think we know. Sometimes a consensus affords a greater understanding to all involved. At other times, one knows more, and teaches the rest of us. Christ was the teacher in this parable. He taught the lawyer what we may only suppose the lawyer should have already known.

The lawyer merely recites the law as it was given. No lawyer was required for that, as any one who attended the Sabbath readings was bound to remember the words. Like so many of us in our age, the lawyer presumed the meaning automatically came with the words. He said, “Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Most of us have little inclination to struggle past the face value, whereas meaning is actually hard won. It is earned through work. But, who really works at definition? We don't ever trouble ourselves with that, because it is in a dictionary somewhere. The sad thing is, we go on using our words as 'meaning-included', yet, we haven't ever consulted the dictionary.

So Jesus tells him, “This do, and thou shalt live.” Exactly here is where one of two things must occur. Either there must be an exchange leading to a consensus, or one must teach while the others learn. It is at this point where the work of definition and meaning must commence.

The original question was “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” So Jesus answered, 'do the law and you will live.' But here's the ticker – the lawyer wasn't asking for information he, or any other, had missed in the Sabbath readings, he was trying to be clever. He was tempting Jesus.

The lawyer recited words as 'meaning-included', but it was Christ who offered definition. This story is recorded for the ages. It remains before us in black and white, but it is only a door that may be opened by those willing to work for it. This is the point where we are given such a privilege.

This yoke is easy, and this burden is light, for we only have to look up the meaning that Christ gave us. We find it in John 17:3, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

We have the meaning of life before us in black and white. The lawyer, continuing his ruse, dismissed the opportunity we just availed ourselves of. He was not truly interested in meaning. He asked, “Who is my neighbor?”

So Christ begins the parable of the good Samaritan. As we know, a parable will achieve two simultaneous results. It will offer meaning and definition to those willing to work for it, and it will deny meaning and definition to those who dismiss the opportunity.

The elements of the parable are these: A man robbed, wounded, and left for dead.

A man ignored and shunned by the privileged. A man helped by a commoner, a working man, a man held in low esteem – a Samaritan.

At the end of the parable, Christ asked the lawyer, 'Who was the neighbor?' Now the lawyer was only there to trip Jesus in a flurry of legalisms, but his word games backfired. It was the lawyer who got tripped. He answered, 'The one that showed mercy.'

Lesson learned. Here is the spiritual approach to truth, definition, and meaning. While we are concerned with who our neighbor is, Christ teaches us to 'Go and be the neighbor.'

Judgment

An excerpt from my ongoing study in "Meaning"

In this next parable, Christ presents 'a creditor with two debtors'. It is found in Luke 7:41-43. In this parable, Christ touches upon our responsibility as children of God. To be like God, which is to be like the son of God, one must employ the same mind set, the same nature, the same predilection of character.

Is this a parable about forgiveness? In a way, yes it is – but that is really too simple for such a parable. Everyone already practiced a form of forgiveness: it was a matter of Jewish law. Even when it was shallow and meaningless, it was still a matter of legal implementation.

Had this parable been about forgiveness, one debtor would have sufficed to tell the story. The forgiveness, as we see plainly in the text, was a given: “frankly forgave them both”. We see in the choice of wording (frankly, which means honestly or candidly) that this particular act was the genuine article rather than mere practice.

Both debtors received an equal forgiveness, even though their debts, 500 as opposed to 50 pence, was anything but equal. In consideration of the amounts, we note two facts: pence was not that big of a deal to the creditor, that was the basic unit, and the word from which we get our modern 'penny'. At the same time, if one could not pay 50 cents and the other could not pay 5 dollars, admittedly, they were poorer than dirt.

Simon was asked to determine one and only one salient point: of the two forgiven debtors, “which will love him (the forgiving creditor) most”? This is the same point that all of us must also determine. It is a simple test, and one with an obvious answer. Simon got the point. Will you?

An earlier iteration was that Christ touches upon our responsibility as children of God, for to be like God, or to be like Christ, we must employ the same mind set, the same nature, the same predilection of character. We are called upon to employ judgment, a thing we do daily in a multitude of cases. We judge: that is how we know, how we navigate. Sadly, many of our judgments are baseless opinions –and that touches upon the meaning of this parable.

We are called upon to achieve a measure of spiritual correctness, or righteousness. If we can manage that, then we may be sure we are on the same page with Simon when Christ affirms “Thou hast rightly judged”.

Imagine

This week, I offer only this short opinion piece. More precisely, it is the beginning of an opinion. Perhaps you will help me build upon it.

Imagine a nation without borders. Imagine no border patrol, but instead, a people patrol. Why not put in place a system that permits and encourages a better life wherever they may find themselves, or wherever they may choose to go? Let that system no longer guard borders, but values and standards.

This is my thought. Let America and Mexico join as one, each in full control of their separate identities, yet working in harmony for the good of the people. Who would be denied access? Gangs, criminals, and terrorists would find in our new union a border impossible to breach. Could you live in such a nation? Would you be proud to be a citizen?

The new union would be such an institution that would serve the needs of the people; citizens of the new union would be such as treat each other with respect and compassion. Of course, standards would have to be created, policies set in place. To move to a new place, one would necessarily have to obligate oneself to the standards of that region.

Governments could no longer claim to be powers or authorities, for they exist merely to serve the will of the people. Police and military, under the standards elected by the people, would hold themselves accountable to the citizenry of the new union – for, after all, they are its citizens, too.

Canada would hear of the new union, and of course, they would want to join in. What might we call a citizen of the new union? Canamexicans? Mexcamericans? Amexadians? Regardless, it would be a society of standards. We might say, when in Canada, do as the Canadians do – or, when in America, or when in Mexico. The appropriate standards would insure that a citizen has rights equal to his obligations.

Growing together

We're looking for meaning. Read correctly, the Bible offers just that. The parables of Christ are two-fold: on the one hand they are like a key that gets us through a door we want to open; on the other hand they are like the door that bars entrance to all but those who have the key.

Isn't it cool how talking about something common and ordinary can either enlighten some people as to meaning, or else from others keep it hidden? Christ explained meaning through the common place. “So is the kingdom of God.”

Christ could take a dumb farmer, and with him explain the mysteries of the universe. Let us take the clue: a farmer represents the man who is working toward a goal, meaning-of-life-wise, a seeker of truth – someone with a plan.

Like the farmer, any of us may be “a man (who) casts his seed into the ground.” We may “sleep and rise night and day,” maintaining our quest with all diligence. Yet, to spite all of our most heroic efforts, what we are after is a thing that pretty much takes care of itself: “the seed should spring and grow,” and we are left to confess our ignorance: “he knoweth not how.”

Even in our modern age of information, there are farmers who are no experts in the botanical sciences. Some of them are as dumb as they come, but they can plant a field and reap the harvest. Their labors, even in their ignorance, will lead them to the purpose and meaning of their profession.

One of the complaints lodged against the faithful is that they do not have the science, or the facts and figures, on their side. I say, that is precisely the hopeful message found in the parables of Christ. One need not be an expert seeker of truth to find truth. I was fluent in no particular language when I began to speak. As we know through faith, the thousand mile journey of a farmer begins and ends with a single step. To find meaning, to achieve purpose, we need only be the farmer.

“The earth brings forth fruit of herself, first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.” We need only take it a step at a time. When everything falls into place, we reach out and seize truth, meaning, purpose – “because the harvest is come.”

Meaning

Introduction

One of my pet peeves is that people don't seem especially interested in the meaning of things. Ask anyone for a definition of the word love, and what you are most likely to get is: “love is like . . .” or “it's that feeling you get when . . .”.

Obviously, love is an issue central to most, but few will offer up an intelligible definition, if indeed, they know how to define, rather than explain. In an attempt to derive a more personal definition of the word, some years back, I went to the dictionary with an off-the-wall plan.

The plan involved a simple determination on my part, namely: to decide what seemed to be the key word within the definition. The subsequent steps were as follow: look up the definition of the key word, and then determine the key word of that definition. Many would have found the whole affair tedious and boring, but I persevered.

In the end, I completed a quite lengthy circuit that ended with the key word: 'love'. That is not to say that I ever achieved that personal definition I sought, but I did come away with a broader sense of the word. Ask another for that, or ask yourself. Would you be like the preacher faced with an unresponsive audience?

The preacher says 'love' – no 'amen' in return, only silence. Obviously, he had not made the word clear; he had not gotten across. So he takes a deep breath, and squeezes the word above the heads of his crowd like a trail of toothpaste: “LoooOoOvvVVeee!!!” The word comes out twisted and forced, as if that might somehow define the concept he wants to put forth. Silence. Blank faces. Now the preacher must pull out all the stops. The word booms forth like a canon shot, complete with echo, and poignant silence.

“LOVE!!!” (love, love, love) (shhhh) “Can I get an Amen?!” This you get, but no definition. Over the years, I have felt an increasing need for definition as a starting point of communication, and understanding. What if you and I were having a discussion that hinged on the definition of the word 'love'? Would we even be on the same page? I might have worked out that love is actually something more concrete than a warm fuzzy feeling, but you might still subscribe to the warm and fuzzy.

I might say: “stoic” or “austere” and you might only hear: “warm” or “fuzzy”. Now, I am not so much attempting to harp on that one word, or to assume a superior stance by comparison, but I do maintain the need for definition. That is the shape of things, after all, without the which we are left with nothing more than flab and fluff.

I have attempted, in my writings, to be more concise, and to strive toward an actual definition of the concepts I put forth. This writing finds me, once more, struggling with the issues of definition and effective communication. I used the word love as a lead in, as an example, but I have done no more than touch lightly upon it. Perhaps, I may come back to it. But, I wish to touch first on the broader implications.

We employ so many common expressions in our conversations, so many concepts that, at least to me, we seem to accept in an all too cavalier manner, as if none of it really matters. I see the possibility that it really does matter, and I hope there is someone somewhere who feels the same way. Let us strike up a conversation, and determine definitions together. Let us gather all our lambs into the pen and see which are mottled, ringstraked, or white.

One

While I began this writing with the word love, as an example, what actually prompted this was a curiosity for a Biblical expression used by Jesus, and that is what I would like to begin with in earnest. This is the expression: “straight and narrow”.

What is “straight and narrow”? Let's examine the full quote. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” That is found in Matthew 7:13-14.

An inspection of the variant spelling is called for. We normally compare the spelling of 'straight', which is used elsewhere in scripture, and the spelling of 'strait', as used in this particular passage, only to conclude that it is just more of that unintelligible King James stuff. Our response to such things is to immediately move on. Yet, there is something about the spelling of strait that should cause us to do a double-take.

I went to Wikipedia for clarification, as I often do. What I discovered surprised me. A strait is a narrow channel of water that connects two larger bodies of water, and that separates two bodies of earth. Another word for strait is 'passage'. I came away with three concomitant concepts: 'water', 'connection', and 'passage'.

It may be that the gate we are urged to enter has much to do with water. At this point, it may be an easy step to include the washing rituals of the early temple as well as the baptism ritual of Christianity. Water may thus be easily seen as the connection that joins two larger bodies. Here, we must think of the water of life connecting life to life.

Another point of interest, here, is the alternate application of the word 'passage'. It is possible that the gate through which we may enter is, in actuality, a Biblical passage, perhaps one concerning ritual washing, or baptism.

Such matters require due inspection. Again – permit me to return later to this topic in particular. I think the direction of this writing demands a broader scope, one that includes the many expressions and concepts of scripture we normally move past without much thought. Words, terms, and expressions, that cry out for definition, must be gathered, sorted, and approached topically.

But then, how would one ultimately derive a definition? Should common usage of a word or expression be settled upon, one must surely agree that 'common usage' is a fleeting sprite. It changes from age to age. Indeed, within my own lifetime, I have seen 'common usage' vary. The word 'gay' used to mean 'happy' – but sub-cultural connotations have altered that. Likewise, the word 'ain't' – formerly resisted tooth and nail – has been included into the lexicon of common use.

Should Biblical definition hold sway, modern definition might suffer loss. Our Bible puts forth the concept that we should not allow a witch to live. That was a standard that continued into the American colonies, where, in Salem Massachusetts, witches were burned and hung. We do no define witches as worthy of death in our modern day – application of law has altered the meaning in this case.

On the other hand, modern definition would negate much of what we hold dear as spiritual truth. Modern tendencies hold more with physical facts and figures that may be measured – more with affections and affectations that would villainize spiritual standards as harsh and cruel. Modern definition alone would be destructive by way of its non-confrontational, live-and-let-live attitudes.

As to the thoughts of our hearts, we must let reason have its way. Reason is a spiritual function that is not limited to 'modern' or 'Biblical' or 'common use'. Reason rises above them all, and includes what is good and right from each. We are simply not accustomed to such a synthesis, but whoever approaches an accurate definition must remain respectfully open-minded to each source and application.

I turn to the reader for suggestions. Is there a particular expression in the Bible that begs clarification? Is there a word or term that is overworked without due definition? Please make as many suggestions as you feel comfortable making. Thanks.   

The small book of Angels

We may speak of Christ being subject to God, but in what sense do we mean that? Many think of Christ as a person who obeys another person. Others view Christ as that other person. That other person is interpreted by the world as a singular authority who says “Jump!” - and that is what you had better do, or else. However, that interpretation is based on the 'Sky Daddy' concept - God as a tyrannical, white-bearded father figure.

God is no figure at all. Christ, who will be subject to him, informed us that God is a spirit. God, the most high among the ascended, the core and center, has no body. He does not occupy space. Around him, and radiating from him, are mind-sets, and bodies. You may take the analogy of early men gathered around and tending a flame so that it does not go out.

God himself, being spirit, never once spoke to man or appeared to him in any physical manner, but always used angels - beings filled with the mind of God, and tending, in a manner of speaking, the core flame.

The burning bush, the cloud and fire in the wilderness march, both invisible and non-humanoid angels, as well as humanoid angels are all vehicles of the will and intent of the mind of God. Angels are a society of 'flame-keepers'.

Christ may be called a prince, but so is Michael - that is their elite rank. Highest of all the princes is the King, Jesus Christ. He is King of all on that high plane, and also King of all below. As angels progress upward, they draw from mankind to fill their ranks.

The physical nature of angels may also continue to evolve, and that progress may end at the throne – where a more or less physical ascendant finally merges with the intangible, but powerful and pervasive center of all being. A new Jesus may step forward from the rank of Michaels, and a lesser but promising angel will fill his shoes. At the bottom of the ladder of angels, man looks up hopefully.

Angels, the ultimate secret society, have an important mission. That is that every being, not just Jesus and the society of princes, but every last one of us from the most promising right down to you and me, may be thoroughly saturated, filled, and in subjection to the mind of God.

That God may be all in all.