So much of my work in the cryptology of meaning amongst waking and sleeping in sequences has pivoted around the anguished burden of an unsated sense of ought.
Children ought not be killed.
Quickly I think “ahh, column 2”. The creation in rebellion to the Creator stirs disorder, chaos, evil and so much that is just wrong. But I’ve been reluctant to write about it, even on Facebook, Twitter, etc. The despair is of ordering meaning and hope concisely in response to evil and concerns about how and why and what next. Saying something true but “a la carte” feels very untrue. But when I am tempted to write something aiming at complexity, and the humbling force of attended complexity, I shrink back. I don’t shrink from the thoughts, I shrink from the lack of confidence in nuanced response. Frankly, I don’t entrust my thoughts for fear that I have some idea what the Bible says when Jesus did not entrust himself to the people because he knew too much about people.
But, I’m realizing that the rise in the phrase “it is what it is” may be a useful cue. It is a Popeye moment for me: “I yam what I yam”.
What am I? I’m my own weird mix of contribution and neediness which tangentially connects with some people on some things some times, without meaning I am them and they are me and we are us. I am same same but different. Or, to be more trite: “I am SPECIAL (just like everybody else)”.
The point for me to circle around is that although I need to be cross-culturally adept and facilitate connecting and communicating by shaping how I share what, there are limits. Legit connection obligates me, at a level more than I have done this past year, of being less translated and conformed to intelligible categories. I need to have a bit more respect and disregard. I need to disregard the ways in which I get pulled into peoples pre-fabbed categories and issues and I need to respect the ability of others, at least some others, to transcend scripted simplicity with an attentiveness which might actually lead to new vistas.
So, what do I see? A world with actual evil, as discussed by Al Mohler. I see a real need to consider how to make effective people killing less popular among troubled/deranged/insane/evil/whatever/bad guys. I agree that there are concerns about maintaining freedom from oppressive governments and there are values of shooting duck and deer and such. But, is there no way to try and address them all with some dignity, acknowledging nuggets of merit even in the key platform of the IDIOTS (a.k.a neighbors) we are trying to sort out with lusty rhetoric (which of course is actually aimed at our own gang’s orhtodoxy vetters).
There are roles in which to slide. Jester is the most viable, but the burden of making people chuckle is too much. I have a hard enough time understanding all the anger combos, how could I figure out where their funny bone might be? Prophet is another option, but there is a vein of prophetic voice going on now which is too much like a participant in the scolding wars. I don’t have a lot of scolding to do. I’m too unimpressed with myself. Like I mentioned early, I know a bit about the hearts of men, and subsequently withhold my trust, just like Jesus did. I am a man. I don’t trust me.
I could try to be a poet, but I’m easily distracted anytime I try to manage form, be it ecclesiology or haiku. What I am left with is my cheeky tagline for this website: Sojourning Cryptologist. That is a phrase which popped up and won’t lay down. I am not resolved in my location or my understanding. I know that I don’t know, and I don’t even know if that is good or not. I just don’t know.
Kids shouldn’t die. I’m not ready to debate it, but I’m o.k. with stating it. Ought? Not.