The Art of War by Sun Tzu ... as applied to the Christian life

I picked up this little book several years ago in an airport bookstore. I've tried reading it several times, and always stall out, and start over later. Not that its a bad book. But, since this is an abridgment of the actual text, its sort of choppy reading.

There are certain lessons in it that are still applicable today, much like the Bible.

So,it is said that if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you don not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Sun Tzu is talking of armies and battles. It still works for the everyday christian life.

I know myself, and I learn more about myself every time I open the Bible or get down on my knees. I know my strengths and my weaknesses. Sometimes they are one and the same. In the Bible, we are counseled to know our enemy, the Devil. Know his ways, his strategies, his ultimate desires. He wants to destroy our lives. Ruin our dreams, crush our drive, dilute our daily witness. When I know my weak areas, I can protect myself from his wiles. Knowing his weakness, I can destroy his plans.

At the beginning of chapter 3, Sun Tzu compares winning by the Tao, or the way, to winning by force. Do we win before we engage our enemy? or do we have to go through a rough battle to win? If I know my enemy, and his strategies, I can maneuver out of his traps before I fall into them, thereby avoiding any real battles with him. I heard one man put it this way: If I walk down the road, and fall into a hole, and injure myself, it is the city's fault. If I walk down the same road later, and fall into the same hole , um, I forget what he said, but its probably along the lines of being naive, or stupid. If the city posts signs, warnings, and blocks off the road, yet I go around them, and fall into the hole that I know is there, it is entirely my fault. That is willful sin. If I know the ways of my enemy, then I can plan on how to avoid his traps. Complete victory is when the enemy is overcome by strategy.

Sun Tzu also said that "victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." And how exactly does this fit into our lives? Let me give you a phrase I've heard in churches for a few decades now: "Don't ask God to bless what you're doing, but instead do what He is blessing." Seek His direction first, and then go forward. Don't make your own plans, and then ask Him to bless you. They may be counter to what He wants for your life. Another phrase I heard at college was this: "If it pleases you to please God, then you can do as you please."

We need to chose our allies well. Strong, organized ones, or a weak one who will pull us down. Other Christians, church goers, uplifting books, good movies ... things with God at their center. There are other good things out there, but they are merely good, not good for us. They don't bring us down, nor do they bring us up.

America, right now, is having problems determining who are her allies. We pick those who can help us economically, but whose internal policies we disagree with, such as China. Is China good, or bad, for us? I don't really know. But I'm sure there are better countries we can ally ourselves with than someone whose human rights violations are so blatant.

In our Christian life, we have choices to make. Lay out our strategies now to ensure our future victories.

As I read more of The Art of War, and see its christian applications, I'll write more.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Continuing problems in the Anglican church

Well, the Episcopal church has gone and done it. Well, not really. They issued a statement in repair the rift between them and the wider Anglican church, but it didn't really help. (For those who don't know, the Episcopals ordained a gay bishop, and are blessing gay marriages. For obvious reasons, the Anglican church is just a tab bit upset about this.)

They promised to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." Huh? They're going to fix things by not doing something? Thats never been good enough, for any relationship. "I promise not to do it again" doesn't address the deeper issues that bring division.

In the Old Testament, God gave the Law to prove to the people of Israel that they couldn't be good enough on their own. Then, to rectify to problem, he promised to give them new hearts that would delight in following his law. Intrinsic restraint rather than extrinsic.

The episcopal church has said that "we won't do it anymore, but we won't change what we believe, or desire to do."

Instead they went on and called for "unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons." Rights? Safety? Okay, every person has rights, and deserves safety. But dignity? Dignity? Sorry. That just sort of blows me away. They should be ashamed, but instead they are shouting from the housetops "I revel in my sin! I wallow in it like a dog rolling in his own droppings!" They want to guarantee the dignity of sinful actions. Steve Taylor said something about "coming out of the closet, rather than cleaning it."

Another bishop said "I think it's clear the American church wants to continue its way and to ignore the persistent requests that have been made from the rest of the communion." Exactly. American's are like this throughout the world. To our shame. We have forgotten that we are "american Christians" and not "Christian americans." The first word modifies the second one. Are we Christians, who happen to live in America? Or americans, who just happen to attend a christian church? They want the world to bow to the American way of sin ... er ... I mean, the American way of life.

The bottom line isn't that of homosexuality, American vs. the world, or Episcopal vs. Anglican. This division is based on differing views of the Bible. Is it, or isn't it, inspired. Genesis to Revelation. The whole thing. Is it the divinely inspired Word of God?

Some have said that it contains the Word of God. That sounds nice, but a container holds a thing without being the thing it holds. Look at a salad bowl. There is salad in it, but it isn't the salad itself. Its a bowl.

So, if the bible merely "contains" the Word of God, who decides which parts are inspired, and authoritative? Which parts do we have to obey? Most people pick and choose and leave the things they don't want, which makes it ineffective and useless as a whole. My kids tend to pick over the healthy bits of supper and eat the junk.

So do most people when it comes to the Bible. "I like this. I agree with this. I'll do this, but not that." If you did that with American laws, you'd end up in jail. There was a woman in China who poisoned, and killed, her boyfriend. She saw him talking to another woman, and decided he deserved death, because he was cheating on her. Maybe he was. Maybe he deserved to die. Whats certain is that the decision wasn't hers to make. I have friends who don't obey speed limit laws, because "they're stupid."

The division in the Anglican church is just a very visible symptom of a common disease.... autonomy. The desire for self-rule will destroy us. Unless we excise the diseased organs from the body, the whole body will die.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Oh, Everyone Knows That (Except You)

... any expectation that politicians will be moral leaders is naïve. “There is always a taint of, if not corruption, then compromise about them,” he said. “This idea that they are moral leaders is moronic.”

This article was about things that everybody seems to know, but no one talks about. They started talking about Senator Craig's recent escapades. It seems those close to him already knew, or suspected. Appearantly, bloggers had been talking about this for a while, but, they're 'just bloggers' and not real reporters.

Then the article moved on to other people, other rumors that turned out to be true. Clinton is a womanizer. Thurmond had a child out of wed-lock. And on and on and on.

The bottom line is that politicians aren't moral leaders. The view that they are is naive. Its true, but very sad.

Michael Vick, a football player, apologized to all the kids who looked up to him. Sports figures have been our 'heros' for a long time. Yet, they have a bad reputation, as a whole group: sex, drugs, drinking. Oh, speaking of that, look at our movie stars. Wait, don't look at them. The marriage/divorce rate is astounding. Marriages are being counted on both hands, and timed in days and hours. Adopting animals, and supporting abortion. Save New Orleans while I go work on my next movie, and make more money than you'll ever see, even if you do win the Mega-Millions Lottery.

So, where are our moral leaders? Do we have any left? Sure, there are a few. But instead of listing them, lets look at a different question ... are we allowed to have moral leaders anymore? Are we allowed to be moral leaders anymore?

Sure, we have the right to practice our religion as we see fight. That is a legal right. However, culturally speaking, we cannot. I need to talk to my friends and co-workers about Christ. Yet, if I do it on the clock, I get in trouble. If I speak to patients, I could be sued for using my position of authority (ha!) to influence them. It doesn't matter that its in their best interest. It doesn't matter that it will improve their lives. Religion is a private matter, and it needs to be kept private.

Wait ... when did it become a private matter? Jesus did not come to us, just so we can hide the truth from those around us. It needs to be shared. Like a fire burning in our bones, the truth demands to be spoken.

When did it become a private matter? We should not want to hide it. Most of us wouldn't hide it, if christianity wasn't openly ridiculed all around us. And why are our beliefs and lifestyle ridiculed?

People want to make their own choices. Do what they want to do. Be who they want to be. That is free will. God gives us the right to choose. But, they want to make their choices without fear of reprisal or judgment.

When there are moral leaders and moral examples, people have someone to measure themselves against. "I can't be like Jesus. He is God. Of course He is perfect." "I can't be like Mother Theresa. She is a saint. Of course she is near perfct." However, when the moral leader is your politician, or your school principal, or your teacher, it is someone you see on a daily basis. You know their lives, the intimate details. Then, a comparison can easily be made, and we can know whether we are living up to the standard or not. Usually, not.

And thats why our culture won't tolerate moral leaders. Because leaders ... um ... lead. Where they go, we are supposed to follow. They set the examples we are to emulate. Our culture believes in individuality above all else, to the detriment of all else.

We have removed prayer from the schools. The Ten Commandments from our courts. Moral examples from positions of authority.

"This idea that [politicians] are moral leaders is moronic." Its true because our society wouldn't tolerate it.

Powered by ScribeFire.