John tell us that the Word who was in the beginning with God and is God is the light of men.

" 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (Jn 1:4-5)

Jesus said,

"Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” " Jn 8:12

Jesus, who is the Word, is the light of men and the light of the world.

Then there's John's vision in Revelation:

"22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it," Rev 21:22-24

Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the lamp who radiates the glory of God which is the light of the New Jerusalem.

But then in all this, lest we forget, Jesus makes the following claim about us:

"14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Mt 5:14-15

Jesus--the Word and the Lamb is the light of men, of the world, of the city of God. But we ​also are the light of the world. A heavy burden to be called light by the one who is the light. In Jesus' case, he is light by virtue of who he is. In our case, our light is in our good works.

St Francis de Sales says:

"Rash judgment begets uneasiness, contempt of neighbor, pride, self-satisfaction, and many other extremely bad effects. Slander, the true plague of society, holds first place among them."
Introduction to the Devout Life, 3.29

If the question was asked, what is the true plague of society, slander is not what would come to mind, not by a long shot. Yet, the good saint feels that it is slander. He says, "The man who could free the world of slander would free it of a large share of its sins and iniquity."

Slander, for DeSales, is:

• robbing a neighbor of his good name--it is literally taking possession of another man's property
• Murder because it murders, not our spiritual or corporeal lives, but our social life. "By a single stroke of his tongue the slanderer usually commits three murders. He kills his own soul and the soul of anyone who hears him by an act of spiritual homicide and takes away the social life of the man he slanders."

But what is slander? I think for DeSales it is, "falsely imputing crimes and sins to your neighbor, revealing his secret sins, exaggerating those that are manifest, putting an evil interpretation on good works, denying the good that you know belongs to someone, maliciously concealing it or lessening it by words. . . . false accusations and denying the truth to your neighbor's harm. It is a double sin to lie and harm your neighbor at the same time."

Prefacing slander with mentions of honorable intentions, compliments, or jokes is venomous, according to DeSales.

DeSales seems to be concerned with correct labeling. Seeing someone drunk is not enough to slander them by labeling them a drunkard. Don't assign vice to individual acts. Only habitual acts that could have been thought through should be labeled a vice. Only say or describe what you see in the present, nothing more. However, as poisonous as slander is, to avoid slandering, one must not speak well of vice. 

Quite the tightrope. That's why he's a saint and we're not.

According to Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), yes. 

"In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history. Truth is outwardly powerless in the world, just as Christ is powerless by the world's standards: he has no legions; he is crucified. Yet in his powerlessness, he is powerful, only thus, again and again, does truth become power."
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection.

Ratzinger is not saying that Jesus appeared powerless. He is saying that truth is essentially powerless in the world as Jesus was at the trial. The qualifiers--in this world/ by the world's standards-- don't make a difference.
​
The problem with this is:

Matthew 26:52-53 "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?"

John 19:10-11 "So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”"

Jesus was keenly aware of his power and thus of the need to restrain himself and submit wholly to what as necessary.

The deceptively named Minority Report movie, a classic by the way, is one of those movies that addresses sin (and its potential eradication) in society. What if we could technologically (with some mystical help) eliminate murder or very serious crimes? In the film, with the help of special humans with precognitive abilities, we are able to foresee certain crimes, and have empowered agents of the department of pre-crime to intervene before the crime occurs. The premise is that these precog humans see the future, not a possible future. Thus, the commission of the actual crime is a given.

Of course, this raises all sorts of moral questions, including the question of human autonomy and some form of determinism. Is it not possible that people can change their minds at the last moment in process of commiting a potential crime? On the other hand, why risk only assigning culpability when it's too late? If we knew for a fact that someone was more than likely going to commit murder then, given the consequences, shouldn't we err on the side of preventing crime?

Worthwhile ethical discussion, but there's also the broader issue. Our primary natural quest is to optimize our flourishing in a society that is structured with the right balance of restrictions and constraints that sets condition for the most people flourishing. (Certainly not our supernatural or spiritual quest.) And in so doing are we not muting or undermining the very faculty that would enable us to rise to a greater consciousness of good and freedom? If society takes away the burden of self-regulation and attainment of the good, and, instead, sets up structures that relieves us of the moral training that comes from understanding the world (raw and brutal) as it is, and learning to eventually rise above it, then do we not remain moral infants?

Perhaps this is too weirdly Hegelian in the sense that the coincidence of theses and antitheses yield a new equilibrium that introduces a new stage of human development and consciousness. And it perhaps ignores the pesky little detail that is original sin and our inability to do the good we know to do because of sin that reigns in us. Or it might diminish the role of grace that signals that in our wretchedness, the power to be actualized comes from beyond, from God through the cross of Christ.

Yes, I grant all that. Still, it stands to reason that there is a sense of moral good and evil that is/can be trained and can habituate us to seek and cherish the good. The analogy works in many other sphere's of life. If we never knew danger, suffering, death, pain, we wouldn't learn to avoid them, innovate around them, cooperate to avoid them, etc. 

Now, this may be the paradox of civilized society. It builds a city for us, gives us comforts, and dulls our senses, ultimately rendering us impotent and dependent on cultural technology. We grow in one sense, but diminish in the most important sense of all. Perhaps this is why Babel had to be destroyed.

The now infamous Oval Office shouting match between Trump and Zelensky seems more bizarre in hindsight. It is clear that Trump wanted the mineral deal according to the NYtimes and there's no clear indication that this was a setup or ambush.

The whole thing degenerated when VP J D Vance interjected and took over. The question is why? There was nothing to lose. Well, nothing, but the presidency. Ever since President Trump said JD Vance is not the obvious, slamdunk heir apparent, it's put Vance on a course to show that he is in fact the heir apparent. And the only way to do this is to bring on the crazy. Trump set the model of crashing norms and being brazenly outlandish. JD Vance has learned the lesson and is unapologetically applying the lessons he's gleaned from his mentor.

Paul (Saul) of Tarsus, the famed Apostle of the New Testament was a fascinating figure. He was a very devout Pharisee who participated in the persecution of followers of Jesus until he encountered the risen Jesus and became a follower. Something profound happened in his theology, such that he went from being a stickler to the law of Moses, to fully embracing freedom in the Spirit in Christ, and thus dissociating himself from strict adherence to the Mosaic law.

Whatever it was, Paul proclaimed freedom from aspects of the Mosaic law, like most other followers of the faith who preceeded him. However, there was something about his message that seemed to lead to deep misunderstandings about the role of grace and the obligation to do good and holy works. 

James chapter 2 gives evidence to this concern. James famously challenges those who emphasize faith and reject works as an obligation of the Christian life. He declares that faith without works is dead. It is a not-so-subtle reference to Paul. Perhaps even a rebuke, not to Paul but to the flavor his reputed doctrine. 2 Peter also explicitly mentions Paul and his wisdom, but noting that his doctrine is hard to understand and that people have twisted his words.

Now, it would seem that this concern with Paul being misinterpreted was the concern of those from a distance, but Paul himself recognized that his teachings and practices were being misinterpreted.

Romans 3 
"5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved!"

Paul's misfortune was in the fact that his teaching was very much tied to his personal testimony. He understood his prior theology and practice and it is in the context of understanding the value and blessing of the Torah, that he can teach grace and freedom in the Spirit. Paul's preaching was as much about being a daily banal witness for Christ, as it was about declaring grace and truth in Christ through his proclamation. Now if one got the latter without the forner, then one misinterpretes Paul.  

So before anyone speaks about faith, grace, and freedom in the Spirit in Paul, one must first commit to imitating Paul. And what would that look like?

Romans 2:7 "7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;"

Seems like works--doing good--wins out and the overdone emphasis on faith and grace, slanders Paul.

So Jesus tells this parable in Luke 15, the Parable of the Lost Sheep:

"15 Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.”3 So he told them this parable: 4 “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

​
It's a very sweet parable of the irrational love and dedication of a shepherd seeking a lost, disoriented sheep. However, it would have struck the listeners as weird. Jesus says, "Which one of you . . . does not  . . ." He speaks as though this is normal practice and it would make sense to the average person. No!  In a normal world, 100 out of 100 people would shake their heads, no. Why risk the other 99? You have plenty of sheep, they'll mate and you'll get more. And to make matters more absurd, when the shepherd gets home, he throws a party for a lost sheep that no one else had any idea was missing in the first place (I wonder if they killed a fatted lamb or something--would be ironic).

Jesus' parables stick because they are sweet and profound on the face of them (in many cases) but also very strange.

Finally, The Clay Queen, Book 1 in The Children of Clay series, is ready for re-release. This revised story will provide the background hinted at and will provide deeper foundations for upcoming books in the series.

E-Book available on Amazon

Queen Nouei's past, present, and future selves are in conflict. They want to erase each other. But when Nouei's future and present self conspire to change their history, her past fights back.

To save her human creation, Nouei must prevent the Almighty, Lord Rynae, from destroying the world and starting over again. But Nouei is not powerful enough to withstand Lord Rynae unless she can return to her past, rewrite her history, and make herself more powerful.

But when Nouei attempts to recreate her past, she finds that Bridget, her past self, has a mind of her own. Bridget, instead, is consumed with love for Lord Rynae, the very god who wishes to annihilate Nouei. It's hard not to love Lord Rynae, but Nouei has found out the hard way that loving Rynae is a death sentence. If Bridget's devotion to Rynae continues, then Nouei's future will end.

Nouei wants to live, Bridget wants to die. Two women, one history, who will prevail?