The Genuine "Article"

 I watched "Circle of Friends" again this week and enjoyed it a little bit more as it is nice to see something which morally aligns with my upbringing. How strange an age I've lived in, which was set in a dawn of good with children's programming that taught us to "care" and shunned the likes of Murphy Brown for her decision to raise a baby on her own, to this our enlightenment, which looks on the Morning Star. Yes, that one.

I was suspicious this morning of people's idea of egrandizing themselves in this age but then found an article which brought up the need to relate us all, the ripple in the pond metaphor rewritten to a new tune. They sound about the same, but there were a few special points. 

In the First Things article by a man named Radner, the writer is inspired by his friend who asks a question that he says is the mark of the modern age, "Why me?" Of course being also a part of modern times I understand that much of our fabric is propaganda, and his message reinforced my baggage. I carry with me a bitter grudge from the former lightness of my being, which was much more "in the garden".

"Why me", he tells us, is a 17th century anomaly. And since I am familiar with the Bible, and the First Things magazine is religious in nature, I am aware of the context at the onset. David, and Job, ask the same question. He doesn't say that to question your own particular life and its variant travels is new. It isn't. What was new was to be caught in an individual's web, a web of our own making. We highlight now our inner world, having discoveed the ego, the self, for the first time. But it began through the religious fad of election. I call it a fad because even this morning I remember Jesus words, "the new and everlasting covenant", which didn't expose anyone to their future fates, or conclude that anyone was chosen. Ever. It didnt use any signs, point to any special fads. The people have done that.

But he hit a special note that was particularly important. That those who feel God sees them, who have finally reached the ear of their creator, are shocked and always ask, "Why me?" As if some strange thing has happened to them. Just the way those suffering in turmoil ask "why me"?

 It was not written to tell us about theology. It was written to highlight the nature of suffering, and to show that those who do not fight on, who throw in the proverbial towel, cannot imagine they have done so.

Then he sort of brings it all together again. We've got this guy over here who thinks he sees light on the horizon, another who's life is bleak. And yet, the one suffering, and this is a call, this suffering person has a greater impact on us all. Suffering isn't entirely personal. That darkness which the other is in does not die with them. Their life ripples and begs notice and calls out like the blood of the innocent. They are ours while they are in our possession.

Jesus body of believers, then, isn't like the new fad, "we're all in this together". He doesn't express himself as being sent for all to be saved. It doesn't sound like, "everyone will be saved", just looks like it. His gruesome and torturous death, which was wildly predicted in advance, by the name Yahweh, through the unbreaking of his bones, seems like it is enough. Enough for anyone to stomach. But he indeed wants to save. And saving cannot be done unless it is known that there is work to be done. It says that, too.

The body of Christ is one. One which needs to be eaten, performed. The duty of the one, "Why me?" is to do whatever they can for the other. And it is not only kindness, it is not only goodness. It is suffering. But a joyful suffering. The joy that comes when we believe, when we recieve the body of Christ. The spirit, which we have blasphemed incredibly, denying him, has everything to do with it.