RE: Holy Thursday By: William Blake

In commemoration of Holy Week, William Blake has prepared a pair of poems for us. The first one is called Holy Thursday, and gives a nice, cute little depiction of some orphans singing about Jesus.

Holy Thursday (Song's Of Innocence) By William Blake

‘Twas on a Holy Thursday, their innocent faces clean,

The children walking two and two, in red and blue and green,

Grey headed beadles walk’d before, with wands as white as snow,
Till into the high dome of Paul's they like Thames’ waters flow.


Oh what a multitude they seem’d, these flowers of London town!
Seated in companies they sit with radiance all their own.

The hum of multitudes was there, but multitudes of lambs,
Thousands of little boys and girls raising their innocent hands.



Now like a mighty wind they raise to heaven the voice of song,

Or like harmonious thunderings the seats of Heaven among.

Beneath them sit the aged men, wise guardians of the poor;
Then cherish pity, lest you drive an angel from your door.

The second is also called Holy Thursday, and it calls shenanigans on the first poem.

Holy Thursday (Song's Of Experience) By William Blake

Is this a holy thing to see
In a rich and fruitful land,
Babes reduced to misery,
Fed with cold and usurous hand?

Is that trembling cry a song?
Can it be a song of joy?
And so many children poor?
It is a land of poverty!

And their sun does never shine,
And their fields are bleak and bare,
And their ways are filled with thorns:
It is eternal winter there.

For where'er the sun does shine,
And where'er the rain does fall,
Babes should never hunger there,
Nor poverty the mind appall.

William Blake wrote in London in the 1700s, a time when the poorest peoples, the widows and orphans, were not treated especially well. It is to a society of inequality that Blake wrote these Holy Thursday poems. Holy Thursday, or Maundy Thursday, is the day Jesus ate the last supper with his disciples. Before the meal he washed their feet, a servant's task meant to set an example of service for all Christians. Since then Christians have traditionally used the day to perform humble acts of service for the poor and needy. Over time, acts of true service were warped and replaced with more symbolic acts. One such act was to bring the orphans of London's Foundling Hospital to sing at St. Paul's Cathedral. Allowing the orphans to sing for the parishioners was considered as a treat for such poor children. Blake didn't think, “allowing the poor to sing to you” was quite on par with Christ's example of humble service.

I don't think Blake's 1700s criticisms are irrelevant. I think we have just as much temptation today to engage in symbolic acts of service and neglect real ones. We “like” causes on Facebook, we attend Christian rallies, and Christian concerts, and post Christian articles. There's no inherent problem with any of these activities, just like there's nothing wrong with orphans singing in a cathedral. My challenge to you today is to find a way to serve your neighbor in a tangible way. After all if one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?(James 2:6)

Song's of Innocence and Song's of Experience are for sale on Amazon, and free at Project Gutenberg.

Joseph Kony 2012 Scandal

My wife and I work with adolescents, and have recently joked that, it's become cool to hate nice things.  Though it started as a joke I've been amazed by how much truth there is in that insipid little statement. It is popular, and easy, to dislike things. Whenever I encounter a song, idea, or movement that appears to be above reproach, someone inevitably comes along and explains why they believe that the thing I like is dumb and terrible.

I recently posted about Invisible Children and their Kony 2012 campaign. Within hours of doing so I heard complaints about what a lousy organization Invisible Children is. I've read some articles, and I concede that Invisible Children is not the paragon of virtue I wish they were, but I don't think they're all that bad either.

The criticisms are these: IC doesn't spend enough money on tangible relief work, IC was intentionally foggy the facts of Kony's current whereabouts and actions, and IC fabricated the rumor that US forces planned to leave Uganda. As far as I can tell, all of these criticisms are legitimate ones. If you'd like, you can read about them in detail on foreignpolicy.com, Aljazeera.com and CNN.com.

What I really want to ask of you is this: if you can't stand to align yourself with Invisible Children, please find a humanitarian organization that you can enthusiastically support. I personally recommend World Vision, but no matter what, please do your homework. Charity Navigator and similar sites offer free reviews in order to keep charitable organizations accountable. Please do pray for Uganda and please do contact your representatives about Kony, the LRA, and whatever other issues you care deeply about. Finally, if you have spent energy criticizing Invisible Children, please spend twice as much energy in vocal and generous support of a superior organization. It is not enough to merely expose and discuss problems; we must diligently research and share good solutions as well.

Merry Christmas OR God's Blessings and Rationality

Assume every human is acting in in their own self interest, or at least what they perceive to be their self interest. I find this is a frustrating and disillusioning assumption because it allows kindness and cruelty to be motivated by identical desires and emotions. For example a person may shoplift, soldier, or parent out of a desire to feel powerful. Fathers may abuse or nurture their kids because of a desire for their kids' to not turn out like them. A person who acts in their own self-interest is said to be, rational. Assume Jesus is rational, and consider the following:

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ (Acts 20:35)

I believe there are two plausible reasons for a rational Jesus to say such a thing. One painful explanation for his claim, that it is better to give that to receive, is that Jesus was lying. Like many cult leaders Jesus could use his influence over peoples moral beliefs in order to profit from “enlightening” their point of view. It's not so far fetched; people have used Jesus' word to do exactly that for centuries. The scandal of the thing would be a lot of fun to write about, but I'm afraid no one got rich off of the Christian religion until after Christ was dead.

The other explanation I come up with is that Jesus actually believes that giving serves his interests better than receiving. If that is that case then we can assume that he would do everything in his power to give, and that scripture would record little of him receiving. The only instances of Jesus receiving anything that I can recall are times when he took meals from a host, when he took a donkey into Jerusalem, and when the “sinful” woman anointed him with perfume. That's not a lot of receiving when compared to the rest of Jesus' life. Jesus' life was characterized by constant giving, the giving of cures, the giving of food, the giving of dead relatives back to their families, of teachings, blessings, fish, of time, affection, and attention. The best example is the giving of his life on the cross.

If this is how God's son conducted himself on earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that a life of sacrifice is in fact the most profitable way a person can conduct themselves. That may sound like an evil reason for living generously; however, it is sensible that the God who determined the rules of the universe would make virtuous living beneficial if he actually wanted anyone to try it.

Now assume God is, has, and always will act in his own interest; please remember that he knows giving to be more blessed than receiving. God's motivations become clearer. God's action of creating the world, allowing the Fall, delivering Israel from slavery, giving the law of Moses, sending his son, sending his Holy Spirit, and every other divine act recorded and unrecorded is an instance of God giving. God gave Adam his breath, and he gives us his son.

God has created a universe where we, the created beings, have no concrete means of giving to our God. We have nothing that we haven't received (1 Corinthians 4:7). We cannot even work or earn our way into our God's presence or good will. We receive those things as a gift.

When God gives, he doesn't do it so that we can owe him something. God doesn't give gifts to win our favor. God doesn't give to be an example of generosity (although He is a good example). God doesn't give begrudgingly or reluctantly. God gives because it's more blessed to give than to receive.

I don't believe that our relationship to God is at all like that of a beggar or a freeloader. I believe that God wants and likes to give. I believe that God is delighted on levels we cannot comprehend when he gives his gifts to us. Our earth, breaths, longings, passions, arts, food, days, nights, hopes, and selves are his gifts to us, and each gift we receive from him blesses the Lord.

Bless the Lord by enjoying his gifts, material and immaterial, and enjoying deeply the holy blessing that it is to give. Merry freak'n Christmas .