Is Learning Apologetics like Fiddling While Rome Burns?

, ,

A Modern Commentary of C.S. Lewis’ ‘Learning in Wartime’

Today it is easy to see why many Christians may be discouraged and feel the need to “circle the wagons,” – to not see the need to cultivate a life of the mind, including learning apologetic arguments for Christianity, or even learning anything new at all. We now live in a world of ISIS, Ebola, violent Christian persecution in various parts of the world, and an increasing attack on religious liberties in America.

Perhaps a lesson from the past will bring light and even encouragement to the value of learning – especially loving Christ with all of our minds in the Church today.

In 1939 the dark clouds of Hitler’s Nazi war machine were beginning to loom across Europe and in England. Walter Hooper, who briefly served as C.S. Lewis’ personal secretary in 1963 relates a fascinating story of when Lewis was invited to preach a sermon at Oxford’s Church of St. Mary the Virgin in the late 30’s.

The threat of imminent war with Germany caused many of Oxford’s undergraduates much hesitation and unrest. Christian students understandably wondered at the value of education and the pursuit of truth when a world war loomed on the horizon. At that time Canon T.R. Milford, an admirer of Lewis’ literary works, asked him to come deliver a sermon and address this growing sentiment among the student body. According to Hooper, “Lewis – an ex-soldier [in WWI] and Christian don at Magdalen College – was thought to be just the man to put things in the right perspective.”[1]

How very right Canon Milford was! Not only did Lewis brilliantly make the case for learning in a time of global upheaval in the twentieth century, there are brilliant lessons we can learn for our own day as well. The text of Lewis’ sermon ended up as a chapter in The Weight of Glory[2] under the title “Learning in Wartime.” The barbarities of our own day and Lewis’s are uncanny, and the lessons are timeless.

Of course, there is no substitute for reading the entire chapter by Lewis’ himself, but in this article, I would like to highlight a few principles that I believe relate to those of us today who traffic in the realm of the mind, ideas, and the intellect.

There has Never Been a Perfect Time to Learn: Favorable Conditions Never Come

If we’re waiting for more peaceful or favorable times [whatever that is] to begin to dig deeper into our faith or perhaps to learn something new, then we’ll probably never begin at all. Lewis knew then that there will always be distractions which prevent us from pursing truth on a deeper level – whether those distractions are the threat of war, or the hectic busyness of life. He writes:

There will always be plenty of rivals to our work. We are always falling in love or quarrelling, looking for jobs or fearing to lose them, getting ill and recovering, following public affairs. If we let ourselves we shall always be waiting for some distraction or other to end before we can really get down to our work. The only people who achieve much are those who want knowledge so badly that they seek it while the conditions are still unfavorable. Favorable conditions never come.[3]

…If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with “normal life.” Life has never been normal.[4]

If we will not pursue truth and cultivate loving God with our minds with today’s many threats and distractions, then we probably never will. Life has never been “normal.”

Shouldn’t We Just Preach the Gospel Only?

There were those in Lewis’ day (as well as our own) who perhaps thought that learning should take a back-seat to leading people to Christ in evangelism.

..how is it even right, or even psychologically possible, for creatures who are every moment advancing either to Heaven or to hell spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology.[5]

…why should we – indeed how can we – continue to take an interest in these placid occupations when the lives or our friends and the liberties of Europe are in the balance? Is it not fiddling while Rome burns?[6]

Or,

“How can you be so frivolous and selfish as to think about anything but the salvation of human souls?” and we have, at the moment to answer the additional question, “How can you be so frivolous and selfish as to think of anything but the war?”[7]

Of course, in saying these things Lewis is certainly not undermining the importance of personal evangelism. Indeed, several years later in that same chapel, he preached what is perhaps, one of the most profound sermons on evangelism ever preached in the 20th Century [at least in my opinion!].

The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor’s glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. …All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct our dealings with one another…[8]

Lewis’ solution to this apparent dilemma of either evangelism (the active life), or learning (the contemplative life), is that whatever our view of this relationship is during peacetime, should be the exactly the same as in a time of war.

Now it seems to me that we shall not be able to answer these questions until we have put them by the side of other questions which every Christian ought to have asked himself in peacetime.

During a time of peace hardly any Christian doubts the value of loving God with all our minds and cultivating a deeper Christian understanding and integration of reality. So why should our principles change during a time of imminent death and war? According to Lewis, they shouldn’t.

In other words, regardless of whether we are living in a time of impending war & violence or relative peace and safety, there is an important place for both activities in the Christian view of things.

We don’t have to choose either evangelism or learning – it is imperative to do both!

Lastly, on this question, Lewis makes it clear that he makes no distinctions between the secular and the sacred.

Every duty is a religious duty, and our obligation to perform every duty is therefore absolute.[9]

In short, ‘whether we eat or drink, [do evangelism, or learn], or whatever we do, we do it all for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).’

In Our Pursuit of Truth, there is No Place for the Proud

Christ was very clear when He stated the greatest commandment, “to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength” (Matt. 22:36). Lewis recognized that a life of learning is perhaps not the path for every Christian. Indeed, within the body of Christ, there are many members with different functions (1 Cor. 12:12-31).

Regardless, our pursuit and love of the pure, unvarnished truth should take second place to our pride and personal achievements (if any). We must always be on guard against pride, whatever our vocation, but especially intellectual pride – for as the Apostle Paul writes, “…knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). Lewis writes:

As the author of the Theologica Germanica says, we may come to love knowledge – our knowing – more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents but the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us. Every success in the scholar’s life increases this danger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. They time for plucking out the right eye has arrived.[10]

In apologetics as in any other intellectual pursuit, there is no place for pride, whatever form it takes in our lives. We are servants of Truth and not the other way around.

…be ready to give a defense [apologia] to everyone who asks you a reason [logos] for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).

I can’t tell you how many apologists I’ve noticed, who are arrogant and condescending to others who don’t have a deeper understanding. This certainly does not help the cause of Christ or His Kingdom, and in reality, intellectual pride is the mark of another kingdom. The father of pride led a rebellion of a third of the angels against God. In Eden, he convinced Adam & Eve that God did not say what He really said.

Don’t Worry About the Future – Live Life One Day at a Time

One of the frustrations that Lewis addressed to his audience of Oxford undergraduates in 1939 was the frustration of possibly not being able to finish what one has started – of looking ahead to the future when it looks bleak. “What’s the point?”

This is certainly a sentiment that is true today. When one thinks of the future of the world and where we might be headed, it can be somewhat foggy or even depressing. Lewis’ wisdom is especially brilliant here because it is grounded in the very words of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (see, Matt. 6:34).

Lewis states:

Never, in peace or war, commit your virtue or happiness to the future. Happy work is best done by the man who takes his long-term plans somewhat lightly and works from moment to moment “as unto the Lord.” It is only our daily bread that we are encouraged to ask for. The present is the only time in which any duty can be done or any grace received. …A more Christian attitude, which can be attained in any age, is that of leaving futurity in God’s hands. We may as well, for God will certainly retain it whether we leave it to Him or not.[11]

Human Civilization Depends on Not Listening to Our Worries but on Thinking Clearly and Loving God with our Minds

Finally, in the larger scheme of human history, we should not allow our worries to dictate how we live. Human culture (if it is to survive) depends on it. Lewis writes:

If human culture [& learning] can stand up [and alongside] to that [that people today are headed to eternity in heaven or hell], it can stand up to anything. To admit that we can retain our interest in learning under the shadow of these eternal issues but not under the shadow of a European war would be to admit that our ears are closed to the voice of reason and very wide open to the voice of our nerves and our mass emotions.[12]

Here we can learn from a chapter in the history of the early, medieval Irish monks. When the British Isles were under the threat and then eventually under the sword of the Norsemen, Irish Christians didn’t worry & fret about their future. Rather, they went to work translating great works of literature and creating great works of art such as we find in the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels.

In his book, How the Irish Saved Civilization, author Thomas Cahill narrates in vivid detail the fall of the Roman empire when barbarian hordes marched across the frozen Rhine and eventually down into Italy ultimately sacking Rome herself, the crown jewel of classical civilization and learning. Several centuries later when the prow of the Viking longboat hit the sands of the British Isles another dark ages swept across Europe. Civilization was threatened and the learning of the classical world was gravely threatened.

It was the Irish Christians, who according to Cahill, played a key role in Europe’s rebuilding after the long and dark ages.

Wherever they went the Irish bought with them their books, many unseen in Europe for centuries and tied to their waists as signs of triumph, just as Irish heroes had once tied to their waists their enemies heads. Wherever they went they brought their love of learning and their skills in bookmaking. In the bays and valleys of their exile, they reestablished literacy and breathed new life into the exhausted literary culture of Europe. And that is how the Irish saved civilization.[13]

It is in light of these and other principles, that we pursue Truth for its own sake, we learn apologetic arguments, we love God with our minds, and we cultivate a life of faith grounded in God’s eternal Word.

Eternal things are at stake.

[1] Walter Hooper, “Introduction,” in C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (New York: Harper One, 2000, originally 1949), pg. 18.

[2] Incidentally, the title of Lewis’ second message at The Church of St. Mary the Virgin at Oxford in 1941.

[3] Lewis, “Learning in Wartime,” pg. 60.

[4] Ibid., pg. 49.

[5] Ibid., 48-9.

[6] Ibid., pg.47.

[7] Ibid, pg. 50-1.

[8] The Weight of Glory, pg. 45-6.

[9] “Learning in Wartime,” pg. 53.

[10] “Learning in Wartime,” pg. 57.

[11] “Learning in Wartime,” pg. 60-61.

[12] Ibid.. pg. 49.

[13] Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Historic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe (New York, London: Doubleday, 1995), pg. 196.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, Jim Whiddon

321. VERBAL DISCIPLINE “The best way to save face is to keep the lower half shut.”
— C. Seidman
322. REALITY “Christians have a powerful ally in the war of ideas: reality. Whenever someone tries to deny the truth, reality ultimately betrays him. As Francis Schaeffer points out, “Regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world. The fact is, mankind is made in the image of God and must live in the world God created. Although culture shifts, human nature remains the same. Ideas change, but ultimate reality does not.”
Excerpt From: Koukl, Gregory. “Tactics.”
323. HATE SPEECH  “The Truth is hate speech to those who hate the Truth.”
— Unknown
324. POWER OF SEX “The late James L. Johnson, on the flyleaf of his book What Every Woman Should Know About a Man, called sex “the strange and mysterious drive of the God-given chemistry that has shaped nations, destroyed kingdoms, and brought ruin or ecstasy to millions from the beginning of time.”
Excerpt From: Jerry B. Jenkins. “Hedges.”
325. “THINKING is the hardest work there is, which is probably why so few engage in it.”
—Henry Ford
326. LIBERTY “The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death. Concentration of power precedes the destruction of human liberties.”
— Woodrow Wilson
327. ABUSING GOD “I now pray to God that he will bless in the years to come our work, our deeds, our foresight, our resolve; that the Almighty may protect us from both arrogance and cowardly servility, that he may help us find the right way, which he has laid down for [our] people and that he may always give us courage to do the right thing and never to falter or weaken before any power or any danger.”
Inspiring words if spoken by a man or woman who respects his or her brothers and sisters. Kind of scary when you realize they were spoken in 1938 by Adolf Hitler and helped influence a nation to genocide.
Excerpt From: Simmons, Annette. “The Story Factor.”
328. INDEPENDENCE DAY “You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets “iffy,” and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism.”
— Erma Bombeck
329. DIETING “Calories you eat standing up don’t count.”
— Unknown
330. SEEKING WISDOM “A person should be so deep in study that he forgets to eat, so full of joy in learning he ignores all practical worries, and so busy acquiring knowledge he does not notice old age coming on.”
–Confusius

 

/by

Same Sex Marriage Decisions: The Constitution Protects Gays But Not Blacks or Women

,

Your vote counted. No it didn’t.

Last week, one unelected judge overturned the will of 1,317,178 North Carolinians when he declared North Carolina’s definition of marriage in violation of the United States constitution.  Judge Max Cogburn, appointed by President Obama, said that the definition 61 percent of voters approved just two years ago violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment—the same rationale used by judges elsewhere to violate the expressed will of the people.  This is beyond absurd.

It’s absurd rationally because everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. To say that people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights would be like saying people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. Same sex marriage, incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, and natural marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently.  Natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society, which is why the government promotes it in the first place.  The state is not in the marriage business because two people “love” one another. (Click here to see why the comparison to inter-racial marriage is invalid.)

These rulings are also absurd constitutionally.  The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1868 to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves.  At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no one ever thought a court could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws?  Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?  What planet are these judges ruling from?

Why do you think the Federal and State governments went through the arduous constitutional amendment process to give blacks and women the right to vote? Courts knew they couldn’t act as legislatures to fix the problem. Congress and State legislatures had to vote to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage. It’s the one institution best capable of creating and then raising children by encouraging their mothers and fathers to stay together. It’s the basis of a civilized society. We can’t build and maintain a civilization through homosexuality or by equating it to what moms and dads do. You may claim that’s bigotry, but it’s really just biology. (Sorry, I didn’t set up the facts of nature. I have noticed, however, that conservatives attempt to change their behavior to fit reality, while liberals attempt to change reality to fit their behavior.)

Anyone who wants to change laws should convince their fellow citizens to do so at the ballot box, not through unelected judges.  Unfortunately, activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women.  Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states!  I don’t care where you stand on the marriage issue: when 23 people use their personal policy preferences to overrule those of 41 million Americans, we are no longer free or equal.

Of the approximately 30 states that now have same-sex marriage (it changes every day), only one state has done it through popular vote (Maine). The people of Maryland and Washington narrowly voted not to overrule the same-sex marriage provisions their legislatures had approved.  Eight laws were changed by state legislatures without popular input. Activist judges overruled the people in the remaining states.

As unwise as I think changing the institution of marriage is, I can at least respect the process when it is done democratically.  For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

What do you think would happen if some federal judge wrenched a passage of the Federal Constitution out of context and summarily struck down Maine’s law democratically decided law approving same-sex marriage?  Do you think the people preaching “tolerance”—including their cheerleaders in the media—would tolerate such judicial abuse?  The airwaves would be blasting howls of unfairness and calls for judicial impeachment.  Yet when the same thing is done to strike down marriage laws based in biological reality—laws passed by millions of voters—liberals celebrate that those voters have been disenfranchised.  Saying that one judge’s vote counts more than the votes of millions of Americans is an unequal way to advance “equality.”

“Oh, but the Constitution evolves,” some say.  “We don’t have to look at what was intended in 1868.”

If that’s the case, then why have a constitution at all?  If judges can make the law say anything they want, then how can we govern ourselves?  We can’t.  It also means that none of our rights are secure (including new-found “rights” to same-sex marriage).  What’s to stop some rogue judge from taking away your freedom of speech or religion because the constitution has “evolved” in just the way his liberal mind desires?

Oops, that’s already happened, as many bakers, florists, photographers, and conscientious people in other businesses have discovered.  If you don’t agree to celebrate same-sex marriages, you will be sued, fined, fired, and perhaps even jailed.  All in the name of “tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”

And parents, don’t think you have the right to educate your children with certain moral values in public schools. Same-sex marriage ends your parental rights there as well.

What?  You voted and your values won?  Sorry, your votes don’t count.  Some people get more “equal protection” than you do.  A judge said so.

The truth is, nowhere does the Constitution say that the courts are the final word on what laws mean or what laws are valid.  We have three co-equal branches of government. We also have a federal government that is constitutionally subordinate to state governments on most issues, including this issue of same-sex marriage (that’s one thing the Supreme Court got right in last year’s DOMA decision).

America needs a state governor who still believes in America—a governor willing to take a page from President Andrew Jackson who once rebuffed a Supreme Court decision against the state of Georgia by telling Chief Justice Marshall, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” He called the decision “stillborn.”

America needs an Andrew Jackson governor—as statesman who peacefully but firmly tells the court, “Your decision violates the Constitution and the rights of my citizens to govern themselves.  It will not be enforced in this state.  If you want to change our laws, then respect our people and our Constitution by convincing us to change our minds in the voting booth.”

While that may create a constitutional crisis, our Constitution is already in crisis! What can be lost that hasn’t ready been lost?  We will not regain our right to self-government or maintain ordered liberty if we continue to cede all power to the judicial branch or to the federal government.

Are there any statesmen left in America?

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you.  Blessings, Jim Whiddon

311. BOARD DRIFT “Faith-based organizations don’t often suffer from an inexhaustible supply of resources. We need to be opportunists. And it is tempting to add “heavy-hitters” to the board who are comfortable with our mission, even if they do not fully believe or practice core faith in their own lives.

He’s supportive of our mission, we state. She doesn’t believe it all personally, but she’s totally fine that this is who we are, we reason. We aren’t looking for him to be a pastoral influence on the board; he’s simply providing financial expertise we desperately need, we plead. Serving on our board might actually bring him closer to Christ, we hope.

But if board members aren’t bleeding for the mission, drift will always trickle down. They must be the most passionate about the full mission of the organization. If they aren’t, conflict about the Christian distinction of the organization will eventually surface.

If the board isn’t composed of folks who live out the values of the organization they lead, the organization will drift. The organization will secularize. It will only be a matter of time.”

Excerpt From: Peter Greer, Chris Horst & Anna Haggard. “Mission Drift.”

312. CHRISTIAN KILLERS “Orthodox Christians who are tempted to think that those who stoned to death the first martyrs must have been worse men than they themselves are, ought to remember that one of those persecutors was Saint Paul.”

Excerpt From: John Stuart Mill. “On Liberty.”

313. UNTIMELY DEATH “It is God’s prerogative to decide when He wants to give His children the gift of Heaven.”

— C. Seidman

314. OUR RIGHTS “The Bill of Rights is enumerated to eliminate doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. It also puts the amendments in order of importance. And each numbered amendment is tied to a principle. While no amendment of the ten is technically more important than another, the First Amendment—the freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly, and the right to petition—has been the most fundamental in ensuring Americans’ liberty since the nation was founded. Then, as you work your way down, each amendment becomes slightly further removed from the one before it.”

Excerpt From: Luntz, Frank. “Win.”

315. HELL “Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” — CS Lewis, “The Screwtape Letters”

316. UNPOPULAR “He was about as popular as Dr. Kevorkian at an AARP convention.” — Unknown

317. VOCATION Psychologist Martin Seligman writes about three vocational orientations: a job, a career, and a calling. A job earns you a paycheck; a career entails a deeper investment in your work.  But a calling is a passionate commitment to a cause for its own sake.  According to Dr. Seligman, finding your “calling” is the key to authentic happiness.

(Denison Forum)

318. WEALTH “An ironic idea struck him: as people got richer they cut themselves off from the richness of life.”

Excerpt From: Zinsser, William. “On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition.”

319. DEATH “Dying is no big deal. Living is the trick.”

— Red Smith, delivering the eulogy at the funeral of a fellow sports-writer.

320. DEATH “Recently, while looking through some pictures from a decade or so ago, I was stunned. My hair was darker then. My face had fewer wrinkles. It dawned on me that this body of mine has death in it.

I am decaying and deteriorating before my very eyes. Oh, I could have plastic surgery or perhaps some liposuction. I can eat vitamin-enriched foods and try to keep my cholesterol down. But none of that can stop the fact that I continue marching toward an appointment with eternity. Do you believe this?”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

 

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you.  Blessings, Jim Whiddon

301. UNDERSTANDING GOD “If I could fully understand His thoughts, He would be no more God than I am.”

Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

302. WELFARE “Benjamin Franklin, wrote:

To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.

Excerpt From: Ben Carson, M.D. “America the Beautiful.”

303. WHO IS GOD “He doesn’t depend on anything else because He is what everything else depends on. He can’t be explained by anything else because He is what everything else must be explained by.

God is like nothing we could have imagined. We never could have imagined His holiness. We never could have imagined His love. Even if we could, we never could have imagined them together. Haven’t you noticed that when people get worked up about His holiness they sometimes forget His love, and when they get worked up about His love they sometimes forget His holiness? But that just shows that we don’t understand either the holiness or the love.”

Excerpt From: Budziszewski, J. “How to Stay Christian in College.”

304. WISDOM “I define true character as “response-ability”—the ability to respond rightly to authority and to the challenges we face in life.

A boy doesn’t know it yet, but life is hammered out on the anvil of his choices. The problem is that wisdom does not come naturally to boys. As the book of Proverbs tells us, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child” (22:15). If a boy is going to step up in life, he needs an older man who will model a lifestyle of wisdom and charge him with becoming a man of character, making right choices, and acting responsibly.”

Excerpt From: Rainey, Dennis. “Stepping Up.”

305. “UNEARNED” INCOME “Just think about how easily people all accepted the label that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses for interest, dividends, and capital gains—“unearned” income. Surely this label trivializes the productive and noble process of assuming risk and investing capital. It is precisely by taking control of language that ideas can gradually be changed. It is, of course, only a short step from calling investment income unearned income to the idea that there is something unwholesome about making money through investment. It is another even shorter step to the idea that people should not be entitled to the benefits of money they acquired through investment, because it is money they did not really earn.” Excerpt From: Rabbi Daniel Lapin. “Thou Shall Prosper.”

306. WORKPLACE BALANCE “the emerging realization in the business community that thriving organizations need whole persons working for them—that anything less cheats both the individual and the firm.”

Excerpt From: Simmons, Annette. “The Story Factor.”

307. THE UNIVERSE One scientist put the size of God’s creation in this way: Hold a piece of paper and consider that it’s width represents the 92 mil miles between the earth and our sun. The NEAREST star to the earth would then be represented by a stack of papers 70 FEET high. The width of the Milky Way galaxy would then be a stock 310 MILES high. And the Milky Way is simply a speck in the big scheme of the KNOWN universe. Is the creator of such an enormous and unfathomable creation someone you want to be with or against?

— Unknown

308. VOCATION “In Exodus chapter 31, [we see that] spiritual gifts are not limited to what we call “ministry.” In shockingly plain language, God tells Moses that he has filled Bezalel and Oholiab “with the Spirit of God” for working in design, craftsmanship, and decoration to guide their work on the tabernacle. While their task was to create a place for the people to meet with God, their gifting was for design, not for ministry per se.

“Understanding this passage made clear to me that my calling as an architect is not secondary to work that I do in and for the local church. In fact, it may be that God wants me to be the best architect I can be even more than he wants me to teach Sunday school. This idea seemed somewhat heretical to me a few years ago, but as I have lived into it, I have come to see its truth. God has gifted and called people to be butchers and bakers and website designers. Some of that work can benefit the church, but the vast majority of it is intended to benefit the world at large, beyond the doors of the church.

It’s tremendously freeing to realize that what God has uniquely created you to do is exactly what he wants you to do—that you don’t have to spend three-fourths of your life toiling at insignificant work so you can afford to go on a mission trip. All legitimate work is significant, all of it is valuable,”

Excerpt From: Kinnaman, David. “You Lost Me.”

309. LESS IS MORE “Any successful restaurateur who has actually surveyed his patrons knows that the perfect length of a menu is two pages—one page for appetizers, soups, and salads, and one page for entrées. Anything less is considered too restrictive or uncreative. Anything more and it is assumed that there will be good dishes and bad dishes.”

Excerpt From: Luntz, Frank. “Win.”

310. CIVIL DEBATE “To discover to the world something which deeply concerns it, and of which it was previously ignorant; to prove to it that it had been mistaken on some vital point of temporal or spiritual interest, is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow-creatures.”

Excerpt From: John Stuart Mill. “On Liberty.”

 

 

 

/by

Was George Washington a Christian or a Freemason?

Many skeptics of Christianity claim George Washington was a freemason and not at all a Christian. Many Christians claim the opposite. So which is it? Our first President is, obviously, not alive today to really set the record straight. It would be very helpful if he were. Since he is not, to form a conclusion on what George Washington believed we have to dive into his writings and documentation from contemporaries, and build a case from there.

 

First, it should be noted the practices of freemasonry in the 18th century were not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. It is completely plausible for George Washington to be both a born-again Christian and a freemason. In fact, records show George Washington was associated with both.

 

But can we draw a conclusion he was more of one than the other?

 

As a freemason, George Washing was a “member” for over 30 years. In that time, he attended only 4 meetings total. Many freemasons want to paint him as their most famous member, which, they literally did paint portraits of him in freemason garb. But he never once sat for one of those, and most were done after his time. In fact, George Washington claimed the one painting done during his time to be “mason propaganda” to paint him as such.[1] Not that you could blame the freemasons, would there be a better face for any organization to associate with than the most famous person in the entire United States of America?

 

So he didn’t go to many meetings and he wasn’t that closely associated with the freemasons, but that doesn’t necessarily make George Washington a Christian.

george Washington praying

Records show, George Washington had a very close association with his home church, Christ Church, in Alexandria, VA. You can go to this church today and sit in the very church “box” which belonged to the Washington family. His adopted daughter, Nelly, (who was, in fact, his step-granddaughter) noted he rarely missed a Sunday, even if roads were bad and it took them over 2-3 hours to get there.

 

While he was traveling with his military and political career, which was indeed much of his career, record after record shows he attended church. Whether he was wintering at Valley Forge, or while he was in the First Continental and Constitutional Congresses in Philadelphia, he would attend services and fervently prayed. Right after he was inaugurated as President of the United States at Federal Hall in New York City, he immediately went to church to commit his presidency in prayer.

 

But as everyone knows, just going to church does not make you a Christian. The character of Christianity must be found in the person as well. Rev Henry Muhlenberg, an active Revolutionary who served with Gen Washington at Valley Forge, recorded that the General “rode around among his army…and admonished each and every one to fear God…and to practice Christian values.”[2]

 

George Washington’s family did not doubt his convictions as a Christian. Nelly wrote much later of George Washington’s beliefs. Claiming him to be a private and quiet man, but undoubtedly a Christian. She said, “It the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men” [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].”

 

In his writings, George Washington very often attributed successes and happenstances to “ Divine Providence.” Many people have taken it to mean he did not believe in the power of Jesus Christ. However, “George Washington’s writings reveal 54 different titles [of the names for God].”[3]

 

And if he did not believe in Jesus Christ, how then would skeptics be able to define the following statement from George Washington’s prayer journal, “O eternal and everlasting God…Increase my faith in the gospels…daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life.”

 

The lack of evidence for George Washington being an ardent freemason and the overwhelming verification (literal volumes of accounts) of his Christian character, one can make a good case George Washington was indeed a Christian, but also a believer of Jesus Christ. He drew his values from Christian sources and his hope from Christianity.

 

George Washington established his life and faith upon Christianity. Truly, a reflection of the nation he was so instrumental in founding. This is just one example of how America’s footing was founded on the root of Christianity.

 

 

[1] Findings concerning George Washington’s association with Freemasonry:
Barton, David (2005). The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Father. Wallbuilders Press; Texas.

[2] Beliles, Mark A. & Stephen k. McDowell (1989). America’s Providential History. The Providence Foundation; Charlottesville, VA.

[3] Ibid.

/by
nebulosa_borboleta2

Coarse-Tuning vs. Fine-Tuning

nebulosa_borboleta1I attended an interesting debate last Saturday night between Justin Schieber and Blake Giunta. Blake used the fine-tuning evidence as one argument for God’s existence and Justin countered by pointing to the Coarse-Tuning argument.

What is the Coarse-Tuning Argument?

Assuming that the various finely-tuned constants can take on any value up to infinity, then any finite life-permitting range (even a large one) would become an infinitesimal subset. Thus, even coarsely-tuned parameters could be considered improbable. This is often seen then as a reductio ad absurdum against fine-tuning – for then we should be equally surprised no matter how wide the range of life-permitting values is for a given constant (so long as it was finite).

Blake followed Robin Collins in arguing that coarse-tuning could still represent an improbable situation if indeed we knew that the possible values for the various constants could go to infinity. However, I don’t think many physicists would be persuaded of anything improbable if the universe only required coarse-tuning rather than fine-tuning to support life. In fact this was the expectation prior to the pioneering work of Hoyle, Barrow, Tipler, Carter, and others. No one that I’m aware of argued that physical constants being life-permitting pointed to design until the life-permitting range of constants was discovered to be exceedingly narrow.

Why coarse-tuning would not be accepted as improbable?

Most physicists did not accept a Coarse-Tuning Argument not because it might not be improbable if the possible range was infinite, but rather due to skepticism that the possible range of constants could be infinite. If David Hilbert was right, actual infinities are nowhere to be found in reality and it would be impossible for the constants to be infinite. See my previous blog for a discussion of some of the issues associated with actually infinite quantities. Even if Hilbert is incorrect, one could still argue that one can estimate probabilities by taking limits and that Hilbert’s Hotel shows simply the counter-intuitive nature of dealing with infinities. Even if the actually infinite is possible, physicists generally reject candidate theories that entail the actually infinite – at least if the equations cannot be renormalized to avoid the infinities.

Is the range of possible values for the constants infinite?

The key assumption in the Coarse-Tuning Argument is that the possible range of constants could be infinite. However as Luke Barnes has pointed out the concept of mass becomes incoherent if fundamental particles could exceed the Planck mass. Particles over a certain mass would form a black hole and therefore be impossible to create. Does it really seem physically possible that an electron could have a mass of a billion tons? Might it be prohibitively difficult to create particles with such a huge mass due to the energy or energy density requirements in making it? Would such a massive particle be stable? We could treat the case that the electron’s mass was greater than some huge value as corresponding to there being too few electrons after some small amount of time in which the universe expanded and cooled. This special case would obviously be life-prohibiting as electrons are necessary for chemistry, stellar fusion, and other processes critical for life.

What about force strengths?

Another class of parameters that have to be finely-tuned is force strengths. Most physicists think that at least 3 out of the 4 fundamental forces are unified at certain energy levels – and probably all 4. Thus, there is an underlying relationship between the forces that would constrain their relative strengths. Ratios of the force strengths would not be infinite. If a constant governing a force strength had a value of 0, that special case could also be evaluated with respect to its ability to support life. All 4 fundamental forces are thought to be necessary for life although there are ways to have life without the weak force – but only by compensating with additional fine-tuning in other aspects.

Robin Collins argues that once force strengths become too large we lose our ability to predict whether or not such a scenario would be life-permitting – there could be new physics at such large energy scales. This is not a problem for the fine-tuning argument as defined by leading advocates though because the argument only addresses the parameter ranges for which we can reliably evaluate suitability for life – we consider only the epistemically-illumined region. Here is how John Leslie explains it in his Universes book (which I highly recommend):

If a tiny group of flies is surrounded by a largish fly-free wall area then whether a bullet hits a fly in the group will be very sensitive to the direction in which the firer’s rifle points, even if other very different areas of the wall are thick with flies. So it is sufficient to consider a local area of possible universes, e.g., those produced by slight changes in gravity’s strength, . . . . It certainly needn’t be claimed that Life and Intelligence could exist only if certain force strengths, particle masses, etc. fell within certain narrow ranges . . . . All that need be claimed is that a lifeless universe would have resulted from fairly minor changes in the forces etc. with which we are familiar. (pages 138-9)

In other words, it still looks like the rifle was aimed if it hits a tiny group of flies surrounded by a vast wall without any flies – even though there might be other flies on parts of the wall we cannot see. A design inference can be justified even though we lack complete knowledge about the life-permitting status of all of the possible parameter space. We’re only evaluating the local, finite region for which a determination can be made.

A finite number of physically possible constants?

If one takes the fine-tuning argument based on physically possible parameter space rather than metaphysically possible parameter space, then it’s expected that the range of values for constants is finite. I’ve previously linked to this important article by John Barrow outlining different ways in which physics itself can drive constants to different values. For example, spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early universe affected various parameters related to electromagnetism and the weak force. The Weinberg angle could have taken on other values that would have resulted in alternate derived parameters. However, nothing in those equations allow any of the parameters to go to infinity.

Barrow also notes that unifying gravity and quantum mechanics is only possible if “the true constants of nature are defined in higher dimensions and the three-dimensional shadows we observe are no longer fundamental and do not need to be constant.” Because of quantization, the number of ways of compactifying these extra spatial dimensions would be finite. We can treat the case that quantization is not in effect as a special case that would not plausibly support life. Without quantization, atoms are not stable and would not have consistent properties permitting information to be stored. Even String Theory entails a finite number of possible sets of fundamental constants. Many theorists think it’s quite large, perhaps 10500, but all we need is for it to be finite to avoid the infinities required by the coarse-tuning argument. Refer to my previous blog for other reasons to expect a finite range for constants of nature.

Initial conditions

Cosmologist Luke Barnes also points to the fine-tuning associated with the initial conditions of our universe as an example immune from the problems of infinities. Unless one thinks that probabilistic statements cannot be made despite the reputation of statistical mechanics as a well-established physics discipline, one is able to conclude that our universe started out in an incredibly special, highly-ordered state. The number of life-permitting states is extraordinarily tiny compared to possibilities as Roger Penrose has computed – see my blog for details. Since the number of particles was finite and the volume of space in the early universe was quite small, there is no problem of infinities that prohibits a rough probability estimate.

Summary

More work should be done in assessing the possibilities of infinities and the potential impact on the fine-tuning argument. However, I see no reason that Coarse-Tuning would be a reductio ad absurdum against fine-tuning because if we knew for sure that the constants had an infinite range the finiteness of the life-permitting range should suffice for demonstrating that life-permitting universes are a tiny subset among possibilities. However, physicists are rightly skeptical that these constants could be infinite. I’ve listed several reasons for thinking that the constants couldn’t have an infinite range – which is why physicists were not astounded until they discovered that life-permitting ranges are tiny among possibilities that can be evaluated. We can compute that the universe would be lifeless if gravity were 40 orders of magnitude stronger even though we might have some slight uncertainty about what happens if it were 4000 orders of magnitude stronger and do not know a precise upper bound of what is physically possible.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you.  Blessings, Jim Whiddon

291. CRITICISM “Carve praise in marble, trace criticism in the dust.” — Arabic saying.

292. FRIENDSHIP “Those who have nothing can share nothing; those who are going nowhere can have no fellow-travelers.”

Excerpt From: Keller, Timothy. “The Meaning of Marriage.”

293. PROVIDENCE “In his book The Mystery of Providence, John Flavel wrote of a French believer by the name of Du Moulin, who was running for his life from persecutors and climbed into an oven to hide. Within moments a spider began to weave a web over the mouth of the oven. Du Moulin’s enemies, seeing the spider’s web, never dreamed that he was inside. And thus he was delivered.”

Excerpt From: Farrar, Steve. “True Courage.”

294. FUTURE VS. PAST “There is a reason your windshield is so much bigger than your rear view mirror.” — Unknown

295. ROLE MODELS “So from the gospel stories of Jesus’ life, you get the idea that seeing a person’s life is at least as important as getting a list of lessons from that person. Yes, sermons are important, but seeing the actual life of the guy who gives the sermon might be even more powerful. And you get the idea that how you live affects others. It teaches them how to live.”

Excerpt From: Metaxas, Eric. “Seven Men.”

296. SEX ED “Twenty years ago, Dartmouth College made shocking headlines for equipping incoming college freshmen not just with everything they needed to know about sex, but rather everything they needed to engage in it. And I mean everything. Along with various examples of drugstore birth control, the freshman sex kit included an “oral dam,” a device I decided at the time I would probably prefer to avoid knowledge of, carnal or otherwise. Back then, a college setting up eighteen-year-olds for sexual experimentation seemed outrageous. Today, middle school students in Maryland learn “buying a condom is not as scary as you think.” In Wisconsin, they can pick them up for free at a “health” fair. First-graders in North Carolina get primed on homosexual marriage with King & King, a storybook about a handsome prince who spurns a run of princesses for a handsome prince of his own. New Jersey put together a sex ed kit that, among other things, gives elementary school students, the lowdown on masturbation. Kindergartners in New York learn the mechanics of AIDS transmission.

Rather than instill virtuous behaviors based on the judgment that it is “bad” to use drugs, or “bad” to engage in premarital sex, we choose to build a logical case against vice based only on the risks involved. And these we neutralize by also, logically, teaching the young to “take precautions.” It is a halfhearted argument at best for “healthy” behavior. Without making such behaviors anathema, society merely tries to talk its jaded young out of indulging in them—and for no “good” reason.”

Excerpt From: West, Diana. “The Death of the Grown-Up.”

297. RISK TO WIN “The team that makes the most mistakes usually wins.”

— Coach Piggy Lambert

298. MISSION DRIFT “Consider this mission statement of a well-known university: “To be plainly instructed and consider well that the main end of your life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ.”

Founded in 1636, this university employed exclusively Christian professors, emphasized character formation in its students above all else, and rooted all its policies and practices in a Christian worldview. This school served as a bastion of academic excellence and Christian distinction.

It’s from Harvard University—this statement described their founding mission. Harvard began as a school to equip ministers to share the Good News.”

Excerpt From: Peter Greer, Chris Horst & Anna Haggard. “Mission Drift.”

299. COACHING “You ought to coach each player like they are going to become your son-in-law.”

Excerpt From: Joe Ehrmann, Paula Ehrmann & Gregory Jordan. “InSideOut Coaching.”

300. COSMIC JOKE “When asked why he doesn’t believe in astrology, the logician Raymond Smullyan responds that he’s a Gemini, and Geminis never believe in astrology.”

Excerpt From: John Allen Paulos. “Innumeracy.”

/by

Our Founding Fathers: Were the Founding Fathers Really Christians?

While it might seem like a trivial question, the answer is actually the birthplace of our national identity.  The beliefs and convictions of our founding fathers lay the groundwork for interpreting our Declaration of Independence and Constitution—the documents that direct our daily freedoms.

According to Real Clear Politics, an average of several polls observed over the past couple of weeks, a staggering 65% of Americans feel the nation is heading in the wrong direction.[1] What is more worrisome is the lack of consensus on what direction is right.

Political pundits assert that this is because of a lack of leadership; Christians say it is because we have rejected God; atheists assert it is because we have too much religion. With so many varying opinions, how are we ever going to move forward to be the nation we once were?

At the Constitutional Congress on July 28, 1787, the Congress had been in gridlock for over a month. After all, deciding on a brand new government with the voice and opinions of 55 men was no easy task. But it took the voice of one man to bring order to that meeting and determining our nation’s foundation.

“How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings…I have lived, Sir, long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

constitutional-convention

Who said this? Benjamin Franklin.

For all of the critics who alleged that Franklin was a deist, is it unusual that he appealed to God to intervene in the affairs of men? What’s more, is that he is here quoting Jesus[2] at a government meeting?

This quote alone establishes that Benjamin Franklin, at least in the latter part of his life, was in fact not a deist.[3] While there is not enough time to dive completely into what Benjamin Franklin actually lived and believed (stay tuned at a later date for that discussion), these words allow him to be a variety of things. A deist is not one of them.

The result of this faith-ridden stance has been marked as the time when the Constitutional Congress began daily praying and attending church services…and subsequently established our revolutionary form of government in less than 6 weeks.

This Founding Fathers post will be the first of many in a new blog series that will seek to open the discussion on the Faith of our Founding Fathers.

Reestablishing our national identity requires looking to what that foundation was built on and who built it. To keep our foundation from being taken out from underneath us we must call to God for help.

President George Washington proclaimed, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

[1] Real Clear Politics averaged 6 polls conducted between 9/3-9/15/2014.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

[2] Matthew 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.” (New International Version)

[3] Deism: 1. Belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with the rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). 2. Belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. Dictonary.com.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you.  Blessings, Jim Whiddon

281. FAITH-BASED “Faith in mankind is harder to sustain than faith in God. Where secular organizations place their faith in the human person, religious organizations recognize that human persons—divorced from God—can never truly deal with the problems most fundamental to human society. Poverty may be alleviated, but prosperity brings its fair share of problems along with it.”

Excerpt From: Peter Greer, Chris Horst & Anna Haggard. “Mission Drift.”

282. WISDOM “One of the primary ways God protects us is through the wisdom he grants when we strive to walk in his ways. Obedience to him protects us from all kinds of dangers — not so much because he miraculously intervenes but because he doesn’t have to. Obedience sets us on a wise course.”

Excerpt From: Harris, Raymond. “The Heart of Business.”

283. BIBLE CHANGED? When someone says that the Bible has been changed by men over the years, ask them to consider:

“How does someone remove select lines of text from tens of thousands of handwritten documents that had been circulating around the Mediterranean region for over three hundred years? This would be like trying to secretly remove a paragraph from all the copies of yesterday’s L.A. Times. It can’t be done.”

Excerpt From: Koukl, Gregory. “Tactics.” Zondervan. iBooks.

284. SIN AND ECONOMY “Sin is a constant in both Capitalism and Socialism. The difference is that in socialism, you have sin plus COERCION, with capitalism, there is sin plus FREEDOM of choice.”

— Jerry Boyer

285. WINNERS “The moderately successful person focuses on the roadblocks, on how to get over or around them. The winner focuses on the goal.”

— Tom Harrison

286. ENTITLEMENT “saying among poker players: If you’re at the table for more than half an hour and can’t tell who the sucker is, you’re it. Similarly, if you’re a college graduate in your early twenties, and you look around at your peers and can’t see a problem with a sense of entitlement, maybe you have a problem.”

Excerpt From: Murray, Charles. “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead.”

287. CUSTOMERS “In the midst of a world filled with ambivalent salespeople, there is one company that has been a winner for three decades because it takes a people-centered approach to everything it does: Nordstrom. The word no never entered into their vocabulary.

When company chairman Bruce Nordstrom was asked who trains his people, his response was “their parents.”

Excerpt From: Luntz, Frank. “Win.”

288. A GREAT MARRIAGE 1. Marry someone with similar tastes and preferences. Which tastes and preferences? The ones that will affect life almost every day. It’s okay if you like the ballet and your spouse doesn’t. Reasonable people can accommodate each other on such differences. But if you dislike each other’s friends, or don’t get each other’s sense of humor, or—especially—if you have different ethical impulses, break it off and find someone else.

Personal habits that you find objectionable in each other might be deal-breakers. Jacques Barzun identified the top three as punctuality, orderliness, and thriftiness.

2. What you see is what you’re going to get. If something about your prospective spouse bothers you, but you think that you can change your beloved after you’re married, you’re wrong.

3. It is absolutely crucial that you really, really like your spouse. You hear it all the time from people who are in great marriages: “I’m married to my best friend.” They are being literal. They enjoy the day-to-day company of their spouses more than they enjoy the company of anyone else, they can talk to their spouses more openly than they can talk to anyone else, and they can be quietly companionable with their spouses as with no one else. Occasionally this kind of compatibility can develop after marriage, but it’s more common to be apparent beforehand. People often lament how hard it is to know whether one is truly in love. That’s true. But it’s not hard to know how much you like someone. Focus on that question even more than you focus on whether you’re in love. Here are two things to worry about as you do so: A) Do you sometimes pick at each other’s sore spots? You have fun together, the sex is great, but one of you is controlling, or nags the other, or won’t let a difference of opinion go. I believe that two people who love each other should be careful to avoid saying anything that will inflict hurt. Occasionally there will be an overwhelmingly compelling reason why the hurtful thing must be said. But if your prospective spouse says hurtful things heedlessly, or seems to take any pleasure whatsoever in causing hurt, break it off.

4. A good marriage is the best thing that can ever happen to you. Above all else, realize that this cliché is true. The downside risks of marrying—and they are real—are nothing compared to what you will gain from a good one.”

Excerpt From: Murray, Charles. “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead.”

289. EINSTEIN “Einstein had a boyhood dream of what it would be like to ride on a light wave. Is it physically possible? Could you actually ride on a light wave? And then, years later, he comes up with his theory of relativity. He asked one question as a six-year-old—a pretty amazing question. Would it physically be possible to ride on a light wave through space? And the whole world changed because of that one question from a six-year-old.”

—JIM DAVIDSON, CO-CEO, SILVER LAKE

290. CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU After he died someone asked his accountant, ‘How much money did John D. Rockefeller leave?’ And the reply: ‘He left … all of it.’

— Unknown

/by