A Kiss Of Wisdom Inspired By Kissinger

Ecclesiastes 12: 9-14

This morning I was reading through the June 2018 edition of The Atlantic, a monthly magazine journal.

I saw this magazine a couple of months ago at a friend's place of business.

They carry several periodical subscriptions for their clientele to read while enjoying a cigar in the likely hope to meet a demographic expectation and, as I suspect, for the possibility of encouraging some intellectual conversation.

This particular magazine's cover title (The Birth of a New Aristocracy) caught my attention, and also the titles of the other articles found inside.

The mention of a certain author also caught my attention.

My proprietor friend promised me the magazine when the newest one arrived.

I prefer reading in quiet places or in situations where I won't miss out on interesting conversations with strangers or acquaintances.

I aim to learn something and perhaps impart something.

This morning I finally got around to opening this magazine and began my cover-to-cover read-through.

The first article was one from Henry Kissinger, a controversial figure for some people... but a major player in geo politics from the American perspective for several decades or the better part of his life.

I've learned to look beyond popular or critical opinions of individuals and instead focus on objectively considering what can be learned from them, regardless of my personal thoughts of them personally.

Sometimes one has to look past politically programmed biases, our ever-present personal biases, and those overriding popular biases heard on the street or at home when searching for things factual.

It is not easy to do.

However, with practice, facts that may initially seem opposed to or troubling to one's current understanding due to their source or whomever they come through, can be appreciated and learned.

Even the most hated of persons can speak something very true or factual, much how the most praised person may be consistently speaking lies or making claims ridiculous and unfounded.

It is possible to still vehemently disagree with an individual's politics, or their personality, while finding agreement with certain observations or summations that individual makes.

Agreeing with another person isn't the litmus test for truth.

Plenty of people agree with those having like minds as theirs, but they may largely have shared opinions only, but truth... none.

Shared opinions can be absolutely wrong and baseless... or can complement fact.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this particular man's opinions or politics, but when reading his article entitled A.I. [artificial intelligence] and the End of Human History / How the Enlightenment Ends, I noticed a couple of very important sentences:

... the technological advance that most altered the course of modern history was the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, which allowed the search for empirical knowledge to supplant liturgical doctrine, and the Age of Reason to gradually supersede the Age of Religion. Individual insight and scientific knowledge replaced faith as the principal criterion of human consciousness. Information was stored and systematized in expanding libraries. The Age of Reason originated the thoughts and actions that shaped the contemporary world order ...

In 82 words so much is clarified and summarized... but do passive readers understand what really happened and why in the era mentioned, or do they understand what is being summarized?

Does a passive reader simply agree with how the past has been taught to them, or that everything currently praised by some people as 'good' was good?

Are people able to decide whether something was actually 'good' or instead realize things were largely detrimental in many ways despite evidence of some good?

The popular consensus in academia was that almost everything that came from and after the 15th century in Europe and, its subsequent influence in the world as Kissinger summarized, was a much needed eye-opener and step forward for humanity.

Sounds agreeable enough, right?

The perception is that mankind was positively assisted by much learning and exploring while addressing and rebuffing the dogmas and restrictions of the church.

Certain parts of the church in Europe was doing some things not Christlike, and so there was reason for concern.

Liberation is argued, and freedoms claimed, to have been asserted... but did the issues get resolved, or did things get worse?

Surely much good has come about out of 15th century Europe (and elsewhere), but also from 10th century Europe (and elsewhere)... and so on.

Every day, every year, and in every century we see revealed evidence of growth in mankind... and paradixically in the same places we also see mankind repeating base attitudes and getting worse.

We see this individually and collectively.

However, this summary of Kissinger's, to me, shouldn't be about interpreting a 'good' that replaced what may now be perceived as a 'bad' or an 'age of ignorance' (a common critique).

One key phrase that speaks to my point is: “individual insight and scientific knowledge replaced faith as the principal criterion of human consciousness”.

That phrase is loaded... and very important to consider.

It is a general statement that, although not fitting all individuals past or present, speaks to a general attitude made quite popular.

What is also evidenced historically, but sometimes talked about in a categorizing manner limiting greater objectivity, is the collective spiritual and social rebellion that occurred in Europe at the time.

I don't mean a peaceful rebellion or in a positive sense, but very detrimental.

Sadly, rebellion is viewed as either necessary to 'good' or justified.

If any of us can reflect upon our rebelliousness while younger, perhaps we can be honest at how much trouble could have been avoided if we hadn't rebelled against our parents, or the church, or society, but instead did what was right.

Same goes within society and with every generation of man.

In the hope of making life better, men actually injure themselves and make their society worse... instead of learning how to bring about the changes they desire or deem necessary in a peaceful and honorable manner.

Following the popular notions in editorialized historical summaries, one may disagree with this conclusion of mine.

The 'enlightenment' is always given a positive slant, and the violence that followed is somehow justified even by religious adherents (which is confoundedly anti-Christ).

Always a 'greater good' is argued when pushing positive notion of good eventually coming about while people are being killed.

Hypocrisy.

This hypocrisy is not objective, but accepting a mediocre and ignorant understanding of the past.

Historians largely write the 15th century as marking the beginning of the Great Reformation, a movement that, I think, could also be accurately called the Great Rebellion or Great Rattling. (depending on your bias and desire to define things from Above instead of from below or man's persistently walled-in perspective)

That is a controversial statement to make, I know.

But the effort made by certain reformer presbyters to correct things that were in error eventually brought about a schism instead of greater unity.

Instead of keeping the peace, hostilities increased.

Instead of accepting people's shortcomings and troubled manners and enduring patiently with hard heads and hearts, love waxed cold and a lack of forgiveness took precedence over the call to love one another.

Arguing over words, which was warned against since the 1st century, gave way to the justification of being divided over doctrinal arguments (words).

It says by their deeds you will know them, and this is aptly applied to ALL sides of that eventual divide, not only those making accusations against the church (the reformers / protestors), but also certain church hierarchy beholden more to their side instead of the bigger picture (the kingdom of God).

Simply put: one doesn't abandon the family when certain family members are blinded by sin, but works towards forgiveness and reconciliation.

Instead of drawing lines in the heart, grace and repentance should always leave open a door... not burning a bridge or calling for war (the continued history of mankind regardless of religious preferences or platitudes).

Unity was sacrificed while fractures were promoted.

This wasn't the first time the Church experienced such issues.

Rebelliousness, lack of love, disunity and so on has been a consistent plague since the very beginning.

More blood and violence was done as payment for previous blood and violence done.

Typical human responses... and sadly in the age of reconciliation, eye for an eye persists in the hearts of those yet to awaken from their slumber.

Instead of following the examples of Peter and Paul when it came to their momentary misunderstanding of what God had revealed regarding the Law and its fulfillment, historically we see how love grew cold and tribalism arose for certain presbyters and their fanatic followers.

It is interestingly ignorant how some scholars desire to draw resentment or disunity between Paul and Peter, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Sin was dealt with and these two pillars of the Church continued in unity and submitted to the Spirit accordingly.

Look at the various religious tribes within Christianity that are primarily steeped in an identity crisis besides that taught by Christ - the identity of being children of God.

Thus in the secular sense, the religious battle of the 15th century spilled over into secular pursuits, and gave way to an unbridle rebellion that persists until today... now argued as democracy (the will of the populous / masses).

The rebelliousness that fostered religious indifference then brought about the notion of the separation of Church and State.

And some religious people applaud this, yet I think they have no idea what they are cheering for.

Again, there are detrimental issues when faith becomes rigid dogmas... but there are also detrimental issues when faith is denied publicly and rebelliousness is praised as a badge of honor or reasonable position.

What I desire to point out is how easily matters of faith, based on the unseen, have been systematically ignored for matters of observation and rudimentary testing that desire to acheive logical conclusions of 'truth'.

Interestingly, within mythical constructs and religious thought arose a secularized understanding of 'spirit' that gave rise to philosophy, logical argument, and assisted building the very foundations of the world's cultures.

It is a sadly interesting consideration that although man's developing societies began with such high notions of thought, today's pessimistic approach to knowledge, understanding, and wisdom is limited to what can be tested and physically measured.

What a great start... and what a cheap ending?

I hope not.

But did you catch the hypocrisy mentioned in Kissinger's summary?

I'm not calling Mr. Kissinger's words hypocritical, but he eludes to hypocrisy's evidence.

Mr. Kissinger mentions another important phrase: “empirical knowledge supplant[ed] liturgical doctrine”.

Man is inherently hypocritical, because he is fallible.

Man's pride convinces himself (and others) that his logic and rationale is consistent and dependable.

Really?

Throughout history we can find evidence of man's increase of pride as his knowledge of the world or certain things increased.

But did wisdom or understanding also accompany the growth of knowledge.

Many people 'know' things, but rarely fully understand the things they know.

Kissinger expresses a nearsightedness that is not his fault alone.

I'm calling out the following of popular notions believed-to-be true as explained by his words... and I've already explained this earlier in this article.

The hypocrisy is found when considering the term 'empirical'.

That word means 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

How were the Gospels compiled?

Were they gathered and put together according to theory or logic?

Rather, they were compiled according to the observations and experiences of certain people!

So, according to the very definition of what is empirically verifiable, the Gospel message is attested to be a true recollection of past events.

It was first-hand witnesses to the message and actions of Messiah that authored and inspired the Gospel's testimony.

Scholars soundly conclude this is the very method ALL ancient writings and accounts have been and continue to be methodologically surveyed in deciphering past events and the existence of past peoples.

Yet, why is this simple conclusion suspended and called into question when it comes to applying the Gospel message to life?

It is likely the mention of things supernatural (miracles, resurrection) alongside the historical mentions that are continuously being determined as accurate.

Is it because the message speaks to morality and challenges man to face their humanity straight on?

Is it the very mention of things logical and rational alongside testimonies of things supernatural that bothers both casual readers and the entitled learned?

It is hypocritical and illogical to conclude the fact that almost every ancient writing is written from observation and experience (thus likely viewed as valid) while at the same time dismissing the Gospel testimony as invalid due to the later misdeeds of religious presbyters or zealots empty of love throughout the past 20 centuries.

This fallacious conclusion (throwing out the baby with the bathwater) of rejecting one thing associated with another thing is typical.

When Judas betrayed the Lord, I'm sure some people questioned the validity of the Gospel testimony due to that one man's trespass and outcome.

There is evidence of minds troubled and desiring to choose one leader over another (and thus choosing sides in attempting to divide the truth) in 1st Corinthians chapter one.

This mental disturbance, due to misunderstanding and typical human tribal identifications, continues to happen through the litany of religious groups claiming authority or legitimacy of some kind.

This claim of legitimacy has continued into secular spaces, science itself being evoked also as a religion of sorts with some very strict and 'religious' adherents and proponents.

It is no surprise the beginnings of this so-called Age of Reason began to challenge moral norms and sparked obscure arguments (which became immoral)... and is now being echoed quite popularly and prominently as freedoms and rights.

Instead of including and adding to one's knowledge the task of understanding (faith and science always complimentary when well discussed), 'replacement theory' was what seems to have happened... and continues to happen.

The earliest scientists and educated people were largely religious (adhering to some kind of church group or religiously-based philosophy).

Yet a person's faith did not prevent them from understanding and developing further insights into the natural (and invisible) world... but somehow today, to be a person of faith and a scientist seems absurd to some people.

So to suspect that scientific discoveries or an increase in knowledge was hindered by faith in the unseen, or the following of moral doctrines, is a fallacy.

This is exactly what those rebellious and contentious presbyters made effort towards - to replace some corrupted church hierarchy with themselves and their ideas of correction... but their approach, although well intentioned, was obviously corrupted according to their deeds and how they treated those they contended with.

This is evidenced also into secular positions when Kissinger mentions those individuals whose insights argued for scientific only conclusions of things invisible yet already described in the Gospel and the Law.

Thus why mass consciousness is quite confused collectively when it comes to matters of the heart, and the very basics of human nature and nature itself are repeatedly brought into question although they are widely discussed in the Bible and lived out by the faithful.

Some men desire to find God using their logic and human manners instead of going to the source-code that clearly describes 'who' and 'how' and 'where' God is.

Some men are close to describing the spirit world, but since they, by default, deny such a reality exists (since it isn't physically measured by their observations and experiences), they theorize in circles instead of squarely explaining that reality as quoted in God's testimony.

A square is now being pushed into where a circle has only fit.

Since the intimate secrets and desires of the heart have been psychologically scrutinized through an ever growing atheistic prism, hypocrisy in both organized religion and organized political efforts reign supreme... having permeated private homes and the private minds of people suckling at mainstream ideologies.

Morality has always been challenged, and immorality was historically viewed as subversive and detrimental to society (because that is what always comes about according to observation), yet for several centuries since the 15th century, many societies have been plagued by the consequences of widespread immorality yet are unable to clearly understand why: rebelliousness.

Where many people argue a narrative viewed as 'freedom' and an age of liberation, very few people clearly identify mass delusion and outright rebellion of life's constant order, now a 'normal' state in society.

God's constant order has always been evident in nature... and science has simply elaborated and put words in labeling this order.

When it comes to interpreting and pushing opinionated theories, even what is clear for a child to ascertain is argued with such prideful pomp by a 'learned' person, the childlike simplicity of truth is obscured by many words.

Things simple are complicated.

Truth continues to be thrown to the ground by those robbed of the truth.

For some, certain things are 'true' so long as they are able to understand them.

Sadly, some people must be burned by fire after being warned that fire burns.

The proliferation of an ability to mass produce media, now at the fingertips of more and more people the world-over, man's limited logic argued as capable of capitalizing on truth, promotes even the wildest ideas as true.

Things as silly and ridiculous as that flat-earth theory are swallowed wholesale by people considering themselves as rational, but what is evident is how they are somehow beguiled into believing a flat-earth now after a spherical earth has been long proven.

Thus, the 15th century attempt to 'correct' what was perceived as wrong, men have returned to ignorance.

If this can happen with such a meaningless contention as the flat-earth suspicion, imagine the more meaningful and important understanding about God and His testimony.

We persistently now see lies being rationalized as truths, and truths being argued away as lies through beguiling ideas in mainstream media, social media, and on street corners.

And this is the summary of what Kissinger explained in those few sentences.

This is why it is said that 'truth is relative'.

To a mind that has been raised to disbelieve things unseen (God and His kingdom), a mind weened on a strict diet of pessimistic promotion of human ideas over things already established as having factually happen (even God appearing in the flesh and rising again to life after His flesh was killed), it is no surprise depravity is touted as a democratic freedom and some believers in God are convinced or beguiled into accepting sin as something good.

Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. 

The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by One Shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. 

Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. 

   Now all has been heard; 

      here is the conclusion of the matter: 

         Fear God and keep His commandments, 

            for this is the duty of all mankind. 

         For God will bring every deed into judgment, 

      including every hidden thing, 

   whether it is good or evil. 

- Ecclesiastes 12: 9-14

Consider this warning in Ecclesiastes written many centuries before the 15th century's attempt to understand what God has done: “Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them [words of the wise... given by One Shepherd]”.