A Shared (or Borrowed) Vision

I have been reading "An Arrow Pointed to Heaven", which is a biography of Rich Mullins. Whenever I have felt lost in my vision of where I want to be and what I would like to do I go to people like Rich Mullins who have had a big impact on my life. I read in his biography an excerpt of a letter he sent to his "boss" at the record company he was writing songs for. He was declaring his desire to become a performing artist and not just a writer. These were his words that echoed dearly in my soul as I read them:

"I want to be involved as much as possible in Church work... I want to work in the settings that are specifically designed to challenge people, to encourage people to seek their life in Christ. I would like not only to sing but to teach... to 'hang out' with people, to be accessible, to model faith [to] them, to be with people not as a performer, but as a practitioner of the faith."

I read that wide eyed as his words put life to my desires. This is my goal in life, however it looks in practice is secondary as long as it is practiced. Every day and breath of mine will hopefully be set upon this vision. I am just glad that I have finally found words that formulate accurately what I have been longing for a long time.

Intro to the Church

In regards to what I want to write on next, I have a quote that I read today from one of my favorite books, "Orthodoxy" by G. K. Chesterton. This quote is in reference to an ordinary man's view of the world, but I saw it as almost dead on of my view of the church. Chesterton saw this view of the world the only healthy one, and I have to agree:

"No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world:but we demand not stength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?"

I've seen too many people leave church, too many friends leave my church because they held onto the just hating it. I've seen too many people stay around the church and adore the church because they just love it. Chesteron rightfully says that we need not be a pessimist or an optimist in the ordinary sense. We need to be mystical, and thus idealist. Without this ingredient, change would not be added.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with having a distaste for the church as long as you have that distaste because you love it and want to restore it to the way it should be. However, it is another thing to have a distaste and never look back. Chesterton said two things from two other books of his, "The Everlasting Man" and "What's Wrong with the World," that are worth noting in light of this:

"As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War - they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do." - Everlasting Man

The last phrase is of utmost importance. We cannot expect the Church to be perfect, it has never truly purported to be. But even the first part is worth noting for a good defense against the common argument that there is evil in the world and therefore the Christianity is wrong.

The second quote is worth keeping in the back of your mind as we deal with this idea of the Church. We must understand what it is saying and give people a little slack:

"My point is that the world did not tire of the church's ideal, but if its reality. Monasteries were impugned not for the chasity of monks, but for the unchasity of monks. Christianity was unpopular not because of its humility, but of the arrogance of Christians. . . The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."

Chesterton, a very pious Catholic, understood what Augustine understood centuries before him - do not judge a philosophy by its abuse. Notice Chesterton said CHRISTIANITY was unpopular not because of ITS humility, but of the arrogance of CHRISTIANS. While Christians should live the Christian ideal, we all fail at it sometimes. But Christianity's ideal is unwavering, and its founder, Jesus, the epitome of this ideal. So I encourage readers to take the rest of this series in light of Chesterton's thoughts. Ideals are fleeting in this world, but the journey to acheive them is quite concrete.

The Underlying Story of Creation

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

Christians make a big statement when they say this, especially in todays world. However, the more I study and learn, the more I am convinced this statement is the beginning of a very true story. I want to take this verse in sections and then show the underlying story that is not focused on in the continuing verses. The story will unfold as I go, so let's begin.

"in the beginning..." is a phrase that is needs more explanation than usually given. The idea here is not necessarily the beginning of time. I do not see a problem with this, but it would be better to translate this phrase to mean the fundamental principle or most important thing. The Vulgate and Jewish translation both connotate this idea. This means that it is not just focused on the beginning of a process but is actually trying to highlight this moment as being fundamental to all existence. What this tells us is that what is about to be said next is the fundamental or basis for everything else. Therefore, the phrase "God created" is in the context of the essence of all there is. All there is stems from God Himself. This is not to mean God is the heavens and the earth, but that He created them according to His own nature. God CREATED, which implies things distinct from Himself but something that is not completely other in nature.

The word "create" in Hebrew is "bara". This word has the same root as the word "brit", which means covenant. This means that for God to create meant that He was entering into a relation. From the very beginning relation is there. This is big - the beginning was a very personal one. It had to be personal if the world as we know it makes any sense.

In the big scheme of things there are only a few answers to the question of being - How did things get here? Francis Schaeffer lines out four possibilities:

1. Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something
2. Everything began with an impersonal something
3. Everything began with a personal something
4. There is and always has been a dualism

The first option, as Schaeffer points out and I agree, cannot be held seriously. This view has lost popularity to my undertsanding for obvious reasons. If you say there was really nothing and then something, you must truly mean there was nothing - no matter, no energy, or anything else. This is inconceivable. The last one is equally unsatisfactory to most people because we always look for the unity beyond the duality. Even the idea of Yin and Yang we try to fit into a unity of harmony; we try to see the one relationship as the answer, not the two separate.

The second option, is widely held, but as Schaeffer points out, it is not satisfactory to explain the world:

"An impersonal beginning, however, raises two overwhelming problems. . . First, there is no real explanation for the fact that the external world not only exists, but has a specific form. . . What is there has form. If we assert the existence of the impersonal as the beginning of the universe, we simply have no explanation for this kind of situation."

So this first point is saying that an impersonal beginning of the universe does not explain form. If a mysterious power or harmony of powers or even matter and energy exist, it does not give rise to the complexity and form that science finds. This is the basic argument of Intelligent Design; and intelligence implies personality, even if it is an indifferent one. Schaeffer's second point hits a much more alarming deficiency of an impersonal beginning:

"Second, and more importantly, if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality. . . Man has a mannishness. You find it wherever you find man- not only in the men who live today, but in the artifacts of history. The assumption of an impersonal beginning can never adequately explain the personal beings around us, and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersoanl, man soon disappears. IN SHORT, an impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man. Hence it gives no basis for understanding human relationships, building just societies or engaging in any kind of cultural effort."

Here, Schaeffer shows that an impersonal beginning to all there is does not explain personality, relationships, morals, or cultural effort. A power of some sort cannot bring about personality because it is unable to create; only empower. A mind can only create personality because it is personality itself. If we have a personal universe, then we must have a personal beginning.

This is what we get in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Each one purports a personal beginning, but Christianity is the only one that purposts a relational beginning. In theory, there is a difference in personal and relational. You do not need another to be a person, you need an other to be relational. This is something only Christianity can offer through the Trinity.

However, great a mystery the Trinity is, it really does give answers that no other worldview can really give satisfactorily. The biggest thing that the Trinity offers is that love and communication are intrinsic to what has always been. There is an I-You relationship in the Trinity that needs both love and communication to exist. Therefore, as seen earlier, when God created as the most fundamental event, he created in like fashion (and remember to create implies a relationship being made). Unlike Islam where Allah has to create others in order to love, communicate, and relate; the Triune God needs no creation to do these things. However, when he does create, it is intrinsic for Him to do so and create relational things. Schaeffer puts it in the following way:

"The historic Christian position concerning Genesis 1:1 is the only one which can be substantiated, the only one which is fair and adequate to the whole thrust of Scripture. "In the beginning" is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence there is a creation ex nihilo - a creation out of nothing. All that is, except God Himself who had already been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence - love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all there else, there is love and communication. This means that love and communication are intrinsic. And hence, when modern man screams for love and communication, Christians have an answer: There is value to love and communication because it is rooted into what intrisnically always has been."

This last statement is key. Love and communication in our lives has no value outside of them being intrinsic in our creator. This worlds complexity, and the existence of relational beings gives more reason to believe in a personal Creator than an impersonal one. Moreover, it makes sense for the Trinity. Even the question of unity in diversity is answered in the Trinity. Relation is the foundation of all the world, and we cannot get that unless the Triune God is the Creator.

There is a lot of ground covered in this and this is more complex than this. If there are holes then we can discuss them. This topic takes books to cover but I think this at least gives an overview of this. Maybe more will come...

Things to come...

Now that school is over, I can spend more time studying what I want and doing what I want like get married, learn some languages, read some philosophy and literature, and relax. I was thinking earlier about what will be good to write about next, and I think I will write about my view of the church - what it means to be a community (universal and local), the mission of the church, the purpose of the church, and the condition of the church. My views are different than some, but I do see value in the traditions.

But I have a little something now that I have been trying to word right since January that I want to start with. It is on the Trinity. This is a doctrine that is hard to explain, but I think gives a very important paradigm to the world as we know it. I am not going to focus on how the Trinity is rational (it is hard to see as rational). Instead, I am going to focus on how it's existence gives meaning to the world that nothing else can do. Intrigued? Hopefully so.

Jesus and Joshua

As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,

shouting:
"BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!" - Luke 19:40

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This passage has always confused me. I've heard sermons where the speaker would say that we should take this literally - that God, through his omnipotence, would make stones have lungs and mouths and they will audibly shout. Now I cannot dismiss this straight out, but it seems like this exegesis has always been short of imagination and thought. Miracles are possible and have happened, but I have always thought that this is a far fetched and simplistic interpretation.

I have also heard some say that the stones represent creation's language talked about Psalm 19 (my personal view until recently). The idea here is that the stones will not literally cry out, but it is a metaphor and representation of all of creation's testimony of it's Creator. This, to me, has always seemed more accurate, but it still leaves questions. Why does he reference stones? Wouldn't it be more sufficient to talk about birds singing or a lion's roar? Matthew Henry came to a position in between these two where the stones or earth will quake (and it did when he was on the cross and all alone).

I think I may have come to a new light on the passage though. I am not saying I am correct, but I think this is worth considering:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you after He has done good to you." The people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD." Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves the LORD, to serve Him." And they said, "We are witnesses." "Now therefore, put away the foreign gods which are in your midst, and incline your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel." The people said to Joshua, "We will serve the LORD our God and we will obey His voice." So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God." - Joshua 24:19-27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I want to focus on verse 27, but the previous verses give the context, which is important. I am proposing that Jesus was making an allusion to this passage. Far-fetched? Sure, but interesting to examine. They stone's purpose in the passage in Joshua is to be a testimony to the covenant Isreal had made with God - to serve, obey, and incline their heart to God - or as Joshua put it, "do not deny your God." Now we must understand that any Jew would know this story well. It is a pivotal covenant made in the History of the Jews.

So fast forward about a thousand years, and Jesus makes a strange comment about stones crying out. I think he may have very well been alluding to this passage and telling the Pharisees (who for sure knew this passage in Joshua), "If these disciples do not praise me, then the stones will testify against you." In short, God would be denied if no one accepted Him when he came to earth. This allusion does multiple things, but most importantly it tells the Pharisees that he is God. Moreover, it tells them that they will be held accountable for breaking the covenant with God once again (the Isrealites broke this covenant shortly after they made it).

Now is this far-fetched? Maybe, its definitely different from anything I've heard, but we must remember Jesus' context. He was Jewish, talking to Jewish leaders, in a Jewish nation. I think it is easier to grasp in light of that and in light of the fact that we have no problem attributing other sayings of Jesus to be allusions to Old Testament passages.

With all of this said, the message is still ultimately the same: God has been denied and so the stones testify to that. Whether that means they literally speak, are representative, or an allusion to the covenant made with Israel is secondary. Just think about, comment if you wish.

The Gospel of Fear?

Marriage crisis. Moral crisis. Political crisis. Economic crisis.

Just a few of the terms I've heard major Christian voices say about America right now. The reason why this is so? Apparently because America is no longer a Christian nation. The answer? Get the right laws passed or the right man in office.

Thoughts?

My New Shoes

The 2008 debut of my new kicks.....

Where is God?

I've already been asked this today since severe storms and 68 tornados ravaged the South, which I am in the thick of living in Memphis. My thesis I am writing deals with this question, although in light of evil done by humans, not nature (or God as some see it). I'm by no means trying to "solve" this existential problem like it is an equation; it's not an equation. This is real, it is personal.

A Professor of mine likes to tell a certain Chassidic story about two Jewish men. If I remember correctly, one is just a man who is at the Synagogue to confess his numerous sins, and the other man is a Rabbi who walks in and listens to the man's prayers. The man starts confessing every little thing he has done - I lied here, I didn't follow the law here, and so on - but near the end the man stops and says, "But wait a minute God, what about you? You have taken sons from their mothers, you have let people become ill, you have let people die, you have let people starve, you have let evil prosper..." and on and on the man goes. Finally as he ends his prayer he tells God, "Well let's calll it even." As soon as the Rabbi heard this he looked at the man and said, "Oh, you have let God off so easy."

It's hard not to feel this way. Chassidism fights for the human being before God, and we want to join in some times. The person you asked me "Where is God?" also talked about how this might be an act of judgment. And while we can't rule this possibility out, I find it hard to beleive that this certain person, or any person, can speak for God. Not saying this cannot happen, but let's not jump the gun. God certainly is sovereign over nature, but this does not mean that he is wrong to not intercede when it gets dangerous. If this were the case, then many laws of nature would be unpredictable, and they would cease to be laws. Moreover, you have a slippery slope problem. When does God not intervene? When you'll just suffer a broken arm? How about a deep cut? When does this end?

We must understand a couple of things about the question itself. First of all, to question God is to recognize Him. And this is very encouraging and healthy. Moses, Abraham, Habbakuk, and Job all questioned God, and God welcomed the questions. There is nothing more encouraging to me than to have a person to wrestle with, and you have to if you want to even accept the question. What about the atheist? Who does he question? Nature? To him or her, your life is nothing more than atoms put together.

Secondly, we must understand that God cares. Even in the cold Old Testament, God looks upon his people in Egypt and cares for them. And God comes and redeems them. In the New Testament, Jesus weeps for the effect sin has upon this world. He feels the pain, and He cares.

Now the key to start to open up this issue is to understand that the basis of all existence is to have relationship. God create the world and man for relationship; not because he needed it but because he wanted it. Moreover, God create woman, not for the purpose of marriage alone, but because man was alone and needed relationship. Man needed another human being first and foremost. Man also was endowed with a relationship with nature. This relationship we have not taken seriously, especially in today's world. But God gave laws for the Hebrews that greatly respected nature. There are laws about how you should treat trees, animals, and so on. For instance, it is against the law to eat in front of a hungry dog. For the Christian, we should take the principles of the laws seriously and understand that God wants us to take care of what he gave us dominion over.

However, with the fall came the severence of all relations. God and man no longer have the same relationship because of sin, and neither does man and nature. Nature now works against man; we have to work to gain food from the ground, the animals are no longer kind but fearful of us and we fear them, and nature groans because it has lost its relationship. Now this is not say that nature has a personality, but it is to say that nature is not the way it intended to be, and it, metaphorically, hurts because of that.

So what does this mean? It doesn't mean that if we treat nature better then nature will treat us better. God does not see it that way. When a relationship is severed or hurt, things change on both ends. Neither side is the same in the way they treat each other, or react towards each other. Nature's fury is brought about by man's severence of the proper relationship with it. When you knock things out of place, they will always start to go against each other.

This also does not mean that because I lied last week, I will get hit by a tornado for judgment. Judgment comes in all shapes and forms, and we forget that death itself is judgment. Neither does this mean that nature is getting back at me for putting too much CO2 in the air. I think what this mainly does mean is that we have lost our way in our relationships with both God and nature, and because of this we have to accept that their are consequences for it that are out of our control that will hurt us. It was no different with God, an old girlfriend, and God says it's no different with nature either.

Again, I do not claim to have solved a great mystery or puzzle. I am merely hoping to give people insights to think about, especially Christians. Any atheist, if he is to be consistent, should not have any problem with what has happened. He may care, but he cannot question. The believer in God does have some things to work out, but it is much more comforting to have a God there who can be supplicated and comforting than to have nothing or anyone to truly address this issue with. God is there to listen and to be challenged. I encourage anyone who has struggles with this to pray and challenge God; if He is who He says He is then I am confident there is an answer to be realized. If not now, eventually.

Lessons from Andy Gullahorn - Part 2

A good half inch of dust built up on the pew
There were pieces missing from the stain glass
There was a broken lock on of the basement doors
You could open it if you pushed hard enough
It was winter time, the streets were cold as hell
The layed their sleeping bags along the alter rail

It was holy ground

As the word got out the sanctuary filled
of folks who had no other place to call their home
Tonight they'd share a meal, pass the bottle around
Something they were all acustom to alone
The piano was out of tune, some keys don't even work
One guy could play a song out of the hymnal book

It was holy ground

The local priest soon got word
Of the vagrants in the empty church
He was told to go the house of God
Clear them out cause after all

It was holy ground

He was met at the door by a man with open arms
Saying, "Welcome to the one place we belong"
He saw the shiny floors beneath the sleeping bags
He could hear the sound of laughter down the hall
Later on that night as they broke the bread
He asked them if there's room for an extra bed

Because it was holy ground
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This song makes you rethink many things. What is the church really for? What does the building that the church meets in really symbolize? What makes a moment holy? What does this say about how the church views it's mission now? I think many Christian's think their job is to rid the world of sin instead of being the person that reaches out to the sinner so that they can see and know God - the one who rids the world of sin. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the moto everyone uses knowadays. I agree with this in principle, but I don't know if we need the second part. To love a sinner is obviously not to love the sin no more than loving my brother means I must follow and love everything he does.

Beyond this, what makes a man who is without a home a sinner anymore than you and I? In the book, "Under the Overpass" two men decided to experience what it was like to be homeless so they went to live with the homeless for a summer. They found a lot of them were Christians who just never had someone believe in them and encourage them to get out of the hole the are in. Isn't this typical too? Christians go to "not-so-nice" areas of their town to witness to the homeless and get them saved. What then? We leave them with their Christian homeless shelter. This attitude and practice is unbiblical. We focus too much on the eternal that we forget that Jesus came to give us life now, not one day. The New Testament focuses a lot more on cultivating our new life in Christ than how to get people saved. Discipleship is what we need, not evangelism.

"Holy Ground" nails one main point: what makes holy ground is community with the Godhead and his believers or even just community amongst man. I could say so much more, but this is enough for now.

Lessons from Andy Gullahorn - Part 1

He scoped out the market
All the women and kids
So many distractions
Nobody noticed him

He had a jacket a size too big
A skull cap on his head
Had a couple of homemade bombs
Duct taped them to his chest

God loves that guy
God loves that guy

He followed his heart
to a co-worker's bed
he could have salvedged his marriage with kids
but he chose to leave instead

He thought it was love
but it was just a mirage
so he sits in his car
parked in a closed garage

God loves that guy
God loves that guy

Me on the other hand I can write somebody off
like the last check for a student loan
I can love when its convenient
But its not always convenient
Its not always the easy road
I want to look past the outside
To the well-meaning heart
To the good they forgot they had

Teach me to love, teach me to love
Teach me to love like that

He messed up again
Wanted to disappear
But he can't because he's easy to find
I see him in the mirror

God loves that guy
God loves that guy
so teach me to love, teach me to love
teach me to love like that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One of the best songs I've heard in a very long time. Andy hits the heart of what it means to love as God loves: "I want to look past the outside/ to the well-meaning heart/ to the good they forgot they had." That's it! Everyone can learn from this song; I have, and I realized better what it means to love the way I should. Beautiful...

What Progress Cannot Teach Us

Imagine this: Apple has just developed a brand new ipod. This ipod is slick and has brand new technology in it that can make even smaller with more hard drive space. During the press conference, Steve Jobs gives a catchy, alluring spill on this ipod and why everyone needs one. But right before he ends, he tells everyone that the ipod will only be used as spare parts for previous models. Everyone is stunned! This new, unique ipod is not going to be sold; it is only going to be used so that its parts that are shared with all the previous models may be used to fix defect, old ipods. We would all be scrathcing our heads. Why?

This sad illustration points to a very basic, philosophical principle that is instinctive to almost everyone: what something consists of or is made up of points to what it is for or why it is in existence. To put it philosophically, the ontology or nature of something points to the teleology or purpose of that something. The ipod's nature is to play music - that is what it is designed to do - not to be a parts dealer. Ontology and teleology, nature and purpose, are tightly connected.

It is very important to realize that by knowing somethings ontology, we can learn and, most of the time, see right away its teleology. This points to what is natural for the object. We can also learn the ontology of something by knowing the teleology of it. For instance, I know when I see a remote control that it is meant (teleology) to control a device such as a tv. Therefore, it is quite safe to assume that the buttons on the remote control (ontology) are there to actualize its teleology - change the channel, turn up the volume, etc. This link between ontology and teleology shows us the natural state, expression, and limitations of a certain object. To take away the natural teleology from the ontology (like the ipod example) brings about unnatural, perverse, and illogical teleologies.

Francis Kamm, in an article advocating embryonic stem cell research, makes an interesting point that dabbles with this link between ontology and teleology. She talks about how an embryo that is outside of a sustaining enviroment (i.e. womb) due to in vitro fertilization, and will not be placed into a sustaining enviroment, can be used in biomedical research because they will die anyways. Now the problem I find in this reasoning is not so much what is said as much as what is impied by Kamm. She assumes that an embryo outside of a sustaining enviroment changes its teleology. This means that environment, not ontology, justifies the teleology ascribed to an embryo. Now that an embryo is outside of its natural environment, it is open to any teleology we want it to be like stem cell research. I think the question should be: "Should these embryo's be in an unsustaining environment or not?" Kamm makes a subtle move though by telling us enviroment dictates teleology, which I think is a dangerous move.

What is the proper ontology and teleology of an embryo though? Well the ontology, nature, of an embryo is its DNA, and its DNA points to its teleology: to be a fully developed human being. This means that an embryo's proper environment is to be in a place where the ontology can actualize the teleology. To break this link is to mess with the natural state of an embryo.

I say all of this with great hesitation too. I am very sympathetic to embryonic stem cell research. It could change lives and it could save lives. I have a cousin who is mentally handicaped and it has brought his entire family to the brink multiple times. He is about 5 years older than me but will never hit the maturity physically and mentally of a two year old. Biomedical research can help families and lives to never have to face such difficulties. I honestly do not think though that when it comes to human life you can truly make a utilitarian argument. It is not all about numbers, which is hard to think about in this modern world. We have to respect life before we can justify messing with it.

My Soul's Longing Part 2

"Snatch me, save me, from all that short-lived consolation which comes from creatures; for no created being can fully comfort me or satisfy the longings of my heart. Bind me to Thyself with the unbreakable chain of love; for Thou alone art all sufficient to the soul that loves Thee; and without Thee everything is worthless."

- Thomas a Kempis

My Soul's Longing

"And therefore all that Thou mayest bestow upon me that is not Thyself, all that Thou mayest reveal to me about Thyself, all that Thou mayest proomise, is too little to satisfy me, as long as I see Thee not, and have not become fully possessed of Thee. For my soul can never be truly at rest or enjoy full content unless it rise above all gifts, above all created existence, and find its rest in Thee alone."

- Thomas a Kempis