A recent video by wannabe pop-artist Rebecca Black has become viral with over 100 million views on YouTube.  “Friday” is a rap-like music video about a girl who

…cries out for reprieve from a life in the inner city where shootings and crime are a way of life? No.

…seeks peace in a country torn apart by war and bloodshed? No.

…lives in the shadow of a terminal illness? No.

…suffers from negligence and abuse? No.

…lives with an unusual perspective on life? Uh, no.

It’s about a fourteen year old suburban California girl with rich parents and a passive inclination to be famous – a girl whose point in life is to be “kicking” with two hundred of her closest friends on Friday after a week of activity, education and privilege.  Not that there are a myriad of songs with similar themes, except that her manufactured song is SOOooo bad, along with the accompanying music video, it’s downright cringe-worthy. Even an excessive use of auto-tune could not suppress the spiritually void execution of a song financed by her mom and outsourced to a professional music video company with a commission to make their little Veruca Salt[1] a star!  Well, it worked. Rebecca Black IS a star, in the imploding, red-dwarf sense of the word.

Juxtapose this music video to another less viewed one of a 22 year old Korean man Sung Bong Choi who lived on the streets since he was five selling gum and energy drinks.  If I am to believe the translation of this video of Korea’s Got Talent, the young man explains his story to the judges as he stands there in laborers clothes, apologizes that he does not sing well at all, but then proceeds to belt out a song that only a life of deep deprivation could supply. Only moments into the performance and the audience and judges were weeping.

If we ever manage to achieve our utopia where everyone is privileged, everyone is rich, no one works, no one is ill and no one suffers—don’t get me wrong, that will be great!!!

But our music will suck.

There was a lot of lip service dedicating ourselves to civility not long ago after Congresswoman Giffords was shot in Arizona earlier this year. Then there was a small amount of national unity when U.S. arch enemy Usama bin Laden was assassinated by Navy Seals. Neither lasted that long.

Civility and unity will never be maintained when political sides keep polarizing the nation. When we find that, a priori, the “other side” is 100% wrong and “my side” is 100% right we’ve become a nation of fundamentalists be they liberal or conservative or anything in between.

Let me just say that I did not vote for Barack Obama in the last election. As a social conservative my views and his views simply differ. We are far from political allies.  But contrary to the trend of vilifying and demonizing one’s political opponents, let me kindle the spirit of civility if not unity by highlighting the things l find agreeable about Barack Obama:

• The president’s recent decision to go after Usama bin Laden is to be applauded. Maybe his predecessor should get some credit but, good or bad, it was going to be his keister on the line. He took the gamble; he should get the return. And yes, the Seals did the hard stuff but Obama would have paid a huge price if any of them had been harmed or the operation went sour.
• I also agreed with his decision not to reveal the photographs. Honestly, there could be no good to come of that and he was spot-on to take the moral highroad on this issue.  Yeah, like, I’m going to recognize a man I’ve never met with half his head missing? I don’t need to see those photographs and neither do you.
• Obama is a dedicated husband and father. I don’t think he’s the type to get caught up in some sex-scandal, thank God, because I don’t need to see the photographs of him either after Michele hunts him down with a team of Navy Seals.
• Barack Obama is not an idiot. I don’t like it when people say a politician or president is an idiot only because they don’t agree with their policies. That’s just a lame excuse for not being able to frame one’s own thoughts on an issue. “Ha! He doesn’t know the capital of Assyria!” And you don’t know one of hundreds of proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem—are you an idiot too? In any case Barack Obama is no idiot and has the degrees to prove it.
• He’s a Christian. He probably prays, like I do, to a resurrected Jewish rabbi named Joshua. And this was a deliberate decision on his part and not part of some upbringing. Think about it—if he’s not an idiot and he chose to be a Christian…well?
• He can change his mind on an issue. I do to sometimes. That’s called growth. If you’ve never been persuaded that your view on an issue was totally wrong, your spouse is probably miserable.
• Maybe he invited the rapper Common to the White House but he also invited Rick Warran to pray at his inauguration. You win some, you lose some.
• The beer summit was brilliant. I never heard from those two guys again. Why can’t we have more beer summits? Could this work in the Middle East?

Barack Obama is my president, right or wrong, good or bad. I will not put a bumper sticker on my car that vilifies him or assassinates his character or dates the last day of his presidency.  He has not done anything to merit impeachment or the epithet that he’s the “worse president ever”.  It may surprise people that, as a Christian, I am commanded to pray for those in authority over me which include the president of the United States. Romans 13 is quite clear that Barack Obama is God’s servant.  This may seem peculiar to those who don’t know the Bible or the traditions of Christianity—but that’s what we do, or should do.

Do you pray for Barack Obama? Do you vilify politicians that you don’t agree with?

Are you a fundamentalist…

Wedding aside, I would have loved to have been present in that ancient cathedral if only to hear the Westminster Abbey choir power out notes far more potent than the boom-box urban hits blasting at my car at any given traffic stop in the Washington D.C. area.  To see heraldry and the royal banners flapping on the Rolls Royce pacing through the streets of London was a detail that did not go unnoticed. To hear the Archbishop of Canterbury put forward the tenets of the Christian faith in an uncompromising manner and to hear the name of God spoken reverently in a rich English accent moved me considerably. And I was riveted when the bride’s brother recited a passage from Paul’s epistle to the Roman church. It was beautiful, spiritual and traditional all at the same time.

There was one thing I took issue with, a detail I would have overlooked given the huge distraction that the HD version of the pageantry afforded–a detail pointed out repeatedly by Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters as the live coverage was playing out all over the world to an audience of two billion people.  The news duo was very, very careful to point out that the bride selectively omitted the instruction to “obey” or to “submit to” (i.e., her husband) in her vows which, according to tradition and the biblical text from Ephesians from which it is drawn, would be part of that recited by the bride on her day of marriage.

In deference to modern thinking, I understand why this would be so important to point out—but I also know that the context by which such obedience is commanded was also omitted. Allow me to put it another way: how would Sawyer and Walters respond if the groom omitted from his vow the exhortation to love his wife as Paul also admonishes in the letter to the church at Ephesus?  Would that be a problem?

Immediately after Paul commands couples to submit to one another in the model that we are to submit to Christ and his commands, we read this equally onerous exhortation to the groom:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself…

The manner in which Christ gave himself up was unto death as a suffering servant. Likewise a husband is commissioned to love and cherish his wife at the expense of his own well being (which includes not just his physical life but his thought life, occupational life and ambitions). Is such a man not worthy of her respect, submission and trust? If not, why is she marrying him?

The stark vision of a woman being subservient to a domineering husband is pathological—but that is not the model Paul is portraying. Far from it, Paul was actually describing something quite progressive for his time. In addition, our modern idea of a marital relationship being 50-50 is just as much a formula for disaster as modern statistics can attest. That sort of ratio is fine for commercial dealings or a legal contract. But marriage is to be a covenant and, consequently, not 50%-50%, but 100%-100%, something Paul referred to as a profound mystery:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Yes one plus one equals one.  That is the transcendent calculus of God, the calculus described at several moments in the Royal Wedding ceremony but lost on 99% of the audience including Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters whose track record in relationships and marriages are not anything to brag about or even suggest that the bride’s omission of the vow “to obey” will serve the couple well. It won’t, no more than the omission of the groom’s vow “to love” would have.

One might easily guess that the book with the most translations and most editions in all of history is the Bible. But who can guess what book has the second place slot?  It is not the Harry Potter series nor is it the Purpose Driven Life. It is definitely not on Oprah’s Book Club list and you may be hard pressed to find it in a book store at all. In fact, I would wager that most people never heard of this book let alone have read it.

Until the mid 20^th century, it was a given that, aside from the Bible, all educated people would have been well acquainted with another collection, Euclid’s Elements. It is a book that outlines in gruesome, logical detail, all the rules governing geometry, number theory, ratios, proportions not to mention the Pythagorean Theorem, Platonic solids and all we “love” about fundamental mathematics.  Obviously with contributions by Pythagoras and Plato, it was not entirely attributed to the Greek mathematician Euclid in 300 B.C. but he was the one responsible for this exhaustive vivisection of all mathematical wisdom known at the time and still relevant today—so relevant that modern life rests on its documented principles.

The first book of Elements lays the foundation for the entire universe which rests delicately on five axioms. It’s not important what those axioms state but that the reader knows what an axiom is in the first place. I cite Wikipedia which defines an axiom as “a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident or subject to necessary decision”. The point is this: all that we have amassed technologically is based on these little cotter pins that we faithfully and un-mathematically have to regard as true. We might attempt to break them down further but, quite frankly, the ancient Greeks would have distilled this more if they could. We might also attempt to dispute them but then we would all still be brachiating through the jungle rather than marveling at engineering wonders like the Bugatti Veyron or enjoying the fruitful work of Kees Schouhamer Immink.

One of these fundamental Euclidean postulates in Elements is known as the “pons asinorum” which, when translated from the Latin, means “bridge of asses”. The transcendent idea behind this postulate is that the student must mentally cross this bridge commencing as the unenlightened jackass, work through the logic, and finally emerge the Vitruvian Man full of wisdom, light and symmetry.

Now to the point, albeit circuitous: the traditions of faith are analogs of the Euclidean axioms by which a progressive (nay radical) society rests.

In recent times our axioms of tradition have been eclipsed by the transit of secularization or simply tossed into the dark ocean of doubt. Consequently, society has crossed back over the pons asinorum and it is no wonder we—spiritually and culturally—continue to eat grass or whatever we might catch. Like those in Elements, the traditions of faith are based on self-evident axioms. Radical traditional thought assumes them to be true (or at least subject to necessary decision) and in the remainder of this essay I will humbly put forth a handful. I will also put forth comments that suggest why these should be self-evident for those who need help crossing our “bridge of asses”.

Axiom 1: The universe is not an accident.

I find it interesting that, regardless of world view, everyone shares a belief in “discovery”. My simple question is why? Why would anyone EVER expect that there’s an answer to a problem or issue waiting for some determined individual to uncover it as if all of time waited for him[1] to do so? Isn’t it more than fortuitous that Vincristine™, a chemical derivative from the Madagascar periwinkle, would act as a cancer fighting drug in human beings in North America six thousand miles away; that life might exist elsewhere in the universe despite Fermi’s paradox; that all physical forces should be unified under one overarching theory; or that someone will one day find the closed form of the Riemann zeta function for s=3? Why do companies spend tons of money on research and development if they don’t expect that something would come of it? Why be so concerned that clear cutting the Amazon rainforest would remove a potential gold mine of genetic diversity conducive to pharmaceutical objectives? Who says it will?

The answer has to do with the first axiom. We ALL believe there is some other agent at work other than a stochastic process—an agent that has prepared the world for us and us for the world. Benjamin Franklin remarked that the existence of beer was proof that God exists and at some point everyone has a similar epiphany from altogether different experiences. The mainstream would have us discount our personal epiphany and toss aside this gentle reminder that the universe is not an accident.

Axiom 2: There are absolutes, including absolute truth.

The IPK is a platinum–iridium alloy cylinder created in 1879 and kept in an environmentally controlled safe in a vault locked by three independently controlled keys – all at the Bureau international des poids et mesures located at the Pavillon de Breteuil in Sèvres, France.  It’s been in the news recently since it was discovered to have lost a few micrograms of mass since its creation over one hundred years ago.

So?

So, the IPK is the international prototype kilogram. It is supposed to be the definition of the kilogram, error free by definition and the unit by which all other kilograms are measured. If it is not constant then who’s to say what a kilogram should weigh. No worry, as one essayist sarcastically suggested[2], since we can just “float” the value of the kilogram just like we float the value of the dollar. Let the august Federal Reserve decide what a kilogram is today, tomorrow, next week. Then when I order hamburger from the butcher I can be pleasantly surprised or totally disappointed depending on what Ben Bernanke said that day. Of course I might have to adjust the ingredients in the chili I’m cooking, but, alas, there are no absolutes.

Just ask Hollywood, the antithesis of tradition. A scene from the Star Wars epic shows Anakin Skywalker battling Obi Wan; the latter indulges in expository dialog laced with a convincing British accent, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes!” thereupon the illusion of Hollywood’s reality falls away. Kids would have missed the slight, or worse, metabolized the lie. I simply don’t appreciate being socially engineered when I am supposed to be entertained. Now I’m cheering for Darth Vader but he sits on the edge of the lava river, burning.

In a world gone mad with relativism the traditionalist must daily put forward the abandoned idea that there are absolutes. Counter-traditional thought would suggest that truth is relative and that “my truth is not your truth”. But it’s much worse than that because “my truth is not really my truth either”. Even if I set up my own private, syncretistic moral code I am bound to negotiate it away when I violate it — and I will violate it. No worries—I’ll just let it float, like the dollar.

Axiom 3: There is good and evil, right and wrong.

This is mostly a corollary of the previous axiom and its rebuttal is to portray evil as a social pathology such as lack of education, economic deprivation, political disenfranchisement, insanity, bad karma,  drug addiction,  poor upbringing, conditional love, genetic propensity, menopause or month old yogurt. And then how do we explain Axiom 4?

Axiom 4: Humanity is fallen.

For the purpose of this axiom I will define “fallen” as mankind’s propensity to do wrong despite all advantages to do otherwise—or worse yet, do wrong, and then blame someone else. Shakespeare made a living creating plays around characters with this propensity: Othello (jealousy), MacBeth (power), Hamlet (revenge) and other tragic heroes.

Can anything be more axiomatic? Consider the following modern dramatis personae: Martha Stewart, Eliot Spitzer, William Jefferson Clinton, William J. Jefferson, Gary Condit, Michael Vick, Jeff Skilling, Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff, Newt Gingrich, Christopher Lee, Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Tiger Woods, Lindsay Lohan, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, executives, clergyman, tinkers, tailors and candlestick makers. These are, or were, people of power, privilege, education, talent, wealth, celebrity and even catechism.  Nevertheless, they made vows they could not keep, defrauded their fellow man, took bribes, lied, cheated, stole or simply self destructed before our eyes.

Now here’s the radical part: add my name to this list. Add your name as well. Offended? If so remember that it is at the top of our game that we live the most precariously.

Axiom 5: There is an eternal aspect to our lives.

We play a dangerous game when we put forward the philosophy that all that we see is all that there is. In such a scenario, the only thing immortal about our personalities and selves is the mark we make on others, on future generations, on human history or on Facebook. In such thinking some have adopted the idea that notoriety may be preferred over obscurity and the measure of our virtue is the indelibility of our mark whether it be good (say, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu) or bad (say, Seung-Hui Cho) or digital.

The radical view repudiates this tired, old philosophy. The grave is not the end and there is an instinct in all of us that longs for the balance of eternity. There is, after all, the laws of algebra, stoichiometry, conservation of energy, conservation of matter, conservation of momentum—why not the conservation of identity—that part of us which is independent of both matter and energy but clearly measureable?

In closing, the premise of most traditions and the cumulative wisdom of the past is that, by and large, there is a point to them, a purpose, a reason. Often our traditions are a mechanical reminder of some historic event or commemoration, lest we forget. The traditions of faith remind us that there is a transcendent purpose to life in general and our lives in particular. Many of the axioms I’ve put forward will not be vividly demonstrated on the landscape of our personal and materialistic experiences. But the radical considers that maybe—just maybe—-the universe and its maker are simply BIGGER than the finite reach of our personal experiences.