ADBC: 29 – Idol of the System and a Matter of Legacy

Here’s the premise of the conversation.

Previously in the conversation: I don’t smoke. I have never smoked, so I don’t know really what it’s like. I have taken in the smoke of smokers and that’s been enough to trigger at least asthmatic agitations if not always full on asthma attacks. From that, it never came across as a good idea to smoke. Plus the smell of tobacco wasn’t a particularly appealing one. I didn’t see any obvious benefit of smoking back in the day, but I was somewhat intrigued by the sign of cool that was smoking a cigar. There’s the cool of a job well done and smoking a cigar in satisfaction. When I finished reading the latest episode of ADBC from Hesediah, my brother, I considered figuratively smoking a cigar. It is a job well done. That’s cool. You wanna know why? Read about a thorough insight on parental responsibilities, a stunning exploration of righteousness and a fascinating examination of the role of law in what it says about the human condition. Read it. It is a job well done.

There’s also the bit in there where he gets to ask questions which gives me something that I must now engage with, here goes:

Q – The christian bible refers to “antichrist.” In 1 John, it refers to a singular antichrist and plural antichrists. What do you understand antichrist to be?

An important part of the questions is always the bit that says “what do you understand”. That means that whatever I share is open to correction. Having said that, most of what I say is open to correction if it needs to be corrected.

Antichrists and Antichrist.

Before my understanding a bit of context. The Bible does refer to antichrist and antichrists. I’ve read it and I’ve heard it referred to a number of occasions. Growing up in the environment I did, whenever anyone wanted to talk about “end-time prophecies” and whatever was happening in other countries reference would be made to antichrist. Later on frequent mention would be made that individuals who didn’t believe in Jesus or actively disputed the claims of His Messiah status, they would be “condemned” as antichrists. These were not the sort of things that got me interested in Jesus or attracted me in finding out about him and His Word. I’ll openly and honestly say that a lot of the talk about the end-times was pitched in a way that didn’t evoke much other than fear. It’s only been when I’ve been in a position to explore the Scripture in a way that’s not been tinged with the biases and conditioning of elements of my upbringing that I was able to begin seeing things from a different place. What I’m hoping to be a better place.

On that basis, my current understanding at this stage is that there are figures and have been figures who rise to be Christ-like figures in themselves and oppose the very existence of Christ in their actions. It is not my understanding that if you don’t believe in Christ this makes you an antichrist. It is my understanding that the rise of figures actively opposes the existence of Christ.

This is an understanding I’m hoping to develop further as I get into those aspects of scripture further.

Q – The NHS is an idol to which the masses are devoted and bound. Do you agree? To what extent is this true or false? What’s the semantic range of idolatry that can include or exclude the statement? Explain your answer.

On the basis of that clarification with helpful examples, to the best of my knowledge at this time, I don’t think God can do those things.

The fact that this question and the exploration of it could be considered an emotive topic indicates something of the nature of the answer. Allow me to explore the question nevertheless.

The National Health Service. Developed in the aftermath of the Second World War albeit with indications of it before that. A factor highlighted in the country is that it has free healthcare. Any citizen in the country can access a general practitioner if they are ill. The medication might cost money if you’re employed, but there’s a net to support those on low incomes, children and the elderly. As a jewel in the crown of the welfare system of the country, through various governments since its inception, it really has been seen as a golden calf of the way of life in this country.

Why do I say that? It is treated as though it’s the best way to engage with a problem of its own making. Such is the dependence on it that the mere threat to its existence or minimising of its capabilities issues outcries as if the very fabric of the nation is being ripped apart and people’s livelihoods are at stake. This is not hyperbole. Stepping back and thinking about how communities are organised, how life is to exist, what it is to look out for the poor in society are not questions that are seriously explored because of the threat that it causes to the status quo. The system is adored, the system is fed, the system is reinforced and the system has great ways of making people care for it almost without question. Those are good indications that we’re talking about something idolatrous. That is to say that I believe that something is an idol when attention and service are given to it as though it was a god.

There is also the element of the question as to whether people are bound to it. Well put it this way, as a number of nations operate, the ethos is you either stick to the way things are or leave the country. No alternative to the NHS would ever seriously be broached in the country for those who it’s designed for. Hence why alternatives are available only to those who can afford them. Also why if you want to make effective change in the political structure of the country, it requires a dismantling of the system that requires sufficient support from the very people who thrive on the maintenance of the very system you’re looking to dismantle.

Q – How much does your legacy come into your mind, the future of your heritage? Do you believe you have a heritage to pass on to your offspring? What do you think of the notion that we are cut off from our roots and therefore may not have anything as rich to pass on to the children?

Legacy? Future of my heritage? Something to pass on to my offspring? OK, that’s one part to explore.

Then there’s the matter of being cut off from roots which means there’s nothing as rich to pass on to children. That’s another thing to explore.

So the first one. I didn’t think about legacy seriously until my wife was pregnant for the second time. I was caught up with the overwhelming thought that the first child my wife would produce would be a male. I was totally absorbed in the thought that I would have a son and when I have a son I would pass onto him that which was most valuable to me in life, in the hope that in the fullness of time he would likewise be able to share it with his son. Why? It felt right. It felt like this is what I was here for. It felt as though my life’s purpose was to live in such a way that those that came after me would have a good idea of what was worth living for and dying for and no better could that be expressed than the family. The offspring. My son.

My firstborn in the world turned out to be a beautiful baby girl. As did the second born. And the third. Thankfully by the time I appreciated the gift of the Firstborn, I was far more interested in her wellbeing and endeavouring to be whatever I could be for her and her siblings. There is still the idea that who I am and what I do will be with them as they grow older. They can choose to accept or reject it as they see fit. I want them to value and treasure the most important aspect of my life – faith in God. From there, it’s largely up to their relationship with God.

As well as that, though, there is the element of passing things on to anyone who would be interested in taking it on. Thankfully, what matters most in life to me is not particularly dependent on people remembering me. Hence, anyone who is influenced by my life in action and in word and that gets them to take life seriously and joyfully in the light of knowing God and living in a relationship with Him that works well with me.

OK let’s consider the second part – cut off from roots and something rich to pass onto the children. I don’t feel attached to those roots as such, but that’s not a case of being cut off by anything other than my lack of interest and attachment to it. If I wanted to, I’m sure I could be attached to that and have plenty to offer to my offspring if that’s what I highly valued and wanted my children to likewise at least respect that value.

There’s more than me in the way my offspring develop and grow. Their Mum is from Jamaica. If they’re interested in exploring that part of their “roots” and “heritage”, I’m in no way stopping them. I was aware that my parents were Jamaican. It was important to my Mum. It wasn’t as important to my Dad. Even the importance that it had for them, it wasn’t something they stressed to me. I was given no impression that being Jamaican – whatever that means – was essential to my existence.

As a result, national identity is not at the core of my being and in that sense I have nothing particularly rich to pass onto my daughters about the history of someone doing this or some other person doing that or of a people who did this and another set that did that. All of that kinda thing I can see has value for people and helps shape their identity. I can appreciate the balm and sense of belonging that it gives them with the clothes they wear and the accoutrements that go with it. With the food they eat and the linguistic nuances that seal their connection. I have an understanding and appreciation of that for sure. There’s enough for my daughters to pursue that in their Mum’s side of the family if it matters to them.

From my side of things, there’s plenty of rich soil to find in aspects of faith and its connection to everyday life. It doesn’t negate the value of cultural heritage, but it’s not essential to have that to exist. That’s been my experience thus far.

---

Some deep questions on this occasion, my brother. Thanks for that, bro.

Here are some questions for you:

Q – You cannot separate the biblical wise person from moral good, nor can you separate the fool from evil. What’s your understanding of this statement? What are the implications of this statement if it’s true on a person’s responsibility to be moral?

Q – Certain corporations have a principle about not allowing employees to do things that are deemed “political”? If someone makes a stand for a people fighting for liberation within another nation, that is considered “political” whereas if there’s a certain narrative of war, signs of “solidarity” and the desire for “peace” are acceptable. What is your understanding of the term “political” and do you think it’s helpful to understand our humans interact?

Q – War. Is it good for absolutely nothing? Is there such a thing as a just war?

When they say life is short, that observation is so intriguing. Nevertheless, with whatever time we have, I’m grateful to invest some of that in this great conversation, Hesediah. Thanks for your time.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden