More on Human ABILITY to REASON, Human RIGHT to CONSENT - Proem & Poem No. 149

Most likely to be published later this spring/summer of 2020, my 11th book entitled appropriately; More Proems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters. The following will probably be included upon further editing, and front cover a slightly modified yet appropriate version of the previous....

PROEM & POEM No. 149 - John Locke and Francis Schaeffer / Part 3

      What should have turned on head the personally as well socially regarded ethics even politically revered fundamentals as philosophically discussed, academically proposed, arguably established even broadly accepted, unfortunately did not. The Schaefferian argument on covetousness was not examined outside Christian theology, nor exhausted beyond a few denominations. Consequently, unnoticed the elusive connection, remaining now as then, between the uniquely insightful apologetics within Section I of the 1971 book True Spirituality and the broader ethical dilemma.

      For most if not all Christians who read the book, consideration and application remained within the narrow context of practicing as well studying Moses’ Ten Commandments (Ex 20:3-17), Christ’s Two Commandments (Mt 22:37-40) along with any subsequent theological writings whether apostolic, priestly/saintly, doctrinal/denominational, reformed as well evangelical. As broad or encompassing the aforementioned context may seem or as some would claim, nevertheless narrow if to exclude any and all philosophically and traditionally ethical considerations. This is not to say the same  theologically writings fell short, not at all, for often appropriate if not necessary for such intellectual pursuits (so it was for this poet). 

      Francis Schaeffer wrote further to restate and emphasize; so no matter which of the other Ten Commandments you break, you break two: the commandment itself, and this commandment not to covet. This is the hub of the wheel. And here lies the critical point hence worthy to repeat; this (covetousness) is the hub of the wheel. Therefore, implied certainly as spokes were all sinful acts outward and seen, upon the theologian proposing clearly as the hub the one sinful thought inward and unseen; covetousness.

      One must be careful to dismiss the word “sins” in the plural, although other Biblical references do in fact indicate the “sin” of man or humanity in the singular. Of course, in those cases, “sin” singular is the doctrinal reference for an innate condition upon birth inherited from father Adam of Eden. With that said, is it any wonder a 20th century theologian wisely discerned beyond others before him, a particular thought as sin in the singular, the hub whose spokes are all other sins in the plural manifested as subsequent thoughts then acts. Likewise, is it of equal wonder, upon rare willingness to empirically discern then paradigmatically unlearn so to logically learn, covetousness alone enlivens as well incites presumption, always preceding all forms of disregard and disrespect for the Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on all matters, as exercised, elected and expressed per the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason.

---

Rules then lists condemn not the mind, nor the soul

For action manifests the two, tho’ on head heaps the coals

The soul by God alone, the mind by Reason per Holy Breath

Presumption infects the latter, covet’ness the former, until Death

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Copyright © 2020 by D.C. Quillan Stone