Never regard study as a duty, but as the enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit for your own personal joy and to profit of the community to which your later work belongs. Through education, we have the ability to change and improve the World in which we live. By touching the lives of humanity, outstanding educators make the future bright for all of us. The notion of secondary powers, placed between the sovereign and one’s subjects, occurred naturally to the imagination of aristocratic nations, because those communities contained individuals or families raised above the common level, and apparently destined to command by their birth, their education, and their wealth. This same nation is naturally wanting in the minds of humans in democratic ages, for converse reasons; it can only be introduced artificially, it can only be kept there with difficulty; whereas they conceive, as it were, without thinking upon the subject, the notion of a sole and central power which governs the whole community by its direct influence. Moreover in politics, as well as in philosophy and in religion, the intellect of democratic nations is peculiarly open to simple and general notions. Complicated systems are repugnant to it, and its favourite conception is that of a great nation composed of citizens all resembling the same pattern, and all governed by a single power. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

The very next notion to that of a sole and central power, which presents itself to the minds of humans in the ages of equality, is the notion of uniformity of legislation. As every person sees that one differs but little from those about one, one cannot understand why a rule which is applicable to one person should not be equally applicable to all others. Hence the slightest privileges are repugnant to one’s reason; the faintest dissimilarities in the political institutions of the same people offend one, and uniformity of legislation appears to one to be the first condition of good government. I find, on the contrary, that this same notion of a uniform rule, equally binding on all the members of the community, was almost unknown to the human mind in aristocratic ages; it was either never entertained, or it was rejected. These contrary tendencies of opinion ultimately turn on either side to such blind instincts and such ungovernable habits, that they still direct the actions of humans, in spite of particular exceptions. Notwithstanding the immense variety of conditions in the middle ages, a certain number of persons existed at that period in precisely similar circumstances; but this did not prevent the laws then in force from assigning to each of them distinct duties and different rights. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

On the contrary, at the present time all the powers of government are exerted to impose the same customs and the same laws on populations which have as yet but a few points of resemblance. As the conditions of humans become equal among a people, individuals seem of less importance, and society of greater dimensions; or rather, every citizen, being assimilated to all the rest, is lost in the crowd, and nothing stands conspicuous but the great and imposing image of the people at large. This naturally gives the humans of democratic periods a lofty opinion of the privileges of society, and a very humble notion of the rights of individuals; they are ready to admit that the interests of the former are everything, and those of the latter nothing. They are willing to acknowledge that the power which represents the community has far more information and wisdom than any of the members of that community; and that it is the duty, as well as the right, of that power to guide as well as govern each private citizen. If we closely scrutinize our contemporaries, and penetrate to the root of their political opinions, we shall detect some of the notions which I have just pointed out, and we shall perhaps be surprises to find so much accordance between humans who are so often at variance. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

The Americans hold, that in every state the supreme power ought to emanate from the people; but when once that power is constituted, they can conceive, as it were, no limits to it, and they are ready to admit that it has the right to do whatever it pleases. They have not the slightest notion of peculiar privileges granted to cities, families, or persons; their minds appear never to have foreseen that it might be possible not to apply with strict uniformity the same laws to every part, and to all the inhabitants. These same opinions are more and more diffused in Europe; they even insinuate themselves among those nations which most vehemently reject the principle of the sovereignty of the people. Such nations assign a different origin to the supreme power, but they ascribe to that power the same characteristics. Among them all, the idea of intermediate powers is weakened and obliterated: the idea of rights inherent in certain individuals is rapidly disappearing from the minds of humans; the idea of the omnipotence and sole authority of society at large rises to fill its place. These ideas take root and spread in proportions as social conditions become more equal, and humans more alike; they are engendered by equality, and in turn they hasten the progress of equality. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

In France, where the revolution of which I am speaking has gone further than in any other European country, these opinions have got complete hold of the public mind. If we listen attentively to the language of the various parties in France, we shall find that there is not one which has not adopted them. Most of these parties censure the conduct of the government, but they all hold that the government ought perpetually to act and interfere in everything that is done. Even those which are most at variance are nevertheless agreed upon this head. The unity, the ubiquity, the omnipotence of the supreme power, and the uniformity of its rules, constitute the principal characteristics of all the political systems which have been put forward in our age. They recur even in the wildest visions of political regeneration: the human minds pursues them in its dreams. If these notions spontaneously arise in the minds of the private individuals, they suggest themselves still more forcibly to the minds of princes. While the ancient fabric of European society is altered and dissolved, sovereigns acquire new conceptions of their opportunities and their duties; they learn for the first time that the central power which they represent may and ought to administer by its own agency, and on a uniform plan, all the concerns of the whole community. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The idea that the power of the government should be concerned with the welfare of the entire community was never conceived before our time by the monarch of Europe, now sink deeply into the minds of kings, and abides there amid all the agitation of more unsettled thoughts. Our contemporaries are therefore much less divided than is commonly supposed; they are constantly disputing as to the hands in which supremacy is to be vested, but they readily agree upon the duties and the rights of that supremacy. The notion they all form of government is that of a sole, simple, providential and creative power. All secondary opinions in politics are unsettled; this one remains fixed, invariable, and consistent. It is adopted by state-people and political philosophers; it is eagerly laid hold of by the multitude; those who govern and those who are governed agree to pursue it with equal ardour; it is the foremost notion of their minds, it seems connatural with their feelings. It originates therefore in no caprice of the human intellect, but it is a necessary condition of the present state of human kind. Humans become human in personal encounters. Only by meeting a “thou” does a human being realize that one is an “ego.” #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

No natural object within the whole Universe can do this to one. Humans can transcend themselves in all directions in knowledge and control. They can use everything for their purposes. Humans are limited only by their finitude. However, these limits can be reduced infinitely. Nobody can say where the final limits of human power lie. In one’s encounter with the Universe, humans are able to transcend any imaginable limit. However, there is a limit for a human which is definite and which one always encounters, the other human. The other one, the “thou,” is like a wall which cannot be removed or penetrated or used. One who tries to do so, destroys oneself. The “thou” demands by one’s very existence to be acknowledged as a “thou” for an “ego” and as an “ego” for oneself. This is the claim which is implied in one’s being. Humans can refuse to listen to the intrinsic claim of the other one. One can disregard one’s demand for justice. One can remove or use one. One can try to transform one into a manageable object, a thing, a tool. However, in doing so one meets the resistance of one who has the claim to be acknowledged as an ego. And this resistance forces one either to meet the other one as an ego or to give up one’s own ego-quality. Injustice against the other one is always injustice against oneself. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

The master who treats the slave not as an ego, but as a thing endangers one’s own quality as an ego. The slave by one’s very existence hurts the master as much as one is hurt by one. The external inequality is balanced by the destruction of the ego-quality of the master. This leads to the question whether the “Golden Rule” can be considered as the principle of justice in personal encounters. It is used even by Jesus. And it is certainly an expression of practical wisdom to do to people what one wants to have done by them! However, it is not the criterion of justice in person encounters. For it may well be that one wants to receive benefits which would contradict equally the justice towards the other one, if one received them.  If we are asked for them, we should reject them. If things are demanded or given that are obviously evil, this is comparatively easy. However, if we feel obliged to fulfil what seems to be a just claim, a claim we ourselves would make, it is difficult. Nevertheless we hesitate. We are suspicious of the others as we would be of ourselves; we suspect that behind the manifest meaning of the demand something else is hidden that should be rejected, an unconscious hostility, the desire to dominate, the will to exploit, the instinct of self-destruction. In all these cases the justice in a person-to-person encounter cannot be defined in terms of the “Golden Rule.” #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

We have discovered the absolutely valid forma principle of justice in every personal encounter, namely the acknowledgement of the other person as a person. However, we have tried in vain to derive contents for this formal principle from the “Golden Rule.” The question then is: Are there other ways to discover such contents? A seemingly incontestable answer is: The cultural process gives the contents; they are provided by human experience, embodied in laws, tradition, authorities as well as the individual conscience. One who follow those rules and decides under the guidance of one’s conscience has a solid foundation for justice in personal encounters. Humankind is never without a treasury of ethical wisdom which presents its self-destruction and which, in religious terminology, is based on universal revelation. Since justice is the form of the power of being, the being of humankind could not have lasted for one moment without structures of justice in the encounter of humans with humans. Most of the daily encounters between human beings are determined by these sources of justice. In some cases law, tradition, and authority are predominant, in others the individual conscience. This is an important difference and can lead to tragic conflicts, as classically described in Sophocles’ Antigone. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

However, it is not decisive for our problems. For objective riles and individual conscience are interdependent. Laws, traditions, and authorities have been established as sources of justice through decisions in which the individual conscience was involved. And on the other hand, the individual conscience has been shaped by processes in which laws, traditions, and authorities have been internalized, and have become rules of justice which make external compulsion unnecessary. In somehow paradoxical ways one could say: Law is externalized conscience; conscience is internalized law. Rules of justice are created by the interplay of law and conscience. Is it possible to transcend this situation? Is there a way, other than the interplay of law and conscience, to get contents for the justice of person-to-person encounter? The only answer left is the classical theory of natural law, the belief that it is possible to discover structures of human relations which are universally, unchangeably, and concretely valid. The Ten Commandments are considered by classical theology as statements of the natural law and so are their interpretations in the Sermon on the Mount. The Roman Church adds the ecclesiastical interpretation of both. It does not deny that they are natural laws. However, because awareness of them is ineffective and distorted, the Church must restate them. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

However, these laws remain natural law and they are, in principle, rationally recognizable. In our analysis of equality and freedom two basic tenets of the natural law theory, we have tried to show that in the moment in which these principles are used for concrete decisions they become indefinite, changing, relative. This holds true of all contents of the natural law. They are like the principles which are supposed to control pleasures of the flesh relations—historically conditioned and often in flagrant conflict with the intrinsic justice of these relations. The natural law theory cannot answer the questions of the contents of justice. And it is possible to show that this question cannot be answered at all in terms of justice alone. The question of the content of justice drives to the principles of love and power. A further specific impairment is the development of unconscious arrogance. Again I mean this in the sense of arrogating to oneself qualities one does not have or that one has in a lesser degree than is assumed, and of unconsciously claiming the right on this ground to be demanding and derogatory toward others. All neurotic arrogance is unconscious in that the person is unaware of any false claims. This distinction here is not between conscious and unconscious arrogance but between one that is conspicuous and one that is hidden behind overmodesty and apologetic behaviour. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

The difference lies in the measure of available aggression rather than in the measure of existing arrogance. In the one instance a person openly demands special prerogatives; in the other one is hurt if they are not spontaneously given to one. What lacking in either case is what might be called realistic humility, that is, a recognition—not only in words but with emotional sincerity—of the limitations and imperfections of human beings in general and one one’s own in particular. In my experience every patient is averse to thinking or hearing of any limitation that might apply to one. This is especially true of the patient with hidden arrogance. One would rather scold oneself mercilessly for having overlooked something than admit, with St. Paul, that “our knowledge is piecemeal.” One would rather recriminate oneself for having been careless or lazy than admit that nobody can be equally productive at all times. The surest indication of hidden arrogance is the apparent contradiction between self-recrimination, with its apologetic attitude, and the inner irritation at any criticism or neglect from outside. It often requires close observation to discover these hurt feelings because the overmodest type is likely to repress. However, actually one may be just as demanding as the openly arrogant person. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

One’s criticisms of others, too, is no less scathing, though what appears on the surface may be only a self-effacing admiration. Secretly, however, one expects the same perfect of others as of oneself, which means that one lacks a true respect for the particular individuality of others. The crux of the problem is stated well by St. Pau in Romans 14.5: “One man considers one day more scared than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in one’s own mind.” People simply have different opinions about various issues. One person sees no problem in a certain practice; another person considers that practice to be sinful. Most often these differing opinions arise from our family, or geographical, or perhaps, church cultures. I know that a certain practice that was offensive to the church I grew up in was not even an issue in a church I attended in California, whereas the California Christians would have been scandalized by one prominent practice back in Texas. Yet neither practice is addressed in the Bible. Where do these cultural convictions come from? They develop in various ways. Some have their origin in a “fence” someone erected a long time ago and no one knows that the original problem was. Others originated in the individual experience of some Christian who began to lay one’s personal conviction on others. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

There was once a missionary family who literally were forced off the mission field over peanut butter. They were sent to a location where peanut butter was not available, so they asked friends back in the States to occasionally send them some. The problem was that the other missionaries considered it a mark of spirituality not to have peanut butter. The newer missionary family considered this a matter of differing opinions, so they continued to receive and enjoy their peanut butter. However, the pressure from the other missionaries to conform became so intense, the newer family finally gave up and left the mission field. How could something like this—that probably seems petty and foolish to us—have happened? I imagine it developed something like this: A missionary family who greatly enjoyed peanut better went to this particular mission field. Upon discovering there was no peanut butter available locally, they faced a choice of doing without it or asking friend or relatives in the States to send it to them. As they considered their options before the Lord, they came to the conclusion that doing without peanut butter was a small sacrifice to make for being on the mission field. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

 Though, like the apostle Paul, they have a “right” to peanut butter, they chose not to use that right. “Do you not know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered at the alter? In the same way, the Lord has command that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel,” 1 Corinthians 9.13. The family did as to the Lord. “One who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. One who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for one gives thanks to God; and one who abstains, does so the Lord and gives thanks to God,” reports Romans 14.6. If my theory of this issue’s origin is correct, I personally find their thinking quite acceptable, perhaps even applaudable, in that circumstance. That is Paul’s whole point in Romans 14. If they decide to give up peanut butter as to the Lord who I am to belittle or ridicule them? Paul said the person whose faith allows on to eat peanut butter must not look down on one who does not. “Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way,” reports Romans 14.13. So what went wrong? If the original missionary family made a sincere decision to give up peanut butter as to the Lord, how did it eventually become a divisive issue among missionaries? #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

Again, I a speculating. It probably because a divisive issues because one family elevated the particular leading of God for them to the level of a spiritual principle, which they then applied to everyone: “If God had ‘led’ us to give up peanut better on the mission field, surely that is His will for everyone else.” Whether I have speculated correctly on the reasons behind this story or not makes no difference. Even if they are not true in this particular instance, they have been true in scores of others. As Christians we cannot seem to accept the clear biblical teaching in Romans 14 that God allows equally Godly people to have differing opinions on certain matters. We universalize what we think is God’s particular leading in our lives and apply it to everyone else. When we think like that, we are, so to speak, “putting God in a box.” We are insisting that He must surely lead everyone as we believe He had led us. We refuse to allow God the freedom to deal with each of us as individuals. When we think like that, we are legalists. We must not seek to bind the consciences of other believers with the private convictions that arise out of our personal walk with God. Even if you believe God has led you in developing those convictions, you still must not elevate them to the level of spiritual principles for everyone else to follow. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Only what God has commanded in his word should be regarded as binding; in all else there may be liberty of actions. If we are going to enjoy the freedom we have in Christ, we must be alter to convictions that fall into the category of differing opinions. We must not seek to bind the consciences of others or allow to them to bind ours. We must stand firm in the freedom we have in Christ.  The destruction of Babylon is a type of the destruction at the Second Coming—it will be a day of wrath and vengeance—Babylon (the World) will fall forever—compare Isaiah 13. About 559-545 Before Christ. “The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones, for mine anger is not upon them that rejoice in my highness. The noise of the multitude in the mountains like as of a great people, a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together, the Lord of Hosts mustereth the hosts of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of Heaven, yea, the Lord, and the weapons of one’s indignation, to destroy the whole land. Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

“Therefore shall all hands be faint, every person’s heart shall be afraid; pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to pay the land desolate; and one shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of Heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the Sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the Moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the World for evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay down the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a human more precious than fine golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore, I will shake the Heavens, and the Earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no human taketh up; and they shall every human turn to one’s own people, and flee every one into one’s own land. Every one that is proud shall be thrust through; yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver and gold, nor shall they delight in it. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

“Their bows shall also dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. However, the wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish,” reports 2 Nephi 23.1-22. O God, Who hast sounded in our ears Thy divine and saving oracles, enlighten the souls of us sinners to the full understanding of what has been spoken, that we may not only appear to be hearer of spiritual words, but also doers of good works, following after faith unfeigned, blameless life, and irreproachable conduct; through Jesus Christ our Lord. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

Benign LORD, I praise Thee continually for permission to approach They throne of grace, and to spread my wants and desires before Thee. I am not worthy of Thy blessings and mercies for I am far gone from original righteousness; my depraved nature reveals itself in disobedience and rebellion; my early days discovered in me discontent, pride, envy, revenge. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor the multiplied transgressions of later years, my failure to improve time and talents, my abuses of mercies and means, my wasted sabbaths, my perverted seasons of grace, my long neglect of Thy great salvation, my disregard of the Friend of sinners. While I confess my guilt, help me to feel it deeply, with self-abhorrence and self-despair, yet to remember there is hope in Thee, and to see the Lamb that takes away sin. Through Him my I return to Thee, listen to Thee, trust in Thee, delight in Thy law, obey Thee, be upheld by Thee. Preserve my understanding from error, my affections from love of idols, my lips from speaking guile, my conduct from stain of vice, my character from appearance of evil, that I may be harmless, blameless, rebukeless, exemplary, useful, light-giving, prudent, zealous for Thy glory and the good of my fellow-humans. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

In these uncertain times, the question remains: to buy or to rent?  Check out our blog post today to explore the pros and cons. Link in bio. https://cresleigh.com/owning-vs-renting-which-is-better/

#CresleighHomes