Kingdom and the Imposition of the Will.

A concept that has been rattling through my grey matter over the past few months has been the matter of Kingdom as "the range of your effective will." Pastor John Ortberg of Menlo Park Presbyterian in California shared this nugget of revelation back in January during InterVarsity's National Staff Conference in St. Louis, and it's been in the "back of my head" ever since.

Will is a fascinating subject to me. Perhaps it's my professed Wesleyan Arminianism (in contrast to some of my friends' devout Reformed Calvinism). Or perhaps it's something a little more... mythological.

Will and Kingdom are inseparable subjects. A Kingdom is defined as the place where a King has his (or her) effectual rule and reign (unless, of course, [and this complication is worth delving into] that King is either incompetent or deceived). Thinking of political systems, there is always some sense of Will and Kingdom -- obviously Autocratic systems have a total expression of their Autocrat's Will, but even Democratic systems are ruled by a Will, although that Will is a Democratic as opposed Individual Will.

Perhaps more intimately, it is the Self who is the King over the Individual -- or Christ, if that person is a believer. The CEO is King over the Corporation. The Husband is King over the House (and the Wife most emphatically is the Queen).


Will takes a more supernatural expression in literature. For example, in J.R.R. Tolkien's powerful The Lord of the Rings, the One Ring grants its user a phenomenal power of imposing their Will upon others. (This power is not used by Frodo often, but it is implied by how both Gandalf and Galadriel talk about the Ring of Power -- and is described in deeper depth while the Eye searches for Frodo near the end of The Fellowship of the Ring...) The danger of the One Ring, however, is how Sauron himself imposes his Will upon those using it...

I find it interesting and worth investigation what Galadriel says about the Ring and her own Will:

"...'And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!'..." 

                    (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, 365-366)

She sees something about the Ring of Power. The Ring gives a great power: it extends ones' Will beyond their natural Kingdoms and imposes their Will upon others' Kingdoms. But Galadriel knows what this Power will do to her: it will make her wicked and corrupt.

Tolkien is onto something. In the Bible, there is a record of how King Saul rebelled against the Lord, and, so doing, he committed the sin of witchcraft. Witchcraft is no simpler than this: to impose one's Will upon the Universe. To do so is to deny the Authority of God Himself. This is why the One Ring's power corrupts.


I could make more conjecture about the Ring of Power, but I want to turn my eyes to the real world:

One of the fundamental relationships between Kingdoms over the past several millenia has been the concept of War. With the aforementioned idea of Will fully grasped, we could say that War is a conflict of Kingdom-Wills. If two Kingdoms have conflicting Wills, then they are at War until that conflict is resolved. This can be overt, such as Germany's expansion into Europe in the 1940's, or Napoleon's conquests; or it can be economic; or it can be political. But however we make it look, War is when Kingdoms have opposing Wills.

I see this in President Vladimir Putin in Russia presently: He has rolled out troops into Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula with the pretension of protecting Russian assets. The truth is that he is imposing his Will upon the people of Crimea, and they are collectively using their Wills to oppose their leadership in Ukraine.

I'm not going to delve into the underlying political/ethno/historical issues at play here. But I want to use this to express how this evidences a real-world example of Imposition of the Will. President Obama has responded to Russia by announcing economic sanctions against the Kremlin and its leadership -- an economic sanction is the Will of the Kingdom of America responding to the actions of the Kingdom of Russia. Russia has responded by pressing on the energy-dependence of Europe, making their Wills weaker. ...


Will is nearly a supernatural force. One can use one's Will to remove another's Will -- that is, Murder, or Witchcraft, or Tyranny. One can use one's Will to limit another's Will -- that is, Bullying (this applies to nations so very clearly). The Bible is clear on this concept of Will: we are to lay our lives [Gk. psyche = will] down. Will is a powerful force -- and we as fallen humanity can only use it for wicked and evil purposes. It is only in the Submission of the Will to the Authority of the King of Kings (whose Kingdom is the Kingdom of Kingdoms!) that we can see Good advanced in the world.

And, so, we pray: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." (Matt. 6:10)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Consciousness, and Public Restrooms.

Earlier today, I went to a public restroom at my public university, and I had this distinct thought: "Why do we do this? How did we develop the restroom?"

I had a mini-existential crisis on this thought; it is something that I don't consider often and don't really think about. If one thinks about it, it would be far more convenient (from an immediate sense) if humanity didn't worry about where we went to urinate and defecate and just did it as animals do: on a random piece of ground outside. I'm certain that the Earth wouldn't mind more legitimate fertilizer.

As I thought on this, it reminded me of a social phenomenon that is currently happening in cyberspace.

That's right: "Twitch Plays Pokémon."

In this "social experiment" (as some have called it), tens of thousands of Pokémon players from around the world are trying to lead poor Red (and, in the newest incarnation, a misguided boy named [by the community] AJ) through the entirety of Pokémon Red (Crystal in the newest version) by using crowdsourced commands. It seems like a new iteration of the idea of "if you put enough monkeys in a room, given infinite time, they will write the works of Shakespeare."

Except, it's not.

I've been considering this, along with the public restroom thought I mentioned earlier, and realized that Twitch Plays Pokémon has totally different parameters than if, per se, I closed my eyes and pressed randomly-generated commands given through a computer program. Or, if, to make the story more interesting, I had monkeys randomly choosing between the options of "Right", "Left", "Up", "Down", "A", "B", and "START". I do not believe that in my latter thought-experiment I would ever succeed at beating Pokémon.

There is something about the power of Consciousness that makes Twitch Plays Pokémon fascinating. The game relies on a setting called "Anarchy," in which all of the commands from the tens of thousands of people playing are inputted as they are received... But the success of the game is actually not dependent upon real Anarchy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, naturally, energy goes from places of higher concentration to places of lower concentration. This governs the movement of light, heat, and even general principles of motion and gravity. Entropy is the measure of disorder in thermodynamics -- and it seems that the entire world is governed on the principle of the universe going from more order to less order. Chemical processes favor those which have a less energized (less unstable) state. For you non-science folks: the universe is spreading out like butter.

Consciousness throws a seemingly-ontological wrench into the system of entropy. Given the basics of the laws of thermodynamics, laws of probability, or the laws of "many monkeys" (as it were), and Pokémon Red could never be defeated by a series of random inputs. Or, if it could, it would take far longer than the 16-day feat that the Internet just churned out (which included, might I add, the capture of Zapdos, an extremely powerful (and revered?) Pidgeot, the resurrection of Omanyte and its subsequent evolution to Omastar, and the defeat of a Dragonite by "All-Terrain Venomoth" in a fundamentally-surprising way).

But a "mindless" mass of individually-conscious beings have done something amazingly surprising: they defeated Pokémon Red in 16 days.

What does this have to do with public restrooms? I find it philosophically to be the same subject. If we were to follow the "normal" process of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, I do believe that we would live in  a world where everyone pooped outside. Why? Because public restrooms is a higher form of organizing our excrement. Just like how libraries are a higher form of organizing information, and machines are higher forms of organizing simple mechanics, the very concept of a public restroom is an example of a "mindless" mass of individually-conscious beings doing something uniformly that is quite... impressive.

There are a lot of reasons for having public restrooms -- particularly from a cleanliness, hygienic perspective. But the reality that this idea was not an individually-developed idea, but, rather, a cultural/group/"crowdsourced" idea profoundly shows the discrepancy between Human Consciousness and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Our ontological essence directly refutes the core operation of the physical universe.

I like that.

I say all this to make some sort of fundamental claim about the Universe and about Creation. That is, that God has created a universe which naturally and silently progresses towards higher entropy, but the very action of Creation itself disrupts that entropy and counters it. We see this in Genesis 1 when He creates the universe and then immediately gets on to organizing it. I've said this before, and I want to highlight this fundamental mechanism: God's act of Creation not only goes contrary to laws of physics which He has put in place, but He has also given to humans the power to do likewise. Consciousness could thus be defined as "that divinely-imbued power inherent in Man which allows him to create spaces of higher organization and less entropy, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics itself."

And whereas I don't think anyone would go as far and make the claim that Twitch Plays Pokémon is a brilliant example of humanity's powers of higher organization, it is clearly a refutation to the belief that random occurrence could produce victory in the game of Pokémon. The mindless mass is not mindless, but Conscious, and, even, Cooperating. “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." (Genesis 11:6) -- and that is how they can win Pokémon. Likewise, this is why we have public restrooms: not because an individual decided as such, but because Conscious beings naturally have the power to move towards places of higher organization.

The Maze of Human Relationships.

I think I mentioned a little whiles back that I had read a profound and disturbing [and profoundly disturbing] book entitled House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. When I had first read it, I wanted to write about it here because there seemed to be so much to investigate about it on my Mythology blog.

But I had difficulty synthesizing the core meaning that I wanted to draw out from it. It was elusive. It wasn't elusive in the same way that The Last Unicorn was. No, that novel did not attempt to hide meaning, but it skirted on the edge of actual understanding. The house, however, does hide, and it conceals. It is not the joyous mystery of the unicorn, but the terrifying mystery of ... a house.

What makes a house terrifying? In House of Leaves, it is not so much about a creepy building that haunts and destroys and perturbs the intellect. Rather, I would like to consider the house as a metaphor for human relationships. This is not a whimsical idea, but founded on something that the author himself said:

"I had one woman come up to me in a bookstore and say, 'You know, everyone told me it was a horror book, but when I finished it, I realized that it was a love story.' And she's absolutely right." 

            (from the article "Profile: Mark Z. Danielewski," Flak Magazine)

The house is a maze and a mess, and it is a symbol not only for Will Navidson's broken relationship with Karen, but also for Johnny Truant's broken relationships with his family and with women. The house is dangerous, and those relationships are also dangerous and hurtful. Perhaps the major story behind House of Leaves is that human relationships are difficult and... labyrinthine. That we are the minotaurs in the midst of our own interrelated lives.

(I made a similar claim about Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy as well; that is, that the metaphorical // typological interpretation holds the core truth of the novel.)

In general, houses can be messes. They are symbols for where we dwell, for where family exists. For most people, the house (= the home) is where they receive their first major soul-wound, it is where they have their first encounter with evil, it is where they first lose their sense of innocence. And the house in House of Leaves is no different.


And... I think about this claim -- that is, the claim that human relationships are labyrinths that are dangerous to navigate, that we bring into every human interaction some deep, inner, hidden monster [= minotaur] that might bring destruction -- and I see that, in many senses, it holds true. Human relationships are mazes that can be difficult and dangerous to navigate. The ancients used to illustrate this by making garden-labyrinths which they could walk through in order to better understand themselves. St. Augustine once said that the human soul is like a giant cavern; Nietzche once said that the darkness might stare back.

(Of course, that is assuming that there is no light to see in the darkness. Pointedly, all of the characters in House of Leaves are flying blind. Their flashlights eventually fail in the darkness, Zampanò is a blind man [supposedly because of the monster], and Johnny is perpetually confused and directionless. St. Augustine had something that they did not: he had an eternal Candle [= The Holy Spirit].)

House of Leaves is about that maze of human relationships, about the difficulty of what family [= the house] is, about the complexity of the labyrinth of human hearts, and about the dangers lurking within our own hearts. And, in some sense, the story is incomplete. It leaves some questions unanswered and some ponderings unconsidered. It leaves Johnny still a mess, and Navidson as a physical mess [albeit, in some manner, whole emotionally], and no one really knows who Zampanò was. But, as a postmodern instant-classic, it's allowable that those loose ends are left. In life, loose ends get left all of the time. In relationships, things aren't always clear and understandable. Sometimes things get confusing.


One last thought: Clearly, Danieleski's masterpiece is a clear picture of fallen human relationships. But, I wonder, if human relationships might be naturally complex? What if the maze was always something that needed to be processed, even if the minotaurs are dead and no monster ever brought darkness or sin into the world of relationships; what if humanity, being made in the image of God, has always been complex, and, thus, in need of process in relationships?

There are some clear theological consequences for these thoughts -- but they are a continuation of a thought-experiment on the complexity of humanity that I have been considering lately.

All this being said, humans are complex beings with complex relationships, and it may well be impossible to map out fully the interiors of our souls -- being, as they are, like the house, always in flux -- but it is possible for us to fight our minotaurs. Perhaps, as we fight the monsters, navigate the maze, and begin to communicate with one another, we will begin to enter into true relationship with our fellow man.

Clothing as Myth.

I remember two distinct thoughts about clothing that have occurred to me over the past four years. The first was a quote from Mark Twain that I saw once: "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

The second was a simple wondering I had at one of the InterVarsity conferences I went to during my time as a student at SIUe. I was attending a theological track about Multiethnicity. Near the end of the track, the staff worker in charge said: "You can use this method [of starting with Genesis 1-3] and develop theology on any subject you can think of!" And I asked, humorously, "What about fashion?" He chuckled and said, "Well, maybe not any subject."

The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that clothes are actually a fairly important details in the opening chapters of Genesis. Think: Adam and Eve are naked. Then they clothe themselves with fig leaves. Then God clothes them with animal skin. The progression is quite clear and quite interesting.

Today I read a little more of Claude Lévi-Strauss' The Savage Mind, and he was discussing how people in totemic cultures would wear clothing in certain ways at certain times to mean certain things. For instance, people in particular Hawaiian custom would never drape their skirts over their shoulders, because for the Hawaiians "what belongs above should stay above, and what belongs below should stay below" (Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, 144). Or what a boy should wear at his initiation, what a woman should wear at her wedding, what warriors should wear to battle [which is sometimes practical, and sometimes ritual].

But (as I commonly think about "totemic systems"] there is little difference between "totemic" societies and our society. Just over the past two weeks, I have had two separate conversations about clothing and what it means. My supervisor and I talked about what "professional clothing" should be when I go to meet with people who dress a little more professionally [mainly, I lacked khakis]. And then the woman that I am courting shared with me about her views on how dressing "nice" [well, for her, "classy" would be the most appropriate term; she is an elegant woman!] in public makes people more at ease with you.

Clothing has mythological, interpret-able meaning. It is not meaningless. And if clothing is meaningless, it is just another symptom of myth-less society.

If I walk into a room wearing a T-shirt and jeans, I send a message: I'm just here, hanging out, nothing official. If I walk into that same room with a suit and tie, I say: I'm on business, I have something important going on. Just like our actions, clothing speaks.

(Now, it is of vital importance that this is shown to be a neutral matter. It can be good or bad. People can find their identity in clothing, rather than in Christ, and it is wholly unhealthy and sinful to do so. People can use clothing as a method of vanity or pride. Likewise, the lack thereof, in opposition to what Mark Twain said, does not devalue a person. At least, it shouldn't.)

Clothing is myth. It is a symbol that we interpret immediately when we see it. It has so much meaning that comes with it. When you watch a movie, for example I just watched The Illusionist, you can immediately discern certain things by the clothing of certain characters. In The Illusionist, from the first scene, you know that you are in 1800s Vienna. The moment you see Prince Leopold, you know that he's important -- he's dressed importantly. The moment you see Eisenheim the Illusionist, you know that he's professional -- he holds himself that way. If all of the characters were in T-shirts and jeans, something wouldn't register right. The era would be wrong. The characters would be wrong.

I mentioned above that if clothing is meaningless, it is another symptom of a myth-less society. When Joseph Campbell was alive, he bemoaned the lack of a real, living American mythology, and he wrote his works (in particular, The Hero with a Thousand Faces) in response to a myth-less culture. As our cultural norms have grown more and more lax on clothing -- what is and isn't modest, whether modesty is a value at all, what women wear, what men wear, what is "in", what is not, why in the world did people wear those sweaters in the 90's?, &c. -- our systems of communication that were built on clothing begin to sense distortion.

However, the lack of a clothing-myth in America is simply a symptom of our overall lack of a cultural mythological narrative. There are so many individual narratives that there is little to no national, cultural understanding. And no wonder we are so divided! If I have my own cultural narrative, and my neighbor has his own, and his neighbor's is wholly different from both, then how will we have any communication? I remember in an IVP book I read once called Deepchurch how members from the Traditional end of Christianity tried dialogue with members of the Emergent Church, and how they struggled to understand one another because of language.

The lack of cohesive overarching cultural narrative leads to mythological misunderstandings. And clothing fits this bill very well. There are still some things we understand: that person's a lawyer, that person's a doctor, that person's a youth pastor [honestly, they all dress the same! -- down to the tattooes on the forearms!]. But some of our general understandings of one another are confused.

I'm not saying this as a "call to traditional clothing." Heavens, no. Nor am I saying that modern clothing is abhorrent. (Albeit, some of it is.) But what I am hoping to illuminate here is that clothing is not meaningless, and it is actually a vital part of human communication. The woman that I am courting told me that she dresses nice so that other people will be comfortable around her, that way she has an avenue to share the Gospel with them. Its funny, but I said something similar to a staff friend of mine during my training back in July -- and he wore a Beatles shirt on a day we evangelized a pot-smoker.

Clothing is Myth. It tells us something, and it speaks to us. And it would be well for us not to be unaware of what we say to people without even knowing. Of course, let's not be religious about it. But, like everything else in the Christian walk, let us be "as innocent as doves and as shrewd as serpents." Clothing speaks, and what we wear can say something to whoever we meet.

A Poem. "Solitude & Silence."

Today I spent some time at my favorite coffee shop in Macoupin County, but I was a little vexed for a moment because of a multitude of distractions. When I feel quiet, I like to be quiet, and, yet, the world around me isn't quiet.

But that's alright, actually, because I think I discover silence more easily in the midst of noise. I can still and quiet my own soul in the midst of clashes and clangs.

There's something deeper there too... But I'm alright with leaving it at that.

I feel quiet this afternoon

where silence sinks into my bones

and solitude stills me.

The constant hubbub and

      sussurrating of life

      noiselessly drift by unnoticed

as I lift my headphones

      and close my eyes.

That is to say, noise isn’t absent

but ignored and left aside

like an unwanted gift or unsavory fruit.

It floats in and out

      a tide of sound yet

      noiselessly it drifts by

as I turn my attention

      to a world other than this.

Yet silence is not escape

like isolation is, which removes

man from the world God made.

Rather, it is a retuning and

      turning of the ear

      noiselessly drifting by

as I open my heart

      to another Voice.

(11/19/13)

Flight.

For earthbound, two-legged beings, humans have one strange and curious longing that none of the other creatures on earth desire: we all long to fly.

I can't imagine the cow looking up at the bird in the sky and thinking to itself: "If only I had wings." And no monkey, after swinging freely in the rainforest canopy, would ever dare catch itself imagining flight. Yet, deep within our subconscious, deep within our hearts, yea, even deep within our souls, humans long to fly. That's why our mythologies (and our psychologies) are peppered with dreams of flying men, and why some of our greatest inventors have been those who have attempted to give us wings. That's why our modern systems of communication (both commercial and entertainment) are full of Red Bulls that give us wings and other forms of synthetic elevation.

In the movie Avatar, Jake Sully says that he keeps having dreams of himself flying. What he desires here is both natural and supernatural. He desires natural freedom of movement (ie, he doesn't have working legs, so he desires freedom from his natural bondage); but he also reveals that he desires supernatural freedom of movement (ie, because humans don't naturally fly anyways -- whether they are physically handicapped or not).

I've been musing about this a lot lately. Flying is risky business. I wrote a poem about the danger and glory of flight on my personal blog. To fly is inherently both simultaneously terrifying and dangerous. It reminds me of something that John Eldredge once said: "To desire is to open our hearts to the possibility of pain; to shut down our hearts is to die altogether." (Desire, 23) And desiring [= hoping] is a lot like flying.

In the spiritual sense, I believe that hope and flight are the same. They are dangerous. Hope deferred will make the heart sick. When your wings fail you will plummet... and the landing isn't pretty. But they are also both glorious. When desires comes, it is a Tree of Life. [See Proverbs 13:12] When you fly, when you soar, it is unlike any other feeling on this earth.

I am convinced that there are two types of flight in the world. The first I will call Mechanical Flight, and the second I will call True, or Organic, Flight. In the ancient Greek tale of Icarus, Daedalus warns his son not to fly too high or too low. Icarus, though, captured by the joy of flight itself, flies towards the Sun -- his wings subsequently melt and he dies in the sea. In Iron John, Robert Bly calls young men like Icarus "ascenders." They are so focused on the joys of flight that they end up crashing and burning. In modern Christianity when we see a pastor or a young person do this, we say that they have "burnt out."

But I want to propose a different thought. Perhaps Icarus' problem wasn't that he flew too high, but that he flew with the wrong type of wings. As William Blake said, "No bird flies too high, if he soars with his own wings." See the birds of the air! None of them ever have to fear the heat of the Sun. And, from a Christian mysticism perspective, I believe that God made us to keep flying higher and higher. At least, that seems to be the nature of His Kingdom -- a continual progression and growth in the Presence of God.

St. John of the Cross expressed this in his poem "Of Falconry":

Upon a quest of love,

hope sturdy and steadfast,

I flew so high, so high,

I caught the prey at last.

 

In this divine affair,

to triumph – if I might –

I had to soar so high

I vanished out of sight.

Yet in the same ascent

my wings were failing fast –

but love arose so high

I caught the prey at last.

 

Just when this flight of mine

had reached its highest mark,

my eyes were dazzled so

I conquered in the dark.

I gave a blind black surge

for love – myself surpassed!

and went so high, so high

I caught the prey at last.

 

The higher up I went

there, in this dizzy game,

the lower I appeared,

more humble, weak, and lame.

I cried, But none can win!

and sinking fast oh fast

yet went so high, so high,

I caught the prey at last.

 

Then – marvelous! – I made

a thousand flights in one,

for hope of heaven will see

all it can wish, be done.

I hoped for this alone;

I hoped; was not downcast.

And went so high, so high

I caught the prey at last. 

       (St. John of the Cross, from The Poems, 37-38)

St. John flies with different wings than Icarus did. Had he flown with mechanical wings made from the strength of man, he would have fallen and crashed and burned. But he flew on organic wings, on the wings of faith and hope. On wings that take their strength from God rather than from man.

Jake Sully finds the same. He is offered mechanical flight: the Colonel tells him that if he will follow orders, he will get his legs back. But Jake's heart knows that there is better out there. He dreams of it. He doesn't dream of walking; he dreams of flying. When Jake Sully finally decides to be one of the Na'vi [notably around the time that he falls in love; there could be another post altogether about the differences between synthetic falling in love and divine falling in love...], he discovers a flight that is risky and dangerous (symbolized by Toruk Makto), but altogether worth it.

St. John had found a flight of pursuing the Presence of God that was radical and dangerous -- to the point that he was imprisoned for his love of God. But he knew it to be altogether worth it.

Icarus, on the other hand, and the Colonel, are earth-men with mechanical wings. Their wings are not fueled by the strength of God, but by the strength of men. And it is because of this form of pride that they fall. The devil has the same problem -- he viewed his beauty as his own, rather than as a gift from God. Mechanical flight will always lead to a long, painful fall.

But organic flight, flight "with our own wings" (as William Blake might put it), flight not by our own strength, but because someone else gave us wings, flight that is of heaven, rather than of the earth -- it is glorious and beautiful. There is no greater feeling in the world than flying knowing that the very wind that takes you up is the Breath of the Holy Spirit. Through Him, we can dare to desire, dare to hope, dare to dream, and dare to fly.

A Poem. "Flight."

One of the symbols that God has given me for my life in Christ has consistently been my "wings." I know when I'm soaring in His Joy because my "wings" feel open and free to fly and soar and go places. I love that sense of exhilaration in the Spirit, knowing that I'm led by Him.

All that being said, flying is scary. The image here is not as much about flying, but about standing on the edge of a cliff, ready to fly, but waiting for the wind. I can jump, I can take risk, without the Holy Spirit... but if I do so, I will fall and hurt myself.

But if I wait for that Wind... Then I can take that risk, and the most beautiful things can happen.

Once upon a summer sky – in open air I stood by
      a vast expanse of sweeping green
      of trees and horizons yet unseen
With heart wide open and lightly-sealed lips – I stood atop a precipice
      inclining on the Voice that led me there.
 
It seemed so long and I grew cold – I felt as though I had grown old
      and that tree and squirrel were passing my stage
      and the world around me went from age to age
With heart reluctant and frozen lips – I stood atop a precipice
      waiting on the Voice that led me there.
 
Yet soon altogether, with great surprise! – spring awoke and brought the sunrise!
      a light wind tapped along my skin
      and I knew that now was time to dive in
With heart unlocked and smiling lips – I jumped out from my precipice
      falling on the Voice that led me there.
 
Wings spread open, arms stretched wide – my descent quickly turned into a glide
      but without risk can there ever be flight?
      (Like can day exist without the night?)
With heart flying free and laughing lips – I soared beyond the precipice
      flying by the Voice that led me there.
 

(10/24/13)