The Three-Fold Hallelujah

As part of my spiritual regimen, in meditation, I've been chanting the Three-fold Hallelujah. It goes like this: "Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah," then a pause.

I know, just seeing it in print like that doesn't tell you much. But here's how it sounds: The first Hallelujah is said in a strong voice at a particular pitch. The second is completely identical to the first. Then the third drops the "-lujah" part down a note, making it lower. Followed by a pause that is silence.

Whether this does me any good, objectively, I don't really have the standing to make that determination. However, subjectively, I know it does. In recent days, I've seen the sky ripped in half and great visions of heaven. But enough about that.

So, I was describing all this to my minister, who listened carefully and respectfully, then tried it himself, "Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah." He paused and did it again, and said, "Yes, that sounds like a very good thing to say. I like it."

Then he asked me a strange question that I wasn't expecting: "Which Hallelujah of the three do you like the most?"

Hmm, that's really a tough question, isn't it? because I think each one has its good points. And I'd hate to have to pick just one, because what would be the point? It's the Three-fold Hallelujah, not a chant with only one Hallelujah. I looked at him, searching his face for a clue; was he putting me on? But his face, as usual, when he sets it in a determined way, was stolid, unflinching, unwavering, and, I hate to say it, without a hint of mercy. I felt a trickle of sweat burst forth on my forehead, and knew I was probably flushed, and suddenly seemingly vulnerable under his piercing, unrelenting stare.

Since I couldn't escape, I began reasoning it out: The first and second Hallelujahs are identical. The third is the only one distinctively on its own. So what it comes down to is this: Do I prefer of the ones that are doubly pronounced or the one standing alone? And beyond that fact, what of the sound? Do I prefer the first and second's tone or the third's? Does doubling make the first and second tones less precious, playing on the third's distinctiveness? Or is the third somehow inferior because it does stand alone? The first and second seem like they're being said as a progression worthy of eternity, with a single focus of concentration, and even bliss. The third, one might argue, in its denouement is something of a let-down, even an unfortunate claim that eternity is not real, and an expression that only finiteness (it being the third of three) is real. That would be depressing, although I'd have to argue, every good thing has to end, except, of course, eternity itself, presumably.

So I'm thinking, thinking, thinking, worrying, stewing, busting a vein over my answer. I look over and, in the meantime, Pastor has turned away and is filing a bushel basket of old sermons. He sees me return to life, and I tell him my choice: I prefer the second Hallelujah. Even though it's identical to the first, still it has a place in the order. It repeats the first, true, but it also leads to the third. And even though the third is the third, with all the problems that might suggest, without a third you wouldn't have three. And the fact that it is the denouement and with its lower note is something of a let-down, it does make a legitimate third, whereas a third identical to the first and the second would simply terminate the sequence ambiguously. As it is, in relation to the third, the second is the last note of real strength. So the middle one, for me that's where it's happening.

I urge you to consider this as part of your own spiritual life, the Three-fold Hallelujah. But it might be best not to tell anyone, so they don't put you on the spot.

Harold Camping: The Old Deceiver

I listened to some of Harold Camping's radio show tonight, following his failed prophecy of the Rapture on May 21, 2011. Of course, Christians were going to be lifted into heaven and the working out of the endtimes would be unambiguous, present for all to see.

I tuned in tonight hoping to hear him eat a little crow, say he repented, say he has decided to move on from apocalyptic predictions and be a credit to society and the church. But that wasn't what we heard. Instead, we heard the old deceiver now claim, without giving any evidence, in the time I was listening, that the Rapture, or whatever it was that happened on May 21, was spiritual and invisible. He pointedly said that Jesus Christ had in fact returned on that day and that the world was now under judgment, meaning some judgment that it previously wasn't under. I saw someone on Twitter say that Camping said no one now could be "saved," but I didn't hear that myself.

The other big difference from what he was just saying a few days ago was this, that the world won't notice very many different phenomena between now and Oct. 21, 2011, but that it will still be destroyed on that date. All along he was saying it'd be destroyed on Oct. 21. The difference is, it'll be sudden, apparently out of the blue. While I was listening, he didn't offer any evidence for this. And he was admitting that he had certain things wrong, but that in the last couple days he'd had a chance to read and study from the Bible and that he had discovered these differences were there all the while.

The show on the radio was a press conference, but no one asked him what specifically he had seen different in the Bible to justify the changes in his teaching.

Among the questions he was asked, someone wanted to know if he would give away all his property, Family Radio, etc., on Oct. 20 or 21. He acted befuddled by the question, even though of course he had to know the meaning behind it; he's not that dumb. Why, he wondered, would I give it all away? What good would it do anyone since the world was ending? It's obvious that he's hedging his bets, since of course the value in giving away everything would be to show he's "all in" and without doubts, and that he's willing to pay the full price if he's wrong.

It's very telling that he evaded the question in a few different ways. Because on the one hand, he admitted he's not infallible, that he's always learning, that the Bible is very difficult to understand, etc. And yet he still wouldn't verbally hedge his bets on Oct. 21, he wasn't leaving the door open that he could be wrong. Isn't that a weird way to think? I was wrong two days ago, but I can't be wrong now.

He sounds like such a nice person, such a faithful Bible student/teacher, and even intelligent to a certain extent. And no doubt that's part of the reason so many of his followers were deceived. But he is a deceiver if he can't come completely clean on being wrong (1994 and now 2011) and what that means for the value of his remaining prediction. It ought to be obvious to anyone that if he's a two-time loser, he's bound to be a three-time loser. Third time's the charm!

Guess what. The world isn't going to be destroyed on Oct. 21. Five months from now, Harold Camping will once again be exposed as a fraud and deceiver. It is simply inconceivable that the man can hope to add and multiply a bunch of arbitrary numbers, numbers scattered throughout the Bible and numbers with supposed spiritual meanings, and hope to arrive at definite dates like the end of the world, Christ's coming, etc. It was plain from the git-go that his May 21 prediction was a fraud, and Oct. 21 won't work out for him either.

So what will his response be on Oct. 22? That it was a spiritual and invisible destruction of the world, and that none of us are actually here? LOL. Or will he find some other teaching in the Bible that indicates the true date is now March 2012, always leapfrogging ahead five more months?

The man of course will eventually have to give it up. For false prophets, the calendar is always their greatest enemy.