I'm starting to think that this blog should really be about song lyrics, that i get bigger ideas from. I don't care how much you like music, but anyone who says that music is simply entertainment is way off. This latest blog post comes from a song by the Lumineers called "Stubborn Love". There is a line in this song that goes like this, "the opposite of Love is indifference".
The very first time I heard this line, I was not quite sure if I believed this to be true. After all, it seems like the opposite of Love is Hate, at least that is what we grow up believing. Yet, the more I think about it the less that I can believe this.
Let's start from the basis that God is Love. I think this is a pretty common truth that every believer can agree on that comes from the bible. So God IS Love, not God loves (even though he does love) but in his essence he IS Love, it is his being, just the same that I am human. I can't decide whether I am human or not, it is a fact of who I am. It is a state of being, rather than an optional disposition. OK, so God IS Love. Yet, we read in multiple places in the Bible that God describe God as hating something (e.g. Deut 12:31,Psalm 45:7, Proverbs 6:16 etc.). As well, this is a common term we use for God's stance toward sin, we say "God hates sin", or a popular phrase among Christians, "God hates the sin, not the sinner" (I know, the eyes are rolling right now). Yet there is obvious reference to things God hates. It might be helpful, as well, to define the term hate. Dictionary.com says that hate is "to dislike intensely or passionately: feel extreme aversion toward or hostility toward, detest". So I think it is fair to say that God feels this way about certain things, and behaviours. So the real point is, if hate is truly the opposite of love, how is it that a being who is in essence Love with a capital L, be what is contrary to himself? It's about as confusing as that sentence sounds. Something that is light cannot also be in turn darkness and vice-versa. Just as something that is Love cannot be the opposite of what Love is. So if God can hate, then hate cannot be the opposite of Love. Which leads to a whole bunch of other questions, or conclusions.
If you ever thought that all evil was just hatred, then you might want to rethink that. Without trying to really define what evil really is, evil is simply working as contrary to good. (I thought I would give you as vague a definition as you can get). Yet, hatred towards certain things can lead to good being done, which means that hatred and evil are not synonymous. Which tends to be the way we use the terms today. As well this means that Satan is not just a big ball of hatred that sits and hates everything, because in reality hating certain things are actually good, which means that if Satan just hated everything, in some areas he would actually be good. On this point I tread very lightly as it is easy to say something that could be quite off target, but I will say that I believe Satan is evil, which means that he hates some things and loves others, which is like God but it tends to be that what Satan hates God loves, and what Satan loves God hates. I feel like that should be enough without getting into too much of the relationship between God and Satan, because to be honest I have very little knowledge about how Satan works, and how he relates to God, and all I want to know is that I want less of satan and more of God. Another question, and the main one that I started thinking about was, if hate is not the opposite of love, then what is?
This thought obviously led me back to the song lyrics. Could indifference really be the opposing force of love? Well instead of trying to define Love in order to find out what is it's opposite, I figured I should look at what composes love. I think that love is a combination of many things. It is not quite the same as kindness, gentleness, compassion, passion, desire, it is the umbrella that covers those things and all those contribute to love. This is why it is so hard to define Love, because if you just define it as a good feeling, well your only covering desire, or passion. If you define it as turning the other cheek, you are only looking at mercy or gentleness. When in reality it is both at the same time. So if Love covers a multitude (sorry not of sins in this case for all those bible readers out there) but a multitude of emotions and attitudes, then the opposite of love is a lack of emotion or lack of care. It is a reckless abandon of indifference in each and every situation. The only way to show complete lack of Love at all is to be indifferent. Every action that involves an emotional response, even if it seems like a hateful act is because of a love for something else. Let me explain. If someone chooses to hurt another person either physically or emotionally, unless they are a psychopath (can't feel emotion, or feels incredibly reduced emotion) is doing it out of a love for something else. Whether that be a love of themselves and so they feel that they need to boost themselves above, or out of jealousy they hurt someone to boost their standing (and I think that a love of self is most often the case of harming another individual) but it is still showing a love of something, even if the priority and that Love is misdirected. So again the only way to not love anything at any point in time is to simply not care about anything. Now I don't know if this is fully possible, but it is interesting to think that by not caring we are choosing not to love. That is the only time that we are really not showing any love at all. Now there are certain ways we should direct our love as well, and how we balance our love between god and others and such is another ball game completely but as soon as we stop caring, as soon as we stop becoming enraged at injustice and disobedience towards God, then we stop becoming children of the Light, because there is no Love in us.
May we Love as the Father loves, and hate what the father hates, and may we not be indifferent to the world, but may we work in it to bring heaven here to earth, one step at a time.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
SILENCE!!!
This might seem like a waste of time. I read my last blog post and timed myself as I read it. It was just over two minutes. If you are reading this then I suggest the time you would take to read my blog here, you dedicate instead to just sitting in silence for 5 minutes. Try sitting for 5 minutes in silence once a day for one week. I think it could have a huge impact. try to get as silent as you can, maybe put in earphones with no music to block out some noise or something. May God bless your sitting and waiting time.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Freedom ain't Free
"If God had a face. What would it look like and would you want to see. If seeing meant that you would have to believe. In things like heaven, and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets."
A very interesting lyric even just to ponder on the words as they are... Think about it for a minute... I mean it's obviously a trivial thing to think if God has a face or not. But the question posed to most of the world, that doesn't really want to believe in God, specifically the God of Christianity. I wonder what the answers would be if this question was seriously posed and not just in a lyric that so many people pass over for the music. But even to pose the question to Christians, I like to think many would say yes, I just want to see so that I know. But the question comes down to choice. The choice gets made for you if God is revealed, there is no choice to make but to "believe". It's like when somebody tells you a ridiculous story and you don't really know whether you should believe them or not, but then they give you undeniable proof that the event occurred, you have no choice but to believe them no matter how much credibility you think the person's word alone has. The fact is, that if God was "proven" true beyond all question, then there are other things that would have to follow with it. I'm not sure many people would answer yes to this question that are not Christians. The sole reason being it limits their idea of what freedom is. The question boils down to whether freedom is really the most important thing in life, as it seems to be one of the most influential concepts. There are wars that are fought for freedom, there are belief systems chosen just to keep freedom, there are protests and rallies to make sure that freedom is kept. There is a value in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to move freely (I know that's probably not the best phrasing). And I could not keep my head high if I did not mention one of the most popular movie quotes that get's most men's blood rushing, the epic scene from Braveheart where William Wallace goes into battle yelling "FREEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOMMMMM" (I think that's about how long it is).
The question is whether is really is true and pure freedom that we are really fighting so hard for, or just a better form of it, and maybe a style that we like. What would have happened if there were slaves back in the day that were treated well by their masters and actually did not mind being slaves? What would happen if there were mass amounts of people that questioned the freedom that they have in the United States, or Canada? We don't hear stories about slaves that actually were not treated poorly, this may be because it did not happen, and I am not trying to speak out in favor of slavery. However, our concept of freedom is quite skewed, because we want absolute freedom at all costs, and yet if we ever got it, then we would discover that it's not a very good goal. Absolute freedom means a lack of government, which obviously leads to anarchy. The real desire is not for absolute freedom, it is for a control that is looking out for our best interests and can look at each situation and do what is best in all those situations while factoring in our own choice. Sound like a familiar concept? Freedom is not free, are we more willing to put our life on the line to further a sense of freedom that merely gives us comfort? Or are we willing to put our faith maybe in God who might require we lay down our own concept of freedom in order to put him in control and maybe actually get what is in our best interest. Until we are willing to accept that not all forms of power and leadership is bad and corrupt, our society will never be able to accept a God and give up our freedom to accept his provision.
So back to the initial question, if it meant giving up your freedom in order for your best interest would you want to see the face of God, if it meant you would have to believe?
A very interesting lyric even just to ponder on the words as they are... Think about it for a minute... I mean it's obviously a trivial thing to think if God has a face or not. But the question posed to most of the world, that doesn't really want to believe in God, specifically the God of Christianity. I wonder what the answers would be if this question was seriously posed and not just in a lyric that so many people pass over for the music. But even to pose the question to Christians, I like to think many would say yes, I just want to see so that I know. But the question comes down to choice. The choice gets made for you if God is revealed, there is no choice to make but to "believe". It's like when somebody tells you a ridiculous story and you don't really know whether you should believe them or not, but then they give you undeniable proof that the event occurred, you have no choice but to believe them no matter how much credibility you think the person's word alone has. The fact is, that if God was "proven" true beyond all question, then there are other things that would have to follow with it. I'm not sure many people would answer yes to this question that are not Christians. The sole reason being it limits their idea of what freedom is. The question boils down to whether freedom is really the most important thing in life, as it seems to be one of the most influential concepts. There are wars that are fought for freedom, there are belief systems chosen just to keep freedom, there are protests and rallies to make sure that freedom is kept. There is a value in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to move freely (I know that's probably not the best phrasing). And I could not keep my head high if I did not mention one of the most popular movie quotes that get's most men's blood rushing, the epic scene from Braveheart where William Wallace goes into battle yelling "FREEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOMMMMM" (I think that's about how long it is).
The question is whether is really is true and pure freedom that we are really fighting so hard for, or just a better form of it, and maybe a style that we like. What would have happened if there were slaves back in the day that were treated well by their masters and actually did not mind being slaves? What would happen if there were mass amounts of people that questioned the freedom that they have in the United States, or Canada? We don't hear stories about slaves that actually were not treated poorly, this may be because it did not happen, and I am not trying to speak out in favor of slavery. However, our concept of freedom is quite skewed, because we want absolute freedom at all costs, and yet if we ever got it, then we would discover that it's not a very good goal. Absolute freedom means a lack of government, which obviously leads to anarchy. The real desire is not for absolute freedom, it is for a control that is looking out for our best interests and can look at each situation and do what is best in all those situations while factoring in our own choice. Sound like a familiar concept? Freedom is not free, are we more willing to put our life on the line to further a sense of freedom that merely gives us comfort? Or are we willing to put our faith maybe in God who might require we lay down our own concept of freedom in order to put him in control and maybe actually get what is in our best interest. Until we are willing to accept that not all forms of power and leadership is bad and corrupt, our society will never be able to accept a God and give up our freedom to accept his provision.
So back to the initial question, if it meant giving up your freedom in order for your best interest would you want to see the face of God, if it meant you would have to believe?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Dostoevsky Part 1
I am reading a book by the title of The Brothers Karamazov written by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I was pointed towards it by a prof at Bethany (where i went to school) and decided I should read it. This is the first part of my classic literature readings that I am wanting to do more of. However this book integrates a bunch of interesting ideas through the conversation of the characters. This is how Dostoevsky displays his mental process and his own ideas, through the conversation and dialogue of the different personalities that he has created. As I was reading I came across a very interesting one, and thought about posting a little bit on FB (facebook for those that aren't with the lingo), however I realized that this simply would not do the excerpt justice. So I decided that I would post it here and see what anyone who reads this thinks. This particular excerpt has to do with the justice system and the difference between state and church. To give a little backdrop, the conversation is talking about what role the Church community has in judicial matters, and how the Church and the state are separate. It is basically a Church and State discussion that talks about whether they should be integrated, or one should envelope the other, and this is flushed out through the discussion about crime and punishment (coincidentally the title of a famous work of Dostoevsky [next on my list]). With that I give you this dialogue:
"If everything were integrated into the Church, the Church would excommunicate the criminal and the subversive, instead of chopping off their heads,' Ivan went on. ' Just think- where could the excommunicate go? Why, he would be cut off not only from men but also from Christ, since his crime would be a crime not only against his fellow men but also against Christ's Church. Strictly speaking, of course, this is true now. But it has not been officially proclaimed, and our criminals today often compromise with their consciences in a number of ways. 'I steal,' one may say, for instance, 'but I wouldn't do anything against the Church, because I am not an enemy of Christ.' But while criminals often justify themselves in this way today, the moment the Church superseded the State, they could no longer appease their consciences unless they said: 'Everyone else is wrong; they have all lost God, and their Church is a false church. It is we, the thieves and murderers, who alone represent the true Church of Christ.' But it would be rather difficult for a man to say that to himself unless he was living under exceptional circumstances, during world-shaking events, and such situations do not occur very often. Now let us look at the Church's approach to crime: isn't it bound to differ from the State's approach today, which is an almost pagan approach - the mechanical amputation of the diseased limb for the protection of society? The Church would aim at the total, true regeneration of man, his spiritual rebirth, and the salvation of his..." ...
..."If Christ's Church did not exist today, there would be nothing to restrain a man from committing crimes, for there would be no real punishment... I'm not talking of 'mechanical' punishment, such as was described a moment ago, which in most cases only hardens a criminal, but of real punishment, the only effective one, that people fear and that can bring peace - the awareness of one's own conscience." ...
..." What I mean," the elder went on, "is that all this business of sentencing people to hard labor, with or without flogging, does not reform criminals and, more to the point, does not deter them from committing crimes. So the number of crimes not only does not diminish - it keeps increasing. Why, you must concede that at least. It turns out, consequently, that society is not really protected by this method because, even if a dangerous member is cut off and put far away out of sign, immediately another criminal will appear in his place, and sometimes even two. If anything protects society in our time, if anything can reform the criminal and make a new man our of him, it is only the law of Christ, which manifests itself in the awareness of a man's own conscience. It is only after a man has recognized his guilt as a son of Christ's society, that is, of the Church, that he will become conscious of his guilt toward society, that is, toward the Church. Consequently, today's criminal can recognize his guilt only toward the Church, and not toward the State...But as things stand today, the Church has no legal authority, only the power of moral condemnation. And so she refuses to take part in the punishment of a criminal. She does not excommunicate him, she only offers him maternal advice. Indeed, she tries to abide by the pledge made by Christ's Church to the criminal; to admit him to church services and to the holy sacrament, to give him alms and treat him as a captive rather than as a convict. And what would become of the criminal, O Lord, if the Christian community, that is, the Church, rejected him and cut him off as the law of the State does? What would happen if every time a man was punished by the State, the Church followed suit by excommunicating him? The answer is that there could be no deeper despair, at least for a Russian criminal, because Russian criminals are still believers. And who knows, perhaps the result would be truly tragic - in his despair the criminal might lose his faith. And what would be gained by that?
"But a non-Russian criminal, I have been told, rarely repents, since many modern theories confirm him in his belief that a crime is not really a crime but only a gesture of protest against an unjust and oppressive force. Society cuts him off, as a matter of course, because it is stronger than he, and accompanies its ostracism of him with hatred... then it shows no interest whatever in the further fate of that human being and soon forgets about him. and as all this takes place, there is not one to take pity on the condemned man, because many countries there is not church any longer; all they have left is the clergy and magnificent buildings that used to be churches. For their churches have been long evolving from the lower form of church into the higher form of state, in which they will be completely dissolved and vanish..."
There is a lot more to this dialogue and I cannot even begin to give the full context for this. I do not assume that many will read the book (after all it is over 1000 pages long) but this brings up some interesting thoughts, as well as some interesting viewpoints that seem almost more relevant today than Dostoevsky could have imagined. Let me know what you think.
"If everything were integrated into the Church, the Church would excommunicate the criminal and the subversive, instead of chopping off their heads,' Ivan went on. ' Just think- where could the excommunicate go? Why, he would be cut off not only from men but also from Christ, since his crime would be a crime not only against his fellow men but also against Christ's Church. Strictly speaking, of course, this is true now. But it has not been officially proclaimed, and our criminals today often compromise with their consciences in a number of ways. 'I steal,' one may say, for instance, 'but I wouldn't do anything against the Church, because I am not an enemy of Christ.' But while criminals often justify themselves in this way today, the moment the Church superseded the State, they could no longer appease their consciences unless they said: 'Everyone else is wrong; they have all lost God, and their Church is a false church. It is we, the thieves and murderers, who alone represent the true Church of Christ.' But it would be rather difficult for a man to say that to himself unless he was living under exceptional circumstances, during world-shaking events, and such situations do not occur very often. Now let us look at the Church's approach to crime: isn't it bound to differ from the State's approach today, which is an almost pagan approach - the mechanical amputation of the diseased limb for the protection of society? The Church would aim at the total, true regeneration of man, his spiritual rebirth, and the salvation of his..." ...
..."If Christ's Church did not exist today, there would be nothing to restrain a man from committing crimes, for there would be no real punishment... I'm not talking of 'mechanical' punishment, such as was described a moment ago, which in most cases only hardens a criminal, but of real punishment, the only effective one, that people fear and that can bring peace - the awareness of one's own conscience." ...
..." What I mean," the elder went on, "is that all this business of sentencing people to hard labor, with or without flogging, does not reform criminals and, more to the point, does not deter them from committing crimes. So the number of crimes not only does not diminish - it keeps increasing. Why, you must concede that at least. It turns out, consequently, that society is not really protected by this method because, even if a dangerous member is cut off and put far away out of sign, immediately another criminal will appear in his place, and sometimes even two. If anything protects society in our time, if anything can reform the criminal and make a new man our of him, it is only the law of Christ, which manifests itself in the awareness of a man's own conscience. It is only after a man has recognized his guilt as a son of Christ's society, that is, of the Church, that he will become conscious of his guilt toward society, that is, toward the Church. Consequently, today's criminal can recognize his guilt only toward the Church, and not toward the State...But as things stand today, the Church has no legal authority, only the power of moral condemnation. And so she refuses to take part in the punishment of a criminal. She does not excommunicate him, she only offers him maternal advice. Indeed, she tries to abide by the pledge made by Christ's Church to the criminal; to admit him to church services and to the holy sacrament, to give him alms and treat him as a captive rather than as a convict. And what would become of the criminal, O Lord, if the Christian community, that is, the Church, rejected him and cut him off as the law of the State does? What would happen if every time a man was punished by the State, the Church followed suit by excommunicating him? The answer is that there could be no deeper despair, at least for a Russian criminal, because Russian criminals are still believers. And who knows, perhaps the result would be truly tragic - in his despair the criminal might lose his faith. And what would be gained by that?
"But a non-Russian criminal, I have been told, rarely repents, since many modern theories confirm him in his belief that a crime is not really a crime but only a gesture of protest against an unjust and oppressive force. Society cuts him off, as a matter of course, because it is stronger than he, and accompanies its ostracism of him with hatred... then it shows no interest whatever in the further fate of that human being and soon forgets about him. and as all this takes place, there is not one to take pity on the condemned man, because many countries there is not church any longer; all they have left is the clergy and magnificent buildings that used to be churches. For their churches have been long evolving from the lower form of church into the higher form of state, in which they will be completely dissolved and vanish..."
There is a lot more to this dialogue and I cannot even begin to give the full context for this. I do not assume that many will read the book (after all it is over 1000 pages long) but this brings up some interesting thoughts, as well as some interesting viewpoints that seem almost more relevant today than Dostoevsky could have imagined. Let me know what you think.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
What to Learn From Harry Potter?
You have got to be kidding right? One of the most controversial book/movie series to Christians cannot by any means have something to actually teach Christians! Well, I think that this is where we would be wrong. There is an interesting story in the Bible where Paul is in Athens and he is talking with philosophers and other Greeks, and says that the altar to the 'unknown God' is actually to the God of the Israelites, and is the God he knows. He uses the altar that is setup, something that is a part of their society, to point towards God. This is something that seems to happen less and less in our society, and comes with the belief that society has a lot wrong with it so we cannot trust anything. However, this is wrong, we need to be careful about how far we take these things, and how much we look into, but we also need to be ready to see God in societal or 'secular' places, he is there.
So with that long and probably overdone introduction, I want to look at some aspects of the Harry Potter series and how they correlate to the Christian Faith. I think this first came up when I was watching the last movie, 'The Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.
Oh and by the way there is a lot that is going to be spoiled if you have not seen these movies and are wanting to, or don't know the storyline. So if you are wanting to watch/read them then I suggest reading this after you have.
I was watching the last Harry Potter movie and there is a point in the last movie where Voldemort thinks he has killed Harry and goes to Hogwarts carrying Harry's seemingly lifeless body. He comes to all of those that were fighting against him, and says to them, "from this day forth, you put your faith... in me". Cue the chills down my spine, not only because it is an eerie thing to say and a scary concept but also because this scene, to me, captures the Devil's mindset that came with the death of Jesus on the cross. In my mind I could almost carry over the meaning to the story of Jesus being crucified, and seeing Satan coming forward to the believers in Jesus saying, "from this day forth, you put your faith... in me". It is a possible small glimpse into what Satan could have been thinking with the death of Jesus, and is quite a humbling concept when you think of how the followers of Jesus must have felt in response. Needless to say that this came to my mind, and I started to see even more parallels between the biblical story and the story of Harry Potter.
It's the story of a boy who grows up with unheard of expectations from everyone on him. Who has the confidence of his peers and those above him that are expecting great things, while there are also those such as Malfoy who would rather stick to traditional wizardry and do not like the special treatment that seems to come to Harry and because of such treat him poorly and pick on him more than anyone else (*cough* Pharisees *cough*). In doing so they side with Voldemort, even if they are not really consciously doing so. Now in order to not risk taking things too far, I don't want to really push any other things, but Harry Potter has many parallels to the gospel story. It's a story of a boy who dies to rid the world of the most evil person the world has seen. Who chooses to sacrifice himself for the sake of those he loves, because he knows it's the right thing to do even when he knows he could probably save himself. Also he comes 'back to life' and through doing so destroys the 'evil one'.
I heard somewhere that many stories that come out of Hollywood have a subconscious parallel to the biblical story in the hero that seemingly dies and comes back to save the day. This is in countless movies, so what makes Harry Potter different, and am I not just reading into it a little too much? Possibly, but the same could probably be said for Paul when he was in Athens talking about the 'unknown God' and the fact that he knows who that is. After all how does Paul know that that is the God of Israel? He doesn't really, but he makes it into that from whatever they meant and changes the meaning to redeem it for God. This is the same sort of thing I want to do here. There is an undeniable parallel that exceeds the normal hero dying routine, and has many more parallels (even though this hero dying routine still makes an appearance). Yet, when I watched this and saw this scene with Voldemort telling others that they need to realign their allegiance, I got chills and could not ignore the incredible insight that this gave to the biblical story. Whether this is done on purpose or by accident is completely irrelevant. As Christians it is cool to redeem things and give them new meaning, and finding purpose whether it was intended or not.
These are my thoughts on the Harry Potter series, and there are a lot of trivial things that us Christians tend to dismiss right away as 'wrong' when in fact they might not actually be that bad. It is a matter of the heart and the mindset. By no means do these things take the place of the biblical story, or even sit on level ground as the biblical story, but they can help in understanding the biblical story and be used as a tool for Christians to evangelize to those who would dismiss religion and religious language. Who knows maybe these parallels could bring someone to Jesus Christ, through the story of Harry Potter. We never really know where we can redeem things for Christ, that doesn't mean we stop looking. So what else do you learn from Harry Potter?
So with that long and probably overdone introduction, I want to look at some aspects of the Harry Potter series and how they correlate to the Christian Faith. I think this first came up when I was watching the last movie, 'The Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.
Oh and by the way there is a lot that is going to be spoiled if you have not seen these movies and are wanting to, or don't know the storyline. So if you are wanting to watch/read them then I suggest reading this after you have.
I was watching the last Harry Potter movie and there is a point in the last movie where Voldemort thinks he has killed Harry and goes to Hogwarts carrying Harry's seemingly lifeless body. He comes to all of those that were fighting against him, and says to them, "from this day forth, you put your faith... in me". Cue the chills down my spine, not only because it is an eerie thing to say and a scary concept but also because this scene, to me, captures the Devil's mindset that came with the death of Jesus on the cross. In my mind I could almost carry over the meaning to the story of Jesus being crucified, and seeing Satan coming forward to the believers in Jesus saying, "from this day forth, you put your faith... in me". It is a possible small glimpse into what Satan could have been thinking with the death of Jesus, and is quite a humbling concept when you think of how the followers of Jesus must have felt in response. Needless to say that this came to my mind, and I started to see even more parallels between the biblical story and the story of Harry Potter.
It's the story of a boy who grows up with unheard of expectations from everyone on him. Who has the confidence of his peers and those above him that are expecting great things, while there are also those such as Malfoy who would rather stick to traditional wizardry and do not like the special treatment that seems to come to Harry and because of such treat him poorly and pick on him more than anyone else (*cough* Pharisees *cough*). In doing so they side with Voldemort, even if they are not really consciously doing so. Now in order to not risk taking things too far, I don't want to really push any other things, but Harry Potter has many parallels to the gospel story. It's a story of a boy who dies to rid the world of the most evil person the world has seen. Who chooses to sacrifice himself for the sake of those he loves, because he knows it's the right thing to do even when he knows he could probably save himself. Also he comes 'back to life' and through doing so destroys the 'evil one'.
I heard somewhere that many stories that come out of Hollywood have a subconscious parallel to the biblical story in the hero that seemingly dies and comes back to save the day. This is in countless movies, so what makes Harry Potter different, and am I not just reading into it a little too much? Possibly, but the same could probably be said for Paul when he was in Athens talking about the 'unknown God' and the fact that he knows who that is. After all how does Paul know that that is the God of Israel? He doesn't really, but he makes it into that from whatever they meant and changes the meaning to redeem it for God. This is the same sort of thing I want to do here. There is an undeniable parallel that exceeds the normal hero dying routine, and has many more parallels (even though this hero dying routine still makes an appearance). Yet, when I watched this and saw this scene with Voldemort telling others that they need to realign their allegiance, I got chills and could not ignore the incredible insight that this gave to the biblical story. Whether this is done on purpose or by accident is completely irrelevant. As Christians it is cool to redeem things and give them new meaning, and finding purpose whether it was intended or not.
These are my thoughts on the Harry Potter series, and there are a lot of trivial things that us Christians tend to dismiss right away as 'wrong' when in fact they might not actually be that bad. It is a matter of the heart and the mindset. By no means do these things take the place of the biblical story, or even sit on level ground as the biblical story, but they can help in understanding the biblical story and be used as a tool for Christians to evangelize to those who would dismiss religion and religious language. Who knows maybe these parallels could bring someone to Jesus Christ, through the story of Harry Potter. We never really know where we can redeem things for Christ, that doesn't mean we stop looking. So what else do you learn from Harry Potter?
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The Stove Top
I've grown up as a kid learning what is safe and what is not. It's not always an easy thing to learn, but it's the "don't take candy from strangers", "don't touch the stove top" type safety that we learn as kids. This is important, and a lot of the safety we learn in North America is learnt from our parents our experience. Yet, as we grow older there are things we tend to grow out of, and things that we need to learn anew. It's rarely explicitly communicated but are implicitly picked up. The real question is, are these lessons that we are picking up about what a "safe life" looks like what we should be living by? What is a proper balance between being smart and safe, and relying on God to supply safety and keep us safe.
For me, this question goes back to the sovereignty of God. what you believe about the Sovereignty of God will change your part in how you remain safe. How many times do we back away from things because of the lack of safety? One of the most interesting things about the bible is the definition of safety that guys like Paul, and Jeremiah seem to have. There are many puzzling texts that seem to point to God's protection and safe-keeping, even in the midst of physical harm coming upon them. For example, in Jeremiah chapter 20, Jeremiah has just been beaten by Pashur (a man of the temple I might add), and yet in his words to God, Jeremiah points to a God that is fighting on his behalf. He points to God rescuing "the life of the needy from the hands of the wicked". All of this after being beaten, whereas I think if this happened to me today I would probably be asking God where he is and why he is allowing this to happen, like I think many would.
The sense that one gets in reading these words and some of the words of Paul is that safety is not about physicality. They are not as worried about physical harm, as they are about God keeping them from evil. While it is easy to present a sort of dualism that can separate physical and spiritual safety, that is not the point but the point that I am trying to make is that they don't think of safety in the same way we do. They are more worried about doing God's will than whatever might happen to them. They are fully convinced that as long as they are working to further the kingdom then God will be faithful in his plan.
The faith in the plan and sovereignty of God is something that we don't really look at in our Western context. It is something that I have had the privilege of understanding just a little bit more this past year. If we can't trust in the plan of God, and if our idea of the plan of God is simply 'good' things according to us, then we are not really having faith in his plan. We too often mistake God's plan for what we think his plan should be. There are definitely promises in the Bible that God will give us good gifts, and that he wants what is best for us. I don't know if that means that it is always going to be in the way we imagine it. What if getting what is best requires something that we don't understand first! The tendency is to deem what we don't understand as not good, and thus we try and get what is good by our standards. I want to say above all, that the moment that we think we understand God is the moment that we think too highly of ourselves and too low of God.
Bottom line, one thing that I need to learn and I think much of our society needs to learn is how to rely on the safety and sovereignty of God. It involves trust when things are not going well and availability when things are going well. Our view of safety might not be exactly what it should be. This does not mean we are to act stupid, but it means that sometimes our own logic tends to be taken at higher value than our trust in God. These two need to work together, not in opposition.
Hopefully we can keep trusting in God to guide us and not our alarm system that was put in place when we were kids. Stay safe, at least God's definition of safety. Remember the worst they can do is send you to him.
For me, this question goes back to the sovereignty of God. what you believe about the Sovereignty of God will change your part in how you remain safe. How many times do we back away from things because of the lack of safety? One of the most interesting things about the bible is the definition of safety that guys like Paul, and Jeremiah seem to have. There are many puzzling texts that seem to point to God's protection and safe-keeping, even in the midst of physical harm coming upon them. For example, in Jeremiah chapter 20, Jeremiah has just been beaten by Pashur (a man of the temple I might add), and yet in his words to God, Jeremiah points to a God that is fighting on his behalf. He points to God rescuing "the life of the needy from the hands of the wicked". All of this after being beaten, whereas I think if this happened to me today I would probably be asking God where he is and why he is allowing this to happen, like I think many would.
The sense that one gets in reading these words and some of the words of Paul is that safety is not about physicality. They are not as worried about physical harm, as they are about God keeping them from evil. While it is easy to present a sort of dualism that can separate physical and spiritual safety, that is not the point but the point that I am trying to make is that they don't think of safety in the same way we do. They are more worried about doing God's will than whatever might happen to them. They are fully convinced that as long as they are working to further the kingdom then God will be faithful in his plan.
The faith in the plan and sovereignty of God is something that we don't really look at in our Western context. It is something that I have had the privilege of understanding just a little bit more this past year. If we can't trust in the plan of God, and if our idea of the plan of God is simply 'good' things according to us, then we are not really having faith in his plan. We too often mistake God's plan for what we think his plan should be. There are definitely promises in the Bible that God will give us good gifts, and that he wants what is best for us. I don't know if that means that it is always going to be in the way we imagine it. What if getting what is best requires something that we don't understand first! The tendency is to deem what we don't understand as not good, and thus we try and get what is good by our standards. I want to say above all, that the moment that we think we understand God is the moment that we think too highly of ourselves and too low of God.
Bottom line, one thing that I need to learn and I think much of our society needs to learn is how to rely on the safety and sovereignty of God. It involves trust when things are not going well and availability when things are going well. Our view of safety might not be exactly what it should be. This does not mean we are to act stupid, but it means that sometimes our own logic tends to be taken at higher value than our trust in God. These two need to work together, not in opposition.
Hopefully we can keep trusting in God to guide us and not our alarm system that was put in place when we were kids. Stay safe, at least God's definition of safety. Remember the worst they can do is send you to him.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
God is in the whisper
So I'm sure if you have been a believer for a while, you have asked the question, "why don't I hear God?" Your not alone in asking this question. I have asked it myself, as sometimes it is very frustrating that God does not talk audibly. However, our go to verse when thinking about the voice of God is 1 Kings 19:11. Elijah goes up on a mountain and is looking for the Lord because he is going to pass by. Now I think that this verse has been misinterpreted over the years. Elijah goes on the mountain because the Lord is going to "pass by". Yet, in our interpretation of it, our end result is hearing the voice of the Lord. Now these two could be related but just wait and bear with me. So Elijah goes onto the mountain to wait for the Lord to pass by. While on the mountain there is a wind, "but the Lord was not in the wind". Now this refrain is repeated three times with and earthquake, fire, and the previously mentioned wind. "But the Lord was not in the ____". After this "a sound of sheer silence". Now first off, this doesn't make any sense, because the sound of silence is contradictory, yet somehow Elijah 'heard' the silence. See we end here in a sense, because well Elijah hears the silence and then the voice speaks to him so God must have been in the silence right? Well, yes but I would ask you to think outside of the christianese box that has been given to you. Work outside the teaching that you have been given for a moment. Yes, God is in the silence, why? Because that refrain earlier is not repeated. Yet, there is mroe going on.
Elijah hears a silence, and then there comes a voice to him. Even if it is not a silence, if your translation says a whisper or a gentle blowing, it is always followed by a 'then a voice'. They are related and yet they are not. While God may be in the silence, or the gentle whisper or the blowing, that is not his voice. He speaks after Elijah hears it. God seems to be testing Elijah. The wind comes and God seems to be asking 'where are you looking for me Elijah'? Then the earthquake and God keeps on seeing if Elijah will stay, showing that he does not believe that the Lord has passed. Then the fire, and Elijah still stays. you see because if the Lord was in any of those, Elijah would have had no reason to remain where he was. What reason is there to stay after the Lord has passed? So Elijah's remaining there shows that he does not really believe the Lord has passed by yet. He passes God's test.
Then, God comes in the silence that follows, Elijah responds, and then God speaks. You see it seems to be just as much about God seeing where Elijah is looking for him as where God actually is. It is the same for us today. Are we looking for God in the earthquake events of life, where everything is huge and on a grand scale? Are we looking for God in the winds when we are blown about and life is not going as we want? Are we looking for God in the fires when the heat is on and you don't know what to do? And are we really looking for God in the silence? I'll ask again, are we really looking for God in the silence?
Those other areas are where it's easy to look for God. You can see the result of God's work in them, and you can see the effect of God in them. Yet, God wants us to look for him in the silence. when the pressure is off, when you have that time of rest, when you have no other things that need to get done. When you are going to relax and have down-time. Is that when you look for him? Maybe we should start...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)