I was thinking the other day about the walk of Christians and the walk of non-Christians and that intersection point. There is a tension that has been present for probably as long as Christians have been around on how to live in the world in light of the gospel. Then I started thinking of what I have seen in our culture and society and how Christians walk compared to non-Christians.
Every Christian would not disagree that our lives are meant to be a witness to those that we come in contact with. The easy part is establishing this, the hard part has always been how and in what way do we do this? I think that for every person you talk to you will probably get a little bit different of a variation on how Christians are supposed to witness to those around them. I do not have the answer for this question, just to burst that bubble and so you don't get to the end of reading this and wonder where in the world the parting of the clouds and great epiphany went. However I do want to pose a question that should maybe get us all thinking about how we are living. I think that for the most part we (Christians) have enveloped ourself in our culture so much that nobody really can tell the difference. We watch the same t.v. shows, we listen to some of the same music, we possibly (depending on your convictions) drink the same drinks, and for the most part we actually have the same attitudes as the people around us. whether that is an attitude of consumerism, or an attitude of laziness, or an attitude of alcoholism, there is not much that separates us from them (and I shudder to use the old 'us'' and 'them' terminology but it just is the easiest to use).
So then, the question I want to pose is what makes your life different enough that people actually can look at you and notice that you live a life different than others? Now it's easy to say "well I believe different things" or "I have more love, or more joy than others", but the reality is, if no one is noticing (and granted you might not hear about if people are noticing) then perhaps possibly you are doing something wrong, or not allowing Christ to do his part in your life. It's nothing concrete and I am not thinking about anything in particular but it is fairly clear in the Bible that Christians are supposed to be a witness that people notice. It is not a matter of words and I think this is where the famous saying by St. Francis rings the most true "share the gospel, use words if necessary" (paraphrase). This quote has actually always rubbed me the wrong way to be honest, I always thought it was ridiculous, the gospel could not be told simply through actions, but the heart I think of the quote is that our actions should be enough that people notice a different, can I use "counter-cultural" aspect. What in your life is counter-cultural? Church does not count, I asked what in your life, not what day in your week that non-Christians aren't a part of, is counter-cultural, but what could others point to in your life and either not understand, or point to your Christianity.
Again, this is not to point fingers at others, saying I don't recognize your faith, or you are doing something wrong. It is merely an honest question that I think we Christians could benefit from, a little more, if we were willing to re-evaluate ourselves every once in a while.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
A Question of Glee
If you have ever watched the hit t.v. show Glee you know the motto that they profess: be who you are and don't let anyone change that. Now whether you like the show or not this is an interesting concept and a prevalent one in our culture. One of the most common areas where this is addressed is in the gay-lesbian discussion among Christians and non-Christians alike. There are people that say they were born gay or lesbian, and then Christians say, no you weren't, and the back and forth continues with no progress. Now the catchphrase among Christians in regards to this is "hate the sin not the person", which leaves a sort of bitter taste in the mouth with people wondering how in the world that works out. Now I don't really want to talk about that part at all but as my random mind thought about the new season of Glee and such at work (yes I watch the show and enjoy it) I thought about their message to people, the one that can be seen almost anywhere you look in society: the rise of Lady Gaga, the relativistic attitude towards religion, the "positive mental attitude" movement, etc. So I want to pose two questions then: is this a good thing to be professing? and what is the difference between Glee's "being who you are", and being who God made you to be?
Here is the difference. Pop culture just says that we should just accept people's dispositions without question because that must have been how they were born. If they were born that way then what right does anybody have to try and change. The problem comes with the fact that nobody can even question if that disposition is by choice or natural, because that would be offensive even if it seems that it is a choice. However I think there is a way that God made us to be. Now this does not mean that all of us were made to be the same, it also doesn't mean that Christians have a reason to not be loving or to start being judgmental, however I also don't think that having such a flimsy stance on certain things is good or healthy, it allows for us to sit in our sinful nature without having to work towards that person God made us to be. I don't think God made anyone to be gay, or a chronic liar, or a thief, or lustful, or a plethora of other things. How do I know? Because God is none of those things, and he made us in his image. I still think that God wants us to be an individual and he gives us personalities and passions and desires that make us unique and we should not be ashamed of those things. I am not ashamed of the fact that I like the show Glee even though some people think I should be.
I used to struggle with anger issues, and the slightest thing would tip me off (a lot of things were small and ridiculous). I always thought that it was just kind of the way I was, after all it's not like I thought 'I'm going to lose my temper and freak-out, and look like and idiot'. It seemed to be a natural reaction, and I thought that I might deal with it my whole life. You want to know the one thing that started to change my attitude problems? My mom had a conversation in the car after an explosion at a baseball game and told me that it was my choice whether I got angry or not. As soon as that realization that I had a choice came (and by the grace of God) I started to change that attitude and today people can hardly believe that I used to have anger issues. In fact, I think I am most complimented on my always smiling, and laughing. What a turnaround eh? So why did it happen? Because I refused to believe that I was just angry by nature, and I started instead to work towards who God made me to be. Now I realize that it's not an easy process to change some of those things that seem to be such a part of who we are, but it's a worthwhile process. So the challenge that I have is not necessarily to finger wag at people and say that they are not actually just born gay, but to try and point and guide people to show them who God made them to be. It's a worthwhile question to ask: was I born this way? Really, were you?
Here is the difference. Pop culture just says that we should just accept people's dispositions without question because that must have been how they were born. If they were born that way then what right does anybody have to try and change. The problem comes with the fact that nobody can even question if that disposition is by choice or natural, because that would be offensive even if it seems that it is a choice. However I think there is a way that God made us to be. Now this does not mean that all of us were made to be the same, it also doesn't mean that Christians have a reason to not be loving or to start being judgmental, however I also don't think that having such a flimsy stance on certain things is good or healthy, it allows for us to sit in our sinful nature without having to work towards that person God made us to be. I don't think God made anyone to be gay, or a chronic liar, or a thief, or lustful, or a plethora of other things. How do I know? Because God is none of those things, and he made us in his image. I still think that God wants us to be an individual and he gives us personalities and passions and desires that make us unique and we should not be ashamed of those things. I am not ashamed of the fact that I like the show Glee even though some people think I should be.
I used to struggle with anger issues, and the slightest thing would tip me off (a lot of things were small and ridiculous). I always thought that it was just kind of the way I was, after all it's not like I thought 'I'm going to lose my temper and freak-out, and look like and idiot'. It seemed to be a natural reaction, and I thought that I might deal with it my whole life. You want to know the one thing that started to change my attitude problems? My mom had a conversation in the car after an explosion at a baseball game and told me that it was my choice whether I got angry or not. As soon as that realization that I had a choice came (and by the grace of God) I started to change that attitude and today people can hardly believe that I used to have anger issues. In fact, I think I am most complimented on my always smiling, and laughing. What a turnaround eh? So why did it happen? Because I refused to believe that I was just angry by nature, and I started instead to work towards who God made me to be. Now I realize that it's not an easy process to change some of those things that seem to be such a part of who we are, but it's a worthwhile process. So the challenge that I have is not necessarily to finger wag at people and say that they are not actually just born gay, but to try and point and guide people to show them who God made them to be. It's a worthwhile question to ask: was I born this way? Really, were you?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Love Indifference
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)