To all the years I've loved before...
that have traveled in and out my door...
I dedicate this song...
To all the goods and wrongs...
In all the years I've loved before.
2009 was not so good.
It really tested all my brood.
But despite all the calamity,
we managed to live free
in the land of amazing brotherhood.
2010 should be great.
Throughout the world and in our state.
We hope for peace and prosperity,
For all the world and you and me,
Let God's love be our fate.
To all the years I've loved before...
The years that carried hopes of more...
I dedicate my life...
in the hope of ending strife...
In all the world forevermore!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Avatar - meh? 2 out of 5 stars.
Some stories should never be written. This is the one truth that Hollywood can never seem to grasp. They keep doing remakes and retellings of stories that didn't need to be remade or retold. Is it creative bankruptcy? Some sort of Hollywood formula? Or simple blindness amongst producers and writers? I don't think there is an easy answer.
When I started my novel, I knew the time was finally ripe for telling a story that had been rambling around in my brain for fifteen years. I wrote and wrote and wrote. After five years I gave up for two reasons - first, the story had a structural problem. But second, and more importantly, I realized that my story had outlived its useful life. The world had changed too much for my story to ever work... which brings me to AVATAR.
Now before I go any further, I want to say that there may be spoilers ahead. Although the biggest problem with AVATAR is the story's lack of originality, I still think you should see it spoiler free and enjoy it for what the producer and writer intended. So if you haven't seen the movie, turn away now... Go ahead, we'll wait...
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1...
This film achieves heights of visual accomplishment not seen in a long time. The environment is just that crisp. When you add the layers of wildlife and the imaginative takes on animals and geography, it all adds up to one of the most astonishing film looks since The Lord of the Rings pilfered New Zealand and turned it into Middle Earth. However, a film begins, middles and ends with story - and that is where this film dies on the vine.
As compelling as the visuals were, if the story had really been churning out at an equal rate, the visuals would have been even more spectacular. For example, in the films best sequence where Jake has to bond with his first flying dragon thingy, the story and the visuals are equal, creating a fantastic sequence that almost seemed like a completely different movie. As these characters had to climb up to the floating sky islands and then bond with one of the dragons before plunging to near certain death made for the most compelling moments of film this year - both visually and creatively entertaining, with story and image in sync. If the rest of the film was as interesting as these few minutes, I would have been thrilled.
The problems with the story begin right away. There are logic problems with the set up. Our hero is a wounded marine who agrees to work for a space corporation to replace his dead brother in the Avatar project. He goes to Pandora where this corporation is mining a miracle substance called unobtanium (I'm not making that up) that does something or other - its never explained with the implication being that its not important as to what it does. At one point, Jake illustrates this point by saying something to the effect that, "They have something we want, so we take it." Upon arriving at Pandora, Jake is immediately cast as the middle ground between mindless automaton Scientists and mindless automaton Soldiers, both being played against each other by the evil Corporation. The xenophobic soldiers don't see the aliens as the indigenous peoples on the planet, but as stupid savages in the way of progress. The scientists, on the other hand, see them as some sort of enlightened culture that could bring humanity back to us if we could just learn from them. Jake is just happy to run in his giant blue Avatar. The problems, of course, are that the film is set up as an analogy. We are not presented with real human beings or real aliens. We are presented with stereotypical view points (good guys = scientists, bad guys = soldiers) and we aren't ever given any contradictory evidence. All scientists are good, all soldiers are bad. And the Navi are a god fearing alien race that lives in peace and harmony with everything. So, of course, we hate them. Because we're greedy.
The whole world that Cameron created doesn't make any sense from that point of view. Quick, write a prequel in your mind. How did humans find this planet? How did we determine there was this mineral on the planet? How did we manage to set up a giant base there? Did the Navi not realize that we humans were there? Did we humans not realize that we would have to wipe out the Navi in order to rape their planet? Its stated right at the beginning that the Navi want to kill all the humans and yet they seem to tolerate these obvious Avatar's in their midst? Why? None of this made any sense... and from that point forward, the stupidity begins to pile more on top of a story that is already built on a pretty shaky base.
The Navi had been at war until they were brought together at the beginning of the time of sorrow (presumably when the humans arrived, though never clearly stated). Why didn't they try to kill the humans then? When the humans first attack (about half way through the movie), the Navi try to kill them with bows and arrows - with the arrows just bouncing off the ships. Have they never fought humans before? Haven't they been killing humans for years before this? So why don't they know their arrows are ineffective? Shouldn't they already know how to kill humans? And isn't this environment supposed to be extremely hostile to humans? And yet these space marines are constantly wiping the floor with their primitive counterparts without doing anything more strenuous than pulling a trigger. Heck, they march in a straight line and fire their guns and the Navi charge right at them like Pickett at Gettysburg with the same result. And if the Navi are supposedly so peaceful and harmonious, why have a warrior clan or warrior mentality at all? If they are one with nature, why learn how to kill others? Why have that become the basis for your entire culture and your entire manhood ritual?
I could go on and on and on. But the gist of the problem is this, in trying to borrow the story of Dances with Wolves, they took all the parts of the story that they liked and left the rest behind. The Navi were so much like Native Americans that even the space horses looked like they'd just been hijacked off the wall of a Native American petroglyph. And yet, the Navi had none of the associated history attached - no trail of tears, no Little Big Horn, no Plains Indians and counting coups and Buffalo Hunts... nothing like that - like some sanitized version of American Indians, like a really fuzzy shadow of them. And the marines weren't much better - dumb grunts that go off to fight because, of course, they're blood thirsty savages who follow orders because they're marines. Fire on innocent men, women and children - okay. Do it for some dumb corporation - might as well. There was no motivation for them, as they too were scrubbed clean of all the massacres they'd been privy to, all the civil war fighting, all the fear of being scalped. As a writer, if you simplify your analogy too much, it ceases to have meaning. And it really becomes problemsome when you have such a clear cut analogy that has been stripped of most of its meaning. What we're left with is a message that says, human beings bad, native creatures good. Or more simply, Greed is bad. At nearly three hours, to be left with a message like that makes the whole affair seem rather pretentious.
I'd like to be able to say that I liked the movie while I was watching it but formed all these opinions after the fact, but the truth is that these problems were so glaring, I was bothered by them throughout. In the battle scene at the end where the aliens fight back by flying in from above on their flying dragons and shooting arrows through the windshields of the helicopters, my only thought was... "When did they figure out how to do that? Or is it just that somehow the windshields are now more brittle and arrows can pass through them?" I'm thinking this as I'm watching the movie, which is never a good sign. But I did have one revelation after the movie that is the basis of my argument here.
Years ago, right after Titanic came out and Cameron was talking up his new 3-D technology idea, he suggested that his next project would be a TV series about a real life mission to Mars. When I got home last night and my eyes were still caressing the incredible visuals of Avatar while my brain spewed hatred on the story, it occurred to me that if Cameron had decided to use this technology with a story about going to Mars, the film would have been completely incredible. So compelling were the visuals that had they been slaved together with a story worthy of them, Cameron really would have changed film making forever. And that was when I realized that the end result of all my bitching about the story came down to the fact that the film LOOKED great, but the story was a complete waste of time. It should never have been written. There was no reason to even tell the story. It was a story we'd all heard before and it had been told better by someone else.
So overall, I'd have to give the movie a C- at best. It was visually stunning, but the story was so weak that my brain protested while I was watching the movie. It was like biting into a nice juicy steak only to discover that it was actually a plastic dog toy that goes squeak. You still have a nice dog toy, but the meal you were promised is only a distant memory.
When I started my novel, I knew the time was finally ripe for telling a story that had been rambling around in my brain for fifteen years. I wrote and wrote and wrote. After five years I gave up for two reasons - first, the story had a structural problem. But second, and more importantly, I realized that my story had outlived its useful life. The world had changed too much for my story to ever work... which brings me to AVATAR.
Now before I go any further, I want to say that there may be spoilers ahead. Although the biggest problem with AVATAR is the story's lack of originality, I still think you should see it spoiler free and enjoy it for what the producer and writer intended. So if you haven't seen the movie, turn away now... Go ahead, we'll wait...
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1...
This film achieves heights of visual accomplishment not seen in a long time. The environment is just that crisp. When you add the layers of wildlife and the imaginative takes on animals and geography, it all adds up to one of the most astonishing film looks since The Lord of the Rings pilfered New Zealand and turned it into Middle Earth. However, a film begins, middles and ends with story - and that is where this film dies on the vine.
As compelling as the visuals were, if the story had really been churning out at an equal rate, the visuals would have been even more spectacular. For example, in the films best sequence where Jake has to bond with his first flying dragon thingy, the story and the visuals are equal, creating a fantastic sequence that almost seemed like a completely different movie. As these characters had to climb up to the floating sky islands and then bond with one of the dragons before plunging to near certain death made for the most compelling moments of film this year - both visually and creatively entertaining, with story and image in sync. If the rest of the film was as interesting as these few minutes, I would have been thrilled.
The problems with the story begin right away. There are logic problems with the set up. Our hero is a wounded marine who agrees to work for a space corporation to replace his dead brother in the Avatar project. He goes to Pandora where this corporation is mining a miracle substance called unobtanium (I'm not making that up) that does something or other - its never explained with the implication being that its not important as to what it does. At one point, Jake illustrates this point by saying something to the effect that, "They have something we want, so we take it." Upon arriving at Pandora, Jake is immediately cast as the middle ground between mindless automaton Scientists and mindless automaton Soldiers, both being played against each other by the evil Corporation. The xenophobic soldiers don't see the aliens as the indigenous peoples on the planet, but as stupid savages in the way of progress. The scientists, on the other hand, see them as some sort of enlightened culture that could bring humanity back to us if we could just learn from them. Jake is just happy to run in his giant blue Avatar. The problems, of course, are that the film is set up as an analogy. We are not presented with real human beings or real aliens. We are presented with stereotypical view points (good guys = scientists, bad guys = soldiers) and we aren't ever given any contradictory evidence. All scientists are good, all soldiers are bad. And the Navi are a god fearing alien race that lives in peace and harmony with everything. So, of course, we hate them. Because we're greedy.
The whole world that Cameron created doesn't make any sense from that point of view. Quick, write a prequel in your mind. How did humans find this planet? How did we determine there was this mineral on the planet? How did we manage to set up a giant base there? Did the Navi not realize that we humans were there? Did we humans not realize that we would have to wipe out the Navi in order to rape their planet? Its stated right at the beginning that the Navi want to kill all the humans and yet they seem to tolerate these obvious Avatar's in their midst? Why? None of this made any sense... and from that point forward, the stupidity begins to pile more on top of a story that is already built on a pretty shaky base.
The Navi had been at war until they were brought together at the beginning of the time of sorrow (presumably when the humans arrived, though never clearly stated). Why didn't they try to kill the humans then? When the humans first attack (about half way through the movie), the Navi try to kill them with bows and arrows - with the arrows just bouncing off the ships. Have they never fought humans before? Haven't they been killing humans for years before this? So why don't they know their arrows are ineffective? Shouldn't they already know how to kill humans? And isn't this environment supposed to be extremely hostile to humans? And yet these space marines are constantly wiping the floor with their primitive counterparts without doing anything more strenuous than pulling a trigger. Heck, they march in a straight line and fire their guns and the Navi charge right at them like Pickett at Gettysburg with the same result. And if the Navi are supposedly so peaceful and harmonious, why have a warrior clan or warrior mentality at all? If they are one with nature, why learn how to kill others? Why have that become the basis for your entire culture and your entire manhood ritual?
I could go on and on and on. But the gist of the problem is this, in trying to borrow the story of Dances with Wolves, they took all the parts of the story that they liked and left the rest behind. The Navi were so much like Native Americans that even the space horses looked like they'd just been hijacked off the wall of a Native American petroglyph. And yet, the Navi had none of the associated history attached - no trail of tears, no Little Big Horn, no Plains Indians and counting coups and Buffalo Hunts... nothing like that - like some sanitized version of American Indians, like a really fuzzy shadow of them. And the marines weren't much better - dumb grunts that go off to fight because, of course, they're blood thirsty savages who follow orders because they're marines. Fire on innocent men, women and children - okay. Do it for some dumb corporation - might as well. There was no motivation for them, as they too were scrubbed clean of all the massacres they'd been privy to, all the civil war fighting, all the fear of being scalped. As a writer, if you simplify your analogy too much, it ceases to have meaning. And it really becomes problemsome when you have such a clear cut analogy that has been stripped of most of its meaning. What we're left with is a message that says, human beings bad, native creatures good. Or more simply, Greed is bad. At nearly three hours, to be left with a message like that makes the whole affair seem rather pretentious.
I'd like to be able to say that I liked the movie while I was watching it but formed all these opinions after the fact, but the truth is that these problems were so glaring, I was bothered by them throughout. In the battle scene at the end where the aliens fight back by flying in from above on their flying dragons and shooting arrows through the windshields of the helicopters, my only thought was... "When did they figure out how to do that? Or is it just that somehow the windshields are now more brittle and arrows can pass through them?" I'm thinking this as I'm watching the movie, which is never a good sign. But I did have one revelation after the movie that is the basis of my argument here.
Years ago, right after Titanic came out and Cameron was talking up his new 3-D technology idea, he suggested that his next project would be a TV series about a real life mission to Mars. When I got home last night and my eyes were still caressing the incredible visuals of Avatar while my brain spewed hatred on the story, it occurred to me that if Cameron had decided to use this technology with a story about going to Mars, the film would have been completely incredible. So compelling were the visuals that had they been slaved together with a story worthy of them, Cameron really would have changed film making forever. And that was when I realized that the end result of all my bitching about the story came down to the fact that the film LOOKED great, but the story was a complete waste of time. It should never have been written. There was no reason to even tell the story. It was a story we'd all heard before and it had been told better by someone else.
So overall, I'd have to give the movie a C- at best. It was visually stunning, but the story was so weak that my brain protested while I was watching the movie. It was like biting into a nice juicy steak only to discover that it was actually a plastic dog toy that goes squeak. You still have a nice dog toy, but the meal you were promised is only a distant memory.
Friday, December 18, 2009
I'm too tired to think of anything clever...
I hate GAP. I hate their smug little "holiday" commercial. I hate any song that makes light of this season. I hate the atheists who are trying to hijack my Christmas by making it seem as if I'm an ogre for reminding people that there wouldn't be a Christmas without Christ. There's no hope without Christ either, but I'm not going to harp on that.
I like egg nog and Santa and Christmas shopping and all the commercial aspects of Christmas, but I adore advent calendars and wreaths and children dressed up like angels and all of those wonderfully glorious Christmas hymns. I don't mind if people of other faiths and beliefs (or lack thereof) want to enjoy Christmas too. But don't try and take my holiday from me because I happen to take it seriously. For you this might be all fun and games and football and food and cheap TV's under a fake plastic tree. For me this is a holy season that is supposed to bring out the best in humanity - peace, love, joy, and hope. You can have all of these things too at no extra charge, but I'm afraid you will have to embrace a bigger picture of Christmas than some Saturday evening holiday special can give you on a cable channel.
So to those who are trying to destroy Christmas in order to preserve their holiday, I say back off. You don't have to believe that Jesus is the reason for the season, but don't try to ruin it for the rest of us... or so help me, I'll make it my mission to go to every public school in the country and tell all the kids that there's no such thing as Santa Claus. ;)
I like egg nog and Santa and Christmas shopping and all the commercial aspects of Christmas, but I adore advent calendars and wreaths and children dressed up like angels and all of those wonderfully glorious Christmas hymns. I don't mind if people of other faiths and beliefs (or lack thereof) want to enjoy Christmas too. But don't try and take my holiday from me because I happen to take it seriously. For you this might be all fun and games and football and food and cheap TV's under a fake plastic tree. For me this is a holy season that is supposed to bring out the best in humanity - peace, love, joy, and hope. You can have all of these things too at no extra charge, but I'm afraid you will have to embrace a bigger picture of Christmas than some Saturday evening holiday special can give you on a cable channel.
So to those who are trying to destroy Christmas in order to preserve their holiday, I say back off. You don't have to believe that Jesus is the reason for the season, but don't try to ruin it for the rest of us... or so help me, I'll make it my mission to go to every public school in the country and tell all the kids that there's no such thing as Santa Claus. ;)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ninety Days without Ninety Days In The Bible - Day One
For approximately the last 90 days or so (give or take a week or two), my good friend, brother from another mother, and blog buddy, Andy at A Mile From The Beach has been writing about his journey through the Bible - reading it as part of a church program called The Bible in 90 Days. He has literally read the entire Bible in 90 Days. It took me 150 days to get through Psalms (one book of the Bible for those that don't know) so count me already impressed. But what impressed me more is the fact that he wrote a blog posting for every single day of his journey about his journey through the Bible. Now that he's finished reading the Bible, I find myself going into withdrawl. I had really gotten used to coming and visiting his blog post every day and advancing through the Bible with him (in leaps and bounds).
Of course, I shall have to endure without Andy's journey. So, in order to make it up to myself and to others that might be experiencing similar withdrawl symptoms, I have once again peaked ahead to 90 Days in the future to see what life will be like after 90 days without 90 Days In The Bible. Instead of pre-printing 90 Days worth of blogs, however, I have summarized the important blog titles for the next 90 days of Andy's blog.
Day One - Something about Andy's continual denial of certain events at the Grand Canyon. I think this is available for reading now.
Day Nine - A Christmas wish for everyone.
Day Fifteen - Andy reveals his New Year's resolution surprise.
Day Thirty One - Andy's first day at his online seminary.
Day Fifty - Andy's blog is a tribute to his good friend Will who is leaving for Kenya.
Day Fifty Five - Andy is deemed to advanced for regular seminary and is skipped a few years
Day Sixty - Andy reports Will's sad news that he's decided not to return to the USA.
Day Sixty Five - Andy graduates from Seminary.
Day Seventy Five - Andy is called as a new pastor at First Church of Recreationalism in Alamosa, CO.
Day Ninety - Andy launches new Bible in 90 Days at his new church.
Wow... quite a busy 90 day period. The only question, dear Spirit, is whether this a vision of things to come, or things that Might Yet come. Only time will tell...
Of course, I shall have to endure without Andy's journey. So, in order to make it up to myself and to others that might be experiencing similar withdrawl symptoms, I have once again peaked ahead to 90 Days in the future to see what life will be like after 90 days without 90 Days In The Bible. Instead of pre-printing 90 Days worth of blogs, however, I have summarized the important blog titles for the next 90 days of Andy's blog.
Day One - Something about Andy's continual denial of certain events at the Grand Canyon. I think this is available for reading now.
Day Nine - A Christmas wish for everyone.
Day Fifteen - Andy reveals his New Year's resolution surprise.
Day Thirty One - Andy's first day at his online seminary.
Day Fifty - Andy's blog is a tribute to his good friend Will who is leaving for Kenya.
Day Fifty Five - Andy is deemed to advanced for regular seminary and is skipped a few years
Day Sixty - Andy reports Will's sad news that he's decided not to return to the USA.
Day Sixty Five - Andy graduates from Seminary.
Day Seventy Five - Andy is called as a new pastor at First Church of Recreationalism in Alamosa, CO.
Day Ninety - Andy launches new Bible in 90 Days at his new church.
Wow... quite a busy 90 day period. The only question, dear Spirit, is whether this a vision of things to come, or things that Might Yet come. Only time will tell...
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Reformed and always reforming... part two
You'd think that after 700 blog posts (this being 701) I'd have figured out some of the basics of theology and Christianity. Not even close. In fact, I still struggle with what is, on one level, an argument about gays and lesbians in the church, but at another level is a fundamental question about scripture, faith, and love - and which takes precedence.
I have been moved to revive this argument because of a response to the previous blog in this article by Underground Pewster. If you haven't read the original blog post (Reformed and always reforming) I suggest you do so at this time, because I'm not going to review it again. U.P. wrote that in that case a NO vote would have also been a loving vote. Randall joined in with U.P. to note that often times telling someone no is the best thing for them and does not mean that you love them even less. Not to be too argumentative, but I had figured that angle out on my own. And to counter that, I could simply state the obvious cliche that one can say No for good reasons and out of love and still be wrong (like in all those movies where a parent wants what's best for a child and refuses to see that they are stifling his/her creativity).
What none of these previous posts have done is address the fundamental question - and perhaps that's why I'm still struggling with the subject - what should the role of scripture be in our daily lives as opposed to love and faith (and as part of love and faith as well). I don't wish to throw these various things in contrast to each other. I strongly suspect that in leading perfect God Oriented lives that all of these things fit together seamlessly so that to follow scripture is to love and is to be faithful. But there are stark contrasts to what the Bible shows and contradictions in the Biblical story as well.
Nevermind the fact that most Christians ignore a good 90% or more of Leviticus. We all know that Jesus broke the veil and freed us from the law. And yet, He also said that He didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If that's the case, and the law still applies to us, why don't we follow Leviticus anymore? Or, perhaps more poignantly, why do we only follow certain aspects of it?
I am also cognizant of the story of Peter's vision in Acts where he interpreted that the eating of any kind of food was now allowed. This also led to the removal of circumcision as a requirement of being a Christian. None of these things was ever addressed by word from Jesus, and yet they are accepted practice in Christianity today.
While He was alive, Jesus did make note that the law had its limits. He reminded the Pharisees that if a man fell down a well on the sabbath, it would not be against the law to rescue him even if that particular task seemed to break the holy sabbath (nor would it be against the law to feed hungry men as in the case of David). In all cases where Jesus disturbed the law keepers of the day, the litmus test seemed to be that He was showing His love to others - feeding the hungry, saving the dying, protecting people from stoning, etc... So, by His own acts, it would appear that Love triumphed over Law any day of the week.
That idea has been poking around in my head for a while now. I've also been thinking about something Jesus told his disciples - From now on whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you condemn on earth will be condemned in Heaven.
The problem with laws is that they don't have the flexibility to deal with people. They are always black and white. This is right. This is wrong. There can be no grey area. But real life isn't black and white. Therefore law needs to be tempered with something else to avoid it being too out of touch with reality. That something else is love in all its component forms - wisdom, compassion, and mercy. That laws sometimes outgrow reality is obvious. The world changes and laws need to change with it.
But also people change and the laws need to change with people. Perhaps that's what Jesus was trying to tell his disciples. The law is important and always will be, but my kingdom isn't static. It will grow with time and you will need to be its advocates. As the world changes, you will change with it. But one thing will never change - my love for my church. Therefore, if you ask me to change my law, it will be changed.
I think the church is being tested. Are we going to exclude certain people because of scripture in the same way that the Pharisees did in Jesus's time? Or are we going to embrace everyone because Jesus's love is great enough to overcome all sin - whether it be pork, or divorce, or working on the sabbath, or homosexuality? What kind of church are we? And where do we draw the line?
Randall made an excellent point in his very first response to the previous blog post - going away from scripture is the path to madness. But can you disagree with scripture and still be cognizant of what it says? I've read Leviticus a bunch of times, but it doesn't make me harken to those rules and regulations (though I think owning willing slaves for six years, so long as I release them on the 7th year might be kind of cool ;) Yet, I am still aware of what the law says.
As a last point, I think this issue is more relevant in other parts of the world than in the United States. I know that the Vatican has recently said that any homosexuality is a terrible sin - thus throwing all of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters under the proverbial bus. And in Uganda, they are about to enforce criminalization of homosexuality to the point of death in some cases. In contrast to these more serious issues, the calling of a pastor seems almost unimportant. And yet, the arguments are the same in all cases - Holy Scripture vs. Real People. We are no doubt getting it wrong no matter which side we fall upon. But I think I'd rather err on the side of love and inclusion than hate and exclusion - and then sort it out later when I'm much wiser.
I have been moved to revive this argument because of a response to the previous blog in this article by Underground Pewster. If you haven't read the original blog post (Reformed and always reforming) I suggest you do so at this time, because I'm not going to review it again. U.P. wrote that in that case a NO vote would have also been a loving vote. Randall joined in with U.P. to note that often times telling someone no is the best thing for them and does not mean that you love them even less. Not to be too argumentative, but I had figured that angle out on my own. And to counter that, I could simply state the obvious cliche that one can say No for good reasons and out of love and still be wrong (like in all those movies where a parent wants what's best for a child and refuses to see that they are stifling his/her creativity).
What none of these previous posts have done is address the fundamental question - and perhaps that's why I'm still struggling with the subject - what should the role of scripture be in our daily lives as opposed to love and faith (and as part of love and faith as well). I don't wish to throw these various things in contrast to each other. I strongly suspect that in leading perfect God Oriented lives that all of these things fit together seamlessly so that to follow scripture is to love and is to be faithful. But there are stark contrasts to what the Bible shows and contradictions in the Biblical story as well.
Nevermind the fact that most Christians ignore a good 90% or more of Leviticus. We all know that Jesus broke the veil and freed us from the law. And yet, He also said that He didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If that's the case, and the law still applies to us, why don't we follow Leviticus anymore? Or, perhaps more poignantly, why do we only follow certain aspects of it?
I am also cognizant of the story of Peter's vision in Acts where he interpreted that the eating of any kind of food was now allowed. This also led to the removal of circumcision as a requirement of being a Christian. None of these things was ever addressed by word from Jesus, and yet they are accepted practice in Christianity today.
While He was alive, Jesus did make note that the law had its limits. He reminded the Pharisees that if a man fell down a well on the sabbath, it would not be against the law to rescue him even if that particular task seemed to break the holy sabbath (nor would it be against the law to feed hungry men as in the case of David). In all cases where Jesus disturbed the law keepers of the day, the litmus test seemed to be that He was showing His love to others - feeding the hungry, saving the dying, protecting people from stoning, etc... So, by His own acts, it would appear that Love triumphed over Law any day of the week.
That idea has been poking around in my head for a while now. I've also been thinking about something Jesus told his disciples - From now on whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you condemn on earth will be condemned in Heaven.
The problem with laws is that they don't have the flexibility to deal with people. They are always black and white. This is right. This is wrong. There can be no grey area. But real life isn't black and white. Therefore law needs to be tempered with something else to avoid it being too out of touch with reality. That something else is love in all its component forms - wisdom, compassion, and mercy. That laws sometimes outgrow reality is obvious. The world changes and laws need to change with it.
But also people change and the laws need to change with people. Perhaps that's what Jesus was trying to tell his disciples. The law is important and always will be, but my kingdom isn't static. It will grow with time and you will need to be its advocates. As the world changes, you will change with it. But one thing will never change - my love for my church. Therefore, if you ask me to change my law, it will be changed.
I think the church is being tested. Are we going to exclude certain people because of scripture in the same way that the Pharisees did in Jesus's time? Or are we going to embrace everyone because Jesus's love is great enough to overcome all sin - whether it be pork, or divorce, or working on the sabbath, or homosexuality? What kind of church are we? And where do we draw the line?
Randall made an excellent point in his very first response to the previous blog post - going away from scripture is the path to madness. But can you disagree with scripture and still be cognizant of what it says? I've read Leviticus a bunch of times, but it doesn't make me harken to those rules and regulations (though I think owning willing slaves for six years, so long as I release them on the 7th year might be kind of cool ;) Yet, I am still aware of what the law says.
As a last point, I think this issue is more relevant in other parts of the world than in the United States. I know that the Vatican has recently said that any homosexuality is a terrible sin - thus throwing all of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters under the proverbial bus. And in Uganda, they are about to enforce criminalization of homosexuality to the point of death in some cases. In contrast to these more serious issues, the calling of a pastor seems almost unimportant. And yet, the arguments are the same in all cases - Holy Scripture vs. Real People. We are no doubt getting it wrong no matter which side we fall upon. But I think I'd rather err on the side of love and inclusion than hate and exclusion - and then sort it out later when I'm much wiser.
Monday, December 07, 2009
The Book of Will - Chapter One
Chapter One
The Parable of the Beloved King
Once there was a kingdom that knew peace and a king that was beloved by his people. Everywhere the king went, the people of the land would praise him and shower him with adoration.
Whatever the king wanted, the people would provide. When he was in need of a new palace, they didn't hesitate to build it for him. When he wanted to travel to other countries, the people sent him gladly and awaited his return with open arms. When he needed funds for any project, the people taxed themselves to pay for it. When he asked for any sort of support, the people were always generous with their response.
However, the king was aware of the love being shown to kings in other lands. Other kings has nicer palaces and their people generated even more tax money for bigger projects. The king began to wonder how much his people loved him. He started to ask for even more money and was pleased to see that the people responded without reservation. He knew that the people loved and respected him because of all that they eagerly provided to him.
One day, however, in the midst of a famine, the people asked the king if they might decrease their tax burden for the year since many of the people were struggling to feed their families. The king felt affronted. He wondered why the people no longer respected him. He felt that any less money in his coffers was a clear indication of the people's disrespect. He made it very clear to his people that no only would he not decrease their burden, but he expected it to be increased as a sign of their love to him. Any less and he threatened to leave their kingdom and go where he was truly respected.
The king was overthrown and the people rejoiced. And the land once again had peace.
Woe to any king that puts respect before honor.
The Parable of the Beloved King
Once there was a kingdom that knew peace and a king that was beloved by his people. Everywhere the king went, the people of the land would praise him and shower him with adoration.
Whatever the king wanted, the people would provide. When he was in need of a new palace, they didn't hesitate to build it for him. When he wanted to travel to other countries, the people sent him gladly and awaited his return with open arms. When he needed funds for any project, the people taxed themselves to pay for it. When he asked for any sort of support, the people were always generous with their response.
However, the king was aware of the love being shown to kings in other lands. Other kings has nicer palaces and their people generated even more tax money for bigger projects. The king began to wonder how much his people loved him. He started to ask for even more money and was pleased to see that the people responded without reservation. He knew that the people loved and respected him because of all that they eagerly provided to him.
One day, however, in the midst of a famine, the people asked the king if they might decrease their tax burden for the year since many of the people were struggling to feed their families. The king felt affronted. He wondered why the people no longer respected him. He felt that any less money in his coffers was a clear indication of the people's disrespect. He made it very clear to his people that no only would he not decrease their burden, but he expected it to be increased as a sign of their love to him. Any less and he threatened to leave their kingdom and go where he was truly respected.
The king was overthrown and the people rejoiced. And the land once again had peace.
Woe to any king that puts respect before honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)