Easter 2.1 - Jesus Christ Superstar

It was only after writing an entire but dissatisfying reflection on a different piece of artistic influence that I realized there was actually only one option. How could I have been so slow to not recognize the piece of art that has easily been most significant in my life. In fact I think it is precisely because it is so embedded into my life and my family's life and perhaps in particular my faith that it can be difficult to step outside of my own life and see it. This can be highlighted in particular by perhaps some of the most blasphemous moments of my own life this past year as I responded with a medium a level of interest and occasional disappointment as Amy and I visited the Holy Sepulchre, Temple Mount, Gethsamne, and Galilee but with rapturous delight and unending excitement as we were able to visit some of the sites that the film of Andrew Lloyd Webber's rock opera, Jesus Christ Superstar were filmed and also explore geography similar to that of the film.

The film Jesus Christ Superstar, would be what my father point to if asked about his conversion to Christianity. He was a teenager in Holland when the movie came out and he went to see it. The film had a tremendous impact on him, in particular he would cite the absolute gut wrenching anguish and horror of Mary Magdeline during the scene of Jesus flogging. The horror of the scene is, not achieved at all by graphic violence, such as in the Passion, but rather in the emotional reactions of the various characters who are witnesses. This I think highlights a power unique to film that allows the audience to be in a story and intimately connected with characters as if you were standing right next to your best friend, lover or enemy, experiencing their love, anguish, fury, doubt and fear. There is an intimacy that the audience can experience with characters of a film that is to my eye utterly unique, outside of perhaps a small amount of non traditional, very experimental theater.

The music of Superstar is a staple of my family's house, particularly around Easter. Similarly, the movie has been an Easter tradition since I was around 10 or 12. The profound and witty lyrics, breathtaking landscapes, passionate voices and performance have breathed life and humanity into a story too often presented with stiff sterility. Taking primarily Judas' perspective the movie is filled with doubts and questions. The line “You've begun to matter more than the things you say” is example of the brilliant irony with which profound theology is acknowledged and explored. “Jesus is important” Caiphus pronounces while plotting his crucifixion and also concedes “Jesus is cool.” The question, “Who is Jesus?” central to the gospels echoes through the whole opera, “Who are you? What have you sacrificed?” rings repeatedly through the title song immediately after Pilot questions, “Who is this Jesus? Why is is he different?” Even Jesus passionately questions his own death during his sung prayer in Gethsamne. This posture of doubt and question, obviously deeply influenced by our skeptical culture, is to my eye, in the case of Jesus Christ Superstar, one of earnest humility and genuine question. Irony and wit, cloak such an earnest yearning for truth from the source of the question itself, that Superstar remains spectacularly powerful. The quality of openness is something that I have come to deeply appreciate in art of all kinds. I think that great art is an invitation rather than a command, an invitation to explore both the art and the world.

It is in this openness, in both viewing and creating art that, I believe God's grace and providence can be powerfully witnessed. Jesus Christ Superstar, to the horror of many Christians has no resurrection scene or music. The final music which closes the show is titled “John 19:41,” which reads, “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.” Everyone in the movie gets back on the bus, even the successful suicide Judas, who stares to the cross of the one person left behind. The final shot of the movie is of the remaining cross at sunset. As the shot zooms out to close the film, a figure appears at the bottom left of the screen barely visible and walks across the screen directly in from of the cross followed by a flock of sheep. Director Norman Jewison recounts this Bedouin shepherd as coming out of no where and in no way an intended or directed event but rather a providential moment that left them in tears and thus closes the movie. As a Christian, I experience this as actually perhaps the most powerful and yet understated resurrection scene to occur in the history of cinema. The testimony of Jewison, highlights to me that as we engage creatively, we are not alone, but that the creative God who delights in his creation creates with us. The great directors Stanley Kubrick and also Terrence Malick shoot hours of footage and sometimes hundreds of takes in there desire to capture the unplanned moments of a Bedouin shepherd, a butterfly landing on a finger, or that unintentional bump of another actor. In this way I believe, our art can become prayers.

Anxiety & Irresponsibility

I have concluded that I have internalized that fear and anxiety are the responsible response to almost everything. Life continues to happen. Things get finished. Everything is ok. But I feel irresponsible if I don't make sure that appropriately freak out in the midst of it all. People talk about how worrying doesn't help anything... is that true? Over the past 2 weeks, I had 5 assignments total, 3 of them quite sizeable and then I got sick and felt awful for about 3 days... I tried to make good relational decisions which at one point meant helping a friend instead of doing homework. This is when the anxiety kicked into overdrive, I was sick, behind on school, and between the two saw no way of things getting done. I wanted to die. I hate missing deadlines. I am horrified at the thought of tossing away marks on the classes that cost $1500. I was frustrated because I felt unsupported in my crisis. This is when anxiety begins to become angry and demanding. Amy usually feels the brunt of this. I emailed a prof and got a 4 day extension on one assignment due to my sickness and successfully finished everything on time. It is not that it was easy, getting everything done included 2 all nighters. But it did all happen and my life did not end despite my desires earlier last week that perhaps that would just best all around. In fact the sickness which felt at the time like condemnation and doom, was precisely what got me an extension and was perhaps, therefore, a blessing...?!?

I struggle, as many people do, to find value and personal worth in something larger and more consistent than my work. This is made worse by the fact that even my work (theology student/artist) is not valued in society and culture. I am sufficiently enculturated that my desire to create alternative community and maintain alternative world-view is incredibly difficult and my imagined alternatives fall squarely into the category of: irresponsible. This of course makes anxiety my bread and butter as I continue defiantly to try and chart a course into unknown waters, which seem doomed for failure and compromise. Unlike pastors or missionaries, academics and artists often pursue their sense of calling with minimal support as the unknown goals of exploring life, meaning and creative potential can be difficult to explain, time consuming, financially unrewarding and often too ambiguous to be convincingly worthwhile to the majority of pragmatic capitalist North America... Oh how I long to have the faith and conviction to live the light and anxiety free life of the sparrow or lily that Jesus has called us too (Matt. 6:25-28). 

Do not worry about tomorrow... But we tell our kids and grads to make 5 years plans... Do not worry about tomorrow... but we tell people to plan ahead... Do not worry about tomorrow... but we spend vast amounts of time and money on financial planning and retirement savings... Don't worry about tomorrow... but don't be stupid...

So, to my anxiety laden friends and and society: How do we live light and worry free lives? How do we escape the endless task of self justification and sufficiency? If the answer is Jesus why does there seem so little support in the church for this freedom from worry? Why does it in fact seem that the church is perhaps the most worried, anxious hand wringing institution of society? What is wrong with us?

What is the Gospel?

This post follows up some previous posts on evangelism and discussion with Greg Harris and significantly influenced by a series of lectures at Regent College by Scott Mcknight on his new book The King Jesus Gospel.

When talking about Christianity it is common to hear the word "gospel" thrown around: gospel music, the full gospel, gospel centred, gospel coalition, sharing the gospel, preaching the gospel, living the gospel, the power of the gospel... ok so we generally seem pretty clear that its really important but what exactly is it?

What makes me nervous when this word gets thrown around, especially in the context of equipping or encouraging evangelism, is that basically what is being implicitly encouraged, most often is stuffing the four spiritual laws down people's throats... or spoon feeding it to them with sugar... Even if this is not meant or said I would worry that the expectation is the proclamation of the penal substitution theory of atonement in as compelling terms as possible... It is only through the brilliant lectures by Mcknight that I am able to articulate more fully what the problem is with the promotion and perpetuation of these models and what a more Biblical view would be.

What is the Gospel? Mcknight commented that there are two distinct tendencies currently one is the social gospel: the good news of liberation and almost exclusively enacted in real tangible terms... this is of course reacted against by the second who emphasize "justification" as the gospel, this group usually argues that social justice naturally flows out of a response to the good news of justification...(regardless of if this has ever happened in history)... there are also others, like Tim Keller, who brilliantly and even more effectively synthesize these two camps showing their connection and relationship.

However, Mcknight, argues that all of this misses what the gospel is regardless of their validity, goodness or truth...

So what is the Gospel? To answer Mcknight turns to 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

So what? Well, Paul presents here the story of Jesus. Note in particular the use of the word Christ, Greek for Messiah, as well as repeated mention of "the Scriptures." Further, this a lengthy and detailed narrative that includes burial, Peter, the twelve, James and Paul himself. Mcknight argues that this is the earliest oral Gospel tradition that we have and emphasizes its narrative quality, which is very similar to the sermons in Acts and dissimilar to the propositional nature of the 4 spiritual laws...

Mcknight very compellingly argues that we have misappropriated the Gospel which is the STORY of Jesus, which is the fulfilment of Israel's STORY. It is a story about Israel's need for a king and the answer found in the life of Jesus and his present ongoing universal reign... We have, however, in the last 50 years, in the course of the revivalist tradition and culminating in Billy Graham and Campus crusade, made the gospel about salvation and in particular, personal salvation. For 50 years we have preached Jesus as saviour, to the point that many if not most would be hard pressed to explain what Jesus as Messiah means... This development rises explicitly in North America due to our obsession and reduction of life to technique, which in turn is born out of our uncontemplative pragmatic primal experience of claiming the continent. Our society is born out of the need for immediate practical measurable results as it forged a new life in the "new world." Because of this technical pragmatism North America has become the most productive and technologically advanced society in the world (George Grant, "In Defense of North America." 1969). This focus on results has led to the reduction of the Gospel to salvation. This has resulted in the reduction of Jesus to saviour. This has resulted in the reduction of disciples to "converts". As we have been enamoured with the result of salvation we have lost hold of the story of Jesus as the fulfilment of Israel and bringer of shalom to the world. This is the Gospel: the story of Jesus, a story we are invited to enter into and live in and participate in. Many modern evangelism techniques, such as the four spiritual laws, or the dimming of the lights for the altar call, are brilliantly moulded to generate a crisis, a crisis which is required for "conversion" (any conversion, to anything, requires a crisis). This is why this form of evangelism feels dirty: it is explicitly psychologically manipulative. In Mcknight's most spectacular rhetorical flourish he compared these manipulated conversions to abortion, that is pre mature birth. Rather than sharing the story of Jesus, rather than sharing ourselves, rather than trusting God, we have created a transactional, crisis inducing, conversion creating Gospel, which has failed to make the disciples we were commissioned for... The "Salvation" Gospel creates converts; the Story Gospel demands followers, because Jesus is King.

Why are the gospels called gospels? because they tell us the story of Jesus. May we, by the grace of God have opportunity to share that story and the story of Israel and restoration it is the culmination of. May we trust God to work in people's lives, growing faith in them, drawing them to himself and prompting the response to the Gospel: "What shall we do?" (Acts 2) May we we trust God, and not in our propositions, or theories... May our theology be generous, filled with both faith and humility, that God's glory be manifest in our love...

CYOA: Judges 19-21 - Microcosm

I find this story fascinating. First of all, chapter 19 bears striking similarity to the account the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19!), which definitively highlights how far Israel has fallen short of it's calling to be a nation of priests and a blessing to the whole world - the have consummated that which Sodom attempted. The other horrific detail is the cutting up of the concubine into twelve pieces and sending the pieces to all the tribes and leading to the near total destruction of one of the tribes. The cutting and sending part occurs again with oxen in 1 Samuel. They are cut up and sent by Saul right after he is made king in the previous chapter:

1 Samuel 11:
6 When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he burned with anger. 7 He took a pair of oxen, cut them into pieces, and sent the pieces by messengers throughout Israel, proclaiming, “This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel.” Then the terror of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out together as one.

I think it is fascinating that Saul is from Gibeah, which is precisely the city in which the atrocity to concubine is committed. Furthermore, he is responding to a cry for help from Jabesh Gilead, which is where wives for the few remaining Benjamites are found in Judges 21! Furthermore, Samuel, who annoints Saul, is given to the Lord at Shiloh, where the other wives are taken from (Ju. 21).

The cutting into pieces seems connected to the practice of burnt offerings, which are cut into pieces (Lev. 1). Furthermore, the burnt offering is the type of offering that Abraham was called to make of Isaac (Gen. 22). Interestingly, burnt offerings are for atonement (Lev. 1) but are distinct from sin offerings (Lev. 4)... So apparently atonement has to do with more than just sin... hmmmm....

Anyway, Israel has become as sinful as Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, the Levite cuts up his dead concubine and sends the pieces to the twelve tribes of Israel as a sign of a plague of judgement. I suggest this because the response is one of reference to the day Israel came out of Egypt (Ju. 19:30) - the plague of the first born when there was not a house without someone dead (Ex. 12). It must have had the connotation of "we shall all be destroyed."

Judges 20:1
Then all Israel from Dan to Beersheba and from the land of Gilead came together as one and assembled before the LORD in Mizpah. (emphasis mine)

Previous to this verse all of Israel has done only a few things things in unity: They inquire of the Lord (Ju. 1:1), they weep at Bokim (Ju. 2:4), all Israel prostituted themselves in false worship (Ju. 8:27) and everyone did what was right in his own eyes (17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25).

However, despite everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and forcibly reliving the exodus story now in Canaan, in Judges 20 all Israel assembles before the Lord (sort of). To be fair, Israel, rather than being destroyed or oppressed by another nation is now destroying itself. Clearly not a prefect picture of unity. Eleven tribes to one, Benjamin refuses hand over the criminals but unites with them against Israel. Just like in Judges one, Judah is chosen to attack first but unlike in Judges one, they lose badly. God calls them to attack again, again they lose and so all Israel goes and weeps at Bethel. Then on the third try, again by the word of the Lord, Israel destroys Benjamin and burns their towns. Then Israel returns to Bethel and weeps again (Ju. 21:2) about the destruction. Then there is the elaborate and murderous plan to get the few remaining Benjamites some wives without breaking an oath. However, in all of this the Lord is not mentioned. And so the book ends again stating: In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

So it would seem that Judges 19-21 provide a definitive microcosm of the pattern of the whole book: United faithfulness, failure, weeping, victory, and then everyone does what is right in their own eyes leading again to horrifying destruction... What is different in this case is that Israel is turned inward rather than outward and briefly act in unified obedience for the first time since Joshua was around. God seems to, as with the other Canaanite tribes, now render judgement on Benjamin and Israel by their own hands. Is there a house without someone dead?

It seems to me that Samuel being given to God at Shiloh, Saul's kingship and defence of Jabesh Gilead marks some sort of restoration to the damage that occurs here in Judges... We have this repeated cycle of creation and destruction and restoration giving way again to destruction: Genesis, flood, Noah, Babel, Abraham, Egypt, Exodus, and then the judges but followed by Samuel but then Saul but then David and so on...

This is not just the story of the Bible but our own stories. Failure and success are often closely linked in our lives. It is the hope of scripture that God is ultimately restorative and that history is moving, in some fashion, toward a perfected consummation, toward a final restoration that was definitively begun in Jesus. It is the hope of scripture that even God's judgement, sometimes destructive, is ultimately restorative in nature...

I think the questions that I come back to in this story are - what is the relationship between destruction and restoration? and how do I make sense of this in my own life? how do we cope with god sending us to die fighting evil? and do we hope for an end to the cycles of destruction and restoration?


Check out: Beautiful Destruction - as one way that we have wrestled with these questions...

Where do we come from?

I had to write a life story last night for a class at Regent in order to introduce myself. It was required to be quite short, a mere 1000 words, but also was supposed to be filled with particularity which communicated a life rather than merely information. For better or for worse the first half of my paper was far more detailed and particular, covering my life from age five to seven. During this time three people in my life died, a friend in my kindergarten class and both my mum's parents. For some reason, last night this made sense in a way that I have not entirely connected with before. I often say, I am white middle class male who has had every advantage and no "real" pain or suffering in my life. This is usually my own disqualification for the deep sense of pessimism, obsession with suffering and generally negative view of life and the world. However, last night I realized that I have spent my life in the valley of the shadow of death. That my life was baptised in death deeply and dramatically at a young age. Is it any wonder that I am not filled with the optimism of other who did not experience loss like this, particularly at a young age? However, this revelation of self also begs the question: has this experience defined me or have I allowed it to? Why does it define me? We know come to evaluation... Do I need to rework my story? Do I need new definition?

It was in the midst of death that I found hope in Jesus, the one who has defeated death. I was anaesthetized with hope and became numb to death and yet I have carried that darkness with me. It has only been in the past few years that my emotions have thawed and I have felt ever more deeply the loss in my life that is unable to filled or healed. And yet as I learn to live in the shadow of death cast over my life, as I embrace the tension between life and death, somehow there is more freedom and life is sweeter. Last night as I reflected on where I come from, I realized the source and authenticity of my melancholy and in an odd way felt vindicated. It seems right to me to not yearn for escape or numb myself out and rather wrestle deep and enter into the pain, suffering, doubt, despair, depression and death of the world both intellectually and in reality.

The Kingdom of Craigslist

I have recently been putting to the test my claim earlier this year that there was no need to put our furniture in storage. When we moved out, instead of storing our couches or table and chairs, we gave them away. They had been gifted to us when we were married and first moved out and we have appreciated and enjoyed them immensely during our 4 years in Abbotsford. However, there was a lack of room in the storage and 4 years later I didn't love all the furniture that had served us so well. So, with a certain amount of audacity, we gave the furniture away to someone else who was moving out for the first time. If I were to spiritualize this move, I might say that giving the furniture away was an act of faith in God's goodness and provision - that we are called to give generously to those in need and each other out of whatever we have not just abundance. My own retort to my spiritualization would be the question - did I have faith in God or faith in craigslist? The truth, I believe, is both and that they are not mutually exclusive. As we have moved into our new place, by the grace of God (or pure randomness), found a number of new furniture items that we have been given by friends and via craigslist: a loveseat, a chair, an entertainment unit, a table, two kitchen chairs, and a filing cabinet.

The filing cabinet, which is black, quite large and functional but not particularly nice, is the object which leads me to this post. I had responded to the post and arranged a time to pick it up. After this however, I received an email saying that the owner had received offers of money and would I consider making a small donation to the charity which the filing cabinet was from (a leftover from a fundraising garage sale). I tried my best to politely say no. To my surprise, I was still given the filing cabinet, although informed that a donation would be made on my behalf. I said thank you very much and said that was very nice to make a donation. I, however, was left with the nagging feeling of guilt for not offering the donation myself. 

Yesterday, I was able to pick up a custom birch entertainment unit for free that is very nice and I am thrilled with. The person giving it away was wonderful, and explained how she had been given it but was now moving and couldn't take it with her and thus decided to pay it forward to someone else. This was a truly wonderful experience of receiving a spectacular gift for absolutely free. As I have been reflecting on these experiences, I realize how rare it is to be truly given something without expectation. The question "what's the catch?" is not unwarranted. In fact, it is precisely the social expectation of reciprocity that leads fundraising and marketing campaigns to often provide a "free gift." Because of our social constructions we are hard-wired to feel the need to give something in return. The Hare Krishnas benefited greatly from the social rules of reciprocity when they gave away flowers while fundraising. Often there are expectations of relational loyalty, a returned favour, or reciprocal gift that accompany an act of generosity. Amusingly, while we are very familiar with the concept of selling nothing, or buying nothing, we are very unfamiliar and often uncomfortable with receiving something for nothing. To explain what I mean: It is the consumer capitalist's dream to create and profit from the power of a brand: the intangible nothingness of a name that allows Hershey chocolate to simultaneously decrease the amount of chocolate in their bars while increasing their price - the reason we happily pay more for a particular type of shoes or T shirt, despite an overall low quality construction or unethical production.

Evangelicals like to say that salvation is "free". However, they also like to say that Jesus "paid" for your sins. Furthermore, while on the one hand, you don't/can't "earn" your salvation, it does come with rather some very large relational expectations: a life of sacrificial service, devoted to God, modelled after Jesus... I wonder if my experience of receiving the entertainment unit on craigslist did not contain more grace than our typical evangelical salvation narrative? And if there is more grace on craigslist than in our churches, then we are in trouble... 

The power of the rule of reciprocity in relation to generosity seems to function in so far as people seem more inclined to give away that which they have been given. I gave away the furniture I had been given, the entertainment unit was gifted to me for the second time in its life. I like to imagine a world filled with enough trust and compassion to allow everything to be a gift. I like to try and find ways to live in that world because I think that is heaven. I am grateful to craigslist for increasing shalom in Vancouver. 

Home - A Reflection and Poem

I was in between permanent residences from May until September. During this time, my wife, Amy, and I lived out of suitcases as we: travelled to Israel, house sat, and stayed with family and friends. I have moved, in some sense of the word, a total of nine times in the last four months. However, as of September first, we got keys to our Vancouver basement suite near Regent College, where I will begin graduate studies next week. As I have relayed to a few people already, Vancouver has never been a draw for me that it has for others. It has always been there and I have always been close but it was never a place I went out of my way to visit often, especially from Abbotsford. I think partially it is because I allow relationships to govern location, and I just don't know many people in Vancouver. So it was always nice, and I would wind up there once a year or so with friends but not often. And I always wondered why we had to drive so far to hang out when we could have just done something near home.

However, all my doubt and ambivalence melted away as I drove over the Lions Gate bridge for the first time in nearly 10 years. I have swam at Spanish banks 2 of the 7 days I have been here, and also went to a beach BBQ tonight. I have a U-PASS and took the bus today very successfully. I live on a tree lined street that has three tire swings. In a few very short days I have found myself converted. I think it would be fair to say, that I feel more at home, more quickly here than I have in the last number of places I have lived and that in this place I somehow in an almost surreal way feel at home in a way that I'm not sure I have necessarily felt in while, not fully at home, but home in a surprising way that I'm not sure I could explain - or maybe I just missed the ocean.

This leads me to the discussion of "home" a word filled with meaning and emotion. "Home" is an elusive concept often talked about and often longed for. It is interesting to consider where and what feels like "home," especially after one has lived in a number of places. It can be quite disconcerting to go away and come home and discover that home doesn't feel like "home" any more. One suddenly finds themselves in an existential crisis of homelessness or exile. Theologically, one could argue that this is actually our perpetual state as we wait for Jesus. Either way, during my time actually being homeless I reflected on this and the pain of the loss of a sense of "home" and wrote a poem. I actually wrote this after binging on spoken word by Taylor Mally and George Watsky, so at some point it may also become a video...

Home.

They say its where the heart is

but what if you're broken hearted

and your home is where it started?

Is home a feeling or place ?

Is it the taste of Christmas dinner

or the the look upon on my face

when exactly where I am

is where I want to be ?

home is where you are

when you are who you're meant to be

Or is home where you are?

Your mother, lover or your friend...

Are we a socially based

relationally placed people

without identity individually,

finding home exclusively within

community?

Say it with me

"home is where you are"

does it become meaningless?

Home is everywhere and no where

a moving shadow

disappearing in the sun.

So is it you are or you are?

Is is it you alone or you together?

Whether or not together is possible

for another discussion with other critical capitals

Have you ever gone home

and found it disappeared?

You don't belong

You don't fit in

You're not safe

You're not loved

You think too much

But its not enough

Its like in Garden State when they just stand in the rain and scream.

We can rebuild it, we have the technology!

But no matter how hard I try I never quite feel at home

I'm always just a bit too alone

Home isn't where I am

It's in another time or space

with Peter Pan in Never Never Land

some how it escapes 

us

as the human race

a race

because we're running

and looking to make the fleeting feeling

last

instead of it slipping into the nostalgic past

doomed to the unreproducible perfection of a rose coloured glass

perpetually exiled from the perfection we aspire to

we persist and perspire in our unyielding desire

to go home

they say home is where the heart is

but home is where you are

and if you are what you eat

then your home is down the street 

on the shelf at Costco with all the other frozen meat

You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.

but if I'm always leaving how will I ever get there.

Getting into story

How we read a story determines what it says. We all presuppose things of each story, and much of the time the presuppositions will determine the outcome or interpretation of the story. This is inevitable, thus we must recognize it and explicitly state that the result rests on our presupposition. One might take this knowledge and say that it makes reading the Bible irrelevant, as our conclusion will by predetermined by our presuppositions. How then can one come to the text?

This was something I wanted the students, I was teaching, to see, but not in a cynical disheartening way. I wanted to show the brilliance and excitement the text can reveal when one cogitatively changes one’s presuppositions and is willing to see an alternative result/interpretation. So change your presupposition to that of suspense…

Do we let ourselves to enter into the story and be vulnerable?

This is a question we need to entertain. With what ears are we listening to this story? With what eyes are we seeing this story? When was the last time you were held in suspense by the plot, when were you entertained by the action, when were you emotionally invested in the Character of Jesus or one of the disciples?

Often I think we experience the story the way we experience the latest action movie, or the latest Quentin Terintio movie. We know what to expect, we still enjoy the show but we await the final plot twist. When the twist arrives we do not revel in its brilliance, instead we sit back and point out to those around us “Hey there it was, classic Quentin twist that was”. We smile, relax, and detach ourselves from the characters, often not experiencing the ramification to the twists and suspense in the way the character would have felt or experienced the twist.

When have you pondered the vulnerability of Christ? A man who put himself on the line, who face rejection when he offered the question “Come follow me”. He offers himself, offers friendship. He puts himself at the feet of his disciples, so to speak. He positions himself humbly, in a position of weakness. The disciples could have said no, they could reject, and many did. There are accounts of disciples leaving. So do we allow ourselves to feel that vulnerability in the text? Do we allow Jesus to have human emotions?

I want you to read two passages. I want you to clear you mind of the ending. I want you to enter the story as if for the first time. I know this is impossible, but it is an exercise in experience. Then reflect on what new insights you saw in the texts. These texts specifically offer something about the humanity of Christ. If you are willing, post any insights in the comments section below.

Matthew 13:53-58
New International Version (NIV)
A Prophet Without Honor
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”
58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

Mark 11:1-19
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King
1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’”
4 They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, 5 some people standing there asked, “What are you doing, untying that colt?” 6 They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. 7 When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,
“Hosanna![a]”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”[b]
10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”
11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
Jesus Curses a Fig Tree and Clears the Temple Courts
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[c]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’[d]”
18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples[e] went out of the city.

CYOA –Deut 20 – To War or Not to War? That is the Question!

The challenge of Holy War, and war condoned by God, and war initiated by God, is a challenge that always leads to unsatisfactory answers. I think it is something I will wrestle with until the day I die. I spent much of my second year at Bible College debating, considering, and reading about these war passages. What I learned was not so much a stance to hold, but the necessity to consider the situation carefully before making any pronouncements. It was a time of learning how to deconstruct. I, like Yoder (book - What would you do?), believe much of the conversation around Holy War rests on faulty premises. The most basic of these faulty premises is that there are two options, Go to War OR Don’t Go to War. I am convinced that neither of these are the correct choice, as the dichotomy finds its base in the most prevalent heresy of our time, binary thinking. The mode of thought that limits one to two options, it is neither Biblical nor God honouring. It is incredibly non-creative, and does not use critical thought, both of which God created humans to utilize while on earth to adequately image the creator. Therefore, my response to questions about war, since that point, has been the process of deconstruction; through which I believe we can perceive other ways to think about war.

Some of the questions I might pose are: If the narrative of scripture is the coming of Shalom, how then does war fit? Is there a progression within the narrative from war-> less war? Might there be other options? Given that we no longer live under theocracy, how can we legitimately state that our side is God’s side? Rather than destruction through war, are collaborative options available that might better use resources to solve the perceived conflict? Through such thought, I have concluded that both no war and war are minimalist positions, and there are many other positions that are more maximalist (conservatives in theory should be happy here) within the Biblical text and given human potential for us think through and be creative in constructing.

Here is a summary of some potential ideas of how to deal with Holy War: (My Notes from Peace and Justice class- Thank you very much Gareth Brandt)

From Joshua to Jesus (irony Jesus name was Joshua in Hebrew, Joshua was one of the most violent people in the OT)
1) Marcionism- 2nd century Gnostic pacifist- different God in OT and NT
- Problem- separates OT and NT and anti-Semitic
- contribution- honest about the obvious difference
2) Enlightenment- we choose which elements of ancient culture are usable for us
- problem- we become the highest authority
- contribution- acknowledges evolution and progression of thought- which is good
3) Allegorization – look for the deeper spiritual meaning of the violence (Origen -more what God is really like)
- Problem- doesn’t help us deal with the text- spiritual may be true but does not deal with history
- contribution- long history, shows us deeper realities
4) Sovereignty- we don’t question God’s ways “God’s ways are higher than ours”
- problem- pious concern to not taint God, if we can’t say something God did was bad we can’t call anything he did as good either
- contribution- let God be God, we don’t have to explain everything
5) Justice- there were various just causes for violence e.g. rid the nation of evil, punish wrong doing, distinguished good and bad violence, salvific or redemptive violence, just war by Augustine
- problem – doesn’t explain all acts of violence, there are some that do not seem to be redemptive, inconsistent use of scripture- lack of unity in OT and NT- OT as a social ethic and NT as a personal ethic, does not recognise the social political message of Jesus
- Contribution- it helps us understand some wars, and it explains the Christian involvement in war for the past 1500 years
6) Liberation – the uprisings of the oppressed but not the massive armaments of superpowers, primarily looking at the exodus
- problem it only explains some wars, inconsistent with the love ethic of Jesus
- contribution- God is concerned for the oppressed
7) Miracle – Divine intervention was meant to teach people to place their trust in Yahweh and not in their own weapons, wars are fought from a place of weakness, this sees Yahweh as a warrior, sometimes fought against Israel as well as for
- problem- reconciling Yahweh the warrior with Jesus the lover, we are called to be pacifists because God is not, different motivation for pacifism
- Contribution- obey and have faith in God, treats the OT and NT the same that the point is to obey
8) Progression- OT wars are partial, temporary ethic for a particular nation fulfilled by the superior ethic of Christ for all nations in the New Testament. Anabaptist- all war and violence is evil in lens of Jesus, progressive revelation and OT fades in validity for the superior Jesus mandate Hebrews 1:1-2, OT wars would be seen as ritualistic (Renee Gerard- French anthropologist- scape goat theology of Christ and in the OT)
- problem- doesn’t take the OT seriously enough
- contribution- sees Jesus as the complete revelation of God, Christo-centric
9) Projection- Violent commands and portrayals of God are the product of peoples and authors projecting their own violence on God, anthropological basis, interpreting the wars after the fact and interpreting it in relation to the specific culture they were in, it describes rather than prescribes, we should not read our current questions onto their culture and their world view, would tell us that Humans are not as much about God, God works within culture and does not destroy it,
- problem- not a high enough view of inspiration of scripture
- contribution- it shows the complexity of divine human interaction
10) Involvement- A description of how God is involved in all human affairs, even those that seem morally repugnant, he is active in judgement and redemption in violence, with Jesus there is a more complete understanding of God, God has not changed but the human experience of God has changed, Jesus was a major change in this process
- problem- how does a loving and Holy God work through violence and evil
- contribution- shows how God is and incarnate God and involved in humans, he is always with human beings


That ends my little prologue about war in general. There are no answers, only better questions.

Now to Deuteronomy 20 – A what did Silas notice section:

• Chapter 19 ends with the Lex Talionis (Law of the Tooth) – Jesus had something to say about that, maybe his teaching of compassion and being least (Matt 5:38-42) also has relevance to the Holy War section.
• v.3 “Here, O Isreal” – by my count this is the 5th time this little phrase is used in Deuteronomy in full (Deut 4:1, 5:1, 6:4 the most famous “Shema”, 9:1, and partial in 10:12, 27:9). What this shows me is this section is a rally cry for the nation of Israel, evidenced in the shema, as understood as “Listen O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh Alone” defining Yahweh not as philosophical oneness (a poor anachronistic understanding), but as Israel’s God compared to the other gods of the region. Thus, Deut 20 needs to be understood in its context as one God among many doing battle, not the monotheism of Christianity somehow doing battle against non-entities, or worse against people who are “other” than “us”.
• Avoiding going to war is acceptable. v.5-8 gives a number of excuses to avoid being a part of war. (Some may argue these mean this or that, but I see it as meaning war is not the trump card. In a sense, other priorities ought to come before war.)
• Offer peace. If any part of this passage causes me to squirm it is this section v.10-15. As it seems to be a façade of peace, not actual shalom. This same type of peace offered here sounds remarkably similar to the Pax Romana, which Jesus fought ideologically with his entire life. Thus to state that God offers Pax Israela here only to contradict this type of Pax in the Gospels is the point where I see the most dissonance within the Bible.
• God is an environmentalist. I love v.19-20. “Destroy all the people…but there is no need to go overboard, make sure you are careful which trees you cut down when you are building your siege ramps”. I like is because it states that the environment has an intrinsic value, not to be usurped by the fleeting disagreements of humanity.

Redemption of Solomon

Thinking about the blog today…manual labour provides the opportunity to let ones mind wander because it is mindless. However, rather than think about many different things I end up going over one thing many times. I think I am becoming more aware of my obsessive-compulsive side. Today I thought about the blog. I have not been posting much lately; life is busy when over 12 hours of my day are tied to getting to work, working and getting home. So contemplating this dilemma, I have decided to return to some of my previous work and share that with you.

The past two year I was a teaching assistant for a first year New Testament Survey course. For this, I created a series of devotionals to share. Over the next few weeks, I am going to share modified versions of those on this blog. These will be somewhat different from what I normally post, but hopefully they are informative and worthwhile to read. By “reusing” ideas for the next few weeks, I hope to be able to post more often even with my time restrictions. My second reason for sharing these is that they articulate some of my fundamental approaches to reading the text. Third, Duncan and I are working toward a mini series on Empire, a discussion initiated by the comments in the “Extremist Religion” blog. Some of my devotionals begin articulating and imaging empire, so are worth sharing as part of that bigger, ongoing, discussion.

Without further ado: Solomon

Begin by reflecting on the standards we (you and I) fail to live up to. It is probably not hard, your mind has probably jumped to some perceived standard. I don’t think it is a stretch for each of us to think of how we have failed to live up to standard set for us, as well as standards that we set up for ourselves.

We often fail. We know what it is to come up short. The feeling of disappointment, shame, guilt, are well known acquaintances if we are honest. This blog has been an outlet to perceived shortcomings in faith, employment, and social norms. Often I find myself wishing I better met the standards set for me. But this failure is our existence, so why am I bringing this up? Is this another guilt trip? Am I here to make you bring to mind things of the past? Is this a common Christianeese slap on the wrist? Maybe my purpose is to wallow a little while in the things that each of us wishes we would never need to return to or even think about again.

No. This is where we begin. This is a common convergence of our humanity. We begin here, often we return here. Failure to meet the standards is a place of existence. But, it is a place we do not wish to remain. Yet, even though I do not wish to remain with this feeling, I often feel stuck in this place.

Are you with me? Is the realization we do not meet the standards set before us a real experience? Is it true for you? For me it is.

Where does one go from here though? What are we to do with these feelings of failure, shame, guilt, and incompetence?

Solomon is where I find the possibility of solace. Turning to the person of Solomon to ponder together what it means to live after realizing our failure to reach the standards set before us.

The standard set before Solomon is presented in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
The King
14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel. (NIV)

Here we have the standard. The standard set to prevent Empire. But then we read of reality:
• Wives – 1 Kings 11:1-4
1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

• Large amounts of silver and gold – 1 Kings 10:14-17
14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,[e] 15 not including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the territories.
16 King Solomon made two hundred large shields of hammered gold; six hundred shekels of gold went into each shield. 17 He also made three hundred small shields of hammered gold, with three minas of gold in each shield. The king put them in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon.

• Horses – 1 Kings 10:26-29
26 Solomon accumulated chariots and horses; he had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem. 27 The king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees in the foothills. 28 Solomon’s horses were imported from Egypt and from Kue—the royal merchants purchased them from Kue at the current price. 29 They imported a chariot from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty. They also exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and of the Arameans.

• Law – 1 Kings 11:4-6
4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

If anyone did not meet the standards set out, it was Solomon. This is not how the majority of people think of Solomon, but Biblically he is not the role model of good behaviour. So here we are, the OT ends and the character of Solomon gets mixed reviews at best.

This, however, is not the end. The biblical narrative is not over. Jesus changes this, Luke 11:31 “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here.” – Jesus is the one greater than Solomon. Within the creativity of the biblical narrative, Jesus subverts the personhood of Solomon. From beyond time, past to future, future to past, redemption occurs for the character of Solomon. The character of Solomon has not been completed Biblically, he is not done, Solomon re-emerges and is completed in Christ. I love this part of Biblical study, somehow, beyond the life of the individual, literarily and beyond reason Christ alters the standards. From beyond time Christ comes and is sufficient for the standards.

Solomon, again, re-emerges in Acts. The tale is yet to be complete. In Acts the first great miracle is explained at Solomon’s colonnade (Acts 3:6-11). This action occurs at a location marked by the namesake of Israel’s empire. It is as if the kingdom that has arrived through Christ, which is a kingdom of healing, supersedes and replaces the abuse and harm done by Solomon. The Christ, and now Christ’s followers redeem the character of Solomon. The healing, signs, and wonders continue throughout Acts, and the people of the Kingdom continue to meet at Solomon’s colonnade (Acts 5:12).

So back to us. Do we really believe that? Is it a real possibility to live with an openness to being freed from the standards we fail to live up to? Do we truly live as though Christ is the one redeeming us? Do we actually believe that Christ is meeting and even exceeding the standards set before ourselves? Do we live in an openness to be redeemed from beyond time? Could we be redeemed by the actions of others many generations from now, just as the character of Solomon is redeemed by the early church? Because if we do, if we could live like this even a little it would undermine all the negative shame, guilt, and feelings of incompetence we experience when we do not meet standards.

You And I, by Gaga – My reading of this text

Brilliance, as always. Maybe I am not critical enough of Gaga but I am always astounded at her level of insight into life, her creativity, and musical genius. Her latest video “You And I”, released on Tuesday, is no exception.

At a first glance, you might notice…country music? Yup, a brave attempt to cross musical boundaries, I think she accomplishes it successfully. You also might notice that the video is highly sexual, I think there is a Freudian influence in understanding existence through sex, the lack there of sex, and developmental stages of sexual maturity. One will also notice Gaga’s fashion statements. Personally, I like what she has done with the Mugler shoulders, specifically the frilly outfit. But beyond these things I think in this video she is making a more major statement, a statement about relationship.

For those of you who do not follow Gaga religiously there is something you ought to know, as of her latest album, “Born this Way”, she embarked on a narrative of “Pop Culture is our religion”. She tweeted this before the album released and it has been evident in the videos “Born this way” and “Judas”. It is an interesting narrative as this religion has moved from “The fame” (her first album – the creation), to “Fame Monster” (her second album – the deconstruction), and now the recreation in “Born This Way” (her third major album). So whenever she releases a new video I am excited by what she is going to say through it. The video for “You And I” at first confused me as I could not find the tie into the narrative she has been building. Is she taking a break from the discussion of pop culture as our religion? No, I think she has moved on to her Epistles. After watching the video a few more times I think she is moving into virtue as defined relationally and the virtue of relationship, very similar to the movement Paul makes in his Epistles. Thus, I conclude “You And I” is a look into the interpersonal relational aspects of religious existence.

The whole video is quite confusing. Gaga even acknowledges this, "The video is quite complex in the way that the story is told, and it's meant to be slightly linear and slightly twisted and confusing, which is the way that love is." Her Facebook statuses referring to this movie include “Love is a Result. We bare an Unbearable Human Inability: to just be.” and “You must love all + every part of me, as must I, for this complex + incomprehensible force to be true.” Interesting insights into relationship.

Here is my reading of the video. The journey begins with an acknowledgement of the pain and grotesqueness of the journey. Often the “cushy” depiction of Christianity, or any other religion, is misleading. There is pain, angst, emotional bleeding, maybe even physical bleeding, all of which usually find their roots in the others one co-journeys with, because religious experience necessitates relationship with others. This pain is exhibited in abandonment by friends, shortcomings of others, intentional self-serving at the cost of the other, or even cheap answers intended for good that end up being severely painful. Therefore, the opening of Gaga’s video is a blatant acknowledgement of pain caused by being in relationship with others. I find this to be an honest warning about the potential harm one opens himself or herself to when embarking on the journey.

The video also contains an interesting interplay of gender roles (as per normal for Gaga). As she plays both people in the piano scenes, she continues to facilitate a dialogue of sexual identity and journey. This is one of her ongoing conversations within her videos, which all contemporary religions need to discuss in order to be relevant. This is her major discussion in her video “Born this way”, it is because of her willingness to participate in the conversation openly that her religion is growing while timid Christianity continues to wallow in its inability to have the conversation. This journey and conversation is implicitly relational, as we are not defined in isolation but by relationships with others. Religion must be functional, so when Christianity (here I make a big generalization) is too afraid to facilitate the conversation everyone is having the forum is taken elsewhere. These difficult, but necessary, conversations often end up being facilitated by the prophets of the time, who are only later recognized for what they are and the value they have given by facilitating the conversation, in this case, she is a prophetess. A final note on gender and sexuality in this video is the scene where she kisses herself, as it is an interesting statement about self-love, which is central to her religion. This is very similar to Christianity, specifically the statement in the gospels to love others as yourself. Self-love is necessary as it is a precondition to altruism and empathy.

Relationships are inherently full of violence and chaos; this is exhibited in Gaga’s depiction of the love and relationship in this video. The act of binding to another is a destructive event, as it requires some change of self-identity in order to bind to another. Love is also inherently violent and evil (see the Zizek video in Duncan’s “Wandering the Wilderness” post). Gaga captures the violence and destruction inherent in relationships through the violent imagery in this video.

Relationship, however, is worth the violence and chaos. I see this in the video as there is a movement from depictions of being bound to scenes of freedom. These are the Frankenstein scene and the leather-strap dance scene that progress into the mermaid scenes, the arrival of legs, and acceptance of self within relationship; all of which come near the end of the video.

The other aspect of relationships that Gaga tells of is the virtue of flexibility. The video moves from a mechanical nature of relationship (metal prosthetics), which is then contrasted to the mythical nature of relationships (mermaid). I think this shift speaks to the need for structure when entering into relationship but the need for increasing flexibility and creativity to further relationships.

Beyond relationship being explored within the video, this video is a new level of vulnerability for Gaga herself, in her relationship with her little monsters (fans). This occurs as she shows a very “normal” shot of herself at the piano (which is abnormal for Gaga). In doing so, she continues to reinvent and creatively redefine the mother monster relationship building a depth, which is not accomplished by stagnant personas.

The line that probably stands out to a first time watcher is, “There are only three men I will serve my whole life, My Daddy, Nebraska, and Jesus Christ”. This offers a threefold articulation of the relational nature of life. There are family (already existent relationships), friends/coupling/environment – Nebraska (new relationships, discovery – Nebraska most likely is a euphemism for Gaga’s on again, off again relationship with her male partner), and Jesus Christ articulates a spiritual side to relationships that defies objective understanding.

This whole movie then finishes with the final scenes of companionship of two very different individuals. Despite all of the angst, chaos, differences, pain, and struggle, relationship overcomes and there is final companionship that overcomes seemingly insurmountable barriers – mermaid sex.

Wandering in the wilderness...

As we have wandered the wilderness of the intertubes we have found many awful and wonderful things. Here are some highlights:


Jesus Potter Harry Christ - A new book about the similarities between the Characters but coming to a much different conclusion than we have but the book has a great cover!


Fixing the American Economy - Scott Adams to the rescue with the power of imagination


In case you haven't watch any Zizek yet here is a couple videos:


This one is amazing (1 hr and 30 min)

This one is on ecology (11 minutes)

This one is on love (2 minutes)

HIV cures cancers! - New leukemia treatment exceeds 'wildest expectations' So much for people clinging to plague theory. Brilliant! - Thanks Adam.


Taylor Mali - On teachers vs lawyers...

George Watsky - On starting his own church...

Harry Potter Cartoon - about Harry not doing homework

And one last piece of spoken word as linked in a comment on CYOA - Look to the Snake

Harry Potter is Jesus - Part 1 (spoiler alert)

Ok, I am one of the ignorant masses that Silas is disappointed in for having not actually read the Harry Potter books. So unfortunately my comment can only extend definitively to the movies, which I have watched. However, it is my assumption that what is true of the movies is only more so and better in the books, for that is the nature of books.

Harry Potter is a phenomenon that has occurred as I have grown up and I have witnessed the back lash and debates regarding witchcraft and wizardry and the appropriate response of a Christian parent to these black magic books, which have bewitched the world... With that being said, I never shared that perspective. A child reading Harry Potter and becoming involved in the occult is as much Harry Potter's fault as someone reading the Bible and becoming a nudist, or attacking animals with a jawbone, trying to walk on water at Niagra Falls, or killing someone because of sexual orientation, or bombing an abortion clinic... damn those last two hit kinda close to home don't they? Maybe we should boycott the Bible? NO! This is the whole point: books and what you read are not responsible for what you do - that's your responsibility. Do they have influence? Yes, but you are in control of that influence as I believe my Bible example highlights. Two people can read the same book and have wildly different reactions and wildly different lives... So what can we conclude? That clearly the book is in no way definitively responsible for a person's actions. Furthermore, of all of the dangers of influence in Harry Potter, my father has concluded that far and away the worst one is that Harry and Ron never really do any homework and don't take school seriously. That's right my dad has read Harry Potter and I haven't.

The reason that I have not read Harry Potter is because I am skeptical of cultural phenomena and don't like getting swept away in hype. The TV series "Lost" is another example of this occurring where I regret not becoming and avid and devoted fan. I was just a touch too old for Harry Potter; it was the book that the kids I was babysitting were reading and dressing up as for Halloween and I wrote it off as a kids book and never really got over that. I knew that people loved the books, including my wife Amy, for whom I bought the sixth or seventh book the day it came out at a 7-11 the summer we started dating. But now having seen the last movie, I get it. Harry Potter is Jesus. The whole series is possibly more Christian than Lord of the Rings. Not only does Harry die a sacrificial death but it is an anticipated and planned sacrificial death. "Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter" Snape says this to Dumbledore in the final film. All one needs to do is change the word pig to lamb and it could be straight out of the Bible. The themes of reconciliation, redemption, self saacrifice and good triumphing over evil are primary themes in the final movie and series as a whole. What we have is not merely a story, and not merely good vs evil but a full blown atonement theory - Christus Victor with a twist...

What do you think? Does Harry Potter offer an alternative perspective on atonement that is compatible with Christianity? What are the key nuances?

Just in case you weren't convinced... Harry Potter - "The boy who lives"... yeah he dies in the last film but he comes back to life too.


Read Harry Potter is Jesus Pt. 2

CYOA - To Deny or Explain?

Daughter of Jephthah

Judges 11
 ^29-31 God's Spirit came upon Jephthah. He went across Gilead and Manasseh, went through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there approached the Ammonites. Jephthah made a vow before God: "If you give me a clear victory over the Ammonites, then I'll give to God whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in one piece from among the Ammonites—I'll offer it up in a sacrificial burnt offering."

 ^32-33 Then Jephthah was off to fight the Ammonites. And God gave them to him. He beat them soundly, all the way from Aroer to the area around Minnith as far as Abel Keramim—twenty cities! A massacre! Ammonites brought to their knees by the People of Israel.

 ^34-35 Jephthah came home to Mizpah. His daughter ran from the house to welcome him home—dancing to tambourines! She was his only child. He had no son or daughter except her. When he realized who it was, he ripped his clothes, saying, "Ah, dearest daughter—I'm dirt. I'm despicable. My heart is torn to shreds. I made a vow to God and I can't take it back!"

This passage sucks because either you deny child sacrifice, which is good but are perceived to be hand waving or you don't and you have to deal with the ramifications of child sacrifice, which are horrific.

One angle I have heard is that this is a lesson against legalism and that Jephthah should have asked to be released from his vow... for which to some degree there are specifications for in Leviticus 27.

I would be happier with that explanation if we didn't have the story of Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, although clearly no issue of a vow in that case.

So people may ask what was he expecting to come out of a house? The implication appears to be an animal, which is plausible given that animals often lived in the house with the family as they contributed to the heat as well as were too valuable to keep outside without being tended. However, I think it is a fair statement that this is a bad vow to begin with... But it seems initially to be a vow full of faith and trust in God... or is it a vow bent on manipulating God? hmmm... Why does Jephthah need to make a vow? After his long diplomatic speech about God's victory over Balak and Israel's respect of Ammon in the preceding verses, the vow seems to actually betray a lack of faith rather than great faith.

There is something distinctly and spectacularly pagan about this whole story. Our bastard hero is exiled but then returns and and saves the day winning a great battle and the cost of his victory is his only virgin daughter. I would be reasonably happy to say that this is a pagan story attempted to be revised to fit Yahwehism...

But again I would be happier with that explanation if their wasn't this odd theme of child/self sacrifice that runs from Abraham and Isaac and is culminated in Jesus, another "bastard" child and if Jephthah wasn't celebrated as a hero of faith in Hebrew's 11.

39-40 It became a custom in Israel that for four days every year the young women of Israel went out to mourn for the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

These final verses of the story seem to indicate that it is some sort of explanation for a social tradition.

Some commentators note that the passage ends focused on virginity not death and there is the suggestion that the daughter was not killed but devoted to a life of service as virgin, similar to nuns. This is argued  further based on the fact that the context of the situation does not fit a literal, levitical burnt offering. While clearly, a life of service, similar to Samuel, is preferable to filicide it seems possible to me that the concern with virginity rather than death is actually one and the same given that the Old Testament view is that one lives on through their children. Therefore, being Jephthah's only virgin daughter, her virginity represents the destruction of the entire family.

Sorry everybody I see all of the problems and I don't like it or any of the solutions, I welcome further thoughts...

You reached a dead end and were trapped inside the Pharoah's tomb.

Turn to page 47 if you don't like this ending...