Avatar: Spirituality v. Corporate Greed... and I liked It!

Avatar: PG-13 for some language, action-violence, and some sexuality (though I am unsure how to categorize the CGI, National Geographic type, near nudity of the alien characters throughout the movie)

I knew it would happen. One of my first thoughts as I left the theater was, “Christian culture warriors and political conservatives are going to hate this movie.” Sure enough, I wake-up today to read articles in the New York Times and other places critiquing James Cameron’s Avatar as pantheistic, profoundly naïve about human nature and anti-corporate.; critiques that are not entirely undeserved, but certainly predictable.

The vagaries of Cameron’s worldview do flavor the film and his own viewpoint is also predictable. Anytime Hollywood has some primitive tribe prominently featured in a movie (in this case, the Na’Vi, natives of the forest moon Pandora), you can be sure there will be some technologically superior culture coming to exploit them and destroy their culture. However. I really liked this movie.

It was a holiday season blockbuster, and it did not disappoint in the entertainment factor (a feat for any movie 2 hours and 40 minutes long). First, the new “performance capture” technology is pretty amazing. While I could still tell (most of the time) that I was looking at digital characters, the ability to capture the facial expression of the actors was very compelling. The world of Pandora was dazzling, imaginative and simply fun. While the story fits the mold of other films (Dances with Wolves comes to mind, where a simple soldier who is adrift spiritually finds meaning and belonging in a primitive culture), it works. And though the storyline of David & Goliath is a well-worn path, I still love it when the powerful and arrogant go down at the hands of the small and simple who believe in something bigger than themselves. It’s just feel-good fun.

As for the critiques of Cameron’s worldview, it is true that he depicts the primitive Na’Vi culture as this idealistic Eden where the people live “in balance” with their world/goddess. There is no hint of disease or tribal rivalries. Death is portrayed as a peaceful surrender of the life “energy” back to the All-Mother, Eywa. The culture and religion of the Na’Vi seem almost directly transferred from a modern and liberal understanding Native American spirituality, with all its white-guilt baggage.

However, tempting though it might be to dismiss the movie’s message on this basis, it would tragically miss things that we should all affirm in the movie. There are two themes that I found thought provoking. The first is the tendency we have to take what we want when we can get away with it without respect to the rights and dignity of others. The corporation looking to mine Pandora for an energy source gives the appearance of engaging in diplomatic negotiations with the Na’Vi but is more than willing to resort to military force to simply take what it wants. Of course, this is directed at corporations, but the lesson is true in whatever context you can imagine: politics, personal relationships, or work place dynamics. The person in power will face extraordinary temptation to disregard the dignity and rights of those in a weaker position. The Bible is filled with cries for justice against oppressors. Corporations often get a bad wrap as immoral by definition, but the faceless nature of corporate actions often results in brutal behavior in preserving the bottom-line. But again, these sins are not exclusive to capitalism. Fascism in Germany and communism in both Russia and China have produced their share of atrocities because some in power deemed weaker people as “getting in the way.” In an attempt to justify their actions, the stronger party usually dehumanizes or demonizes the weaker party. They are “savages,” “less-than-human,” or “devils.” This logic is present in our personal relationships as spouses are discarded because they no longer us “happy” or fulfilled.” It is present in our national politics. I would even say this is the brutal logic behind abortion.

Another theme that I found interesting was the juxtaposition of secular (godless) materialism to spirituality. The bare pursuit of wealth divorced from moral conscience is soundly condemned in this movie, and rightly so. The corporate representative and the mercenaries on Pandora regularly scoff at the god of the Na’Vi while displaying no spirituality of their own. For them the natural world is something to be exploited. While I am not a pantheist, (indeed I think it is essential for human dignity to recognize the distinction between the material world and God) I do recognize the relationship between humanity and the surrounding world. Strangely enough, even though Cameron shows greater explicit sympathies with pantheism in Avatar, he cannot completely abandon Western theism. Eywa, at the request of the main character, seems to intervene on behalf of the Na’Vi, expressing will and a sense of justice (or at least loyalty to the indigenous people of Pandora). This is not reflective of eastern Pantheism. Regardless, even in the Western faith of Christianity, humanity is commissioned as the caretaker of the world. Cultivate, manage, even master the natural world: yes. Exploit, exhaust and violate: no. But materialistic worldviews will inevitably exploit nature because there is no basis to appreciate or value nature on its own merits. The natural world is only a collection of resources. These values can only come from some form of spirituality. If anything, this film reflects Hollywood’s continual search for a moral foundation. If the film proves popular, perhaps it will be in part because the people of America are also looking for a basis for moral clarity. I find this encouraging. Even if I don’t agree with the form of spirituality extolled in this film, we have more common ground for interaction than I do with the secular materialist, just as Paul found common ground with the people of Athens on Mars Hill (“Men of Athens! I see that I every way you are very religious….” Acts 17:23ff).

There is more I could write but I will bring this to a conclusion. Not a great film (I don’t think I will buy the DVD, but I may go to see it in 3-D) but it was fun and it made me think some. No spectacular performances (though Ben Worthington was great) but the acting wasn’t bad. And it’s something that you would need to see on the big screen to really take it all in. Go see this movie, if only to talk about it with all your friends who will see it. And they will.

Tolkien, Lewis and J.K. Rowling: Should Christians Embrace Harry Potter?

Okay. I am finally getting back to blogging. Over the past month, we received a call to serve in West County St. Louis to help get a church site off the ground, put our house on the market (which sold in a day!), moved to St. Louis, start at the church and begin looking for a house. We’ve been busy. BUT… I can now get back to some writing.

Some weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about Harry Potter. I know this is not new territory for the blogosphere but I still thought some folks might find this helpful or at least thought provoking. The way the typical conversation goes is like this: “Daryl, I appreciate Tolkien and Lewis, but as a Christian, all this witchcraft in Harry Potter bothers me. Is there a difference?” The simple answer is, of course there is a difference, but not in the ways you might guess at first… and the ways in which the Harry Potter series is similar to the writings of Tolkien and Lewis might surprise you.

The obvious concern for many Christians (particularly Christian parents who have children reading J.K. Rowling) is the use of witchcraft and sorcery, which are clearly forbidden by scripture. Many Christians have worked through the mention and use of magic in other literature. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia make repeated reference to magic, used even by Aslan, the Narnian incarnation of the Son of God. Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings also makes wide reference to magic. Yet these works enjoy great popularity among Bible-believing Christians.

With Lewis, I think there are at least two reasons Christians are more willing to look past references to magic: first, the depiction of magic is vague. It does not include incantations but simply describes the results: a faun turning to stone, a boy transforming into a dragon or a prince enchanted to forget who he is. In fact, what might be referred to as the supernatural acts of God also seem to fall under the description of “magic” in Narnia. Second, the clear and overriding Christian imagery in the Narnia stories overshadows any concerns about magic.

With Tolkien there is a greater skepticism among Protestant Christians, as his works seem to reference a Catholic sacerdotalism (which many Protestants would critique as Christian superstition) and the magic is described in greater detail than in Lewis. However, the magic of Tolkien’s world also includes the technological advances of Saruman (Treebeard describes Saruman a having a “mind of metal”), and the magic of Tolkien’s stories are so clearly not what those tales are about. They are about courage, friendship and providence among other things. There are deep and powerful Christian themes in Tolkien’s works and indeed Tolkien wrote them in honor of God’s majesty and creativity.

Many would argue that magic figures so prominently in Harry Potter that this is what the stories are about. They describe the specific incantations used in magic as well as the substances used in concocting potions or constructing magical objects (wands for instance). J.K. Rowling seems to have researched the occult to bring greater detail and depth to her depiction of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This, along with the absence of overt Christian themes, seems too much for Christian parents too tolerate.

I concede that there is a greater description of magic and the occult in Harry Potter. However, much like Lewis’ and Tolkien’s work, we have a sure sense that this is fantasy literature. The comedic handling of the interactions between the magical and “non-magical” worlds re-enforces the idea that this is not presented as “real.” The fantasy of the magical world simply serves as a device to get at more important themes: courage, integrity, loyalty, and belonging. Many Christian authors have used fantasy as a construct to illuminate important truths (Lewis has a great chapter in his book, An Experiment in Criticism, where he talks about fantasy literature and how it is more difficult for authors to “tell lies” with an imaginary world than having the a story told in a real world context which gives the sense of being “true to life”). In many ways, the works of J.K. Rowling mirror the works of Tolkien and Lewis. In fact, Rowling seems self-conscious of her literary inspirations and reflects that in things like the choices of names for her characters. One interesting example of this is Cedric Diggory (pictured at the left from the movie, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), the Tri-Wizard Tournament champion from Hogwarts and rival to Harry for the affections of Cho Chang. Diggory Kirke, who appears as the boy with an ailing mother and nephew to “the magician” in The Magician’s Nephew and as the professor who gives the Pevensie children refuge during World War II in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, has long been thought of as Lewis himself appearing in his stories. Many critics believe that Cedric Diggory was named in honor of Lewis. John Granger, in his book How Harry Cast His Spell, details many more interesting names in Harry Potter that make other allusions and reference deeper themes (Granger also has a chapter on the tradition of using fantasy literature to communicate Christian themes).

Granger’s book also examines something else: the consistent Christian themes found throughout the Harry Potter series. The struggle between good and evil, the path of purification the journey of the hero through life… and death… to life again; these are all themes with which Christians… that all people… can relate. In fact, a former professor of mine at Covenant Seminary is convinced that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a contemplation on the resurrection of Christ (John Granger is of a similar opinion).

So, do if think there is a difference between the works of J.K. Rowling and those of Lewis and Tolkien? Yes. Rowling chronicles the maturing of a boy into a many through fantasy while Tolkien creates a complex world of myths and tells the story of a man (hobbit) who sacrifices all he loves to save the world. I would even say that Lewis and Tolkien are explicitly Christian while Rowling is perhaps more inspired by her Christian background. But the similarities are greater than the differences. Should your children read Rowling? That’s your decision, the same as it is your decision to let them read Tolkien and Lewis... or not. All I can tell you is that I have read the first three books to my oldest son (being just nine, his mother feels uncomfortable with the murder of Cedric Diggory in the fourth book, so we are waiting)… and we have had wonderful conversations about growing into a mature and godly man because of it.

Friday at the Movies: Where the Wild Things Are

This is the first of what I hope to be a series of blogs on Fridays about movies. Today I went to see Spike Jonze’s vision of Where the Wild Things Are. I must admit great anticipation on my part. Spike Jonze is not for everybody (know as the director of the art house films BeingJohn Malkovich and Adaptation) but I really appreciate him as a director. Also, Where the Wild Things Are was not only my favorite book from childhood, its author and illustrator Maurice Sendak, was an inspiration to me as an artist. His strange and sometimes dark tales and distinctive artistic style captivates me even as an adult. So… expectations were high.

I must tell you that if you are looking for a movie to take your children to, this is not it. Not that its subject matter is simply too adult or too violent (as so many movies marketed towards teenagers are), but it is… scary. Scary in the way a child sees things as scary. When things seem uncertain… when people you trust first let you down… when you’re so upset you feel out of control… that kind of scary. The movie captures well how we as adults miss how helpless and frightened our children feel as we weather the trials of life. This movie was for me as a parent to see my own trials through my children’s eyes. And it was unsettling.

The movie creates a much more developed context for the main character, Max, than is present in the original children’s book and some might get frustrated with the liberties taken (Max’s mother is divorced and has a romantic interest at the house for dinner, Max has a disinterested teenage sister and Max runs away when he is angrily ordered to his room), but I think it depicts well a common family in the United States today. It also sets up quite well the somewhat confusing emotional journey Max makes to the island of the Wild Things.

The movie isn’t perfect. It seems to lose focus towards the middle as all the Wild Things seem to have there own issues and perhaps are playing out different aspects of Max’s own psyche. There are some honestly scary moments as one of the Wild Things truly seems out of control with anger and disappoint. But the masterful rendering of the Wild Things as well as their character development and the layers of symbolism present make this an enjoyable film. What I liked most about it is that it shows the value of true affection even when people do dumb things in relationships. “Love covers all wrongs” Prov. 10:12.

If you are looking for the next Cars or Finding Nemo, this is not your movie. If you like quirky films that try to peel back the layers of our confused hearts to get to the root of a matter, go see Where the Wild Things Are. You'll appreciate the ride.

How Being 'Right' All the Time Destroys Discussion... and Relationships

I was having a conversation today with a person who I not only admire and greatly respect, but who helped shaped my understanding of Christian ministry, particularly Christian Education. He works for a publication company and they are in the middle of revamping some Bible study material. After we talked a bit about the project, we both noted that studying the Bible passage and leading a discussion about a passage were very different things and, sadly, not many Christians actually know how to have a Bible discussion or have a meaningful conversation about their faith.

Some of it stems from nerves. Christians who take seriously the Gospel message of salvation often feel the weight of communicating that message to others in a Bible discussion context: “What if I say the wrong things? What if I don’t know the answer to the questions people might ask?” I sympathize with people who just feel overwhelmed by their perceived responsibility to be the perfect teacher. But perhaps worse than this is the circumstance with folks who do think they know how to lead a Bible discussion because they have all the answers, or at least know better than everyone else in the room.

One is not disqualified from leading a Bible discussion because one doesn’t have all the answers. In fact, if the discussion leader is constantly spouting off all the “right” answers, there won’t be much of a discussion. Too many people who profess to be followers of Christ insist that to be a Christian means you must have an answer for everything: what kind of movies you can watch, what kind food you can eat, how you should educate your children, even how you should regime your infant’s schedule. “There is an answer.” When this attitude is brought into a Bible discussion people quickly fall into a game of “guess the teacher”… trying to deduce what the discussion leader wants to hear. This not only shuts down conversation but relationship as well (is it any wonder that so many non-Christians find relationships with Christians so tedious?).

I have spent over half my life leading Bible discussions in various settings (churches, college dormitories, fraternity houses, homes) and one of my favorite things to say is, “I haven’t thought about it from that perspective before… let me think about that.” Most Christians are terrified of ‘not knowing.’ Why? My experience is, more often than not, that these adherents of the Christian religion believe that being a good Christian means knowing all the right things or knowing all the right rules so they can do all the right things. Let me be honest: I am a pastor, from a family of pastors… I have been a Christian all my life and a student of the scriptures and theology for 20 years... and I am confused all the time!

I don’t mean to say that the scriptures are confusing (indeed its fundamental message of grace and mercy in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is very clear). I do mean to say that I am very confusing and so is every other person I have ever met. We are a jumble of mixed motives, insecurities, noble impulses and base desires. The depths of each human life is so rich and dark, so marvelous and shameful that it is difficult to understand how to honestly submit ourselves to God’s good guidance and love. So, when I was leading a Bible discussion on honoring father and mother and someone asked me, “what does it look like to honor a parent who has been sexually abusive?” I said, “I don’t know. I have never thought about that before but I am sure others have. Let me talk to them.” I am not sure I would say that if I were to get the same question today, but that wasn’t a bad answer at the time. Why not? Because I didn’t know. Because this question might come from a very painful place and to have a glib answer would only disrespect that pain. It communicated that I respect this person enough to be honest about the limits of my own experience and knowledge and that for the sake of this person I am willing to do the work of expanding those limits. It also gives that person room to comment honestly where they are struggling with understanding and applying the scripture. And if people don’t have the freedom to be honest in discussion … even if they are honestly wrong… they won’t speak and eventually won’t come.

My friend from the phone conversation is well known for saying “if people aren’t speaking heresy at your Bible discussions, something is wrong with the way you are leading them” (and, yes… that tells many people exactly who I was talking to but don’t blab his name in the comments section). Leading a Bible discussion is not getting the right answer out there, but having people struggle honestly with the text. A good discussion leader helps them in that struggle, not condemn them for not believing the right things. It would be wise for Christians to take this same attitude into their relationships with people who don’t share their faith. Knowledge is a good thing but “knowledge puffs up but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Sometimes the loving answer is “I don’t know.”

Heartbreak and Casey at the Bat

I wanted to share something very powerful in loving people well that I learned... from baseball.

As any baseball fan knows, October is the month of heartbreak. If your team hasn’t done well during the regular season, you’ve been waiting for the season to end to provide some relief and begin hoping for next year. But, if your team has done well, you advance to the playoffs with the hope of winning the World Series! Today, my first love, the Philadelphia Phillies, lost to the Colorado Rockies, and my adopted team, the St. Louis Cardinals, lost to the Los Angeles Dodgers in their respective playoff games. I was reminded of a famous baseball poem written by Ernest Thayer in 1888 called “Casey at the Bat.” In it, the home team, Mudville, is putting their last hope on the “mighty Casey” to bat the winning run in. But the poem ends with:

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville— mighty Casey has struck out.

“There is no joy in Mudville.” Heartbreak. I know this may seem somewhat comical, but the serious baseball fan knows about hopes disappointed. I remember vividly two games of the 1993 Worlds Series. My Phils were playing the Toronto Blue Jays. In Games 4, I watched relief pitcher Mitch Williams blow a 5 run lead to lose the game 15 to 14. And in Game 6, the Blue Jays scored 3 runs in the 9th inning to win the game and the series. As the runs came across the plate, in silence I slowly walked to the television and turned it off.

What does this have to do with loving people well? When people are heartbroken... over things more series than baseball... don’t try to cheer them up… don’t try to tell them things aren’t so bad… and please don’t tell them that God has something better for them! At least not in the moment of heartbreak… no, let them have that moment in peace. Perhaps a hug or simply be with the person. Somewhere the sun is shining bright… but not here in Mudville. Respect the person’s hurt as they take in the fact that their hopes are dashed. There will be other times to remind people of the good in life… maybe even to say “there’s always next year” (which didn’t come for me until last year… 15 years later… when the Phils beat Tampa Bay). But tonight, there is no joy in Mudville-mighty Casey has struck out. Respect that and you will have loved the person well.

In this way, I am sure that Job would have been a fan of baseball!

For a brief history on "Casey at the Bat" and the full text, go to: www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case.shtml

Baseball Post-Season

Blogging must take a backseat to the Baseball Playoffs tonight. Go Phils!

In the House of Tom Bombadil

“Come dear folk… laugh and be merry…. Let us shut out the night. Fear nothing!”

In the last entry, I mentioned Tolkien and it got me thinking about his influence on me (which is significant). The power of story telling, the ideas of courage and loyalty, and the importance of character over against ability and physical stature are not only important life lessons, but indispensable biblical truths that Tolkien helped emblazon on my heart with his own story telling. There is one theme in his The Lord of the Rings that has also helped me better understand a crucial characteristic of the Church as God intended it to be: hospitable.

I have talked with literally hundreds of parishioners about their respective churches and their comfort level in inviting friends to church. Most say something like: “I love my church but I could never invite my neighbor. They just wouldn’t feel comfortable with ‘X,’” with ‘X’ being any number of things: style of worship, attire, preaching, etc. As I ask more questions, four times out of five I begin to sense that what this person really means is that they don’t believe their friend would feel welcome. The visitor feels awkward because of their dress or tattoos. If the person was not a Christian, the preacher talked as if they weren’t really but talked about them in a way which made them feel as if they didn’t belong. No one sought to put them at ease… or perhaps talked to them at all! If this is true, this is a terrible indictment on the Church.

In the larger tale of The Lord of the Rings, there is a story of how a beleaguered band of travelers finds rest in the House of Tom Bombadil. Bombadil is a mysterious character but he seems to carry in his presence the light of Creation as it was in the beginning: powerful, marvelous but also joyful and merry. His home in the Old Forest becomes a respite for the travelers. The quote written at the start of this entry is spoken by Tom's Wife, Goldberry, at the beginning of their stay. In Tom's house, they are reminded of how things should be and helps shut out the darkness of the world, even if for a short while. It is a place of affection and hospitality.

This is something of what fellowship in the Church should be: merry and joyful as we taste fellowship “as it was in the beginning” but mindful of the darkness outside and preparing to go back into it. The hospitality of this fellowship is not just for those “belong” (meaning those who have an orthodox confession of Christian faith) but for any traveler looking for… as Bob Dylan put it… “shelter from the storm.” Now, we can only begin to know the full extent of the respite as we drink deeply from the well of God’s grace and love, and we will never know it fully in this life. But we should pray and strive to realize some of it in the here and now.

In this way we begin to embody the picture Jesus painted of the Kingdom of God: “He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.’” Matthew 13:31-32. We want to see people see the church fellowship as a place of shelter, just as God intends for it to be. What does this look like? You tell me.

God Loves the Suburbs Too

According to the Christian scriptures, all of humanity will find its rest in the Garden-City of God. Many pastors in the past decade or so have used this (in some measure) as a clarion call for the evangelical church to head back into the major cities of America… that cities are where God really wants us. While I admire the work done in places like New York City, St. Louis, and San Francisco, I think this kind of reasoning is just wrongheaded (some of my best friends just disowned me).

For many decades during the 20th Century, evangelical whites were emptying out of the cities. This movement of population, most commonly called ‘white flight,’ had the net effect of pushing major American cities into decline. Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore all suffered financially… and spiritually. However, with a renewed vision that the Church should be an institution of transformation, many evangelicals are heading back into the major cities. This is wonderful.

But lots of people live in the suburbs and in the country, too. While the Christian scriptures speak of an eventual Garden-City, I hardly think most of the major cities around the world qualify as what God had in mind. There are many fascinating cultural and architectural achievements in the cities: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Louvre in Paris, and the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lampur. But there is unbelievable squalor and filth as people are piled on top of each other not to mention the hideousness of urban blight (the “ruins” of Detroit come to mind). “This speaks to the need of transformation and renewal in the cities.” Yes, but not to the ethical superiority of ministry in the city over against other places.

Perhaps my brain has been addled by reading too many Agrarians and too much Tolkien (his love of the pastoral life comes through in his affectionate description of the Shire and his condemnation of characters like Saruman who has a ‘mind of metal’). Perhaps I am still too close to my immigrant roots that pass on to me a desire for personal freedom and more open places. But perhaps, God’s vision of the Garden-City is something more… humane… than modern urban life.

If people are called to the City, go and you have my prayers. There are very real sacrifices one has to make to do this kind of work. But there is plenty of transformation needed in the angst ridden suburbs and in poverty stricken rural areas. In the last century many people in churches said: “if you are serious about ministry, you would go on the missions field and to Africa.” Let’s not make ‘the City’ the new ‘Africa.’

Anger and the 2016 Olympics

I read an article today about why some officials in Chicago thought they had lost their bid to host the 2016 Olympics: it was Bush’s fault.

Apparently President Obama did not have enough time to turn around world opinion about the United States after the previous administration destroyed our reputation abroad. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, U.S. Senator Ronald Burris (Illinois) and other notable names with connections to Chicago laid the blame at the feet of George Bush.

Never mind that the city of Chicago itself was divided in very public ways about hosting the Olympics. Never mind that the news of violence coming out of Chicago was all over the national television (Rio has its own problems as well). Never mind that a US cities have hosted Olympic Games in 2002, 1996, 1984 and 1980 over the past thirty years and eight times over the history of the games (almost three times more than any other country with the exception of France who has hosted the games only once in the past forty years). Never mind the United States Olympic Committee has been in complete disarray since Peter Uberoth left last year and the new leadership, coming from the corporate world, did their best to alienate the international world of sports. These had nothing to do with it. It was because of Bush.

When personal animus towards another becomes one’s world view, it has a way of twisting the soul and bending the mind to see the object of resentment as the cause of any annoyance, trivial or significant. This is not about politics, left or right. This dynamic is not confined to politics either. Anger, which may be justified, if it is unchecked or not balanced with understanding, has a way of distorting our view of the people and the world around us. Anger is not a sin but it is a disastrous motivation for action. “[F]or man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires” James 1:20. If we are looking for justice and equity in this life… if we hope to experience love and mercy that heals our hurts… we must not nurse personal resentment. If we do, we will become as ugly as the object of our disdain.

Power Dynamics

This blog entry is the beginning of what I hope to be a longer article or perhaps a pamphlet on something with which church leaders need to start grappling: power dynamics.

Many things have recently set my mind on thinking about this but I will use David Letterman’s recent admission to having sex with employees as the doorway into this subject. Of course, Letterman was a victim of extortion and this is awful, but what about a boss having intimate relations with those in his employ? Did the women initiate the relationships? Did he initiate them? How did his position impact their decisions to engage in these illicit relations? This is not something that men in positions of authority think much about, but women are very aware of it.

We all have experiences with a boss who was intimidating and most of us resolve never to be that kind of boss. When we enter positions of authority, we take special measure to insure we aren’t “that kind of boss.” We will never be “the man.” We may even ask our employs to *not* refer to us as “the boss.” The thing is, if you are in a position of authority over someone, then you are “the man” whether you like it or not. Your authority brings with it power over others. Living in the sinful world we live in and given the innate insecurity we all have at some level, people will have fears about those in power over them. Which means, if you are in a position of authority, people have fears about you! Fears that may make them very compliant or very resentful.

“But people don’t need to be afraid of me.” “I’m not that kind of boss.” “I want to create a consensus atmosphere.” “I don’t like the distance created in the boss-employee model so I don’t act like that.” I have heard lots of lots of responses. This does one of two things in the minds of employees: (1) makes them even more insecure because you seem not to acknowledge the power you have over them and therefore more likely to hurt them, just as an older brother is unaware of his strength while wrestling with his little brother, or (2) create a false sense of equality that will evaporate when the employee oversteps his or her bounds, fails in the job or hurts the boss in some other way. The boss usually and suddenly remembers his or her power in that instant leaving the employee disciplined or fired and certainly disillusioned.

If you are a person in authority over another… serving on a committee overseeing someone’s work, fulfilling a supervisory role at work… stop pretending that you are *not* “the boss.” Parents often try to be their children’s friends instead of an authority figure. This has disastrous results. The same is true if you fail to recognize the authority you have. You must recognize the power you wield and then consciously use it for the good of those who serve under you. If not, you will find yourself using it unconsciously in your own self-interest.

A Humbling Compliment from an Old Friend

As a disclaimer to all that is about to follow: “[B]y the grace of God I am what I am,” and apparently “his grace to me was not without effect.” I Corinthians 15:10.

That being said, I wanted to tell you about the most wonderful and humbling compliment I have ever received. About twenty years ago, I began a friendship with a young man who for a time was as close as a brother to me. He was from the Projects in Newark, NJ. I was a white kid from suburban New Jersey. We shared the love of comic book art and writing stories. He was (and is) a spiritually minded person but I don’t think he would subscribe to any one faith. I moved away to college and as our lives moved in different directions and we lost track of each other.

Then, the wonder of Facebook reunited us this past month! It was fantastic to catch up (and we are still doing just that). He has now published a book of fiction and his wife is a “scream queen” in the ‘B’ movie world (perhaps they call that ‘Direct to Video’ these days). I became a student of theology and a pastor.

Shortly after we reconnected, he relayed this unpleasant story of racial slurs hurled at his wife and child by a stranger. I told him how sorry I was and did my best to encourage him as a friend and (as God has made me) as a pastor. This is what he wrote back to me:

Thank you for those words, Daryl. I want to say this to you because we haven't spoken in a long time. You know I'm not one to go in for religion per-se… but before the world I'd like to say I meet many who use the word Christian and [the name of] many [other] religions for that matter as descriptors of themselves [but] not truly understand the weight that comes with what they claim. Christian translates roughly to Christ-like. Christ taught great lessons of tolerance and understanding. He didn't make blanket judgments and stood against what seemed unjust. In light of this my friend you have always struck me as one of the very few men I know personally who earned the right to call yourself such.

As a follower of Christ and one who wants to see the grace of God change me into the likeness of Christ, this is the highest compliment any one could pay me: that I might be considered by my fellow man worthy of bearing the name of Christ. Not that I am a 'nice guy' or a 'great thinker' but that someone can see Christ in me!

Again, in and of myself, I am not worthy of such a compliment. The faults I see in myself are great and I know there are many faults I do not see. “But by God’s grace, I am what I am,” and apparently “his grace to me was not without effect.” This is what I hope that all Christians would desire to see in themselves and in their congregations: transformation to the likeness of Christ through God's grace.

As we think of the watching world… a world looking at the Church of Christ… what is it that they are expecting to see? Perhaps they are looking for her to fail or for evidence of the hypocrisy they suspect. What do we want them to see? People who advance a certain political and moral cause? An organization that knows how to keep doctrinal standards? I don’t mean to dismiss morality and doctrine or even imply that they are not related to the core of what it means to be a follower of Christ. They are. However, it seems clear from the Christian scriptures that we should pursue justice, mercy and devotion to God before all things (Micah 6:8). Even more simply, Jesus said that the world will know we follow him “if you love one another” (John 13:35).

What is it that we are? And what has made us such? Perhaps these questions will focus our minds on the places in our lives where God’s grace still needs to have some effect.

Putting Jesus Out of Reach: The Incarnation and the Second Commandment

A friend recently entered a graduate program in Art History at the School of the Art Institute in Chicago and made me think again on the relationship between art and spirituality. Those of us with spiritual roots in Judaism, Islam or Christianity (particularly the tradition stemming from the Protestant Reformation), are ingrained with the rejection of pictorial representations of God. This comes from interpretations of the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4) and passages in the Koran (Sura 42:9; Sura 21: 53ff) and hadiths. The Westminster Larger Catechism, a document summarizing the convictions of the Reformation in Great Britain, goes on to say that we should not form pictures “of all or of any of the three persons (of God),* either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image” (Larger Catechism Answer #109). The idea is that no representation can fully portray God and therefore would be a distortion of the Divine Being, even if it is only a mental picture. They would be false and therefore an idol.

It seems then that representational art and the worship of God should have no relation, at least not in these faith traditions. But what about Jesus? As with so many other subjects, the discussion of Jesus has a way of turning the issue upside down and inside out until the various parties of that discussion find themselves adopting positions that seem strangely at odds with their core convictions.

What I mean is this: it is an absolute core Christian conviction that the transcendent God became flesh to be near us, relate to us, identify with us and redeem humanity. But our traditional reading of the Second Commandment as it regards Jesus, the man, exhorts us to refuse to even think of his humanity, his creaturely-ness… his hands, his face, his physical presence. Sure, plenty of theologians discuss his “human nature,” but I am not referring to the esoteric aspects of being human. I am referring to something very practical and mundane: Jesus had a certain appearance, a feel, a smell to him. He was a real person. And he came near to us, quite literally. Yet, it is the Christian community that seems to put Jesus out of reach.

Christians do this in many ways (lyrics from the U2 song ‘If God Will Send His Angels’ come to mind: "Jesus never let me down/ You know Jesus used to show me the score/ Then they put Jesus in show business/ Now it's hard to get in the door"). I believe our reading of the Second Commandment as it relates to the Incarnation is one of those ways. In the film Ben-Hur (that had the tag line, “A Tale of the Christ”), director William Wyler told a story of redemption of the man Judah Ben-Hur as he had interaction with Jesus Christ. However, the few times Jesus comes into the story, we hear him speaking no lines, nor do we see him properly; only a leg or a shadow. I sympathize with the artistic reasons for this as well as the sensitivity the director may have been showing to a devout religious community who may have been offended by an explicit depiction of Jesus. However, it has the effect of making Jesus other-worldly and impersonal. Surely, this is a greater distortion of the person of Jesus than simply showing a man playing the part of Jesus.

Some will argue that portraying Christ at all in art or film would certainly not capture the God-Man that we worship and again become an idol. ‘We don’t know what Jesus looked like so any attempt to depict him would be false.’ To be blunt, this is sophomoric. We have a very good idea what Jesus looked like. He had two eyes, a nose, a mouth. He was most likely average in appearance (Isa. 53:2).# Jesus was a man. We know the kinds of things he did and the way he lived. The depiction of him in film or art re-affirms that Jesus was indeed a man. People don’t think Jesus really looked like Jim Caviezel (who played Jesus in ‘The Passion of the Christ’) any more than they think Richard Nixon really looked like Anthony Hopkins (who depicted Nixon in the 1995 Oliver Stone movie bearing the president’s name). His exact appearance is beside the point. The fact of his appearance is the point. To refuse to even picture this in our minds seems an implicit denial of his appearance.

‘No graven images’ some protest, meaning there can be no depictions of God at all, even the God-Man, Jesus. But this proves too much as Exodus 20:4 (KJV) also says: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth….” That would mean we should never make any picture of animals in any context (this is where some Muslim communities take there own scriptures). To counter that the Second Commandment does not forbid the pictorial representation of animals because it is speaking of idols used in worship would mean this also applies to depictions of God. As long as they are not used as objects of worship, they are fine. Which direction shall we take this?

My overall purpose is not to fully explicate the Second Commandment, but to point out a problem with our conceptions of Christ. We take the mystery and wonder of the incarnation and we tame it by making Jesus the man an abstraction. We justify that abstraction with the Second Commandment. I am not advocating pictures of Christ for use in worship. I am saying that our religiosity has a way distancing Christ from ourselves and from the world that desperately needs to know him. God stripped himself of his glory to be with us. He was not stopped by our baseness. He took on hunger, and indigestion, and sexual urges and the indignities of puberty because he loved us. The picture (if I may use this term) we get of Jesus from the Gospels is that of a strong but compassionate and accessible man. Whores and white collar criminals (tax collectors) could talk to him. People wanted to touch him and he was willing to touch them as well. He was physical in his tenderness and in his anger. He was wholly… human.

Why is it that the world doesn’t seem to relate to Jesus? I suppose there are many reasons. Let’s not one of them be that Christians put him out of reach with our religious practice.


* In orthodox Christian theology, we believe there is one God who exists in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, together referred to as the Trinity. Christian theology also holds that the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, took on humanity (a human body and soul) in the incarnation. This is the man we call Jesus.
# Of course there are abuses such as a picture I saw of a ‘contextualized’ Jesus as an African-American rapper called L.L. Cool Jesus. The ridiculous nature of the picture however proves that the Gospels themselves implicitly suggest proper parameters of depictions.

Omnipresence, the Mystical Communion of the Spirit and Non-Locality

A colleague and friend posted this article on his Facebook page recently: Science, Spirituality, and Some Mismatched Socks, by Guatam Naik (you can find it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124147752556985009.html).

Being trained as a scientist and a theologian, I was fascinated with the quatum phenomenon described in the article. Quantum Mechanics is the study of sub-atomic particles (like electrons and protons), the things that make up those particles (like quarks and gluons) and the particle behavior of light (photons). (yes, Quatum Mechanics covers more than this but this isn’t a sceintific blog!) One of the unviolable laws of this science (or any science for that matter) is the fixed and unsurpassable speed of light: 299,792,458 meters/second. To put it in more tangible terms, the universal speed limit is the speed of light and at that speed you could circumnavigate the globe in 1 1/3 second.


Now, it is too complicated for this setting to explain all aspects of this experiment, but in 2008, scientists (Nicolas Gisin, pictured at left, along with colleagues and students) took two photons with specific characteristics (a certain spin), ‘entangled’ the protons with a laser (meaning there characteristics become related), shot these photons along two different fiber-optic cables of exactly equal length, to two Swiss villages some 11 miles apart. During the journey, when one photon changed characteristics (switching to a slightly higher energy level), its twin instantly changed its characteristics in a corresponding way (switching to a slightly lower energy level). But the sum of the energies stayed constant, proving that the photons remained entangled. More important, the team couldn't detect any time difference in the changes. “If there was any communication [between the particles], it would have to have been at least 10,000 times the speed of light.” There is some mysterious connection between these two things that defies space. The instantaneous relation between the two particles is refered to as ‘non-locality’; the aspect of these things that seems to defy location. Leading physicist Bernard d'Espagnat looks at this result and prompts him to affirm “life's spiritual dimension.” The writer of the article summarizes it this way: “Dr. d'Espagnat's big idea is that science can only probe so far into what is real, and there's a ‘veiled reality’ that will always elude us."

I firmly believe that the Creation not simply bears the marks of its Creator but reflects the nature of its Creator. We see this in things like the noumenal/phenomenal or ‘one and many’ tension of the world as it reflects the ‘one and many’ we see in the Lord himself (the Trinity). Perhaps we see more parallels here with this idea of relation that defies locality. Perhaps ‘non-locality’ is not quite the right concept but something connects things that is ‘omni-local.’ And so to the connection betweem the risen and still embodied Christ to his people as well as believers separated by half the globe is something that is real but difficult to conceive intellectually (Quantum Mechanics is wonderful at confounding the mind!). There is a mystical communion of Christ's Church within itself and with their Savior. To say that something is ‘mystical’ does not refer to its immateriality (just as the use of the ‘spiritual’ in the New Testament also does not refer to immateriality, but to refers to power over against the weakness of common flesh). Jesus is still an incarnated being and our union and communion with him and each other is not something solely between the constituent part of us that we call the spirit alone. In our whole being (body and soul), we are united to Christ and commune with his Church. And it is the Spirit of God who is this connection. We are bound, really and inseparably (unlike the ‘entaglement’ mentioned above) to each other through the mediation of the Holy Spirit.

This leads Paul to talk about how the shame of one part of this mystical body is the shame of it all. This has profound implications for us as we think of our brothers and sisters in poverty living a mile or two from our comfortable air-conditioned homes; as we think of our brothers and sisters facing persecution and famine in northern Africa; as we think of our brothers and sisters half way across the globe recovering from a devastating earth-quake or tsunami. Locality is irrelevant. They are us. Not in some kharmic sense, but in that we are one body. The mystical nature of the body of Christ is a wonderful and powerful thing. It’s a shame we don’t think on it as often as we should or treat it as the real thing that it is.

Cultures That Tell Empty Stories Produce Empty People

Went to see the movie 'Wolverine' today. I know its an action flick but, man... what a disposable movie: too many characters, too much plot, all crammed into 1 hr. 45 min. which results in not enough character development and me not caring much about what happens. If there is one thing we learn from our Creator and His redemption of us... besides the fact that He loves His people... is that He loves a good story. Bad story telling as a means to further one's celebrity or enhance profits (Wolverine made 87 million dollar domestically in it first weekend; over 160 million worldwide) simply exploits the audience. I suppose the celebrities, movie-makers and maybe even the audience doesn't really care. But there is a price to pay when our culture becomes vapid... so do we.

Can a Prophet Be Popular?

I don't mean to suggest by the title that I believe the office of prophet continues in to the present age (disagree with me offline), but pastors continue to have a prophetic role in calling God's people to righteousness and justice. The pastor as 'prophet' uses the pulpit (as far back as the time of Noah, a preacher of righteousness) but in the modern age also uses the printed word, the mp3 file and blogs like the one you are reading. Indeed, there seem to be many popular author and bloggers out there speaking important issues.

But then I started thinking... can a prophet really be popular? I mean, if a prophet is speaking effectively to an issue of idolatry in the culture or in the church, wouldn't a warm reception seem... strange?

I don't really have an answer here but it is something that I think about in my own ministry role. There should be something of the prophet... something of 'thus sayeth the Lord!'... in pastoral ministry. Yes, we need to think in a priestly way as well (binding up wounds) but when I read the depictions of Jeremiah or John the Baptist in scripture, I have the sense they were tough men to be around. Certainly, they ruffled feather. They threw Jeremiah into a muddy cistern and John the Baptist was executed... this by their Jewish brethren!

It is very difficult to know the zero point between speaking prophetically and being pastoral. I would imagine that many pastors offend unnecessarily because they feel safer on the prophet side of the line but it seems many more of us remain on the priestly side because we want to be liked.

Something to Be Said for Longevity in Ministry

So I was standing in a delivery room in a hospital today, talking with a mom and dad to-be about the incommunicable attributes of God and the curse of the Fall as it relates to bearing children. It was a herky-jerky conversation, having to pause every few minutes as a contraction waxed and then waned (and, yes, the expecting mother was engaged in this theological discussion). As I think on it now, it must have seemed a very strange interaction to the nurses coming in and out of the room.

But I have known this couple since before they were a couple, before the husband came to faith in Christ. I served as their campus minister and now as their pastor so I have been ministering to them for over a decade. These two are both very bright and intellectually curious. The wife is a science teacher and that sums her up well (though this keen mind is "trapped in the body of game show hostess"... can anyone name the movie that's from?). The husband is an actuary in training though his journey to his current profession led him through some menial jobs, a brief stint in St. Louis thinking he would go to seminary (and living in my spare bedroom for a couple of months) and then working as a math teacher. And through much of it, I have been there to encourage, challenge and counsel, leading to this afternoon to the hours before the birth of their first child... a son.

Again, it must have seemed a strange sight to those not familiar with this couple and my long relationship with them but for us it was perfectly natural and even enjoyable (well, I don't want to speak for the laboring mom, but she seemed to be having a much better time after the epidural). You don't get this depth of relationship moving from pastorate to pastorate. There is something to be said for sticking in one place if Providence allows. And if He does, there are sweet rewards. Spending those couple of hours with these soon-to-be-parents... the honor was all mine.

(FYI, mother and baby boy are doing great!)

Getting Back Into the Swing

Alright... I know it's been three years but it is my hope to get back to regular posts. It begins with something simple: stop burying God's gifts in the ground! That's what people have been telling me and that is why I am back to blogging. I hope this won't be an excercise in proving not only to myself but to all my friends and parisioners how undisciplined I am.

Whatever the future holds for this small corner of the web, Mercy Corner is back.