One of the defining characteristics of this season of my life has been a renewed appreciation for WW2 veterans. Ever since Ann & I watched the Band of Brothers mini-series, my heart has been moved by what men endured for the sake of one another and the nation. Of course you learn as you go through that men are much less likely to have abstract notions on their minds, and much more likely to die for their buddy next to them. But in either case, they were eager initially to sign up for the "privilege" of fighting for their country. Since watching the series, I've read both the book on which the series was based and an autobiography by one of the men who was in Easy Company (Donald Malarkey).
This is Memorial Day weekend, a day when we commemorate those who gave their lives in service to our country. We are showing a video in our services tomorrow that highlights the sacrifices made by the families of those who have died. The first time I watched it, I was deeply moved. The second time was no different. Yet they put it right before I have to preach. Not fair!
When you watch or read stories about men who endured what they did at Bastogne, you cannot help but wonder what you value that much. What is there that you would endure bitter cold, frostbite, gunfire, artillery, mortar bombardment, hunger, loneliness, and watching guys die next to you for? What is really that important to you? These men are rightly deemed heroes. But I wonder if the opportunity came to all of us, how many of us would rise to the occasion?
I have mixed feelings about this. Because some days I desperately hope I get my chance. But most days I hope I never have to find out.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Power of Questions
This week in my small group, we considered the incident Mark records after Jesus descends the mountain of Transfiguration. Jesus had literally had the greatest mountaintop experience of his earthly life. He had taken Peter, James, and John with him to the top of the mountain. They'd witnessed him transformed before their eyes into a glorious body and seen him converse with Moses and Elijah. I imagine they were blown away by the experience they had just shared together. Can you imagine how eager they must have been to share what had happened with other people? Yet as they descended the mountain together, Jesus explicitly commanded them not to share what they'd seen until after his resurrection (Mark 9:9).
As is often the case after a great spiritual experience, they encounter an experience that threatens to derail their joy. In this case, it is petty squabbling between the nine disciples who had stayed at the foot of the mountain and a group of teachers of the law. Can you imagine how difficult an emotional adjustment it must have been for Jesus and his three disciples to have to face this the moment they returned from such a powerful and dramatic spiritual encounter? Yet the evil one knew something great was going on at the top of that mountain. Any time the Lord is moving, the evil one will be slinking around somewhere nearby (1 Peter 5:8).
Yet Jesus' approach to this situation is to begin by asking questions. He could have easily started talking about what was on his mind, or rebuked the group for their arguing with one another. Yet He enters into their situation and expresses interest in what is on their mind. He apparently addresses his disciples (not the teachers they are arguing with) and says, "What are you arguing with them about?" They aren't able to answer him before the man who brought his son to be healed explains his condition. After expressing his frustration over the lack of faith among the people of that generation, Jesus asks the boy be brought to him and then asks the father how long his son has been this way. Jesus may or may not have known the answer to the question. But by asking it, Jesus again enters into the world of those around Him. This is His consistent pattern when engaging others. He asks questions and engages in dialogue that communicates other people are important to Him.
Do we ask questions of others and enter into their worlds? Or do we consistently launch into discussion of our own ideas and concerns without considering others? Jesus leads us both by His commands and His example. May those of us who bear His name be as interested in people as He was . . . and is!
As is often the case after a great spiritual experience, they encounter an experience that threatens to derail their joy. In this case, it is petty squabbling between the nine disciples who had stayed at the foot of the mountain and a group of teachers of the law. Can you imagine how difficult an emotional adjustment it must have been for Jesus and his three disciples to have to face this the moment they returned from such a powerful and dramatic spiritual encounter? Yet the evil one knew something great was going on at the top of that mountain. Any time the Lord is moving, the evil one will be slinking around somewhere nearby (1 Peter 5:8).
Yet Jesus' approach to this situation is to begin by asking questions. He could have easily started talking about what was on his mind, or rebuked the group for their arguing with one another. Yet He enters into their situation and expresses interest in what is on their mind. He apparently addresses his disciples (not the teachers they are arguing with) and says, "What are you arguing with them about?" They aren't able to answer him before the man who brought his son to be healed explains his condition. After expressing his frustration over the lack of faith among the people of that generation, Jesus asks the boy be brought to him and then asks the father how long his son has been this way. Jesus may or may not have known the answer to the question. But by asking it, Jesus again enters into the world of those around Him. This is His consistent pattern when engaging others. He asks questions and engages in dialogue that communicates other people are important to Him.
Do we ask questions of others and enter into their worlds? Or do we consistently launch into discussion of our own ideas and concerns without considering others? Jesus leads us both by His commands and His example. May those of us who bear His name be as interested in people as He was . . . and is!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Woe to the Traitor
When Candice returned to her mutinous ways on Survivor, she reminded fans of the show why she should never have been a "hero" in the first place. People who pay way too much attention to such things recall that on S13: Cook Islands, Candice mutinied from the Aitutaki tribe and joined the rival tribe. She was booted from the game not long after that. Now on the 20th season of Survivor, she was back as a "hero" where she was booted the episode after she backstabbed the Heroes. Served her right.
I would never have bothered blogging about this had this dynamic been confined to the Survivor world. Although Survivor is entertaining to me, most people don't care much any more. But in a case of life imitates art, yesterday saw Arlen Specter lose in a primary to a Democrat. Specter had been a senator for five terms -- 30 years. He apparently left the Republican party to avoid a Republican primary battle against a conservative he only beat by two percentage points in his previous election, thinking his chances would be better running as a Democrat. So he left the party he'd been part of since Ronald Reagan was first elected to office in 1980 and became a Democrat in a move to cling to power. He lost by eight points.
Political pragmatism may seem like the best move if the greatest and highest goal is to remain in power. But where are the men and women of principle who would rather stand by what they believe than be re-elected? Until we are committed to honoring principled people over those who tickle our ears, we will continue to be faced by an endless parade of people promising "change." But we'll never actually get any change until a majority of those who vote change who they're looking for.
I'm thrilled there are examples like this from entertainment and politics to make this point clear. But is anyone paying attention?
I would never have bothered blogging about this had this dynamic been confined to the Survivor world. Although Survivor is entertaining to me, most people don't care much any more. But in a case of life imitates art, yesterday saw Arlen Specter lose in a primary to a Democrat. Specter had been a senator for five terms -- 30 years. He apparently left the Republican party to avoid a Republican primary battle against a conservative he only beat by two percentage points in his previous election, thinking his chances would be better running as a Democrat. So he left the party he'd been part of since Ronald Reagan was first elected to office in 1980 and became a Democrat in a move to cling to power. He lost by eight points.
Political pragmatism may seem like the best move if the greatest and highest goal is to remain in power. But where are the men and women of principle who would rather stand by what they believe than be re-elected? Until we are committed to honoring principled people over those who tickle our ears, we will continue to be faced by an endless parade of people promising "change." But we'll never actually get any change until a majority of those who vote change who they're looking for.
I'm thrilled there are examples like this from entertainment and politics to make this point clear. But is anyone paying attention?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Survivor Sentiments
There are few people who read this blog, and fewer among them who care about the television show Survivor. But before tonight's finale plays out and I miss the opportunity to say what I want to say, I'd like to express a few sentiments about the newest Survivor darling, Russell.
After the last season when Survivor lost to the rather mediocre Natalie, Jeff Probst and others seemed shocked and disappointed Russell lost. I was terribly frustrated that I felt like I had to constantly explain what seemed to abudantly obvious to me. Now we stand on the brink of yet another Survivor finale and again it seems Russell is likely to make the final tribal council. I'm sure there are some who are gleefully anticipating Russell finally getting the credit he deserves. Well, let me see if I can make this clear to any Russell lover who may care.
Russell is not a great Survivor player. He's not only not the best ever, he isn't going to win . . . ever.
In the interest of fairness, I will grant that Russell is very aggressive at finding idols. He is also good at manipulation and intimidation. But in terms of being a great player, Russell lacks the necessary savvy to win at final tribal council. As a more minor issue, Russell is not a particularly good physical player either. We are near the end of the game again and he noticably doesn't win immunity unless he can find it under a rock somewhere. Which is fitting, since his type seems to be the sort who comes out from under rocks.
Two major issues make Russell Hantz a fatally flawed player of the game. First, he lacks social grace (almost completely). In Survivor, when you get to the second part of the game, you have to get rid of those people from the game but keep their vote. He's decent at the first part of that, but terrible at the second. Second, he plays the game with too much emotion. The moment someone says something cross to him, he's ready to get rid of them. Once you realize this, Russell can be easily manipulated into voting out even one of his best allies (Coach). His insecurity prompts him to get rid of those who would be most loyal to him (Danielle) if he feels for a moment she may not like him the best.
Russell has become the on-screen version of all that is wrong with Junior High school students. Selfish, manipulative, petty, and mouthy; he may make for winsome television for those who cast Survivor. But most normal people got away from that sort of thing once their voice finished changing. I will be very glad when this season is over and the next begins just so we can move beyond the Hantz era. If rumors he may return again for a third time in the following season turn out to be true, Survivor may lose a lot of loyal viewers -- and I will likely be among them.
After the last season when Survivor lost to the rather mediocre Natalie, Jeff Probst and others seemed shocked and disappointed Russell lost. I was terribly frustrated that I felt like I had to constantly explain what seemed to abudantly obvious to me. Now we stand on the brink of yet another Survivor finale and again it seems Russell is likely to make the final tribal council. I'm sure there are some who are gleefully anticipating Russell finally getting the credit he deserves. Well, let me see if I can make this clear to any Russell lover who may care.
Russell is not a great Survivor player. He's not only not the best ever, he isn't going to win . . . ever.
In the interest of fairness, I will grant that Russell is very aggressive at finding idols. He is also good at manipulation and intimidation. But in terms of being a great player, Russell lacks the necessary savvy to win at final tribal council. As a more minor issue, Russell is not a particularly good physical player either. We are near the end of the game again and he noticably doesn't win immunity unless he can find it under a rock somewhere. Which is fitting, since his type seems to be the sort who comes out from under rocks.
Two major issues make Russell Hantz a fatally flawed player of the game. First, he lacks social grace (almost completely). In Survivor, when you get to the second part of the game, you have to get rid of those people from the game but keep their vote. He's decent at the first part of that, but terrible at the second. Second, he plays the game with too much emotion. The moment someone says something cross to him, he's ready to get rid of them. Once you realize this, Russell can be easily manipulated into voting out even one of his best allies (Coach). His insecurity prompts him to get rid of those who would be most loyal to him (Danielle) if he feels for a moment she may not like him the best.
Russell has become the on-screen version of all that is wrong with Junior High school students. Selfish, manipulative, petty, and mouthy; he may make for winsome television for those who cast Survivor. But most normal people got away from that sort of thing once their voice finished changing. I will be very glad when this season is over and the next begins just so we can move beyond the Hantz era. If rumors he may return again for a third time in the following season turn out to be true, Survivor may lose a lot of loyal viewers -- and I will likely be among them.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thoughts from the Hallelujah Mountains
Avatar struck box office gold with a blending of Ferngully (or Atlantis or Star Wars) & The Matrix, and a bit of LOST thrown in for good measure. This film was so familiar as I viewed it that it was hard to shake the feeling that I'd seen it before. Perhaps because I have.
Like so many films before it, the film creatively syncretizes numerous religious perspectives into a palatable dish that goes down easy for the heroes of the story. The Na'Vi bear a striking resemblance in many ways to American Indians, and of course we are now supposed to side with them. Long gone are the days of Cowboys and Indians when we look down on the natives for their savagery. Instead their respect for the earth and believe in Eywa is touching. This "god" is a panentheistic entity nearly impossible to distinguish from "the force" of Star Wars fame, except that it is eventually referred to as their "great mother."
Also thrown in for good measure are a couple references to Christianity, in order to help make all this feel familiar enough to be palatable. Flying mountains are called the "Hallelujah" (literally "praise God") mountains, and this show-stopping line by one of the native Na'vi people during an initiation process where the hero (Jake Sully) is striving to be among their people. Neytiri says, "Every person is born twice. The second time is when you earn your place among the people forever."
All of which gives me pause to stop and reflect on the significance and impact of these references. Are these references included because of their resonance with movie viewers? Are they a reflection of the muddled convictions of the writers and producers of these films? Or is there a deeper reason for such repetition? Is there a constantly unsatisfied longing that prompts such spiritual speculation? Is there a desire to be reborn and a lack of awareness or trust in how to go about it? Perhaps that is unrealistically hopeful.
But the more intriguing question for me is to consider the effect such speculative fiction has on our souls. What is the net result of such repetitive viewing of stories like these? Does it function as a placebo in the place of the real remedy? Or does it awaken the longing in the soul even deeper to fertilize the soil for the planting of the seed of the Word of God? Like most such questions, I suspect the answer is both, or either, or neither one. People receive messages differently, and these stories are such a muddled mishmash of confused ideology that it is hard to know what among it will stick in the mind from one person to the next.
What I do know is this. There are important reasons films like this continue to do well at the box office. Spirituality sells. Consumers are not only interested in these things, they will pay to reflect on them. Another reality worth considering: Packaging matters. Avatar is arguably one of the most visually impressive films ever released, and this is part of the appeal for many people. I've been stunned how many people have told me that seeing Avatar makes them think or heaven, or that they hope heaven looks like that. More than anything else, this tells me the makers of this film have tapped people's creative imaginations.
Whether you regard films like Avatar as wonderful or dangerous (or both), there are lessons to be learned from considering why so many people are enamoured with them.
Like so many films before it, the film creatively syncretizes numerous religious perspectives into a palatable dish that goes down easy for the heroes of the story. The Na'Vi bear a striking resemblance in many ways to American Indians, and of course we are now supposed to side with them. Long gone are the days of Cowboys and Indians when we look down on the natives for their savagery. Instead their respect for the earth and believe in Eywa is touching. This "god" is a panentheistic entity nearly impossible to distinguish from "the force" of Star Wars fame, except that it is eventually referred to as their "great mother."
Also thrown in for good measure are a couple references to Christianity, in order to help make all this feel familiar enough to be palatable. Flying mountains are called the "Hallelujah" (literally "praise God") mountains, and this show-stopping line by one of the native Na'vi people during an initiation process where the hero (Jake Sully) is striving to be among their people. Neytiri says, "Every person is born twice. The second time is when you earn your place among the people forever."
All of which gives me pause to stop and reflect on the significance and impact of these references. Are these references included because of their resonance with movie viewers? Are they a reflection of the muddled convictions of the writers and producers of these films? Or is there a deeper reason for such repetition? Is there a constantly unsatisfied longing that prompts such spiritual speculation? Is there a desire to be reborn and a lack of awareness or trust in how to go about it? Perhaps that is unrealistically hopeful.
But the more intriguing question for me is to consider the effect such speculative fiction has on our souls. What is the net result of such repetitive viewing of stories like these? Does it function as a placebo in the place of the real remedy? Or does it awaken the longing in the soul even deeper to fertilize the soil for the planting of the seed of the Word of God? Like most such questions, I suspect the answer is both, or either, or neither one. People receive messages differently, and these stories are such a muddled mishmash of confused ideology that it is hard to know what among it will stick in the mind from one person to the next.
What I do know is this. There are important reasons films like this continue to do well at the box office. Spirituality sells. Consumers are not only interested in these things, they will pay to reflect on them. Another reality worth considering: Packaging matters. Avatar is arguably one of the most visually impressive films ever released, and this is part of the appeal for many people. I've been stunned how many people have told me that seeing Avatar makes them think or heaven, or that they hope heaven looks like that. More than anything else, this tells me the makers of this film have tapped people's creative imaginations.
Whether you regard films like Avatar as wonderful or dangerous (or both), there are lessons to be learned from considering why so many people are enamoured with them.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Who Stinks?
One evening as 10 year old Tommy was spending the night at his grandparents’ house, his grandmother introduced him to limburger cheese. Tommy couldn’t believe how bad the smell was, and went to bed that night wondering how anyone could eat that stuff. The next afternoon as he watched his grandfather sleeping in his lazy boy, he came up with an idea. He went to the refrigerator and got out some of the limburger cheese and lightly brushed some on his grandfather’s mustache – right under his nose. Then Tommy snuck off to listen and watch what he would do when he awoke. A few minutes later, his grandfather woke up and wrinkled his nose. He said out loud to no one in particular, “It stinks in here!” The old man then walked into the kitchen and said, “It stinks in here too!” Then, walking out the back door, he stood outside and sniffed. He finally announced, “The whole world stinks!”
The moral of the story? If the whole world stinks, its probably you.
The moral of the story? If the whole world stinks, its probably you.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Balance: Further Reflections
One of the most significant insights that have echoed in my soul in 2010 has been to consider what God would like the balance of my life to be. The more I have tried to live in pursuit of the righteous life, the more abundantly obvious it has become how it is nearly impossible for me to discern the best way to spend my moments. In any given day, there are so many things competing for my heart and mind that I find myself having to say "No" to more and more things. Ann has reminded me continually that the ability to say "No" is one I've desperately needed. Now that I do, knowing precisely when to use it is no less problematic.
Every component of our lives cries for attention. Career, ministry, spouse, rest, time with God, children, spiritual disciplines, household tasks, community involvement, sleep, personal fitness, maintaining contact in significant relationships. The list seems endless to me. And the truth is, I genuinely enjoy most of these things. For the most part, I run to them, not from them. But there is a limit to what can be packed into a day. For a while the attempt to work more efficiently relieves the burden of an overbusy life. But there comes a point when you simply cannot do everything. Lists have blank spaces where I feel there ought to be checkmarks.
What makes these dilemmas so perplexing is finding the balance between priority and desire, wants and needs, urgency and importance, immediate impact and long term significance. I almost feel like I'm sitting in Mr. Keating's class as he recites Mr. J. Evans Pritchard's guidelines for understanding poetry. I can graph out all the relative factors and chart what I ought to be doing. But what room do we leave for the Spirit to instruct our souls when this is how we determine how to live our lives? Is this really how God wants me deciding what to do when I have a free half an hour?
A more obvious consequence of the process I use is the model I set for those who view how I live. My eldest daughter is an extraordinary young woman with great talents. But she also possesses a remarkable propensity toward overcommitment, fatigue, and burnout. Hmm, wonder where she learned that? And yet when I consider how I've lived my life it is very difficult to determine what I should NOT have done. What ought I to have left out in order that I was not pushing my capacity to the very limits? Should we not live close to the edge of what we are capable of accomplishing while we are here? Is this not what it means to "make the most of every opportunity"? (Eph 5:15-16).
This blog is such a perfect illustration of my struggle. I began this year with the very real hope to blog every day in 2010. Clearly, this has been a disastrous commitment in terms of follow-through. Yet this very failure highlights the very thing God is teaching me. As I write, there are more things to do today than I will likely get done. I need to take my kids a couple places I've promised, do some errands Ann's asked me to do while she's at work, go to the hospital, and I have friends who intend to come over tonight. Somewhere between taking my son to "Free Comic Book Day," the kids to the library and the Strawberry Festival, and a visit to "Tudor's Biscuit World" -- I'm not going to be able to do it all and everything else as well. But perhaps the essence of the life of faith is to head off in a godly direction and see how He redirects our paths. Proverbs 3:5-6.
Every component of our lives cries for attention. Career, ministry, spouse, rest, time with God, children, spiritual disciplines, household tasks, community involvement, sleep, personal fitness, maintaining contact in significant relationships. The list seems endless to me. And the truth is, I genuinely enjoy most of these things. For the most part, I run to them, not from them. But there is a limit to what can be packed into a day. For a while the attempt to work more efficiently relieves the burden of an overbusy life. But there comes a point when you simply cannot do everything. Lists have blank spaces where I feel there ought to be checkmarks.
What makes these dilemmas so perplexing is finding the balance between priority and desire, wants and needs, urgency and importance, immediate impact and long term significance. I almost feel like I'm sitting in Mr. Keating's class as he recites Mr. J. Evans Pritchard's guidelines for understanding poetry. I can graph out all the relative factors and chart what I ought to be doing. But what room do we leave for the Spirit to instruct our souls when this is how we determine how to live our lives? Is this really how God wants me deciding what to do when I have a free half an hour?
A more obvious consequence of the process I use is the model I set for those who view how I live. My eldest daughter is an extraordinary young woman with great talents. But she also possesses a remarkable propensity toward overcommitment, fatigue, and burnout. Hmm, wonder where she learned that? And yet when I consider how I've lived my life it is very difficult to determine what I should NOT have done. What ought I to have left out in order that I was not pushing my capacity to the very limits? Should we not live close to the edge of what we are capable of accomplishing while we are here? Is this not what it means to "make the most of every opportunity"? (Eph 5:15-16).
This blog is such a perfect illustration of my struggle. I began this year with the very real hope to blog every day in 2010. Clearly, this has been a disastrous commitment in terms of follow-through. Yet this very failure highlights the very thing God is teaching me. As I write, there are more things to do today than I will likely get done. I need to take my kids a couple places I've promised, do some errands Ann's asked me to do while she's at work, go to the hospital, and I have friends who intend to come over tonight. Somewhere between taking my son to "Free Comic Book Day," the kids to the library and the Strawberry Festival, and a visit to "Tudor's Biscuit World" -- I'm not going to be able to do it all and everything else as well. But perhaps the essence of the life of faith is to head off in a godly direction and see how He redirects our paths. Proverbs 3:5-6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
