A dispersion of ideas in an explosive manner from one mind for all the world to embarrassingly see. Hopefully these thoughts interact with yours for a dialectic that allows for true learning to take place.
It's that time again...40 days after Pascha/Easter - The Feast of Ascension.
"Raised to the glory and authority of God, the Man-Christ still remains man in the truest sense of the word and also the man-model to be attained by all who believe in Him. By believing in His co-suffering with us, which at the same time is His power that permeates and elevates our being, the believers ask Him for His 'mercy,' according Him all the glory: 'Lord have mercy.' In this expression one finds also the acknowledgement of Him as our Master and that this Master is infinitely merciful and loving, and therefore approachable for us" (Staniloae, Dumitru. The Experience of God III:152).
"It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." - Is. 2:2-3 ESV (Vesperal reading).
Troparion: O Christ God, You have ascended in Glory, / Granting joy to Your disciples by the promise of the Holy Spirit. / Through the blessing they were assured / That You are the Son of God, / The Redeemer of the world!
This is already old news, but I did find this discovery fascinating...and potentially game-changing in how we understand cellular activity and regulation. No commentary, but it's getting a little harder to not see the genetic code (now codes) as having no analog to "information" science.
Never have I found such peace to think about the past few days than a scummy motel in a very small town in Northern Illinois. I'm alone, and I feel great to be so. The world can be so demanding, and I don't have my thoughts organized, my heart stilled, and I end up worrying and stressing about things I either cannot fix or are outside of my control...and this is deadly, for can we add any hour to our life by worrying?
To start with, I sit here rather than with my friend who is awaiting his marriage in several days. Currently he sits with his fiance who is in the hospital. True love consists not in how we handle the good times and sexual desires that accompany them, but in how we bear the cross that the one we love suffers and carries.
One might wonder why I put a video to several selections from the desert fathers of Egypt (and some non-Egyptian) about prayer and the heart/mind. The reason will show itself as this discussion continues. On Tuesday night of this week, I was privileged to again partake of good discussion with Nathan Reese and Jason Ramey on the Faith and Skepticism Podcast. They had invited me to do a podcast a few weeks earlier on the development of the Christian canon of Scripture along with another Christian named Sam who lives in the Twin Cities, and Dr. Robert Price. The discussion was good, albeit short, but was civil, respectful, and genuinely communicated as best as scholars sometimes can given the breadth of a topic. The most recent podcast however was dealing with "Christian pop-culture" generally, and the film "God's Not Dead" (see earlier review).
The podcast could have been better, but some things were brought up which would best be answered in another medium. The philosophical arguments of the film were not really covered, and that is fine. I would much rather have talked about a stronger argument for theism being the intelligibility of the created world through abstract and reasoned concepts such as numbers and shapes apart from and applied to physical reality with precision and accuracy that involves both "real numbers" and "irrational numbers." This is one of the most pivotal questions in my opinion for the operation of a science that has a grounding in true reason and reality (through both the Logos and our being created His image and thus given the gift of reason).
Among two issues that arose, both during the podcast, and after (not recorded) revolved around how youth in a conservative Christian culture come to terms with being gay. There were also discussions involving how a conservative Muslim family is portrayed in the movie and what the intention was on the part of the filmmakers.
One of the speakers suggested that it was in the movie as fear-mongering. Perhaps, but I think a more accurate and full view of the characters should involve the young Chinese student. Obviously the movie at the end shows all of them, the Muslim girl, Josh, and the Chinese student at a Newsboys concert singing about God. This is a message in my opinion that the message of the Gospel transcends cultural boundaries. It is meant for the whole world and can be liberating (the message itself, not necessarily how it is practiced) which is also why the pastor had an African friend present with him. All ethnic groups were represented in a Christian light. At the same time, perhaps it was not the best choice to portray the father beating and casting out his daughter, but I will still defend that the movie shows him as a figure to have compassion on. His world with regard to his daughter is ending. She converted and left the faith which was an anchor for him. Many immigrant cultures understand that apart from religion, language is the key to holding onto an identity of where they came from, and sadly this cultural influence is often severely diminished if not wiped out in 2-3 generations, regardless of how strict the family is. The father is attempting to hold onto the truth and culture he brought with him...he SAYS AS MUCH at the beginning of the film to his daughter. He also weeps for her, which humanizes him. He is not following Sharia like a terrorist...he isn't honor killing her. He is reacting I would argue more from a minority group who feels threatened in this country and culture rather than that it is meant to draw hate mongering from the viewers. Islam, while I believe it to be incorrect, has a tremendous intellectual and philosophical tradition, and this should be respected for anyone who ever delves into such a topic. The situation with these characters was actually more nuanced in my opinion than originally appears.
The second however was with regard to whether or not Christians do this, and it was reapplied to both atheists and/or homosexuals. I will unabashedly say that this happens...it is a fact. Christians can be sinful and do immense harm just like any other sinful human being (contrary to what the film seems to show about them). At the same time, understanding homosexuality in youth and atheism or religious conversion/deconversion in general is highly complex and cannot simply be boiled down to either "they should be like they were born to be or are" (which runs a fine line to saying I should continue to be a codependent because it is who I am either genetically, epigenetically, or behaviorally) or "they are just into drugs and rebellion." The prior argument is often given with little thought to the insanity of it being applied to other factors of life consistently, and the latter argument ignores that it is often just a sign of something else much deeper and personal. Many factors such as abuse, early experimentation, societal or peer influence, hormone imbalance, etc. could lead to such a decision, lifestyle, or predilection. In fact, there could be the shock and horror that they are "convinced(!)" of another way or disagree with yours or their parents. There is simply not enough known about it to predict or explain it. Nevertheless, my point in the podcast was, and still is, that these are human beings created in the image of God. Truly if we saw them as struggling with and "choosing" a sin at this age, they would be considered "the least of these" and deserving of love and mercy. On this point, Dan was spot-on. But the problem is by saying "the church does this" or even Christians saying "the other side does it too! ("they" do it as well), this is the equivalent of complaining about how to build a bridge without realizing that people need to cross it anyway to get the the hospital on the other side. Our children are our children, regardless of what they choose...this is mercy and forgiveness more in keeping with the father of the parable of the Prodigal Son. When the son asks for his inheritance, he asks for his father's bios, what was HIS to take. He's telling his father he really would be happy if he would just feed the worms already (btw, the older son does this as well). When the son goes off to a far-off land...the father doesn't chase after him...he lets him do what he believes he needs to do. The father has done his due diligence to teach his son right from wrong, but the final decision is the son's. There is a point where, victim or not, born this way or not, we are ALL accountable for our choices and actions....and this is where the desert fathers come in.
Many might be surprised that there are homosexual bishops and monks...but it makes sense. Marriage is not about who we love in terms of either sex or friendship...it is about complimentary companionship and bearing one anothers' cross so we can learn to die to ourselves. Marriage and monasticism (that "curse" of celibacy) are two paths to the same goal. The monks and the bishops (chosen from the monks) have both the highest control over the church, and help to illuminate us and support us through prayer. The idea or thought that "we are just now discovering that homosexuality is lifelong" is thoroughly refuted by any study of the desert fathers and their view of temptation, addiction, and the logoi of the human heart/mind. Ask ANY priest worth his weight who has been at his job for a while and I will be willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that he understands life-long temptation better than anyone...and not just the ones dealing with sex. In fact, the fact that homosexuality was struggled with is present in the early desert fathers. There are sayings with regard to spending the night in a brother's cell, or not growing a beard (thus appearing more feminine), and even the story of St. Anthony the Great's temptation of a young Nubian/Ethiopian boy in his bed, which communicate that the desert fathers were intimately familiar with struggles. Sex and sexual temptation is just one aspect of the passion of concupiscence or lust. There are also the sins of anger (irascibility) and also vainglory. The fact is not that the youth are sinful because they have such desires...this is their cross to bear, just as for another, extreme anger is theirs, another might be bereft of homeland and parents, or not having limbs is another's. We are ALL sinful, for there is no one who is without sin, even the Mother of God herself had original sin! But we are loved by God and shown a way that is to true love of both God and neighbor, and ultimately ourselves, for we are to find humility in the fact that we are equally if not more sinful than any other human being. Our sin and its depth however can drive us to despair, this is true...but Christ entered into our humanity to experience our temptations and touch all of our essence, thus restoring His image in us. There is no sin beyond forgiveness, save "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is the rejection of the very gift that can save and heal. It is not forgiven, because God will not force this salvation on us...for love cannot be forced.
How can we seek such humility? How can Christ save others through this very humility? Because the image of God pointed to Christ in our minds reflects His love to all from out of us. As St. Seraphim of Sarov said, "acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved." Perhaps in this we find the strongest evidence for the existence and LOVE of God (and this is something which Dostoyevsky portrayed with Elder Zossima), by the fact that in a world of selfishness, destruction, sin, hate, etc...there is genuine love for those who not only cannot return it, but who don't because they hate...that is a genuine miracle. The sad fact is that we look at all the bad in the world, saying "God cannot exist," or "God cannot be a God of love and mercy," and yet when we see a genuine saint or person who gives love to one in need, we feel the need to rob this answer from God and make it simply a humanistic endeavor. Job wasn't given an answer that he wanted, but he did get an answer...and while it was not in his desired way...it was the right answer to his question.
This was made a few years ago, and it always catches me about how beautiful the island is. On top of the book (Mountain of Silence) by Kyriakos Markides which was written while he was still a secularist, Mount Athos has come alive to a level that makes me want so much to visit it.
Three movies hit theaters this year that deal with religious or theological material; Son of God, God's Not Dead, and Noah. I've seen all three, and only one has my vote as a truly good movie...and it isn't what many of you might expect.
1) Son of God:
First of all, let me say that I'm not against making movies about Jesus, and in fact there are even movies that play with interesting ideas and topics. I love the Gospel of John with the guy who played Desmond from Lost as Jesus (sorry, he's Desmond to me). It was the Gospel of John in video form, and was very well done. I similarly actually enjoyed and thought about The Last Temptation of Christ (HEAR ME OUT!). I thought it tried hard to deal with Jesus as a human being and it didn't necessarily deny His divinity. In fact, what bothered people I think the most about it was that He married Mary Magdalene, but it portrayed a man in his 30's who may very well have wanted to follow the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply." It showed that the last temptation was actually like the first...come down from there, you don't have to go through the suffering. In the end, He actually didn't, but it was truly the "last temptation."
But as for Son of God, I'm sorry, I know the Bible series it is taken from has done very well, but I thought I couldn't connect with Him as an actor, I thought some of the interpretive moves were both unnecessary and cost interpretation at other times. I also wasn't impressed with Mary Magdalene being "one of the guys." And not just one of the guys, but pretty much enough to tell Thomas to shut up at one point while they were getting the boat ready to go across the lake...wow, that's 1st century Jewish feminism :-x. At least with the Gospel of John she learned and tagged along only at the very end...with Son of God, you'd think all the disciples were celibate and didn't have wives who tagged along, but they did and should have featured more prominently if they were going to include her in all the scenes. Overall, bad...I really didn't feel it even gave me something to find that was new in a good way, or old in a faithful way to the text or the culture.
2) God's Not Dead:
Wow. I don't know what to say about this one. Highly simplistic with pretty much every character becoming a Christian by the end, and one of the lamest "text someone God's not dead" at the end of the movie. A friend who is a pastor had that texted to him, and he responded back rightly, "well, He was for at least 3 days." The movie came across as mean spirited at times, including killing the main atheist character (of course spoilers...pansies!) after he converts. Yes, this shows Providence at work, but it was very forced.
Unlike Son of God however, there were a few glimmers of redeemability (word?...eh, I'm a theologian, we make up words all the time!) in it. For starters, the movie did hit at a good point, which was that the problem of evil is one of the strongest arguments against God's existence. It is! However, the movie didn't really address the reality of WHY it is such a powerful argument - namely it is existential. The problem of evil is always presented with something akin to a bystander who asks the question of evil and the goodness of God, but let's be real, you ask it not because you necessarily care about nameless and faceless hypothetical humans...you care about your friend who lost their child, your mother who has cancer, your child who was killed in a car accident, the thousands of people who die in an earthquake and who move us to emotional response! These are things that happen "in the body" and "to the body." The movie hits on that, but neglects to mention that the God who allows for that Himself enters it and asks the SAME THING at the cross - "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Because the movie spent so much time in the mental or emotional realm it didn't really solve this problem in a true way. I also disagree with showing every atheist as a jerk...there are many who are yes, but there are also honest and moral atheists and Christians who act like the back-end of Mr. Ed! This was also not dealt with, as THAT is also an argument used against Christianity. The second scene I loved actually was the grandmother who had advanced dementia who answered Dean Caine's character...the Devil doesn't make us suffer sometimes to hide that we are in a prison...until it is too late. This was actually a very philosophically profound statement without EVEN MEANING TO BE! In fact my jaw dropped when I heard this part of the movie! Other than that...I could have left it and been just as well off. The philosophical arguments were "meh," and pretty much just ended up in being general arguments for God, not necessarily Christianity...and btw, at the end of the movie, not everyone stood up....the ugliest kid was still an atheist...yes, I noticed that movie.
3) Noah:
Alright, I know people are probably wondering why I actually loved this movie...so here goes. This movie received an INSANE amount of criticism early on (see for example Answers in Genesis' review which actually misses so much of the point of the movie). Yes, Tubal-Cain wasn't on the Ark. Yes, Lamech isn't killed by him. Yes, Ham and Japheth's wives are on the ark with them (technically they are already conceived when they enter the ark...or at least will be in almost no time). Yes, the Watchers are not in the biblical text, but really pay attention to the theology of the movie...for being made by an atheist...he gets it! Here's what I am referring to:
Creation via evolution? Maybe - that is one part of the movie, but other parts show a possible difference in that narrative...indeed, if it was true, then the view of humanity being guilty and animals not would make very little sense, because "man" ate meat and blood of animals, not Noah or his family - yes, that IS in the text...humanity is not allowed to eat meat until AFTER the flood in the biblical text. The movie also points out that man's technology is not inherently evil, man is! They turned the gifts of the watchers (Kaballah or Enoch as far as text goes could be what was being referred to here) into weapons to kill each other and decimate creation. Rather than care for it as caretakers, they just flat out raped the land! Man is portrayed as full of passions! And yet there are two takes to it. The children of Cain, and Tubal-Cain himself says "I am in Your image!" He is correct! And Noah who feels that the flood is to wipe out the wicked and that he and his family is to be left because they are helping the animals and are "good," finds out when he visits the camp at one point, that HE is also in their image...they share a common fallen humanity!
And what of the fall? Was the movie Gnostic because it portrayed Adam and Eve as glowing? NO! This is actually an OLD tradition, even in Christianity! "Before he dressed himself in the garments of skin man wore a 'divinely woven' attire, his psychosomatic dress which had been woven with grace, with the light and glory of God" (Panyiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ, 52). This is found in St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis with regard to the prelapsarian state. Similarly, Nellas says based on the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor, "if we understand the 'nakedness' as transparency, we can say that the body of Adam was so simple that it was in reality transparent, open to the material creation without resisting it in any way, and without the world offering any resistance to the body - the world had been surrendered to it. The human body, while maintaining its own peculiar constitution and separate identity with regard to the world, was nevertheless not divided from it at all" (ibid., 52-53). St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Maximus the Confessor all say this. They have a body, but they reflect the glory of the very image they are created in!
So we have humans in Eden reflecting the glory of God in innocence, eat of the fruit, are cast out and need to eat by the sweat of their brow, are called evil for raping the land and eating meat, using the gifts of technology for violence against the creation and their fellow man...how is this "anti-Christian?" That is biblical through and through! When Ham picks the flower in the beginning of the movie, he is told by Noah that by picking it, it can't fulfill its function - in fact, the idea is that creation has a full goal that man is to help in seeing through! It anchors environmentalism in a vein that allows for a deified way of seeing creation that an atheistic mentality just cannot fully appreciate without becoming a dead paganistic materialism. We as Christians are to care for the Earth because it is a trust given to us, and the resurrected Christ didn't recreate His body, but rose in it...so any view of the end of the world that thinks that fire is only that which destroys doesn't understand the purifying role of fire (good lecture by Fr. Thomas Hopko on the meaning of Christianity and the Apocalypse btw). In fact, when Tubal-Cain kills animals on the ark, I pulled back almost in horror! It was said that if one died, a piece of creation was lost forever...and you see it happening! It should horrify us to know about the extinction of animals or plants...but it should equally horrify us at the death of a human created in the image of God! The death of any human person is a tragedy...without the resurrection of course!
I even like how Noah experienced the "dark night of the soul," where he was confused as to his role...and he became a king douche! Even a man of God is not perfect, and God does test often by NOT talking or revealing things to a prophet. At one point, Noah points out the bad in his family to his wife who saw only the good...but he left out his judgmental and unmerciful self. It wasn't until he spared his grandchildren at the end where his role as the Christ figure was fulfilled. God smiled on that in the movie...and it was one of the most "Christian" moments...it is mercy and forgiveness which Noah forgot. Tubal-Cain was the man who makes his way into the wedding without the garment. He hasn't washed himself of his former ways...he revels in them, and sullies his host's home as a result. One of the odes of the Canon of Holy Saturday Matins in referring to the type of the resurrection with Jonah has him say to those of Ninevah, "by observing vanities and lies you have forsaken your own mercy." No one in the world is perfect or good apart from God...this is stated in the Gospel, when Christ says, "no one is good but God alone." The ark is meant to house the "innocent," but it was lack of mercy that cost "niel" (or Nile?) her life in the movie. Ham even showed more mercy and forgiveness for his father for that...those of us who claim to be in the Church should not hold it over others or judge them...that judgement belongs to God alone. We are to be judged by what we have done "to the least of these" for in doing so, we do it to Him.
It's still Pascha technically...so indeed He is risen!
The major moment on Holy Saturday in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great when the purple of Lent becomes the White of Pascha and the Resurrection...and no, not Holy Trinity...sorry :-(.
