Prophets and Losses

I have been musing for a while about scripture; where it comes from; who decides that it is scripture and how it happens that someone or some ones decides that enough is enough and now it is completed.

This has sort of bubbled forth from my annoyance at the circular arguments that scripture (of any sort) tends to generate. If one is debating or questioning some of the key issues of faith it seems to me to be odd to use the very scripture of the faith that one is discussing in order to verify the point.

Do you get what I mean?

I remember when I lived in Malaysia, that I bought a religious book by some Muslim “scholars”. I bought it because the back cover said that it was exploring the way Muslims saw Christianity in general and Jesus in particular and I thought that sounded like a good read – to have a look from someone else’s point of view.

Unfortunately all the book did was use the Koran to show how Christians incorrectly interpret the scriptures and how Christians had mistaken the role of Jesus and had deliberately changed the scriptures to suit themselves.

 This seems particularly daft to me – to use one’s own scriptures to show how wrong everyone else is. And I don’t mean to pick on Muslims in this. I think Christians are just as useful at using scriptures to prove themselves right and others (often other Christians) wrong.

But doesn’t this somehow come down to a question of whose scriptures are the best, the newest; whose have precedence?

The Christians could claim precedence over the Jews because we have the newer revelation – it supersedes the old stuff the Jews were using. The problem is that Mohammed comes along and writes the Koran and his stuff is newer than ours, so it must be better. And then, in our own strands of faith we have both new scriptures (Joseph Smith and the Mormons, Conversations with God, A Course in Miracles) and “virtual new prophets” (Martin Luther etc). So now the Mormons have the best truth and Luther sent Christianity down his true path and changed the world we live in. I suspect that the biggest error is to want to make some, one “thing” to be The Truth.

What bugs me about the whole thing is that, apparently, we can only be right with God by making others wrong and that seems very much unlike how I imagine God.

 I’ve been reading the fuss that Rob Bell’s book – “Love Wins” has created all over the place. Books have sprung up like weeds protecting the truth and condemning the falsehood. I have read book reviews where people of great faith have assured me that God really does want to condemn a whole bunch of people to be burned in eternity. 

The weirdest thing about this to me is that I wouldn’t behave like that. I would be more forgiving, more generous. I could never condemn a child of mine to eternal damnation – I would always have a way back to my heart. And, if me, then surely God?

So, I guess I have two questions:

Is there any point in playing “My prophet is better than yours”?

Why don’t we just keep on writing scripture and recognising prophets?

In the story of the Prodigal Son the bedraggled boy turned towards home with a penitent heart. While he was still far off, the Father picked up the hem of his garment and started running towards him, embracing and welcoming the boy back into the heart of the family. There was no formula the boy had to recite, no penance he had to perform, no ritual of cleansing, no agent he had to work through, no sacrifice to be made (vicarious substitution) – when the boy’s heart longed to be back with the family, the Father sprinted towards him. 

So why do we insist that God can only be approached in a certain way, through a specific path, via an agent? Couldn’t we just allow God to see us in the far distance as we turned our eyes back towards Him and allow him to gather us into his embrace?

Why so many rules?

And scripture. 

The problem with closing it off is that we immediately accept that the Divine inspiration has ended; that it was completed at a time in the past. And what that does is to turn us towards what was, when we look for God, instead of looking for what is and what could yet be.

I’d love to be part of a people of faith looking out for the voice of God in music, the word of God in what we see around us, what we hear spoken and what we read and recognising the Divine in them

Movie Review: The Cave of Forgotten Dreams

Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams is an almost spiritual experience as we enter into the life and times of ancient humans through cave paintings that are 32,000 or more years old. Using 3D technology we are taken into the Chauvet Caves of Southern France - a rare opportunity as no one else has been allowed to film in the caves.

The caves were discovered in 1994 by a group of scientists. They contain the oldest known human drawings and represent a remarkable cultural and historical find. The French government immediately realized the value of the find and sealed the caves, only allowing a small group of paleontologists and archeologists annual access to its treasures. Access is extremely constrained and small non-professional cameras with limited lighting only were allowed on the first visit. On the second, state of the art 3D cameras were used allowing the rich texture of these paintings to be shared. It is awe-inspiring to think that over 30,000 years ago someone was painting these drawings illustrating the animals and birds that were part of their world and telling stories that we now are "hearing". But we can know very little even though what has been preserved is in pristine condition. Just to enter the caves in 3D is enough though. In places it is like a cathedral and the experience, along with the haunting music of the soundtrack, provides a humbling meditative experience.

At times, the commentary is a little over interpretive and the post-script is excessively hyperbolic to the point of almost spoiling the mood of the film. The film could be shortened by cutting some of the extraneous material. But overall it provides a rare opportunity.

For some Christians, certain difficult questions will immediately arise (and most likely quickly avoided or rationalized away). Specifically, those Christians who believe in a very young earth need to deal with the fact that these paintings are over 32,000 years old and some of them even older than that. More and more evidence mounts for a very old earth and for a chronology of human history that just doesn't fit with a literalistic reading of the Old Testament. None of these issues are mentioned in the documentary but a thinking Christian will inevitably need to deal with the implications of the facts.

The Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a simple film on one level. But the 3D immerses us into what soon feels like a real visit to these caves. I recommend the visit - particularly in view of the fact that very few people will ever get to actually step inside this monumental discovery.

Positive Review
'Director Werner Herzog's latest cinematic mind trip blows you away with its beauty' - Joe Neumaier/New York Daily News

Negative Review
'Cave of Forgotten Dreams feels stuck in a middling zone of too much conjecture and not enough scholarship.' - Joshua Rothkopf/Time Out New York

AUS: G
USA: G

Movie Review: The Ledge

The Ledge is a flawed but legitimate attempt to tell a story exploring the relationship between faith and reason – from an atheist perspective.

The story opens with Gavin (Charlie Hunnam) standing on a ledge on a tall building clearly planning to jump. Hollis (Terrence Howard) is the police officer in charge of talking Gavin down. In a series of flashbacks, we find out that Gavin has been having an affair with Shauna (Liv Tyler) who is married to Joe (Chris Wilson). Shauna and Joe are fundamentalist Christians. The mystery is what has brought Gavin to the ledge willing to jump – and it is not what you might think it is.

The writer and director, Matthew Chapman, to his credit, wrote the script and planned the movie determined to do it the way he wanted to – fully expecting not to have the movie made because of that. But it got made and it provides for thought provoking viewing even if it is somewhat amateurish in its execution.

The major problem with the movie is that it has a “preachy” flavour like so many Christian movies that offer black and white answers for complex questions. The dialogue is forced and some of the acting is artificial, although Wilson and Howard just about rescue the film with their interpretations of their characters.

Another flaw is that both the fundamentalist Christians and the atheist characters are too simplistic. The film overall is too dogmatic in its view of both and does not reflect the nuanced best of these antagonistic views. The premise of the story is brilliant and it had the potential to be a very profound piece of cinema. But, as Chapman has indicated in an interview I heard on Point of Inquiry, he wanted this to be an explicit argument from an atheist perspective. And that is what it is – an overt argument about faith and reason with cardboard stereotypes and simplistic reasoning. The “philosophical” agenda of the writer has overshadowed the story and made creative writing and professional production a secondary concern.

As a vehicle to stimulate some discussion around a number of issues, the movie has some value and there is a certain level of entertainment. But given the movie had such well known stars and was clearly backed by commercial support it is surprisingly amateurish. And the “winning” side of the argument is rigged from the beginning by comparing the best of atheism with the worst of Christianity – a poor thinking move itself.

For me, the most significant theme in the movie is whether people need God (or a belief in some external authoritative revelation of morality) in order to live good lives. I get very frustrated when I hear some Christians saying how atheists cannot have a system of moral values because they don’t believe in God. Clearly, many atheists do. They have reasons for living well and, sometimes, those reasons are based more in a care for humanity itself than some Christians who seem to merely be obeying the laws of God (as they define them) to avoid God’s displeasure. The gospel of grace subscribed to by most Christians should free them from serving for any other reason than love for fellow humans. And there is absolutely no reason to think that an atheist cannot do that.

Movie Review: The Tree of Life

One of the most agonizing experiences in life is crying out for meaning in the face of suffering and loss of innocence – and getting no answer from God or the universe. In the face of silence to our questions, what gives meaning to life? Terence Malik’s The Tree of Life tackles this most profound of questions.

Set in the 1950s, we follow Jack, one of three brothers, as he moves from the marvellous innocence of childhood to the loss of that innocence following his troubled relationship with his father (Brad Pitt), experience of sickness, suffering, and death, and into adulthood (Sean Penn) as he works in a competitive concrete jungle business world where the self is the only thing that matters.

The Meaning of Life is a very unusual movie. The narrative is minimal and much of the 2 hours and 19 minutes consists of impressionistic cinematography around our universe and on our earth. The experience of the story’s protagonists are almost overwhelmed by the vastness of the universe’s history from its birth to its death – once again not told in linear form but rather in frenetically wonderful glimpses that are thematically related and which build to an experience of awe-fullness in which human life is reduced to near triviality. The overall experience of the film is one of meditation and humility as Jack struggles to answer the big questions of human existence. An answer is provided at the end of the movie – there is a meaning to life – but depending on your current point of view, you may or may not agree with it. I won’t reveal it here because it will have more impact if you discover it in the ambiguity of this stunning meditation.

Many Christians provide inadequate and insipid answers to the why questions when it comes to suffering. They appeal to nonsense like ‘God has a plan for your life’; ‘This was meant to be’; or ‘We will understand the meaning of our suffering in heaven’. All of these are inadequate and, for many Christians who cry out to God in their darkest moments, become downright offensive when there is no response from God to our cries – a God that is supposed to love and care for us. It may be that this film provides the answer – whether we are Christian or atheist, religious or secular.

The Meaning of Life is definitely not a mainstream film. Don’t go to see it just because your favourite film stars are in it – you’ll be disappointed. When it was shown in an Italian cinema over one week, the first two reels of the movie were accidentally switched and no one noticed – attributing the result to the director’s editing style. In some American cinemas, signs were posted warning cinema goers ‘about the enigmatic and non-linear narrative of the movie – following some confused walkouts and refund demands in the opening weeks.’ (IMDB) That should give you an idea of the nature of this film. As one reviewer has described it, The Tree of Life is a ‘total sensory immersion’ film.

But if you are willing to immerse yourself in an almost unfathomable meditation that takes patience, courage, and perseverance to survive nearly 2 and a half hours of ambiguity and slow exploration, there is much to be pondered. The Meaning of Life reminded me of the book of Job in the Old Testament (the movie opens with a quote from the book) – except The Meaning of Life proffers a different answer and one which may be more satisfying to some. Near the beginning of the film, we are told that ‘there are two ways through life, the way of nature, and the way of grace, and we have to choose which way to follow’. If you dare to experience a completely different type of movie – go and see it and make up your mind which way you will choose.

Nudey Rudey

Right; let’s tackle this nudity, nakedness issue.

I admit to being a little surprised – perhaps better yet, quite stunned, with the reaction that came through when we showed the movie the other night, with two scenes of what I would consider to be very modest nudity.

I do understand how things are when we are being brought up and parents like to keep us from misunderstanding some of the racier things we might see.

 I get that and I respect that. And I do understand the respect for others that goes with that. 

But guys – we’re all grown up now.

Naked is not, of necessity, dirty. That line of reasoning leads to the burkha (burqa etc).

I exist in a state of perpetual puzzlement that we can sit happily watching a DVD which has extremes of violence of almost every kind, but we should fast forward past a female breast.  I truly don’t understand what we think God thinks about us when we do this. Watching Bruce Willis exterminate half of some large American city (and the people therein) is apparently fine with God but catching a glimpse of a person in the state they were created is somehow naughty?

So I guess I’d like to start with some of the theology of it all, a la Rob Bell.

Genesis 2:

Just two people wandering around the Garden, naked as the day they were created and pretty happy with that state of being. The essence of Genesis 2 is the unity between God and people.

Genesis 3 – The Fall (that should have big, bad, minor chords)

Apple eating and much hiding and sewing of fig leaves because they were “afraid”.

So, the shame of being naked is somehow associated with the Fall – the descent into sin if you must. 

The question then arises; are we Genesis 2 or Genesis 3 people; Fallen or living in God’s grace?

The burkha is the great acknowledgment of our perpetual dwelling in sin – no part of the female form can be displayed because men are so out of control of their sexual impulses that the only way we can be amongst women is if they are dressed as a sack. Women apparently don’t suffer from the same impulses so I am perfectly safe in my shorts and jandals.

My suspicion is that the “Importance of Beginning at the Beginning” line of reasoning is to give us a vision of how the world is supposed to be.  Jesus brought a declaration of the restoration of that existence and Revelation acknowledges the promise of the fulfilment of it.

Does that mean that I think we should all walk around naked? Not at all. We should dress properly (and preferably warmly) for whatever occasion we might encounter. Our cultural and social norms have established patterns of attire which most of us choose to conform to – no troubles with that.

What would be a good thing, in my opinion, would be for us to become comfortable with our own bodies and comfortable with the sight of other’s bodies.

One of my early points of revelation around this issue was when the chefs from St. John’s College came down to visit us a couple of years after we’d finished college and were working in ministry. Garry and Ellen were late middle-aged by then and not utterly gorgeous physical specimens by any means.  The day was bright and Akaroa-warm, the sun was wonderful on the skin. Garry told us that they were members of a naturist group and asked if we minded if they stripped off. Somewhat astonished by this we said that this was fine and they just took their clothes off and we sat around chatting and eating and having a drink. After a couple of minutes we suddenly found that it was not uncomfortable at all. It seemed surprisingly normal.

I don’t belong to a naturist group; I don’t spend much of my time wandering around naked – if I do it is generally within the confines of our own four walls. I’m fairly conservative in lots of things but I think I have figured out that nakedness is not about sexuality or sin, unless I make it that. And I choose not to.

Golden Calves

No, I speak not of my resplendent lower legs. Rather I speak of that poor bemused bovine held up as an example to all of how not to worship God.

Those poor Hebrews having struggled through seemingly endless times with an ever elusive God finally got sick of the whole thing and decided that they just wanted something they could grab hold of; something they could actually “look up to”, to be their object of worship. It really doesn’t seem too much to ask does it? It is very tricky worshipping a God that can’t be sculpted – something about us always wants the security of the “tangible”.

That got me to thinking about the whole idea of an “idol”. I mean we really give the Golden Calf worshippers a hard time about the whole false god thing but are we really any better?  Our Christian history seems to me to be a long pilgrimage from one idol to the next.

Statues of the Saints or the Blessed Virgin Mary and relics of the saints became objects of veneration and adoration because they give us something concrete to focus one. Priests became the representation of God for us, even though one of the obvious things that Jesus seemed to make clear was that there was nothing now standing between us and God. Then of course came the Reformation with Martin Luther’s wondrous claiming of the Bible for all people, not just the chosen Latin reading few. And what did we do with it? – why we made the Word of God into an idol of course!  The Word became that which we must hold on to and immerse ourselves in and, like the Golden Calf, when we remove the attention of our heart from God onto anything tangible, God becomes smaller. 

Our idols can be anything. In some personality based churches the idol is the pastor.

In some churches the idol has become “showing the fruits of the Spirit”.

I sometimes wonder if we haven’t made Jesus into an idol. When I hear the church sing “It’s all about you, Jesus”,  I wonder how Jesus would react to that. I’m not sure it would find favour.

The devil once went for a walk with a friend. They saw a man ahead of them stoop down and pick up something from the ground.

“What did that man find?” asked the friend.

“A piece of truth,” said the devil.

“Doesn’t that disturb you?” asked the friend.

“No,” said the devil, “I shall let him make a belief out of it.”

Proud to belong to the False Jesus Church

Some things get my head to working.

Around the corner from us, opposite the local supermarket is a church which calls itself the “True Jesus” Church. The implication is that whatever church the rest of us go to must, by process of deduction, be the “False Jesus” church. Now, I actually don't know what they believe; I've never met them and I have no right to comment on anything about them - but the name of the church started my brain cells percolating.

I started thinking about how remarkable it is how all of us seem to want to be right and often to be able to define that “rightness” by the “wrongness” of others. 

If we want, we could do a cruise around local churches and we would certainly find that many define themselves by words such as “Bible believing” or “Spirit filled” – the implication being that these qualities differentiate them from those who disbelieve the Bible and are empty of the Spirit.

This type of thing has been going on for millennia, not just in the Christian church but in every religion and in almost every aspect of life. We all want to be more right than the other guy. The gnostic religions had secret knowledge that others didn’t have and only through the possession of the secrets could one achieve entry into the inner sanctum of holiness. “Prophets” who interpret signs to give the dates of end times; who find the secret lost (or new) scriptures (Mr. J. Smith) – all these hold out the promise of belonging to the best club, of letting us become one of the 144,000 if we join the group of correct believers.

Doesn’t this all sound just like what God would do – God who so loved the world? He’d like it if the numbers who could get really close to him were very, very few, because He’s picky and a bit mean.  And that’s the message of Jesus, right? You know – the guy who seemed to think that Samaritans had a right to be accepted in God’s sight; the bloke who chatted to the social outcasts, the lepers and those that had been told over and over that they didn’t belong to the Kingdom of God.