I will keep a running list of quotes in this space I have found so far from D. that I like:

 

"…I think Alyosha was more of a realist than anyone I know. Of course, when he was in the monestary he believed entirely in miracles, but I don’t think that miracles ever confound a realist. Nor is it miracles that will bring a realist to religion. If he is an unbeliever, a true realist will always find the strength and ability not to believe in a miracle, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact, he will rather disbelieve his own senses than accept that fact. Or he may concede the fact and explain it away as a natural phenomenon until then unknown. In a realist, it is not miracles that generate faith, but faith that generates miracles."

 

"my hosanna has passed through a great furnace of doubts…"

 

 

“Dostoevsky saw history in the light of the Apocalypse; He predicted unheard of world catastophes. “The end of the world is coming,” he wrote. “The end of the century will be marked by a calamity, the likes of which has never yet occurred.’ The tragic world outlook of the author of The Devils was inaccessible to the positivists of the 19th century: has was a man of our catastophic epoch. But God’s abandonment is not the last word of Dostoevsky’s work; he depicted the “dark night,” but had presentiments of the dawn. He believed that the tragedy of history would be culminated in the transfiguration of the world, that after the Golgotha of mankind would follow the Second Advent of Christ and “there would resound the hymn of the new and last resurrection.”

YET ANOTHER RANT (sorry): I was evesdropping on a conversation the other day which spawned these thoughts.

 

Ever notice that some people can be all for democracy as long as theirs is the ONLY perspective that gets represented? The attitude usually stems from a deep-seated feeling that the majority are quaint as a herd of cows but generally not too intelligent.

 

There are of course the progressive, enhanced few that must bear the cross of living alongside these neanderthals. Thankfully the masses have the bright light of the almost genetically enhanced intellect of these few Ubermensch who are only too happy to act as patron saints humbly guiding the moronic multitude along.

 

There are times, I believe, when some would actually prefer to create a Party Monarchy and eradicate all but one political viewpoint.

 

History has shown what happens when a select few appoint themselves as the guardians of power and thought over what they view as the barbarian, wife-beating masses – the outcome is never a good one.

take care child

you walk over the mountains

planting lakes behind you

 

you shape the land

while rivers rage

along your paths

 

snow is clay

you sculpt the world

life is your word

 

no cares

            and alone is good

                              

the cold sings

and Zephyr’s fitful dreams

speak of warmer times

 

while North Wind plays

grandpa blowing mock disapproval

while his heart would burst in love

as he moves away

 

take care child

your world is bigger

and it’s life is real

 

remember it

when Winter’s bones are dry

and Spring’s gaze is full

 

Crow went to search

and never came back

black speck against the deep blue

soaring toward nothing

flying in the space between

 

So far

boat long gone

 

I wonder –

did crow despair?

did crow dive into it all?

 

            or

 

did crow soar?

 

no olive branch

just a dream of home

and a raucous cry

calling the gates open

 

bearing the message

 

Save our souls

Save our souls

Save our souls

 

black speck against

the light

bold herald singing

 

Hey – I just found out that Stephen Harper (Canada’s next PM) is a member of the Christian & Missionary Alliance – the denomination I am a pastor in. Interesting.

 

There is a short, well-written article on Christianity.ca about this at:

 

 

I wonder if it bothers Stephen Harper that people automatically assume they know him and his future decisions because he is part of certain categories?

 

There are times when categories bother me (ok, most times). For instance, when people find out I am a pastor they automatically assume I am a flaming conservative (is that possible). People like categories – we embrace categories becuase we are lazy I think. Being affiliated with a category means I have less work to do in terms of self-definition and growth because somebody’s already done it for me. I don’t have to thoughtfully work out a position on anything because I can simply look up the current position of my category (hmm, let’s see what the Quakers think about this – then I will think that too).

 

That is not to say there are not commonalities between individuals and categories – there certainly are and it can be useful to know who thinks somewhat like you. But it is dangerous to allow others to do there thinking for you because before you know it you’ll be goose-stepping your way to doom.

 

Categories remove our freedom as individuals. They subdue us. It was a revolt against the historical categorization of the "common" people that led to the Reformation. Living outside of the category obviously requires more work in terms of decision making and belief. You may get labelled as a fence-sitter <CATEGORY> because you refuse to anchor yourself to a particular group or paradigm in terms of opinion.

 

Allowing yourself to be categorized means that you are much like a fallen leaf in a fast moving stream. There is little you can do to move yourself in a direction of your choosing. Rather you are moved along by the eddies of culture always being in danger of getting pulled under by a whirlpool or swept over the falls.

 

The term POST-MODERN is an abused one terms of constant categorization "Oh, I’m post-modern" or "s/he’s post-modern" as though that actually helps. The only good thing about the term is that it has resisted categorization for years and likely won’t be a definitive label until well past our deaths.

 

Schools and other cultural insititutions (work etc) endanger us because they are often built around the philosophy of categorization. In school you are a jock, or a geek, or a nerd, or a prep, an honor role student, a trouble maker, so-and-so’s sibling, etc. but rarely are you a Jockish nerdy geek prep.

 

Sometimes categories are attractive because we believe they give us an excuse. "It’s not my fault becuase I am OCD or ADD or (you name the acronym)". Disorders exist and are serious but we are always in danger of wanting to be a part of the category to excuse our behaviour (or even enable it). Psychology can be a great help but it can also be the worst absuer of categorization. You are not a person you are a <FILL IN THE BLANK> and with the right medication / custom program you can join the rest of us in <BETTER CATEGORY>.

 

It is easy to get categorized – you don’t even have to be trying – simply walk into the office and confess a particular thought, attribute or habit and people will diagnose you into one – "oh well if you feel this way you are a <BLANK> and since you are a <BLANK> you dress this way and live like this and eat these things – get used to it." The person who does not know any better (or who is tired of doing all the work that comes with maturity) simply agrees and – POOF – their life becomes defined.

 

I recognize that not everything changes. That there are safe places to root yourself. I choose to root myself in the changeless God. In all ways I define myself by this bedrock foundation in my life. That being said even though God does not change I change and so does the world around me and the temptation to get lazy and fall into a cultural category is always there and we must think against this.

 

BTW – if someone thinks it is easier to follow Christ that some nebulous nothing, they should try it for themselves. Christ is not a category. Christ is the living, changeless God enfleshed and existing amongst us. Christ does not make our decisions for us but rather sacrifices Himself for the decisions we made/make/will make. Christ is not static law, He is dynamic life and enigmatic. Enigmatic becuase He is both God (changeless) and Human(dynamic).

 

Quite frankly it is our culture of categorization that continues to work at corrupting the Body of Christ (a futile task). The culture of categorization asks:

 

"What are you?"

 

We respond: "I am a Christian"

 

"Aha so if you are a Christian you are <INSERT OFFENSIVE CATEGORICAL LABELS HERE>"

 

When Christians recognized that the word Christian had become a damning category (like Fundamentalist, Evangelical, etc.) we changed our language and now many of us simply call ourselves followers of Christ. Of course the culture of categorization will not succumb to the ploy of using more than one word in our label and soon there will be a categorical definition for that phrase as well "ah, you are a FOLLOWER OF CHRIST – well then you are <INSERT OFFENSIVE CATEGORICAL LABELS HERE>.

 

Is this a rant? Am I a ranter? I wonder how a ranter dresses?   🙂

 

 

I watched Luther tonight (the movie that came out last year) and I think I liked it more this time around. Very good and very well written (a little compressed in terms of the history but hey – you can only do so much in two hours).

 

I have a few quotes which I like quite a bit from the movie:

 

"We preach well that which we need to learn the most" (there are two edges to this quote).

 

Luther struggles early on in his ministerial vocation with the concept of a loving God. He sees only a God a judgement and wrath. An unapproachable and angry God. Luther’s mentor offers some advice –

 

He says "It is not God who is angry with you but rather you who are angry with God"

 

He then advises Luther that if he wishes to experience the grace and compassion of God he must look to the cross and to Christ. He gives Luther a crucifix on a chain and says to him to pray to Christ and say –

 

"I am yours. Save me."

 

This becomes Luther’s refrain throughout the film. We hear it again and again – "I am yours. Save me." At one point Luther is enraged after a young boy commits suicide and tradition forbids his buriel in the churchyard. Luther takes a shovel and angrily digs the grave himself as the sextant stands by and warns him against it. Luther places the body of the boy in the grave as the parents stand by crying and watching. He then takes the crucifix from around his neck places it on the boy’s chest and says in a short determined prayer to God – "He is yours. Save him".

 

The next Sunday in church as he is preaching he relates the story of a person who succumbs and is killed by the evil of a thief who waylays him on the road. Luther asks the congregation how much different is the young boy who is seduced by Satan to the point that he succumbs to despair and is robbed of his life by suicide. Is he not deserving of the same grace?

 

I like the words "I am yours. Save me." It is a breath prayer that can be said throughout the day:

 

I am yours. Save me; I am yours. Save me; I am yours. Save me…

Baker Publishing Group is sending me an advance copy of Story: Recapture the Mystery by Steven James to review. It’s a re-telling of Scripture through narrative. Watch this space for my review. 

 

For more info on the book click on the following link:

 

Ok – rarely do I tell people not to see a movie or read a particular book. I am not a fan of cencorship and I believe that people need to develop a level of discernment in terms of weeding through the trash of our increasingly corrupt culture.

 

The new film, Hostel on the other hand, pushes well past any limits that may have existed. I realize as I write this that I am actually going to comment on a movie that I have never seen – I hope this does not become a habit because I absolutely cannot stand it when people offer opinions about something they have never seen/read/experienced. However I do believe I have developed quite the talent for discerning the content of books and films through culture-gleaning etc. (Those of you who can do this know what I am talking about) – so here goes…

 

The basic premise of the film revolves around, as one New York Times reviewer writes "three hedonistic fools" on a trip through Europe seeking out every kind of sexual pleasure they can get a hold of. Along the way they are kidnapped and become fodder for depraved wealthy people who pay to torture and kill other humans. What you get in the first 45 minutes is virtually a porn film followed, in the remainder, by a snuff film.

 

Now the director apparently has a message to deliver through all this – that over time our destructive self-centered addicitons like those to porn require more and more feeding to satiate the addict’s need (such is the nature of any addiction) building to a point where some people require the most hideous forms of torture and violence to feel anything like a high. The irony then is that these three fools are tortured by people they are potentially on the path to becoming just like.

 

Not a bad theme frankly and likely it has some truth to it not just for the individual but also for whole cultures as we become increasingly addicted to various things.

 

The stupid thing with this film is that it does the very thing it is attempting to present – through hyper-realistic violence, torture and death the film further desensitizes a culture already addicted to violence and pornography thereby creating a need for even more realistic violence and pornography (I know it is more complex then that). Eventually we may get to that point where the violence and pornography on film, TV,etc.  is not enough for our culture and the next step is taken. The reality is that many people in our society are already stepping out into this realm. Of course I know that people will say that there are those predisposed to this sort of thing and nothing we do or don’t do will prevent it. Perhaps. But do we need to provide the triggers?

 

So there you have it – now you don’t need to see the film.

 

SIDE NOTE:

 

 

If the sacrifice of children to a false god by people who were deceived into believing it was required was seen as "a detestable thing" by God – how much more detestable to God is it to enjoy the torture, suffering and death of human beings for the sheer personal pleasure and thrill of it?

 

P.S. The Passion of the Christ is arguably one of the most violent films of the past few years but it falls into that same category as Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List etc. Violence chronciled for the sake of warning us against it, sacrifice presented for purpose of helping us understand it. My point? The intent of the artist matters not simply the intent of the recipient. Hostel was made to entertain. Certainly there are those who could go into Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan or The Passion of the Christ with the intent of enjoying the suffering presented – for them the films become pornography and their twisted nature overpowers the intent of the artist. It is a challenge to balance the artist’s intent with the recipient’s.