Last week, I talked about whether God needs to be appeased. The big thing I want to emphasize in this sort of discussion is how embedded ideas of retributive justice are in our society. There is just a fundamental assumption that this is how things work, and of course God works the same way.
A poignant example of this, to me, was when I had jury duty recently. As I was walking into the courthouse, there was a guy with a bullhorn yelling about how people were going to Hell. Another was handing out tracts to everyone entering the courthouse. (Side note: While I hate this sort of representation of Christianity, I'm proud to live in a country where this can occur outside of a government courthouse. Further, what does it say about the claim that Christians are persecuted in the US?)
Having done my undergrad in Berkeley, I'm good at just walking past people trying to hand stuff to me. Trying to keep my temper in check for giving Christians such a bad name, I just said a polite, "No thank you" to the guy with the tract and keep walking. He then aggressively said, "Did you see the sign?!" referring to a cross saying something like, "Do you know God?" I responded, "I'm a Christian," to which he seemed to celebrate with a "Yeah!" So I turned around and said, "But you're doing it the wrong way!" I couldn't help myself. I'm unwilling to let others think I support such behavior.
Moving back from the side rant, what this indicated to me was the tendency many of us have to make assumptions about how things work and what others believe. These individuals were clearly promoting a highly retributive justice God right in front of an institution specializing in retributive justice (let's be honest, the US justice system is fundamentally about retributive justice--it frankly would be difficult to build a different system at this level). In many ways, this was a wise move--it powerfully reinforces the central principles of what they're trying to argue. If you believe in the governmental justice methodology, then it's easy to apply that spiritually.
But what if that application is wrong? What if retributive justice is really a human practicality (or tragedy)? What are we missing if we assume this approach to justice is from God?
Showing posts with label Assumptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assumptions. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2015
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Public Criticism Confession @sandalschurch @dimai #sandalschurch
Almost a month ago, I posted about my church's Christmas sermon series, This is War. My problem with it was what I saw as the over-emphasis on sin reduction with little talk about the transforming power of love. At the core of the Gospel is love.
I debated about even posting something about my disagreement with the series. A couple of weeks before, I asked the question about whether or not it is helpful to criticize public pastors. I explained that I thought it was rarely helpful. At the same time, expressing disagreement can be a way to check ourselves so we don't become dogmatists who live in a bubble.
This was my motivation for finally posting something. Over the past several months, I've really been struggling with the messages I've been hearing from my church. They seemed to be so focused on rigidity and sin reduction, missing the transformational point of the Gospel.
Frankly, the post was less about changing anyone's mind (how often does a blog post do that, really?). It was more for my own process. Ultimately, there was a lot of confusion and intellectual pressure built up inside my head that I had to get out. I didn't know any other helpful way of getting it out besides blogging.
This has been true for many of my posts--it's a sort of spiritual journal. However, I've found that it's difficult for me to journal for myself. I feel the need to make it have a larger purpose--perhaps my struggles can give insight, validation, or direction to others. I truly believe the journey of seeking truth and power of the struggle is transformational in itself. And in this case, when I kept hearing so much praise for something I didn't like, I felt the need to stand up and say, "I disagree."
I'm not sure it was the right thing to do ultimately. As the anonymous commenter on my post on public criticism noted, a message (or a blog post) is often not the full context of someone's (or a church's) beliefs.
Having been a part of Sandals for a little over a year, my wife and I have gotten a good sense of the group, but there are still significant questions. We fell in love with the church because of its focus on authenticity. Yet I was feeling increasingly confused as I heard less and less about it (from my perspective) of the past several months. In some ways, I think my post was a desire to hope for the return of what I originally saw in Sandals.
Last week, I met with the primary speaker, Derek, in that sermon series. He agreed that the core of that message of sin reduction is not the whole story. There's another piece--love, transformation, and redemption. In the point of time of that sermon series, ultimately they could only focus on piece of the story.
On Sunday, I heard one of the best messages from Sandals I've heard in quite a while. And it restored my faith and connection to Sandals. While the point was about one of the core values of being "Real with Self," Pastor Matt Brown emphasized that we can only be authentic when we can trust others, which occurs when we are loved. And that God loves us through others.
It couldn't have been a more perfect answer to my questions. I know Matt doesn't know who I am (we've said, "Hi," in passing once--no exchange of names even), so I'm sure he does not know about my blog let alone that one post. In a service where there were hundreds in attendance and the speaker knows how to give appropriate eye contact around the audience, it often felt like he was looking straight at me. It's interesting how God can send us messages through someone when they don't even know they're the messenger.
All in all, the anonymous commenter was right: I didn't get the full context. The heart of Sandals does seem to be in the Gospel of Love, not the Gospel of Sin Reduction.
Was it wrong to write and publish the first post? I'm honestly not sure.
I'm sorry if it caused any harm or hard feelings (although I don't know if anyone reads this to make it worthwhile anyway).
At the same time, it provided an opportunity to have a good conversation with Derek about what he meant. Clarification is a great thing. I should have probably asked him first. Although I didn't know him. I didn't know who to ask. I have that opening now, at least.
But what about others? If you're in a place where you have a significant struggle with your (large) church, but don't have any contact with someone who has the answers, what is an appropriate way to get them? I wanted to ask Derek, Matt, or someone else. I didn't know how to approach it. "Oh, yes, here's an email asking if you're as 'Hell, fire, and brimstone' as I thought." Great way to start a conversation... A public blog post may not be as great a way, either.
So, sorry, Sandals and Derek.
I debated about even posting something about my disagreement with the series. A couple of weeks before, I asked the question about whether or not it is helpful to criticize public pastors. I explained that I thought it was rarely helpful. At the same time, expressing disagreement can be a way to check ourselves so we don't become dogmatists who live in a bubble.
This was my motivation for finally posting something. Over the past several months, I've really been struggling with the messages I've been hearing from my church. They seemed to be so focused on rigidity and sin reduction, missing the transformational point of the Gospel.
Frankly, the post was less about changing anyone's mind (how often does a blog post do that, really?). It was more for my own process. Ultimately, there was a lot of confusion and intellectual pressure built up inside my head that I had to get out. I didn't know any other helpful way of getting it out besides blogging.
This has been true for many of my posts--it's a sort of spiritual journal. However, I've found that it's difficult for me to journal for myself. I feel the need to make it have a larger purpose--perhaps my struggles can give insight, validation, or direction to others. I truly believe the journey of seeking truth and power of the struggle is transformational in itself. And in this case, when I kept hearing so much praise for something I didn't like, I felt the need to stand up and say, "I disagree."
I'm not sure it was the right thing to do ultimately. As the anonymous commenter on my post on public criticism noted, a message (or a blog post) is often not the full context of someone's (or a church's) beliefs.
Having been a part of Sandals for a little over a year, my wife and I have gotten a good sense of the group, but there are still significant questions. We fell in love with the church because of its focus on authenticity. Yet I was feeling increasingly confused as I heard less and less about it (from my perspective) of the past several months. In some ways, I think my post was a desire to hope for the return of what I originally saw in Sandals.
Last week, I met with the primary speaker, Derek, in that sermon series. He agreed that the core of that message of sin reduction is not the whole story. There's another piece--love, transformation, and redemption. In the point of time of that sermon series, ultimately they could only focus on piece of the story.
On Sunday, I heard one of the best messages from Sandals I've heard in quite a while. And it restored my faith and connection to Sandals. While the point was about one of the core values of being "Real with Self," Pastor Matt Brown emphasized that we can only be authentic when we can trust others, which occurs when we are loved. And that God loves us through others.
It couldn't have been a more perfect answer to my questions. I know Matt doesn't know who I am (we've said, "Hi," in passing once--no exchange of names even), so I'm sure he does not know about my blog let alone that one post. In a service where there were hundreds in attendance and the speaker knows how to give appropriate eye contact around the audience, it often felt like he was looking straight at me. It's interesting how God can send us messages through someone when they don't even know they're the messenger.
All in all, the anonymous commenter was right: I didn't get the full context. The heart of Sandals does seem to be in the Gospel of Love, not the Gospel of Sin Reduction.
Was it wrong to write and publish the first post? I'm honestly not sure.
I'm sorry if it caused any harm or hard feelings (although I don't know if anyone reads this to make it worthwhile anyway).
At the same time, it provided an opportunity to have a good conversation with Derek about what he meant. Clarification is a great thing. I should have probably asked him first. Although I didn't know him. I didn't know who to ask. I have that opening now, at least.
But what about others? If you're in a place where you have a significant struggle with your (large) church, but don't have any contact with someone who has the answers, what is an appropriate way to get them? I wanted to ask Derek, Matt, or someone else. I didn't know how to approach it. "Oh, yes, here's an email asking if you're as 'Hell, fire, and brimstone' as I thought." Great way to start a conversation... A public blog post may not be as great a way, either.
So, sorry, Sandals and Derek.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Remembering Biblical Assumptions @penns1176 @BioLogosOrg
BioLogos posted a great article based on a video of Pete Enns (the same guy who had a great article/presentation on doubt). In the new post, Enns describes how ancient readers and writes had different assumptions and understandings of the world than we do today. And that affects the biblical narrative.
This is an excellent reminder that we cannot approach the Bible with the lens of a modern American person only. We will impose assumptions as to what the text is saying that are simply inaccurate. And then this leads to incorrect interpretation and fights over infallibility and inerrancy. If we take the original context and intent into account and not try to impose our own worldviews on it (won't ever be totally possible to avoid), then we will get closer to God's original intent in the text.
This is an excellent reminder that we cannot approach the Bible with the lens of a modern American person only. We will impose assumptions as to what the text is saying that are simply inaccurate. And then this leads to incorrect interpretation and fights over infallibility and inerrancy. If we take the original context and intent into account and not try to impose our own worldviews on it (won't ever be totally possible to avoid), then we will get closer to God's original intent in the text.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Assumptions of Belief
This week I've posted a lot about doctrine and beliefs. One of the things that bothers me most is when I perceive people to be assuming what I believe. This drives me nuts, particularly when I don't hold that belief.
There's times to correct it and times not to correct it. However, recently, I've been hearing some beliefs with which I disagree be presented so frequently and unilaterally that I feel the desire to say, "I don't hold that belief!"
Has anyone else been there?
I'm not sure asserting my belief would do that much good. It could easily come across as antagonistic and put me on the outside of a group.
On the other hand, it could validate others who are in the same position as me, and that's very valuable. Additionally, there may be many people who do not have a firm position on a belief, and presenting and considering an alternative is a very important way of developing a solid, true belief system. Additionally, it is important for everyone to remember that their beliefs are not universally held, no matter what they are.
What do you think? When is it useful and effective and worthwhile to assert one's own beliefs in contrast to others'? What's the appropriate forum (obviously depends on the context)? Short blog post? Tweet with a summary?
There's times to correct it and times not to correct it. However, recently, I've been hearing some beliefs with which I disagree be presented so frequently and unilaterally that I feel the desire to say, "I don't hold that belief!"
Has anyone else been there?
I'm not sure asserting my belief would do that much good. It could easily come across as antagonistic and put me on the outside of a group.
On the other hand, it could validate others who are in the same position as me, and that's very valuable. Additionally, there may be many people who do not have a firm position on a belief, and presenting and considering an alternative is a very important way of developing a solid, true belief system. Additionally, it is important for everyone to remember that their beliefs are not universally held, no matter what they are.
What do you think? When is it useful and effective and worthwhile to assert one's own beliefs in contrast to others'? What's the appropriate forum (obviously depends on the context)? Short blog post? Tweet with a summary?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Inconsistent Like Jazz @christianaudio @donmilleris
Overall, I like jazz music. My college roommate was a music major and loved jazz. He played it, so I saw a lot of his concerts, and he took me to see big name jazz musicians. I didn't enjoy as much as he did. It sometimes just seemed odd. But overall, I like jazz a lot.
I had the same feelings to Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I have heard many excellent things about it over the past few years, so when I saw the audiobook version for $5 at Family Christian Bookstores, I had to pick it up.
First of all, the narrator, Scott Brick, was very good. He was one of the better professional narrators from the christianaudio imprint. He sounded like the great narrators of many of the bestselling fictional books I've read. Like I've said before, though, I still prefer the author to read it for books like this, particularly when written in the first person.
The content overall was good. Miller does a nice job of presenting a realistic, authentic, experiential faith. He appropriately challenges assumptions American Christianity holds, and I deeply appreciate that. He emphasizes the importance of the journey of faith and not always having the clear-cut answers. As readers of this blog know, I emphasize these points frequently.
However, Miller interestingly got stuck in at times in some fundamentalist-like perspectives, particularly around Scripture. He mentioned friends of his by only saying their first names, but based on the context and other information, I could identify them as some people who have solidly fundamentalist streaks.
These people tend to appear to be hip and challenging the establishment (and they do in many ways), yet they approach Scripture in very literalistic and Calvinistic ways. This came through frequently in Miller's text, and it really distracted from the usefulness of his message.
From other reviews and posts on this blog, people will know I do not hold to a strict, literal interpretation of Scripture nor in strict Calvinistic interpretations. Just as Miller challenges many cultural assumptions of the church, these are cultural assumptions that must be challenged. Yet he holds them up as universally accepted ultimate Truth.
At the same time, many people who hold these values are often not willing to consider challenging their other assumptions. So if Miller earn credibility this way to have people begin to challenge themselves, this could be a blessing in disguise.
Overall, I would recommend the book. Just don't ingest it whole without challenging the thoughts. We shouldn't do this with anything though, anyway...
I had the same feelings to Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I have heard many excellent things about it over the past few years, so when I saw the audiobook version for $5 at Family Christian Bookstores, I had to pick it up.
First of all, the narrator, Scott Brick, was very good. He was one of the better professional narrators from the christianaudio imprint. He sounded like the great narrators of many of the bestselling fictional books I've read. Like I've said before, though, I still prefer the author to read it for books like this, particularly when written in the first person.
The content overall was good. Miller does a nice job of presenting a realistic, authentic, experiential faith. He appropriately challenges assumptions American Christianity holds, and I deeply appreciate that. He emphasizes the importance of the journey of faith and not always having the clear-cut answers. As readers of this blog know, I emphasize these points frequently.
However, Miller interestingly got stuck in at times in some fundamentalist-like perspectives, particularly around Scripture. He mentioned friends of his by only saying their first names, but based on the context and other information, I could identify them as some people who have solidly fundamentalist streaks.
These people tend to appear to be hip and challenging the establishment (and they do in many ways), yet they approach Scripture in very literalistic and Calvinistic ways. This came through frequently in Miller's text, and it really distracted from the usefulness of his message.
From other reviews and posts on this blog, people will know I do not hold to a strict, literal interpretation of Scripture nor in strict Calvinistic interpretations. Just as Miller challenges many cultural assumptions of the church, these are cultural assumptions that must be challenged. Yet he holds them up as universally accepted ultimate Truth.
At the same time, many people who hold these values are often not willing to consider challenging their other assumptions. So if Miller earn credibility this way to have people begin to challenge themselves, this could be a blessing in disguise.
Overall, I would recommend the book. Just don't ingest it whole without challenging the thoughts. We shouldn't do this with anything though, anyway...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Moralism
This is a guest post by my friend, Calvin Thomsen. He has two doctorates: Doctor of Ministry and PhD in Marriage and Family Therapy, plus he's a great guy!
In addition to being a part of a local congregation I also enjoy visiting other churches and listening to a variety of sermons. I’ve done it for decades. Over the last several years I’ve noticed a trend in evangelical churches towards something I call "moralism." It can take good concepts (like a high view of Scripture or a desire to promote Godly living) and put a twist on them the makes a sermon more like a scolding or lecture than a proclamation of good news. After listening to a recent sermon in a church I was visiting for the first time I developed what I call a “moralism checklist” to help me recognize the eight key components of moralism.
1. Enemies. The crux of this is, "Isn't it horrible about the.....[pick the evil of choice--humanists, socialists, gays, heretics, Buddhists, Paris Hilton, Oprah, naturalistic scientists, etc.]. Lots of energy is focused on the creation of enemies and a lot of the firepower of the sermon is generated by the emotions that "enemy talk" can generate. Three things you do with enemies. a) blame them for all your problems, b) run away from them, and/or c) "fight them."
2. Misguided Attribution. What are the principles of "cause and effect" in this sermon? Are bad things that happen to people inappropriately blamed on things people do or don't do that probably aren't the real cause? Lost your job? Probably because you didn’t tithe. An earthquake in Haiti? Must be because of voodoo. Sometimes the sermon includes false promises of "rewards" that may not be realistic (i.e. if you don't have sex before marriage you will have endless erotic and relational bliss once you say "I do.").
3. Biblicism. Are there references to "The Word" that suggest the instant answers to all questions, the final word on science, a kind of magical power, or recipe book? Is there a wooden, literalistic approach to the bible that always assumes we know what the true "Biblical" answer is and that all other sources of insight or knowledge must be trumped by your particular interpretation of what the Bible says?
4. Gnosticism. This refers to the belief that the crux of Christianity is "being right." Having the correct belief on any particular issue is the key to authentic Christianity. Sometimes this plays out in terms of "my religion is better than your religion" and disputes between different Christian groups or groups within a church. A lot of theological warfare is of this variety.
5. Triumphalism. Is the portrayal of Christianity and the work of Christ such that creates a triumphalistic, "we're right and everybody else is wrong" perspective. This can also apply to aspects of "the American way" as well.
6. Denial. Are there hints that "good Christians don't have these problems" (or they have them only if they are "being wicked")? Are there quick fixes or easy formulas used for complex human problems such as divorce, sexuality, addiction, the dark night of the soul, etc.? Does the sermon set the stage for people to shove certain problems underground or only talk about them with disclaimers (i.e. "I know that Lord is giving me victory over this") instead of an honest exploration of feelings?
7. Privatized Behaviorism. Do "private sins" (i.e. lust, gluttony, etc.) loom so large that they overshadow more collective approaches to systemic evil in the world? Is it worse to look at a racy website than to do an "Enron" or "AIG" that nearly brings down the world economy? Or to ignore policies that increase poverty? Or be indifferent to environment because "when Jesus returns he will clean up our mess"?
8. Imperative-ism. Is more of the gospel about "oughts" and "shoulds" rather than what God has done and the initiative he has taken in Christ? How much scolding and lecturing factors into this message? Sometimes it includes statements such as "God may be a God of grace but if you don't get you act together in the following way you will go to hell."
In addition to being a part of a local congregation I also enjoy visiting other churches and listening to a variety of sermons. I’ve done it for decades. Over the last several years I’ve noticed a trend in evangelical churches towards something I call "moralism." It can take good concepts (like a high view of Scripture or a desire to promote Godly living) and put a twist on them the makes a sermon more like a scolding or lecture than a proclamation of good news. After listening to a recent sermon in a church I was visiting for the first time I developed what I call a “moralism checklist” to help me recognize the eight key components of moralism.
1. Enemies. The crux of this is, "Isn't it horrible about the.....[pick the evil of choice--humanists, socialists, gays, heretics, Buddhists, Paris Hilton, Oprah, naturalistic scientists, etc.]. Lots of energy is focused on the creation of enemies and a lot of the firepower of the sermon is generated by the emotions that "enemy talk" can generate. Three things you do with enemies. a) blame them for all your problems, b) run away from them, and/or c) "fight them."
2. Misguided Attribution. What are the principles of "cause and effect" in this sermon? Are bad things that happen to people inappropriately blamed on things people do or don't do that probably aren't the real cause? Lost your job? Probably because you didn’t tithe. An earthquake in Haiti? Must be because of voodoo. Sometimes the sermon includes false promises of "rewards" that may not be realistic (i.e. if you don't have sex before marriage you will have endless erotic and relational bliss once you say "I do.").
3. Biblicism. Are there references to "The Word" that suggest the instant answers to all questions, the final word on science, a kind of magical power, or recipe book? Is there a wooden, literalistic approach to the bible that always assumes we know what the true "Biblical" answer is and that all other sources of insight or knowledge must be trumped by your particular interpretation of what the Bible says?
4. Gnosticism. This refers to the belief that the crux of Christianity is "being right." Having the correct belief on any particular issue is the key to authentic Christianity. Sometimes this plays out in terms of "my religion is better than your religion" and disputes between different Christian groups or groups within a church. A lot of theological warfare is of this variety.
5. Triumphalism. Is the portrayal of Christianity and the work of Christ such that creates a triumphalistic, "we're right and everybody else is wrong" perspective. This can also apply to aspects of "the American way" as well.
6. Denial. Are there hints that "good Christians don't have these problems" (or they have them only if they are "being wicked")? Are there quick fixes or easy formulas used for complex human problems such as divorce, sexuality, addiction, the dark night of the soul, etc.? Does the sermon set the stage for people to shove certain problems underground or only talk about them with disclaimers (i.e. "I know that Lord is giving me victory over this") instead of an honest exploration of feelings?
7. Privatized Behaviorism. Do "private sins" (i.e. lust, gluttony, etc.) loom so large that they overshadow more collective approaches to systemic evil in the world? Is it worse to look at a racy website than to do an "Enron" or "AIG" that nearly brings down the world economy? Or to ignore policies that increase poverty? Or be indifferent to environment because "when Jesus returns he will clean up our mess"?
8. Imperative-ism. Is more of the gospel about "oughts" and "shoulds" rather than what God has done and the initiative he has taken in Christ? How much scolding and lecturing factors into this message? Sometimes it includes statements such as "God may be a God of grace but if you don't get you act together in the following way you will go to hell."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Luther's Incarnational Gospel
This weekend, I found a neat plaque with a quote from Martin Luther, saying "God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars."
Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.
Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.
Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?
Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.
Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.
Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Perfect Parenting
This is a very interesting article on parenting and how there is no such thing as a "perfect parent." Particularly in Christianity, we do often place a lot of weight on parents, assuming if you're good enough of a parent, you'll have good kids, so if your kids have problems, then you suck as a parent.
As a therapist on a child inpatient psychiatric unit, I see many parents who place this judgment on themselves (and many of them are not Christians). They also ask what they can do differently.
While many parents could do significantly different things and definitely contribute to kids' issues (in fact, many kids don't have a problem--their families do), there is a significant number of situations where there is no clear answer. No one has necessarily done anything wrong. The child just has serious problems.
It seems these are some of the most difficult situations, both for the family and for me, as the therapist. If it's someone's fault, at least there's a solution and therefore hope. If no one is at fault, hope becomes much more difficult to find. And hope is critically important to life.
I'm not a determinist overall, but some things are determined. The thing is we cannot always determine what is predetermined by genetics, God, or our situation (or all three). What I can say is that even when we do everything right, everything does not always work out perfectly. And that can be more distressing than if we have made a mistake.
As a therapist on a child inpatient psychiatric unit, I see many parents who place this judgment on themselves (and many of them are not Christians). They also ask what they can do differently.
While many parents could do significantly different things and definitely contribute to kids' issues (in fact, many kids don't have a problem--their families do), there is a significant number of situations where there is no clear answer. No one has necessarily done anything wrong. The child just has serious problems.
It seems these are some of the most difficult situations, both for the family and for me, as the therapist. If it's someone's fault, at least there's a solution and therefore hope. If no one is at fault, hope becomes much more difficult to find. And hope is critically important to life.
I'm not a determinist overall, but some things are determined. The thing is we cannot always determine what is predetermined by genetics, God, or our situation (or all three). What I can say is that even when we do everything right, everything does not always work out perfectly. And that can be more distressing than if we have made a mistake.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Avatar of Our Lives
My wife and I saw Avatar this weekend in IMAX 3D (a cool format, although it made me sick being in the 3rd row, and I don't get sick in movies...).
This movie has gotten a lot of excellent press and recommendation from friends. Maybe I was expecting too much (although trying not to) and maybe I started off by being in a bad mood from having to sit so close, but I did not love the movie. The effects were phenomenal, and the story backed them up. But the story at the same time did not wow me. It was rather predictable, and I felt angry through most of it because of the injustices. My wife wants to get it on Blu-Ray, but right now, I'm not sure I even want to see it again because of the anger I felt during the movie.
Maybe the movie did it's job, though. It made me think about injustices in this world. In many ways, Avatar was a sort of avatar of modern life. Media at its best does that. It's one of the things I like about Star Trek: having us engage in moral and ethical dilemmas, but making the context foreign so we're able to see the issues better and not be so resistant to challenging our beliefs.
For those who haven't seen it, you may not want to read more (although none of this will be that much of a spoiler, I don't think). Also, there is another great blog post on Avatar as a metaphor for evangelism, so others are thinking of it in metaphorical terms.
Anyway, back to being ego-centric about my reactions. :) The first strong negative emotion I had was anger. The humans were being driven by money and greed (anger point #1) and then doing very inappropriate things to others while they had absolutely NO right to do this (anger point #2).
One of the strengths of this film versus others is that it let the audience get to know and understand both sides of the conflict. It starts with humans (who the audience has an obvious automatic affiliation). Then it helps us build a bond with the Navi.
So when things get heated, I cared about both sides. It made me sick seeing both sides get killed. And I actually thought it was unfair that most of the soldiers had to die while the leaders (the true corrupt ones) walked away (well, there was one exception). I didn't really hold most of the humans responsible for their actions since they were unaware of the full picture. But those who were exposed to the Navi and the injustice that went on were responsible. And they acted.
How often does that occur for us, though? We often do things without full knowledge of the situation. And we often act incorrectly. That doesn't mean we were not wrong, but should we always be condemned? I'm not sure. Yet we do often condemn others.
The movie also made me sick because it so beautifully and graphically and emotionally showed the tragedy of displacing the Other for our benefit. It made me realize the power of the horror that humanity has committed to so many populations over the millenia.
Again, I think this is a strength of media at its best: Helping us experience the world differently when we are unwilling or cannot see it directly. Basically, media can be an avatar for our lives. And that can be good. So good that I think it can be quite holy. (Not saying this movie was holy, but you get the idea. :) )
This movie has gotten a lot of excellent press and recommendation from friends. Maybe I was expecting too much (although trying not to) and maybe I started off by being in a bad mood from having to sit so close, but I did not love the movie. The effects were phenomenal, and the story backed them up. But the story at the same time did not wow me. It was rather predictable, and I felt angry through most of it because of the injustices. My wife wants to get it on Blu-Ray, but right now, I'm not sure I even want to see it again because of the anger I felt during the movie.
Maybe the movie did it's job, though. It made me think about injustices in this world. In many ways, Avatar was a sort of avatar of modern life. Media at its best does that. It's one of the things I like about Star Trek: having us engage in moral and ethical dilemmas, but making the context foreign so we're able to see the issues better and not be so resistant to challenging our beliefs.
For those who haven't seen it, you may not want to read more (although none of this will be that much of a spoiler, I don't think). Also, there is another great blog post on Avatar as a metaphor for evangelism, so others are thinking of it in metaphorical terms.
Anyway, back to being ego-centric about my reactions. :) The first strong negative emotion I had was anger. The humans were being driven by money and greed (anger point #1) and then doing very inappropriate things to others while they had absolutely NO right to do this (anger point #2).
One of the strengths of this film versus others is that it let the audience get to know and understand both sides of the conflict. It starts with humans (who the audience has an obvious automatic affiliation). Then it helps us build a bond with the Navi.
So when things get heated, I cared about both sides. It made me sick seeing both sides get killed. And I actually thought it was unfair that most of the soldiers had to die while the leaders (the true corrupt ones) walked away (well, there was one exception). I didn't really hold most of the humans responsible for their actions since they were unaware of the full picture. But those who were exposed to the Navi and the injustice that went on were responsible. And they acted.
How often does that occur for us, though? We often do things without full knowledge of the situation. And we often act incorrectly. That doesn't mean we were not wrong, but should we always be condemned? I'm not sure. Yet we do often condemn others.
The movie also made me sick because it so beautifully and graphically and emotionally showed the tragedy of displacing the Other for our benefit. It made me realize the power of the horror that humanity has committed to so many populations over the millenia.
Again, I think this is a strength of media at its best: Helping us experience the world differently when we are unwilling or cannot see it directly. Basically, media can be an avatar for our lives. And that can be good. So good that I think it can be quite holy. (Not saying this movie was holy, but you get the idea. :) )
Friday, January 1, 2010
Annoying Biblical Mis-assumptions, Part 1
Over the past week I have come across two classic assumptions of biblical texts that I am questioning. I have not studied the texts in an in-depth academic way, so I cannot be sure, but these are my thoughts.
Luke (the writer of the Gospel of Luke) was a physician. It is often argued that we need to pay extra attention to his work because he was clearly detail-oriented and well-educated in a formal education because he was a physician.
The problem? Physicians are not always detail-oriented (I work with several). Further, from my understanding, physicians often did not have formal education until the last 100-200 years. This arose as people realized that physicians needed to have scientific bases for their work in contrast to an apprenticeship model that had a wide variety of length and quality. The establishment of Johns Hopkins medical school in 1893 provide the basis for the model we have today.
I don't know how medical education worked in Christ's time, but assuming it was the same as today's is a major problem. I would guess it was more similar to the process of a becoming a blacksmith. Or a carpenter...
The other assumption I ran across was the interpretation of the ten bridesmaids story. But I'll save that for Monday...
Luke (the writer of the Gospel of Luke) was a physician. It is often argued that we need to pay extra attention to his work because he was clearly detail-oriented and well-educated in a formal education because he was a physician.
The problem? Physicians are not always detail-oriented (I work with several). Further, from my understanding, physicians often did not have formal education until the last 100-200 years. This arose as people realized that physicians needed to have scientific bases for their work in contrast to an apprenticeship model that had a wide variety of length and quality. The establishment of Johns Hopkins medical school in 1893 provide the basis for the model we have today.
I don't know how medical education worked in Christ's time, but assuming it was the same as today's is a major problem. I would guess it was more similar to the process of a becoming a blacksmith. Or a carpenter...
The other assumption I ran across was the interpretation of the ten bridesmaids story. But I'll save that for Monday...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)