I watched La Vie en Rose yesterday, the Edith Piaf biopic. It was really wonderful, and Marion Cotillard is absolutely stunning, so if you don’t mind foreign films (it’s in French), check it out. (If anyone is interested in the more technical aspects of film, the make-up was great, and it isn’t as easy to age women as it is to age men. Also, there’s a great tracking shot, probably a couple minutes long, when Edith receives some tragic news and doesn’t take it so well.)
I finished reading Hermann Hesse’s Demian, which was pretty interesting. It’s about this kid, Sinclair, who meets this other kid, Demian, who talks about how you can look at the Bible in ways other than literally, which leads Sinclair to deep questioning of himself and his purpose in life, etc etc. I would have found it more challenging if Demian’s initial arguments (which could border on sacrilegious, if the reader chooses to read them that way) were not very poor in their logic and interpretation. Eventually, Sinclair reaches a point of looking to some god that is the god of good and evil (I guess if Yahweh and Satan were the same being?) in order to bring balance to his life, and find purpose and meaning. Ultimately, his goals are not much different than those of Christianity, he just tries to get there without Christ. I would need to reread it to pick up some of the more nuanced details, but as far as I can tell, he doesn’t quite get there, until WWI starts up and he starts talking about an the entire German people as having purpose and dignity. So yeah, it’s interesting, but not amazing, unless I reread and get something new and exciting out of it down the road.
Then I started reading Pride and Prejudice, which is going well. I also enjoyed my next Hitchcock adventure, North by Northwest, though not as much as Vertigo or Psycho.
Now, about my actual life, and not the lives of characters that I’ve been reading or watching.
The other day when I was walking back home from the gym, I saw this old man carrying a couple of grocery bags, sort of waddling across the street. I immediately started debating with myself about whether or not I should help him. Would it be really awkward? What if he’s already at his car? What if he’s offended because he can do it himself? I eventually decided not to help him, which is to say that I decided not to even offer to help him by carrying his bags. Afterwards, I felt like a total jerk. Anyway, I’ve since been making a more conscious effort to make myself helpful, and not refuse to help when asked. It’s been working, but in all honesty, it shouldn’t require that much effort, it should just come naturally. Which basically leads back to an inherent selfishness that we all have on some level – if it doesn’t benefit us/me directly, we/I am not going to be as willing to do it. I remember how Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz made the fact of our selfishness extremely evident, at least to me. I’m just saying that I go through ruts sometimes of being completely unhelpful, and I’m working on that. I have found ways to be successful at that, but don’t want to elaborate – I can’t help thinking of it like tithing in private, not boasting, that sort of thing. Just know that I’m trying to be helpful, and if you see me failing, let me know.
I was recently offered the pretty cool opportunity to help lead some middle school kids on a retreat in Italy for a week (I've done this trip as a leader once before, but it didn't work out too well - I wasn't quite ready). I can’t do it this time either, but for different reasons, which sucks. It interferes with the first week of my summer job, and even though I’m fine with missing that, my parents are not. So yes, I’m blaming them, but I understand where they’re coming from and will accept it. It just bothers be because, as many of you know, I’ve been looking for a chance to lead, and I feel like this would be great way to do that, plus it’s sort of like practice for the Unfettered Men next year, just in a younger, less mature, more theologically simplistic way. (For those of you who do not know, Unfettered Men of the Hill is the name of the Biblia study I’ll be leading with my brother Wyatt next year. And when I say brother, I don't mean, like, an actual brother, but I mean it like the way black people use it, which is more meaningful I think.) So yes, it’s unfortunate that I won’t get to do that, but I’ll get over it.
Let’s see, I was reading Knowing God (J.I. Packer) the other day, and read a chapter about God’s wrath, which was interesting, given that I’ve been talking to some people the past few weeks about Christianity and the military, and how we can tell if and when a nation is ever used as an instrument of God’s will. I’m still not sure about it all, but one of the things that stood out was Packer’s description of God’s motivations in wrath vs. man’s motivations. “…God’s love, as the Bible views it, never leads him to foolish, impulsive, immoral actions in the way that its human counterpart too often leads us. And in the same way, God’s wrath in the Bible is never the capricious, self-indulgent, irritable, morally ignoble thing that human anger so often is.” He also talks about the wrath of God in terms of free will, and our punishment ultimately being our own choice: “The essence of God’s action in wrath is to give men what they choose, in all its implications: nothing more, and equally nothing less. God’s readiness to respect human choice to this extent may appear disconcerting and even terrifying, but it is plain that his attitude here is supremely just – and is poles apart from the wanton and irresponsible inflicting of pain which is what we mean by cruelty . . . what God is hereby doing is no more than to ratify and confirm judgments which those whom he ‘visits’ have already passed on themselves by the course they have chosen to follow.”
A big part of the discussions I’ve been having deals with distinguishing between the individual and the state in terms of God’s judgment. Packer uses a lot of scripture that I noticed deals primarily in the singular form. Take Luke 12:47-48: "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Or Paul in Romans, quoting Psalm 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12, “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done’” (Romans 2:6). There seems to be a lot of evidence to show judgment and wrath is on a personal level, and therefore states’ involvement in “God’s wrath” (particularly when this connection is implied by the state itself) carries less credibility. I am certain that there is plenty of evidence to support other opinions, but this is what I’m taking away from the book and the Biblia at the moment (which, when applied, is basically no more than saying that Crusades are bad). If you feel differently or simply have opinions on this matter that you wish to share, please feel free to leave a comment or contact me on facebook.
I’m sure there is more that I could be writing right now, but I’ve taken up a lot of space already, and I need to be going. I will be taking a short break from Knowing God in order to read/skim/check out a book I just found at the library, The Third Jesus by Deepak Chopra. You can read the book jacket summary here. Chopra’s basic premise is that there is the historical man and figure, the Son of God who represent a religion, and then a sort of general “spiritual guide whose teaching embraces all humanity, not just the church built in his name.” I’m trying very hard to approach this book with an open mind, but it appears that this “third” Jesus might just be the Jesus that Jesus wants us to follow in the first place. I’m not exactly sure where the guy is coming from, but I’ll let you know when I figure it out.
That’s it for now.
Peace and love, strength and honor.
No comments:
Post a Comment