"What if...". Placing those two little words at the front of a question turns it into speculation. Hypothetical, conjectural, theoretical. This past week, my family and I have had to face many "what if's".
My brother had a burst appendix which is a nasty business. His body had created an enclosure around the poison so that none of it had spread prior to surgery. The surgeon felt he cleaned up the area very well. However, we were told if it had been 24 hours later, the problem could have been much, much worse.
As you can imagine, our imaginations began to speculate of what could have happened. What if we hadn't gotten him to the hospital on time? What if urgent care had properly diagnosed him the night before? What if the poison had spread? What if he had died?
The leader of an adult Bible study at church, reminded the class one Sunday that we as Christians do not deal with "What if's"; we deal with as the Apostle Paul says "whatsoever is true" (Philippians 4:8).
Thus, our imaginations were restrained. This is the truth: we got to the hospital on time, urgent care didn't diagnose properly, the appendix poison hadn't spread and he didn't die but is on the road to recovery.
C.S. Lewis delves into this concept in The Chronicles of Narnia. In Prince Caspian, Lucy is the only one who sees Aslan who wants them to follow him. Instead of listening to Lucy, the group wanders lost and is even ambushed. Eventually, Lucy speaks to Aslan in the woods. She comes to realize that she should have pushed for the others to follow or have followed Aslan alone. She asks:
" 'But what would have been the good?'
Aslan said nothing.
'You mean,' said Lucy rather faintly, 'that it would have turned out all right -- somehow? But how? Please, Aslan! Am I not to know?'
'To know what would have happened, child?' said Aslan. 'No. Nobody is ever told that.'
'Oh dear,' said Lucy.
'But anyone can find out what will happen,' said Aslan."
Trying to wrap our minds around what would have happened, is a waste of time. The emotional energy, good or bad, isn't worth the effort. We don't deal with "what if's"; we deal with "whatsoever is true", and that is a great comfort.
--HM
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Who is Man?
PARADE Magazine ran an article in this Sunday's issue called "For the Love of Hubble". The Hubble Telescope, I learned from the article, was shot into space in 1990 and is going to receive a tune-up in October of this year (http://www.nasa.gov/). Though what truly grabbed my attention was a section my brother read to me:"It [the Hubble Telescope] has taught us so much -- including that the universe is 14 billion years old."
I couldn't help but asking, "What end of the telescope were they looking through?!" My dad drolly replied, "The wrong end."
Truth be told, the stars should point us not to the age of the universe but to the creator of the heavenly beings. The article in PARADE goes on in praise of this telescope:
"Among Hubble's highlights is settling the decades-old debate about the age of the universe. Previously, the data were so bad that astrophysicists could not
agree. Some thought 10 billion years. Other, 20 billion. Yes, it was embarrassing. But Hubble enabled us to measure accurately how the brightness varies in a particular type of star that resides in a distant cluster of galaxies. That information, when plugged into a simple formula, tells us their distance from Earth. And because the entire universe is expanding at a known rate, we can then turn back the clock to determine how long ago everything was in the same place. The answer? The universe was born 14 billion years ago".
What? The greatest accomplishment is that it helped us determine whether the universe is 10 BILLION or 20 BILLION years old?! It's ludicrous! Should not the greatest triumph of space exploration in general be what David declared in Psalm 8: "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor" (v. 3-5)?
I had the opportunity to look through a telescope, one my grandpa set up in my cousins' big field on their property which sits up on a hill. It was dark and the stars were out in droves. Looking through the eyepiece, I beheld Saturn and it's rings! If that wasn't awe inspiring, I don't know what is! "Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (Psalm 102:25).
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3). When we behold the stars, we gaze upon the the heavenly lights that God spoke into existence. Take a stroll around the block or if you are fortunate, a walk in a field, and turn your gaze upward, pondering who we are, that God of the universe is mindful of us. "You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you" (Nehemiah 9:6).
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Batman Probe
I held off seeing Batman Begins until it reached Blockbuster's shelves. My friends had raved about it; critics seemed to like it; so when the right opportunity came along, my brother, dad, and I watched it. My initial reaction was that the movie was well-made, the acting superb, and the plot excellent (albeit the film in its entirety is dark).
My brother ended up purchasing the film and we watched it again. And this time I walked away feeling unsure of whether I could root for Bruce Wayne/Batman. Meaning I questioned if Batman was truly a "good guy".
I mentioned this to a friend the other night and the shock on his face told me my views weren't readily shared. Nevertheless, I hope I can explain this belief. I will begin with an interview I read with Christian Bale (aka Batman) before the film's theatrical release. Surprisingly, Bale mentioned that he wanted an R-rated version which could delve into the character of Bruce Wayne. In fact, he described Wayne as a guy you wouldn't want to be left alone in a room with. Interesting.
In another interview, Christian Bale said, "I mean, he’s the really on-the-edge one [superhero] because he’s the guy that, okay, he’s doing good but he’s the Dark Knight. I mean, a knight is meant to be in shining armor and he’s the Dark Knight. He could do good things but man, he could just as easily flip over and become like the ultimate villain" (1.).
The film begins with Bruce's terrifying encounter with bats, his continued fear of the winged mammals shown at the opera, and his parent's murder in the theater's back alley. That fear, pain, guilt, anger, resentment, hatred (I'm running out of negative descriptive emotions) is what drives his life. Everything he does is based on his desire to get revenge, to fulfill his "weakness" as a child by facing the bad guys head on.
My friend wanted to make the point that it's not revenge, it's avenge. However, if you look at the etymology of word "avenge", along with the words "revenge" and "vengeance", the word from which they are all derived is "vengier". In Old French this means "take revenge" (2).
"It is mine to revenge; I will repay." (Deut. 32:35)
Moreover, compared to Spiderman or Superman, Batman is not there to truly save the people of his city, he is there to get the criminals. It is protection of the innocent vs. destruction of the guilty.
I think what sealed it for me was the moment in the film where Ra's Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) is on a tram flying toward the city's main water tower. Batman defeats him and Ghul mocks him because he couldn't kill before. Batman replies, "I won't kill you; but I don't have to save you." In light of other superheroes, it seems pretty cold. Spiderman tried to save the Green Goblin, he successfully saved Doc Oc (though Oc dies in order to save the city), and he attempted to save Venom. Even Superman did not exact vengeance on Lex Luther.
Batman is the reality and Bruce Wayne is the mask. Can we really cheer for this kind of character? Channeling anger and hate can work for a while but at some point or another you have to decide if you want them to be the driving force of your life. Ra's Al Ghul/Henri Drucard reminds Bruce of this, saying, "Your anger gives you great power. But if you let it, it will destroy you. As it almost did me." Wayne inquires to what halted it. One word is all Drucard uses: "Vengeance." To inflict pain on those who have wronged you isn't any less destructive than anger. A choice is given. It appears Wayne has made his decision.
--HM
1. http://movies.about.com/od/batman/a/batman022005_2.htm
2. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=avenge&searchmode=none
My brother ended up purchasing the film and we watched it again. And this time I walked away feeling unsure of whether I could root for Bruce Wayne/Batman. Meaning I questioned if Batman was truly a "good guy".
I mentioned this to a friend the other night and the shock on his face told me my views weren't readily shared. Nevertheless, I hope I can explain this belief. I will begin with an interview I read with Christian Bale (aka Batman) before the film's theatrical release. Surprisingly, Bale mentioned that he wanted an R-rated version which could delve into the character of Bruce Wayne. In fact, he described Wayne as a guy you wouldn't want to be left alone in a room with. Interesting.
In another interview, Christian Bale said, "I mean, he’s the really on-the-edge one [superhero] because he’s the guy that, okay, he’s doing good but he’s the Dark Knight. I mean, a knight is meant to be in shining armor and he’s the Dark Knight. He could do good things but man, he could just as easily flip over and become like the ultimate villain" (1.).
The film begins with Bruce's terrifying encounter with bats, his continued fear of the winged mammals shown at the opera, and his parent's murder in the theater's back alley. That fear, pain, guilt, anger, resentment, hatred (I'm running out of negative descriptive emotions) is what drives his life. Everything he does is based on his desire to get revenge, to fulfill his "weakness" as a child by facing the bad guys head on.
My friend wanted to make the point that it's not revenge, it's avenge. However, if you look at the etymology of word "avenge", along with the words "revenge" and "vengeance", the word from which they are all derived is "vengier". In Old French this means "take revenge" (2).
"It is mine to revenge; I will repay." (Deut. 32:35)
Moreover, compared to Spiderman or Superman, Batman is not there to truly save the people of his city, he is there to get the criminals. It is protection of the innocent vs. destruction of the guilty.
I think what sealed it for me was the moment in the film where Ra's Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) is on a tram flying toward the city's main water tower. Batman defeats him and Ghul mocks him because he couldn't kill before. Batman replies, "I won't kill you; but I don't have to save you." In light of other superheroes, it seems pretty cold. Spiderman tried to save the Green Goblin, he successfully saved Doc Oc (though Oc dies in order to save the city), and he attempted to save Venom. Even Superman did not exact vengeance on Lex Luther.
Batman is the reality and Bruce Wayne is the mask. Can we really cheer for this kind of character? Channeling anger and hate can work for a while but at some point or another you have to decide if you want them to be the driving force of your life. Ra's Al Ghul/Henri Drucard reminds Bruce of this, saying, "Your anger gives you great power. But if you let it, it will destroy you. As it almost did me." Wayne inquires to what halted it. One word is all Drucard uses: "Vengeance." To inflict pain on those who have wronged you isn't any less destructive than anger. A choice is given. It appears Wayne has made his decision.
--HM
1. http://movies.about.com/od/batman/a/batman022005_2.htm
2. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=avenge&searchmode=none
Transformers and Eye Candy
Last Saturday I popped in Transformers and settled back for a fluff movie (doesn't have a whole lot of depth to plot, message, etc.). My brothers had previously viewed it and so I knew from them that it was a decent film with funny banter between the machines.
The special effects were quite fantastic and the Transformers were jaw-dropping realistic. But there was something else that caught my eye which made me wonder about the screenwriters and the actresses. To me, it appeared that the main female character and Sam's interest, Mikaela Banes was created for no other reason than to provide eye candy in an otherwise masculine film. If Mikaela was removed from the screenplay (short skirt, midriff revealing shirts and all) would the movie miss her. Honestly, what great part does she play in saving world? Remove Sam and there is no movie; remove Mikaela and there is less hormones running wild.
Even beyond this character, other women are strategically placed in the film wearing revealing clothes. For example, in the climatic city fight scene, a Transformer hurtles his way down a street. Yet in the foreground, a woman screaming in slow motion is stopped in front of the camera with a blue, low cut dress. I don't know about you but if one of those machines came flying down the street, I would run for cover instead of posing for the camera.
What is the point for filmmakers to throw these things into movies? No one would notice if they weren't there and it would be less of a temptation for men. My other question is, "Why are women taking these roles?" Why put yourself in that position? I could only shake my head as the credits role and hope (but I'm not holding my breath) that Transformers 2 does a better job.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Re-defining Refinement
Our pastor asked yesterday in church why it sometimes seems that the wicked prosper and the righteous perish. He asked this in context of Malachi 2:17. In this verse, Israel was demanding where God's justice was: the pagan nations were rich and powerful while Israel, God's chosen people, were poor and oppressed.
Asaph asks a similar question in Psalm 73. Honestly, he reveals that he "envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked" (v. 3). Using candid language, Asaph lists the "blessings" of the wicked; they appear problem free, healthy, strong, burdenless, carefree, and wealthy (v. 4, 5, 12). "What's the point then," inquires Asaph, "of following God."
"Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence" (v. 13).
Think of miserable Job; he did not have the same advantage we have of knowing the interaction between God and the accuser (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). All he knew was he, a righteous man, was afflicted by God. Job's good behavior and obedience did not seem to line up with the painful circumstances of his life.
But is not that the problem with the way the Gospel and Christianity is viewed in churches and society today? The Gospel has become the message that "God has a wonderful plan for your life". Truth be told the Christian life is sometimes no where near being hunky dory. Our obedience and the events of life do not always reflect that "wonderful plan" mantra.
Sitting in church, I thought through the difference between us and them, between "the children of God and the children of the devil" (1 John 3:10). Scripture tells us that "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and few find it" (Matthew 7:14). The Greek word for "narrow" in this passage means, "afflict, narrow, suffer tribulation, trouble" (Strong's Concordance). It doesn't sound easy to me. Furthermore, the passage in Malachi goes on to say that the messenger of the covenant is coming and "will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" (Malachi 3:1-3).
The refining process by a silversmith or a goldsmith is fascinating. One who refines precious metals does so by placing the ore in high heat. The impurities are then separated from the metal. The ore is left in the fire until the refiner can see his reflection in the metal.
What a picture! Christians may be struggling, undergoing hardship, and persecution. But we receive it because we are being made more into the image of Christ. God loves us and so is making us more like Jesus. What happens now in this life will impact the future, eternal one to come. Pagans are not being refined, so why should they suffer now?
Our hope is that though we experience trials and tribulation we are redeemed. Isaiah poignantly transcribed the words of God:
"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
For I am the LORD, your God,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior" (Isaiah 44:1d-3b).
As Asaph struggled to reconcile the evildoer's life with life God's children experience, he was reminded:
"Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strenght of my heart
and my portion forever" (Ps. 73:23-26).
--HM
Asaph asks a similar question in Psalm 73. Honestly, he reveals that he "envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked" (v. 3). Using candid language, Asaph lists the "blessings" of the wicked; they appear problem free, healthy, strong, burdenless, carefree, and wealthy (v. 4, 5, 12). "What's the point then," inquires Asaph, "of following God."
"Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence" (v. 13).
Think of miserable Job; he did not have the same advantage we have of knowing the interaction between God and the accuser (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). All he knew was he, a righteous man, was afflicted by God. Job's good behavior and obedience did not seem to line up with the painful circumstances of his life.
But is not that the problem with the way the Gospel and Christianity is viewed in churches and society today? The Gospel has become the message that "God has a wonderful plan for your life". Truth be told the Christian life is sometimes no where near being hunky dory. Our obedience and the events of life do not always reflect that "wonderful plan" mantra.
Sitting in church, I thought through the difference between us and them, between "the children of God and the children of the devil" (1 John 3:10). Scripture tells us that "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and few find it" (Matthew 7:14). The Greek word for "narrow" in this passage means, "afflict, narrow, suffer tribulation, trouble" (Strong's Concordance). It doesn't sound easy to me. Furthermore, the passage in Malachi goes on to say that the messenger of the covenant is coming and "will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" (Malachi 3:1-3).
The refining process by a silversmith or a goldsmith is fascinating. One who refines precious metals does so by placing the ore in high heat. The impurities are then separated from the metal. The ore is left in the fire until the refiner can see his reflection in the metal.
What a picture! Christians may be struggling, undergoing hardship, and persecution. But we receive it because we are being made more into the image of Christ. God loves us and so is making us more like Jesus. What happens now in this life will impact the future, eternal one to come. Pagans are not being refined, so why should they suffer now?
Our hope is that though we experience trials and tribulation we are redeemed. Isaiah poignantly transcribed the words of God:
"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
For I am the LORD, your God,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior" (Isaiah 44:1d-3b).
As Asaph struggled to reconcile the evildoer's life with life God's children experience, he was reminded:
"Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strenght of my heart
and my portion forever" (Ps. 73:23-26).
--HM
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Chosen
(Copyright 2008 by Hannah Miller)Clarity of understanding is sometimes slow in coming. As on a humid morning it can take time for the fog to evaporate.
Personal clarity, for which I can take no credit, is coming. It started a few Sundays ago when our pastor asked during his sermon why we were here, worshiping in church, believing in Jesus, when in Myanmar (Burma) a storm had wiped out hundreds of thousands of a population that has just a single digit percentage of Christians. Most died as unbelievers yet there I was, alive and saved. Why? Why me? The very fact that I do believe points to the even greater and more significant fact that God loves me, chose me and did so first.
What a thought! What magnitude of love this is! God loved me first? He is pleased with me? Yet I have done nothing.
My fog cleared a little more yesterday while in family devotions we read Romans 9:18: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." So not only did God choose me, there will be and are those that won't be chosen. It's not easy to grasp. In Calvinism, this is the idea of election. What joy in realizing I'm elected!
Then we read John 6:39: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but will raise them up at the last day." Even greater news: I can not lose my salvation because I do not carry the responsibility of attaining it. I am given to Christ and He has bestowed upon me salvation; it's not mine to lose.
And then today, I was reading through the Psalms and ended up cross-referencing John 6 again. I didn't even realize until just now but it is what we read yesterday. John 6:36 states, "But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe." I thought, "How could the Israelites not get it; how could they not realize that Jesus is God?" Then I realized as I read it again that I wouldn't get it. God could be standing right in front of me, like he did 2000 years ago to the Hebrew crowds, and I still wouldn't get it if he had not lifted my fog.
I would have to agree with Spurgeon who said, " I believe in the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I would never would have chosen him..."
--HM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
