I'm about to begin reading Singing the Songs of Jesus by Michael Lefebvre. Though I haven't read past the cover yet, something already stands out to me. Have you ever thought about the songs Jesus sang? What words comforted Him when He was sad? What poetry did He meditate on? The Psalms aren't just songs about doctrine, about theology, or even about Christ. They are more. They are also Christ's songs. He sang them. He meditated upon them. He lived them.
There are two passages that have made me think about this. One is Matthew 26:30.
30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
What song did they sing after the first Lord's Supper? There can be little doubt that they sang from one (or more) of the Psalms. Many of the Psalm headings in the Septuagint use the word "hymn". And what would be better fitting for Jesus and his disciples to sing during the Passover season than the songs that feastgoers had sung for generations?
The second passage is Hebrews 2:11-12.
11 ... That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise."
The "he" in this passage is Jesus. The quotation is ascribed to Jesus. It is something Jesus is "saying". But notice the words... it is Psalm 22:22. The writer to the Hebrews is saying that Psalm 22:22 is Jesus' words. Now notice what Jesus says, "in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise". Jesus sings with the congregation! He sings the Psalms in the midst of His people. This is what excites me about "the songs of Jesus". They are His songs, but because we are His they are our songs, too.
Showing posts with label B - Hebrews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B - Hebrews. Show all posts
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Saturday, October 24, 2009
"The Invention of Lying" - A Review
The movie was a gross perversion of many things, but worst of all, the person and work of Jesus Christ.
I am ashamed that I've watched this movie. This post is intended to deter people from watching it, for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ.
Spoiler Alert
The movie starts with a general exposition narrated by the voice of the main character. He explains that the human race had not yet evolved to be able to lie. He noted that his character would be the first in the history of mankind to lie. He is unattractive and would be fired from his job as a "script writer" (i.e. an exact recollection of actual events that had happened in the past). He is fired, is accused of being a homosexual, and must leave his apartment as he lacks $800 rent. His first lie is at the bank teller when asking what to withdraw he tells her $800 knowing that he only has $300. She willingly trusts him, despite the computer in front of her telling something different.
A suicidal neighbor reveals that he lives life in despair. The main character tells him that things will get better and that he shouldn't commit suicide. The neighbor willingly believes him and stops attempting to end his life.
The main character's mother is elderly and lives in "a sad place for hopeless people". She is soon on her deathbed and comments that she is saddened by the nothingness that awaits her in death. He lies by telling her that at death she will be in the happiest place she can imagine and that she will receive her very own mansion. She dies happy, but he is overheard by doctors and nurses who willingly trust him. News spreads and crowds follow him to hear what he "knows" about what happens to people when they die. He writes a list of 10 things and posts them on 2 pizza boxes, because he lacks 2 tablets (of stone). He delivers to the world via international television broadcast that there is a man in the sky who will give everyone mansions provided they don't do 3 bad things (3 strikes and you're out, like baseball). The man in the sky is responsible for everything that happens and cannot be seen. Everyone willingly trusts the main character. Buildings resembling churches are erected as "quiet places to think about the man in the sky". At a wedding ceremony, the officiating minister wears a gold cross, which upon closer inspection is just a gold representation of the main character holding out the two pizza boxes.
The main character becomes incredibly rich by defrauding a bank, casino, and the general populace. He improves his financial situation, but the woman he wants still will not marry (or procreate with) him because he is undesirable for his genetics. He decides not to lie to her about genetics even though he has opportunity to. He becomes depressed and doesn't shave nor cut his hair, and when she later rings his doorbell to invite him to her wedding to a pompous, vain rival, he answers wrapped in a bedsheet wearing sandals, an obvious allusion to stereotypical images of Jesus.
In the end, he gets the girl. Only he and his son can lie. There is no indication that he was punished for gaining money through deception or any of the lies he told. There is not even indication that anyone ever distrusts a single thing he said.
Review
The premise of the movie seemed intriguing. What would happen in a world in which no one lied. What would be inclination of the first person to lie, and what would be the result? For these reasons I was drawn to watch this movie. Nevertheless, the following are contentions I hold with the writers of it:
Contention 1:
The idea of lying being an evolution of man. The writers of this movie reveal that they believe in some sort of evolution, with the general understanding that over time improvements are added to the human race, while disadvantages are discarded. One will notice immediately that lying is an improvement according to their theory. If lying is an improvement, what about distrust? As noted in the synopsis above, no one distrusted anything the liar said. But what is the logical outcome of a person continuously saying things that are not? It is inevitably that people would eventually come to distrust one another. Is this an advancement among members of the human race? I wonder if the writers of this movie consider that what they are marking as evolution is, in fact, degeneration? Perhaps that was their intent.
Contention 2:
A confusion of hope and dishonesty. The liar on several occasions is able to temporarily improve someone's mood who is otherwise depressed or in despair. While the intention may be commendable, the idea of helping someone by lying to them is convoluted. Apparently, the writers believe that it is impossible to have hope without also being liars. It paints a very dreary world, where we see characters who wish to commit suicide because they are unattractive and others are slaves to their own vain desires. What is odd is that by setting a world in which people only speak what is truth is that they deny the possibility that things could change. The writers seem to imply that to expect change for the better is at it's root a lie. How very pessimistic! These writers paint a very depraved view of hope, for they don't portray people as having hope until the lie enters the world. Is hope dependant upon lies by it's nature? I beg to differ. Hope can be based on truth, but not on what is visible. The author of Hebrews tells us:
Hebrews 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
The writer's definition of a lie comes to mean anything that cannot be seen. They create a world in which having faith itself has to become a lie. They create a world in which believing in the invisible God becomes, itself, a sin.
Contention 3:
The premise of the movie's writers: "god is a lie." In their scenario, the first man to discover lying also invents a god. Everyone in that world believes him because they have no concept of a lie. In effect, the writers are concluding that religion is false. We see this in the movie in that no religious symbols (or even moral labels on behavior) exist in this world where no one lies until the main character begins to tell lies.
I'll note, the religion which the main character creates is one which is very agreeable to his own character. He creates a religion which benefits himself. This is most clearly seen when he says "the man in the sky says that you can't have sex before marriage". This is a lie, of course, as he has made up the man in the sky (per the writer's plot line). The context in which this is that his love interest has mentioned that she will likely have sex with his rival. He creates a religion which is beneficial to his needs at the time. This is, by definition, a man-made religion, which is false. Oddly enough, I do not find this point as disagreeable. If their point is only that man made religion is false, I will not disagree with them. Religion which has it's doctrinal source and object of praise in man and not in God is blasphemy. Sadly, I fear that their point is that all religion is man-made and is therefore false, which I vehemently disagree with. If they've excluded the possibility that God could possibly truly exist and would actually reveal a religion to mankind, they've fallen into serious error with eternal consequences.
Contention 4:
The inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. If you didn't catch that in the synopsis above, let me repeat it: the inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. Does this sound like Jesus to you? Let's compare this with Jesus's own words:
John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jesus identifies the devil (yes, the devil, himself) as the father of lies. The devil has nothing to do with the truth; there is no truth in him. The bible tells us that lying, deceit, dishonesty, etc. are from the devil. This movie is saying that they are from Jesus. What blasphemy! Consider who Jesus is:
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Jesus is truth! Not only is he truth, but he is THE truth. Jesus is truth, and in him there is nothing false:
John 7:16-18
16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone's will is to do God's [5] will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.
I am finding it hard to appropriately express what I feel toward the themes presented in this movie. I cannot find words to express the disconnect between what the writers of this film have presented and what God tells us in His Word. They are liars. The movie is a lie.
Psalm 119:163
163 I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.
I am ashamed that I've watched this movie. This post is intended to deter people from watching it, for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ.
Spoiler Alert
The movie starts with a general exposition narrated by the voice of the main character. He explains that the human race had not yet evolved to be able to lie. He noted that his character would be the first in the history of mankind to lie. He is unattractive and would be fired from his job as a "script writer" (i.e. an exact recollection of actual events that had happened in the past). He is fired, is accused of being a homosexual, and must leave his apartment as he lacks $800 rent. His first lie is at the bank teller when asking what to withdraw he tells her $800 knowing that he only has $300. She willingly trusts him, despite the computer in front of her telling something different.
A suicidal neighbor reveals that he lives life in despair. The main character tells him that things will get better and that he shouldn't commit suicide. The neighbor willingly believes him and stops attempting to end his life.
The main character's mother is elderly and lives in "a sad place for hopeless people". She is soon on her deathbed and comments that she is saddened by the nothingness that awaits her in death. He lies by telling her that at death she will be in the happiest place she can imagine and that she will receive her very own mansion. She dies happy, but he is overheard by doctors and nurses who willingly trust him. News spreads and crowds follow him to hear what he "knows" about what happens to people when they die. He writes a list of 10 things and posts them on 2 pizza boxes, because he lacks 2 tablets (of stone). He delivers to the world via international television broadcast that there is a man in the sky who will give everyone mansions provided they don't do 3 bad things (3 strikes and you're out, like baseball). The man in the sky is responsible for everything that happens and cannot be seen. Everyone willingly trusts the main character. Buildings resembling churches are erected as "quiet places to think about the man in the sky". At a wedding ceremony, the officiating minister wears a gold cross, which upon closer inspection is just a gold representation of the main character holding out the two pizza boxes.
The main character becomes incredibly rich by defrauding a bank, casino, and the general populace. He improves his financial situation, but the woman he wants still will not marry (or procreate with) him because he is undesirable for his genetics. He decides not to lie to her about genetics even though he has opportunity to. He becomes depressed and doesn't shave nor cut his hair, and when she later rings his doorbell to invite him to her wedding to a pompous, vain rival, he answers wrapped in a bedsheet wearing sandals, an obvious allusion to stereotypical images of Jesus.
In the end, he gets the girl. Only he and his son can lie. There is no indication that he was punished for gaining money through deception or any of the lies he told. There is not even indication that anyone ever distrusts a single thing he said.
Review
The premise of the movie seemed intriguing. What would happen in a world in which no one lied. What would be inclination of the first person to lie, and what would be the result? For these reasons I was drawn to watch this movie. Nevertheless, the following are contentions I hold with the writers of it:
Contention 1:
The idea of lying being an evolution of man. The writers of this movie reveal that they believe in some sort of evolution, with the general understanding that over time improvements are added to the human race, while disadvantages are discarded. One will notice immediately that lying is an improvement according to their theory. If lying is an improvement, what about distrust? As noted in the synopsis above, no one distrusted anything the liar said. But what is the logical outcome of a person continuously saying things that are not? It is inevitably that people would eventually come to distrust one another. Is this an advancement among members of the human race? I wonder if the writers of this movie consider that what they are marking as evolution is, in fact, degeneration? Perhaps that was their intent.
Contention 2:
A confusion of hope and dishonesty. The liar on several occasions is able to temporarily improve someone's mood who is otherwise depressed or in despair. While the intention may be commendable, the idea of helping someone by lying to them is convoluted. Apparently, the writers believe that it is impossible to have hope without also being liars. It paints a very dreary world, where we see characters who wish to commit suicide because they are unattractive and others are slaves to their own vain desires. What is odd is that by setting a world in which people only speak what is truth is that they deny the possibility that things could change. The writers seem to imply that to expect change for the better is at it's root a lie. How very pessimistic! These writers paint a very depraved view of hope, for they don't portray people as having hope until the lie enters the world. Is hope dependant upon lies by it's nature? I beg to differ. Hope can be based on truth, but not on what is visible. The author of Hebrews tells us:
Hebrews 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
The writer's definition of a lie comes to mean anything that cannot be seen. They create a world in which having faith itself has to become a lie. They create a world in which believing in the invisible God becomes, itself, a sin.
Contention 3:
The premise of the movie's writers: "god is a lie." In their scenario, the first man to discover lying also invents a god. Everyone in that world believes him because they have no concept of a lie. In effect, the writers are concluding that religion is false. We see this in the movie in that no religious symbols (or even moral labels on behavior) exist in this world where no one lies until the main character begins to tell lies.
I'll note, the religion which the main character creates is one which is very agreeable to his own character. He creates a religion which benefits himself. This is most clearly seen when he says "the man in the sky says that you can't have sex before marriage". This is a lie, of course, as he has made up the man in the sky (per the writer's plot line). The context in which this is that his love interest has mentioned that she will likely have sex with his rival. He creates a religion which is beneficial to his needs at the time. This is, by definition, a man-made religion, which is false. Oddly enough, I do not find this point as disagreeable. If their point is only that man made religion is false, I will not disagree with them. Religion which has it's doctrinal source and object of praise in man and not in God is blasphemy. Sadly, I fear that their point is that all religion is man-made and is therefore false, which I vehemently disagree with. If they've excluded the possibility that God could possibly truly exist and would actually reveal a religion to mankind, they've fallen into serious error with eternal consequences.
Contention 4:
The inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. If you didn't catch that in the synopsis above, let me repeat it: the inventor of lying is compared to Jesus Christ. Does this sound like Jesus to you? Let's compare this with Jesus's own words:
John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jesus identifies the devil (yes, the devil, himself) as the father of lies. The devil has nothing to do with the truth; there is no truth in him. The bible tells us that lying, deceit, dishonesty, etc. are from the devil. This movie is saying that they are from Jesus. What blasphemy! Consider who Jesus is:
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Jesus is truth! Not only is he truth, but he is THE truth. Jesus is truth, and in him there is nothing false:
John 7:16-18
16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone's will is to do God's [5] will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.
I am finding it hard to appropriately express what I feel toward the themes presented in this movie. I cannot find words to express the disconnect between what the writers of this film have presented and what God tells us in His Word. They are liars. The movie is a lie.
Psalm 119:163
163 I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Theology of Twilight - Implications on Purity
So, while we're on the subject of Theology... let's talk about vampires. I'm referring to a recent collection of novels which center around the life of a high school aged girl who falls in love with a vampire: Twilight. I've read them. I'm admitting it to the world, "I'm a man in his twenties who has read and enjoyed the Twilight saga." While I realize the books have been most popular with teenage girls, the reason I started reading them is a theological one. Let me explain.
I started by going to watch the movie "Twilight" with my wife. I started to get nervous when we were in the ticket line with what looked like a sorority recruitment camp. Nevertheless, we took our seats and were thrilled to enjoy a great movie (and an additional soundtrack from the audience). As I mentioned above, the movie (and books) are about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. The girl is named Bella (which, itself, means "beautiful", and comes from Isabella, which means "My God is bountiful. God of plenty. Devoted to God", made popular by queens of Spain) and the vampire is named Edward (which means "wealthy guard", made popular by kings of England). The two fall in love, of course, but the nature of their relationship is ever determined by the facts of their natures. Bella is human, young, in many ways weak, and very clumsy. Edward is a vampire, and due to that nature is incredibly attractive: has fantastic bronze hair, bright amber eyes, and stone skin (which sparkles in sunlight). Also, as a vampire, he has nearly limitless strength and speed and thirsts for human blood. Of course this last attribute is the most critical source of tension in the entire series. If he were like every other vampire the book would have been very short. Bella would have taken her first steps into biology class and been met by brilliant white teeth... the story would have been over. What makes this love story possible is that Edward is not like all other vampires.
Edward is different from others of his kind because he is a follower of Carlisle Cullen, the first vampire who has denied his thirst for human blood, choosing, instead, to drink the blood of lesser creatures. Edward has decided to not give into his natural desire to drink the blood his body desires. Edward can also read minds, which is a gift unique to him, but I don't think that's why Bella (and every teenage girl) loves him.
Let me give away my main point: The real reason Edward is amazing is not the bronze hair, amber eyes, or stone skin, it is because he desires to be righteous. When Edward and Bella fall in love, he is hesitant to even kiss her for fear that he would lose control. Edward firmly states (in the book) that he will not have sex until marriage. Edward won't have sex with Bella for the same reason he won't drink her blood: to do either would kill her and reveal the monster that is his nature. He is incredible because he loves her and loves her righteously. The hair, eyes, skin are products of his vampiric nature... and those alone would leave Bella dead. He needed to also be upright.
What I saw in the movie, and saw again when I later read the books, was a metaphor for the life of a Christian. Edward had a nature which made him a monster. All mankind has a nature which makes them monsters: a sinful nature which is opposed to God and opposed to His law. Edward has been changed by his relationship to Carlisle, who, though a vampire himself, has never (ever!) given into his vampiric nature. Christians have been changed by our relationship to Jesus Christ, who, though a human himself, has never (ever!) sinned.
I also see a parallel for a specific scenario that I've dealt with in my own life and I'd imagine most teenagers themselves are or will soon deal with: purity. Take a situation where a girl and guy fall in love. They probably will have a desire to elevate the relationship physically. To elevate the physical intimacy to inappropriate levels is against God's law. God has a context for intimacy, and it is within a covenant relationship called marriage. To have sex before marriage is immoral. God calls it sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
I bring this up because I see a parallel between the natural desires of unmarried couples and Edward's thirst. Consider with me for a moment that Edward thirsts for Bella. Part of his desire for her is good and right and true, but it is always stained to some degree by his inner urges. So it is with a young man who has met a young woman he loves. He longs for her, and this can be a good longing, yet part of him desires to take things beyond the appropriate boundaries. It is a constant struggle for a Christian.
Consider next that if Edward were to, even for a few moments, give in to his pressing thirst. It would literally kill Bella. If you've read Midnight Sun, you'll know that it would kill Edward, too. He would forever live with the monster that he had become. When unmarried people perform acts that were intended for marriage, it kills them. Please don't think I'm being over dramatic here. Consider what God tells us in the book of James:
I bring this up because I see a parallel between the natural desires of unmarried couples and Edward's thirst. Consider with me for a moment that Edward thirsts for Bella. Part of his desire for her is good and right and true, but it is always stained to some degree by his inner urges. So it is with a young man who has met a young woman he loves. He longs for her, and this can be a good longing, yet part of him desires to take things beyond the appropriate boundaries. It is a constant struggle for a Christian.
Consider next that if Edward were to, even for a few moments, give in to his pressing thirst. It would literally kill Bella. If you've read Midnight Sun, you'll know that it would kill Edward, too. He would forever live with the monster that he had become. When unmarried people perform acts that were intended for marriage, it kills them. Please don't think I'm being over dramatic here. Consider what God tells us in the book of James:
14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Please understand, I am not saying that sex is wrong. Sex is wonderful. It is a gift from God for mankind. It has a right context, though. The right context for sexual intimacy is marriage. Bella calls Edward "old fashioned" when he wants to wait until marriage (Eclipse). Sadly, it is seen as "old fashioned" by much of the world, today. The way God intended things, though, should not be considered "old fashioned" as if not relevant today, at least by those who are called by God to be His own. God holds marriage in such high regard that he wants us to protect it:
4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
Marriage in this life is not the final end, though. Marriage, like so many parts of this life, is intended to give us a picture of that which is to come. Marriage is the most intimate relationship for a human to have with another. What is amazing is that God has decreed that his people will one day be united to Jesus Christ. He describes this union as a marriage.
Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Revelation 21:
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Marriage is worth protecting, worth waiting for, because heaven is worth waiting for.
As I recall the teenage girls screaming when Edward first appeared on screen, I think to myself, why did they adore him? Why is Edward worth screaming for? I'll tell you that it is not because of the hair, the eyes, the skin... or even because he can read minds or is old-fashioned. Young women love Edward because he would protect their virtue in a society which wishes to exploit it. Edward is someone they can trust because he has shown himself to be trustworthy. As these young women look for someone love, I pray that they would find a man who is, in this sense, like Edward.
Marriage in this life is not the final end, though. Marriage, like so many parts of this life, is intended to give us a picture of that which is to come. Marriage is the most intimate relationship for a human to have with another. What is amazing is that God has decreed that his people will one day be united to Jesus Christ. He describes this union as a marriage.
Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Revelation 21:
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Marriage is worth protecting, worth waiting for, because heaven is worth waiting for.
As I recall the teenage girls screaming when Edward first appeared on screen, I think to myself, why did they adore him? Why is Edward worth screaming for? I'll tell you that it is not because of the hair, the eyes, the skin... or even because he can read minds or is old-fashioned. Young women love Edward because he would protect their virtue in a society which wishes to exploit it. Edward is someone they can trust because he has shown himself to be trustworthy. As these young women look for someone love, I pray that they would find a man who is, in this sense, like Edward.
“That’s it, isn’t it?” The short laugh that escaped me was more shocked than amused. “You’re trying to protect your virtue!” I covered my mouth with my hand to muffle the giggle that followed. The words were so . . . old-fashioned.
“No, silly girl,” he muttered against my shoulder. “I’m trying to protect yours.”
-Eclipse (Book 3)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Belief in the Invisible God
God is invisible. I suppose I should say that God chooses not to show himself. If God wanted to show himself, he surely could. When we say that God is invisible, it is in no way a slight against His power... in fact, it underscores it.
Exodus 33:
18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
God is so utterly different from mankind, so much more powerful, so much more intense, so much more... well, just more... that man would die if God were to fully reveal Himself to him. God also does not give us images to see Him. In fact, he commands that we not create images with which to worship Him.
Exodus 20:
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands [2] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Leviticus 19:
4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.
When my wife and I go to see a movie based on a book we've read, I usually enjoy it. My wife, however, gets annoyed. "That's not how it happened in the book." This has always been the case. The movie is never the same as the book. There are good reasons for this... sometimes the words of the book leave room for ambiguity, to leave room for the reader to ponder, yet in a movie it is hard to leave ambiguity. Most often, the book has so much detail that a verbatim movie would be so long audiences would lose interest. This illustrates the negative side of images used in worship. God is so much more than than we can comprehend, that any image created by us would be an epic failure at portraying God.
There is a positive side of images used in worship (I do not mean positive as in "good", I only mean it like "added"). Once my wife and I have seen a book turned movie a few times, we both find that the movie heavily influences the way we read the book. For instance, when I read the 6th Harry Potter book, The Half Blood Prince, I see in my mind Ron as Rupert Gint and Harry as Daniel Radcliffe. Even the character Dudley, who in the books is a blonde, is burned into my mind as being the dark haired Harry Melling. When my wife reads to me on long car trips, the voice she reads for Hagrid matches the actor, Robbie Coltrane's (my wife does a great impression, I might add). This illustrates the point that images in worship sometimes introduce or "add" notions that aren't there. They might cause someone to be "blinded" by what they see or have seen.
Spiritual blindness is truly the matter at hand. To be blind of something is to not see it. This is, perhaps, the antithesis of faith. Faith is knowing of things which cannot be seen with natural senses. It is agreement that these things exist. It is also trusting, or a steadfast assurance in those things.
Hebrews 11:
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
I think this gets to a very fundamental theological point. Although God could reveal himself in a way that is undeniable, He has chosen to reveal Himself in ways which are subtle. God hasn't recently caused the sun to stand still in the sky, or to flood the entirety of the earth. Instead, He relates to His people through revelation and faith. Consider this: Jesus performed miracles before large crowds. There were some who saw them and believed, while there were some who saw them and did not. Some responded in faith and saw Jesus for who He really was.
Colossians 1:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
God's revelation of himself is like this. Two people might read the bible and one respond in faith and the other not. Faith is crucial to having a relationship with the invisible God. When I say that God is invisible, I do not mean that He does or has not revealed Himself or conveyed truths through things which are visible. The bible is one example. The sacraments are another: God conveys spiritual truths through the sacraments. Baptism visibly represents the washing away of sin (something which is invisible). Circumcision visibly represented for Israel the cutting away of their hardness of heart. The Lord's Supper, or Eucharist, is something that can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelled, but it points to Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross which is not physically seen, touched, tasted, nor smelled today.
Incidentally, I agree with scripture that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Some have made statues and paintings of Jesus. Such actions should give God-fearing people serious pause. God the son chose to take on a human body and become flesh. This was God's act of self-revelation. It would seem a great error to take the Mona Lisa to a Kinko's, print off a black and white 8 1/2" x 11", and hang it on my wall. Doing so is no service to Mona, and shows no respect to Leonardo Da Vinci. We should guard against idolatry. Indeed, it seems that some have elevated bread and wine to the position of Jesus Himself. I won't get into all the arguments for why they would believe this, but I will state firmly that if the bread and wine are not God, but are worshipped as if they were, those worshiping and teaching the error will one day answer to the invisible God on charges of idolatry.
1 John 3:
2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
I charge those reading this, as I do myself, to rely on the invisible God by faith. I've heard of someone saying, "I've had lots of friends that have died. I don't hear any of them coming back to tell me how great heaven is." I'm saddened by this person's loss, but moreso for their lack of faith. Someone has come back from the dead: Jesus Christ. He has told us in the bible and through the preaching of the word what we must believe to go to heaven. Do we believe Him? Do we serve Him? Do we have hope in the invisible God? If not, the best hope we could have is that He does not exist.
Exodus 33:
18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
God is so utterly different from mankind, so much more powerful, so much more intense, so much more... well, just more... that man would die if God were to fully reveal Himself to him. God also does not give us images to see Him. In fact, he commands that we not create images with which to worship Him.
Exodus 20:
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands [2] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Leviticus 19:
4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.
When my wife and I go to see a movie based on a book we've read, I usually enjoy it. My wife, however, gets annoyed. "That's not how it happened in the book." This has always been the case. The movie is never the same as the book. There are good reasons for this... sometimes the words of the book leave room for ambiguity, to leave room for the reader to ponder, yet in a movie it is hard to leave ambiguity. Most often, the book has so much detail that a verbatim movie would be so long audiences would lose interest. This illustrates the negative side of images used in worship. God is so much more than than we can comprehend, that any image created by us would be an epic failure at portraying God.
There is a positive side of images used in worship (I do not mean positive as in "good", I only mean it like "added"). Once my wife and I have seen a book turned movie a few times, we both find that the movie heavily influences the way we read the book. For instance, when I read the 6th Harry Potter book, The Half Blood Prince, I see in my mind Ron as Rupert Gint and Harry as Daniel Radcliffe. Even the character Dudley, who in the books is a blonde, is burned into my mind as being the dark haired Harry Melling. When my wife reads to me on long car trips, the voice she reads for Hagrid matches the actor, Robbie Coltrane's (my wife does a great impression, I might add). This illustrates the point that images in worship sometimes introduce or "add" notions that aren't there. They might cause someone to be "blinded" by what they see or have seen.
Spiritual blindness is truly the matter at hand. To be blind of something is to not see it. This is, perhaps, the antithesis of faith. Faith is knowing of things which cannot be seen with natural senses. It is agreement that these things exist. It is also trusting, or a steadfast assurance in those things.
Hebrews 11:
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
I think this gets to a very fundamental theological point. Although God could reveal himself in a way that is undeniable, He has chosen to reveal Himself in ways which are subtle. God hasn't recently caused the sun to stand still in the sky, or to flood the entirety of the earth. Instead, He relates to His people through revelation and faith. Consider this: Jesus performed miracles before large crowds. There were some who saw them and believed, while there were some who saw them and did not. Some responded in faith and saw Jesus for who He really was.
Colossians 1:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
God's revelation of himself is like this. Two people might read the bible and one respond in faith and the other not. Faith is crucial to having a relationship with the invisible God. When I say that God is invisible, I do not mean that He does or has not revealed Himself or conveyed truths through things which are visible. The bible is one example. The sacraments are another: God conveys spiritual truths through the sacraments. Baptism visibly represents the washing away of sin (something which is invisible). Circumcision visibly represented for Israel the cutting away of their hardness of heart. The Lord's Supper, or Eucharist, is something that can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelled, but it points to Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross which is not physically seen, touched, tasted, nor smelled today.
Incidentally, I agree with scripture that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Some have made statues and paintings of Jesus. Such actions should give God-fearing people serious pause. God the son chose to take on a human body and become flesh. This was God's act of self-revelation. It would seem a great error to take the Mona Lisa to a Kinko's, print off a black and white 8 1/2" x 11", and hang it on my wall. Doing so is no service to Mona, and shows no respect to Leonardo Da Vinci. We should guard against idolatry. Indeed, it seems that some have elevated bread and wine to the position of Jesus Himself. I won't get into all the arguments for why they would believe this, but I will state firmly that if the bread and wine are not God, but are worshipped as if they were, those worshiping and teaching the error will one day answer to the invisible God on charges of idolatry.
1 John 3:
2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
I charge those reading this, as I do myself, to rely on the invisible God by faith. I've heard of someone saying, "I've had lots of friends that have died. I don't hear any of them coming back to tell me how great heaven is." I'm saddened by this person's loss, but moreso for their lack of faith. Someone has come back from the dead: Jesus Christ. He has told us in the bible and through the preaching of the word what we must believe to go to heaven. Do we believe Him? Do we serve Him? Do we have hope in the invisible God? If not, the best hope we could have is that He does not exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
