For God’s Sake, Kiss Me!

b14e77b8078ad89bf21e63ce7a57baa8

[Chapter adapted from Real Sex Does Not Come From a Website: The Rewards of Perusing Your Wife –  https://www.amazon.com/Real-Sex-Does-Come-Website/dp/1607998122 ]

Yes, for God’s sake! Let me explain. Contrary to the sanitization of masculinity, some of the most liberating statements men can read for themselves are found in the Christian Bible. “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—for your love is more delightful than wine” (Song of Songs 1:1). “Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely” (Song of Songs 4:3). “Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue” (Song of Songs 4:11). There is absolutely no sanitizing these words, though they can be contextualized. For the sake of this article, I will contextualize them between a husband and wife.

I remember twelve years ago that my eldest son, who was eight at the time, asked me what a French kiss was. In my immediate answer at the dinner table, I replied, “It is what French people do!” I hoped this would keep at bay his question that would be better answered privately and not in front of his giggling younger brother and sister, not to mention his mom who was grinning like the Cheshire cat from Alice in Wonderland. At the same time, our other son stuck his tongue out licking the air like it was an ice cream. The whole table burst out laughing as I tried to bring a sense of order, attempting to set the example of sensibility. Who had told our other son, a six-year-old at the time, that when grown-ups kiss they sometimes use their tongues? Who had violated his innocence and scarred his thinking for life? Upon reflection, we dads really do have an ability to exaggerate when we are not in control of a situation or when something happens without us knowing. The only real scars my children have are from acting like batman in a make-belief Gotham City (known as a living room); or in the case of my daughter, by getting in the way of batman!

The fact was that another boy at school had seen something on television and told the other boys in his class about kissing. Their understanding had no emotional connection whatsoever, so it was gross and extremely funny at the same time for them. I quickly joined the bandwagon and pulled a face that shouted “gross” and “germs”. Later that evening, I talked with my eldest son in terms he would understand that answered his question while he played on his X-Box, listening to a music at the same time. To him, it was not sexual in the slightest, but a door of questions had been opened and has stayed open since that time. By the way, to any dad who asks his eldest son not to say anything to his younger brother, he is asking the impossible. What you tell one son will get to the other son like Morse code right under your nose.

When the children are in bed, the question may still linger in your wife’s mind that looks for an answer in you. “Let him kiss me” (Song of Songs 1:1). Will you or won’t you? Is it worth searching for milk and honey under her tongue? If you can see that her lips are, as the text states, like deep red scarlet ribbon, it can be more than worth it. For example, Auguste Rodin carved an image her called The Kiss out of one stone revealing two lovers coiled together. Her arm is draped sensually around his neck, while his hand barely touches her exposed hip. Like lovers’ vertigo, she is reaching up to him, and his embrace holds her in the grip of a passionate kiss. According to Rodin, the image of lovers like this always starts with a kiss.

According to the text, her mouth to be lovely, sweet like honey, and your mouth is more delightful than wine. Think about it, there is nothing more complimenting to a well-prepared meal than a good wine. It accentuates the taste of every morsel like velvet on the tongue. She is saying that your kiss is more than wine. So, if liberating statements are found in the Bible, did God create the kiss? Whether He let the first man and woman discover a kiss for themselves is debatable, but according to the Christian Bible, He created man and woman (Genesis 5:2).

The language of Song of Songs is an invitation from a woman to kiss her many times “with the kisses” of your mouth, or as Ingrid Bergman said, “A kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature to stop speech when words become superfluous.” This is not the kiss of Michael Douglas showing affection to his father Kirk, or the wishful thinking of kissing the Blarney Stone or superstition of kissing the Pope’s ring. Neither is it the greeting of European or Middle Eastern men. This is the kiss of our masculine passion. It is too easier to give in to an online erotic image or video than to employ what God has given you—the ability to kiss a woman, more specifically, your wife.

Remember that if the kiss is good, even great, she will invite you to go further. There is nothing on earth like an invitation from the woman you love to pour excitement from lips to lips, like ancient golden goblets filling with wine. It is what Byron calls the “heart-quake” because it is far more eloquent than speech. If so, you may need to widen your repertoire of kissing as Oliver Wendell Holmes, the nineteenth century poet, constantly repeated to his friends, “The sound of a kiss is not so loud as that of a cannon, but its echo lasts a great deal longer.”

Movies are full of this stuff. With the sun setting in the background, Will Turner puts his left hand gently around the neck of Elizabeth Swan and kisses her. So what, is this another chic-flick that we men suffer through for the sake of being with our spouse? No, this is Pirates of the Caribbean, full of action and adventure with Jack Sparrow. The fact is that Elizabeth is pledged to be married to the Norrington, who is clueless to what the son of a pirate knows about a woman’s mouth and the hidden treasure under her tongue (Song of Songs 4:11). Even Anakin, who was seduced by the dark side of the force, knew how to caress the lips of Padme in Attack of the Clones. Look guys, even Tramp, the mongrel dog, knew how to steal a kiss with a cocker spaniel called Lady in an Italian restaurant over spaghetti. The passion, circumstances, buildup, dialogue, unpredictability, awkwardness, and the sexiness of the cinematography know how to set every man up right in front of his wife. Will your wife honestly say that Will Turner, Anakin Skywalker, and even Tramp the dog have what it takes in a lineup with you?

As much as we have progressed light years beyond the cultures of yesterday, our respective histories reveal how much we men have lost the staple of Renaissance poetry, music, art, and literature—the kiss. Johannes Secundus in the sixteenth century often referred to the kiss as eternal, swooning, diffusing, and merging two people into one. This period of history took the kiss beyond the literal touch. For example, items such as an image of a lover, lockets, letters, and possessions would be kissed with as much love as their owner. Go further back to the fourteenth century to the works of Ha-fez, the Persian poet, and the concern for delicate female lips, once caressed with your mouth, could leave a memory that would last a lifetime, like two silk sheets caressing each other in the breeze. In the twenty-first century, is it possible for a man to say to create a memory in his wife’s mind that says “good morning”, “see you later”, and “honey I’m home”?

In Chekhov’s The Kiss, a naive and innocent young man wanders into a dark room. His name is Ryabovich. In that blackened room was a fair maiden waiting for him to surprise with an inviting kiss. Their lips meet. Although he cannot see, images of her beauty blossom into full color, visualized perfectly. Your kiss can create memorable images that linger until the children are in bed.

In AD 200, Chloe steals a kiss for the first time from Daphnis. His heart pounds, his breathing gasps for air, and his soul begins to melt like cold ice exposed to the sun. But with all this physical awkwardness, he wants to kiss her again, not knowing what this “disease” was rupturing his body. It is like a scene from ‘Third Rock from the Sun’ where Dr. Dick Solomon (Played by John Lithgow) kisses Dr. Mary Albright (played by Jane Curtain) for the first time. Dick assumes it is a technical cleaning ceremony and in his excitement exclaims to Mary, ‘Let me clean you again!’ Though Hershey makes eighty million kisses each day, one kiss with searching passion can mean more to your wife than all the chocolate in the world, in fact, any world according to Dr. Solomon!

If the invitation of the one you love is, “Let him kiss me” (Song of Songs 1:1), are you not robbing her of an answer that you hold within your masculinity? She is a sleeping beauty, waiting for love to awake with a single kiss, and it may just turn the frog in you into a charming prince!

You may be surprised by what happens when you make the first move. For example, Boiardo’s Orlando Innamorato tells of a beautiful damsel sitting by a great tomb. She seduces Baron Brandimart to open the tomb and kiss whatever comes out. With a single effort, he opens the grave and a snake with sharp fangs and striking white eyes leaps out. He takes the serpent in both hands and gently kisses it, knowing his life could be taken. Instantly the creature turns into an enchanted fairy and empowers his armor and horse. Now, what could a passionate kiss with your wife do for you?

A passionate kiss became the concluding image of WWII. Alfred Eisenstaedt photographed one of the most published kisses in history. The war had come to an end and a sailor took hold of a woman in Times Square, New York, swinging her entire body parallel with the ground, as he deeply and passionately kissed her. It speaks of a passionate reunion and release of all the problems and chaos of that day. It is quite possible that such a kiss could release the problems and chaos of your wife’s day. I think Erroll Brown got it right in his ’70s hit, “It started with a kiss, never thought it would come to this.”

I’m sure that King Solomon’s lover has her own problems and chaos, but the text reveals what she was looking for, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—for your love is more delightful than wine” (Song of Songs 1:1). She may look like Boiardo’s serpent with fangs and glaring eyes, but in her heart she may be longing for your searching lips to discover the treasure of milk and honey found with a kiss.

I think the Christian Bible explains the depth and possibilities of a kiss far more than the sanitized words of Professor McGrouter: “The anatomical juxtaposition of two orbicularis orsis muscles in a state of contraction that draws on a combined 146 muscles.” A kiss between husband and wife must never be reduced to a scientific explanation. It is your response to her invitation to go beyond the kiss, or as Mistinguett said, “To every man, a kiss is a comma.” It is not an end in itself but a secret of unspoken words told to the mouth, not to the ear. For God’s sake, kiss her!

 

 

I Now Pronounce You as Husband and Wife

I am an Englishman living in Texas, or more specifically Austin Texas. On any given Friday, Saturday, or Sunday I am typically dressed in one of my finest tailored suits officiating a wedding ceremony; about 40-50 a year to be a little more precise. Family and friends – and at least several wedding crashers – gather to witness a bride and groom make their vows to each other. No matter what type of vows are made, all wedding ceremonies conclude with the proclamation, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife!”

How regal it is to officiate a wedding ceremony that concludes with this proclamation. The “I” is emphasized to the bride, groom, family and friends – and even the wedding crashers – that power to make this proclamation rests with me. Like a monarch holding out his imperial insignia towards the bride and groom, my imaginary scepter brings the whole occasion to a glorious conclusion. With quell and ink, my English monogram marks the legal parchment acknowledging that transition has mysteriously taken place. At some point within the wedding ceremony, the bride became wife, and the groom became husband. The bride and groom have new identities. More importantly, “I” proclaimed it!

Hang on! Regal? Monarch? Imperial? Scepter? These terms are decidedly non-American, and especially non-Texan! However, the glorious conclusion, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife”, is typically followed by spontaneous forms of celebration, tears of joy, and widespread use of iPhones, iPads, and other non-Apple devices capturing the first kiss as husband and wife. If these terms are non-American, I have yet to witness any objection, protest, rebellion, or even the act of throwing away overly taxed English tea in response to a proclamation announced with royal overtones.

What is it that causes the change of identity from groom to husband and wife to bride? Tongue-in-cheek Englishness aside, it has nothing to do with me or the words I use to make the proclamation with royal overtones or not. There is no imperial insignia that acts like a regal scepter. It is all a play on poetic and harmonious words that make the occasion linguistically stand out in contrast to everyday vocabulary. Admittedly, my signature on the wedding certificate does matter, but it’s hardly a monogram and always made using black ink from an OfficeMax ballpoint pen.

Nevertheless, some may argue the State of Texas causes the change of identity from bride to wife and groom to husband. I disagree, largely for two reasons. First, having met the legal requirements prior to the wedding ceremony, what follows the proclamation is recognition that the bride and groom now have a change in identity. Out comes my OfficeMax pen recognizing the bride and groom are now legally husband and wife. However, the State of Texas does not cause this mysterious transition. It simply recognizes it within the requirements of law. Second, and far more interesting, I have witnessed this mysterious transition by officiating hundreds of wedding ceremonies standing just three feet from the bride and groom. Though I’m the nearest eye witness, I have absolutely no precise words to describe what it is that takes place. I can only guess.

Guessing is more precise than knowing – or appearing to know. For example, theologians may explain the transition in ontological and sacramental terms; but this presupposes the bride and groom acknowledge the nature of a wedding ceremony as a religious sacrament. Contemporary philosophers like Alain de Botton have explained the transition in terms of comedic relevance; but this reduces heartfelt promises to toleration and compensation. “I promise to take out the trash” is not really comparable to “I will love you, comfort you, honor and keep you in sickness and in health, forsaking all others”. Furthermore, poets like Robert Frost have explained the transition in terms of melancholic features by highlighting “until death us do part” as the great separator of the bride and groom; but who wants to emphasize a funeral at a wedding? Theology, philosophy, and poetry do not necessarily help answer the question about what it is that causes the change in identity from bride to wife and groom to husband.

Here is what I have observed over hundreds of wedding ceremonies: sharp intakes of breath, overt giggling, mild shaking, even poleaxing, and rivers of tears. These human responses indicate transition is happening, and they are not always a result of nervousness. Family, friends, and even the wedding crashers may cause some nervousness, but not to this extent. Interestingly, the most observable thing towards an accurate guess is the relationship of cognitive and sensory knowledge; or simply put, what happens in the head and heart of the bride and groom.

For example, standing three feet from the bride and groom I clearly articulate the line – in a crisp English voice of course – “to have and to hold”, followed by other short lines, “from this day forward”, “for better, for worse”, “for richer, for poorer”, “in sickness and in health”, “to love and to cherish”. All the bride and groom have to do is simply repeat those lines after me to each other. Though it is a simple task of repetition, when these lines are spoken it exposes a momentary and impassable roadblock between the head and heart of both the bride and groom.

The words may be poetic and harmonious in contrast to everyday vocabulary, but they are not new to the bride and groom. So why do the happy couple experience this moment of impassibility between what they rationalize in their heads and what they sense in their hearts? Well, they have mentally prepared for their unique wedding ceremony, but their hearts are often left to discover what will take place and vows are spoken to each other. In his book The Crock of Gold (1912), novelist James Stephens writes, “What the heart knows today the head will understand tomorrow”. He captures what happens. At some undesignated point in the wedding ceremony the hearts of the bride and groom sense a transition is taking place that cannot be rationally explained until sometime after the glorious proclamation, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife.” Quite often, it is the next day, or more precisely, the morning after. Therefore, the repetition of short lines between the bride and groom only shed light on their transition of identity to wife and husband. It does not cause it.

If it is not the State of Texas, the imagery of an imperial insignia that acts like a regal scepter, an authorized signature with an OfficeMax pen, the repetition of words, or my own Englishness (I jest) that causes the transition, what does? Theologians, philosophers, and poets do have something to say, but it is what and how they say it that can fail to answer the question of what it is that causes the transition of a bride to wife and a groom to husband.

I need to come back to what I have observed in hundreds of wedding ceremonies. Emotional responses to what is happening in the hearts of the bride and groom are best commented on by suspending predetermined language and meaning without debunking theology, philosophy, or poetry. In doing so, it not only reveals the cause of the transition, it also reveals the identity of the cause.

Now I need to make a blunt statement. I believe in God. However, I must be specific about this statement of belief. I believe in God as described in the Bible that informs the emotional responses of my heart and my knowledge of Him in my head. What this means is that I subject myself to the truth of the Bible as the primary source that informs what happens in my heart and head. With this is mind, I perceive God in the sharp intakes of breath, overt giggling, mild shaking, poleaxing, and rivers of tears in the responses of the bride and groom as they make their wedding vows to each other.

I need to make another blunt statement. The bride and groom do not have to believe in God, as I have described, or at all in order to experience Him. The truth of the Bible informs me that God made man and woman in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:27). The truth of the Bible also informs me that the idea of a man and woman transitioning to husband and wife originated with God (Genesis 2:24). Could it be that when a bride and groom make their vows to each other, whether they believe in God or not, that God is present in the transition? Yes, because the truth of the Bible states it (Matthew 20:28).

What is the cause of transition of a bride to wife and a groom to husband? It is God, whether He is acknowledged or not, simply because human beings are made in His image and likeness, and because the idea of husband and wife is His. So, let’s come back to the glorious conclusion of a wedding ceremony announced with all its royal pomp, “I now pronounce you as husband and wife!”. Don’t you think God smiles when I invite the husband to kiss his wife for the first time? Truly, it is a regal thing to officiate a wedding ceremony in Austin Texas as an Englishman.

Suicide and Christianity

Suicide & Chrisitanity

 

 

 

 

 

“Frances and Courtney, I’ll be at your altar. Please keep going Courtney, for Frances for her life will be so much happier without me. I love you. I love you.” (Suicide note of Musician Kurt Cobain April 8th 1994)

“Dear World, I am leaving you because I am bored. I feel I have lived long enough. I am leaving you with your worries in this sweet cesspool – good luck.” (Suicide note of Actor George Sanders April 25th 1972)

This is a serious subject. It is a real subject. It is also a seemingly depressing subject. I do not hope to cover this subject and exhaust it in a single article. It has a stigma to it that no other form of grief carries. Factually, in any significant gathering of people at least 25% will personally know someone who has taken their life. Depending on who took their own life, the consequences to family and friends is a complex web of deep emotion. I want to carefully look at four examples through the lens of ‘consequences.’ This is certainly not intended to be an approach of judgment, but to lay a brief foundation for hope.

First, what consequences follow where a parent takes their own life? The words ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ are probably the most emotionally charged words in any language with complex securities. When a parent takes their life there is a sense of abandonment with the children even if the kids are adult at the time of their death. For example, a daughter no longer has her father to walk her down the aisle as a bride; and a son does not have his father to congratulate him on his career accomplishments. Grandchildren have no grandparents, and so on.

Second, what consequences follow when a spouse takes their own life? There are no goodbyes. There is no chance of reconciliation or recriminations if divorce was already being considered. There is just deafening silence. The surviving spouse may begin to second-guess if they really knew their partner. Photographs and video of seemingly ‘happy’ times are seriously brought into question.

Third, what are the consequences when a child takes their own life? Part of your past and future is simply ripped away from a parent. When asked, ‘how many children do you have’ the answer is can be agonizing. Does the parent still count the dead child as ‘one of my children’? Is the Parent still a ‘good parent’ or are they classed as ‘unfit’ because their child committed suicide? This tragedy usually produces another tragedy – divorce between the parents.

Fourth, what are the consequences when a sibling takes their own life? The sibling relationship is extraordinary. There are many shared experiences between siblings unique to the relationship. Chores, bedrooms, family celebrations, secrets, tension, and a personal history bound in the heritage of love and jealousy. There are many fights, for and with, each other. When a sibling takes their life a sense of mortality sets in.

In any event of suicide there is a police investigation where the grieving relative has to be questioned. With assisted suicide, cult activity, depression, and euthanasia on the increase awkward questions have to be asked. After looking at the various types of suicide let’s look at some facts about this subject.

In 1963 there were four States that had laws against suicide, and attempted suicide. Since the 1990’s all States have removed these laws. In other countries, suicide still carries the penalty of an unmarked grave and/or the forfeit of property. According to the Center of Disease, Control and Prevention (2010) the following facts help us see a more detailed picture of suicide:

In the United States 30,000 take their lives every year, twice the figure of those who die from HIV. More people in the US take their life in the season of Spring than any other time of the year. Half of all suicides are with a gun. It is the third highest cause of death in the US (after homicide and vehicle accidents). Among the elderly, it is highest with those who are divorced or widowed. For every suicide there are at least 25 attempts. The strongest factor is depression. Every 17 minutes someone attempts to take their life in the United States. The ratio of actual death is four men to every one woman. The ratio of attempted suicide is three women to every one man. There are three suicides for every one natural death in retired law enforcement officers.

When a personality, famous or infamous, takes their own life, our present culture feels the consequence through the power of media directly into our homes and lives. For instance, when Marilyn Monroe allegedly took her own life, thousands of women across the United States were deeply grieved – even though they had never had a personal encounter with Miss Monroe. Here are just some of the famous and infamous who have taken their own lives:

Actors: Dana Plato (Different Strokes); Hugh O’Connor (In the Heat of the Night); David Strickland (Suddenly Susan); Brian Keith (TV actor); Jonathan Brandis (Never Ending Story); Peter Duel (Alias Smith & Jones). Musicians: Sid Vicious (Sex Pistols); Kurt Cobain (Musician); Michael Hutchence (INXS); Terry Kath (Chicago). Athletes: Tony Harris (Basketball); Andre Waters (Football); Jeff Alm (Football). Historical figures: Cleopatra (Queen of Egypt); Mark Anthony (Roman General); Marcus Brutus (lead killer of Julius Caesar); Judas Iscariot (Betrayer of Jesus); Robin William (TV and Film Actor).

But does the Bible tell us anything about suicide that helps us beyond the facts and cultural characters of suicide? The answer is, yes. There are seven recorded characters in the Bible that committed suicide, and one horrific warning.

The first is Abimelech. He was the son of an Israelite judge called Gideon and a slave girl, who lived in Shechem. The people of Israel had asked Gideon to be their King, but he declined knowing that God himself should be their King in a theocratic culture. Unfortunately, Abimelech did not hold this point of view that led to a deep depressing end. (Judges 9:54 Message) “He called urgently to his young armor bearer and said, ‘Draw your sword and kill me so they can’t say of me, ‘A woman killed him.’ His armor bearer drove in his sword, and Abimelech died.”

The second is King Saul, as the first king of Israel who never really wanted to be a monarch. Nevertheless, as his reign grew in strength Saul left his devotion of God that led to a terrible end. (1 Samuel 31:4 Message) “Saul said to his weapon bearer, ‘Draw your sword and put me out of my misery, lest these pagan pigs come and make a game out of killing me.’ But his weapon bearer wouldn’t do it. He was terrified. So Saul took the sword himself and fell on it.”

The third is King Saul’s armor bearer, following his master in suicide but for different reasons. Saul was afraid his enemies would abuse his body but they would never do this to an armor bearer. He took his own life out of loyalty to Saul. (1 Samuel 31:5 Message) “When the weapon bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him.”

The fourth is Ahithophel, the official counselor of King David and a man greatly renowned for his sagacity. At the time of Absalom‘s revolt he deserted David and espoused the cause of Absalom – the king’s son. (2 Samuel 17:23 Message) “When Ahithophel realized that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey and left for his hometown. After making out his will and putting his house in order, he hanged himself and died.”

The fifth is King Zimri, a commander who murdered king Elah at Tirzah, and succeeded him as king. However, Zimri reigned only seven days, because the army elected Omri as king, and with their support laid siege to Tirzah. Finding his position untenable, Zimri set fire to the palace and perished. (1 Kings 16:18 Message) “When Zimri saw that he was surrounded and as good as dead, he entered the palace citadel, set the place on fire, and died.”

The sixth is Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, but never understood the consequences of his betrayal. It led him to attempt hanging himself, but the rope snapped causing him to fall bursting open his belly. (Matthew 27:3-5 Message) “Judas, the one who betrayed him, realized that Jesus was doomed. Overcome with remorse, he gave back the thirty silver coins to the high priests, saying, ‘I’ve sinned. I’ve betrayed an innocent man.’ They said, ‘What do we care? That’s your problem!’ Judas threw the silver coins into the Temple and left. Then he went out and hung himself.”

The seventh is Samson, one of Israel’s judges. He was taken prisoner held captive by the Philistines suffering the torture of having both eyes gouged out. In a final attempt to enact justice on the Philistines he pushed down supporting pillars holding up a building that crushed both Samson and his captors. (Judges 16:30 Message) “Then Samson reached out to the two central pillars that held up the building and pushed against them, one with his right arm, the other with his left. Saying, ‘Let me die with the Philistines,’ Samson pushed hard with all his might. The building crashed on the tyrants and all the people in it. He killed more people in his death than he had killed in his life.”

In addition to these seven examples found in both Old and New Testaments we have the forecast of many wanting to take their lives after Jesus returns, but not be able to do so. (Revelation 9:6) “When this happens, people are going to prefer death to torture, look for ways to kill themselves. But they won’t find a way—death will have gone into hiding.”

After looking at these characters in the Bible I need to add context to how a postmodern culture views suicide. There are nine views:

  1. Heroic view, done for the good of others like Samson who killed more Philistines in his death than in life. The same could be applied to the brave men on flight 93 (crashing 150 miles from its target in Washington D.C) where 40 people laid down their lives (September 11th 2001).
  2. Philosophical view, where crazed leaders influence social suicide like Jim Jones in Jonestown where 909 men, women and children died (November 18th 1978).
  3. Assisted view can be a form of escape becoming a moral challenge to lawmakers among the terminally ill. This comes from the Roman philosopher Seneca who believed in being in control of your own fate (3 BC – 65 AD).
  4. Romantic view, that is anything but romantic. When a spouse dies after 60 years of marriage the survivor can think they have nothing to live for. It is a scene from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (1597).
  5. Contagious view is often found among POW’s or those trapped with no hope. For instance, those who jumped from the Trade Towers (September 11th 2001) had no escape. One person jumps and spurs another to jump.
  6. Manipulating view is where someone may say, ‘If you leave me I will kill myself’ often found among young people in their first love.
  7. Distress view takes on a similar motive, as a signal, but deliberately fails. This view is far more frequent among women attempting suicide, as the facts above show, more men actually take their lives.
  8. Punishing view is where someone may say, ‘When I die you will be sorry!’ Again, this is commonly found among young teenagers in their first experience of a meaningful relationship.
  9. Cultural view can be a matter of honor like the Japanese or ancient Egyptians. (x) Religious view is not as common today, but it still exists. During the Protestant Reformation (16th century) the Medieval Inquisition (1184–1230’s) and the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) many took their own life in the Name of God. I will assert my own thoughts here and strongly state that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God wants anyone to take their own life in His name.

Despite the method of this tragedy, very few death certificates carry the cause of death as suicide. Alternative words are used like ‘overdose’ ‘suffocation’ ‘drowning’ ‘fatal gun wound’ or ‘asphyxiation’ because the forensic world is sensitive to the stigma of suicide as the last legal document to be written concerning a person’s life.

Having looked at the types of suicide, famous and infamous characters, Biblical examples and the postmodern views, I will now examine the life of King Saul. Here is a man who did not want the crown of Israel but met the challenge and succeeded. Nevertheless, there was a distinct decline that led to his suicide on the battlefield. His life and story are found in the two Books of Samuel and the first Book of Chronicles.

Look at his domestic family life. (1 Samuel 9:1 Message) “There was a man from the tribe of Benjamin named Kish. He was the son of Abiel, grandson of Zeror, great-grandson of Becorath, great-great-grandson of Aphiah—a Benjaminite of stalwart character…” Saul was from a good family, in that, he was known for his reputation and a good standing in the community of Israel. We are not told too many details but a ‘man of stalwart character’ meant Kish taught his sons the values and core beliefs of Israel. They were a respected family. What comes next is an explanation of how impressive Saul was. (1 Samuel 9:2 Message) “He had a son, Saul, a most handsome young man. There was none finer—he literally stood head and shoulders above the crowd!” Like David, there was something attractive about Saul’s posture and presence. Even Samuel the prophet recognized this. (1 Samuel 10:24 Message). “Samuel then addressed the people, ‘Take a good look at whom God has chosen: the best! No one like him in the whole country!”

When Saul walked into the room he did not need to be announced. But with this natural attraction of posture came a strong sense of humility. (1 Samuel 10:22 NIV) “…he has hidden himself among the baggage.” Samuel the prophet wanted to anoint Saul as king but this attractive man of stalwart character did not want it. This was not an act of rebellion, but humility. Saul also demonstrated a sense of self-control. (1 Samuel 10:27 Message) “But the riffraff went off muttering, ‘Deliverer? Don’t make me laugh!’ They held him in contempt and refused to congratulate him. But Saul paid them no mind.” The culture and custom was to bring gifts to the newly anointed king, like the three wise men did with Jesus. On the day he was crowned king Saul showed restraint. (1 Samuel 11:13 Message) “But Saul said, ‘Nobody is going to be executed this day. This is the day God saved Israel! Come, let’s go to Gilgal and there reconsecrate the kingship.” Saul was highly motivated to honor the responsibilities of a king. (1 Samuel 13:12 Message) “When I saw I was losing my army from under me, and that you hadn’t come when you said you would, and that the Philistines were poised at Micmash, I said, ‘The Philistines are about to come down on me in Gilgal, and I haven’t yet come before God asking for his help.’ So I took things into my own hands, and sacrificed the burnt offering.” Although this sounds like a responsible king, it was quite the opposite.

Samuel the prophet instructed Saul to wait until he came to make a sacrifice. This is where we see a devout man become deceived. Saul’s restraint and self-control was absent when he disobeyed the prophet and sacrificed an offering himself. He was king – but not a priest. The response from the prophet condemned him. (1 Samuel 13:13-14 Message) “That was a fool thing to do,’ Samuel said to Saul. ‘If you had kept the appointment that your God commanded, by now God would have set a firm and lasting foundation under your kingly rule over Israel. As it is, your kingly rule is already falling to pieces. God is out looking for your replacement right now. This time he’ll do the choosing. When he finds him, he’ll appoint him leader of his people. And all because you didn’t keep your appointment with God” What followed this was a great consequence. (1 Samuel 15:11 Message) Them God spoke to Samuel: ‘I’m sorry I ever made Saul king. He’s turned his back on me. He refuses to do what I tell him.”

Following this was a consistently disobedient life. Saul was once a humble man whose presence could be felt when walking into a room. Now he is rebellious. (1 Samuel 15:18-19 Message) “And Samuel told him. ‘When you started out in this, you were nothing— and you knew it. Then God put you at the head of Israel—made you king over Israel. Then God sent you off to do a job for him, ordering you, ‘Go and put those sinners, the Amalekites, under a holy ban. Go to war against them until you have totally wiped them out.’ So why did you not obey God?”

Saul takes matters into his own hands and develops a strong sense of jealousy about his son-in-law David. (1 Samuel 18:6-9 message) “As they returned home, after David had killed the Philistine, the women poured out of all the villages of Israel singing and dancing, welcoming King Saul with tambourines, festive songs, and lutes. In playful frolic the women sang, Saul kills by the thousand, David by the ten thousand! This made Saul angry—very angry. He took it as a personal insult. He said, ‘They credit David with ‘ten thousands’ and me with only ‘thousands.’ Before you know it they’ll be giving him the kingdom!’ From that moment on, Saul kept his eye on David.” This attitude led to actions. (1 Samuel 19:1 Message) “Saul called his son Jonathan together with his servants and ordered them to kill David.” Jealousy is often towards the person who the grace of God is with.

Now let’s go back to Saul’s family life. He had a wonderful example in his father who built a respectable family reputation. Kish must have set this example when Saul was young at the dinner table. Now let’s move forward to the dinner table of Saul the king sitting with his family. (1 Samuel 19:10 Message) “He was sitting at home, his spear in his hand, while David was playing music. Suddenly, Saul tried to skewer David with his spear, but David ducked. The spear stuck in the wall and David got away.” Saul did not learn this open display of violence from his father. He then turns to his own son Jonathan. (1 Samuel 20:30 Message) “Saul exploded in anger at Jonathan: ‘You son of a slut!” Saul is cussing-out his own wife, Jonathan’s mother, in front of the family. (1 Samuel 20:33 Message) “Saul threw his spear at him to kill him. That convinced Jonathan that his father was fixated on killing David.”

When you are personally disrupted, losing perspective, it can turn to violent anger at home. What followed was a distortion of spiritual awareness. (1 Samuel 28:7 Message) “So Saul ordered his officials, ‘Find me someone who can call up spirits so I may go and seek counsel from those spirits.” God-fearing Saul had no more fear of God. The equivalent in our culture of spiritual life would be godly men and women losing focus in ‘whom’ they believe to measures of faith in faith. When you lose the comfort of home the alternative is destructive. In the extreme of Saul’s chaotic life, this led to suicide. (1 Samuel 31:3-4 Message) “The battle was hot and heavy around Saul. The archers got his range and wounded him badly. Saul said to his weapon bearer, ‘Draw your sword and put me out of my misery, lest these pagan pigs come and make a game out of killing me.’ But his weapon bearer wouldn’t do it. He was terrified. So Saul took the sword himself and fell on it.”

All the human relationships that bring an individual into a sense of community and purpose were severed leaving nothing to live for. The only frame of reference left is – self. Saul was completely separated from his family and relationships in the community of Israel. A man with the national crown but nothing left to live for. This principle of isolation, no sense of purpose, and human relationship are common among those who take their own life.

But what about the ultimate question? Does a Christian who commits suicide go to heaven? I am not considering mental illness, euthanasia, or heroic death to save the lives of others (flight 93). I am not considering the boy that Jesus delivered who repeatedly attempted to take his life by throwing himself in fire, because he was tormented by demons. These areas need careful examination in a different context. I am considering the Christian who, like King Saul, becomes isolated from community, support, a sense of purpose, and human relationships. To answer this ultimate question, I need to ask another question: Do homicide and suicide have the same consequence?

To answer this question, I must look at the Sixth Commandment. (Exodus 20:13 NIV) “You shall not murder.” (KJV 1611) “Thou shalt not kill.” (Message) “No murder.” Has there been a total hypocrisy for 5000 years since Moses received the Law? Did the leaders of Israel send out their men to defend the city with lethal force only to feel condemned for taking a life? The Hebrew translation of this Commandment does not read ‘kill’ but ‘murder.’ Jesus confirmed this (Matthew 19:18 NIV) “Do not murder.” (KJV 1611) “Thou shalt do no murder.” (Message) “Don’t murder.” David was a man after God’s own heart and the people sang his praises for killing tens of thousands. But Nathan the prophet condemned him for murdering Uriah the husband of his mistress Bathsheba. When Jesus met the centurion whose job it was to defend with lethal force he commended him (Matthew 8:10) “Taken aback, Jesus said, ‘I’ve yet to come across this kind of simple trust in Israel, the very people who are supposed to know all about God and how he works.”

The Bible permits a country to defend itself with lethal force and to take the life of the enemy but it condemns murder. This may sound too simple, but a murderer like David can repent while living, whereas a person that takes their own life has no chance of repenting afterwards. (Hebrews 9:27 NIV) “Everyone has to die once, then face the consequences.” Is suicide ‘killing’ or ‘murder?’ Based on the definition of the sixth Commandment suicide is murder – therefore wrong.

The question of whether a Christian who takes their own life, goes to heaven or not, has to be answered theologically and not culturally, morally, or emotionally. Entrance into heaven in spite of how life ended on earth is through Jesus. (John 11:25-26 NIV) “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (John 14:6 Message) “Jesus said, ‘I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me.”

 

The question is not how life ended on earth but did we accept the life of Jesus while living? Jesus said that we must be born again (John 3:16 Message) “This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.” This is the defining thing that will matter when we stand before God: Jesus gives eternal life to all who will ask – did you? He does not change it at some point to be temporary life. Suicide does not change the grace of God.

Believing that God created human life, we have to be careful how we approach our own life. (Genesis 9:6) “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans let his blood be shed, because God made humans in his image reflecting God’s very nature.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) “Or didn’t you realize that your body is a sacred place, the place of the Holy Spirit? Don’t you see that you can’t live however you please, squandering what God paid such a high price for? The physical part of you is not some piece of property belonging to the spiritual part of you. God owns the whole works. So let people see God in and through your body.”

The cost for this to happen was the death of Jesus where mercy and judgment contend in one person, not a judge and jury. Because of this eternal sacrifice, all judgment has been entrusted to Jesus because in him, our sacrifice, we find our atonement. The single feature of that atonement is an acquittal of sin. The Old Testament image is a man running into the presence of God and clinging to the horns of the altar pleading for mercy, in other words, ‘God help me!’

(James 2:13 NIV) “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” This is where the atoning (acquitting) blood was. Suicide is never an option to end life and the devastation it leaves in those who are left behind is tremendous. There are many ways our lives could end; old age (Frank Buckles 2011), sickness (Ronald Reagan 2004), accidental death (David Wilkerson 2011), an act of war (Pat Tillman Jr. 2004) and even homicide (Jon Benet Ramsey 2003). However, when we die it does not change the life that we have been given. (Psalm 116:15 NIV) “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.”

Does a suicide who is a Christian go to heaven? God knows and I’m not God. But I am confident in the grace of God that what I have entrusted to him (my sinful life in exchange for an atoned-for life) he is able to keep until the day I stand before him (2 Timothy 1:12). Therefore, I cannot, and must not, take into my hands what I have entrusted to his hands.

Final thoughts: As a former Police Chaplain, I have seen multiple suicides. Each one has been in the context of desperation. I would often wonder, and still do, if Jesus was standing with the family and friends weeping with them as he wept over Lazarus (although Lazarus did not take his life), or whether he would take the position of a dogmatic condemnation? My biblical conviction is the former, not the latter. (Psalm 139:17 Message) “Your thoughts—how rare, how beautiful! God, I’ll never comprehend them! I couldn’t even begin to count them—any more than I could count the sand of the sea.”

Understanding Halloween and American Christianity through the Eys of an Immigrant

scary-halloween-desktop-wallpaper

I believe the traditional season of Halloween celebrated on October 31st is a showcase for how deep theological teaching and its application can be measured within the Protestant Church. I distinguish Protestant from Orthodox or Catholic as my observations, experience and interaction is predominantly with the Protestant Church in three different States and religious regions. Those States (and religious regions) are Washington, Kansas and Texas.

I will also present my observations from the viewpoint of an immigrant to the United States since 1999. I believe the legal process and financial cost of visa, permanent residence and citizenship offers a different perspective to the nature of community as someone who chose to live in the United States, unlike someone who was born here without choice. I mention this for perspective, not for religious rites, privilege or advantage. My hope in this paper is a balance of observation, personal conviction and humility. I shall offer the observations of authors who have written extensively about Christianity from a non-partisan approach without diluting their own personal convictions. At the same time I will be quick to point out, and qualify, the goal of this paper is to stimulate thought, prayer and personal reflection in the reader.

INTRODUCTION

Before any attempt is made in understanding Halloween and Christianity in the United States it is vital to point out that there exists within the community of faith a strong sense of judgment. It has been observed that “being judgmental is intricately connected to our image as Christians” (Kinnaman, Lyons 2007, 183). Without a doubt, God does, an ultimately will, judge people. David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons point out that we have error in our own judgments in three ways. First, we deliver a wrong verdict as “God’s judgments about people are perfect; ours are not” (2007, 187). Second, even if we deliver a correct verdict, our timing is off having the “right idea about God’s views, but we describe that verdict in the wrong context or at the wrong time” (2007, 188). Third, the verdict, again, could be right but we “give it the wrong motivation…we should be motivated by love” (2007, 188). One solution to the Christian’s judgment of people is to “show grace by finding the good in others and seeing their potential to be Christ followers” (2007, 181). It is in this light that I will now attempt to share an understanding of Halloween and Christianity as an immigrant to the United States.

METHODOLOGY

            I shall look briefly at the history of Halloween to gain an understanding of its origin. To do so, I will refer to Jack Santino’s body of work. I shall then look at culture and Christianity hoping to gain an insight into what any given culture looks like. I shall examine Geert Hofstedes work on cultures and organization. Heresy and syncretism will be explained in the light of a Christian family celebrating Halloween. I shall refer to Paul Hiebert, Daniel Shaw and Tite Tienou in their work on folk religion. Using the same reference I shall present a natural and supernatural view. A theological response to this method will be reported looking for hermeneutical principles concluding with personal convictions.

QUICK HISTORY

“Halloween had its beginnings in an ancient, pre-Christian Celtic festival of the dead” (Santino, 1982, Library of Congress). These Celtic people were pastoral tending their flocks and cattle marking the beginning and end of a season by November 1st called Samhain (pronounced Sah-ween). It was also recognized as the greatest celebration throughout the calendar year when the dead journeyed into the next life. Therefore, the cultural belief acknowledged that the dead would be more present on the night before (October 31st) than any other time in the year. The attempts to convert ancient Celtic people by St. Patrick and St. Columcille also impacted Samhain. It is vital to note that prior to these missionaries converting Celtic people druids, scholars, poets and scientist were the religious fraternity and influence.

In 601 AD Pope Gregory I issued a decree that missionaries should not attempt to eradicate Celtic beliefs but incorporate them. For instance, “if a group of people worshipped a tree, rather than cut it down, he advised them to consecrate it to Christ and allow its continued worship” (1982, Library of Congress). In this way, pagan holidays throughout the calendar year were incorporated into the Christian calendar. It is of vital importance that the reader of this paper remembers this “layered” principle of historic Christianity. Pagan holidays were matched by Christian holy days, but Samhain was decidedly pagan, unlike Christmas and Easter celebrating the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A resolution was to celebrate “All Saints” on the same day as Samhain. In some ways, this was also a celebration of the dead. A later practice was called “All Souls Day” in hope to replace the Celtic practice. Here we have the progression of Samhain, All Saints (also known as All Hallows Eve), to Halloween. Both Christians and Celtics recognized that on November 1st winter would start, but the night before on October 31st was an evening of the dead making their journey into eternity (Pagan) or celebrating the dead (Christian).

“The wearing of costumes, for instance, and roaming from door to door demanding treats can be traced to the Celtic period and the first few centuries of the Christian era, when it was thought that the souls of the dead were out and around, along with fairies, witches, and demons” (1982, Library of Congress). Today, children roam their neighborhoods in costume asking for treats while adult parties emphasize a more sensual display in costume and practice. It must further be noted that throughout the calendar year most Christian celebrations find a strong connection to paganism in traditions and customs, not necessarily in emphasis. Halloween, on the other hand, stands out as a something Christianity has attempted to eradicate without success.

CULTURE AND CHRISTIANITY

Geert and Gert Hofstede developed a simple illustration to help understand how culture and practice work (Hofstede, Hfofstede 2005, 7). Starting from the outside layer “symbols” are the words we use, gestures or objects in our everyday life. This layer is on the outside as it can change and adapt quickly. For instance, an individual can relocate to a different State and adapt quickly. I have done this three times. The next layer labeled “heroes” are people who have characteristics we highly admire as role models. These people can be real or imaginary, dead or alive. For instance, Batman or the President of the United States can be a hero. “Rituals” are the collective activities people consider important. They do not have to be productive or reach a certain end. They are carried out for their own sake. For instance, the way people greet each other or hold a business or church meeting all have rituals. All three layers; symbols, heroes and rituals come under the banner of “practices” as they are visible to any observer.

The cultural meaning to how we practice life together is hidden at the core Hofstede calls “values” that rarely change. If they do, it is a slow process. It is here that we see Pope Gregory’s attempt would not work. The Celtic people had strong core values. These values dealt with powerful feelings with a plus and minus to each one. For instance, the feeling of evil verses good, dangerous verses safe, moral verses immoral or irrational verses rational to name a few. Every culture has a core resembling this principle.

This layered onion effect can be applied in understanding an individual on a national, regional, ethnical, religious, gender, generational, social and educational level. It is not unfamiliar that “religious values may conflict with generation values or gender values or with organizational practices” (2005, 11). In this way we can appreciate that an individual may be sincerely devoted to their Christian faith in “practice” (symbols, heroes and rituals) but the greater “value” is placed on their children not being left out when most of the neighborhood is out having fun in costume trick or treating.

It is absolutely vital to understand, then, that “change can be fast for the outer layers [symbols, heroes and rituals]…slow for the core labeled values” (2005, 12-13). A national example of this is the Roman Empire and the values it represented over many years in ancient Europe. Reformation changed the national, regional, ethnical, religious, gender, generational, social and educational values. But history shows that “Reformation only succeeded in countries without a Roman tradition” (2005, 17). Hofstede continues to say that “if we trace the history of countries, what religion a population has embraced and which version of that religion, seem to have been a result of previously existing cultural value patterns as much as, or more than, a cause of cultural differences” (2005, 17).

If Hofstede is correct then then the Founding Fathers of the United States played a remarkable part in why America is seen as Christian, but not necessarily the same “Christian” as the rest of the world. He could also be correct in saying that it has been over two centuries since the Declaration of Independence allowing time and space to greatly change national core values. In other words, the core values are not the same as the day of our Founding Fathers.

A local example would be a post-WWII community in the United States refusing to practice Halloween because of core values, but more familiar today in the twenty-first century. Time and space may have changed the strong core values of the average church-attending family.

HERESY AND SYNCRETISM

Looking at the practice of Halloween by Christianity today, it has been said that it has “less to do with heresy than with syncretism – the mixing of different beliefs and practices in ways that distort the truth and power of the gospel” (Hiebert, Shaw, Tienou 1999, 13). I would take the reader back to the ancient Celtics to see how Christianity layered itself over former pagan practices without intentionally building on them. The root cause for this practice of syncretism today could be the “doctrine that there is nothing in the non-Christian culture on which the Christian can build and, therefore, every aspect of the traditional non-Christian culture had to be destroyed before Christianity could be built up” (1999, 19).

It appears that the proponents of Christianity may have had the right verdict, as Kinnamen and Lyons state, but the wrong motive. Apparently, the culture of any people group matters, and that culture is driven by core values that change over time and space. The history of evangelism in the United States from the days of our Founding Fathers may have attempted to eradicate the culture of people groups and replace it with Christianity but this “uneasy coexistence of public Christianity and private “paganism” led to syncretism” (1999, 19). It must be further stated that “wholesale rejection of old beliefs and customs, however, create several serious theological problems” (1999, 20). This can possibly lead to a split-level Christianity where cultural values are a deeper motive. We see this in the Biblical text concerning a sorcerer called Simon. The Bible tells us that “Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere” (Bible, Acts 8:13). It appears that this man was converted to Christianity but we later read that he was rebuked because by St. Peter “your heart is not right before God” (8:21). This is an example of split-level Christianity layered on top of pagan practice.

NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL

Christianity has been traditionally seen as belief in someone [God] that cannot be seen. In other words, it is supernatural. The problem in the United States may be a dualistic belief of natural and supernatural, or ethnocentric belief. In other words it is “a dualism that does not exist in most cultures” (1999, 35). A casual reader of the Bible would see that a spiritual world and a natural world are not two entities but exist at the same time, and not just at the same time, but with each other. The Bible itself states that “by him [Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him” (Bible, Colossians 1:16). Dualism does not fit the Biblical text as “Scripture does not divide reality into supernatural and natural realms” (1999, 35). Reality is defined as natural and supernatural together.

This Biblical truth is not seen in practice when the Christian celebrates Halloween. If anything, it endorses a dualistic belief of two separate worlds and a split-level Christianity. Alexis de Tocqueville said “the American ministers of the Gospel do not attempt to draw or to fix all the thoughts of man upon the life to come; they are willing to surrender a portion of his heart to the present” (de Tocqueville 1956, 155). Although this quote appears to be attributed to a post-WWII era, the actual quote came from 1835 and can be applied to the Christian, not just the minister. It may be an issue for what the Bible calls the “priesthood of believers.”

THEOLOGICAL RESPONSE

If natural and supernatural cannot be separated, can the Christian and the minister of Christianity be separated? This sheds light on practicing Halloween as a Christian. “The priesthood of all believers is good theology, but in practice does it not open doors to all kinds of heresy? In the end, the priesthood is often limited to missionaries, theologians, and other church leaders” (1999, 384). This implies several things; (1) a lack of depth in relationship with each other. Although the Biblical text points to the church to say ‘look, this is community’, in reality, church can be a place of paranoid people living a split-level Christian life; (2) a lack of depth in teaching by degrees – which can only follow the first in relationship. The Bible cannot possibly be bar codes of information or tips and techniques for life but God revealing Himself in community; (3) self-serving leadership that does not make room for process that includes questioning both positively and negatively. Again, this points to relationship.

MISSOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Without a doubt, God is a God of culture as He has chosen to reveal Himself in particular contexts of history, culture and people. Therefore, Christianity is a hermeneutical community where God speaks to us through our symbols, heroes, and rituals as we practice them. To bring change into the core of culture cannot possibly be dualism but recognizing that Biblical interpretation is being “willing to listen and learn rather than with dogmatic self-assurance” (1999, 383). In other words, I know God more than I did two years ago but I will know him more two years from now as life changes for me. Our theology is an understanding of Scripture, not Scripture itself. History is filled with scholars who had a strong understanding of Scripture, but only the text itself, not necessarily knowing who God is personally.

PERSONAL CONVICTIONS

I don’t like Halloween. It has absolutely no Christian element to it from origin to current practice. It never has done or ever will do. But I do see my neighbors going to church on Sunday around the symbols of an empty cross, empty tomb, Holy Communion and water baptism. At the same time, some of those same families have gravestones, skeletons and ghosts in the front yard as additional symbolism. My personal convictions lead me to conclude that there is an ever-increasing split-level in how we practice Christianity is the United States.

The measure of response has nothing to do with how my neighbors conduct themselves, but how I do. Is it with love? Am I seeking genuine relationship? Do I desire community where God can reveal Himself (not just in a Sunday gathering)? Yes.

Right now, my doorbell is ringing, so candy in hand I am out to be missional tonight. By the way, I don’t give out candy I make the kids in my neighborhood play games for it. No win no candy. After all, it cost me a great deal to live in the United States.

REFERENCES

Hiebert, Paul G.; Shaw Daniel R.; Tienou, Tite; Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices, (1999), Baker Books, Grand Rapids.

Hofstede, Geert; Hofstede, Gert Jan; Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, (2005) McGraw-Hill,

Kinnaman, David; Lyons, Gabe, Un-Christian: What a New Genration Really Thinks About Christianity…and Why it Matters, (2007) Baker Books, Grand Rapids.

Santino, Jake; The American Folk Life Center, (1982) Accessed online October 31st 2012,

 

Unreal: The Pursuit of Happiness

Fox---No-1---960x320

Is God real? Are there many gods? Which one do I choose? How do I make an intelligent choice? Is the ability to choose mine, or am I the chosen? One answer to these questions is offered from the deeply troubled actor, agnostic, and self-appointed religious philosopher Woody Allen. “Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends” (Gardner 2009, 196). A more serious answer is offered by the biblical scholar Christopher Wright (2006). The problem is “not the denial of other gods but an understanding of the uniqueness of [God] that puts Him in a class of his own, a wholly different class from any other heavenly or supernatural beings, even if these are called gods asking whether other gods, in addition to the God of the Bible, are actually real” (Wright 2006, 81). I will return to Wright’s thoughts later, and fortunately, not Woody Allen’s.

The Christian Bible is full of psalmists, prophets, poets, and kings (among others) citing other gods, albeit negatively. In addition, the history of human beings is a graveyard of Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, Syrian and other ancient gods. On one hand, if other gods are simply a figment of human imagination, a plethora of authors in the Christian Bible must have been smoking some Messianic marijuana, while historians smoked on the monarch brand of the same kind. On the other hand, the same authors may have been on to something quite profound.

There are several observations I would like to make. First, throughout the Christian Bible other gods are never mentioned as a separate entity disconnected from the Christian God. It appears that both are mentioned frequently as opposites, but never as equals. Second, the Christian God appears to frequently challenge other gods to a public contest. It won’t hurt the reader (or myself as the writer) to pause at this second observation and examine the Christian God before returning to other observations and the question of other gods.

Because the Christian God is mentioned with other gods, and that He challenges other gods to public contests, He is unique among all the gods. What specifically makes Him unique among many gods is His name. The popular singer, Joan Osborne, expressed her thoughts about the uniqueness of God in a song written by Eric Bazilian: “What if God was one of us? What if God had a name? What would it be, and would we call it to his face?” (Osbourne 1995). Apparently God does have a name according to the Christian Bible. It is a deeply personal name.

It could be said that the Christian Bible is written ad lib where terms for God fill in blank spaces where His name would be written. For instance, God’s name was, and still is, revered by rabbis to the point of substituting His name for Adoni (Lord). Substituting His name helps the reader associate the fullest comprehension of who the Christian God was, and is, without limiting an understanding of Him. In other words, substituting God’s name was a sacred literary act as a catch-all for everything His name implied.

It could be said that the spiritual mantra of today is to pick a god, any god at all, call him or her this or call him that, it does not matter who he or she is as long as sincerity is applied to belief within a social context of inclusion. I accept your god as you accept mine. Such a mantra comes into conflict with the First Commandment of the Christian Bible, “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex. 20:2). However, this reinforces the question of the existence of other gods. If other gods are a figment of human imagination, why the First Commandment? I must return to the name of God.

The First Commandment leaves no frustrating pursuit of an elusive and unknowable name that cannot be grasped, albeit ad lib as a catch-all term. The Christian God is not revealed to human beings like the biographical movie of Frank Abagnale would suggest, “Catch Me if You Can” (Spielberg 2002). Apparently, God is not attempting to hide from humanity and I would question the human capacity to catch God. He is no vague higher power but a deeply personal being who became incarnate. Osborne was correct to ask, “What if God was one of us?” (1995). He was.

Even though He was one of us no one knows the original pronunciation of God’s name, as the Hebrew alphabet did not contain vowels. Although people listened to the name of God through their elders, the same name was rarely written down. When it was, His name could only be recognized (using English consonants) as YHWH. Even so, if God has revealed Himself to human beings as one of us, He can also be known personally.

Over many generations the sound of God’s name faded. It was not until Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) added alternative letters belonging to Adoni (Lord) that became Jehovah. Maimonides was the foremost intellect in Judaism and philosopher-physician to the court of Sultan Saladin (1138-1193). Jehovah is not actually the name of God, but it helped preserve the identity of who He was, and is. In the ancient orient, names were not just for identity but also to preserve family history, events and character traits. If names changed it was because the person changed. For instance, the Old Testament patriarch Jacob was re-named Israel. However, both names were still referred to, although they meant different things, they were the same person. The same can be applied to YHWH, Jehovah and Adoni (Lord).

Yahweh, as we write it in English, is the most comprehensive name related in the Semitic idiom: ‘I will all that is necessary as the occasion arises.’ For instance, within Yahweh are the names Almighty, Most High, Rock, Strong One, God of Hosts, Peace, Healer, Righteousness, and Provider to name a few. Once again, a singular term becomes a catch-all that God’s name implies. Therefore, God’s identity is complete in His name with every facet, character, thought, will and behavior. A comprehensive introduction to God (Yahweh, Jehovah, and Lord) reveals more than you asked for and leaves very little that is kept hidden.

The First Commandment is a primer to the identity of God. Once understood, His name is precise, accurate, absolute, comprehensive, exhaustive, total and complete, but it is more than that. It is a about spiritual fidelity.

Harold Netland states that it was not too long ago when a man wanted to find God he went to a church or a synagogue, but not anymore (2001). Two reliable sources reinforce his claim. First, the popular book Alien Gods on American Turf describes 1500 religious groups that exist in America with over 600 having non-Christian roots (Muck 1990). Undoubtedly, this figure is much higher today. Second, Gallop reports that most Americans claim affiliation with Christianity although it does not translate into Christian faith in practice (Newport 2004). Finding God could be restated as finding a god among many gods. If most Americans associate with the Christianity but not the Christian God in practice, practical atheism, or at best agnosticism, is a present reality. I must return to the question of other gods. After all, it appears that religious pluralism is more common in America than a Sunday morning would have us believe.

Referring to the Christian Bible, Wright assumes “that other gods do exist, but none of them has any claim on Israel’s worship or allegiance” (2006, 81). Wright makes this exclusive claim based on biblical text. I have cited 12 of them. Each one is a claim about God that other gods have never made.

He is the Divine King: “But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King” (Jer. 10:10).

He is Deeply Personal: “O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord” (Ps. 139:1-4).

He can be known: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God” (Jn. 17:3).

He needs nothing to exist: “I am who I am” (Ex. 3:14).

He is unchanging: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (Jam. 1:17).

He embodies truth: “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true” (Jn. 5:20).

He is love: “God is love” (Jn. 4:8).

He is holy: “God disciplines us for our good that we may share in his holiness” (Heb. 12:10).

He is merciful: “But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God” (Neh. 9:31); He is faithful, “God, who has called you into fellowship with his son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful” (1 Cor. 1:9).

He is just: “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence” (Ps. 5:5).

He is without beginning or end: “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called upon the name of the Lord, the Eternal God” (Gen. 21:33).

Wright is claiming exclusiveness for the Christian God without denying the existence of other gods. “Are the gods something or nothing? If asked in relation to YHWH, the answer has to be nothing…in relation to those who worship other gods…then the answer can certainly be something” (Wright 2006, 139). Is the existence of other gods a figment of the human imagination or something sinister? Wright believes they can be either or both (2006, 161). If he is correct, that other gods can be both, significant social truth is revealed. Nevertheless, what is revealed has dangerous theological implications.

The danger is not in the eradication of the Christian God, as Richard Dawkins believes (2008). Neither is it God’s inclusion in a plethora of other gods, real or imagined as Harold Netland points out (2001). I am suggesting it is a changed approach to God. He is still there and regularly prayed to by people who believe He is there. Congregational songs are still sung about Him. Christmas and Easter celebrations still hold to their theological underpinnings. The changed approach comes from a question of existence. Why does He exist? A dangerous social truth is that God exists for us. In other words, He is exclusively used for our human benefit in the form of Western prosperity, advancement, success, health, and achievement. He is no longer worshipped. He is an object among other gods to be used, not the object of our exclusive worship.

If this is true, then just as true is how we manufacture other gods. On what basis do we construct other gods? If God exclusively exists for me, I can construct Him out of anything. I am not referring to wood, clay, glass and so on. I am referring to fear, love, trust, hate, and so on. It allows me to fear Muslims, only love those who love me back, trust in things that relieve me of fear, hate anyone that is not heterosexual or a believer in democracy and so on. How awful! If the manufacture of God among many gods is made from these raw human materials, God becomes less than human. Wright notes, “If you worship that which is not God, you reduce the image of God in yourself. If you worship that which is not even human, you reduce your humanity still further” (Wright 2006, 173). God becomes unreal. Perusing an unreal god is a downward spiral that does not redeem or offer any hope to the human condition.

I would like to make a final observation. The Christian God claims exclusiveness among other gods. Although the message of Christianity is inclusive of all human beings, it is exclusive on the object of worship. Christian worship is monotheistic. Context for this claim is found as a preamble to the First Commandment, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:1). The Christian God singles Himself out as the One who redeems and offers hope. This is a significant truth that may have become clouded in our present day. In the inclusion of all human beings is the exclusive claim that God is above all other gods. Anything other claim is unreal.

Next article:

Fox---No-2---960x320

[Graphics by Bethany Ricks bethany233@gmail.com]

Dawkins, Richard. 2008. The God Delusion. 1st Mariner Books ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Gardner, Martin. 2009. When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish: And Other Speculations about This and That. 1st ed. New York: Hill and Wang.

Muck, Terry C. 1990. Alien Gods on American Turf. Christianity Today Series. Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books.

Netland, Harold A. 2001. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Newport, Frank. 2004. “Gallop.” A Ook At Americans and Religion Today. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11089/Look-Americans-Religion-Today.aspx.

Osbourne, Joan. 1995. One Of US. Relish Album.

Speilberg, Steven. 2002. Catch Me If Your Can. Amblin Entertainment.

Wright, Christopher J. H. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to Persuasion!

Incarnation and the Dignity of Women

semaritan-woman

The Jewish prophet Isaiah tells us that “the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14). Oliver Crisp from the Theological University in Bristol believes that “every important issue to do with the person of Christ deals with his divinity and humanity in some fashion.” (Crisp, 2007) The issue I want to raise concerns the dignity of women. How does the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (incarnate) relate to this issue in the twenty-first century? I am a man, with a vast limitation to empirically answer this question. Even so, my goal is to provoke thought surrounding the incarnation positively affirming God’s redeeming ways.

L. F. Cervantes went on record by saying “the birth of Jesus was the turning point in the history of woman.” (Cervantes, 1967).It would help by looking at a brief history to understand Cervantes comments. While brief, the history is graphic, brutal, and powerfully condescending towards women. My hope is that the reader will re-think the magnificence of incarnation fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy – as it relates to a woman’s dignity.

My hypothesis is simple: If it was not for the incarnation of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, the cultural evolution of women would not be as dignified as it is today – at least in our Western culture. To that end, it is important to appreciate that our Western culture is largely shaped by the ancient Greco-Roman cultures. This will be the basis for looking at a brief history. One more thing, it is also important to see the counter-culture of Jesus within the Greco-Roman world and His redemptive words, behavior and posture.

The Greeks

The Athenian woman, especially wives, had a very low status. They were not allowed to leave the marital home unless accompanied by a male escort, often a trusted slave chosen by the husband. If the husband had male guests over at his house, similar to a mid-week poker game in our culture, the wife and other female guests were retired to the women’s quarters known as gynaeceum. The only women that were allowed a measure of freedom at a social event were the mistresses of the men, known as the hetaera. These women could accompany the husband outside the home as a public sexual partner. In other words, a wife stayed at home while the husband went out to indulge his appetites, especially sexual ones.

According to the second-century Greek biographer Plutarch (46-120 AD) these women were kept under lock and key. Therefore, the average Athenian married woman had the social life of a slave. She could not divorce her husband, whereas, he could divorce her at anytime for anything. This was amplified in the poet Euripides’ (480-406 BC) tragedy called Medea where one character lamented, “Surely, of all creatures that have life and wit, we women are of all unhappiest.” (Medea 231-32).

This unhappy journey began in the formative educational years. For instance, Athenian boys were sent to school, girls were not. As a girl grew through puberty into a woman she was not permitted to speak in public. Alvin Schmidt quotes three Greek poets and philosophers in his book How Christianity Changed the World (2004); Sophocles (496-406 BC) “O woman, silence is an adornment to woman”; Euripides (480-406 BC) “Silence and discretion are most beautiful in woman, and remaining quiet within the house”; and Aristotle (384-382 BC) “Silence gives grace to woman.” Homer (8th century), another Greek poet, created a character called Telemachus in his work called Odyssey who sharply scolded his mother Penelope for daring to speak while men were present saying, “Speech shall be for men’’ (Odyssey 1.359). Most, if not all poets and philosophers, equated women with evil. This is seen in Aristophanes’ (448-380) play called Lysistrata where he writes, “Women are a shameless set, the vilest of all creatures going” (Lysistrata 368-69). It does not stretch the imagination to understand where the mythical idea of Pandora and her box of evil came from – Greek poets and philosophers!

Regarding children, it was an economic liability for a wife to have daughters, whereas, the opposite was true concerning boys. The principle focus of validating a woman was her ability to give birth to a boy. The 2006 movie “300” clearly portrayed this in the overwhelming preference given to boys and their journey to become men.

The Romans

The Roman culture was similar the Greek’s attitude towards women. The differences would be slight. For instance, only upper-class girls had an education – but only in grammar and reading. To add insult to injury, the women had no lawful appeal. Married women were under the law of manus placing her in the absolute control of her husband. She was his possession and could dispose or divorce her even for a minor error. The Roman statesman Cato (95-46 BC) made it possible for a wife to have no say in what her husband’s slaves did, or did not do. She was also forbidden to own property.

The Twelve Tables of Roman Law stated the rights of paterfamilias on the man but not the woman giving him rights over his wife, children, and grandchildren. This did not limit him to divorce and dispose his wife but to literally execute her and any of the children. He had the power of life and death in his hands supported by the law. Caesar Augustus (63 BC-14 AD) reinforced this by issuing lex Julia de adulteriis specifically for adultery. This did not limit the husband to liable adultery in the case of his wife, but required consent from extended family for other offenses. For instance, if she displeased him in bed, he could petition a relative and then kill her – also supported by Roman law.

Further Roman laws like partria potestas did not allow a woman to speak in public. Therefore, city councils, legal courts, civic entities, the Senate, and other governing bodies were all dominated by men. Therefore, men made laws concerning women without the contribution of a female voice. To crown the law concerning women, infamia made her a person of no reputation, legal or social standing. She was her husband’s property and pseudo-slave.

The Hebrews

While the focus is on Greco-Roman history, it is worth noting the Hebrew culture. It must be stated that the Jewish culture did not use women sexually like the Greek or Roman counterparts. As for the rest, it was similar. For instance, a woman could not testify in a court of law (Yoma 43b) or speak in public. The rabbinic oral law stated it was “shameful to hear a woman’s voice in public among men” (Berakhoth 24a). Synagogue worship separated the women from the men by a partition called the michetza. It was not until the 1700’s that Jewish women were allowed to sing in their synagogues, and even then, only the liberal places of worship. Social gatherings, mealtimes, rituals, celebrations, rites of passage and other cultural settings barred a woman, to some degree, as an inferior person. It must be noted that this brief view does not carry any anti-Semitic tone intentional or unintentional.

Into this Greco-Roman and Hebrew context God became incarnate through His Son, Jesus Christ. It must be noted that this context was not the democratic, politically correct, bill of rights Western culture we have today.

Jesus and Women

There is a large body of evidence throughout the four Gospel accounts that Jesus raised the status of women, not to new heights, but renewed heights socially, intellectually and spiritually. He renewed them because all His ways were, and are, redemptive. An example of this is seen in John’s Gospel concerning the Samaritan woman. For Jesus to sit by Jacob’s well and talk with this woman was radical and very unusual for the culture. Not only was the Greco-Roman influence widespread, but the Jewish culture had an inbuilt hatred for Samaritans. It is interesting to note that after Jesus requested some water her response was not, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan” as this would draw a line of hatred between Jews and Samaritans. Instead, she responded, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman.” (John 4:9). Any self-respecting Jew would not talk to a Samaritan woman as the rabbinical oral law clearly stated, “He who talks to a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself.”(Aboth 1.5). Added to this, it is also interesting to note the response of the disciples that they “were surprised to find him talking to a woman.” (John 4:27).

Another example of Jesus’ redemptive approach towards women was at the house of Martha in Luke’s Gospel. She behaved according to the cultural norms and waited on the men. The scene is provoked by her sister, Mary, sitting with the men like a student learning from Jesus. This violated rabbinic oral law, “Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women.” (Sotah 3.4). What transpired in that house was radical and transformative because Jesus dared to teach a woman. Martha complained to Jesus, “Tell her to help me!” (Luke 10:40). This was a cultural norm and acceptable, but Jesus’ response was radically redemptive saying, “Mary has chosen what is better” (Luke 10:42). In other words Jesus was saying, “What the culture is doing to you as women is not how God intended you to live – Mary has chosen the intended way.”

On another occasion Jesus explained to Martha that He was the resurrection and life. Followed this profound statement was a question that did not fit the cultural norm asking, “Do you believe this?” (John 11:26). A man is asking a woman what she thought. The earthshaking statement of Jesus that He was, in fact, the resurrection and life, was only mentioned once – and to a woman. In this way he was reinforcing his earlier point in Martha’s house. By calling for a verbal response Jesus broke the socio-religious culture. It must be stated again that Jesus was not raising the status of a woman but renewing it.

Rescuing prostitutes from human trafficking, healing a woman who ‘dared’ touch the tail of his garment, raising the Phoenician woman’s child, the woman of Nain and many more examples are found throughout the Gospels. It is worth noting that a highly unusual occurrence unfolded within the culture that involved women – they following Jesus. In keeping with Greco-Roman culture, He was their escort. He also chose those women to inform the men that He was resurrected. Again, Jesus was reinforcing His point by revealing Himself to them, and giving them vital information for the men.

While His redemptive and liberating life renewed women, Jesus never started a women’s movement, feminist or otherwise. Instead, he changed the hearts and thinking of people without creating socio-political or socio-religious movements.

Christ-Followers Emulating

The incarnation was precisely timed for the Greco-Roman culture. This cannot be separated from understanding the Scriptures. With that in mind, those who followed Jesus emulated his radical counter-cultural redemptive work. For instance, St. Paul recognizes many women were vital to the church – not just to work with children. This is seen by recognizing Priscilla in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:19); Apphia in Colossae (Philemon 2); Nympha in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15); Phoebe in Rome (Romans 16:1-2). It is remarkable that the Early Church Father Origen recognized Phoebe as having apostolic authority (which is debatable) as he was not known for his inclusion of women. Another example would be Lydia who was a radical woman going against the Greco-Roman culture as a businesswoman and friend of St. Paul (Acts 16); Euodia and Syntyche are mentioned by the apostle because they “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel” (Philippians 4:2). Although much debate surrounds St. Paul’s attitude towards women it can be clearly stated that he followed, and emulated, Christ not the socio-religious culture of his day.

St. Paul also brings a whole new construct to family life commencing with “[everyone] submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21). In the same tone he speaks to wives about submitting to their husbands “as you do to the Lord” (5:22). He does not removed a husband as the head of his household, instead, he places Christ, not the Roman laws of manus or partria potestas, over the man (5:23). The power of life and death are no longer in the hands of a man but returned back to God. With a defiant tone against the Greco-Roman culture he instructs, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25). The two-for comes in the following verses that “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies” (5:28) opposing the practice of a mistress while placing the wife in gynaeceum.

Post St. Paul

From St. Paul to the twenty-first century the Greco-Roman ways have attempted to ebb and flow like a tide, even in the church. Various denominations have sought to suppress women and subjugate them to a minor and inferior place in society and the church. Thankfully, the dignity that Jesus gave to women has prevailed in the Western culture. I would even go as far to say that feminist groups owe the origin of their freedoms, not to State and Federal laws because of lobbyists, but to the incarnation where God became a man and changed humanity from within.

It must be understood that one of the attractions Christianity had to people under the suffrage of Greco-Roman culture was the dignity it gave to women. They were an instrumental part of rapid church growth numerically, spiritually and geographically. One example was not practicing infanticide (baby girls and those who were deformed at birth were literally thrown away). This was not an act of the Legislator but the transformer of hearts and thinking in Jesus’ redemption. Another example of this was Helena (246-330 AD) the mother of Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 AD) built many churches throughout the empire with her own resources. The list is endless containing well-known and unknown names of women who have been a catalyst of growth, change and transformation in society and the church.

Summary

Having looked at a very brief history of the Greco-Roman culture it is obvious that a male dominated world treated women as inferior, sexually objective, and as property to be controlled. Into this culture Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. The Good News He came to bring was not just for eternal life, but for this life. He dared to break the socio-political and socio-religious bigotry in his teaching, behavior, and posture. Although this is obvious, he was man, not a woman who came to liberate women. He did not start a women’s movement or distort God’s original intention in creating a woman. The impact was so great that others emulated Him, filled with the same Spirit, to bring change and transformation to the hearts and thinking of every culture.

Conclusion

Counterfactual history asks the “what if” questions that would change the way we live today. To conclude, I would ask the reader to think this through: “What if the incarnation had no happened, but instead, some other virtuous sophisticated method of transforming culture created by mankind, for mankind, and not the incarnate where divinity and humanity coexist? Would women be truly free with the dignity they once had in Eden?” 

 

It is a dreadful thought that my own wife and daughter would be considered inferior persons (counterfactual history). At the same time, it gives me pause to thank God for His Son Jesus Christ who redeemed our hearts and thinking, as men, to “treat our wives with the proper respect” (1 Peter3:7) and other unrelated women “with absolute purity” (1 Timothy 5:2) unlike the Greco-Roman ways – still found online today. It also gives me pause to thank God that he has changed my heart and thinking to be “like Christ” (Ephesians 5) towards my wife and daughter. I conclude with this thought: “Only incarnation (God coming to us like us) could radically change the socio-political and socio-religious attitudes deeply rooted in the Greco-Roman culture that we enjoy in Western culture today – and we [men] need to emulate that.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aronofsky and Noah: Stop Whining!

Crowe_Connelly_Aronofsky_a_l

Introduction

On Tuesday April 1st I took my New Testament Literature class to see the movie Noah in Austin Texas. Two aspects of this field trip were coincidental but play a key role in what follows in this article. First, the invitation to students was not an April Fool’s Day prank, but there is a growing conversation among fundamental Christianity that Darren Aronofsky’s re-telling of the biblical story was simply foolish. Second, the city of Austin is an unavoidable postmodern context for the audience and its evolving worldview deconstructing every modernist view. Both aspects underscore the content of this article: is Arnonfsky’s re-telling of the story of Noah simply foolish, and what role does a postmodern worldview play in producing the movie fourteen years into a new millennium?

Outline

To clarify this dual underscoring theme the following outline is presented: (1) the originator of the story; (2) the purpose of the story; (3) the incomplete story; (4) the current vehicle of the story; and (5) the outcome of re-telling the story. It would be too ambiguous to write an article that represents the masses and their cultural, religious, or biblical worldviews. I would prefer to leave that ambiguity to the fundamentalist and the rhetoric of those who have not left their apartment, duplex, or house for long periods – apart from a trip to the cinema to see Noah. To that end, this article is limited to the city of Austin and other communities with similar worldviews.

The Originator of the Story of Noah

            Who wrote the original story of Noah, what evidence supports this from the Bible and other sources, and why does this matters for postmodernism? First, the Bible itself supports the authorship of Moses in three sections: (1) from the Pentateuch (Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24); (2) from other Old Testament books (Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4); and, (3) from the New Testament (Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26). Second, there are obvious influences from Mesopotamian culture in the Pentateuch. For instance, the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Atrahasis are two examples of Mesopotamian accounts of creation. The Epic of Gilgamesh is another Mesopotamian account of a global flood. Three conclusions about the authorship and original audience of the story of Noah can be presented: (1) that it was not difficult for Moses to believe the story himself because it pre-existed in other cultures; (2) that it would not be difficult for the audience to believe it for the same reasons; and, (3) oral tradition was prolific as the ancient media and social networks of their day.

Long-age geology, big bang cosmology, secular archaeology, liberal theology, and philosophical differences have played a significant role in undermining the authorship of the story of Noah and in a general sense the entire Pentateuch. On one hand, these disciplines fully emerged in the development of a modernist worldview. In other words, the authorship of Moses has only come into intensified questioning for the past 250 years. Ironically, this could be paralleled with the history of the United States of America.

This matters to a postmodern worldview. On the other hand, postmodernism is a dominant worldview in the city of Austin Texas, therefore, it rejects these disciplines and does not struggle with the Bible or any other religious text like the Quran, Pāli Canon, Mabinogion, Smriti, Sruti, Urantia Book, or the Book of Shadows. I am not suggesting belief but an acceptance of religious pluralism. What remains in dispute with Noah is not the theme of a global flood but how it is re-told by Arnonfsky. To that end, the purpose of the story of Noah needs

The Purpose of the Story of Noah

            If Moses is the accepted author of the story of Noah by a postmodern worldview and a global flood is not in question in the same view, what purpose does it serve for the God of the Bible and His creation? Turning again to Mesopotamian culture, parallels include a divine being that was not pleased with a created world resulting in an apparent do-over. If this is the case, searching for the purpose of the story of Noah cannot be exclusively reduced to these reasons. If that as the case, the monotheistic God of the Bible would be no different from the pluralism of other gods.

American theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), wrote and preached a sermon in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8th 1741 called Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God. In short, Edwards portrays God differently to the evangelical approach of contextualizing Him in a democratic and capitalist culture of advance and prosperity. Noah captures Edwards’ quintessential portrayal of God. A singular line in the sermon summarizes this portrait and connects it to Noah. “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God” (Edwards 1741). Arnonfsky’s couches the character of Noah in a manner that would not attract the masses from the evangelical pulpit today. He fears God. He wrestles with his own humanity. He is humble. He does not publish himself as successful – if anything – a failure. He gets angry.

The purpose of the story of Noah is what Chris Wright call missio Dei (mission of God) as a metanarrative or continued story of God revealing Himself throughout the history of creation. In this case, Noah reveals that sinners are in the hands of an angry God. It is part of a redemptive story seen in the Bible through the words of Jesus. “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). In eschatological terms, Noah also reveals the corrupt and self-destruct nature of man is a precursor to the Second Advent. In this way, the story of Noah serves as a continued example of missio Dei (mission of God). However, the story of Noah appears to be incomplete in the Bible (Genesis 6:9-7:1-29).

The Incomplete Story of Noah

            There are two distinct approached to the story of Noah. I am omitting the authoritative Word of God as a given for Christians, although I will challenge this later. First, in terms of literature, like most of the narrative sections in the Bible, it does not read as good literature because there are many gaps and unqualified statements. I must underscore this approach in the literature of the Bible. For instance, the sons of God are introduced distinct from human beings. These sons are attracted to the daughters of men and conceive children with them (Genesis 6:1-3). The Nephilim are also introduced to the prequel of the story of Noah (Genesis 6:4-8). I think this is what Arnonfsky was attempting with the Giant Watchers who came from God but displeased Him. In this way, Arnonfsky was filling in the gaps where the literature of the Bible gives not prescriptive or descriptive text. This process is repeated through Noah where the Christian may respond, “Hey! That’s not in the Bible.” But in terms of literature this is the point, it may not be in the Bible but the Christian has already filled in the gaps with their own tradition. What comes into conflict is Arnonfsky’s ideas and the Christians ideas. This is also seen in the rapid growth of vegetation, Methuselah’s healing powers, the sale of children in exchange for meat and so on.

Second, in terms of good storytelling it makes for a provoking screenplay in Noah. I must underscore the approach as storytelling different from literature, albeit through the written word. George McDonald (1824-1905) was a master storyteller who became an inspiration for C.S. Lewis allowing for the reader to interpret both form and meaning. Without attempting to put Moses in the same category as McDonald or Lewis, he allowed the reader to do the same. Moses does not tell us any more about the Nephilim as McDonald does not tell us any more about Roverandom, or Lewis telling us much about Santa Claus in Narnia. The reader assumes what they assume where the gaps appear.

An examples of this in Noah is both sublime and ridiculous, but not in a foolish. To communicate the re-telling of this story the entire cast spoke in a sophisticated English language. This is ridiculous in terms of what we know about human history and linguistics. But the Bible does the same thing. Did God speak English to Moses? Obviously not, so at some point the mechanisms of translation were developed to write an oral tradition down in a first language evolving to the screenplay writers. Some things are lost while others are included. I must underscore again that I am not approaching this as the authoritative Word of God but as storytelling.

It is sublime because I can read it in the Bible and see it dramatized in a movie in my postmodern culture. Furthermore, it is environmentally friendly caring for all creation in an Eden-like manner. It is ridiculous in terms of language and the cultural liberties taken to communicate the story. “In late February the studio released a joint statement with the National Religious Broadcasters saying the movie was not 100% biblically accurate but was true to the spirit of the scriptural story” (Time, March 2014). This is what storytelling does – it retains the spirit of the story. Rob Moore, Vice President of Paramount said that a literal re-telling of the story of Noah would not make a great movie – and I agree. There are too many gaps. This needs further thought in the vehicles of the story of Noah.

The Current Vehicle of the Story of Noah

            Time Magazine published an article called One Man’s Quest to Christianize Hollywood (Time, March 2014). Unlike the political forum, Christianity is an untapped audience for Hollywood. “The studio wanted Noah to be popular with the general public, but more important, it needed to win over the tens of millions of U.S. Christians who are increasingly sought after in Hollywood” (Time March 2014). There were at least half a dozen versions of Noah before the final cut, which was not Arnonfsky’s cut. In that process, “the studio discovered something surprising: people didn’t really know the story. And it wasn’t merely nonbelievers who had misconceptions about the tale of a man who built an ark to survive a great flood. It was Christians too” (Time March 2014). This is a shot across the bow of Christianity and highlights that that are many guardians in Christianity who are academic scholars but not many fathers who can academically teach with good pedagogy (1 Corinthians 4:15).

After Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ (2004) “Hollywood discovered that there are 90 million Americans who take their faith very seriously” (Time, March 2004). Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and James Dobson supported Gibson’s screenplay resulting in the highest R-rated money earner in the history of R-rated movies (Box office Mojo, 2014). Supporters of Noah include Geof Morin, executive vice president of the American Bible Society, and Brian Houston, senior pastor of Hillsong Church. The reason behind this backing, according to Time, is that people will see themselves in Noah – and I agree – and it is very postmodern to identify with the struggles of humanity.

It is not a story with three steps, four keys, and five principles. It is a redemptive and savific narrative that has filled in the gaps. Paramount have placed a disclaimer on the website for Noah, its marketing materials, and movie trailer, “While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis” (Paramount 2014). I’m sure that Hollywood respond to the Box Office and not criticism. With all the balances and checks in place for a provoking screenplay, it did not help when Arnonfsky stated, “it’s the least biblical-biblical film ever made and I don’t give a f### about test scores. I’m outside the test scores” (Time, March 2014). Truly un-Noah-like, and according to the story, he would have drowned.

The Outcome of the Re-Telling of the Story of Noah

            As of April 2nd Noah has earned $53,040,776 and only cost $125 million in production. Worldwide it stands at $104,140,776 (Box Office Mojo). Paramount are pleased. But a box office figure is not the only outcome. What cannot be documented are the conversations in rural, urban, and suburban communities both face-to-face and through social networks. If Paramount is not concerned with criticism, is the God of the Bible too concerned about the sublime and ridiculous in Noah?

Do we really expect Hollywood to preach, teach, expound, or develop a theological treatise any more than we expect Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty to contribute to an informed and intelligent social commentary, or for George Clooney to lecture on politics? I expect Hollywood to keep to their own word. “While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis” (Paramount 2014). For those who have not left their apartment for some time – consider arguing the narrow minded disclaimer of Paramount that the story of a global flood is found in the book of Genesis. It is also found in Mesopotamian culture. It would be in keeping with fundamentalist ranting.

Two questions remain. First, is mankind really the parasite of creation as portrayed in Noah? On one hand, the movie can be viewed casting mankind in the same light as every living thing in creation. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a redemptive story where mankind was worth saving. The latter would agree with missio Dei (mission of God) finding its realization in a man called Jesus, retold by United Artists in The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) through the actor Peter O’Toole. If United Artists can retell the story of Jesus through a womanizing hell-raising and brilliant actor – I’m sure Noah will be useful to God.

Second, would you follow a man like Noah who does not pretend about his faith or have a game-face for others? Allowing for a literary license (and a little sarcasm), what would the real Noah say to fundamentalist Christianity having a theological hissy-fit as though Hollywood was the Church? Furthermore, would the same fundamentalists be on the ark or in the drink? If they were on the ark I’m sure they would not be as broken as the character of Noah which is a profound characteristic of the Christian. If they were in the drink, I’m sure they would join preacher who continued to preach even though he was in hell.

Noah is a great fit for postmodern Austin Texas with more ensuing conversations about God than foolish criticism.

Paradigm of John Lennon and Christianity

lennon_02_1024x768

The World Almanac Book of Facts states that the average age of a Rock Star that died prematurely in the 20th and 21st century is just thirty-six.  Heart attack and drug overdose are the highest causes. When the news is broadcast that a great musician, singer, writer, performer or entertainer has died our cultural response it to feel loss as though we actually knew them personally, when in fact, we just knew their music. Doug Van Pelt’s book Rock Stars on God interviews twenty current artists on faith from Alice Cooper, Static X, Nickelback, Metallica and Sunny Day Real Estate, just to name five. These interviews reveal that artists that we write-off as ‘the devil playing the devil’s music’ (after all, why would the devil play anyone else’s music?) as individuals being pursued relentlessly by God. Here is our cultural challenge, the Bible tells us just how relenting God is in pursuing the human race through his son Jesus reconciling the world to himself, but would we ever let Metallica loose with Alice Cooper to write and perform songs about God?  I want to conclude with a challenge, but first let me state the obvious: God is absolutely relentless in pursuing us with his love. If I cannot start here, the following makes no sense.

The forty years of John Lennon’s life clearly show a man who was spiritually aware. After all, he was an image bearer like you and me. Steve Turner quotes Lennon in his book The Gospel According To The Beatles, “People got the image that I was anti-Christian or anti-religion. I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting that there is more to it than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist. There is more that we still could know. I think this ‘magic’ is just a way of saying ‘science that we don’t know yet’ or we haven’t explored yet. That’s not anti-religious at all.” Often misquoted through the popular press and even banned from certain American radio stations in the Southern States, Lennon was undoubtedly being pursued by the relentless love of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. Turner continues in quoting Lennon, “I’m not saying we’re better, or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person, or God as a thing, or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong, or was taken wrong. And now it’s all this.” Underneath the interviews, newspaper articles, press conferences and especially his songs, was a curious subtext that influenced the culture(s) of his life beyond music to religion, philosophy and faith. God was relentlessly pursuing a man of influence who became a catalyst of influence. Turner continues, “I was brought up as a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables anyway – when I got away from the interpretations that were thrown at me all my life. There is more to it.” Look at the stages of Lennon’s life and the subtle influence of his context within the music. I cannot possibly agree with his statements but I can see the relentless love of God that persisted.

Early Christian influences 1940 – 1945

Lennon was raised in the most religious city in England during the 1940’s and 1950’s. His religious background was a mixture of Catholic, Fatalism, Welsh-Calvinism and Psychic from paternal and

maternal sides of his family. In his formative years Lennon witnessed a number of lovers with his mother while his father was away, that culminated in a decision he had to make at the age of five to stay with mom or dad, making his framework for family life dysfunctional. (Song ref: ‘Mother’ recorded in 1970 and 1975 from the album Shaved Fish)

Formative influences 1945 – 1957

His school years began at St. Peter’s parish church. It was in this local church that Lennon joined the choir, attended Sunday School and became an official member of the Bible Class. Local church life was a hub to Lennon’s spiritual formation outside the complexities of home from age eight to fourteen. He rehearsed for choir every Thursday evening, singing at Morning Prayers and Evensong on Sundays. At the age of nine he told his Aunt Mini he had seen God sitting by the fire (not under the influence of LSD in a psychedelic culture). Lennon was confirmed at the age of fifteen in the local church of his own free will. Part of his confession was to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God.’ (Song ref: ‘Working Class Hero’ recorded in 1970 from the album John Lennon / Plastic Ono Band)

Before Lennon was a Beatle 1957 – 1959

Lennon formed a band that had a number of evolving names from Black Jacks to the Quarry Men. The venues he played in were not the popular Liverpool clubs but church halls that would allow ‘shuffle music’ as morally superior to rock ‘n’ roll. Other band names Lennon went through were Johnny and the Moondogs, The Nerk Twins, The Silver Beetles, The Silver Beats and finally The Beatles. Lennon liked the music of Buddy Holly and the Crickets and wanted to keep an ‘insect’ theme. One name Lennon traveled under for safety was The Reverend Fred Gherkin, once again, humorously going back to his parish roots. (Song Ref: ‘In Spite of all Danger’ recorded as a single in 1958)

Pre-Beatlemania 1960 – 1963

Lennon toured Germany with the Beatles increasing in popularity arriving back in Liverpool. An obvious change had taken place in their image as a band – they were clean cut and dressed in suits looking respectable in keeping with the ‘Christian’ image. One of Lennon’s classic philosophical statements carried overtones of hopelessness during this time. Again, Turner’s book quotes Lennon saying, “This isn’t show business. It’s something else. This is different from anything that anybody imagines. You don’t go on from this. You do this, and then you finish.” It echoed of a time that would make front page news on every major paper seventeen years later “John Lennon Shot Dead.” What followed in Lennon’s life appears to be an intensity of God’s relenting love revealing Jesus counting down those seventeen years. After all, God knew that fateful day would come making Lennon a statistic in the Almanac Book of facts. (Song Ref: ‘I’m so Tired’ recorded on the album The Beatles in 1968)

Beatlemania 1964 – 1965

Growing popularity and an audience of 73 million on the Ed Sullivan Show gave John Lennon theunconscious opportunity to shape the culture himself. “We just behave as normally as we can. We don’t feel as though we should preach this and tell them that. You know, let them do what they like.” Not only were young people following his music and fashion but his philosophy of religion and faith. Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, Johnny Kid and the Pirates, Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton and other artists of the same period had their following. But no one was enquiring into the philosophy, faith and religion of these performers. Lennon and the Beatles had a cultural influence surpassed by no one. Was this an evidence of a greater work in Lennon’s life? (Song Ref: ‘Revolution’ recorded on the album The Beatles in 1968)

The beginning of the end 1966 – 1968

On July 29th 1966 the teen magazine Datebook published an off-handed comment Lennon made earlier by announcing that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. This unhinged further statements to make a reconciliation with the Christian community. Maureen Cleeve from the London Evening Standard quotes Lennon, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.” In an attempt to make amends Lennon protested the interpretations given to scripture. “I don’t profess to be a practicing Christian although I think Christ was what he was and anybody who says something great about him, I believe.” Then in 1966 Lennon launched a truth the church did not want to hear in the Westminster John Knox Press, “The youth of today are really looking for some answers, for proper answers the established church can’t give them…” In all the confusion and personal attacks Lennon leaves Jesus alone in 1968. “I suppose now what I’m interested in is Nirvana, the Buddhist heaven. I don’t know much about it, or really understand it enough to explain it.” Without Lennon realizing it, each time he cast himself away from Jesus – Jesus kept coming back into his context revealed in the songs. (Song Ref: ‘God’ from the album John Lennon / Plastic Ono in 1970)

The end of the Beatles – 1969 1970

Lennon and the Beatles travelled to India under the tutelage of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for spiritual guidance still unconsciously guiding the culture himself. “We’re all Jesus and we’re all God. He’s inside all of us and that’s what it’s about. As soon as you start realizing that potential in everyone, well, then you can be truly humble. That’s the whole bit. Jesus wasn’t God come down to earth any more than anybody else. He was just a better example of a good guy.” Not only was the Indian Guru a strong influence on Lennon but the use of LSD defined spirituality for him. “God isn’t in a pill, but LSD explained the mystery of life. It was a religious experience.” (Song Ref: ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’ from the album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band recorded in 1967)

On his own – 1970-1980

Because of Lennon’s popularity and fame most of his life outside a studio was spent watching TV. He enjoyed viewing Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts. In 1972 Lennon wrote to Roberts asking what Christianity could do for him. Was it fake or the real thing? Roberts wrote back. “John, we saw you and the Beatles on television when you first came to America. Your talent with music was almost awesome and your popularity touched millions. Your influence became so widespread and powerful that your statement-the Beatles are more popular than Jesus- might have had some truth in it at that moment. But you know, our Lord said, I am alive for ever more. People, the Bible says, are like sheep and are often fickle, following this one day and something else the next. However, there are millions who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and have been filled with the Holy Spirit. They love him. To them he is the most wonderful and popular man who ever lived because he is the Son of God and his name endures. I thank God that you see this, John, and finally regret thinking any man or group could be more popular than Jesus. Jesus is the only reality. It is Jesus who said ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ So, you see, your statement that because of your hard background you’ve never wanted to face reality is actually really saying you’ve never wanted to face our loving Lord. What I want to say, as I tried to say in my other letter, is that Jesus, the true reality, is not hard to face. He said, ‘Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ You said, John, that you take drugs because reality frightens you. Remember as you open your life to Jesus, He will take all the fear away and give you peace. Peace that passes all understanding.” This letter has been widely publicized throughout the media with permission. In 1974 Lennon contradicted himself concerning the influence the Beatles had. “The Beatles were a kind of religion. They were the youth getting together and forming a new church, as it were.” In March 1977 Lennon’s wife, Yoko, travelled to Columbia to meet a witch that had been recommended to her as a ‘sure thing.’ After $60,000 were paid to the witch undisclosed advice was given concerning the life of Lennon. It was during this year of ‘77 that Lennon announced himself as a born-again Christian. He was moved by Franco Zeffirelli’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ starring the British actor Robert Powell. He took Yoko and his son Julian to an Easter service in April 1977. Yoko took him to Tokyo where he was left in a hotel room for hours. “I began to see all these different parts of me. I felt like a hollow temple filled with many spirits, each one passing through me, each inhabiting me for a little time and then leaving to be replaced by another.” This ended any interest Lennon had with Jesus. From Tarot Cards to Directionalists, Lennon would go nowhere or sign anything without the advice of I Ching. In 1979 Yoko travelled to Cairo where an illegal dig was taking place hoping to purchase artifacts with magic powers without success. Lennon delved into reading books on religion, psychics, occult, death, history, archeology and anthropology. Lennon read multiple books of which some were ‘Rebel in the Soul –An Ancient Egyptian Dialogue Between a Man and his Destiny (Bika Reed); Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, goddess worshippers, and other Pagans in America Today (Margot Adler); Practice Occultism (Madame Blavatsky); Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (Paul Reps); Siddhartha (Herman Hesse); The Doors of Perception (Aldous Huxley). In addition there were massive contradictions by reading the works of theologian Paul Tillich and atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. At another Easter occasion Lennon watched ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ again but this time with sarcasm. He joked that the movie should fast forward and get on with the crucifixion. It was here that Lennon made an outlandish statement. “I’m a pagan – a Zen pagan to be precise.”(Song Ref: ‘Imagine’ recorded on the album Imagine in 1971)

Legacy of feelings

The songs of Lennon after the Beatles reflect the personal feelings he had about Jesus and the constant journey of finding something or someone better. Without a doubt God was pursuing Lennon but because he rejected God, he therefore rejected his Son – Jesus. (1 Thessalonians 4:8) “Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.” God spoke to Ananias about Saul whose life was anything but Christian. Even so, God had a plan for him to influence ancient Europe. (Acts 9:15) “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” I must conclude that God had a plan for Lennon like Saul, but it went unfulfilled. The story of Lennon has challenged me in the way I think, pray and connect in the community of people who are being relentlessly pursued by God. Man always looks on the outside. In Lennon’s case it was a wild life of drugs, experimentation, sexual addictions and contradictions. But God always looks on the inside. I am no longer concerned about the outward appearance of the community Jesus is working in.

Conclusion

Here’s the challenge, when we look at our community what do we see? People we openly criticize stating, ‘this is who we don’t want to be!’ But those people (some of them magnificently talented like Lennon) are looking for people who will show them, relationally and lovingly, how to be. As Robert’s said, ‘Our only reality is Jesus.’ Does this mean God is still using Lennon’s life as an example? Maybe……