Dear anonymous commenter

Thanks for your thoughts (for those of you who need to be caught up, please see the response comments to Christianity on Pause). I suppose I allowed the conversation to drift away from it's original intent with my last comment. As a result I’m afraid there might be some misunderstandings. Allow me to attempt a reply/introduce some new thoughts...

The thoughts from Dr. Perry's lecture simply conveyed this: we have victory in Christ over the principalities of this dark world and over the ungodly thinking therein. Let us, therefore, exercise that power. By spoils I simply meant the victory of Christ's life and death… the final conquering of sin, death and temptation. As victors over such, we have the responsibility to live as victors. We are enabled to show forth the power of Christ in our daily lives. To both spiritual and physical forces we have the opportunity to proclaim the power of Christ. What does this look like? Simply living out our faith on a daily basis. It means living out our faith today, because our faith is not simply intended for tomorrow. We are called to, right now, live out our faith before all men, angels, demons and authorities.

However, as part of that victory I do hold firmly to a conviction that in Christ all of creation has been redeemed (for a great read on this idea see the work Creation Regained by Albert Wolters). Gnostic notions and Platonic ideals that have crept into the church over the past 2,000+ years insist that this is not true. Theses ideas insist that the physical is basically bad, therefore why is it worthy redeeming?

Contra these ideals, we have been given the freedom to live in freedom. But it remains true that while "all things are permissible, not all things are beneficial".

I also strongly believe that part of the wonder to be found in the gospel is the freedom has been given us to delight in God’s creation and in the created order. God wants us to delight in his trees, mountains, lilies, rhododendrons, and golden retrievers. Yes, nature is oft distorted into a pantheisitc warehouse of idol worship. Pantheism, by infusing everything with a god, devoids "god" of any meaning. Everything, then, is the same… there is no uniqueness in pantheism. It is a clear violation of the created order. God never intended us to be pantheists.

But he does intend for us to worship.

Here’s where the difficulty arises. God intended for us to worship him. But we’re constantly turning other things into gods. Our status as a nation, our beliefs as a church (whether a particular denomination or as a church whole) can become idols. Do we completely separate ourselves from all computers, creation and coffee as a result? I hope not. Men have fashioned many good tools and invented many wonderful creations with no direct intent for them to be “used for God’s glory”; can we then not use them for God’s glory? Again, I hope not. Man, as a creation created in God’s image, loves to create. Though he remains a non-christian, he still retains the image of God in him. He is a fallen, sinful creation and the image is, therefore, marred, but it is still a reflection of God’s image. How could it be anything less? This is how man was originally created. With that said, fallen man still creates beautiful things. He makes useful things. And while these things may have been created with worldly purposes in mind, God still owns them!

So then, here is where the mystery of the gospel comes in. Our hearts have been made to worship—and we are prone to worship other things. But does God then MAKE us worship him? No. He allows us the opportunity to fail. He affords us the opportunity to disobey him and turn to other idols. He doesn’t make all things off limits, but he restores our mind, will and emotions (in our union with Christ) so that we may chose to worship him. In Christ he gives us the power to NOT worship other idols. And in Christ, he forgives us when we fail. It is also my firm belief that we do an injustice to one another if we seek to impose on one another what “things” we can/cannot use because we believe they will lead to idolatry. If any particular object leads its possessor to idolatry, then that person—and that person alone—can determine what sort of distance (whether completely or in moderation) he/she needs to keep from it. We cannot decide the limits for one another. When we do that, we create laws that God never created. This we do to the detriment of ourselves as well as one another.

Perhaps I’m not saying anything that you disagree with… I’m not quite sure. However, I’ll be interesting in hearing any responses you might have.

a history of violence

just saw a history of violence. in case you were thinking of seeing it.. don't. pretty crappy. i just finished watching it and have to cleanse my pallet by telling all you not to watch it.

there's not as much mystery to the plot as the previews seemed to indicate, ed harris is in it for a total of like 15 min. and too many violent images, etc, etc., etc. (all pretty unnecessary). The underlying premise seems to be "what is that 'evil other person' that's lurking inside all of us" (at least that's what some of the actors seem to indicate in the DVD). the movie is an examination of man's ability to do horrid things. and it questions whether man can become something different/something new after leaving a life filled with killing. but the possibility of redemption (an important quality for me as i watch a film) is very vague. the whole movie ends rather unresolved. the script apparently reads, "there is hope" at the end, but the actual movie (as you watch it) leaves you wondering whether or not that is the case.

if only i had known history of violence was made by the same guy who brought us the original Crash (1996)--the movie about people that get turned on by car wrecks. supposedly cronenberg is a complex director. perhaps. eXistenZ had some interesting elements. but his films often come at the expense of much moral discretion. there doesn't seem to be much question of showing blood/sex. its just a given. as i grow older i've noticed a growing sensitivity in my heart and mind to the glamorization of violent crimes in film. Godfather parts 1,2 are two of my favorite movies.. but the violence is handled differently there (if you've seen both history of violence and Godfather, please correct me if i'm wrong).

i've spent enough time on this. love to hear your thoughts if you've seen the movie. hope you can avoid it. my apologies to my buddy david who watched it with me tonight. what a waste of a $1 mickey d's movie... what a waste of film...

5:46 AM

studying in my basement at quarter till six, i hear her awaken. she beckons with her little calls of "da DA?... da da...da DA?" i go in to find her awake, and smiling, but not yet standing in her anticipatory, "I'm ready to play!" position. which is good. its not yet time to play. i change her diaper, packed with the obligatory morning deposit. its a messy one. as she lies on her changing table, her shadow catches her attention. she waves compulsively, her arm fixed high in the air while her hand wiggles up and down repeatedly. then, as she tries to grab the shadow, the phantom hand and the real hand only mesh together in a messy blob. so she resorts back to waving.

i finish changing her and pick her up. through her pacifier she smiles again. her tired, warm body flops limply onto my chest, her arms and hands resting on my shoulders. as i lay her down, wrap her in her blankets once more and walk to the door, her eyes never leave my face... and then its only a couple of blinks till she returns to the cozy land of sleep.