7761 A Faith and Culture Devotional - Blog


Blog
Stop by often to see what Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington, the editors of A Faith and Culture devotional, have to share about faith and our culture.

Download our Small Group Discussion Guide.

LATEST BLOG
Lost-Three ultimate endings: All is black. All is one. All is well.
May 24th, 2010
 
Jimmy Kimmel touted his three comedic alternate endings to Lost. The following may not be story arcs for a blockbuster cast reunion, but what about these slightly more realistic alternatives:

All is black Jack closes his eyes (or eye) and breathes his last. The chemical and electrical impulses in his brain fade and stop. Rigormortis sets in. His body decays there in the bamboo arbor. Dust to dust. It is the same end as the man in black. Same end as Ben. And Hurley, Kate, Sawyer and the rest. The choices they made in this life have no ultimate meaning beyond the experience of this life. The fellowship and community that means so much is lost forever. As is each individual. All is lost.

All is one Jack closes his eyes and breathes his last. Wakes up in the sideways reality. Oceanic flight 815 has landed safely. He reconciles with his son, heals Lock and, touching his Father’s coffin, recovers the memories of his life on the island. All the choices he made to lead and love and sacrifice flash before his eyes in scene after scene of heartache and joy. The richness of the person he became through loss and love flood back into his soul. He is so much the deeper for it. Transformed by suffering and good choices, his joy is so much greater than that of the smaller life he was living.

Ben is outside. His selfish choices have made him a poorer person. The broken trust in all his relationships separates him from the loving fellowship of the community. Forgiveness is offered, but what happened happened. How does a lifetime of choosing self over others finally dissolve into choosing a loving, sacrificial community? That’s just not the person Ben has become. He’s not ready to join the community yet. He is in limbo? Purgatory? How will he reconcile or work out the consequences of his choices made from both great wounds and self-centered choices? We don’t know.

After the grand reunion the door opens. Christian Shepherd, Jack’s Dad, steps into the light. Reminds me of the eastern leaning The Fountain with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weiss. “Death is the beginning of awe.” But in that movie as well as all Eastern thought, death is also the end of individuality as each one finally transcends individual pain, selfishness, willfullness and desire to become one with the all.

What might happen in this sideways story line as each individual steps into the light? Perhaps, as in The Fountain, if the Source of all things is impersonal, then he or she ceases to exist as a person but is transported into an impersonal oneness with all others, with everything in the Universe. All the memories they have recovered of their individual lives are poured into the ocean of collective memory. Ultimately, all individuality is lost. There is no loving community of richly different individuals. Everything is connected and the unity eventually obliterates/subsumes the individuality. For to create is to choose. To choose is to have a will. How does creation or a collective will exist without the loss of individuality?

They step through the door and become one with the light and the water at the heart of the island. Golden and glowing and ??? bubbling? Existence ends in impersonal being. All is one.

All is well Jack closes his eyes and breathes his last. Wakes up in the loving community of friends, some who died before him, some after. As each one steps through the chapel door they step into the light that radiates, not from an impersonal wellspring, but from a Person. The greater which has created the lesser. (How can it be the other way around? How can an impersonal source of light and water create the richness of human love, life and complexity we’ve seen on the screen?

The recovered memories and the richness of their heroic acts and choices go with them. They remain the individuals we have come to know and love. Nothing of their individuality is lost. Not even their flaws. Their poor choices have been redeemed. They don’t have to work them off or be separated from the sacred circle. Forgiveness has been freely offered by the one who waits for them and loves them far more deeply than they love one another. Who became the evil and selfishness of their own lives and died in their place, but who was resurrected from the grave to offer them forgiveness and life. Even Ben. All is mercy and grace for those who choose to be reconciled with their Creator in the way he has provided. By his stripes, the scars from the whip lashes, all their wounds are healed. It is a beautiful mythology, a true myth, as CS Lewis has said. One that mirrors and yet transcends our own experience of how suffering and sacrifice and choosing others over self bring richness, life and joy. (In mho far more beautiful and meaningful than the mythology of impersonal electromagnetic light holding all things together and turning greedy, selfish people into smoke monsters.)

As Jack and Kate, Sun and Jen, Sawyer and Juliette step into the light of eternity, not simply one person awaits, rather a loving community of three persons, whose individuality and community are mirrored in these lives. The end of all things is co-participation—with each other and with the Father, Son and Spirit who protect and make good on promises and yet offer real choices with real consequences that ripple out into eternity. And if Ben remains on the outside, never ready to go in, that is Ben’s choice to be truly and deeply lost.

Those who enter find themselves in a new story. An unfolding plot far more exciting than mere existence. They continue to live individual lives of challenge and choices, service and leadership in a community of ever-deepening love. Life together becomes richer, deeper, higher and above all, more joyful. Nothing is lost but pain and separation. All is well.

 
Posted by @ 6:55
Uncategorized  |   No Comments»


PREVIOUS ENTRIES
F&CD Contributor Ben Wiker on A.N. Wilson’s return to faith in Christ
Devo Commentary: Dr. House and Paradise Lost-What makes a real hero?
PREVIOUS BLOG 1
May 7th, 2009

Ben Wiker comments on an intellectually fulfilled atheist’s and famous British novelist’s gradual recovery of the richness and simplicity of the gospel. This article, as well as additional commentary, may be found at To the Source. Dr. Wiker is the author of F&CD entry on the deep design on the Periodic Table of Elements:

I still remember the taste of ashes in my soul reading A. N. Wilson’s biography of C. S. Lewis. It was filled with the kind of meticulous spite that can only be mustered by someone entirely bent on chipping away at a larger-than-life figure until he is largely unrecognizable, riddled with pock marks and imperfections. I sensed that I was not getting a representation of Lewis, but rather, a glimpse of the atheist Wilson himself and his thinly disguised contempt for so great a Christian apologist.

Looking back on it, I would dare to suggest that what animated Wilson’s spiteful treatment was a deep anger and frustration that Lewis, his intellectual superior, could waste his talents on something so infantile and obviously inferior as Christianity. If he was that evidently smart, why couldn’t Lewis—like Wilson—see that the whole God thing was a sham?

Wilson just couldn’t understand, and so in writing about Lewis, he searched under every psychological rock to find evidence that Lewis’s great intellect had been deformed by some hidden twist in his soul, and bent unnaturally to the defense of Christianity.

This Easter found that same Mr. Wilson in church among the faithful, singing the praises of the Risen Christ, a believer once again, a man who had experienced the heady thrill of casting away all belief in God thereby freeing himself from all ultimate claims, and then gradually, humbly recognized how small-minded and trendy his whole anti-God phase had been. Looking back on it all, Wilson wondered, “Why did I, along with so many others, become so dismissive of Christianity?”

“Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti.

To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs.

This playground attitude accounts for much of the attitude towards Christianity that you pick up, say, from the alternative comedians, and the casual light blasphemy of jokes on TV or radio.

It also lends weight to the fervour of the anti-God fanatics, such as the writer Christopher Hitchens and the geneticist Richard Dawkins, who think all the evil in the world is actually caused by religion.”

What ultimately changed Wilson’s mind? There was no dramatic, sudden conversion experience; just a slow, sure recognition that atheism rang hollow. Life was too deep, too rich for mere materialism.

“My own return to faith has surprised no one more than myself. Why did I return to it? Partially, perhaps it is no more than the confidence I have gained with age.

Rather than being cowed by them [the anti-religious smart-set], I relish the notion that, by asserting a belief in the risen Christ, I am defying all the liberal clever-clogs on the block: cutting-edge novelists such as Martin Amis; foul-mouthed, self-satisfied TV presenters such as Jonathan Ross and Jo Brand; and the smug, tieless architects of so much television output.

But there is more to it than that. My belief has come about in large measure because of the lives and examples of people I have known—not the famous, not saints, but friends and relations who have lived, and faced death, in the light of the Resurrection story, or in the quiet acceptance that they have a future after they die.

The Easter story answers their questions about the spiritual aspects of humanity. It changes people’s lives because it helps us understand that we, like Jesus, are born as spiritual beings.

Every inner prompting of conscience, every glimmering sense of beauty, every response we make to music, every experience we have of love—whether of physical love, sexual love, family love or the love of friends—and every experience of bereavement, reminds us of this fact about ourselves.”

And what of all the atheists he left behind, all his fellow comrades in the struggle against belief? Wilson accuses them, not of dishonesty, but a certain woodenness of soul.

“When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion – prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.

 
Posted by larrington @ 03:54
 
March 16th, 2009

From Lael, Commentary on Literature, week 1

If he wasn’t a Puritan, John Milton could have been a successful Hollywood screenwriter. Like a blockbuster movie that begins with James Bond skiing off a cliff or Indiana Jones losing ground to the massive boulder at his back, he begins Paradise Lost in the middle of the action—Satan rising from the dark, molten flames of hell to survey the wreckage of his fall and regroup. His courageous and defiant speech to rally his battered troops, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav’n,” has inspired generations of romantic writers and aging rockers.

William Blake was the first, I believe, to famously depict Milton’s Satan not as the villain but rather a romantic hero when he wrote that Milton, “was a true Poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it.” Prefiguring today’s chorus of new atheists, Blake wrote that “Milton’s devil as a moral being is…far superior to God” because he “perseveres in some purpose which he has conceived to be excellent in spite of adversity and torture.” This “heroic” view of Satan has inspired generations of literary controversy and far too many term papers which can be downloaded at www.echeat.com. Somehow that is entirely fitting.

But what is a hero? Blake and other romantics recast the classical role of a hero, the general Maximus-style protagonist who overcomes adversity by courage and self-sacrifice for some greater good, in the mold of Rousseau’s radical individualism still popular today. This view of a hero applauds the pursuit of freedom and the triumph of the individual over the God of church tradition and all theological, moral and social restraints.

But while this self-styled hero chooses courage and liberty, it is not so that he might be free to love and sacrificially give himself for others. Milton, clearly in disagreement with the Romantics, exposes Satan’s motive. The Devil himself confesses that his rebellion grows from the grudge of “injur’d merit.” God appointed the Messiah as chief of his angelic legions rather than Satan. The rack and ruin of the universe, according to Milton, can be traced back to the guy who got passed over for the promotion. Satan was dissed. Not the sort of grievance that inspires people of goodwill to sympathy or support.

In his Preface to Paradise Lost, C.S. Lewis chronicles the degradation of the former Prince of Heaven turned Peeping Tom who roils in envy of Adam and Eve locked in loving embrace. “From hero to general, from general to politician, from politician to Secret Service agent, and thence to this thing that peers in at bedroom or bathroom windows, and thence to a toad, and finally to a snake—such is the progress of Satan…it was the poet’s intention to be fair to evil…to show it first at the height…and then to trace what actually becomes of such self-intoxication when it encounters reality.” Those who want to interpret Satan as hero must play fast and loose with the text. Both Milton’s and God’s.

But a hero is not merely a literary term. A true hero grabs your heart. I couldn’t read about the literary argument over the “heroism” of Satan without recalling a TV character we often watch: Greg House. Dr. House shares much in common with Milton’s Satan: intellectual brilliance, cunning, sophistication, magnetic attraction (I wonder if Satan had “dreamy blue eyes”), seductive and cynical, mysterious and moody, a renegade prized for his great gifts and the excitement he generates, but not for his heart. (No track record of loving sacrifice here…just a white-hot trajectory of success.) It makes for great entertainment. A lot of drama. We love to watch. Fun place to visit, but would we really want to live there?

 
Posted by larrington @ 05:39
 
 
0