telling it like it is--a side effect of mission work

Frankly, when you do mission work, a lot of people put you up on a pedestal, and that's a really bad place to be.

Because it's easy to fall off.

I'm not going to go into the every-Christian-is-by-definition-a-missionary, because that is another story and shall be told another time. My point for this particular blopgost is that many people (1) seem to think that only a "special few" have what it takes to tell others about Jesus in a "foreign" (also a topic for another time) country; (2) these same people make a big fuss over those who tell others about Jesus in a foreign country; and (3) these same people continue to put the "missionaries" up on a pedestal even 1.4 years after said "missionaries" are no longer working in a foreign country.

Please note that I am not trying to mock anyone or infuse my post with contempt for the well-intentioned folks who "fuss" over me.

I just wish there were a brief yet polite way to communicate that...

..."I'm proud of you" is not a phrase that makes me feel good.
I am not the one who did the work--*God* did it--so there's no reason for me to be proud. The other person is not the one who did the work--so why should they be proud? I am glad I did the work; I wouldn't trade my time as a "missionary" for anything; I am pleased that God used me to encourage others. But pride is a dangerous thing for me, and I'd like to avoid even the appearance of it, even if it's well-meant.

...I appreciate the encouragement, but I do not want to be elevated in anyone's eyes.
The pedestal thing really doesn't work for me. Actually, it scares me--because pedestals are high; and I've been up there before; and I have liked it; and I have fallen. I really don't want to be up there again and face the possibility of liking the lofty heights again. There's only one way off, and it's fast, and it really hurts when you hit the bottom.

...it's an honor for people to be in the presence of God.
It is not an honor for people to be in the presence of me. I am no different, no better, no higher, no purer, nor more admirable than any other human being. Save the honor and the praise for God, because he is the only one who has done something to deserve it. He is the only one who *is* something to deserve it.

...I love to feel appreciated, and I love to hear that I'm appreciated.
Encourage me, yes. Be my friend, yes. Tell me you love me, yes. Ask me for my stories, yes. That is the way to let me know that I have encouraged you, that I mean something to you. But don't feed my ego. It's big enough already.

What is the way to say this in ten words or fewer? :o) I try really hard to give credit where it's due (--> GOD), but it's hard to find the right words without hurting the feelings of the well-intentioned. And I just don't want to hurt anybody. I've done enough of that, too.

*sigh* Life is hard, and then you do the potato wave.

I don't know exactly what that means, but I think it's the truth. ;o)

human war and spiritual warfare: let's be honest about this

I read an article online today to which I prefer not providing a link. My reason for such recalcitrant (there's that word again!) secrecy is that I'm not sure I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the article--or, rather, if I agree with the sentiments, I am quite sure I don't agree with the tone in which they are delivered. Either way, I don't think I want to have a link to the article on my blog, as I don't want anyone to associate me or my worldview with the attitude that comes through in the article.

However, I will let you know that the article was posted at lewrockwell.com, was written by one Lawrence Vance, and was dated June 12, 2008. Search for it if you so desire.

All of that said, I want to quote one particular statement from the article, a statement I find most true and telling:

"We hear more from the pulpit today justifying military intervention in the Middle East than we do about the need for missionaries to go there."

Does that hurt?

Does it hurt all of us who desire to follow Jesus?

Does it hurt any of us?

Does it prick our conscience at all?

It should. Because it's the truth.

movie review: "The Golden Compass"

So. It seems to me that the societal furor over this movie has died down somewhat. Or perhaps I’m just insulated and isolated from it and blind to current controversy. (Feel free to correct me on that. ;o) Anyway…as the walrus said, “the time has come,” and I will try to arrange my thoughts about “The Golden Compass” in some semblance of order.

As I told one of my aunts recently, I almost wish I had heard nothing about this film before watching it. It would have been nice for someone to have said, “Courtney, here’s a newly-released movie. Please watch it and tell me what you think,” and left it at that. Unfortunately, life is rarely so simple, and I spent the entire movie trying to push other people’s opinions out of my head while attempting to formulate my own.

I think I achieved a degree of success in this endeavor. So now I’m going to state my opinion so other people will have the same difficulty in forming theirs that I had in forming my own. Ha! Take that! *grin*

Wikipedia provides a great synopsis of the plot, so I’m not going to regurgitate it here. In brief, what I saw was a fast-paced, action-packed, well-made, creative, inventive, interesting, original, special-effects-laced fantasy film.

For adults.

Not for kids.

If you know me, or if you peruse my blog with anything like regularity, you know that the sci-fi and high fantasy genres are my thing. I read them, I watch them, I write them. “Compass” fits very nicely into both, so from that vantage point, I enjoyed the movie immensely. (If you enjoy those genres and watch/have watched the movie, you’ll know where I’m coming from. If you don’t care for those genres, I won’t bore you with the details.)

So, if I’m a proponent of sci-fi and fantasy, why wouldn’t I show this film to kids?

Well, I think my main glitch (thank you, “Reality Bites”) is with the main character, Lyra Belacqua. I don’t know how Lyra is written in the books, but in the movie, she frankly comes across as an obnoxious brat. She lies to anyone she must in order to get her way (including to her closest friends); she shows little respect for anyone around her; and she spends most of the film with a spiteful frown on her face. Everything she does is for her own self-interest. As a heroine, her only redeeming features are her protectiveness of her dæmon, Pantalaimon (“Pan”), and her determination to rescue her friends from the Gobblers.

Some might claim that the protectiveness and the determination are more than redeeming of her negative characteristics. However, keep in mind that taking care of Pan is also in Lyra’s best interest, as she suffers any pain that is inflicted on him and becomes captive herself if he is imprisoned.

A side note on the film’s concept of dæmons, which includes what is, in my opinion, a major plot hole: Early on, the film shows that human souls appear in the form of dæmons, animals which can talk and accompany their humans everywhere they go. What pain the dæmon feels, the human feels, and vice versa. However, when one of the antagonists, Mrs. Coulter, becomes frustrated with her dæmon, she slaps him…and feels no pain herself. I think consistency should have demanded that Mrs. Coulter flinch as a result of the slap she delivered. Also on a conceptual point: If a dæmon is a physical representation of a human soul, then (a) how can that dæmon have a personality distinct and different from the human’s? how could the “soul” every do anything that the human didn’t want it to do? and (b) how could a female human have a male soul? or vice versa?

Anyway…I’m sure there must be answers to these questions, but they certainly aren’t to be found in the film.

(A final note on the dæmons: This isn’t the first time for the sentient-animal-inextricably-linked-with-human idea. Ages of myth and folklore have given us this concept in witches’ familiars. More recently in the fantasy genre, Jennifer Roberson made use of it in her “Cheysuli” novels, starting with “Shapechangers” in 1984. And she did a better job of it.)

Back to Lyra. Main characters should definitely always have some major flaw about them, perhaps even a tragic flaw. If that is what the filmwriters were trying to achieve through Lyra’s obnoxiousness, they failed. They succeeded only in making her annoying and nearly impossible to empathize with. She is the major reason I wouldn’t show this film to a child: I would want no child of mine to identify with her as a main character and imitate her. Main characters automatically function as role models for children. I certainly wouldn’t want my children to consider such an obnoxious, anti-authority personality a role model for behavior.

Furthermore, the film generally encompasses themes that I consider too adult for children. There’s the drunken bear whom Lyra recruits as one of her closest allies. There’s the sexual undertone as she (a child herself) manipulates the bear king into following her plan. There’s the violence of the bears themselves. (In a fight between two bears, one tears the other’s lower jaw off. I imagine a child would find this scary. But perhaps I’m being too biased here; ever since Three-Toes of “The Wilderness Family,” I have been terrified of bears, gentle Samson notwithstanding; so perhaps I’m just projecting a childhood fear in this case. {But I think not.}) There’s the concept of the kidnapping of children for nefarious purposes. There’s the idea that all authority is dangerous and to be thwarted.

I don’t think young children need exposure to such themes.

Older children, on the other hand, might benefit from watching the movie with parents and following up with in-depth discussion. I believe firmly that if parents are teaching the values and concepts they should be teaching in the first place, then they have nothing to fear from older children’s exposure to other beliefs and values. That’s all I’ll say about that for now, though, as that’s a whole ‘nother soapbox. ;o)

Now for the film’s theological implications.

I didn’t see any.

What?!?

Okay, here’s the deal: Society in the world of “Compass” is controlled by a religious entity known as the Magisterium. Another glitch I have with the film is that the nature of this Magisterium wasn’t presented very clearly. It was nearly impossible to catch the names of the leaders, figure out their specific functions (for instance, I knew Christopher Lee's character was there, but I never really knew why), or even discover their actual motivations. This aspect of the film felt very loose-end and hasty to me: Scenes passed quickly, unclearly, and confusingly. I came away with the sense that the Magisterium is designed to represent the Catholic Church, or at least organized religion, but I can’t say if that’s an idea I formed based on the film itself or on the opinions of others that biased me beforehand (see 2nd paragraph). :oP

What was clear was that the Magisterium is heavy-handed, has its fingers in all the pies, and carries itself with a general Orwellian air of everyone-is-equal-except-the-ones-that-aren’t.

To me, this is not a theological implication, even if “Golden Compass” author Phillip Pullman and the film’s scriptwriters meant it to be a theological implication. There was no “killing of God” in this film, as the hype would have us believe. If there was a veiled attack on “Christianity” in the film, then it came in the form of a subtle criticism of Catholicism, which would only be problematic if one equates Catholicism with Christianity, which I don’t.

I have also heard, though, that the “killing of God” doesn’t take place until the third part of the trilogy…but I am writing now of “Compass” and not of some as-yet-unmade film I haven’t seen. I have also heard that the theological implications are more blatant in the book…but I’m reviewing the film, here, not the book.

Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware—with “The Golden Compass” and with everything else in life. If I started boycotting everything connected with the proponents of atheism, I would eventually have to seek out a lonely cave somewhere and isolate myself from the rest of the world. History’s ascetics did the same, and that’s not the will of God for any human, I believe. His will is that we “test everything and keep the good.”

“The Golden Compass” is a film for adults, not for children, unless parents are willing to take the time and put in the effort required for serious, patient discussion. Those who practice discernment need have no fear of this film. If Pullman and the filmwriters have an agenda, the best defense against it is to examine it and combat it with knowledge, not with the kind of reactionary sensationalism that inspires fear and intractability. (I once posted thoughts in a similar vein on the so-called “Gospel of Judas” here)

By itself, this film is no more “good” (morally speaking) or “evil” than any other run-of-the-mill fantasy film. If the book’s author or the filmwriters intended it to have a moral message beyond the confines of its own fantasy-world-boundaries (aside from the idea of let-us-have-no-oppressive-bodies-of-government), that message doesn’t come across.

And I guess that’s all I have to say about that.

P.S. I took a big chunk out of my novel-writing day to get all this down, so I want to hear no complaints that I wrote too much or didn’t address something somebody else considers vital. ;oD

destroyed for lack of knowledge

When my parents left the European shores for the Americas, they also left behind a copy of the magazine Gospel Advocate (GA). So I picked it up and read it. Just for the record, this was the first GA I've ever really perused, and I have discovered that I do not agree 100% with what the magazine presented in this particular issue (see issue # below). Or perhaps it's better to say that I don't agree 100% with the methods and the attitudes reflected in some of the authors' writings.

That said, however, I found the following to be accurate, illuminating, and disturbing. The trends which Renfroe (see below) presents in his article are realities of which the church today needs to take note. If we don't, we're in for some rather nasty surprises in the very near future.

"...I can't help wondering, in the midst of the current [technological] craze, if any room is left for God. Do the movers and shakers of the technological revolution have any place for a 2,000-year-old book? Indeed, does anyone even read anymore? In our quest to gain academic prowess through tech savvy, have we failed to instruct regarding the most important knowledge our children will ever need to acquire--the knowledge they need to save their souls (John 8:32; 1. Timothy 2:4)?"

"Parents naturally want their children to succeed, obtain advanced degrees, and secure high-paying jobs believed to ensure not only financial security but also the ever-elusive happiness that evades so many...

"During Old Testament days, parents were to teach their children about God and His marvelous works at every available opportunity (Deuteronomy 6:7; 11:19). Today, some parents are asleep at the proverbial wheel. We clamor for our kids to be in the best schools and taught by highly qualifed professionals. We expect them to play sports--the big three, at least--and would not think of their missing practice. (They might get a scholarship, you know.) But are we failing them where they need us most?

"If we could muster the same enthusiasm toward our children's spiritual education that we do for their secular activities, it would be far less likelly we would see a generation that, in many quarters, is 'destroyed for lack of knowledge' (Hosea 4:6 ASV)..."

--Brandon Renfroe
"21st Century Kids Are Wired"
Gospel Advocate, June 2007, Vol CXLIX, No. 6


Some of my thoughts as I read this:

Why is it so important to us that our children Get A Good Education?

Do we really believe that it's more important for our children to become Christians than it is for them to Get A Good Education?

Are we teaching our children to spend at least as much time studying the holy words of God as they spend studying textbooks written by humans?

We hear kids say, "When I grow up, I wanna be a teacher/rock star/fireman/astronaut/vet/police officer/etc."
We encourage them in these dreams. And rightfully so.
But how much encouragement do we give them in developing a dream that when they grow up, they "wanna be a faithful servant of God"?

I've never heard a kid say, "When I grow up, I wanna be what God wants me to be."
Why is that?

Are we studying the Bible with our kids and worshiping God with them at home? Every day?
Or are we leaving that part up to the "Sunday school teachers"?

When did Sunday morning Bible Class replace parental responsibility?

Renfroe says that we make sure our kids never miss sports practice.
Are we making sure they are present every time the church assembles to worship God?

Are we ourselves present every time our Christian family is together for worship?

Or are we ourselves skipping worship because this or that activity "is only this one time," which just "happens to be" during worship time?

Are we ourselves skipping worship in favor of attending secular activities?

Are we teaching our children to "go to church" because that means they're being good?

Or are we teaching them to be the church because being the church is the only scriptural concept? (After all, where in the Bible do you find the concept of "going to" church?)

Where are our own priorities? Yours and mine?

Is God truly the center of our lives?
The apex?
The only constant reality?

Or are we lying to ourselves?
And are we raising our children on a diet of these holy-seeming lies?

Are we teaching our kids, by our example, that God's word, the Bible, is not binding?


What do you think?

Jesus doesn't have a blog...

...or a Myspace page. Or a Facebook page. Or anything online of that sort.

Recently, I've been seeing blogs and homepages and whatnot that purport to be written by Jesus. As in, the administrators of the blog or page write their entries in first person singular (that is, from an "I" perspective), as though Jesus were the author of the words that appear in the text.

A lot of people are going to call me an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, but I don't care: I have a problem with this.

If it were only a matter of scripture quotations, that would be one thing. Actually, I think that would be a great idea, provided the scriptures were being quoted in the context in which they originally appeared in the Biblical canon. However, the websites to which I'm referring all contain explanations of scripture (read: interpretations) that are penned by an "I"-narrator, as though the interpretations were the direct word of God.

In my opinion, the people who are writing these interpretations are going against what God has always required of us humans: that we not speak as though we know the mind of God; that we not claim to speak for him; that we don't add to the words he has given us in scripture. I think that the authors of these blogs and sites are in direct violation of those commands.

Some will claim that in the paragraph above, I am "speaking for God" in the same way as the website authors I'm talking about. Well, my answer to that is that I say quite openly that these thoughts are *my understanding of scripture*; I am not claiming that these are the words of Christ himself.

The scripture that comes to mind most readily is Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar" (English Standard Version).

The Good News Bible also has an apt translation of verse 6: "If you claim that he said something that he never said, he will reprimand you and call you a liar."

I understand that most of the authors of these blogs and sites have good intentions. I recognize that they are only trying to spread God's word and increase people's understanding of Jesus's teachings. But the ends do not justify the means. In the very least, I think the authors are putting themselves in a spiritually dangerous position. For them to respond to readers' comments with "Yes, I am Jesus" and "I am the Son of God" is akin, I think, to walking a tightrope with no net and no tightrope.

I fully support sites that quote directly from scripture; but the authors who write as though they were Jesus himself...these are another matter entirely. The words 'presumptuous' and 'disrespectful' come to mind. I'm not angry at these people; yes, I am slightly offended on a spiritual level, but mostly I am afraid of what the consequences for them might be.