Random post, AWPATT-style: Prince Hans's Frozen Heart

So I've been bouncing around Youtube commenting on people's analyses of Frozen and Tangled. I recently watched Frozen for the first time, two weeks ago, and then rewatched Tangled. I am very inspired to write a lengthy Christian analysis of the themes, and will endeavor to do that after finals are done (c. May 20).

But for now, I wrote something I thought was worth sharing, and am going to copy-paste it here.

This is on the subject of the Frozen plot twist where the 'nice guy' prince turns out to be a heartless, manipulative jerk. Some people have cried "feminism!" As a Christian man, I disagree and am thrilled to pieces that they made a pivotal plot point about warning girls against trusting a guy whom you barely know, just because he seems nice and you have feelings for him.

So, someone on a comment thread under such a video had said that the plot twist was foreshadowed in Hans's behavior earlier. You're blind if you didn't get suspicious when he proposed marriage on a whim, but here's where my ears perked up for the first time:

As a genuine 'good guy,' myself, the alarm went off when Hans said "I love crazy!" No. Flat out, no. No sane guy actually thinks that. Either he underestimates what 'crazy' is, and is naive, or in denial, OR if he actually gravitates toward legit 'crazy,' then he's self-destructive, or worse, a chauvinist with a broken ability to relate to women, where he feels like if he can 'conquer' them, that he's a strong man. Guys don't like 'crazy' because they genuinely like 'crazy.' They like fighting it, defeating it, destroying it. A guy who says "I like [a genuinely negative quality about you]," be afraid. Because it means he doesn't respect you enough to be honest with you and be a positive influence in your life to be there for you and help you overcome your problems. If he relishes in your problems, it's because it makes him feel better about himself, and more secure, to think that you're inferior to him, or maybe that you can't do better than him because no one else would want you. That's why guys go for "broken" girls. They're insecure, and think that if they persuade the girls to overlook their flaws, that they'll develop an emotional co-dependency and never leave him, no matter how bad he behaves. A true good guy will not praise negative character qualities, but he won't treat you like you have no worth or value because of them, either. A good guy acknowledges both the good and the bad, and doesn't try to present himself as a perfect guy who never conflicts with your expectations. A good guy does not encourage destructive habits, but offers himself as a friend to you, to help you become a better person, if you want to do that by trusting him. And a good guy will never rush you into a relationship. I don't want to risk rambling, so I'll stop there. And I hope that's good advice for all the young women out there to take into consideration. Please listen to me. Just like how you know things that we men can't understand intuitively, THIS is something any honest, thinking man knows and can confirm to you, but that maybe you can't understand intuitively. Trust me on this. Guys who say they 'love crazy,' or something similar to that, are guys to be very very wary of. Take care!

~ Rak Chazak

Movie Review: Chappie, Jupiter Ascending, Dawn of the Apes, Divergent

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

Foreword

Each of these big blockbuster movies answers this question in different ways. Perhaps it's a byproduct of our postmodern culture's existentialist angst, but the big-screen movies these days seem to be doing a lot of the following: taking stock of fundamental questions of human nature, civilization, consciousness, matters of right and wrong, etc. If you're watching the action flicks for imagination fodder, you won't be disappointed, but you may miss the overarching plot.

Allow me to invent/define some terms for the sake of this review:

The "plot" is the obvious problem that is directly presented to the audience.
The "sub-plot" is any theme with importance but which may appear to be a distraction at first, since its connection to the plot isn't immediately clear (and if there is no connection, the flow of the movie suffers).
The "meta-plot" is the implicit, overarching theme that the movie makes reference to without ever explicitly addressing. Basically, if you pick out the theme, and ask "what would this cause the characters to be concerned about, or do?" then you have the meta-plot.

Example:
Plot: Simba grows up orphaned and has to somehow right the wrongs that his uncle Scar has perpetrated on the African Savannah.
Subplot: Simba's relationships with his father, Nala, Timon/Pumba and other characters.
Meta-plot: the quest to figure out what's important in life / growing up, becoming a man. Whereas the theme is "manhood," the meta-plot could be summed up as "Simba has to discover something in himself (a sense of duty/honor), and/or find his purpose in life, which will drive him to confront Scar, and help him win."

And the import of the meta-plot is communicated more through the subplot than the main plot. If all you're doing is following along CBS-tv-drama-style, you'll know why the characters are going from one place to the next and such, but you won't grasp the significance, and come away with the real message (intentional or unintentional from the director's/producer's standpoint) of the film.

Let's dive in.

****            ****            ****            ****

Introduction

The last 4 [not-yet-reviewed by yours truly] sci-fi movies I remember watching all had a common theme, explored in very different ways. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes answered the question, "what does it mean to be human?" through exploring the human-like qualities of the fictional ape characters. Chappie asks the question "what is consciousness?" by exploring the journey of learning of a robot, who rapidly traverses formative childhood and copes with the innate badness of human beings as he "grows up." Jupiter Ascending asks, "what is the worth of a society?" or "what makes life worth living?" and answers it through the parallelism of a jaded teenager who feels like she's wasting her life cleaning toilets, compared to jaded interstellar aristocrats who seem to live for nothing but to keep on living. Lastly, Divergent asks whether conformity is necessary for social stability, and asks if suppressing individuality through human government is a) possible or b) promotes peace, or tyranny.

Each film seems to invite the suggestion that how one responds to struggle is what reveals--or defines--one's humanity, and since without struggle, there is no plot, let's investigate the central struggles of these four films.

Last call for spoiler warnings

Poem: Community

When in the beginning, all of the stuff of the cosmos had been organized
And not one creation deviated from the Creator's perfect design
All was not well, for man by himself, was lacking in something besides

He lacked not in purity, intellect, strength, creativity, life or desire
If labor was favored, Adam was capable. No goal could not be acquired
But there was a whole other realm of experience to which he could not aspire

Man by himself does poor company keep, and his actions are wholly self-serving
But give him relations, and for a plot twist, make them all, of his love, undeserving
And fix within each the capacity for selfless love and its requisite yearning

NOW! Man in community is more of a model of a relational Father above
When, denying himself, he freely surrenders -- expressing the Trinity's love --
And loves his own wife with no thought of reward: this is how marriage is done

"It is not good for man to be alone" -- and this is what that Scripture means:
That, though we are physical beings, we know, all is not what it seems:
When a man connects spiritually with his friend, his joy will surpass his best dreams.

~ Rak Chazak

Review: The Hobbit, Battle of the Five Armies

I will try my hardest to keep my posts short, if only so that I can post them before I run out of time (a guy's got to sleep, you know). I have three short points to make.

The Hobbit III: Battle of the Five Armies

Could have been called: Big Ideas As Displayed By Little People

Aesop's Fables meets World of Warcraft

 Synopsis: A self-obsessed Dwarf king and self-righteous Elven king almost completely lose sight of everything that's really important in life.

Observation One:

Thorin Oakenshield gets struck with what's figuratively referred to by the old dwarf as "Dragon Sickness," which is apparently a literary device of JRR Tolkien's to represent hubris (greed borne of pride). He becomes obsessed with his own greatness and riches, and begins to see everyone around him as an enemy, a threat. He singlemindedly pursues the 'heart of the mountain,' ignoring the welfare of needy refugees and foolishly attempting to fight off an army of Elves with only 13 people (is that term applicable to dwarves? I'm not that into the lore).

It serves, through Bilbo and Dwalin's perception of him, as a poignant (and almost awkwardly lengthy, in terms of screen time) reflection of how people around us -- or ourselves -- can become self-destructively prideful in pursuit of greatness, glory, power, autonomy -- whatever you see the Heart of the Mountain as representing.

But the best part was the way Thorin recovers. Many other movies have done poorly with portraying a character who's fallen into a ditch, typically showing a spontaneous and total conversion upon the sudden realization of a one-liner that another character conveniently spoke to them at just the right moment. Reality is nothing like that. What the Hobbit did better was to show the character's transformation as taking place within his own mind. Ultimately, other people can only support you, but repentance is something that happens on an individual level. Thorin is walking in the hall of the castle and multiple thoughts are shown going through his head. The cinematography represents the collective weight of these as guiding him to a realization and awareness of what he's done wrong, and as he feels sincere remorse over it, he is shown seeing himself sinking into a pit. The best thing the director did was to, without any dialogue, have Thorin grab his crown in disgust and throw it down.

That is the root truth. Repentance and restoration comes from dethroning ourselves as the kings of our own lives. Thorin Oakenshield fancied himself a great king now that he had a crown, but Dwalin said that "you have always been my king," and that now he had become something shameful. When Thorin's life had been about a greater purpose than himself (reclaiming his people's heritage), he had been a lightning rod for his friends to rally in support of. But when he thought that because he wore a crown, that he now had authority, and his purpose became to seek his own ends, then his friends were grieved.

The symbolism is apparent; we become restored as heirs to the kingdom when we cease trying to be king and put others before ourselves. At the end, Thorin sacrificed his life to fight the enemy, laying it down for the sake of his friends. That's not to equate the character with a Christ-figure. Tolkien, catholic though he was, differed from C S Lewis's more overt Christian themes and in his own stories attempted to bury them more deeply in the narrative. Being willing to give ourselves for others is a theme consistent with Biblical Christianity, without needing to pigeon-hole the characters in LOTR or the Hobbit as representing Jesus or Satan.

Observation Two:

When Thorin lies dying, he calls Bilbo his true friend. In context, Bilbo had found the heart of the mountain and hidden it from Thorin, and then sneaked out of the castle and given it to Thorin's arch rival, the Elf lord Thranduil. Bilbo's hope had been that when Thranduil would offer it to Thorin, the latter would be willing to give aid to the refugees and return the treasures belonging to Thranduil in return for that which he wanted so badly.

As it turns out, Thorin refused, showing that pride is always stronger than greed. The desire to have things is really an outgrowth of the desire to have power, which is an expression of the desire to be in charge, make the rules, be your own King... Only somebody who's willing to step off the throne can be reasoned with.

At the end, Thorin gratefully acknowledged Bilbo's trustworthy friendship. He had not been a 'yes man,' doing what would make Thorin happy, or doing what would evade his wrath. He had been willing to risk his hatred, or even death, to do the right thing. Whereas I suspect neither Tolkien nor Peter Jackson had this intent in mind, I saw this as easily representative of the fact that telling someone the truth -- i.e. the Gospel when they don't want to hear it -- is always the right thing to do, and if they are later converted, they will be grateful that you did the hard thing and stood against them and were not willing to compromise.

Observation Three:

The dynamic between elves and dwarves has served in the Lord of the Rings series to provide commentary on how people from different social classes, cultures or "races" could initially have animosity toward each other but eventually come to see each other as friends and respect each other despite coming from or going to very different places.

The fact of elves being functionally immortal (living tens of thousands of years if not prematurely killed in battle) made for interesting analysis of some things Thranduil said with respect to Kili and Tauriel's budding romance. At one point in particular, he told her it wouldn't be worth it for her to go after him to save him, because since he was mortal, he would die anyway, indicating that he thought her efforts were futile. A similar dialogue occurs regarding Galadriel and Aragorn in the LOTR movies. "They are mortal."

Again, it's not a perfect analogy, and I'm not trying to construct one. What I have been doing here has been to use themes in the movies to stimulate contemplation of similar themes in the nonfiction world. In this case, the comparison of dwarves, elves and men on the basis of mortality and disposition makes me think of the differences between the Gentiles, Jews and the Saints as described by Romans 9-11. In reality there is overlap. More similar to the movie, in reality we all interact, even though we note differences between each other.

Elves (saints) and humans (gentiles, incl. professing believers) are superficially similar, whereas dwarves (Jews) are obviously different from both, as well as withdrawn, stubborn and consumed with yearning for the return of their long-ago glories. Men and dwarves are both quite capable of forming romances with Elves, but because only the Elves are immortal, romances with non-elves are guaranteed to result in a long separation, and the knowledge of their mortality induces heartbreak even before their death occurs. Thranduil (compare to a Christian who has no compassion for the Lost) rightly discourages Tauriel from pursuing romance with a dwarf ("a house divided against itself cannot stand"), but he does it with no love in his voice. At the end of the film, it seems as if he has a bit of a wake-up call, a hint of temporal redemption for himself, when Tauriel says "why does it (love--or the loss of a loved one) hurt so much?" and he replies, "because it was real." Perhaps the lesson here is that even if a lifelong love -- marriage -- cannot be, that does not mean that those who are promised immortality should not love or show love to strangers, those who are outside their earthly or heavenly society.

If you as a Christian watch the movies again, and put yourself in the shoes of the often snotty and self-righteous, self-concerned Elves ("the elves are for the elves," to borrow from a twist on a C S Lewis' Narnia line) and imagine the dialogue between elves and dwarves, or elves and men, to be as dialogue between a saved Christian and unsaved of various stripes, then it might be uniquely convicting for you, or at least very thoughtful, in ways you may or may not have already perceived.

That's the thought I leave you with.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT Teaser: Seeing A Woman Cry Breaks My Heart (Why?)

Oddly, nearly every image on Google Image Search was of a single tear running down a cheek. 'Could be a side effect of American culture discouraging open displays of anguish, contrary to other cultures (compare television reports of grieving mothers/fathers from the homeland with, say, the Middle East or India). The below image is a good example of what I'm referring to in the AWPATT thought below. Someone visibly disturbed.

source: smosh.com

355 The image of a crying woman breaks my heart. I think faces are designed to become unattractive when contorted in wailing. The disruption of a beautiful face into a reddened, convoluted mess of scowls, shut/bloodshot eyes and change from openness to withdrawal indicates in a very alarming manner that something is terribly wrong. It nevertheless attracts attention. I think that males, though we tend to break things, have a paradoxical inner desire to want to fix things. When someone’s crying, I want to stop it. Not because it’s annoying, but because it grieves me that I’m not in such distress and they are, and my mind races wondering how I might be able to help relieve the agony the person is experiencing. Can you share your own happiness? Can you unlock it in the other person? Cause a change of perspective that resolves the problem that triggered the crying? Can you give comfort that assuages a person’s emotions and makes them feel good? A crying woman, like few other things, makes a man feel hopeless and worthless, because he desperately wants her to be happy and fulfilled, but perceives that he is helpless to do anything about the issue. I don’t suppose that I or any other man thinks that we/I have some superhero power to solve strangers’ problems. Rather, I think it’s a collective sense of guilt over the fact that we can’t rescue you with a snap of our fingers that makes us feel rotten. From a Christian theological perspective, it’s very true that even if I didn’t directly cause your pain, I nevertheless bear guilt for the fact that the world is broken by sin and some aspect of this brokenness/fallenness is what caused you hurt. A partaker in the sins of Adam, the world is rotten and the world makes women cry, in part because I’m a sinner. So my emotional response to a crying woman is rooted in something true—I am at fault, even if in a very obscure, distant way. Thankfully, Christ bore my sins on the Cross, and gives me hope because I know that for all the brokenness in the world today, I’m destined to live with Him in a restored perfect world one day. If I could convey this contentment and hopefulness to a young woman in pain, it would give me such gratitude to have played a small part in lifting her up from where she’s fallen. If man is the glory of God, and Christ demonstrated the perfect man’s life when He walked the earth in the flesh, then isn’t it the truth that men are at the core, imbued with a God-given desire to be a hero? It might take a different form in every man, but at base we want to fix the world or save the world or save just one person from something bad in the world, and I believe this is placed in us for His glory. Why do crying women break my heart? Because they touch on two truths at once: I, as a man, and a sinner, am the reason for why they hurt; and I, as a man, in the image of God, am instilled with an unrelenting passion to want to rescue the weak and helpless. (lest you interpret this as sexist, it’s a temporary statement. Someone devastated by anguish is both in a weak and helpless state, whether man or woman). May I not try to “fix her problems” by human cleverness, but use the Gospel to extend to her the means of rescue by which I also was rescued. I can’t stop your tears, but God can.

~ Rak Chazak

More for the Movie Wish-List

There's a number of films I haven't yet seen, that I would like to. And they tend to be either documentaries or interview-centric. Some of the best films I've seen have been docu's. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was probably the first one of such, which changed my motivations for watching movies. After it, I saw "Iranium," and "180," but since moving back from college, with limited internet capacity, I have spent very little time on Youtube, or downloading/streaming movies anywhere, for that matter.

I "splurged" with respect to data usage, and watched this trailer:

"Polycarp: Destroyer of Gods," which I came across via Ken Ham's AiG blog where he recommended it after seeing it.

Other movies that have come out that I'd like to see are
Noah and the Last Days
IndoctriNation
Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus
and the film still in the works,
Genesis 

My list of books I'd like for a future library is even longer.

Here's to hoping I get the chance to watch the film sometime soon.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XIV: December 22-January 16 (Thoughts 205-230)

The A-Z Compilation (#1) : 7,000 word excursus on what sort of qualities I would desire for my wife to have. 

If you're young, you may read something you've never heard of before, so I encourage you to take a look.

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughs: Hub

Here is the start of the list, and the rest of the AWPATT will be found after the jump break.

205 I want a woman who is assertive. Without forcing her way, she needs to be able to express her mind and take a confident stand on everything she believes. A woman whose opinions I can never find out, or which are prone to change at any moment, is not a woman I can trust.

206 I want a woman who is bold. Who will not withdraw in fear or shame or uncertainty but will passionately hold fast to what she knows is right. She ought to be impervious to mere disagreement, however strong. This foreshadows her faithfulness as a spouse.

207 I want a woman who is compassionate. She ought to care about others – this is not only very feminine, but an important human trait, and as a Christian she should have a well-developed sense of empathy. It should be tempered with truth and not given to the wrong people, or emotionally, but decisively.

208 I want a woman who is discerning. A woman who can’t tell “right from almost right” is like a door that is always open. A woman with poor judgment or capacity to spot lies is dreadfully unreliable, and I will flee from her.

209 I want a woman who is elegant. That mystery quality that is difficult to define. Most people would probably use the term “graceful,” but I prefer to limit my use of that word to the strictly Biblical meaning. There’s a certain combination of clothing, physical beauty, confidence and character that goes into my attributing it to someone. Someone for whom it seems effortless to be convivial, restrained, cheerful, relaxed, mutually engaged, thoughtful and kind, rather than for whom it is an exhausting role-play.

210 I want a woman who is faithful. This contains the concept of loyalty in commitment, as well as the importance of believing what is true and right, and not just believing something strongly. “Can two walk together unless they are in agreement?” Amos 3:3. Believing the same will enable us to do that. And this is the second main purpose of this blog – to allow her to evaluate that.

211 I want a woman who is graceful. Grace, Biblically, is “giving something good a) that is not deserved, or b) unconditionally.” The two go hand in hand. Suppose you have trouble comprehending the first meaning, because you believe your beloved deserves good things from you. If they deserve it, consider nevertheless that you do not love them because they deserve it, but as a matter of fact unto itself. And consider further that they deserve love because God says that’s how they ought to be treated, not because they have an innate character quality or deed to their name that empowers them to require such treatment from others. For if there is good in them, where does it come from but God, after all? So you treat them well based not on them but on God, who never changes. This means that you act in love toward them whether or not you think they deserve it, because it’s not based on their performance but the character of God. This love is unconditional.

This is grace. I will treat you this way. And it’s an absolute requirement for me that my fiancée understands and lives this truth out.

Applying grace to your view of how you should be treated leads to the understanding that you have two options:

1) believe you deserve to be treated in _____ way

2) believe you don’t deserve anything in and of yourself

There are consequences based on two outcomes:

1) you “get what you deserve”

2) you don’t

In the 1^st case, if you ‘get what you deserve,’ you might be grateful, but you were expecting it anyway. If you don’t get it, on the other hand, you become bitter, and resentful at being mistreated. In the 2^nd case, you have shelved your expectations, because you don’t believe you deserve (are entitled to) anything. Then, everything good you receive makes you incredibly joyful and thankful, as if taken by pleasant surprise, because it’s a special and wonderful thing each and every time something good happens.

Which would you rather have?

Choose grace.

Christian Encouragement: How I Compliment Pretty Girls Who Have Good Theology

The following contains 1,700 words of fairly easily-readable monologue that I sent as an expanded version of a compliment to a girl on her theological soundness and zeal. I'll place a page break early on, to avoid cluttering the front page, and encourage you to click on "read more" to look at the whole thing for your consideration, edification, what-have-you.

Hiyah,

I came across your facebook profile on a [..............] post where you had commented. So the fact that you seemed to affirm pre-trib eschatology was what first stood out, not to mention the fact that you're following a page representing Reformed doctrine, which is encouraging. The next thing that I saw was that you're cute, which is only natural considering that I'm a typical male in that I'm visually oriented, and that my personality preference (which I find the Myers-Briggs profile to be a fairly effective measure of) is to thoroughly evaluate everything I perceive. It's a little unclear from facebook and your blog, but erring on the safe side, I'll treat you as if you're married and avoid anything that might be flirtatious. However, I have many compliments to give you.

It's rare for most young people to be very theologically astute -- I speak as one myself, who feels sometimes as if the peer landscape is very sparsely populated with Christian brethren -- and considering that roughly half of any age group is female, and only a subset thereof is of notable physical attractiveness, it's only logical to conclude that it's a very rare thing for a beautiful young woman to be so zealous for good doctrine as it is apparent to me that you are.

And mark, that is primarily what makes you beautiful:

3Your adornment must not be merely external-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 1 Peter 3:3-4

Becoming a Christian Takes Work. ( Criticism of "Intellectual" Atheists and Others)

Staying atheist is certainly the more convenient option, if you are lazy. And let's face the facts, most people who live in the West and don't have faith in Christ are definitively lazy.

You have access to more knowledge in a day, without leaving the chair you're sitting at right now, than most people prior to the printing press had access to in their entire lives. A daily newspaper nowadays would be a month's worth of word-of-mouth overheard from travelers as they passed through your town.

The amount of time it took to copy a book just once was the amount of time it took for a person to gather together enough blank pages, ink, not to mention also a copy of the book, and then for him to rewrite every word on the blank pages, before binding the book and starting anew. Knowledge spread very slowly in a horizontal fashion (from one person to contemporaries, people alive at the same time), and knowledge spread through tradition, from parents to children (vertically) was much more effective. Consequently, a person's ideas could take a century or more to catch on, and they'd never live to see the effect of their work. But now history has come to a remarkable place.

We can access anything that anyone anywhere has found out about the past or found written in the past, so long as it has been transcribed or photocopied onto the Internet -- which is to say, any computer or database connected to the Internet information highway, so that anyone else can access the information as long as they are also connected.

And despite all this, the vast majority of people REFUSE to use the Internet to learn anything important!

You there, o atheist. You who have the knowledge of all the world's history at your fingertips, day in and day out, do you go looking for information that confirms and points to the Bible being true and its admonitions having the force of an ultimate Lawgiver behind them? Do you try to prove the Bible and do you go looking for evidence to utterly convince you that Jesus Christ is God, you are a man of sin, you need to repent, and you deserve His judgment but are utterly at the mercy of His unmerited favor in order to escape?

You can't make this claim. And I know from experience (the other benefit of the Internet is that it allows you to sample large amounts of people at a time to see how they think and consider their personal testimonies) that most people who are atheists are not so from being scholarly, studious and disciplined. They took the first lame reason to reject faith they could find, and clung to it, and now they're monstrously irrational and as a consequence of choosing not to think, CAN NOT think.

4 Degrees of Separation from Meriam Ibrahim

These are the stories I stay alive for. Life on earth is an epic drama, and at this point in history in particular, we have a treasure trove of stories from history at our fingertips, waiting to be dug up and relished. The ability to know what happened in the past, let alone what's happening right now, is a blessing and privilege that can't be understated. I am quite confident that in eternity, God will show us flashbacks of what really happened, that we never knew about, simply so we can know what He did and give Him glory for it. And in the meantime, in my sense-limited experience of earth history as a participant, I take pleasure in getting just a little taste of seeing how His plan is unfolding. It's exciting. I can consider a day a good day if I learned something about men and women of today or men and women of history that makes me marvel at God's involvement.

Yesterday at the 'Life Group' (adult Sunday School) at the SBC church in my hometown I've been trying to be obedient in attending, the executive pastor dropped by to share a story having to do with the church's practice of "prayer walking."

Prayer walking is not something mystical. It is simply going out and walking around the community while praying for the people in the houses etc as you pass them by. The motivation is to connect the petitioner with the real world in a tangible way (praying from home is just as effective because God is the One who answers), so that as they go around, they get a sense of the needs of the community so that they have a better idea of what to pray for. Basically it's an immersive activity to help you target your prayers more specifically. It's not in any way suggestive of the idea that your prayers become more 'powerful' because you're doing a sort of ritual. Nope. Not at all. The whole goal is to make you more personally involved, and incite you to feel more compassion for the people you're praying for.

The executive pastor shared that he'd been at a retreat in New York (state) with his family some time ago, but recently. Also staying there was another family he's gotten to know, and the husband is an elder in Tim Keller's church. If I remember the details, this man suggested to him that someone he knew was conducting a prayer walk in the Bronx River Housing Projects in the early morning one day that week. The man's name was Demas, and was a former felon who'd become passionate about starting a church in the Bronx. 

My executive pastor showed up in the early morning, and walked with Demas and some other men as they prayed over the people there. He shared with us that he was affected by hearing how they were praying--one example was that they'd literally ask, "God, we ask that you put a spirit of preserving life in the pregnant women, today, that they will not choose to have an abortion today." Raw stuff. 

As they continued, a man came walking toward them. His name was Bill, a friend of Demas. Somewhat confused at first, but becoming more interested the more he heard, this was the conversation the executive pastor overheard:

Demas: How was your trip?
Bill: It was great. I got to hold the baby!

Bill's trip was to Khartoum, Sudan. He has been friends with the foreign minister of Sudan for some years, and he had been one of a group of high profile people who traveled there to contend for the release of Meriam Ibrahim. Her daughter had begun crying while he was there with her, and Bill asked to hold the baby. Apparently he has a way with kids. Final details about Bill from the story: he hadn't grown up in NYC (PA or NJ, I forget which), but if I recall, he had had a heart for the lost of that city and is an elder together with Demas in a church they started. I could be off on some of these last details; they're an attempt to piece together the stuff I heard that didn't fit into the linear storyline.

Bill offered Meriam a place to stay, and that's where her family is now headed. The exec. pastor pointed out that that's a dangerous thing to do. The entire world knows that he's harboring this woman, now, and it's a small thing for a cleric somewhere to issue a fatwa demanding his death and there will be tens of thousands of true believers hoping to secure their place in muslim-heaven by killing him. But this didn't even enter into his decision. It was an easy choice to make, because it was made on faith. It was the right thing to do.

Bill and the foreign minister do not affirm each other's beliefs; they are honest with each other and think the other is wrong, but they have been able to be respectful of each others' person, over the years. When Meriam was in jail, Bill went to the foreign minister and told him "what you are doing is wrong," and used his influence to help get Ibrahim released.

Who would imagine that God would forge a friendship between a NYC pastor and an official in Sudan, so that one day one innocent person could be freed from the injustice of the Shariah Law? No one. But the One orchestrating world events is the same One who lays the groundwork, years and decades in advance, to effect the exact result He desires, in His sovereign will. It's heady. I'm amazed to hear of it.

It should be noted that Ibrahim's case was high-profile but that there are dozens and hundreds of Christians wrongly imprisoned in various countries around the world, and they need prayer as well. We might not know what happens with them, as we can with a case like Meriam's, but I'm nearly totally confident that we'll find out one day. Meanwhile, God is still in control and has the power of life and death in His hands. Nothing comes to us or any other person that He did not do, or permit. So let us confidently trust in Him for all things, and not neglect to pray for the things which are outside of our control. Nothing's outside of His.

~ Rak Chazak

PS Out of curiosity, I searched to see if Bill was already a known man. Otherwise I would have changed his name to protect him. But when I found that there was a top-tier Google result telling about what I have just been reporting, I was left with no further concern that I would jeopardize his safety:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ny-pastor-meets-meriam-ibrahim-in-sudan-offers-to-help-bring-and-take-care-of-her-family-in-us-123588/

I also misspelled Dimas' name at first (no time to correct it right now, gotta get to work)
http://www.christiannewstoday.com/Christian_News_Report_9005006.html

Treatise: Confessions of a Smart Guy

Originally posted in late December 2012 in Journal Green. Names have been changed.

In Journal 8 earlier, I was writing about how I mistakenly overestimate people’s capacity to understand me (and in many cases in online arguments, the ability to think clearly and reason logically). I’m averse to thinking about this, because I realize I’ll have a tendency to be dismissive and “look down on” their intelligence. This is rather arrogant, since I’d be acting as if I’m so much smarter and wiser and more knowledgeable. But then, experience has repeatedly proven to me that I AM smarter than most people I encounter, and this makes things confusing for me. In theory, I realize acknowledging that you’re smarter or wiser than someone else/others isn’t inherently arrogant or presumptuous, if it happens to be true. So the danger then is in thinking highly of oneself for being smart. If I want to tell myself that I’m more intelligent than the vast majority of people out there, in order to make sense of reality (mind you), then I must do this in such a way that I do not think of myself as being better than others because of it. Pan out for a bit and consider that this is difficult or impossible to do if you don’t believe in God. If your universe is naturalistic and materialistic, what is your standard for determining if something is ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ or if one thing is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than another? Your estimate of worth would likely be pragmatic or merit-based. Without God, if you are smarter than someone else, then clearly you are better than they are, at least in that one sense! This kind of reasoning is inevitable when you pay no heed to the Cross and what it means—in this context, what it means about human goodness and the question of what makes one thing ‘better’ than another.

Consider briefly some evidence to confirm my reasoning here. Men without the Spirit—or men denying the Spirit’s power—will inevitably reveal that they think they are better than you (if not you per se, then at least someone). Christlessness is arrogance, because the fruit of the Spirit is humility [note: I checked and this one is not directly mentioned by name in the Galatians 5 passage, but it certainly wouldn’t be inconsistent]. Atheist Libertarian Guy thinks he’s better than me because he has more money—was born into more privilege. Grumpy Old Man thinks he’s better than me because of his age and life experience (and strangeliest, his daughter’s accomplishments). Depraved Greek Orthodox Guy thinks he’s better than me because of his academic accomplishments and (supposed) intelligence (Grumpy also boasts of his two Master’s Degrees). These are the more obvious blokes of which I have recent memory. I posit that their desire to assert themselves as being better than me has its foundation in their lacking theological views. Both Grumpy and Depraved would claim to be christians, but assuredly believe in a works-based soteriology. Libertarian Jerk, not having the luxury of pretending to belong to the Church, naturally has only the works-based option open to him. But the Cross says that there are none who do good—none, then, who are good. We are all in the same bucket, believers and unbelievers alike. God the Father looks down from heaven and sees two kinds of people: bad people, and Jesus. That’s it! Being a Christian does not mean nor make (by definition) you a better person. It means you are better off.

Likewise, then, I can take this knowledge and apply it to my intellect. See, I only have this wonderful ability to think the way I do by the Grace of God. My intelligence is a gift from my Father. And salvation is also a gift from God. You can’t earn a gift, and receiving a gift is not because you’re better than those who did not receive it. A gift reflects on the character of the giver, not the recipient. And so, if all the things I have, salvation included, are free gifts from God, then in the same vein as of salvation, none of these gifts are an avenue for me to brag. They are not for me to think highly of myself, but of God. They are not occasion for me to boast, or to make my name great. What God has given, God can take away.

New to Diary of a Single Christian Guy: Post Series

                Today I'd like to introduce you to my very first one, “Owl City Allegory,” and note that while I’ve had themed posts turn up in sequence over time, I have yet to organize them together in a concerted “blog series.” This first one will draw on similar analytical methods as used in Poignant Music, for example, and that article may be interesting to readers who were unaware of it, buried as it is in the middle of a sequential, but unorganized logjam of 150+ posts.

Part I: Lyric Interpretation of Owl City Songs

                As we begin, I want to explain that these are going to be intentionally pigeon-holed at times, after enough lyrical evidence has convinced me of the possibility of an allegorical interpretation, in order to suggest a way for the whole song to cohere together into one thematic message. These are my own interpretation, and I don’t insist that each conclusion must be what Adam Young (the writer, singer and producer behind Owl City) had in mind when writing, but the point will be that, intentionally or unintentionally, he has crafted the lyrics so that they can indeed be validly interpreted as a subtle theological message, without going to interpretive extremes. I believe my analysis will be fair, and I will point out shortcomings where I consider them to be. It must also be noted that Owl City music, especially the early variety, is characterized by whimsicality, and in many cases they are impossible for a bystander to interpret in the sense that they can be at all sure what Adam was thinking when he inserted those lines. However, Adam is a sincere Christian and based on his public expressions of faith on his blog and elsewhere, I don’t believe he would object to people’s attempts to find hidden spiritual meaning in the texts of his songs, so long as the conclusions didn’t amount to doctrinal confusion, of course. And with that preface, this endeavor of mine is primed to begin. 

Side note:

One of the benefits of Adam’s meticulously preserved formlessness (he has said so comparably little about his personal life and views that one article about him online even called him “completely non-political”) is that his fans have the opportunity to see themselves in him, even though they are very different in terms of life experience. There have even been some who claim he's gay--not as an insult to his music, but in a desire to more deeply connect with him in a shared identity. As it turns out, melancholy musings on inexpressible yearnings by an eccentric mind is something many share. We’re all a little bit odd, and the oddities in Adam’s lyrics, combined with their optimism and hope, have in my view given a lot of young people something to connect to and lift them up. They have, in Adam’s music, an alternative to contemporary offers of sympathy for their weirdness and desire to know they’re not alone. Consider Lady Gaga’s fans, affectionately (?) called “Little Monsters” by the artist. There is also a community of the strange and the burdened in her fan base, but I have yet to hear of someone vomiting on Adam during a concert. There is a huge difference in how the base is encouraged: Owl City doesn’t shy from quirkiness but it never encourages listeners to fester in despondency and feed their discouragement. So much of pop culture encourages “acting out” as a way to deal with personal struggles. Adam never has. I’m incredibly grateful to Adam simply for what I know he’s done to the young adult culture. He’s shown that if you’re sad, you don’t have to express it through attention-seeking delinquency or self-abasement. It’s okay to be sad, lonely, afraid and a little bit different from “everybody else.” These are normal things, but they don’t mean that your life is over. Instead, his songs offer a thoughtfully different approach.

It’s almost too easy for me to draw similarities between me and Adam. We’re both tall, though he’s taller. We’re both chronically uninvolved in long-term relationships, though we’ve both had romantic experiences in the past, and clearly think about love a lot. Which may be due to the age factor. He’s roughly 3 years older, so a lot of the things we’re dealing with in life are bound to be similar. We're both introverts and spend a lot of time alone just thinking or working on various projects. Hopeful optimists, but cynical realists. Adam deals frankly with issues like shame, death, depression etc and ‘calls it like it is,’ but he doesn’t wallow in grief, he looks up and always has a positive angle to the calamity around him. Or is it me? I am so passionately a fan of what I call “cynical optimism” (for an example, read the whole book of Ecclesiastes in a straight shot). You can’t ignore the flawed and terrible things in the world, but you can’t submit to the idea that those things will have the last word. In Adam’s lyrics, I see the innocence and childlike glee that I know at times, in my clearer thinking moments. The public face of Adam, and his song persona, is like the very best of me—if I also could sing. In the vein of “meditating on what is good and excellent and pure (Philippians 4:8),” listening to his songs can elevate my mind to dwell more naturally on positive things over negative, and in a very direct yet subtle way, make me a better person. I enjoy the occasional metal-rock song, but I can’t listen to that stuff all the time. Part of the reason is that they nearly never contain any hope. But Adam’s songs contain hope. And there’s a very simple and subliminal reason for that. It’s what I intend to show in this blog series. So let’s get started. :)

~ Rak Chazak

A Comparison of Single People to Young Children

Here's the main idea I had, which came to me this Sunday after getting to watch young married couples together for the second time that day:

                Young children observing their parents/adults are like single people observing young married couples. The shared way in which they observe and learn is this: it is an instinctive directional growth, to mature into that which you are inherently geared to mentally absorb everything you see about.

Kids are not destined to always remain children. It's commonly known that children notice things that their parents or other adults don't expect them to. And besides simply observing that they pick up on things that they're not often given credit for, I want to posit that the reason kids are like this is because God has geared them that way from the very start. It's in their spiritual DNA (nothing mystical is meant by that) to be influenced by and model behavior of adults. They're made this way so that they'll grow up instinctively, as opposed to growing up being a conscious decision for them to attempt to begin to do. Of course, I'm not denying that children exercise their moral agency in acting out what they imprint from adults. But ask a child why he does what he does, and good luck! They just do. It isn't conscious. 

This brings me to my parallel. While the child might not be conscious of their inherent predilections, I'm older and have spent much time analyzing why I do things, think things, and how and why circumstances are and ought to be. Absent a conversation partner, in moments of solitude I have ample time to devote to introspection. I am, perhaps uniquely among most people my age, or people in general, very capable of psychologically analyzing myself on multiple deep levels. [Caveat: certainly, my conclusions are colored in part by my experience] This is just to preface what I say next: I have noticed myself observing young people in relationships, whenever possible, and I've pondered this and suppose that I'm interested in learning anything--not anything in particular, because I don't know what there is to learn--that I can, by watching how the husband and wife interact with each other, and how they talk about each other in the other's absence, for instance. Body language. Etc.

I settled on an analogy with the young child, because I recognized that it wasn't a primarily rational choice, but an instinct. And also, I have not noticed this with younger people, or people who are clearly in inappropriate or destructive relationships. That led me to hypothesize that I'm naturally geared toward "looking up to" young people who are a few years older than me (3-10), and are married, in a seemingly healthy and joyous relationship. Ah, and that they are or appear to be Christians of sound theology. As you can see, these are all things I yearn for myself--perhaps the child does not know that he yearns to be an adult, but perhaps he does. That's an interesting thought in itself, worth exploring--and so it wouldn't be unreasonable to me at all, if I were to find out that single people do "imprint" on married people. I have some sense of this already, in that unmarried women, perhaps Hollywood-stereotypically, obsess over bridal catalogues and weddings/dresses, because that's what they're drawn to; they want to be a bride. Maybe I'm just experiencing a male version of that. And more low-key, because Hollywood hasn't told me what to think (something to be grateful for, and if I find a lady who hasn't been influenced by the modern conception of what a wedding must be like, sparks may fly...is that phrase usable in a positive way?). 

Keeping an eye out for a good relationship by keeping an eye on good relationships, 

~ Rak Chazak

Journal Entry: Discovering, Then Struggling, With Masturbation and Fantasies

WARNING: Explicit Content

Notice: the original post that was here has been removed in order to protect the privacy of the author for the time being. It may yet one day return, but not until he's settled with a job and a good reputation in a community somewhere :)

In the meantime, a couple of observations have been excerpted out of the original article that may still be of interest.

*    *    *    *    *

Being an excerpt of a longer Journal entry I wrote that turned into a private confession to my future wife, this is written in the first person, and it's far too hard to edit it to change that aspect of it. Here's what I hope you get out of it, whether young or old, male or female, sexually active or not: some perspective you may not have thought of:
* how we try to justify lusts
* what's so insidiously wrong about porn
* the importance of not making the struggle for purity primarily about bettering yourself but about depending on Christ for your deliverance
* perhaps you'll get something out of this that I can't even anticipate. I hope you do.

Where Is the Intolerance?

I still remember the first time I was "cut off" by someone because they didn't tolerate my political or religious views (if you do it right, they're essentially one and the same).

I encountered a lot of information I'd never known before, in the Spring of 2010, and I was excited to share it -- surely others would want to know the truth as well! I was naive. I posted articles from Answers in Genesis and ICR that I found interesting. Many other web articles from obscure sites I don't remember, also. 

One time, I posted some quotes by Margaret Sanger that definitively proved her to be racist, on Facebook. A "friend" of mine immediately left a comment under the link, chiding me for not being open minded to the truth, and telling me "you are being unfriended. Do not approach me on campus."  Another time, I made a comment to the effect that I had just learned that a "drag show" was not a car racing competition, after all, and that I didn't like how a particular segment of the population would reappropriate words for their own use, defying their given definitions (by which I was referring to other words like "queer," "faggot," "gay," etc). This inspired another person to post "wow. Unfriended," under that post.

Shortly after that, I encountered online mobbing and did not feel that I could trust many of the people who had access to my private information via Facebook, so I slowly purged most of the people and eventually closed the account for about a year. Consequently, I wasn't publicly defriended by anyone else after that. If there were others who did it quietly, I never found out.

Today, I was having an extensive debate over email about feminism and gender roles with a young woman my age. I was surprised when she suddenly made this comment:

I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who does not believe that I am capable of rational thought just because I am a woman, worthy of questioning him because I am a woman, or capable of debating him. In fact, we are not having a debate. You are simply attempting to instruct me so that you can feel more manly, and that thought frankly makes me want to vomit. If I want instruction from men, I have a wonderful father who can give me advise, and I have a number of male professors whom I respect very highly. If you feel that that you are being oppressed, I am sorry, but I assure you that you are not being systematically oppressed by women because you are a man. If some women don't like you, it's because of the way that you view them and the way that you imagine an ideal relationship with them would go. If gay people don't like you, it's because you think that their sexual orientation is a choice, that their sexual orientation is evil, that they deserve to be lonely for the rest of their lives or else that some heterosexual person deserves to spend the rest of their lives married to somebody who isn't attracted to them just so that your jerkass version of the Judeo-Christian God will be happy, that they do not deserve the same opportunities that you do, and that their sexual orientation makes them irrational and violent. So, you're not being oppressed, if oppressed you are really being at all, for your maleness or your sexual orientation. You are just pissing off people because of your ridiculous prejudices.

Nice unknowing you,

Of course, many of the statements she made in that diatribe are willful misunderstandings of what I had said to her. It is certainly more convenient to reject an imaginary version of something than to deal with a complicated reality that doesn't suit your expectations.

It made me think. I have never angrily cut contact with someone else because of their strong beliefs. On the contrary, it appears that those who angrily cut others out of their lives are those who are politically liberal and theologically unBiblical.

Alfonzo Rachel, a black conservative Christian commentator, made an observation in a Youtube video to the effect that "democrats tend to believe what makes them angry. I believe what I believe, and it doesn't make me angry," and that that serves as one additional confirmation of the correctness of his belief. I have to agree. It's not so much a logically impervious argument, but it's a good point to consider -- wouldn't the truth, on some level, be emotionally satisfying? If your belief system makes you angry, maybe it's not a good belief system.

Those who are not Christian tend to be the intolerant ones. The irony of conservatives and Christians being accused of bigotry and intolerance would be laughable if it weren't for the sad fact that the people who make these statements are either trying to excuse themselves, or severely deluded. It's only funny at first. Then the realization makes me sad. 

~ Rak Chazak

Theological Lyrics Thursday: Friel-Proof Christian Music

Hello Internet,

12 days after starting blogging, my post entitled The Wretched Podcast is the most popular, due largely to Elizabeth Prata's encouragement from a blog post on her website, http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/. In that post, I made mention of Todd Friel's radio program, and used it to springboard into a discussion of song-lyrics in Christian music and the danger of judging it by how it sounds rather than what it says. 

The idea hit me that I could present a few songs once a week, as a regular upload, to encourage any potential readers to check out songs that can offer them not just a good listen but also theologically meaty lyrics, to help us grow in our walk and remain 'heavenly minded.'

Since I can't limit myself to just one, here's what I'll do today--I'll make three categories:

1. Doctrinal Exposition -- this song emphasizes an important Biblical doctrine of some kind.
2. Good Idea -- this song delievers a message consistent with, or derived from, the Bible but isn't necessarily phrased in doctrinal language; less explicit, essentially.
3. Mostly Air -- this song may or may not have some redeeming qualities, but will be mostly fluff, with little or nothing to distinguish it as exclusively Christian music, and would be best avoided. However, in most cases you can get away with listening to it as long as it doesn't make up the vast bulk of your music library. 

Here comes the first batch:

Doctrinal Exposition: Children of God, by Third Day

+3 Brownie Points for having the singer look like the stereotypical 'Anglican' Jesus we see in paintings.

Here's what's good about the song: 

It emphasizes the doctrine of adoption -- the brief clip at the beginning emphasizes that point. The Bible says in Ephesians 1:5 that through Jesus Christ we (those who are saved) have been adopted as children of God into His family. Romans 8:14 says that "all who are led by the [Holy] Spirit are children of God." So the message is more than just sentimental, but an important Biblical truth to recognize. That's the great strength of Third Day's song. Extra credit is awarded for the manifold references to us being redeemed, the fact that we are "free from the judgment that we deserve," the implicit references to the Trinity through reference to the Father and the Son, and the correct identification of believers as Saints -- "we are the Saints, we are the Children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven," a bridge chorus that shows up later in the song.

In an age of deception and misinformation about who the Saints are, and who is a child of God, this song does a great service by emphasizing that both of these terms refer to believers in Jesus Christ, in contrast to Roman Catholic teaching that Saints are an elite, exclusive class of believers who have died and now answer prayers directed to them, and the false worldly misunderstanding that everyone on earth is a child of God, when in fact unbelievers are referred to as "children of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)

Good Idea: Blessings, by Laura Story

Here's what's good about the song:

It questions the mentality that says that God will make life into a cake-walk for every believer. It directly challenges the 'every day a Friday' attitude that expects Christians to be happy all the time and everything hunky-dory for them. It repeatedly questions, in several clever ways, whether the seemingly bad things in life may in fact be "blessings in disguise," reminding us that "this is not our home," and suggesting in one verse that "we doubt your goodness, we doubt your love, as if every promise from your word is not enough." This challenges us to be careful to not lose faith when prayers are not immediately answered with the relief we seek. It points the listener away from their material circumstance and refocuses them on God's promises. This is not 'your best life now.' Our best life is a future life after death, promised to us by God, for those who persevere in faith through the trials of life. (James 1:3) (Hebrews 6:12)

Take-away verse:

What if my greatest disappointments, and the aching of this life, is a revealing of a greater thirst this world can't satisfy?

Mostly Air: 10,000 Reasons by Matt Redman (has redeeming qualities)

There are many songs out there that aren't terribly BAD, they're just not full of theology. In this case, I've chosen one of the better ones; I have this one in my library and I'm not worse off for it.

The main message of this song can be boiled down to a single verse: no matter what happens, praise the Lord continually without giving up. Hey, that's a great message. But if you remember my suggestion in the article The Wretched Podcast, if you remove the brief shout of "Jesus!" at the end of the song, then this song can be sung by Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics; and when even the monotheistic versions of Hinduism can appropriate it, it means that it's not a remarkable song--it isn't distinctively Christian.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the song is taboo, or terrible. But if you were trying to casually witness to someone on Facebook, and were going to use a song out of these three that I've given today, to give to someone in one of the religions I mentioned above, then you would do well to choose the first one in the list. This one can be fine to listen to to worship God, but be wary of the cumulative effect that many such songs can have on your personal theology.

The most theologically distinctive the song gets is the single line, "You're rich in love, and You're slow to anger." It implies, but doesn't exactly scream "Jesus," so be wary of getting watered down. 

As long as you're cautious, you can listen to music with watered-down lyrics, or shall I say, with a low doctrine-to-verse quotient? But when you're setting priorities, do your best to seek out songs with a more complete message than just "worship God."

Tune in next week for a second installment and three (or two, depending on how you're reading this) more songs!

~ Rak Chazak

Passover: A Shared Holiday, With Different Interpreted Messages for Jews and Christians

Some people crave chocolate. It's their "guilty pleasure." 

Political Similarities between conservative Jews and Christians

Metaphorically speaking, for me that's reading conservative blog satire. The news is depressing enough as it is, so getting the big picture, without having to try to guess what the television is telling you that's true and what's false, together with a healthy dose of humor to mock the outrageousness of the situation, is something I recommend for all conservatives, and all Christians.

And some of the best conservative satire I've found on the Internet is the product of one man: Daniel Greenfield, a NYC-dwelling Orthodox Jewish guy who writes more in a day than many people talk. Far from only producing satire, however, Greenfield's blog turns out amazingly profound commentaries on just about every aspect of national and global politics. Prodigious, that is the word to describe him.

Why'd I emphasize that he was Orthodox Jewish? Because the nature of our worldviews is such that for a true-believing Christian and a true-believing Jew, that aspect is the "only" aspect of our beliefs which diverges. In nearly everything else that can be imagined, our political beliefs are almost perfectly aligned. Consequently, it's enjoyable to read what he writes because I very rarely find things to disagree with him on, and am able to learn a lot from his insights about history and politics, without having to question his interpretation, as much as with other sources.

Incidentally, I put "only" in quotes, because to minimize the theological differences between modern Judaism and Biblical Christianity would be a monumental oversight, since these beliefs are in no way casual preferences of those that choose them, and their implications are massively profound with eternal consequences. From a theological point of view, I look at Orthodox Judaism and think "so close, yet so far away." In a purely political perspective, however, we're nearly identical. 

Today, I want to try my best to make a few theological points using Mr. Greenfield's recent blog post about Passover.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Analysis of From Slavery to Freedom, by Daniel Greenfield

Greenfield's main points from the article:

It's possible to be enslaved without being physically bound. Slavery of the mind leaves a man physically free to act but limited by his mental enslavement to only do the things which please his taskmasters. He thinks he is free but he isn't.

Passover does not simply remind the Jews that they escaped slavery at one time in the past, but it embodies the realization that freedom from slavery was and is a continual journey. I would add that this hearkens to the theme of the book of Judges, that after being delivered, a new generation would rise up, forget God, and be turned over to judgment. The famous Reagan quote, that 'freedom must be fought for and defended by each generation,' also applies.

Pharaoh did not have to be simply defeated, but discredited. That is what the 10 Plagues accomplished. They showed that Pharaoh was not God, but only God was God. 

"Ritual is the gateway to a state of mind. A ritual of freedom only succeeds when it invokes a state of mental freedom. Otherwise it is a rite, a practice, a habit whose codes may help some future generation unlock its meaning, but which means little today." 

 As a Jew, Daniel Greenfield says that Passover is a journey; it's a beginning and an end but the Jews are always in the middle.  In him saying this, I perceive a nascent understanding that there is 'unfinished business' in the celebration of the Hebrew holidays. I suspect that Daniel may have a future united Jerusalem led by free Jews in mind. I acknowledge that that day is coming, but Passover is pointing to something even greater than that.

Amazing Continuity

Let me elaborate on that ending note. I've had the privilege to speak with some Orthodox Jewish guys at my university, and I've gotten the impression that it is a common belief among Jews that they are awaiting a political salvation. They, like their forefathers, the Pharisees (often seen as the bad guys in the Gospel, though Jesus' criticism of them was not for their theology--in Matthew 23 He says "the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore do what they tell you," (Matthew 23:2-3) rather, His criticism of them was for their hypocrisy and their addition of man-made interpretations on top of the Law (Matthew 15:8-9)(Isaiah 29:13)), do not accept the Suffering Servant as their savior because they aren't looking for Him. They're looking for a political leader who will rebuild the Temple and restore Jerusalem. (incidentally, the passage about the 'suffering servant' is interpreted by Orthodox Jews to refer to Israel)

As Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9) Judaism has not evolved. Not only are the Jews remarkable for their preservation of ancient manuscripts, and the preservation of their lineages and culture, but also in their commitment to the faith of their fathers. We Christians today are by and large met with Jews who are essentially the same as the Jews which Peter and the other Apostles encountered in the book of Acts, and which Jesus walked with and spoke to in the Gospels.

It's truly fascinating.

At the same time, as a Christian I am grieved somewhat by the thought that my Jewish friends are setting their sights too low. What is offered to them is more than just a kingdom, but eternal life and God Himself. How I wish that they would see this.

The Missing Pieces

It's such an eerie thing to listen to someone talk about something and come so close to figuring everything out, when you know what the finished puzzle looks like. I yearn for these Orthodox Jewish guys to put all the pieces together and see the whole picture.

No one who understands the nature of beliefs that are exclusive and contain promises of reward and judgment would be offended by the expressed desire by someone with such a belief that they (the first person) would come to know 'the truth.' Of course it can strike you as insulting because it supposes that what you believe is wrong, but it's genuine, whether their belief is true or not. 

I’ve always said, you know, that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize.  I don’t respect that at all.  If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that, well, it’s not really worth telling them because it would make it socially awkward . . . How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize?  How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?  I mean, if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you.  And this is more important than that . ~ Penn Jilette, outspoken atheist

Of course I believe your theology is wrong. Otherwise we wouldn't call ourselves different names. But I won't be afraid to speak on this issue, even if you'll dislike me for it, Daniel -- and it's 'cause I love ya. :)

The Passover clearly points to Christ. It symbolizes the necessary covering of the blood of a sacrifice that is necessary for us to escape God's judgment (Hebrews 9:22) (Leviticus 17:11). It foreshadowed the later institution of formal sacrifices which temporarily covered the sins of the faithful and prefigured a coming perfect sacrifice.

Jews would disagree with that latter part, about the perfect sacrifice. But I'd like to offer these passages for consideration:

"Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams." (1 Samuel 15:22)
"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats." (Isaiah 1:11)
"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6)
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3)

I decided not to include the passages which warn of judgment when the Israelites had gone astray, lest the rebuttal be offered that the verses above do not refer to sacrifices at all times. To my knowledge, the ones I've selected do.

God doesn't want sacrifices. I suppose that the Jewish explanation for why sacrifices are not now offered is because there is no Temple. I want to tell you that the real reason that sacrifices are not needed any longer is because Jesus Christ has been offered up, "once for all," (Hebrews 7:27) for all people who will take Him as their substitute--their scape-goat, if you will.

Daniel speaks an ironic truth when he says, "[ritual] is a rite, a practice, a habit whose codes may help some future generation unlock its meaning, but which means little today."  He doesn't realize how right he is. The Jewish holidays were given for a purpose. Their practice became habit and its true meaning has been lost, but looking back, a willing spirit can see the scarlet thread running through history, connecting the memorials with that which they commemorate and prefigure. Daniel doesn't understand that he himself is included in the group of those who are not fully free but only ritually free. Like he said, "ritual is the gateway to a state of mind." I would say that the Jewish rituals are meant to point toward something greater and more profound than themselves.

Until the understanding dawns on any given Jew, individually, that the meaning of all their rituals and holy days is to point toward a Messiah who will not only give them an everlasting kingdom--that's just the icing on the cake--but who will save them from their sins and reconcile them to their heavenly Father, the Passover will remain a journey that they remain perpetually stuck in the middle of, unable to come to the end and find rest.

Hebrews 10:
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. ² For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.³ But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. ⁴ For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.¹¹ And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹² But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³ from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. ¹⁴ For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:1-18)

My prayer is that my Jewish brothers through Adam, whom I love dearly, would have their eyes and hearts opened so that they may also be my brothers in Christ. 

~ Rak Chazak