therealpatsparadigm

Musings on the Death of bin Laden

2011-05-03T13:35:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or is there something unsettling about the gleeful way everyone is talking about Osama bin Laden's death? Shouldn't we simply be solemnly satisfied that justice was done? Should we ever be so delighted and whimsical about the death of another human being? Isn't it unnerving that we can turn another human being, created in the image of God, regardless of what he has done, into such a caricature that we have absolutely no feelings about the grave reality of what just happened, namely, that a man just entered into eternity without knowing God... Is protecting ourselves from another terrorist attack really more important than preaching the gospel? Shouldn't we have been loving our enemy and praying for those who persecute us?

The Humility of a Monk

2011-04-28T21:10:00.001-07:00

So, I just got back from a 48 hour silent retreat at a monastery in Oceanside. I must say that it was quite an experience. So much so that I wanted to blog about it... and I haven't blogged in over a year. On my first night there, a Monk, Father Paul, came up to me while I was eating dinner and invited me to have dinner with him and his mother. So they asked me about myself and why I was there - if I was Catholic... For the first time in my life I actually felt weird saying I wasn't Catholic. Usually I really enjoy talking about myself. I am my favorite topic. But I had this burning question the whole time I was talking to them, I wanted to ask Father Paul - who looked about my age - why he decided to be a monk and how long he'd been a monk. Eventually, I felt like they had run out of questions for me and I asked him...

Turns out his story is not much different from mine. He felt called by God while he was young, ran from the call and eventually, decided that to follow where God led was better than to run. He joined the monastery when he was 23. Can you believe that?? 23 and making a lifelong commitment like that. But I found out you don't actually make the lifelong commitment until four years later. You must live the life of a monk, go through a period that they refer to as 'formation' before you are able to commit. Father Paul says that he has seen many come through looking for "three hots and a cot" only to decide that it wasn't worth it. And after only being there for 2 days I can see why. They pray together every day, all day long, starting at 5:30am for an hour. Then at 7:00am (after only a half hour break in between) they come back and pray for another 35min and then they eat breakfast. At 11:00am they have Mass - except on Sunday, then it is at 10:30am. After Mass is lunch and I think the monks pray by themselves in the afternoon for something called Sext. That prayer wasn't on my prayer calendar in my room so I assumed that I was not invited. Then they pray again at 5:00pm for 45 min followed by dinner and then a brief break and Compline prayers at 8:00pm.

I started with them at 5pm my first day (Tuesday evening), but by the 7:00am prayers on Thursday morning I could feel my spirit being over it. And that's when I realized just how much these men had their spirits tamed by the Spirit of God... I suppose I can imagine getting through that kind of life in the power of the flesh, but it seems like your flesh would scream at you for some kind of satisfaction of its desires. On that last day my flesh sure did. I ran to the dining hall and stuffed the bacon, eggs and corn bread into my mouth so fast you would have thought I was a crack addict jamming a needle into his arm.

Father Paul was on kitchen duty that week. So he led the prayer before each meal and made sure that there was cold water to drink and that every gust had sat down to eat their meal before he got his meal. And when I looked at what he was eating... Man! Talk about portion control. He was eating a reasonable portion. Also, I wish I could describe his calm, thoughtful demeanor in a way that would actually enable you to understand what I experienced around him. I was struck by it. He has the same demeanor during the prayer times too. I ended up eating with him and his mother for three straight meals. dinner my first night, breakfast the next morning and then lunch after that. His mom was a delightful fiery Italian from New York, with all the stereotypical aspects you can imagine would come along with that.

During breakfast on my second day (Wednesday), I asked Father Paul what someone would do if they wanted to be his friend. And he blushed. He was genuinely taken aback and he said something like, "well... I don't know why anyone would want to be my friend. If someone wants to talk to me about personal things they are welcome to of course... but if you mean to just talk and hang out... well... I guess they could schedule a time with the porter to have a cup of coffee. I'd like a cup of coffee..." I couldn't believe it. He was genuinely and obviously struck by my overture of friendship. Another person from my program at Talbot, Drew, was there and he witnessed Father Paul's reaction. I didn't get a chance yet to confer with Drew but I'm sure he saw the same honest, surprised and delighted response as I did. I think Father Paul would love it if someone came to the Prince of Peace Abby and just wanted to have a cup of coffee with him... To get to know him.

After that interaction with him, I was pretty convinced that no one had ever really made an overture of friendship like that to him. So I found it very interesting when Drew went up to say goodbye to him that Father Paul said to him something to the affect of,"if you ever want to stop by and get a cup of coffee." It was a vulnerable thing to say, but he said it in humility and without fear. With Drew gone after lunch on my second day and with Father Paul's mom leaving then too, I figured it would be good to actually be silent during my meal times, since I was on a silent retreat. So I went up to Father Paul and ostensibly said goodbye. I let him know I was going to actually be silent for the remainder of my stay and that I would be sitting in the silent portion of the dining hall - the place I would have sat that first night if I'd known it existed... But I am sure glad I didn't because I would have hated to of missed out on getting to know Father Paul. For the remainder of my time there I got a smile and head nod from him as he served us all humbly.

Finally, when my time was complete, I did go up to Father Paul and say that I was leaving, and I told him that it was a pleasure to have met him. He shook my hand and returned the compliment and then he said, "I'm always open to a cup of coffee..." And I told him that I would like that too and I left. But this humble man who served me for two days sure made an impression on me. Here is a man who, at least has a degree to the equivalent of the one I am going for and may even have a doctorate in theology, serving and working and living a simple life. And I know its possible to take a lot of pride in the life of a monk. They are well respected by everyone that comes through there. If someone was a lifelong Catholic, I think there would be a sense of awe about meeting these men. But I got the feeling that for Father Paul, none of that stuff mattered.

Should art made by Christians be labeled “Christian?”

2010-06-13T14:38:00.000-07:00

I watched a movie last night that was produced, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood. In it he is a self reliant, smoking, selfish, obstinate, adulterous man who is in caught up in a chaotic, unsustainable lifestyle where he frantically is clutching after his youth and desperately trying to find value and meaning in his life through "faith" in himself and his abilities. There is probably no way you will ever be able to guess which movie I'm talking about because this pretty much sums up every character that Clint Eastwood plays. The movie also had Dennis Leary and James Woods portraying broken and lifeless men whose narcissism and compulsions control their lives. The beauty of this is that none of these negative qualities are shied away from, they are portrayed in a way that is real and believable. Foul language is used because it is necessary to give form to the characters. Violence is shown appropriately because it was necessary for furthering the plot and character building yet avoids being gratuitous. Sexuality is hinted at and shown in a way that avoids titillation. However, because the movie was gritty and honest in its portrayal of these characters and their relationships it drew you in so that gratuitous violence and overt sexuality were not necessary to maintain audience interest.

The movie was True Crime. In this movie Clint Eastwood's character is an ornery newspaper reporter who works for a crass editor (James Woods) and is sleeping with his co-worker's (Dennis Leary) wife. He is also an ex-drunk (he has been sober for 2 months) with a failing marriage and a young daughter who he does care about but not enough to make her a priority in his life. In spite of all of this, the audience roots for him because Clint Eastwood is able to lace him with likability and he provides glimpses of goodness in him which makes the audience hope for his redemption.

He is assigned to do a human interest story on an inmate on death row set to be executed that night. This inmate, Frank Beecham, is a black man accused of shooting a pregnant clerk at a small grocery store in Oakland. Frank Beecham is a likable character. He is shown to be honest, full of integrity and character. The guards seem to really like him, the warden obviously likes him and his wife and child have stood by him through this whole ordeal believing him to be innocent as he claims and hoping for a miracle. The audience finds out through the telling of the story that Frank used to be a small time criminal with burglary and assault convictions in his past, but that once he met wife he became a "born again" and supposedly changed his ways. Frank's upright manner allows the audience to believe that his character transformation was, in fact, genuine - although, it is difficult to see how he could have not been guilty of the crime. The plot takes of when Clint Eastwood has a sneaking suspicion that Frank is innocent, a suspicion garnered completely from the evidence and his "nose" and not from having ever met Frank. Also, since Eastwood's character is now sober, his "nose" is working right and he can put his "faith" in it again.

The audience then roots for Eastwood to find the elusive key piece of evidence in order to free Frank and in hopes of it also leading to some form of redemption for Eastwood's character. Rooting for Frank is easy, he is the kind of man that we all wish we could be more like and who deserves justice. The beauty of this movie is that the solution for Eastwood's chaotic life is presented in a very unpreachy way by juxtaposing him with Frank Beecham. The solution to Eastwood's dilemma is for him to be more like Frank, to have what Frank has - which the movie tells us is Jesus Christ. The very last scene of the movie, after an encounter with Frank Beecham, Eastwood looks at his half smoked cigarette, looks at Frank Beecham walking away in the arms of his wife with his child following lovingly behind and then puts out the cigarette and walks away as if acknowledging that he needs to quit and that he needs to be more like Frank Beecham...

After watching this movie, I was so blown away by what I had just seen and I was convinced that the movie was written by a Christian. So I watched the credits and learned that the movie was an adaptation from a novel by Andrew Klavan. So I looked up Andrew Klavan on Wikipedia and read this: “Klavan was born in New York City. His father was Gene Klavan, a New York City disk jockey and one-half of the radio show "Klavan and Finch." He grew up on Long Island with his three brothers. He was raised in the Jewish tradition by his parents, but he did not believe in any of the tenets of the faith and later said that he felt "dishonesty" and "shame" pretending to do so. He became an agnostic shortly after his Bar mitzvah. He later converted to Christianity.”

What this movie did that "Christian" movies do not do is that it presented the problem of sin clearly and realistically. You see the toll that sin is taking on Eastwood's character and those closest to him. The relationships in his life are shallow and bankrupt. One subplot is of him taking out a young female colleague and getting her to drink too much so he can try to get her to go to bed with him and she subsequently dies in a car accident driving home from the bar... "Christian" movies are too afraid to alienate a Christian audience with accurate depictions of sin consequently making them incapable identifying with an audience who knows they are worse off than the cookie cutter characters in a "Christian" movie. Also, without demonstrating the real emotional violence that sin causes, the solution to the sin problem offered by a "Christian" movie is trite and unconvincing. These movies also are not palatable to anyone but a devoutly Christian audience and thus are not able to work on the hearts of those who need the solution to sin the most. Whereas this movie left audience members wanting Eastwood's character to be more like Frank Beecham and I daresay they would walk away wanting to be more like Frank Beecham themselves... Which is all a movie could hope for right? A movie isn't going to convert anyone to Christianity but it could definitely leave someone a bit more in touch with their desire for what only Christ can provide... even if they don't leave consciously aware that Jesus is the answer to the question their heart has been asking their whole lives, at least they have moved closer to that realization than before watching the movie.

Does Christianity Teach That You Have to be Good to Obtain God's Favor?

2010-05-31T08:23:00.000-07:00

I posted this on my facebook wall the other day: on Jimmy Kimmel Live on Sun. during the "Aloha Lost" episode, Jimmy Kimmel said, "In a lot of religions, Christianity being one of them, the idea is that life is a test. That you go through your life and if you're good you go to heaven...and if you're bad you don't, you go to hell..." Is this what...you believe Christianity teaches?

I was bummed more of my non-Christian friends didn't comment on it. However, I can't blame them because looking at it now, it seems like kind of a trap. It is framed like an innocent question, yet it wouldn't be too hard to see that i was sitting there waiting to pounce like I lion on the unsuspecting non-Christian. Still, whether confirmed by my non-Christian friends or not, I do believe that the idea that Christianity teaches good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell is quite prevalent. Or, as my one non-Christian friend who responded said, "its saying, follow my rules and regulations and if u don't, i will despise you and forget all about you..." Yet, in her description here it seems like the negative aspect of the equation is taken one step further to where God doesn't just condemn those who do not live up to his standards, but goes so far as to despise them and forget them. This makes it seems like God is a child who didn't get what he wanted from people so he petulantly condemns them to hell. With the "forget all about you..." comment, I hear a desire for a transcendent being who doesn't forget all about you but doesn't make his forgetfulness contingent on whether or not humans can keep a set of rules that seem impossible to keep.

I hope my friend forgives me for this if I am wrong, but I'd like to rephrase her comment and expound upon it with what else I think is being communicated by it: "Christianity teaches that people must follow God's rules and regulations, even though the standards are too high for me or anyone I know to actually maintain. Which is totally unfair because I know I am weak and frail and I would love to have someone with God's power come alongside me and help me. But since I can't keep God's rules he is going to hate me and fling me into hell and forget all about me... Even though I would love for there to be a being who loves me in spite of my frailty and who wouldn't forget all about me. But since I believe Christianity teaches that God is petulant and demands that I keep rules that I know I can't keep, I would rather choose to believe he doesn't exist..."

The other option that non-Christians have is to conclude that the rules and regulations that God supposedly hands down through Christianity are not in fact wrong. However, I don't think anyone needs to try to convince anyone else that God's standards are in fact good because I don't think there is anyone out there who even lives up to their own standards for themselves. We all wish we are better than we are... That being the case, it seems even easier to see why, believing God to be as previously described, that non-Christians can so easily dismiss Christianity. Because everyone has a pretty good idea what God's rules and regulations are and they also have eyes to see that even Christians do not keep God's rules and regulations. And then they see Christians who they know don't keep God's standards condemning them for not keeping them either... Which just seems ridiculous. Therefore, Christianity is not true, otherwise, it would give people power somehow to actually keep God's rules.

So what does Christianity actually teach? Well, Christianity starts by confirming what we all know... That we don't even keep our own standards, let alone God's and that we all deserve to be punished for that. This is because God is perfectly holy and because of that, he would be unjust to turn a blind eye to our sin. Yet, he is also perfectly loving. He created us in his image - without sin and it was our parents who altered this dynamic by sinning and consequently plunging their descendants into sin. However, God loves us and desires to restore a relationship with us. In order to do so, he became the greatest victim of all of man's sin. God came down himself in the form of Jesus Christ. He came to earth and lived the perfect life that no human could and then died on the cross so he would be both just and the justifier of sinful man. Salvation then is not contingent on man keeping rules he is incapable of keeping but by simply believing that we are forgiven of our sin by a God who paid the penalty himself for our sin. Therefore, living righteously is not something a Christian does to attempt to earn God's favor and avoid his spite and forgetfulness, but it is a response to God's forgiveness. A response that comes from realizing just how much God has forgiven us and being so thankful for a salvation that is a free gift from God. As well as a being response to God's revealed wisdom because God's rules and regulations are not really rules and regulations but a revelation as to how to have a flourishing life. Just like most people would agree that using drugs are bad. They hurt your body, cost money, enslave through addiction and isolate and alienate us from each other. Therefore, even though they can be really fun, when our parents tell us not to use drugs they are simply telling us how to better live a flourishing life. God's laws are the exact same way.

Therefore, Christianity teaches just the opposite of what Jimmy Kimmel says. It teaches that no one can be good but can be forgiven that through faith in Jesus Christ. Then, their good deeds are a response to already having been made right with God as opposed to being an attempt to make oneself right with God on their own. And it just gets better from there. Once a right relationship with God is established through Christ, we can then enter into a daily relationship with God and commune with him. This communion with him is actually what fills our soul - not the sinful ways we attempt to fill our soul on our own. Through this, God will not despise us and God will not forget us - the desire to be remembered and loved in spite of our sinfulness is perfectly answered by Christianity.

Suffering From Affluence?

2010-04-13T17:48:00.000-07:00

Living in the United States and growing up privileged (by the world’s standards – certainly not by American standards) can sometimes make me think that I have never suffered. I have lived a pretty smooth sailing life. I have two thoughts on that. One is that yes, as far as the typical every day concept of suffering goes, I have not suffered. However, I actually think affluence is a form of suffering, except it is suffering without feeling it or noticing it. It’s like a frog that is put in a pot of water and then the burner is turned on. Eventually, he is suffering but doesn’t know it. The kind of suffering I am talking about is the suffering that comes from being deprived of the one thing that makes for true happiness, intimacy with Christ. I am surrounded by so much to tantalize my flesh, draw my attention and satiate my desires that I can barely fight off the grossly immoral choices. My flesh is tried daily just keeping my eyes and thoughts where they should be and spending my time in a godly way. The amount of energy it takes to just be at “par” righteously is staggering when you take into account the wickedness of my flesh and the opportunities that exist for it to have its way.
Some would say, “If that is suffering, give me more!” However, I ache for God to bring difficulties in my life which will help motivate me to shake off these chains. I dream of being a lean, mean fighting machine for Jesus but find myself every day beset by the same sins… The idea of existing in an environment where I am forced to strive just to live actually seems appealing to me. Of course, not appealing enough for me to make drastic changes in my life to make that a reality… I’m too busy ‘suffering’ in my affluence.
Living in affluence really affords a Christian the chance to see how wicked his own heart and flesh really are. And that is painful. Sure, it’s not physically painful and no one is going to consider me a martyr in the slightest. But it is emotionally draining and spiritually draining. I actually pray all the time that God will bring circumstances in my life that will force righteousness on me; real suffering. Because I am so sick and grieved by my sin. My sinfulness can actually paralyze me if I think about it too much. Then, in the meantime, I try and fail at changing and becoming a better man. Yet, if I’m really honest with myself, I kind of hope he doesn’t bring anything into my life because there is a surprisingly large part of me that is afraid that if he did bring that kind of pain and suffering into my life, that I would not be able to handle it. I have an intellectual belief that he will supply me with the grace I need to endure and I am confident that I am his child and that I have communed with his Spirit so I will endure… But I know how much energy it takes just to not backslide; I can’t imagine what it would be like to be in the midst of immense suffering. Yet, I also know that I have come a long way spiritually in my life and that even though it feels like I am fighting an impossibly difficult fight to grow and mature while at the same time not backsliding… It is very likely that the majority of the power being exerted in that effort is not my own.

Seminary... a model for public education?

2010-04-01T07:49:00.001-07:00

I recently took a midterm in my Theology 4 class for the eschatology (a study of the final events in history and the relevant biblical themes leading up to them) portion of the class. The midterm was open Bible, meaning we could have our Bibles with us. The professor passed out the exam and then prayed that God would be glorified in our taking of the test and that the Holy Spirit would be present... Then he left the room!! No moderator. No proctor. Nothing but us and the Holy Spirit...

Another aspect of my education there is the reading assignments. The long, laborious and many readings that I have to complete for each of my courses. Do you want to know how they grade me to see how if I did the readings (which usually account for approximately 1o% of my grade - this doesn't seem like too much until you consider that a 90% in the class is only a B...)? They grade you by having you fill out a form where you indicate what percentage of the reading you did do. That's it. You take tests with them out of the room and you have to tell them what percentage of the reading you did... You would think this would produce a wild abundance of cheating. I bet if you surveyed most masters courses throughout the country you would find that secular students, when given this freedom, would admit (anonymously of course) to taking full advantage of their professors lenience in a similar situation. However, in seminary... If I even think that I might have overstepped the bounds of what might be ethical in these circumstances, I am racked with guilt and am compelled to admit my possible wrongdoing to my professor...

You see, the professor doesn't even need to be in the room. He knows that if someone does take advantage of this freedom, whether they admit it to him/her or not, that the Holy Spirit is going to teach them a lesson they will never forget either way. He's actually fine with a student cheating if that's what they choose. I'm sure he would be saddened by it and would have rather the student chosen the narrow road to life rather than the wide road to destruction... But either way, he knows that the student will learn and grow and mature and become more like Christ because it is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes this ultimately and not him or the material being learned in class.

In a public school setting, the greater good is the school work, not the student's Christ-like-ness. The school work is an end unto itself as opposed to simply the means. In that kind of a situation, the school work then is given an inflated importance over and above the students character development and growth as a flourishing human being. Scores, progress and advancement are then promoted to a higher place that need be and you have students naturally doing whatever it takes to achieve the "greater good" and you then have professors expending much energy trying to protect the grades they give out in order for them to be valid... Because the grades they bestow upon the students also have an inflated importance over and above the student themselves. Don't get me wrong, grades are important and it is a good thing to excel and do well and strive for excellence, but "bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come." (1 Tim. 4:8).

With a proper perspective on what is important - character growth and growth in godliness being number one - and with the reliance on the Holy Spirit to be the one who actually accomplishes this - then you can have an environment where the professor needs to spend zero time seeking out to find cheaters and the student being led and prompted by the Holy Spirit will likely not choose to cheat, admit it if he did or learn greatly from it in the long run even if he chooses not to admit it. The school work, while important, really is secondary.

I have a blog

2010-03-24T21:13:00.000-07:00

I must admit that I have always wanted a blog. I've always wanted to be able to write whatever I wanted. The sad thing is that I don't write a blog because I'm afraid it won't be the most popular blog ever... You know, like that movie Julia & Julia where that girl starts writing a random blog about going through the Julia Childs cookbook and all of the sudden she has this throng of followers and is ultimately flung into a book deal and ends up making a living as a writer... all from a blog! I secretly hope that will happen to my blog.

I know that makes me sound narcissistic, but I imagine most bloggers want that. Seriously, if you have a blog don't lie to me and try and tell me that you don't want people to comment on your blog and that you don't want to have all kinds of "fans" who "subscribe" to your blog just to hear what you have to say. Because what you have to say is important to them. There is something intrinsic to the whole idea of blog that a person is crying out to be heard and paid attention to. I'm no different. Facebook is like blog light. Everyone who puts a post on Facebook is a little sad when a few hours goes by and no one comments on their post. I know I do. After a while you realize that your post has slid down to the bottom of the scroll screen and no one is going down that far to get it because you don't. And then you read those people who always put something funny and witty and think to yourself, "how do they do that?" And there's a little part of you that is jealous that you can't come up with funny witty stuff like that. Then you try to think of something like that and it just comes out inauthentic

"good bloggers don't need to think about what is good, they just blog about interesting shit like changing clothes"

Actual quote from my wife following her asking me what I'm blogging about. I then responded "I'lll read it to you before I post it" and then she said, "Are you blogging about me changing clothes?" And I said, "No honey..." in a very condescending tone which prompted the above quote... My wife is awesome.

Now, where was I?

I guess that's it. I hope that was an interesting blog. I'll have to post the link to it on Facebook and hope people read it. Maybe next time I'll talk about the doctrine of predestination.