Next week I will be taking my first vacation since accepting the call to pastor the church where I am now. And even though my week of vacation will be spent driving an insane distance just to see family (a luxury that many take for granted), I am still greatly looking forward to my first real rest since being here.
But have you ever slowed down to meditate on the way we look forward to something? There is a great deal of anticipation leading up to something like a vacation or a day spent with good friends, and then before you know it we are looking at it in the rear-view mirror, fondly recalling the good times. The waiting for the day to come seemed to last forever; we remember the good times for the rest of our lives; but the event itself passed by in a blink.
Therein lies the glory of eternity. Imagine beginning a time of rest and fellowship that is so good it's incomprehensible. Then think about the fact that when tomorrow comes, you will still be there. There will never be that uncomfortable feeling that it is almost time to return to life as usual. There will never be the feeling that you are wasting the precious time you have left because you literally have forever to bask in the glories of the Lord and his rest.
Such a thing is too good for us. O how wondrous is the grace of our merciful God who has lavished these wonders upon us. Come, Lord Jesus and bring your people into their eternal home. Thank you, Jesus, for changing my heart, for revealing yourself to me, for suffering in my place, and for giving me your Holy Spirit. I look forward with all that I am to spending forever with you.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Let's Take the "Mass" Out of Christmas!
It is troubling to me that the two main Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter, both have names that reflect pagan ideas. Easter, for instance, is named after the pagan goddess Ishtar, matron deity of a Middle-Eastern fertility cult. Hence the presence of bunnies and eggs - both of them symbols of fertility - during a celebration that is supposed to be about resurrection.
But what about Christmas? I think we understand the 'Christ' part, but why the three letters on the end? Where did they come from?
Apparently, the first recorded mention of the holiday was in A.D. 1048 and was referred to as Cristes mæsse in Old English. This was altered to become Christemasse in Middle English and Christmas in Modern English. So the holiday originated as 'Christ's Mass'.
For those who are unfamiliar with Roman Catholic dogma, the 'mass' is known by ordinary Catholics as the service where they take Communion. It is customarily offered every day of the week, but Sundays and holidays are much better attended than the daily services throughout the week. In that vein, Christ's Mass was to be a special time of mass that celebrated Jesus' birth.
The word 'mass' itself is relatively harmless. It comes from a Latin word, missa, which just means 'dismissal'. The service of mass took on this name because missa is one of the last words used in the Latin performance of the ritual. The priest would end the service by saying (in Latin), "You are dismissed." The Roman Catholic understanding of the the ritual of the mass itself is much more troubling, however.
The service of mass - Communion - is understood by the Roman Catholic church to be a repeatable bloodless sacrifice of Christ. In other words, each time mass is celebrated, the priest offers the sacrifice of Christ on the cross anew and applies its benefits anew. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory"
This teaching is a clear violation of Scripture and is indeed a return to the pagan idea of continually having to appease a deity. The Bible says in Hebrews 9:24-28,
But what about Christmas? I think we understand the 'Christ' part, but why the three letters on the end? Where did they come from?
Apparently, the first recorded mention of the holiday was in A.D. 1048 and was referred to as Cristes mæsse in Old English. This was altered to become Christemasse in Middle English and Christmas in Modern English. So the holiday originated as 'Christ's Mass'.
For those who are unfamiliar with Roman Catholic dogma, the 'mass' is known by ordinary Catholics as the service where they take Communion. It is customarily offered every day of the week, but Sundays and holidays are much better attended than the daily services throughout the week. In that vein, Christ's Mass was to be a special time of mass that celebrated Jesus' birth.
The word 'mass' itself is relatively harmless. It comes from a Latin word, missa, which just means 'dismissal'. The service of mass took on this name because missa is one of the last words used in the Latin performance of the ritual. The priest would end the service by saying (in Latin), "You are dismissed." The Roman Catholic understanding of the the ritual of the mass itself is much more troubling, however.
The service of mass - Communion - is understood by the Roman Catholic church to be a repeatable bloodless sacrifice of Christ. In other words, each time mass is celebrated, the priest offers the sacrifice of Christ on the cross anew and applies its benefits anew. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory"
This teaching is a clear violation of Scripture and is indeed a return to the pagan idea of continually having to appease a deity. The Bible says in Hebrews 9:24-28,
"For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."There is no room for discussion here. "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly" (Hebrews 9:25). The Roman Catholic mass is damnable heresy, and personally I don't want to call the celebration of Christ's birth a name that is associated with such error. In my opinion, the simple word 'Advent', meaning 'coming' is far better. So, with that I will wish you all a Joyous Advent and a Happy New Year!
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Review: The Golden Compass
This review is for the book form of The Golden Compass. Being a parent of two young children means that I will probably not be able to see the movie until it is released on DVD.
Let me begin by saying that I truly enjoyed the experience of reading this book. Pullman's prose flows smoothly. He has the command of the English language necessary to write a good story. Further, my stomach did not churn with shock at rank heresy throughout the book, my feelings were not hurt, nor were my eyes assaulted with profanity. It was a bit of a page-turner. I had a hard time putting it down, and that's something I can't say about some of the most recent books from my favorite authors.
From a literary standpoint, though, I do not believe that this book represents a good piece of fiction. I can't imagine how it won all of the accolades and awards that it touts on the back cover, unless there has been a serious drought of well-written and thoughtful children's literature over the last decade.
The most glaring downfall here is terrible characterization. Books like Harry Potter thrive on the intricate development of the characters. In many ways, fans of those books continued reading the series only to find out what happened to the characters that they had grown to love. There is no such concern surrounding Lyra, the main character of The Golden Compass.
I feel like Philip Pullman has never met an 11 year old girl. I have taught children for many years, and this Lyra thinks and acts like no child I have met. In fact, she never really acts like an 11 year old or like a girl. Also, her characterization is inconsistent. In one scene, she looks down on an adult nurse for being bland and unimaginative - "the kind of person that could never tell a good story" - and five minutes later Lyra is scorning dolls and stuffed animals - the kind of toys that require imagination to play with. The author later outright says that Lyra herself is unimaginative, spouting some nonsense that her elaborate lying does not really require imagination. In the next paragraph he goes on to describe her imagining of what is happening to her companions. Such confusion makes it hard to develop a solid idea of the character.
In addition, I didn't really like any of the characters - and I don't think that the readers were actually intended to. Lyra seems to be an inconsistent collection of characteristics, acting in whatever way Pullman thinks would be coolest at the time. Roger is the most two-dimensional character I have ever seen. Mrs. Coulter is terribly unlovable. Not even Lyra can love her own father. Ma Costa may be the only half-way likable person in the book, but she herself is very two-dimensional - pretty much only there to give a great big blubbery bear hug when needed.
Aside from characterization, the plotting of the novel was a mixed bag. The overall drive in the story was the secret motif. The reader wants to know what 'Dust' is, and the information is leaked out throughout the story, culminating in an anticlimactic expositional monologue at the end that creates much of the hysteria surrounding the book. No, it's not magic; it's just sin apparently. Hmm, elementary sin particles from another dimension. I feel cheated...
The rest of the plot elements turn out rather well, though. Each stage of the arctic rescue mission has a pleasing amount of danger and adventure. I think that this is where the book really shines. The author has crafted a fairly interesting world with zeppelins and gypsies and - especially - armored polar bears, all set underneath a shimmering otherworldly city glowing in the midst of the aurora. The setting, the visuals, and the explosive combination of all of the above would make for a good movie, so there is no wonder as to why New Line Cinema picked up the rights.
When it comes to emotion and grand themes, though, this story feels very shallow and sad. No one loves each other in Pullman's world. Lyra doesn't love her father or mother. They don't love each other and neither of them love her. It's really the strangest un-love triangle I have seen in a while. Also, Lyra hardly even reacts when the person she has been so intent on rescuing has his 'soul' (or daemon) ripped away from him. I guess she really didn't care about him either. This lack of love in the characters in one thing that keeps the reader from loving the characters themselves.
In fact, the only love that apparently exists in the book is the love for Lyra for her daemon, Pantalaimon. The daemon himself, though, is just another two-dimensional character that seems to not have a personality of his own, so I didn't feel any love toward him. I was told that Lyra felt such agony when he was away from her, but I had a hard time trying to feel it for her. And then we are told in the great expositional monologue that these daemons are like man's sin nature. Eww! So, all of these children's longing for their soul-pets was actually just a longing for their sin nature?
So the great atheistic theme of the novel turns out to be little more than "I like my sinsy-winsy. I don't want to be self-controlled or accountable for my actions. My wickedness is what makes me human." I'm sorry, but that's not very magical or intelligent-sounding. I guess, with all the hysteria, I expected an idea that was more - I don't know - dangerous?
So, Pullman likes his own sin. That's not hard to believe, we all love and revel in our own sin before God changes our hearts. However, when a person comes to Jesus Christ in faith, he or she is finally freed from the slavery to sin and wants to love God and other people. Sin becomes nasty and ugly. And that's sort of the taste that's left in your mouth after reading The Golden Compass. There is no love, no joy, no magic, no hope, and no happiness here. There is just a determination in the characters to cling to their sin - hardly noble. Actually, this book is a great illustration of the bankruptcy of atheism.
To conclude, would I recommend reading this book? Well, I don't think that it's message is earthshaking. I don't think that it poses a threat to the church. And I don't think that it is a wondrous piece of fiction not to be missed. So, all things aside, I would not recommend this book to someone out of the blue as a good book to read. In light of the hysteria, though, I would encourage Christians to read and interact with the book. I think it could be a great learning tool for parents and children to talk through the inadequacies of atheistic thought. But if you want to read a good children's book, pick up The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis or the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. Both are far more enjoyable and thoughtful than Pullman's book.
Let me begin by saying that I truly enjoyed the experience of reading this book. Pullman's prose flows smoothly. He has the command of the English language necessary to write a good story. Further, my stomach did not churn with shock at rank heresy throughout the book, my feelings were not hurt, nor were my eyes assaulted with profanity. It was a bit of a page-turner. I had a hard time putting it down, and that's something I can't say about some of the most recent books from my favorite authors.
From a literary standpoint, though, I do not believe that this book represents a good piece of fiction. I can't imagine how it won all of the accolades and awards that it touts on the back cover, unless there has been a serious drought of well-written and thoughtful children's literature over the last decade.
The most glaring downfall here is terrible characterization. Books like Harry Potter thrive on the intricate development of the characters. In many ways, fans of those books continued reading the series only to find out what happened to the characters that they had grown to love. There is no such concern surrounding Lyra, the main character of The Golden Compass.
I feel like Philip Pullman has never met an 11 year old girl. I have taught children for many years, and this Lyra thinks and acts like no child I have met. In fact, she never really acts like an 11 year old or like a girl. Also, her characterization is inconsistent. In one scene, she looks down on an adult nurse for being bland and unimaginative - "the kind of person that could never tell a good story" - and five minutes later Lyra is scorning dolls and stuffed animals - the kind of toys that require imagination to play with. The author later outright says that Lyra herself is unimaginative, spouting some nonsense that her elaborate lying does not really require imagination. In the next paragraph he goes on to describe her imagining of what is happening to her companions. Such confusion makes it hard to develop a solid idea of the character.
In addition, I didn't really like any of the characters - and I don't think that the readers were actually intended to. Lyra seems to be an inconsistent collection of characteristics, acting in whatever way Pullman thinks would be coolest at the time. Roger is the most two-dimensional character I have ever seen. Mrs. Coulter is terribly unlovable. Not even Lyra can love her own father. Ma Costa may be the only half-way likable person in the book, but she herself is very two-dimensional - pretty much only there to give a great big blubbery bear hug when needed.
Aside from characterization, the plotting of the novel was a mixed bag. The overall drive in the story was the secret motif. The reader wants to know what 'Dust' is, and the information is leaked out throughout the story, culminating in an anticlimactic expositional monologue at the end that creates much of the hysteria surrounding the book. No, it's not magic; it's just sin apparently. Hmm, elementary sin particles from another dimension. I feel cheated...
The rest of the plot elements turn out rather well, though. Each stage of the arctic rescue mission has a pleasing amount of danger and adventure. I think that this is where the book really shines. The author has crafted a fairly interesting world with zeppelins and gypsies and - especially - armored polar bears, all set underneath a shimmering otherworldly city glowing in the midst of the aurora. The setting, the visuals, and the explosive combination of all of the above would make for a good movie, so there is no wonder as to why New Line Cinema picked up the rights.
When it comes to emotion and grand themes, though, this story feels very shallow and sad. No one loves each other in Pullman's world. Lyra doesn't love her father or mother. They don't love each other and neither of them love her. It's really the strangest un-love triangle I have seen in a while. Also, Lyra hardly even reacts when the person she has been so intent on rescuing has his 'soul' (or daemon) ripped away from him. I guess she really didn't care about him either. This lack of love in the characters in one thing that keeps the reader from loving the characters themselves.
In fact, the only love that apparently exists in the book is the love for Lyra for her daemon, Pantalaimon. The daemon himself, though, is just another two-dimensional character that seems to not have a personality of his own, so I didn't feel any love toward him. I was told that Lyra felt such agony when he was away from her, but I had a hard time trying to feel it for her. And then we are told in the great expositional monologue that these daemons are like man's sin nature. Eww! So, all of these children's longing for their soul-pets was actually just a longing for their sin nature?
So the great atheistic theme of the novel turns out to be little more than "I like my sinsy-winsy. I don't want to be self-controlled or accountable for my actions. My wickedness is what makes me human." I'm sorry, but that's not very magical or intelligent-sounding. I guess, with all the hysteria, I expected an idea that was more - I don't know - dangerous?
So, Pullman likes his own sin. That's not hard to believe, we all love and revel in our own sin before God changes our hearts. However, when a person comes to Jesus Christ in faith, he or she is finally freed from the slavery to sin and wants to love God and other people. Sin becomes nasty and ugly. And that's sort of the taste that's left in your mouth after reading The Golden Compass. There is no love, no joy, no magic, no hope, and no happiness here. There is just a determination in the characters to cling to their sin - hardly noble. Actually, this book is a great illustration of the bankruptcy of atheism.
To conclude, would I recommend reading this book? Well, I don't think that it's message is earthshaking. I don't think that it poses a threat to the church. And I don't think that it is a wondrous piece of fiction not to be missed. So, all things aside, I would not recommend this book to someone out of the blue as a good book to read. In light of the hysteria, though, I would encourage Christians to read and interact with the book. I think it could be a great learning tool for parents and children to talk through the inadequacies of atheistic thought. But if you want to read a good children's book, pick up The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis or the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. Both are far more enjoyable and thoughtful than Pullman's book.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
I Haven't Read The Golden Compass, But...
A friend of mine recently asked me what I thought about Philip Pullman's, The Golden Compass, and the new movie that is soon to be released. Having not read the books (although now I suppose I will have to - keeping up with the culture and all), I could only offer some general advice about all such things.
My thoughts are that unbelievers will be unbelievers and that they produce a great amount of art – some of it better than others. As I said, I have not read these books myself, but one of my friends tells me that they are not all that well written (unlike Harry Potter, for example, which was very well written [except that last one]). Aside from that, all art has some message, and if a non-Christian person produces the art, it is a non-Christian message. Star Trek assumes that there is no God and that the universe arose through evolution, but most Christians don’t picket the openings of Star Trek movies. Star Wars is full of eastern religious philosophy, but the same people getting mad at Pullman’s work have a Darth Vader costume in their closet.
I think that a hands-on approach to such things is better than hands-off. If you are concerned about it, go see it (the whole “I don’t want to support such and such and thing” is way overblown anyway), and then learn from it. What is the writer struggling with? If he has problems with the institutionalized church, then are his criticisms valid? Maybe we need to change the way we communicate the gospel and the way we relate to other people so that we avoid these criticisms (note: we do not change the gospel itself, only the methods that we use to communicate it). I’m sure that there are some very wise themes in the book/movie and some very misguided ones. Knowing what those are and being able to speak about such in an informed manner is far better than saying “I heard that man don’t like God!”
When Christians get their panties in a wad over such things, they just give the world more ammunition against us because we are such hypocritical prudes.
My thoughts are that unbelievers will be unbelievers and that they produce a great amount of art – some of it better than others. As I said, I have not read these books myself, but one of my friends tells me that they are not all that well written (unlike Harry Potter, for example, which was very well written [except that last one]). Aside from that, all art has some message, and if a non-Christian person produces the art, it is a non-Christian message. Star Trek assumes that there is no God and that the universe arose through evolution, but most Christians don’t picket the openings of Star Trek movies. Star Wars is full of eastern religious philosophy, but the same people getting mad at Pullman’s work have a Darth Vader costume in their closet.
I think that a hands-on approach to such things is better than hands-off. If you are concerned about it, go see it (the whole “I don’t want to support such and such and thing” is way overblown anyway), and then learn from it. What is the writer struggling with? If he has problems with the institutionalized church, then are his criticisms valid? Maybe we need to change the way we communicate the gospel and the way we relate to other people so that we avoid these criticisms (note: we do not change the gospel itself, only the methods that we use to communicate it). I’m sure that there are some very wise themes in the book/movie and some very misguided ones. Knowing what those are and being able to speak about such in an informed manner is far better than saying “I heard that man don’t like God!”
When Christians get their panties in a wad over such things, they just give the world more ammunition against us because we are such hypocritical prudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
