Reject Fear

Sometimes, I think that Christians treat Jesus as some sort of cosmic 401k.

Which place would you like to be after  you die? Would you like to be sure that you don't end up in the terrible one?

I am so tired of this. It misses the point on so many levels.

For the first, if someone turns to Christ only because they are afraid of Hell, I doubt they'll stay there very long. Rather, I think this leads to the "faith" which only causes a person to doubt their salvation over and over and over again-- afraid that they may have missed one of the crucial steps to secure their place in Heaven.

Fear has no place when it comes to Christianity because God is love and perfect love casts out fear.

What is the other option?

I think this comes easily when one looks at the realities of Heaven and Hell. Heaven is the best place imaginable and Hell the worst (and beyond, for both). But why? Heaven is only good because it is the fullness of God's presence and Hell is only terrible because it is an absence of God's presence.

I cannot come to Christ seeking Heaven. I can only come seeking Christ.

The good news is if we seek Him and His kingdom, all these things will be given unto us as well.

But there's more good news. If the only good thing about Heaven is the presence of Christ, then I already have that. Not to say that this world could ever be Heaven-- it can't. But the thing I will have in full there, I experience more and more every day that I am here. Heaven is now, it is a reality in which I live.

All I'm trying to say is this: do we focus on the afterlife at the expense of focusing on the person of Christ? Does Heaven become just another gift we seek instead of the Giver?

Just something to think about.

All my founts are in you, Jesus.

Here's to embracing life now.
Cheers.

Harry Potter and the Identity of Christ

I have been looking forward to writing this post for quite a while now, but I wanted to wait until I saw the last movie to gather my thoughts. Fair warning, I will try to avoid spoilers, but no promises. So, sorry in advance if you haven't read/seen the end yet, this post is all about the end of the series.

Ironically, the Harry Potter series has helped me come to a better understanding of something that has always been hard for me to come to terms with-- namely, the humanity of Christ. It is easy for me to understand that Jesus is God, that he should be worshipped, that he has been exalted to the right hand of the Father, etc. That's probably why John is my favorite gospel, its Christology is the highest (and it tells the best stories!). I really didn't even realize this was a problem until I took life of Christ my junior year at OBU. But it turns out that although I would have of course affirmed that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God, I didn't really have any conception of what that actually meant.

So how has Harry Potter helped? It's actually easier for me to see in the movies-- partially because they simplified some of the stubbornness of his character-- but Harry's struggle with his identity and what he must do for the good of the wizarding world seems to have some definite parallels to the way Jesus must have wrestled with his identity.

When Harry was a baby, it was prophesied that he would be the chosen one, that his identity and destiny were intimately tied up with that of Voldemort-- and thus, the fate of his entire world. As he learns more and more what this means, he finally comes to the point where he must choose to die in order (basically) to save the world. He must lay down his life willingly and for those whom he loves. In the movie, I watched him struggle with this new revelation in a way that reminded me particularly of Gethsemane. Thinking, "I don't really want to do this, I'm terrified, but I must."

Of course, the parallel isn't perfect. Although Harry and Jesus both make their sacrifice out of love, I think obedience to God is an important part of Jesus decision which does not really occur in the Harry Potter series. There is not a divine figure in the series, and although Dumbledore comes closer than anyone else, Harry is not sitting on the steps of Hogwarts thinking, "Not my will, but yours." There is a sort of obedience component to Harry's actions since Dumbledore is the one who told him what would be necessary, but it's not as if Harry's sacrifice was a plan that Dumbledore had up his sleeve the whole time. Rather, circumstances more than anything dictates the choice which Harry must make.

So although Jesus' quest for his own identity was probably not quite as messy as Harry's (and he had the Holy Spirit to help him figure it out), I do think that at times I forget that dying on the cross was an actual terrifying decision that Christ had to make in order to be obedient to that which God had called him to be. Of course, now would be a good time to include my favorite cinematic rendition of this moment. It comes from The Miracle Maker-- yes! Claymation Jesus! This scene is actually cartoon because whenever something is happening in Jesus' head (for lack of better term), like the temptation etc., they do it in drawn-animation instead of claymation (which is, of course, one of the most brilliant aspects of the film to me). Also, ironically, Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) plays Jesus. Video won't let me embed, so find it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxE6-uPrM0

I should say, it's not as if Jesus was just some Joe Blow who became the savior of the world. From his infancy, random people would pick up the baby Jesus and talk about the Lamb of God. Probably his talk about the bird and the bees with Mary was interesting to say the least. For sure, he and John the Baptist both had it figured out by his baptism when God reaffirmed it, and I'm assuming he knew something by the time he's blowing rabbis' minds in the temple at age 12.

But as a human, Jesus wrestled with his call just like the rest of us. He constantly sought time with his Father in order to do his ministry and he did everything he did by the work of the Holy Spirit. And at least once, he sat in a garden and said, "Are you sure God? This is the way?"

It should be noted, the struggle is real. It is not sinful-- it is even expected! But at the end each of us must follow our savior's example and come to the conclusion, "Not my will, but yours be done," at which point we pick up our crosses and follow him.

Sometimes, I forget that. But Harry Potter reminded me. That's all I'm trying to say.

Oh, if you'd like someone who disagrees with me totally, you can find it here. I think he misreads Harry's return and that he comes back because of the greater magical power of love, but whatever. Just a little something to spice up the discussion.

All truth is God's truth.
Here's to using my baccalaureate education to the best of my ability.
Cheers.

Too Legit to Quit.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have legitimized myself as a blogger. This is my first post from my new MacBook Pro... or as I have been calling it, my iToy. I absolutely love it. Here's the very first thing I did (because, obviously the most important thing for a new computer is a desktop picture):

So as soon as I figure out how to use iBlog or whatever it is that could make this place snazzier, maybe I'll make this place a little snazzier.

Here's to owning way too much computer for my purposes.

Cheers.

Pacifism and Safety

Long story short, living alone in a big house has got me thinking about safety. Is there a way to protect myself while maintaining my commitment to non-violence?

I suppose I should back up. Last weekend I heard what sounded like someone trying to get in my backdoor twice. After calling the police and having a mild panic attack, Scott talked me down and a very big (and nice) officer came and checked out my backyard. There was nothing there and the officer also drove around the block a couple times so I felt safe enough to go to bed.

Now, I know that I did the right thing, calling the police and having them come make sure everything was ok. But I had been in kind of a terrible position. I didn't really have anything to protect myself-- not even a baseball bat. The officer said I should consider getting a gun-- but I don't really believe in guns and as my mother said, "Unless you also plan on getting shooting lessons you have no business owning something you don't know how to use."

Very well put.

Further, I don't know that I could ever point a gun at someone-- even if my life was in danger. Call me stupid, but don't forget that it takes me a good 15 minutes to squash a bug. (That happened to me AGAIN, btw. I really need to grow a pair.) So even if the gun wasn't loaded, I don't think I could be intimidating pointing an empty gun at someone anyway.

So until then, I ordered pepper spray and I am always sure to lock all of my deadbolts. Also, I'm considering finding a place to take Krav Maga lessons. It's always been my dad's preferred method of self defense, and I heard it did wonders for J-Lo's bottom when she was preparing for her role in Enough. I call that a win-win.

But even in my rejection of guns, I can't help but wonder-- can a pacifist really embrace pepper spray and martial arts? Is it enough to settle for only non-lethal methods of self-defense?

I can't help but think of the words of Jesus, "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." (Luke 9:24 NRSV)

Now, because my mother reads this, I'm putting up a disclaimer now. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to pepper spray them and call the police-- and figure out the theological implications of my decision later.

And ultimately, my life is always in God's hands and every breath I take is by his grace. So above all, I trust him with my safety.

But, just because I trust God to give me my daily bread doesn't mean I'm quitting my job and saying, "I don't need a paycheck, God will take care of me." And just because I trust God to protect me doesn't mean I'm going to leave all my doors unlocked and put a sign out front that says, "I live alone, break in at will!"

So where do I come out in the end? Unsure. But ready with some pepper spray, prayer, a cell phone... and possibly a new work out regimen.

So what should a Christian think about self defense? Where is the balance between practical and faithful? Thoughts?

Real Men Don't Fight on Twitter?

If you haven't seen it yet, you should probably know that there is currently a twitter war going down between Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) and The Village Voice (@villagevoice) over sex trafficking.

Yes. It's as bizarre as it sounds.

Now, I haven't read everything that's been posted because twitter conversations between two people with as many followers as both of them have are notoriously difficult to read and I don't have to patience to put up with that amount of (pardon my French) bitchiness. I think that might make me a lazy blogger, but points for honesty?

Anyway, here's my understanding of the situation. Ashton and his wife (the lovely Demi for any pop culture newbs) have created a series of PSA's meant to bring attention to the issue of underage sex trafficking by attacking the demand. The idea is that "Real men don't buy girls." The ads feature Ashton and friends (Justin Timberlake, Drake, Jason Mraz, etc.) doing super manly things and then concluding "Real men (fill in the blank). Real men don't buy girls." This one is probably my fave:

So the village voice decides that it knows everything better than everyone and writes a pretty nasty article attacking Ashton and his campaign. (Read it here.) Their basic complaints are as follows: 1) Ashton and Demi did not have the correct numbers in their campaign. 2) These silly ads take away the seriousness of the situation. 3) Money should be spent on rehab for victims, not on "prosecuting working women" and "attacking the rights of men."

So, since I have a blog and once wrote a paper about modern slavery in Freshman comp, I decided to weigh in.

Here's the truth. Village Voice attacks Ashton and Demi for being celebs who don't check their facts. But, being celebs is not the reason they got those numbers "wrong." According to Village Voice's own article, almost every major newspaper in the US (very credible ones too) have quoted that same study. So if we're not going to hold journalists accountable for citing a "faulty study" then you can hardly expect it from two good hearted celebrities. I'm not saying it makes it ok to quote bad data-- I'm just saying it's definitely more understandable than Village Voice gives them credit for. And, in the name of wanting to help the victimized, I'm willing to give Ashton a little slack.

Further, my understanding of human trafficking is that 1) it happens in America, 2) it happens more overseas, 3) most of the girls in both cases are not American. So, while the statistic on American girls being trafficked may be high (although I doubt it is as low as Village Voice claims) the number of girls being trafficked regardless of nationality or location is VERY high. With that said, attacking the source of trafficking-- men who demand the supply of girls-- will help to stop both cases. There can be no market if there is no demand. So if you attack the demand, you attack all kinds of trafficking and the numbers the Village Voice is so worried about become less important.

As to the silliness of the ads and whether or not they take away from this social issue, it makes me think that Village Voice doesn't really understand the nature of modern social movements. Especially when you have the audience that Ashton has-- and stick your nose in the air all you want, it's a much bigger audience than any newspaper-- the way to get something noticed is to be funny or controversial. Frankly, these PSA's have a lot of appeal. They use well known celebrities, they are funny, and they're pissing people off-- all things you need to get attention. While there may be some truth to the idea that these videos may trivialize the situation, I don't think that will be the overall result. Village Voice needs to wake up and smell the coffee. If they think dramatic youtube videos are going to get more attention than Ashton's they're wrong. And that's all there is to it. Ultimately, these videos are going to get a lot more people-- and probably people who aren't generally activists-- aware of the situation which will hopefully result in action. I can't help but be a fan. And if you think that Ashton is simply unable to create a serious PSA, then you haven't seen them all. Check out this one:

To me this says the use of humor is intentional in the other videos and I can't help but think the foundation is right. If they want their videos to see the most eyes, they're going about it the right way.

And finally, I agree that money should be spent rehabbing victims. But to say that money shouldn't be spent attacking the source is ridiculous. You can only put stitches on someone who keeps cutting into their arm with a chainsaw so many times before you realize you need to try and take away the chainsaw. That might be the most ridiculous image, but I think it's appropriate. We need to bandage the arm and work at not only removing the chainsaw, but destroying it.

I'm not going to argue whether it's a woman's right to sell herself or it's a man's right to buy pornography. But what I will say is this: we need to work to give women who find themselves at the end of their rope other options. We need to make it easier for women to get education or skill training or jobs or something to help keep them out of the industry. Because I don't care if you say it is her choice or not-- nothing good can come of selling yourself. It cannot be good for those women or their children. We need to make another way to earn a living more accessible. Then, hopefully, the problem won't be one we need to debate.

As for the pornography/free speech debate, the reality is that the pornography industry exploits women. So call it art, call it free speech, call it whatever-- but I know that in your heart of hearts you don't want your daughter/mom/sister/friend to be one of the women that happens to. I'm not saying it should be made illegal, but I am saying from the looks of the Village Voice article it seems that they don't think child pornography is too big of an issue. And that is despicable. Further, defending the exploitation and objectifying of women as "a man's rights" is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. I don't have any sort of answers but I think it's a real issue that one industry feeds the other.

The last thing I'll say is this: if activism is occurring for nothing more than image and activism's sake, it's worthless. Let me explain. It's too easy to take the position of "I cared about sex trafficking before it was cool to care about sex trafficking." But if that's how you feel, then you probably don't actually care about stopping sex trafficking but your appearance. Village Voice (and others like them) need to get off their high horse and instead of criticizing celebrities for being "bad activists" be excited that someone with 7 million followers on twitter is taking up this important issue as their cause. Like it or not, Ashton is going to reach way more people than Village Voice could ever dream of. Why wouldn't you take advantage of having someone like that on your team? Aren't we all working for the same cause here, trying to stop children from being exploited?

A wise man (Jesus, not Abraham Lincoln) once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is the ultimate truth. If we spend our time arguing, that's time, energy, and resources not put towards defending the little girls that need it. I suggest Village Voice takes their nose out of the air and see that being a bitchy know-it-all is not going to make people listen to you, much less like you and want to work with you.

So pop culture is a little shallow? The thing is, you need the shallow people (and their money) to get things done. So, I vote, embrace it and use it and maybe we can do a little good in this world.

Besides, if village Voice was really as much better than Ashton as they keep claiming, they wouldn't take the time to fire off 140 character insults. That is the stupidest part of all. Twitter fight, really? I'm kind of disappointed in both of you. All I can hope is this will bring attention to the travesty of child sex trafficking. But, hey, I tend to be an optimist.

This has been very long and editorial, so if you stuck in until the end, I owe you a donut or something. With that said, I would love some feedback. Thoughts? Pop culture activism, good or bad?

Here's to getting things done.

Cheers.