A Day In The Journey

Isaiah 53
Who would have believed what we just heard?
When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.
He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him;
he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain;
even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.
He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
he endured punishment that made us well;
because of his wounds we have been healed.
All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path,
but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him.
He was treated harshly and afflicted,
but he did not even open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block,
like a sheep silent before her shearers,
he did not even open his mouth.
He was led away after an unjust trial –
but who even cared?
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living;
because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded.
They intended to bury him with criminals,
but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb,
because he had committed no violent deeds,
nor had he spoken deceitfully.
Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill,
once restitution is made,
he will see descendants and enjoy long life,
and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.
Having suffered, he will reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.
“My servant will acquit many,
for he carried their sins.
So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes,
he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful,
because he willingly submitted to death
and was numbered with the rebels,
when he lifted up the sin of many
and intervened on behalf of the rebels.”

Matthew 27:32-60
As they were going out, they found a man from Cyrene named Simon, whom they forced to carry his cross. They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “Place of the Skull”) and offered Jesus wine mixed with gall to drink. But after tasting it, he would not drink it. When they had crucified him, they divided his clothes by throwing dice. Then they sat down and kept guard over him there. Above his head they put the charge against him, which read: “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.” Then two outlaws were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by defamed him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who can destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are God’s Son, come down from the cross!” In the same way even the chief priests – together with the experts in the law and elders – were mocking him: “He saved others, but he cannot save himself! He is the king of Israel! If he comes down now from the cross, we will believe in him! He trusts in God – let God, if he wants to, deliver him now because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’!” The robbers who were crucified with him also spoke abusively to him.
Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land. At about three o’clock Jesus shouted with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “This man is calling for Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink. But the rest said, “Leave him alone! Let’s see if Elijah will come to save him.” Then Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks were split apart. And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised. (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.) Now when the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and what took place, they were extremely terrified and said, “Truly this one was God’s Son!” Many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and given him support were also there, watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Now when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut in the rock. Then he rolled a great stone across the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Luke 23: 39-43
One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Mark 15:42-47
Now when evening had already come, since it was the day of preparation (that is, the day before the Sabbath), Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. After Joseph bought a linen cloth and took down the body, he wrapped it in the linen and placed it in a tomb cut out of the rock. Then he rolled a stone across the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was placed.

Posted by Renee at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't have anything incredibly profound to say, but I felt like it was time to update something around here. School is going well, overall. Of course there are always bumps along the way since it involves dealing with 6th grade humans and 7/8 grade aliens. I never ceases to amaze me how an 8th grade boy can completely turn his entire brain off. For instance, two of the 8th grade boys earned a detention on Monday for passing notes back and forth in class (last hour, no less) about how mean and evil and strict, etc. the teacher sitting in the room is. She was sitting in the room. And could hear them. Hello? (The inability of said 8th graders to actually whisper is also a bizarre phenomena). So they served their detention, part of which was scrubbing urinals. Yes. Gotta love it. This job required wearing gloves, which they then decided to place inside the backpack of one of the 7th grade boys. What on earth? Needless to say, they earned a second detention. I'm not sure exactly what else they expected to come out of that. Sigh. It keeps life interesting, if nothing else.

I managed to catch a cold last week, also. I hadn't had a cold in years...I've had two this year. The first was manageable. This one hit me like a truck. I started sneezing on a Friday morning, by Friday night I was pretty much down for the count. Of course, I exacerbated the situation by driving to Lake Charles and back (2 hours each way) to do stats for the basketball teams. So I spent the weekend in bed. Monday dawned nearly voiceless. But I struggled through. By Tuesday, I was considering going to the doctor...which I never do. The other 5-8 teacher looked at me Tuesday afternoon and told the secretary to send around an email asking for a substitute for Wednesday. haha! So I got to go home early that day. At any rate, I struggled through last week with almost no voice, and coughing almost continuously. The kids now think I enjoy torture. I'm finally on the mend, but the 80% of my voice that has returned apparently makes me sound like Miley Cyrus. That has caused heretofore unknown hilarity among the ranks of students. It is pretty funny.

Other than that, life has been ... well, life. I finally read Crime and Punishment, my first ever Russian novel. It's a great read. It's already in the queue for a second read. Then I countered the deep book with Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep. Everybody needs a little noir every now and then, after all. And as usual, just when it seems that life is simple and manageable, complication comes to overwhelm my heart. But, it's just another reminder of Who I must trust, Who I must approach with my heart, with my complications, hurts, and joys. The result of all that personal complication, though, is less thoughtful blog posts. haha! It is those complications, and how we find our ways through them that molds us into who He wants us to be, though. It seems so hard to see that, but I just choose to know that it is Truth no matter how I feel about it in the moment. Eventually, it trickles down to change my feelings. Perhaps one day I'll be sanctified enough to move through that circle in ever rarer cycles. Perhaps.

So there's my life right now. Feel free to comment. It's interactive. :-D

Posted by Renee at 07:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How often do you find yourself facing the spectres of your past experiences? I find this happens just about when I start getting comfortable with who I am. Perhaps that's because my spectres are directly related to my self-perception...particularly my self-perception as it relates to other people. I'm sure I'm not the only one who struggles with this. Other people have different spectres, but surely you've faced this, yourself. You've found yourself in a moderately comfortable place, perhaps not simple or easy, but fulfilling and comfortable. With me, it's typically a relationship. Not necessarily a relationship per se, but just a place of relating with another person. I'll be in a good place there when suddenly something happens, or some things happen, that awaken the past. Rejections come back to haunt me, past friends who just drifted away despite assurances otherwise float in front of my eyes. The kicker is that usually this new situation bears little resemblance to those of the past. Do you find that in your life? The situation that awakens the ghosts of the past is, when viewed rationally, not at all the same, but something about it lends energy to the ghosts. How do you face them? How do you react?

I'm finding more and more that it is a conscious battle. Silencing the spectres requires me to make a forceful decision about where I'm placing my hope and expectation. It requires me to choose to trust that other person, particularly when I know that the parts of the situation that have the most power to shake that trust are completely out of that other person's control. Trust doesn't come easy for me. Not trust in others nor trust in God and His work in my life. There are reasons for that. Some reasons attached to the ghosts of the past, and some not. It is so difficult and so exhausting to stop listening to those ghosts. To cognitively place my trust, my hope, my expectation in my truest Friend, Companion, Lover. It is a struggle. Perhaps the struggle seems greater because the rational decision to trust does not necessarily reflect itself in "feeling better." I know, and in these situations you probably do as well, that the spectres are still there, still under the surface, just waiting for another excuse to show themselves. Perhaps these struggles to overcome the ghosts of our past are part of "taking up our cross daily," of being a living sacrifice. Perhaps.

Posted by Renee at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, I completely failed a teen and a parent. Completely. And sadly, I had no idea until today. Like most of my colossal failures, this one was caused by the fact that I have never learned to control my speech. I struggle every day with not saying what I shouldn't and saying what I ought. I don't think it's prideful to say that I believe I have improved very much over the years in the "not saying what I shouldn't area," but the "saying what I ought" area is still a difficult place for me. Not that I don't ever fail by saying something I have no business saying, but last week's failure was not of this nature. Last week's failure came because I did not speak words I ought to have spoken.

Last week, I had a conversation with a teenager about a frustrating situation through which said teen is struggling. The teenager was venting about the situation, which does have several difficult points. I completely understand why the situation is frustrating, and I think the teen has a certain amount of justification for being frustrated. Unfortunately, the frustration is feeding the attitude of discontent and rebellion festering in his heart. Here's what I should have said: "You know, you're right. That's a tough deal. My brother went through that same thing, and it was tough for him. But, you know, he really learned a lot, and he made some friends, too. It might help to find a couple of positive things to focus on when you get really frustrated." Did I say anything remotely like that? Absolutely not. No, I just agreed with the frustration, mentioned that my brother had been frustrated in that situation, and basically enabled discontent and rebellion. I handed this teenager ammunition to feed the mire of anti-parental rebellion into which he's wading. And then I completely forgot about the conversation. Until today. Today, the mother of this teenager brought the conversation back to my mind, and asked me if I could be more careful with what I say around her child so as to avoid adding fuel to the pyre. I felt like someone sucker-punched me in the gut. In allowing myself to shirk my responsibility as a Teacher and as a Reflector of Christ, I added to the strain in a teenager's relationship to parents. I felt even worse because these aren't unreasonable parents who saddle their kids with unrealistic expectations and burdensome rules. These are parents who seem to grant their kids a balanced amount of freedom and a reasonable amount of respect. But they are parents who also seem to struggle in the face of the strong and assertive wills/personalities of their children. And I undermined them in their struggle. And it feels horrendous. I absolutely failed by allowing myself to be dragged into the negativity and darkness when I should have brought a ray of light into the situation.

In the years since high school, I have struggled against being destructive with my words. I used to be incredibly vicious with my speech. I was well aware that I could completely destroy another person with a sentence or two, and I used it whenever I felt like it. I had little to no remorse about the damage that I was purposefully inflicting on other people. Thankfully, God began to make me aware, to show me how beyond un-Christlike that behavior is. I still lash out destructively from time-to-time, but I do struggle against it; and, this struggle is, for me, a very small victory. Unfortunately, I have often neglected the other side of this struggle: the need to say the right things rather than just avoid the wrong ones. Intentional verbal viciousness has always seemed like the darker part of my struggle with speech. Today, I had a very vivid reminder that sometimes not saying something is far worse than saying the dark things. How much do I wish that my failures only affected me. I have chosen, however, to place myself in situations where my failures have the possibility of affecting others, and I need to be reminded of that. And that vigilance in the battle with my speech is constantly necessary. I just wish the reminders weren't so devastating.

Posted by Renee at 05:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A college friend of mine contributes to a group blog that is dedicated to musing of Fundamentalism. I peruse it every so often just to see what's up in that world and in his. I have probably never considered myself to be a Fundamentalist, and have, since I left school, espoused a spiritual position at which many Fundamentalists would probably sneer down their nose. Oh well. I'm not that upset about it. At any rate, I do respect several of the contributors to this blog and have gleaned some interesting thoughts from their posts. From time to time, though some of the statements made or positions posited rub me the wrong way. Or, at the least, cause me to wrinkle my brow in disagreement. This happened to me the other day. A few months ago there was a post fueling a number of concurring comments regarding worship styles. So, I wasn't completely surprised at these sentences inserted in a prayer letter posted the other day:

While the pastor was leading these young ladies to the Lord, I had the privilege in talking with a Christian man who was attending a SBC church in the area. Yes, there are SBC churches in the North! He used to attend an IFB church, but moved out of their area and began attending this SBC church. His church is going the way of so many churches. They are dropping their traditional format and moving towards a contemporary one. He mentioned that this was troubling. Please pray for L______ that God will direct him away from the SBC church and to _____ Baptist Church.

Now, don't get me wrong, I appreciate a traditional service. Some of the "traditional" hymns are exceptional and beautiful. But I've come to cringe at the use of the term "traditional" in regards to a particular worship format. After all, it's only been "traditional" for about 100 years. And only in particular Protestant circles. Go back to the 18th century, largely psalms and residual liturgical chants. Go back farther and you'd find Latin responses and chants. Go back to the early church and you'd find Judaic psalms and praise songs that no longer exist in that form. Right now, travel to another country and attend a service. What you would find there would have very little to do with Western Protestant worship styles. So--which of these is really "traditional"? And why is one particular form more spiritual than another?

I guess what incited the brow furrow was the use of "going the way of" and "troubling." Perhaps the rest of you who might read this aren't familiar enough with the typical IFB position to understand the implied idea here. If a church is "going the way of," that means it's following a trend of catering to the world as opposed to separating. And this man finds the change of worship styles "troubling." Why? Why is it "troubling" rather than just not his preference. That tends to get under my skin. If you prefer a more "traditional" worship style (ie hymns only), just say that you prefer that. Why must there be judgment of the "modern" worship style by using the word "troubling"? After all, a hundred years ago, hymns were "contemporary." The same furor was probably buzzed about in similar circles regarding those "modern" sounding hymns. But now that time has worn the edges off, and the musical styles have moved past the hymn, the hymn is the most spiritual form of music we can use. I find that pretentious in the mouths of many. (I say many, because I know a few dear souls that feel that their spiritual life is more blessed by hymns, but understand that other people may be more spiritually blessed by other styles of music. I respect them. And I understand their position.)

Perhaps this is merely a rant. I don't know. And I do sincerely hope I have not offended the particular friend who is a part of the Fundamentalist blog. (I have a feeling said person is probably aware that I am not a Fundamentalist.) I certainly understand that some people feel a better fit in the IFB circle. What I cannot deal with, though, and what just leaped out at me from these sentences, is the practice of making a preference some type of spiritual standard or qualification. At any rate, I do know that this topic has been hashed to pieces on other blogs of other friends. As a member of church that chooses to use a "contemporary" style (which does incorporate some hymns, albeit with electric guitars and drums), I find the sentiment expressed in above excerpt rather...patronizing. And all for a preference.

So, for the record, no discussion need follow. Unless someone just cannot contain a response. :) This post was mostly for me. Plus, it's less personally revealing than the other post I was contemplating. I took the easy way out. Please don't judge me. :)

Posted by Renee at 09:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I've had a couple of recurring thoughts the last few days. They just need to come out on paper. I apologize beforehand if my ramblings are rough around the edges. :)

Thought Number 1:
Mark 3
1Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand.
2And they watched Jesus,[a] to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
3And he said to the man with the withered hand, "Come here."
4And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.
5And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
6The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

I'm reading through Mark right now in my seemingly endless quest to actually have consistent Bible reading, and this really struck me. Recently I've had several experiences/discussions resulting from other people's need to construct man-made rules governing biblical application. I suppose that's why this story made such an impact this time--more than really ever before. The Pharisees were not upset here because Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. As Christ Himself accosts them with the relevant question: Is it lawful to do good, to save a life, on the Sabbath? The Pharisees don't answer, not because they don't know the answer, but because the answer is "Yes." Healing this man's hand was not a Sabbath violation, and if the Pharisees were to be honest, they would have to admit that. Instead, they remain silent.

The Pharisees were angry because Jesus exposed their little man-made constructs for exactly the ridiculous, overbearing extras they were. No wonder Christ grieved at their hardness of heart. They weren't gung ho about protecting the Sabbath, they were gung ho about protecting the power they'd gained by adding rule after oppressive rule to the Law. When their power was threatened in a way they couldn't refute, they decided to eliminate the threat. Sounds a little like some religious groups I can think of. When their intricate system of self-righteous rules--the ones that are supposed to keep us all from sinning by putting broad circles around what the Bible actually commands--is threatened, they attack the threat by accusing it/them of being "worldly," "unspiritual," and "compromising their standards to attract the world." Maybe they just know when they're being scammed: man's traditions and rules are not the same as biblical commands and directives. Not ever.

Thought Number 2:
Again I have had my thoughts turned again to the roles of the mind and heart in the life of following Christ. When I was younger, and then all through college, I often heard the following: Jeremiah 17.9 states that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, so a believer should never trust their emotions. In the past few years--namely thanks to some Eldridge and viewing the verse outside of those lenses/presuppositions--I have been freed from that misconception. There are two things I find wrong with that use of the verse, based entirely on the linguistic aspect alone: 1) the point of the verse isn't that emotions are evil, don't trust them; the point is that we cannot understand other men, we should trust in the Lord because he does understand the hearts of men. 2) prior to about 1800, the heart was not a metaphor for the seat of emotion; rather, the heart was a metaphor for the core of man and his understanding/cognitive abilities. In Shakespeare's day, the spleen was usually referenced when equating an organ to the human emotion center. So, Jeremiah is not saying that emotions are wicked and untrustworthy, he's saying that men are wicked and untrustworthy, place your trust in the Lord.

Which brings me to the next, more salient point: do we or do we not believe that becoming a new creature in Christ includes our emotions? It is illogical to believe that our minds/reason are justified and in the process of sanctification, but our emotions are not. Granted, we can be misled by our emotions; but, I have seen people just as misled by holding onto stubborn opinions. The mind/reason can beguile us just as trickily if we allow it to. Here's the application: Do not excise your heart/emotions from your Path. God can just as easily use our emotional responses to guide us as He can our reasoning abilities. Ignoring our emotions removes us from experiencing an entire aspect of who God is. Here is the key: Whether dealing with emotions or reason in following the Path God has for us, we follow prayerfully and always with the willingness to let go of what our emotions and/or mind has grasped should God lead us somewhere else. It is, to some extent, an almost Buddhist concept--yet one present often in the New Testament. It isn't that we must renounce the things that we love, nor that we must renounce the loving of things as Buddhism would have us do: we must be willing to give those things over to Christ should he ask. I guess, once again, I am back to my mantra of "Balance." Balance certainly isn't easy, but it sure is blessed. It's worth struggling for. It's worth avoiding adding the myriad of man-made rules to remove the balance of daily life and sanctification from our walk. It's worth getting gritty, facing loss, taking risks. Because out of the struggle, out of the balance, out of the grittiness, loss and risk, comes the beauty of becoming Christlike. After all, look at the emotional risks Christ took--he even befriended his own betrayal for 3 years. That's an example worth following.

--Feel free to add some thoughts of your own.

Posted by Renee at 08:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Why do faery tales appeal to us? Why do adults still remain fascinated by the stories they were told as children? Why do we continue to revisit them, both in their original forms and in amended and modernized forms?

Knowing many of those who read this blog personally, I feel fairly safe in hazarding, like several notable writers of both the present and past, that they appeal to us because the shadow the Great Story. They haunt us because they remind us that we are part of a Faery Tale ourselves. They offer us reminders of the hope before us. They pierce us with the possibilities that Hope is and the Hope finds us when we need it. But for all their hope, their joy, their haunting, faery tales are so often filled with a brutal edge. But then, life itself is filled with many brutal edges.

Why do ponder this? Because I am so impressed with a new faery tale.

Continue reading "The phenomenon we call “faery tale”" »

Posted by Renee at 03:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

In contemplation of the sermon topic this morning, I thought I'd pose a few questions. The sermon is one in a series regarding true discipleship. Not the fill in the workbook and memorize some verses discipleship, but true, transformation as disciples of Christ. The spur for this study is a book entitled Choose the Life by Bill Hull. It's an excellent book that will entirely change the way you view what it means to be a believer--to be a disciple. Right now we're examining "Relationships and the Life," particularly what it means to foster an "environment of grace." Hull contends that an enviroment of grace is one that fosters trust--it is an environment where it is safe to be real and vulnerable, where you trust that you won't be hung out to dry for a mistake, where you mistake will be confronted honestly but with love to help you get up and move on with experience. The environment of grace is important because grace leads to trust which leads to communication which leads to vulnerablity/humility which leads to allowing another to help you grow. So, the questions are: have you had in your life (whether in church or out) an experience with an evironment of grace? would you say that your current church experience reflects, or is seeking to reflect, an environment of grace? how would your church experience be different or better if an environment of grace were fostered? how would your personal walk be affected by said fostering?

Posted by Renee at 01:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently I read a very interesting article ("Pope Dan I") examining The DaVinci Code. It isn't the first article I've read examining TDC, but was certainly the most intriguing. The author, Michael Novak, makes a very clear case that the new religion that Dan Brown is attempting to replace Christianity with is eseentialy degrading and oppresive to women. Though some might debate that Brown has as his goal the establishment of a new religion, the fact remains that in attacking the founding principles of Chrisitanity, he is, in fact, substituting different ideas--a different religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that TDC is a work of fiction, and that what little historical speculation is "documented" was discredited long ago; but, I also know that people who are busy rejecting the Truth will latch onto whatever seems mystical and spiritual while not expecting responsibility. On the surface, Brown's paganesque "sacred fememinine" fits the mold of post modernistic spirituality. It appears to elevate and celebrate the feminine in the search for some secret knowledge--to create a mystical role for the female in the realm of the spiritual. In reality, however, it destroys the beauty of Woman. It degrades individual women in favour of teh mystical whole of the femal vessel.

According to Brown's religion, ritualistic sex is an intrinsic part of teh spiritual because only in the union with teh mysitcal cessevl can the man truly come to see God. AT first glance, it seems as though this creates an amazing role for a woman--she, through sex, becomes the path for a man to know God more intimately, to receive the secret knowledge. The problem, though, as Novak aptly points out, is that by focusing on this mystical role of vessel, the man is in actuality merely using the woman for his own ends. There is no respect for the individual woman as an object of pursuit, as a person of merit. Thus sex, under the guise of a mystical path to god, becomes merely a means to exploit women, placating their abused sense of self with a title of use--the "sacred feminine." Consider the following excerpts from Novaks article:

The trick to this gnostic form of love is to think of it as a spiritual love, not for this particular woman but for the eternal goddess within, the mystery of femaleness. But of course this gnosticism leads to the grossest, most impersonal forms of sex, and a frantic, oft-repeated search for escape, in order to keep pursuing the eternally elusive Grail. Here is Professor Langdon before a coed class at Harvard, addressing the men: “The next time you find yourself [having sex] with a woman, look in your heart and see if you cannot approach sex as a mystical, spiritual act. Challenge yourself to find that spark of divinity that man can only achieve through union with the sacred feminine.” Brown reports that “the women smiled knowingly, nodding.”
But the romantic/erotic and the gnostic do not bear up well under long experience. They rely too much on delusions. They demean real, in-the-flesh, individual women, with all their common sense, faults, particular wants and tastes, and wonderful angularity. They ignore unique persons, in all their imperfection. In all their suffering.
The popularity of these stories [tragic medieval romances] demonstrates that the age-old myth of impossible love, the idealization of woman (the sacred feminine), the longing for self-dissolution, and poignant and passionate desire — all the equipment of a new outburst of the ancient gnosis — have an unrelenting power to touch the human soul. Men do constantly seek the Grail, the chalice which is Woman (not necessarily this particular woman whom I know, but the divine woman somewhere beyond, the unearthly woman, the goddess beyond anyone who is merely flesh). This is not falling in love with an individual woman (or man), but falling in love with love.

Brown's paganesque theories are not respectful of women, yet how many modern women will be allured to the idea of the "sacred feminine" idea. Brown seems intent on plucking the most rose-coloured ideas from paganism while actively ignoring the reality of paganisms abuse of women--the use of women as batering items, the reality of the harem, etc. Despite Brown's apparent contemp for historical Judaism and Christianity, Judeo-Christianity provides the only religious basis for honoring and respecting individual women.

It was Judaism that first insisted on a strict monogamy, as Christianity would later.

It is not an accident that Judaism and Christianity, with their wise sense of limits and restraints, and their insistence upon monogamy, taught whole centuries of males to treat women with individual dignity, in the mutual choice of love for one another, forever, sacramentally, each to honor, protect, and cherish the other. In no other civilization, of any other religion or secular persuasion, in any other era, have women been treated as individual persons, made in the image of God, called to reflect, choose, and act with creativity.

Unfortunately, most of the contemporary church is unequipped to combat these ideas. We have no discussion of the true, biblical role of sex. We have no discussion or understanding of the true mystique of masculine and feminine and beauty of the individual woman. Christianity is about the individual, it is about the value of one person in the eyes of God. Paganism and distorted mysticism are not. The individual is nothing in comparison to the mystical role, particularly in the case of women. She is merely a tool--a tool of spirituality, a tool of fertility. IN order to combat this error, Christians neet to know what Christ teaches about women, about sex. It seems though, that we are afraid. It is easier to attack Brown's ridiculous ideas about Christ and history than to teach congregations the Truth about the more subtler points of his work.

Perhaps this discrepancy is why we cannot combat the degreaded sexuality of our day--we don't know what the alternative is really about.

For the article...

Continue reading "brownianism" »

Posted by Renee at 09:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hope that everyone had a blessed and wonderful Christmas Day. I hope you took time to pause in the rush and contemplate the awesome wonder of God choosing to be born as a humble human baby. I think so often we rejoice in the beauty of the Advent, yet we don't often stop think what it really meant for Yeshua. He is God--He is the Supreme Deity of the universe--He created the universe with his voice--He governs each one of us, each finite and flawed being of us--and He chose to set that position aside, to become a finite being of Earth. To say that it is similar to a human choosing to become an earthworm, doesn't even grasp the entire truth of the situation. I'm not sure that any human truly can comprehend what Yeshua was choosing when He chose to be a baby human, to grow up as a human, to submit to death as a human. Phenominal. I hope you thought of that just a bit. And I hope, in that pause, in that thought, that you looked upon the Cross. I hope that you remembered that the joyous beauty of the Advent is only joyous and beautiful because its purpose--its culmination--was the Sacrifice. Without the Sacrifice--Divinity offering itself for sinful, foolish, helpless humanity--the Advent would not have occured. It would have been unnecessary. Take a moment to gaze upon the baby in the manger--fully God yet fully man--and then, for a moment, gaze upon the man on the cross. That is the meaning of Christmas. Let it light your soul.

Posted by Renee at 02:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is a breakdown of my philosophy--my beliefs on various spiritual, religious and cultural things. Have fun.

1. Salvation: given by God’s grace, worked through faith—God gives the grace to be regenerated to those He has chosen—that regenerated one now is able to see his sinful condition and recognize Christ’s atoning sacrifice— now he is able to accept, to receive Christ’s sacrifice in his place and be saved. Without the regeneration of God, a sinner when presented with God’s truth will always "choose" to reject it/ With the regeneration, the sinner will always "choose" to accept.

2. Baptism: baptism is by immersion (as the example of John/Jesus) for one who has been saved and wishes to publicly acknowledge it. It does not impart salvation, nor is it a part of salvation, but serves merely as an announcement of what has already taken place.

3. Church membership/attendance: church membership is very important for the well-being of a believer. Yet one should consider carefully which church is to be joined—one with which the believer agrees. Beyond that, the believer should regularly attend that church. While attending three services a week is a tradition of some, once a week (Sunday morning) is scripturally encouraged for the growth and stability of the believer. Also, there are times at which it may be impossible to attend church. That is excusable and is not sinful. Continual avoidance for no important reason, however, is severely detrimental and may indicate sin indulged in and wished to keep secret. It may also indicate a valley time through which a believer needs to be encouraged and admonished.

4. The Church: the church is a locally organized assembly of believers founded upon the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and dedicated to evangelism. The church should endeavour to teach and protect the truth as well as encourage and uplift the believer. (for more detail on this: The Nature of the Church)

5. Communion: the elements of the Lord’s supper are symbols of the Lord’s death given to remind us of His sacrifice. Like all symbols, they point to a mystical, deeper, truth, yet they do no contain any mysticality in themselves. Nor does the partaking of the elements impart any special grace. Merely they provide a physical reminder of an even which we did not see yet are witness to.

6. The Gospel: the gospel is the truth that Christ is the son of God who came as a man, who died (shedding his blood), who was buried and who rose again to pay for the sins of his people and justify them.

7. The will of God: before the creation of the world, of the universe, God laid out His plan. That plan is never thwarted, never altered by any action of man. God ordains all and His will is above all extending from the order of the heavens to individual actions both of believers and unbelievers. Salvation is not exempt from the sovereign will of God, contrary to the belief of many Christians.

8. The will of man: unsaved men and saved men have a will. For the unsaved man, that will is chained to sin, and while he can choose to do good works, he can never and will never choose to abandon sin and accept the grace and salvation of God. Salvation redeems man’s will to serve God and abandon sin. While all men’s wills are subject to the will of God (His ordained plan in action), from man’s point of view he must make choices in his life (exercise his will) and he is responsible for those choices and their consequences. Thus, although man’s will is never free (being either subject to sin or God), he is responsible for his "use" of it.

9. Denominations: denominations are a "necessary evil" of our time. They are necessary to distinguish differences in doctrine. But they do unnaturally divide the body of Christ. While no denomination is "more valid" than any other, some do seem to teach more in line with scripture than others. To be in a particular denomination is not more correct or scriptural than others.

10. Purpose of Believers: a believer is given this life to both enjoy god’s goodness and glorify His name. For different believers that means different things. Each believer is given different aptitudes and desires in order to serve God in different areas of life. Our purpose is to serve in those areas to the best of our capability, enjoying our work as a glory to Him.

11. Catholicism: while many aspects of Catholic doctrine are incorrect, there is still truth present. While many of the members of the Church are lost and oblivious (as they trust in works to save them), there are quite a number of believers in the Church. It is arrogant to assume that just because a person if Catholic, they are not a believer. Belief is based solely on the belief/acceptance in/of Christ’s atoning death, not what church you are in/a member of.

12. Marriage: marriage is an allegory of God’s relationship to us. It is not a distraction from God or Hid service, but an act of service that points toward God. It is a gift given to us to show us God—a spiritual, emotional, mental, physical bond that brings glory to God and glorifies His creation. It is not a mere function of earth, but a union that transcends physical, earthly manifestation. It is a small glimpse into the Paradise God desires for us.

13. Culture: it is the responsibility of believers to impact the culture of their . . . sphere. The idea that "separation" is taken so far by many Baptists. Yet we are told to be in the world, though not if it. We are to be actively involved in influencing our culture for God. For if we do not, who will? And if we do not, we are solely responsible for its decline. We are to be salt and light: salt which preserves and flavours and light which brightens. We cannot be that if we are not involved in culture. Those who withdraw into their separate circles are not salt and light though they believe they are.

14. Art: see Walking on Water by L’Engle. As creativity is our imageness, all good art (inc. literature and music) has the word/knowledge/inspiration of God. Thus even works by secular people can teach truth, even if they don’t realize they are teaching it.

15. Individual conviction: the Bible leaves many matters ambiguous. It is our job to take the principles of scripture and make prayerful decisions on these matters as we feel led by God and His word. Each believer, being in a different place and led to a different ministry in like, is led to different convictions and different levels of convictions. Unless they are in obvious violation of scripture or in sin, one should not judge the level of their "spirituality" based on how their convictions align with our own. Now one can know what God is doing with another person, or what He preparing them for. Individual conviction is what grace and the indwelling spirit is about. Outside of obvious scriptural comrades, the way a Christian walks in this life is between himself and God.

16. Holidays: Though some holidays have "pagan" origins, they are no longer associated with that having been "Christianized." As the Catholic doctrine states. . .the profane, touched by Christ, is made holy

Posted by Renee at 05:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although I wrote this paper as a class assignment, it is truly the position that I hold. The debate over what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" topical matter for Christian fiction, or any fiction that Christians read, is very delineated. Here's where I stand.

Continue reading "morals and fiction" »

Posted by Renee at 05:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)