The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

In the preface to The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis writes:

“Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell... The attempt is based on the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable ‘either-or’; that granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain.  This belief I take to be a disastrous error.”

“I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road.  A sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.  Evil can be undone, but it cannot ‘develop’ into good.  Time does not heal it.  The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, ‘with backward mutters of disservering power’ –or else not at all.”

Fractional Politics

As the 81-year old Dalai Lama approaches his latter years, China announced again its claims of being able to retain the right to announce which baby will be the new reincarnated Dalai Lama. Chairman Zhu Weiqun of the Ethnic and Religious Affairs committee, which stands as a top advisory body to China's parliament, wrote "The central government has stiffened its resolve to decide on the reincarnation of 'living Buddhas' so as to ensure victory over the anti-separatist struggle."

Let me say that one more time.  The atheistic, communist, government of China says it holds the right to decide who will be reincarnated and when.   Its like a strict orthodox Jew laying out all the parameters for how worship should be offered to Athena.

Of course, this contradiction does not escape them.  China is certainly aware of it.  But noticing the irony doesn't make them hesitate for a moment!  That is because the Dalai Lama's reincarnation "is first and foremost a political matter."  Political expediency is the end game.  Everything else lines up behind that, even if it means laws that assume spiritual realities they already resolutely deny.  It is amazing how fractional and compartmental our convictions and beliefs have become, particularly in the service of political ends.

The Shack in Review

The Shack movie comes out today at the theaters.  Of course most of the theological critiques of this movie are about its fairly loose and controversial portrayals of God.  But granting some artistic license some evangelicals have found a lot of truth in the book and tell viewers to just focus on the main themes of how God is close to us in our suffering.  

David Mathis writes a very thoughful article here about how even the main theme of God in our suffering actually has huge theological distortions for Christian viewers to be aware of, just the same.

The Elusiveness of Unity

In his last State of the Union speech President Obama openly regretted how during his presidency the polarization and division of the country has gotten worse.  The suspicion and rancour between the parties is even deeper than before.

Last week in his inaugural address President Trump spoke about healing the divisions in America: "The bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."  Then President Trump explains precisely his vision for how this unity will come about: "At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and through our loyalty to our country we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.  When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice."

The solution to America's division is nationalism.  A total allegiance to the United States of America.  Sadly it went unnoticed that the same bible tells us not just that unity is good and pleasant, but how unity can truly be found... how the dividing wall of hostility can be torn down (Eph 2:14).  And of course this hostility and division is not because of a lack of patriotism.  In fact, nationalism was one of the main ingredients that created the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles in the first place.  I'm afraid that without war or a common enemy (which is overwhelming felt by all), this vision for healing our divisions will continue to make genuine unity elusive.

Staring is Power

The BBC just released its 2016 Most Striking Photographs of the Year.  Highlighting its artistic value Kelly Grovier summarizes the power inside this photograph:

"'Staring is power,' writes Kelly Grovier 'The ability to command another’s gaze, to transfix their mind and muscles by using nothing more than… one's unblinking eyes, requires discipline and courage of purpose.' This photo of a standoff between a protester and a Chilean policeman in Santiago prompted Grovier to consider the meaning of an unflinching gaze. In her 2010 work The Artist is Present, performance artist Marina Abramović stared into the eyes of visitors. It was a reminder of John Ruskin’s belief that 'All great and beautiful work has come of first gazing without shrinking into the darkness.'"

Interesting side note: John Ruskin was the art mentor of Lillias Trotter, of whom our daughter Hannah Lillias is named after.  

From Refugee to Refuge, A Christmas Prayer

Lord,
Be merciful to those with little hope,
To those who must flee their homeland.
Look with favor upon those who are surrounded by danger,
Become, for the refugee,
   a refuge.

Your Son after being honored by foreigners,
became hunted by the ruler of his own land.
To Egypt, to Africa,
He, who would become the world's ultimate refuge,
   Had become a child refugee.

Remember them Father,
With merciful eyes,
Look upon them like your Son.

Passion and Pizza Making

The first new Pizza Hut arrived in our town a few months ago.  Being a former employee and a softy for the deep-dish, we found ourselves checking it out a few weeks ago.  Heidi and I had an interesting conversation after we saw this advertisement on the interior wall of the Pizza Hut dining area:

   

"Passion."  "Inspired."  Pizza Hut cooks are passionate about making their pizzas.  Pizza Hut cooks are inspired to make something excellent.  They are not just experts apparently, they feel something deep down when they make their pizzas.  Of course, it is just a silly advertisement that probably only lives in the thoughts of some marketing executive.  That aside, the interesting part for me is why does the advertisement see those words as particularly powerful?  Why "passionate?"  Why "inspired?"  Why not say our cooks have thoroughly memorized all the best recipes for perfect pizza?  Why not our chefs perfectly follow all the spec-chart regulations for great pizza-making?

The answer is simple.   Because that is only half as good as someone who is actually passionate about what they do and what they create.  Someone who is passionate about what they do cares about the product they are making.  The person who has merely memorized spec-charts, does not necessarily care about the product he makes.  Pizza-making only has instrumental value to him.  He is actually passionate about something else (impressing the boss, keeping a pay-check to do more enjoyable activities, etc.).  Pizza-making only helps him, for the time being, accomplish other things that he is truly passionate about.

If the highest display of dedication to pizza-making involves passion, inspiration, and other deeply felt affections, then would it really be that different for measuring one's dedication to anything?  Would someone's dedication to a marriage or to a sports team or to a country be complete if they don't genuinely feel anything for it?  If they just simply do all the activities normally associated with it, and lets even say they do it with an unwavering consistency, does that sufficiently express the highest level of dedication?  Without any genuine feeling, it would seem not.

Knowing this, we were forced to ask: why then do most religious systems say the highest display of dedication to God is not something we feel, but the collection of things we do?  What are the typical reasons we think that Mother Theresa, for example, or the Dalai Lama, or the Ayatollah of Iran might demonstrate some of the highest levels of dedication to God?  I suppose we would say something like their fasting, their self-sacrifice, the hours of meditation, their memorizing large sections of holy books, or how meticulously they follow their moral codes, etc.

Of course, this type of dedication might show a true deep heart-felt passion for God.  But can you do all these things and not actually care about God in any ultimate sense?  The answer of course is yes.  In the same way a cook who merely follows the spec-chart rules because he is deeply passionate about something else (like saving for a new dirt-bike).  It is actually quite astounding the type of things we commit ourselves to, in hope that it leads to something else entirely.  And if this is the case about religion, then it would seem most religious systems (and even many religious people) have missed the main ingredient of true dedication:  Cultivating a genuine passion for God himself.

It reminds me again how unique Jesus' statement is that the greatest commandment (as well as the second greatest) is actually a feeling. (Matt 22:37-40).  Every other religious task and commitment only finds its meaning when it is orbiting around genuine love and passion for God, and others.