"Noah": Get Real

I just came back from seeing the new Noah movie, and I must say, it wasn't a bad movie at all... as long as you suspend most of your beliefs and knowledge about the Noah story in the Bible.  Overall, I give it 4 out of 5 stars for theatrics and plot, but for Biblical accuracy, I must say, it was worse than the Son of God movie and would only give it 1.5 stars out of 5 stars.  I must also give a spoiler alert, since this movie does divert from the Bible in many ways, but I will promise to be as vague, brief, and concise as possible.

First, the movie does have Noah, an ark, and a corrupt world.  Noah also has a family, albeit not the complete one that walks onto the ark (two of the sons are missing wives).  The biggest problem in this movie is that Noah appears no better or worse (in all honesty) than the corruption around him.  In fact, at several points in the film, he is more comfortable with killing than with life, a common trait of those who were wicked.  And he appears no different than the wicked king when both invoke the name of the "creator" (aka. God) without any response from God (most of the time).  Just because this has come up, I think the film uses "creator" instead of "God" to be respectful of those traditions that say it is disrespectful to call God as such and also to not show partiality in God's address (Islam, Judaism, and Chrsitianity use different titles for God).  It is also clear that the movie Noah focuses on the childhood common story, which is a combination of two (or some scholars say three) different stories.  Don't believe me?  Read the story of Noah in Genesis: chapters 6-9.  You may notice that one of the retellings has only 7 pairs of of animals: clean, unclean, and birds--21 all together (chapter 7) versus pairs of all animals (chapter 6).  Better scholars than I can tell you exactly where the two stories bridge in and out of each other, but our Biblical understanding often makes those two stories into one.

Chronologically, the movie Noah skips around from the Bible, bringing back a grandfather (Methuselah) who would be dead at the time of Noah.  Also, what I supposed to be the Nephalim, fallen angels whom the wicked people mated with, actually turns out to be the protectors (or "Watchers") of Noah; they also look a lot like the stone giants in the Lord of the Ring trilogy movie.  And for those who love the rainbow in the Noah story, you have to wait until well after the flood to spot it (I almost thought they were going to leave it out!).

The most interesting thing about the movie (in my opinion) is how futuristic it appears (almost like it could have been 100 years ago), not something I expected from a story that took place thousands of years before.  The clothing and devices used show artistic retelling of how our world might really be doomed to fail.  However, woven into the story is the same magic and folklore that is common to mythology, like stones that instantly ignite into fire.  What also captured my eye (behind the possible literalistic retelling of the creation story) is an evolutionary quality for life on this earth; however, the evolution all happened in one day, as evidenced by the rising and setting of the sun.  People who read the Bible literally usually hate the idea of evolution; some who can agree that evolution is part of God's creation usually don't like thinking of creation in six literal days, understanding the days to be more like the Lord's day--this latter point, though, can be highly argued.

This movie kept reminding me of the apocalypse: doom for all mankind.  The fact that many characters (I can't remember at this point if any of them were on the ark) thought that they could overcome the end of the world (especially referencing God's doing) always has me questioning how a person who is a creature, created by God, can usurp God's power... but sadly and rightly, the characters were all wrong.

Several sources I have read says that Focus on the Family has endorsed this movie.  I don't see a strong endorsement, though, from their website: http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/noah-2014.aspx.  What I do read is that this movie can be used to spark "conversation" with others.  Even still, I'm surprised that a group, such as Focus on the Family that prizes itself on Biblical accuracy (and inerrancy), a heterosexual partnered lifestyle (man and woman solely), a cohesive family unit with children that support the family, and no divorce rate, would even speak on this movie.  I found this movie hard to get through at times, with what appears to be a crazed Noah ready to kill his own grandchildren to appease God and a son (Ham) who walks away from the family in the end.  Domestic violence (in this case, emotional) which came out several times it very hard hitting situations should never be endorsed in a family unit.  And what about the child that walks away?  Noah never seems to want to find him; he is lost from the storyline.  As for Noah's own wife, both she and Noah separate over time due to Noah's insecurities, with somehow a "happy ending" closing out the movie, where the wife doesn't even try to address what happened on the boat; literally and unfortunately, a submissive wife.  And what about sex before marriage?  This movie alludes to it, along with the problem of pregnancy; however, in the Bible, it should be noted that all three sons are married to wives, so there is a possibility that the director/writer just decided not to show the marriage itself.  Still, if it isn't made apparent and they still look like children...  Could it be that Focus on the Family is breaking down their ever apparent disappoint for families that aren't "ideal" or "perfect" according to their standards in lieu of having conversations?  ...I may be naive, but I still won't give them that much credit!

What would I suggest this movie is good for?  After a long day, if you want to see a good Hollywood movie full of dramatic effects and wonderful suspense, go for it.  But don't use it in Bible studies or for gathering information.  Go to the source.  It's a lot better and a lot clearer.

Noah's Ark... Not Your Sunday School Version

There must be something said about speaking your mind before you have proof to back up your claims.  Already, the blogosphere, newsphere, and internet are a buzz with the anticipated movie "Noah".  Stories abound of how (according to Russell Crowe) Noah isn't a benevolent person but rather one who would allow everyone else to drown before saving them (which is biblically a problem if Noah is said to be the only one who was good).  Others have commented how God had been taken out of the picture; the rumor is that apparently there is no interaction between God and Noah.  And with strong endorsements from the evangelical community, Focus on the Family, and (of course) Hollywood, and bans from the Islamic community, I already feel like I've missed the boat... quite literally.

However you find the story line to be, remember that the true story (found in the Bible) is not Hollywood.  Also, remember that the true story isn't just Christian ownership (even though many tabloids have assumed such).  We share this story with the Jewish and Muslim community, and if you go to such an extreme as finding parallels of the Noah's ark story with other religious text (like the Epic of Gilgamesh), you may open yourself that Noah's ark embodies so much more than even these three traditions could ascertain.

Just remember: 1) the movie doesn't prove or disprove the Biblical story.  It actually has absolutely no impact on the Biblical story; 2) we need to listen to our neighbors in faith and understand their reactions, including those in the Muslim and Christian community who think that portraying a sacred person in this life can lead to idolatry (I should blog one day about recent prejudice against the Muslim faith and why I believe evangelicals have it wrong); and 3) in the Bible, it is usually clear when God speaks (for the words "God says" follows the quote), but in life, God still speaks to us but not necessarily in direct ways.  Is it possible God spoke to Noah in similar ways to how God speaks to us today?

My personal review will come out on Friday.  Check it out here.

Does "Resurrection" Have You Wondering about the Afterlife?

Pardon the interruption...

In reference to the ABC show "Resurrection" (of which I'm still trying to figure out the premise of the story now three weeks in), I saw this short clip as I was eating lunch.  For a show that is based on (in this case) themes that are specifically resonating with Christian values (i.e. the focus around one small town and in particular, a protestant church), I'm surprised that there was no reference to: a) God; b) church; c) hope.  All I can say is if you find yourself wrestling with what the afterlife truly means, come to church.

I must say, unfortunately, this clip is about 1 minute and 50 seconds too long and winds up saying absolutely nothing you probably didn't already know or couldn't have guessed.  Must  have been a slow news day.

Watch the clip here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/resurrection-show-viewers-wondering-deceased-loved-time-23032631.

Part 1: Miracles and Morality

The other day, I had an interesting conversation with another pastor.  In delving into what a "miracle" consists of and in relation to the feeding of the 5000, I mentioned how a miracle isn't like magic: you don't just wish for something and it appears (an approach that was taken during particular scenes in the Son of God movie).  His point was that the miracle in that particular story was in how everyone shared something with their neighbor (with the assumption that everyone brought a lunch with them).  I argued with him about his view of "miracle".  Upon clarification, he later changed his mind to suggest that the sharing was "a" miracle, given the fact that humans don't naturally share; "miracle" in this sense would be overcoming natural selfish inclinations.  Still, I must argue with the premise; for me, a miracle is an event in which God intercedes or interjects God's ability into the situation.  Thus, us sharing without God's intervention is more of a moral issue than a theological stance.  In like matter, one might offer this argument: if you can do miracles without God, like becoming a morally good person, what's the point of faith?  Maybe I am taking this pastor's point a little far, but needless to say, faith is not the same as a moral issue.  It's not about we ourselves overcoming human inclinations; that is, unless God intervenes.  The miracle for me in the feeding of the 5000 is that God provided for our every need--in the Gospel of John, Jesus healed those who were sick, gave good news to those in bad situations, and fed those who were hungry.  The miracle, and theological statement, is that God provides in ways that we can't do ourselves, given our selfish ways.

Now, this isn't to say that miracles don't happen on a regular basis; they do.  But they must point to God first as the source of the miracle.  There is a big difference between God as the source and people making good moral decisions.  And, sometimes the miracle leads us to good moral decisions, but God must again be the source.

To come next: Miracles and the Supernatural

Jaywalking and Grace

Most of us, at one point or another, has crossed the street illegally--especially if you live in New York City.  In the city, you're usually late for something (or about to be late) and there is a consistent and great time pressure.  I admit that I have done it twice today, along with a whole group of people.  Even at crosswalks, you can jaywalk if the sign suggests that you don't walk.  I am not writing this to confess my sin (nor do I really feel guilty) but rather to suggest that it is a common enough practice, especially in New York City.  Now, given another location or if I had children with me, I wouldn't probably take the risk and I totally understand that jaywalking puts a liability on my own person as well as of those traveling past at any given moment... but is it really a crime that could include incarceration?

A few days ago, a Chinese man (Kang Chun Wong) was apparently ticketed and later arrested for doing just what he saw everyone else do.  Now, the man spoke little English (remember: the United States currently has no official language) but is reported to speak Spanish and was living in the city of immigrants (so language barriers are a constant problem).  Given the bias of the media (I haven't heard from the NYPD for clarification on questions I have), the 84 year old man, just crossing the street (however illegal) somehow wound up ruffed up by police.  Now the question is: might this man go to jail?

While the lemming theory (if everyone else does it, it must be ok) doesn't ever hold weight in court, if the NYPD decides to prosecute people for jaywalking, then the system must be fair and give everyone a ticket (even the cop who jaywalked with me earlier today).  Targeting one person and later arresting him for something that most cops look the other way on suggests unfairness.  Mr. Wong though apparently can also fight dirty; he is suing for $5 million.

If we talk about God's grace and justice, neither party is right in this case.  While I would say Mr. Wong deserves some financial compensation (and maybe minus the penalty for jaywalking), $5 million is well past the ill treatment he was given and the total medical bills.  And I'm fine with the cops fulfilling all parts of the law and reprimanding those who break rules, but they must follow it too and be consistent in the punishment; the punishment must also fit the crime.  I see speeding as being closely equivalent to jaywalking and most people speeding (provided that drugs aren't involved) don't get arrested.  I wonder what fairness would look like in this case...

(I Want You To) Hold My Hand

I love the band The Fray.  I think their musical genius of combining Christian values with secular story lines is not only what makes their association in popular radio stations a simple acceptance but also a refreshing nature against pop music that never acknowledges God or God's ways and Christian music that disavows God in anything that is secular, which is a common teaching of those on the far side of the evangelical bent (I'm talking about those who prescribe to the Left Behind series).  The Fray affirms that God can be in popular places.  I also believe, given St. Patrick's Day is right around the corner, that the Fray's music encapsulates part of the Irish bard's tradition of telling a story through music while also pointing out how God is everywhere and in everything--another value not convincingly supported by quite a few of the evangelical church (as supported by some on the extreme).  The Fray's music can also be compared to the psalms, which were originally songs about life.

That being said, the new song from The Fray is "Hold My Hand", a ballad (my own impression) which tells the story of a person fearful to move on with life, whether it be near death, going down a failed path that a parent has done, or some trepidation about a change of life.  Crying out to God (not directly referenced), the person is "on my knees" (a sign of worship), needs to be lifted up (a sign of the cross), and needs support "even if the sky is falling" (a reference to Daniel and Revelation in the Bible).  But more than all of this, the person needs almost a parent's guidance during this transition, as a parent would hold a child's hand crossing a busy street to get safely across.

So, become the psalmist crying out the Lenten season: how do you need God to hold your hand to get you past those life challenges you can't imagine facing alone?

Hey, You There... Why the Long Ash?

Ash Wednesday is almost upon us.  It is a time when Christians the world over remember their own fragility and to whom we belong to.  This day is often solemn with funeral-like themes throughout the worship service.  Some Christians try to avoid the day altogether, stating the music and feel is too downtrodden.  Others, especially more recently, celebrate the day with receiving ashes on the street corner and walking away less than five minutes later.  I have an appropriate term for this type of receiving, but the word itself carries a lot of baggage in today's word; given this blog is long enough already, I will keep this word to myself until a more appropriate time.  Even still, wherever and however you get your ashes, whether you put it on your head or keep it on the back of your hand, here are a few thoughts about this Ash Wednesday and why the day is made specifically for you.

In the book of James found in the Bible, the author comments:

"But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves.  For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like.  But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act--they will be blessed in their doing." (James 1:22-25)

I never thought I would quote James in an Ash Wednesday meditation, but, I confess, I love the book (and I'm Lutheran!).  James' metaphor here, like the cross on your forehead, isn't a sign about whose included and whose excluded, as I fear why some people often rush to get their ashes; for them, ashes show that they are part of the "in" crowd, but Ash Wednesday isn't about wearing the cross to state who's in and who's out.   The sign of the ashes isn't about a momentary remembrance or act of confession; it's much more than that.  James states that one can't look in a mirror and forget what one looks like; neither can one forget the sign of the cross on one's forehead--a mark that can't be erased by water and soap once the day is done.

The first example of a seal was given to Cain, after, in rage against God, he kills his brother Abel.  Worried about his own life, God hears Cain's cry and answers by giving him a mark so that Cain might have life, even in the midst of the death all around him--from his brother and his own life's transitions (Genesis 4:13-16).  Cain was about to lose so much, including his homeland and what he believed to be God's blessed presence.  Instead, God responds by giving him a seal, the same seal we see at our own baptism, that despite our own brokenness, sinfulness, and selfishness (or whatever you want to call rebelliousness against God's command to love God and neighbor as self), God places a seal upon our foreheads so that we might not die--even though it is what we deserve.  In the days of the early Jewish movement, the policy was "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23b-25).  Thinking of ourselves over others could mean the difference, literally, between life and death--for both the other and for ourselves.  But God seals us, protects us, and claims us as God's own by the waters of baptism and the seal of the oil cross on our forehead.  Death no longer has its sting; God will give us life everlasting.

There is another story of a seal, but this time by blood.  In the time of Moses and the Israelite captivity in Egypt, God told the Israelites to put blood on the frame of the door during the tenth plague, so that death might pass over those who bear witness to life in bold ways.  Sure, in Egyptian captivity, claiming one God against the many gods was a minority view, but most Israelites lived safely from persecution in faith; they weren't, however, safe from persecution in general, as they were made slaves because of their immigration status in Egypt.  It seems that blood on the door frame was more of a testimony to oneself and the trust one places in God's promises.  This would be especially true if you were the firstborn of the family (the oldest child) and the very stake you had in life over death (Exodus 12:1-30).  The mark of the ash on our heads reminds us that God does keep God's promises, especially the promise of life everlasting, where death, crying, and mourning will be no more.

There are two other passages to note from Biblical scripture that plays an important role in being sealed or marked.  The first is from Ezekiel, chapter 9.  In response to the ill ways Israel was living, the mark on the forehead showed commitment to the Lord, more than just in name alone.  It was a way of life.  Those who had the mark responded to God's call to follow by living a life worthy of... well, life.  Ezekiel was tired of people who said "yes" to God but than lived a life of immorality against God's command.   To be clear and also to refute some theologians who follow James because its about doing good to earn life, Ezekiel is not saying that (nor is James saying that works is equal to salvation, but that is another discussion for another day).  Rather, Ezekiel clearly lays out the life God has called one to live; all are welcome to this way of life.  It is a good path and it shows love towards God and towards one's neighbors.  But, we can openly reject God's way.  We can be (in this case) Christians for a moment and then turn our backs to God the rest of the year.  We can say God matters but not show how God matters.  In the words of James, we can be one who looks at the mirror one second and then forget what is seen the moment we turn our backs.  In response, both James and Ezekiel call us to live holy lives throughout the year, lives acceptable to the love God has shown us.

And then there is the Revelation of John.  This book is all about duality, more so than most of the Biblical books.  It's also about purity and the author of the Revelation of John relies at times on Ezekiel.  In a comparison to the above Ezekiel reference, Revelation 7:4 points out that there will be those given a seal of protection, which will play out when the plagues come (like the Exodus story, actually).  But they are not the only ones to receive a seal; Satan throughout Revelation tries to mimic God in every way (but always seems to fall short of God's power and might time after time).  Satan responds in kind in Revelation 13:16 to those who may or may not have heard God's call but turned to Satan all the same.  I must say, while I am a conservative theologian, I find Revelation more of an epic tale between good and bad; I do not assume a literal interpretation of the book and from all the research I have done, anyone that claims to be a literalist still uses metaphors when it proves their point (i.e. those who subscribe to the Left Behind books; I strongly recommend Barbara Rossing's book The Rapture Exposed for great insight into how theology has been misconstrued when dealing with understanding the Revelation of John).  From my understanding, the author to Revelation points out how there are clearly two extremes to our life: following God who has called, protected, and claimed us, or following the powers of this world who indeed influence us but has no real power over us.  It's a book about reliance in God and the constant reminder that we are truly in God's hands.  It reminds us to be constantly turning to God--the truth in this world--rather than towards people who can't compete with God.  At any given moment, we either tip the scale towards this world or God's kingdom, and we should always be cognizant of giving it all to God.

Why?  Because of what the ash symbolizes.  In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the world was formed and from the dust of the world, people came into being (Genesis 3:19b).  Dust is all we are.  Fragile, we can be blown about easily by the winds of change.  Incomplete, humanity naturally assumes it is greater than any other part of creation.  We were created out of God' good creation, but we have lost our way in that goodness.  Ash Wednesday, and Lent in general, calls us to return to the goodness that is in us, while also focusing on the ways that we have walked away from God, leaving our trust in God to be less than desired.  No one is better than any other person in this understanding for "all have sinned and fall[en] short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23); that is, except the one who by his death marks us for life: Jesus Christ, our Messiah.

Our ashes have a long history in the church, reminding ourselves of our fragility, our brokenness, our need for God in our lives.  It's only natural to hear the exact opposite message from wearing a cross on your forehead during the day's readings that include passage like

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others.  Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.  But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)  

This passage seems to contradict wearing ashes on your head, except one way to understand this is that the mark on your forehead isn't for others--it's for yourself and the reminder that when you do walk away from a mirror, to remember who has claimed, protected, and called you, and for at least one day, to be assured of that every time you walk back to the mirror.

If you can, I would encourage you to attend worship in the church you feel most comfortable, but to make sure you do attend worship.  Churches all across the world will be ready to receive you and care for you during the Lenten journey that is about to take place.  There are several churches in Patchogue, New York, where I live, that will be hosting Christians throughout the day.  I know my own Lutheran church on Jayne Avenue will be open all throughout the day, almost for 12 full hours, starting at 9 am, with services, prayer, meditation, and ashes available whenever you can fit it into your schedule, for even though this is a religious holy day, most businesses do not see Ash Wednesday as such and we want to make sure that we are available whenever you are ready to be assured of your own brokenness and God's eternal promise.  May your ashes remind you to follow God in your life, to know that you are claimed, protected, and called by the one who loves you so deeply to grant you eternal life, and to be assured that God's way is the true path we should all try to follow.

Review of the Movie "Son of God"

Now, I'm hardly a theologian nor a film critic.  Being a pastor who likes to watch movies, I feel I have enough to give an opinion and to leave it at that.  If you haven't seen the movie yet, you can always judge for yourself against my opinion; or if you have, leave a comment about what you thought.

My biggest disappointment wasn't what some are calling "hot Jesus" (although I must say, it sounds offensive) or in the fact that mashing four Gospels into one film never seems to portray an accurate retelling of the story.  My biggest complaint was the first 5 and last 5 minutes of the show, where the narrator, told to be John the beloved disciple, apparently lives long enough to also be the writer of the Gospel of John and the Revelation of John.  Albeit, the members of the congregation who have been attending the Bible study on the Revelation of John can tell you there are problems with assuming that the writer of the Gospel of John and the writer of the Revelation of John are the same person.  The biggest is the writing itself; the penmanship is different and the language is put together differently.  This can be seen in the original Greek language and comparing the two documents together.  The other difficult understanding is that the Book of Revelation was probably written around 92-96 AD, when "John" would have been sent into exile by emperor Domitian.  If you take the earlier dating, 60-70 AD, emperor Nero was in the midst of executing Christians, making "John" virtually dead by the time he would have written this document.  The Gospel of John has been dated usually between 100 AD and 120 AD, leaving it as a possibility for being a later addition than the Revelation of John.  Even thinking that these two documents could possibly be related by the same author, that would make John (as an actual disciple of Christ) somewhere in his late 70s or 80s (assuming he was in his teenage years when Jesus died) by the time he is speaking in the movie, which is a very uncommon age to live to in those days.  So, my argument is that you have to ignore the first and last part of the movie.  Now for the middle part.

Overall, I might be willing to say it was good.  However, I had to ignore certain parts of the Gospel; the Gospels first came to us through oral media (Jesus spoke and people listened).  When it was written down, I'm sure we last some things, but God directed the scribes to write what we see today.  Like any book that is turned into a movie, there are bound to be some very rough moments if you have read the book and loved it.  I had to suspend some things I knew to be true in order to see what the movie was driving at.  For example, Jesus follows more of a divine understanding than a human one.  Indeed, the Jesus in the movie follows closer to the Gospel of John's retelling than the humanness we see in the other three Gospels.  In fact, what disturbed me the most about Jesus was that he never wept over Lazarus' death, and the shortest sentence in the whole Bible is "Jesus wept".  Jesus had a human side (even in the Gospel of John, where we find this sentence) and that can't be denied.  But the only time Jesus cries (understandably for the time) was during the crucifixion scenes, where he knows what is coming.

I also had to really ignore a time in the Bible when Mary, the mother of Jesus bends over to Jesus who is on the ground.  Jesus gives Mary encouragement by saying something about God's path; however, there is a part in the Gospels where Mary cries out to Jesus to stop talking nonsense and Jesus dismisses his mother and family for the new "family" around him.  While Mary obviously doesn't understand everything, in the movie she is given hope by the omniscience of Jesus, something I had a hard time believing would really happen to her in the Gospels.

Jesus never really develops as a character.  In fact, it is his super-human quality that I felt I couldn't associate with.  This Jesus felt like a magician (this coming from a pastor).  Key sentences were left out of the story line.  For example, Jesus tells Peter to fish, but Peter resists.  After a little convincing, Peter tosses the net by the side of the boat.  Instead of Jesus telling him to cast it on the other side, Jesus touches the water and fish appear.  Likewise, in the feeding of the 5000, Jesus holds up a basket and the fish and loaves are multiplied before everyone is given anything to eat.  To me, that seems like magic.  I always thought of the feeding of the 5000 as a story about everyone taking some and the bread and fish never vanishing, like the story of Elijah and the widow whose flour never ran dry.  Instead, the food appeared before the meal even started.  It is also this super-human Jesus that carries the whole cross after being beaten, while the other two criminals just carry the supporting beam.  Even though Jesus doesn't make it the whole way by himself, it would be hard to believe that out of all the people being executed, Jesus would have received a severer punishment after being whipped and beaten such; it's more likely Jesus too carried just the supporting beam.  Of course, what then can be said about "carrying your own cross"?  Maybe we can address that in another blog.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of Jesus' resurrection.  It doesn't follow any one particular Gospel (here we get into the problems of voicing).  Take a look for yourself.

I also felt there were key stories that were missing: the hemorrhaging woman, the centurion's child, the casting out of demons (there weren't any), the wedding of Cana, the shepherds at the nativity scene, the man with the withered hand, the old man by the pool of Siloam, any of the parables.  Come to think of it, Jesus was called a rabbi but didn't do much teaching (rabbi means teacher).

As for Judas, I'm not sure why he kept going back to the Temple.  Once truly is enough.  I did appreciate the lightness they took on the matter about the betrayal.  Jesus really puts the pressure on Judas to carry out God's will (forcing him to eat the bread and telling him to go).

I did appreciate that the disciples were more than just men, although there was only one woman who followed Jesus (besides Jesus' mother coming in and out of the picture).  The connection was missing between Mary Magdalene and Martha (as sisters) and her profession was completely overlooked.  In fact, Mary just started showing up one day (unless I missed something).

Obviously, condensing 4 Gospels into a film cuts out most, and in this day and age, it's easier to disappoint than impress.  I would give the movie 3.5 out of 5 stars, mostly because it gets you thinking.  However, this movie is clearly geared towards those who are churched as it doesn't explain the baptism scene, the Jesus customs during Passover (which the movie gets wrong... the bread is during the meal, the cup is after).  I also applaud the directors for trying to be a little more cultural about Jesus, but Jesus wasn't Latin American... he was Arab.

Oh, and I should conclude by saying: this movie isn't for children.  I had a grown adult man sitting next to me that was queezey by all the blood and violence in the film.  Please leave your children at home (I saw way too many in the theater).

Let me know what you think!

Purpose of this Blog

One night, on his way back to his brother, Jacob's fear began to overtake him.  After years of being the one who connived against his brother, robbing his older twin of everything from a birthright to the most cherished of blessings that could only be passed down from father to oldest son, Jacob was ready to admit that he was trapped--trapped between a rock and a hard place, actually.  Night after night, Jacob would lay asleep with only a rock for a pillow, and yet it was in these lowly states that God would come to him, offering him hope and a future!

Or at least, that's how the first vision came about.  Right after Jacob had taken complete control of all that was Esau's (his birth and his blessing as the oldest son in the family), Esau did what many brothers would do in that moment: chase Jacob away from the family and tell him that if he should ever return, he would kill him.  Shortly thereafter, as Jacob laid down to rest for the night, God came to him in a glorious vision with a ladder and angels ascending and descending.  In Jacob's disbelief (for surely he never knew God was in that place), God makes a promise to Jacob: that God will bring Jacob home again, to the land where his brother chased him from.  It must have been hard to believe that in Esau's rightful anger and wrath that Jacob would ever be able to return home (and not only that but that all families would be blessed through Jacob's conniving), but it didn't really matter; Jacob woke up the next morning, took the rock he was using for a pillow, and made it into an altar to God, wanting to remember that God was in this place.

A long time later, when Jacob obtains a family and is told to return home, he finds himself alone again.  Being incredibly selfish (as is common for Jacob), he sends everyone ahead of him (including his wives and children), hoping to appease Esau's anger.  Esau, though, isn't angry anymore.  Jacob just doesn't know that yet.  Alone, Jacob rests for the night and God visits again, but this time, it's not in as enjoyable a vision as before.  Instead, it comes from a stranger who tries to overcome him.  Wrestling all night (that must have been tiring!), the dawn approaches and the stranger begs to be let go, but Jacob denies him that right.  In the Bible, to see the face of God would be to die, and only one person is even guessed that he may have seen the face of God and lived before Jesus came, as the son of God.  That person was named Moses.  But Jacob doesn't know about Moses (Jacob was born way before Moses).  Jacob wants something: he wants a blessing.  But even seeing God's face could be a blessing, knowing that the glory of God would shine upon him in wonderful ways.  He clings all the more tightly to God, despite the injury he gets in his hip from all of this wrestling.  Time ticks quickly and the stranger gives a new name to Jacob, one that would be familiar with many people today: Israel, meaning "striven/wrestled with God".  And that's exactly what Jacob had done.  And not only that, but God says that he even prevailed (or won) in some kind of cosmic bet.  The bet was probably that no one could truly hold enough faith to cling as long as Jacob did.  Now, with this new name, Israel could assume a new identity: one in which the pain of the past would be a real memory but would not define him.  Indeed, Jacob got up the next day and limped on.

Our world is a scary place in today's world.  Violence ranks the top spots in our newscasts; yesterday's friends quickly become today's biggest enemies; individualism is on the rise and loyalty seems to be at an all-time low.  Fear is at the center of many people's lives as the apocalyptic genre grows exponentially with end-of-the-world TV series, zombie movies, alien video games, and good medicine gone bad books.  Like Jacob, it's easy to focus on the past and the fear that it produces.  But Jacob also has a message for today: for the day is breaking.

The sun peeks from behind every cloud.  The sun rises above even the highest of mountains.  The sun warms even the coldest of days.  Darkness does not last forever; just cling to God until the sun does come.  Cling until the hope you wish for becomes the reality of your situation.  Cling until you see God at work.

Because God is at work in this world, assuring us that there is always a dawn.  May the journeys you go on, the journeys spurned by a hurt past, lead you to a new name, a new life, and a new reality that God is there with you.


A little about this blog and author:  This blog comes from the inner workings of Pastor Kevin O'Hara, a called and ordained pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA for short).  He is theologically conservative, progressively liberal, and politically moderate (whatever that means).  He lives in paradox, where two things that are often seen as opposites are compared next to each other (like living in darkness while daylight is around you, as Jacob did above).  He is a called pastor at the Lutheran Church of Our Savior in Patchogue, New York, which is on Long Island, about 30 minutes outside of New York City.  Originally from outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he works with his congregation and the community to instill hope to all of God's people, no matter the religious preference, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, ethnic background, socioeconomic status, faith practice (although this is taken from a Lutheran/Christian perspective) or any other discriminating factor.  He firmly believes that God has made us all unique and gifted in various ways; the core of who we are does not need changing.  However, sometimes, in this broken world, we act in ways that aren't according to God's commands.  This blog is set up to have conversation around how communities live in light of our brokenness (in the church, this is called sin).  There is hope in every disaster; there is a new day that will dawn.  God is faithful to God's people.

As a site for conversation, it will be appropriate to follow some guidelines.  It is important to listen to every voice; however, it will be up to discretion of the pastor if certain voices are being purely used to "bully" others.  By this, I mean, there is a clear difference between saying you don't agree with something with supporting reasons why and saying you don't agree with someone because they're a [use any derogatory language].  This blog is meant as a safe place on the internet and the author reserves the rights to delete comments and block users who misuse this code of conduct.  For example, Pastor Kevin O'Hara is an openly gay pastor in a relationship, all honored and supported by the church body; he knows only too well the pain of words.  In order to promote peace, the author believes that all voices need to be heard, but silencing a voice because it is intimidating others may need to happen.

Please follow, read, and reply as you feel moved.  It would be helpful to somehow identify yourself, although you don't need to do so fully.  God's blessings be with you and on this site as we explore this world, faith, and hope.

Have no fear, God tells us, "for the day is breaking."