Religulous
Lionsgate; 2008
Well, I broke down and saw Religulous in time to be the last reviewer on the planet to weigh in. Nevertheless, this is what my fans crave and demand. And far be it from me to fatten them on too much information too soon.
First of all, I might (humbly) mention that I did indeed “review” Religulous before I actually saw it. And I need change nothing about my review. I was embarrassingly accurate. What can I say? Am I a genius? Maybe. But, truth be told, atheists are predictable. More on the “new atheism” later but for now, trust me, there’s nothing substantially new about 21st century atheism. [The single and only new element is power. First political, then violent power if politics don’t work.] Thus, to predict what Maher would say is quite . . . predictably simple.
My friend, David Acuff (http://www.davidianfilms.com/; http://www.wired4film.com/) is fond of quoting Aleister Crowley who says "Those who tell the stories, shape the culture." For this reason, I’m on a crusade to enlist every sensible and sane person to be a film and TV critic. At least, I want everyone to be a reviewer. It would be good to write out your review of every program or film you watch, including “American Idle.” [Yes, I know how to spell.] And, hopefully you will write your critique with this question in mind, “How does this story enhance my grasp of reality?” A daunting and tedious task no doubt. But, unless you and I think in those terms, we allow others to frame our internal paradigms and distort our view of the world, leading us to see it, not as it is but as someone else wants it to be.
Now, Religulous.
Bill Maher (BM) has flopped as a comedian and as an actor. This all happened before the digital age. After a mediocre showing on HBO (we can’t determine exactly how mediocre) he attempts a career in film. Not documentaries. Film . . . with acting, scripts and the works. There is no law that requires the acting to be good. So, technically, only the law of good taste has been broken here.
Presented to us as a documentary, BM turns in his Oscar-hopeful performance. I know it’s a performance because I watched Religulous all the way to the end. BM appears to approach his subject of religion with boyish naïveté. This demeanor is necessary to convince us viewers that we are on a journey with BM in search of the truth. I am guessing that the nervous laughter is to give the impression that we are standing on the precipice of a great and orgasmic epiphany. [Nervous laughter substitutes for an eerie soundtrack. It is against the law to use music soundtracks in documentaries.]
And here is the epiphany.
“Religion must die in order for mankind to live.” Oops. Did I give away the ending? I’m not a professional you know.
No nervous laughter. No Maher-patented smirk. He’s serious. Of course if you know anything about BM, you know that this has been his conclusion for quite some time. He’s been on no such voyage in search of the facts, he’s merely lampooning religious folk for some of the dumb things they say and do. Hell’s bells! My buddies and I have been doing that for over 40 years. We had a course on it in “Bible College.” Not for credit mind you. But, my “study group” met every night and on weekends and made fun of stupid people in the church. I’m not proud of it. I’m just trying to point out that those Religulous royalties could have been mine.
I’ll deal with Maher’s conclusions later.
The DVD jacket promised the following.
“Hellishly Hilarious.”
“Hilarious! Outrageous! Nothing Short of Brilliant.”
“One of the funniest and most offensive documentaries ever made.”
I’m reminded of another Jewish comedian, Jerry Seinfeld, and the episode on Seinfeld in which his dentist converted to Judaism so he could legitimately tell Jewish jokes in his side job as an amateur comedian. When asked if this offended Jerry as a Jew he replied, “No, it offends me as a comedian.”
In this sense, Religulous is definitely “offensive.” I didn’t say it; the DVD jacket did. But, I’m not offended by Maher’s atheism. I wish him well in that regard. We have enough whack-jobs within Christianity so if Maher can stay on the other side, I’m good with it.
Religulous must be funny though. But just in case you miss the humor, Bill also provides the laugh track. I don’t mean the sound of several dozen people laughing; I mean the sound of Bill laughing, presumably because he thinks he’s funny. It’s a nice touch and it does remind us of when humor is present.
I do admit to one chortle. But, to be fair to the laugh gods, it was at the use of graphics toward the end of the film. And I was trying my best to laugh. Remember the DVD jacket.
Religulous does take us on a journey around the world – not the pretty parts. Mostly what you would see if you were riding “shotgun” and looking over at BM, driving and commenting . . . and laughing at his perceived humor.
BM interviews religious folks. The one truly serious interview with Francis Collins (Human Genome Project; The Language of God) was disappointingly short. The good old boys at the truck stop, the silly lady at “gospel world” (or wherever that was), the hippie character who played Jesus at fake Holy Land in Florida, the priest at the Vatican whom you wouldn’t let near your ugly sister and others were far too important to this information-rich documentary and thus deserved more air time. Collins couldn’t be given serious treatment, presumably because he is doubly deluded. Not only does he believe in a transcendent God, his belief is inexcusable because he is educated and should know better.
A psychoanalysis of BM is important here. Normally, I abhor psychoanalysis. But, sometimes it’s too difficult to resist analyzing psychos. And Religulous begs for it. If you do not want to be psychologically evaluated, do not parade your mother (Yahweh rest her soul) and sister and rehearse your childhood religious contradictions on film. The reasons that Bill became an atheist are explored as part of Religulous and thus deserve examination.
Bill was pissed when he learned there was no Santa Claus. We could examine his father’s exit from the Catholic Church when Bill was only 13 or so. We could imagine the angst in young Bill’s mind at leaving his Jewish mother behind as Bill and his sister were taken to mass every Sunday. And the father’s reasoning for leaving the Catholic Church (his distaste for their teaching about contraception) is rich with Freudian implications about everything from Bill’s masturbatory issues to his atheism. But nothing is as telling as Bill’s reaction to the realization that there was no Santa. It was at this moment that the seeds of doubt about God’s existence were sown. Now, these are two pernicious ideas – belief in Santa and belief in a God. No wonder the 20th century was so bloody. Have you noticed that atheists who viscerally deplore the idea that others insist on believing in God keep bringing up this comparison? Mmmm, we maybe on to something here.
If I can be serious here for a moment, it is sufficient to note that BM obviously lacks any touch point with experiential Christianity. His experience with and image of “god” is solely based upon his dogmatic and institutional brush with the Catholic Church and a non-practicing Jewish mother. The positive thing about his experience is that he may have been pried away from religious pretension at a young age. But, when pretension is not replaced with reality, skepticism is heaven.
Maher’s worldview requires treatment. Yes, medical treatment as well. But, that’s not what I mean. It needs to be addressed. Even though Religulous garnered only 12 million at the box office, I would personally not consider that a failure unless I had spent more than $11,750,000 making it. Maher requires a serious look for the same reason Alistair McGrath said of Richard Dawkins’ convoluted treatment on atheism in The God Delusion. To not answer his attack is to leave the impression that there are no answers to his objections. Otherwise, the book and the film are so patently unfair and irrational so as not to attract reviews from serious thinkers.
Maher will play out in the rise of this nascent “new atheism” (whatever the hell that means) as the court jester. Jesters are funny only under very specific circumstances – when alcohol mingles with stupidity. Court jesters traditionally performed before drunken politicians and bureaucrats who probably laughed their fool heads off. Otherwise, the jester was beheaded. Or his video was “deep-sixed.” ‘Nuff said.
Lest you think I am merely casting aspersions, may I remind you of what Maher’s fellow atheist, Christopher Hitchens, said to Maher about his audience, “your audience, which will apparently clap at anything, is frivolous [boo’s from the audience followed by the middle-finger gesture from Hitchens] . . . f**k you.” Next to the Robert Tilton farting videos, it’s my favorite scene in film history.
As the grand finale, I shall wax philosophical. I will deal with Maher’s grand statement, his final and deadly blow to religion.
“If someone says they know what happens to you when you die, I promise you that they do not know. How do I know? Because I don’t know and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.”
Notice the dogmatism. There is no sense that his claim to equal “mental powers” requires evidence or justification. He just makes a claim. This is important because
1. People possess varying degrees of mental powers about a variety of matters. So, Maher’s statement is prima facie untrue. It is also untrue historically. Einstein, with only his “mental powers” and separate from empirical observation or scientific method, conceived several of his theories. These were only “proven” years later with experiments that are relatively primitive by our standards a mere century later.
2. Reality is not perceived by equal or superior “mental powers” in any case but by good eyesight. Of course, I mean by that, spiritual perception. Atheists call this a cop out. In my humble opinion, it is the atheist’s strongest and only unanswerable critique of faith. I don’t grant that it is a “cop out” only that a rational explanation cannot help but elude the skeptic. But, as Socrates once said “it is what it is.” Or was that LL Cool J?
If you think Maher’s treatment of the subject of religion or theism is fair, answer this question – would you allow yourself to be interviewed by Maher on any subject that mattered to you? The interviews, especially the one with the evangelical Christian politician, are set-ups for the most part. BM’s inequitable treatment of those views with which he disagrees is probably why he couldn’t score interviews with a number of thinking theists. I know I wouldn’t submit to an edit-able interview. On at least one occasion, the part in which the interviewee asks “is the microphone on?” makes it to the final cut. Pray tell, what’s the purpose of that other than to paint your subject in an unfavorable light? This and a hundred other little signs demonstrate BM’s lack of fair-handedness in his treatment of anything theological or political.
And, do you really need Maher to expose the vagaries of the Catholic Church? If you do, then not even this film can be helpful.
Given Maher’s already expressed view, it’s hard to accept his boyish naïveté as his genuine approach. And this is obvious with Bill’s wrap-up monologue.
“Religion must die in order for mankind to live.”
“Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.”
“Those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slave-holders keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do.”
“If someone says they know what happens to you when you die, I promise you that they do not know. How do I know? Because I don’t know and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.”
Bill never defines religion. We are left to believe that everyone who believes in God is a practitioner of religion. Thus, if you believe in God, you are the enabler of evil on the planet.
There is nothing new in Maher’s complaints against religion or in his objections to belief. But, herein is Maher’s place in the “new atheism” – he calls on those who are only moderately religious to “look in the mirror” and forsake this heinous monster of religion.
Maher conveniently overlooks a few points that a reasonable discussion and a true documentary would have born out.
First of all, as a logical point, bad religion is bad and good religion is good. It’s absurd to say that all religion is bad. A film entitled “Religulous” owes us a thorough if not, fair, treatment of religion and the religious impulse. But, none is forthcoming.
Secondly, the biggest blunder in a documentary treatment of the role of religion in history and society is the omission of the 20th century – a testament for all time and eternity of the evils of irreligion. World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam were not wars to stop the menace of religious monsters. Blood was spilt because men, in defiance of God and all that is holy, conducted themselves in a manner fitting of a mind without God – as Hitler, as Lenin, as Stalin, as Pol Pot, as Idi Amin, ad nauseum. These are not men in search of a religious vision. They delivered on Maher’s great hope, a world without the restraints of religion and without nagging delusions about God.
I can’t agree with Owen Gleiberman that “Religulous isn't an attack upon God but on the vain, deluded things human beings say and do in His name.” It’s true that Maher only attacks the silly side of religious practice. It’s a game I play much better than Maher by the way. You should hear my imitation of Benny Hinn or Robert Tilton. Of course, anyone with even a mild case of flatulence can imitate Robert Tilton. The reality is that a common thread throughout the film is Maher’s mantra that God is a delusion. That means Religulous is more than an attack on “deluded” practices of a limited number of religious folk; it’s an attack on the very concept of God’s existence.
But, here is the common mistake most atheistic apologists make – they confuse religion with God and suppose that to discredit one is to prove the absence of the other. This is neither logically consistent nor demonstrably true. But apparently it is still fodder for documentaries.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Religulousists
I'm going to review Religulous before I've seen it. I will play into the classic stereotype of a right-wing, closed-minded, uneducated, prejudiced Christian who believes everyone is going to hell except those who believe like I do. Crappadoo-doo! Why not? Seems like nothing a theist or, God forbid, a Christian can say or do will disentangle him (I forgot "sexist") from this image.
I will review the film, then view it, the re-review it. I suppose we could say that I shall pre-review the film. How's that my friends? [I would like a Pulitzer for creating a new genre of literature.]
And I haven't followed Maher that much. Too cheap to buy HBO. I only know that when he appears on TV interviews, the producers insist on tagging him (in the banner which appears in the lower part of the frame) as a "comedian." I may date myself here but, when I was coming along, comedians made people laugh or they had to find other work. Obviously, that's what Maher did. The producers as usual, haven't been informed.
Full disclosure - I've seen the trailer once and I voted for George Bush . . . twice. I wish I could say "thrice." Voted for George Bush, that is.
If you will please wipe the grin off your face long enough to take me serious, I will give this thing a serious whirl.
Maher identifies religious kooks (branded and not) who embrace belief in God for a variety of uninformed and illogical reasons. This is Exhibit A in the prosecution's case that belief in God is totally unwarranted. Rather than concluding that people are stupid and leave it at that, Maher concludes that he is not. And that belief in God is therefore stupid. He interviews a few experts who confirm his findings lending an air of credibility to his contentions.
Let me state it as inductive logic:
1. Stupid people believe in God.
2. Smart people do not believe in God.
3. Stupid people are wrong and smart people are right.
4. God does not exist because smart people cannot possibly be wrong.
The classic mistake that atheists are almost bound to make is that religion = belief in God. If religion is discredited, there goes any warranted belief in a deity. The argument is too irresistible. It's just too easy. There are too many kooks out there waving some religious banner. (My favorites are the more entertaining ones like Robert Tilton and Benny Hinn. I'm sure you have your favs). One can discredit preachers and religious people as easily as one can lick sugar off a sucker. It's really not that difficult.
That's it. That's my pre-review. I'm sure I'll probably regret the use of a few words like "totally." Like, totally, dude.
Thankfully, we live in an age when precision of thought, exactitude of logic and accuracy of fact is not nearly as important as audacity. Given that my presumptive (read "audacious") review of Religulous is now available for billions of internet users, do I not deserve an appearance on Oprah or at least in the Obama administration?
I would like to apologize to high school and college graduates for my limited vocabulary. Please bear in mind that I am reviewing Maher.
I will review the film, then view it, the re-review it. I suppose we could say that I shall pre-review the film. How's that my friends? [I would like a Pulitzer for creating a new genre of literature.]
And I haven't followed Maher that much. Too cheap to buy HBO. I only know that when he appears on TV interviews, the producers insist on tagging him (in the banner which appears in the lower part of the frame) as a "comedian." I may date myself here but, when I was coming along, comedians made people laugh or they had to find other work. Obviously, that's what Maher did. The producers as usual, haven't been informed.
Full disclosure - I've seen the trailer once and I voted for George Bush . . . twice. I wish I could say "thrice." Voted for George Bush, that is.
If you will please wipe the grin off your face long enough to take me serious, I will give this thing a serious whirl.
Maher identifies religious kooks (branded and not) who embrace belief in God for a variety of uninformed and illogical reasons. This is Exhibit A in the prosecution's case that belief in God is totally unwarranted. Rather than concluding that people are stupid and leave it at that, Maher concludes that he is not. And that belief in God is therefore stupid. He interviews a few experts who confirm his findings lending an air of credibility to his contentions.
Let me state it as inductive logic:
1. Stupid people believe in God.
2. Smart people do not believe in God.
3. Stupid people are wrong and smart people are right.
4. God does not exist because smart people cannot possibly be wrong.
The classic mistake that atheists are almost bound to make is that religion = belief in God. If religion is discredited, there goes any warranted belief in a deity. The argument is too irresistible. It's just too easy. There are too many kooks out there waving some religious banner. (My favorites are the more entertaining ones like Robert Tilton and Benny Hinn. I'm sure you have your favs). One can discredit preachers and religious people as easily as one can lick sugar off a sucker. It's really not that difficult.
That's it. That's my pre-review. I'm sure I'll probably regret the use of a few words like "totally." Like, totally, dude.
Thankfully, we live in an age when precision of thought, exactitude of logic and accuracy of fact is not nearly as important as audacity. Given that my presumptive (read "audacious") review of Religulous is now available for billions of internet users, do I not deserve an appearance on Oprah or at least in the Obama administration?
I would like to apologize to high school and college graduates for my limited vocabulary. Please bear in mind that I am reviewing Maher.
Friday, April 10, 2009
How To Stop A Crucifixion
Today (April 10, 2009), millions of Christians will rehearse in their minds the Passion of Christ. They will recall his torture, his silence and his cries, the nails, the thorns, the body piercings, the ultimate agony and death.
It all could have been prevented. The revelation of a simple secret, a mystery as the apostle Paul called it, would have triggered an "abort mission" from the "rulers of this world."
Look at exactly what Paul said about this. We rarely hear it preached or explained.
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor. 2:7-8
If they would have known what?
Many will say that the rulers didn't know that our sins would be forgiven or that we would be given eternal life. That's nice. But, it's not the mystery of which Paul spoke. Those features are part of the mystery. But, they are not the heart of the mystery.
18 times the gospel writers or Paul mention the "mystery" of the gospel. In most places, Paul does not fully explain the "mystery" (in the context of his reference) and in at least one case, he implies that it is quite obvious as it is manifest among all the saints (Col. 1:6).
"Mystery" means "hidden truth" not "enigmatic, obtuse or obfuscated secret." The second definition would have delighted the gnostics who loved the idea of secrets. But, this mystery is simpler. It was simply hidden for a very long time from the understanding of mankind. And Paul tells us why. Had it been plain, the "rulers of this world" would never have carried out the crucifixion of Jesus. And without that event, humankind was certainly destined for sure demise and a dismal future at best, not to mention . . . well, I don't want to wax nasty here.
Basically, here is the mystery. I probably cannot say it succinctly and simply enough but I shall try.
His death is our death. That's it.
But, it is surely not believed by a great many believers. Do we understand what this means?
First of all, what do I mean when I say this? How was His death also my death? When Christ, the "last Adam" died, he had gathered into Himself all of "Adam" or all of the human race - past, present and future. This is a spiritual, quantum-like reality that transcends time and space. Don't get bogged down in the mechanics of it for now.
So that, when Christ died, we were "in Him" and we also died - our "Adamic nature" (a theological term that needs some explaining I think) died. As a dear friend used to say "Jesus did not just die for us, He died as us." It is not, as we used to say, that it should have been us on the cross (being the ones who had sinned), it actually was us on the cross. It has been accomplished.
But, this still doesn't really tell the story. A lot of people argue about whether or not we have a "sinful" nature and whether or not our "Adamic" nature is the real us or not. We so often miss the real issue. And this is a case in point.
See if this is helpful. Once you have been placed "in Christ" by your faith in Him, you too have "passed from death to life." Maybe this phrase is so overused that it means very little to us. But, the reality is that we who are "in Christ" will never die. Our death is in our past. We only have to die once. And because of the reality of this great mystery, we have already been through our death. In this world, we may say that so-and-so died. But for me, one moment I will have biological life on this planet; the next moment, I will be face to face with Christ, no veil to separate. That's hardly death for me!
But, there really are two issues dealt with in Christ's death. Not just the issue of "one death" having been accomplished for us, as us and on our behalf. Quite possibly, this one issue merely resolves the fear of death that underlies much of our neurosis and psychosis. I don't mean to get all "Zen" on you here. It is, nevertheless, good news that death is not in our future. But, the second issue affects everything about us, even the way we feel. It affects whether or not we can attain that sense of peace, never feeling like we may be missing out on something. It affects whether or not we can be "at rest."
The great issue that is dealt with in great finality is that of judgment. The mystery is that we, in union with Christ, have also passed through our only judgment. Our judgment is in our past. We never have to look forward to judgment. We always look past upon it. This is what Jesus meant when he said "do this in remembrance of me." We don't remember our sins; we remember our release from judgment for those sins.
Paul said that we eat and drink damnation to ourselves if we partake of the "Lord's supper" unworthily. Most folks still think that the "unworthily" means that we still have unconfessed sins. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul said that by simply not discerning the Lord's body, we eat/drink unworthily. The Lord's body is that body that was crucified . . . not just for you but as you. If we fail to see our union with Christ, in His body, specifically His body as it was being crucified, we receive the very opposite of the LIFE and FREEDOM that He provided. How opposite damnation is from life. How consistent damnation is with judgment. This is not our destiny or our feature. We can discern our union with Christ and our consequent total release from death and judgment.
Merely looking upon the Passion in our minds and developing some sympathy and empathy for what Jesus was doing is not discerning the Lord's body. It's observing as any observer may have done. Unless and until we discern (see, behold, comprehend) what was going on, we cannot see the mystery. And we cannot see why in the world the "rulers of this world" would have called the whole thing off had they also seen it.
Once Christ died, humanity died and passed into a realm by which no judgment could touch them (other than the judgment of whether or not they have received "The Son"). The "rulers of this world" can manipulate us by only one mechanism - our fear of death and judgment. With this weapon gone from their arsenal, they are thoroughly without power. Their only weapon now is deception - basically concealing from you and me the reality of our freedom in Christ.
Today, right now, I am free from death and judgment. I am free from the fear of either. God is not counting my sins against me any longer. I will never be judged as the world thinks of judgment. The "judgment" you and I can expect will be when God examines our motives and intents. Most of us are pretty hard on ourselves and shrink at the thought of our motives being revealed. But, Paul says that when that happens, every one of us will receive our praise from God. Not judgment, but praise. We say "praise God." God says "praise you back dudes and dudettes." (1 Cor. 4:5).
Indeed there was a way to stop the crucifixion. You and I are alive today because the rulers of the world walked blindly into God's trap, nailing the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, to a tree where He would become a curse, become sin for us and as us.
It's just "too good to be true." But this fool believes it.
It all could have been prevented. The revelation of a simple secret, a mystery as the apostle Paul called it, would have triggered an "abort mission" from the "rulers of this world."
Look at exactly what Paul said about this. We rarely hear it preached or explained.
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor. 2:7-8
If they would have known what?
Many will say that the rulers didn't know that our sins would be forgiven or that we would be given eternal life. That's nice. But, it's not the mystery of which Paul spoke. Those features are part of the mystery. But, they are not the heart of the mystery.
18 times the gospel writers or Paul mention the "mystery" of the gospel. In most places, Paul does not fully explain the "mystery" (in the context of his reference) and in at least one case, he implies that it is quite obvious as it is manifest among all the saints (Col. 1:6).
"Mystery" means "hidden truth" not "enigmatic, obtuse or obfuscated secret." The second definition would have delighted the gnostics who loved the idea of secrets. But, this mystery is simpler. It was simply hidden for a very long time from the understanding of mankind. And Paul tells us why. Had it been plain, the "rulers of this world" would never have carried out the crucifixion of Jesus. And without that event, humankind was certainly destined for sure demise and a dismal future at best, not to mention . . . well, I don't want to wax nasty here.
Basically, here is the mystery. I probably cannot say it succinctly and simply enough but I shall try.
His death is our death. That's it.
But, it is surely not believed by a great many believers. Do we understand what this means?
First of all, what do I mean when I say this? How was His death also my death? When Christ, the "last Adam" died, he had gathered into Himself all of "Adam" or all of the human race - past, present and future. This is a spiritual, quantum-like reality that transcends time and space. Don't get bogged down in the mechanics of it for now.
So that, when Christ died, we were "in Him" and we also died - our "Adamic nature" (a theological term that needs some explaining I think) died. As a dear friend used to say "Jesus did not just die for us, He died as us." It is not, as we used to say, that it should have been us on the cross (being the ones who had sinned), it actually was us on the cross. It has been accomplished.
But, this still doesn't really tell the story. A lot of people argue about whether or not we have a "sinful" nature and whether or not our "Adamic" nature is the real us or not. We so often miss the real issue. And this is a case in point.
See if this is helpful. Once you have been placed "in Christ" by your faith in Him, you too have "passed from death to life." Maybe this phrase is so overused that it means very little to us. But, the reality is that we who are "in Christ" will never die. Our death is in our past. We only have to die once. And because of the reality of this great mystery, we have already been through our death. In this world, we may say that so-and-so died. But for me, one moment I will have biological life on this planet; the next moment, I will be face to face with Christ, no veil to separate. That's hardly death for me!
But, there really are two issues dealt with in Christ's death. Not just the issue of "one death" having been accomplished for us, as us and on our behalf. Quite possibly, this one issue merely resolves the fear of death that underlies much of our neurosis and psychosis. I don't mean to get all "Zen" on you here. It is, nevertheless, good news that death is not in our future. But, the second issue affects everything about us, even the way we feel. It affects whether or not we can attain that sense of peace, never feeling like we may be missing out on something. It affects whether or not we can be "at rest."
The great issue that is dealt with in great finality is that of judgment. The mystery is that we, in union with Christ, have also passed through our only judgment. Our judgment is in our past. We never have to look forward to judgment. We always look past upon it. This is what Jesus meant when he said "do this in remembrance of me." We don't remember our sins; we remember our release from judgment for those sins.
Paul said that we eat and drink damnation to ourselves if we partake of the "Lord's supper" unworthily. Most folks still think that the "unworthily" means that we still have unconfessed sins. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul said that by simply not discerning the Lord's body, we eat/drink unworthily. The Lord's body is that body that was crucified . . . not just for you but as you. If we fail to see our union with Christ, in His body, specifically His body as it was being crucified, we receive the very opposite of the LIFE and FREEDOM that He provided. How opposite damnation is from life. How consistent damnation is with judgment. This is not our destiny or our feature. We can discern our union with Christ and our consequent total release from death and judgment.
Merely looking upon the Passion in our minds and developing some sympathy and empathy for what Jesus was doing is not discerning the Lord's body. It's observing as any observer may have done. Unless and until we discern (see, behold, comprehend) what was going on, we cannot see the mystery. And we cannot see why in the world the "rulers of this world" would have called the whole thing off had they also seen it.
Once Christ died, humanity died and passed into a realm by which no judgment could touch them (other than the judgment of whether or not they have received "The Son"). The "rulers of this world" can manipulate us by only one mechanism - our fear of death and judgment. With this weapon gone from their arsenal, they are thoroughly without power. Their only weapon now is deception - basically concealing from you and me the reality of our freedom in Christ.
Today, right now, I am free from death and judgment. I am free from the fear of either. God is not counting my sins against me any longer. I will never be judged as the world thinks of judgment. The "judgment" you and I can expect will be when God examines our motives and intents. Most of us are pretty hard on ourselves and shrink at the thought of our motives being revealed. But, Paul says that when that happens, every one of us will receive our praise from God. Not judgment, but praise. We say "praise God." God says "praise you back dudes and dudettes." (1 Cor. 4:5).
Indeed there was a way to stop the crucifixion. You and I are alive today because the rulers of the world walked blindly into God's trap, nailing the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, to a tree where He would become a curse, become sin for us and as us.
It's just "too good to be true." But this fool believes it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
