Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Truth?

I remember getting warned in high school about studying the Bible outside the mainstream church. Studying it at university was bad because university was filled with arrogant intellectuals who would pick apart the Bible and try to cause people to lose their faith. And I believed it.

As I've said before, I was a mainstream christian who thought the Bible was inerrant, etc. etc. etc. until nine years ago when my faith was destroyed. In case you want to know a bit more, you can find more details on the story here.

After I'd walked away from mainstream christianity, the words from an old Amy Grant song had new meaning for me:

"All of my friends are happy to stay here in this yard day after day
But something inside me has called me away.
I don't understand but I know I can't stay...

'Cause I have felt for the first time
I can be myself
No more faces to hide behind
Just a smile and a dream that's mine
Even if I am the only one who wants to fly"

Recently, I've come to debate certain issues relating to the Bible truth with certain mainstream christians. Let's just say that these people come from a background that considers their denomination as "theology for the rest of us." In other words, the... um... not too intelligent. I'm not going to name the denomination, but it relies on a lot of "signs and wonders" there's a lot of "flash and boom" and "talking in tongues." I think you can read between the lines. When you try to point out that there are two different stories about Judas' death, two versions of the story of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter, two lists of Jesus' ancestry, they don't listen. One is told that anyone that dares to suggest such things is arrogant, deceived by logical sounding lies and that “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools.”

This attitude bothers me. I consider myself a seeker, especially a seeker after truth. I want to know who Jesus is. There's a lot of details missing in the Bible about him, and I want to know as much as I possibly can. Is there anything wrong with that? I'm a very curious person and I want to know - not so I can say I'm smarter than anyone. I just want to know.

I have now come to appreciate those scholars at universities who write and teach on the subject of religious studies. One is Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Does this sound like someone that's looking for contradictions, or a sincere seeker? Another is John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Another is Elaine Pagels from Princeton University, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ms. Pagels has seen her fair share of tragedy, losing a young son. These are NOT scary people. In fact, they sound like seekers to me. My kind of people: intelligent seekers.

These are people that have gone through the Bible meticulously and some of them have come out with things that don't quite fit with the message that's preached by mainstream christianity. Bart Ehrman has pointed out some very interesting contradictions in his book, "Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them." None of these contradictions should be dismised lightly. They should be taken seriously. One thing that deeply disturbs me is the allegation that most seminaries now teach that Paul did not write all the epistles that are attributed to him. For example, it's well known in (most) seminaries that Paul didn't write I and II Timothy. Other people wrote those letters in his name. Yet, these pastors never tell their congregations that. That sounds like fraud to me.

So, who are the arrogant ones? The ones that refuse to listen to the facts, and open their eyes because they're frightened at what they might find, or is it those who are seeking? Personally, I think it's the former. I know that know-it-all attitude, for I, too, once thought that I knew all the answers and that anything that disagreed with the Bible was wrong and couldn't stand up to scrutiny. Isn't it arrogant to think you can't learn something from someone you may not agree with?

The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know. That's the place I come from. I admit that there is a LOT I don't know. Like everyone else, I have some pet theories about Jesus, but I'm also open to the idea that I might be wrong on some things. Everything I read influences me. How is that arrogant? I really hate the idea of being ignorant, and I think God gave us brains for a purpose - to use them. I consider education very important. I would rather know the truth - even if it hurts and disturbs my comfortable worldview than be misled. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

So, who are the arrogant ones? The know-it-alls, or the seekers who aren't afraid to challenge their boundaries?

May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth.

Three Visions of Grace

I posted a couple of months ago about "Amazing Grace". Grace is one of those things that it may be hard to put into words, but you know it when you see it - and when you don't. Here are some of my favourite visualizations of grace.

One of my favourites is a scene in the movie "Gone With the Wind". It's the scene were Scarlett shows up at Ashley's birthday party. Scarlett wasn't going to go, as gossip had ripped through the town earlier that afternoon regarding Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett makes Scarlett attend the party, and leaves her at Melanie and Ashley's front door to "enter the arena alone". Scarlett stands there proudly and haughtily, daring the gossip mongers to say something. Melanie breaks through the crowd and marches directly to Scarlett. There is a moment's tension: what will she do? Will she slap Scarlett across the face? Order her out of her home? No. She kisses Scarlett on the cheek, and welcomes her, saying, "Scarlett, darling. What a lovely dress." There is a moment of confusion on Scarlett's face. This was not what she expected. It was grace.

Another favourite is in "The Mists of Avalon" mini-series. King Arthur's wife, Gwenwyfar, a christian, never really trusted her sister-in-law, Arthur's sister, Morgaine. Morgaine was a follower of the Goddess, and in Gwenwyfar's eyes, a witch. Gwenwyfar had even gone so far as to manipulate a marriage for Morgaine in order to remove Morgaine from Arthur's court. Fleeing for her life after she's been caught with Lancelot, Gwenwyfar returns to the convent at Glastonbury where she had been before she married Arthur. Morgaine is also in the convent, and when she sees her sister-in-law, she doesn't hesitate. She embraces Gwenwyfar and welcomes her to her new home. The past was forgiven and forgotten. It was grace.

I found another one tonight - and it made me tear up.

Recently, I've discovered a new favourite tv program: "Glee". Being musical and being an awkward outcast in high school, I love it. Most (if not all) of the kids in McKinley High's glee club are social outcasts; they aren't cool. None of them have friends outside of glee club. They have to stick together and stick up for each other. There's a lot of grace on that show.

There's one character, Quinn, who is pregnant. She was a cheerleader until she got kicked off the squad due to her condition. She's also president of the abstinency club and she's too scared to tell her parents that she's expecting. When Quinn's parents (who are church-going christians) find out, they throw Quinn out of the house. "What went wrong? We raised you right. Who are you?" her father asks. With tears in her eyes, Quinn says, "I'm your daughter who loves you and I need my Daddy to hug me and tell me everything is going to be all right." Both parents walk out of the room. Quinn and her boyfrined, Finn (who thinks he's the baby's father) go to Finn's house. When Finn tells his mother that Quinn's parents have thrown her out, he asks if Quinn can stay there. Without a moment's hesitation, Finn's Mom hugs Quinn and says, "Of course". It was grace. Knowing that Quinn and Finn (who came up with that name combo?) are going through a rough time, the glee club expresses their feelings of friendship and support for them in a rendition of "Lean on Me". It was grace.

Why is it that in two of these three stories, it's the christians/church goers who just don't get grace? Is it because they've never "lived" and fallen down and scraped their knees? Perhaps, is it possible, they've *gasp* never been truly confronted with it, and if they did, they'd be confused - like Scarlett was. If Melanie had flown into a rage at Scarlett, or been icy cold, Scarlett would have understood and known how to deal with it. She was so haunted by Melanie's actions that she went home and paced the floor for hours. In Rhett's words, "So she stood by you, did she? How does it feel to have the woman you loathe cloak your sins?" I love the phrase, "cloak your sins" as that is what grace is: a mantle, a cloak, something to keep you warm.

It's Oscar Night in Hollywood

Well, it's that time of the year again when Hollywood hands out the hardware. As in past years, I'm going out on a limb and predicting tonight's winners in some of the major categories:

Best Picture: Avatar;
Best Animated Feature: Up
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges;
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock (even though I'm hoping Meryl Streep wins);
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz;
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'nique;
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow.
Best Special effects: Avatar
Best original score: Up
Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria;

I'll update this post later to see how I did, and my impressions of the show.

Edited to add:

Well, with one exception, my predicitons were bang on. I was wrong in the best picture category, as The Hurt Locker won. I haven't seen it yet, but I knew it was Avatar's biggest competitor in the best picture race. I agree with the awards that Avatar did win: special effects, cinematography and art direction. Those were its strong points. (even though, personally, I thought the art direction in Sherlock Holmes was excellent and would probably have voted for it or The Young Victoria).

I missed hearing the nominated songs being performed. I generally enjoy those. I wasn't overly impressed with the dancers performing during the performance of the nominees for best original score. I didn't feel they added anything to the music; in fact, I found them distracting. Glad to see Up win for best animated feature and score. I *loved* that movie.

Though I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, I still think that Meryl Streep was robbed. She was fantastic as Julia Child. I didn't care for Mo'nique's acceptance speech: "I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics." Um, you just DID make it political.

Best dressed list: Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz (surprise, surprise!), Anna Kendrick. I liked Rachel McAdams' and Kristen Stewart's dresses, but not their hair. I liked Sarah Jessica Parker's dress and hair, but not her makeup (looked like it was sprayed on). Another pleasant surprise was Jennifer Lopez.

Dresses/ensembles I didn't like: Maggie Gyllenhal, Miley Cyrus, Nicole Richie, and Charlize Theron (what *were* those things that looked like they were grabbing her breasts, cupcakes?). I didn't like all the fruff of the bottom half of Zoe Saldana's dress, either. Made her look like a Zigfeld girl.

Something has changed...

When I was growing up, Canada always sucked at the Olympics. It seems we came in third - at best - to either the USSR or the US. It seemed that we couldn't compete with the best in the world. And we accepted it, or at least seemed to.

Now things have changed. Ever since the Calgary Olympics in 1988, Canadian medal counts have slowly gone up. The only thing that was missing was an olympic gold medal won in Canada. This time, in Vancouver, everyone knew it would be different. It wasn't "if" a Canadian athlete would win a gold medal, it was a question of who and when. Thankfully, we didn't have to wait long. Alexandre Bilodeau won his gold medal on the second day of competition. The whole nation rejoiced. Our embarressing legacy of being the only host country not to win a gold medal was over. Bilodeau predicted that more would follow. By the end of the first week of the games, Canada had nine medals - at least one per day. There were those who criticized this, saying it wasn't good enough. I was happy - as I remember a final total of five or six medals for the whole games.

Then, the floodgates opened: the women's hockey team won gold, two gold medals and a bronze in men's short-track, a silver in women's curling, followed by a gold in men's curling. The crown jewel awaited: the men's hockey. In some ways, no matter how many gold medals were won, if this one eluded Canada, it would be disappointing.

The men didn't make it easy on themselves, getting by Switzerland in a shootout and losing to the US in round one. We waited nervously with bated breath to see what they would do against the Russians. Turns out, we needn't have worried. It was a rout: 7-3 Canada. Next up were the Slovakians. After going up 3-0, Slovakia got two late goals in the dying minutes, and Canada hung on to advance to the gold medal game against the US. Once again, the men kept a nation in suspence: after going up 2-0, the US tied it in the third period, and it went to over-time. Thankfully, it was settled quickly. Sidney Crosby was the hero and scoring seven minutes into it. For the second time in three Olympics, Canada was double gold medal winners in hockey. The nation went nuts. It was delirious. By the end of the games, we won 26 medals, our best haul over - and 14 of those were gold - a record for *any* country.

Canadians are quiet patriots. We aren't pushy about it. Yet, you could sense in the air with this Olympics - even before the opening ceremonies - that there was something special about to happen. There were splashes of red and white all over: flags waving from cars, homes and office buildings, people dressed in red and white, etc. We just needed the occassion to show it off, that's all.

We've changed these last three weeks. We are no longer meek and mild and just happy to be invited to the big dance. We are now fiercely competitive and can definitely say that we can compete with the best. The days of Canada sucking are long gone.

Thank you, Canadian Olympians. You made us all proud.