Eisegesis (the process of interpretation whereby we simply read our ideas into a text rather than actually seeking to interpret the author's intended meaning) is generally bad. It's especially bad when it happens with the Bible, because at that point we are wrongly interpreting God's words to suit our own agendas. In my previous post I tried to engage in exegesis (correct interpretation) of the writers' intent in the season finale of LOST. I basically concluded the writers represented a pluralistic supernaturalism in the finale, obviously antithetical to biblical Christianity. I'll now engage in some eisegesis to argue that you could interpret the finale as supportive of a Reformed Christian worldview.
SPOILER WARNING: AGAIN, I'LL BE DISCUSSING THE LOST FINALE, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, DON'T READ ON.
In the LOST finale the hero of the show, Jack, embraces his ordained role in life and willingly offers his life as a sacrifice to save others. After he willingly offers his life, the next scene in the show switches to the flash-sideways timeline and displays a statue of Christ with His arms spread out, signifying His crucifixion. The message is clear: Jack sacrificed himself to save his friends and defeat evil, embodied in Easu/MiB/Fake Locke. Sound familiar? Similarly, Jesus laid down His life for His friends (Jn. 15:13) and in doing so defeated evil, embodied in satan (Col. 2:14-15). Not only that, but in some sense Jack was resurrected, as was Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
This gospel parallel takes on a distinctly reformed flavor when you consider that Jack really does only seem to be laying his life down for his friends. In the final church scene the whole world is not represented there entering paradise, only a chosen few. Esau/MiB/Fake Locke is not there, in fact there are a number of other characters from the seasons of the show that weren't there. Despite the stained glass, the redemption Jack accomplishes does not seem to be universal. Doesn't this suggest Jack's work is less valuable, as Arminians often charge? Well, is that how you felt in watching the final church scene? Absolutely not. And why not? Why weren't we so angry that Fake Locke wasn't there? Because we know Fake Locke got what he deserved. We were amazed at the redemption for those who were there, and understood the need for justice to be carried out on Fake Locke. And it's not like the people in the church were more worthy of redemption; plenty of them had been Jack's enemies and the island's as well (think Sawyer). They didn't choose to come to the island, the island chose them. Because the island chose them and the island's purpose for Jack was to redeem those the island had chosen, they end up in paradise.
In the same way, Jesus laid down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11), not the goats. When we understand that all of us deserve divine wrath because of our sin (Eph. 2:1-3), we see that there is no injustice in Jesus not dying for everyone. We rather are amazed that He laid down His life for anyone. And who are those He died to save? Those that deserve it? None deserve it, rather, it is those His father had chosen, who it was His purpose in His life on earth to redeem (Jn. 6:35-45). He will raise them up on the last day.
Obviously I'm not naieve enough to think the writers intended to communicate this message. However in writing the story in this way I do think they acknowledge (sub-consciously or consciously) certain truths of reformed theology:
1. In order to be saved we need someone to die for us. We can't do it, we need someone else. The LOST characters couldn't save themselves, they needed Jack to do it for them.
2. It is not unjust of God to choose some and not others since none deserve to be chosen in the first place.
3. Jesus' sacrifice is not devalued because He only intended it to redeem some.
Showing posts with label Cultural commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cultural commentary. Show all posts
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Finally Back
Hey everyone, sorry for the big delay between blog posts. I'm adjusting to a new schedule and still figuring out where blogging will fit into it. I still want to do it though, so keep your eyes peeled.
Contrary to some resistance, I am going to return with a post on the LOST series finale. Let me start by saying I was very satisfied with the finale. They didn't answer all the questions, but they did wrap up the storyline in a satisfying way. The show was about the characters, not the island, and each character's story concluded in a reasonable fashion. I loved watching the show for the years I was able to, and I'll miss it for sure. That said, I do want to level a fairly significant criticism.
WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LOST FINALE, STOP READING.
One of the great things about LOST has always been that the show is not only entertaining and addictive, but intellecutally stimulating. The writers have always been interacting with real philisophical questions (the nature of man as good or evil, free-will vs. determinism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism etc.). However they would often not show their cards as to where they stood on these issues. For instance, sometimes the island seemed to support naturalism, i.e. all the crazy stuff that happens there is really just the result of a concentrated pocket of electromagnetic energy. On the other hand, sometimes the island seemed to support supernaturalism, i.e. the island can "will" certain things or favor one person over another. The characters of Jack (man of science) and Locke (man of faith) epitomize this conflict.
While I think it's still hard for me at least to pin the writers down to one philosophy, I think the finale does reveal alot about where they stand on these questions. The trajectory of Jack's character is from the man of science to the man of faith. By the end of the show he sees himself as having some supernatural purpose in life and when he fulfills it he saves everyone. Then there's the fact that the flash-sideways turns out to be some kind of middle-ground until the characters walk into the light of paradise/nirvana/heaven. I think it is safe to conclude that the writers are communicating a supernatural worldview.
That said, they are certainly not trying to communicate a Christian supernatural worldview. They seem to be much more like universalists. Throughout the show they always borrowed from Christian traditions, but alongside Egyptian mythology, eastern religions, and so on. In the end I think they meet in a Unitarian Universalist church, where the symbols of all the major world religions are displayed in stain glass ala the popular "coexist" bumper stickers. All the characters had their own unique lives and "paths," but all ended up moving onto paradise in due time. I think this is why the writers don't take a hard line on alot of the other philisophical questions they bring up throughout the show. They present each of the characters on a journey to discover their purpose, and on the island we see various religious traditions' attempt to navigate this journey. The big philisophical questions come up, but in the end everyone goes to whatever paradise is.
I obviously did not like this aspect of the show, and in fact found it rather dissatsifying. The value of art is not only measured in its form but in what it communicates. A good painting is good not only because the artist moves the brush in a controlled fashion, but because he or she communicates something good through the painting. I'm afraid what the LOST writers communicated through the show represents a false optimism. The god of LOST (whatever it is, again the writers don't commit themselves one way or another, probably because they see all religions as various attempts to explain the same reality) seems nice because everyone goes to paradise, but the god of LOST is not good. The god of LOST seems to have no regard for the presence of sin. Maybe people are good, maybe people are evil, maybe all the characters have done wrong, but who cares? One must be left wondering just how good a paradise ruled by a god who has no concern for righteousness would really be. I for one am holding out for a better inheritance.
So I think that's what the LOST writers were communicating. It's their show, they're certainly free to communicate what they want. I really enjoyed the show, but suffice it to say the gospel is far better. While I think the LOST writers represent the pluralistic supernaturalism common throughout the world today, I think in the hero of the show, Jack, we do see something of Christ. I'll share more of my thoughts on that in a later post.
Contrary to some resistance, I am going to return with a post on the LOST series finale. Let me start by saying I was very satisfied with the finale. They didn't answer all the questions, but they did wrap up the storyline in a satisfying way. The show was about the characters, not the island, and each character's story concluded in a reasonable fashion. I loved watching the show for the years I was able to, and I'll miss it for sure. That said, I do want to level a fairly significant criticism.
WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LOST FINALE, STOP READING.
One of the great things about LOST has always been that the show is not only entertaining and addictive, but intellecutally stimulating. The writers have always been interacting with real philisophical questions (the nature of man as good or evil, free-will vs. determinism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism etc.). However they would often not show their cards as to where they stood on these issues. For instance, sometimes the island seemed to support naturalism, i.e. all the crazy stuff that happens there is really just the result of a concentrated pocket of electromagnetic energy. On the other hand, sometimes the island seemed to support supernaturalism, i.e. the island can "will" certain things or favor one person over another. The characters of Jack (man of science) and Locke (man of faith) epitomize this conflict.
While I think it's still hard for me at least to pin the writers down to one philosophy, I think the finale does reveal alot about where they stand on these questions. The trajectory of Jack's character is from the man of science to the man of faith. By the end of the show he sees himself as having some supernatural purpose in life and when he fulfills it he saves everyone. Then there's the fact that the flash-sideways turns out to be some kind of middle-ground until the characters walk into the light of paradise/nirvana/heaven. I think it is safe to conclude that the writers are communicating a supernatural worldview.
That said, they are certainly not trying to communicate a Christian supernatural worldview. They seem to be much more like universalists. Throughout the show they always borrowed from Christian traditions, but alongside Egyptian mythology, eastern religions, and so on. In the end I think they meet in a Unitarian Universalist church, where the symbols of all the major world religions are displayed in stain glass ala the popular "coexist" bumper stickers. All the characters had their own unique lives and "paths," but all ended up moving onto paradise in due time. I think this is why the writers don't take a hard line on alot of the other philisophical questions they bring up throughout the show. They present each of the characters on a journey to discover their purpose, and on the island we see various religious traditions' attempt to navigate this journey. The big philisophical questions come up, but in the end everyone goes to whatever paradise is.
I obviously did not like this aspect of the show, and in fact found it rather dissatsifying. The value of art is not only measured in its form but in what it communicates. A good painting is good not only because the artist moves the brush in a controlled fashion, but because he or she communicates something good through the painting. I'm afraid what the LOST writers communicated through the show represents a false optimism. The god of LOST (whatever it is, again the writers don't commit themselves one way or another, probably because they see all religions as various attempts to explain the same reality) seems nice because everyone goes to paradise, but the god of LOST is not good. The god of LOST seems to have no regard for the presence of sin. Maybe people are good, maybe people are evil, maybe all the characters have done wrong, but who cares? One must be left wondering just how good a paradise ruled by a god who has no concern for righteousness would really be. I for one am holding out for a better inheritance.
So I think that's what the LOST writers were communicating. It's their show, they're certainly free to communicate what they want. I really enjoyed the show, but suffice it to say the gospel is far better. While I think the LOST writers represent the pluralistic supernaturalism common throughout the world today, I think in the hero of the show, Jack, we do see something of Christ. I'll share more of my thoughts on that in a later post.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Blind Side
I finally saw The Blind Side! I had heard so much about this movie from many others but hadn't gotten around to seeing it until a few nights ago. For those of you who haven't seen it (I can't imagine there are many left), the movie is about a boy, Michael, who grows up with absent parents in a rough neighborhood in Memphis, TN. Eventually he is accepted to a private Christian school partially because he is massive and athletic, thus making him a likely star on the football team. While attending school there he is taken in and adopted by a wealthy Christian family, the Tuohys. The mother of the family, Leigh Anne, played by Sandra Bullock, takes the lead role at least in the movie in caring for Michael. She gives him a place to sleep, food to eat, and clothes to wear. Largely because of this family's influence, Michael is able to graduate high school and earn a D-1 football athletic scholarship. He now plays in the NFL for the Baltimore Ravens.
The Touhys and particularly Leigh Anne in this movie are followers of Christ and do an amazing job of demonstrating the love of Christ to Michael. The giving of shelter, food, and clothing certainly reminds me of Matt. 25, particularly verses 34-35: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." This is to be characteristic of Christian love. But one thing kept nagging me as I was watching the movie.
The Touhys are rich. It was no problem for Leigh Anne to buy all this extra stuff for Michael because the family had so much disposable income. Surely if these acts weren't there the picture of God's love would not have been as magnificent, so it made me wonder if their riches cheapen the expression of love we see in the movie.
I don't think they do. Any love we show is ultimately virtuous insofar as it is an expression of God's love. The reality is that God is really really rich. He's not rich in the sense that He has alot of money, but He is rich in His glory. God is able to love us because He is so rich. It is because God is so rich in mercy that He can save people who are by nature children of wrath:
"among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" - Eph. 2:3-5 (emphasis mine)
Because God is rich in mercy, He has spent lavishly on us to save us. In fact when Christ comes to save us He humbles Himself to take on the form of a servant and die (Phil. 2:7-8). In this way, although Christ was rich with glory in heaven, He made himself poor for us:
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich." - 2 Cor. 8:9
The Touhys thus demonstrate God's love to Michael by using their riches to spend lavishly on him. It is an awesome picture of God's love that really touched me through watching the movie. But the Touhys don't spend to the point of becoming poor. They don't die in Michael's place. Their love is a mere sign; it points us to a far greater love. God not only spends His riches on us: He becomes poor for us! He spends the largest price possible to win us: the death of His only Son! And what is the end goal? That we by His poverty might become rich, rich in the joy that comes from knowing God (Ps. 16:11, Phil. 3:7-9).
The Touhys and particularly Leigh Anne in this movie are followers of Christ and do an amazing job of demonstrating the love of Christ to Michael. The giving of shelter, food, and clothing certainly reminds me of Matt. 25, particularly verses 34-35: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." This is to be characteristic of Christian love. But one thing kept nagging me as I was watching the movie.
The Touhys are rich. It was no problem for Leigh Anne to buy all this extra stuff for Michael because the family had so much disposable income. Surely if these acts weren't there the picture of God's love would not have been as magnificent, so it made me wonder if their riches cheapen the expression of love we see in the movie.
I don't think they do. Any love we show is ultimately virtuous insofar as it is an expression of God's love. The reality is that God is really really rich. He's not rich in the sense that He has alot of money, but He is rich in His glory. God is able to love us because He is so rich. It is because God is so rich in mercy that He can save people who are by nature children of wrath:
"among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" - Eph. 2:3-5 (emphasis mine)
Because God is rich in mercy, He has spent lavishly on us to save us. In fact when Christ comes to save us He humbles Himself to take on the form of a servant and die (Phil. 2:7-8). In this way, although Christ was rich with glory in heaven, He made himself poor for us:
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich." - 2 Cor. 8:9
The Touhys thus demonstrate God's love to Michael by using their riches to spend lavishly on him. It is an awesome picture of God's love that really touched me through watching the movie. But the Touhys don't spend to the point of becoming poor. They don't die in Michael's place. Their love is a mere sign; it points us to a far greater love. God not only spends His riches on us: He becomes poor for us! He spends the largest price possible to win us: the death of His only Son! And what is the end goal? That we by His poverty might become rich, rich in the joy that comes from knowing God (Ps. 16:11, Phil. 3:7-9).
Sunday, May 9, 2010
The Freshmen
I've recently been enjoying rediscovering an old hit by The Verve Pipe called The Freshmen. I remember liking the song when I was younger but I don't think I ever really caught the lyrics. As I've been listening to it more this time around I think it really presents a vivid picture of the experience of guilt.
According to the band website FAQ and an interview with lead singer Brian Vander Ark this song is about the guilt Vander Ark experienced when his ex-girlfriend had an abortion. Though the song also tells the story of a suicide, Vander Ark suggested this was poetic license. The first verse goes:
"When I was young I knew everything
She a punk who rarely ever took advice
Now I'm guilt stricken,
Sobbing with my head on the floor
Stop a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice"
The last line is a reference to the abortion and potential marriage that never happened. Right from the beginning of the song we see the theme develop: at a younger age he thought he knew what he was doing, and now he's stuck with the guilt of his/his ex's actions. In some sense the whole human race is like this. When the human race was young in the form of Adam, we thought we knew everything and chose to disobey God (cf. Gen. 3, Rom. 5:12-19). Now each of us is born guilty as a result. Not only that, but we experience this guilt in our lives as well.
The Bible testifies that we are all born children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), foolish (Pr. 22:15, 29:15), and in sin (Ps. 51:5). Our hearts are deceitful (Jer. 17:9). There is a way that seems right to us, but in the end it leads to death (Pr. 14:12). Therefore Paul instructs us to flee youthful passions (2 Tim. 2:22). As far as I can tell from what I've read of Vander Ark, he is not a Christian. Yet it seems he has described in this song exactly what the Bible teaches is true of man: in our pride we think we can determine what's best apart from God, but it only leads to death. Vander Ark further shares in the chorus:
"for the life of me, I could not believe we'd ever die for these sins, we were merely freshmen."
When making the choices he made, he could not believe his actions would have real consquences. He could not imagine the way he was choosing could lead to death. He was a foolish kid. Now he finds himself guilt-stricken and sobbing with his head on the floor. I've experienced this so many times in my life. Throughout my life there have been a number of instances where I sinned in ways that had significant consequences. When deciding to engage in these actions I never felt like they would be that big of a deal, but afterwards I often felt this same guilt that Vander Ark discusses. I don't think Vander Ark and I are alone either. Especially poignant in the Bible is the example of David:
"Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;
according to your a steadfast love remember me,
for the sake of your goodness, O Lord!" - Psalm 25:7
What David expresses here is essentially the need of my heart and of Vander Ark's, even if Vander Ark doesn't express it in a prayer to God. We now feel the guilt of our sins and we want to be free from it! So how do we deal with it? Vander Ark in the bridge:
"I can't be held responsible
She was touching her face
I won't be held responsible
She fell in love in the first place"
We try to convince ourselves its not our fault. We try to find some way to rationalize what happened. We try to keep telling ourselves we won't be held responsible. We try to blame shift (Gen. 3:12). But that doesn't really work does it? I can almost sense as I listen to this song that Vander Ark is yelling this at himself because even he knows it's not the case. It's as if he wishes it were true but he knows it is not. Our sin is our fault. Another way we try to deal with it, verse 3 from Vander Ark:
"We've tried to wash our hands of all this
We never talk of our lacking relationships
And how we're guilt stricken sobbing with our
Heads on the floor"
We try to wash our hands of it, we try not to talk about it. We simply try to avoid and hide the guilt and shame we feel. And yet the result is the same: we're guilt stricken and sobbing with our heads on the floor. We waste away hiding our sin (Ps. 32:3-4). This is basically how the song ends. It presents a vivid depiction of the feeling of guilt and the unsatisfying ways in which we try to deal with it. The picture of guilt it presents and our attitudes in it have significant overlap with what the Bible says is true about man and what we experience. Then the song ends. But the story of the Bible does not end there. What hope do we have? What is the answer to the heart need for forgiveness and freedom from guilt expressed by Brian, David, and myself?
"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." - Heb. 9:14 (emphasis mine)
The only hope we have is for someone else to bare that guilt and condemnation in our place. How amazing is the love of God, that when He heard the guilty cry of humanity He did not sit back in heaven waiting for us to fix it, but instead took the iniatitive to enter into our mess and bare the guilt of it Himself by dying on the cross and being numbered among the transgressors. Trying to convince ourselves we won't be held responsible or simply avoiding the issue won't purify our consciences: only the blood of Christ can do that. If we've placed our faith in Christ and His sacrifie we no longer need to avoid our sin but can freely confess it in full confidence of God's forgiveness (Ps. 32:5).
I love this song. It is so true to our shared experience as sinful humans. I love Vander Ark's honesty and vulnerability to pour out his heart in this song. But the gospel of Jesus Christ is SO MUCH BETTER!!! Would you join me in praying that Brian and others whose hearts feels the same things his does in this song would take refuge in Christ and have their consciences truly purified?
According to the band website FAQ and an interview with lead singer Brian Vander Ark this song is about the guilt Vander Ark experienced when his ex-girlfriend had an abortion. Though the song also tells the story of a suicide, Vander Ark suggested this was poetic license. The first verse goes:
"When I was young I knew everything
She a punk who rarely ever took advice
Now I'm guilt stricken,
Sobbing with my head on the floor
Stop a baby's breath and a shoe full of rice"
The last line is a reference to the abortion and potential marriage that never happened. Right from the beginning of the song we see the theme develop: at a younger age he thought he knew what he was doing, and now he's stuck with the guilt of his/his ex's actions. In some sense the whole human race is like this. When the human race was young in the form of Adam, we thought we knew everything and chose to disobey God (cf. Gen. 3, Rom. 5:12-19). Now each of us is born guilty as a result. Not only that, but we experience this guilt in our lives as well.
The Bible testifies that we are all born children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), foolish (Pr. 22:15, 29:15), and in sin (Ps. 51:5). Our hearts are deceitful (Jer. 17:9). There is a way that seems right to us, but in the end it leads to death (Pr. 14:12). Therefore Paul instructs us to flee youthful passions (2 Tim. 2:22). As far as I can tell from what I've read of Vander Ark, he is not a Christian. Yet it seems he has described in this song exactly what the Bible teaches is true of man: in our pride we think we can determine what's best apart from God, but it only leads to death. Vander Ark further shares in the chorus:
"for the life of me, I could not believe we'd ever die for these sins, we were merely freshmen."
When making the choices he made, he could not believe his actions would have real consquences. He could not imagine the way he was choosing could lead to death. He was a foolish kid. Now he finds himself guilt-stricken and sobbing with his head on the floor. I've experienced this so many times in my life. Throughout my life there have been a number of instances where I sinned in ways that had significant consequences. When deciding to engage in these actions I never felt like they would be that big of a deal, but afterwards I often felt this same guilt that Vander Ark discusses. I don't think Vander Ark and I are alone either. Especially poignant in the Bible is the example of David:
"Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;
according to your a steadfast love remember me,
for the sake of your goodness, O Lord!" - Psalm 25:7
What David expresses here is essentially the need of my heart and of Vander Ark's, even if Vander Ark doesn't express it in a prayer to God. We now feel the guilt of our sins and we want to be free from it! So how do we deal with it? Vander Ark in the bridge:
"I can't be held responsible
She was touching her face
I won't be held responsible
She fell in love in the first place"
We try to convince ourselves its not our fault. We try to find some way to rationalize what happened. We try to keep telling ourselves we won't be held responsible. We try to blame shift (Gen. 3:12). But that doesn't really work does it? I can almost sense as I listen to this song that Vander Ark is yelling this at himself because even he knows it's not the case. It's as if he wishes it were true but he knows it is not. Our sin is our fault. Another way we try to deal with it, verse 3 from Vander Ark:
"We've tried to wash our hands of all this
We never talk of our lacking relationships
And how we're guilt stricken sobbing with our
Heads on the floor"
We try to wash our hands of it, we try not to talk about it. We simply try to avoid and hide the guilt and shame we feel. And yet the result is the same: we're guilt stricken and sobbing with our heads on the floor. We waste away hiding our sin (Ps. 32:3-4). This is basically how the song ends. It presents a vivid depiction of the feeling of guilt and the unsatisfying ways in which we try to deal with it. The picture of guilt it presents and our attitudes in it have significant overlap with what the Bible says is true about man and what we experience. Then the song ends. But the story of the Bible does not end there. What hope do we have? What is the answer to the heart need for forgiveness and freedom from guilt expressed by Brian, David, and myself?
"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." - Heb. 9:14 (emphasis mine)
The only hope we have is for someone else to bare that guilt and condemnation in our place. How amazing is the love of God, that when He heard the guilty cry of humanity He did not sit back in heaven waiting for us to fix it, but instead took the iniatitive to enter into our mess and bare the guilt of it Himself by dying on the cross and being numbered among the transgressors. Trying to convince ourselves we won't be held responsible or simply avoiding the issue won't purify our consciences: only the blood of Christ can do that. If we've placed our faith in Christ and His sacrifie we no longer need to avoid our sin but can freely confess it in full confidence of God's forgiveness (Ps. 32:5).
I love this song. It is so true to our shared experience as sinful humans. I love Vander Ark's honesty and vulnerability to pour out his heart in this song. But the gospel of Jesus Christ is SO MUCH BETTER!!! Would you join me in praying that Brian and others whose hearts feels the same things his does in this song would take refuge in Christ and have their consciences truly purified?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
NYT: What really makes people happy?
New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks used the recent events of Sandra Bullock's life to present and discuss some studies on what makes people happy.
He goes over a number of studies and numbers, the conclusions of which are fairly consistent: marriage, families, and relationships make people happier than money or material success. He suggests this is due to the increased depth in relationships versus the shallowness of the mere accumulation of wealth. He further suggests that we tend to focus on the wrong things: success and money rather than cultivation of deep interpersonal relationships, the thing that will really make us happy.
It certainly is hard to argue with the statistics and conclusions Brooks presents. It seems that they give confirmation to the Biblical principle expressed by Jesus:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and destroy." - Matt. 6:19
A little later in chapter 6 of Matthew we find that this treasure Jesus is referring to is money. He commands us not to "lay it up for ourselves." So we are not to focus our efforts on working for money. The reason Jesus gives is because money is so frail and fragile. It is so easily lost. In his context He's probably referring to some precious stones etc. that moth and rust could destroy. Even in the case of the paper money of our times or the online bank accounts, thieves can break in and destroy. Money does not abide; it lets us down. It does not know us, it does not give us the love that we need to be happy. Having it may make us feel more worthwhile for a time, but it will ultimately fail us.
Relationships on the other hand are a bit different. Another person can know us, another person can love us. We so crave this. We so desire to be really known and loved for who we are. When we receive that from others, it produces a happiness "money can't buy." So surely the things Jesus commands us to lay up for ourselves in opposition to money are relationships, right? Wrong.
"but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal." - Matt. 6:20
The problem with relationships is that they too can let us down. Friends betray, marriages end, families fracture, and ultimately everyone dies. Working towards relationships, storing up for ourselves relationships, is again storing up a "treasure on earth," that moth and rust can destroy. Jesus' remedy: store up treasure in heaven. God cannot be destroyed by moth or rust; He is eternal. As such, only He can give us the lasting, eternal love we all so crave. Only he can fully know and love us, perfectly, for all of eternity.
So Brooks' point cannot be disputed: interpersonal relationships will make us happier than money. But in the long run, interpersonal relationships with humans will ultimately fail to provide lasting happiness, true joy. That is only available through a right relationship with God, available to all through Jesus Christ.
"You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." - Psalm 16:11
HT: Aaron Bobuk
He goes over a number of studies and numbers, the conclusions of which are fairly consistent: marriage, families, and relationships make people happier than money or material success. He suggests this is due to the increased depth in relationships versus the shallowness of the mere accumulation of wealth. He further suggests that we tend to focus on the wrong things: success and money rather than cultivation of deep interpersonal relationships, the thing that will really make us happy.
It certainly is hard to argue with the statistics and conclusions Brooks presents. It seems that they give confirmation to the Biblical principle expressed by Jesus:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and destroy." - Matt. 6:19
A little later in chapter 6 of Matthew we find that this treasure Jesus is referring to is money. He commands us not to "lay it up for ourselves." So we are not to focus our efforts on working for money. The reason Jesus gives is because money is so frail and fragile. It is so easily lost. In his context He's probably referring to some precious stones etc. that moth and rust could destroy. Even in the case of the paper money of our times or the online bank accounts, thieves can break in and destroy. Money does not abide; it lets us down. It does not know us, it does not give us the love that we need to be happy. Having it may make us feel more worthwhile for a time, but it will ultimately fail us.
Relationships on the other hand are a bit different. Another person can know us, another person can love us. We so crave this. We so desire to be really known and loved for who we are. When we receive that from others, it produces a happiness "money can't buy." So surely the things Jesus commands us to lay up for ourselves in opposition to money are relationships, right? Wrong.
"but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal." - Matt. 6:20
The problem with relationships is that they too can let us down. Friends betray, marriages end, families fracture, and ultimately everyone dies. Working towards relationships, storing up for ourselves relationships, is again storing up a "treasure on earth," that moth and rust can destroy. Jesus' remedy: store up treasure in heaven. God cannot be destroyed by moth or rust; He is eternal. As such, only He can give us the lasting, eternal love we all so crave. Only he can fully know and love us, perfectly, for all of eternity.
So Brooks' point cannot be disputed: interpersonal relationships will make us happier than money. But in the long run, interpersonal relationships with humans will ultimately fail to provide lasting happiness, true joy. That is only available through a right relationship with God, available to all through Jesus Christ.
"You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." - Psalm 16:11
HT: Aaron Bobuk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
