We all know the Biblical story of Jesus being crucified and dying on the cross. We've seen it re-enacted in numerous movies. But have you ever asked yourself why He died on the cross? Or why would God sacrifice his only Son in that way?
C.S. Lewis tackles these and other questions in "Mere Christianity". Here's what he has to say:
"What do we mean when we talk of God 'helping us'? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters; that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it.
Now, if we had not fallen (Adam/Eve sinning), that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all - to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.
But supposing God became a man - suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person - then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could die perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can only do it if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all."
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
C.S. Lewis and 'Mere Christianity' - Part 5: Who was Jesus?
In this excerpt from Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis discusses the subject of who Jesus is, how the people at the time He was on earth perceived Him, and whether we should believe what He says:
"And then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He as always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these works would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivaled by any other character in history.
I am here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him (Jesus): 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God'. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
We are faced then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend; and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next blog: Making better sense of why Jesus died the way he did: "....we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man".
"And then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He as always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these works would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivaled by any other character in history.
I am here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him (Jesus): 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God'. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
We are faced then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend; and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next blog: Making better sense of why Jesus died the way he did: "....we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man".
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Oz: Powerful but not all that Great....
When watching a sequel or prequel to a previously released movie, it's really important, and only fair, to try and watch it with a blank mind and not be influenced by its predecessor. But when you claim to be a prequel to the 1939 classic "Wizard of Oz", it's almost impossible not to! I grew up with the Wizard of Oz! Back in the mid/late 60's, way before the birth of VCRs, cable TV or satellite TV, "Oz" was played on broadcast TV once a year, so we had to wait 364 days before we could watch it again. So this movie holds a warm place in my heart, and I suspect for a lot of other baby boomers too!
As a result, I was half excited, half skeptical when I went to watch "Oz the Great and Powerful'. And after watching it.....a bit disappointed. I guess the thing that bothered me the most was that, as impossible as it may seem, it really wasn't a movie for children. At least young children. Not even the addition of an animated China doll character helped. Not really sure why the character was even in the movie, other than to appeal to young girls. It really didn't contribute to the overall plot all that much.
Which brings me to the next issue I had: exactly who was the target audience for the movie? I know it wasn't the 50's crowd that I belong to. Definitely not the seven and under group. The entire black and white sequence in Kansas at the beginning of the movie would have bored them to death and would have lost their attention. The 8-12 group? With flying monkeys and witches that were frequently pretty scary, combined with some implied sexual innuendo, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable taking someone that age. Teens and the 20 crowd? Maybe. Once you get older than that though, the story might start to become a little silly.
With that said, I actually really did enjoy the last 20-30 minutes of the movie when Oscar Diggs, aka Oz, claimed Emerald City and how he did it. I'll just say that it explained a lot about how Oz in the 1939 original operates. Unfortunately, it was actually one of the very few references to the original, which is a bit odd for a prequel. In fact, there were probably more references to the musical "Wicked" than in the original "Oz". Anyhow, because of the ending, I suspect that many people will like the entire movie as a result. But unfortunately I can't ignore the previous 90 minutes. Basically, it lacked the magic, creativity, and overall writing the 1939 classic did. Call it an early 21st century version of an early 20th century Hollywood production. Less innocence, more grit, over done scare tactics, and as I said earlier, some sexual innuendo.
The wicked witch of the west (Theodora), played effectively by Mila Kunis, is a good example. In the original, the wicked witch was scary in a creepy way. In this version, the witch was scary in an evil way (plus her outfit was a bit more revealing, shall we say, than that of 1939's witch). Same with the flying monkeys. In this movie, they were downright fierce and brutal, ripping apart its victims (or at least trying to...you'll know what I mean if you saw the movie). Along with Rachel Weisz (Evanora) and Michelle Williams (Glinda), the three witches were probably the best part of the movie. Or at least the best acted. Zach Braff's dual role as Frank the side kick and Finley the flying monkey was probably my favorite in the movie though. Braff played both characters basically the same as both had similar relationships with Oz. An ironic moment referring to both arose at the end of movie, which was a nice touch. I'd also give the plot early in the movie some credit when it tried to hide who of the three was the "good" witch. But the majority of the movie, outside of the final 20 minutes, just didn't do much for me. But again, I'm pretty sure director Sam Raimi didn't have 53 year olds in mind when he was filming it! Finally, the visuals in the movie were very good. One thing they did do well was provide a look similar to the original Oz. My wife and I saw the movie in 3D, and neither of us thought it added much to the experience.
And that brings me to Oscar Diggs, or the Wizard of Oz himself. As much as liked James Franco in other films, I didn't particularly care for him as Oz. To me, at least, he didn't play the shrewd/conniving/devious/cunning part of the role well. Just wasn't believable. He was much better playing the "hero" though.
In conclusion, I thought the majority of the story was dry, the visuals were good, the acting for the most part good, and the ending very good. Slightly disappointing over all though, mainly because Disney took a nice G-rated story and made it into a PG rated film. On a side note, I've actually been reading L. Frank Baum's original "Wizard of Oz" book for the first time. I'm about 2/3rds the way through it, and I'm shocked how different it is from the 1939 movie. A lot of what's in the movie is in the book, but there is so much more story in the book that is not in the movie, which is not unusual. I normally would frown on a remake of the 1939 "Wizard of Oz", but after reading what I have so far, I would no longer be opposed to someone like Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings fame) or Ang Lee (Life of Pi) exploring the possibility of a Wizard of Oz trilogy, or at least a two part movie. With today's technology, it could be fantastic....if done in the right hands and written by the right person.
Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a "3 just for the visuals. They are worth experiencing on a large screen.
As a result, I was half excited, half skeptical when I went to watch "Oz the Great and Powerful'. And after watching it.....a bit disappointed. I guess the thing that bothered me the most was that, as impossible as it may seem, it really wasn't a movie for children. At least young children. Not even the addition of an animated China doll character helped. Not really sure why the character was even in the movie, other than to appeal to young girls. It really didn't contribute to the overall plot all that much.
Which brings me to the next issue I had: exactly who was the target audience for the movie? I know it wasn't the 50's crowd that I belong to. Definitely not the seven and under group. The entire black and white sequence in Kansas at the beginning of the movie would have bored them to death and would have lost their attention. The 8-12 group? With flying monkeys and witches that were frequently pretty scary, combined with some implied sexual innuendo, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable taking someone that age. Teens and the 20 crowd? Maybe. Once you get older than that though, the story might start to become a little silly.
With that said, I actually really did enjoy the last 20-30 minutes of the movie when Oscar Diggs, aka Oz, claimed Emerald City and how he did it. I'll just say that it explained a lot about how Oz in the 1939 original operates. Unfortunately, it was actually one of the very few references to the original, which is a bit odd for a prequel. In fact, there were probably more references to the musical "Wicked" than in the original "Oz". Anyhow, because of the ending, I suspect that many people will like the entire movie as a result. But unfortunately I can't ignore the previous 90 minutes. Basically, it lacked the magic, creativity, and overall writing the 1939 classic did. Call it an early 21st century version of an early 20th century Hollywood production. Less innocence, more grit, over done scare tactics, and as I said earlier, some sexual innuendo.
The wicked witch of the west (Theodora), played effectively by Mila Kunis, is a good example. In the original, the wicked witch was scary in a creepy way. In this version, the witch was scary in an evil way (plus her outfit was a bit more revealing, shall we say, than that of 1939's witch). Same with the flying monkeys. In this movie, they were downright fierce and brutal, ripping apart its victims (or at least trying to...you'll know what I mean if you saw the movie). Along with Rachel Weisz (Evanora) and Michelle Williams (Glinda), the three witches were probably the best part of the movie. Or at least the best acted. Zach Braff's dual role as Frank the side kick and Finley the flying monkey was probably my favorite in the movie though. Braff played both characters basically the same as both had similar relationships with Oz. An ironic moment referring to both arose at the end of movie, which was a nice touch. I'd also give the plot early in the movie some credit when it tried to hide who of the three was the "good" witch. But the majority of the movie, outside of the final 20 minutes, just didn't do much for me. But again, I'm pretty sure director Sam Raimi didn't have 53 year olds in mind when he was filming it! Finally, the visuals in the movie were very good. One thing they did do well was provide a look similar to the original Oz. My wife and I saw the movie in 3D, and neither of us thought it added much to the experience.
And that brings me to Oscar Diggs, or the Wizard of Oz himself. As much as liked James Franco in other films, I didn't particularly care for him as Oz. To me, at least, he didn't play the shrewd/conniving/devious/cunning part of the role well. Just wasn't believable. He was much better playing the "hero" though.
In conclusion, I thought the majority of the story was dry, the visuals were good, the acting for the most part good, and the ending very good. Slightly disappointing over all though, mainly because Disney took a nice G-rated story and made it into a PG rated film. On a side note, I've actually been reading L. Frank Baum's original "Wizard of Oz" book for the first time. I'm about 2/3rds the way through it, and I'm shocked how different it is from the 1939 movie. A lot of what's in the movie is in the book, but there is so much more story in the book that is not in the movie, which is not unusual. I normally would frown on a remake of the 1939 "Wizard of Oz", but after reading what I have so far, I would no longer be opposed to someone like Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings fame) or Ang Lee (Life of Pi) exploring the possibility of a Wizard of Oz trilogy, or at least a two part movie. With today's technology, it could be fantastic....if done in the right hands and written by the right person.
Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a "3 just for the visuals. They are worth experiencing on a large screen.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
C.S. Lewis and 'Mere Christianity' - Part 4: What is God Doing?
One question many people have is if Satan is heavily influencing the world today, as the Bible says, why doesn't God just destroy Satan and put an end to it? C.S. Lewis discusses this critical topic in Mere Christianity:
"Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely.
But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does? When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage, the play is over. God is going to invade all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? It will be too late then to choose your side.
That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realized it before or not. Now, today, this moment is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last forever. We must take it or leave it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next blog: Making better sense of who Jesus was: "This man (Jesus) we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse".
"Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely.
But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does? When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage, the play is over. God is going to invade all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? It will be too late then to choose your side.
That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realized it before or not. Now, today, this moment is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last forever. We must take it or leave it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next blog: Making better sense of who Jesus was: "This man (Jesus) we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse".
Saturday, March 9, 2013
C.S. Lewis and 'Mere Christianity' - Part 3: Self
C.S. Lewis on "self":
"The moment you have a self at all, there is the possibility of putting yourself first - wanting to be the center - wanting to be God, in fact. That was the sin of Satan; and that was the sin he taught the human race (beginning with Adam and Eve).
What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could 'be like gods' - could set up on their own as if they had created themselves - be their own masters - invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside of God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make them happy.
The reason we can never succeed is this. God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on petrol, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other."
That explains a lot, don't you think? Why humans evolved like they did. Why there is evil. Why bad things happen like poverty, greed, war, hate, etc. It was never God's intention. Since God is perfect (Matthew 5:48 - "....as your heavenly Father is perfect.") and God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27- "God created man in His own image"), logic indicates that everything prior to the episode in the Garden of Eden had to be perfect.
Some time before that, Satan became selfish and challenged God and lost. Then he took Adam and Eve with him. Sin was introduced, perfection lost, and now we're paying the price. As a result, we shouldn't be blaming God for every little bad thing that happens. Mankind only has itself to blame.
And God even reminds us that in Proverbs 19:3- "People ruin their lives by their own foolishness and then are angry at the Lord."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next blog: Making better sense of what Jesus did and why: "God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form".
"The moment you have a self at all, there is the possibility of putting yourself first - wanting to be the center - wanting to be God, in fact. That was the sin of Satan; and that was the sin he taught the human race (beginning with Adam and Eve).
What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could 'be like gods' - could set up on their own as if they had created themselves - be their own masters - invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside of God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make them happy.
The reason we can never succeed is this. God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on petrol, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other."
That explains a lot, don't you think? Why humans evolved like they did. Why there is evil. Why bad things happen like poverty, greed, war, hate, etc. It was never God's intention. Since God is perfect (Matthew 5:48 - "....as your heavenly Father is perfect.") and God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27- "God created man in His own image"), logic indicates that everything prior to the episode in the Garden of Eden had to be perfect.
Some time before that, Satan became selfish and challenged God and lost. Then he took Adam and Eve with him. Sin was introduced, perfection lost, and now we're paying the price. As a result, we shouldn't be blaming God for every little bad thing that happens. Mankind only has itself to blame.
And God even reminds us that in Proverbs 19:3- "People ruin their lives by their own foolishness and then are angry at the Lord."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next blog: Making better sense of what Jesus did and why: "God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)