ReThinking Lent

Every year around this time, I'm amazed at how much talk about the Lent season there is. Growing up, I never participated in Lent, and the only references I heard to it were from the mouths of Catholics. Thanks to social media publicizing it (and probably efforts to recover the rich religious tradition), Lent has seemed to become the "norm" in the Christian sphere.

Problem is, it seems as though we have in many ways reduced Lent to a second New Years' resolution. Did your first one not work out for you? Well, just wait until a second opportunity presents itself in February...! This new New Years' resolution seems all the more binding, as it isn't merely a "resolution" anymore but is a pact with God Himself. All of a sudden, the Lent season has become a chance to lose weight, tone our bodies, abstain from drinking coffee or soda, and "bettering" ourselves. At least, on the outside.

(My personal favorite is when people choose to abstain from certain vices or sins. Shouldn't we as Christians be striving to expel sin from our lives at all times and not just for 40 days during Lent?)

As the peer pressure amounts ("What are you giving up for Lent?"), I'm finding that I need to be reminded about what Lent is really about. Lent is supposed to serve as a reminder of what Christ gave up for us. It is a time to mourn over our sins and realize how dependent we are on God's mercy. It is a time of repentance, reflection, and humbleness.

Giving up something for Lent, then, is not an end in itself but is a means to an end. Our goal should be to draw closer to Christ, not to shed x many pounds or run x many miles a day. While fasting and exercising certainly can become instruments whereby we better experience God's presence (I talk best to God while I'm running, for instance), the goal should not be to just complete these tasks and check them off of our list of things to do.

Maybe instead of giving something up we should add something to our lives. Sometimes, the presence of something new can invoke a sense of God's presence that the absence of something couldn't do. A few years ago, for instance, I wrote a little note to 40 different people, thanking them for their influence in my life and encouraging them in their faith. This helped me become aware of God in ways that forfeiting coffee can't.

I'm not giving up or adding anything this year, but that's ok. The quality of my relationship with God is not dependent on my participation in Lent. I am, however, trying to be aware of how God is present with me in each and every moment (read here). As sinful as I am, God has still chosen to make his dwelling place among me.

That's something to reflect on.

Photo credit: "Diet" by h-aniko

A Theological Critique of The Hunger Games

Once, when I served as a youth pastor, I taught a lesson to the middle school students about peace. We discussed what God's peace looked like and how we could implement it into the world. We imagined what the world would look like when there would be perfect peace. I was just about to finish the lesson, confident that it had been a success, when one of the middle-school boys interrupted me.

"I don't think that a world with peace would be very much fun," he contended.

Puzzled, I asked him why he thought this way.

"If there wasn't any violence or killing," he replied, "there wouldn't be any good movies or video games."

A chill rose up inside of me and I tried to wipe my face of shock. Several of the students nodded their heads in agreement. This lesson had not gone in a way I had anticipated!

When a friend recently recommended The Hunger Games to me, I had no idea that it was one of the most popular young adult novels, closely trailing Harry Potter and the Twilight saga. Neither did I know that it was saturated with violence masqueraded under the pretense of entertainment. Since its release in 2008, this novel has rapidly sold copies to youth all over the world, making its way onto USA Today’s bestselling book list for 110 weeks and counting (USA). Two more sequels in the trilogy and a movie scheduled to make its debut next year have fans abuzz. But despite its popularity and rave reviews from critics and fans alike, there are some significantly sinister theological claims that the readers are subconsciously absorbing and accepting.

Story Synopsis

The story takes place sometime in the future in a country called Panem, situated in what previously was North America. Ravaged by war, famine, and natural disasters, the nation was fragmented into an affluent city called the Capitol and twelve impoverished districts. While the inhabitants of the Capitol lived in luxury, the oppressed majority lived from meal to meal. In order to keep the districts fearful of the regime’s power, the Panem government subjected the districts to the annual Hunger Games, a competition to the death on live television. During harvest, every child between the ages of 12 and 18 was entered into a lottery. A boy and a girl are drawn to participate in the Hunger Games. Since additional entries were rewarded with food, many parents were enticed to enter their children’s names into the drawing more than once.

In District 12, among the poorest of the poor, 16-year-old Katniss volunteered to take the place of her sister when her name was drawn. In the blink of an eye her life had been issued a death sentence. Unless she could somehow win the gauntlet, her life would be over and her family left to fend for themselves in her absence. The stakes were high as she and the other contender from District 12, Peeta, fought for their lives against the other children.

I was intrigued by how the author described the disparity between the rich and the poor in the book. By presenting Katniss as the heroine in the story, the author rallied the reader to the side of the poor. She satirized the inhabitants of the Capitol and pointed out their sadistic fascination with watching children murder each other for pure entertainment. I was anticipating a redemptive solution to the Games whereby Katniss and Peeta creatively resist the forces of the regime. I was shocked, however, when they complied with the Game and proceeded to murder other children in order to survive, with little reflection of their violent actions. One by one, the 22 tributes in the Hunger Games were viciously murdered until the only teenagers remaining were Katniss and Peeta. The author announced them as the triumphant victors of the game, but were they?

Theological Claims

Nevertheless, the good points stopped there. The main truth claims about violence cast a dark shadow over the remainder of the book. Collins fashioned death into a façade that made death palatable. The heroes of the story were actually antagonists. Even though they disagreed with the game, they still submitted to the game. Collins cleverly separated the reader emotionally from the other tributes so that the heroes’ actions seemed acceptable. She did not disclose the other contestants’ names but simply referred to them as their district number. This made the other contenders just that to the readers’ minds: numbers.

The author also cleverly avoided other ethical dilemmas by conveniently killing off certain characters before the two heroes had the opportunity. The only two characters that were named and attributed with character qualities were murdered by other tributes so that Katniss and Peeta would not have to do the ugly deed. This cunningly prevented the heroes from looking like the antagonists. Further, in the midst of all the violence in the arena, the author did little to demonstrate that the Katniss and Peeta were distraught over the others’ deaths. There is no reflection over the integrity of their actions, no musings about whether another way was possible.

It quickly became apparent that Collins is the faceless Gamemaker in the story, sadistically murdering innocent children and rendering it as entertainment for the masses. She may have parodied the Capitol inhabitants, but the youth who enjoy this book are nothing less than the Capitol TV watchers. This novel completely undergirds the one point the author appeared to be making. If Suzanne Collins wished to provoke youth to think about how desensitized we have become to ungodly entertainment, is she not almost fostering more desensitization through her novel?

Theological Reflection

When it comes to media that portrays violence positively, it seems like we play what I like to call the “but” game. We say, “That movie is violent, but…” or “That song condones violence against women, but…” As followers of Christ, there is simply no excuse for such displays of brutality. We are called to seek peace and reconciliation with one another. Enjoying or even condoning violent acts is in direct violation of the Imago Dei (Gen. 9:6).

Repeatedly, the Bible makes it clear that we are to overcome evil with goodness, not with more evil (Rom. 8:21). It is easy to conclude that the murders in the book can be justified because the heroes of the book came out alright in the end. This is based on utilitarian and teleology ideologies. It is utilitarian in that what works is the best solution, and it is teleological in that the end justifies the means. Just because the telos is “good” in the end (i.e. Katniss and Peeta survive and can later overthrow the government in subsequent books), it does not gratify the measures that were taken to achieve it. Rather than achieving results, it is more important that we as followers of Christ are being shaped into the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

When the first century Christians faced persecution by the Roman regime, the book of Revelation encouraged them to persevere through nonviolent resistance. The author characterized the people of God as those who “did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). On numerous occasions the people of God are advised in Revelation to conquer not with weapons but through sacrifice. Even the Lamb was bathed is his own blood and not the blood of his enemies (Rev. 5:6). I believe that the Cross tells us a lot about our response to violence. We are commanded to lay down our lives and take up our crosses, not to seek to save our lives (Lk. 9:23-25).

Right before the heroes were thrown into the gauntlet, Katniss and Peeta shared the following anxiety over their foreseen deaths:

“I don’t want them to change me in [the arena],” Peeta said. “Turn me into some monster I’m not.”

“Do you mean you won’t kill anyone?” [Katniss asked.]

“No, when the time comes, I’m sure I’ll kill just like everybody else. I can’t go down without a fight. Only I keep wishing I could think of a way to… to show the Capitol they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.” (141)

Peeta was so close to nailing it. He just missed it. Participating in the Games did not prove to the Capitol their lack of ownership of him; it further instated their hold on him. Peeta and Katniss could have sacrificed themselves and perhaps started a whole revolution, but they instead sought to hang onto their lives.

Let me propose a better ending to the book. Instead of complying with the Hunger Games, Katniss creatively subverts the Capitol and leads the other tributes in resisting violence. They resist to the point of death and die without innocent blood on their hands. Unfortunately, although this ending is biblically and ethically sound, it does not produce bestsellers. It does not produce money, and it does not produce sequels with which to make more money.

But we need to prophetically imagine another way. We need to dare to think that not only is another way possible, but it is commanded of us. If we are to be living embodiments of God's grace and love individually as disciples and collectively as the Church, how does our participation and/or approval of acts of violence make the love of God known?

Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. NY: Scholastic Press, 2008.

“Michael A. Behr’s Review of The Hunger Games.” Amazon.com. 2008. 9 October 2011. http://www.amazon.com/review/R3M62HO4M6LXE6

“Solana2Mira’s Review of The Hunger Games.” Amazon.com. 2010. 9 October 2011. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NORC5TO9QE6

“USA Today’s Best-selling Book List.” USAToday.com. 8 October 2011.

http://books.usatoday.com/list/index

Unaware

My small group is reading through the Bible in one year. Although I'm really behind in my reading, I can't help but to keep returning to the story of Jacob's first encounter with Yahweh in Genesis 28:10-22.
Jacob is fleeing from his brother Esau and stumbles upon a "certain place." In other words, "no where in particular." He falls asleep and has this incredible dream in which Yahweh speaks directly to him. When Jacob wakes up from this monumental dream, he says, "Surely the Lord was in this place, and I was not aware of it."

God was there... and he didn't even know it.

This story is very countercultural for that day. Back then, you just didn't find God in the middle of nowhere. If you wanted to talk to a god back then, you went to the temple. Gods could not be reached beyond a temple because it was thought that that was their permanent dwelling place.

Yet here's a God who is not confined to the temple. He shows up off the beaten path in a place that doesn't even have name.

I can't help but to wonder how many times God is in my midst and I am completely unaware of it. I walk to school every morning without inviting Him to come walk with me. I sit down to eat lunch, oblivious that I just might have a lunch buddy with me. God is present in the everyday, often mundane, parts of my life, yet I am not aware.

I'm learning to cultivate a sense for God's presence and to invite him into my everyday activities. The God of the universe has chosen to dwell among a being as sinful and ungrateful as me. I want to join Jacob in exclaiming, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!"

God is closer than I think.

Trash Talking the Law

Recently, a video entitled "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" has gone viral and sparked many discussions on Facebook. While I won't point out the many flaws in this video's theology (many others have undertaken this and done a fantastic job -- I don't have much more I could add), I was struck by the widely-held view about the nature of the [Old Testament] Law. Ever since I was a little girl, it was ingrained in me that the Law of the Old Testament is bad, but Jesus is good and replaced the Law. I was taught that the Law was bad because the Israelites thought that they could earn God's merit by upholding it. Instead, the Law brought death and self-righteousness.

This perspective completely disregards the greater witness of Scripture. This past semester, as I was studying John, I was really impacted by what the writer of John had to say about the Law:

"From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
- John 1:16-17

The word that the NIV chooses for "blessing" is the Greek word for "grace." In other words, this is saying that "From the fullness of [God's] grace we have received one grace after another." I think that we have often made "grace" into an ambiguous "Christianize" word. What does "grace" even mean? (I griped a bit about this in this post.) At its core, "grace" means anything that is given. It implies "giftedness."
The author of John gives two examples of God's gifts: the Law through Moses and Truth through Jesus. The Law is not presented as something that was bad; it is presented as a gift from God.

A few weeks ago, my husband took me out to lunch at a really nice Asian restaurant. It was late in the afternoon and I was starting to become really hungry. As we were driving to the restaurant, I saw all these other restaurants and desperately wanted to stop anywhere to satisfy my stomach rumblings. In my mind, I developed a rating system of what restaurants sounded really good to me:

Restaurant	Rating
Red Robin	Excellent
Bob Evans	Really Good
Fazoli’s	Good

But then I got to P.F. Chang's and the food was sooo good. I was so glad that I had waited! The other restaurants could not compete with honey sesame chicken. Now, however, I had a dilemma. I couldn't rate P.F. Chang's fairly on the rating scale. Red Robin was rated much too high. I could rate P.F. Chang's as "really excellent," but that still would not do it justice. It would be too close in rating to Red Robin.

So, in order to fix my dilemma, I need to rate the other restaurants lower.

Restaurant	Rating
P.F. Chang’s	Super Excellent
Red Robin	Okay
Bob Evans	Fair
Fazoli’s	Bad

Do I really think that Fazoli's is "bad?" No, I would gladly eat there any day of the week. But now that I've tasted the awesomeness of P.F. Chang's even Fazoli's ravioli pales in comparison.

I think that this is what's going on for the New Testament writers. The Law was a beautiful thing to them. It was the revelation of God himself to his people. It was a wonderful gift. By following the Law very carefully, the Israelites were loving God the way they knew best.

But now God revealed himself through His Son Jesus. How could this even compete with God's revelation through the Law? This is why many of the New Testament writers (like Paul) seem to be "trash-talking" the Law. It was a wonderful grace, but it was nowhere near as special as the grace of Jesus.

I learning to think of the Law in the Old Testament much in the same way that the first recipients thought about it - as a grace. God loves us so much that he has given us "grace after grace." Studying and mediating on the Law, even though it has been fulfilled (not annulled) through Jesus Christ is a way that I can reciprocate God's love and better appreciate his grace.

"God's Will"

There's plenty of talk about "God's will." We have self-help books that contain the keys to "discerning God's will," as if it were some kind of secret knowledge that has already been determined. People interweave "God's will" into everyday conversations:

"But, only if it's God's will..."

"I trying to figure out God's will for my life..."

"I wonder if God wants this to happen?"

We've somehow conjectured the idea that God has only one plan scripted out for our life, and if we don't figure it out we'll fail.

Lately, even politicians have been joining in the conversation, claiming that it was God's will that they run for office. Jerry Falwell recently proclaimed that God revealed his presidential pick, as if only one [Republican, obviously] candidate can do God's will in office. Christian fans are proclaiming that it has been "God's will" for quarterback Tim Tebow to "miraculously" win football games as a testament to his outspoken Christian witness.

I think that we're a bit confused about the nature of God's will. I also think that determining God's will is a lot simpler than other people make it out to be.

One particular Scripture passage that we draw our theology of "God's will" from is Romans 12. Here, Paul discusses just how it is that the Roman Christians he is addressing can discern God’s will. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world,” he writes, “but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (12:2). After our minds are transformed, we can understand God’s will. Unfortunately, many English translations do not accurately encompass the meaning of the latter half of 12:2. The NIV, for instance, translates the adjectives “good, pleasing, and perfect” as modifiers of “God’s will.” A better translation from the Greek reads as follows: “[…] so that you may be able to prove what God’s will is – that which is good, pleasing, and perfect.”

Text	Translation
English translations (NIV, KJV, ASV, etc)	“God’s will is good, pleasing, and perfect.”
Greek	“God’s will is that which is good, pleasing, and perfect.”

Although these translation differences may be subtle, they make a significant difference in how we should understand the nature of God’s will. Are things “good” because God declares that they are “good?” Or can things be “good” in themselves, and God affirms and delights in their “goodness?” In light of Romans 12:2, the latter is the best understanding of God’s will. We can know that things are within God’s will for humankind and creation because they are in accordance with his goodness and perfection.

What is God's will for me? Pursuing a life that pursues God's goodness and God's perfection. Living a life that invites God's kingdom here on this earth, as it is in heaven.

May we continue to delight in God's goodness and seek to pursue it in all we do.

(p.s. Now you don't need to read any more self-help books. You're welcome.)