God, Go With Me

I discovered something today - I'm not nearly as concerned about where God will send me as I am with whether or not God will go there with me.  Have I ever really sought God's face with desperation before?  Have I ever come to the end of my self and discovered the thirst, the longing to have God at my side?  What if all of this is about shattering my confidence, shattering my broken cisterns that hold no water, and helping me recognize my thirst? 

 

I'm not an expert at anything.  I have nothing to offer to God, except my little life.  I think I feel how Manasseh must have felt in prison, or how the prodigal son felt on the way home. 

 

Is all this the extent to which God has to go to get me to just surrender to him?  Is my neck and are my knees that stiff? 

 

I love Moses.  The people had just broken their covenant with God, worshipping a golden cow, and Moses had no defense for their actions.  They were sinful, they were rebellious, they were stiff-necked.  BUT THEY WERE STILL GOD'S PEOPLE.  And so he wrestles with God for their future.  He won't let them go down, at least not without fighting on their behalf.  And God chooses to forgive.  And He revokes His threat to not go with them into their inheritance.  He remembers his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and he honors the arrangement, at great personal cost to himself. 

 

I draw hope from this story (Exodus 32-34, if you want to read it yourself) as I look within my own heart.  I am stiff-necked, but I am God's son.  He has made promises to me, and to Jesus about me.  He will not abandon me now, or ever.  But I must stay HERE - broken, empty, thirsty - and cry out to Him to fill me, to satisfy me, to lead and guide me.  Be persistent, like Moses was - until God shows me His glory.

 

What if that will actually happen?  What if God will actually show up?  I want to find out.

Can God Really Be Trusted?

That's life's ultimate question, right?  If you can confidently (or semi-confidently) answer that question as a "yes," then you will persevere no matter what suffering comes your way.  You'll just interpret every struggle, every pain as part of God's larger process to do good things to and for you.  You'll wait as long as you have to wait to see what that good might be.  Even better, if He can be trusted, then the uncertainty and paralysis that live in my chest dissipate.  Obeying and persevering might hurt me, and it might be difficult, but at least I know what to do.

On the other hand, if the answer is no, then there's really no point in doing the "right thing."  Ever.  It certainly makes no sense to deny yourself some pleasure or to tolerate agony if God can't be trusted.  If He's playing some cosmic game with us (no matter the reason why),  we're all screwed, especially those of us who were raised to be afraid of breaking rules or disobeying authority.  And that belief will drive me to interpret even the good things I experience from God with a great deal of suspicion and fear about what calamity is coming for me next.  I will shrink back from Him like a victim of sexual abuse shrinks back from any affection offered to them for fear that the next moment might involve yet another betrayal.

Is God trying to hurt me, or is he trying to parent me?  How we answer that question will determine the course and the outcome of our lives.

Potential...

...is a beautiful thing when you're 16.  Or 23.  Maybe even 28.  But at some point you have to look in the mirror at your 33 year old face and realize that you can't hide behind that word anymore.  You can't wait it out or delay until the perfect opportunity comes your way.  You have to step up.  You have to lead yourself.  You have to choose something to chase after and then go for it. 

You've got to tell yourself the truth, starting with this little inspirational gem:  your youth is behind you.  The days of waiting to be "discovered" by someone else who will hold your hand and walk you through the minefield are gone.  Thirty-somethings don't "get discovered" - no one is looking for you.  If you're going to leave a legacy, make an impact, you have to make it happen.  You have to care enough to move, because no one is going to come behind you and push you towards your destiny.  Gandalf doesn't exist.  Not for you.  No Marines are coming behind enemy lines to save you.  If you get out, you've got to want it enough to get yourself out.  If you want to be heard, you have to stand up and scream yourself hoarse. 

You have to decide what matters to you - what your life is going to be about.  No golden book is going to fall out of the sky at your feet, no magical fairy is going to give you an instruction manual with a treasure map complete with "x marks the spot."  You've got to figure out what you care about and then move towards that with all your resources, regardless of whether or not you are noticed or given any accolades for doing so. 

It comes down to our ability and our responsibility to make choices.  What I will choose might already be written in the book of fate, I honestly don't know.  All I know is that the fear within me is real.  The hesitation, the doubt, the gut-wrenching nausea is present with me whenever I make a decision, whether I'm just a pawn of fate or not.  It feels real, and all the metaphysical stuff debated on epic television shows and self-important theology classrooms comes down to this:  it feels real, and I have to make a choice.  Now.  I have to make a choice about what kind of man I will be.  I have to make a choice about what kind of father I will be.  I have to make a choice about the kind of suffering that I will try to ease and that I will fight to bring to an end.  I have to stop paralyzing myself with doubt about whether or not I'm selecting the perfect option and just opt for the best one that I can see. 

My life isn't about me anymore.  It's not about what I can accomplish, whether anyone will realize that I'm a diamond in the rough and then raise me up to kill dragons or win glory or make a name for myself.  It's really about three little boys who look a little bit like me.  They're the ones with potential worth developing, worth coaxing into reality.  It's about them learning early on to choose to act and teaching them to convert that potential into actions as soon as they are able.  It's about not letting them cut corners, about pushing them the ways that I was never pushed. 

It's too late for me to "become" a man.  My "becoming" days are behind me.  It's about "being" a man, or as close to one as I can be.  In those moments when I don't know how to do that, then it's about acting like a man.  Making choices to do what a man would do, and letting the history books remember me, or choose to forget me, however they want.

Eli and Saul - two peas in a pod

The sheer amount of layers in the biblical narrative astounds me.  Stories echo each other, drawing an invisible thread from one passage to another that connects them all.  The Bible is not a collection of independent books about the same nation and the same God thrown together, but a carefully designed series of stories that can only be understood in the context of all the other stories. 

Case in point:  have you ever noticed the similarities between Eli (the priest) and Saul (the king) in the book of 1 Samuel? 
1.  Both men were given positions of privilege by God.
2.  Both tolerated blatant disobedience towards God's commandments by the people that they were responsible to lead (for Eli, it was the brazen disobedience of his sons; for Saul, the brazen disobedience of his army when fighting the Amalekites). 
3.  Tragically, both of them had the right to serve God stripped from them AND their family line because of their unwillingness to lead the people under their authority. 
4.  Both received a promise from God that another, more worthy servant would take their place (Eli was told that God would raise up for himself a "faithful priest" - 3:34, and Saul was told that God had sought out a man after his own heart to rule over God's people - 13:14, 15:28). 
5.  Both died tragic, violent deaths.  Eli heard about the capture of the ark of God in the war with the Philistines, fell over and broke his neck (not a good way to go).  Saul lost his life in battle, too, pierced through by his own sword as God's enemies swirled around him.  It did not end well for either one of them. 

The bridge between these two failed leaders is Samuel.  He "learns the ropes" from Eli and watches the failures of his sons.  He faithfully leads Israel for his whole life, but ironically begins to resemble Eli - his sons do not walk in the ways of the Lord (just like Eli), and that leads to Israel asking for a king.  God is hurt by their request, and the guy that God gives them is Saul, who demonstrates pretty quickly by his actions that he isn't cut out to be the king that God intended to bless His people with.  (I believe that God intended all along to give the job in just a few years to a young man after His own heart, David.  If only the people could have waited a bit longer - God would have given them their king, and they could have avoided the whole Saul fiasco.  There's a lesson in there somewhere, I think!)

I'm not 100% sure what the point is of these similarities, or the significance of Samuel being deeply involved in both of their lives (Eli and Saul, that is), but I don't think it's just thrown together.  These echoes are intentional, and there IS a point.  Now I just need to figure it out.  Or rather, I just need to keep reading. 

N.T. Wright is my C.S. Lewis

Here's what I mean by that:  whenever a Christian thinker/preacher/teacher wants to pull out the big guns and shut down any potential disagreement with their ideas, they quote C.S. Lewis, right?  Maybe it's the quote about Aslan not being a tame lion (but don't worry, he's good), or the one about our pleasures being too weak (remember the mudpies?), or...fill in the blank.  If C.S. Lewis agrees with you, or if you can make something that he said seem to support your idea, then you're golden.  Whew!  That was a close one.  It's like throwing out the "race" card in a discussion about Tiger Woods, or throwing out the "I gave birth to your children" card when you're trying to pick what movie to watch on a Friday night.  It trumps everything in a heartbeat.  It's settled. 

I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I mean no disrespect to C.S.  His writings shaped the thinking of an entire generation (or two) of Christian thinkers so completely that it's almost impossible for them to formulate their faith without referring back to his words.  He put things in such a witty and succinct (and often funny) way that you put down the book, nod your head, and say, "You tell 'em, Jack!"

So, crazy props to C.S. Lewis.  But I'm moving on - to another British intellectual with two initials in front of his name (and this guy actually has had some theological training...smile). 

N.T. Wright has been around forever, I guess, but I'm just now discovering him (about two years ago, now).  In that time I've read four or five of his most recent books and have thoroughly enjoyed each one(Surprised by Hope literally changed my life - every Christian needs to read this book, agree or disagree) .  He writes in this very formal, British style that also is weirdly conversational at the same time.  He has shaped my thinking on so many different issues - so much so that I don't think I can express my beliefs or my convictions about what the purpose of life is without echoing his words at some point. 

His greatest gift to me has been to help me arrange doctrines into their proper places.  For example, I've always believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and in the coming kingdom of God - but I never realized that those two pieces of the puzzle were inextricably linked together and each inform the other one.  Along the way, he's helped me question some of the cliches that have crept into my thinking and challenge them with Scripture. 

I'd go into more detail, but that would make this post much too long and ultimately unreadable.  I just wanted to come out of the closet, so to speak, and reveal my "theologian-crush" on N.T. Wright. 

(But I still like Aslan...I promise!)

The King's Speech - A Date with Fear

Without outside intervention, none of us can conquer our fears.  Willpower, hard work, self-discipline isn't enough.  It just doesn't work.  We must be led.  We must be "fathered" into it.  We need to hear the words "You have what it takes - you can do it" from someone we look up to before we can believe it ourselves. 

So, in the movie, a stuttering king is terrified of public speaking, and he finds someone to help him.  Sound interesting?  Probably not - and yet I couldn't look away for 2 hours this evening.  The king isn't really scared of public speaking - that's a triviality that his fear attaches itself to - he's really terrified of letting down his family, his people, his nation, and ultimately, his father.  He is convinced that he doesn't have what it takes, and so all his attempts to improve himself fall short.  He doesn't believe, and none of those trying to help him really believe, either. 

And then he meets a quack - an Australian speech therapist unintimidated by his persona and title.  But this man is different - he believes that the king has what it takes, and just needs to be awoken to that fact.  And like a father, he leads this fatherless man down the path to facing his fear and becoming the man and the leader that he was always meant to be. 

This is the way that it always happens.  You don't just wake up one morning, decide you have to overcome a fear, and then grit your teeth until the job is done.  You must find someone who can lead you down that path.  You must look for a father, and you must trust him enough to submit yourself to the training, to the grueling process of transformation. 

The great tragedy of our time is that we have so few fathers to lead us.  To make matters worse, we fearful sons don't trust the ones that we do have.  Whenever we actually ARE called to manhood by one of these rare fathers, we're often unwilling to submit ourselves to the necessary training that manhood requires.  It's too strenuous, too demanding - and we still don't believe it will work.

We all need fathers.  I think we know that.  The challenge to me and my generation is this:  it is time to stop bemoaning the fact that we don't have fathers and we need to become fathers.  We must undergo the training, however we can, as best we can, and then dare to offer whatever we have gained and learned to others - to our friends, and our sons, and our friends' sons.  Maybe the greatest gift that we can give the next generation of men is to look into their eyes as boys and believe in them.  And then tell them - over and over again - as often as we would have liked to have heard it ourselves.  And then offer them training they will need to seize their moments and win their battles. 

Maybe then we can put the Enemy on his heels and push back the darkness.

The One Thing I Wish God Had Never Said...

The other night at youth group my pastor was teaching about obedience from 1 Samuel 15.  Classic passage, right?  "To obey is better than to sacrifice..."  We all say "Amen" and move on without too much emotional connection to the passage.  We apply it to our children, to our respect for authority, to our requirement to be holy as God is holy - it's all so...obvious (and a little boring, if we're honest).  But the actual context of the statement is quite disturbing and shakes me a bit.

The command that God expects Saul to obey completely is this:  a death sentence for every man, woman, child, infant, and animal belonging to the Amalekite kingdom.  Saul and his soldiers were to be God's executioners.  No mercy - just slaughter and bloodshed.  Can you imagine the screams?  The stench?

For just a moment, I'm going to set aside whether or not it was "right" for God to command this - I'm willing intellectually to embrace the idea that God, as the Judge of the earth, will only do what is right, that no one (not even an infant) is totally innocent, and that these people were just paying for horrifying sins that they had committed as a society. 

But if God makes that call, why can't he just carry out the sentence himself?  Why ask Israelites soldiers to take their swords and kill women, children, and infants?  Wouldn't those images, those sounds, those smells, follow you for the rest of your life?  How could you ever look at your own kids again in the eye?  If an army were to do anything like this in today's world, they would be villified and judged for it, and rightly so.  So, why did God ask his people to play the part of the Nazi?  No, not ask - COMMAND. 

I know that this was a fairly isolated incident, that this isn't the way that God often handled sin and human rebellion.  In fact, I know that God's OT record is much more kind and gracious than any of us deserve.  I'm not trying to do the whole "the OT God is bloodthirsty, NT God is sweet and kind" thing.  But I just don't understand why God would command his people to do something that in almost any other scenario would be completely horrifying and evil.  I understand that God has a right to use people to execute judgment and all that - it just seems totally out of character.  Again, maybe I'm just a namby-pamby liberal Obama-loving tree-hugger and all that - but if it was such a great idea to begin with, why doesn't he do it anymore?  Why change the way he deals with sinful people in our times?

I just don't know if I could obey that kind of a command.  Intellectually, I think I could agree that God has a right to execute any human being at any time because of their sins.  Emotionally?  When it came down to me breaking into an Amalekite hut and putting children to death?  I don't think I could do it. 

Ironically, Saul and his soldiers didn't see to have any moral problems with wiping out the women and children - their obedience problem was related to the fact that they wanted to keep the spoils of the cattle and sheep and all that.  Saul's disobedience wasn't on any "high moral grounds" - it was because he was greedy and wanted to keep it for himself.  But...should he have disobeyed on different grounds?  (Bear with me, here for a second...)

When Abraham heard that God had slated Sodom for complete destruction, he negotiated with God on the basis of His justice.  The issue wasn't "save the women and children" as much as it was "don't sweep away the righteous with the wicked," but the principle is intriguing.  Abraham challenged the way that God had planned to administer his justice, appealing to God's mercy and grace, and God gave way each time.  (See Genesis 18 for more details.)

When God threatened (on a few occasions) to wipe out the Israelites, most notably with the whole Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32-34), Moses intervened - "No, God!  You can't wipe out your people!  You promised Abe, Ike, and Jake!  Turn away from your fierce anger..."  And God did.  Each time.  It seems that a common theme, even in the Pentateuch, is that if God is appealed to show mercy and grace to underserving people by men in relationship with God, God allows Himself to be entreated.  He backs down. 

So, should Saul have begged God to spare the Amalekites?  To show them his mercy?  To at least spare him from having to take part in their execution?  I honestly don't know.  When God pronounced his judgment on Moses (that he would not go into the promised land because of his disobedience), Moses begged God to change his mind and he refused.  When David's first child by Bathsheba was sick and struggling towards death, David begged God to heal the boy and God refused.  Maybe God would have told Saul to stop arguing and send him anyway.  But maybe not. 

I am grateful that God works differently through the church today - that we are called to suffer and die rather than to inflict suffering and kill.  I don't pretend to have all the answers, or to be able to approach God's dealings with sinful humanity from any kind of moral high ground - but this is a disturbing picture, no?  Any thoughts or comments, cyber-friends?

Sigh...The 2000's were nice to us...Final Chapter

Not that anyone is really paying that much attention, but I thought I would at least post the rest of my list of favorite Boston-area championships from the 2000's.  The more time that passes, the more bizarre it is that one city/area could win 6 different world championships and play for two others, all within a ten-year window.  The collective psyche of the Boston/N.E. fan is a TOTALLY different thing than it was just 10 years ago.  Like Florida and the North Pole.  Or Baghdad and Las Vegas.  It's hard to explain unless you've lived through it.  Anyway, here goes...

6.  The Boston Red Sox defeat the Colorado Rockies, 4-0, (October of 2007).
5.  The New England Patriots defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX, 24-21 (February 2005).
and now, without any further ado...

4.  The New England Patriots defeat the Carolina Panthers in Superbowl XXXVIII, 32-29 (February 2004).  This championship was fun for a lot of reasons:  the defense was always coming up with timely turnovers and stops to stomp the hearts out of the opposition, Brady was consistently good, the 12 game win streak to end the season, playoff defeats of BOTH of the Co-MVPs of the league that year, Steve McNair and Peyton Manning (still fun to remember the facial expressions and body language of the Oreo guy during that one).  Vinatieri made a dozen clutch kicks in the playoffs ALONE.  The Superbowl was a GREAT game (overshadowed somewhat by the whole Janet Jackson fiasco) - it went back and forth in a frantic fourth quarter that saw some CRAAAAZY pass plays between Jake "The Man" and his gifted wide receivers.  When journeyman wide receiver Ricky Proehl tied the game with just over a minute left, it looked destined for overtime.  But, we had seen Brady do this before...and we believed.  We really did.  Somehow he got us deep enough into Carolina territory for Adam Vinatieri to attempt a 41 yarder, and it sailed through.  It felt good to be back on top of the mountain...and we realized that this Brady guy wasn't a one-year wonder or fluke: in his 3 seasons, he had brought us 2 Superbowl wins and 2 Superbowl MVPs in dramatic fashion.  We started to wonder...what could be the ceiling for this guy? 

3.  The Boston Celtics defeat the Los Angeles Lakers, 4-2 (June 2008).  
Now this one was fun.  For my whole childhood/young adulthood, the Celtics franchise had rested on the laurels of its celebrated past.  There had been some playoff appearances and memorable players who had come through Boston, but none of them had even gotten close enough to sniff the Finals, let alone the Championship.  That all changed when Danny Ainge managed to swing deals to bring Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to Boston to partner with Paul Pierce.  (What is often forgotten is the strong young nucleus that Ainge had assembled to complement these guys - Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Glen Davis - all drafted and developed by Boston in the previous two seasons.)  It was so fun to follow a team that played with ferocity and fire every night.  I experienced for the first time what it must have been like to follow the Celtics back in the mid-80's or even back in the mid-60's.  We were the best team in the conference, everyone knew it, and the team delivered.  This team wasn't resting on its storied past, but was starving for its own accomplishments, its own glory.  The Playoffs were anything but a formality.  I remember everyone freaking out (myself included), wondering if KG was going soft, if Ray Allen had forgotten how to shoot 3's, if Rajon Rondo would ever be able to make a jumpshot, if Doc Rivers would ever develop a playoff rotation that worked, etc.  The freaking Atlanta Hawks took us to 7, then LeBron (notice I didn't say the Cavs) took us to 7 before we woke up.  We defeated Detroit pretty handily (considering they were the best team we had played so far), and then it was time for a rematch - Boston vs. LA.  Dream matchup.  I have every single game recorded, and I've watched them all several times - each game had something special...

Game 1:  Pierce hurts his knee, goes into the locker room, hobbles back into the game, makes big shots down the stretch to put the game out of reach.
Game 2:  Celtics winning BIG in a laugher, only to have a FURIOUS Laker comeback fall just short in the fourth quarter.  I almost urinated on myself at the end there - and suddenly didn't feel so confident about the next three games in LA.
Game 3:  The officials over-react to the free-throw disparity in game 2 by pulling a "Michael Jordan" and gift-wrapping Kobe 18 free-throws all by himself.  Whatever.
Game 4:  The Celtics pull off the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history (something like 23 points), and change the complexion of the series.
Game 5:  The Celtics ALMOST pull off another huge comeback.  Paul Pierce plays like a man in his hometown, but the C's waste an opportunity to put the Lakers away on the home floor.
Game 6:  Complete annihilation.  We had geared ourselves up for a clash of the titans, and the game was over halfway through the second quarter.  The Lakers were soft, and they had no heart.  Or I should say, the Celtics ripped it out of their chest and left it to die slowly on the Garden floor.  So sweet.  Sooooooo sweeeeeetttttttt.  Ray Allen couldn't miss - KG wouldn't lose - and PP wouldn't allow his team to let up until he had grabbed banner #17 for a whole new generation of Celts fans.

Just an amazing turn of events.  And it all changed in one season.  One season.  I'll never get over that one.

2.  The Boston Red Sox defeat the St. Louis Cardinals, 4-0 (October 2004). 
The World Series was anti-climactic.  This will always be known as the year we finally beat the Yankees.  Finally.  FINALLY!  After Tim Wakefield's 12th inning pitch landed in the Yankee Stadium bleachers in 2003, we felt like it was never going to happen.  Down 3-0...and it was once again defeat and resignation.  I didn't even have the heart to be mad after game 3.  We were the little brothers, and we were always going to be that.  Game 4 played out predictably - we were going to end up just a bit short...one run lead for the Yanks, Mariano Rivera in to shut it down (see game 7, 2003 ALCS).  Then...Millar walks.  Roberts steals second (barely).  And I'll never forget the shock waves that went through my body when Bill Mueller hit that ball back up the middle and drove Roberts home.  It was like Rocky 4 all over again..."YOU SEE?  YOU CUT HIM!  YOU HURT HIM!  YOU SEE?  HE'S NOT A MACHINE, HE'S A MAN!!!!!"  And then...Big Papi.  And the next day...Big Papi again.  He not only came through in the most desperate situation, he did it on back to back nights against the freaking New York Yankees.  And then Schilling came out with the bloody sock.  I get chills just remembering the first time the TV cameras showed us the closeup (sadly, it's likely his decision to do this crazy procedure on his ankle hastened his inevitable decline).  And then Johnny Damon exploded on the Yanks for a pair of huge homeruns in Game 7 that made it inevitable.  The greatest comeback in MLB history.  And we got it against the Yankees.  And then the Cardinals were nice enough to lay down for four straight games and let us steamroll them into oblivion.  This victory leaves me dumbfounded.  Shoot, if the Sox could win, after 87 years, and numerous well-documented choke-jobs, ANYONE could.  And we were the champs.  At last...

1.  The New England Patriots defeat the St. Louis Rams in Superbowl XXXVI, 20-17 (February 2002).  This, of course, was the year that the legend of Tom Brady was born.  Humble All-American backup QB is called into action to replace the injured Pro-Bowler starter, and just refuses to lose.  He's a 6th round draft choice (#199 overall) who doesn't blow you away with his numbers...at all.  But he's a winner.  And we love him almost from the very beginning.  New England was starved for a championship.  Larry Bird had last delivered us one in 1986, and it had been 16 years of humble pie and disappointment over and over again.  Somehow, the team that had gone 5-11 the season before turned into an 11-5 division winner.  We beat Oakland in a crazy snowstorm, then went to Pittsburgh and beat the Steelers (that was fun - Drew Bledsoe got back into the game after Brady went out with an ankle injury and willed the team to victory - it was great to see him get one last hurrah with the Pats).  The Pats were 13 point underdogs in the Superbowl to the "Greatest Show on Turf" St. Louis Rams (and rightly so).  I'll never forget Ty Law picking off Warner and running it all the way back for a TD, and thinking, "Could one of my teams actually win a championship in my lifetime?"  (Pause)  "Naaaahhhh."  Then we score again...14-3.  "Hmmmm...Maybe..."  Then we tack on a field goal...  "You know, I'm starting to think..."  Then, mid-way through the 4th quarter, Warner gets a cheap TD on a QB sneak, and the Pats offense predictably goes three and out.  Warner wastes no time at all throwing the game-tying touchdown to...who else?...Ricky Proehl, and momentum has completely shifted. 

New England had the ball at their own 17 yard line with 1:30 to play.  Madden told Brady to take a knee and start over in OT.  Brady had other thoughts.  83 seconds and at least four "there's no way THAT worked" plays later, Brady had spiked the ball at the St. Louis 30.  When Vinatieri kicked the ball through the goalposts, I was stunned.  I would love to tell you I believed all along, but I didn't.  Not for one second.  I was conditioned to think that it couldn't happen, that it would never happen.  Nobody believed in this team - not even their own fans.  But they did it.  They single-handedly reversed the bad luck and disappointments of a whole region of the country.  They paved the way for the 2004 Sox and the 2008 Celts.  Without Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, I'm convinced that the Red Sox and the Celtics would still be toiling away in mediocrity.  They gave us our pride back.  They forced us to expect more from all our teams, to demand a level of commitment and excellence that led to five other area championships in the next 7 years.  The Pats gave us hope for the future, and they did it in the most dramatic way imaginable. 

What can I say?  The first one is always the sweetest.

LOST was never about the island...

So Jill and I got Season 6 of LOST for Christmas.  Tonight we just finished watching the bonus features.  I am always fascinated to get a look behind the curtain at the thinking processes of the writers and creators of the show.  As someone obsessed with the process of reading, interpreting, and telling stories, I hung on their every word.  After listening for a bit, and reflecting back over the arc of the story, I realized a few things about the kind of story that LOST is (was). 

They were never going to tell us what the island actually is.  Why not?  At least two reasons - first, the show was never about the island.  The island was just the physical and metaphysical backdrop for the challenges, the trials, and the mystery that nudged the characters on the path of change and development.  The island was the plot device that forced Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, and all the others to examine themselves, to face their demons, and then, to change, either for the better (Sawyer stands out), or the worse (Michael, sadly).  Sure, the writers gave us just enough information about the island and Jacob and smoke monsters to keep us (and the characters, too) curious, and wanting more, but let's be honest - we kept watching the show for the characters.  How they would respond to various situations, would they ever overcome their obstacles, would they ever get together?  This was a show about whether or not flawed people have hope of changing, of finding love, of choosing to do what they thought was right...or not.  Can we be optimistic about the future of humanity?  LOST creators Cuse and Lindeloff hesitate, but I think they end up saying "yes."  They know the depths to which humanity can descend, but they have hope that we can be more than what we often choose to be.

The second reason they didn't tell us about the island is that they don't know.  They really don't.  Many of us felt cheated by the ending because we thought they knew the answers but just didn't want to tell us - but I don't think that's the case.  I'm pretty sure that they literally don't know themselves what the island is all about, who is really controlling it, what it really wants.  Why not?  Simple - because that's the postmodern worldview in a nutshell.  We know there is something bigger than us, we feel caught up in the whirlpool of fate, of "destiny", of powers greater and more mysterious than we can imagine - but we have no idea what it really is.  It's shrouded in mystery, and we'll never really know why it's happening, or who is behind the details of our lives.  The best thing we can do is love the people around us as best we can, make choices based on what we believe to be the best thing, and hope that it all turns out okay in the end.  The creators of LOST are hopeful, I think, that whatever forces are behind the twists and turns of this life are benevolent, and are going to lead us somewhere better, but it's impossible to really know.  The great irony is that the show sold itself as being a great mind-bending puzzle to be solved, but in the end it came back around to the fact that the puzzle is secondary to the relationships that are formed in the process of solving the puzzle. 

The show is about redemption, and in the end, restoration - but what saddens me as I reflect on it is that there is no sense of what we are redeemed FOR or WHO we are restored to.  The major difference between the biblical narrative and the LOST narrative is that the Bible connects our redemption and our restoration to the character and nature and love of God.  We were created for oneness with God; we have lost that oneness; He fights to reach us until that oneness is healed and restored; our new oneness will be unbroken for eternity. 

I feel a special kinship with Jack - and I watched his face in the final moments of the finale.  Here's a guy who struggles so much to just accept that it's all going to be okay, but in the end he does.  He is redeemed, he is restored, he is moving on...but to what?  He doesn't know, and he can't know.  For whom?  For Kate?  For his father?  Just for himself?  Who knows if the next level of existence will even include the people in that room around him.  He's not who he was, he has changed, he is better, but ultimately for what?  Or for whom? 

I wanted to run into that "church" and tell Jack that all the brokenness he has experienced, all the pain, all the disappointment, all the fears, will vanish in the arms of Jesus on the other side.  That in His embrace we will not only find healing and restoration, but we'll be one with Him who loves us best forever. 

But I couldn't do that.  I had to just sit back and watch as Jack 2.0 moves on to some nebulous future - improved, perhaps, but still uncertain about what awaits him.  And why couldn't I do that?  (Besides the fact that he is fictional and I'm a dork, that is...)  Because Cuse and Lindeloff's worldview cannot permit that kind of certainty. 

And that is the great tragedy of postmodernism (at least as I understand it).  While it has lost the arrogance of the experts in white lab coats who make pronouncements about the nature of reality that they can't really prove anyway, it has made a virtue out of uncertainty and mystery.  It is offended at the suggestion that the great mystery behind the universe (and all the complex webs of relationships contained within it) would walk up to you, reach out a hand, and say, "Hi - my name is Jesus.  I would really like for you to genuinely know me."

One of the hallmarks of LOST was the way it presented love and sacrifice with such elegant beauty.  You watch these characters care about each other, give themselves for each other, and you couldn't help but be moved by it.  But what it was not able to do (at least in a satisfactory way for me) was establish the basis for that love and that sacrifice.  Okay, so they love each other - so they're sacrificing themselves - but for what?  For example, why would Jack take it upon himself to be the protector of the island?  What's the big deal about the black smoke guy getting off the island?  Sure they said, "the world would end," but who knows if that's what will REALLY happen?  At some point you see Jack just resign himself to the fact that this is what he was meant to do, but what irritated me is this question:  WHY, Jack?  Why is this what you were meant to do?  Why do you care about the survival of this island?  What's the big picture?  What's the point?  What's worth enduring all this pain and suffering and heartbreak in order to protect?

The creators of LOST can't tell us because they don't know.  They know that we should be good, we should love each other, we should sacrifice ourselves, we should believe...but they don't really know why - or even if it's really worth it to do so.  It's obvious they hope so, but they don't know for sure.  And they don't believe that they can. 

The biblical narrative stands apart in this regard - it depicts the beauty of love and sacrifice of humans no less than LOST, but it adds the element of WHY.  It tells us the great undergirding story, the point of it - the "it's worth it" clause.  Why do we fight to resist evil and protect our friends?  Because a world is coming where evil will be banished in the kingdom of God.  The "faith" chapter (Heb. 11) doesn't just depict how heroic people were for having "faith" and then acting on it - it connects their decision to what they KNEW was coming for them (see vs. 13-16).  They had a sense of WHO I'm doing this for (to please God - vs. 6), and WHY I'm taking this leap of faith (God has prepared a city for us - vs. 16). 

I know it's just a show - but it's a show that reflects the thinking of the storytellers of our time (and the storytellers in large part shape the belief systems of everyone else).  How many people are increasingly aware of a superior power out there, a mystery that intrigues and leads them to make beautiful choices to love, to change, to forgive, to do good deeds, but have no sense who that might be or what to do to be restored to that Power?  The sad truth is that they are still orphans.  They still don't know what is actually going on.

They are still lost.

A Taste of Eternity

So, I've decided to try the "Bible in 90 (ish) days" reading program for 2011 and so far it's been surprisingly fun and good.  I say surprising because I've read Genesis literally hundreds of times and I was a little afraid that there were no new angles left.  As you can probably imagine, I was wrong.

Two days ago I was reading through the Joseph story, and I caught myself going into the "yeah, I know this" mode as he's being thrown into the pit and then sold into slavery.  After beating my head repeatedly on the wall, I turned back to the story in the light of the family drama between Jacob's two wives - and some crazy stuff stood out to me.

First of all, have you noticed how dysfunctional (in every sense of the word) Jacob's "family" is?  He loves Rachel, wants to marry her, works seven years for her, schedules the wedding, marries and sleeps with the wrong woman, screams at his father-in-law (usually takes two-three months after the wedding for THAT to happen), negotiates a deal to marry the one he REALLY wanted all along, has a wedding feast with her, marries and sleeps with her, and that's all by week 2.  Even a J. Lo romantic comedy doesn't have so many ridiculous twists and turns in the first two weeks of the relationship. 

Wife # 1 is Leah, one of the all-time sad and tragic figures in the Bible.  On the one hand, she has a huge edge over her adversary (her sister) - she's a baby machine!  She has four sons sooner than the text can say, "Methuselah."  But she doesn't have the one thing she wants:  her husband's love.  If you notice, the names of her sons are all geared around her excitement at producing sons for Jacob because "maybe now he'll love me."  It broke my heart as I was reading it. 

Then Rachel and Leah have the "handmaid" wars (Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson have NOTHING on these two), and Leah wins again, but it doesn't matter.  She (and her sons) are second class, and they always will be, and they all know it.  The kids know it, the servants know it, Rachel knows it, and later, Rachel's kids know it. 

Which leads to Joseph, right?  He's the annoying little brother who knows he is the favorite and that no one is going to mess with him, and his older brothers are just dying to shut the kid up - and if they can make him disappear at the same time, hallelujah! 

Fast-forward through all of Joseph's trials and tribulations to the moment when he is the second-in-command of all of Egypt, supervising the survival of the known world (not really an exaggeration if you take seriously the description of this famine in the text).  And his brothers, all grown men by this time, show up.  And they are at his mercy.  It's payback time. 

Lots of people have done a much better job than I could at describing the over-the-top forgiveness that Joseph offers his brothers, so I'll leave that to them.  Here's the weird angle that stood out to me:  how many of us can imagine the restoration of Joseph, his brothers, and his father ACTUALLY happening in the real world? 

Like, really - with all the hurt, resentment, attempted murder, and lies that have gone under the bridge between these men, how is it possible that they could come back together, be reconciled, fall on each other's necks, and weep with regret, forgiveness, and joy?  They actually forgive each other and then get along well for the rest of their lives.  It actually was a "happily ever after" scenario. 

And I'm bawling my eyes out.  Why?  Because I hunger for that kind of reconcilation, for healing and forgiveness to happen between myself and people in my world who have been separated from me, and I don't have much hope that it's ever going to happen in this life.  They say that entropy is the one law that our fallen world lives by - everything is constantly in the state of breaking down.  This is true of the physical universe, yes, but also of the moral universe.  Things fall apart - our New Year's resolutions, our will-power, our good intentions, our relationships.  THAT is what I have been programmed to believe.  The sequel will NEVER be as good as the original, and if you have a moment when you're shocked by something good and beautiful, if you stare at it long enough, it will fade and leave you empty inside. 

Okay, I know that's a bit of a downer, but it's true.  So as I read a story of the opposite of that happening in the last pages of Genesis, I was profoundly moved.  I almost started to believe that it would be worth it to go through everything Joseph went through if I knew that it would end up the way it did.  Think about it.  Joseph grew up.  Joseph was blessed by God.  Joseph's brothers grew up - and actually changed.  They actually were different people.  They didn't harden and calcify as they got older, they softened and were humble.  And God arranged the circumstances to bring them together, to accept one another, and to start again.  Joseph got his dad back, and his dad got his beloved son back. 

THIS NEVER HAPPENS, does it?  But as I was reading, God put a mirror up to my cynicism and it was like I heard him say one word:  "Soon."  I spend so much of my time thinking that the disappointments in my relationships with others are "just life" and I need to "get over it."  I toughen up, harden my heart, and continue on, this time impervious to being hurt again.  Then a passage like this comes along and I'm undone, the desires of my hearts are revealed, and I want nothing more than to fall on the neck of those I love and know that I am safe, forgiven, accepted. 

The story of Joseph isn't a sappy romantic ideal.  It's a taste of eternity penetrating the real world.  It's God telling us, "Soon."  The kingdom of God is coming to this earth, and when it comes in its fullness, all things will be made new.  All broken relationships will be healed, forgiven, and restored.  We'll hug on God's neck and then on the necks of all those who we ended life alienated from.  Forgiveness and love will be the arms that embrace us forever, and we will never cry again. 

There is a happily ever after awaiting us, and I really needed to remember that this week.  Thanks, Joseph.

The Essence of Sin is Entitlement

The Bible in 90 Days:  Day 1

So, Cain's an interesting guy.  The story of his birth comes on the heels of the devastating news that mankind has been kicked out of the Garden of Eden to work the land.  Not a good scene, right?

Well, Eve has a baby.  And it's a boy.  She has a little party and makes a speech that Moses records for us:  "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man" (Gen. 4:1b - NIV).  She excited - she made it through the first childbirth ever, and look at what she's holding at the end, a little man.  She is truly the mother of all the living.  Moses, with his typical understatement, then says, "Later she gave birth to his brother Abel."  No party, no speech, no explanation for his name, just an announcement in the paper.  That's it. 

It makes me wonder if Cain was a spoiled brat, the favored son, the one that maybe they hoped to deliver them from the Curse (if 3:15 is actually about a Messiah, which I seriously doubt).  Obviously the text doesn't say explicitly, but I think he was.  I think his arrival was the greatest thing to his mother since...well...clothes, and I'm not sure that the experience was as thrilling for Eve the second time around.  We find out that he is a farmer, like his father, but Abel takes care of sheep.  Was Abel, the lesser-wanted child, shunted away from the "family business" and given a lesser responsibility?  Maybe that reads a BIT into the story, so strike that.

So one day, Cain comes to give God an offering - and Abel comes too.  Notice how Moses describes Cain's offering - "some of the fruits of the soil."  Not really an exciting endorsement.  Now Abel - "fat portions from some of the firstborn of the flock."  Clearly the BEST that Abel has to offer.  I wonder if that is what set their offerings apart.  Cain brings some random collection of fruit - but Abel is purposeful and brings God the best of what he has.  God rejects Cain's offering but accepts Abel's.  And here's where the entitlement thing sticks out to me:  CAIN GETS MAD. 

Who does God think He is NOT to receive my offering?  After all, it came from ME!  You owe me your acceptance.  I wonder if Mommy and Daddy had set him up for a lifetime of entitlement, and when God forces him to live up to a higher standard than himself, Cain gets ticked off and plots his revenge against his brother, and against God. 

What is Cain's problem?  Is he a bad rule keeper?  No.  He obeyed, went through the motions, brought an offering.  It wasn't rejected, and God even coaches him through what he needs to do if he wants to be accepted.  But that's not enough.  Cain doesn't want to be responsible to God and His expectations.  He's entitled to make his own decisions, live on his own, do his own thing, bring whatever offering he wants, and God should be happy with whatever he gets.

Entitlement.  And I think that is the essence of what sin is.  It's elevating yourself above not just the people around you, but above the concept of being responsible and accountable to another person.  It's rebellion, yes, but rebellion because I know that I'm infinitely better than the standard.  It's not just the person who says, "The 'man' isn't gonna tell me to drive 55 in this zone - I'll go 80 just to spite him!"  It's the person who says, "The 'Man' doesn't have a clue - I know for a fact that 80mph is BETTER than 55."  Sin isn't just breaking rules, it's the embarrasing tendency we each have to shake our fists at God and tell him to go screw Himself cause we can do a better job than He can.

And what do entitled people do when they are opposed, or given a standard to measure up to?  They break the rules and standards out of defiance, to assert their power and authority.  Cain kills his brother, doesn't even bother to cover it up, sarcastically challenges God with the whole "brother's keeper" comment, and just generally acts like an entitled, spoiled brat. 

And that's me.  Way too often.

The saddest part of this story is that even though God worked with Cain, showed grace and mercy to Cain, Cain ran right out and started a civilization organized around this concept of entitlement.  Seven generations later, Cain's descendant Lamech kills another man, following in his great-great-great-grandfather's footsteps, but justifies himself by saying, "If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times..."  In other words, don't come at me and accuse me of wrong, or lock me up - if you come after me, I will be avenged!  I am right - my actions are beyond question.  In other words, I am entitled, and God, what are you gonna do about it?  Where'd he learn that one?  Well, from watching his father, who had watched his father, who had watched his father, who had watched a spoiled brat named Cain shake his fist at God. 

Men, what are we teaching our sons?

Ties in Ministry, Sigh...

So, I made it all the way downstairs this morning before church without putting on my tie.  Once I finally realized it, I made some kind of self-deprecating comment about how I forgot to put on my tie, and Joey says to me, deadpan, "Yeah, Daddy - no one will know that you are a pastor!" 

Yikes.  There's got to be a sermon illustration in that, right?

The 2000's were good to us...Part 2...

"My Favorite Boston championships of the 2000's" continues...

5.  The New England Patriots defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX, 24-21 (February 2005)

This championship shares some similarities with the 2007 World Series in that the Patriots finally crossed over into "never-bet-against-them" territory with the win - many sports writers were even willing to use the word "dynasty" to describe their 3rd Superbowl win in 4 seasons.  As a fan you literally wondered if it was possible for Tom Brady and Bill Belichick to lose a playoff game, if they would just keep winning Superbowl after Superbowl until Brady retired.  With the Superbowl win, Brady & BB went to a ridiculous 9-0 record in the playoffs - that's right, Tom Brady won the same number of playoff games in 3 years that Peyton Manning has won in 13. 

What made this championship special was the degree of difficulty that the Patriots had to endure to repeat as champs.  They fought through the whole season with a target on their backs - they took every team's best shot and were left bloodied but standing when the fight was over.  The resilience of this team really impressed me - they never backed down, not even in a "meaningless" season finale against the 49ers after they had already locked up a first-round bye.  Ironically, heading into the playoffs they were NOT the #1 seed, even at 14-2.

The story of 2004 was the Pittsburgh Steelers.  Golden boy and rookie sensation Ben "No means no" Roethlisberger led the Steel Curtain to a 15-1 record and the #1 seed, with regular season defeats of the Patriots and Eagles in back-to-back weeks.  Somehow, the defending champs snuck into the playoffs as...wait for it...the underdogs. 

Round 1 of the playoffs brought our old playground buddy, Peyton Manning to town.  He had just had a season for the ages, broken all of Dan Marino's single season passing records, and led his team to a victory in wild-card weekend.  But this trip to Foxboro would be the same as his last trip in 2003 when he got intercepted 4 times.  The Patriots clamped down on the high-powered offense as the snow fell, and Brady led the team to a 20-3 victory.

On to the AFC championship game and the Pittsburgh Steelers.  The night before the game, Brady had a 103 temperature and was briefly hospitalized.  During the game, he seemed to show no ill effects, taking the Pats to a 24-3 halftime lead that they would not relinquish.  My favorite play from the game came in the third quarter, when Deion Branch caught a pass down the seam for a wide open long touchdown.  As he skips into the end zone, putting the game out of reach, he waves "bye-bye" to the closest Pittsburgh defender and to the Steeler dreams of Superbowl glory.

The Superbowl was good, but almost anti-climactic after the big win in Pittsburgh.  Terrell Owens had made a CRAAAZY recovery from a broken leg to play in the big game and collect over 100 yards receiving (no touchdowns), but Donovan McNabb found a way to blow this game.  He was careless with the ball, throwing interceptions and losing a fumble.  Down by 10 points in the final quarter, he didn't seem to have enough gas left in the tank to run a no-huddle offense, and the Eagles fell a field goal short. 

As it ended, the dominating word we all said was "wow," but we didn't mean that we didn't expect it to happen.  We meant that we were witnessing history, and we weren't in the least bit surprised.  We were shocked that we weren't surprised, if that makes any sense.  We believed Tom Brady could do anything.  He just didn't lose, ever, when the stakes were highest.  We didn't realize it at that point, but this was the high-water mark of Patriots dominance.  I just remember being in awe of their accomplishments as a team, and realizing, that after three Superbowl wins in four years, I actually expected it to happen.  I don't think I was ever nervous during this game that the Pats would lose.  The Colts, Steelers, and Eagles were all "supposed" to beat them, but it didn't happen - and we knew it wouldn't. 

So, all in all, it was a successful season, and the degree of difficulty was very high, as the Pats had to beat the three best teams in the NFL to get the ring they coveted.  Still, it wasn't as exhilirating or thrilling as their other two victories, so I had to drop this one down to #5.  It's hard to remember this championship without also remembering the five seasons of disappointment that have happened since.  Unless you realize how certain we were about the Patriots' invincibility in 2005, you can't understand the shock and dismay and crushing disappointments of losing first to Jake freaking Plummer, Peyton Manning, and Eli Manning in back-to-back-to-back seasons. 

In a sense, this dominant season set us up for the disappointments of the next 5 years - and that kind of ruins this one for me a little bit. 

...#4 is slated for Friday!

The 2000's were good to us...Part 1...

As we enter a new decade, it is time for all Boston sports lovers to look back, realize we've had it really good, and sigh deeply as we think about the good ol' days.  Of course, with the Patriots on the verge of another Superbowl championship (unless sexy Rexy has his way, of course), the Celtics a threat in the East, and the Red Sox reloading in a huge way for 2011, I think we'll be okay in the decade that's upon us, too.  I know that non-Boston area sports fans have little patience for our sentimental memories, but so what?  It's my blog, baby.

So, here it is:  my own personal rankings of the Boston-area sports championships from the 2000's.  Feel free to criticize and reorder these as you wish!

6.  The Boston Red Sox defeat the Colorado Rockies, 4-0, (October of 2007).
Okay, this championship was a lot like the experience of eating your fourth helping of turkey at Thanksgiving.  It tastes really good going down, but you're not really hungry anymore, and you're feeling kind of bloated, and entitled, and...blah.  Sure, it was fun to watch the Sox pound the Rockies into submission, especially since this turned out to be the last game that Josh Beckett pitched before he tragically died that winter (oh, wait - he's still on the payroll?  hmmm - my bad), but by this point in the decade, the Sox had already won a World Series, the Pats had won 3 Superbowls (and were in the middle of a dominating 16-0 regular season), and even the Celtics had traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. 

You enjoy a championship the most, I believe, to the degree that you are...a.) desperate to win one, and b.) able to defeat a worthy opponent.  By either measurement, this championship was the weakest of them all.  The Rockies had ridden a craaaaaazy hot streak to get through to the World Series (mostly via smoke and mirrors, when you look at their pitching staff) then had to sit and wait for almost two weeks before the Red Sox finally allowed the Indians to bury themselves in 7 games (and Cliff Lee was playing in the minors that year - I'm not joking).  By the time they showed up at Fenway, they had no chance at all.

Can you imagine being a Rockies' starter working on THIS lineup?  Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Kevin Youkilis, Mike Lowell, J.D. Drew.  Of course, you have Jason Varitek and Julio Lugo to get two outs each inning - but think about it.  Who is going to make that third out?  You think Jeff Freaking Francis is going to be able to handle that lineup?  Or Aaron Cook?  Actually, I should give Aaron Cook respect.  He's the only starter who lasted five innings against this lineup, and he only lost by one run. 

Anyway, we all expected to win this one.  And we did.  Yaaaaayyyyy?????!!???!!???  It just wasn't fun to be the favorite.  Not anymore.  This was the beginning of the end, really.  The Patriots were in full "villain" mode in light of Spygate.  The Red Sox had won their second World Series in 4 years (and the Yankees hadn't even been to the World Series since 2003).  The Celtics were assembling a roster that was about to change the balance of power in the NBA for the next 5 years.  It was all so...strange.

We weren't the "lovable losers" anymore.  Sure, we cheered for the Sox, we enjoyed their dominance over the Angels, the Indians, the Rockies.  We cared.  It just felt weird to be on top.  After only six years, we had become...well, the Yankees.

And that sort of spoiled this one for me. 

(#5 coming tomorrow...if anyone cares...)

God-Wrestling

So my pastor preached on "impudent" prayer this last Sunday, and I really haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.  The idea is that Jesus invited his followers to bang on the door of heaven and not just settle for no answer, but to be persistent to the point of impudence (check out how the ESV translates "persistence" in Luke 11:8, or the story of the widow in Luke 18:1-8).  It really got me to question how many prayers God has not answered in my life because He wanted me to lose my "politeness" and keep knocking with desperation until he answered.  Maybe what I've always defined as "submission to God's will" is actually passivity.  Maybe my faith needs a bit more ferocity. 

Which leads me to Jacob.  In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestles all night with a mysterious "man."  As daylight is breaking, the "man" clearly shows his physical dominance over Jacob by dislocating his hip with just a touch.  At this point, Jacob is in real physical agony - but he is unwilling to let go of the "man" until the "man" blesses him.  In the book of Genesis, the greater always blesses the lesser.  By asking for a blessing, it seems like Jacob is being impudent, or arrogant, or selfish.  We think, "There he goes again, only thinking about himself.  If God tells you to let him go, you let him go!"  But Jacob is actually just acknowledging his lower position before the "man" and his desperation for that "man" to pour blessing into his life.  In fact, from the text there is reason to believe that Jacob knows that he is actually wrestling with God Himself, and if the sun rises and Jacob sees the face of his opponent, he will die. 

So in effect what he's saying is, "I would rather die than live my life without your blessing - and I'm not going to stop, I'm not going to let go until you decide to bless me.  That's how badly I WANT it and how badly I NEED it.  I'll wait for it - if you decide to hold off blessing me, I'll still be here, holding on, hanging on, crying out for you to bless me."  Not very polite.  But, to our great surprise, it's effective.

The man does, in fact, bless him, and in the process, he changes Jacob's name (yet another reason to believe from the text itself that Jacob knows that he is wrestling with someone greater than him) from "Conniver" to "God-Wrestler," and says this:  "for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."  Now, if  God thought that Jacob's request for blessing was arrogant, or insolent, or out-of-place, or inappropriate, isn't that the best time to bring it up?  Instead, God gives Jacob and all of his future descendants a new identity - that of the "God-wrestlers." 

And this pattern is repeated over and over again.  God wants to destroy the children of Israel, but Moses won't "let" him in Exodus 32-34.  God wants to punish these idolatrous "God-wrestlers" (and boy, let me tell you, they deserve it) all throughout the Kingdom and the Prophets, but whenever they cry out to him in prayer, with repentance, He delays his judgment or cancels it altogether.  It's almost as if God is inviting his people to wrestle with him, to ask him for great things, to seek his blessing above all others, even when he seems silent, or unapproachable, or disinterested.  In fact, the people seem to be at their worst not when they are insolent or impudent in their objections to God's actions in the world (think Habakkuk or many of the psalmists) but when they are apathetic and take God for granted, dutifully and politely bringing the sacrifices to God but not involving him in the everyday struggles of their lives (think Isaiah 1). 

So, God wants us to wrestle with Him when he seems silent and unresponsive.  Why?  Because we know that He really isn't.  He really DOES care - He really DOES want to heal the brokenness of the world.  He really DOES invite us to partner with Him in bringing healing and a preview of the God's coming kingdom to the world.  We know what God wants to do - we just don't know the timing or the method that God wants to use to bring it about.  God created us to be moved by the brokenness of the world around us, and when we come face to face with that brokenness, it is our place to cry out to Him for healing and restoration.  When it seems as though evil is having the final word in our lives, or our kids, or our church, or our nation, we need to bring it before him and refuse to let go until he brings about the deliverance that we KNOW He desires to bring.  That's our job. 

I know that doesn't solve all the mysteries, wipe away all the tears, or cancel out all the disappointment in this thing called prayer.  But it gives me a way forward, a path laid out at my feet to follow.  God isn't some genie in a bottle, here to do MY will and make me wealthy and fat, but He has invited me into His mission.  I am His co-laborer at his bidding.  When I see hurts and wrongs and injustice, I'm going to bang on the door of heaven until he answers.  I know it's not polite, but I'm learning I haven't been called to be polite - I've been called to wrestle with God. 

True Grit - Maybe the Funniest Tragedy Ever

I'd never seen a Coen brothers film until last night when I caught a late showing of True Grit.  I haven't really enjoyed that many Westerns before, but I found this one to be fascinating.  Funnier than any Ben Stiller farce of the last ten-twelve years, True Grit also leaves you with some things to chew on when you're driving home (and in my case, trying to fall asleep afterwards).

The most interesting character, I think, is the little girl who hires a broken-down drunk U.S. Marshall to hunt down the man who killed her daddy.  At first I was impressed with her impudence and moxy.  She is perfectly able to get what she wants from whomever she wants it, and she won't take no for an answer.  Her determination to get justice for her father's murder at first pulls you in, and you want to like her, and cheer for her, and see her succeed.  "I am almost-Woman, hear me roar!  I can beat you boys at your own game!" and all that good stuff.

She gets her man in the end, and survives the ordeal, but look at the consequences:  she turns into a hard old maid with no time or desire for marraige or love or any other such foolishness.  She locks away her affection for an old drunk who did her a kindness once at a vulnerable spot in her life.  She mourns him, but with no tears.  I doubt that she has cried ever since her daddy died and she lost her innocence getting "justice." 

As I watched the credits roll, and chewed on what I had just seen, I was heartbroken for this little girl.  Here she is at 14, thrown into a world where she has to take care of everything, has to be the aggressor without a daddy to take care of her.  She watches death being dealt in brutal ways, losing her innocence along the way.  She has to be hard and relentless, and while it helps her to get difficult tasks accomplished, it also leaves no cracks for her inner beauty to shine through.  By the time she is a grown woman at the end of the movie, there is nothing soft and attractive about her, nothing inviting or warm or gentle.  She has been hurt and wounded, and she's fighting back. 

I walked away wondering if this movie wasn't about a manhunt, or about getting revenge for a father's murder at all - I wondered if it was a movie explaining how a bitter old woman became a bitter old woman.  ('Cause there's always a story of HOW that happens, right?)  I wonder if maybe the directors were giving us a glance into the heart of women who are abandoned to the world with no strong men in their world to provide a safe place for their beautiful hearts to blossom and reveal themselves.  Sure, she may not take any crap from anyone, and she may get (most of) what she wants, but at the end of her life she's hard, and she's alone, staring down at the graves of the only two father figures she got to have - the father who died abruptly when she was 14, and the marshall who helped her get her revenge. 

So, even though I laughed more during this movie than I have at a movie in years, I walked away saddened at what our fallen world has done to women - and I'm more committed than ever to being the kind of man who allows his wife to become everything she was meant to be, and who raises his sons to do the same for their wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers.