"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." - Hebrews 12:1

Tuesday, April 28, 2015


Little Boy    

 Movie Review **** (Four Stars)

April 24, 2015

In 1946, a movie came out by Frank Capra that the critics panned. It was so cheesy and corny that the critics dubbed it “Capracorn” and “movie fakery at its worst.” It was a flop at the box office and a bust at the Academy Awards. The film? It’s a Wonderful Life.

In 2015, another movie has been released that, while different, shares some of the peculiarities of It’s a Wonderful Life. For starters, like its predecessor, the entire town is a set built just for the movie. It is unlikely to garner any Oscars. And like It’s a Wonderful Life, I believe Little Boy will have staying power, though it may take another generation to recognize its true worth.

Little Boy is the best movie in a long time, and on so many levels. Not least because it does not even purport to be Christian, but is merely set in America’s faith-based 1940s. Go see it.

We will expect the secular critics to pan this movie, because the world has moved on, but to what? There are not many opportunities to divert the world’s attention from the cliff they are heading toward and show them a better way. But this film is one such opportunity, and it is well done, which is exactly why we need this film to be seen by as many people as possible. On the “well done” side of things, it’s the very thing that prompted Rick Warren to tweet to everyone that we all need to see this movie. It’s the very thing that prompted Pope Francis to embrace producer Eduardo Verástegui in gratitude. It’s the very thing that made National Review recommend it as a movie that “packs a powerful punch.” You will be riveted from beginning to end. But only if you are still a child.

Our generation has grown a hard shell, as we have been increasingly bombarded with in-your-face movies, in-your-face arguments, in-your-face special effects – in other words, with the jaded obvious we have come to expect in the films we see. We no longer can cope with the poetic, or even recognize it for what it is. As a result, the movies we are accustomed to seeing are a mile wide and an inch deep, in general. And so we dive an inch down and think we are swimming in the deeps. Little Boy is a mile deep and an inch wide. And so we dive an inch down, don’t see much, and think there is nothing there. I have only seen this movie three times, but each time I see it, I see and learn more than I did before. It’s a complex movie that only looks simple. I am looking forward to buying the DVD so I can see it as many times as I like.

And so, it can be a challenge to shed that tough skin we have grown, and to re-enter the world as an eight-year-old boy in the 1940s.

(WARNING! Spoiler here.) Some viewers may be confused by the announcement of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima as a cause for celebration. If you pay attention, you will see that you are being invited into the American ethos of that time, and then slammed back into reality. In fact, you might just get whiplash if you’re not careful. Was America generally amazed by the atomic bomb and euphoric that it might end the war? Yes, they were, and the film reflects that. That was the scene in a thousand towns across America, without any “Little Boy” (other than the bomb itself) to focus on. Was that euphoria fully informed and justified? Sadly, no, and the film does a magnificent job of showing that, by cutting short a patriotically joyous scene featuring Johnny Cash’s “This Little Light of Mine” playing, with the gravity and trauma of the atomic bomb exploding over Hiroshima. That blast and its aftermath brings us all up short. The audience is given a fleeting glimpse of what small-town America felt on that day, and then we are jerked back into the reality of the horrors of what it meant.

That reality is not lost on the filmmakers, and certainly not on the little boy Pepper. To wit, the movie has Pepper watching the bombing and aftermath of Hiroshima in a movie theater as part of a newsreel, when in fact all of that actual footage was confiscated by the U.S. government and not released until the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. Still, the devastation of war is such an important part of the larger story that the filmmakers in this case chose to telescope it into 1945.

The story elements involving the internment camps, the war in the South Pacific and the destruction of Hiroshima are very much at odds with the Norman Rockwell “candied” feel of the rest of the film. But that’s just the point. To use a current example, the violence in the Middle East and North Africa does not sit well with the candied lifestyle of Lake Forest, but that is exactly why it is a service to humanity for journalists to bring us the story. We need perspective to break through the hard shell of our insularity and prejudices.

The film views the world in some ways with the simplicity of a comic book. And that’s good, because we are being asked to take a journey with an eight year old boy in the 1940s. He asks the questions we have all asked ourselves in one form or another: “Why wouldn’t God want to bring my dad back?” “How can I get bigger faith?” and “Do you think I should stop?”

Small children learn concretely, and that list was a concrete way for Pepper not only to learn faith and mercy, but also to unlearn magic and power. Even Hashimoto realizes the value of the Ancient List, even after he has argued against it throughout the movie: “All the love you have for your father was contained in that list.”

Some folks may see the list as a works-oriented view of salvation. Rest assured that this is not the case; salvation is in Christ alone. God’s will is what matters, as we are reminded repeatedly in the film. But the items on the list that the Little Boy is given…the Ancient List… change him… as they will change each one of us if we do them.

Just how ancient is this list? Well, it’s actually two thousand years old:

o   Feed the Hungry (Matthew 25:35)
o   Shelter the Homeless (Matthew 25:35)
o   Visit Those in Prison (Matthew 25:36)
o   Clothe the Naked (Matthew 25:36)
o   Visit the Sick  (Matthew 25:36)
o   Bury the Dead / Mourn with Those Who Mourn (Romans 12:15)
o   Befriend the Friendless / Love Your Enemies (Matthew 5:44)

Little Boy is sure to be misunderstood by the secular media. But that’s okay. The Roman Empire misunderstood the Christian message. But the people understood it, and it swept the world. This film is not directed at the secular media. It is directed at the human heart, and there will be no misunderstanding among those who view it not as a critic, but as a child.


Rand York+


©2015

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The Wrath of God
By Rand York+




The setting for the movie plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark involves two U.S. government agents soliciting help from Indiana Jones and his friend Malcolm in interpreting a Nazi cable that mentions the lost Egyptian city of Tanis. As in the movie, Tanis was indeed discovered by a French archeologist immediately prior to World War II.[1] But the movie adds an additional twist: Indiana and Malcolm explain that Tanis was a place where, according to legend, the lost Ark of the Covenant was taken and kept, after being stolen from the Israelites. After its arrival in Tanis, the city was buried in a sandstorm lasting a whole year, “…wiped clean by the wrath of God.”
Just what is the wrath of God? One common understanding is that the wrath of God indicates anger, rejection and punishment, as a thing different from and even disassociated with the love of God. Here, wrath is rooted in hatred, specifically God’s hatred of sin, a hatred which then rests upon the unrepentant. Reformed theologians note that this is cause for praise and thanksgiving, since it proves God to be, “worthy of our worship.” Wayne Grudem says that, “…it is helpful for us to ask what God would be like if he were a God that did not hate sin. He would then be a God who either delighted in sin or at least was not troubled by it.”[2]
It is important to note at the outset that God’s wrath applies in two contexts: 1) our life on earth both as we live it and at our death, and 2) at the final judgment. The Eastern Orthodox have long taught the existence of two judgments: a “partial judgment” at the end of each individual’s life, and a “general judgment” at the end of all things.[3] The first of these two is the culmination of a lifetime of judgment and “wrath” which have been designed to change us into his likeness (without losing our own identity). It is this “wrath” of which the Father speaks in reference to our molding, shaping, sanctifying and training. St. Maximos the Confessor says, “The wrath of God is the painful sensation we experience when we are being trained by Him.” Not everyone will respond well to this gentle “wrath,” and will instead recognize God’s blessings in their lives as achievements of their own. For them, the wrath of God will then include, “the suspension of gifts of grace… [leaving] him destitute of the power that until then had protected him.” St. Maximos concludes by saying, “When wrath takes the form of God allowing the demons to attack an arrogant intellect through the passions, it is a means of deliverance.”[4]
It is not, however, enough for God to judge and apply his wrath (as a surgeon would apply his scalpel) to our lives individually, as lived. The full story is not known until all things are known. The (Roman) Catholic Catechism explains:
“Unkindness does not stop with an act of impatience or spite; its effects continue in a never-ending spiral long after the sin was committed. Charity does not cease with the love-inspired word of encouragement or the selfless sharing of pain; it starts a chain reaction of generosity that goes on for centuries after the one who began the reaction has died…Only on the last day, when everything we have done will have reached its end result, can a truly final judgment be made.”[5]

While the Roman Catholic explanation quoted above makes sense with regard to the existence and timing of a final judgment at the end of all things, it does not appear to be helpful with regard to diagnosis and treatment of the soul thus examined. It has, rather, an echo about it of a works-oriented salvation in which you “pay for your sins,” a decidedly western and legalistic orientation that the Reformers rejected so completely that they threw the baby of healing out with the bathwater of punitive purgatory (terminology and emphasis mine).
As seen in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, I John 2:2 and 4:10, is the death of Jesus a propitiation (that which turns away the wrath of God) or an expiation (that which cleanses from sin)? The Greek word hilasmos can be translated either way, and has been, in various versions of the Bible.[6] Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen expresses the common current assumption that God’s wrath is that thing from which salvation through Christ ensures our escape: “We have no reason whatever to deny that the Bible’s central message is about salvation from the wrath to come, through the death of Jesus.”[7] But, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and it is from death that Christ saves us, not God’s wrath (notwithstanding Paul’s comment in Romans 5:9). Those who are being saved experience the fire of God’s heart just as surely as do those who are lost, but for the saved that fire is what Rich Mullins refers to as, “the reckless, raging fury that they call the love of God.”[8] This fire may be experienced at any time of our existence, both before and after death. And so, his holy fire burns in us, changing us more and more into his likeness. For many years, Clay McLean’s Burn Holy Fire was sung at PCM conferences worldwide as a worship song targeting this very truth.



BURN HOLY FIRE
©1987 by Clay McLean
All rights reserved.  Used by permission.

Burn Holy Fire.
Cleanse my desires.
Search me inside.
Let nothing hide.
Burn Holy Flame,
Until the same heart that's in You
Is burning in me.

Burn all that's dark,
Selfish or cold.
Soften my heart,
Possess my soul.
Burn Holy Flame,
Until the same heart that's in You
Is burning in me.

Like any parental discipline, God’s wrath, as applied to those whom he loves, involves the need for two-way communication. Our reactions need to give way to responses. John Gaden+ identifies seven reactions to God’s wrath: anger, guilt, protest, numbness, plea for mercy, battling back, and escapism.[9] It is important to realize, however, that how you react depends on how you see God. If your God is a monster, an angry response is natural and appropriate; rejection of such a God is healthy, for a monster is not reflective of the one true God. God’s wrath is not vindictive or vengeful. The warning, “This is going to hurt,” when spoken by a doctor, is not an indication of the desire to harm, but to heal. Daniel Migliore puts it this way: “God is indeed a ‘consuming fire’ (Heb. 12:28-29), not a doting grandfather. But the fire of God is the fire of a loving judgment and a judging love that we know in the cross of Christ to be for our salvation rather than our destruction.”[10]
When I was a small boy, I went out in a rainstorm. I was on a mission to distribute flyers throughout our neighborhood, despite the thunder and lightning. When I returned home, my mother screamed, “Where have you been???” She raised her fist to strike me, the first and only time I remember her ever doing such a thing. I had frightened her badly because she loved me deeply. Otherwise, she would not have cared. Her wrath came from her intense love, and so does God’s. It is not something for us to be saved from, as if it were evil. Rather, we are called to be obedient, making such interventions unnecessary. If we are disobedient, we should expect God to intrude on our rebellion, for our own sakes. In any event, we need to respond, not just react. Had I reacted to my mother in, for example, numbness or escapism, an opportunity for connection would have been lost.
I have been contending here that God’s wrath arises out of his love; indeed that his wrath is his love. Without him, we are lost in our sin, and everything grows dark. God’s voice is not muted, but our hearing is poor. How often did Jesus say, “He who has ears to hear…”? There are some things God must do in sternness, much like George MacDonald’s wise woman, who had a spoiled princess to deal with:
“Think of it – to kick at kindness, and kneel from terror. But the sternness on the face of the wise woman came from the same heart and the same feeling as the kindness that had shone from it before. The only thing that could save the princess from her hatefulness, was that she should be made to mind somebody else than her own miserable Somebody.”[11]

Bishop Kallistos Ware demonstrates the belief among Eastern Orthodox Christians that God knows and provides a way out of hell: “The lost in hell are self-condemned, self-enslaved; it has been rightly said that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. How can a God of love accept that even a single one of the creatures whom he has made should remain forever in hell?”[12] Ware is joined by the Dutch Reformed and Calvinist theologian Jan Bonda in his belief that wrath and hell may be eternal, but that they are not unending. Bonda sees a redemptive purpose in God’s wrath, which, “will burn without ceasing until his purpose has been accomplished… Eternal life continues, since it is God’s purpose for humanity. Eternal punishment, however, does not forever continue, since that punishment itself is not its goal.”[13]
Hell and the wrath of God do not imply separation from God. Only annihilation does that.[14] King David reminds us that, “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there” (Psalm 139:8). Rather, God’s wrath and even hell itself is essentially to experience God’s love in a different way. Stanley Grenz contends, “Just as the righteous enjoy unending community with God, so also those who have set themselves in opposition to God’s love experience his holy love eternally. For them, however, this experience is hell.”[15] George MacDonald puts it another way: “Every tempest is but an assault in the siege of love. The terror of God is but the other side of his love.”[16]
These assertions are in perfect alignment with the Anglican-Orthodox joint understanding that, “God’s love is present everywhere and is offered to everybody, but not everyone accepts it. According to some Fathers, even those in hell are not deprived of the love of God but by their own free choice they experience as torment what the saints experience as joy. The light of God’s glory is also the fire of judgment. God’s wrath is no other than his love.”[17]
And so it is. God’s wrath is no other than his love.
Bibliography

Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

Bonda, Jan. The One Purpose of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Handwerk, Brian. “Lost City” of Tanis Found, but Often Forgotten [article on-line]. National Geograpic, accessed 7 February 2011; available from http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/tanis-egypt/

Harakas, Stanley+. The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1988.

Hardon, John A.+, S.J. The Catholic Catechism. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Jensen, ++Peter. The Revelation of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

MacDonald, George. Knowing the Heart of God. Grand Rapids: Bethany House, 1990.

MacDonald, George. The Wise Woman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004.

Palmer, G.E.H., Philip Sherrard, & +Kallistos Ware (eds.). The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Volume Two. London: Faber & Faber, 1981.

Rowell, +Geoffrey, +Kenneth Stevenson, & ++Rowan Williams (eds.). Love’s Redeeming Work: The Anglican Quest for Holiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Ware, +Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986.


End Notes




[1] Brian Handwerk. “Lost City” of Tanis Found, but Often Forgotten [article on-line]. National Geographic, accessed 7 February 2011; available from http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/tanis-egypt/

[2] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 206.

[3] Stanley Harakas+. The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. (Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1988) 177.

[4] G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, & +Kallistos Ware (eds.). The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Volume Two. (London: Faber & Faber, 1981) 211, 213, 215.

[5] John A. Hardon+, S.J. The Catholic Catechism. (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 260.

[6] Wayne Grudem. Op. Cit. 575. For example, the Revised Standard Version steers clear of any connotation of appeasing God’s wrath by using the word expiation.

[7] ++Peter Jensen. The Revelation of God. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002) 278.

[8] Rich Mullins. The Love of God. ©1989 Reunion.

[9] +Geoffrey Rowell, +Kenneth Stevenson, & ++Rowan Williams (eds.). Love’s Redeeming Work: The Anglican Quest for Holiness. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 755-756.

[10] Daniel L. Migliore. Faith Seeking Understanding. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004) 345.

[11] George MacDonald. The Wise Woman. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 12-13.

[12] +Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Way. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986) 181. Italics Ware’s.

[13] Jan Bonda. The One Purpose of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 214, 219. Bonda appeals to a lot of Scripture in support of his arguments, much of it from Jeremiah, Isaiah and Psalms, and so much from Romans that his book is a virtual commentary on that epistle.

[14] I say this in full recognition of the contention that it takes two entities to be separated from each other, and that a non-entity cannot therefore be separated from something. My point is that God is with you unless you don't exist.

[15] Stanley J. Grenz. Theology for the Community of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 642.

[16] George MacDonald. Knowing the Heart of God. (Grand Rapids: Bethany House, 1990) 85.

[17] Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. Agreement #71.


©2015 Rand York+