Brothers and Sisters,
At the sermon this past week, the pastor was preaching on the gospel of John and how Jesus is the Bread of Life. He then made perhaps one of the most resonating statements that I've heard this year. He said, "We need the Bread of Life to satisfy. We live in a Cotton Candy Culture..."
The statement was breathtaking. While it's a catchy statement, the thing I'm interested in is how that maps out to the current situations people find themselves in and how we look at a society that is rotting:
In summary, a little about cotton candy in general and then I'll investigate some of the extrapolations you can get from that. Cotton Candy is sugar and air. There's some color and other minor stuff mixed in, but it's basically sugar.
Yes, I know that it's a quick summary of cotton candy, but the rest will be noted in the actual note to follow. First, then, is that it's straight processes sugar. I don't think anyone would disagree that it's bad for you, particularly in as large of quantities as people have it. Diabetes is on the rise in America (the numbers aren't important) and there's many other disorders that having too much sugar can influence (including possible links to ADHD). So, why would someone have sugar if it's not good for them? What benefit do they gain? The easy explanation is that there's a sugar-rush that's both enjoyable and awakening. However, with all other drugs, it also addicts the user to it. So, basically, we have an addictive relationship with something that's damaging and un-beneficial. This relates to the culture because the things that are put forward as goals to strive toward (be it money, food, nice house, good friends, sex, spirituality, etc...) can all be good as long as they're not sought after as a goal. That is, as long as they're part of a life worshiping God, all of them can be good. But if you 'refine' life down to JUST seeking after one (or any number) of them without keeping God in perspective, then they start to degrade, addict and rot your life, just like an overabundance of sugar destroys the body.
That leads into the second point. We, Christians, are to be the Salt of the Earth. I recently wrote another note about many of the things that seems to mean. One of the most important notes is that salt and sugar look alike but they taste and act very different. There's no way to look at a real Christian (not saying that those wearing "WWJD" and crosses aren't Christians, but it's not a mark of a Christian. I can't find any disciples wearing them, they didn't need them) and tell offhand that they are a follower of Jesus on the outside. But, how they act and how their lives affect other people is the mark of a true Christian. We're to counter the sugary culture that surrounds us. That's not easy but it's absolutely essential. I don't blame the culture for their evil, I blame us for not living it out better and a salting the culture around us (judgment must start with the family of God). We have the revelation of God and it's our job to teach it to other people that are interested in learning of it. It's our love for other people and our holy lives (combined, can't have one without the other) that will attract those Jesus has called to himself in the first place. Salt and Sugar are opposites, even though they look like.
Third, the cotton candy is inflated. Or, put another way, it looks like there's more there than there actually is. It's sold looking huge and turns out the actual mass is smaller than your hand. That's consumerism at its best. Why do you buy a new car? Because it looks amazing. Why buy the new shirt? Because you can't live without it. Why aren't you satisfied with your cellphone? Because the others look SO GOOD. However, even though it's inflated, it deflates as soon as it hits the taste buds. Or, put another way, it looks good before we sample it. This is perhaps the ultimate cotton candy culture. Movies, advertisements, cartoons, TV shows... these all make THINGS look so good, no matter what it is. Walk with circumspection, God calls us to holy and self-controlled lives. Why get something new (and spend money you could spend elsewhere for His glory) when you know it's going to disappoint you? [Now, as a counter-point, I'm mainly talking about unnecessary buying. Obviously you need clothes, shoes, etc.. but the impulse or "upgrade" buying is what I'm talking about]
Finally, we've talked about how this culture is bad for you, how it's opposite the Christian worldview and how it's inflated to make it look SO GOOD... until you actually sample it. Does this sound at all familiar. All of these are also traits of sin. Sin is inherently bad for you but it looks SO GOOD before you have it (Eve saw the fruit and that it was pleasant to the eye). Once you have it, you want more because it's addicting. However, in the end, you're left with sugar-disorders, pain at having wasted your life and wishes you would have eaten other things. Sin also leaves you with nothing but bitterness and longing for the high again. Also, obviously, sin is opposite the Christian life. You can only live "in the flesh" or "in the spirit" and, one you've become a Christian so you have a new nature, there's a constant war between the two. We're called to live holy lives in a culture of sin. Let us walk with understanding and awareness of what we face. However, never forget that we do not war against flesh and blood but against dark powers. If not for God's intervention, we would be lost. Let us persevere and claim the victory.
In conclusion, we live in the Cotton Candy Culture. It's modeled on sin and making sin look SO GOOD so that we spend our lives seeking things that will harm us. Brothers and Sisters, let us turn our backs on this destructive pattern and walk with all holiness. Jesus is coming back to judge the righteous and the unrighteous. Which camp are you in if you're honestly not bothered to bury your talents, your time and your life in a sugary mess? Jesus called us to be salt, which stings but preserves. He never suggested we should be sugar, which speeds up the decay process. Let us walk after our Lord who saved from sin. Let us not run after it, no matter who makes it look good.
Monday, August 24, 2009
I recently heard a sermon from a certain Pastor Legge from Ireland. (linked here- http://www.preachtheword.com/index.php ) He made some amazing points about the section from the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "You are the Salt of the Earth." I do not attempt to suggest these original ideas are mine, however I've added some more explaination to them. The passages in question are in Matthew 5:13-16, if you desire to read along and "search the scriptures" to make sure I'm quoting and explaining as I should.
In explaining the passage, there was a number of things that were noteworthy:
1. We are the Salt of the World- Salt affects what's around it and not the other way around. Salt must be rubbed into the meat for it to be useful. We are called to be "in the world but not of the world" to affect the world by being present. This is why the monastic worldview that many Christians hold sub-consciously is patently wrong. If salt is holding itself apart to keep itself pure, it succeeds. But it also is rendered useless as the meat rots.
Jesus is also putting forward (according to Rev. Legge) the point that his disciples *alone* are the Salt of the World. We are commanded by our Lord to affect those around us by being holy in an unholy world. This is not easy. If it were, it would be worth nothing. But, no matter how easy or hard, that's what we're to do if we have the courage before God to call ourselves Christians.
2. A Man Not Worth His Salt- This expression (now nearing being archaic) comes from the practice around the Roman times of paying Soldiers with salt. It was such a rare and precious commodity that men were reimbursed for risking their lives with it. Therefore, a man "not worth his salt" is a man not worthy of his pay.
We also get our word "salary" from "salt money", from this payment. This brings the concept into our modern world of computers and monorails. Even with all that, we still get 'salt money'. *laughs* No particular reason for this point, I just thought it was very interesting. (I'm an English major, what more could you expect?)
3. Salt's Communion- We're to be Salt of the World. Salt does not serve by itself nor is it a single grain of salt that we put on our food. There's always one or two grains with it, at least. Now, in addition to putting forward the obvious (and time-worn) argument that we should attend Church so that we will be able to grow and have communion with the other salt, I'll add that we should have strong Christian friends to hold us accountable. We're to preserve the world, no be disillusioned by contact with it. Sin creeps in a foot in the door at a time; we must be vigilant and, if any has ever played paintball, airsoft or a first person shooter, you know you need someone to watch your back.
4. Salt in the Old Testament- Salt was the sign of a holy relationship with God. With salt, there was no decay. It's an image of God's influence in human interactions, preventing decay in our relationships, our families, our governments and in law. We see all these decaying around us as Christians and we shake our heads. What do we do about them?
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Sins of commission do things like steal, lie, etc... you have to DO something you shouldn't. Sins of omission, on the other hand, are the less talked about (because they're not able to be put into a legalistic framework, like our church's usually have. That's another topic tho.) of the two. Sins of omission are NOT doing something you're supposed to do, helping the sick, protecting the powerless, etc... Which are we? Do we work in this culture to save it from its own corruption or do we do like Jonah did and "sit outside the city". Jesus went into the city and "wept over it". Which master will we emulate?
5. What can we do?- Who do we know from the Bible that was Salt in their worlds? It wasn't just easy like we might think. Joseph was in the middle of Ancient Egypt, the very mecca of false-god worship. Daniel was in the land of Babylon, many gods were worshiped there. Esther was the Queen of Persia (of 300 fame). All these people of God were examples of Holy Living in the midst of great darkness and unholiness. In times like these that we find ourselves in, light shines more brightly in the midst of deepening darkness. (both moral and economic)
6. We are Salt, not Sugar- What could the two possibly have in common? Well, in their very refined state, both are white granules. I've gotten them confused on a number of occasions, to my chagrin (try salt in your tea one day). But, there's another, deeper connection. We're called to be salty in this world, but Christians seems to think they're supposed to be sugar. Be sweet to those around you no matter what their morality. For those that have done bio experiments, sugar speeds up the decomposition process. We're called to be salt, not sugar. It'll make other people mad around us. Their consciences are stung, which means we're salty. Do not be brash... salt works well enough without scraping it on an open wound. We're to be gentle, not brash. Why bring the Way of God into disrepute by being angry or acting superior? You must both have gentleness AND truth, not one while lacking the other. Don't be We're God's Children, be dignified.
7. Why not Raptured?- Did you ever wonder why you weren't instantly raptured when you were saved? It's because we're to be salt. We're to be WITNESSES of Jesus to a dead and rotting world. God has seen fit to keep us here, we best move like we actually believe it or we tread on God's grace. That's a dangerous place to be.
8. Salt Flavors- What shall we say about the taste of salt? Anyone who has tasted it can quickly identify it again. It's got a biting, well, salty taste to it. It adds spice. Christianity and holy living add that same spice to life. We're often depicted as the dull and old ones. Just for example, how many hot couples have you seen on TV that're young and hot and thrashing about in passion? That's how you're supposed to have a good sex life, right? Wrong. According to a survey linked here- (http://www.healthyplace.com/sex/good-sex/why-committed-couples-have-better-sex/menu-id-66/ ), "97% of people in committed/married relationships are happy with their sex lives." Wait? Sex with the same person every week? Isn't that boring? That's what pornographers and adulterers would have you believe. If I might point out, they gain from that view as well (in all fairness, we gain from this one). But no, the rules that Christ explained for us keep us away from the dangers of this life and let us live it with less fear. Salt adds flavor to our lives in a world where everyone else goes numb with pleasure-seeking.
9. Salt's holiness- Salt is "set apart". In its current form of purification, there's very little chance of our salt becoming useless. However, in ancient times, salt could be mixed with other chemicals, diluted with water, mixed with earth or other contaminants. If any of these happened, the salt could become useless. That's another trait of salt, it only really has one use. If grapes are on your table, they can be enjoyed for refreshment. If they're rotten, you can make wine. If too damaged for that, vinegar. If too far gone for that, they can at least be used as fertilizer. Salt, if not salty, is USELESS. Brothers and Sisters, we face an anti-Christian culture because we have surrendered our holy saltiness and, rightly, they have no use for us. Maintain your holiness and your difference. Stay in close-walking with your fellow Christians and avoid the wolves. We must live holy lives in a very unholy environment. Persevere.
10. Who's to blame- So then, my dear brothers and sisters: in conclusion on this topic. Before you say a word about the world and its moral degradation. Before we complain about evil philosophies and shocking declarations. Before we dare judge other people that have no knowledge of Truth. We must look at ourselves. If the world is not salty, it is our fault. We are the Salt of the Earth and if we're not doing our job, you see the kind of disintegration that radiates from the world. Brothers and Sisters, this is our mission, our quest. Let us do it faithfully until our Lord returns.
In explaining the passage, there was a number of things that were noteworthy:
1. We are the Salt of the World- Salt affects what's around it and not the other way around. Salt must be rubbed into the meat for it to be useful. We are called to be "in the world but not of the world" to affect the world by being present. This is why the monastic worldview that many Christians hold sub-consciously is patently wrong. If salt is holding itself apart to keep itself pure, it succeeds. But it also is rendered useless as the meat rots.
Jesus is also putting forward (according to Rev. Legge) the point that his disciples *alone* are the Salt of the World. We are commanded by our Lord to affect those around us by being holy in an unholy world. This is not easy. If it were, it would be worth nothing. But, no matter how easy or hard, that's what we're to do if we have the courage before God to call ourselves Christians.
2. A Man Not Worth His Salt- This expression (now nearing being archaic) comes from the practice around the Roman times of paying Soldiers with salt. It was such a rare and precious commodity that men were reimbursed for risking their lives with it. Therefore, a man "not worth his salt" is a man not worthy of his pay.
We also get our word "salary" from "salt money", from this payment. This brings the concept into our modern world of computers and monorails. Even with all that, we still get 'salt money'. *laughs* No particular reason for this point, I just thought it was very interesting. (I'm an English major, what more could you expect?)
3. Salt's Communion- We're to be Salt of the World. Salt does not serve by itself nor is it a single grain of salt that we put on our food. There's always one or two grains with it, at least. Now, in addition to putting forward the obvious (and time-worn) argument that we should attend Church so that we will be able to grow and have communion with the other salt, I'll add that we should have strong Christian friends to hold us accountable. We're to preserve the world, no be disillusioned by contact with it. Sin creeps in a foot in the door at a time; we must be vigilant and, if any has ever played paintball, airsoft or a first person shooter, you know you need someone to watch your back.
4. Salt in the Old Testament- Salt was the sign of a holy relationship with God. With salt, there was no decay. It's an image of God's influence in human interactions, preventing decay in our relationships, our families, our governments and in law. We see all these decaying around us as Christians and we shake our heads. What do we do about them?
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Sins of commission do things like steal, lie, etc... you have to DO something you shouldn't. Sins of omission, on the other hand, are the less talked about (because they're not able to be put into a legalistic framework, like our church's usually have. That's another topic tho.) of the two. Sins of omission are NOT doing something you're supposed to do, helping the sick, protecting the powerless, etc... Which are we? Do we work in this culture to save it from its own corruption or do we do like Jonah did and "sit outside the city". Jesus went into the city and "wept over it". Which master will we emulate?
5. What can we do?- Who do we know from the Bible that was Salt in their worlds? It wasn't just easy like we might think. Joseph was in the middle of Ancient Egypt, the very mecca of false-god worship. Daniel was in the land of Babylon, many gods were worshiped there. Esther was the Queen of Persia (of 300 fame). All these people of God were examples of Holy Living in the midst of great darkness and unholiness. In times like these that we find ourselves in, light shines more brightly in the midst of deepening darkness. (both moral and economic)
6. We are Salt, not Sugar- What could the two possibly have in common? Well, in their very refined state, both are white granules. I've gotten them confused on a number of occasions, to my chagrin (try salt in your tea one day). But, there's another, deeper connection. We're called to be salty in this world, but Christians seems to think they're supposed to be sugar. Be sweet to those around you no matter what their morality. For those that have done bio experiments, sugar speeds up the decomposition process. We're called to be salt, not sugar. It'll make other people mad around us. Their consciences are stung, which means we're salty. Do not be brash... salt works well enough without scraping it on an open wound. We're to be gentle, not brash. Why bring the Way of God into disrepute by being angry or acting superior? You must both have gentleness AND truth, not one while lacking the other. Don't be We're God's Children, be dignified.
7. Why not Raptured?- Did you ever wonder why you weren't instantly raptured when you were saved? It's because we're to be salt. We're to be WITNESSES of Jesus to a dead and rotting world. God has seen fit to keep us here, we best move like we actually believe it or we tread on God's grace. That's a dangerous place to be.
8. Salt Flavors- What shall we say about the taste of salt? Anyone who has tasted it can quickly identify it again. It's got a biting, well, salty taste to it. It adds spice. Christianity and holy living add that same spice to life. We're often depicted as the dull and old ones. Just for example, how many hot couples have you seen on TV that're young and hot and thrashing about in passion? That's how you're supposed to have a good sex life, right? Wrong. According to a survey linked here- (http://www.healthyplace.co
9. Salt's holiness- Salt is "set apart". In its current form of purification, there's very little chance of our salt becoming useless. However, in ancient times, salt could be mixed with other chemicals, diluted with water, mixed with earth or other contaminants. If any of these happened, the salt could become useless. That's another trait of salt, it only really has one use. If grapes are on your table, they can be enjoyed for refreshment. If they're rotten, you can make wine. If too damaged for that, vinegar. If too far gone for that, they can at least be used as fertilizer. Salt, if not salty, is USELESS. Brothers and Sisters, we face an anti-Christian culture because we have surrendered our holy saltiness and, rightly, they have no use for us. Maintain your holiness and your difference. Stay in close-walking with your fellow Christians and avoid the wolves. We must live holy lives in a very unholy environment. Persevere.
10. Who's to blame- So then, my dear brothers and sisters: in conclusion on this topic. Before you say a word about the world and its moral degradation. Before we complain about evil philosophies and shocking declarations. Before we dare judge other people that have no knowledge of Truth. We must look at ourselves. If the world is not salty, it is our fault. We are the Salt of the Earth and if we're not doing our job, you see the kind of disintegration that radiates from the world. Brothers and Sisters, this is our mission, our quest. Let us do it faithfully until our Lord returns.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Cultural Critique- Beyonce
(Song on YouTube is posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g)
This was adapted from an impromptu lesson I gave some girls that were helping at my church. The topic or relationships came up and the following discussion developed.
It revolves around her chorus "If you liked it, you should have put a ring on it."
The two "it"s are different... the first one is sex, the second one is her ring finger. Or, interpreted, she's saying, "If you liked (the sex we were having) you should have put a ring on (my finger...married me)." The song continues with Beyonce saying that she'll make the boy that burned her regret it, miss her, etc...
Now, let's examine it. Basically, she's giving sex away to get a boy. (Working off the basic driving principle that MOST women want marriage/commitment/relationship and boys want... sex) That's fine because she got a guy that was willing to tell her what she wanted to hear. Now, we run into a problem. If you're giving something away for free and then start to charge for it (or demand commitment), that only works if you're the only place giving it away and you've got your audience addicted. If there's other free providers, then people will migrate over to them and you'll be left with only those who really like your service and can pay. (Looking at it like an email provider example, you have two fictitious email websites, Weebeefree.com and FreeEmail.org. WBF.com came along first, offering free email. Quickly it gained mass subscribers. But, then it started to charge a nominal fee of $10 per month. About the same time, FE.org came along and was still offering email for free. You'll get a migration from WBF to FE because people who are doing stuff for free either don't have the $$ to pay for emails or they're just not willing to pay for email.) In a much more simple example, imagine you have this really good cat food. You put it outside and, sure enough, you attract a stray cat. As long as you're giving the food away, you'll keep the stray cat. But, start trying to bring it in or bring it to a vet... and suddenly the cat will go to another source of free food.
Basically put, here's the problem with Beyonce's relationship. She's giving her sex away for free and, when she asks for commitment, her "man" takes off to find another girl that's giving it away for free... because that's the kind of "man" she attracted. That is why I tell girls not to have sex before marriage: because if the guy that likes them is really interested in commitment and what he can give, he's not going to be wanting to take sex from her before that commitment is made.
Flipside of this is on the guy's side... if a girl is really high quality, she'll respect you more if you treat her like a princess. And treating her right means giving more than you're getting and treating her like she really is a lady and, frankly, not an unpaid whore. (Whatever "commitments" you make while in "love" with someone does not stand up in a court of law and are not binding. By commitment, I mean marriage.)
One side note is that Beyonce is angry with her former boyfriend that's now not with her (and probably with another girl)... so she's going to do all sorts of things to get back at him. Girls, if you think you'll be able to pull this off and somehow make his life miserable, you can forget that. If all he cares about is sex and getting it free... why does he care what you're doing or not doing if he's getting it from someone else?
This was adapted from an impromptu lesson I gave some girls that were helping at my church. The topic or relationships came up and the following discussion developed.
It revolves around her chorus "If you liked it, you should have put a ring on it."
The two "it"s are different... the first one is sex, the second one is her ring finger. Or, interpreted, she's saying, "If you liked (the sex we were having) you should have put a ring on (my finger...married me)." The song continues with Beyonce saying that she'll make the boy that burned her regret it, miss her, etc...
Now, let's examine it. Basically, she's giving sex away to get a boy. (Working off the basic driving principle that MOST women want marriage/commitment/relationship and boys want... sex) That's fine because she got a guy that was willing to tell her what she wanted to hear. Now, we run into a problem. If you're giving something away for free and then start to charge for it (or demand commitment), that only works if you're the only place giving it away and you've got your audience addicted. If there's other free providers, then people will migrate over to them and you'll be left with only those who really like your service and can pay. (Looking at it like an email provider example, you have two fictitious email websites, Weebeefree.com and FreeEmail.org. WBF.com came along first, offering free email. Quickly it gained mass subscribers. But, then it started to charge a nominal fee of $10 per month. About the same time, FE.org came along and was still offering email for free. You'll get a migration from WBF to FE because people who are doing stuff for free either don't have the $$ to pay for emails or they're just not willing to pay for email.) In a much more simple example, imagine you have this really good cat food. You put it outside and, sure enough, you attract a stray cat. As long as you're giving the food away, you'll keep the stray cat. But, start trying to bring it in or bring it to a vet... and suddenly the cat will go to another source of free food.
Basically put, here's the problem with Beyonce's relationship. She's giving her sex away for free and, when she asks for commitment, her "man" takes off to find another girl that's giving it away for free... because that's the kind of "man" she attracted. That is why I tell girls not to have sex before marriage: because if the guy that likes them is really interested in commitment and what he can give, he's not going to be wanting to take sex from her before that commitment is made.
Flipside of this is on the guy's side... if a girl is really high quality, she'll respect you more if you treat her like a princess. And treating her right means giving more than you're getting and treating her like she really is a lady and, frankly, not an unpaid whore. (Whatever "commitments" you make while in "love" with someone does not stand up in a court of law and are not binding. By commitment, I mean marriage.)
One side note is that Beyonce is angry with her former boyfriend that's now not with her (and probably with another girl)... so she's going to do all sorts of things to get back at him. Girls, if you think you'll be able to pull this off and somehow make his life miserable, you can forget that. If all he cares about is sex and getting it free... why does he care what you're doing or not doing if he's getting it from someone else?
Why 300 Succeeded
Even though I just wrote a note recently, I'm afraid that, in a conversation with another of my friends today, I decided to write another note about another topic that I'm extremely passionate about.
The topic is intimately related to 300. Why was this movie such a success? (This is more than just a movie review, I'm just using it as a jumping-off point)
Well, for those who didn't see it (and it was rather graphic), here's the basic plot and important themes:
1. Xerxes, with the Persian horde of "1 million men" is advancing into Greece to conquer it. Leonidas, the King of Sparta, refuses to bow and allow Xerxes to conquer either himself or his people. He kills the messenger and all of the guards in a "burn the ships" gesture of complete defiance. When he consults with some of the rulers, they basically tell him to accept that Xerxes is going to conquer and he shouldn't get in the way. Leonidas' wife, however, tells him that, as a free man, he must do all he can to protect what he loves, the city, the people and his wife. So, he goes with his bodyguard of 300, which the city's rulers can't stop, and halts Xerxes' Army at Thermopylae for a short time. Eventually they are wiped out, but the Spartans rally around Gorgo, Leonidas' wife, and send the army, which eventually wipes out Xerxes and pushes him back for all time.
2. First, Leonidas is what most would consider a good man and yet he's also fierce. No one who has seen the movie would be able to disagree with me. One of the humorous moments is when they're killing the wounded Persians (law of war is a different discussion) and the king is informed the Persians King wants to talk to him. "I'll go," he basically says, "no reason we can't be civil." As he says this, his 2nd-in-command kills another Persian. The dark humorous contrast is marked. But, about Leonidas' character, he is kind and good, but also passionate in his defense of everything he values. A lot of guys get confused about what it means to be a man. Quite bluntly, it's not being sexual, making lots of money or even getting married. These are things a man does but it is not the defining characteristic of a man. Also notice that he's strong enough that he never needs to tell his wife to be quiet or anything like that. This strong, fierce warrior is also gentle and supportive of his wife's needs. (There's a scene after he's been to see the Oracle [where a virtually nude female dances before receiving her message] and when we see the couple again, he is out of bed looking out over the city. His wife is asking him to come to bed and inquiring, in a polite way, if he's not paying attention to her because of another woman. He tells her very passionately and truly that it will "take more than the gyrations of a pubescent girl to stop me from loving you" [paraphrased].)
3. What about Gorgo's traits? She is a truly strong woman, kind and supportive of her husband but a wild lioness when fighting for something she believes in. Why do I say she's strong? As already covered in section 1, she tells her husband, who she loves dearly, to pursue his heart's goal, defending Sparta. I would say that she does this knowing that, at the very least, he'll be in danger. At worst, that he's never coming back. What kind of emotional fortitude is necessary for something of that magnitude? Because of feminism, a lot of women get 'domineering' or 'masculine' confused with strong femininity. Gorgo never left the city, she never threw a spear or swung a sword. And yet she had her own strength, she didn't need to compete with her husband to see who could make the most money or who'd be in charge.
Well now, moving from 300, which is all well and good but only a movie, what is there to learn from this?
Well, the man is strong, he is passionate and he believes in something so strongly that he'd rather die than see it defiled. He also uses his strength to build up his wife and, when he's introduced, he's playing with their son to teach him how to become a man himself. (read "Good with children" ^.^) The woman is also strong, passionate and also willing to die for what she believes in. She builds up and supports her husband, is passionate with him and for him. She has the maturity to both show reserve and passion.
What critical aspect is essential in this relationship? Well, as seems to be a motif with most things I write, trust must be said to be the most essential. Leonidas trust his wife and looks to her before burning the bridge of attacking the emissary at the opening of the movie and Gorgo trusts that Leonidas tells the truth and truly loves her. These are large leaps for most people (I don't know how many wives would feel alright if their husbands watched a teenage girl dance naked for them. I doubt it's many), but they make them so effortlessly it's hard to notice.
He trusts her. He's able to be himself, follow his dreams and be open with his fears without the concern of her calling him stupid, weak or belittling his masculinity. Likewise, she trusts him to make mature decisions, stay true to love only her (he dies with her name on his lips) and to protect her, her children, and all she holds dear, with his life.
By this point, you're probably seeing why 300 was such a popular movie...at least one of the reasons. The cinematography was amazing and there were the ever-present elements of violence and sex that makes a typically "guy" movie. (At least the only really positive sex-scene was between the couple, Leonidas and Gorgo.) My proposition, however, is that there's a reason, perhaps sub-consciously, why guys (and girls) wanted to see that movie so much. It's because the relationship the king and queen share is what they desire for themselves. As one of my female friends said recently, smiling shyly, "Everyone loves a hero." And, who among you, guys, wouldn't want a woman like the queen?
Now...that's awesome...we can probably agree that that'd be nice. But, tell me, all you modern men and women: what do you do to encourage that in your partner? Men, do you honestly love only your girlfriends and flirt only with them. Do you tell them lies so that you can go do what you want to do? Do you try to control them by either getting angry or feigning that you don't care? Do you share stuff that you're actually going through with them? Do you make time for them? Women, do encourage your man's desire to protect and shelter you? Do you talk fondly of his strength (be it mental, physical, etc...) to others or thank him for it when you're with him? Do you listen without scorn when he shares weakness or pain with you? Do you let him have the freedom to do what he believes he must?
It's one thing to want something, it's quite another to actually do something about it.
There are a few questions that I imagine might arise from all this. If you have others, feel free to post them. I'll answer as soon as I can. I'm smart, but not psychic, I'm afraid, I can't guess all the questions. :)
Aren't you saying "submit!" in another way? I'm tired of men dominating women.
-Quite frankly, no I'm not. Marital relationship is to be like any other, a mutual submission. It's not the man saying "I'm the man, do what I say!" and then doing whatever the **** he feels like doing. Show me in the example I just gave where that was the case and I will concede this point. It leads me to question, though, how much of our relationships are seen through the screen of our failed dating attempts. How many times have we seen the immature person (be they man or woman) try to dominate the other person to make themselves feel safe. "They can't leave, I'm in charge," is essentially the message they send. This destroys the self-respect of any man or woman that's attempting to live under that, the same as slavery destroys the self-respect of any people enslaved. Without their self-respect, you get men behaving like boys and women behaving like girls. The dominating person has to be even more dominating to control them, and so the cycle continues.
Am I telling the woman to submit? No. I'm saying that both of them should be so joyful in submitting and building the other person up that they can't get enough.
My boyfriend's not like that. How can I make him like that?
-Well, the first thing to understand is that a woman can support a man, but she cannot make him, in my opinion. It is other men bringing him alongside and being masculine together (what some girls consider those bothersome "man nights") that first makes him a man. If he doesn't have the self-confidence in himself to stand up for what he believes because he's strong in his own eyes, there's nothing you can do to change that, really...and being shown how to be a man by a woman is just as mixed up as a woman getting shown how by a man. She needs other women to show her how to be strong in her own special skills. (If you want a fun image, picture two training gyms. One for men, one for women. Each allow only that gender to come in and train. It's something like that.)
Well, what do you think a man should be like?
-A man and a woman shouldn't be different on the scale of strength, in my opinion. They are equal before God. But, being equal is not the same as being synonymous. (For example 3+4 and 9-2 are equal, but they are not synonymous.) Both men and women should possess an inner determination to die rather than see injustice done. It's only by living for more than this life that this life becomes worth living. (It's for this reason that the man and wife need to share that, or they'd always be at odds with each other like Mr. and Mrs. Smith.) In a title, a man should be a "Tender Warrior", with a caged beast in his heart and velvet arms, to defend the ones that he holds dear. A man shouldn't do something he's not ready to do, either. I believe he shouldn't get engaged until he's ready to support a family. (Even if the wife works...what's wrong with having extra spending $$ for date-nights? :-P) He also needs to be vulnerable and truthful with his wife in particular and set a good example for his children. The wife relies on him to support her and make her feel loved and treasured. His sons depend on him to set the good example of disciplined strength. His daughters depend on him to give them love and safety until they find a man that can match him for their own.
In conclusion, I think the modern interpretation of feminism is intrinsically flawed for simply this reason- Men and women are different. Trying to make women into men simply inverts the already existing relationship and makes no one happy. What we need in this generation are real men and women who are not fearful and are strong in their own right enough to let their partner be strong with them. In this, they need to trust each other. And, when they fail, they must have grace on the other's failings. It's hard, some would say impossible. However, only the hard things, when done right, are truly satisfying.
The topic is intimately related to 300. Why was this movie such a success? (This is more than just a movie review, I'm just using it as a jumping-off point)
Well, for those who didn't see it (and it was rather graphic), here's the basic plot and important themes:
1. Xerxes, with the Persian horde of "1 million men" is advancing into Greece to conquer it. Leonidas, the King of Sparta, refuses to bow and allow Xerxes to conquer either himself or his people. He kills the messenger and all of the guards in a "burn the ships" gesture of complete defiance. When he consults with some of the rulers, they basically tell him to accept that Xerxes is going to conquer and he shouldn't get in the way. Leonidas' wife, however, tells him that, as a free man, he must do all he can to protect what he loves, the city, the people and his wife. So, he goes with his bodyguard of 300, which the city's rulers can't stop, and halts Xerxes' Army at Thermopylae for a short time. Eventually they are wiped out, but the Spartans rally around Gorgo, Leonidas' wife, and send the army, which eventually wipes out Xerxes and pushes him back for all time.
2. First, Leonidas is what most would consider a good man and yet he's also fierce. No one who has seen the movie would be able to disagree with me. One of the humorous moments is when they're killing the wounded Persians (law of war is a different discussion) and the king is informed the Persians King wants to talk to him. "I'll go," he basically says, "no reason we can't be civil." As he says this, his 2nd-in-command kills another Persian. The dark humorous contrast is marked. But, about Leonidas' character, he is kind and good, but also passionate in his defense of everything he values. A lot of guys get confused about what it means to be a man. Quite bluntly, it's not being sexual, making lots of money or even getting married. These are things a man does but it is not the defining characteristic of a man. Also notice that he's strong enough that he never needs to tell his wife to be quiet or anything like that. This strong, fierce warrior is also gentle and supportive of his wife's needs. (There's a scene after he's been to see the Oracle [where a virtually nude female dances before receiving her message] and when we see the couple again, he is out of bed looking out over the city. His wife is asking him to come to bed and inquiring, in a polite way, if he's not paying attention to her because of another woman. He tells her very passionately and truly that it will "take more than the gyrations of a pubescent girl to stop me from loving you" [paraphrased].)
3. What about Gorgo's traits? She is a truly strong woman, kind and supportive of her husband but a wild lioness when fighting for something she believes in. Why do I say she's strong? As already covered in section 1, she tells her husband, who she loves dearly, to pursue his heart's goal, defending Sparta. I would say that she does this knowing that, at the very least, he'll be in danger. At worst, that he's never coming back. What kind of emotional fortitude is necessary for something of that magnitude? Because of feminism, a lot of women get 'domineering' or 'masculine' confused with strong femininity. Gorgo never left the city, she never threw a spear or swung a sword. And yet she had her own strength, she didn't need to compete with her husband to see who could make the most money or who'd be in charge.
Well now, moving from 300, which is all well and good but only a movie, what is there to learn from this?
Well, the man is strong, he is passionate and he believes in something so strongly that he'd rather die than see it defiled. He also uses his strength to build up his wife and, when he's introduced, he's playing with their son to teach him how to become a man himself. (read "Good with children" ^.^) The woman is also strong, passionate and also willing to die for what she believes in. She builds up and supports her husband, is passionate with him and for him. She has the maturity to both show reserve and passion.
What critical aspect is essential in this relationship? Well, as seems to be a motif with most things I write, trust must be said to be the most essential. Leonidas trust his wife and looks to her before burning the bridge of attacking the emissary at the opening of the movie and Gorgo trusts that Leonidas tells the truth and truly loves her. These are large leaps for most people (I don't know how many wives would feel alright if their husbands watched a teenage girl dance naked for them. I doubt it's many), but they make them so effortlessly it's hard to notice.
He trusts her. He's able to be himself, follow his dreams and be open with his fears without the concern of her calling him stupid, weak or belittling his masculinity. Likewise, she trusts him to make mature decisions, stay true to love only her (he dies with her name on his lips) and to protect her, her children, and all she holds dear, with his life.
By this point, you're probably seeing why 300 was such a popular movie...at least one of the reasons. The cinematography was amazing and there were the ever-present elements of violence and sex that makes a typically "guy" movie. (At least the only really positive sex-scene was between the couple, Leonidas and Gorgo.) My proposition, however, is that there's a reason, perhaps sub-consciously, why guys (and girls) wanted to see that movie so much. It's because the relationship the king and queen share is what they desire for themselves. As one of my female friends said recently, smiling shyly, "Everyone loves a hero." And, who among you, guys, wouldn't want a woman like the queen?
Now...that's awesome...we can probably agree that that'd be nice. But, tell me, all you modern men and women: what do you do to encourage that in your partner? Men, do you honestly love only your girlfriends and flirt only with them. Do you tell them lies so that you can go do what you want to do? Do you try to control them by either getting angry or feigning that you don't care? Do you share stuff that you're actually going through with them? Do you make time for them? Women, do encourage your man's desire to protect and shelter you? Do you talk fondly of his strength (be it mental, physical, etc...) to others or thank him for it when you're with him? Do you listen without scorn when he shares weakness or pain with you? Do you let him have the freedom to do what he believes he must?
It's one thing to want something, it's quite another to actually do something about it.
There are a few questions that I imagine might arise from all this. If you have others, feel free to post them. I'll answer as soon as I can. I'm smart, but not psychic, I'm afraid, I can't guess all the questions. :)
Aren't you saying "submit!" in another way? I'm tired of men dominating women.
-Quite frankly, no I'm not. Marital relationship is to be like any other, a mutual submission. It's not the man saying "I'm the man, do what I say!" and then doing whatever the **** he feels like doing. Show me in the example I just gave where that was the case and I will concede this point. It leads me to question, though, how much of our relationships are seen through the screen of our failed dating attempts. How many times have we seen the immature person (be they man or woman) try to dominate the other person to make themselves feel safe. "They can't leave, I'm in charge," is essentially the message they send. This destroys the self-respect of any man or woman that's attempting to live under that, the same as slavery destroys the self-respect of any people enslaved. Without their self-respect, you get men behaving like boys and women behaving like girls. The dominating person has to be even more dominating to control them, and so the cycle continues.
Am I telling the woman to submit? No. I'm saying that both of them should be so joyful in submitting and building the other person up that they can't get enough.
My boyfriend's not like that. How can I make him like that?
-Well, the first thing to understand is that a woman can support a man, but she cannot make him, in my opinion. It is other men bringing him alongside and being masculine together (what some girls consider those bothersome "man nights") that first makes him a man. If he doesn't have the self-confidence in himself to stand up for what he believes because he's strong in his own eyes, there's nothing you can do to change that, really...and being shown how to be a man by a woman is just as mixed up as a woman getting shown how by a man. She needs other women to show her how to be strong in her own special skills. (If you want a fun image, picture two training gyms. One for men, one for women. Each allow only that gender to come in and train. It's something like that.)
Well, what do you think a man should be like?
-A man and a woman shouldn't be different on the scale of strength, in my opinion. They are equal before God. But, being equal is not the same as being synonymous. (For example 3+4 and 9-2 are equal, but they are not synonymous.) Both men and women should possess an inner determination to die rather than see injustice done. It's only by living for more than this life that this life becomes worth living. (It's for this reason that the man and wife need to share that, or they'd always be at odds with each other like Mr. and Mrs. Smith.) In a title, a man should be a "Tender Warrior", with a caged beast in his heart and velvet arms, to defend the ones that he holds dear. A man shouldn't do something he's not ready to do, either. I believe he shouldn't get engaged until he's ready to support a family. (Even if the wife works...what's wrong with having extra spending $$ for date-nights? :-P) He also needs to be vulnerable and truthful with his wife in particular and set a good example for his children. The wife relies on him to support her and make her feel loved and treasured. His sons depend on him to set the good example of disciplined strength. His daughters depend on him to give them love and safety until they find a man that can match him for their own.
In conclusion, I think the modern interpretation of feminism is intrinsically flawed for simply this reason- Men and women are different. Trying to make women into men simply inverts the already existing relationship and makes no one happy. What we need in this generation are real men and women who are not fearful and are strong in their own right enough to let their partner be strong with them. In this, they need to trust each other. And, when they fail, they must have grace on the other's failings. It's hard, some would say impossible. However, only the hard things, when done right, are truly satisfying.
Central Relationship Quality
For my first post, something simple. I was reading a book recently. It's called "Blink" and it's by Malcom Gladwell. The jist of the book is that people can make snap decisions that are just as good as thought-out ones because of the subconscious thought-process or "intuition".
Basically, one of the examples was a special kind of marital counselling. They have a couple talk for 15 minutes about something they disagree over. After analyzing it, they can predict with 90% certainty if the couple will stay together or not. Boiled down, it was whether either member of the couple held the other in disdain.
Now, what's this mean? I mean, shoot...it's not like people have "I like you" or "I disdain you" written on their foreheads.
But, in one of my other journal-entries on the topic of relationships, I mentioned that respect is absolutely essential (which is two ways of saying the same thing, respect or don't disdain). A lot of people are looking for "funny", "intelligent", "successful", "cute", "handsome", or "clever". Perhaps, based on all of this, we should be looking for someone we can respect first and later looking for the other, less important stuff?
Basically, one of the examples was a special kind of marital counselling. They have a couple talk for 15 minutes about something they disagree over. After analyzing it, they can predict with 90% certainty if the couple will stay together or not. Boiled down, it was whether either member of the couple held the other in disdain.
Now, what's this mean? I mean, shoot...it's not like people have "I like you" or "I disdain you" written on their foreheads.
But, in one of my other journal-entries on the topic of relationships, I mentioned that respect is absolutely essential (which is two ways of saying the same thing, respect or don't disdain). A lot of people are looking for "funny", "intelligent", "successful", "cute", "handsome", or "clever". Perhaps, based on all of this, we should be looking for someone we can respect first and later looking for the other, less important stuff?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
