Year: 2007 (Page 2 of 3)

a return

as i was perusing the itunes podcast section, i came across erwin mcmanus’ sermons. i decided to download one to see what i thought. it was called “the lie” and he was circling in on the fall and the lie we believe about ourself.
then i got an email from my sister, whom i might visit this weekend, and she included a sermon from her pastor from last week so that if i go to church, i will not be lost amid the series. the title? “the lie.” hmmm… i think it’s time to revisit genesis 1-3?

so i did. and now i have questions. of course.
1. adam and eve were naked. life was good. they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. still naked, but now life was bad. why? it obviously wasn’t the nakedness. they were naked in the beginning; God made it that way and life was good. and it’s not as if God was trying to pull one over on them, keeping the fact that they were naked a secret because it was bad… he wanted it to be that way. so why, praytell, does our knowledge of good and evil have an effect on our nakedness and our perception of its badness? it seems that the nakedness wasn’t the problem… the problem is what we thought of it all.

2. the youngest as favorite syndrome. as an oldest child, i relate. seems it began with adam and eve… abel, the baby, always did things better than cain. you know, in cain’s defense, he had to screw up so that others could learn from the mistakes of the eldest. it’s the way life works. but, nonetheless, it seems that the youngest is always God’s favorite, as well. isaac over ishmeal for Abraham; jacob over easu for Isaac; benjamin over all 11 of them for jacob. Christ over Adam. The second is always chosen over the first. Why?

3. what is the “knowledge of good and evil” really all about? how does knowing good and evil change the course of human history? why did it change our relationship with God? i think has something to do with self-relience, or in the words of Angie’s pastor, the beginnings of self-preservation (thus the plight of Cain…. if i’m not good enough, then destroy that which reveals that i’m not good enough). but why does knowing good and evil drive us to self-preservation? why does the choice between the two (good or evil) mean that we frequently choose to self-preserve?

Seriously, folks. Not being my usual antagonist self… i’d like to know how these things come together to form our understanding of God and ourselves.

ah, jacob

JJ and i were doing our bible study for the AM and it used the story of Jacob and his 2 wives. While the point the study was getting at, crazy intra-family conflict, wasn’t necessarily what provoked this post, I was compelled to revisit the character of Jacob.
He was quite a guy. I remember hearing a sermon in my preaching practicum class about him, and my colleague drew upon the fact that early in his life Jacob had some real self-actualization issues. Early in his life he said “I am Esau” when he was not. It took him a good bit of life and a wrestle with God before he could say, “I am Jacob”. Which means, btw, “Heel”. “Problem”. Trickster. You know, I could see why Jacob wasn’t real keen on announcing himself with a name like that.
So I did a bit of rereading on Jacob’s life. Just a skim through, it’ll take a while to really absorb all that his God did in his life. But what I came up with, i’m actually still processing. Which is why i write about it under a blog called “thoughts in process.” that means they’re not finished. gives me a bit of leeway.
Jacob started his life named a problem-child. He tricked his brother into giving up his birthright and tricked his dad into giving him the blessing. He then began quite a pattern of running from his problem. Another connection to the name “Heel”? He went to his uncle to get a couple of wives and he himself was tricked. But here’s where I began to notice a life pattern for Jacob. He was a guy that had his eye on what he wanted and he really felt he had a right to have it, no matter the cost. He wanted the life of the firstborn, so he tricked his way into it. He wanted the younger, prettier wife- but that was not proper. Didn’t stop him from bartering for it (and smart guy would go find himself a wingman to marry the older one so he could have Rachel and everyone is happy). Jacob would see something and then do what it took to have it. You have to admit, he was probably quite a heel to deal with.
After quite a while of doing well, Jacob gets up and scoots out in the middle of the night. Running again. Both times he has been successful and has, legally, rightfully gained what is his. But he runs. I think maybe Jacob is living the quote, “Who I am hates who I’ve been.” He’s running and running, trying to escape his heel-ed-ness. He’s coming home now, because God told him to and Jacob has at least learned not to go against that. But at the fjord of the river (i’ve always wanted to use that word in a sentence), before going home, Jacob is forced to deal with who it is that he has become. Wrestling with God, he is forced to admit, “I’m a heel.”
There’s no more running, and now there’s no more wrestling. Because when Jacob finally admits what he’s been all these years, God says, “not anymore, you’re not. Now you’re Israel.” God-wrestler.
After this, the tone of Jacob’s life begins to change. Slowly. I mean, it’s a process. He meets up with Esau, there is reconciliation, a theme that Jacob previously didn’t know how to deal with in an honoring way (hence all the running). Esau essentially tells him, “come on home.” Jacob agrees, but it takes him a while to get there. There’s at least another chapter before he finally gets home, as he settles in for a bit at a few different places (and his sons completely annihilate one of villages- I think they carry some of their father’s issues). He hasn’t completely changed, but has instead followed the path of his grandpa and calls his wife his sister. Some lessons take time i guess.
But finally Jacob comes home after a very meaningful meeting with God in Bethel. It’s been quite a journey.
A bunch of striking themes within the life of Jacob. I think it might take a few more reads ;). There’s the issue of conflict and resolution and reconciliation. But most interesting to me is Jacob’s issues with himself. I can identify. Sometimes you just don’t like who you’ve been or who you are. You try to call yourself by different names and take on the life of the people that you wish you were. But that’s not who you truly are. And when you’re tired of running, you wrestle. And, finally, at the end of the fight, you just admit it. “I’ve been a heel all my life.”
And that’s when God says, “That’s not who you are any more. I am going to give you a name, that’s how you’ll be known, and that’s how you should live.” Sometimes it takes a while to get used to the new name, and you’ll always know what you’ve been. Other people will know who you’ve been. But i guess this just begins the journey of learning to live as the person God has called you to be, rather than what you’ve always known to do.

lessons from a bag lady (you will need to have seen rent to understand this)

it seems quite incredible the depth of thought that can come from watching rent for the 9 millionth time. i was watching the deleted scenes with the directors comments (because when you watch it so much, you need some flair), and there was a scene in which Mark the camera man and Roger the musician have an argument, which i had long since forgotten was in the musical version. but basically, angel had just died and roger didn’t want to be around when mimi dies and mark calls him out on it. of course, the entire argument is sung.
anyway, as a way of turning the attention from his own shortcomings, roger redirects the fight toward mark. he says, “what about you?” then he launches into a solo about how mark is always saying “you must feel for the people” but in actuality he hides behind the camera.

then, while watching the movie as the director released it, i stumble upon the scene where the gang is outside and a bag lady is getting pushed around by the cop (this is right before Santa Fe, for those of you following along at home). mark, with camera ever ready at the helm, says, “smile officer…” and the cops just tell the bag lady she needs to move it. but then, the bag lady just launches into mark! she says something along the line of “you an artist? you artists always ready to [paraphrasing here: make a case out of my life’s conditions”]. THEN she says, “artists got a quarter? that’s what i thought.” [because they don’t have a quarter. they’re poor. they can’t pay the rent, thus the theme song and purpose of the movie.]

and you’re thinking to yourself, “umhumm. so?”

and i say to you, what a tragedy.

it’s a tragedy when you become so familiar with life’s pitfalls and difficulties that we don’t begin to search for ways to find more quarters. instead, the approach is usually to use someone’s life as an example of why this or that ought not to be.

if you’ve ever worked in a job that required you to connect on an emotional level with people, you know the dangerous dance (almost a Tango Maureen) that is the love and help you show people versus your own mental and emotional sanity. knowing your limits. knowing whats best and how to truly help a person. dangerous dance. but i’m wondering if sometimes we allow ourselves to veer to the side of safety- get behind a videocamera- simply because it’s too hard to go there with that person. that we want to feel as if we’re doing something to make the wrongs right, but in actuality we haven’t identified ourselves with those who are hurting at all.

this is a really long post that is going to leave a lot of people disappointed when it comes to no real conclusion. all i know is that, 5 hours after watching the movie, it has me all keyed up. i’m wondering what my video camera is. i’m wondering who i identify with (because that’s the essence of mark and roger’s adventures- they have the ability to do more but choose to live where and as they do because they want to “fight the larger powers that be”)- who do i want to identify with but really i just know a lot about them. who is saying, “stop writing blogs of ungodly length and just give me a quarter!”

*ps, though i love comments, please refrain from using the “give a man a fish/teach a man to fish” argument. this isn’t about economics. it’s about compassion. we’ll save the fishing for another day.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Michele Minehart

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑