Painting by the Numbers

When you first decide that you want to be an artist you might pick up a “Paint by Numbers” kit. Each ‘painting ‘ is really a diagram full of many differently shaped and numbered spaces, each number representing a different color in your paint box. By religiously applying the correct color to each numbered shape it is possible for the budding ‘artist’ to create a colorful painting that should be a very closer rendering of the picture on the kit’s lid. If done carefully it could easily be hung on someone’s wall with little or no apology.

But with all due respect to those “Paint by Number” aficionados out there, it is not art; any more so than coloring in a coloring book is art or completing a jigsaw puzzle is art. It is a craft. And just as the completed puzzle needs to match the box lid, so the “Paint by Number” painting needs to replicate the next person’s attempt at the same picture. You are not allowed to paint outside of the lines.

To artfully paint a picture is exceedingly difficult for someone who does not have the eye for it (take this from one who has failed miserably in this regard). Skills are important (the craft part of painting) as well as technique. But to create a work of art requires vision as well as the ability to lose oneself in the painting, to become a part it, a creative act akin to love. The beauty of great painting is that it never is identical to another work and the visible outcome can get the ‘message’ across to different people in different ways.

I think the “Law” of the Old Testament is much like what we find in a “Paint by Numbers” set. The Laws are very important because they help us to paint a picture of what someone who loves God looks like. But it can be very trying to stay within the lines and at times we may even mistake one color for another. More often we end up painting a picture of ourselves, someone who has yet to realize a love (as opposed to a fear) of God. It is an attempt, through attention to detail, to create something worthy of being called Love.

On the other hand, a picture painted with Christ as inspiration may still have flaws of perspective but will not exhibit the structured choppiness of a ‘Paint by Numbers’ work. There will be a smoother blending of the colors, softer pastels may be used as well as bright primaries, all suffused with a light that only the Spirit can provide. The result is a unique and heartfelt work of art instead of the more commonplace attempt at making a rigid and orderly reproduction. The goal of every ‘Paint by Numbers’ picture is to look exactly like the next, whereas original productions will vary from artist to artist.

There is a lot to be said for this orderly and systematic way of developing the discipline for art; following instructions, holding the brush properly, laying down the paint and paying attention to the finer details. Hopefully learning to see the whole picture by not focusing on the many small parts. But at some point the fledgling artist will need to throw away the props and find the faith to start learning from the Teacher. God allows many canvases on which to make many mistakes and in the end we should be painting beautiful pictures with the goal of pleasing the Master.

As my friend Jason said, it’s like “The difference between looking at a Seurat from 10 millimeters or 10 meters.”

The Old Man’s Rules

“Why do you have so many different rules, anyway?”

The young girl looked up at the old man, frowning.

“I do?” he asked, smiling down on her.

“You sure do. Dozens, maybe hundreds of ‘em” she said.

“Well, actually, I really only have one rule. Some people have trouble with this one so they turned it into two rules, to make it easier to understand”.

“Two! What about all those rules about no fightin’ and no cussin’, no lyin’, no cheatin’and no stealin’? And that’s only a couple of ‘em. No eatin’ too much, no dancin’, no watchin’ TV. No fun!” She folded her little arms across her chest and stamped her foot.

“Those aren’t my rules, dear. I didn’t make them. You did.”

“What? We did? What are you talkin’ about?” she cried. “ Those are you’re rules. It’s what we hafta do to make you happy”.

“No, my rule is only this; Love me with all your heart, mind and soul. It’s not too hard, really”

“Huh? What does that mean? I already love you a lot. Infinity! I can’t love you any more that that” she cried.

“Really? And what about that little girl that just moved into your part of the garden? The one with dark hair and pretty eyes? Do you love her?” he asked.

“Her?! You must be kidding. Didn’t you hear what she said to me? And her friends are mean, real mean. And they’ve been mean to my friends. If her friends hurt my friends then there is no way that I can be her friend. I hate her!” she said.

“Oh, I wish you wouldn’t feel that way. You see, I love her and her friends, as much as I love you and your friends. I think of all of you as my children.” With that he looked up from the little girl to watch the other children playing in the garden.

“But she isn’t nice! She doesn’t deserve my love. Or yours.” she insisted.

“Are you being nice by saying you hate her? Does this deserve my love? But I forgive you and love you just as much as ever. This is why some people find it easier if they turn my first and only rule into two parts. To love me you must also love all my other children as well. Even those you don’t like. Do you understand this?”

“I can’t do it. It’s too hard.” she said, looking down at her feet.

“But it’s what I want. If you love me then this is what you will do. Don’t you love me?” he asked.

“Yes of course I do.” She was quiet for a moment. Slowly her eyes opened wider. “I get it now! That’s what all those other rules are for. Us kids who can’t figure out how to love the losers have come up with a bunch of rules to  keep us from bein’ mean to ‘em. “

“Well, that’s the idea” he sighed. “I wish you didn’t think you need these rules so much. I wish you could just try doing it my way. Just once. It gets much easier with practice. It’s a lot harder to keep track of 1000 or 100 or even 10 rules than it is to obey just one or two. So many of your rules are so foolish, so many people waste their time trying to please me by obeying them. They can’t really. All I want is for you to love me by loving each other. I know you can do it.”

“But how? I don’t even know what it looks like. No one is doing it” she said.

“Remember my son? The one who died to save your life? Just remember him and how he acted. Let him be your model.”

“Him? Oh no. He was your son, he was special. I can’t do that. I’m not your son!” she said.

“You could be” he said. “You could be.”

Lawless Christians

There is this never ending dance that revolves around the matter of the Law. (A dance in the way that Capoeira, the Brazilian martial art, is a dance). The first thrust is the suggestion that we no longer need the Law, that Jesus’ sacrifice has taken care of that. This is quickly parried, followed by a riposte from scripture in which Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) A split decision.

We require a ruling, so we turn to our foremost referee, St. Paul, who speaks eloquently (if at times obtusely) on the subject. Variously he chastises those who fall into legalism, like the Galatians, while other times he creates new laws for us to worry about, as he does for the Corinthians.

But rather than listening exclusively to what Paul has to say about the Law I think we can learn more by focusing on his personal testimony. Even prior to his spectacular conversion on the Damascus Road he was a very devout and religious man. He rigidly adhered to the Mosaic Law and firmly believed that he was demonstrating loyal obedience to God. During this same time he also religiously pursued the persecution and murder of his fellow Jews.

After being exposed to the love and forgiveness of Jesus, Paul cast off his hateful nature like a badly stained yet expensive suit of clothes. He was able to do this not by following an old, abridged or new set of rules. It was done by identifying with the Messiah, putting his entire hope and trust in him. He expressed terrible remorse for the horrible things that he had done while under the Law just as he expressed grateful amazement at his salvation. Ironically, this salvation was made possible by the sacrifice of the only person to ever obey that Law, a sinless carpenter’s son from Nazareth.

Throughout the Bible we hear the stories of great men that God has chosen to lead his people. They diligently strived to be obedient and they likely did well at holding to the letter of the Law. Even so, they committed horrible crimes and practiced customs that stood in opposition to the Spirit of the Law. (Genesis 20: 1-13, 2 Samuel 11:14, 1 Kings 11: 1-10).

If Solomon is, in fact, the author of Ecclesiastes, he realizes too late that even a tremendously full and rich life serving God could still ring hollow at the end of the day. Unlike Saul of Tarsus, there was no conversion experience, no point early in their lives in which these men ‘repented’ of their ways and turned back to God, at least not in the way that we have been blessed through Christ Jesus.

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light
Matthew 11:30

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthian 3:6

What’s In God’s Name?

 I thought this was interesting: (from Radio Netherlands Worldwide)

 Let’s call God Allah

by Mohammed Abdelrahman & Nicolien den Boer*

14-08-2007

The Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, wants people to start calling God Allah. He says the Netherlands should look to Indonesia, where the Christian churches already pray to Allah. It is also common in the Arab world: Christian and Muslim Arabs use the words God and Allah interchangeably.

Speaking on the Dutch TV programme Network on Monday evening, Bishop Muskens says it could take another 100 years but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches. And that will promote rapprochement between the two religions.

Muskens doesn’t expect his idea to be greeted with much enthusiasm. The 71-year-old bishop, who will soon be retiring due to ill health, says God doesn’t mind what he is called. God is above such “discussion and bickering”. Human beings invented this discussion themselves, he believes, in order to argue about it.

More than 30 years ago Bishop Muskens worked in Indonesia and, there, God was called Allah, even in Catholic churches. The Dutch should learn to get on spontaneously with different cultures, religions and behaviour patterns:

“Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years. In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can’t we start doing that together?”

In the Arab world God is called Allah. The long history of Christianity in the Arab world led to the development of a rich Christian-Islamic theological vocabulary, which makes God a normal equivalent to Allah. Both Muslims and Christians use the word in the Middle East.

ar-Rabb
Apart from Allah, the term ar-Rabb (the Lord) is also widely used, although this appears far more often in the Arabic version of the Bible than in the Qur’an. In the Islamic context, references to ar-Rabb are normally found in the possessive form, such as Rabbi (My Lord). Interestingly, the word Allah was already in use by Christians in the pre-Islamic period.

Bishop Muskens proposal will undoubtedly receive a warm welcome from the Islamic community in the Netherlands. Particularly as it follows last week’s remarks by Geert Wilders about banning the Qur’an and, shortly before that, former Muslim Ehsan Jami’s comparison of Muhammad with Osama bin Laden.

Attention
Perhaps this is the reason Bishop Muskens’ remarks have received so much attention in the Dutch press. The bishop actually said exactly the same several years ago. He also suggested abolishing Whit Monday as a national holiday in favour of an Islamic religious day.

In the past, Bishop Muskens has offended many Muslims. In 2005 he said Islam was a religion without a future because it had too many violent aspects. The bishop is also responsible for a number of controversial remarks. He caused uproar in the Netherlands when he said the poor had a right to steal bread if they were hungry. And he put the Vatican’s back up with an appeal for the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ned070814mc

 Well? What do you think?

Shoot the Messengers (Why Fire and Brimstone Preaching is Evil)

In what is often seen as the most famous sermon in American history, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1741) Jonathan Edwards paints this vivid portrait of our Father in Heaven;

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.

Jesus told us to spread the Good News. He told us that people would know us by our love for one another. Jesus was a man of forgiveness, peace, compassion, non-violence – love. When asked what God the Father was like, he told his disciples that because they knew him they would know the Father, that they could see the Father by seeing him. He called our Father abba, or daddy.

Of course, God the Father is not a man in flowing robes with long curly blond hair, light complected and with blue eyes. (Neither was Jesus) But you get my point. And we should get Jesus’ point as well. The only part of the Father that Jesus could reveal to us was that of God’s nature, his ‘personality’. He did this through what he said and more importantly what he did, especially what he did for us on the cross.

So why have we had to endure the terrifying and vile language of those such as Edwards and his spawn? Of course, Edwards was not alone. Many, perhaps most, leaders in the Christian (and Muslim) church have preached of hell and damnation. The medieval Roman Catholic church was so obsessed with God the torturer and inquisitor that they nobly and piously followed his ‘example’. At the First Great Awakening (1730-1740) there was a great upsurge in Protestant fire and brimstone rhetoric which has lasted to this day, though there have been those who have long stood apart from this philosophy, such as the Quakers.

Rabbis Michael Shevack and Jack Bemporad, in a book called “Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think About God”, have coined the phrase “Marquis de God”. They suggest that he’s regarded by many as the ‘proverbial God of wrath, ready to show how much he cares by punishing you, the Marquis de God, despising sinners so much he exterminates them”.

(Not very long ago there was a church convention being advertised on the radio, a convention devoted to discussing the qualities of hell. Somehow their researchers had determined that the fires of hell burned at more than 2,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit! Yet no one would die in those flames, they would merely burn like candlewicks for all eternity. What type of monster is their God?)

But where do we get these crazy ideas? Even more importantly, why do we embrace them?

I don’t believe it is because of anything that is expressly stated within the Bible. Many of these hellish concepts are not biblical in the least, having been tacked on throughout the ages. I have heard many say that this is the result of a natural tendency on our part to project ourselves onto the nature of the deity, subconsciously endowing him with all the malevolent characteristics that we naturally abhor in ourselves and others. But, I think it is more sinister than that.

Throughout history there have been leaders – pharoahs, kings, queens, presidents, dictators- who have been more than willing to stretch the truth beyond any rational breaking point merely to maintain their rule of authority. This is a natural tendency of man and we know that power will almost always corrupt the powerful. Jesus’ message always stressed the strength in our weaknesses, our brokenness above the whole and strong. Yet the Church has always had a way of forgetting that particular thread that runs through the Gospels and even the Bible as a whole. The Church becomes strong and rules the rulers of the western world. Even after splintering into 10,000 limbs that live apart from each other, each individual denomination strives for dominance over the others. Our leaders become popular, powerful, rich and famous, bending the ears of millions as well as those who rule those millions.

Like all leaders who begin to doubt their abilities to govern based upon the merits of their philosophies, they inevitably resort to fear as the primary incentive for loyalty. In the past the Church has used the threat of horrifying torture, both in this world and in the next, to keep people in line. Protestants generally have relied solely upon the threat of eternal torment in the after-life(although they have been known to burn a heretic or two themselves).

“As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell, there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the divine vengeance by burning them on earth.”

~ “Bloody” Mary, Queen of England, 1553-1558

Today the stick is still used more often than the carrot. Sure Joel Osteen and friends preach the Gospel of prosperity, but they are only using reverse psychology. If you don’t do things their way you will not only miss out on prosperity but you will very likely remain mired in the trap of poverty. Even some elements of the liberal wing of the Church have found success in using scare tactics to meet their agenda, using the threat of global warming to frighten people into embracing a socially active Gospel.

To what good is it to preach the Gospel if we are not at least trying to live the Gospel? And how are we living the Gospel, how are we emulating Jesus, when we bully and scare people into turning towards God? How many of us, because of this style of ‘evangelizing’ know the message with our heads but not by heart?

When it comes to spreading the Good (or the Bad) News it would appear that the messenger may actually be the message.