The New Monasticism

Of course, working in a cool, city church, I have heard about a new movement started by people my age or younger. It is called the new monasticism. Essentially, these people have decided to live among the poor, sharing their resources and try to live their lives with them.

You know, I have great sympathy for their aims. The poor should be cared for in the church and their should be a greater concern for their needs. But, here is my question, what does that concern look like? How do we do it? And in what attitude?

The attitude is what concerns me the most. Sometimes, I think that my generation has, in our reaction to the legalism some of us were raised with (dont, drink, smoke, or chew, etc), we have found a new brand of legalism, taking care of the poor. That is, if you aren't doing it in radical ways, you really don't care about the poor, or really love them in the way that they need. Or as one of the leaders of this movement put it so boldly, "middle class america does not care enough about poor people." To me, this essentially it means, "you are not a true follower of Jesus if you don't do things our way."

Here is the problem with all of this. It comes from a lack of understanding of how Jesus really ministered. Jesus reached out to EVERYONE, rich, poor, destitute, power, powerless. You don't believe me? Read the Gospels closely. Jesus did not pick and choose who he spoke to. He spoke with EVERYONE. And, a good cross section of people recieved his message. I mean, matthew was a tax collector, bascially the Ebeneezer Scrooges of their day. Paul continues that, speaking to high and low alike in his driven quest to preach the Gospel.

And further, the new monasticism movement misunderstands the cultural context of the time when they fawn over the passages in Acts about the church holding everything in common. Well, one of the big reasons they did that is because if they didn't most of them would be starving. It was an act of mercy for those folks. We live in a different time and place, so we have to find ways the same principle can be applied to where we are now. I don't think new monasticism is the way for this reason: Grace.

Guilt never motivated anyone. Grace does. Grace is always more powerful. And, in that, our movtivation is to change fellow sinners, no matter what class of society.
The new monasticism guild may look more like Jesus, but in the end, it isn't and therefore, it will not last. Grace comes to the rich and the poor whether we like it or not.

yes, I get and have gotten frustrated with the middle class attitudes at times. I have spoken out against them and made snide remarks about them, trying to motivate them. Guess what? Did not work in the least. No one was changed, even though some of them marginally tried to do better. That didn't last either.

Here is what Jesus did ask for. He asked for us to be poor in spirit, bankrupt is the force of the word. Recognizing our mutual desperate need for Grace. And then, having that Grace transform us so that we will love our neighbor, whether that is poor or rich, powerful or weak. Our work is to take care of them the way Jesus would have, loving them, being in their lives, ministering to those around us. In our quest to save the world, we lose it, because we totally ignore the horrible suffering going on in the people in our own lives.

I realize I sound like I am being harsh against the movement. I hope it does not come off that way. There is much about this new movement that is good, a good prophetic voice to a complacent church. But, even the prophetic voice speaks with Grace. I hope the movement learns that, as I am learning it my own life.

On Writing

I just recently watched a documentary on JK Rowling. Basically, a camera crew followed her for a year as she finished the Deathly Hallows. It was great to see her reflect on her life and writing. And, seeing this made me do the same.

Ever since I was a kid, I have loved stories, being involved in one (either reading or watching), or making them up myself. In my inner heart, that is what I loved doing the most. There are times where I feel like I have clouded that desire because I thought I needed something more important to do, IE, something big and important, especially in light of the calling of God. That mistaken belief led me to think the military was God's calling (don't ask, long story) and attended Virginia Military Institute. That was very obviously not me. I was there a week.

So, I went to college, majored in history because i liked it, and had no earthly idea what to do. I still loved to tell stories and write, so I minored in English. I took a creative writing class and it nearly destroyed my desire to be a writer. The teacher was one of those overly arty people for whom poetry was a deadly serious thing. Then, as now, I had a playful, sarcastic streak. Most of the my poetry was pretty silly and she constantly called me out in class. My thought was, If that is what a writer is, I really don't want any part of that.

But, something else happened in college. A little picture began to appear of a boy and a dwarf named Archibald. I remember it started in my sophomore year in college. That little image kept my foot into writing in the next twelve years. Now, Archibald is no longer a dwarf, and the boy is almost a man. And the story is River of Fire.

And over that next twelve years, I have been looking for what I am made to do. What makes me feel like the Chariot of Fire guy, who said that when he runs, he feels God's pleasure. I have realized lately that for me, that is writing. There are three things on earth that make me that sense of completeness. One and two have to do with my wife and kids. The other is writing. When I am able to sit down, and write something, whatever it is, I feel God's pleasure. As if saying, yes, my son, that is what I made you to do.

And that has happend even more as I have worked on the script with my two buds. I have loved it. It has already been so much fun already.

I know He has made me to do other things as well. I am a decent minister, not a great one. I love being with people, telling them about God's grace and seeing that in their lives. I love that because people know the Jesus I serve through what I say. And, that is really enough for me in my calling as a minister. As long as one person came to know Jesus in a way they did not know Him before through my ministry, everything, from seminary to my failed attempts to be a head pastor, it will have been enough.

But in my calling as a writer? God alone knows.

Excited

Okay, I know I promised a last entry on Pullman. I will get to it, I promise.

But, first, couldn't contain my excitement. Me and two of my friends from Grace Central are about to do a short film. Script is written and we are going to start selecting actors, scouting locations, etc. Not going to give away the plot, but there are owls.

Our new venture is called, "Broken Signpost Films".

Don't know if it will go anywhere or be a huge deal. But who cares? I am doing a short film!

Pullman's Fall and Redemption

Pullman’s Fall and Redemption

Pullman’s view of the Fall and Redemption is where he really draws close to Gnostic myth. There are quite a few Gnostic texts that describe their view of the fall and redemption, we see a story that is very similar to Pullman’s story. The Serpent is actually the aeaon Sophia, who tempts Adam and Eve to rebel against the Demiurge who created the world. Of course, Pullman’s Authority is described as not creating the world. But, the female tempter comes in the role of Mary.

Here is the confusion for me and where Pullman’s view of Christianity falls apart completely. Mary, a lapsed nun, is supposed to tempt the children to do something (and to be truthful, I could not figure out what she was tempting them to, sex? What? Pullman never makes it clear).

She receives these instructions from angels and then she has a long, rambling conversation with the children on why she has lost her faith. Apparently, she lost her faith because she tasted some great food and got horny. Even more, I guess she thought those things were incompatible with being a Christian, although we are never told why. The way it is written, we are supposed to believe that Christians everywhere believe the material world is bad, sensuality is bad (sexual and nonsexual sense in mind here), but once we taste all of that, we lose our faith. At least, that is what Pullman says Christians and the church and god teach.

So, in his view, the “Fall” was listening to these people. And to get back to redemption, we need to all love food and sex again over the idea of God. Now, I realize I am overstating things to be funny, but I am really not far off Pullman’s point of view in these books. Even more, knowledge will be the agent of salvation, tasting, touching, and all of that will save us from the idea of God, because God and Christians are against all of these things.

This would be all fine and good if such a thing were true. The problem is, it is all a complete and utter misunderstanding of the Christianity as it is presented in the Bible, and the first three chapters of Genesis. Christians have never, at least on paper been against the material world. It is quite true that there have been many people in the church who display a neurotic weirdness about it, but hey, we are people and we are all neurotic about something. However, Christianity has always loved food, love sex, love the material world and we get it all from the one who created us. Just read the first two chapters and see how much God declares what He has created. If the God of the bible were the god that Pullman is putting forward, I would rebel too. But He isn’t so I am not worried about it. Pullman seems intent on confusing what Christians have gotten wrong about the god of the bible.

But even more critically, especially in the area of redemption, Pullman’s god seems to have no interest in redeeming people, rather, all He wants is for people to follow the rules. But the real God the Bible talks about, entered the world as a human and sacrificed Himself to Himself. Grace is forgotten in Pullman’s stories. The incarnation is forgotten, which is odd, as it is the ultimate confirmation God loves the material world, and made it holy.

The next post will be about Pullman’s moralism. It is an interesting question that will shed light more on what Christians mean when they deny the flesh versus what Pullman means.

His Dark Materials: The Worldview

Pullman has stated his own personal worldview ranges from atheism to agnosticism. However, the worldview in his books are an interesting mix of Gnosticism, Atheism, scientific materialism, and a dash of moralism. I know that last one is controversial, but I will explain more later.

To start, I will discuss Pullman’s worldview in the books based on a creation, fall, and redemption structure. My reasons for doing this are many. First, his stated intention with the books is to present an inverted Paradise Lost, the poem by John Milton, which of course presents the creation, fall, and redemption story of Christianity. Now one might argue how orthodox Milton actually is, but that is discussion outside this post.

Second, the creation fall redemption structure is very good for helping someone understand a particular worldview. Every view of the world has them. For example, for a scientific materialist, they believe the world started with the Big Band, the fall is essentially human ignorance, so therefore science and education can fix what’s wrong with the world.

Creation: Why the worlds are here

Pullman’s cosmology in the series can really be described as a brand of Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a Christian heresy that took elements of Greek philosophy and mixed it with Christian theology. There were many different Gnostic groups, so it is difficult to pin down their exact beliefs. But, essentially, Gnosticism believed that a lesser god or angel created the world and claimed God status. The serpent in the garden was actually an agent of the real God who is ultimately unknowable, withdrawn from the world. When he was tempting Adam and Eve, he was actually doing a good thing. And even further, there is a weird and strange mix of what were termed “aeons” between us and the real god. The only way to liberate onself was through secret knowledge. Pullman agrees with key points of that worldview, especially the search for secret knowledge as a way of liberation. Even more, secret knowledge that comes from yourself. In fact, that is the point of Pullman's way of discovering truth. Whatever you make it to be, what's inside you.
However, to be fair, Pullman disagrees with certain aspects of Gnosticism in key points. He obviously does not have a hatred of the material world, as there are many instances in the book of people being love with their bodies and their worlds. This is especially true in the chapters that take place in the realm of the dead.
The other key disagreement he has would be in the nature of God. Pullman’s “Authority” which is in fact not God, but the “first angel” is the one who holds the world in slavery. And we find out, he doesn’t really hold the world in slavery either, its more the character Metatron and the church as His agent. Sound confusing? That’s because it is. To add more to my confusion, there is a hinted mystery behind all the worlds. Here is a quote from the book that describes it:
“It shocked us to learn the Authority is not the creator. There may have been a creator or there may not; we don’t know.”

That pretty much sums up the cosmology of Pullman’s universe. It is confused, random and hard to identify. He obviously desperately wants to create an atheistic fantasy, but he can’t do it. He has to leave room for mystery no matter how hard he wishes not to do so. The dust is mysterious. The Aleithometer is mysterious. They kill god in the story, but there is still mystery all over the place. Pullman tries to wrap it up at the end, to help us avoid the mysterious world he has just led us through.

So, essentially, Pullman is trying to kill the Christian idea of God, but not the concept of God. In fact, he cannot get away from it, no matter how hard he tries in the book to do so. In fact, he admits as much in some of the interviews I read of him.

And more, his perception of the Christian idea of God has many distortions, and strawmen that I do not recognize the god he thinks is described by Christianity. Rather, he describes a god of paganism, constantly wrathful, with no pity whatsoever, to living or dead alike. And more, he attributes the hatred of the natural world to god and the church. In doing so, he entirely ignores the first two chapters of Genesis. He leaves out a huge part of the Christian story. The god of Pullman is a horrible angel, but even in the end, he ends up as some sort of pitable figure.

It’s all very confusing. I struggled hard to pull the worldview in regards to god and creation in the series, but it was hard. Pullman is all over the place and it is difficult to pull in everything.

My next installment will be on Pullman’s view of the Fall and of Sin. It is really one of the most important points, because it shows that Pullman seems to know very little of what he is trying to tear down.

Sifting Through His Dark Materials, Part Two

The Negative:

It is hard for me to write about the negative aspects of these stories. I am quite sure that people will accuse me of looking for the negative because I disagree with Pullman's worldview. I am sure, there are elements of that in my understanding of his stories. But, I have to say, I really wanted these books to be good. I was rooting for it to change my mind about them as i read them. A case in point for me was when I read Harry Potter. I was highly skeptical when I read the first book. And now, all seven sit on my shelf, having been paid the ultimate compliment by me with food stains and finger prints on the book pages.

Most of my critiques about these books flow from my take that His Dark Materials has to be one of the grim fantasy series I have ever read. What I mean is, there is very little humor in the books. To compare, in Harry Potter, even in the dark moments of the book, there is a humor there that just makes you laugh every time. When reading His Dark Materials, I didnt laugh once and in fact, I dreaded to pick up the books. I think this comes from the fact Pullman seems to take himself entirely too seriously. Nearly every interview I have read (and I have read a lot of them) there is very little humor in his response to questions. I hope I am not representing him in the wrong light, but those are my impressions.

Now, I am not saying Pullman has to be like Rowling, but there were times were I was asking myself, "holy crap, can this book get any grimer?" And, it isn't just the fact that there are dark and dangerous times. Any good book should have them. But, when there is hardly any laughter or joy in a book, you have to wonder.

And that grimness and seriousness flows out into the book, especially in the writing style. The writing is overwrought in many places, and focused on telling, rather than showing. There were parts in the book I grew highly annoyed, because Pullman kept telling me how I should feel about someone or a situation, rather than showing me. I think this is especially true of the whole authority and church business. Okay, in the first book, we got the church cutting off the souls of children. Pretty bad, but then Pullman just leaves that, and seems to expect that horrible experiment to drive our emotions for the rest of the trilogy. It didn't for me, because he never showed how bad the whole church or the god figure could be in other areas. Rather, we are told this. But really, all I could see was that a rebel angel and a rogue element in the church were reponsible for all of this. We don't get a sense of the evil, the danger, the pressing need to war on this supposed god.


And even more, the characters on the good side were poorly drawn. There is no one I wanted to root for at all. We are supposed to feel that for Lyra and Will, but I couldn't. They gave me no reason to want to, or rather, Pullman gives me no reason to want them to succeed. Will is the closest one who draws out our sympathy, but Lyra is a spoiled, pretentious brat. One of Pullman's stated intents with this book is to present a better girl to womanhood story than CS Lewis' take on Lucy and Susan. Granted, I have a disagreement with Lewis' treatment of Susan, but I don't think Pullman's Lyra is a good one either. She is supposedly strong, but falls apart, expecting Will to be her strength in key areas of the book.

I think Hermoine Granger in Harry Potter is a great example of a strong, multifaceted girl/woman in kids literature. She is complex, varied, and strong. And more, she is real, you can identify with her. I can't identify with Lyra, I wanted to, but Pullman never pulls it off. I honestly just didn't care what happend to her at all.

And finally, you have Lord Asriel, who is leading this war on heaven. We are supposed to have sympathy with his aims, and goals. But the guy is a total jackass. I kept asking myself, okay so the authority is evil, but is Lord Asriel any better? Do we really want what he wants? The question would be, why? Seems like the people would be overthrowing one bad thing for another. I realize he dies, they want to establish the Republic of heaven, blah, blah, blah. Again, goes back to the confused picture of the evil in this book, I think.

So, here is my final word on the negative. There is so much promise in these books. Great potential, but I think Pullman fails in his story. I think he failed to bring everything together. And when great potential fails to bring about its promise, we are all left with the feeling of sadness. His books could have been one of the great fantasy stories, but he just never got there.
Lots of cool stuff, but never brought to greatness.

So, there is my reactions to the books as stories. Next up, will be my look at the worldview behind the books. That will come in the next few days, as it will take longer to get my thoughts together.

Sifting through His Dark Materials: Part One

Things I liked about the Books:

I want to start with the positives about what I like in these books. There are things I really loved about these books, especially with some of the new, imaginative things Pullman brings out in his world. Not just liked, but geeked out about, which is one of the highest compliments in my vocabulary.

Warning: Spoilers ahead from now and until the end.

First, the daemon idea is very, very cool. If you have not read the books, a daemon is essentially a visual representation of a person’s soul, or inner most thoughts, depending on which term you prefer. These daemon’s (and incidently, the word, at its core meaning, DOES NOT mean demon in the original Greek. Rather, it means a spirit of some type) take the shape of animal, depending on what a person is feeling. That is, only the children’s take shape, not the adult’s which stay the same.

Such a cool idea. I want one. Mine would be bear, in case you were wondering. Or maybe I am kidding myself. Maybe it would be duckbilled platypus.

I loved the armored bear Iorek. I mean, how cool can you get? An armored bear running around, crunching bad guys? What a great image. I loved it.

I loved how Pullman weaved in some quantum physics into his story line, especially with the possibilities of other worlds. I have been reading for osme time on my own about this subject (and only understood about a ¼ of it) that it was great to see it used in story form.

The themes of bad authority is a good one for literature to explore. As some people have said, and I agree with, the Authority (the God figure in the story) is not the God I serve, so I would rebel against him too, as well as the bumbling fools that make up Pullman's version of the church. The only thing I think is that Pullman did not make them loathsome enough, but I will write more about that later.

Of course, all the themes of love, honor, giving yourself up for your friends is there, but not as evident as in Harry Potter.

Other things I loved in a short burst:
the Texas Airman. The Alethiometer. Oxford. Dust. The subtle knife which can cut through worlds, a stand in for reason, I am guessing.

Next Up: The Negatives.