LOST and Job

This past Sunday brought the finale of LOST. As an avid fan of LOST, I came to the episode with great anticipation but also fear - how would this all be resolved. While to a great extent I am borrowing from a number of other in-depth and scholarly reviews, (though in far less depth) I hope to add my own perspective.

But first, I would like to debunk any notion that the series was Christian - that it was an attempt to put forth a Christian worldview. I can understand the longing for that, but I think that it would ultimately fall flat in the face of the much broader spirituality it presents. However, I still believes it has great value for the Christian because it provides a unique view into what it is that people want.

I would like to develop this idea in the frame of the Biblical character of Job. Job was a man of "science" or in his case theological/legal law. While it is easy to get caught up in how Job's response to his tragedy is portrayed as blameless, what is easily missed is Job's long discourse with his so-called friends. Here he actually calls God to trial so that God would pronounce him innocent and declare that his suffering was truly "for no reason." He wanted to have an actual court case where he shows that God made a mistake in causing his suffering because only evil people suffer and Job is a good man. In the loss of so much within his life, and the rejection of his friends, he sought out the one thing that he believed would bring his life meaning again - certainty in his knowledge of God as retributive.

I think many viewers of LOST have been caught up in a very similar attitude towards the finale. They want the mysteries solved, they want to be justified in their search for meaning in the mythology and mystery of the island. They have seen characters die without much cause, and they have chosen to invest less in the characters than in the mysteries.

Returning to Job, we find that he continues his long discourse until finally - surprisingly - God arrives! Job's opportunity to appeal his case is allowed - or so he thinks. No, instead God declares the world a mystery. Some may think this is a harsh response to Job and, yes, it is. But so is Locke's response to Jack, that he doesn't really have a son. Sometimes awakenings are jolting. But Jack recovered and so did Job.

Job's awakening was that God was not "reasonable" but rather mysterious. But, in the midst of that, Job realized that a reasonable, predictable, and comprehensible God was not what he ever really wanted all along. What Job really wanted was to know that God was there, that God would show up. Job wanted to know that God cared for him. So God had to reveal the error inherent in Job's search for acquittal: that he was trying to find fulfillment in having the mysteries solved.

Instead, God presents himself to Job and, rather than condemning him for his presumptions, invites him into a deeper relationship, one where the mysteries remain.

The conclusion of LOST is really about showing that ultimately (hopefully?) we cared about these people much more than we cared about the mysteries. Sure we tried to subjectify the mysteries, hoping that we would find fulfillment in them, to experience them as things we can relate with. But, really, would we have been remotely satisfied if every mystery was solved but the characters whom we cared for were lost in the midst?

Sure, we feel loss that the mysteries remain. We will never know for certain how it would have felt to have those questions answered. But I know the feeling I had when the lives of these characters found a conclusion. And that assures me that it is real relationships that matter. It is when God shows up when we realize what we really wanted all along.

Live Forever or Die Tomorrow?

I read a short passage from "Zorba the Greek" by Nikos Kazantzakis that has provoked some thought for me. In it, Zorba comes along an old man who is planting a tree. He questions the old man about why he would plant a tree when he will never see it produce fruit. The old man responds, "I live as if I am going to live forever." Zorba enjoys this thought, as he mutters to himself, "I live as if I will die tomorrow."

What a contrast in perspectives. But which leads us to a full and prosperous life? Haven't we all heard that we should live as if we will die tomorrow? Isn't that the lesson we feel we must take away any time we attend a funeral? Sure, living as if we could die tomorrow has some benefits. We may treasure our relationships more and give to worthy causes. Yet, what about the constant fear? I am not sure I want to live a life worrying that the value of my life depends on having everything in order when I die.

The old man suggests another way. Now, living as if we will never die has some dangers. If we live in ignorance of death, we run the risk of taking unnecessary risks to our health. We all know we should visit the doctor, wear our seatbelts, and avoid dangerous activities. But what if believing we will never die could mean more than that? What if living forever meant that we devoted ourselves to larger causes, tasks that may take a long time to complete?

The Christian believes they will live forever, through the grace of God. The faithful do not live in fear of death but in hope for the redemption of all creation. They do not sit back and watch but participate in this work of salvation.

What are your perspectives?

Elections and the Abandonment of Humility

I have been enjoying the lead-up to the presidential election. I'm naturally competitive and so I love to argue about policies and personalities. Most of those arguments happen only in my head with imaginary foes - where I naturally always win. But if there's one thing I hate about elections it's that morality goes right out the door. I'm not talking about "moral issues," I'm talking about the morality of the candidates themselves. Now lots has been said about negative campaigning and I hardly think I have much to contribute there. I want to discuss the deprication of humility in the campaign.

Now, in some ways, we don't expect or want the president to be humble. He (or she) should be the best person in the nation for the job and should know how to lead the country. The president needs to show confidence in decisions in order to bring together the country. For example, when John McCain said that the economy is not his strong suit, I took that to be a mark against him. The president should be strong in areas where he will be expected to make important decisions.

But a little humility is warranted. And it's not always respected in the election. When Barack Obama was asked when he thought a human life began, he responded that it was above his pay grade. Now, as one who thinks that abortion is wrong, I can still respect that he is willing to say that his opinion does not decide the matter. At the very least, I saw Obama being willing to admit his limits, that the president does not decide these matters. (As a reminder, Roe v Wade was decided not upon when life began but on medical privacy - )

The fact is that a lack of humility has been present throughout both campaigns. McCain said that experience is of the utmost importance in the presidential campaign then selects a vice-presidential candidate with almost no experience and then has the audacity to call her experienced. Obama made the argument that he would bring change to Washington then selects an experienced Washington insider, coloring him as one who would shake up Washington.

The problem is bipartisan. But it's not a Washington problem. It's an American problem and a people problem. We've lost our faith in humility as a core value in being human. We excuse it in ourselves and idolize the narcissist, forgetting how tough it is to actually deal with people who are so self-absorbed. We present ourselves under the guise of a mask in order to keep people from knowing our flaws. And when we see someone else exposed, we pounce on the opportunity to strengthen our image by attacking their deficits, selfishly ignoring our own shortcomings.

We should learn to expect humanity from our leaders, from our fellows, and from ourselves. We should not kid ourselves and believe that we are better than others. We should expect occasional failure and admire those who are willing to admit it. I hope your friends look past your occasional poor decisions and I hope that you are willing to look past the occasional poor decisions of these presidential candidates. The real reason they have abandoned humility is because we have abandoned it. Let's remember how important it is by remembering how important it was to Jesus - the divine man who said that his creation was more important than he was and gave up his life to that end.

A Critique of Christian Apologetics

In high school I had a stage where I got very interested in apologetics. If you don't know what it is, Christian apologetics is making an argument for Christianity based on logic and reason. But I no longer get much comfort from most of the philosophical arguments that are made. Why? Here's a few reasons:
1) A great deal of apologetics is based on "straw-man" arguments. By straw man I mean that Christians will misrepresent the secular viewpoint as being simplistic and then will make easy work of demolishing "their" viewpoint.
2) Apologetics is often based on poor interpretations of science. I will limit my argument to evolution. Evolution does not mean that humans were created by chance. Evolution is a systematic law that makes sense. One can argue that it would take tremendous time to come together or that their would be roadblocks to evolution (like human consciousness) but that is based on solid science. Again, this is creating a straw man but it is particularly aggravating to me when science is portrayed as being irrational.
3) Arguments often rely on intuition and pathos. The one I hate is "I can't believe we evolved from monkeys." Like it or not, that doesn't influence it's truth.
4) Most importantly, apologetics look primarily at the God of creation but not at the God of Subsistence. Sure, we can argue for a first cause of the universe till the cows come home, but where is God in the world today? In a world where science seems to have an explanation for everything, where does God fit in? I want to know that God is present in my life and hears my prayers.

While I've found great comfort in a limited amount of apologetics, particularly reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ (particularly relevant considering the latest archaeological "findings"), I am in a place where I must rely in part on a non-rational faith. Instead of knowing the truth, I must live the truth. I do not know that God truly exists but I have chosen to live His life, accepting the truth as best I can, because the one thing I do know is that my life is better when I live it as he revealed it to us. I cherish that Paul commanded us to be "stewards of God's mysteries." (1 Corinthians 4:1)

ABC or FHL?

I was running today and I began to think of 1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." Suddenly I was also reminded me of the ABC's of CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

A = Affect (Emotions)
B = Behavior
C = Cognitions (Thoughts)

Perhaps the connection was a loose one but I thought about how there are similarities between the triads. Faith is rooted in belief so one could call it Cognition. Hope is related to emotions so I saw it as Affect. And love is an action so I thought of it as Behavior.

As I realized that my apparently brilliant connection was probably not as profound as I first hoped, I did realize that the two ways of thinking of life could illuminate one another. I believe that faith is a set of beliefs and therefore something that we have in our mind. But while "good" cognitions are often thought to be positive thoughts about yourself from a psychological perspective, the concept of faith reminds us that our belief is rooted in our relationship with God.

Now hope illustrates one principle that therapists are well aware of: you can't change mood directly. You can only change behavior or thoughts and that will in turn change mood. In the same way, hope is clearly emotion that is built upon a foundation of trust. But while psychology often focuses solely on positive emotions, hope illustrates that it is possible to suffer now with the expectation that our future will be bright. Hope does not demand a positive mood now.

Finally, I have always seen love as an active process. While there is an emotional component, love is primarily the act of sacrificing your wants for relationship with another person. But love, unlike behavior, must be done in a relationship. One indicator for depression is social isolation and thus the "behavior" is actually to put yourself into a love relationship. Thus the concept of love reminds us that the most valuable behaviors are those that place us in a relationship (i.e. going out with friends).

I believe that breaking down life into affect, behavior, and cognition is very useful. But it seems that we need a better model of living that actually points to how we should change. Faith, hope, and love are models of living that demonstrate our need for relationship with God, belief in redemption, and, most importantly, to find ourselves in a love relationship with others.