Pastor promises judgment on Rick Warren, calls for imprecatory prayer

Apparently there is a crazy pastor in California named Wiley Drake. In this article is a story about how he has publicly condemned pastor Rick Warren for his participation in the upcoming inaugural oath of Barak Obama.

This is odd considering that 1) Obama's profession of Christian faith is far more credible than John McCain's ever was 2) Rick Warren is not necessarily endorsing Obama by participating in his oath, but how better to smooth the start of this presidency? what better signal could Obama give to evangelicals than to ask a popular evangelical pastor to swear him in?

And in this article, Mr. Wiley calls for Christians to engage in imprecatory prayer toward the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. [an imprecatory prayer is one that pleads for God to punish one's enemies.]

So let's see. He's against Americans United, because they want to keep separate church and state, but he does not approve of Rick Warren participating in the inaugural oath. Hm. Contradiction?

Most Americans think the separation of church and state is a good thing, including most Christians. You may not like everything that the Americans United group stands for, but calling for Christians to engage in imprecatory prayer is to reject the teachings of Jesus, who told his followers to love their enemies, pray FOR those who persecute them, bless those who curse them.

Jesus and Heracles

Why pee in everyone's cereal? Nobody cares if there was another virgin birth in history, and would frankly just rather not know about it. Why take Jesus a step down by making the virgin birth of Christ not unique?

The reason is because you care about truth, and though some traditional notions of the faith give you a certain secure feeling, you will reluctantly toss them aside to gain a truer perspective.

In those earlier blogs about heroes, I mentioned that many of the hero myths have the hero born through the union of a royal virgin and a deity - as in Heracles. In the myth of Heracles, he was the child of Zeus by Alcmene, a human mother.

The miraculous conception was universally understood to signify in the ancient world that a hero was being born. Having attributes of both god and man, he would be able to perform heroic feats. He would have special strength and save the needy from attacking monsters. He would enjoy the favor and blessing of Zeus all his life.

The same is true of Gilgamesh, slayer of Humbaba. A divine birth story even developed around Alexander the Great.

By having Jesus born of a virgin, God was signaling to the entire world that the child would be a hero in the classical sense. God borrowed a literary device from the culture of the day. He communicated much simply by using this familiar form.

The conception of Jesus has the same "bedroom" glimpse that the other hero stories have: the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you; the Most High will overshadow you..." Luke 1:35. This is imagery of sex in case you missed it.

This opens the door to seeing Jesus is a whole new literary light using the well-known literary forms of the ancient world. Many other details were also common narrative tools: signs in the heavens, ancient prophecies about his way of life, his defeat of the "dragon", his blessings by God, his ability to heal, his hidden kingship.

Many ancient stories include these common traits. Lord of the Rings is a modern one, but there are others: King Arthur and St. George are two.

One of the most exciting aspects is what it tells us about God, his condescension to man, his pleasure in using human forms of communication, his affirmation of narrative. It shows that he is not opposed to using mythical, pagan stories - he takes them and uses them to his own purpose.

He did this before with circumcision - this practices was going on in other pagan cultures before Abraham. God took it and vested it with new meaning - a familiar practice to Abraham, which explains why Abraham was not horrified, rather he knew just what God was talking about when he said "circumcise your son."

Two Virgin Births

I got in trouble about 3 years ago with the school Board. I was teaching the freshman Bible class. I told the students that Isaiah 7-11 describes another virgin birth, one that happened in Isaiah's time about 750 BC. This was the prototype, a prophecy that would have a greater fulfillment in Jesus' birth, but a virgin birth nonetheless.

They were scandalized. None of them pursued it with me. No parents called me. Not a sound until I heard from the Headmaster that the Board was getting inquiries about me.

I wasn't making it up. I got it from Dr. C. John Collins when I was a student at Covenant Seminary. Israel was being attacked by Arameans. In Isaiah 7, the prophet is giving the king encouragement. He promises a sign, a visible proof that God will protect them from the Arameans. "The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel...but before the boy knows right from wrong the Arameans will be laid waste."

See, in order for it to be a meaningful sign to the king, it would have to be demonstrable. Isaiah couldn't tell the king, "Here's your sign! In 750 years a virgin shall give birth!" What kind of encouragement is that?

In Chapter 8, the boy is born to a "prophetess", and the promise is repeated. "Before the child knows how to say 'mama' or 'daddy' the Arameans will be crushed by Assyria.

So Jesus was not the first child born of a virgin. But that is not a problem theologically. It just possibly disturbs a cherished belief. It was important for Jesus to be born of a virgin so that the sinful nature of Adam would not be passed on to him (commonly understood to be transferred by the father). But it is not necessary that he be the one and only ever virgin-born person.

The Board and Headmaster told me to lay off smashing icons, and some grumbled that I was playing with theological fire. I was just teaching students how to interpret the Bible.

Writing

Writing. It is easier when I am sick. Words come easier when I am deformed and bloody. When I scrape and hobble sideways under a bleak sky. When I am a castaway and have that panicky feeling as the brine splashes around my chin. When the smiles and perfunctory "Good Morning"s of thin, energetic, wealthy people are rather perceived by me as a daily moment where all my clothes are instantly removed and I must respond in kind in order to have them returned. When I fear the earth is not a safe environment for man, the planet is not habitable, and I am trapped here away from my natural habitat like a fish in a swimming pool, breathing in chlorinated water through my gills that burns as it passes through. This is one of those days.

Heroes then and now

I wrote a couple of days ago about the new superhero Hancock. Here are more of my thoughts and researches about heroes.

Before "superheroes" were invented in the 20th century, heroes were demi-gods or mythical political figures such as Osiris, Buddha, Heracles, Odysseus, King Oedipus, Gilgamesh, Sigurd and many others from cultures I'm less familiar with.

The ancient heroes were different that superheroes in dramatic ways. In 1936, a British thinker named Lord Ragland developed a list of criteria for hero-myths from all cultures.

• His conception is the result of union between a god and a royal virgin
• Because of certain prophecies, an attempt is made on his life at birth, and he is spirited away to be raised by foster parents in a far country
• He is victorious over a king, giant, wild beast or dragon
• He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor
• He becomes king himself and reigns uneventfully for a while
• Prescribes new laws
• He looses favor with his subjects and is driven out of the city to be killed under mysterious circumstances, often on top of a hill
• He leaves no successors and his body is not buried

Superheroes have different criteria (this is my own construction). Super-villains have some of these same characteristics, except that they are villians.

• They are usually earthlings (Superman is the notable exception)
• They become heroes either by a science experiment gone wrong or through their own mechanical ingenuity and physical strength
• They have a secret identity which, if discovered, would ruin them
• They have a secret love that can never be fulfilled or enjoyed, but they often have to rescue her.She also is vague about his true identity
• Good always triumphs over evil, usually at great cost to the hero
• The hero is often misunderstood by the shallow public but has the fortitude to “go it alone” and protect them in spite of their hatred

In the last 30 years or so, superheroes have evolved a bit at the hand of new writers. Most of the old characteristics are the same, but in order to accommodate a new deep cultural cynicism, they are more screwed up:

• Modern superheroes sometimes fight each other
• They can die
• They are increasingly tormented inside and frequently melancholy
• They give in to their dark sides, at least for a while, and become evil
• They give up on the public and let them suffer for it

If you know of others, on any list, let me know. If I agree with you, I’ll add it and have a more complete list.

Cats and pre-adolescent girls

I had a kitten on my last post. Mere co-incidence.

At the end of my hard, tired day, I walked in the door. My daughter (12) said, "daddy!" as she frequently does, and came toward the door. She was toting our big expressionless gray cat over her shoulder.

As she was passing my older son, who was sitting at the computer, she said, "Dad! Today, I..." But she saw him opening email, and there was a series of those pictures. You've seen them - pictures of cats with big, white, uber-yuckity captions, captions like "Dont mess with me!" and some quirky feline caught in an odd pose.

She didn't finish her sentence, ever. I waited, nonchalantly browsing the refrigerator, curious what she had to say, but too tired and, well I want my kids to delight in telling me about their day. I dont want to be one of those parents, following them around, begging for details about who their friends are or how the science quiz went.

By the end of the email, I had given up and was heading back to the bedroom to change. She saw me.

"Oh! Um...!" She was back on track. But, on the TV, which was on, which is usually NOT on when I get home, because we are not a TV family, in fact we watch almost no TV at all, well, the TV was on.

On the TV screen was...ahem...a news story about orphaned kittens, and she again did not finish her sentence. She hadn't even started it. All the while, she was carrying around our limp, annoyed, poker-faced gray cat.

Definition: heaven; n. (hev-uhn)

Who was it that said that part of the experience of heaven would be being fully awake, awake like the big bang, preternaturally alert, perceptive like Spiderman, engaged, creative, brimming with insight, perpetually refreshed?

blog languishes when i am tired.

Human being

When our heros are screwed up like us, or worse

Last night in a fit of decadence, I watched two movies. The first was Hancock. I am about to spoil the movie, so if you haven't seen it you may want to stop.

Hancock and the character played by Charlize Theron are gods created 3000 years ago. Gods were made in pairs back then, and loose their powers when they are together. Something about their soul-mate-ness makes them mortal when they are living in the heavenly marriage that was intended for them. When separate, they have virtually infinite power.

When we first meet Hancock he is a drunk. He catches bad guys, but causes millions of dollars worth of damage in the process. And he doesn't care. He threatens criminals with a sweet, on-the-brink, kick-ass attitude. And his omnipotence adds real weight to his annoyed, bullying intimidation. The mortals, men women and children, call him an 'asshole' because his heroic acts are more than undone by his destruction of Los Angeles property. He tears holes in the the streets with his take-offs and landings. He actually harms lots of innocent bystanders by apprehending bad guys.

Hancock doesn't really know who he is or where he came from. He is not noble, does not care for anyone else. He flies like a marionette-you can almost see the strings. He's just a bum with super powers. And he's kicking bad-guy-ass because they are too big for their britches.

This says something about "heroism" in the 21st century: heroes are taking a step down in the esteem of us ordinary people. Whether this is because of two generations of self-esteem based schools or advertising that tells us repeatedly the rewards we "deserve" or simply because we cant bear to have someone better than us, I cannot say.

Hancock is not the first super hero to be re-imagined in "our own image." Spiderman got a dark side in part 3. Superman was killed a few years ago by Batman in the Marvel comic series. The Incredibles taught us, while affirming the goodness of being awesome (if everyone is a super, then no one is), that even super-families have fights, extra-marital flirtations, adolescent outbursts, disobedient children and husband-wife deception.

I believe the human psyche wants heroes - we want them to inspire us, but not too much. We want to believe that they are really not that much better than us. We want to believe that we are the heroes.

Pericles spoke of the man who "suspects exaggeration if he hears anything above his own nature. For men can endure to hear others praised only so long as they can persuade themselves of their own ability to equal the actions recounted."

By constantly reducing heroes to our level, we make true greatness less plausible and elevate ourselves.

What if there was a real good hero, what would we do to him?

So much to say

I am late coming to many experiences, experiences that you probably have already had, and I in my frumpish, dilatory way, like Eor, happen on to them. Today, I see that all worthwhile blog titles have been taken. And to make things worse, all the ones I wanted were taken by squatters.

For example, I wanted "Vale of Tears" on blogspot.com, but if you look you will see that somebody has it. It contains no blogs, no photos, just a self-referencing "home" button, and a tiresome quote about mortality. I want Vale of Tears because it is the title of my current writing project: a book I hope to publish one day. What to do.

Another I considered was "Earl Grey". Taken. "Earl Grey and Me". Not only taken, but taken by a Spanish-speaking squatter who hasn't posted anything since Oct 2007. And erotic. I thought about "Me and Earl Grey", but its too easy to see "Meandear Lgrey".

So, I see, greater originality is required. Earl Grey or Early Times - that's my title. Both sipping drinks. Indicative of a mood. Some days I'll post nice "tea time" comments. But usually I will be posting "Early Times" comments - posts that really go better with a glass of whiskey. To those without any kind of beverage, read no further.