« Previous Entry | Main Page | Next Entry »
February 17, 2007
Grandfather Q&A: Part Six
[Following all the reader questions, I asked two follow-ups. I thought the answers worth sharing - LYT]
1. When it comes to prayer, do you think people can change God's mind about something? Doesn't He have better information and instincts about how to conduct whatever divine plan there is than any mortal? (I know the phraseology of this question is quite literalistic - interpret it as loosely as befits your conception)
2. You say that Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ seems sadomasochistic. Considering that one of the Christian church's central rituals involves the metaphorical drinking of blood and eating of flesh, and most churches contain an image of a bleeding man with nails brutally jammed into his body, as well as language about how his blood is essential to our own redemption, and his painful death necessary to save us...is it not fair to say that sadomasochism is somewhat inherent to the tradition, and Gibson may only be reflecting that?
1. I personally don't think we ought to try to change God's mind but have to admit that both the Bible and the majority of Christians disagree with me. My main concern is change happening to myself and to those I pray for. On the other hand I do pray for peace and even occasionally for rain or fine weather. I think this is because it seems natural to ask for what you desire even if you know the weather won't change in the least because of our desires and that the coming of peace depends on human effort more than on anything God might do. It just seems natural to share one's desires with one's friends; so why not with God?
I spend a lot of my prayer time in contemplative intercession, by which I mean that I first take one of the biblical sayings attributed to God or to Jesus, such as "My peace I give to you." I repeat it many times seeking to be deeply aware of God and then address the people for whom I wish to pray, one at a time as from my Lord; the idea being that I am in fact sending peace to each person from God. It could of course be love, compassion or any other good thing, just as long as the words I use are ones attributed to God or to Jesus.
Of course I can't prove this or any other type of intercession does any good; but it feels good to me and is not a request to God to change his mind but rather to fulfill his own purposes for us.
2. You have a very good point here and I think it's quite true that sadomasochism plays a big part in the thinking of many Christians. Of course the hope is that the unacknowledged sexual connotations are just non-existent as of course they are unconscious. "In the cross of Christ I glory." is a typical passiontide hymn and it's based on the teachings of S.Paul. There are also many Christians who harp on the theme of being washed in the blood of Jesus, an idea which has sound biblical roots but which I personally object to precisely because it is so liable to be misunderstood.
The theory behind all this however is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. It is that God, far from being the impassible being way above all suffering, did indeed suffer in the person of Jesus and does continue to suffer with and in us human beings to-day. It is undoubtedly true that the Church has from time to time rejoiced not only in the sufferings of Christ but also in the infliction of torture or even death on "heretics" as well as deliberately courting martyrdom, like the modern Islamic suicide bombers.
These of course are just my personal opinions. I claim no certain knowledge but hope what I say may be helpful.
-- Peter Graham.
Posted by LYT at February 17, 2007 1:44 PM [Message Board]
Comments
and most churches contain an image of a bleeding man with nails brutally jammed into his body,
Not `round here as much. I s'pose Catholic churches do. I've actually understood it as a point of difference that Protestant churches have an empty cross, showing Jesus rose, whilst Catholic churches have a crucifix proper to show his suffering.
I actually just heard a sermon on the symbology of the (empty) cross this Sunday. So, funny timing.
I do agree that, though the blood n guts of it can get a little weird (and you wonder where people are going with it), I also think the original and important point is to emphasize the idea of God has empathy with us and has suffered like we have (we in a somewhat more royal sense here--no painful death for me yet, though then again I s'pose I do have that whole chronic pain thign).
Also, the blood and communion concept are heavily steeped in the Jewish tradition at the time, e.g. blood replacing Levitical sacrifices and communion replacing Passover, so I think they're a bit more, er, earthy(?) as a result of that.
But, though they can seem a bit weird, they reflect some potent concepts of sacred meals and blood and such things that probably go back as far as the concept of sacredness does. So I don't know if you'd ever really be rid of it, or if they fulfill important parts of the whole experience anyway.
Blah blah blah, my second comment today that would've made a better blog post. le sigh.
Posted by: David N. Scott at February 19, 2007 12:28 PM
I'm taking into account things like stained glass windows. Many Anglican churches have some form of crucifixion image.
But the empty cross thing seems odd, considering that nobody claims he vanished from the cross itself. In fact, the whole point was that despite being a figure of power, he didn't.
Regardless, the cross is a Roman torture device, empty or otherwise. But my point was to defend Mel Gibson's movie as not wholly aberrant.
Posted by: LYT at February 19, 2007 12:33 PM
Aren't too many stained glass windows around the local churches, neitha.
True, but remember though it can easily be forgotten these days the Protestant concept was originally pretty scrappy about everything. I would imagine the empty cross was intentionally a step away from the crucifix.
Well, Mel's Catholic, which is of course filled with such imagery. I was mostly just being nit picky about using 'Christian' for Catholic and Anglican anwyay. And I did just hear a sermon on it yesterday. Sniff.
Posted by: David N. Scott at February 19, 2007 1:35 PM