Some things bear repeating...some things don't

This year I participated with this project. Actually as I type this I have just recovered from the weekend of "shooting" a 5 1/2 minute film. I was asked by a group of people at work as well as some people I went to High School with and other folks that I know to join them in this for this year. They did it last year and had a lot of fun so I figured "why not."

The purpose of this competition is to show up someplace at a designated time where all participants receive a common a) Character name b) prop and c) catch phrase. Then each group basically draws out of a hat to see what genre of film they have to make. If you don't like what you drew you can opt for a "wildcard" which allows you to take a second pick of what's left. Once each group has received all of that, they then have 48 hours to write, shoot, edit, and produce their films and drop them off back at the main office. They are then reviewed and judged to see who wins. The winner of each city then competes regionally. The regional winners compete nationally, and the national winners then compete internationally.

We decided beforehand that we should be prepared for whatever genre that we may pick, so we had a couple meetings as a big group and came up with script ideas for each category that we could possibly end up picking. We had some good stuff. Then whoever came up with the best idea for each genre had to write up a mini script to present to the group director a few days before the project began. We all did so.

We had decided that if we ended up drawing Action/Adventure, Spy, or Western/Musical that we were going to opt for the wildcard. I had written up a script though that most of our group liked for the Spy genre. It was basically about a peeping tom neighbor who thinks that he sees one of his neighbors get murdered. Everybody liked it....

Well, to make a long story short we ended up getting Spy and the "director" of our group in conjunction with only one other person decided on the spot that we were not going to use what we had already drafted (against their own assurance to the group that they weren't going to do that again). So we ended up doing a "Zombie Spy Movie."

For whatever reason our leader wanted to make a stupid zombie movie out of whatever category we picked...and they wanted whatever we picked to also have a lot of comedy in it. Personally I have only seen one zombie movie that actually did comedy well Shaun of the Dead. We certainly could not do another one of those. Anywhoo...the majority of the group scoffed at the director's ideas and did not like them. So we ended up with more than 3/4 of the cast and crew, myself included, completely unhappy with what we were making. However, we had already committed to helping out with the understanding that this was "our" movie and not his. At least for me, that is what kept me there. I mean, right from the beginning arguments of our commencement meeting on Friday night when I heard someone say that this was so-and-so's movie...I was ready to leave because that is not what I was told from the beginning.

The movie was completed with plenty of time to get it back to the drop off point...but most of us felt like this- The film was put together well. It had a) good music that fit the scenes b) good editing that made it flow c) good makeup d) good editing with nice effects

But the story, which was the biggest part completely sucked. We gave a lot of thought to whether we would do this again next year or not. At least with the same full group of people.

I vote no. I vote for the drilling everyone involved to make sure that we're all on the same page from the beginning and if people aren't willing to stick to the plan then they're out.

The director is still my friend and I still like him and a lot of his ideas but on this one he failed.

Perhaps it was rather the rest of us who failed for letting it happen since we so greatly outnumbered him.

I am not ready to think about this yet...

But tonight it dawned on me as I was dancing with my 3 year old daughter that one day I am going to be dancing my last dance with her as my little girl. Then I will have to turn her over to the man that she will be marrying. I sure hope that doesn't happen for at least another 30 years.

Kids are too valuable for us parents to just sit and passively watch them grow up while we do our own thing. I am a busy guy and I have things that I want to do and accomplish...but God help me to never do those at the expense of my wife or kids.

Jesus and Godstuff

A comment from my last post reminded me of some thoughts that I had after the fact that I didn't touch on concerning Orthodoxy. Namely that of who Jesus is and what the Trinity is, and what my views are on them. I am not a teacher so in plain words here goes.

I do not believe that our modern explanation of the Trinity really does it justice since it is such a complex subject...but I suppose for the sake of simplicity I would put myself in the Trinitarian camp. I believe that there is only 1 God and that he has various expressions that are both separate and unified with himself. I will not get into whether or not I believe that they are all equal in authority or not because I simply do not think that there is sufficient proof from Scripture to difinitively say so. There are people from both sides of the argument who I feel do a very good job in representing their views and I respect the thought behind each of them. For the sake of this post though I will just state the angle that I see things from.

The Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit. They all co-exist in some fashion and seemingly interact with each other in a mystical way, yet each separately according to their own function.

I see the Father as the Architect, The Son as the Builder, and the Spirit as the mode of transport by which they each transact. And yet I see the Son and the Spirit as things that come from the Father and are both subject to Him. This is probably just another way of stating what is currently accepted as the orthodox view of the Trinity, though I'm sure that there could be arguments over semantics.

Who is the Son, Jesus? Is he God, or just the Son of God? By my method of induction and deduction based on the Scriptures, I believe that in some way he is God. I did, however hear a very good argument from someone on the side of Jesus only being the Son of God and not co-equal with the Father. Even though I have sided on claiming him to be God, I believe that the majority texts in Scripture, when put in their context, rather than being used as proof texts, are ambiguous on the issue because I don't believe that topic was deemed necessary at the time for apologetic attention. [The issue was not put into "official" declaration by the church as an orthodox belief until the 300's A.D.] But I know that there is disagreement on that issue. That is why I do not quarrel over it with Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons. What I do quarrel with them over is their incessant need to redirect matters back over to other insignifigant issues such as what God's real name is, or whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a Roman torture stick. Or the number of people who will actually be in the New Jerusalem and how many will be in the outer heavens. Those are the matters that bother me since they detract from the teachings of Christ as to what it means to be his disciple. But like them, I too believe that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion.

I do not believe that salvation comes as a result of someone praying the "Sinner's Prayer" or "Accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour" or "Asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins." I believe that these are concepts that are foreign to the Bible and are modern day inventions by man to try and make the road to salvation easier than it is.

In the Old Testament, God started out requiring the shedding of blood from animals as annual atonement for sin. Then as time goes on he says that he no longer delights in the blood of bulls and goats because the hearts of those offering sacrifices to him were corrupt. He said rather that he delighted in a broken heart, a contrite spirit and repentance over sacrifices. So I see that over time the mode of satisfying God's requirement was ammended by himself until he would forever justify men by the blood of his son. But that substitutionary atonement was applied automatically when repentance came.

I believe that salvation is an act of God that cannot be attained, it must be obtained by faith. However, I also believe that the Scriptures seem to imply that faith alone is not sufficient to save. Faith, if genuine, will be followed by works that are a response to God's salvation. However, in light of Christ's teaching of continual adherence to following God [taking care of the sick, visiting those in prison, tending to orphans and widows, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked] that if one chooses to abandon those practices in pursuit of a self-centered lifestyle, then there is no guarantee of their salvation...but that is not up to man's external ability to judge. That decision rests only in God's hands.

I also do not believe that salvation is dependant on one believing specific things about Christ. Jesus did not rebuke the blind man who said, "I don't know if he is a sinner or a prophet. All I know is that I was blind and now I see." I also do not believe that he rebuked Thomas for either good or bad when Thomas responded to his wounds by saying "My Lord and My God" because I believe that he [Thomas] was speaking to the Father when he said that. And since Jesus' mission was to represent the Father and bring the hearts of his people back to him, then he was pleased by Thomas' response. Jesus had varied responses for various people depending on their circumstances so it is not a fair biblical assumption that he expected a specific belief from whoever approched him.

So while I personally am persuaded that he is God, I do not believe that it is a necessary requirement for salvation.

Return To Orthodoxy

I've been asked to return to Christian Orthodoxy. What does that mean?

or·tho·dox Pronunciation Key (ôrth-dks)
adj.

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
3. Orthodox
   1. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
   2. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.

Maybe I am not orthodox. Maybe I am more orthodox than I think. I know that I'm not as orthodox as others would often like me to be. But who decides?

Here are some of the things that I believe in a very brief form.

I believe that there was some kind of "inspiration" behind the Bible, but I do not believe that God dictated every word or even told the authors of the writings what to say at the time that they were written. Or in more technical terms, I do not believe in Plenary Inspiration.

I also do not believe that the Bible in the form that we have it today is infallible. But hey, I don't believe that when the authors wrote their original letters that they had any idea that their letters would one day become part of a canon. They may have been infallible according to the circumstances of their 1st Century audience for the time, but when combined together to create the whole work, there is a bit of confusion in places.

If taken at face value, the Bible also contains facts and statements that when matched against what we now know makes certain parts of the Bible erroneous. But I figure that when the authors penned out what they did, they did not intend for that to happen. They were just communicating in the best ways that their audiences would probably understand.

The use of Poetic Narrative in the Old Testament was one of the most common ways of conveying "truths" without them being "facts." This method was later adopted by the Greco-Roman cultures and became what we now know as fables.

I don't believe that Genesis is a literal account of creation and the fall of man. Rather, I believe that it is a poetic narrative that attempts to explain the beginings of "things" but it's main focus is on the formation of the nation of Israel.

I don't believe that the Noah's flood was world-wide. I believe that it covered the "whole world" in the same way that Caesar Augustus decreed that "all the world" should be taxed near the time of Christ's birth. Caesar only had authority over his jurisdiction and not the entire world.

I do not believe that Job was a real person. I believe that it is the first of all accepted Old Testament books to be written and is another poetic narrative that was written to try and explain the purpose for human suffering in this life.

I do not believe that Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale before visiting Ninevah, but rather it was another poetic narrative, a fable, of spiritually what can happen to a man who disobeys the "call of God."

I believe that the Gospels were only intended to be used as "snapshots" of the life of Christ and were not intended to be used for determining doctrine. I believe that this is apparent in the way that Jesus is recorded as dealing only with the time and culture that he was living in. It is also apparent in the way that each author for each accepted Gospel wrote each book with a different purpose in mind for their audience.

I believe that the Epistles of the Apostles should be weighed against one another in matters of determining faith and practice as Paul had the majority portion of his books become accepted, yet there were many disputes between Him and the other Apostles who actually lived and walked with Christ concerning doctrine. There are also other letters that were written that were either lost or not accepted by the general councils who determined what is now considered to be the orthodox Canon of the Church.

I do not believe that these men who compiled the Canon were necessarily under divine influence, but rather used the best of their reason to assemble what they thought were the most consistent documents regarding the current accpted Chruch teaching.

I take the book of Revelation with a big grain of salt. Revelation was the most highly debated book to be accepted into the Christian Canon of Scripture and had many other writings more popular than itself that were not accepted by the councils.

I do believe that there is a heaven of some type, but since I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that Heaven is the ultimate reward for Christians, there is much lacking as far as sure fire biblical descriptions of what kind of place it will be, other than just metaphor.

I do believe in Hell, but not a literal, physical or eternal one. Through the study of Jewish history and literature I found that it made most sense in light of the recorded parables of Jesus to see hell and the eschatology of man outside of God to be annihilation. I believe that this also fits with historical Jewish teaching that had been greatly hijacked by Greek thought which caused it's evolution into what we now perceive as a place where people without Christ burn forever and ever.

I believe mostly though that the purpose of life for those who have followed after Christ is that of charity. Jesus spoke more about the importance of how one lives their life than what one believes. Though I do believe that one's beliefs will impact how they live, he spoke more of a faith which expresses itself in loving action than he did that of a cultish system of belief. In fact he criticized the systems of the Pharisees and said that they were in greater danger of destruction than he did of the common Gentile.

That is what I believe in short hand, and I know that there are many out there among Christianity who have many more disagreements with each other across denominational lines than in other religions. But thus far God has not seemingly stepped in via means that are clear to put the differences to rest and settle the issues. So to my beliefs I must adhere and live out, just as anyone else must strive for consistency between what they say they believe and how they live.

So am I Orthodox? Probably not according to the majority pole of mainline Christianity today, but it has and probably always will war within as to who is right and who is wrong within the walls of the Church.

Q & A

Sorry to do this Jimmy, but out of fear and respect to Paul I have deleted this post and the original that started it.

If you would like to correspond with me about similar issues, that are not in direct correlation to Paul Manata you may do so by emailing me @ cwhitehead@iowatelecom.net