Holiness

Catholics and Evangelicals alike agree on the call on Christians to live a holy life.  (See the 2005 statement by Evangelicals and Catholics Together, The Call to Holiness.)  However, I find, when I raise this topic with my Christian friends, they tend to view the terms holy, or holiness, negatively.  At least they are being honest.  They know they are sinners and so they do not feel holy, or, at least, they do not feel those terms should be applied to them.  They know God is holy; they believe, or at least hope, their priest or pastor is holy; they know others who might qualify as holy; but they feel uncomfortable if those terms are applied to them.  They often hold to no hope of becoming holy.

The New Testament seems to hold a different view.  It uses the word "saints" over 60 times, usually to refer to any believer who is "in Christ" -that is whom Christ dwells.  Some New Testament versions translate the Greek word hagios, as the holy ones.

Fra Angelico.
The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs
 (about 1423-24)

The New Testament writers did not employ a rose colored filter.  They knew well that all believers are sinners.  Yet they did not shy away from using the term saints (holy ones) broadly to apply to all believers.  Why?

St. Paul asserts, in his Epistle to the Romans that God applies the righteousness of Christ to us sinners through faith. In other words, though we deserve punishment, since Jesus Christ completely lived a holy life, and because He fully paid for our sins by His death at the Cross; when we fully place our faith in Christ as paying the price for our sins, God looks at us as though we lived as holy a life as Jesus did.  (Romans 3:21-31)

St. Paul goes on to clarify - this teaching does not mean we can simply sin all we want.  Instead, he asserts we are dead to sin, but alive in Christ.  (Romans 6:11)

No doubt, we all sin.  So John says if we claim to have no sin, we are not truthful.  (1 John 1:8 & 10)  Instead, he urges us to confess our sins.  (1 John 1:9)  John goes on to urge all of us to live a holy life.

St. Peter sums this up when he recalls what God says in the Old Testament, But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;  for it is written: Be holy, because I am holy. (1 Peter 1:15-16 - referencing passages in Leviticus)  Peter addresses this to all believers, not just to a select few.  He urges all of us to live a holy life.

Probably the best way to think about holiness is as a journey.  Isaiah refers to a highway called a way of holiness (Isiah 35:8).  As sinners, we embark on a journey where God, through His Holy Spirit, transforms us, step by step, into holiness.  Though we never quite arrive, we embarked on that journey and hopefully progress on that highway.  Though we may sin, we confess it, receive God's forgiveness, and continue on that journey.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

I watched the final part of The Hobbit film trilogy by Peter Jackson: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, released in 2014.  It covers the portion of The Hobbit book from when the dragon Smaug leaves the Lonely Mountain to attack Lake-town, to the end of the book.

Galadriel

In my favorite part of the movie, Galadriel (played by Cate Blanchett), accompanied
by Elrond and Saruman, rescues Gandalf, and battles with and defeats Sauron, along with the Nazgul (the Ring-wraiths), banishing them to the East.  She expends tremendous power in this effort, which explains why she seems somewhat diminished when we get to The Fellowship of the Rings.  However, Tolkien does not explain this in The Hobbit, where Gandalf mention he was detained on a mission longer than he expected without explanation.  Apparently Tolkien explained this in the appendices to The Fellowship of the Ring.  So I appreciated that Jackson included this aspect of the story in the film.

Smaug attacks Lake-town - Bard takes aim

I also liked the scenes where Smaug attacked Lake-town - brought down to his death by Bard the Bowman.

However, Jackson dragged out the battle scenes too long.  The battle does not take up much length in the book, and Jackson seemed to want to get every ounce he could out of the battle scenes, and then more.

Still I enjoyed the film, as well as the film trilogy, and recommend watching it.

The Hobbit (the book)

The Lewis Tolkien Friendship

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (film)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (film)

The Fellowship of the Ring (the book)

I just finished reading The Fellowship of the Ring.  J.R.R. Tolkien published it in 1954.  It formed the first volume of a trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.  I will write about the trilogy in another post, most likely when I have finished all three book.

As I will explain in more depth when I write about The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Rings follows the story of The Hobbit.  However, while Tolkien wrote that book (The Hobbit) around 1932, and finally had it published in 1937, it took almost 20 years for Tolkien to write the follow-up story.  I will explain this delay when I post about The Lord of the Rings.

The Fellowship of the Rings picks up on the story of Bilbo Baggins, the hero of The Hobbit, who celebrates his 111th birthday at the beginning of the story.  Weary of life, he decides to leave the Shire, his home, and leave everything he owns to his nephew, Frodo Baggins, including the magical ring in adventures Tolkien earlier wrote about in The Hobbit (or as revised in a second edition).

Frodo eventually finds out that he has accidentally received a ring of power, devised by a powerful dark lord, Sauron. As the story develops,he finds out that the only way he can deliver the world (middle earth),

from certain domination by Sauron, is to destroy the ring in the fires where it was forged, in Mount Doom.  He knobbly undertakes an adventure to Mount Doom in order to destroy the ring with the fellowship of a wizard (Gandalf), two men (Aragon and Boromir), three hobbits (Sam, Merry, and Pippin), a dwarf (Gimli), and and an elf (Legolas) - a company called the Fellowship of the Ring.  Their adventures follows through this book to the break-up of their Fellowship.

More importantly, the book allows Tolkien to work out several themes, often with Christian elements since he was a devout Catholic, such as

the corrupting influence of power, the inevitability of decline, and how myths tend to promote the gospel message.

In addition, Tokien fills The Fellowship of the Rings with songs and singing (often as poetry), emphasizes the rewards and dangers of the road, the importance of paying attention to prophecy, the importance of symbols such as the rings of power, the sword of Elendil (the sword which long ago almost killed the Dark Lord), and the Mirror of Galandriel which shows the future, explains the present, or recalls the past.

Anyway, Tolkien, a philologist who avidly studied the stories and legends of the past, drew the best from that tradition in order to enrichen our age.  I strongly encourage the study of this book as an avid way of understanding our age, as many do - who often read it on a regular basis.  (My doctor confessed on a recent visit that she has read it four times already.)

Tolkien, along with his good friend, C.S. Lewis, believed that good storytelling was the best way to introduce a general audience to the good news of the gospel.  They worked vigorously in this endeavor.

If you haven't read The Fellowship of the Ring, I strongly urge you to read this book.

The Two Towers

The Hobbit (the book)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film)

The Lewis Tolkien Friendship

Theology

Many friends of mine disdain any talk of theology.  Yet they quickly share thoughts about God, Jesus Christ, the Church, or at least, spirituality - all which involves, or at least touches upon issues of, theology.

Yet, since its origins, the Church, then composed of early Christians, discussed and developed theology.  In one sense, any talk about God, Jesus Christ, etc., usually involves theological issues.  It might not involve what might be called formal theology - like what you might find taught at a seminary - but it still involves what some might call an informal, or practical, theology (some might call it an undisciplined theology).

Catechism

On a simple level, theology involves the study of God.  So early on, the Church saw the preparation of candidates for baptism as involving theology, which it called catechism, based on a Greek word which means to teach orally (though many catechisms are now written down in the form of questions and answers).  These truths often developed into the sermons and homilies of the early church.

All orthodox Christian traditions agree Holy Scriptures provides the supreme authority for all Christian teachings, while tradition often, or usually, provides the means for interpretive understanding of Scripture - the two work hand in hand. However, all agree Scripture does not set forth teaching in any sort of systematic manner.  Instead, Scripture usually sets revealed truth within the context of the historical, or of prophecy, or of poetry, or of allegorical story-telling, or of parables, or of letter-writing in a non-systematic manner.  Thus, one of the important role of Christian theology involves taking the revealed teachings of Scripture, and then organizing it in a systematic manner of stating revealed truths.  As such, it stands as the organizer of Christian thought.

We best understand the role of theology as a good attempt to get as close to the thoughts of God as possible.  Another way we can understand it involves the hidden structure of Christianity.  Much as we cannot see the hidden structure of the steel beams of skyscraper, we often might not see the hidden theological structure which supports the faith that provides our spiritual life.

In another analogy, theology often provides the backstory of our faith and beliefs, much as Tolkein wrote an extensive backstory in the Silmarillion, starting long before he wrote The Hobbit, or The Lord Of The Ring trilogy, or like George Lucas wrote a back story to the Star Wars story.  The backstory provides the structure and form for the story we so much enjoy.  If we remove that structure and form, much like the building falls apart, so does the story falls apart, and so does our Christian beliefs fall apart.  We then become vulnerable to many beliefs, including non-Christian beliefs. Historically, bad theological beliefs leads to false beliefs and eventually a false Christian faith.

In general, I encourage study of solid Christian theology - it provides structure and backbone to our beliefs.

Perelandra

I finished reading Perelandra by C.S. Lewis, which he completed in 1943, as the second book in his Space Trilogy.  I previously posted on his first book in that trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet.

In this book, Lewis gets to explore the question - what would have happened if Eve had not given in to the temptation posed by Satan in the Garden of Eden?  In the story, the planet Perelandra (Venus) stands as a newly created planet by Maleldil (Jesus Christ - the Creator as the second person of the Trinity), who placed a woman (Tinindril - the Queen) and a man (Tor - the King) there in a fantastical Garden of Eden setting, where they are naked without shame.  None of it has yet been spoiled by the Fall.

Archon (Satan) comes as a man from earth, Weston, to tempt Tinindril.  We saw Weston before in Out of the Silent Planet, where, as an atheist, he sought to conquer Malacandra (Mars), but failed.  In the meantime, he converted to a spiritualist dedicated to the "Life Force"), and later shows signs of demon possession or control.

Water largely covers Perelandra, with many islands which float on the waters and undulate with the waves.

Perelandrian Island

 It contains one large fixed land, but though Tinindril and Tor visit it by day, Maleldil forbids their staying overnight and sleeping on the fixed land.  Weston sets out to convince Tinidril (Eve's counter-part) to disobey this command and to stay overnight and sleep there.

The Oyarsa (the angelic protector) of Perelandra, acting in concert with the Oyarsa of Malacandra (Mars) to summon and transport Elwin Ransom, the protaganist in Out of the Silent Planet, to help Tinidril resist the temptation by Weston, though he does not know this at first.  It proves a challenge as Weston is very clever - the Queen is very innocent - and Ransom often finds it difficult to explain evil to someone unfamiliar with it.

Eventually, Ransom succeeds, but you will have to read the book to find out how.  However, it involves a long, drawn out fight, with the future of Perelandra hanging in the balance.  Eventually, Ransom gets to see how a planet turns out when sin is rejected.  It also explores themes about the nature of God, the nature of mankind, the nature of good and evil, the sovereignty of God and free-will, among others, in a story setting instead of a theological setting.

Lewis, a medieval scholar, also incorporates much of the medieval cosmology in creating an imaginative setting for his story.

I will go on to read the last story in the Space Trilogy, That Hideous Strength.

Out of the Silent Planet

That Hideous Strength

The Lewis Tolkien Friendship

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

I watched The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (released in 2013).  I recommend watching it as a good film.

(For those who read the book and also watched the movie, and might be disturbed that the film differed from the book, I refer you to my general comments on the film trilogy.)

I loved the part where Bilbo (played brilliantly by Martin Freeman) interacts with Smaug the Dragon (played in a CGI depiction by Benedict Cumberbatch, who also provided the voice) in the dwarf mines under the mountain.  I also loved the depictions of so many scenes from the book, including Lake-town, the realm of the Wood-Elves, the mines of Erobar (under the Lonely Mountains), and many other scenes which often displayed the wonder of the New Zealand landscape.

However, as I mentioned in my last post on the first film of this trilogy, the pacing at times seems to drag in this 2 and a half hour film.  So, for example, while I enjoyed some of the following scenes, I also felt they tended to drag on for too long, including: the fight of the dwarves against Smaug, the amount of time spent in Lake-town by all too many - the company of dwarves, the orcs, as well as the elves, and, the amount of time spent in the realm of the Wood-Elves.  I did not feel the same about the amount of time the film spent at Gol Dugur, since, though this portion did not appear in the original book, it did supply back-story based on other works by Tolkein.

Therefore, I recommend this film with some hesitation.  It did well at the box office.  It garnered 3 Academy Award nominations with no awards, though it won other awards.

In the end, I applaud anyone who attempts to bring an epic book of this proportion to the screen.  I only wish they were not as concerned about turning it into a prequel for something filmed more that 10 years ago.

The Hobbit (the book)
The Hobbit (the film trilogy)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
The Lewis Tolkien Friendship

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I watched "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," part 1 of a film trilogy by Peter Jackson, released in 2012, based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Hobbit."

I rate this film overall as a good film worth watching.

I enjoyed the acting by Morgan Freeman, who played the main character, Bilbo Baggins in a thoughtful manner, and subtly when called for.  A host of actors joined in recreating roles they played earlier when Peter Jackson filmed the follow-up story, "The Lord of the Rings, in a previous film trilogy.  They included Ian McKellan (as Gandalf the Grey),  Andy Serkis (as Gollum), Kate Blanchett (as Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (as Elrond), Christopher Lee (as Saruman the White), Ian Holmes (as Old Bilbo Baggins), and Elijah Wood (as Frodo Baggins).  Having played these parts in three previous films, these actors honed their roles, and deliver wonderful performances.

The riddle game b/w Bilbo & Gollum

I most enjoyed the scene where Bilbo meets Gollum in a cave, and engages in game of riddle, which follows the book closely at this point.  They agree that if Bilbo wins, Gollum will show him the way out of the cave, but if Gollum wins, Bilbo will allow Gollum to eat him - a high stakes game.  Both Morgan Freeman, and especially, Andy Serekis (portraying Gollum in a CGI performance) deliver an outstanding portrayal of this scene.

However, I thought the film dragged at some points, which seemed a bit odd.  When Peter Jackson filmed the first film, "The Fellowship of the Ring," in "The Lord of the Ring" trilogy, over a decade ago, the film had great pacing.  In this first part of "The Hobbit" film trilogy, the pacing seemed off.  Great filmmakers have a good sense of pacing for a film.  It's somewhat disappointing to see a filmmaker who had a great sense of pacing begin to lose some of it over the years.  For example, the scenes at Bilbos' home with the dwarves seems to go too long.  The same goes for the scene with the battle of the stone giants in the Misty Mountains, as well as some other scenes.

It's telling that while the "Fellowship of the Ring garnered 13 Academy Award nominations, winning 4 Academy Awards, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey garnered 3 Academy Award nominations, with none winning an Academy Award.

Yet, overall, I enjoyed the film, and highly recommend it.

If you are interested in differences between the book and the film, see my post, The Hobbit (the films).
If you are interested in my review of the book, see my post, The Hobbit (the book).
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Islam

Islam represents the 2nd largest religion in the world - with around 1.6 billion adherents worldwide (roughly 23% of the world's population), though many only follow a loose folk type version.  To many outsiders, they associate Islam with a radical Muslim version of it, though this represents a minority view.  Though many think of Muslims as living in the Middle East, only around 20% do so.  The rest largely live in Southern Asia or Africa.

In a religious context, the word Islam roughly means voluntary submission to God. Its monotheism roughly reflects both the Jewish and Christian faiths, though it holds a distinctive view.

Given the events since September 11, 2001, many tend to think of Islam as representing an open warfare against the West, against America, and especially against Christianity, as well as against the Jews.  I want to address these issues by answering some basic questions about this religion, using a format set forth by James Sire in the latest version of his book, "The Universe Next Door: A Worldview Catalog."

1. What do Muslims consider prime reality - the really real?  For Muslims, Allah (the Arabic word for God) represents the prime reality.  Allah is far above everything else, as well above any other views about God.  For most Muslims, Allah remains a distant figure.  They tend to be offended by any concept of having a close relationship with God (and especially calling God the Father - Abba - an Aramaic term for Father similar to Daddy) as repugnant which they usually reject as degrading God (a notable exception are Sufis, who call God a friend)
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
   For Muslims, God created the world out of nothing (which Jews and Christians agree with).  But for most Muslims, it's unclear if humans have free will, or are simply subject to the divine decrees of God.  In contrast, most Christian traditions emphasize the free will of mankind (though to varying degrees).
3. What is a human being?
   For Muslims, human beings stand as the pinnacle of God's creation, above the angels.  Thus, they must submit to God.  Muslims have no conception of original sin.  Instead, they believe all humans are born in a state of purity and innocence.  They only need redemption if they specifically disobey God's law (as set forth in the Quran and the Hadiths).
4. What happens to a person at death?
   For Muslims, everyone will be judged by their deeds.  They have no conception of God's grace - God might be merciful, but they have no guarantee of this, even for Muslims who receive commendations died very worried if they would reach paradise.  Three exceptions exist: (1) Children before puberty; (2) the mentally impaired; and (3) martyrs, including those engaged in a holy jihad.  Radical Muslims interpret the Quaran and Hadiths to mean those who kill Christians and Jews meet this exception.  (Most Muslims do not.)
5. How is it possible to know anything?
   Most Muslims believe rationality can distinguish truth from error, though they assert rationality needs help from revelation.  They believe humans have distorted the revelations God (Allah) delivered through many prophets, including Jesus.  For Muslims, Mohammed is the seal of the prophets, so the Quran is preserved free from error.  Those who do not recognize the truth of the Quran do so because God prevents them from doing so.
6. How do we know what is right from wrong?
   For Muslims, we can only know right from wrong from the Quran.  However, since the Quran can be ambiguous, we also should look to the Hadiths (a collection of actions and sayings of Mohammed).  However, many Hadiths exist, and Muslims do not agree which ones should be followed.  Therefore, while Muslims agree they must follow Sharia (the religious law), they adhere to different Sharias since they tend to follow various Hadiths.  They also acknowledge Christians and Jews follow their own sharia.  (But for radical Muslims, their interpretation of the Qumran and the Hadiths they follow means the eradication of Christians and Jews.)
7. What is the meaning of human history?
   For Muslims, human history is like a long final exam - we have to get it right to be accepted by Allah.  Part of this goal is to set up an Islamic community (an umma), a political community as well as a community of believers.  Most Muslims believe this can be achieved by peaceful means, though radical Muslims believe this can only be achieved through violent force.
8. What personal life-orientating core commitments are consistent with this worldview?
   Devout Muslims strive to follow the divine law, as they best understand it, for even the smallest parts of their lives.  While they do this out of gratitude, this gratitude does not derive from sins forgiven, or out of any notion of a close, personal relationship with God.

      The close personal relationship we as Christians believe we can have with Jesus Christ, with God the Son, through grace, likely presents a tension for Muslim believers, who tend to view their relationship with God as distant.  As Christians, we have a challenge to present the gospel to our Muslim friends in a manner they can grasp and understand.  It helps if we understand their worldview to begin with.

The Hobbit (the film trilogy)

Peter Jackson directed a film project to turn the book, The Hobbit, into a film.  (He also co-wrote and co-produced it.)  However, instead of one film, he turned it into 3 films:
1. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
2. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and
3. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Many criticize Jackson for turning a relatively simple children's fairy tale into a monstrosity of 3 films.  In addition, many also criticize any deviations he made from a story they love.

However, films always deviate from book derivations.  So filmmakers call them film adaptations - they adapt the book to the medium of film, which has different demands and calls for artistic interpretation when adapted.  Faithful readers of the book almost always complain about deviations from the text of the book, especially beloved all-time best selling books.

Next, The Hobbit appears as a simple children's fairy tale (or fantasy), but it has a much more rich depth to it.  Tolkien began writing the back story for it, The Silmarillion, in 1914, in a grand plan to write a background mythology for England.  The Hobbit was a small part of that great story, which wasn't published till after Tolkien's death in 1973.  (His son finally published it in 1977.)  Many who read The Hobbit have not read The Silmarillion.  Jackson incorporated aspects of The Silmarillion into the films.

Also, years after The Hobbit, Tolkien wrote the follow-up book, The Lord of the Rings, which became so long, he divided it into three books.  Originally, Tolkien wanted to finish The Silmarillion as the follow-up book, but his publisher insisted on more about hobbits.  Tolkien incorporated much of The Silmarillion into The Lord of the Rings.  In addition, he added lengthy appendices to the last book of the The Lord of the Rings, which helps to explain why it took over a decade between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins

Jackson (and his team) wanted to incorporate this great story background into the much smaller story of The Hobbit.  I applaud this attempt, which was largely successful.

However, since Jackson previously directed the three films which follow the three books of The Lord of the Rings, he also wanted to use The Hobbit films as a sort of prequel to those films.  I think he made a mistake by taking this effort further than he needed to in order to set it up as a good prequel.

You can follow the links above to see my thoughts on each of the films of The Hobbit.

The Lewis-Tolkien Friendship

The Hobbit (book)

In a way, John Ronald Reul (J.R.R.) Tolkien began writing The Hobbit, or There and Back Again in 1914, when he began writing stories which eventually became The Silmarillon (published by his son in 1977, following Tolkien's death in 1973).  Tolkien, who had a keen interest in mythology, originally wanted to develop a mythology to help explain the origins of English history and culture.  In these stories, Tolkien created an entire mythological world, which included Middle Earth (the world humans inhabited).

Specifically, Tolkien began writing The Hobbit in the early 1930s when he suddenly felt inspired to write on a blank piece of paper, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."  However, the fictional hobbit had an entire mythological universe to live within because of the stories Tolkien had already been writing for years.  Tolkien completed writing it in 1932, but only distributed it to friends, so it took until 1937 for a friend to get a copy to a publisher, who published it to great critical and public acclaim.

In addition, as I wrote about in a previous post, Tolkien met C. S. Lewis in 1926, and they embarked on a mission to revive fairy tales as a serious literary device.  The Hobbit represented the first effort along these lines essentially as a children's fairy tale.

Tolkien, an excellent scholar of English philology (the study of language), especially of Germanic and Nordic origins, borrowed from much Germanic and Nordic mythology in constructing his mythology reflected in The Silmarillon and The Hobbit.   So, for example, the hero, Bilbo Baggins, eventually confronts a dragon, Beowulf scholarly, much as the hero Beowulf does in the old epic English poem.  (Tolkien was a well-known Beowulf scholar.)  However, while the Beowulf hero portrays a large, muscular, and powerful superhero, subject to moral flaws, who seeks glory in conquest, Bilbo Baggins portrays a small weak figure, though courageous, who prefers his comfortable home to adventure, prefers harmony to riches, and who takes up adventure to help others, rather than for self promotion, though he grows as a character by undertaking adventure.  Thus while Tolkien borrows from Germanic and Nordic myths, he infuses them with a different morality and ethical basis informed by his Catholic upbringing, which reanimates them.  (In fact, Tolkien gave a groundbreaking lecture on Beowulf around 1936 which changed the whole view on this.)

I highly recommend reading The Hobbit, which you will enjoy.

You may want to read my post about the film trilogy by Peter Jackson, based upon this book, "The Hobbit (the films)."

The Lewis-Tolkien Friendship