Marriage Is Hard; A Response to Mrs. Kali

Posted by Samuel J. Keithley On 11:33 AM 0 comments
One day my wife sent me an article to read and she wanted to know what I thought. I read the article and was immediately frustrated but then chuckled it into an after-thought as I sent my thoughts to my wife and went on with my day. "Surely," I thought to myself, "not many will take this seriously." 

Well, boy, was I wrong.

I started seeing the article pop up in my own social media feeds. To make matters worse, people were praising the article for the truth and wisdom it held.  Honestly I was perplexed. Not only did I find it to be another blog post to be fueled mostly by an unsupported intuition but I found it not helpful, if not dangerous to actually believe. The article in question is none other than "Marriage Isn't Hard".

Don't get me wrong, I think I understand what the writer is trying to say. But reading to understand intentions is different then reading what is actually stated. We mean a lot of things but sometimes we say none of them.

If you have found yourself at this blog post I want you to know I am writing this because I care for you. I want you to be challenged to think critically, especially about sacred things. I want to help build you up so you can have a solid foundation by which you think about and engage the world and society. Also, Mrs. Kali, if you somehow find yourself at this post, I merely want to let this serve as a notice of how things could have been discussed better. That being said I want to show you why I found Mrs. Kali's article unhelpful and dangerous. I'm afraid my style might be a bit formal- I will first review parts of the post and then conclude with my overall thoughts.


Post Analysis


The first thing I feel I must address is in paragraph 3 where Mrs. Kali defends her authority to write on the topic; "You might say, oh Kali, you have only been married 10 months so you just wait- your time is coming. First off, people need to stop saying things like that." She then goes on to list some tough experiences that she and her husband have dealt with in their 10 months. I'm not bringing this up to invalidate her experiences but to simply point out that there is a humility in realizing that it's only been 10 months. Imagine what 5 years will be like if the first 10 months are full of growing experiences! But this has little significance to the rest of the post because she does not dive into experential evidence of why marriage is not hard but into a rational discourse based on theological principle.

I agree with her that to be able to discuss theological principles and topics age and experience may not matter if you are studied in the topic. Here is where I find the grounds for some correction- it is in her handling of principles that I believe she misinterprets things categorically.  Let us go further into her post for examples.

In paragraph 5 she states "But I just can't imagine 'hard' being the picture that God intends to paint as the love between Christ and the Church, and it's not the one we should adopt." The reason why this quote is hard for me to swallow is because I do not actually see it supported in the Bible. For instance, if marriage is supposed to be a picture of Christ and the church then there is much suffering involved. A lot of suffering, even the most beneficial and sacrificial kind, is hard. Usually the best things in life are the hard things.

But I believe there might be a categorical error that is not being stated in the post- confusing the form (separated from other variables) with the particular (connected to other variables). Mrs. Kali may be referring to marriage qua marriage, or marriage before the fall. I'm inferencing this from the next sentence where she seems to be wanting to separate marriage from "sin and brokenness". This is fine, but not all that helpful. This is because the only glimpses we see of marriage untainted by sin and brokenness is before the fall in two short chapters in Genesis and after glorification in Revelation at the marriage feast.  Even then, we are given abstract and vague descriptions of what this might be like.  There is still discussion whether these times were and are going to be absent of difficulty.

In the next paragraph Mrs. Kali states, "Singles, don't believe that marriage is another hard thing to do on a list of hard things. Don't fear the beautiful union of marriage because the concept of 'denying yourself, and taking up your cross daily' (Luke 9:23) will be tested in its truest form. And if you are married, quit moving blame from your sin to the institute of marriage." The first issue that I find with this statement is that I do not know of any single people where this is the thing keeping them from marriage. Second issue is that Mrs. Kali seems to be admitting that it is hard? Denying yourself and taking up your cross daily does sound like a hard endeavor, especially if it is going to be tested "in its truest form". The last issue I will mention with this is that I also do not know any married couples that use the phrase "marriage is hard" as a way to blame-shift sin to marriage. When most people say marriage is hard it's because they are finding new issues that singleness simply does not have. But more on this later.

The next paragraph you find similar puzzling sentiments. "It's as if we believe that all of our sin and selfishness we fought our entire lives to lay at the feet of Jesus, didn't exist until 'I do.'" Again, I do not know anyone who has actually believed this. The rest of the paragraph, though, rings true and discusses what marriage does and what makes it difficult. Another thing that she does not mention in this paragraph is that marriage brings out a depth to several areas of our life that would not be possible without marriage. For instance, I relate to her sentiment that I am the same sinful person that I was before I was married. One of those areas of sin is selfishness. But as a single person my selfishness was simply not challenged as it was in marriage. I did not live with someone whom I was responsible for leading them or make sure they were loved. For a single guy I was pretty selfless of my time and resources. Marriage took this to the next level. My selflessness as a single was nowhere close to enough to fulfill the responsibilities that I have as a husband.

Paragraph 8 is awesome. Nothing else need be said.

I believe paragraph 9 was the part in which I was most frustrated. Mrs. Kali continues, "If our reflection of this love is 'it's hard', we not only rob ourselves of the joy found in displaying the love of Christ but we honestly downplay the beauty of it. Marriage is a window from which we have the opportunity to shine the glory of God." If this sentence does not impress you as obtuse then we may need to have a different conversation about the gospel. But the main question to ask yourself here is how does something being difficult rob the joy out of it? Experentially speaking, some of the hardest things I have done are the things I love the most. Some of the things I love the most required me to do hard things. If marriage cost nothing, what would that say of its worth?

A friend of mine has recently officiated some weddings and he has been helping preach at his church while they go through Revelation. One conclusion that he recently stressed in a wedding was that a lot of the beauty displayed in a ceremony is the beauty of the bride herself. He stated that the radiance and the white dress is a taste of what Christ has done for the church- giving the church his righteousness through his sacrifice. Marriage is a window that gives us the opportunity to shine the glory of God. The Father that sent his Son to give himself as a sacrifice for his bride. The difficulties in marriage combine with the sublime moments to "point to the heavenly and perfect union we long for in Christ". The difficult or hard nature of marriage does not subtract from it.

The blog post was edited at some point where she deleted much of a concluding paragraph and inserted her end note in its place. In this paragraph she states, "When we experience hardship within marriage, it is not because of marriage, it is because of sin." Here is where we find another categorical error. It is mostly expressed in the fallacy of composition; there are parts of marriage that are hard because of sin but that is not the whole difficulty of marriage. The problem is that the writer does not qualify any of these statements to make room for difficulties in marriage that are not sinful. I would not call miscommunication, misunderstandings, missing your spouse when you are apart, sacrificing things I desire to serve my spouse, deeper self-discovery through marriage, etc sinful things. I could go on about the inherent difficulties that come up when you take two subjective beings that have spent the beginning of their lives apart and you put them in a relationship that, Lord willing, only happens once in a lifetime. The process of two becoming one is not automatic or easy.

Summary and Conclusion

I alluded in the beginning that this whole post could be a case of well-intentioned thoughts that were simply not communicated precisely. In that case those more sympathetic to the original post may think I have wasted my time. But I do not think this is the case. When dealing with something as sacred as marriage I believe we can do ourselves a disservice by selling it short. The spirit of the article, to maintain the beauty of marriage, is something I share with Mrs. Kali. But the way she goes about trying to defend it I believe actually weakens it.

Some may scoff at the use of "categorical errors". But the reason why I believe this is important in discussing a philosophical/theological principle is because we need to make sure we are clear in what we are speaking about and the purpose that it serves. If the labor of studying theology and philosophy is to better understand and live into reality, then we need to do our best to not mix what is with what was or what will be. We are people living after the Fall and before Glorification. Understanding marriage qua marriage may be helpful in some regards but we are given way more information, analogies, and exhortation on marriage in the present, sinful world. 

Finally, I reject a couple of the core ideas in the post as they were communicated. Marriage is not solely hard because of sin. Marriage is not robbed of its joys and symbolism of the Gospel because it is hard. In fact it is quite the opposite.

All that being said, it is almost as if Mrs. Kali and I are talking about two very different things. I must confess that I am naive on the topic of marriage by itself. I do not think I have ever seen, experienced, or read about marriage separated from hardship, sin, brokenness, and the need for forgiveness. Most pastors and authors make the observation that marriage must be important to God because the Bible begins and ends with a wedding.  But we forget that the wedding at the end is the redemption of the fall of the first.

Theology on Tap; Night 2

Posted by Samuel J. Keithley On 9:26 PM 0 comments
After selecting our beverage for the night and our introductory small talk we started off with this question: Can someone lose their salvation?

An honest question that we quickly started taking apart. We agreed with a general and simple answer: "no". From there we dissected our general and simple response into more particular and complex components. Our foundation seemed to come from John 10:29, although that verse was not explicitly brought up in conversation. But as we discussed and brought up several examples from experience we came to focus around the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:3-17). We talked about how the Gospel can have many affects in many different circumstances and can appear in people's lives differently but ultimately time (or the end of time) will tell if it really took root. We were in agreement that this seemed to explain not only the question at hand but also the various stories that we had experienced from relationships in our own lives.

From here we took a little meta turn (my favorite kind) and started asking questions like "how can you know if someone is saved?" and "what does that look like?" This was started by making the connection from the Parable of the Sower to passages where Jesus dismisses those that claim to know him (Matt 7:21-23). There will be some who genuinely believe in their salvation but ultimately did not know Christ. Rather than stressing the importance of knowing Christ from this, we stressed the somber call to reflect on if we truly know Jesus. We did not discuss much of the assurance of salvation (theme of the night: "we'll get to that another time") but instead talked more about wading through spiritual doubt or "[working] out your own faith with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). What was brought up in discussion is that it is truly difficult to know for certain what God's line of demarcation is for who's in and who's out. Romans 10:9-11 was brought up, but although it tells us about confession and belief being basic components of salvation, it is in the belief part that is hard to point to a specific level or mark that qualifies for salvation (James 2:19 was briefly mentioned). We intended to return to a more in-depth look at Romans 10 but we went off on a tangent that took up the rest of our time.

I must confess, I feel that I directed the conversation down our last tangent, where we stayed until we concluded the discussion. When it comes to issues about spiritual doubt, assurance of salvation, and the inter-connections of these topics being discussed within a spiritual community, I cannot help but bring up the church and its role to connect all these things. I have a lot of opinions about church, as much as anyone my age who has grown up in the church. So the topic turned to the church's role in helping develop and disciple people through these topics. Of course, much was said off-the-cuff about certain pastors or models or churches we agree with, but it all revolved around how much impact church leadership has on reaching people and then aiding in spiritual growth. We started to scratch the surface of what discipleship looks like (looking to another and adopting language, ideas, disciplines, etc, etc for spiritual growth) but we did not get to the point of defining discipleship full on but stayed at the influence different models, preaching styles, and leaders have on an individual's faith. In this we ultimately ended on the desire to ultimately model Jesus and be known as a disciple of Him (not Piper or Driscoll or Dodge or Paul or Apollos).

Topics that were briefly touched on and consented for future topics: predestination (oy vey), discipleship, spiritual gifts, women in the church (specifically pastoral ministry), demons, ecclesiology-church (models/unity).

On Thoughtfulness

Posted by Samuel J. Keithley On 7:38 PM 0 comments
I went out to dinner with a friend to catch up because we had not talked mano e mano in a few weeks. Lately we both have been busy and finally had some time carved out to just hang out.  He's a good man and friend that always has good insight and it's always nice to catch up and hear his take on things. There is not much better than sitting at a bar with a game in the background, a good drink, and a good friend.

The conversation turned to something that I am very passionate about- church. We were updating each other on strategies to participate and further integrate into the local church that we both attend. In the midst of this I shared some thoughts that I have been going through in the weeks that I have become a member and started taking steps to committing to this particular organized community. If anyone knows me, this turn was loquacious and had many connections to many other thoughts. All of to which my gracious friend had a blank stare and then made a comment to side step a lot of what I introduced and tried to get back to the flow of the conversation.

At first I was confused and a little surprised at the abrupt change of conversation (probably as surprised as he was when I started). But then it made sense. A lot of what I ranted on about spoke to what just took place in our conversation (the irony that this friend and I had a laugh about later). It is all summed up in the idea of thoughtfulness.

Thoughtfulness, as I am using it, is having a goal in mind and then thinking through all actions and consequences that lead to said goal. Yes, that does take a lot of time. Yes, it does require a lot more than can come out of one man.

The amount of time and focus that thoughtfulness requires is quite counter cultural to us in America. You need time to figure out your goal and vision. It requires a lot of space so that you have time to play out strategies, work in hypotheticals, look into questions. But what happens when you take that time is that you will have more time for when the actual circumstances come up. If you start something off from a thoughtful stance it is easier to have space to remain thoughtful while things are happening. This is counter to what seems to be an American trend of putting in enough thought to come up with an efficient plan that will then keep people busy to meet an immediate goal or need. In this trend, it is very much a trial and error where things can be fixed on the fly. Resources are spent more on repair than foresight.

It also creates space for when emergencies or unforeseen interruptions occur. Why do we have emergency servicemen practice emergency situations? So they know what to do and they can adapt to each specific situation. Despite the panic and fear that surround them they can default to a plan. It is like Jason Bourne- so well prepared that you are able to execute things perfectly on the fly. This is connected to another thing America is generally poor at- hospitality. When you leave space where you can be interrupted you are in a better position to deal with the interruption as well as what you normally had planned.

Thoughtfulness can also not come from one person. One person has one set of eyes, one set of experiences, one set of skills and discipline. Thoughtfulness requires the help of many people to bring their differences for the common goal and look toward meeting that goal in unity. With other people, one person is able to overcome their limitations and truly try to come to an idea from all angles. And hopefully, in good community, they can get closer to the form.

I hope this to be something that Christianity develops in people inherently. As our focus is pulled toward something that is eternal and perfect, hopefully we are able to reflect on how that affects things presently. That would be the effect of something being already, but not yet, no? To bring this full circle I shall end with this: "What the church is, in short, is determined by what the church is destined to become."- Stanley Grenz
Typically, I ignore articles that I see float around social media. Mostly because I'm tired of reading lists. But if I see an article from multiple sources I will give it a gander, even if it would normally go against my better judgement. It was upon reading one of these articles that inspired this post. The post was from Relevant magazine, Christianity's pop culture pulse. You might have seen it: "What the Continued Crucifying Of Rob Bell Says About Modern Christianity". If you have not seen it you can read it here.

The heart of the article is something I agree with and have been saying some time about the conservative American church - a lot of the church's reaction is based in fear. Pick any topic in the church and start asking questions that are seldom asked and you will get some strong reactions. From my experience the subconscious thought pattern is this; if you don't comply to a (our) particular application of scripture then you probably do not have a good (correct) understanding of scripture; and if you are lacking in understanding of scripture then you probably do not hold a correct view of Jesus and God; and if you do not have a correct view of Jesus and God then we question your faith and/or salvation. This is one side to which the pendulum swings. Not all take it to this extreme, but this is where fear can take some circles of conservative Christianity. From my reading, I can agree with the article on this level.

But this is where I must depart from my agreement with the article for I believe the article may be pushing the pendulum to far the other way. The other side the pendulum swings to is where we are all too inclusive in the name of love and uncertainty. The article swings this way by a misunderstanding of how categories work and not mentioning something about Rob Bell's "sin".

One thing that has helped me in my learning of philosophy and theology and pretty much everything else is building categories. Building categories helps me better understand a subject and how said subject relates to another appropriately. [If you would like an introduction to the categories that I speak of check out Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Categories here. This is all I did in systematic theology classes. I built categories in my mind and attempted to become more and more consistent with my beliefs. As I constructed categories I then began to see more clearly how some things related to others.

I bring up this topic of categories because this is how I approach the topic of orthodoxy. This is something that seems like Pavlovitz (the author of the article) sarcastically takes for granted;" There are two religious menu options when it comes to orthodoxy: totality or heresy." Well... Yeah. He then continues, "the moment that anyone, however prayerful or thoughtful or earnest they may be, comes to a conclusion other than what has been defined as acceptable, they get kicked to the curb." Well... Yeah. That's how orthodoxy and heresy has always worked.

Within Christianity you know how you fall into certain camps by what boxes you check. You check the boxes a certain way, you're catholic, another way, you're a Presbyterian, another way, you're a baptist. When you check boxes (or don't) that these groups have all agreed upon since the early councils then you are a heretic. It is a category and, as some say, "if the boot fits".

The article does bring up questions about what heresy looks like now. In our pop culture, post reformation era, is social media outcries and blog post condemnation the new format as opposed to exile? How does the church, in unity, identify heresy today? What does a formal rejection of teaching look like from Protestant camps? These are all questions for another post.

Let this post remind us that if Rob Bell did not do anything wrong, he did not do anything well either. I'm not sure if Bell is a heretic, to be fair. Truth be told, Bell has not declared enough for me to confidently declare on this blog that no one reads that the boot does, indeed, fit. But what I do know is Rob Bell's "sin", his book Love Wins, sucked. I know I'm strange, I believe that academic formats and channels are actually the proper and helpful ways to sift through the world of ideas. I'm not talking about Bell's stylistic format but more the lack of citations, references, and comprehensive argument. Pavlovitz was right; it did bring up a lot of questions. But those questions left us nowhere and warranted many of the questions of Bell's stance that followed the publication. Pavlovitz critiqued Christianity for the lack of Dialogue, but I believe Bell did not help the opportunity for conversation by the way he initiated it. Because in the end the book read as if it was halfway through a thought. The sad reality is that we never got the follow up.

Let me conclude with this; the goal of this post is to find the golden mean and avoid the continuation of the pendulum. Let us not fall into the fear of who's in and out but let us also not fall into the fear of seeming unloving because we're rightly using categories. As Christians we love God and we love people, as Pavlovitz said, but the best way to do both is through truth and the application thereof.

Thoughts on Driscoll-Plagiarism Debacle

Posted by Samuel J. Keithley On 7:54 AM 0 comments
If you have not read anything about the topic at hand you can check out Collin Garabino's article here, another by Carl Trueman here, and a little of the aftermath here and here.  I know it seems like quite a bit of preliminary reading but if you are reading this then you probably have some time on your hands to skim and get caught up.

I hope to not come off damning or to place to much blame on one side or the other but to explain a few thoughts on why this issue especially troubles me.  I think this issue highlights a couple things about our Christian culture than should be brought to attention and discussed in a greater circle as a part of the Church in America.  We are in a peculiar time and place which will require extra patience, humility, and understanding before we can come to a place where we can discuss the topic in an objective and fair manner.  This is what I hope to do; in a way that evaluates an issue more than evaluating a person.  People are fickle and a blog simply does not have enough room to comprehensively evaluate a person.  Please take note of that.

The first issue that concerns me is one that Carl Trueman highlights in his article, an issue of current consequences of our culture: fame in ministry.  It is an interesting thing to ponder.  I wonder if there is any historical comparison that we can make for how we treat celebrities today in America.  We live in a culture that looks to elevate people and watch their star-lit lives moment by moment.  This type of mentality has also pervaded the church.  Now what I am not saying is that people being known is a bad thing.  Assuming positive intent, most people who become known in the church are known because of the good that they have done in their work- whether that be through ministry with people, ministry of great thought, or the ministry of living a faithful life and proclaiming God's word.  What is alarming, though, is what this ends up doing to the culture at large.

In this Driscoll event, there was an evident split.  There was one group of people that supported Ms. Mefford in bringing to light the plagiarism.  There was another group of people that defended Driscoll.  In other circumstances the issue would be brought to light and dealt with accordingly (Garabino and Trueman explain what would happen in their institutions) but because of the platform that Driscoll has found himself the issue becomes so much more.  Because of the fame itself it elevates the two general reactions to the issue- those quick to forgive and those who want justice.  These two reactions are common in every scenario where sin is brought to light.  It is the job of the fellowship of believers to take council from both sides to come with a balanced approach to the situation.  But the question becomes who is the fellowship of believers in this situation?  I have one friend who I respect greatly for their composure on such issues who would take the stance that the direct local church and publishers are those who really have a say on the issue.  This friend would say it does not help for others not directly related to chip in or talk about the issue; at that point the rest of the church is endangering itself with other sins of gossip and slander among other sinful states that is produced when you simply cannot know all the details because you are not directly involved.  This makes sense and I believe there is wisdom in that for all of us but I also believe that because of the status of the person in question there is a void left if something goes unanswered on a public level.  Also I fear what Trueman states in his article, whatever happens will be a strong message to the watching world.

The second thing that troubled me is something I have been pondering more on my own.  It seems that the Christian culture at large does not know how to respond to wrong acts.  The extremes here are either too forgiving or too damning and what we all seek is the golden mean.  To be transparent, I tend to lean on the side that is too damning.  Personally, I resonate with an ideal sense of justice that has been transgressed and I want to see things be made right.  As I have just completed college, it was drilled in my head that plagiarism is a big no-no and has severe consequences for those caught in the act.  So why should that be different for anyone else?  There were others I interacted with that countered with thoughts of forgiveness.  Driscoll screwed up, we all screw up, but now we know and we trust that we will all move on, besides Christ is being preached, good work is being done- why let this slow things down?  I believe this to be a bit dismissive.

I am not on a witch hunt.  I do not want to see Driscoll humiliated for what he has done, for I do not want to be humiliated for all the things that I have done wrong.  But I do expect accountability and a level of seriousness to be taken for my sins.  Plagiarism is wrong and should not be tolerated on any level because it is a form of theft.  Not to be trite, but that is what it is- it is theft.  I believe that by me stating that it does not damn Mark Driscoll because he plagiarized.  Saying he plagiarized is not inaccurate if he did, in fact, plagiarize.  Saying that I lied is not unfair to say if I did not tell the truth.  But this is where we find our golden mean.  Because Mark Driscoll plagiarized and because I lie does not make up our identity or put us in some weird subcategory of Christian.  It makes us humans in need for a perfect savior.

With that being said you can still have the two reactions.  Again assuming positive intent, both sides want the same things.  Both sides want to deal with the issue as it is; neither side wants to make it too big of a deal or underplay the seriousness of the issue.  Both sides want to deal with the issue quickly and seek restoration and unity of the Church on this issue. In an appropriate manner in regards to where you are and how you are connected to the situation, reason that out.  Ultimately it will be in the hands of that closest to Driscoll and his work.  What we should make sure our dialogue is centered around is that we have a perfect Savior that we have joined to die to our sins so that we may live in Him.

As my father says it is better to have dead heroes than living ones.  For the dead heroes cannot change their minds or fail us anew and the only true living hero is Christ.  My dad may have gotten that from his pastor.  I don't know, don't cite me on that.

First Rule of Ghost Hunting: Know You're Haunted

Posted by Samuel J. Keithley On 2:24 PM 0 comments
We are coming upon Halloween and because of this, I thought that I would give my advice on ghost hunting.  What I mean by ghost hunting is actually interacting with any phenomenon.  I will be looking upon all of the relevant research material- namely horror movies and stories that are common to us all.  That's the beauty of the horror genre (and other sci-fi/fantasy genres); the mechanics and story telling elements are pretty consistent across the board.  So as we journey into the macabre and spiritual realm I will use those elements to help us navigate the unknown.

That is what we are talking about, right?  The unknown?  Ghosts and ghost stories are always fascinating because at the core is a strange connection between the past and present.  The past, the sins of the past, cause a ripple effect through time which then cause the haunting experience that all the stories revolve around.  At some point someone made a deal with a demon or did something so horrendous that the building itself cannot let it go or the spirits cannot rest until there is justice.  Most horror stories unfold as the protagonist explores and discovers the history and concludes with the protagonist giving rest to the past or being consumed by it.

The first rule, then, is to know that you are being haunted.  This may seem obvious but as pop culture and, sadly, reality shows that some people just don't get it.  You have to know that you are being haunted.  There are two stereotypes that show it can be disastrous to ignore the signs.

The first is the typical stubborn skeptic.  This is the person that is so sure that ghosts or the paranormal don't exist that while in the ghost is throwing them around they are laughing hysterically that "this can't be happening".  Their minds are so made up that they cannot allow themselves to believe the possibility of the past consequences still coming up in present.  In some tales, they are the ignorant souls that also seem to tempt the spirits only to be shown the fool.  If we were to take a rare look into these people they fall on an extreme of a certain spectrum.  Either they believe that they have everything about the world figured out or they have never really given it a thought.  The first is easy to see; they seemingly know how everything works so they reject anything that is contrary to the system that they already have in mind.  The second one is a little harder to understand.  It is mainly because they don't really accept anything.  They go through life not giving a deeper thought to anything, they just take it as it comes.  Where as the former skeptic has constructed their system to make sense of all that has happened to them, the latter skeptic has had similar hardships in life but instead of trying to make sense of it all, they just check out.  If they cannot accept even the basic things in life, how can they make sense of the deeper, more strange things?

The second is the scientist, engineer, or initiator of the haunting.  This person does not have the issue that the skeptic has for they know that the haunting is real.  They created it.  But how the scientist fits under this rule even though they typically know they are haunted is that they don't know the extent of what they have done until it is too late.  Sometimes they are the protagonist looking for redemption and sometimes they are the expert that needs to be consulted to figure out how to end the terror.  When they are put in the role of the main protagonist of the story, the plot unfolds as they are coming to the realization of what they have actually done.  They realize the extent of damage that has been caused because of their creation.  In the end they are either defeated because they did too much or they are able to vanquish their monsters.  If the scientist is in the role of the resource they are usually found in two states: already trying to solve the issue or whimpering in a corner trying to console themselves by saying, "it wasn't supposed to be this way!"

The person that seems to be able to cope best with the circumstances in ghost stories do two things.  The first is they know what they know and what they don't know, thus leaving room for the mysterious, unknown, or unexplained.  Sometimes, more in the thriller sub-genre, that allows for something to be discovered.  This discovery dissolves the tension or at least gives the protagonist a chance at surviving.  Even in the genre as a whole, leaving room for the mysterious also leads to the second thing that makes ghost stories bearable.  The second thing is being able to rightly assess the situation.  Knowing that you do not know allows you to more easily accept and more easily assess the mysterious.  Being able to grasp this lets you know what moves you can and cannot make.  It allows you to navigate to safety and sanity.  It gives you a shot at getting out in one piece, or at least in a state where you can recover.

So when you are trying to navigate your own ghost stories try to take them as they are.  Do not deceive yourself lest you lead yourself to destruction.  Sometimes you have to face your ghosts and you have to see them for what they are.  No pretending that they are not there.  No pretending that they are actually Casper the friendly ghost.  No pretending that they are not a problem until later.  Face your ghosts. Fight your demons.  Do not let them keep you from peace.

A Reminder that I Am Not Superman

Posted by Samuel J. Keithley On 10:23 PM 0 comments
I do not believe in coincidence.  I'm not sure if I have said this in other blog posts, but, as a Christian, I believe the term "coincidence" is a convenient human way of trying to explain away God's activity on earth.  This post is about such an incident in my life and it has to do with one of my favorite things- superheroes.

On Sunday, I went to go see Man of Steel with my family.  Honestly, I am not much of a fan of Superman as a character.  Come on, a man who is basically indestructible, always has an easy path of right or wrong, and everything ends all cheery in the end when he chooses the right path?  Not a fun character to follow.  But I can always respect what Superman was meant for- to be a symbol.  This is exactly the context of the character of Superman in Man of Steel and why I enjoyed the film.  Zach Snyder has a reputation in my mind of really being able to capture the heart and soul of the graphic novels he portrays on the silver screen.  Christopher Nolan has the ability to draw out the patterns in society and place them appropriately in a movie to help the audience connect to the story.  David Goyer I don't really know, but I feel like it is appropriate to give him credit because he helped in the writing of the story.

Superman in Man of Steel was placed as he should be- yes there is still a little identity struggle in there, but for the most part he has himself together and knows the direction he must take his life.  It is placed on his chest.  As the family seal of El, as described by the movie, Kal-El's mantra must be hope.  Superman was always meant to be a symbol of hope-  that humanity has the opportunity to be better and has the potential to do great things.  Snyder, to help reinforce this picture, even used Christ illusions in the movie.  You don't believe Superman's work starting after 33 years was an accident, did you?  Also, right after Jor-El states, "You can save her.  You can save them all," Superman leaves the spaceship in the shape of a cross.  I believe Snyder's portrayal were strictly artistic to help reinforce the idea that Superman is more about the ideal Savior than a man with powers that is going to help society and defeat the bad guys.

Now a little about me.  I am a kid at heart and I grew up on superheroes.  Honestly, I believe they have value in helping kids aspire to noble and virtuous sentiments.  My favorite superhero is Spider-Man and his whole "with great power comes great responsibility" is something that has shaped my life (arguably, this principle in the Bible is where this ultimately came from and shaped my life).  With the crap that's in every medium aside, superheroes can be used to help motivate, like the intentions behind Superman and Captain America.  So with this being said, when I walk out of a movie like Man of Steel I cannot help but want to be that character.  I want to be able to have powers so I can defeat great evil and protect people.  I want to inspire people to be better and ultimately give them hope in bleak situations.  I want to be Superman.

Here comes the coincidence.  As soon as the movie ended I got a text message from a friend.  They told me to call them as soon as I could.  Concerned, I got home as soon as I could, went out for a walk, and called them.  Trying to spare the details, they were in a bad situation.  I had warned them about such a situation.  They knew the risk going in.  When all was said and done, they were right where they feared they would be.  They were being disrespected, uncared for, taken advantage of, and mocked.  All by people that they deemed "friends".

And I felt helpless.

It was one of those sobering times that reminded me of just how human I am.  This person that I care for greatly could use my help in very practical ways and I was far away, powerless.  The kid that always wanted to be a superhero, and just came out of a movie inspiring him to try to be one, could not help the first person that needed help, a person that meant so much.

But this is where my conversation with God started.  I told him that I wish I was Superman so I could rescue that person.  He told me that there was a reason why I didn't have those powers.  I told him I knew and that I wouldn't know how to use them and, ultimately, it wouldn't be beneficial if I was able to save everybody all the time.  He asked if I trusted him and I, through tears and a broken heart, said yes.

You see, God has given us as humans great ability.  Existentially speaking, at some level he has given us the ability to make certain decisions in life that affect our course and the course of others.  It is a great and valuable thing that God has granted to us.  But we are also human.  We are not God, the Great Orchestrator and Ultimate Controller of Fate.  We do not have more power because we could not handle it.  He has ultimate power because He a) can handle it and b) knows all and knows what is quintessentially good.

Snyder had no other choice than to rip off the greatest story of all time, the gospel, to make his sci-fi flick even slightly resonate with idea of a doomed people being saved by something that was human, among us and other, completely distinct from us.  Christ is truly the Savior of mankind.  Through Christ, God worked his plan of salvation into the course of human history and because of Christ, God continues to work, through the Holy Spirit, in the lives of believers today.

I could not and cannot save my friend.  But Christ has saved and is saving them.  People will learn nothing if life was easy and they were saved out of every situation.  But God is good and, as long as we trust Him, He will bring out in us a better life, a new creation, and a more perfect humanity.  This would not be a truly cliche Christian post without a quote from C.S. Lewis, so here it is: "We are not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be."

Long story short, Christ is our hero and even if it seems that we are left alone to suffer I have to remember two things.  First, that God is good.  Second, that He has given us the gift to participate in His work on earth, and that includes ourselves.

About Me

My photo
I'm a kid just trying to get it right. Trying to obey God through pursuing philosophy, music, and loving others.

Followers