Couldn't Help Noticing

God the Father

It is good to be reminded that God is our Father. However, there is a problem with using this as an encouraging phrase (dare I say this about an inspired term?): God as our Father acts in quite a different way than our earthly fathers do. Of course, we know this in that our earthly fathers are sinful and our heavenly Father is not (Matt 7:7-11). But there is also a difference in purpose and a difference in aim.

The purpose of the typical father is to rear his children up in preparation to live on their own, without the father. Christian fathers do this through God's Word, imparting godly wisdom and exemplifying Christian ways of living. The aim, or goal, is to foster an increasing amount of independence within the child. We've all met young adults who haven't reached this level of maturity and independence, and we may think to ourselves, “there's someone who really needs to get away from his parents.” (Although, we probably also know parents who feel responsible for nurturing this type of unhealthy reliance.)

As I was studying various passages of Scripture, I was reminded that this is not the purpose and goal of our heavenly Father. He is not preparing us for the day when we will be without him. Rather, he is doing quite the opposite. He is preparing us for the day when we'll be home with Him forever (2 Cor 5). He is training us for the day when we'll see him face to face and know him completely (1 Cor 13). He is grooming us to be part of the wonderful inheritance for his Son (Ephesians 1:18). By the Son's powerful word, God the Father is fostering in us more dependency, not less (2 Cor 1:9).

God the Father is an excellent analogy for how God loves us. Only, let us allow God to define his fatherly purpose and aim on His terms through His Word. Otherwise, we may gradually begin to act like we're prepared for life without Him.

Letters from the sub-editor V

And another thing. Chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians doesn't deserve to be burdened with the popular heading “Spiritual Gifts”, any more than the word “gifts” should appear in verse one of this same chapter. The word is not there in the original Greek, no matter how hard we look. So why import it in verse one, or in a heading?

If anything, Paul is trying to move the Corinthians away from their obsession with spiritual giftedness. His point is to draw the focus back to the Lord Jesus Christ, who by his Holy Spirit and according to the will of the Heavenly Father, enables us to use all we have to build up other Christians. The focus is not at all on the gifted, charismatic individual; it is not even on persuading the poor person suffering low self-esteem that they too have something to offer.

Rather, we are to start looking to the body of Christ, the church, and see what we can do to help them know God better and build each other up in love.

So what's with the heading “Spiritual Gifts”? Another subeditor's brainwave that should have bitten the dust along with those lawn sprinklers with a cut out of the blessing Pope attached to where the water comes out.

Hit and misrepresentation

With the release of the movie of Memoirs of a Geisha, some criticism has been voiced over the fact that the main characters, who are supposed to be Japanese, are played by Chinese actors: Zi Yi Zhang, Michelle Yeoh and Li Gong. (For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that one journalist in The Financial Times wrote that “casting a Chinese actor in a Japanese role was akin to having a Palestinian play an Israeli” [Source].)

But I can't help thinking, “What's the big deal?” At least Hollywood is getting closer to the mark. It wasn't that long ago that Asian leads were played by Caucasian actors, with Asian actors being told they didn't look “Asian enough” for the part. (Have a read of the biography of the first Chinese American movie star Anna May Wong for an interesting slice of Hollywood history). Being Asian, I'm more pleased about the fact that this means there will be more Asians on the silver screen and on TV (with women like Lucy Liu and Sandra Soh appearing more in big-budget productions, and Michelle Ang joining the cast of Neighbours for a season) than whether or not these Asians are the right kind of Asians.

Of course, we care more about representation when it has something to do with us. If I was Japanese, would I be up in arms about the casting of Memoirs? If I was black, would I be jumping up and down about the fact that Ged was played by a white guy in the miniseries of A Wizard of Earthsea? If I was homosexual, would I be lobbying to see more gays on TV? If I was male, would I grumble every time I went to see an action movie and the heroine played the role of Decorative Useless Love Interest, and would I care about the fact that The Wind in the Willows has virtually no female characters? (For that matter, would it bother me that most of the men on TV are boorish, lazy and stupid—needing to be distracted by a trail of lingerie around the backyard so that their wives can drink their tea in peace?) And if I was a non-Christian, would I get annoyed about all the hillbilly bigoted lunatic Christians on The West Wing?

We *want* art to imitate real life. Chinese people are not Japanese people. Girls can do more than look pretty in revealing clothing and scream for help. And there are Christians in the world who are actually very nice, who don't hate President Bartlett and the things he stands for, and who would never send his granddaughter a Raggedy Anne doll with a knife through its throat for saying she's pro-choice.

But at the same time, we don't want art to imitate real life. We want the world to be populated with beautiful people who are immune to acne and don't know the meaning of the word ‘flab’. It doesn't matter to us that the original Battle of Stirling was fought on a bridge and not the famous field you've seen in Braveheart. We really don't care whether there really is an island populated by dinosaurs and ruled by a giant gorilla. We want the hero to escape alive; we want the underdog to triumph over the villain; we want the girl to get the guy; we want truth, love and justice always to prevail ... really, sometimes we just want to be told a good story and be entertained.

So does it matter? With regards to Memoirs, there will be Japanese people who will make a fuss and there will be Japanese people who won't care. With certain action films, the heroine's intelligence quotient will bother some audience members more than others. And it's likely you won't care about The Wind and the Willows as much as I do ...

I'm afraid I don't have an answer. I know that a true representation of reality is not always possible, not always called for and therefore not something we should always expect. But I hope you'll pardon me if watching Kirsten Dunst play yet another brainless bimbo makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen.

You need more dating

I've often wondered whether you end up feeling like a second-class citizen if you're a Mormon, given the Mormon emphasis on family and children. “Alone in the Pews”, an article in Time magazine, presents a snapshot of the modern-day dilemmas of the LDS church. With singles on the rise and fewer children being born, how is the LDS taking care of its single membership? By doing the following:

1. Establishing congregations or “wards” just for singles (most of these focus on the 18-30 age group and there are few options for those who are older);
2. Sponsoring programs for singles;
3. Encouraging singles to date more (LDSHearts.com is a popular internet dating site and some wards regularly hold dances so singles can get toether and suss each other out).

Of one of these dances, the article reports,

Michael Mohan went to one in Denver on a recent Friday and another in Colorado Springs, Colo., the following night. He was excited to see how well members encouraged one another to connect at the Saturday affair. He did his part too, securing phone numbers from four women that night. “I'm not going to stay single forever,” he vows.

So despite all the programs and structures being set up to cater for singles in the LDS church, the overwhelming message is: “You ought to get married”. Mohan is 40. He's been a Mormon all his life and he acknowledges, “The church is kind of set up for people who are married”. This is an appropriate reflection of what Mormons believe: that God is married and that, by marrying and having children, Mormons can also become gods.

What about Christians? We don't believe that God has a wife. Jesus himself was single. We also don't believe that it is necessary for us to be married in order to receive salvation. Though marriage is a wonderful gift from God, even Paul acknowledges that “those who marry will have worldly troubles” (1 Cor 7:28).

So are our churches set up primarily for people who are married? Do they consistently separate out singles from the rest of the flock simply because they are single? Do singles separate themselves out from the rest of the flock because they feel like they don't fit in and no one understands them? Do the marrieds in our midst drop inappropriate comments and hints about getting married to their single friends and do the singles ostracise them for it?

As the body of Christ, redeemed by the same blood, whether single or married, divorced or widowed, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, our beliefs render such behaviour unacceptable. Single people are not second-class citizens just because they're single. Nor are marrieds an insular group who've completely forgotten what it's like to be single. But we are all part of the bride of Christ, waiting for our final union with our loving Bridegroom at that last great wedding supper of the Lamb. God may not have a wife now: but one day he will.

Letters from the sub-editor IV

I'm flying a kite here, so please be kind. It occurs to me that the idea from my previous CHN, about using subheadings to attract the eye of the poor reader who has become bored with God's word, may have some merit. The rule is that no subheading may have more than three words. “Greeting” is good. “Thanksgiving” is excellent. “Christ the Wisdom and Power of God” will have to go. Once you've read a heading like that, you may as well read the whole passage.

We will allow the heading “Divisions in the Church” because although it is four words, two of them are little ones. Also, “Divisions” is a sexy word, speaking of conflict and fighting, which always raises attention. “Proclaiming Christ Crucified” only just makes our three word limit, and hints at a subeditor trying to see how much he or she can get away with in the way of actual content.

Remember, in the world of subediting, short is good. We have to assume that the attention span of the average Bible reader has been completely trashed by too much MTV. 1 Corinthians 1 could be called “Fight!”. 1 Corinthians 3 could be called “War!” For 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, “I'll Sue!” works a treat. Chapter 5 could be headed “Sex!”. So could chapter 6. So could chapter 7.

In fact, this sparks another thought. Why don't we extract the whole of 1 Corinthians and market it under a new title “Sex in the Church”? The word “New!” would appear in a fluorescent red label on the cover, with the label in the shape of one of those spiky explosion type thingies.

Of course we know and acknowledge that the Bible as God's word is relevant to anyone that God has created in his image, which doesn't appear to exclude anyone. Of course we know that the Bible speaks to every need and every situation ever encountered by humanity. But me and my team of sub-editors, we're going to make it really relevant, just you wait and see.