Des hommes et des films... et des autres choses

Je peux finalement prendre une pause après plus de trois mois de rédaction pour… rédiger quelque chose de différent que mon mémoire. Première version finie, je ne peux toujours pas célébrer car je ne connais pas encore les réactions de mon directeur de mémoire, qui a été extrêmement patient et courtois avec moi. Si ce n’est que pour une chose, ce mémoire m’a forcé à écrire en français plus que je n’ai jamais écrit de ma vie, donc je pense que l’impact sur mon style ne peut être que positif. Mais ça m’a aussi obligé à réfléchir sur certaines questions que je n’aurai pas nécessairement considéré autrement, de traductologie, rhétorique et théologie (mon mémoire est sur la traduction de théologie, avec un regard sur la rhétorique… pour ceux que cela intéresse).

Trois mois sans écrire autre chose qu’un document signifie que je me suis retenu d’écrire plein de choses, dont aujourd’hui je peine à me souvenir, c’est frustrant. Y’a des chansons, des réflexions, des critiques de film… Ben voilà, je veux parler de deux films en particulier.

Récemment on dirait que la question de la foi est en train de resurgir dans les médias généralement (finalement). L’esprit de l’homme ne peut pas rester trop longtemps soumis aux contraintes d’une vision du monde matérialiste, nous posons-nous la question pourquoi ? Hmm, mécanisme évolutionnaire, sûrement.

Le problème c’est qu’il y a trop d’enjeux pour la vie d’un homme quand il adresse la question de la métaphysique, sans parler de Dieu. Historiques, intellectuels, mais surtout personnels. On garde tant de ces questions dans le monde imaginaire du mythe, que les amener dans la sphère du rationnel est extrêmement difficile pour plusieurs. Je crois que ma génération est dans une des pires positions pour parler de ce sujet, mais peut-être meilleure que la génération moderne post-guerre, ancrée dans son rationalisme religieux. Le problème c’est que ces gens là ont été nos profs de littérature, de philosophie, de science… de plus dans le monde francophone, sous un système absolument voué à la suprématie de l’illuminisme comme le summum de l’illumination, justement, humaine.

Donc nous avons été élevés dans une mentalité rebelle à la croyance, mais nous ne savons plus pourquoi, pour certains d’entre nous. Ce n’est pas la frustration naturelle des jeunes italiens avec l’église catholique, qui ne leur offre pas plus que des règles qui aujourd’hui ne semblent qu’obsolètes, mais un principe de base qui nous empêche de penser que Dieu doive avoir la position principale dans nos vies. C’est l’humanisme moderne. Fondé sur l’empirique de l’histoire, il relègue la question de la foi à un domaine secondaire, traditionnaliste et personnel. Le problème, c’est que de cette manière, la soif qui n’est pas étanchée de ceux qui ne font pas partie de cette élite intellectuelle, c’est-à-dire la majeure partie d’entre nous, va trouver des autres sources de satisfaction. Mais bon, je disais qu’on allait parler de films.

Récemment j’ai vu deux films diamétralement opposés dans leur approche et leur message. La chose qui m’a surpris était le fait qu’ils étaient tous les deux décorés du festival de Cannes. L’un, faisait partie de la sélection officielle hors compétition du festival 2009, l’autre a obtenu le Grand prix du Jury 2010.

Je me suis retenu d’écrire un post sur « Agora » jusqu’à quand j’ai vu « Des hommes et des dieux ». Ceci parce que je ne savais pas quoi faire d’autre que de me plaindre et de dire que c’était une tonne de conneries, motivé par ma frustration tout au long du film. Pour ma défense face à ceux qui tenteraient de dénigrer mon opinion sur ce film, je l’ai tout regardé, même si vers la fin, c’était en accéléré. J’ai réellement détesté ce film sur plusieurs plans : celui historique, celui philosophique et théologique, ainsi que celui cinématographique, étant fan des trois. Une fois que « Des hommes et des dieux » est sorti, je me suis dit que j’avais un point de comparaison. Il est évident que ce film détruirait n’importe quel autre si l’on se mettait à faire des comparaisons, il est d’un niveau tellement autre que le cinéma populaire actuel, c’est même surprenant qu’il ait eu tant de publicité !

Une autre raison pour laquelle j’ai hésité à parler d’Agora est que je ne désirais pas faire de la publicité pour un film qui ne fait que masser les esprits auto-satisfaits des ceux qui considèrent toute forme de croyance tout simplement un sujet de moquerie. Ce film reflète la mentalité majoritaire dans l’élite intellectuelle française, qui se sent libre de commenter sur la théologie et la croyance d’un point de vue complètement biaisé et parfois tellement ignorant, tout en brandissant le drapeau de l’objectivité.

Donc, tout d’abord, j’ai été frustré par ce film sur le plan historique. Mon oncle Fergus a un jour dit : « je ne suis pas fan de ces films où l’on réécrit l’histoire » ; il parlait de « The Patriot », que même si j’étais jeune à l’époque, j'ai dû éteindre après cinq minutes, parce que je voyais entièrement ce qu’il disait. Amenàbar, censé être un réalisateur respecté, n’a fait que ça dans ce film. Il s’est basé sur des spéculations historiques et en a fait un film qui se veut une vraie histoire. C’est l’histoire d’une philosophe égyptienne vers la fin du IVème siècle, Hypatie, qui aurait apparemment fait de grandes découvertes sur le mouvement des planètes un millénaire avant des individus comme Copernic. Le problème, c’est que le christianisme est devenu la religion dominante et cherche à dominer le pouvoir dans tout l’Empire romain. En Alexandrie, c’est le méchant Cyril, l’évêque assoiffé de pouvoir qui réussit à tourner les masses stupides contre la grandeur de la philosophie grecque, incarnée par Hypatie. Typiquement le film préféré de certains : les religieux sont des cons, les hommes sont des cons, la religion est l’opium du peuple, les puissants en profitent ; la perfection absolue est représentée par une femme agnostique.

Le problème avec ça, c’est que l’histoire d’Hypatie n’est pas aussi claire que ça. Je n’en connais pas assez pour commenter ; il paraît qu’elle ait vraiment existé, et l’histoire montre que Cyril est au gars au moins pas entièrement digne de confiance, mais le film est juste rempli d’anachronismes épouvantables et d’ajouts au plaisir du réalisateur. Il crée une police civile de moines, pratiquement les brigades noires du fascisme italien, qui se baladent en noir avec des sacs plein de cailloux et s’amusent à lapider les infidèles. Leurs commentaires ne font aucun sens théologiquement, ce sont des lourdeaux et pratiquement, le réalisateur leur a donné l’allure des talibans afghans, choisissant même des acteurs avec des teints plus sombres que les autres et des barbes noires (ce qui me paraît également un soupçon de racisme, puisqu'il joue sur les réactions discriminatoires des blancs). Hypatie est typiquement agnostique, comme si cela existait à l’époque. Les commentaires de certains personnages semblent exactement ce que des gens d’aujourd’hui diraient vis-à-vis de Jésus. Les personnages sont des caricatures absolues. Un critique a bien appelé ce film une allégorie. Moi, je l’appelle un scandale. Je sais que l’histoire de l’église est pleine d’injustice et d’abus, j’en sais assez sur ça, et cette époque était le tournant pour l’église, où elle a commencé à se perdre dans des jeux de pouvoir, mais ce que le réalisateur a complètement zappé, c’est le fait que les chrétiens avaient souffert deux-cent ans de persécution avant cela, leur attitude était absolument non-violente pour la plupart. La seule personne qui ait dit quelque chose de sensé dans tout le film est le personnage Orestes, qui dit a un moment : « [Cyril] utilise les Écritures pour son propre intérêt ». Mais j’ai aussi adoré quand le seul chrétien qui semblait gentil jusqu’à ce point tout d’un coup retourne sa veste avec la finesse d’un Inquisiteur du Moyen-Âge.

En gros, c’est de l’histoire orientée, présentée d’un point de vue biaisé avec un message clair : la religion est la cause de toute violence dans le monde, le christianisme est le diable, il faut plutôt décider de ne croire en rien.

Je l’ai également trouvé extrêmement frustrant d’un point de vue du scénario, vraiment mal écrit, les acteurs étaient tous tellement beaux et « emo », avec des coupes super-beau-gosse, les expériences scientifiques d’Hypatie sont vraiment banales, même un enfant saurait que la science ne peut être écrite ainsi. La réplique la plus hilarante a été quand Cyril, questionné par le gouverneur au sujet de la lapidation de certains juifs par les parabolani (la gestapo que j’ai mentionné ci-dessus) inventés par le scénariste, répond : « ils n’étaient pas en train de respecter leur Sabbat. C’est pour cela que les pierres les ont touchés. » … ça me rappelle l’inventivité de Berlusconi quand il répond à certaines accusations. Ce qui est génial, c’est que cette réponse satisfait tout le monde ! « Okay, if you say so… ! I’ll be out back throwing rocks at people and seeing who was predestined to get randomly stoned by God today! » Juste, wow quoi. Et pourtant, il avait bien commencé, ça m’attriste rien que d’y penser.

C’est pour ça, et aussi parce que personne n’arrive à lire un blog trop long de ces jours, que je passe à « Des hommes et des dieux ». Je ne veux pas trop en parler, parce que vous devez aller le voir. Je veux tout simplement en tirer des comparaisons claires. C’est l’histoire vraie d’un groupe de moines français en Algérie dans les années ’90 qui ont dû prendre le choix de rester ou partir en plein dans la période de terrorisme horrible qu’à vécu l’Algérie à ce moment-là. Bien sûr, ici il y a l’apport des témoins oculaires, on parle de films historiques de bien différentes époques. Mais simplement, les comparaisons que je veux apporter sont les suivantes : l’histoire est documentée, point barre. Dans l’autre film elle est fabriquée. Le problème avec cela, c’est qu’aujourd’hui, tout le monde apprend l’histoire, comme ils apprennent tout, par les films. La communication orientée est donc un danger énorme de notre époque et surtout des jeunes qui viennent après nous, puisque nous n’aurons bientôt plus les filtres pour accepter et rejeter correctement ce qui est vrai et ce qui ne l’est pas.

Deuxièmement, le commentaire religieux est fait de l’intérieur, pas de l’extérieur. Le problème avec « Agora », c’est que ce n’est pas ainsi que les gens pensent, parlent ; ils ne montrent même pas de vie spirituelle alors qu’ils sont censés baser leur vie dessus. Ce n’est simplement pas réaliste. « Des hommes et des dieux » nous offre par contre un regard sur l’intérieur de la vie spirituelle intime de moines, qu’on n’aurait probablement pas moyen de connaître autrement que par ce film, sauf en allant rencontrer des moines trappistes nous-mêmes. Les acteurs ont fait un travail incroyable dans l’identification avec ces hommes et leur foi. De même, la religion alternative, l’islam, n’est pas présentée d’une manière qui en fait un antagoniste, il y a un respect pour l’autre.

Finalement, le scénario est phénoménal, les acteurs sont incroyables, les prises de caméra sont spectaculaires, au contraire d’ « Agora », qui m’a semblé être filmé constamment en image de synthèse (même si le problème est peut-être celui de l’écran sur lequel je l’ai visionné).

À la fin du film « Agora », j’avais envie de pleurer, parce qu’il y a tant de mensonges et tant de haine. Je peux comprendre que beaucoup qui lisent ceci me diront que je suis positionné par rapport à cette question, mais je veux que tout le monde ait les faits sur le christianisme, et non les constructions d’un système qui les favorise et pour lequel un film comme celui-ci n’est rien de différent. De plus, je vous dirais, vous l’êtes aussi.

À la fin de « Des hommes et des dieux », j’ai pleuré, mais parce que ce film est réellement beau. J’ai mes réservations vis-à-vis de la vie monastique et bien sûr du catholicisme, mais j'ai été touché profondément.

L’effet de confronter ces deux films est similaire à quelque chose d’autre qui m’est arrivé récemment. Suite à avoir élargi ma culture sur le monde japonais, l’histoire, la langue etc. j’ai revu « le Dernier Samouraï » un de mes films préférés. Le scénario est excellent et il est spectaculaire sur le plan esthétique. Le problème c’est que j’avais vu quelques semaines auparavant un film japonais de 1968 appelé « Kill » (en fait il s’appelle « Kiru » en japonais, ce qui signifie « couper »), où le mythe du samouraï est complètement démonté. Cela m’a ôté beaucoup du goût pour le film avec Tom Cruise, même s’il reste une bonne fable, extrêmement bien filmé. Une telle comparaison chamboule nos perspectives.

Voilà, je vous laisse avec ces pensées, allez voir ces films et faites-moi savoir ce que vous en pensez.

The gospel for a twenty-six year-old underachiever

This morning, on my birthday… I felt like crap. It’s not the getting older which is the problem, but all the implications attached to that. The twenty-six year-old I am is not the twenty-six year-old I’d like to be. I’ve no career, am struggling to finish my master’s, have no wife, no children, no money, I still don’t perform my own music live; my dreams to become a great pastor are constantly being frustrated, I’m not well-thought of by some people in my own family, in my own church, even within my groups of friends; I still struggle with the same sins I did ten years ago; I’m still proud and arrogant, but filled with insecurities… I’m a certified underachiever. Plus, I had a headache.

Now, as I meditated on how rubbish I am, and spiralled into my own self-pity, I realised I wasn’t doing myself any favours, but I struggled to look up and seek guidance, also because of pride. As I prepared breakfast, my old housemate who is again staying with us for some time came up and we started talking. As we shared coffee and our personal struggles, I gradually realised once again… I am loved beyond my wildest dreams, by a God who knows all my weaknesses, all my filth, and yet is willing to constantly pour his love on me. What have I done to merit this?

Nothing.

That’s the gospel. Not even despite, but BECAUSE of my failure, my sin, my weakness, Jesus chose to save me. He chose to get involved with my muck and wipe the tears from my eyes. That’s grace… And I’m relying on it, for everything.

My joy is found not in my achievements, but in his achievements for me. As we meditated on our situations as well as on various complicated doctrines, we realised this is what we needed:

O LORD, my heart is not lifted up;

my eyes are not raised too high;

I do not occupy myself with things

too great and too marvellous for me.

But I have calmed and quieted my soul,

like a weaned child with its mother;

like a weaned child is my soul within me.

O Israel, hope in the LORD

from this time forth and forevermore.

(Psalm 131 ESV)

… Closeness with our great father. So I must preach the gospel to myself again, because I need it more than ever.

Calvin and his mates

Finally grabbing some time to post a new entry!

A few weeks ago, as I walked through the Parc des Bastions in central Geneva to soak up the sun, and strolled along the little wall beneath the monument to the Reformers, looking up at the smiling faces of J.C., G.F., J.K. and T.B. I noticed something which despite having walked past them countless times, I had never seen before: every single one of the four great reformers is holding a book, but not just holding a book, they are holding a page inside a book! This led me to a thought that made me chuckle to myself, imagining the ridiculous anachronism of a photographer trying to get the four camera-shy reformers all at once on camera, forcing them all to get away from their reading and to stand in one place for a moment, just to get a decent group pic… Hence the smiling faces (not!). This may seem strange, but they really are holding a page (picture proof!!!). If one looks closely, one will even notice that though Calvin is trying to do the intellectual cool guy pose by showing what he’s reading, he’s cheekily holding another page at the same time!

Now of course, this statue wasn’t built from any group photograph or painting, but the artists were smart guys, and this detail was obviously intentional.

I recently read Herman Selderhuis’ (expert on the history of the Reformation) biography on Calvin, which he wrote by using pretty much everything Calvin has ever written; loved it, he really brings Calvin to life in a realistic, non caricatured way, presenting him as a true human being, in fact, an extraordinary human being, and showing all of his personality traits in a balanced way. In speaking of him as an intellectual, he used the word “humanist”, which at first surprised me, but after some reflection it opened my eyes to something. The original concept and movement of humanism came before the “Enlightenment”, and was actually led mostly by Christians. Its original meaning and scope were not those of today, which are to “live and let live”, by placing humans at the centre of the universe. The supporters of the original humanistic movement were people who attributed value to all humans and believed that humans can change the world, and a major tool towards that, as it still is, was the education of everyone, which is why these people were avid readers, thirsty for knowledge. They were tired of the power being in the hands of the rich, who kept both temporal and spiritual knowledge for themselves and used it (or didn’t use it…) for their benefit over others. That is why the tagline of the reformation is: “Post tenebras lux”, meaning “after the darkness (of the obscurantism led by the Catholic Church), came the light" (of Christ, as people were allowed to read the Scriptures for themselves and discovered Jesus as he truly reveals himself in the Bible).

This explains why contemporary humanists and thinking Christians have very similar ways of reasoning, parallel streams of thought; is natural for their thinking patterns to look alike, when they share the same cultural ancestors.* It also explains why it is so hard for them to understand each other, and why so often they, or should I say ‘we’, are suspicious of each other! The basic assumptions are completely different and therefore the conclusions are different (quick example: Christians: “God is the centre of existence and giver of all joy, therefore humans can only find true and lasting meaning and joy in life by centring their lives on Him”; humanists: “Man’s existence is what defines the future of this planet, therefore humans can only find true and lasting meaning and joy in life by focusing their efforts on making everyone agree.” Caricatured, but generally true). There are so many similarities between the two steams of thought, and I greatly respect many humanists. We both believe in the intrinsic value of human beings. We believe in equality. We believe in the importance of education. One thing that could help open up the dialogue more would be if they could admit that they are just as exclusivist as Christians (and of course, all other monotheistic religions). Another would be to realise that the intrinsic value of human beings and equality were not invented by humanist philosophers, but are biblical values that had never existed in history before the Bible, and that obligatory education for everyone is something that was first instituted by Christians, not communists. This isn’t to knock la laïcité, which means secularism, but to note that if this value which is so held to by continental Europeans is truly respected, it has to include and honour the “laity”, which means everyone, not just the intellectual élite.

Back to our reformers, these guys basically, were readers! And contrary to what people believe, they didn’t only read the Bible. Calvin’s first book as a young man was a commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia and before he got into Theology, he was a Law student. Believing in education, with Thédore de Bèze, he started both the Collège and Académie de Genève (de Bèze is holding the Academiae curriculum in the statue).

These guys were working for change, nothing else. They weren’t there to make a name for themselves. That’s why they had a huge impact on history, and probably why today they are among the most misunderstood personalities of history.

… The other day I was showing the old town of Geneva to some mates from the UK, and we walked into the cathedral… It’s pretty boring. Nothing much to see there. Having lived in Canterbury for six years, with the stunningly beautiful cathedral at its centre, it seems truly unimpressive. Walking around that area where Calvin supposedly taught, walked, sat, slept, it looks old, but there’s nothing particularly aesthetic about it. There’s a reason for that. It was never intended to be. In the Bible, the church is the dwelling place of the presence of God, but “church” doesn’t mean “building”, it means “people”. The building, in Reformed tradition, is a purely functional place for believers to meet, not considered more holy than any other, or a place where God is more accessible than elsewhere. That’s why there are no items there to make one think so. Calvin’s biggest beef with the Catholic church was concerning idolatry (which is coincidentally one of God’s biggest beefs with Israel in the Bible!). That’s why the cathedral sucks as a museum. That’s why his house sucks as a museum. If I had to choose a museum to visit, I’d probably choose the Vatican several times over any other, because of its extravagant beauty. And even though I love the history of the Reformation, I still haven’t brought myself to visit the museum of the Reformation, right next to the cathedral: because visually, there’s nothing to see. I can read it all in a book. How weird do you think Calvin would find it that people actually visit his old house, his bed, his crapper? How weird would you find it, if you found out that after your death people came to visit your quarters? I remember the funny story of a toilet which was considered by its owner as a monument, because Sir Sean Connery had once taken a dump there… Weird. That’s idolatry.

Calvin and his mates knew that history wasn’t about them, and led unglamorous lives just like you and me. That was their joy. Contentment with what they had, and discontentment with obscurantism, elitism, malevolent dictatorship and idolatry. They made their lives to be about the glory of God and the good of mankind. Their buildings don’t shine out as some others do, but their lives and legacy shine on.

* Anyone wanting to argue about these definitions should first visit: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/humanisme

Sublimating...

So it's been a while, but here's another song. It's been on my heart for a very long time and I have just finished the lyrics. I prayed to God whether I needed to change anything and checked out the passage of Scripture that has in part inspired it, and reading through it I thought "That's it, I don't need to change it." I'm still a bit iffy on the melody, and my voice is sounding like an angry cat at times these days for whatever reason, the cold I think, but the lyrics are sweet as, even though I do say so myself. But it's like a legal download from heaven, so the copyright is kinda Jesus'. But I still put my name on it.

I want to give special thanks (this is the first time I've ever done this) to Dr. Tim Keller who has profoundly impacted me with his teaching on the subject matter, my Connect Group and other people at ICF who have forced me to think through my theology to explain it better, which only reinforced it and taught me grace, a few people who shall remain nameless whom God used to shake my world and break my heart, teaching me something about humility, and ultimately God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who lovingly opened a can of whoop on me and especially on my own idols this last year and broke me down to build me up again... who keeps doing this, and who provided me with very vivid images that have undergirded the making of this song.

I have been able to come up with an adage which describes my objectives when I write a song, it may seem pretentious, but whatever, I don't care, I'm a wordsmith, that's what I do (though not always very well), and this is it: "Sublimating theology into music"... I love it. That's what I want to do.

As you can see, there's a lot of my heart poured into this song, so by all means, leave a comment, but be gentle. That'll be much appreciated.



I will redeem you
(Bringing down idols and grinding them into
dust to feed them to the wind...)

Written between 08/2009 and 03/2010

We are so alienated but I know you still long for me,
Every plan frustrated spelling how much you are weak.
The things you were so attentive to have caught you off guard
and turned themselves against you, bracing chains to your heart.

Weighed down by the very things you’d hoped would free you still
I’m coming after you, my feelings so strong they could kill…

Let my words come, running through the fabric of what makes you,
gently traumatising all you thought you knew…
Let my word go, cut right through the fetters that defiled you,
hurting, hurting to renew…

(Could anyone foresee or understand…?
For whose sake this blow will land?)

I’ll reach into my heart, and tear it asunder
hoping that my cry- will break the spell you’re under.
There’s fire in my eyes, I have nothing left to ponder.
My hammer will rain down the fury of a lover!

And all the statues came crumbling down, rubble covering all the ground,
perfect man-made carved detail, shown for imperfection veiled.
As the idols broke apart they lost their hold on your heart,
crushing gods crushed in this scene, there you stood, spotless, pure, redeemed…

You shine, with the knowledge that turns all things upside-down…
The splendour reflected in you is the beauty of all things true.

I want to sing my song over you,
I want to sing my song over you,
to call your name, forever: My Delight Is In You,
I’m here to sing this song over you.

That once barren ground has now grown a tree,
a garden of pleasures for just you and me…

© Joseph Antonio Natali, 2010.

14th Feb

Feel like I’m gonna get a lot of hate mail from dudes in a few minutes, and potentially even from girls!

I just wanted to comment on the subject of relationships, since it’s Valentine’s period, one which I’m not a fan of, not so much for personal reasons, I got over those with adolescence, but for corporate reasons; it’s one of those non-days which of course are just used for commercial purposes, but worse than that, I believe there are more depressed people on these kind of days than there are happy people, and that doesn’t just go for singles.

I’m sure couples experience crises on these kinds of days, when they’re not stable and they don’t know whether they’ll be together in a few days, or weeks, or months from now, usually because the guys don’t want to commit. I can’t speak as a guy who has his life all sorted out, so I’ll speak with a pastor’s heart: ladies, you’re worth fighting for. You’re worth respect, worth a guy who’s ready to invest into a relationship with you, so don’t settle. I don’t mean that you set ridiculous standards for his looks, style or income, those things can be worked on, but for his character, yes. You’re not his saviour, you can’t change him, something else has to. So if he’s indifferent, if he’s verbally abusive, if he’s physically abusive, if he can’t keep a conversation with you without his eyes darting to the next pair of buns that walk by, if he’s only affectionate on one day of the year because it’s the one day which he is reminded of by everything else, he’s not the guy for you, or not yet. Expect more from him, “I can’t help it” isn’t good enough. I’ve heard countless guys tell me things like: “I’m faithful to my girlfriend, but not in my mind”… And grin. As a guy, I know of the weaknesses of the mind, but that’s nothing to be proud of, nor accepting. As a pastor I deeply respect says: “When you’re dating, he’s on his best behaviour, so later on, you can only expect it to go worse…” let us use for a wonderful example the really nice guy I met on the train with a friend on Thursday. Engineer, fun guy, married with four kids, somewhere between his late 30s and early 40s. What I suspect his wife isn’t aware of is about what he told us in the most casual manner, while talking about Canada: “Oh Montreal, great place, wonderful dancing parlours.”… By dancing parlours, he meant those gentleman’s clubs known as strip-bars.

“I see it like going to a museum. What’s the difference, it’s all art.”

“Well the difference is the sleaziness”, says I.

“Right. Well I try to stay out of the really sleazy ones.”

Really? Wow, what an effort! The shocking thing is that he mentioned it to us because he expected us to high-five him like Borat would. When he asked us whether we went to those type of places, I just said “no, we’re good church boys”, which was a good enough answer for him, but not for us. We would have loved to tell him that it’s not our religion that prohibits us from going there, that even if we were offered, we wouldn’t, that there’s a huge difference between that and a museum, that the value of women is being thrown in the mud in those places and that he should repent and praise God that he still has his wife and four kids with him… And we felt frustrated that we didn’t.

See, if he doesn’t have the ideal to be faithful with his whole self from the start, it’s not going to get better 20 years down the line. Don’t settle for anything less, in fact, expect more than that!

So if you haven’t found the right guy yet, why don’t you let Jesus be your Valentine. If you’re lonely, he’ll comfort you, if you’re hurting, he can heal you. If you’re addicted or enslaved to something, he can free you, if you need help, he can support you. If you feel lost, he can direct you. If you feel worthless, he can show you how much you’re worth. If you feel unloved, he can love you. He’s the saviour you need. In fact, he’s the saviour that guys need! That I need! I’m not John McClane, I’m the kid who gets himself in a mess and who needs help, and eventually, thanks to him, I can grow up and get it together (cultural reference: Die Hard IV). When you realise that you’re not the hero of your story, that you’re just messing it up, his intervention can change you and really give you the tools to be a good guy… That’s one of the main points in the Bible, whether you believe in it or not.

So there you go, here’s an e-card to tell you Jesus loves you today. As cheesy as that sounds. But he really, really does.

Shed that skin...

Here’s another post that probably only 3 people out of my 5-fan readership will understand…

Exam periods are always the same… Ups and downs, you’re undulating with emotions, eating patterns, sleeping patterns etc… How I long for the time when I have a job and don’t have to suffer the whims of teachers.

After spending a whole day indoors last week, I decided I could take it no more. It had been snowing for days and I hadn’t even taken advantage of that. I was frustrated physically, intellectually and emotionally. I put my jogging gear on, plus a scarf, bonnet and my crappy torn woollen gloves and ran out into the night, flakes still descending upon the already white blanket covering Collonges.

There’s something quite special about running in the snow. Whatever light there is, it is reflected by the snow on the ground, so on a late night walk through the city with a friend last week, it seemed like it was daytime, but on this starless night it was an opaque continuum interrupted by luminous patches, depending on the presence of lampposts. There was so much snow and it was so dark that, when I reached the fields, I couldn’t differentiate the path from the field with my eyes; I had to feel the path’s harder ground. However, after a while, I decided the road most travelled wasn’t the right choice, since I’d decided to go for a shorter run than usual and wasn’t getting any exercise, so I dove into the open field, ending up a foot-deep in snow with soft ground underneath. That got my heart racing! I pulled my foot out of the snow with every step, jogging uphill towards the mountains I couldn’t see, starting to breathe heavily, looking back from time to time to see the marks I was leaving on the previously immaculate carpet, but the snow was so pure and thick, I couldn’t even see them…

I don’t know how long I ran for. Nonetheless, on my way back, going through the same fields, reaching what I judged was the centre of the biggest, whitest one, I rolled, landing on my back, and just lay there. I made an angel in the snow and just stared at the blank sky. No Betelgeuse, no Deneb, no Cassiopea. Just a sheet of grey. I felt better physically, but still couldn’t quite put my finger on what was bothering me, what I needed to evacuate… Then I heard it. I can never tell how I do, I just do. “Shed that skin… just shed it.”

The words rang deep. I was lacking the vision of eternity. I’d been living off of cheap grace, that asks nothing of me and gives me nothing to live for, instead of the powerful and costly grace I’ve received, that asks everything of me but gives me all things. Flesh was obscuring my sight and killing my thoughts, my moods, my heart. I was living contrary to my calling. It’s really hard to express this with words, even for me, but I just needed to realise anew the depths of the joys of living in light of eternity, the freedom of living in obedience to God (that awesome paradox, wonderfully explained throughout Romans chapters 5 through 8 in the Bible), the joys of running effortlessly in the grace of Jesus Christ, no matter what I do. I needed to shed my skin. To rid myself of patterns of thought set in over years, hidden in my flesh.

I got up, looked back at the very realistic angel imprint and back-flipped my way out of the field, that is, until I realised that isn’t feasible in the snow…

Days later, I realised that comes also from an attitude I have of waiting and hoping for something to happen in my life, something that is missing. I need to live in the ‘now’ of eternity, I have all things NOW, in Christ. Christ has to be my ultimate satisfaction, or else I’ll be constantly disappointed. And it’s not that I have to put that on him: He already is! I have to understand that again and again, and go to him to drink, not mess around with other dirty sources of water, as Lewis points out in his address “The Weight of Glory”, when he declares boldly that our desires are “not too strong, but too weak”!

I formulated it this way today in a note to myself:

“There’s no expiration date on God’s faithfulness, goodness, ‘betterness’ for me. If I start thinking like that, I’m just using him as another functional god and not worshipping and seeing him as the one true God. That kind of ‘use by date’ worship can never satisfy. There’s no time in life when God will stop being the only important thing and will only serve the purpose I assign to him if I have this or that other things as well. You can’t tell God “well, I’ll live my life for you, but I’d better be married by the time I’m twenty-eight, otherwise my life will be wasted.” That’s using him, and elevating your self instead of giving it up and finding your place at his feet, as his child. You end up like the older son in the parable… Only when God takes his place as the centre and source of everything I live for will his joy, love and power truly flow and overflow into every area of my life, and make sense of everything that doesn’t, existentially satisfying me.”

John Calvin said that our hearts are idol factories. I have to regularly kick the things that would take their place in my life as functional gods out of my heart, or else my heart will grow sick. There’s nothing else that can be my saviour… No-one else can take the pressure, and all things material will anyway pass away in the face of eternity. And when eternity fully comes, the things I worry about now will lose all meaning, so might as well live like that now, trusting in God’s faithfulness, goodness, ‘betterness’.

That’s kind of two posts in one, sorry for the battyness, but I don’t care, nobody reads this anyway! (Except for you, thank you very much!)

Music that runs shivers down my spine as I'm writing this: Tonight, by LaRue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWZEJQTlEks