the volcano sisters

Lately, the kids have really gotten into the TV show called The Backyardigans.  I am enjoying this because it has long been one of my favorite kids' shows.

The idea of the show is that five kids play in their back yards, and whatever storyline they imagine up during play time is the story for the show.  They play pretty much any characters a kid could think up from pirates to spies to traveling polka musicians.

One specific episode sticks out as a favorite, though, because I think it is so illustrative of a lot of relationships I have witnessed (and most assuredly not my own).  This is the episode entitled "The Legend of the Volcano Sisters."

In this episode the two girls play the Volcano Sisters who control the volcano on an island, and the boys play the Luau Brothers who are planning a luau on the island.  The girls announce that they are unhappy and announce that the volcano will go off if the boys are unable to address this.  Not wanting their luau ruined the boys run off, sure that the girls want something grand.

One boy climbs up a mountain to find the giant Very Heavy Tiki Mask on Tiki Mountain and brings that to the girls.  They announce that this is not what they want.  The next boy swims into the ocean to grab the Shiniest Pearl and brings that to the girls.  They reject this gift as well.  This point of the story is summed up in the song "Huka Pele," and this whole sequence is why I love this episode.  To see the guys running around clueless while the girls make demands is simply hilarious to me.  Finally, the last boy presents his idea of what the girls want.

The final boy brings a flower to the girls and asks them if they would like to come to join them for the luau.  Of course, this final boy actually did figure out what the girls wanted.  They were not looking for some spectacular gift.  They just wanted to be included.

There is probably more I can say, but I will leave it at that.  I truly just love this whole scenario from the episode.

manure cake

This builds off my recent post about the dreadful sinful state of every member of humanity, though it is not necessarily intended to be a "part two" in a series.

I have heard an illustration about sin multiple places that bugs me.  It goes something like this.

Imagine I were to make a cake for you.  The best cake you could imagine.  It would be moist, full of chocolate, and delectable in every aspect save one.  That cake would have just a little bit of horse or cow manure in it.  Not much at all in comparison to the cake, really.  There's a good chance you'd barely even taste the manure.  Would you still want the cake?

The person presenting the illustration typically goes on to note that this is how we should view "little sins."  Justifications that they are not a big deal is similar to stating that the manure in the cake is not a big deal because it is only a little bit of manure.

My objections to this illustration are below.

We sin because we are sinners

The illustration does not typically encourage introspection as to the source of sin.  If the source of sin is not addressed, all we're really doing in a best-case scenario is window dressing.  The form this often takes is in enforcing a specific social code that is called a moral code, but that is not always strictly Biblical.

There should be more poop than cake

If the cake represents the good things a person does and the manure the bad things a person does, then the cake should be mostly manure no matter the person.  Paul compared his lifetime of law-keeping and maintaining good standing within Judaism on the same level as dung, or "rubbish" (Phil 3:8).  While we are not under the law, law itself is still the perfect measuring stick that proves our sinfulness.  If any good action should be considered delicious cake to God, wouldn't keeping His law be at the top of the list?  If Paul's good deeds should be considered feces, so should everyone else's.

This is important because the illustration betrays a misconception that the illustration teller has.  This is that the typical Christian is mostly sanctified and really just needs a few social faux pas issues addressed rather than a complete overhaul.  Most of us All of us will still need a near-complete overhaul by the time we die.

This implies that our role is to make ourselves perfect for God

I cannot emphasize enough that if I have to make myself good for God's sake I will fail.  There has only ever been one good person on this earth, and it is not me.  It is not ever going to be me in this life, either.  Not by a long shot.

If I believe that I have to make myself perfect for God but literally cannot do this, what do you suppose the end result of this path will be?  I see one of two possibilities.  Either I will become embittered and fearful as I see sin in everything while always hating myself for not sizing up, or I will adopt a permissive doctrine on sin because God wouldn't send me on an impossible task.  With the first possibility I will get burned out and possibly give up on God.  With the second possibility I will lose sight of my sin nature, which is a symptom that I lack justification.

This puts us at odds with God's intent to be the one to change us

My responsibility is to not willingly offer the parts of my body to sin (Rom 6:12-13) and to live up to the level of my sanctification (Phil 3:15-16).  The actual changing of my being into something more like God has to be performed by God.

This focuses attention on certain sins while completely ignoring others

This illustration is typically used to address quibbles about social faux pas "sins" rather than affronts to God.  As an example, this approach ultimately makes it look like God cares more about whether I use a four-letter word than if I sacrifice for a brother in need, while Scripture focuses significantly more on the latter than the former.

Clarification: Sin is bad

I do want to note that I am not belittling sin or implying that it is no big deal.  Sin is a reflection of a deeply flawed individual, and it ultimately needs to be addressed.  What I am saying is that the cow patty cake illustration does nothing to truly deal with the sin, and by implying that we are responsible for making ourselves perfect the illustration sends the audience down a path that leads to destruction rather than salvation.  Our salvation and our ultimate perfection is in Christ, and Christ offers the only path to address sin.

Addressing a potential objection

One potential response to my assertion that it is not our role to make ourselves perfect for God is Romans 12:1, presented below from the NIV and bolded to emphasize the potential objection.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship."

Paul appears to be telling his audience that they need to make themselves perfect and present themselves to God when read without context, doesn't he?  Not only that, it looks like we cannot worship properly without doing this as well.  Context paints a slightly different picture, though.

The most obvious contextual clue about what this verse is stating is in the very next verse (emphasis mine).

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

While there is certainly action that is expected from us in this passage, it is clear in this verse where perfection comes from.  We are not presenting our bodies to God as perfect.  We are not transforming ourselves.  We are presenting our bodies to God as sacrifices to be ultimately be transformed into something perfect.  By God.  This fits into Paul's earlier statements in Romans (6:16) that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.  We might have some say in our path, but we can't in ourselves do anything to make ourselves less sinful (or less slaves to the sin nature).

I have a couple of other points from the context that contradict the idea that we are supposed to make ourselves perfect which I present below.

1. The sentence in Romans 12:1 begins with the word, "therefore." This implies that the verse is in response to something from the preceding verses, and Paul is clear that that something is God's mercy.  Paul has just completed talking about both the Jews' and the Gentiles' rebellion against God, and how this ultimately leads to God's mercy toward both (11:30-31).  Presenting your bodies is therefore an act of someone who has already received (or is receiving) God's mercy and, even in the most law-based of theologies, should not presently need to prove something to God.
    
2. In the "Doxology" passage that is typically seen as the conclusion of the thoughts from the first half of Romans Paul makes clear that we cannot give God anything (11:35).  This means that we cannot offer God perfection, as that would certainly qualify as a gift to Him.  The verse reads as follows and is the perfect conclusion to this piece.

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"

Definitely not me!

six-word stories

Ernest Hemmingway once wrote the following six-word story on a challenge.

"For sale: baby shoes, never used."

The six word story sounds like a conquerable challenge to be sure, but this example illustrates what is involved for a good submission.  How do you place so much back story into so few words?  The sentence has to be structured in a way that pushes the reader to fill in the blanks, and in this case most of the blanks are filled in and they are all sad.  In Hemmingway's story, the classified ad device perfectly trims what would otherwise be sentences to six words.  Honestly, seven words would be orders of magnitude easier.

A few I thought of, but don't quite provide the back story depth that Hemmingway was able to generate are below.  Like Hemmingway's example, they are mostly a bit dark.  That's more indicative to what makes an interesting story than how dark my thinking is, though.

"Meet John, my twin half-brother."
"We danced under mushroom cloud lighting."
"Mute button broke. Now seeking employment."
"Neighbor found dead after eight weeks."
"She got Draco in the divorce."
"Vegetarian salad, please. Also, steak. Rare."
"Eviction: three days. Death in four."
"My love concurred all. Couldn't disagree."
"Not interested in interest. Soon bankrupt."
"She was a rock. He paper."
"Pyrrhic victory. Opponent's suffering exceeds mine."
"He on one knee. She gone."
"Doppelganger not the evil twin. Surprise!"
"One sacrifice required: everything. Now complete."

There are some decent submissions here, and most are far beyond what I have written. Do you have any ideas for a six-word story?

source of humility

We have been going over the parables of Jesus in Sunday School for the last several months, and something struck me recently.  A large number of them turn on a specific character being unable to accept his own unworthiness.  I have mentioned this before in the parable of the unmerciful servant, but it shows up in other parables as well.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) the primary point is that the Pharisee is not justified because he does not see his own sin.  In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) the older son is representative of people who wrongly believed themselves righteous.  Jesus' illustration of the plank in one's eye (Matt 7:1-6) is also a perfect illustration of the error of attempting to assist others in their errors while ignoring your own issues.

Two things spring to mind regarding this.  First, if Jesus gave so much air time to the danger of thinking ourselves more holy than we ought, this should probably be an important topic for training.

Second, I don't know that I have heard many sermons that focus strongly on the fact that we are all treacherous sinners in desperate need of salvation.  I don't mean to say that I have never heard it said that we all need Christ, because I certainly have.  It has always been as a minor supporting step leading to some other point, though.  As such, I believe that it is easy for a proclaiming Christian to dangerously underestimate the level of evil exists in his or her being that necessitates Christ's justification and sanctifying work.  Since so much important stuff relies on having a proportional understanding of our sinfulness, I think this is a dangerous position to find ourselves.

In the parable of the unmerciful servant we learn that forgiveness to others is necessary through a proper perspective of the unpayable debt we have been forgiven.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector we learn that the person who believes himself good in contrast to an obvious sinner is simply not justified (scary indeed!).  In the parable of the prodigal son Jesus leaves the story open at the end, but we know that most of those who the older son represented rejected Christ.  In the plank in one's eye passage we learn that we cannot help others with their issues if we are unaware of our own.

My sense is that a large percentage of the mistakes that modern Christians make, and that have resulted in non-Christians having a wrong idea about what Christianity is, springs from thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought.  We are horrific sinners saved by grace, and whose sanctification is far from complete.  If Paul was the chief of sinners I am too.  I have no room for moral superiority or boasting.

Isn't the personal humility that comes with this foundational principle of the Gospel what makes the grace offered in the Gospel such good news?  I am undeserving scum who far falls short of the mark, but God in His love and mercy offers me salvation anyway.