The type of art that one would die for

I had a conversation with a friend about a month or two ago. We were talking about the movie the Dark Knight at the time. We were talking about Heath Ledger's acting of the role "the Joker". My friend (who is into acting more than myself) said a really thought provoking comment. He said something along the lines of "[Heath Ledger] dying to play the acting role of the joker, now that's good/worthy art". The essence of what he said stuck with me. While I don't think that actors should die for their acting roles, the lingering comment in my head started to make some parallels in my spiritual life.

Christ calls us to "deny ourselves" and "lose our lives" to follow him (Luke 9:23-24). Now Jesus is clearly not telling his followers to commit suicide, or annihilate themselves. He is telling his followers (aka his "imitators") to die to their own selfish will and life for God's will, or in Dallas Willard's words, to "no longer live to get one's own way, but live for God's way".

Think about actors engaging in the art of acting. These professional actors who specialize in imitating characters of different roles are engaging in something that is more than mere behaviour modification. They really have to "become" the character from the inside in a way. The don't just enter the world of the character. You can say that the world of the character also enters them.

http://submittedforyourperusal.com/2008/03/01/did-the-joker-kill-heath-ledger

Notice the excerpts from the Rolling Stones obituary of Heath Ledger commenting on him "entering the role" of the Joker:

1. “He couldn’t seem to disengage; the inexactness bothered him.”
2. “Ledger had no formal training, and there’s this to be said for acting school: it teaches you to approach a role as foreign, as a language you’ll temporarily speak. Ledger didn’t appear to have that. He needed to dig for (and inhabit) the part of himself that was the character. ‘Performance comes from absolutely believing what you’re doing,’ he said. ‘You convince yourself, and believe in the story with all your heart.’ It didn’t always shut off when a production did, and I think it ground him.”
3. “As The Joker in next summer’s The Dark Knight, he will appear as a man severed from all connection. A ‘psychopathic, mass-murdering clown with zero empathy,’ is how he described it to the New York Times. On set, Michael Caine said the performance sometimes turned so frightening he forgot his own lines.”

I also heard that Heath Ledger locked himself up in a room for month(s) to really enter into the character to play his role as crisp, natural, and authentic as possible. One can say that he not only became the Joker. The Joker became him.

I am reminded by an excerpt from a book called "I told me so" by Gregg Elshof (a book primarily about self-deception). He is very insightful when he talks about us "imitating" Jesus:



Jesus was down on hypocrisy - he didn't seem to have much room for it at all. As followers of Jesus, we're called to live lives of authenticity and candor. At the same time, though, we're called to a lifestyle of imitation. We are imitators of Jesus.

Think about imitation.

When I imitate something or someone, I adopt patterns of being that are external to me, foreign, and unnatural. The presumption of the New Testament is that I do not presently have the character of Christ. Instead, I am twisted and broken. My present opportunity is to play at having the heart of Christ - to imitate him - in an attempt to cooperate with the Holy Spirit as Christ is realized in me. With the help of God's Spirit, I put off the old self, that which is authentically me at present, and put on the new self, that which is authentically Christ. Over time, that which was at first artificial, foreign, and unnatural takes root, and I am transformed. I begin by blessing those who curse me, even though everything in me is pushing a curse through my lips. I'm playing. I'm imitating the one for whom the blessing comes naturally. Over time, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that which was once forced and unnatural becomes the reflex response I begin by deciding to give when my heart is selfish. I'm playing. I'm imitating the one for whom generosity is instinctive. Over time, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that which was once opposed to my nature becomes natural for me - as it was and is for Jesus. We play at being Christ's followers in order to become his followers.

But this whole process of transformation through imitation is unavailable to the hyper-authentic. They will bless only when they feel a genuine desire for the well-being of the other. They will give only when they feel generous. Hyper-authenticity rules out the possibility of imitating anyone other than yourself - and so it rules out the possibility of cooperating with the Holy Spirit in your own spiritual re-formation by imitating the Master.

When I was in college, I picked up the guitar. I played for years without formal instruction before I finally decided to get some lessons. By that time I had settled into some pretty bad habits. At my first lesson, my teacher positioned my thumb differently on the back of the neck of the guitar. Suddenly, I was completely incapable of playing even the simple things I had played before. I felt awkward and unnatural. But the teacher assured me that if I stuck with it, I'd get used to it and, in time, this new position would free me to reach chords I could never have reached using my old method.

Insofar as I am not yet perfectly like Christ, the imitation of Christ will, at times, feel false, unnatural, and insincere. But if we trust the Master, we'll obey even when obedience isn't what comes naturally - even when obedience runs contrary to what we're feeling at the moment. This isn't hypocrisy; we don't act contrary to our impulses in an attempt to fake anybody out. We act contrary to our impulses because we wish to be re-trained. We wish to be something other than what we are today. We wish to be putting off the old self and putting on the new.

Imitation, then, can be perfectly authentic. It can be the outworking of an authentic intention to take on the heart and character of Christ. But imitation precludes hyper-authenticity. So if you want to be a student of Jesus, beware of hyper-authenticity.



I think us Jesus followers can learn a lot in a modified channeling of Heath Ledger's death due to his engagement (at least partially) with his assigned acting role as the Joker.

If secular actors can physically die due to turning into the characters that they wish to imitate through art, us Christians can and should spiritually die to ourselves in our pursuit the "art" of imitating Jesus and becoming like him.

I should imitate Jesus in the attitude of a professional actor so much to the extent that not only I enter the role of Jesus, but Jesus enters the role of me, and in some mysterious way, becomes me as I aspire to become like him.

Dostoevsky said something along the lines of "First art would imitate life. Then life would imitate art. Then life would find its very meaning for existence from the arts."

Oh Jesus, allow me to devote my entire life to "acting" and entering the role of a 21st Century North American incarnation of you as I try to imitate how you would literally walk, speak, sleep, eat, interact with others, serve others, and relate to the Father through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. So much to the extent that my old self is dead, remains dead, and the world sees you alive through my dead self.

Shanghai Noon illustrating new wineskins

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."
-Mark 2:21-22

There is a time when an old "system" of doing things has to go. There was a time when the old system of doing things had a relevant place, was an honourable and God-glorifying ritual, and brought people closer to God under specific conditions. However, times keep changing, and and therefore methods and means need to keep changing as well. The substance of Christianity ought to never change. But the the vehicle/methods/vessels/containers or "wineskins" must change from generation to generation. If we look across biblical history and extrabiblical church history, we will see the Holy Spirit always changing things up, finding new ways of doing things, all the while retaining the non-changing substance of the Kingdom of God.


I like how Shanghai Noon illustrates this. We can learn a lot from it.

In the parable of Shanghai Noon:

Being Chinese represents being Christian. An ongoing question in this parable is: What does it mean to be Chinese in the current generation? Is it only a matter of following preexisting rules, regulations, and rituals that were relevant for the last generation? Or is there more to being Chinese than only the cultural roots? While the cultural roots and traditions of the Chinese culture should be valued, commemorated, and respected, is being Chinese merely following these roots and traditions? What does it mean to be Chinese in contemporary times?

Similarly, what does it mean to be a genuine Christian in the current generation? Is it only a matter of following preexisting rules, regulations, and rituals that have previously blessed the previous generations of the Church? Or is there more to merely following the traditions and cultural roots of Christianity? While the cultural roots and traditions of the Christian culture should be valued, commemorated, and respected, is being Christian merely following these roots and traditions? What does it mean to be a Jesus follower in the 21st Century?

The traditional Chinese Imperial guards represent the previous generation of Christianity (20th century North American Christianity let's say). There is a rich culture and tradition of practices, values, and customs in it. It worked in a certain time and place, and many people benefited and were blessed by it.

Similarly there is a rich culture and heritage of previous generations of Christianity. There was a certain time and place for it and many people were blessed by it. Hence it is tempting to universally prescribe these relative cultural traditions to all future generations while confusing the substance (what does it mean to be Christian?) with the forms (how did previous generations live out the Christian life in their culture?)

The Princess (Lucy Liu) represents a daughter of the Emperor of the Universe (God), who has nevertheless strayed from the Kingdom of God although once walking in it. She has been disillusioned with the traditional North American 20th century Church. While it had a time and a place, and she previously was blessed by it, there was also hypocrisy, rigid rituals, inflexibility, and a lack of creative/dynamic/organic freshness in it. Therefore she has strayed from the Kingdom, because the "system" of outdated wineskins of Christianity has left her disillusioned. Lucy Liu wants to stay in the West, not because she hates China. She respects her cultural heritage and does not want to cut it off, but prefers to stay in the West and explore what it means to "be Chinese" in the West. (Because "being Chinese" is not a matter of where you live and what you do. It is a state of being that finds novel expressions in new settings. [e.g. CBCs and ABCs])

The bad guy Chinese guy in black represents Satan, who holds the wayward Children of God hostage. Certain children of the Emperor of the Universe have been wayward and strayed from the faith over the years and Satan has tried to take them prisoner again.

The gold represents Jesus' blood that has ransomed the wayward Child of God.

Owen Wilson represents "the neutral culture". There are some things that are neutral in the culture which have the potential to benefit the Kingdom. Some stuff in the West include individualism, free/creative expression, cultural diversity and tolerance of different traditions and viewpoints, Western music genres, democracy etc. These examples and more are neutral cultural characteristics of the West which should not be "shunned" by Christianity, but embraced openly with the potential to even enrich the Christian experience particular to one's time and place in the West.

The bad guy Cowboy represents the evil things in the culture. Some things in any culture are just plainly evil. In the West, this includes but is not limited to: adultery, "gang" murders, vanity, blatant narcisissm, lack of respect and submission to authorities, lack of respect to elders/the older generation etc. These things are plainly evil and should be shunned by Christianity. While we should love those who practice this stuff, we should avoid the practices ourselves.

Jackie Chan represents a genuine spiritual journeyer who, for a limited time, "stepped outside the system" of cultural Christianity. He has explored a foreign culture that has allowed him to understand his own cultural bias as well as strengths by temporarily getting an objective bird's eye view of it. He respects and cherishes his roots and heritage, but he does not think that his roots and heritage is "all" it means to live Chinesely/Christianly. Exposure to a foreign culture via Owen Wilson has helped him to do this. He discovers the deep "essence" of things. After stripping away all the extraneous cultural, geographical, temporal garb/fashion of what it means to be Chinese/Christian, he is on a journey to discovering what is the essence/core of what it means to be Chinese/Christian.



A couple comments on the clip:

1)When Jackie Chan tries to keep the princess in the West (because the princess herself desires to), he is confronted by one of the imperial guards reading the official "decree"/document of the Chinese culture. He has been so used to not questioning this traditional decree over the years and just unhesitatingly submitting to it because that's what he was taught. But then he has changed this time. This time, he realizes that being Chinese is not ultimately what that decree/document says. It is a state of being, open to new expressions in new cultures, environments, and generations. Therefore, although he doesn't disown/disinherit the decree, he is not controlled by it.

Satan: "Do you see? He will always be a slave."

Jackie Chan: "This is the West. Not the East. And the sun may rise where we come from. But here is where it sets."

In the same way, I see more and more of generation of Jackie Chans in the North American church who are really searching and are on a journey. What is the essence of Christianity? Surely it has to be more than just how our parents specifically expressed their Christianity in their time and their age. Christianity is more than the mere customs and rituals of going to Church on Sunday, doing inductive Bible Study, tithing, singing Western worship songs, going to Friday fellowship etc. What is the essence of Christianity? While I don't want to disrespect and disown my previous generation's roots, Christianity is a state of being, not ultimately a matter of doing things my mom and dad did.

The attitude of some (but not all) previous generations of North American Christians consciously (or subconsciously) believe that: "If a practice, belief, or way of thinking is not in the Bible, throw it out. it is unbiblical and has nothing to do with Christianity."

A lot of modern day Jackie Chans are learning not to be enslaved to the previously generation's way of thinking and doing things. Slowly rising up from the ground. Respectfully but firmly saying in response: "This is the 21st Century. Not the 20th. If a practice, belief, or way of thinking is not prohibited in the Bible, we remain open to it, for all truth, goodness, and beauty is God's truth, goodness, and beauty and can be used to glorify Him."


2)Both the Imperial Guards and Jackie Chan are ultimately on the same side. They ultimately have the same goals of "rescuing the princess" and ensuring her wellbeing. Although they have disagreements on the best way of what that looks like ultimately they are fighting for the same purpose and would sacrifice themselves for her. Immediately, this means saving her from Satan destroying her at all costs.


3)There is one part of the clip where one of the Imperial Guards fights Jackie Chan with "tools" that China has used for centuries. These include the spear, sword, and special nunchucks. In their disagreement of how to save the princess and ensure her wellbeing, they engage in battle with these tools. In the Christian world, these 3 tools of spear, sword, and nunchucks represent the biblical tools of "exegesis", "hermeneutics", and "application". The Imperial Guard tries to use these tools to defeat Jackie Chan's new beliefs and way of thinking. In the same way, the traditional Christian may use exegesis, hermeneutics, and application to try to defeat the new wineskin Christian, using the tools to conclude things such as:

-the Bible says that when we pray, we should be respectful. Therefore it should be formal
-the Bible lays out a model of Acts, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication. We should always follow that model in prayer
-the Bible never talked about modern psychological concepts. Therefore there is no room for taking modern psychological concepts in prayer.

The modern day Jackie Chan will use the same tools of exegesis, hermeneutics, and application to defend himself and counter the attacks with ideas such as:

-the Bible says that we should be respectful, but being respectful does not mean being formal. One can be respectful and casual/informal at the same time. One can use slang/colloqialisms/and talk about "small things" with God the way a friend does while remaining respectful.
-the Bible lays out the ACTS model of prayer, but it does not prohibit any other methods and means of prayer. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't prohibit it, we have freedom to use it. Therefore, we can pray while implementing the various dimensions of our being including our physical body movements (i.e. "feeling God in our legs" when we walk), our sense of humour (i.e. sharing inside jokes with God), and our will in addition to just using our mind in the ACTS model.
-all truth is God's truth. Therefore if modern day psychological discoveries help us concentrate and focus on God better throughout the day, let us use it. One way to help oneself get into another person's imagination is to try to "imagine your consciousness" in the geographical location of another person's head since the body and the mind are connected, and how the state of one's mind is interconnected with one's physical environment and one's sensory information with the 5 senses in it. Therefore to imagine our own consciousness in the first-person consciousness of Jesus inside us helps us interact with him better. Also, using our imagination to "pray" with Jesus while taking into new accounts of psychological phenomena is effective. Therefore, sometimes I will creatively pretend that I have "divine multiple personality disorder" where sometimes it's my consciousness inside of myself, and where a few moments later, it's Jesus inside my consciousness, and it's a back and forth feedback loop because Christ does not call me to annihilate my personality, but doesn't cause me to worship myself as well. Therefore, since the Bible talks about "me being in Christ" and "Christ being in me" there is room for both, and creatively implementing the knowledge of modern day psychological discoveries can help me engage with Jesus through prayer.

4)The evil part of the culture saying "Nice to see we're all churchgoers".

LOL

the "Matrix" of the Kingdom of God

For the last month of my life, there has been a recurring theme repeatedly going on in my mind as to how life in the Kingdom of God relates to the nature of the Matrix movie.

One line always repeats itself in my mind. "Living from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one". This is a slightly modified phrase that I stole from one of Dallas Willard articles. It keeps going through my mind periodically as I go throughout my day. Whether this is from the Holy Spirit, my own mind, or a mixture of the both I do not know. I think that line clearly makes sense in a plain/simple no-nonsense reading of the New Testament. The early Apostles/Acts Church were really normal human beings that were living from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one. That is the only rational explanation for what the heck actually took place in the book of Acts.

Once again, I do feel like I need to give a reminder to those reading this that I am aware that the comparison between the Matrix and the Kingdom of God is not a completely flawless one (as with all analogies). There are flaws/shortcomings/incongruities with the Matrix and the Kingdom of God definitely, and some sketchy/New Age-ish implications that come from the Matrix too. Nevertheless, I believe that although the movie is over a decade old, it captures more of the essence/nature of the invisible Kingdom of God that we read about from the New Testament than mere technical propositions can. Technical propositions can only go so far to communicate the essence of something (e.g. a textbook definition of sacrificial love). It takes a narrative-like framework to more fully express the essence of a concept sometimes (e.g. a movie about sacrificial love).

(with certain qualifications) The Kingdom of God as outlined in the New Testament is so like the Matrix.



There are so many references to the Kingdom of God in the Gospels and Acts that I don't have room to refer to every single one here, but just a few. The topic that Jesus talked about most was about the Kingdom of God. Now what exactly is this Kingdom? I like Dallas Willard's interpretation, because it just makes so much sense when it is applied to the contexts in Scripture where the term is used. Dallas Willard says that it is the "range of God's effective will, where what God wants done is done". Because on earth right now, in a ton of places God's will is not done, and we ask for God's will to come into effect in more and more places, especially in our own hearts.


Now to the references:

Jesus said in John 18:36 that “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” From here, we know that his Kingdom right now is not in the physical realm where it is advanced through physical means (i.e. political/military force). The same goes with the Matrix and the "kingdom" that Morpheus, Neo, and Trinity are fighting to advance, they do not expand the "kingdom" of the Matrix ("unplug" people from the Matrix) through physical/political/military ends (although sometimes they do have specific missions for other purposes that encompass this stuff like the famous lobby scene), but by living from "another world" that has extraordinary effects on this one.

In Romans 14:17, Paul says that "the Kingdom is not of physical eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit". Those 3 things in the Holy Spirit are non-physical/invisible, yet real things. You can't describe the colour, weight, location, height, width or any physical characteristics of righteousness, peace, and joy, although they can have physiological effects on the physical body. The same with the Matrix. One cannot say to Neo "Hey Neo, where is the Matrix?". Neo cannot "show" the Matrix to the person to experience only with his/her five senses while he/she remains in the physical world. In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says "The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." The same goes with Neo.

I believe that at certain times in the New Testament when the term "the Kingdom of God" is used, sometimes it is referring to something in the future. But sometimes it is referring to the present moment. Like right now. One piece of biblical evidence (on top of the entire book of Acts) is Acts 14:22 when Paul and Barnabas said to the churches in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch that “We must go through many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God." Clearly Paul and Barnabas are not saying we have to suffer in order to attain salvation in the next life. That would clearly go against the "justified by grace alone" theme that Paul writes about all over the place in his Epistles. But I believe that what Paul and Barnabas said here only makes sense if the Kingdom of God here is understood as "actively being involved in fulfilling God's story on earth right now and being a part of what he's presently doing now on earth while being in interactive relationship with him." If that definition is inserted into the phrase "enter the Kingdom of God" in Acts 14:22, then it makes sense, because it is something that we enter into and are a actively a part of now. The same thing goes with Neo. After Neo "converts", he is actively involved in the expansion of "Zion" through the Matrix.

In 1 Corinthians 4:20, Paul says "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power". Power can be defined as the ability to produce the effects what you want to effect, effectively. The Kingdom of God is not escapism where one escapes into another reality that is remotely unattached and unrelated to "normal" everyday life. It is a matter of living from another world that POWERFULLY produces extraordinary effects in the "normal" everyday world as evidenced in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Similarly, Neo did not just enter a form of escapism where he stops living in the "normal" everyday life. On the contrary, he entered a reality that had powerful effects on the "everyday" one.


1 Corinthians 2:6-14 says:

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit


If Morpheus tried to explain this to another person who has never experienced the Matrix before, it would sound like utter folly. It would sound ridiculous. It would sound retarded. Until the person experienced it him/herself. After Neo got thoroughly/holistically/irreversibly converted he was able to understand not the "wisdom of the world" or of physical reality, but he was able to understand the "secret"/"hidden" wisdom of the Kingdom of God, that tells us that we were previously of "the world" aka "The Kingdom of darkness", but then we were delivered from it (Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 1:13). The same goes when the student of Jesus tries to communicate spiritual truths to someone who has never stepped into the Kingdom. It sounds absolutely ridiculous. But for that student of Jesus to try to communicate spiritual truths for someone who has just thoroughly/holistically/irreversibly experienced the "new birth" (truly being born-again) it is true/priceless/treasured wisdom.


I think these parallels are extremely important for us modern day Protestants to understand. I cannot stress this enough. How far we have strayed from norm of New Testament Christian experience is very saddening to one who has started to actually experience the Matrix of the Kingdom of God. I see it like this. Imagine Neo, after experiencing the Matrix himself, writes letters to his children, so that his children can one day pass them down to their children and so on. So he writes letters describing the Matrix, it's nature, how to navigate through it, what to expect from it, how to train oneself to cosntantly remain in it, "agents" to watch out for and how to deal with them, how to live from it in order to have extraordinary effects in the physical world etc. Then, imagine several generations later, Neo's grandchildren's grandchildren read these letters and try to imitate Neo and experience the kind of life Neo experienced, but just imitate the surface by-products/physical effects of Neo's typical life in the Matrix with a monkey-see-monkey-do sort of legalistic carbon copy of his descriptions accompanied by merely "parotting" his sayings all the while never learning to really live from this invisible, yet parallel reality. But they are very technical in their understanding of the Matrix, debate amongst one another about the small technicalities in his letters, and feel guilty about not being able to live the life that Neo was able to live. They remain living in and from the physical world and try to produce the extraordinary effects they see without living from the parallel world, the Matrix. But they keep studying these left-behind letters of Neo and build seminaries to understand its meaning better. Ladies and Gentlemen, that's kind of the picture we have today in the North American Church.

In order for someone to imitate Neo, he has to operate from the same alternate reality that Neo operated from. One cannot imitate Neo by putting the emphasis on trying to conform his external behaviour to Neo's external behaviour. One imitates Neo by living from the same alternate world that he lived in that has extraordinary effects on this one.

One does not dodge bullets from the enemy by trying to dodge bullets.



Although this guy's imitation of Neo is impressive to the public (it really is), if he tried that while terrorist was shooting bullets at him, he'd die in a moment.



One dodges bullets from the enemy by living from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one.


The same goes with the student of Jesus wanting to learn how to bless those who curse him, not fear man but fear God, or learn to not worry in all types of situations that are stressful for the nondisciple. These things can be learned by following Jesus. They are not just unrealistic expectations that Jesus tells us to do but where we constantly have to fail and ask for forgiveness after inevitably failing without improvement. By the grace of God they can be learned and Jesus expects us to learn them, master them, and teach others (in the Great Commission). Teaching people to do something is not just merely telling them WHAT they should do (e.g. a basketball coach teaching a basketball player how to master fadeaway shots by saying "just make them!") but teaching them exactly HOW they can master it (e.g. a basketball coach teaching a basketball player how to master fadeaway shots by "breaking his shot down" and going through each ineffective part of his shot with him and encouraging him). But we must remember that it is basically impossible to fulfill the commandments of Jesus if we remain in this physical world only. We must learn to live from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one in order to experience those effects. And that comes from learning from the "Morpheus"es that have experienced it themselves and who can likewise personally train those with less or no experience in it.

I am so grateful for my "Morpheus"es who have experienced the Matrix of the Kingdom of God first-hand and who have, after mastering things themselves, have taught me how to steadily master things in the Matrix myself. Dallas Willard, Jan Johnson, Richard Foster, and Frank Laubach have been my Morpheus"es, with the first and the last being the most helpful with my personality. Dallas Willard is truly like no other. You won't find too many people like him. He teaches you (with more practical help from Jan Johnson) how to live from all 5 dimensions of your being (thoughts, feelings, will, body, and social relationships) in the Kingdom of God, how to submit and grow in all these areas, and in turn, to produce visible effects in the physical world from the invisible Kingdom of God. The Matrix of the Kingdom of God is so awesome.

These Morpheuses have taught me how to practically remain in the world while not being of it, especially in a 21st century context (since advice would have to be modified somewhat to apply it to "the world" which takes different forms in different centuries [I'm sure Morpheus' tutorial to Neo would be somewhat different if Neo lived in China rather than America]). It is important to know how distractions can lure us right into the trap of the barrel of an agent's (demon's) gun.

As Dallas Willard writes in Renovation of the Heart about emotions:

"By contrast [to the person who is mastered by emotions/feelings], the person who happily lets God be God does have a place to stand in dealing with feelings - even in extreme cases such as despair over loved ones or excruciating pain or voluptuous pleasure. They have the resources to do what they don't want to do and to not do what they want. They know and deeply accept the fact that their feelings, of whatever kind, do not have to be fulfilled. They spend little time grieving over non-fulfillment. And with respect to feelings that are inherently injurious and wrong, their strategy is not one of resisting them in the moment of choice but of living in such a way that they do not have such feelings at all, or at least do not have them in a degree that makes it hard to decide against them when appropriate.

Those who let God be God get off the conveyor belt of emotion and desire when it first starts to move toward the buzz saw of sin. They do not wait until it is moving so fast they cannot get off of it. Their aim is not to avoid sin, but to avoid temptation - the inclination to sin. They plan their path accordingly."

Moving on, we continue with John 3:1-8:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

In this scene, Neo experiences a "rebirth", but this is not a physical rebirth, just like how Jesus said that in order to enter the Kingdom of God you must be born of "water and spirit". When Neo falls into the water after he gets "unplugged", I think that signifies baptism somewhat. Speaking from my own experience of living from the Matrix of the Kingdom of God (It's been roughly 2 and a half years), the "rebirth" hasn't always been a pleasant/happy ride. There are times where it's rough. But then I am being transformed to the point where life doesn't necessarily always have to be pleasant/happy. I mean, it's the Matrix! The adventure of all the ups and downs of fighting for Zion vastly outweighs the comforts of an ignorant life of friends revolving around "central perk" (I have nothing against the show friends, although "central perk" here illustrates what "the world" is like in North America).

I also think the narrative-framework of the Matrix helps me understand Luke 9:23-24 better.

Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.

Before, I understood the content of what Jesus said, but not necessarily what he meant. It didn't really make sense to me and I couldn't comprehensively understand the heart of what he was getting at. But the movie the Matrix helped me understand it a bit more (and also experiencing it first-hand myself). Before Neo entered the Matrix, he was a computer programmer living a "normal" earthly existence. He had to give up that lifestyle and "deny it" in order to enter into the Matrix. If he were to "save" that "normal" lifestyle, he would never be able to experience a truly fulfilling/abundant life. Whereas if he gave up and "denied" that "normal" lifestyle in the physical world, he would be able to experience a truly fulfilling/abundant life.

Morpheus is not saying to Neo that "I'm going to be mean and won't let you into the Matrix unless you impress me by giving up your life 100% that would subjectively give me good feelings about you". He is basically describing the decision objectively. It's logically impossible to simultaneously fully live the life he lived before while fully living life in the Matrix at the same time. Morpheus is not being a jerk. He is just an intersection sign that shows two roads going in opposite directions that follow from it. One cannot be 50% "rebirthed" in the way that Neo experienced "rebirth" after taking the red pill. It's 0% or 100%. Jesus was not being a jerk too. He, like Morpheus, was just plainly laying out the options with their consequences.

Jesus always had the truth of God in his mind to interpret reality. The truths of the Kingdom of God were saturating his human mind 24-7. That's why he could always pick up a random everyday object in the middle-eastern culture that he was in and casually give illustrations about the Kingdom of God from them. Just like how if a young guy/girl likes another young guy/girl, whatever they see, they will somehow relate it to the target guy/girl that he/she likes. This is how Jesus was with the Kingdom. He constantly meditated on Scripture in his human mind. How was that like? I think it was like 1:03-1:06 of this youtube clip.

Metaphorically speaking that is. His interpretation of reality was always an interpretation using the paradigm of the invisible Kingdom of God upon the visible physical kingdom.

That enabled him to casually stop the attacks from the demons (agents), and even cause them to run away from him.

Oh yea, and he also resurrected from the dead just like how Neo did in the end of the movie. By the way, happy Easter everyone. The Good news of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is not only the mere forgiveness of sins. Jesus coming to earth, dying on the cross, and resurrecting from the dead is good news because it allows us to get unplugged from the Matrix! The Good news is that we get unplugged from the Matrix not only after we die, but even right now in this present moment. As Dallas Willard said, "if you want to get into heaven, don't wait t'il you die, start now".

Living from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one. Thanks for helping me understand the Kingdom of God Wachowski Brothers (directors of the Matrix).

thoughts on the election debate of April 12, 2011

I just saw the debate on youtube this afternoon. I thought I might post some of my thoughts.

For those who have not seen it yet, you can see it here



I'll say first of all that I'm not the biggest Canadian political junkie. I'm not the most avid follower of Canadian politics. I prefer to follow the politics of America, China (and around East Asia), and the middle east. I think that in relative comparison, Canadian politics is not that interesting. Nevertheless since I am a citizen of this great country (not sarcasm) I figure I ought to do my share of following in this 2011 federal election.

I'll admit right off the bat that crazily reading up on what each party stands for is not my utter most priority. I have other reading priorities(reading about Christian spirituality, the wisdom of different Christian denominations, psychology, biographies, history etc.). I do read the (very liberal) Toronto Star at work though, mostly because it's free haha. Man, the Star is so unabashedly liberal it doesn't even try to put up a veneer of surface-level neutrality. It's just blatantly left without apology. I read blow after blow against Harper. I don't know, something about Harper makes me like him. I don't know why. I think I'd like to meet him personally one day too. It's kind of mysterious too because I only read anti-Harper articles on politics haha.

All that to say, my personal take on what I weigh heavily in who I'm going to put my trust in is significantly swayed by assessing the character of each leader in each party. I realize a lot of things in this. I can't see their character behind closed doors when the cameras are off. I can't fully know what they honestly think about a lot of things. I can't judge the deepest depths of their heart (I have trouble judging the deepest depths of my own heart sometimes). But nevertheless, I do believe Jesus' words that whatever is stored up in people's hearts just flows out, or in the arena of politics, it "leaks" out in people. Superficial "social cosmetics" can only do so much, sooner or later the natural contents of what's in people's hearts leak out of people's word choice, speaking pitch, microexpressions on their face, and subconscious body language. I see this fact in myself, in my family, in my close friends, and in my acquaintances. I think Anthony Bloom (an eastern orthodox dude) has a lot of wisdom when he says that the human body is a barometer of the person's state of mind. While it doesn't have 100% correspondence to a person's state of mind, it nevertheless somewhat reflects what's going on inside of someone.

I sometimes read newspaper articles on political leaders, and hear tidbits of headlines of "drama" that occurred with the party leaders (i.e. Harper "rejecting" a girl in one of his rallies because she had a picture with Michael Ignatieff on Facebook), but I figure at the end of the day, the media a lot of the time puts such a spin on "facts" that it's so hard sometimes to filter through what's exaggeration, what's a lie, and what REALLY took place. And the media has it's own agenda a lot of the times. I don't need others to tell me the motives of actions of politicians. I just need to know the facts of what objectively occurred, then I can decide about motives myself (which I'll be cautious about anyway, because I know I know very little and can know very little if I've never met them personally).

I've also learned (when I led a team of 5 Canadians in East Asia last year) all the heavy responsibility of leadership. It's so easy to point fingers and blame someone if something bad happened. Very simple. It takes less than 10 calories (I'm completely guessing haha). But I've learned that when one's in leadership, one just has to naturally take responsibility of all the negative things that happen under one's team. Sometimes it is one's own fault, but sometimes it's not, but nevertheless, the leader has to shoulder the responsibility and take the blame. For an outsider that does not know what really goes on in the team, frankly speaking, most of the time they don't really know what's going on. I'm not saying that people and leaders shouldn't be held accountable, I'm just saying that unless one has truly reliable inside information, it's nearly impossible to accurately assess the root of issues by looking at the superficial symptons. Since I've only tasted a little bit of this "leader shouldering responsibility and covering for blame within his team" phenomena, I can hardly imagine what political leaders go through when something goes wrong in their team. Like all the "scandals" that happened in each party recently. It's so easy to point the finger, and come up with a make-shift blame-inviting-framework to make sense of the "facts" when frankly speaking, a lot of people don't know what the heck is actually going on. I'll say frankly that I have no idea, for the most part, what the character of the middle east dictators are like. I'm not saying that the revolutions aren't justified at all, or that governments shouldn't be held accountable, but I'm just saying that I've never been an "insider" to fully understand what the heck is going on. There are personality factors, cultural factors, subcultural factors, historical factors, personal history factors, interpersonal-history-within-the-team factors, social dynamics/chemistry within the team factors, psychological factors, biological pressure/physiological fluctuation factors(different moods during different times of the day that affect social dynamics), spiritual factors, amount and type of education received factors, best-friend-influence factors, personal habits/lifestyle factors, self-deception factors. If I don't 100% fully understand all of these factors influencing my own life, how the heck can I fully understand what goes on inside of Mubarak, or Gadhafi? Am I just going to fully rely on what a foreign reporter, who has probably never spoken to them personally, thinks? Same thing to a lot of Canadian reporters writing condemning articles bashing certain party leaders when they've never even had a substantial conversation with the leader themselves.

All that to say, I'm not going to fully trust the media when I try to assess each leader. I want to hear from the leaders themselves. No leader is going to say "I am for the destruction of Canada" or "I want Canada to continue regressing economically". All leaders are going to say something positive along the lines of "I believe my party can competently lead in power for the next few years" and "I believe our policies and proposed plans/bills are capable of making Canada a better place". One of the keys for me is how they say it. What is the tone of their voice? what is their word choice in their message? What are the microexpressions on their faces like? Does their body language below the neck show calm-confidence in what they say? Of course I can only learn so much about them in a public debate, but I think I can learn more about them by observing them directly rather than having a newspaper reporter ascribe a biased pre-committed/interpretive framework on the politicians for me. It is like a father trying to find out if his son lied to him about something. If the father wants to find out the truth, he should not rely on what other third-party-people report about what the son said. The father should ask his son about the truth and not exclusively focus on the contents of what the son says, but how he says it. Any son can say "I didn't steal from the cookie jar" or "I didn't steal money from your wallet". The father would be wise to analyze how the son says the contents rather than rely on 3rd party information that relays the exact same contents of what the son suspected of lying said. The father should not focus exclusively on the contents that comes out of the son's mouth, but see whether his overall behaviour is in natural congruence in the flow of the son's speech, to see if there's any on-the-spot behavioural inconsistencies that lead him to believe that his son is lying. A roughly similar attitude takes place in how I want to assess the characters of the politicians. And for me, the characters of the politicians matters a lot, not just their "brilliant" political plans on paper. Their characters will trickle downwards to each sector/level of society and have a profound influence. Laws and legislation can change behaviour, but not character. It takes character to change character. Character is contagious. Not only on a social level, but I believe on a spiritual level one's character somehow mysteriously affects those in his circle of influence in ways we won't fully understand in this life.

With all that said, I have to say that I was impressed by Harper's overall character throughout the whole debate. By seeing his response to things as well as his lack of response to things, I was very impressed by how he remained calm and composed in the midst of all the verbal cross-fire going on. All the other leaders were angry and letting their emotions fuel their refinely coated venom. Harper was an exception. The other 3 were mudslinging. Ignatieff and Duceppe, especially, got pretty angry. Layton seemed somewhat angry and viewed the other leaders with contempt. I think that Harper remained respectful and refused to join the mudslinging session. I have to say, his lack-of-emotional-response with his consistent "emotionless stare" towards his accusing opponents when they each taunted him made me laugh out loud literally repeatedly. hahaha. I can't get enough of that. Once again, I reiterate that I have tasted a bit of the burden of leadership in leading only a team of 5 for a year. Harper has had to lead a team that has been in power for the past few years of an entire country. Even though I only led a team of 5, I felt the crushing burden of both justified and unjustified accusations aimed at myself as well as those I was responsible for looking after. After receiving just a dose of criticism from outside the team (other church leaders in EA, the school, dissatisfied people within the spiritual movement in our EA city) I can see how much of a good character is needed to withstand negative/critical accusations without responding back critically and sinking down to the accuser's level. It truly takes strength to not only turn the other cheek on the outside, but on the inside. And in this debate Harper had to take simultaneous heat from all 3 party leaders aggressively triple-teaming him nonstop. And although he wasn't perfect, he for the most part did not sink low to the level of mudslinging, name-calling, personal insults, and fuel the antagonistic fire of interpersonal enmity in the debate. I truly have respect for Harper in this regard. I am not a political expert, and admit that I don't have the political background to comprehensively assess whether or not his proposed plans/promises are wise for the country long-term, but I have to say that I'm really impressed by his character. He's either a really good actor, or a man with a solid character. His body language and microexpressions on his face show that he didn't seem bothered to a significant degree, or respond with fire against fire, or in this case respond with arrogance against arrogance.

I have to say that the closing remark of one other political leader truly gave away his lack of confidence in his party. Of course political leaders are highly trained to modify their macro-facial expressions, so that is the last place to look when assessing a politician's confidence. But man! This politician's body language really gave away his lack of confidence in either his party, himself, or his arguments in the debate! I don't know exactly what his lack of confidence was attributed towards or what caused it, but I did see it present in his final speech in the debate.

Also, from a purely a political standpoint, I was impressed by the skill of conceptual framing from the leaders. Over these years, I have learned more and more about the skill of framing an issue in debates for political reasons. This is different from purely philosophical debates (for example about the existence of God), where the debaters (at least ideally) have arguments with identical definitions of terms that enables their arguments to "run on the same tracks and collide". In politics, it seems different. It seems that a lot of the times the "tracks" of an argument are shifted (intentionally) to make it seem that the arguments are running on "parallel tracks" that don't meet. This is not done unintentionally a lot of the time, but intentionally to impose another interpretive framework on the issue at hand. This is an art and it takes skill. I think 3 of the debaters (excluding Duceppe) were excellent at imposing an alternative interpretive framework on the issue at hand that allowed them to escape or counter uncomfortable "cornering" in arguments. This truly takes skill, and all 3 are brilliant at it (this is expected since all 3 climbed the political ladder so high).

My purpose for watching the debate was for several reasons. Learning about each party's policies/plans were only one of them. I was more interested in assessing the character of each party leader in what they did (and what they didn't do) on a moral level. I also wanted to see their great political skill of thinking on the spot to change an interpretive framework on the issue at hand to get out of tight spots. I was surprised that the leaders didn't use more imagery to coat their arguments, because I know how powerful imagery can be in persuasion.

What do others think of the debate?

A duel of fear. Another lesson from Batman Begins

I've been watching Batman Begins clips on average once every week. I find them so inspirational, and they keep me going in this uphill climb. There also just seems to be new insight that comes every once in a while about the spiritual life. I find it pretty cool.

I was watching yesterday when a new parallel came to mind. A duel of fear.

The bats in batman can represent a number of things. As for yesterday, a new parallel came to mind. They represent uncertainty, and the terrorizing of the imagination that naturally accompanies it.

Bruce Wayne used to be afraid of bats when he was young. They haunted him. The sight of them terrorized his heart. The bats can represent uncertainty. By our very nature, us humans fear uncertainty about things in the future, whether or not the outcome we value will be secured or not. Bruce Wayne had to face his fear of bats in order to become Batman and make a difference in Gotham city. He had to not fear uncertainty anymore, and just simply face it. For me, I face the "bats" of uncertainty a lot as a Christian journeyer. A lot of the times, I worry about my future job, marriage, ministry etc. It seems as if the enemy terrorizes my imagination with a lot of "what ifs" that fly chaotically like bats in the batcave of my soul. I was prophecied on a couple months ago that in this season of life, God would really build and stretch my faith in him. It definitely is becoming so true right now. But I sense change already. I am learning to existentially trust in God. Not necessarily to trust in God to secure my personal wishes, but to just trust in God amidst the uncertainty, to do what's best for his Kingdom in fighting the enemy of mankind. I feel that in this season, I have learned to simply confront the bats of "terrorizing uncertainty" in the batcave of my heart, and obey Jesus' commands to "not be afraid".

I feel like Bruce Wayne in this scene in this season of my life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL_DDvgE0nU&feature=related

By God's grace, I slowly stepping out of the boat of security, and walking on the water of God's invisible path that Magneto-ly forms itself only for the next step that one walks. I am learning that the only way to deal with my fear of uncertainty is not to avoid circumstances that seem uncertain, but to face them square on, and change my inner reaction's ability to trust Jesus while the bats fly all around myself.

A surprisingly quote by N.T. Wright is interesting:

What instruction, what order, is given, again and again, by God, by angels, by Jesus, by prophets and apostles? What do you think - "Be good"? "Be holy"? Or, negatively, "Don't sin"? "Don't be immoral"? No. The most frequent command in the Bible is: "Don't be afraid." "Fear not."

Interesting eh? I am convinced that we can't learn to improve in obeying this commandment by burying ourselves in theological books all day, but we only improve in obeying it by squarely facing those bats right in their face and courageously having faith in God amidst temptations of doubt flying right in front of thy face.

There are many valid angles one can take when analyzing spiritual warfare. With the help of Batman Begins, I have discovered the new angle of "a duel of fear" where soldiers of Christ and demons of Satan have a battle of inflicting fear into the other party.

In the Gospels, we see demons inflicting fear in people either indirectly (causing people to doubt the goodness and sovereignty of God in ordinary circumstances and about the future) or directly (possessing humans and harassing them physically). But interestingly, we also see instances where demons "submit" to the disciples in the name of Jesus (Luke 10:17), where demons "shudder or tremble" before God (James 2:19), and where the devil "flees" from us (James 4:7). The only time someone "flees" from someone or something is when they're scared out of their sane (or not so sane) mind, hence it is reasonable to assume that Satan reacts to the presence of God like a zebra reacting to a lion. I think part of the reason why Satan and his demons react with terror in the presence of Jesus is because he threatens the security of their operations, schemes, livelihood, and well-being. That's why they "shudder/tremble/flee". Shuddering, trembling, and fleeing are not merely external actions, they are external actions caused by internal states of terror. And terror is caused by imagining all the horrifying "what ifs" that could happen to you. This is what Jesus does to his enemies. This should really come as no surprise since Satan and his demons see Jesus as he really is (Revelations 1:12-16). I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be on that person's wrong side. Jesus has the power to throw his enemies into hell, and he can also torture them (Matthew 8:29, Luke 8:28). Of course he won't if you're on his side, and if you're on the side of the one described in Revelations 19:11-16, there is absolutely nothing to fear. I feel bad for the demons.

Batman went through a journey of facing and conquering his fear of bats, and in turn, striking terror into emotions and imaginations of his enemies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WjQt_jIN-M&feature=related.

We have the same ability to do that when we walk in the power and name of Jesus. Demons fear the crap out of Jesus. They don't fear jack about us though. While we shouldn't take pride in the demons submitting to us (Luke 10:20), we should expect to terrorize them when we take the presence of God with us in spiritual warfare. A commonality between us humans and the demons is that we both are susceptible to the fear of uncertainty. Only one person isn't, and that's the person in charge of the universe, Jesus. So I've learned that us humans don't fight the fear of uncertainty by being certain of outcomes, but fight the fear of uncertainty by trusting in the unpredictable yet faithful One in charge of uncertainty. For the demons, it's not so fortunate. Uncertainty is not on their side because the universe is not ultimately governed by someone on their side. For us soldiers of Christ however, uncertainty is on our side if we trust the King of the universe who unpredictably, yet faithfully controls everything.

Bruce Wayne decided not to fight crime with his own identity, but with the identity of a symbol that represented something greater than just a mere human

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6J5BcHFCs&feature=related

Bruce Wayne: People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, destroyed. But as a symbol, as a symbol, I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting

Alfred: What symbol?

Bruce Wayne: Something elemental, something terrifying


Similarly, Paul didn't fight God's enemies merely "as a man" and with mere "flesh and blood". But he did them in the "symbol" or name of Jesus, which represented the presence of God (Acts 19:11-12) and caused evil spirits to leave the humans being harassed by them. But as for those who did not carry the "symbol" or name of Jesus (which represented the presence of God with them), they were actually terrified themselves when they tried to do battle with the demons (Acts 19:13-16). They were "ignored" and "destroyed" because they tried to fight demons merely as men/flesh and blood.

I am indebted to Batman Begins for new insight into spiritual warfare. For it is not merely a duel that sheds spiritual blood on both sides. It is a duel of fear and inflicting terror on one's enemy.

Thanks for lesson # 80794325265972045 Bruce Wayne

living from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one

"Living from another world that has extraordinary effects on this one" has been the theme of my life for the past couple of weeks.

I wrote an email TC coaches a few days ago. I'll just copy and paste (after editing)it here for those who are interested:




Ladies and Gentlemen, we live in epic times. Of course "epicness" can only be fully "epicly" experienced through a first-hand episode that contains the subjective textures of first-person experience within an epic context itself. Illustration. The LA Lakers playing in the fourth quarter of the NBA play-off finals in game 7. Sure, a psychology professor can give an objective/technical description of what Kobe Bryant and other LA Laker players go through in the psychological experience of playing in the fourth quarter of game 7 in the NBA finals to his psychology students in a lecture. But if Kobe Bryant attended that lecture, his experience would be totally different than him actually playing on the court and having a first-person experience of the fourth quarter in game 7 of the NBA finals with all the subjective textures of first-person consciousness on that NBA court that millions of NBA fans around the world are watching during the moment when it actually happens.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I dare to say that the end times are approaching closer and closer with the passing of every year. I forgot whether it was Bernard or Nathan telling me that the increase in the frequency of these large-scale events in the world that have dramatic proportions (i.e. "Jasmine revolution" in middle east/Japan's disasters last week), shows signs of maturing birth pangs of the world, labouring more and more until the end times are fully conceived. Although we don't know for sure when Jesus will come again, we all know it's one day less every day. I personally feel that we're in the "third period" (although I'm not a dispensationalist haha [I go to TC, how can I be a dispensationalist?]), the "ninth inning", the "fourth quarter" so to speak of God's story on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjW_GLOPmj0

This "background music" reflects a bit of the "epicness" of what I feel of the times that we're in. Of course this "epicness" is hidden to the average person's eye that is distracted by the trends and programs of the world. This "epicness" of the Kingdom is like treasure hidden in a field. Little does the world know the "Grand Program/Drama" that daily escapes their awareness. But it is not only the fact that non-Christians are oblivious to this epic "hidden storyline of the universe". A lot of Christians, having access to the "HDTV signals" of this divine drama fail to tune into it and instead tune into the "2D-black and white cartoons" that "typical/non-hidden cable channels" enable them to tune into. However, for the earnest/relentless seeker, there are the "HDTV signals" of the "hidden storyline of the universe" that one can constantly tune into and experience. Even for those who know that this "hidden drama of the universe (the Great Commission)" theoretically exists, a lot of the times for various reasons, one only receives technical/abstract/detached descriptions of it, similar to a technical/abstract/detached university lecture. It is an inexpressible joy (1 Peter 1:8) to be transformed and tune into the Kingdom of God just like how Neo was transformed and tuned into the Matrix. A technical/abstract/detached definition of the matrix would not give Neo the experience that Neo experienced first-hand with all the rich subjective textures of first-person experience. He lived from another reality first-hand that had extraordinary effects on "normal" reality (he did not dodge bullets by operating within "normal"/everyday reality, but he was able to dodge them because he was operating from another one that had effects on the "normal" one). Likewise, when we read the New Testament, we see that these disciples of Jesus did not saturate themselves with technical/abstract/detached descriptions of the Kingdom of God (as important as they are), but experienced it first hand with all the rich subjective textures of first-person experience, and as a result, if one just reads the book of Acts, one can see that it is as if they really lived rooted in another reality (the Kingdom of God) that has extraordinary effects on "normal" reality.

Ladies and Gentlemen, if we just look at church history, minus all the abominations/dark blotches, we see that God instigated supernatural revivals in every single century since Christ physically came and left. This century is no different. If God instigated a supernatural revival with supernatural results that were exponentially more than the mere sum of human effort alone in every single century with no exception, he can do it in this century no doubt about it. The secular media never reports this stuff because [fill in the blank].

Ladies and Gentlemen, we live in epic times, if we can tune into God's HDTV drama (with surround sound [if one engages in Christian mysticism]). The Kingdom of God "portal" to this "other world that has extraordinary effects on this one" has not closed along with the canon of the Bible. It has been open ever since, but few find it. I have read about these saints in church history who have experienced it first-hand. In the beginning, I was vicariously experiencing it through their biographies. Now, by the grace of God, it is not merely a second-hand experience. It has started to become first-hand.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think God is up to something big in Toronto. I think he wants to do the kind of stuff we see in the book of Acts right here in Toronto (of course not replicas of exactly what he did back them, but categorically similar things with a comparable magnitude). Maybe I'm idealistic. Maybe I'm retarded. But I know that God has brought revivals in the western world within the past 3 centuries in separate movements. In the 18th century, God moved through the Wesleyans (headed up by friggin wicked John Wesley) to revive England (I actually heard that due to God working in the Methodists lead by John Wesley, the negative effects of the French Revolution in France were blocked from negatively impacting England [how sick is that?]). In the 19th Century, God moved through Charles Finney and the movement God started through him to revive America. In the 20th century, God used the early pentecostal movements to revive America. Dude, God can totally do something crazy of epic proportions in Toronto in the 21st century. Let us tune into this "hidden story of the universe" right where we are. Let us do it ladies and gentlemen.

For those who study revivals throughout the centuries, they will realize that supernatural revivals that occur with epic proportions begin with a small group of people regularly praying together. A couple weeks ago, in the middle of an extremely stimulating conversation with 3 other brothers that I met recently, one of them spontaneously said with passion "yo man, let's just start praying for city-wide revival in Toronto every single week together!". So it is set. It has started. And we invite any other like-minded brothers who want to tune into the "hidden story of the universe" right here in Toronto to come. The point of these meetings is not to merely chill while refraining from performing blatant sinful acts explicitly outlined in the Bible not to do (lie, cheat, steal) and enjoy each other's company and entertain each other without "doing the wrong things as Christians". Instead, the point will be very focused. To labour in prayer for all-out-city-wide-no-nonsense-supernatural revival for Toronto. And also to discuss some practical strategy of where to go from here (the present state of things), to the destination (city-wide revival). The more brothers from different perspectives/backgrounds who have the same-united passion, the merrier. Of course it is understood that not everyone is specifically called to this specific prayer meeting with us. By all means, if you form your own city-wide revival prayer meeting and regularly pray with other saints, or join an already existing one, that is cool too. If you don't respond, you will not be judged lol. But for those who want to become part of a "prayer platoon" for city-wide revival in Toronto but don't currently know of any, feel free to message me.

Now that's the Gospel. Not merely the forgiveness of sins (as crucial as that is) without actively participating in the "divine drama" of God's story. This Gospel is the Good News of an invitation to active first-person participation in the "matrix" of the Kingdom of God that allows its citizens to be caught up in the "story"/"program"/"will" of God and what he's up to right now, and in addition to knowing truthful/correct abstract doctrine, experiencing the "subjective textures of a first-person journey" of these truths embedded in a story that is more epic than any bestselling blockbuster that has ever been produced. I think that's good news. It's good news to know that I don't have to buy a PS3 to enjoy an RPG. I'm in one already. It's good news to know that I don't have to purchase "rogers on demand" (although I think my dad did) in order to enjoy an epic movie. I'm in one. And co-labouring with the storywriter to help unfold his story (i.e. letting his will be done) is not only an after-life heaven, but heaven (the presence of God) is now. As Dallas Willard said, "the Good News is that if you want to go to heaven, don't wait t'il you die, enter it now!". Anything short of that is plain boring. I have learned that a worldly lifestyle not only gets more and more sinful, it gets more and more boring. The opening credits of sin are captivating and alluring. But right after the opening credits, the rest of the program is more uninteresting than Canadian politics.



If we learn to live, function, and operate from the "matrix" of the Kingdom of God, we will be gradually enabled to "dodge bullets" not by operating on this world, but by operating in another world that has extraordinary effects on this one.

Unless the Lord... it's over

Unless the Lord orchestrates city-wide revival in Toronto... it's over.

Unless the Lord unites followers of Christ from different denominations not for the sake of unity itself, but to accomplish a greater purpose - to expand his Kingdom by reviving the entire city of Toronto... it's over.

Unless the Lord prevents even well-intentioned followers of Christ from getting caught up in miscommunication with each other with respect to reviving the city of Toronto... it's over.

Unless the Lord ignires a supernatural passion in each and every labourer involved in city-wide revival for Toronto... it's over.

Unless the Lord protects endeavours for city-wide revival for Toronto from attacks from the enemy... it's over.

Unless the Lord convinces various followers of Christ the need for all 3 points of the Kingdom Triangle in proportional balance for Toronto city-wide revival... it's over.

Unless the Lord humbles each labourer to rely on his power and not man's power in endeavouring to revive the city of Toronto... it's over.

Unless the Lord shows up, arranges all the dominoes of cause-and-effect to sweep this city just like how he did at Pentecost 2 millenia ago, and "engineers" the whole process... it's over.



Unless the LORD builds the house,
the builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the guards stand watch in vain.
-Psalm 127:1

random scribbles

I am so impressed by the TV show Smallville. It is the first TV show on cable (in my knowledge) to portray pride as something sinful/evil/destructive. No other TV show I've watched has ever done that. Yes Smallville does have premartial sex scenes N stuff, but still, I can't believe they portrayed pride as being something distasteful, harmful, to be avoided!

If you're stickin' with Jesus it's all-chill
If you thinkin' that you'll leave him then I think you've never met someone who's more super than that dude from Smallville

-Phanatik from Cross Movement







***







I was browsing pics of Dallas Willard on the "Dallas Willard is my homeboy" facebook group. There is something about this guy. Just looking at pictures of this great apprentice of Jesus makes me really see Jesus in him. His face is just full of sublime joy, peace, and love. I want that. Paul said "Follow me as I follow Christ" in 1 Corinthians 11:1. I dare say that Dallas Willard is a modern day Timothy (It's risky saying someone is a modern day Paul) that I'm willing to follow as he follows Jesus so well. Thanks Jesus, for such an awesome role model to follow in this age!







***







I watched the first 10 seconds of this clip over 10 times just now. Man. It is so wicked how Batman just swings into the subway window, hops and grabs those ceiling bars, and lands with a "this is it" glare in ras al gul's face. That glare in 0:07-0:08 is so inspirational! I wanna metaphorically look God's enemy in the eye with a glare like that.

How the Trinity works is like the BMW car chase scene in Tomorrow Never Dies

The way the three members of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) work together is and forever will be a mystery. Even when we get to heaven, it will be a mystery and we'll never fully understand how these three persons are distinct in personhood, yet unified in substance. We will never fully know how they are three in one (not three and one).

The Bible never comprehensively explained how this 3 person-community of the Trinity fully works, and I don't think it attempts to explain it fully, because I think the Bible intentionally leaves some room for mystery (it is only our recent western minds that try to rationally fit God into a box that have treated the Bible like a science textbook, or financial tax auditing manual). I personally engage in the Bible with more of a mystical mindset now. I am not a relativist, or an extreme mystic in the sense where I think there's no absolute truth, or that we can't know anything about truth. I've just developed the view that I think we don't know nearly as much as we think we know about God. And my attitude towards this fact is actually positive. I have positive reactions towards this limited knowledge we have of God. I don't anguish at theological mystery. I delight in it. Just like how a character might delight in the "magical mystery" of the world of Middle Earth or Narnia instead of dreading it.

With that being said, I have one disclaimer to say before I continue with this parable of James Bond. It, just like any parable, is not meant to exhaustively explain the things of God, or in this case, the Trinity specifically. It is not meant to illustrate ALL there is to know about the workings of the community of the Trinity. There is still a ton (and this is an understatement) to know about the Trinity that falls outside this parable. Nevertheless, parables were used by Jesus to borrow phenomena from the physical world in his culture to explain the "spirit" (pardon the pun) or essence of things in the spiritual world. This parable will attempt to illustrate a bit about how the Trinity is three in one, one with three and how the three members work together in a unified manner yet remain distinct from each other at the same time. Once again, it is not meant to be exhaustive, I cannot stress that enough. This analogy, like all analogies, is not perfect and does have its flaws. Nevertheless, here it goes.

Okay. So ladies and gentlemen, the Trinity is like the BMW car chase scene in the James Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies".

(slight modifications will be made to the car chase scene to illustrate more biblical truths)

In the BMW car chase scene, James bond is the Father. Anything that "controls" the BMW (whether it be the phone, steering wheel, weapons switches etc.) is Jesus the Son. The system in the BMW that enables itself to respond towards any controlling apparatus (whether it be the phone, steering wheel, weapons switches etc.) is the Holy Spirit. The BMW is the child of God aka living disciple of Jesus.

We start with James Bond who represents the Father of the Trinity. The Father is the "instigator" of the Trinity. He originates the "will" of what the Trinity will do. Jesus obeys the Father by "completing the work" that the father wishes (John 17:4). Other references referring to Jesus doing "nothing on his own" by doing/speaking only what the Father tells him to do/speak are found in John 5:19 and John 8:28-29. So Jesus obeys commands that originate not from him, but from the Father (John 15:10). In this parable, Jesus is the BMW's controlling apparatus. When Jesus was physically on earth, he told his disciples what to do directly and they generally attempted to follow (although far from perfectly). He told them to love each other, be each other's servants/slaves, not to worry, to bless those who curse you etc. In this sense, Jesus was the "steering wheel" in the BMW that directly told the BMW what to do. Notice that James Bond (the Father) was still controlling the "steering wheel" (Jesus was relaying instructions to the car that came from the Father) that, in turn, controlled the BMW. The BMW imperfectly responded to the steering wheel's/controlling apparatus' commands, which perfectly responded to James Bond's commands because the problem was not with the steering wheel/controlling apparatus but with the imperfect/flawed/sinful response of the BMW to those commands. This illustrates John 17:6-8.

Then Jesus died, resurrected, and "sent his disciples the Holy Spirit" (John 16:7). Jesus is now "out of the car" physically, just like how James Bond is out of the car physically.

(Here is where the clip somewhat deviates from the analogy, because James Bond hops back in the car for a while during the car chase. But the point is that James Bond could have perfectly given the car instructions without any restraints, restrictions or difficulties outside the car [with the remote control phone] just as he could have "in the car" [with the steering wheel]. For the sake of the parable, just pretend he was outside the whole time)

Yet we see that when the steering wheel of the car was no longer in use, a remote "steering apparatus" still existed that could nevertheless be used to send driving instructions to the BMW. This remote control telephone that is the BMW's steering apparatus is Jesus, because Jesus in heaven is still obeying the Father, and directing the BMW (his disciples). How does this remote control telephone control the BMW? Technologically speaking, there has to be a "response machine" or "response system" that exists inside the BMW that responds to the remote control's "signals" which is the Holy Spirit. Without this, the BMW could not intelligently "pick up" the signals and understand driving instructions from James Bond. In 1 Corinthians 6:19 it says the Holy Spirit is actually "in" us.

I think at least some of what Jesus meant in John 16:5-6 is "I, the steering wheel, am leaving the BMW now. And it is for your good that I am leaving the BMW. Because when I leave, you'll have the response system (Holy Spirit) installed in you so that you can adequately respond to James Bond's (the Father's) commands relayed through me remotely that enables you to respond in a way that you couldn't on your own without the response system's (Holy Spirit) help." This is because Jesus is the "mediator" who "mediates" our interactive relationship with the Father (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15)

This BMW inner response system has a role to "guide us". It does not "speak" or instruct on its own. It only instructs what it receives remotely (John 16:13) from the remote control steering apparatus (John 16:14-15).

In John 14:26, it says the Holy Spirit is like a "counselor" who teaches us and reminds us of what Jesus (the messenger/prophet of the Father's words) has said to us. But the Holy Spirit not only counsels us with wisdom, he also strengthens us with supernatural power that we wouldn't have on our own through the Father.

Using this analogy as a framework to understand Ephesians 3:16-17, we can see that James Bond will strengthen the BMW through the installed inner response system which enables it to respond to the signals given remotely from the remote control telephone. In this way, we can understand how "Christ can dwell in our hearts through faith", because although he's not with us physically, he is with us in a way, because he can direct the BMW with the exact amount of precision and skill remotely just as he could have if he were with us physically, and that is how he "dwells in us through faith" with love that "surpasses knowledge" (Ephesians 3:19 [we can't fully understand how the heck it works]). This is how we can understand how in a way, Jesus is not with us, but in a way, he totally is. Even though he is not physically with us, the "spirit" of him (pun intended) is in us, and therefore the "spirit" of him driving the BMW can be accessed anytime if we obey the promptings of "the Spirit". In this way, James bond is "with" the BMW and can have communion, fellowship, interactive relationship, as well as co-labour together with the BMW. The only way the BMW can screw itself over is if it "jams" the signals between the Spirit and the remote control, and/or if it sinfully disobeys the Spirit's guidance/convictions/callings/promptings. The sanctification process is a lifelong process of clearing the signals between the Spirit and the remote control, as well as obeying the guidance/convictions/callings/promptings of the Spirit.

Even though the BMW will be attacked by the enemy on all sides, it will be okay if it allows the inner response system to respond to the remote control telephone that responds to James Bond from a remote location. Although the BMW, will go through many attacks, trials, and tribulations, it can "take heart, because Jesus has overcome the world" (John 16:33).



And now, the clip



Notice how at the end of the clip, James Bond and the remote control telephone send the BMW and the inner response system into "the world".

"As you have sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world." - John 17:18

Being filled with the Spirit is like drunken boxing

"Being filled with the Spirit" is like drunken boxing.

In Ephesians 5:18, Paul tells the Ephesians to "not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." In the previous 2 verses, Paul gives 2 additional "don't do this but do the opposite" instructions (not to live as unwise, but wise, not to be foolish, but to understand what the Lord's will is). Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that "getting drunk on [literal] wine" is the opposite of "being filled with the Spirit. It is not only an absense of something bad, it is the "good version" of it. Just like how the opposite of "using words to curse your enemies" is not only the absence of using words, but instead "using words to bless them".

Now, let's see what usually happens when someone gets intoxicated due to the physical act of drinking too much alcohol. (I am not speaking from experience since I've never been drunk.) Drunk people lose control of themselves. They have less inhibitions (both socially and physically). They can take physical pain better ("can take more hits"). Sometimes, they're more creative (I heard of a story once where a person aced a university exam because he got drunk, and I hear stories of freestyle rappers being able to freestyle better when they're drunk because they have better "flow").

Now what is "the flesh"? Biblically speaking, it means "without God" in the sense that God is not the center of purpose, nor is he relied on for power to achieve certain ends. Now this capacity for ourselves to be "under the influence/control of a substance foreign to ourselves" is in itself neutral (in my opinion). However,  the influence of alcohol, or any other foreign substance, if it makes one lose control of oneself so that one cannot submit to the will of God better, then there is a problem. Because ultimately, sin is the failure to submit to God's will. And due to the aforementioned effects of being drunk on alcohol, it is so much harder (if not impossible) to submit to God's will each moment when one is intoxicated.

However, there is a flipside to our human ability to be "under the influence/control of a substance foreign to ourselves". There is a way to "tap" into this neutral ability of ourselves in a way that not only doesn't inhibit us from submitting to God's will better, but actually helps us submit to God's will better than we can without it. That is "being under the dynamic and organic influence/control of the Holy Spirit". What are some of the "flipside" effects of this? We actually have "better" self-control under this "foreign substance" (Galatians 5:23). We have less inhibitions that stem from being timid and shy (2 Timothy 1:7) so we can "courage it up" to do the right thing even against social/cultural pressure. I personally (this comes from my own collective interpretation of Scripture) think that "being filled with the Spirit" makes us more creative with "flow" in a way that gives us ideas to fulfill God's will that we couldn't have come up with ourselves. In John 3:8 Jesus tells us that the Spirit is unpredictable in which direction He goes, like the wind. In another passage of Scripture it says that when we are questioned in front of authorities for our faith, the Spirit will tell us what to say. In Acts 23, Paul creatively "Jack Bauered" himself out of the situation, possibly due using creativity being filled with the Spirit.

Last but not least, being filled with the Spirit allows one to "take spiritual hits/attacks" better. In Proverbs 23:31-35 it talks about the effects of being drunk. In verse 35 it says:

"They hit me," you will say, "but I'm not hurt! They beat me, but I don't feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?"

In the Holy Spirit version of being "drunk" spiritually, it allows one to persevere fighting the good fight, and to "take beatings from the enemy" supernaturally without staying down, wailing in pain and tapping out. One can just get back up... sometimes miraculously, after years of training (I'm not speaking only from personal experience, but just from the stuff I read from the spiritual drunken masters of spiritual giants in church history).

Elder Jacob Knapp, a spiritual giant full of the Spirit in church history, himself said "It is really surprising what a small amount of sleep and food we can get along with, and how much we can endure, when we are filled with the Spirit. Machinery well oiled can be run day and night for years together with but little friction." There are many others (i.e. John Wesley) that have testified likewise from their personal experience of divine intoxication.

How does one practically learn how to be filled with the Spirit? Speaking from my very limited personal experience, I have to say that in a way I can tell you, but in a way, I can't. In a way, I can teach someone how to learn Mandarin, but in a way, I can't. There are simple basic things one can do (play the Game with Minutes [try to be aware of God's presence every minute without a legalistic attitude taking over]) as well as "pay attention and do experiments on one's consciousness like a metacognitive scientist". But explaining how to become "fluent" in those skills is like trying to explain to someone how to become "fluent" in Mandarin. There are certain prescribed exercises that one can do. But in the end, the mind has to inexplicably "figure it out" and "learn the language itself". Just like how I can model Chinese to you, but I can't learn it for you. I can model being "filled with the Spirit", but I can't learn it for you. The latter for both depend on the digestion, processing, and growth that transcends any exhaustive person-to-person verbal instructions or descriptions.

The effects are supernatural.

*Note: This analogy, like all analogies, has flaws in it. I recognize that there are some difference between "being filled with the Spirit" and "being influenced by alcohol to fight better in drunken boxing". If taken too far, the analogy crumbles. However, the heart of what I'm trying to communicate is that being under the influence of practically being filled with the Spirit, like a foreign substance that influences the physical body, allows us to achieve effects in spiritual warfare that we cannot achieve without the influence of this "extra-human substance" aka the Holy Spirit influencing our minds, hearts, bodies, and souls.

Everything before 5:00 of this clip illustrates Romans 7. 5:00 - 5:12 is John 3:7. 5:12 onwards is Romans 8.