Musing on Mercy

This post was written at one in the morning in the middle of staffing Summit. The ideas here are what I have learned and been shown over the summer.

Starting a post at one in the morning after a full day of Ultimate, counseling students, and organizing waivers, all of which on a less than full stomach and after getting up at 5:30 to take my guys to coffee, may not have been the best of ideas (hence this seemingly never ending run on sentence), but I’ve got several things that I’m processing that I need to get out of me.


People are hard.

Don’t get me wrong, people are fantastic. I love people. The ideas, depth, love, grace, joy, and encouragement we have the capability to pour into each other is fantastic.

But we also have an infinite capacity to fight the unfamiliar, hate what we don’t understand or don’t like, respond with aggression or defensiveness. We want blow holes in the foundations of our fellows without offering to help rebuild from the damage.

Fear and Pride (which is frequently rooted in the fear of inadequacy, or the fear of man much of the time) are the two biggest detriments to living as we are called to live.

The ignorant can be taught, but when we aren’t humble enough to learn, we destroy much of our claims to accuracy. Dogmatism is neither a virtue, nor a sin, but it can be either, depending on the attitude behind it. Non-negotiables have their place, but it’s not on the front end of a relationship.

I’m rambling, and now it’s 1:10.

I guess I do have a point to this.

It’s not as simple as saying ‘be open minded’ because that’s part of the problem. A blind acceptance of any viewpoint, under the guise of ‘that works for you’ is a major problem.
Which is not to say we should be close-minded by any stretch of the imagination either. A foolish pig-headedness is the ruling stereotype and preconception that follows Christendom like an emaciated mountain lion.

Grace is key.


Grace is the key to any and all human interaction. Without grace, we either heap judgement or drop critical thinking.

Grace is the counterpoint to fear and pride. Grace is where love meets humility.

Grace and Mercy have been the key character traits that I find exemplified in Christ. Grace is an outpouring of His Mercy-His choice not to give use the just consequence for our actions.

We, unless in a position of authority, don’t deal much in the commodity of Mercy. Mercy is the withholding of a negative, but just, consequence. Grace is the doling out of an opposite and positive consequence.


It was the fourth of July recently, and we shot off some fireworks, threw some snaps, and played with some sparklers.

The fun isn’t just in the bottle rockets shooting off, roman candles bursting in air, it’s in lighting the things and stepping back as you watch your destructive power unfold in the sky above.

Unfortunately, we frequently act like either a firework, or a person with a match. (I’m intentionally using first person plural pronouns here, as I’m preaching at myself as much as at anyone else).

I’m a bit of both. I’m sure you felt that twinge of sadistic pleasure as you cautiously light the fuse, then step back to watch the show. I’m also sure you’ve been on the receiving end of that lighter and made a truly spectacular explosion in the night sky.

While there is much to say about the person who lights the fuse, we aren’t actually fireworks.  We’re people. We have fingers and can cut that fuse off and respond with grace.

Yes, it’s difficult, yes it’s uncomfortable, and yes, it feels much more fulfilling when the person with the match forgets to stick the bottle rocket in the ground before lighting it. But that’s not how relationships are built.

That’s not the pattern of behavior we see in the scriptures.

Christ didn’t make a fantastic show of angels appear in the sky to pull him down off the cross. He didn’t make the men who spat on him and whipped him blind or lame. Jesus Christ, off whom we are to model our lives after, exemplified grace on a level that we simply can’t even comprehend.

Can you imagine being the omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe, and willingly submit yourself to the horrors of a Roman crucifixion?
We as human beings can’t even begin to comprehend the former, and, as Americans especially, the latter is nearly as difficult to understand.

Christ set the bar high when He said ‘come follow me,’ Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians 11:1.

Grace is at the core of what gives us our Christianity, Grace is what makes this relationship possible to begin with.

I guess what I’m realizing over the last 24 hours and four weeks in general is that Grace is more than an ideal. Grace is ‘Christ in Skin.’ Grace is more than ‘doing to others as you would have them do to you.’ Grace is about extending a minute fraction of the inexplicably large helpings of Mercy that has been poured on us from heaven to those around us.

If only that they may taste the same Mercy we’ve been given.

Posted in Human Interaction, Late Night Ramblings, Serious, Writing | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Decay of Manners

William Wilberforce

William Wilberforce said he had two great aims: the abolition of the slave trade, and the reformation of manners.

We aren’t talking table manners here, Wilberforce sought to change the core system people used to interact with each other.

Wilberforce sought to train the British people to treat each other with the respect one was due, simply because he or she was created in the image of God.

Because that’s what we’ve lost.

We’ve lost this ideal that mankind is inherently valuable, not because we’re the most highly evolved animal in the food chain. Not because we mutually benefit from the social contract that is human existence.

A person doesn’t have value because of what she wears, what he looks like, what she says, what he believes, or what we do.

Value is an abstract, it’s unmeasurable, unquantifiable, and intangible. Things only have value if another thing that has control over it assigns it value.

Watches have value based on what the owner of the watch declares. Let’s talk about a specific watch, it’s not much to look at, it certainly isn’t a rolex. It works, but time has worn it down.

How valuable is this watch?

A pawnbroker would pay a couple dollars if you’re lucky. A watch collector might shell out a little more.

But in reality, this watch is priceless. The owner of the watch crafted it with the utmost care, in order to give it as a gift to his son. Not only will the owner of the watch protect the watch, but his son will treasure it forever.

You can’t judge a thing’s value based on its appearance.

Manners, the way you treat a thing, is dependent on how valuable you believe that thing to be worth.

This is why mere politeness misses the point. Why ma’am and sir are just words.

We say ma’am and sir, not out of an obligation to those in power over us, but rather simple respect for each other as human beings.

We refrain from foul language, not out of fear of offending someone, or to pretend that we’re any better from those who don’t, but because we find value in uplifting conversation, benefiting those who listen.

Maybe I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m assuming that you and I agree on what things, and people, are valuable.

Let’s look at that watch again. Who dictates its worth?

Society can create an economic system that evaluates the utilitarian value of a watch (how useful is it?) and put a price on it.

But is that its true value?

The owner of the watch will not sell it for anything less than what it is worth to him. He will not part with it until he has entrusted it to his son. And his son will treasure it, far above any economic evaluation.

If the owner and creator determines the value of a watch, how valuable are people?

There are two options; we were either created, or we arose from chance. If we arose from chance, then we have no more inherent value than empty space. But if we were created, we have as much value as our creator endowed us with.

Society cannot exist based on the presumption that human life has no inherent value. Life as we know it would cease to exist. Once value becomes relative, the only thing that can save us from our fellow man is ourselves. No government has a right to enforce laws concerning murder, for example. Why? Because governments would necessarily be a human invention. The watch cannot tell the watchmaker how valuable he is.

This is the core reason why the decay of manners is so dangerous for humanity. It’s not as simple as covering your children’s ears when you go to a theme park. It’s not as simple as tipping your waitresses. It’s just an archaic idea of holding doors open. These are all based on the fundamental assumption that humanity is valuable, and we should treat them as such.

One final note; since we have been created, how do we know how valuable we are? Luke 12, Genesis 2, Psalm 139, and Matthew 6, among other scriptures, tell us that we were created in the image of God. Other passages tell us we are his heirs and adoptive children.

This applies to every human being on the planet. We were created by the most loving of watchmakers. It’s time to start treating each other like it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where to?


There comes a time in every man’s (and woman’s) life where he (or she) must choose what to do with the rest of his (or her) life.

It’s right now.

And now.

And possibly right now as well.

I’m at this point in life where every decision has the potential to make drastic changes in my future. Who do I look to for advice? Which opportunities do I seize? What am I doing in a year? Six months? A week? (well, I know the last one, I’ll be on my way to my brother’s wedding! 😀 )

I guess my point with this post is to encourage those stumbling blindly through their hallways trying to hit a light switch that will illuminate the path through the distractions to the door of the next season of life.

One of my biggest struggles is the tendency to look at life as though my future is a flashlight. I point it at what I think is a door, and then I plow straight to it, only to find out that it was actually a painting. Or a closet. Or a window.

Tunnel vision never helps, and I’m preaching at myself more than anyone else. Each step needs to be wide, rather than long. Focusing on taking advantage of every opportunity to serve, rather than just the ones we think will move us to where we think we need to be.

Life is more than just one task to complete after another. It isn’t a staircase with walls on each side and a door at the bottom where you’re born and a door at the top where you die.

The most prevalent analogy in scripture to the life of a believer is a race.

The race of a slave. A servant who has been given 5, 10, 20 talents and told to invest them, work with them, grow them.

Our Master has wonderful plans in store for us, yes. Beautiful pictures of excellent works He has prepared for us to do. But He also has given us our nets and told us to go fishing. He hasn’t given us a map of the lake, or coordinates to steer by.

We’re navigating by the stars without a sextant. We’re exploring the rainforest with a map and no compass.

Without the sextant, we know the points of the compass, Polaris and her sisters tell us that. But we don’t know the location of our vessel. Without a compass we use our map to determine our location, thanks to the rivers and mountains God has planted on the earth, but we don’t have a compass to point us in the direction we need to go.

But we don’t need a sextant or a compass. We have the stars and map of Scripture.

Scratch that, we have a sextant and a compass. Romans 8:26 and John 14:26 tell us we have a comforter, a guide, and an intercessor. Isaiah 11:2 says that our comforter is of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might, and of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.

We have been given a compass and a sextant, we just have to remember to look at them. We have to learn to understand them.

You don’t just point a sextant at the sky and you get your GPS coordinates and a heading. The sextant isn’t a simple tool. It’s complex and requires equations and concentration to understand it. A compass isn’t that straightforward either. It’s an instrument that requires understanding and focus to read it correctly.

Life isn’t meant to be simple. At least in the sense that we’re talking right now.

Life is meant to be built on a foundation of trust, shored up by faith, with the plumb line of service, and the level of understanding, with is dependent on the fear of the Lord.

I know this has been rambly, and a bit out of character for this blog. But I am working through this, and ultimately that’s the goal of this blog; to think in a place that may benefit others. 

Not that I’ve got it figured out. Life is full of so many twists and turns that opportunities once thought lost are now the center of your plans for the next year.

What I want you to come away with is the thing that I’ve been told multiple times over the past several months:

The secret of understanding where you’re supposed to go next in life is dependent on the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 9:10). This fear is contingent on a deep, consistent, and meaningful fellowship with the Lord, through His Spirit, in His Word. Which will bear fruit in a genuine desire to love and serve those around you.

Basically, read the scriptures, pray, and focus on serving and everything will eventually turn out for the best.

I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation.

Ephesians 4:12 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Caveat – Reconstruction Pt. 3

So, after three posts on how tightly our interpretation needs to mold itself to intent, I’m going to throw a huge caveat on top of it all.

My dad has a favorite analogy when it comes to Christian life, and just moral living in general. He calls it “ditch jumping.”

Life is a path, the straight and narrow if you will, that we are supposed to walk along. On each side of the path, there’s a ditch. On one side, in this case, is deconstruction – relative interpretation.
But there are two ditches. I’ve focused a lot on the right side ditch, because that’s easier, for me, to nail down and address. But the left side ditch is an entirely different matter.
The left side ditch is limiting a work to its context. This is equally dangerous and disingenuous.

Take Dickens for example. Say we take his intended audience, his social context and such, and limit Oliver Twist to that environment. Suddenly, one of the best novels on human rights has been stripped of its power and stuck in the library of congress with all the cultural impact of a Qin Dynasty vase.

Literature is not simply a historical document that one uses to study a far off culture, literature is alive and breathing. The best works transcend the contexts that they were written in and for, and impact society for generations, even centuries.

The Odyssey isn’t still read today simply because it’s a good tool to study the ancient Greeks. It’s still read because of the insights into the human condition that transcend time and place.
Paradise Lost isn’t read simply because it reflects the religious fervor of Renaissance Italy, it’s still read because Milton understood the gravity of the loss of paradise, and was able to use words that strike a chord in every heart that reads them.
The Old Man and the Sea isn’t some boring book about a poor South American fisherman, it’s about Everyman’s fight for survival.
The Bible isn’t read because it’s a good history of the Jewish people, or Jesus ministry, the Bible is still read because it’s timeless truths go beyond its immediate context, and reach into every culture and society, not leaving a single one of touches the same.

Great literature comes from great authors. As bad as it is to ignore or relativize the context of a work, it is equally bad to limit a work to its context. Words have power. When you turn the words into events, they lose much of their power and most of their relevance.

My point with these last three posts has been simply this:
Read everything as you would like your work to be read. Try and discover the author’s meaning, and use that to define your applications.

Because if you relativize literature, it no longer has any value.

Posted in Analysis, Postmodernism, Serious | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Application is Open – Reconstruction Pt. 2

Last post, Context is Key, we talked about Context. This post, Application is Open, we’re going to talk about Application. Shocking, I know.

The second claim of Deconstruction is “the correct interpretation of a work is not fixed, but rather based on our personal cultural experiences.”

I’d reply that “the correct interpretation of a work is fixed, but its application may vary based on our cultural environment”

Let’s dig in.

Correct Interpretation

There really isn’t any reason to believe that the correct interpretation (the explanation of the meaning of a work) would have much room to vary. Different people will pick up on different things in the work, pulling on threads that others might have glossed over, but overall, there is a relatively limited number of interpretations for any given work.

Take The Old Man and the Sea, the Hemingway classic, for example. One can draw many correct interpretations from the work, such as the struggle of man with nature – a clear depiction of survival of the fittest, the impact of pride or determination, or the importance of camaraderie and loyalty in Manolin.

It would be equally inappropriate to infer some interpretations on the work, such as man’s supremacy over nature, as there isn’t anything to support these claims.

In a nutshell, take what the author meant to say, not what you wanted him to say, and then apply it as is appropriate.

Relativistic Applications

Applications (the way the work is applied, the way that we allow something to influence how we live or think) can be as varied as interpretations are narrow. Anytime a virtue is lauded, a vice disdained, or a goal discussed, we need to pull out the author’s intended interpretation, and then turn it around and figure out what the proper application in our own lives would be.

Your application might be the opposite of the author’s intention, it might have a different motive from the author’s intention, it might even be the same.

While correct interpretation is fixed, application can be as varied as the kinds of people who read the work.

I’m planning to wrap up this series with a giant, sweeping caveat next post. So stay tuned.

Posted in Analysis, Postmodernism, Serious, Truth | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Context is Key – Reconstruction Pt. 1

Scripture says what it says, not what you want it to say

Tying into my previous post Interpretation is a Science, Not an Art, I wanted to really dig in on the mechanics of objective literary interpretation, rather than just saying “Don’t do this.”

A couple key points about Deconstruction that I want to rehash before we really dig in;

1) We must interpret a work based on our cultural experiences (both prescriptive – meaning we should – and descriptive – meaning we do).
2) The correct interpretation is not fixed, but rather based on our personal cultural experiences.
3) Words and meanings are arbitrary.

We’re going to dig into the first point in this post.

We must interpret a work based on the context (historical and literary) that it is both set in, and written from.

Context is key. Any given passage of literature will have three contexts: the geo/historical context of the author, the literary context (genre) of the work, and the context of the surround passages.

This holds true for all literature, not just scripture, however it is extremely important that we understand all three before trying to interpret any passage.

Geography and History

The Geographical and Historical context of the work is the jumping off point. Without a proper understanding of the original audience, their circumstances, and the author’s circumstance, it will be much more difficult to come to an understanding of what a passage is saying.

Two examples;
If I read an ancient Beowulf, but have no understanding of the treaty systems, language, or mythos of the ancient Anglo-Saxons, I’ll have a much more difficult time understanding what exactly a “whale road” is and how two, apparently warring, kings can just chill in each others’ living rooms.
If I read Jeremiah, but have no understanding of the state of the Israelites (in captivity), the structure of Jewish literature, or the subsequent fulfillment of these promises, much of the weight of the passage is lost, and can be misapplied in multiple contexts.


Genre, or literary context is also key. A genre is a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content. Basically a genre is what ‘family’ a piece of artwork belongs to. Acts and Team of Rivals belong to the Historical Genre, the works of e.e. cummings and the Psalms belong to the Poetic Genre, The Hunt for Red October belongs to the Military Thriller Genre, Animal Farm and Gulliver’s Travels belong to the Satiric Genre.

If you improperly apply a genre, a work will not make sense or it will be improperly interpreted. If you read Team of Rivals (an excellent book on the leadership of Abraham Lincoln) as a satire, you won’t glean any of the potential applications from the life of Abraham Lincoln. If you read Animal Farm as a simple piece of fiction, you’ll lose almost all of the depth that Orwell wove into the work.

Applied to Scripture, we need to remember that Revelation is not a ‘future history,’ it is a Prophetic book. We need to remember that Proverbs is not a book of promises, but rather a book of examples of wise choices. We need to remember that Psalms is not primarily prophecy or doctrine, but poetry praising God.


There’s historical context, there’s literary context, and then there’s just plain context.

I could wax eloquent, but a cartoonist says it more convincingly than I can;

Captain Context – Adam4d


Now, with all that out of the way.

“What does this mean to you?” is the wrong question.

What does this mean, and how can you apply this in your life?” is the correct question

Not just in scripture, but in anything you read, write, or watch.

The next post will be focused on the fixed nature of interpretation and how meaning transcends your experience.

Posted in Analysis, Postmodernism, Serious, What God Said | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Interpretation is a Science, Not an Art

The most common critique I get with any movie or book analysis is that I’m misinterpreting the work.

Which is ironic, because most of the time the critiquer ends up saying that there isn’t just one valid interpretation.

But I digress.

While I won’t go as far as to say that there is only one valid interpretation for a given piece, I will say that there are invalid interpretations. And there are many fewer valid interpretations that invalid ones.

I really am at a loss to why people insist that a work can mean whatever you want it to mean. Thousands of years of literature, philosophy, and just general communication tell us that there is a very limited scope of meaning that should be drawn from a piece of literature.

In fact, the ‘what does it mean to you?’ movement didn’t really start until the late 1960s with the publication of French Philosopher Jacques Derrida’s book Of Grammatology. 

In essence, Of Grammatology is the Postmodernist’s crash course on analyzing and interpreting literature, written language, spoken language, and pretty much anything that uses words.

Derrida makes the case that language, and all communication, is socially derived, and therefore non-absolute. Therefore whatever we want to interpret something to mean, we have every right to do so.

Thus meaning, along with the entire basis of communication, is thrown out the window.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that colleges and public schools began emphasizing “What does it mean to you?” and only a few short years later, we started applying this literary deconstruction to our Bible studies “What does this verse mean to you?”

Deconstruction, as Derrida’s ideas about interpreting literature are called, is not a meaningful way to interpret anything. If carried out to its full implications, as Derrida encourages us to do, deconstruction will make it impossible to have a conversation with another human being, simply because – according to Derrida – language is first of all cultural, secondly personal, and least of all communicative.

When I go to watch a movie or read a book, I don’t start with my experiences. That’s a postmodern mindset.

I don’t start with what I know or believe to be true.

I start with what the author is telling me is true.

If the author says that the sky is red, I don’t reinterpret red to mean blue because that fits in with my experience of reality. I also don’t immediately dismiss the author because they postulated something that didn’t line up with my understanding of the world.

This is super important.

You should not reinterpret or dismiss something off hand because of your preconceptions.

People much too frequently jump to one extreme or another. Either it’s “I imagined the sky as blue, even though they said the sky was red because I felt better that way,” or “I think this book is full of it because it said the sky is red and obviously the sky is blue.”

A skilled author has a point to every word they put down on the page. Flippantly dismissing, or postmodernly reinterpreting is both rude and, quite frankly, negligent.

Rude because this author has spent countless hours crafting a story, maybe even a masterpiece, to say something about the world we live in. Maybe it’s only an impression or a moral, but every story says something.

Negligent because behind that story is an idea, and behind that idea is a person. We are not doing the person justice by just cheaping out through laziness in interpretation by ignoring, misconstruing, or dismissing their ideas.

It’s the author’s job as a writer to communicate clearly. It’s our job as a reader to figure out what they were trying to communicate.

As a final point, interpretation is not the same as application.

Semantics you say.

Semantics indeed says I.

Semantics is the study of meaning. If semantics is appropriate at any time it’s when we’re discussing how to arrive at the meaning of a work.

Application is what we do with what the author said. There are infinite numbers of applications to a given work. Even works with flawed undertones can have excellent applications.

Don’t think that because I had a negative interpretation I necessarily had a negative application. If the work was humanist calling us to climb above our selfishness, I can get on that band wagon.

But I will point out who’s driving the wagon and where it’s ultimately heading.

On an unrelated note, I’ve been messing with a few paragraph styles to see which one works best for the blog. If you’ve noticed the changes at all, let me know which you liked the most!

Style 1: No real division –
Style 2: Headers –
Style 3: Bold new sections – this post

Posted in Analysis, Books, Movies, Music, Reading | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Splitting Hairs, Interpreting Fact, Divining Bias

Let’s review.

  1. Truth exists and is knowable and relevant.
  2. Truth is knowable based on three criteria; Revelation, Reason, and Reality
  3. Truth claims are everywhere
  4. Truth can be broken into two categories: Subjective and Objective
  5. Objective truth can be further broken down into important and unimportant categories.

So, now we know what and that truth is. How do we pull apart the claims of others in order to know the truth, the falsehood, and the nuances of each statement?

First, just like every person has a worldview, every person has a bias. News media, political and social analysts, readers, writers, speakers, and listeners all come to the table with a predisposition to believe or to try to convince others of a certain set of beliefs.

Someone writes something. When you read what you have to keep two main things in mind: what is important, and what actually happened.

What is important?

Who’s asking?

That’s the real issue behind this question. In an older article on movie reviews I said a worldview could be broken into reality, morality, and Values. The things that are highlighted as important (valuable) directly correspond to the writer’s worldview (assuming this is non-fiction).

This is where nuance and splitting hairs really come into play. In extreme cases, minute details will be turned into broad generalizations, and major events will be downplayed into minute details. Nuances become catastrophes, and catastrophes become nuances.

Emphasis is subjective, but it changes how we view something, and our subjective opinion of an objective event can become skewed.

What Actually Happened?

Or, what is the Reality of the situation (referring to the Worldview qualities, not the truth determiners)?

It will take time, research, and discernment to find the truth behind any controversial event or position. Every report will have a bias, and many biases are contradictory.

Bias and Worldview

Guess what? You’re ⅔ of the way to an understanding of the someone’s worldview! Reality and Values are two of the three parts of a worldview. By looking into what the author points to as right or wrong you can generally make a pretty good guess at their Morality.

Wrapping up (this five part series), Bias is how we interpret Truth. Truth is the foundation of our worldview, but bias is nearly synonymous with worldview. It’s cyclical.  A truth claim is interpreted, objective or subjective, true or false, and knowable.

Here’s a complete list of the series on truth in case you missed one;

The Truth?
How Do You Know (What Is True)?
Revelation, Reason, and Reality – Part 2
What is Truly Important
And this post: Splitting Hairs, Interpreting Fact, Divining Bias

Posted in Serious, Truth | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Giver


Failed Utopian Dreams.

Also known as Dystopia. Panem, Factioned Chicago, and now the utopian plateaus in The Giver.

Star Trek, Asimov, Wells, and particularly Orwell all looked into these ‘perfect’ societies.

Most recently brought to the screen is Louis Lowry’s The Giver.

At the root of all of these films is the understanding that man cannot create a perfect society. Sometimes shown with hope, as with The Giver and Divergent, or despair, as in The Hunger Games.

But let’s get back to the Giver.

Set in the distant future, after total destruction, The Giver delves into the give and take of emotion, passion, meaning, self-determinism, decision making… basically what it means to be human.

By the way, if you’re looking for a content review, check out The Ramblingstone’s post or PluggedIn

Let’s step back. Remember the three things we look for to identify a worldview? Reality, Morality, and Values.


Reality has three main questions; what is God and the supernatural, what is humanity, and what is nature and the physical world.

The Giver treats the supernatural much in the same way it treats emotion, something intrinsic to humanity, but not a form of absolute truth. Muslims, Christians, and Eastern Mystics are treated as equally valid and important.

Mostly, however, The Giver focuses on the question of humanity. Humans have intrinsic worth. Where that worth comes from is not really specified. Rather we are shown that eugenics, mind control, and suppression are evils because they oppress humanity.

Nature and the physical world are controlled in the movie. The entirety of the community is climate controlled. Nature serves two purposes; to live in or use, and tools for expressing our humanity. Color, music, snow, and so on are used to express emotion, or give us something to use emotion on.

+ Morality

Morality is a shady business in the giver. Rules are the lifeblood of Jonas’ (the protagonist) society. Rules govern every aspect of life, physical touch, speaking, walking, riding, eating, and sleeping. A hyper-legalism of sorts. Jonas knows things are ‘wrong,’ and we can agree with his conclusions. Poor stewardship of wildlife, murder of infants and the elderly, suppression of human thought and emotion. But we don’t know why these things are wrong.

Who says that infanticide is morally impermissible? There’s just a gut feeling that’s never explained and the characters don’t require an explanation.

+ Values

There are several things that are shown as valuable in The Giver. Human life is repeatedly shown to have extreme importance. Faith, love (in all its forms), and hope are shown to be valuable. Thrill, adrenaline, color, creativity, ingenuity, and so on, all values that we can jump on the bandwagon for.

Unfortunately, once again, The Giver fails to define what Faith is, or what we should hope in. Faith is Jonas’ most estimable quality, but we don’t know what he places that faith in, or if it’s even a faith that transcends mere observation and application.

 = Worldview

I hate to say it, but The Giver has all the marks of a thoroughly humanist, and slightly postmodern worldview.


I know. I left the theater loving the movie. The themes of human life, faith, love, and stewardship, couched in the understanding that humans can’t really fix the mess, drew me in and made me want to love this move.

But themes reflect a worldview.

Humanists say that humans are of ultimate importance, and are perfectible. Where that value comes from isn’t defined and the individual is lofted as the epitome of humanity, not a society or culture.

So, I can get behind the themes, but these themes have no supports. No structures to keep them from falling in on themselves. And The Hunger Games is a lot more honest about how this works. Without some reason that humanity is valuable, that value will degenerate until kids killing each other is a form of entertainment. And [Catching Fire Spoiler Alert] when we overthrow the tyranny that put those evils in place, we can do nothing that hope that humanity has learned its lesson.

That’s the problem with the humanist worldview in The Giver. Who cares that we think humanity is important, because that’s all you’re saying: we think.

Postmodernism rears its head in the flashbacks relating to religion. Religion is not a quest for the truth, but a preference that brings some people fulfillment and causes others to go to war, barely more important that your taste in music.
Jonas’ journey is that of the humanist; a quest for self-actualization.

Don’t get me wrong, The Giver was an amazing film. Cinematography, acting, editing, score, and script all came together in, quite honestly, one of the most beautiful and cohesive movies I’ve seen in a while. The values and morality are laudable, and content-wise the movie cleaner than almost anything that’s been shown in theaters for most of the summer.

There are dozens of wonderful takeaways we can glean from this film. But one should always keep in mind that even clear water has the potential to drown you.

Posted in Analysis, Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment



Wisdom is mentioned all throughout the Bible, but what is Wisdom? Where do we get Wisdom? Who defined Wisdom? When is it important? And finally, why is Wisdom important?

First off, what is Wisdom? As some of you might have already guessed from some of my previous articles, defining terms is very important. The Hebrew word translated as Wisdom is Hakam, which is can be literally translated as “to live skillfully.” The difference between Knowledge and Wisdom; Knowledge is knowing about something, what it is, what it does, Wisdom is the correct application of that knowledge.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

The second and third questions are closely related, where do we get Wisdom, and who defined Wisdom? The answer to both questions is God.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom
and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”
(Proverbs 9:1 NKJV)

We can only gain wisdom if we fear (respect) God and His commandments. Solomon, the wisest man (excepting Christ) who ever lived, gained all of his wisdom and understanding from God. God created wisdom before he created the world (Proverbs 8:22-30). As a quick side note, Wisdom is not synonymous with Christ, and therefore this passage does not support the claim that Christ is a created being (it’s incredible the twisting of Scripture, you would never have even thought of, that you can find when researching). Back on topic; Wisdom was created by God for man, for the purpose (like all things) to bring to glory to him. Since Wisdom is an idea, how could God create it? God so supersedes our human understanding in so many ways; God not only created the universe out of nothing, created all methods of communication, created thought itself, He even created time. The thought of creating time is so out of the grasp of our minds that it just shows how powerful He is. Creating an idea, or a universe, would be an insignificant act for Him. “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, it is high, I cannot attain it.” (Psalm 138:6 NKJV)

When is Wisdom important? It is important whenever we act, whenever we think, always. Every single thing we think or do should be weighed with wisdom and discretion.

“   . . . You [God] know my sitting down and my rising up;
You understand my thought afar off.
You comprehend my path and my lying down,
And are acquainted with all my ways.
For there is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.”
(Psalm 139:2-4 NKJV)

God sees and knows all things. We need to live in a wise manner at all times because God is with us at all times.

Why is Wisdom important? Wisdom is the correct application of knowledge, the ability to “live skillfully”. Wisdom was created by God for His glory and is only attainable by the fear of the LORD. Wisdom is always important; everything we say or do should be weighed with wisdom. God created wisdom for His glory, and our goal in life should be to bring him glory and honor. “Whether therefore you eat, or drink [or think], or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31 NKJV)

God has created us completely for his glory and has given us the gift of Wisdom to glorify Him with. He has complete knowledge of our thoughts and actions and ,with His grace, we will be able to live with wisdom and say;

“Search me, God, and know my heart;
Test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.”
(Psalms 139:23-24 NKJV)

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , | Leave a comment