Queen Elizabeth II's 2011 Christmas Message

There is much that can be said about Britain, and with ever decreasing favour. However, I have a soft spot for Her Majesty the Queen.

I keep Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558-1603, in high esteem. She was one of the first rulers who considered religion a personal act between man and God and worked towards Freedom of Religion in a time when "heretics" were routinely excommunicated and / or burned at the stake. Queen Elizabeth I may have been "only a woman" and ruler of “half an island” as Pope Sixtus V referred to her, but she stood her ground against the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire, before whom many a king had bowed the knee, and withstood Spain and France. The England of today, including the Common Wealth, that enjoys its great freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience would not have been had it not been for this wonderful woman. Even the attacks of religiously-aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins would not have been conceivable was it not for the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I who believed in religious tolerance.

It might be because of this endearment I have to Queen Elizabeth I that I'm curiously open to her name-bearer, Queen Elizabeth II, particularly to her annual Christmas Message. And what a beautiful address this year's Christmas Message was! She emphasized the value of family and friendship and man's need of a Saviour and forgiveness. Keep in mind that the annual Christmas Message is the only time the Queen is allowed to freely speak her mind. At all other times she is restricted by “advisers” on what she can or cannot say, but the Christmas Message is thoroughly her own. Imagine that you have only once a year the opportunity to freely speak your mind. Certainly at this opportunity you would share the things that are most important to you.

I highly recommend you listen to Her Majesty the Queen's 2011 Royal Christmas Message.

Since I don't really keep Christmas, this will probably be my only Chirstmassy-post for the year. The Queen's message of family, friendship and forgiveness is also my wish for you all.

Der große Fürst Michael

"Michael, the Archangel" by Celia Fenn

Daniel 12:1a: “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people...”

A theologian friend and I have been speaking about the possibility of Jesus also being Michael, the Archangel. He says that most of evangelical / protestant Christian tradition interprets Michael to be a manifestation of Jesus—and also that he disagrees with the possibility of Jesus being Michael on account of Hebrews 2 that states God has not subjugated the world to come under any angels, but under Christ alone. I disagree with my friend on both points.

First, I don't believe that most of Christianity holds the interpretation that Michael and Jesus are the same being. The Catholic tradition do not hold this view and I know of very few evangelical / protestant interpretations that equate Michael with Jesus. There are only two denominations that I know of that makes this assertion, and both are generally considered sectarian. Now let me stop here for a moment. Just because something is believed to be “sectarian” doesn't by default mean that the belief is false. When Galileo Galilei proposed heliocentrism, instead of the earth as the centre of the universe, he was called a heretic. Heretics, although in the minority, i.e. sectarian, are sometimes correct.

My second disagreement with my friend is not that Jesus must be Michael, but that Hebrews 2 does not trump the possibility for Jesus to be Michael. The Bible is filled with theophanies. A “theophany” is an appearance of a deity in a tangible form. From the Torah (Old Testament) we learn that God spoke with Adam and Eve, Cain, and Noah and his sons, although a specific manifestation / appearance is not mentioned. However, for Abraham and Sarah it seems that God manifested God-self as the Angel-of-the-Lord, an angel that speaks as God in the first person, i.e. God. God originally met Moses in the form of a burning bush. The Israelites encountered God as a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. The Holy Spirit (one of the three persons of God) manifested in the form of a dove at Jesus' baptism. There is therefore many examples of theophanies so that Jesus appearing as the Archangel Michael could be just one of these instances. The appearance of Michael could easily be a Christophany—which is a theophany of Christ. After all, the name “Michael” literally means “Who is like God?”. And we know from Hebrews 1 and other texts the answer to that question: Jesus Christ. If Michael is a Christophany, I cannot see how it clashes with Hebrews 2.

On a side note, the prophet Daniel described Michael (in the text quoted at the beginning of this post) as the “prince” of “thy people.” I think “prince” is an unfortunate English translation of the Hebrew word “śar” [שׂר], from which Russian derives the term “tzar”. I much better prefer the German translation: “der große Fürst Michael”—the great Force Michael. Fürst (or the Afrikaans “Vors”) better captures the Hebrew word “śar”: a great power, or force, the power that will protect you, keep you safe, one's steward. This, to me, is a comfortable description of Jesus as the protector or saviour of God's people; the One that fights on their behalf.

"Archangel Michael" by Luca Giordano

That there is a close relationship between Michael and Jesus we also learn from Revelation 12, where “Michael and his angels” fought against the “dragon . . . the ancient serpent, he who is called Devil and Satan”. Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven. Immediately after this a great voice in heaven is heard saying: “Now is come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren has been cast out . . .” There seems to be a link between Michael casting out Satan and the “salvation” and “authority” of Christ.

If Michael is indeed a Christophany, it would seem that Michael is the battle-title or warrior name for Christ. Michael is the one that battles Satan, the Prince of Evil (symbolised by the Prince of Persia in the Book of Daniel). We see this in Daniel 12, in Jude 1, and in Revelation 12.

Does believing or not believing in Michael as Jesus affect any core Christian doctrine? Yes, if we believe Jesus to be merely a created angel. But this need not be the case. Michael could just be a Christophany, in which case the deity of Jesus is not questioned, and therefore no core Christian doctrine is affected.

My kar is gevind!

Wie sou dit nou kon raai?

Ek het verlede week gerapporteer oor my kar in Suid-Afrika wat gesteel is. In die skrywe het ek genoem dat "if it is found I doubt will be worth more than its value in scrap, for the robbers will strip it down to its frame." Ek was verkeerd. Die kar is vandag gevind en die skelms het sowaar waarde toegevoeg tot my motor!

Hier is die kort e-posboodskap wat ek van my broer se lewensmaat ontvang het. (Haar seun is 'n polisieman.)

Ek hoop ek bring baie goeie nuus. My seun het vandag in Orange Farms gewerk en soos hul ry, sien hy 'n blou golf van voor af aankom en besluit om hom af te trek en doen die nodige ''chassis'' en enjin nr toetse oor polisie radio. Daarna bel hy my en vra vir kenmerke en ek noem 'n hele spul goed en hy antw...mamma ek't die golfie gekry. Hy't 2 gearresteer. [Jou broer] gaan mre oggend voertuigtak toe in Vereeniging. Die kar is oorgespray, volgens [my seun] lyk die kar mooi en daar is 2 nuwe mags agter op, maar daars nou 'n ander injin in, 'n passat enjin. So ja, sal jou weer na more op hoogte hou. Prys ons Hemelse Pappa...dankie Jesus.

Hoop my boodskap bring 'n glimlag op jou gesig.

Ek was in die versoeking gebring om te dink dat die rede hoekom ek my rugsak, wat nou die dag verlore geraak het, weer kon opsoor te make het met die veilige hawe wat Suid-Korea is; en dat ek nooit weer my kar sou sien nie omdat Suid-Afrika so 'n kriminele plek is. Die onwaarskynlikheid om my kar weer terug te kry is 'n wonderwerk en dit herinner my dat my rugsak, met al die waardevolle items wat daarin was, wat ek terug gekry het ook 'n wonderwerk is en nie eenvoudig met Suid-Korea se veiligheid te make het nie. Ek het allermins gebid! Alhoewel ek al baie dinge hier verloor het en weer terug gekry het, het ek ook al duur dinge hier verloor en nooit weer terug gekry nie.

Contentment

I have a pen-pal. I know that it seems strange in a day-and-age where people are constantly chatting through Facebook, tweeting, SMSing and the like, and although my pen-pal and I email each other, instead of traditional pen-and-paper letters, the tone of our letters are still actual letters, rather than truncated texts typical of the high-speed inter-connected social media communication.

Something we do in our letters is to end them with a word or two that we feel summarizes our current state of mind, or the theme for our lives at that moment. I think this tradition was inspired by Eat, Pray, Love. The word I ended my latest letter with was "contentment."

It is a great thing to be content. My life is not perfect and there are things that I long for at times (a significant other?), but I'm generally happy. The Apostle Paul's words echo in my mind: ". . . I have learned to be content in whatever situation I am in. I know how to be humble, and I know how to prosper. In each and every situation I have learned the secret of being full and of going hungry, of having too much and of having too little. I can do all things through him who strengthens me" (Phillipians 4:11-13). Here is The Message's rendition of that text:

"I don't have a sense of needing anything personally. I've learned by now to be quite content whatever my circumstances. I'm just as happy whether full or hungry, hands full or hands empty. Whatever I have, wherever I am, I can make it through anything in the One who makes me who I am."

No, I cannot honestly say that I am where Paul is, in that I have completely mastered the secret of being "quite content whatever my circumstances." Although I have been seriously poor and do not doubt that if I were to be in such a situation again that I will be okay because of the "One". What I can say is that although my life is not perfect at present, that I am content with where I am now. Yes, there is room for (personal) improvement; nevertheless, I am happy with my life. That is not something many people can say. I can. And I feel very privileged, very blessed, that I can.

Christianity vs Secularism and I

My brother informed me that the episode of Consider This in which I was a guest speaker and spoke about Christianity vs Secularism has aired and that it is available on the counter.act media YouTube channel. The thought of me sharing ideas—particularly religious ideas—on television is somewhat troubling. When speaking about God and "oughts" and "naughts," one has to be very careful. As I mentioned elsewhere, I hope my views are sound.

At first I wasn't sure if I actually wanted to see myself on television. I felt a little like Johnny Depp who refuses to watch his own movies. Eventually I did gather up the courage and looked at the episode to see how I applied my 15 minutes . . . uhm, 8 minutes . . . of fame.

The three videos below are the three segments of the episode. I feature in the middle segment.







Consider This is a counter.act media production and was produced by my brother, Nethan.

My Alter-Ego: Dash Snow

Het jy al ooit jouself in iemand gesien? Tot 'n skokkende insig gekom dat daardie persoon is wie jy kon gewees het, maar eintlik bly is dat dit nie is hoe jou lewe uitgedraai het nie?

My ander-ek is Dash Snow, 'n Amerikaanse kunstenaar wat in 2009 op die ouderdom van 27(?) gesterf het. Ek lees oor die lewe van Dash Snow en ek sien hoe klomp geleenthede daar was vir my lewe om soortgelyk aan syne te kon uitdraai. Het ek drie of vier ander keuses tydens kneloomblikke in my lewe gemaak, was ek ook dalk nou al dood nadat ek 'n uitspattige kunstenaarslewe geleef het. Ek probeer nie sê dat ek ook so bekend en opsprakend wekkend as Dash Snow sou gewees het. Dit is nie die punt wat ek probeer maak nie. Wat ek probeer sê is dat ek ook op 'n stadium daardie tipe lewe wou leef en dat ek die geleentheid gehad het om in soortgelyke destruktiewe (kunstenaars/dwelm/ens.) kringe te beweeg.

Om eerlik te wees, partykeer dink ek aan van daardie keuses—daardie “sensible” keuses wat ek gemaak het—en ek wonder of ek die regte keuses gemaak het. Soms wonder ek of ek uitgemis het op iets. Oor party keuses is ek soms spyt. Maar meestal dank ek God dat ek nie sekere paaie langs gestap het toe die opsies daarvoor oopgegaan het nie. Ek is oortuig daarvan dat sekere mense se gebede, veral die van my ouma en ma, gehelp het dat my lewenspad anders uitgedraai het. Ek leef dalk nou 'n minder “opwindende” lewe, maar dis 'n baie gesonder een.

Daar is steeds 'n bietjie Dash Snow in my; my ongesonde alter-ego is nie dood nie, net relatief getem. Dash Snow steek nog steeds kopuit by tye, maar hy's redelik onderbeheer. Die mense wat my ken sal weet van daardie kant van my. Daardie eksibisionistiese kant. Daardie kant wat so maklik verslaaf kan raak en wie ek van byna elke gewoontevormingde ding weerhou. (Ek vermy dwelms, alkohol, sigarette, kaffeïen en selfs videospeletjies!) Daar is steeds 'n rebel, 'n anti-establishment drang, bietjie van 'n anarchis, effense paranoïa. Alles onderbeheer, maar steeds daar. Krokkedille in die onderbewussyn, soos Steven King sou sê.

Beny ek Dash Snow? Nee. My lewe is opwindend genoeg en ryk aan ervaringe. Ek het 'n vrede wat Dash Snow nie het nie. Daar is 'n stabiliteit wat ek nou het, 'n fokus, wat ek nie wil verruil nie. Ek is bewus van my blekke, maar is ook bewus van God se goedheid.

Don't Be a Dick / Love

Image Source

A friend and I were talking the other day about religion, Christianity in particular. He stated that he understood and pretty much agreed with the basic tenet of Christianity as “Don’t be a dick.” I’ve never heard it summed up exactly like that, but it does seem to reflect pretty much what Jesus taught when he said:

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luk 6:31)

Or in modern English, “Do to others as you want them to do to you,” which is, of course, the Golden Rule and very similar to the Silver Rule that states that one should “not do to others as you would not have them do to you”; or as my friend put it: “don’t be a dick.”

Contemplating on the matter I think the Golden / Silver Rule, although a central theme in Christian teaching, is not the core of Christianity. The central message of Christianity is better defined as love. Jesus summed it up as:

. . . you should love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: you should love other people as you love yourself. On these two commandments hang everything in the Bible. (Mat 22-37-40)

Notice how the Golden / Silver Rule forms part of this summary – you should love other people like you love yourself, in which case you would “do to others as you want them to do to you” or “not do to others as you would not have them do to you.” This summary is based on love and centred around God, because “God is Love” (I John 4:16). This, I think is the true central point of Christianity – God is Love. That nothing we do or don’t do will increase or decrease God’s love for us. God loves each of us unconditionally and if we are followers of God we ought to reflect such unconditional love to others.

Of course there is more to Christianity than this, but God is Love is the core principle from which all else sprouts.

God is Good--What more is there to say?

I work for a “Christian” university. Korea actually has quite a number of universities affiliated with specific religions – very much like the universities of old, before most of them became secular. Part of my job requirement is to facilitate a cell-group meeting once a week with some freshman students. This morning I did an activity in which we had to describe God’s character. The adjectives the students used were: “pure,” “thoughtful,” “caring,” “beautiful,” and so on.

What am I supposed to teach these kids? With such a view of God they already know everything they need to know about God. They clearly do not seem corrupted by all the false views of God presented by mainstream Christianity—that God is a spoilsport killjoy grandfather in the sky. They have a view of God as benevolent; that God is good. What more is there to say?