The lamp post in Narnia - What God uses for us

When the Pevensie children enter into Narnia from the wardrobe they encounter the lamp post. A piece of their world in the world of Narnia, out of place and out of context. What is this? What is Clive Staples Lewis hinting at?

If there is one thing I know about Lewis' analogical tale, everything has a meaning and often more than one. Aslan is Jesus, the stone table the Cross.... I could go on but that would be getting off the topic at hand, the lamp post. The origin of the lamp post comes from "The Magician's Nephew" (which being the second book makes it a prequel meaning George Lucas has been pipped at that) where the white Queen herself takes a broken lamp post with her to Narnia where amazingly it grows into a new one. By the time the Pevensie children arrive it has been there forever and quite normal for Narnian's to see. Normal but not in the same context as the Pevensie children or ourselves and this is the point I will endeavour to make. Why? Because there are people, places, times and maybe even objects and animals that God uses for his purpose. God brings the familiar of our world of our senses to explain a part of His. Now we could split hairs here about the duality of mortal and immortal divine and human sacred and profane, but I often wonder if that's not something that is as far separated as we think. And I believe that Lewis saw this to be true.

The lamp post sits in the wood in Narnia alight in the dark and the cold of the White Witches winter. A sentry to the divide between the worlds. Mr. Tumnus tells us this is boundary of Narnia the threshold. For Tumnus the lamp post is the end of Narnia for the Pevensies it is the beginning. This is the point where I tell you to think about the people and places God has used to invite us further into His world. Your memory should be able to tell you these things more than I can. What I am going to tell you is that God has done this since the beginning of creation. Creation was an invitation for humanity, Moses and the pillar of cloud and fire, the Prophets, Angels, Chariots of Fire and Jesus too.

Jesus is the lamp post familiar and out of context at the same time. Human with flesh and blood able to die and also divine and risen Lord of all. The archetype is one that God uses and continues to use, bringing people and places, organisations and even memories to use. So when you read this and remember these lamp posts, these things that are used by God familiar yet out of context to where you think it should lead. We should not glorify the lamp posts but God who put them there. Don't look for them because like the lamp post they will come when you least expect them, even in a wardrobe.

Images To Inspire You

Almost at the end of this semester at college and the final essay is unearthing many things that might make it here. But till then here's some images to inspire you all.

The Trinity - more than one way of holding onto it

Being a student of Theology under the bearded and wise Dr. K I have had to rethink many of my ideas of how God is. The big word is ontology which is the study of being. When we study the ideas of God's ontology we try to perceive through the mirror dimly using the information at hand to grasp an understanding of God. What usually occurs is that people look at what they don't like about God and try and change it. Often they begin from creation trying to understand that God must be like us because we are made in God's image. Now that's kind of okay as long as God remains God in the nature of God-self. Once God looses immortality, immanence, wisdom and becomes anthropomorphised with too many human attributes then God is no longer God.

One big stumbling block is the triune nature of God. God is one and three or God is three and then one. How can God be both? This is not normal to our understanding of the nature of being. Which is why the ontology of God is such a contentious issue. Many have their points which claim that God is unity before diversity or diversity then unity. Of course then there are those who cannot get beyond their created nature and call it all impossible. And, illogical gets mentioned somewhere along the line.

Historically the Western and Eastern Churches have differing views ontologically. The simple way to get this is that Western begins with One God and three persons and the Eastern is Three persons of the same substance unified by communion. There are three basic terms that despite having different words within reason mean the same. Substance and essence are considered interchangeable. It is considered essential to the Trinity that all three share the same essence/substance, otherwise they are not God. Person is often exchanged for hypostasis. This is because Person has shifted in its meaning over time. At first it was a theatrical term for the mask that Greek actors would wear. The Capadocian's took it and gave it a dynamic and relational meaning. The persons/hypostases within God-self share the same essence/substance with each other in a non-individual way that is in the opinion of John Zizioulas that this participation between the members of God-self is God's existence.

Think about it for a bit. Chew on this in your heart and your mind. God is not like us in his nature. God's essence is shared in a way that is dynamic and relational which is beyond any being we can see with our eyes. The word used to describe this unity in diversity is Perichoresis, it means a circle dance with three people. God is a dance. Fluid motion, never ending intwined in each other in the only perfect loving relationship. Now if thats an image of God that we can take and implement in our lives. If we use it where will we end up in our relationships with others?

I often scour the internet looking for images of Perichoresis and the Trinity, most are disappointing. This one comes from www.flickr.com/photos/andreacyclop/ and is wonderful in its movement. There is something about abstract expressionism that grasps the Trinity in way more representative art cannot. This has to do with the fact that Abstract art does not attempt to capture a representation of the scene, person or landscape, but, to merely depict it. God is beyond us. In the nature of God-self there is a dynamic relational existence that we can only depict in word images, metaphor and analogy. Theologians try and represent Gods ontology but often end up grasping at words like person, essence, and perichoresis because God can only be depicted by us at this time.

Augustine talks of seeing God. Seeing for Augustine is knowledge imparted to us by scripture and the creeds (in Augustine's case the Nicene Creed). For him the pure in heart will see God (Matt 5:8) now because their faith has believed and they now 'see" God. But God is invisible and Augustine asserts this to be true but that one day when all is under the rule of Christ it will be given to the Father (Phil 2:5-7). It is then that the pure in heart who believe by faith will see God-self. I am looking forward to that day where I will see with my eyes something that I can only grasp at now.

The God puddle

There is a vision I get regularly about how I hold the world and God together. Maybe you like to keep things in boxes or categories so you know whats happening in which situation? Perhaps you just let it all out and can exist in the milieu that is life. I struggle with situations where there is little context or multiple contexts which you have to discern. Social situations are often uncomfortable because I struggle to work out where people sit. This also includes God as God is a hard concept, unless you let God out of the Box. In my situation in studying Theology God broke out of the box. Here is an understanding of what happened and what is happening.

I hold all the world in a series of boxes. I hold them all nicely God is one of the boxes. All the boxes are filled with water and they fit nicely.

Well they do until the God box starts to fill to overflowing stopping me from being able to hold all the boxes neatly.

They fall to the floor as the God box bursts freeing itself from the confines I place God in. The water flows all over the place splashing on me. The other boxes fall into the puddle as well.

At first they float, but, they begin to melt into the God puddle that is still growing steadily.

There are no boundaries only colours that shift and flow as the boxes and their contents become one with God.

Finally there is just water and more water. It rises further and further till I am consumed as well.

It is not a drowning, nor is it a baptism. It is an immersion into a new environment, the true environment or at least as true as it can be before the renewal to come.

Train out Impulsiveness?

Impulsiveness is a trait of the natural life, and our Lord always ignores it, because it hinders the development of the life of a disciple. Watch how the Spirit of God gives a sense of restraint to impulsiveness, suddenly bringing us a feeling of self-conscious foolishness, which makes us instantly want to vindicate ourselves. Impulsiveness is all right in a child, but is disastrous in a man or woman—an impulsive adult is always a spoiled person. Impulsiveness needs to be trained into intuition through discipline.

Oswald Chambers

Just thought I'd put this up. I wonder how we can go about training impulsiveness out of ourselves? By we I mean me of course, but, you can all join in too.

Craving Miracles

A very good friend bought me Bjork's latest album Biophilia. Warning, I love Bjork and the layers of sound she creates in her music. If you find it disturbing and a bit weird, then I understand. Please do not judge the musician if you cannot go where they travel. We all have our limits. What I would like to focus on are the lyrics of the song, the chorus mainly.

May I, can I, or have I too often?
Craving miracles…
May I, can I, or have I too often now?
Craving miracles…
Craving miracles…

I would like to ask the question do you Crave Miracles? Can you with all honesty say that in your life you have too often been Craving Miracles?

Its about at this point that the discussion about petitioning God or claiming healing in Jesus name comes up. Some people are adamant that God will heal them. They are desperate that only by an amazing miracle they will be healed. Others detest that position and claim it as foolishness depending only on modern medicine. My experience has been one that has seen both happen together.

I have a few physical abnormalities the most threatening one was Scoliosis. My spine had a curvature above 40 degrees and surgery was required. Around this time my parents searched the bible and other churches to find healing for me. Instead they found Baptism of Holy Spirit which changed them forever. Many prayed for me, many hands were laid on me - no miracle. The operation was scheduled and I was going to be in plaster for 6 months and have limited movement forever.

Then God set in motion things that changed everything. In my parents search they believed God was calling them to leave our home and family to a distant city in the tropics. We went leaving in a bus with my Grandmother crying believing we were headed for disaster. In this city there was no surgeon for my operation and to do this we had to go to another city. In this city I had a different operation. Within 4 weeks of this operation I was playing at the beach.

I believe God moves the world for us sometimes and he begins by moving our hearts. You do not know what God can do for you and you cannot just restrict him to one form of miracle. Crave them - yes you should. But never expect it just one way because this is God we are talking about the impossible is nothing for him.

"Thunderbolt"

Stirring at water's edge,
Cold froth on my twig,
My mind in whirls
Wanders around desire.

May I, can I, or have I too often?
Craving miracles…
May I, can I, or have I too often now?
Craving miracles…
Craving miracles…

No one imagines the light shock I need,
And I'll never know
From who's hands, deeply humble,
Dangerous gifts as such to mine come.

May I, should I, or have I too often?
Craving miracles…
May I, can I, or have I too often?
Craving miracles…
Craving miracles..

My romantic gene is dominant
And it hungers for union,
Universal intimacy,
All embracing.

May I, should I or have I too often
Craved miracles?
May I, can I or have I too often
Craved miracles?
Crave…

Waves irregularly striking,
Wind stern in my face.
Thunderstorm, come,
Scrape those barnacles of me!

May I, may I or should I too often
Crave miracles?
May I or should I or have I too often

All my body parts are one
As lightning hits my spine,
Sparkling
Prime runs through me,
Revive my wish
Inviolable.

May I, can I, or have I too often?
Craving miracles…
May I, can I, should I, or have I too often?
Craving miracles…

Picasso's Girl on a Ball 1905

This is Picasso's Girl on a Ball from 1905 at this time Picasso was highlighting the nature of the outcast using the Saltimbanques or Circus Performers. This is a bleak landscape with a horse, woman, child and a dog in the background in a bare bronze field. In the foreground we are drawn to the titular girl and what is presumably the Strong man. They are differentiated by their proportions as well as what they stand and sit on. Supple and lean, balancing on the ball is the young girl whose delight is topped by the red bow in her hair. The Strong man is seated in a classic pose his strength at rest, yet watchful of the girl. It is not clear whether this is a lesson or merely practise, whether this is a father daughter relationship or that the Strong man's protective concern is merely that of a member troupe.
It is Picasso's social conscience that pokes you as you realise that these people were the refugees, the gypsy's of the era. Here Picasso is humanising them in the form of the girl yet also suggesting that this is an insular group isolated by the community at large through the protective imposing figure of the Strong man.
For me personally this piece is astounding because this is not what comes to mind when you think of Picasso. I know that if I could pain the human form like this I would never have ended where Picasso did. Perhaps I do not understand why Picasso developed the way he did because it seems like a backward step for him. Where as Matisse developed a joyous colour and form, Picasso descended from this to something that is in my opinion less than his true potential.