Earthen Vessels

Yesterday I blogged about the worth of a human being, today I would like to go into an interesting statement in 2 Corinthians 4:7: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.“ I think some people have trouble with the idea of earthen vessels. What does that mean, exactly? Some years ago I heard someone compare the earthen vessels in this passage to paper bags. Imagine carrying a significant amount of gold dust in a paper bag, through a thunderstorm. Any thinking person would do everything they could to keep the bag dry, because if the bag gets really wet, it will fall apart, and the gold dust will wash away. Besides that, the gold is heavy, and paper just isn’t that strong to start with. It’s an interesting analogy, and I think that it is a valuable, but I also think that it misses the point.
Most of the newer translations use the term ‘jars of clay,’ or something similar, to indicate that the vessel is a little more substantial than a paper bag, but, at the same time, it implies that the clay has been fired in a kiln, which it may or may not have been in this instance. If you stop and think, a clay vessel that has not been fired isn’t really that much more substantial than a paper bag. If the clay has been fired, it is considerably more substantial. Apostle Peter makes reference to our faith being tried by fire, so how substantial you are as a vessel (as a Christian) depends upon how much your faith has been tried, how much you (as a Christian) have endured.
Isaiah also makes reference to us as clay, in Isaiah 64:8 and also in Isaiah 19:16 but the latter describes us in terms of clay pots trying to become greater than the potter. We will never be greater than our creator. Some would try to say that we are not created beings, relegating the potter to a character in some ancient mythology, and yet, here we are.
Jeremiah also talks about the potter and the clay, in Jeremiah 18:4. I have heard some protest that it talks about the potter purposely marring the clay, but, really, it doesn’t. Jeremiah says that the clay was marred in the potter’s hand, not marred by the potter’s hand, and in any case, if you keep reading, the potter fixed the problem. He had to take the clay back to lump form, and rebuild whatever it was he was making (the passage uses the term vessel, so, pot? vase? some kind of container).
Apostle Paul also wrote to the Romans about forming vessels out of clay in Romans 9:21. In this passage, Paul talks about the potter, from one lump of clay, forming one vessel of honor, and another of dishonor. Some have said that this proves that God creates evil. I don’t think that is what Paul is saying. I think that he’s just saying that the potter has control over the finished product—if he wants to make a decorative pot, that can’t really hold anything, that’s his prerogative. It’s not up to us even to decide whether the pot is honorable or dishonorable; it’s up to the potter to decide if the pot suits his purpose.
Luke talks about the stone falling on people, and grinding them to powder. It occurs to me that, if a clay pot, after it has been fired, gets broken or damaged, the only thing the potter can do with it is to grind it to powder, and mix it in with fresh clay, and start over again. This would not be the same vessel, of course, it would be something entirely new. He might choose not to use the powder in the new product at all; again, that’s his prerogative.
Of course, the ultimate reference as far as us being earthen, is in Genesis 2:7, where God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. But the excellency that is in us is the Spirit of God. This is more valuable than anything on this earth. We are valuable only because we are containers, or more correctly conduits, for the Spirit of God. Our value comes from what we have to offer, which is not us. We’re just bits of dirt and water that God has chosen to use for His glory.

British-American Relations (sort of)

I haven't gotten any comments lately--I wonder if anyone is actually reading this... Oh, well, I will blog away, anyway.

I was just reading about a proposed Harry Potter theme park in Florida. Apparently Disney was in talks with J. K. Rowling, but she has very specific ideas about how this theme park should be, and they decided that her ideas would force them to charge about $600 admission per person. So now Universal Studios is working on it. It's not clear whether UP was able to talk dollars and sense to JKR or whether they just have other ways of bringing the cost down, but, in any case, they apparently have a deal going.
Mentioned in the article is a comment that back in the 80's, Disney tried to get another British author, P. L. Travers (what is it with British authors using their first two initials?), to let them do a sequel to Mary Poppins. One of the reasons that they never did was that Travers didn't like Dick Van Dyke as Bert. News flash: Most Brits didn't like Dick Van Dyke as Bert. The British slang expression for a really bad, fake cockney accent is, in fact, 'a Van Dyke.' Don't misunderstand me, Dick Van Dyke is a very capable dancer/comedian/actor, and his accent in the movie was good enough for American audiences, just not the British.
It seems odd to me, it's almost as though there were a rule in Hollywood that British actors are not allowed to play British leading men in American movies. Think about it: Who is the best known British character in an American film franchise? That would be either James Bond or Robin Hood. Of all the actors who have played Bond, which ones were the most popular? Sean Connery (who is Scottish) and Pierce Brosnan (who is Irish). Of all the actors who have played Robin Hood (at least as the title role in Hollywood made movies) only Barrie Ingham ('A Challenge for Robin Hood'), Cary Elwes (Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'), and Brain Bedford (Disney's animated Robin Hood) are British (although Richard Greene played Robin in a TV series, and Michael Praed played Robin in a made-for-TV movie, and a TV series) (When I started listing British Robin Hoods, I didn't think there were his many--but, there are a whole lot more that aren't: Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Kevin Costner...) (Actually, the British casting of Robin Hood tips considerably the other way when Robin Hood is a supporting character in the various versions of 'Ivanhoe'). Incidentally, Sean Connery also played Robin Hood in 'Robin and Marion.' Val Kilmer played British do-gooder Simon Templar in 'the Saint.' Of course, there are some exceptions: Roger Moore (who, incidentally played the Saint in England [and also had a speaking role in Val Kilmer's movie]) was the actor that succeeded Sean Connery in the Bond films. Michael York has played a few British characters in his time, and, of course, Basil Rathbone is the best-known Sherlock Holmes. Also, Daniel Radcliffe, of Harry Potter fame, is British.
So, we come full circle. I started out talking about Harry Potter, and I end up talking about Harry Potter.

Things Not Really Related

I just read about a guy named Harry Potter who gets a lot of attention whenever a new J. K. Rowling book comes out, or a movie based on one of her books. For some reason, I've never had that problem with Jumanji fans (maybe if Robin Williams had played me).

I also read about a 4-foot python that tried to wrap itself around a toddler in Charlotte, NC. The snake was taken to a pet store. The store owner made a comment that I find interesting: "It's a totally harmless thing. Why attack a harmless thing?" In context, it appears that he is talking about the snake being attacked, rather than the toddler. Curious.

I heard a comment about 'church-speak' the other day. 'Church-speak' refers to words or terms used by the 'churched' that are not understood by the 'unchurched.' I find that an interesting concept, particularly since some churches use terms that other churches don't, or that other churches use differently. For example, some years ago, I went to visit a church for the first time, and the man that invited me warned me that I would probably be asked to give a 'testimony.' I thought that was a little odd; I grew up going to church, but I had never heard of giving a testimony in church--I thought that was something you did in court. I considered asking him what he meant, but I figured that, when the time came, other people would be asked to share their testimonies first, and I would get a feel for what was expected of me. As a result, the first testimony I ever heard in church, was me saying, "I don't know what to say."

Sometimes these terms are acronyms. I just recently learned that 'frog' in church-speak means, 'Fully Rely On God.' I never would have guessed that one. Some say that 'Bible' really stands for 'Basic instructions Before Leaving Earth.' I've even heard 'WWW' for 'Why not Worship Wednesdays?' to counter the tendency of a lot of churches to either not meet on Wednesday nights at all, or to just have a Bible study.

'Trinity' is an interesting term. I have heard a lot of descriptions of Trinity. One person said that Trinity is like an egg: It has a shell, a yolk, and albumin (or white). But isn't it all just one egg? Can you have an egg made up entirely of eggshell? One person told me that Trinity is like a cherry pie. You can cut the pie into thirds, but the gooey pie filling will just ooze back together, so that it's all still one. Of course, St. Patrick's famous analogy was that Trinity was like a shamrock--each shamrock has three leaves. Like the egg analogy though, what would you call one leaf of a shamrock? It's not still a shamrock, if it's separated from the other two leaves, is it? Christianity is defined as a monotheistic religion, but a lot of Christians seem to think that they serve three separate gods. If God is one, and His Name one, then isn't Trinity just a description of three manifestations of God? I heard someone say once that that idea is like thinking that God is a player on a stage, who puts on different masks at different times and in different situations. Put that way, it sounds silly, but Apostle Paul said that he is become all things to all men. Wouldn't God approach some people differently than others, because of differences in personality, culture, or situation? Surely God wouldn't create such a divers population for this planet and then try to use a one-size-fits-all approach on us?

Some years back, a young man from another religious organization told one of the associate pastors at our church that God definitely was three persons. The associate pastor asked him if he was created in God's image. After the young man answered in the affirmative, then the AP asked him if he was three persons. "Wouldn't that make you schizophrenic? Do you think God is schizophrenic?" This was, of course, intended to provoke thought. Apparently the young man wasn't capable of too much intelligent thought, though, because soon a rumor was going around that we believed that God was schizophrenic. Several weeks later, I had a guy ask me why we thought God was schizophrenic; I told him, "God's not schizophrenic. He knows He's one God." That was the last we heard from them about schizophrenia.