Which Faramir represents your response to temptation?

The book Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien was adapted into a hugely profitable movie some years ago. One of the changes that long-time readers easily spotted was a divergence in the character "Faramir". And this difference illustrates two responses to temptation, which in Tolkien's trilogy is clearly exemplified by the "attraction" of the One Ring.

• In the movie, Faramir sees the Ring and chooses to only consider the good that it might do, despite also seeing the manner in which the Ring twisted Gollum's mind. His mindset is "ends justify the means", and he willfully ignores the issue of the Ring's consequences. The extended edition of the movie includes other scenes that show a deep rift between Faramir and his father due to favoritism for his brother. Faramir allows this pain to control his reaction to the Ring's temptation, acting out of that instead of acting out of a clear-headed appreciation of the importance and danger of the Ring. He feels that he must earn love. Instead of turning away from the Ring immediately, he keeps it close to him for a while until later circumstances force him to observe the dark truth of what the Ring is.
• In the book, Faramir is highly-principled, perceptive, and wise. He recognizes that both the Ring and Frodo's quest are beyond his authority to control. Although he could take the Ring by force, he manages to learn from his brother's mistake rather than repeating it. He doesn't need to entertain the thought of the Ring's power for very long before rejecting it. He lets it go.

Temptation is as strong as the One Ring's "pull", especially when someone has allowed it to rule him or her. When it speaks to you and you could easily reach out your hand to grasp it, will you respond like movie Faramir or book Faramir? Will you act out of past pain and fear and confusion and selfishness, ponder the temptation in your mind, and close your eyes to the likely outcomes, then give in? Or will you act out of integrity and humility, eject the temptation from your mind, and consider a full view of the likely outcomes, then turn away?

(I have listened to the commentary and interviews about the movie. I realize that the book version would have reduced the seductive power of the Ring in the eyes of the audience, and the detour to Osgiliath furnished an effective and exciting climax to Frodo's storyline in the second movie. It raises a secondary question that's also interesting: like the movie's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as close to irresistible for any mere man? Or closer to the book's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as conquerable by any mere man, so long as he refuses to give it a foothold in his mind? To be fair, it's notable that in the first movie, both Aragorn and Gandalf succeed in leaving the Ring with Frodo when he offers it willingly.)

"words cannot express God"

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV)

I understand the thrust of the sentiment "words cannot express God". The related set of beloved and trite sayings includes: a picture is worth more than a thousand words, we currently see through a glass darkly, mysterious ways, etc. And just as nobody knows me completely, e.g. the actual breadth and depth of my thoughts and motivations, still fewer could claim the same for God. While we in our finiteness are yet unpredictable, God is beyond us in every way. So God is inescapably unknown and more holy and mysterious than we can comprehend.

However, there is a definite "flip side" to this coin in Christianity, and to say or act otherwise is excessive.

• For all the failure of words to express God, He has selected words and spoken to humanity, about Himself and other topics (including minute details of temple architecture), time after time. To be sure, Yahweh (YHWH, "I am") is clear about how He cannot and shall not be literally portrayed as anything lesser than a simply-infinite unity (hence, no idols), but He does use a range of metaphors like father and king and so forth. The metaphors are by definition fallible; God chose them anyway as expressions of Himself.
• Christianity obviously professes that one of God's forms, that of a human, lived on Earth and went by the name Jesus ("Yeshua" depending on whether you suffer from hyper-pretension). Why would God do this, if He was trying to maintain an "image" of being remote and exalted and unknowable? Moreover, why would Jesus have then spent so much time teaching, offering up so many words to reveal secrets that are "hidden from the wise"? We can hardly expect the Creator Lord of the universe to be more forthcoming with expressive words.

It's true that words cannot express God, His ways are not our ways, and we need no longer settle for a mediator to make contact with Him. Don't extrapolate those truths to mean that the deepest wells of Christian faith and knowledge are somehow nonverbal, or that its essence consists of tingly goosebumps during protracted prayer sessions. As God is there and not silent (hmm, sounds like a book title), we His followers shouldn't disengage from reality nor remain silent about Him.

avoiding politics through politics

Don't expect much discussion about politics by me. Not as long as 1) the topic is often focused on the tedious and trivial and temporary, 2) other websites cover it from as many angles as anyone could want, 3) the primary value of arguments about it appears to be recreational "full-contact debate" rather than successful attempts to influence opinions. (The third issue also sometimes applies to arguments about apologetics...)

I'm not even momentarily breaking political silence in order to comment on anything specific. I just wanted to mention that I've noticed that those writers who state that they wish to depoliticize Christianity more often than not are vocal about politics - as if the way to stop linking Christianity to explicit political causes is to link it to different political causes than usual.

Don't misunderstand. I'm definitely not arguing that Christians need to withdraw entirely from the realm of politics (given that we're blessed with the privilege of accomplishing so much good through democracy, it'd border on foolish to not participate). Nor am I arguing that Christians shouldn't civilly discuss how and when to apply their deepest beliefs to politics. Nor (and I want to ensure this is clear above all else) am I expressing a political "side".

I'm simply perplexed by an observed combination of unabashed politicking and complaints about Christianity being too "political". Doesn't the one seriously undercut the other?

"How do you explain this?"

The title question is what someone often asks after calling attention to an event that appears to contradict one of the responder's beliefs. Its implied meaning is "If you can't fit this actual occurrence into your perspective convincingly, why do you continue to think that your foundational assumptions are right?"

However, this line of argument generally isn't persuasive...for any side. Since nobody can cause the event in question to recur nor investigate it more exhaustively after-the-fact, nobody should expect to have the event be perfectly explained...by anyone. Hence, events of this type fall partially or completely into the realm of the unknown. And the way that someone explains or understands the unknown is just his or her own preexisting assumptions.

1. "Horrible event X happened. But you say that your god is good. How do you explain this, Christian?" One of the rather standard Christian stances is that an omniscient God is to some degree unknowable (well, "unfathomable") in His thoughts and actions in relation to the "big picture" of the whole of creation in time. So the true, full morality and/or purpose of an event is unknown to all but God. Therefore, all that we can honestly say about how we explain a specific event is that we continue to believe that God is good (or bad, or nonexistent, etc.).

2. "We prayed earnestly on behalf of X's health, and a few days later the sickness is almost gone. But you say that based on the evidence of the universe, God must be either nonexistent, morally ambiguous, or even evil. How do you explain this, atheist?" An atheist might retort that a specific regression of illness is impossible to analyze completely, and in any case medical knowledge isn't absolutely complete. So the true, full physical cause of an event is unknown. Therefore, all that we can honestly say is that we continue to believe that a god wasn't involved (or that He was, etc.).

The upshot is that people can usually find sufficient "wriggle room" within any evidence to support what they already believe. They answer "How do you explain this?" with "I can't examine the evidence as much as I would like, to remove all doubt; nevertheless, I still assume _______."