September 17, 2007
A decent way to start the week
The Holy Observer is back online. Of particular note are the articles Takamine Set To Release Worship Leader Guitar and Top 10 Ways to Spice Up Your Boring Bible Study (#6: "Two words: Leather Pants").
Technorati Tags: Christianity, culture, humor, satire
Posted by maphet at 11:04 AM | Comments (1)
September 06, 2007
Not that modern after all
I've wondered before if the American fascination with celebrities is nothing more than a variation on the mythology of the Greco-Roman era. The Greeks and Romans made their gods greater than they were by giving them powers and abilities, but also made them accessible by assigning them many of the same failings as humans. We make celebrities greater than ourselves by highlighting their beauty, wealth, and fame, but also make them accessible by obsessing over their divorces, drug scandals, and whatnot. The Greeks and Romans made veritable soap operas of which god was sleeping with which other god. We, well, that goes without saying.
Peter Leithart draws this out further, arguing that Christians need to realize that "for all our pretense of sophistication, the West has never entirely escaped the impulses and habits of primitive culture, or that, by escaping Christianity, we are reverting to it." And, later on:
Part of the trick, too, is recognizing the continuities between pagan and modern habits and learning to call them by their traditional names. If a rock concert looks, smells, and sounds like a bacchanal, why not call it that, with all the religious overtones that go with the name? If the rock star elicits frenzy, why not call him a shaman?
Technorati Tags: culture, mythology, Peter Liethart
Posted by maphet at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)
September 04, 2007
Harold Crick is ... Jesus?
I liked Stranger than Fiction. I think it was one of the few movies in the last year I watched twice. And I would watch it again. I liked the story, thought the cast was great, and even appreciated some of the implicit Christological references within the movie.
I also generally agree with the more recent push within evangelicalism towards a broader interaction with American culture, whether popular or otherwise. Yah, cultural engagement!
But something about this article makes me uneasy. Baker and Downing draw out one parallel after another between Crick and Jesus, arguing that the movie is making a "profoundly theological" point:
In The Mind of the Maker, [Dorothy] Sayers suggests that the relationship between the writer's idea and its fulfillment in the written word parallels the relationship between Creator God and the incarnated Christ. A quick read through the Stranger Than Fiction screenplay reveals that the writer, Zach Helm, may have intended just such a connection. Perturbed over being misunderstood, a flustered Harold says to a woman at a bus stop, "I … No. I'm … [Christ]" (the brackets indicate that the word is to be said under his breath). Reminiscent of Jesus' prayer of angst in the garden of Gethsemane, Harold pleads with Kay to spare his life. But Professor Hilbert, having read Kay's first draft, tells Harold that the story "is a masterpiece. You have to die." With agony, Harold responds, "You're asking me to knowingly face my death?" The answer, of course, is yes.
Not only is Crick an in-depth Christ figure, but the movie teaches us a great moral truth:
[T]hough we cannot know for certain how or when we will die, we can live our lives embedded in time, making the most out of the time embedded in us. As exhorted by the one who is himself the fulfillment of all time, we can love our neighbors as ourselves.
Like I said, I agree there are a few references to Christ - the willing near-death/semi-resurrection theme being the most obvious one. I'm not sure that it is as well thought out as Baker and Downing make it to be. Was Zach Helm consciously thinking of Crick as "a representative of divine life"? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose the apple could be a reference to Christ as the Second Adam, but it could also be a reference to The Beatles or (more probably) to René Magritte's The Son of Man.
Most of my unease is probably not so much from the Books & Culture article as it is frustration with a general overeagerness I keep seeing to find redemption themes underneath every cultural pebble. Pastors in churches with a special emphasis on staying relevant and ministering to a youth culture seem particularly prone to this. Yes, America is some sort of post-Christian culture and thus various forms of the creation/fall/redemption story will be found all over the place. But that doesn't mean you can or should pull the gospel out of SpongeBob or the Transformers. Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader is an inverted Christ-figure (virgin birth, death, descent into hell, resurrection), but that doesn't mean he should be the point of your sermon. Christ should.
Christians should interact with culture. They should highlight cultural themes, like those found in Stranger than Fiction, that echo an underlying desire for redemption. At a certain point, though, that interaction should be at least a little critical. The Church is to be a prophet to culture, not a fan-boy of it.
Technorati Tags: Books & Culture, movies, Stranger than Fiction, transforming culture
Posted by maphet at 01:25 PM | Comments (0)
May 26, 2007
The Incarnation and Love
An interesting feature of 1 John is the intertwining of the themes of the incarnation and the need for love. John doesn't speak first of the reality of Christ taking on human flesh, neatly tie it up, and then move on to a treatise on the need for believers to love God and each other. This may be how the two subjects are dealt with in our theology, but it is not how John handles it.
This intertwining suggests that the two themes are strongly related to each other. But how? What about Christ being fully human and fully God relates to the need for us to love each other?
A first answer is that the incarnation is the greatest act of love. God came down, became one of us, suffered, died, and then rose again so that we may have life. It is difficult to point to any greater act of love in human history.
A second possible relationship between the two is that the incarnation demonstrates that such love is truly possible and it provides that which is needed for love to exist. If God worked in history to send his son, then he can also work in history to give the grace needed for us to love him and each other.
One implication of this relationship is that to abstract Christianity to a series of good teachings about love is to miss the point. Christianity is about love only so far as it is about Christ. Once it loses focus of Christ, love loses its greatest example and its primary enabler.
Another implication is to note once again that to speak about the gospel without demonstrating love is to deny the gospel. It has been discouraging this week online to see members of my own denomination bitterly argue over the gospel and repeatedly accuse each other of denying it, all the while demonstrating a lack of love. John (and Paul) would probably say that it is entirely possible to correctly work out all the logical implications of the doctrines of grace, but to still deny the gospel by virtue of a lack of love.
Posted by maphet at 04:53 PM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2007
Screwtape on Internet Theology
Posted by maphet at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)
April 25, 2007
Selling Church
A side benefit of (a) moving and (b) moving into a rapidly growing area is that you now get to be Targeted. Apparently, many marketing campaigns are based upon combing through utility company records for recently moved people and sending said people large quantities of information about What Is Available in Your Area.
This, combined with what appears to be a church planting boom in my area, means my house has received a great deal of advertisements for local churches. And almost every advertisement proclaims the same things: "you should go to our church because we have free coffee, great childcare, practical, relevant teaching, and a fun, relaxed atmosphere."
Of course, there is nothing wrong with any of that. My guess is that the underlying desire behind these efforts is laudable - to serve God and to reach people where they are. This is good.
What becomes disconcerting is what is left out. One flyer we received for Easter proclaimed that we could show up wearing anything we wanted, just as long as we weren't naked. But what were going to? The only thing on the flyer that indicated this was different from, say, a YMCA event, was a blurb noting that there would be some teaching on how the Bible can help you have a stress-free life. Otherwise, there was nothing explicitly "religious" on the card.
There are, of course, the theological problems. It is hard to see Jesus walking around Galilee shouting, "hey! look! free coffee!" Or to see the apostles arguing, "you really need less stress in your life." Something about the mystery and grandeur of the New Testament message seems lost when distilled to free coffee and wearing shorts to church.
But there also seems to be something wrong with this picture from a marketing perspective. Something about your product, it seems, needs to be unique. There is nothing unique about coffee, a relaxed atmosphere, and teaching on stress-free living. If I'm willing to spend a few dollars, I can get all of that by going to the book section in Wal-Mart and then heading to the local coffee shop.
At the same time, these strategies apparently work. Which makes me wonder who they work on. If I had no interest in church in the first place, nothing about the advertisements makes a compelling reason why I should get up on a Sunday morning and not sleep in. If I was already deeply committed to church, then I probably would make my decision based on other criteria. And if I was in the process of seeking genuine answers to questions of God, Jesus, life, salvation, etc., nothing in the advertisements promises answers to those questions.
My guess is that these types of marketing strategies work most effectively on people who know they should go to church, but want the easiest route possible. Someone who feels guilty when he or she does not go (maybe parental units are providing pressure) and wants to remove the guilt at as little cost as possible.
Given the cultural makeup of Atlanta and the Bible Belt, this is probably a sizable group. And that group should not be neglected. Still, what is the long-term effectiveness of this? If you aren't getting the seasoned or committed leaders, your potential for a strong foundation disappears. If you aren't getting the energetic new converts or the earnest seekers (which is what I assume churches are primarily attempting to attract), how will you grow?
In a way, I wish my first substantial post was not critical. At the same time, the gospel is an amazing thing, which upends ourselves and our understanding of God and the world. I wish churches in the area felt a little more free to proclaim that.
Posted by maphet at 03:40 PM | Comments (1)