Friday 30 December 2005 at 6:49 pm
From Ken Bailey's "Jacob and the Prodigal"
What is theology, and what does it mean to be a theologian? Is
theological meaning created by linking ideas together with
reason/logic, ideas that may or may not have illustrations attached to
them for clarity? In such a world the illustration is something useful
but, in reality, nonessential and can be discarded once the concept is
clearly grasped. The illustration becomes a delivery system for an
idea. The creator of meaning who uses this method probably will not add
an illustration if the concept is clear to the reader/listener without
one. The idea matters. The illustration introduced to clarify or
communicate that idea does not. This is a time-honored way to "do
theology" and will continue to be important.
There is, however, another way to create and communicate meaning. It
involves the use of word pictures, dramatic actions, metaphors and
stories. This latter method of "doing theology" shines through the
pages of Scripture. Dale Allison has written, 'Meaning is like water:
it is shaped by the container it fills.'
Friday 30 December 2005 at 6:38 pm
I took my older sons and some of their friends to Narnia last night.
Interesting but a bit disappointing. My wife and I both agreed the
story was "diminished" by the film.
Jeff Overstreet did a good job on the review:
http://www.lookingcloser.org/movie%20reviews/A-G/chroniclesofnarnia-lionwitchwardrobe.htm
Lucy and the Witch were the best characters.
I'm aware that doing Aslan is the toughest thing in the movie because
of all our expectations. I thought Liam Neeson's voice was too
recognizable and not that good. Aslan was too small and as Overstreet
said some of the best lines were removed.
As I thought about it part of my frustration with the movie is the
medium itself. You can handle things like violence in a children's book
in a more appropriate way than you can in a film. I think really to
pull this off the movie would need to be PG13 (Like LOTR) or R (like
the Passion of the Christ) but this is a children's book so you can't
do either. I thought Narnia, the stakes, the peril and the center of
the plot (which is Aslan's sacrifice, not the battle scene) were all
too small. It's kind of like going into a theme park and finding only
the small rides. They are made for kids as this movie is.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a DVD version out with some of the more
memorable lines of the book that are more overtly Christian
re-inserted. When Tumnus in the final scene reminds Lucy that Aslan
isn't tame he said it in a way that almost suggests that the original
reference (which should come from the Beavers) hit the editing floor.
If you watch enough "deleted scenes" in DVDs you can start to get a
nose for this kind of thing.
There were also some section of the movie that are "new", trying
obviously to rework the story for movie and dramatic shape and
audience. Disappointing for "purists" but not doing too much violence
to the story itself.
Overall I enjoyed it even if I was a bit disappointing. With movies of
books I like I've come to peace with the fact that you have to take
them as independent works. They are not the book. The book is the book
and the movie is the movie.
It's worth seeing, especially with kids. I'll buy the DVD and pieces
will find their way into sermons at some point I'm sure. pvk
Wednesday 28 December 2005 at 5:37 pm
This is a long one, so here is a PDF if you want to print it nicely to read on paper.
Jesus’ "acceptance of sinners" is for many people his hallmark, one feature that is continually attractive, intriguing and engaging, especially when we are in a relational context where we ourselves identify with those "sinners".
Who were these sinners? Jesus lived in a "culture war" far more ferocious than our own. The stakes were far higher. Whereas in the US and Canada we have enjoyed enormous political stability, Jesus’ time was far more turbulent and dangerous.
more...
Wednesday 28 December 2005 at 2:55 pm
The "crowds" in the gospels really function as a character in many
occasions. What is interesting is their perspective on Jesus and his
response to them:
The crowds are often sympathetic, they are interested, intrigued,
willing to give him some time and to listen. They can be demanding and
selfish as well, subject to violence if their expectations aren't
fulfilled.
Jesus' response to them is interesting too. He is moved to compassion
yet often frustrated. He is responsive to their needs on many occasions
but underwelmed with their response to him. Their response seems best
characterized as "insufficient".
It seems Jesus' reputation hasn't changed much.
Monday 19 December 2005 at 10:15 pm
I recently asked this question on two of my boards. Interesting answers. Here's one thing I'm thinking about:
I think it has everything to do with a culture of empathy which is possibly a silver lining to our narcissistic culture. I think there is possibly a deep connection between this and the development of photography, movies and TV. Through these media at a deep level we identify with the subject of the "portrait". Ever since the end of Reconstruction blacks were lynched, abused, discriminated against and many of the strategies employed by MLK Jr. had been employed. It was only in the television age, however, that hearts and minds were changed and a deeper, more sweeping change happened. Coincidence? Social evolution? I don't think either. I think our culture views itself through a lens. Idealization, empathy and identification are all parts of it.
There are degrees of this as the poor victims of Katrina in New Orleans will assert. We channel ourselves more easily through those who look more closely like our idealization. We have a preferential option for the young and the beautiful.
There is something very golden rulish about this empathy. We are commanded by Jesus to treat others as we would like to be treated. Our capacity to do this requires empathy. We need to be able to imagine ourselves as those who are being treated poorly. This culture of empathy I think has brought much good in terms of helping whole societies be kinder and gentler to all kinds of people who have for most of human history lived through needless torture. We have all to one degree or another probably benefited from this.
more...
Tuesday 06 December 2005 at 09:47 am
There are dark days when the secular humanist worldview looks compelling. Imagining that there is a god who created and who still cares. A god who is responsive and good. You look at pain, you look at tragedy, and being a Christian you struggle with your answers. Secular humanism simply says, "it's all natural processes. Carbon based highly evolved creatures simply doing what dogs and guinea pigs do, just at a different level. We're one meteor strike away from the fate of the dinosaurs."
It's compelling, but it has its problems too. To me the best "natural theology" ground for the existence of God is existence itself. I don't remember who asked it but why should the universe bother to exist at all? That's a very hard question to answer from the basis of physics. In fact, there can be no answer. Physics may get some really good answers to "how?", but it is incapable of answering the "why?". Even the fact that the "why?" question exists at all to me is evidence of the existence of God.
Arguing from the stupidity of humanity to me simply reinforces the Christian position. All every human being has ever known has been stupidity. We have all experienced one long string of never ending brokenness, failure, mediocrity and death, without exception. Yet an expectation of its opposite seems universal in the heart of humanity. All of us long for a world we've never had any experience. A place where people make good choices all the time. A place where death does not break the bonds of love. A world where the weak are safe and the soft are not punctured. Where should such an idea come from if we in fact really do live in a closed system of failure and buffoonery?
I know that there is a political storm surrounding "intelligent design". I personally don't care for the politics of the whole mess. I do, however, find the hypothesis for "chaos yielding order" to be absurd. pvk
Monday 05 December 2005 at 5:31 pm
I used The Terminal in an advent sermon on Abraham. The Series is from Reformed Worship. You can download the powerpoint if you want to see it. To see the PowerPoint on the web.
Friday 02 December 2005 at 4:13 pm
My house is a bit messy and chaotic and so some stuff tends to be laying about. Anyway for the last couple of days I've been walking over John Cooper's article in the CTS forum. Today as I passed over it probably for the 10th time I noticed the subtitle: "Apologetics and Evangelism in Postmodern Culture." Hmmm, I thought, better take a look at that, so I read it in bits and spurts as time allowed.
Now before I go on, let me make a few statements. I was glad when CTS started doing the Forum. I think it is important that Seminary Profs are visible in the denomination and exert leadership by writing about things important to the church. The church needs that. I also hope that they sometimes write things that create a buzz. I understand denominational history and many times the last thing you want in a position in a denominational seminary is to have people shooting at you over things, but as we can see on Voices, and as your chemistry teacher told you, some good things can come when you raise the heat level a bit. So I'm glad CTS does Forum. I'd like to see them go out on some more limbs now and again but that is of course up to them. You can find the archives including this latest issues at the CTS website http://www.calvinseminary.edu/pubs/forum.php. (The edition I'm refering to is Fall 2005) (By the way they've updated the website nicely. In my book CTS is really trying hard at reworking itself to become a more vital and helpful place. Good for them!)
more...
