His name is Nightcrawler. He is a teleporter, German by background, mutant by birth, ugly by appearance, and a bona fide Christian in a comic book movie. During the course of the movie, he adds the Lord’s Prayer in a moment of desperation, he provides the words to the 23rd Psalm when they mourn the loss of one of their own, and he comes across as a creature of peculiar powers that is truly trying to put together his faith with his strange appearance.
The only really odd bits were the scars he gave himself as reminders of his sins. They had to do with angel signs or something.
Nightcrawler’s faith comes across in the comic books as well. There is some recollection far back in my mind of his becoming an ordained minister after some kind of evil befell the X-men and broke up the team.
But it X-men 2, it wasn’t over the top. The character of Nightcrawler is, but the portrayal of the faith wasn’t. There really seemed to be a subtext of this creature who was different by no choice of his own trying to live life, trying to understand by the power of his faith. At one point, the mutant is under the power of the bad guys, and he doesn’t get what he has done. He retreats to a church. When confronted by members of the X-men, he wonders out loud if he is being tested, looking to the crucifix placed in easy access.
I found their treatment of my faith to be respectful, compared to some movies I have seen.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
“Inspiration and Incarnation”; my take
I think Professor Enns got caught between the trustees and the faculty at WTS which has caused a ferment about his book. The trustees raised a red flag while the faculty raised a green flag. He got caught in between.
So why a red flag from the trustees? My guess is somebody on the outside read the book and either didn’t get it and/or didn’t like it. So the word got back, maybe pushing some of the ‘orthodoxy’ buttons, and the flag went up. Maybe Prof. Enns did not reflect enough of a “WTS specific” set of presuppositions in his prologue. Maybe his critics thought he was a little too cozy with setting the bible into comparison and not enough contrast with the culture out of which the Old Testament was written. The trustees have the whole Seminary to think about, after all.
So why a green light from the faculty? My guess is that they recognized the book as an offering of Old Testament research, sound in its consideration of the cultural evidence that pre-date and co-date the Hebrew bible. It’s place was not an offering of cultural implications of Ancient Near Eastern literature to systematic and biblical theology. It was a text for Seminary students pursuing questions of the Old Testament and similar literature of that time and place.
So what issues does this raise?
Does all research need a full theological confession before you start?
Who decides, the trustees or the faculty, on what constitutes a ‘problem’ among the writings of the professors?
What is the difference in emphasis between a book meant for teaching in a Seminary and a book meant for popular Christian consumption?
Where is the border between theologically dominant and culturally dominant inquiry?
How does this weaken the witness of the Whole Christian Nation?
So why a red flag from the trustees? My guess is somebody on the outside read the book and either didn’t get it and/or didn’t like it. So the word got back, maybe pushing some of the ‘orthodoxy’ buttons, and the flag went up. Maybe Prof. Enns did not reflect enough of a “WTS specific” set of presuppositions in his prologue. Maybe his critics thought he was a little too cozy with setting the bible into comparison and not enough contrast with the culture out of which the Old Testament was written. The trustees have the whole Seminary to think about, after all.
So why a green light from the faculty? My guess is that they recognized the book as an offering of Old Testament research, sound in its consideration of the cultural evidence that pre-date and co-date the Hebrew bible. It’s place was not an offering of cultural implications of Ancient Near Eastern literature to systematic and biblical theology. It was a text for Seminary students pursuing questions of the Old Testament and similar literature of that time and place.
So what issues does this raise?
Does all research need a full theological confession before you start?
Who decides, the trustees or the faculty, on what constitutes a ‘problem’ among the writings of the professors?
What is the difference in emphasis between a book meant for teaching in a Seminary and a book meant for popular Christian consumption?
Where is the border between theologically dominant and culturally dominant inquiry?
How does this weaken the witness of the Whole Christian Nation?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Bible: The Easiest and the Toughest Book
I find myself coming back to the Bible again and again as a concept. It is already an integrated part of my vocation and personal worship. As a pastor, the preaching of the Word is at the centerpiece of the ministry I carry out. As a Christian, personal devotional reading and meditation are the ways to get the Spirit flowing in my life and to simply get through the day sometimes.
But that is my bible, my relationship with the bible. I agree with the broad statements that there is a general lack of knowledge about what is in the bible, simply as a central literary work to our American cultural experience. That is a regrettable flaw in the core knowledge of our educational system. Then that general lack of knowledge extends to our religious use of God’s Word as the central message of our churches. No longer are we simply talking about the common reference points in our American cultural experience, but we are talking about ignorance of God’s saving message to us of Jesus Christ. That has tragic consequences for a nation that considers itself Christian.
If I am not the basic receptacle of biblical teaching, but my pastor is, or my leader is, or that person who sounds so nice on the television or the internet is, then how they define faith is how I will.
If someone tells me that if I believe enough, I will become prosperous and fulfill the American dream, I will grab hold. . . if they say the bible tells me so.
If someone singles out ‘those’ people as the harbingers of evil; fascists in my grandparent’s generation, communists in my parent’s generation, homosexuals in my generation, “PEOPLE X” in the next generation; I will hate ‘those’ people too. . . if they say the bible tells me so.
If someone tells me the poor are not to be pandered to, not to be charity cases to the government, that the homeless just don’t do enough, that such people are just too lazy, I’ll buy that. . . if they say the bible tells me so.
But I can tell you, as a preacher, as a pastor, as a ‘rigorously trained, academically oriented’ theologian, that is not the bible I know.
But that is my bible, my relationship with the bible. I agree with the broad statements that there is a general lack of knowledge about what is in the bible, simply as a central literary work to our American cultural experience. That is a regrettable flaw in the core knowledge of our educational system. Then that general lack of knowledge extends to our religious use of God’s Word as the central message of our churches. No longer are we simply talking about the common reference points in our American cultural experience, but we are talking about ignorance of God’s saving message to us of Jesus Christ. That has tragic consequences for a nation that considers itself Christian.
If I am not the basic receptacle of biblical teaching, but my pastor is, or my leader is, or that person who sounds so nice on the television or the internet is, then how they define faith is how I will.
If someone tells me that if I believe enough, I will become prosperous and fulfill the American dream, I will grab hold. . . if they say the bible tells me so.
If someone singles out ‘those’ people as the harbingers of evil; fascists in my grandparent’s generation, communists in my parent’s generation, homosexuals in my generation, “PEOPLE X” in the next generation; I will hate ‘those’ people too. . . if they say the bible tells me so.
If someone tells me the poor are not to be pandered to, not to be charity cases to the government, that the homeless just don’t do enough, that such people are just too lazy, I’ll buy that. . . if they say the bible tells me so.
But I can tell you, as a preacher, as a pastor, as a ‘rigorously trained, academically oriented’ theologian, that is not the bible I know.
Monday, August 25, 2008
We Need All of God to Understand the Bible
Incarnation and Inspiration emphasized an ‘incarnational’ understanding of the bible. I understand it to be analogous to the incarnational understanding we have of Jesus as Fully Human. I think that is an excellent idea to prevent a definition of ‘inspiration’ becoming mechanical, that the writers of Scripture were stenographers in their day.
But I do not think that is the whole story. To understand and interpret Scripture as a Christian relies on the very Trinitarian nature of God.
The very idea that God gave us this book, that God inspired the writers, that God guided the selection process that has assembled the Canon of Holy Scripture is mind-boggling to me. We are looking at thousands of years of discernment among sinful, fallible human beings to give us what we have today. Dare I call it miraculous?
Peter Enns really sparked this thinking with his focus on the incarnational aspect of Scripture. It is truly the work of human hands, out of a human context, representative of the human written traditions of the times and places from which the bible emerged. One critique leveled against Professor Enns is that he speaks of the similarities of other cultural writings to the bible as a challenge to the authority of the bible. That may be in some circles, but for me, the similarity is proof to the bible’s inspiration. God did not drop something new from the sky, but interacted with his created order to provide us with the Truth of Jesus Christ.
But the final person of the Trinity is what really drives inspiration in my mind. That is the presence and witness of the Holy Spirit. That is what separates my finding in the bible the promise of salvation and the stranger finding nothing more than moral tales and religious ceremonial instruction in it. The Spirit is the presence that makes one heart stir at the preaching of God’s Word and its absence makes another heart drift into sleep.
I think that is another critique of Peter Enn’s book, the lack of focus on the activity of the Holy Spirit in reading and understanding Scripture.
But I do not think that is the whole story. To understand and interpret Scripture as a Christian relies on the very Trinitarian nature of God.
The very idea that God gave us this book, that God inspired the writers, that God guided the selection process that has assembled the Canon of Holy Scripture is mind-boggling to me. We are looking at thousands of years of discernment among sinful, fallible human beings to give us what we have today. Dare I call it miraculous?
Peter Enns really sparked this thinking with his focus on the incarnational aspect of Scripture. It is truly the work of human hands, out of a human context, representative of the human written traditions of the times and places from which the bible emerged. One critique leveled against Professor Enns is that he speaks of the similarities of other cultural writings to the bible as a challenge to the authority of the bible. That may be in some circles, but for me, the similarity is proof to the bible’s inspiration. God did not drop something new from the sky, but interacted with his created order to provide us with the Truth of Jesus Christ.
But the final person of the Trinity is what really drives inspiration in my mind. That is the presence and witness of the Holy Spirit. That is what separates my finding in the bible the promise of salvation and the stranger finding nothing more than moral tales and religious ceremonial instruction in it. The Spirit is the presence that makes one heart stir at the preaching of God’s Word and its absence makes another heart drift into sleep.
I think that is another critique of Peter Enn’s book, the lack of focus on the activity of the Holy Spirit in reading and understanding Scripture.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Controversy in Philadelphia
Professor Peter Enns wrote a book called Inspiration and Incarnation as a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Over the course of the next couple of years, it aroused a controversy, enough that the Board of Trustees thought an investigation should take place. The controversy was deepened when the Faculty of the Seminary voted to uphold and support their colleague.
It made me flash back in my history lessons to the Faculty and Administration divisions at Princeton Theological Seminary in the 1920’s that precipitated the creation of WTS in the first place.
I finally found time to read the book, then spent some time online researching the difficulties, and have been pondering how this affects the Christian Nation.
I listened to Peter Enns being interviewed on Radio Times on the Philadelphia Public Radio Station. That is about as mainline media as I think WTS has ever managed. There we have the Lord moving a controversy to allow a minister of the gospel to speak.
Of course, if there had been a heresy trial, we might have had front page headlines. But WTS and Prof. Enns seem to have had a friendly parting of the ways. That opens another question for me, that of which denomination would take the lead in that. WTS trains pastors mainly for the PCA and the OPC. I do not know Prof. Enns’ denominational affiliation.
I like the book and I like the way the title challenges us-although I do not agree with everything in it. Jesus is God incarnate, God made human, and we have to get our minds around that. The bible is God’s Word incarnate, God’s word made human and we have to get our minds around that as well.
That is a ‘fundamental’ issue for every Christian.
It made me flash back in my history lessons to the Faculty and Administration divisions at Princeton Theological Seminary in the 1920’s that precipitated the creation of WTS in the first place.
I finally found time to read the book, then spent some time online researching the difficulties, and have been pondering how this affects the Christian Nation.
I listened to Peter Enns being interviewed on Radio Times on the Philadelphia Public Radio Station. That is about as mainline media as I think WTS has ever managed. There we have the Lord moving a controversy to allow a minister of the gospel to speak.
Of course, if there had been a heresy trial, we might have had front page headlines. But WTS and Prof. Enns seem to have had a friendly parting of the ways. That opens another question for me, that of which denomination would take the lead in that. WTS trains pastors mainly for the PCA and the OPC. I do not know Prof. Enns’ denominational affiliation.
I like the book and I like the way the title challenges us-although I do not agree with everything in it. Jesus is God incarnate, God made human, and we have to get our minds around that. The bible is God’s Word incarnate, God’s word made human and we have to get our minds around that as well.
That is a ‘fundamental’ issue for every Christian.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Detective was a Minister’s Wife
I was prowling the stacks at my local library and, judging this book by its cover, took home The Body in the Bookcase, “A Faith Fairchild Mystery” by Katherine Hall Page. I picked it because the nosey sleuth is a minister’s wife. I had two questions going into this mystery.
Will it entertain me as a murder mystery?
What bearing will the Christian connection have to the story?
The answer to the first question is yes, it was pretty good. The mystery played out well. It was in the world of antique dealing and I like the way she resolved it. A delightful subtext through it was the sleuth’s business. She is a caterer and Ms. Page interweaves that in the story telling. Then she gives an appendix with some of the very tasty sounding recipes.
The Christian connection was by way of back story. Ms. Page has an excellent feel for the life of a minister’s wife and there are some eerily accurate portrayals of some of the more colorful characters you might find in a congregation. But it stays in the background. For example, her husband is working on his sermon, she sets him up with a snack and sneaks out to go sleuthing. At that point, she becomes another amateur detective.
There is no faith-based reflection of how murder is bad or how a Christian might pursue criminals (whether in a professional or amateur capacity). I don’t even remember a prayer for help when she got herself into a tight spot.
But this is one in a series. There might be more Christianity represented in other books. Regardless, I will read more of them.
Will it entertain me as a murder mystery?
What bearing will the Christian connection have to the story?
The answer to the first question is yes, it was pretty good. The mystery played out well. It was in the world of antique dealing and I like the way she resolved it. A delightful subtext through it was the sleuth’s business. She is a caterer and Ms. Page interweaves that in the story telling. Then she gives an appendix with some of the very tasty sounding recipes.
The Christian connection was by way of back story. Ms. Page has an excellent feel for the life of a minister’s wife and there are some eerily accurate portrayals of some of the more colorful characters you might find in a congregation. But it stays in the background. For example, her husband is working on his sermon, she sets him up with a snack and sneaks out to go sleuthing. At that point, she becomes another amateur detective.
There is no faith-based reflection of how murder is bad or how a Christian might pursue criminals (whether in a professional or amateur capacity). I don’t even remember a prayer for help when she got herself into a tight spot.
But this is one in a series. There might be more Christianity represented in other books. Regardless, I will read more of them.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
A “Post-Racial” Society: Vision for the Christian Nation
I picked up this term listening to NPR. A quick google search produced a lot more results. It is the idea of living in a world where we are beyond racial differences. Most of the discussion seems to be whether we are entering that new place with the potential election of Senator Obama as President this fall.
So, here is an awkward conversation, a white pastor talking about race. I won’t be so naïve as to say that I am not racist. There is racism in my makeup, I haven’t met anybody who, with sufficient honest conversation, does not have this most blatant and particularly American sinfulness.
My personal work on racism is to confess it when it comes out of my mouth and be aware of it in the sin life that still tries to drag me down.
And as a person of the ‘white’ color, a “European-American”, I don’t think any meaningful discussion on race can begin without personal confession.
A post-racial society needs to be theologically considered under the idea of the “already-not yet” mystery of the Christian Nation when we consider it as a synonym for the Kingdom of God. We can already work at it, but it not yet finished, and will not be until sin itself is finished.
So if post-racial is, to use the political terms of the upcoming conventions, a plank in the platform of what it means to be a Christian Nation, the best measure for achieving it comes from Martin Luther King’s famous words that people “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
So, here is an awkward conversation, a white pastor talking about race. I won’t be so naïve as to say that I am not racist. There is racism in my makeup, I haven’t met anybody who, with sufficient honest conversation, does not have this most blatant and particularly American sinfulness.
My personal work on racism is to confess it when it comes out of my mouth and be aware of it in the sin life that still tries to drag me down.
And as a person of the ‘white’ color, a “European-American”, I don’t think any meaningful discussion on race can begin without personal confession.
A post-racial society needs to be theologically considered under the idea of the “already-not yet” mystery of the Christian Nation when we consider it as a synonym for the Kingdom of God. We can already work at it, but it not yet finished, and will not be until sin itself is finished.
So if post-racial is, to use the political terms of the upcoming conventions, a plank in the platform of what it means to be a Christian Nation, the best measure for achieving it comes from Martin Luther King’s famous words that people “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)