An Egalitarian Perspective on Women in Combat

This is not an easy issue. Most Christians would agree that war is something to avoided at all cost, and that one doesn't go to war unless one has excellent reasons. This controversy over the service of women has been percolating in the back of my mind for a long time, and I think I'm completely uncertain about what I think. I'm a convinced Egalitarian in the church and in the home, so this is a new idea for me.

So this will be mostly off the cuff, just to put some thoughts down on pixelated paper.

I think that . . .

The physical and psychological duress can easily effect men as well as women. I've seen such things in both male and female friends, especially in some people I love. So in terms of "durability" I don't have much reason to be opposed to women in combat.

I think that . . .

I wouldn't exclude women from combat, or being on the front lines, if they were able to pass the standards set by the military and we had the complete support of not only the higher ups but also from those on the ground. This means testing such things and allowing for units to support or deny the motion.

I think that . . .

It would bother me greatly if, hypothetically, I were to hop on YouTube one day to find a minute long video of a female soldier being tortured. On an emotional level, it bothers me period but for some reason, to watch a woman suffer (as I have witnessed women being oppressed) has always bothered me. Violence towards women in film and television is a phenomenon that rattles my bones and I can't bother to watch. I nearly walked out of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo multiple times.

I think that . . .

The Bible doesn't seem to explicitly disallow a woman from serving in the military, though it doesn't give much positive reasons to support it either. Deborah was a leader, general and prophet over all Israel but it never says she picked up a sword. You have instances of women defending themselves with mighty force throughout the Scriptures (Jael being an example) but Scripture seems to be silent on the issue.

I think that . . .

I really don't know what to think. Part of me believes that if a capable woman wants to serve her country and wants to do so on the front lines, then she should be allowed to do so. Another part of me wishes we didn't have a problem with this in the first place.

All of me wishes it never came to any of this. A poll by Politico shows that 75% of American voters are in favor of women in combat. I wonder what the stats are for those in the Church.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Odd Theology: P.O.D. & the "I Am"

For those sensitive, the following post contains bad words. 

Read if you wish.

For those that don't know, P.O.D. released their newest album recently, and with it has come a firestorm of controversy within some Christian circles. You can see my review of the album here, but I'm more interested in exploring why and how this song "I Am" received such a frosty response. 

For thoughts that interact with mine, check out James Arnold's post.  

CRITICAL CHRISTIANITY

I reviewed the album before the official release and honestly missed the controversial word. I only noticed it when my friend James pointed it out to me via text message, and he heard it from my friend Calvin. I went back and finally listened to the song several times, and was shocked. Not at how aggressive and profane it came across, but by how blatantly Christian the song was. 

Here are some excerpts from critical reviews that I found to be gravely missing the point.

JesusFreakHideout:

Though P.O.D. claims to be a mission-based band focused on reaching the lost, their main fan base is undeniably in the Christian market. Many were shocked, and will be shocked, to hear that the boys decided to go with a word that is held as the ultimate "dirty word" in our society. Sonny sings, "Are You the one that's comes to set me free? 'Cause if You knew who I am would You really want to die for me? They say You are that cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree. Well I know You are the one and Son of God, so tell me who the f*** is he?" It's been a point of contention for quite some time now (since an unedited form of the song made the rounds to media). Thankfully, the guys decided to edit the word after some prayer and deliberation, but the fact remains that it is plainly there and recognizable, smeared out or not. In my opinion on the matter, I find it unacceptable. The usage of such a word directly after the name of Christ is completely disheartening and dirties the most beautiful name on earth. I understand reaching out to a person that doesn't know Christ, but that doesn't mean we have to act or talk like them to accomplish the mission, role-playing or not.

The author goes onto complement most of the tracks, suggesting that without the addition of "I Am" the album would've earned four stars. But this one song sadly "skews" the entire album.

Pluggedin:

So what's with the crass slang and rogue f-word? Regardless of the intended social or spiritual commentary, they just don't belong here. Ultimately, Sonny Sandoval, Marcos Curiel, Traa Daniels and Wuv Bernardo do a better job stumping for their San Diego heritage and the 'hood than respecting their legion of Christian fans. Moreover, there's enough righteous anger and grim imagery on hand that some young Warriors could get fired up and pointed in the wrong direction. Parents inclined to let their children download Murdered Love's safer tracks a la carte should still plan to walk through those lyrics together.

So, here are two examples that I will explore in the next section.

KEEPIN' IT REAL & OR CULTURE GAP DEFINITIONS?

The review by JFHO has simply missed the boat for the ocean. A minor point first. The "dirty word" in our society can easily shift tomorrow to something silly like "floops" or some such absurdity. Ask someone what the worst thing you can call someone, and you will get several different (colorful?) responses. This is a subjective claim.

Second, I don't think P.O.D. has ever been concerned about what evangelical Christians have thought. Especially when these same Christians (not JFHO that I know of) made a point of getting on P.O.D.'s case about tattoos, touring with Linkin Park and other such things. Sonny has made it clear that he isn't interested in the homogenized atmosphere that evangelicalism can produce. 

Third, I find it completely acceptable to include the word. Why? Because Sonny isn't writing for the reviewer of JFHO or PI or even me. The issue is solidarity, and Sonny has chosen to side with the victims. The poor, the abused, the forgotten, the deemed worthless. Seriously, I doubt that these souls mince their words about their experiences and since Sonny is channeling their voices into this song, why would he? In talking to non-Christians, I encourage honesty and that includes listening and saying what is on my heart, and listening to what is on theirs. This is identification with victims. Plain and simple. This is relationship.

It simply isn't fair to the context of what Sonny is singing about. The reviewers may not like it, but this reveals a large gap between Christendom, namely this:

Idealization and reality.

P.O.D. has shown they aren't interested in playing up the idealized notion of everything is okay. Everything is not okay. Read the headlines. Look at the slums in San Diego and Los Angeles. Look at these mega-churches and the wealth they have. Everything is not okay. To expect them to acquiesce to the reviewers' personal preferences of how one "ought" to talk is simply not how experiences and reality work.

Interestingly, if one listens to the entire song in context and avoids zeroing on the naughty words, the song is incredibly powerful. It includes spiritual warfare, a hearty dose of total depravity and Sonny explicitly paraphrases 2 Corinthians 5:17, and this passages deals with restoration and inclusion with Christ. This also echoes Isaiah 43:18, "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past." The song is redemptive and triumphant. It is overcoming sin with grace, with atonement, with Christ.

This not only implies that the soul involved is delivered from his or her suffering, but that Jesus is the only way. This song, from a theological standpoint, is as orthodox as one can be. You have atonement, resurrection, and redemption as clear as a bell. If I may be allowed to be cheeky, this should not be about "farewell Sonny Sandoval."

This is a triumphant ending to a sad, horrific story about individuals desperately in need of Jesus. This track is as missional than anything I've heard sung in church. Perhaps even more so.

And we miss such things because the word fuck?

PRAYING WITH ANGER

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that one has to conform to an image in order to convert the image bearer, but there is a time and place to recognize that things aren't as simple as we would like to think.

Sonny and Christianity Today:

The new album seems like the most explicitly Christian one you've ever done:

I don't think it was thought out that way; I think it's just what's on my mind. As I read Scripture and prepare for the return of the King, it's like, this is the reality. This is the truth. Kids in this culture, as extreme as they are and as crazy as they are, need truth. We don't have time to sugarcoat the gospel. It doesn't take a genius to realize that we're all living in a dying world, and without our faith in God and without his redemption we're lost. These kids realize that. So I think they just need someone real and relatable that says, "You're worth much more than you think, and God's not your problem. He's for you; he's not against you. And once you realize God loves you, you have to embrace it and make a decision on how you live your life."

Context is everything. Singing about sin doesn't involve butterflies and prosperity for every person. It instead invites us to look into the darkness for anyone, and to dive into it without abandon. We are called to imitate Christ, and He didn't seem to have a problem getting His hands dirty.

Sonny's purpose in this song is mission. Is seeking out those that are lost. 

If one reads the Psalms, or even Job, you will see prayers that are fraught with anger, with abandonment, with sin. Crying out, yelling. All this to say, the fundamental difference is reality versus idealization. Some Christians are idealists, and others are realists.

I am a realist. I don't expect good things to happen, and I've been not only blessed by "I Am" but I played the song with my very conservative mother in the car, and she got it. It prompted an insightful conversation about our hidden sin, and how condemnation always seems around the corner.

CONCLUSION:

But then there's this guy named Jesus. The guy who makes all things new.

And He moves in mysterious ways.

The people this song is about don't hear the naughty language, they hear the identification. They hear the understanding, the empathy, the sympathy. This makes them open. This let's them know that they are human.

This assures them that they aren't alone. Never alone.

P.O.D. and I Am:

I am the murderer, the pervert, sick to the core
I am the unclean dope fiend, I am the whore
I am the beat down, mistreated, sexually abused
I have violated, fornicated, and sexually used
I am the con artist, cold hearted, smooth preacher
Cash stealer, emotion bleeder, the soul leecher
Feed off the poor, but I'm a slave to the rich
I'm in depression so this reflection is making me sick

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know this is the one and only son of god, so tell me, who the fuck is he?

I am fake, fraud, phony, I'm a known liar
Anorexic, rejected object of your desire
Suicidal thoughts keep one in the chamber
I'm a turned out streetwalking heroin banger
I am a secret cutter, porn lover, the town drunkard
Next door, neighborhood slut, I'm somebody's mother
Outcasted, arrogant, bastard son
I'm the talk of the town but this story has just begun

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know you are the one and only son of god, but tell me, who the fuck is he?

So tell me
So tell me!

And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
But I won't let you bury me!
Woo!

I am
I am what you've reaped, I am what you've sewed
I am that guy talking to himself, I am alone
I'm the forgotten child, ravaged and raped through sex traffic
Since I'm a little strange, my daddy called me a faggot
I am insecure, immature, even I disgust me
In denial, pill poppin', prescription junkie

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know you are the one and only son of god, but tell me, who the fuck is he?

So tell me

I see demons, eyes bleeding, my soul impure
Already know that I'm diseased, but tell me what's the cure?
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new

--Nick 

Allah, a review

OPENING:

According to the back cover of the book, "do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?" Volf's personal answer (as he had nothing to do with the book flap and quote) is far more nuanced. But the question remains:

Do these two vast and prolific religions share and claim the same God?

PROS:

The potentially volatile nature of this project is immediately upended by Volf's keen sensitivity and distinct attention to historical detail. Beginning in the present with 9/11 looming over the nature of religious extremism, Volf begins to trace back the historicity of this conflict, moving through centuries of bloody political conflict. He compellingly paints a picture of how we worship and view God, and how this in turn cashes in on the way we act about our God.

If our God is violent, are we not to be violent?

Volf's conclusions are highly nuanced, but revolve around the ideas expressed in the Qur'an and Scripture about the similar nature of God's sovereignty, His desire for worship, the love of neighbor and others; he builds his case around this, contending that both religions have 'sufficiently similar' views about God to warrant belief in a sufficiently similar deity. With both Islam and Christianity being the world's two largest faiths, bridging the gaps could indeed prove fruitful. Volf's end goal is political (not religious) pluralism.

Volf interacts with both the Bible and the Qur'an in respectful ways, though the strength of his case is philosophical.

CONS:

There are instances where it appears Volf is indeed stretching it. His discussions on the Trinity, though firmly and robustly orthodox, do not fully combine the Muslim understanding with that of the Christian church's idea of Trinity. This is perhaps the biggest difference between both faiths. Our perception of God is trinity, and Muslims seem to believe this instead to be polytheistic. This is a core difference, and it effects our views about God and Jesus.

Though Volf doesn't gloss over differences (and I do not have enough space to give this more attention), he does stress to a fault that Muslims are close enough. However, it should be noted that Volf doesn't ever compromise Christian Doctrine, nor is he interested in reducing both faith's to a watered-down version of their former glory.

CONCLUSION:

This book was a challenge. I went in expecting unbound pluralism and weak exegesis, and was pleasantly surprised. Volf is as orthodox a Christian as one can be, and his measured tone and desire for political unity is to be commended. This is thoughtful and strong material that must be wrestled with.

Though I am not to be numbered amongst his converted, Volf has written a powerful and incisive book that deserves your attention.

4 out of 5 stars.

--Nick

Christus Victor, a brief case

OPENING

I begin with an affirmation to the universal church, that Christ's death and resurrection is central to all atonement theories. In that, I agree that each atonement theory is grounded in some portion of the meta-narrative of Scripture. This includes the oft-maligned and majority held Penal Substitution Theory and even the Moral Influence Theory held by many within the Emergent crowd.


Simply stated, Christus Victor is the atonement theory that views Christ's death and subsequent resurrection as a cosmic victory over sin and death, which had kept humanity in captivity. It views the resurrection and the death of Christ as triumphant. This does not say that other theories do not have their place, or do not, in their own way, attempt to work out the same factors in their own views.

However, I do think that Christus Victor ought to be our primary lens by which we view atonement theories. I will offer some reasons why, and I do not expect this to cover each point of atonement nor do I plan on answering objections to my view. I simply am giving some reasons as to why Christus Victor should be our primary lens, and not at the exclusion of other theories.

In the first thousand years of church history, Ransom Theory or Christus Victor was the dominant view of atonement. Adherents included Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote:

When the enemy saw the power, he recognized in Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason he chose him as the ransom for those whom he had shut up in death's prison. [1]

I think the early church had an aptitude for recognizing the spiritual realm, often equating salvation as a battle for souls, with God and the Devil fighting for each individual. Very theatrical, of course. However, I do think this method of viewing everything through a lens of spiritual warfare, but also God's ultimate victory, is what sets Christus Victor up as the best lens. It is both supernatural in focus and cosmic in scope.

1) PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS & THE WARFARE MOTIF

Through St. Paul, I do think Ephesians 6 offers us a glimpse as Christians into another realm. V12-13 speak directly to "wrestling against the rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over this present age, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Using a militaristic battle cry, we are called to resist such "cosmic powers" and "evil."

Recognizing the role of the "Adversary" as a cosmic schemer of this "present age" is a helpful reminder. Indeed we see the conflict written against "hostile waters" which seems to indicate a time of folklore where the Hebrews believed the earth was enshrined in water, with water being a sinister force. However, God is shown to be king over such hostility, causing it to flee at the "sound of His thunder" (Ps. 77:16). 

It is God who is ultimately victorious over such forces (Hab. 3:15) and who sits above "the mighty waters" (Ps. 29:3-4, 10). Given the language used throughout Scripture to God being bigger than opposing forces and being a force to reconcile and be reckoned with, see Eph. 1:22, Ps. 8:6, 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:27, Colossians 1:15-20. The language of warfare and utter destruction is well attested, almost to the point of being anesthetizing.

You even have the Hebrews adopted foreign "monsters" such as Leviathan. Leviathan (possibly a reference to Tiamat, a Babylonian god of the primordial sea) is shown to be ferocious with many heads and the ability to breathe fire (Job 41:26-27), but was shown to be no match for YHWH. According to Ps. 74:12-14, God utterly destroyed him. The imagery of appealing to foreign gods and monsters of mythical proportions was and is symbolic of YHWH being supreme over such created beings. Even in Colossians 1, Paul explicitly emphasizes the sovereignty and preeminence of Christ against a foreign ruler, namely Caesar, who believed himself to be above all things. In essence, St. Paul is writing a letter of treason against a "principality" and using him as an example of the power of the one true God as both source and sustainer.

Regardless of the terrifying aspect of the worst of creation, we can bet our lives that YHWH is above all things and that this cosmic battle is not eternal in duration. The warfare motif is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, and it is even stronger in the New Testament.

2) RANSOM & IMMORTALITY

In Adam, we have the consequence of mortality, without any hope of immortality apart from Christ, which is a gift that God gives to the saved. Even in the Old and New Testament (Prov. 12:28, Ezekiel 18:4, I Cor. 15:53-54, 2 Tim. 1:10 and others), we can see that immortality is something to be sought after, and a gift that only God can give. Thus, mankind doesn't seem to be born with immortality and can only become immortal (Strong's 862-- Aphthartos -- Uncorrupted, imperishable, immortal (of the risen dead)). God alone appears to be immortal (Rom. 1:23).

In this, sin has it's grip upon humanity. It not only keeps us from attaining immortality, which is contested in that we may have never had it, but also showcases the full effect of Adam's sin and Christ's death, which brings life and justification (Rom. 5:12-21). In him we have deliverance and the forgiveness of sins.

In this same vein, deliverance from sin and death seems to be a dominant theme in Scripture. Mark 10:45 speaks about Christ "giving His life as a ransom for many." In the present context of servanthood and submission, to think of the Son of Man as anything less than a conquerer was unheard of. Christ as a servant did, in a cosmic way, destroy everything that was sin. Moltmann speaks of this as such:

God allows himself to be humiliated and crucified in the Son, in order to free the oppressors and the oppressed from oppression and to open up to them the situation of free, sympathetic humanity.

The line of thinking is deliverance from bondage and oppression and the sin of this world. In refuting the heresy of the time, St. Paul speaks of this as "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time" in I Timothy 2:5-6. As is seemingly consistent with Pauline literature, the idea of past bondage is given over to Christ, who destroyed the "old man" that was once Saul, and is reborn as our St. Paul.

We are not ransoms, but prisoners. Prisoners to, simply put, sin. This includes to our flesh but also to the "God of this age" (2 Corinthians 4). In Jesus laying down his life as a substitute, he effectively destroyed what had reigned as condemnation. In fact, much of his earthly ministry was to subvert the effects of the Law, and his death, by perverse trial and condemnation by a ruling principality, culminated in the utter worthlessness of "human justice."

The cosmic significance is staggering, and seems to fit better within Christus Victor.

3) INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY & "ALREADY, NOT YET"

This is the easiest part to argue for. It isn't often that you have Thomas Schreiner and N.T. Wright in agreement on one topic. However, I do think Christus Victor strongly supports IE and I shall give some examples.

All things are seen as "already established" and "awaiting consummation." Christ's ministry on earth included the healing of the blind, casting out demons and speaking in tongues. When the 72 returned to Jesus, they proclaimed that "even the demons are subject to use in your name!" (Lk. 10:17). Having unclean spirits proclaiming Jesus as "the Son of God" (Mark 3:11) symbolizes the uniqueness of Christus Victor in that it is shows the effects it has upon believers, but also demons.

The idea that the Kingdom of God was established and birthed in the 1st Century and is awaiting the full consummation is a widely held Christian belief. I believe it fits perfectly with Christus Victor.

4) YHWH'S FINAL VICTORY

To emphasize God and Christ's victory of sin itself is also foundational to the Christus Victor model. Given the warfare motif as seen above, to believe that God reconciled "all things to himself" (Col. 119-20) seems to suggest spiritual entities as well on top of the possibility of the "new earth" being "won over." This is speculative so I won't insist upon it.

In Ephesians 1, we see that God putting "his enemies beneath his feet" seem to signify the utter end of sin in the sense of "already, not yet." This fits perfectly with God's perfect love in saving sinners from bondage, and that nothing can ultimately separate us from him (Rom. 8:35-39, John 1:29, 3:16).

This holds true to the teaching that the "Adversary" is "driven out" (John 12:31). In doing so, Jesus "disarmed the powers and the authorities, [He] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col. 2:13-15).

The cross symbolizes the ultimate destiny of sin, the cosmic significance of God triumphing over this temporal evil, and that paying such a cost is "costliest grace," according to Bonhoeffer. This world has been "set free" and "liberated from bondage" (Rom. 8:18-23).

The cross symbolizes God's perfect love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

The cross symbolizes the healing brought forth by Christ's desire to save and to heal (Matt. 8:1-17, with emphasis on v17).

5) CONCLUSION

Gregory Boyd sums up Christus Victor as thus:

Whereas other models tend to isolate the meaning of Christ's death from his lifestyle, his healing and deliverance ministry, his teachings and even (in some cases) his resurrection, the Christus Victor model reveals the profound interconnectedness of everything Chris was about. All these things are ultimately about one thing: establishing the reign of God by vanquishing the reign of Satan and the powers through the power of self-sacrificial love. [3]

In summation, Christus Victor seems to not only emphasize the cosmic scope of all things, but also maintains substitutionary atonement and the element of sacrifice. It can include the Healing View and the Moral Influence, with Jesus' moral teachings, healings and living by example central to His ministry.

FOOT NOTES

[1]. Gregory of Nyssa, "An Address on Religous Instruction," Chapter 23. LCC, III, 300.

[2]. Jurgen Moltmann, "The Crucified God."

[3]. Gregory Boyd, "Four Views of the Atonement," 46.

Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, "Atonement, Justice & Peace"

I thought this was quite interesting. I love deconstruction. 

Does—or should—atonement theology have practical implications for the church’s mission in the world today?  Is penal substitution the only, or even the best, biblical understanding of the cross? 

Scot has invited me (Darrin W. Snyder Belousek) to introduce my book, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church(Eerdmans 2012).  This book challenges the church to rethink the cross—to reexamine the standard evangelical theology of penal substitution atonement and to reorient our thinking about justice and peace from the perspective of the cross. 

My first intuition that something was not quite right with the penal substitution theory—the idea that God has dealt with our sins by having reckoned our sins against Jesus and punished him with death in our place on the cross—came about twelve years ago, while questioning the death penalty. 

I had become convinced, based on Jesus’ teaching (“Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone”), that Christians should not support capital punishment.  But I was wanting to press the question deeper, to the core of Christian faith—the cross.  Jesus’ death, after all, was a death penalty.  If there was a definitive Christian answer on the question, it must be found there. 

The only atonement theology I knew was penal substitution.  I could thus reason: If God had already punished Jesus for our sins, then we who were spared by the cross from the death penalty we deserved had no right to insist that others deserved death for their sins.
That made sense, but it didn’t seem right.  I soon figured out why. 

The penal substitution theory is based on retributive justice: sin must be “repaid” with death, and God “repaid” our sins by punishing Jesus.  But so also is capital punishment: the murderer must be “repaid” his crime with the penalty of death. To affirm penal substitution, therefore, is to affirm the same logic that justifies the death penalty.
I faced two problems.  First, the penal substitution theory couldn’t address the question: you can’t overcome the logic of retribution (capital punishment) with the logic of retribution (penal substitution). 

Second, the penal substitution theory didn’t square with Jesus’ teaching of God’s kingdom, which is not ruled by retribution: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you…” (Matthew 5).  If the cross is the cross of Christ, I thought, our interpretation of the cross ought to be consistent with the teaching of Jesus.
The more I thought it through, the more the conundrum grew.  

According to Paul’s gospel, Christ’s cross is both the revelation of God’s justice (Romans 3:21-26) and the demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:6-11).  According to penal substitution, God’s justice is satisfied in retribution, Jesus punished for our sins.  Yet according to Jesus’ teaching, God’s love transcends retribution: He blesses righteous and wicked alike with sun and rain (Matthew 5).  How could the cross be both God’s justice by retribution and God’s love beyond retribution?  Is this God’s love—that God punished Jesus instead of us? That didn’t seem right, either.  I needed to begin again.

For the rest of the post, click HERE.

--Nick

American Psycho; a brief deconstruction of the ending

In case it wasn't utterly obvious:

SPOILERS

"Was happened at the end of 'American Psycho?'"

I think Bateman killed everyone and did everything he did. Why? Because, at the heart of the story is, I think, a satirical deconstruction of the 80s, but also of something else. I think the utter point of the story was how people will allow themselves to be blind towards evil.

Most of the people in the story, be they good or evil, cannot see the blatant evil that is in front of them. They are oblivious. Not unlike how many of us are in the case of glossing over headlines depicting rape and murder in our desire for comfort found in the funnies.

Sure, everyone loves to rag on the 80s. And, sure, there is plenty there to rag on e.g. hairstyles. However, at the end, Bateman is essentially free to do whatever he pleases. Everything he does, from cannibalism to three ways to chainsaws to wanting to kill a woman right in front of him, echoes this. His desire for human perfection is not only coupled with narcissism but also reflection. He seems to know who and what he is.

He knows he is evil. Nobody else seems capable of grasping this.

And that frightens him at the end. He seems to realize that is may in fact be entirely sane, while everyone else is bonkers. It frightens him because the entire crux of the story rests on this one little conclusion:

Bateman is not accountable. And that frightens him.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Blue Like Jazz, a brief review

I may come back and add to this review in the future, if you would like to read the original review, click the link at the bottom. 

I'm good at laying my cards on the table, so I will do so right now. I didn't like the book. I generally don't find Donald Miller's writing very compelling, save for Searching for God Knows What. That said, I loved Blue Like Jazz.

Beginning with a surreal (albeit) poorly paced opening of Donald Miller, played with reserve by Marshall Allman, Blue Like Jazz knows exactly where it needs to go. The film starts in Texas, at a fundamentalist church where Miller is content to simply exist without much rigorous thought. After a familial incident, Miller's perfect life is upended and he runs away into the godless Northwest United States to Reed College, where he experiences drinking, drugs, bi-curious girls and social justice. But, he cannot escape his background, or the Deity that seems to follow him.

Blue Like Jazz does not equate itself to being a Christian film. This does not suggest that Christians are not involved or that there is any lack of Christian themes in Blue Like Jazz, but the nature of the film is not sermonizing. Don's encounters with various students, from a dude dressed in a Pope outfit to a girl involved in Christo-centric social justice, showcase the turmoil of a man caught in the whirlpool of messy, post-conservative Christianity in a staunchly secular and hurting world. *For a discussion on "christian films."

I'll confess, I found this to be quite accurate in relation to my own spiritual journey. Having a personal conversation about God at midnight with an agnostic dressed as a beer can comes to mind. Blue Like Jazz touches on this sort of almost transcendental interaction, but also the failure of the church. Not in that the church, as a whole, has failed; rather, in the lives of some people pursuing truth, the church is very capable of providing invisible walls to run into. Blue Like Jazz is honest enough to not avoid the walls, but to show that they can be overcome. We see this in pastors, scholars and parents, both in reality and in this film. Blue Like Jazz never harshly condemns, but rather shows the linger effects of blind trust. 

The style of the film is reminiscent of Garden State, with abstract shots of astronauts in space and on earth. Director Steve Taylor, through his use of music and tone, manages to create a genuinely idiosyncratic film. However, the biggest fault of the film is the pacing, with the introduction running far too long. Not much in the way of character development, though there are attempts, until Don packs his bags for college. Once that picks up, the pacing picks up, but there are still instances that bring the film to a grinding halt. Like Don and Pope placing a giant condom on the church steeple. Funny. Necessary in regards to a certain character. But it takes far too long to set up and execute. 

Blue Like Jazz is a quirky little film that is filled with honest questions and a genuinely humble ending that is as far from an alter call as one can imagine. However, the ending is far more impactful and quiet than I anticipated, leaving me lost in thought for a long time. For a documentary that more actively engages with the idea, check out Lord, Save Us From Your Followers. Its on Netflix instant. 

In many ways, the silence and subtle shift of perspective is far more powerful than an alter call. This is where Blue Like Jazz excels. The point of it is not atonement theory or proclaiming systematic theology. This is not Wayne Grudem or Thomas Oden. This isn't even really Rob Bell or Tony Jones. In some ways, I saw a little N.T. Wright in there. However, the point overall seems to be more towards simply living as one ought to live in order for the gospel to bloom. People see the good deeds other do, and they want to know why. The point is living gospel. Helping the poor. Listening to our enemies. Empathizing with other people's failures. 

Possible spoiler:

Don's final comments about being "ashamed of Jesus" ruffled some Christian's feathers. However, the context is powerful in that Don is confessing to a person who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a powerful man of God. Being "ashamed" is actually the most telling sign of a truly repentant heart. Shame and guilt often showcase our fears and our reaction in tune with the Spirit. Allowing God to move in most mysterious ways. 

End possible spoiler.

I'm ashamed of Jesus in that I constantly fail to live up to his perfect example. I'm ashamed of my own failure and the failure of those that profess belief in the same God I love. And that is the pinnacle of Blue Like Jazz. It recognizes the failure of humanity in response to the cross, and the example put forth by both king and servant, Jesus. 

The gospel reigns in Blue Like Jazz. 

3.5 out of 5.

TCM/Blue Like Jazz

--Nick

McKnight, "Christians, Politics and the Poor"

I found this on McKnight's blog and thought it was a good beginning to the previous post by NPR.

As you may know, there’s a “serious” discussion about how best to care for the poor. Some in the GOP think it’s not the government’s business; some in the Democrat party think it is.

What would Jesus do with the U.S. economy?

That’s a matter of fierce debate among Christians — with conservatives promoting a small-government Jesus and liberals seeing Jesus as an advocate for the poor.

After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus’ command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.

“Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that’s how we advance the common good,” Ryan said.

The best thing that government can do, he said, is get out of the way.

There’s enough simplicity-it is in this whole discussion that one wonders whether or not these folks really do care to dig both into Scripture and into the Christian tradition enough to be challenged by Christian truth.

1. Some folks are poor. They deserve, in most cases, our empathy and our compassion and our help — both as relief and as a path to employment.

2. Scriptures teach God’s people to care for the poor, and when God’s people ignores the poor, God makes it known that he is on the side of the poor. (Let’s not debate the specifics of the “preferential option for the poor.”)

3. Scriptures don’t emerge from either socialism or from free market enterprise, and those who think they do are making a gross historical error. It requires historical finesse and hermeneutical nuance to move from that world into our world. Turning the Bible’s laws into eternal laws is great example of biblicism and will land you in trouble most of the time.

4. God’s people responded to the poor in a variety of ways, including distribution — ever read about Moses in Egypt? And Jubilee? And the laws of gleaning? These are divinely-commanded and governmentally-administered required donations designed to help the poor.

Sometimes God’s people responds individually and locally to care for the poor. Ever read about Paul ad his collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem? (Which, by the way, was a Christian concern for fellow Christians, was an offering and not a tax, and which is not a good set of texts for how democratic societies care for their poor.)

5. The Church’s teaching traditions are worthy of serious exploration, including how Christians have helped shape public policy in a variety of countries in order to make sure the poor are cared for.

McKnight

Peter Rollins, "The Violence of Christianity"

Its not what you think. Its actually quite powerful. Its roughly 6 and a half minutes. Worth your time.

Peter Rollins/Violence

--Nick

William Barclay's "Convinced Universalism"

I found this interesting. I had planned on picking up several of his Matthew commentaries at my local Christian bookstore (used) and this gave me a sudden interest in reading more. Plus, they are cheap.

With no necessary introduction, William Barclay. 

I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

But I want to set down not the arguments of others but the thoughts which have persuaded me personally of universal salvation.

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: "God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and of Christ Jesus "who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all.

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

Barclay was Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University and the author of many Biblical commentaries and books, including a translation of the New Testament, "Barclay New Testament," and "The Daily Study Bible Series."

LINK

--Nick

The Hunger Games, Violence, Parents & Children

Who knew this film would spawn such controversy. Listen as C. E'Jon Moore, Adrienne Johnston and myself delve into the controversy of The Hunger Games, Scripture and the nature of violence.

TCM Roundtable podcast:

And here is the Fox News article that inspired the conversation on TCM.

--Nick

Blue Like Jazz 'Conspiracy?'

Hmmmm. As someone who didn't care for the book and wasn't impressed with the trailer, I'm kinda now interested in seeing what the hype is. I copied the entire two pages at CTM below.

The director of Blue Like Jazz, a film based on Don Miller's popular book, says that the "Christian Movie Establishment … is out to get us."

That's what Steve Taylor, director of the film that releases next month, wrote in a provocative blog post this morning at the Blue Like Jazz website, a post that also went out to thousands of subscribers to the film's e-newsletter. Taylor claimed that the executive producer of Courageous, Fireproof and Facing the Giants has declared that no one who worked on Blue Like Jazz would ever be allowed to work on one of his own movies. Taylor also wrote that a studio exec requested that the Blue Like Jazztrailer not be shown prior to another Christian film opening this weekend.

Taylor wrote that Sherwood Baptist Church executive pastor Jim McBride—a producer on Courageous, Fireproof, and Facing the Giants—had "issued what amounts to a fatwa against Blue Like Jazz when he made it known that nobody who worked on our movie would be allowed to work with them in the future." He also wrote that this "edict" was issued before Jazz had ever been screened.

CT was unable to verify Taylor's claim, but Taylor insisted that two of his "trusted associates" had seen the memo from McBride, which Taylor says came out last May. Taylor says he asked his associates to verify the accuracy of his blog post before it went live; he told CT they both said, "Yeah, it's accurate." Taylor added, "I wouldn't write something like that just based on hearsay."

CT asked Taylor if either of his associates would discuss McBride's edict; both declined, but he re-affirmed that both confirmed that what Taylor blogged this morning was "absolutely" the truth. Taylor said he didn't know why the Sherwood team would want to essentially blackball the Blue Like Jazz team. "I would understand if they had seen the movie and did not like it, or if they had seen a screenplay and did not like it, but there's no way" either of those things happened, he said.

CT tried to contact McBride, an executive producer on Sherwood's movies, but he was unavailable due to a family emergency. CT also tried unsuccessfully to reach Alex Kendrick, who co-writes and directs Sherwood's films, and Steven Kendrick, who co-writes and produces the movies.

Taylor also blogged that a vice president at Provident Films—whom Taylor later identified as Kris Fuhr—requested that theater managers not show the Blue Like Jazztrailer prior to October Baby, which opens Friday. October Baby, a pro-life film being heavily marketed to Christians, is being distributed by Provident—which has also distributed Sherwood's movies and Taylor's first full-length feature, The Second Chance, in 2006.

Taylor wrote that "as a longtime pro-lifer, I certainly support [October Baby's] message. So why would Provident's Vice President go to the extraordinary measure of attempting to get the Blue Like Jazz trailer banned from running in front of their movie?" Taylor wrote that he had gotten a copy of an e-mail that Fuhr had written, and he quoted the e-mail in his blog post:

i think exhibitors are going to try to play the Blue Like Jazz trailer with october baby

this cannot happen - the trailer actually has the words "I hate Jesus" in the voiceover along with a number of images that will be very offensive to catholics

it is in the best interest of theaters to not run the trailer because they are going to have a lot of angry patrons if they do

thanks for your help here

Taylor wrote, "Apparently Provident Films have no qualms when it comes to lying about the content of our trailer ("I hate Jesus"???)."

Fuhr told CT that she had written the e-mail to Michael Silberman of co-distributor Samuel Goldwyn Films, and did not know how it had leaked. She also told CT that she did not have any ill wishes toward Taylor, whom she called a good friend, or his film, and that she hoped Blue Like Jazz is a success when it hits theaters on April 13.

Fuhr said the "I hate Jesus" line was an error in her e-mail that she had intended, but neglected, to correct. (The character actually says, "I'm ashamed of Jesus," in the context of confessing his own failure to live up to his claims of being a Christian.)

Taylor and Fuhr spoke to each other this morning after the blog post went live. Both acknowledged that Fuhr apologized for the error of misquoting the trailer, but both also said they disagreed about whether the trailer was appropriate to show beforeOctober Baby. Taylor believes it would be fine (both films are rated PG-13), but Fuhr does not. She told CT that Provident and Samuel Goldwyn had taken heat from audiences for trailers and ads that played before some of their other films, and that she was being extra conservative this time.

Fuhr said that "on every movie we work on, part of my job is knowing our audience and making sure that I anticipate their experience in the theater." She said that whenFacing the Giants released in 2006, some theaters showed a Nestea commercial featuring "a scary skeleton" that "scared the dickens out of all the kids" in the theater. "The audience went crazy, they wrote letters to the theaters, they called and wrote to us," said Fuhr. She said that when Fireproof released in 2008, theaters showed thetrailer to Jesus Camp "and the same thing happened. So ever since then, I look at what possibly could be trailered on our films and I give Goldwyn a heads up, so they can give exhibitors a heads up so some poor theater manager doesn't end up getting lambasted all Saturday afternoon by our audience."

When asked what specifically about the Blue Like Jazz trailer might offend audiences, Fuhr noted both the "I'm ashamed of Jesus" comment and several images "I thought would be offensive to a Catholic audience." (One character wears a pope's mitre in a confession booth.)

"I have no ill intent toward Blue Like Jazz and Steve Taylor," Fuhr said. "Steve is my friend, and I wish him well. But I was hurt by his blog post."

Taylor told CT that when he first received the leaked e-mail, "I was bummed out because Kris and I are friends and she's been really kind to me in the past." He says he tried to contact Fuhr about the e-mail before writing his blog post, but says he was unable to reach her until this morning—after the blog post went live. Fuhr told CT she was disappointed she hadn't heard from Taylor first, noting, "He has my cell phone number; he could have called."

When Taylor and the producers of Blue Like Jazz sought a distributor for the film, Provident passed on the opportunity, even though they had worked with Taylor on his previous movie, The Second Chance, and even though (according to Taylor) senior vice president Ben Howard and president and CEO of Provident Music Group Terry A. Hemmings had expressed interest in Jazz long before it went into production. Fuhr said she did not know why Provident passed on Jazz, adding that she wasn't part of that decision. (CT attempted to reach Howard, but he did not return our calls.)

Christianity Today & Blue Like Jazz

--Nick