50 Shades of Grey, A Single Stain of Red

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Chris Wiles

In addition to climbing to the top of the bestseller lists, E.L. James’ 50 Shades of Grey (the first in a trilogy) is attracting attention from those alarmed not only by the book’s sexual content, but by the fact that the book’s audience is predominantly composed of young adult women.

In fairness, I have not read the book. I was most thoroughly exposed to its themes in a recent article by Jenny Rae Armstrong. She quotes from ABC News, who summarizes the book in this way:

Anastasia Steele, 21, and a virginal college student, can’t say no to dashing 27-year-old Christian Grey, who insists she sign a contract that allows him to submit her to his every sadomasochistic whim. In their first sexual encounter, Grey unveils his silver tie and binds her wrists in knots, and Steele does as she is told. He is also fabulously rich, a telecommunications tycoon, and uses his wealth to take care of her like a pampered princess. “Ana,” as he calls her, willingly and excitedly agrees to spanking, whipping and gagging, with props like ice, rope, tape–a repertoire right out of a BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance and submission) manual. Grey instructs her to call him “sir,” and sets rules on everything from her diet to her most intimate grooming routines.

Armstrong’s excellent article aimed to address the central question: “Why do women fantasize about abuse?” She concluded that the complexity of female sexuality does not yield one reason, but the appeal arises from a woman’s emotional, psychological, and even physiological makeup.

With so much to appreciate in Armstrong’s thorough evaluation, I can add nothing here. And while I suspect the book’s content has prompted many to adopt a posture of avoidance, as a pastor I believe that the cultural impact prevents such works from merely being ignored or condemned. For if history be our test tube, this series of novels (and their inevitable film adaptations) will continue to captivate the hearts and imagination of young women, just as other series have done in the recent past. Commenting on the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, youth expert Walt Mueller observes that young adults “will watch it, chew on it, process it, and digest it with or without us. The latter option offers us a great opportunity to talk about the bigger story—God’s story—and the things that really matter.”

I suspect that many struggle to see how to connect God’s story to BDSM erotica, and I’m personally grieved that such a response is even necessary. Nevertheless, I believe that the gospel has meaningful things to say to every situation, even the places that seem the darkest – and perhaps there especially so.

And so I write for pastors, parents, youth workers, and anyone else struggling to find ways to connect to the young women who have invested their hearts in these novels. My aim is to provide a gospel-centered response to the themes raised by 50 Shades of Grey, and hopefully equip readers with the means to connect the gospel to James’ growing readership.

JUDGES 19: WHEN PEOPLE BECOME PROPERTY

Sadly, sexual brokenness is nothing new, as even the pages of scripture reveal. We find a particularly horrific scene in Judges 19. The details are sparse, yet graphic. We are presented with two principle characters: a Levite and his concubine. No names are given, perhaps in part to underline the dehumanizing character of the story that follows. In a later verse, the man is described as her ‘adon, her “master” (19:27). Maybe this isn’t exactly parallel to the “master” language of the BDSM world, but in both cases the term is rooted in the same dehumanizing impulse. She’s not a person; she’s property.

When the concubine leaves him, he’s in no hurry to retrieve her. Four months go by before we find the couple sitting in her father’s home. Though initially receptive of her family’s hospitality, the man foolishly decides to set out for home, seeming to ignore the fact that he has more miles ahead of him than available daylight. But when darkness descends upon them, the man refuses to stay in a community of Canaanites, pressing onward to the security of an Israelite community. But it is there, while a guest in someone’s home, that they experience the opposite end of the hospitality spectrum. The pounding on the door will not stop until the gang of men can find a body to slake their desire, their eyes set on the male houseguest they had just seen enter town. In a perverse act of self-defense, the man shoves his concubine into the street, where she is gang-raped until morning.

The story’s saddest detail is revealed the next morning, when the morning’s soft rays of light fall on the woman’s frail fingers, her hand extended toward the doorway, reaching for help that never came, longing for the security her husband never gave.

“Get up,” he says. But she is unresponsive. He slings her on the back of her donkey to finish the journey home – he has one final use for her body. He slices her into pieces, distributing them around the nation of Israel as a symbol of the unprecedented barbarism. If you read the final chapters in Judges, you see that this incident quickly escalates to the tribal, and then the national level.

“…BECAUSE OF THE SPLENDOR I BESTOWED…”

Is this merely an isolated incident? A by-product of an androcentric, patriarchal society? Such modern objections seem to overlook the original author’s intent. The nameless characters serve not only to underscore the dehumanizing nature of the sexual depravity, but also to serve as a warning for all of Israel: left to his own devices, every man in Israel is capable of this level of cruelty. The story is set not in a pagan community, but in the perceived safety of an Israelite town. In a story hauntingly similar to that of Sodom, Israel is forced to admit that they could no longer presume that the dangers were isolated to the world “out there” – in Canaan. They were realities that lurk within each and every human heart.

And so it is with 50 Shades of Grey and our own sexual brokenness. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, the line between sexual purity and brokenness cannot be drawn between the covers of a book or the covers on our beds, but through our very hearts.

If we read Israel’s story, we know that this was the case for the nation as a whole, whose disobedience was often described in terms of sexual promiscuity. When Israel turns from God to ally herself with Babylonian culture, it is described in language that might even make Anastasia Steele blush: “she lustfully exposed her nakedness…she increased her prostitution…she lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions” (Ezekiel 23:18-20).

But despite Israel’s disobedience, God has consistently responded to His people with matchless devotion. Ezekiel also describes God’s devotion to His people as a bride adorned with jewelry:

“‘Then I passed by you and watched you, noticing that you had reached the age for love. I spread my cloak over you and covered your nakedness. I swore a solemn oath to you and entered into a marriage covenant with you, declares the sovereign LORD, and you became mine. ⁹ “‘Then I bathed you in water, washed the blood off you, and anointed you with fragrant oil. ¹⁰ I dressed you in embroidered clothing and put fine leather sandals on your feet. I wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk. ¹¹ I adorned you with jewelry. I put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck. ¹² I put a ring in your nose, earrings on your ears, and a beautiful crown on your head. ¹³ You were adorned with gold and silver, while your clothing was of fine linen, silk, and embroidery. You ate the finest flour, honey, and olive oil. You became extremely beautiful and attained the position of royalty. ¹⁴ Your fame spread among the nations because of your beauty; your beauty was perfect because of the splendor which I bestowed on you, declares the sovereign LORD. (Ezekiel 16:8-14)

Israel would be beautiful not of her own merits, but “because of the splendor that [God] bestowed” upon her. Years later, the apostle Paul would write that the Church is the “bride of Christ,” for whom Christ gave Himself through the cross.

The Levite sacrificed his bride to save himself. Christ sacrificed himself to save His Bride.

FORMED THROUGH DEFORMITY

Though not rooted in romantic love, Christ’s sacrificial love for a wayward people forms the basis for romantic relationships, most fully expressed in the sacred and beautiful promise of marriage:

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her ²⁶ to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, ²⁷ so that he may present the church to himself as glorious– not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:25-27)

To call the love expressed in 50 Shades of Grey a cheap counterfeit seems almost too generous. The degradation that undergirds BDSM culture is the complete opposite of the beauty and wonder of God-given sexuality. Ironically, the lead character of 50 Shades is named Anastasia, a name meaning “resurrection.” But such a title hardly seems to fit the dehumanizing treatment that so vexingly allures her. Humanity is made of equal complements – male and female – to debase ourselves in acts domination and submission moves us further from our God-given humanity. The gospel is about becoming more human; BDSM is about becoming less.

Armstrong’s article suggests that women are allured by abuse fantasy for a multiplicity of reasons, but I believe that the gospel speaks in a meaningful way to each of those reasons (and here you’ll notice I borrow Armstrong’s language). To the woman struggling with the past trauma, Christ offers wholeness and healing. To the woman struggling to “rescue the beast,” Christ offers safety and security. To the woman struggling with “pleasant–if guilt-ridden–feelings of sexual arousal,” Christ offers complete transformation. And to the woman struggling to understand her own complexity, Christ offers to walk beside you and show you the depth and beauty of His love.

“The deformity of Christ forms you,” wrote St. Augustine. “In this life, therefore, let us hold fast to the deformed Christ.” Holding fast to the deformed Christ means finding something in Him that cannot be found through mere literary escapism.

The gospel reminds us that while the Levite sacrificed his bride to save Himself, Jesus sacrificed Himself to save His bride. The Levite tore his bride to pieces; Jesus is continually putting His bride back together. The Levite’s concubine extended her hand for help that never came.

On the cross, Jesus reaches through the 50 shades of grey to extend a scarred hand stained by a singular shade of red. From cradle to the grave, His humble life and sacrificial death tell us that whatever our struggles, the answer can never be an absence of love, and His open grave and promise of return tell us that the answer can never be an absence of hope.

In closing, I’ll recommend the excellent book Rid of my Disgrace: Hope and Healing for Victims of Sexual Assault by Justin and Lindsay Holcomb.

How far is Heaven?: The Pluralistic Challenge to Jesus

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Chris Wiles

The above video is “Yahweh,” by the band U2. The name “Yahweh” is one of the primary names for God in Hebrew. It was a deeply personal name, so much so that when the name “Yahweh” was printed, the Hebrews used to switch to the name “Adonai” (analogous to “Lord”) out of reverential fear.

In U2’s video, however, the name “Yahweh” is invoked in the context of a wide variety of religious symbols. We live in a culture that advocates pluralism. Author Leslie Newbigin says that pluralism comes in two forms. In its descriptive form, pluralism simply means that we live in a nation whose first amendment rights allow for the worship of a wide range of different faiths. In its prescriptive form, pluralism means that all belief systems are superficially different yet fundamentally the same in their advocacy of peace, love, and moral behavior.

Christianity has long affirmed that in contrast to prescriptive pluralism, Jesus is the only way to connect with God. The sermon “How far is Heaven?” describes the way that Jesus stands in contrast to other religious systems, of both His day and our own.

But we catch an earlier glimpse of this in Luke 7:1-10. A centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant. A centurion was a Gentile – though we’re told that this man held loyalty to God. The elders of the Jews pleaded with Jesus that this man is “worthy.” But when Jesus agrees, the man denies his own worthiness before Christ, instead affirming Jesus’ ability to heal from a distance.

The scene is significant, especially since Luke was a Gentile, writing to his Gentile friend Theophilus. God’s blessing is poured out on someone other than God’s chosen race: “I tell you,” Jesus says, “not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

The man knew two things: (1) his own lack of worth and (2) Jesus’ supreme worth. And the fact that the centurion came from a background other than Judaism reveals God’s plan for all people:

“Whether it is a Jew whose tradition is fulfilled or a pagan whose appropriate response to the light available is completed, the way to Jesus involves some discontinuity with the past (hence the sense of unworthiness of sin) and a submission to a new authority (the lordship of Jesus).

For Luke, Jesus is the ultimate revelation toward which all others point. Whether Jesus is related to other religious traditions primarily as judge or primarily as the fulfillment or completion depends upon the degree of discontinuity or continuity between the other traditions and the revelation in Jesus. Even those religious traditions with the greatest continuity to Jesus still stand before him ‘unworthy’ and in need of submission to his ultimate authority.” (Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke, p. 86)

The next posts will focus on the question, “How far is Heaven?” and the interaction between Jesus and the various beliefs of our own day.

If you’re interested in learning more about pluralism and Christianity, you can read a series of posts I did regarding the Brit Hume scandal a few years ago:

Intro: Tiger Woods, Brit Hume: Who Should “Repent?”

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 1)

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 2): Religion and All His Friends

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 3): Coexist or Else

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 4): The Problem with Pluralism

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 5): Christianity’s Exclusive Claim

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 6): Building Bridges

Christianity and Religious Diversity (Part 7): Recommended Reading

The Contagious Gospel: Jesus as a Friend to Sinners

Posted on March 9, 2012 by Chris Wiles

To finally put the last piece on this week’s series of posts, we need to go back to Luke 5. It’s right after Jesus heals the paralyzed man who’d been lowered through the window. And, as we saw, Jesus calls Levi away from his life as a tax collector to be a disciple of Jesus – and the “establishment” is a bit concerned about the company that Jesus seems to be keeping.

If your memory is really good, you’ll remember that we learned in Luke 4 (when Jesus read the selections from Isaiah) that Luke’s gospel intertwines the ideas of forgiveness and healing. It’s what Wright calls “the gift of shalom:” restoring God’s original goodness, or shalom, to each individual, both physically and spiritually.

CONTAGION

But the metaphor of healing can be taken another way, too, can’t it? You could easily see how sin might be viewed as a contagion – something “dirty” in that culture. That was the attitude of the Pharisees. They’d already started whispering rumors about Jesus behind His back. Jesus even picks up on it: The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Luke 7:34)

See, the central lie of religion is this: when the sacred encounters the profane, the profane always wins. Jesus spent time with some people religion tended to frown upon. The religious leaders assumed that if Jesus spent time with these people, He must be one of “them.”

QUARANTINE

Religious moralism is so concerned with keeping up appearance that it avoids broken people at all costs. The problem, as Jesus identifies it, is that healthy people don’t need doctors; sick people do.

Which means that when we look at Jesus, we don’t find a guy who’s actively trying to pursue the “wrong crowd.” He had a message of hope and healing, and that naturally drew people to Him. Craig Blomberg, a New Testament scholar, writes:

“Jesus thus defies the conventions of his world by his intimate association with a group of people deemed traitorous and corrupt in his society. Still, he does not condone their sinful lifestyles but calls them to repentance, transformation and discipleship.” (Craig Blomberg, Contagious Holiness, p. 102)

There is no “quarantine” procedure for Jesus. He gets right in and heals their brokenness. And He does so not by overlooking their sin, but by absorbing it.

JOHN COFFEY: ABSORBING EVIL

Most are familiar with the film The Green Mile, the film based on Stephen King’s serial novel. The main character is John Coffey, a death row inmate who proves to have an extraordinary power to heal. When the prison guards discover this power, they sneak Coffey from prison temporarily to see if his power can heal the warden’s wife, who is dying of terminal brain cancer in her home:

The clip shows an unexpected healer, bringing a shocking level of intimacy to this broken woman’s home. The fracture of the clock, the shaking ground – these things almost seem to call to mind the events of the cross: the earthquake, the tearing of the temple curtain. John Coffey’s initials are no accident, allowing the film to present us an unlikely Christ figure who absorbs the evil around him, bringing wholeness and purity.

We don’t have time to analyze all of the films themes (including where the film ceases to harmonize with Christianity), but Jesus does something like this: He can offer healing only because He takes evil on Himself through His sacrificial death on the cross. “The deformity of Christ forms you,” wrote St. Augustine. “On Him is the punishment that brought us shalom, [wholeness, goodness, peace].” Isaiah wrote. “By His wounds, we are healed.”

HOW GREAT A DEBT

This is something that no other religious system before was capable of. Even the various sacrifices of the Jewish legal system were meant only to point to the day when Christ would be sacrificed once-for-all.

In Luke 7, we see Jesus interacting with a “sinful woman.” The scene is right after Jesus’ complaint that the Pharisees think Him a “drunkard.” Luke places the story here because he has a point to make: the lie of religion is not always right. The Jewish laws stipulated that certain people were clean and unclean, just as we saw yesterday. But when the profane encounters that which is most sacred, the sacred wins. Jesus brings cleanliness through forgiveness of sins: He is the true and better sacrifice who can do this.

So it’s actually quite shocking when a woman of a “sinful” reputation (many believe her to have been some sort of prostitute) is associating with Jesus. She anoints Jesus’ feet not only with expensive perfume, but her own tears. But here’s where it gets messy: she lets her hair down. In Jewish culture, this was a level of intimacy that was potentially scandalous:

“The woman’s actions…need not be viewed as inherently erotic, but the observers would have viewed that at best as culturally inappropriate…and at worst as so sexually suggestive as to be shameful. [One commentary writer] points out that loose hair did not in and of itself link a woman with prostitution, and if she were unmarried it produced no stigma at all. But Simon’s response…clearly implies that her behavior here gave the assembly reason to disapprove of it.” (Craig Blomberg, Contagious Holiness, p. 133)

When questioned, Jesus tells a story about the magnitude of forgiveness. Two men owe a great debt: one owes just over two months worth of wages. The other owes two years. Obviously the one who had been forgiven the greater debt was the one who showed greater love. Jesus acknowledged the woman’s “many” sins (7:47). But because of this great relief she could show love in a way that the Pharisees could not.

INFECTING WITH LIFE

In chapter 8 we see this pattern continue, and Luke gives us two stories back to back in Luke 8:40-56. One is a woman with some type of bleeding disorder – apparently some type of menstrual issue. The other is a young girl, only 12, who dies before Jesus can even get there.

Both women remain nameless. Both are ceremonially unclean: the woman because of her menstrual bleeding, the daughter because she is dead. And notice in verse 43 that the woman had been bleeding for 12 years, the same amount of time the little girl had been alive.

But despite her uncleanliness, she reaches out and touches Jesus’ robe. And that’s when the miracle happens. Jesus does not become unclean from her touch, but by touching Jesus she becomes clean. When she confesses what she had done, Jesus tenderly calls her “daughter.”

Jesus’ healing does not stop there. When he gets to the little girl’s home, she has already passed on. But a touch of Jesus’ hand and the command of His voice lift her from the dead.

The Pharisees were worried that the unclean would infect the clean. Jesus infects everyone around Him with life.

SPREADING THE CONTAGION

This means that we have a whole new paradigm to look through. We don’t have to be like the Pharisees, sneering at others while we perform our quarantine procedures. The gospel teaches us that there is no division between the “good” people and “bad” people, only a division between the proud and humble, the forgiven and the broken.

This is a powerful theme of Luke’s gospel, one that is central to his entire portrait of Jesus. It is a message that Jesus’ followers are to carry out in their own day and age – to spread Jesus’ message of hope and healing in our own communities.

We’ll close with the testimony of Brian “Head” Welch, former guitarist for the band Korn, now a follower of Christ:

“Reaching Our Without Dumbing Down” (Part 10): “Ritual and Liturgy and Art”

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Chris Wiles

If you’ve missed it, we’ve been blogging through the book Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for This Urgent Time by Marva Dawn. For reference, here are the links to the previous chapters:

Her present chapter is entitled “Discovering Our Place in the Story,” which looks at the practical dimensions of liturgy, worship and art.

Dawn argues that performance is the outcome when God is no longer the subject of worship. She borrows from C.S. Lewis in saying that the best liturgy is one that we are not aware of. We are to “dance without having to count steps.” The concern is that the church’s penchant for novelty (in an effort to appeal to consumers) relegates the worship of the church to mere entertainment.

THE VALUE OF AESTHETICS AND CHARACTER FORMATION

Since the time of the enlightenment, there has been a movement away from the majesty of the cathedral to the simplicity of the chapel. The revivalism of the centuries that followed provided us with the ascendancy of showmanship even amidst two divergent theological contexts. The seeker-friendly movement of the last few decades is the natural outcome of this, where the Church has blended the artistic expressions of popular culture with those of historic Christianity. Even the architecture was meant to reflect that of the culture that surrounded it, resulting in churches that looked more like shopping malls, business centers and warehouses than the cathedrals of old.

Churches were motivated by pragmatism and utility. The need for a “multi-purpose room” outweighed the need for a sanctuary. And not without reason: the rise of children’s and youth programs with a concomitantly diminishing budget often necessitates such flexibility in building use.

But the end result was the loss of both beauty and sacred space. Part of the issue we now face is that each successive generation, while deeply shaped by the generation that preceded it, wants to escape the trappings and stale traditions they grew up in.

For the boomer generation, this meant exchanging the stale traditions they had grown up in for the contemporary expressions that have now become normative within the megachurch/church growth world. We don’t need a sanctuary, they insisted, we need a place that looks just like our jobs and offices. But the postmodern generations of today are doing the same thing: shirking the traditions of the previous generation in favor of new directions, which, ironically, resemble the traditions their parents had worked to escape from.

And because of this, rising generations place value in such things as beauty and transcendence – often because such things capture or at least contribute to the experiential, emotion-driven faith systems that they possess.

Dawn writes that beauty is inherently valuable, because

“Our increasingly ugly world makes it all the more imperative for worship to remind us of God’s beauty. Psychologists and sociologists (and even architects) comment on the fact that fewer and fewer people are able to enjoy the beauties of creation. Poverty leads to city squalor and overcrowding; busyness prevents many from taking time for the beautiful; and modern art often turns to grotesque and violent forms. Beautiful worship will foster in our character genuine humility and awe at the beauty of forgiveness, and profound thanksgiving that God invites us to share in the heavenly beauty of which we get glimpses while here on earth.” (p. 249)

The problem of course is that “beauty” is often mistaken to rest in the eye of the beholder rather than in the character of God. The reasons for this are manifold, some of which are cultural, and some of which are religious (pietism, for instance, has taught us to eschew all symbols in favor of strong, personal devotion). This combined with the penchant for “attractional” worship often leads us to the commodification of beauty. Beauty is therefore both subjective, in that audiences determine what is beautiful, and beauty is useful, in that it is a tool for attracting people. While philosophers throughout history have often been guilty of reducing beauty to the point of abstraction, contemporary culture has reduced beauty to the level of fashion.

Dawn therefore cautions that

“Out of concern for character formation, churches must think very carefully in planning the liturgy. We must not ask, Is this liturgy attractive? but always, What kind of character does this nurture? Does our liturgy focus on feelings rather than on God’s character, which evokes these feelings? If so, we will nurture a faith that depends on emotions rather than a faith that can cling to who God is in spite of human experiences of sorrow or estrangement. Does liturgy focus on the self and lead to pride, or does it focus on God and lead to humility, awe and thanksgiving, and petition?” (p. 249)

In the eighteenth century, Jonathan Edwards spoke of God as either being a bonum utile or a bonum formosum, Latin phrases meaning “a useful good” or “goodness and beauty in itself.” Today’s world renders beauty into a bonum utile – beauty only has value if it attracts people to our church. But God created beauty to be a bonum formosum – to be enjoyed because it demonstrates God’s significance. The merchant sold all he had to purchase the pearl of great price. Jesus tells this story not so that readers would pity such a man, but understand that beauty (specifically, found in God’s revealed character in His kingdom) cannot be measured by standards of utility.

What Dawn is seeking to capture is that worship is beautiful inasmuch as it reflects the beauty of its object. Worship draws deep emotion not by cultivating emotion itself, but by directing our gaze toward the attributes of God which themselves elicit emotion. This distinction may seem subtle, but makes all the difference in the world with regard to character development and genuine community, because only such an approach makes much of the character of God rather than merely pandering to the contemporary, fashionable preferences of the world.

ISOLATION AND COMMUNITY

Dawn next articulates the way that isolationism has influenced the way we do community. She suggests that some are more comfortable in liturgical settings, where ritual does not demand that they be exposed before the scrutiny of others, though the rituals are themselves training them toward community and intimacy.

Her chapter continues in describing various aspects of worship such as the use of Psalms, creeds, traditional faith expressions and even silence as vehicles for genuine worship.

Beauty is one key to reaching the rising generations. As we discussed in an earlier post, one of the key problems facing the Church is that in the rejection of tradition and symbol, we have lost our ability to pass on our faith to both rising generations as well as outsiders. But recovering beauty and symbol can be a vital way of reaching others as well as uniting the Church.

Here I am not speaking of resurrecting stale traditions simply for tradition’s sake. Instead, I am speaking of the value of the Lord’s Table.

In theology, beauty is encapsulated in the framework of God’s redemptive story. Story matters to people in significant ways. Consider the following two quotations on the meaning and significance of story:

“As the biblical story unfolds, it does so in stories and poetry. In fact, approximately seventy-five percent of scripture consists of narrative, fifteen percent is expressed in poetic forms and only ten percent is propositional and overtly instructional in nature. In our retelling of the same story, we have reverses this biblical pattern. Today an estimated ten percent of our communication is designed to capture the imagination of the listener, while ninety percent is purely instructive.” (Colin Harbinson, “Restoring the Arts to the Church: The Role of Creativity in the Expression of Truth,” Lausanne World Pulse Magazine (online), July 2006)

“The new conversations, on which our very lives depend, require a poet not a moralist. Because finally church people are like other people; we are not changed by new rules. The deep places in our lives – places of resistance and embrace – are not ultimately reached by instruction. Those places of resistance and embrace are reached only by stories, by images, metaphors and phrases that line out the world differently, apart from fear or hurt.” (David Fitch, “The Myth of Expository Preaching (Part 2): Proclamation That Inspires the Imagination,” Out of Ur (conversations hosted by the editors of Leadership Journal), Christianity Today blog, posted July 25, 2006))

The Lord’s Table is important because it connects us to God’s story using the common language of the bread and cup. We are simultaneously reminded of God’s past faithfulness to His people in Egypt, reminded of the significance of Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary, and are joined together to celebrate the coming work of Christ that is yet future. Postmodern generations may find immense value in such symbols, and they themselves can be tools to make the old traditions and stories new again, reviving not only tradition and doctrine, but the very hearts of the believing community.

COMING UP

In Dawn’s next section, she explains how worship can be used as a tool for reaching our culture.

“If God is for us…” (Sunday Recap)

Posted on July 5, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Yesterday I had the great privelege of speaking at Tri-State Fellowship for the first official time. It was a good time; I got reactions ranging from “You look good!” to “How old ARE you?” – with many more in between.

I’d again like to express my deep appreciation for the support that has come from so many over the years, and continues to be poured out with such generosity.

The following is a brief summary of the message I delivered, for those interested. The topic was: “If God is for us, who can be against us?” from Romans 8:31.

“The locals said the foul-smelling mass had the goopy look of chocolate mousse. The scientists said the enormous slick had the potential to bring environmental ruin to this treasured coastline.”

The above quote comes from an article in the Washington Post making reference to the oil spilling forth from the BP disaster.

Our lives are also polluted. We call it “sin.” It’s easy to feel as if life is working “against” us.

There are two major sources:

(1) Cultural opposition (New atheism, hostility toward the Christian worldview)

(2)Personal expectation (when our “ideal” self doesn’t match our “real” self

Borrowing from Lewis Smedes, I identify three sources of these expectations:

(a) Unaccepting parents (who set unrealistic expectations)

(b) Graceless religion (that instead of teaching who loves you, urges you to become loveable)

We often are forced to cope by trying to construct and manage our identity and our image in the face of others. This is done in two ways:

(1) Comparison shopping: we evaluate ourselves based on others – our value is found in both fitting in with the “in” crowd and staying ahead of the “out” crowd.

(2) Method acting: we construct and manage our image by modifying our behavior and formulating our identities so that others may see us as “valuable.”

We feel as if life is working “against” us when these expectations go unmet. The good news of the gospel is that God is “for” us. You can click here to read the story of Katie Piper, whose testimony I shared as an example of how the gospel can change our perspective.

The following three ways describe the way that God is “for” us.

(1.) WE ARE SAVED FROM GOD

Phytoremediation is a process by which plants/trees are planted near waterways in order to absorb pollutants through the root systems.

Similarly, the cross of Christ is what God used to remove God’s wrath:

(a) Christ takes the Father’s wrath (Rom 5:9)

(b) We experience a restored relationship with God (Rom 5:10-11)

Therefore, we find identity as God’s children.

You can click here to read the Christianity Today article “Abba Changes Everything,” which I quoted from on Sunday.

(2.) WE ARE SAVED BY GOD

Chemical oxidation refers to a process by which purifying chemicals are pumped in as pollutants are removed.

In theology, imputation refers to our sin nature being exchanged for Christ’s righteousness.

(a) Christ died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6).

(b) Adam’s sin exchanged for Christ’s righteousness (Rom 5:12-19).

(d) Salvation is God’s free gift (Rom 6:23).

Therefore, our value is found in Christ’s righteousness.

(3.) WE ARE SAVED FOR GOD

Bioremediation is a process by which bacteria are introduced into polluted waters. They digest pollutants and purify the water source.

Similarly, those who follow Christ receive a living presence in the form of the Spirit.

(a) We can walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:5-11).

(b) We are co-heirs in future glory (Rom 8:17-25).

Therefore, our purpose is found in God’s Kingdom.

Creation Care Part 3: Should Christians Be Environmentalists?

Posted on June 25, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Should Christians be environmentalists? The answer, I’d suggest, is “yes.” Humanity was given the privilege and responsibility to care for creation from the very beginning, instructions that were never rescinded in the rest of the scriptural narrative.

Still, there has been resistance to the concept of environmentalism, particularly from conservative evangelical Christians – and not entirely without good reason. The question therefore becomes, what kind of environmentalists should we be?

IS THERE A NEED?

Do we even need to be environmentalists? In yesterday’s post we looked at the fact that creation wasn’t declared “good” until it found alignment with God’s established order – what one might call an ecosystem.

But in Genesis 3 we find that because man chose to rebel against his Creator, the very environment he found himself in became cursed with “thorns and thistles” (Ge 3:18). Paul echoes this when he tells his Roman audience that “creation became subject to futility” (Romans 8:20). “Things fall apart,” observes William Butler Yeats, and if the center cannot hold than it becomes necessary for humanity to take action in preserving the created world.

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells the parable of the “stewards,” which describes the responsibility bestowed on those to whom much is given (Matthew 25:14-30). Care for the environment is indeed an issue of such “stewardship,” and it becomes a task to live wisely within the created world.

ENVIRONMENTALISM AS RECONCILIATION

Creation was the last thing described as affected by Eden’s curse, and it may be fitting that it is indeed the last thing to be reconciled through God’s redemptive plan.

In Eph 2:10 and Col 1:20 Paul mentions reconciliation on a much larger, universal scale, making explicit mention of “the heavens and the earth.” Paul does not elaborate on these verses, though it seems a fair statement to suggest that Christ’s redemptive work is completed when the current, broken state of affairs here on earth are reconciled in the eschatological sense.

Bruce Demarest writes, “…these texts indicate that the discord and fragmentation characteristic of the fallen universe ultimately will give way to harmony and unity as Christ sovereignly rules over the created order.” (The Cross and Salvation, p. 181)

TWO BOOKS

But that’s just it, though, isn’t it? What does it actually mean to “live wisely within the created world?” A quick Google search will reveal a wide variety of shrill voices, talking heads and “inconvenient truths” on the issue.

In the sixteenth century, a group of theologians affirmed the existence of “two books:” that there is a “book of Scripture” (i.e., the Bible) as well as a “book of nature” (i.e., the natural world). The book of nature most certainly would include our understanding and knowledge gained from the natural sciences, which is why as someone trained in both science and theology, I find these categories so very helpful.

Which means that the “book of Scripture” teaches us to care for creation. But the “book of nature” must provide the reasons and means for caring for our ecosystems in the here and now by providing us with the most accurate scientific data available. This is yet another case where Biblical interpretation does not lead to unified application, as the data and figures are being interpreted differently by different groups of people.

Let’s be clear: this is hard, and only further complicated by increasing insistence on “going green” and the apparent lack of scientific consensus (or, to say it differently, a lack of consensus on whether or not there is a consensus…see what I mean?).

THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS

There are a variety of peripheral, theological concerns that should inform our thinking. I’ll name only a few of the most relevant.

Creation > Creation. Lately, particularly in pop culture, there has been a tendency to use language akin to “mother earth/nature.” While not all such language should be confused with pantheism, it certainly does not add clarity to our theology. Christians affirm a distinction between an infinite God and His personal creation.
God = personal. In all this discussion of environmentalism, it should be noted that God is certainly not the managerial god of deism, setting up an ecosystem and walking away, but intimately involved in human affairs and desiring relationship with His people.
Human rights. While interdependence should not be ignored, human beings are more important than animals. This becomes an important point when global policies on the environment potentially impinge on subsistence farmers in the poorer countries of the world. At the end of the day, the Christian commitment to “love thy neighbor” takes precedence over environmental concerns.
Eschatology: this world is not all there is. The Christian hope is of a future, restored creation. This does not negate our task to care for the one in the present, but gives us a future vision for a day when lion and lamb coexist and all things are brought to a state of beauty and perfection.
The gospel. Increasingly, there has been a focus on environmental and social concerns, particularly among young Christians, even to the extent of redefining the gospel in social terms. The problem is that this discussion often stops short of bringing people to the cross for personal forgiveness and transformation. As Christians, our primary task is not environmentalism, but evangelism.

CONCLUSION

While we won’t always agree on the details, these are all areas of consideration for the dialogue on environmentalism, an important one that overlaps the areas of both theology and politics.

The recent BP disaster certainly should raise questions regarding the safety and viability of off-shore drilling, questions whose answers must be compared to other forms of oil extraction and its its subsequent environmental impact.

In the end, Christians must, as always, recognize our “dual citizenship:” both in the present world as well as God’s kingdom. As such we must make our decisions with attention paid to caring for the present, as well as hoping in the future.

Creation Care (Part 2) – Man Versus Wild: Animal Rights and Theology

Posted on June 24, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Yesterday we looked at a question posed by the Washington Post regarding animal rights. The post covered the ways the three major worldviews (atheism, pantheism and theism) tend to answer the question.

Today we’ll be looking at the uniqueness of Christian theology in its claim toward human dignity and the relationship of man and creation, which will form the basis for the eventual discussion of Christianity and environmentalism.

UNITY AND DIVERSITY

My freshman level Biology textbook was subtitled: “The Unity and Diversity of Life.” The question of unity-and-diversity has been wrestled with not only in the field of science but a whole host of other disciplines, ranging from philosophy to sociology to – of course – theology.

Christian theology differs from other forms of theism in that it claims that God is not only one but exists in three distinct persons (Father, Son and Spirit). The Christian concept of Trinity is not only unique amongst the world’s religious claims, but the only theological system that reflects the unity-and-diversity in nature, from quarks to DNA triplet sequences to entire ecosystems.

In contrast to atheism, Christian theology starts with the assertions that God not only exists, but also that God communicates. Because of this, Christianity is able to draw its understanding of God, man and creation from the unique claims of the Bible.

A word on Genesis: I realize that not all my readers are going to track with me on this point. Given the strangeness of a creation narrative containing fig leaves and talking serpents, I am hardly unsympathetic to those who approach the subject with raised eyebrows. But at the risk of sidestepping such important questions, we’ll proceed on the basis that the Genesis account does, in fact, describe the general contours of anthropology and ecology with accuracy, even if we can’t agree on some of the details.

CREATION > CREATOR

Pantheism teaches that creation and creator are equal. Theism teaches that creation and Creator are distinct, like an artist and his canvas.

Further, the Genesis account describes the completed works of God as being made “good.” But notice something important in the opening verses of Genesis: when God created light, He called it “good” (Ge 1:3-4). But when he created land and sky, He did not pronounce it “good” until He had created boundaries and division between sky, sea and dry land (Ge 1:9). At minimum, I take this to mean that “goodness” is not a mere product of being created, but having been created with order. The earth was not “good” until God had established an ecosystem – a point that will become important as we work towards our understanding of the environment.

IMAGE AND DOMINION

Genesis affirms man as unique among the animals. On this point, there is little ambiguity. In Genesis 1, the animals and birds are each produced from “the earth” and “the sea,” but God uniquely creates man in His own “image” and “likeness” (Ge 1:26), also granting man “dominion” over the natural world (Ge 1:30).

What does it mean to be created in God’s image? A lot of ink has been spilled over this issue (for a full, linguistic treatment, see Gordon Wenham’s commentary on Genesis). To simplify, I’ll say that I first equate the words “image” and “likeness” in this context. But to clarify, I want to make clear that this doesn’t mean a physical resemblance (which many commentators in the Washington Post article seemed to think, though this was largely due to the lack of clarity on the part of the panelists). After all, both men and women were created in this likeness.

Instead, to bear God’s image or tselem, means to share certain of His traits. Theologians typically identify things like a personal will, conscience, spirituality. I would argue that the primary traits (based on the immediate context) are creativity and relationality. We are created to be creators and to relate to one another as well as the created world.

To have “dominion” is therefore an extension of this “image.” To have dominion simply means having a role in the care and use of creation.

MAN VERSUS WILD

The fact that Adam and Eve – the first humans, according to Genesis – existed in the perfection of the Garden of Eden raises many questions.

Were Adam and Eve vegetarian? I don’t know. Some say yes – that God established meat-eating only after the Flood record (Ge 9:3). Others say that this verse simply ratifies a practice already in existence in the garden. I honestly don’t know that the text is clear.

Do animals have souls? First, what’s a “soul?” This is another subject over which a lot of ink has been spilled, but at its simplest, Christian theology agrees that the soul is the non-material component of humanity that is concerned with relationship with God. Do animals have this? On the one hand, the Genesis account affirms that animals have the same breath of life (nephesh) as humans. On the other, they are not created in God’s unique image as was man. While imagery of the afterlife and new world include many descriptions of animals (Isaiah 65, Revelation 19), there’s no clear evidence that animals actually have a soul, at least in the same sense as humans. We love our pets (which is actually a consequence of that “dominion” we mentioned), but if they do have souls, they’re certainly not the same as ours, in need of salvation.

If humans are unique, then are animals important? Again, drawing from the language of “dominion,” the answer is “yes.” Humans enjoy a privileged place over creation, something even Jesus affirms when He tells His disciples (perhaps slightly tongue-in-cheek) that they are “worth more than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:29-31), yet quite equally affirming God’s goodness in caring for His own creation. Even the Flood account in Genesis affirms this, where Noah, in a sense, becomes the first “conservationist,” preserving the animal species to eventually rebuild the ecosystem.

CONCLUSION: ANIMAL RIGHTS?

This is still a hard subject. Christian theology has considerably less to say about animal rights than it does about human responsibility to care for creation and respect the diversity of its inhabitants.

But I think we must be clear on at least one issue: while care for animal species is important, I am hardly apologetic when I suggest that care for our fellow humans takes first priority. Which means, among other things, that I have no moral issue with animals used for medical research, so long as it is done humanely. This also means that while I’m hardly apathetic to issues of the environment and issues of animal abuse, I am far more concerned about the issues that affect humans, such as global poverty, human slavery and infectious disease.

Tomorrow we’ll finish by looking at Christian theology and environmentalism.

God, Fatherhood, and the Gospel

Posted on June 19, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Most of us can remember our fathers, to some degree or another. For most people, our Dads shape our vision of who God is. When we speak of God as “Father,” our minds immediately return to the visions and emotions we had of our earthly fathers when we were growing up, whether they be good or bad.

And as we turn on the television we don’t find many examples of good TV dads. We find a lot of Homer Simpsons, fathers who mean well, but would sooner be caught with a beer in hand, watching the game, than to have any real connection with the wife and kids. We find Ray from “Everybody Loves Raymond:” a really nice guy, but ultimately uninvolved and essentially detached from his family’s lives.

I know far too many people who have grown up without the kind of good father that I have (and even that’s assuming dear old “dad” was ever even in the picture to begin with). So I understand that for some, to speak of God as “Father” might seem a little warped.

In the book Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller writes:

My father left my home when I was young, so when I was introduced to the concept of God as Father I imagined Him as a stiff, oily man who wanted to move into our house and share a bed with my mother. I can only remember this as a frightful and threatening idea. We were a poor family who attended a wealthy church, so I imagined God as a man who had a lot of money and drove a big car. At church they told us we were children of God, but I knew God’s family was better than mine, that He had a daughter who was a cheerleader and a son who played football. I was born with a small bladder so I wet the bed till I was ten and later developed a crush on the homecoming queen who was kind to me in a political sort of way, which is something she probably learned from her father, who was the president of a bank. And so from the beginning, the chasm that separated me from God was as deep as wealth and as wide as fashion.

Many people share some similar experience. But there’s good news.

In the pages of scripture, God has chosen to reveal Himself as a Father. Though this image was less common in the days before Jesus (mostly, to avoid confusion with the fertility cults of the ancientworld), we find words such as those of the Psalmist, who describes God as “a father to the fatherless and an advocate for widows. God rules from his holy palace” (Psalm 68:5).

In the New Testament as well as the early church, God’s Fatherhood is an expression of intimacy. Jesus speaks of the love between Father and Son (“the Father loves the Son,” John 3:35, 5:20; “my Father loves me,” John 10:17).

The gospel teaches us that regardless of who our fathers are on earth, we can rely on a Father who loves us and desires relationship and connection. The gospel allows us to no longer see God as distant, but teaches us to call His name Abba (Mk 14:36; Ro 8:15; Gal 4:6), a term used to express both reverence and intimacy.

Which is a way better gift than a tie any day.

The Gospel According to Glee: The Shaping of (Post)Modern Identity

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Chris Wiles

I gotta admit: I don’t get it.

When one of the greatest hit shows on TV is a musical called “Glee,” I have to admit that I’m just not that excited.

Oh, sure, I’m certainly not against it or anything; I just don’t understand the appeal of musicals.

And, of course, Glee ain’t the only act in town; you surely remember the success of the whole High School Musical franchise. Casual prediction? If they ever make Twilight: The Musical, it will produce levels of excitement so great that many will suspect these young women had eaten a hefty bag full of Skittles.

But wait, it’s not just young women, either. The phenomenon of musicals has been catching the attention of men and women of a variety of age groups (some have noted that Glee is actually a much more mature show, containing some content not suitable for the High School Musical audience).

So yeah; don’t get it. But others do get it. On the one hand, it’s not an entirely recent trend: I can name several people who have always been into theater and Broadway, long before the recent bandwagon rolled into town. But you can’t argue that there hasn’t been a recent mega-trend toward musicals – even Green Day has gotten in on the action with a musical version American Idiot.

So what’s the appeal?

WHAT’S THE APPEAL?

Humans have many needs, including a need for identity. This is provided through a variety of means, but musicals provide a unique stage for the shaping and invention of personal identity. In many ways, they provide an experiential means of self-discovery, not far removed from the days of dress-up when we were all kids.

David Kamp, in an article appearing in the New York Times, calls these young fans “Broadway babies.” He writes:

“The Broadway babies are not the passive, bused-in tourist young people of yore who went to see “The Phantom of the Opera” or “A Chorus Line” simply because it was what one did when visiting New York. They’re true believers for whom love of musicals brings happiness, transcendence, and, strangely enough, social acceptance.”

Kamp quotes Cindy Samuelson (owner of Stagedoor Manor), who suggests that today’s generation is unique in its ability to express these issues:

“’Kids in this generation have a greater acceptance of who they are and what they want to be,’ Ms. Samuelson said. And, [Kamp adds]:, a greater acceptance of who others are. For all the horrors attributed to modern children — cyberbullying, sexting, Justin Bieber-esque sideways- hair-brushing — they are far more supportive of diversity and difference than any generation before.”

THE MAKING OF (POST)MODERN IDENTITY

Philosopher Charles Taylor suggests that people have always struggled with the question of identity – it’s no wonder his text on Philosophy was called Sources of the Self.

Today’s generations struggle with figuring out who they are, and often allow their identities to be shaped by the world around them.

Barry Taylor, author of Entertainment Theology writes:

“Whence, then, do we derive identity today? I content that it is largely derived from our imagination. We shop for ‘ourselves’ in the marketplace of ever-expanding ideas brought to us when we enter cyberspace or media culture, or when we engage with the seemingly endless possibilities presented to us by a global consumer culture.” (Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, p. 46)

Taylor quotes David Lyon, saying that in today’s culture,

“people flitting like butterflies from store to store, and from symbol to symbol, constantly constructing themselves, trying on this fashion, this lifestyle. A sort of pastiche persona results, so the self – and life itself – becomes transient, ephemeral, episodic and apparently insignificant…flexible, amenable to infinite reshaping according to mood, whim, desire and imagination.” (Taylor, Entertainment Theology, p. 47)

I’d suggest that musicals, including Glee, work just like that: through the characters, through song, through the entire experience, both the actors and audience can identify with what’s happening on stage, become lost in it, and in the whole process shape their own sense of self-awareness and identity.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GLEE

Sure it ain’t my style, but I really have no problem with the whole trend toward musicals. In fact, some elements of this trend can be affirmed, even from a Christian perspective. The Bible itself is a collection of writings interwoven with truth and art, from hymns sliding into Paul’s letters (Philippians 2:5-12) to the blues-y writings of King David.

Genesis 1:26 tells us that men and women were created in God’s “image,” meaning we share certain characteristics with God. In the immediate context of Genesis, this means God’s creativity as well as His ability to relate.

In theology we have a fifty-dollar word called perichoresis. If you squint hard enough, you’ll see the word choreo from which we eventually get the word “choreography.” The word perichoresis literally refers to dancing around (though I’m not so sure it’s the kind of thing you’d see on Glee…). God, rightly understood, exists in a mysterious relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, relating to one another in balance, harmony and beauty. And if man is created in that image, than not only are we to relate to one another, but to do so in a way that reflects this divine dance.

Where the gospel really hits home is here: we tend to (wrongly) assume that this whole journey towards identity is one of self-discovery, when the real journey is one of self-transformation. Our identities will be shaped by one of three things: (1) what we do, (2) what others do to us or (3) what Christ has done for us through the cross and inviting us into relationship with God and our neighbor in that eternal dance.

Personal significance is therefore not something you arrive at through personal exploration, but found through the transformative power of God, a transformation made vivid in the rhythms and syncopation of our daily lives.

“The Good Shephard:” LOST and the Christian Story (Part 4)

Posted on June 4, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Jack Shephard. The name alone inspires confidence. So much so that he’s got some saying that he was more than just a good guy, but the savior of the show.

Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly writes:

If there was any big surprise last night, it was how overtly Christian in its imagery and message the series proved to be. Its heavily underscored lesson was that everyone was forgiven — that word was used over and over. And the water at the Magic Glowing Source was used for the purposes of transubstantiation: “Drink this,” Jack was told upon being handed water, a phrase later repeated when Jack gave water to Hugo. Given the liquid’s effect particularly on Jack, the dialogue might just as well have quoted directly from a Communion service: “Drink this, for this is my body which is given unto you. Do this, in remembrance of me.”

For if there was one thing we can probably all agree upon, in the end, Jack Shephard was a Christ figure whose sacrifice saved many other people. The imagery could not have been more specific: Jack’s questioning and obeying of his father; his leadership of a small group of disciples; his final ascension (in TV terms, in a glowing white light). Even the piercing of his side by Locke/Man In Black was in the part of his body where Christ was speared while in agony on the crucifying cross.

Jack as Christ-figure? Well, let’s take a look: there are a lot of points of contact between the two.

Jack Shephard	Jesus Christ
Jack Shephard	The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11)
Led a “flock” of survivors	Led a group of disciples (Mk 3:13-19)
Doctor	Healer
Obedient to Jacob’s will	Obedient to His Father’s will (Jn 5:19)
Drank from Jacob’s cup	Drank the cup of wrath (Lk 22:42)
Defeated evil (Man in Black)	Defeated evil (Col 2:15)
Wounded in side	Wounded in side (Jn 20:27)
Descended to depths of cave to save island	Descended to lower places (Eph 4:9-10)
Gave his life to save the survivors	Gave His life to save the world (Mk 10:45)

Still, others are unconvinced – and for good reason.

Joe Carter is both insightful and skeptical:

Although the show’s creators recognize the value in having a Christ-figure, they fail to understand the significance and purpose of the actual figure of Christ. They’ve seen the archetype used in movies (e.g., Neo in The Matrix) and literature (e.g., Simon in the Lord of the Flies) and assumed that merely having a Christ-figure in the story was enough to tap into a Jungian collective unconscious. But because they fail to appreciate how the death of Christ affects the metanarrative of history, they do not realize how their Christ- figure is supposed to affect the narrative of their own plot.

To phrase it differently, Jack’s resemblance to Christ falls short when you take into consideration the overarching story of the show. To favorably call the show a Christian allegory is to ignore some major areas where Christian theology differs quite remarkably.

(1) THE BIG PICTURE

The show’s overarching story bears more resemblance to Manichaism than Christianity. Manicahaism was an ancient belief system (developed out of Gnosticism) that held among its tenets:

(a) there was an eternal struggle between the good powers of light and the evil powers of darkness

(b) God and the Devil were essentially two sides in this cosmic struggle

Sound familiar? Dualism is antithetical to Christianity, because God has no opposite. There is no “cosmic struggle,” only a story of a Creator passionately pursuing His wayward creation.

(2) THE NATURE OF EVIL

The show’s dualistic focus also minimizes the nature of evil. On the island, no one’s past really matters. The island itself is said to restrain evil in some way (recall the whole “cork” analogy), but this hardly seems to make sense given the presence of evil already in the world (and on the island, for that matter).

Reformed theology uses the term “total depravity” to refer to man. Far from the notion of tabula raza or “blank slate” psychology (to which the show makes explicit reference in the second episode of the first season), total depravity emphasizes the universal nature of human sin. Evil and injustice are not merely problems “out there,” but stem from our fundamental, flawed humanity.

Joe Carter says that while LOST “replicates” Christian themes, the show

“is unable to connect them because of an inadequate concept of sin. . . . The result is that the two primary deus ex machinas of Lost are rendered irrelevant: Where there is no sin there is no need for either Christ or purgatory.”

Which leads us naturally to the issue of…

(3) REDEMPTION AND JUSTICE

The show has consistently emphasized redemption. But in so doing it has often downplayed justice. The darkness of characters’ pasts are seen, but ultimately washed over. Even Ben Linus, who for a time been the show’s greatest villain, is ultimately honored as the “number two” to Hurley (the new “Jacob”).

To return to Carter’s statement, it is because if there is no real issue of sin and depravity, than redemption is nothing more than a question of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately. Jack’s sacrifice ultimately means little more than survival, far from the transformative nature of Christ’s sacrifice through the cross.

POSITIVES

But I don’t want to appear negative. I strongly caution against inappropriately applying Christian terminology, but that doesn’t mean there are not some general themes of the show that should go overlooked.

The need for redemption. Characters are broken. And they know they’re broken. I think many in the audience feel the same, and perhaps feel a need for a Jack Shephard of their own.
The virtue of self-sacrifice. “Greater love has no man than he who lays his life down for his friends” (Jn 15:13). Sacrificing oneself for others is indeed a Christian virtue. The sacrifices of Jack, Charlie and Sayid can rightly be named as honorable.
Hope. It’s not just a buzz word from the last election, but a powerful theme that ran throughout the series. It was a persistent belief in something greater, and a profound, often desperate hope that one day the survivors could find rescue. And even the scenes of the “afterlife” show a yearning for peace, reconciliation and for something greater to await us at the end of all things.

The afterlife is also an issue that needs further discussion, and so tomorrow we’ll turn our focus to issues of the afterlife and world religions, two issues raised in the show’s finale.