Man Of Steel (of Nazareth?)

With six months until opening day, the studio released a new poster for the Man of Steel this week.  It's a very striking image, and not at all how we're accustomed to seeing Superman.  Ryan over at the Signal Watch, who has forgotten more about Superman than I'll ever know, made some interesting observations about the choice of this image.

If there's an image that maybe can turn the perception of Superman on its ear, its the image of Superman in shackles surrounded by the minions of authority figures.  It plays on a lot of ideas - not the least of which is that we automatically root for the misunderstood good guy (see Batman, Spider-Man, etc...), and we love to distrust and look down on the nitwits in positions of power - in the 80's it might have been corporate tycoons, but these days it seems "the guvernmint". 

If a rockstar, rapper or actor gets street cred from trouble with the law, why not a Man of Steel?  In a lot of ways, it makes far more sense, and it does go to Superman's roots.  He can't have started as a duly deputized agent of the cops and friend to law everywhere.  Is this the image that brings relevancy back to The Man of Steel for the pop culture pundits? Dark in tone as well as content, no smile, no circus-performer suit and the outsider status clearly front and center...  it's like pop culture pundit catnip. 

I think he's right, but for me the poster also evokes powerful Christian imagery.  The picture of Superman, who is essentially a God, humbled and led away in handcuffs, draws to mind the image of Jesus's arrest, trial, and ultimately his redemptive sacrifice. As a Christian, I confess I find this appealing, but Superman-Christian allegories, while not a huge stretch, tend to be way overstated.  I think Superman's story is probably more Jewish, anyway.  Did the producers have this in mind?  I doubt it, but who knows? Either way, it's a great marketing ploy that will create lots of buzz, while giving a new audience an insight into the character and perhaps an understanding of his lasting appeal.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in thecourse and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

"Silent Cal" Honors 4th of July

Address by President Calvin Coolidge for the 150th Anniversary of American Independence, July 4, 1926:

"[The Founders] preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit. ...Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man . . . are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions.  ...Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. ...We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. . . . If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things which are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshipped."

Have truer words ever been uttered?

Faith at work

A new movie being released next Friday, Feb. 23, chronicles the life and mission of William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Wilberforce was a member of parliament who was inspired by his Christian faith to bring an end to the great evil of his day - slavery. It's good to see more movies where Christian faith is not only prominently featured, but portrayed in a positive light; as the remedy to evil rather than its cause.

It also got me thinking. What is the great evil of our day? And what is our responsibility as Christians in addressing it?

Terrorism? Insurgents are killing hundreds of Iraqis every week. Worldwide, Islamic terrorists are killing thousands from Africa to Indonesia. And Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Queda are planning the death of thousands more.

Slavery? The statistics show that there are more slaves today than in 19th century! Much of the slavery is associated with the worldwide sex trade industry, and most of them are children.

Genocide? Ten years ago, 600,00 people were murdered in Rwanda. Not long after, at least 8,000 Bosnians were killed by ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Today, Islamic militias are slaughtering black Africans in Darfur (Sudan).

Abortion? 1.3 million per year in the U.S. (48 million since Roe v. Wade 1973) and 46 million per year worldwide. Thankfully, partial birth abortions were banned in 2003, but horrifying procedures such as live birth abortions are still performed in the U.S.

Good arguments could be made for all of these and other evils I haven't mentioned. But do we have responsibility beyond simply denouncing these evils? I tend to be skeptical of government as the answer to our social problems. So when Jesus spoke about giving to the poor, I don't think he intended for government to redistribute income and ensure social justice, in part because I don't believe God is interested in compelling us to act. Having said this, I do believe we have a responsibility in building communities that respect and embrace human life and human dignity. This is necessary to any civil society. And this means, in part, working through our government. So just as we create laws that prohibit murder, it follows that we ought to have laws that prohibit slavery.

So again, what is the great evil of our day? And how does our Christian faith move us to act in response? Do we pray and trust that God's justice will be served as we spread the gospel? Do we become active participants and fight if necessary to defeat evil?

Its a tough question, with thoughtful arguments on both sides. But it seems to me history as shown us that standing by as evil grows has only resulted in personal and civil ruin.

We remember William Wilberforce as a giant because his faith wouldn't allow him to stand by while evil went unchallenged.

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”

--William Wilberforce

Church of Brunch

I just read an article in First Things about a story that recently aired on NPR. The subject of the story was the Church of Brunch, a congregation of believers and atheists that leaves religion, deities, and dogma at the door and gather for a non-god-centered Sunday ceremony.

Services begin an hour before noon as the community joins in song in order to stir fire into the hearts of the non-faithful. Any song will do so long as it is inspirational, nonreligious, and has the potential to invoke full, conscious, and active participation on the part of the assembly.

On the day NPR was visiting, Cat Stevens’ classic hit from Harold and Maude, “Sing Out,” was being playfully strummed on a single guitar while what sounded like a dozen or so voices filled the air with a spirit that found itself somewhere between a campfire sing-a-long and a Steubenville Youth Conference.

Since this is an entirely nonreligious gathering, the Torah, the Qur’an, and the Bible are deemed offensive, but there is always a place for inspirational and thought-provoking readings. Whether from Shakespeare, Kerouac, or Sexton, any and all can touch the human heart in some way and remind hearers that they are alive and that something has happened, something is happening, or something will probably happen in the future. And if anyone in the assembly feels called to offer some reflections on the reading, such contributions are most welcome and appreciated.

Quiet contemplation comes next. After hearing the word and allowing it to be broken open within the community, silence is needed to allow the word to penetrate the hearts of the non-faithful. Of course, as with any Sunday service, silence is easy for some and difficult for others, but, in the end, the community is better off after three or four minutes of quiet.

Finally, the community is just about ready to approach the table of fellowship—but not until they first raise their heads and join together in a Johnny Cash number. Seeing that his most recent albums have been coated in religious imagery and metaphor, reaching back into the vault and flat-picking a hearty version of “Folsom Prison Blues” is deemed more appropriate. After the song, there is the traditional sign of peace, and then it’s time to break bread.

There's nothing like singing "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die," sharing a sign of peace, and then sitting down to a vegan potluck with your brothers and sisters in brunch.

Isn't there something just sad about all this? When I read this, all I see are lost and broken people, like all of us, trying desperately to find a sense of meaning and community. Unfortunately, they are determined to keep God out, so their search is a hopeless one. What do words mean, or songs inspire if there is no hope or truth? Where is the meaning in a world where humans are simply animals whose only reason for being is reproduction? And intelligence, conciousness, and creativity are simply to tools to ensure this? If so, what community can there be besides the herd? Why look for hope if we are no more valuable to the universe than cockroaches?

I see people wrestling with the innate longing in their souls to be in relationship with their creator. I see them reaching toward the sky for meaning. I see God with his arms open wide. And I see people turning away, looking instead for something that isn't there, choosing themselves and this world over Him.

What is a Christian?

This is the question that I always thought had an easy answer. I was reminded of it Wednesday night during the debate with Marcus Borg. The first time I realized that my answer to this question was not universally acknowledged was a year ago during the first Socratic Club debate I ever attended. The question being debated was borrowed from Karl Marx, “Is religion the opiate of the masses?” Dr. Paul Metzger of Multnomah Biblical Seminary was debating Dr. Susan Shaw, professor of women’s studies at OSU. Dr. Shaw opened my eyes to a whole new vision of Jesus that exists in the world. Her view represents, of course, a small minority of Christians worldwide, but a growing number of people in academia.

You see, I had always assumed that the definition of a Christian was fairly objective (silly I know, Mr. Post-modern); that while there may be differences in doctrine among various denominations, or between Protestants and Catholics, ultimately there were certain essential beliefs that characterized Christians as a unique group of people. Apparently I was wrong. However, in order to see how I was wrong, let’s look at what (generally) defines a Christian.

I would define a Christian as someone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (the God of Abraham and his descendents), sent to earth to die for our sins in order to reconcile our broken relationship God, and that through faith in Christ, we have the hope of eternal salvation. A Christian may also be rightly characterized as someone who believes in the trinity, that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Christian believes that the Holy Bible is the word of God (or inspired word) and that no other documents may be regarded as scripture (Q, Gospel of Thomas, Book of Mormon, etc).

Truthfully, I do not know if this definition has any historical precedent. Perhaps there has always been a broader definition.

In contrast to this, the Jesus seminar, some progressive main line churches, and others believe something quite different. Dr. Borg and Dr. Shaw both call themselves Christians, but so far as I know, hold none of the above beliefs. They do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, nor do they believe that Jesus thought he was the Son of God, or even God in flesh. They do not believe he was sent by God to die for the redemption of our sins. Some do not even believe he was really crucified. Dr. Shaw explained that the crucifixion was an invention by the patriarchal culture’s male death obsession. They do not believe in the second coming, or they believe that it’s already happened. They do not see the gospels as accurate portrayals of Christ’s life, but rather as poetic and more often than not, metaphorical narratives.

This, of course, begs the question, “What do they believe? Unfortunately, it’s much easier to talk about what they don’t believe than what they do believe. Not only are their beliefs (in my opinion) complicated and vague, but there is virtually no universal agreement, even among the Jesus seminar folks themselves. Dr. Shaw describes Jesus as the ultimate example of human potential, and this made him holy. Borg sees God as “the encompassing Spirit in whom we live and move and have our being.” Jesus was fully human person who had a unique capacity to be filled with God’s spirit, and in him, “we see the incarnation of God.” These descriptions are only pieces of what they believe and do not ably describe the whole of their beliefs. Borg has authored a number of books that articulate his viewpoint, and that of the Jesus seminar.

So……what is a Christian? Is there a description that most people can agree on? Are there necessary characteristics that define Christians? Can people with such progressive and radical views of Jesus rightly be called Christians? Is it intolerant to say “no”? And finally, as we try to spread the gospel to a world with modern sensibilities, how broad of a position can we take for the sake of inclusiveness and still maintain our identity?

The Return of the Borg

Wednesday night (3/7) the OSU Socratic Club held debate/discussion between OSU professor Dr. Marcus Borg and Dr. Brad Harper of Multnomah Biblical Seminary. The topic discussed was “How different views of Jesus affect the church’s engagement of culture.” Harper holds an orthodox view of Jesus, whereas Borg has a more progressive view, as outlined by the Jesus Seminar. The debate was quite good and sometimes began to go over my head as they delved deep into a number of theological issues. This debate would have been very much at home with a room full of seminary students. However, if I had to distill their arguments into a few essential points, it would be that Borg believes that the traditional view of Jesus is too temporal and consequently results in his followers neglecting this world in favor of the next. In contrast, Harper, while acknowledging this point, found Borg’s more material view too lacking in its capacity to offer hope and redemption. The debate was far more substantive than I can justly communicate, but I believe this was the essence of the discussion.

Borg invoked images from the Left Behind novels to illustrate his point about traditional views of Jesus and the culture, citing “almost pornographic images of violence.” Borg describes this viewpoint as “warlike.” Essentially he is saying that if this world doesn’t matter, then why bother caring about the environment? Why try to end suffering? Why seek justice for the oppressed? He believes that the “Kingdom of God” was intended to be here on Earth rather than in Heaven. Harper admitted that the church has sometimes been neglectful in its zeal to save souls while ignoring their material needs, but that Borg’s view Jesus is too focused in the present (and in the material), not taking a long term view toward Jesus and that the consequences of this were important. As one might expect, they disagreed on the role of scripture in this subject; Borg favoring a looser interpretation, Harper a more literal interpretation.

There were two key points during the debate that offered good discussion. The first occurred as Harper was articulating the idea of God and Man in one person. Harper characterized this as “a mystery,” and that as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, it is not the “how” that matters, but the “who.” Borg responded to this with kind of a low blow, saying that he was biased against “unintelligible” views of Jesus. Harper countered by pointing out that the traditional view of Jesus was no more “unintelligible” than Borg’s view that Jesus is not God, but a fully human “spirit person,” in whom we see the incarnation of God.

The other good moment came toward the end of the debate when Borg tried to make Harper squirm by pressing him to acknowledge that evangelicals see Jesus as the only way to salvation. This is an unpopular view in the world today because it is seen as exclusionary and simple. Borg believes that there are many paths to God and/or salvation among what he calls the “enduring religions,” whether it be Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed. Harper handled Borg’s advance with class and conviction, not shying away from traditional Christian doctrine, but also acknowledging God’s sovereignty over our world and its people.

Despite Borg’s simplistic, generalized view of evangelicals, it seems to me that Harper represents a growing number of evangelicals, who acknowledge the good and bad of the church’s past, who do not demand a certain type of government or political point of view, and profess that living the gospel is as important as preaching the gospel

Attack of the Borg!

For those of you that are interested:

The Oregon State University Socratic Club will feature a debate on the topic, "Who Is Jesus?" at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, in the Austin Auditorium of LaSells Stewart Center on the OSU Campus. Speakers are Dr. Marcus Borg, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion, and Dr. Gary Ferngren, Professor of History, both of Oregon State.

The debate will explore orthodox and revisionist views of Jesus, with the two speakers presenting widely divergent opinions. The discussion will focus on how we know about Jesus, the difference between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and how Jesus shapes faith today.

Marcus Borg is a member of the Jesus Seminar and the author of more than a dozen books, including Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.

Gary Ferngren has written extensively on medicine and healing in early Christianity and is the editor of Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

The meeting is free and open to the public.

The Socratic Club is beginning its fourth year at OSU as a student organization. It is modelled on the original Socratic Club, which was founded at Oxford University in 1941 by C. S. Lewis to provide an open forum for the discussion of issues that divide Christians and non-Christians. At OSU the Club presents opposing points of view on subjects of contemporary debate related to the Christian faith. Each speaker is given 25 minutes to present one side of an issue, after which the two discuss their differences, before opening the floor to questions from members of the audience. Two events are planned for each quarter. For more information phone 602-3661 or see http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socratic.

Call me if you want to go. 928-1145

The Cross in film

I went to see Kingdom of Heaven last Friday. As you might guess from the title and the topic, it deals (however shallow) with the issue of Christianity. Strangely enough, the last two movies I saw before this one also take time to portray Christianity.

Sin City - I was the minority voice of those I attended this movie who thought the movie was awful. The visuals are cool, but that wears off after about ten minutes into the movie. Dialogue that one can accept in a comic book just sounds silly when real actors are speaking. The movie is overly violent (in fact, the violence is supposed be an art form itself), there' s plenty of skin (mainly boobs), and there is no character worth rooting for (with the possible exception of Hartigan). But to my point: the only religious (Christian, of course) characters in the movie are not only bad, but sadistic and evil. By the time our hero kills and maims his way through solving the mystery of his lover's murder, we find that a Cardinal was responsible for allowing and encouraging one of his own to murder hookers, eat them, and mount their heads on a wall like deer. Christianity is portrayed not better, nor equal to other characters/ideas/themes, but far worse.

Amityville Horror - Now I went to see this on one of those nights where you just want to see something in the theater. I didn't expect much and I wasn't disappointed. Turns out, the reason the house is so bad is because its haunted by the spirit of a 17th century Puritan preacher who performed sadistic and evil experimentation and torture on native americans to punish or convert them; I'm not sure (I think they teach something similar to this in high school history curriculums to describe Columbus' discovery of America). So it turns out that all the sick, psychotic things that happen to this family are because of a Christian preacher. It gets better though. In one scene, after the wife goes to the local parish to enlist the hope of the church, the priest, scared to death runs out of the house, hops in his car and bails on the family. Neither the church nor God has any power over or comfort from evil. Nice.

Kingdom of Heaven - Christian faith in this film is portryaed primarily in the form of zealots, a cruel priest, and a cowardly and cynical church father. Any theology described is usually negative, except that which bucks church doctrine and offers instead a sort of mushy new age alternative that is scarcely recognizable as Christian. The Muslims don't get the same treatment, but rather, they are portrayed as more just and merciful (which is hard to avoid since Saladin really was an admirable advesary). The main character, Balian, struggles (of course) with his faith, but manages to get up at the end of the film and preach a sort of modern hollywood sermon about tolerance.

While my take on these movies is seen through the lens of my particular worldview (which happens to be Christian), I don't think its a stretch to say that Christians theology is held in low regard if not with outright hostility in our popular culture.

What a burden....

This past Monday night, I attended debate of sorts on campus over the topic "Does Christian Morality Pose Threat to Society?" The speakers were Dr. Kenneth Funk, a professor in industrial and manufacturing engineering here at OSU and J.P. Morray, an author and lawyer that lives in Corvallis.

Morray is a self-proclaimed unabashed atheist. Obviously his presentation supported the question that was the topic. He is also, I discovered , a marxist, an admirer of the Soviet system, as well a supporter of all the communist revolutionaries that the Soviets supported (the Sandinistas, for example). In addition, he worked for Fidel Castro at one time. The guy is in his mid to late 80s I'm guessing.

The debate was OK. The question alone puts the Christian side on the defensive and given the location (a college campus), and the audience, the onus was clearly on Dr. Funk to defend Christianity for its many alleged abuses. The debate wasn't really the most interesting thing; the advocation of marxism is just tired and I don't think anyone in the audience took it seriously. Morray even went so far as to claim that the world would get better if left to marxist ideals because man himself has an innate goodness and potential to solve all the worlds problems. Please.

No, the most interesting thing to me was a group of 7-10 people who sat near the front. Many of them were family and/or supporters of Dr. Morray, including his wife. I was found myself watching these people during the debate because of their very apparent visible contempt for Christianity, Christians, the political right, and the Republican party (they didn't differeniate between any of these). Repeatedly, while Dr. Funk spoke and answered questions, members of this group would vigorously shake their heads, role their eyes, sigh in exasperation, verbally mock and interrupt. Some of this was suttle, some was not. What occured to me aside from their lack of manners, was the absolute loathing these people carry around. When Dr. Funk mentioned President Bush as a possible example of Christian hypocrisy (along with Bill Clintion), you would have thought Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler walked in the room fresh after killing children.

Now, I know a lot of people dislike Christianity. OK fine. But the people I watched support a system that has done nothing except abuse humanity. However, it also occured to me that these people, who were all over the age of 40, are a remnant of people who are on their way out. Most demongraphics I have seen show that today's generations are far more spiritual and open-minded about the possibility of God.

What burden to carry around such hatred. Is this because their belief system precludes the possibility of a better world? My feeling is that anything that places faith in human beings is bound to fail. I think they realize that deep down. I would be grumpy too if thought this world was as good as it gets.