A Church for the Outcasts

I am writing this article on Christmas Day from the family violence shelter where I work . When I’ve told people I would be working the morning of Christmas Day, many have made comments about how unfortunate that is. And while it is true that it would be nice to spend actual Christmas morning with my own family, I also do not have many regrets about working today. As I pass by our clients this morning and wish them a Merry Christmas, I am reminded that it is so easy for our society to neglect those on the margins.

I was recently discussing with one of my colleagues how we don’t get many requests at Family Abuse Center for presentations during December. I joked it was because no one wanted to think about depressing things like domestic violence and abuse during this time of year that is filled with lights, carols, and cookies. But, I believe there is some truth to that comment. And perhaps we should do more reflection on these topics, especially at this time of year.

The truth is not everyone can celebrate the holidays with their families, and some don’t even have families to celebrate with. The mothers and women at our shelter here won’t be spending their Christmas with parents, siblings, or other relatives. Some of them don’t even have any real family to speak of.

And yet, I am observing something beautiful this morning. Although placed in less than ideal circumstances, these women and children are becoming family to each other. They are joking and laughing with each other. Kids are playing with new toys thanks to the generosity of countless community members who donated gifts this year. We even busted out Legos and games for the adult clients to play with.

And I’m reminded that this perhaps is a better reflection of Christmas than all the lights, sights, and smells. Christmas is not about spending time with family, per se. It’s about a King who called us all together as family. It’s not about gifts or shiny trinkets, it’s about a Savior who was born for the lowly, poor, and broken.

As we begin this new year, I pray that the church would remember this truth. As she marches out from Christmas, may her feet find themselves situated in the footsteps of a Lord who remembered the outcasts of this world. May she love the loveless and downtrodden. And may Christians not just do these things when it is convenient for us, but also when it costs us something. May we have the mind of Christ every day of the year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

The Coming Moral Test

The next few days and weeks will be a test for Americans, and particularly for those Americans who claim to follow Jesus. On Tuesday morning, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a 525 page summary of a much longer report on the abuses and interrogations of prisoners by the CIA. In short, the report illuminates the horrendous interrogation methods employed by the CIA. Furthermore, the report claims that the CIA misrepresented its actions and failed to glean any useful information from torturing its prisoners. You can read the executive summary here.

Even before the report was released there has been intense debate over the tactics and the release of the report. Three key areas of debate include whether releasing the report will endanger American lives overseas, whether or not the "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be considered "torture" and violated human rights treaties, and whether or not the "techniques" yielded any useful or accurate information in the war on terror.

The main "techniques" used in "enhanced interrogation" were water-boarding (near drownings), keeping prisoners naked and wet in cold cells for hours at a time, sleep deprivation (up to 180 hours), forcing prisoners to stand for hours on end, shaking prisoners violently, "wallings" (throwing them into a wall), and various slaps. The report also outlines how prisoners were threatened with a power drill,  sexually threatened with a broomstick, had their families threatened, forced to sit in ice baths, or forced to experience "rectal rehydration." Some results of these actions, according to the report, included convulsions, hallucinations, vomiting, and even death.

What grieves me as a Christian is how we as a nation seem so reluctant to admit that these types of actions are wrong. In all of the debate and discussion today, there was really no question that these events and interrogations took place. That much is certain. Rather, the debate heard on the airwaves and internet was over whether or not these actions were "legal" and whether or not they produced useful information that saved lives. For those of us who are Christians, this should deeply worry us, particularly if we claim to have any moral authority at all.

At the point where there is no longer a question over whether these interrogations took place or not, we should not even be asking whether they produced useful information in fighting terrorism. That is an irrelevant point. The ends cannot justify the means. To try and minimize the evil of what took place by saying that we gleaned information that saved lives is to walk down an immoral path blinded by pragmatism. Once we open that box, we invite in all kinds of other evils. As the people of God, we must firmly stand behind the Biblical (and, in this case, Constitutional) affirmation that all human life is valuable and carries at least a glimmer of the image of God. Therefore, all such cruelty done to others, even to our enemies in the name of "national security" is unethical and immoral.

Some might say that this is a necessary compromise in times of war (like killing innocent civilians in drone strikes), but to admit it is "compromise" or a "necessary evil" is still to admit that the action is evil and falls short of the vision for the Kingdom of God.

And so I hope that in the coming days Christians in America will rise up, denounce the torture, and say "never again!" But honestly, I'm not holding my breath. I'm not expecting that response because I also know that most American Christians are also blinded by American culture. I know that many American Christians obey the narratives and values of the empire of the USA rather than the Good News and ethics of the Kingdom of God ,to which they should be swearing their primary allegiance.

And since this is true, most American Christians will continue to value American lives as more important than the lives of others around the world. We will resist releasing all the details of the report because it might endanger "American lives." We will find nonsensical ways to justify the abuse and torture because destroying the lives of those prisoners doesn't really matter as long as we can maybe save some American lives. We will not only reject the claim of the Founding Fathers that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," but we will also reject our Scriptures and our Savior which declare that God created humanity in His image and call us to "love our enemy."

Are we really so morally blind and bankrupt as to dance around the truth of what actually happened?

Yes, a moral test is coming, but I fear the American church will fail. Kyrie Eleison.

Do I Fast?

I was recently asked by a friend whether or not I fast. After looking at her oddly since the question seemed to come out of nowhere, I answered that I do sometimes fast. She then asked me what I thought about fasting. My short answer to her was that I don't fast because it is somehow the "holy" thing super-Christians do, or because I am trying to get something from God. I choose to fast when I feel I have no other choice with which to respond to particular moments in life. In other words, I fast when it seems to be the natural response.

My theology of fasting has been greatly shaped by the work of Scot McKnight. I really began to develop a deeper understanding of this ancient Christian practice when reading his book on fasting from The Ancient Practices Series. In McKnight's words, fasting "is the natural, inevitable response of a person to a grievous sacred moment in life [emphasis mine]."

As he explains, biblical fasting begins with an encounter of a "grievous sacred moment." It is this experience that prompts a person to fast. A person responding to such events only receives benefits after they respond to a prior event (and even then blessings are not guaranteed to always happen). McKnight consistently argues that the reaped benefits are not the point of fasting. We do not fast in order to get closer to God, to change our circumstances, or to get our prayers answered (although these things often do happen when we fast). Rather, we fast because we feel led to do so by our circumstances. We fast because it seems like the natural reaction to particular moments in our lives.

So, yes I do fast, but only when I feel like it is natural for me to do so. I fast during those "grievous sacred moments." A loved one dies. A friend is sick. My ministry faces challenges and frustrations. A church is divided by conflict. A country is burdened by bloodshed and war. These are the moments when I fast. I fast because my soul grieves. I fast because my body does not feel the desire to eat. I fast because I need more than bread in those times--I need the words of God.

I feel like fasting has always danced an awkward tango with the evangelical church. I've heard many evangelical leaders praise and demand fasting because "it is the only way to get close to God or to see your prayers answered" (which, as I just stated above, is not the real purpose of fasting). At the same time, I get the feeling that most evangelical Christians don't really know what to do with fasting or don't really know why they should do it. They get the impression that it is a "holy" experience they should do, but they don't know why and tend to avoid it because it seems too ancient or odd.

I think a large reason we evangelicals don't get fasting is because we've divorced the "body" and the "soul." We think the "real" part of us is our soul, which we think will fly off to heaven one day, leaving our body behind. In contrast, fasting is an act very solidly rooted in bodily experience. Why practice fasting when I can't really see how this bodily act will impact my soul, the "true me"?

However, once we realize the error of this thinking then we can better appreciate the practice of fasting. We are more than a soul. We are soul and body. These two cannot be divided or separated. This is the whole point of the promise of the resurrection. One day, God will restore our bodies back to us. Our bodies do matter, and what we do in these bodies matters as well because bodily practices do impact the spirit. They are united.

So, yes I do fast, and it probably wouldn't hurt if you did too. However, don't fast in order to get something. Don't fast to manipulate God into blessing you or answering your prayers. Instead, fast when life demands it. Fast when you encounter those "grievous sacred moments." Fast when you are in pain. Fast when you are surrounded by death and suffering. Fast when your prayers seem to go unanswered and you feel abandoned by God. Doing so brings our body into harmony with what our soul is experiencing. So, the next time pain and tragedy smack you in the face, don't censor your body, but allow it to suffer as well and open yourself to the healing and grace found in Christ.

Demons in America

No, this is not a blog post about a new horror movie. If that's what you were expecting, I'm sorry to disappoint you (although I feel like "Demons in America" would make a good title for a horror-comedy film.)

No, I'm talking about real demons in real life. In our "enlightened" culture this topic does not come up too often, at least not in meaningful ways. On the one hand, with the overall decline of organized religion and the growth of science and modern empiricism, one would expect Americans to completely discount the concept of demons as beings that truly exist. However, interestingly enough, a nationally representative study done by the Baylor Department of Sociology found a couple years ago that 67% of Americans either "absolutely" or "probably" believe in demons. Another survey found that 57% of Americans believe a person can become "possessed by demons."

Now, much of this belief is probably more influenced by modern horror films than by any biblical understanding. Such a belief is likely comparable to how many people also believe in ghosts or other evil powers. However, the stats get even more interesting when we look at American Christians in particular.

According to a study done by the Barna Group nearly 60% of American Christians do not really believe that Satan is a "living being," but merely believe that Satan is just a "symbol of evil." Confusingly, though, 64% of American Christians stated they believe a person can come "under the influence" of spiritual forces such as demons.

This apparent inconsistency seems to speak of the particular social situation of American Christians. We follow a book that plainly declares demons are real and claims demons oppress and possess people and interfere with human affairs. However, to actually believe there are real spiritual creatures out there causing havoc in the world does not seem to line up with our scientific, modern worldview. Therefore, most Christians probably opt for agreeing that there are "spiritual" forces out there, but stop short of admitting these forces are actual creatures. Maybe they're just symbolic.

Overall, I find that most people I encounter don't operate with a sense that demons are real and active in the world, at least not on a daily basis. As one of my former professors used to joke, "We don't believe in demons in America because they can't get past customs." For most Americans, even those who claim to believe in spiritual forces, we don't go around expecting to encounter demons around us.

I suspect again that this is largely due to Hollywood. We've been tricked into thinking that demons are grotesque creatures who manifest themselves in horrendous, obvious ways. If a person is possessed, we expect them to have their head twist in a circle or their mouth to elongate into a gaping maw filled with razor sharp teeth. Those are our images of demon possession. And if that is what we expect, of course we will never encounter demons in America.

At the same time, there are many Americans who simply dismiss the concept of demons as "superstitious." Satan and demons are merely symbols for evil, mental illness, human temptations, etc. After all, we are a scientific society. We know there is no such thing as supernatural beings. Everything in the universe has a rational explanation.

But I do believe there are demons out there. I do believe that unseen forces seek to destroy humans and create chaos. Why do I believe this? Because it seems Jesus did. Even if we chalk up many of the "demon possessed" whom Jesus healed to people afflicted by mental illness or epilepsy, I still can't discount how Jesus operated His ministry with the belief that Satan was real and that He was in fact battling unseen forces. Furthermore, my wife and I have had too many experiences in our lives that demonstrate to us that there is more to the world than what I can see with my eyes or that I can study with scientific equipment.

But, if demons are real, what do they look like in America? For one, I guarantee they are not parading around in the clothes of Hollywood. As CS Lewis pointed out in The Screwtape Letters, a lack of belief in demons can be just as unhealthy as an unwarranted fear of demons. We as Americans tend to fall into the trap of ignorance and lack of belief. And, if this is unhealthy, then why would demons try to make themselves known? If they can keep their work hidden from our blind eyes, then it makes sense they would keep a low profile.

Which brings me to my main point. What does "demon possession" look like in modern America? I don't think it can be seen by heads twisting or fangs growing. I don't even think it can often be noticed by a person's voice becoming deep and gravelly. Rather, I think one of the key markers of demonic activity in America is irrational self-destruction. When a person or group seems to march toward their own demise and does so against all sense of reason and logic, I think many times there is probably demonic influence.

For instance, a former professor of mine once told the story of a woman seeking counseling from him while he was a pastor. She had done some horrible things in her past, things that people should regret. At this stage of the counseling, he wanted her to move on past describing her sins. However, she kept insisting on telling every grisly detail and almost seemed to delight in the retelling. Even when he kept telling her to stop she kept persisting. Finally, when he stood up to walk away, she grabbed his arm as if she wanted to force him to stay and listen to her boast about her evil.

It is that kind of irrational behavior that seems to be indicative of demonic activity here in the US. Now, let me be clear, I DO NOT want to ignore mental illness or modern medicinal science. These are both necessary fields of study. Those diagnosed with mental illnesses should be treated or medicated as needed. However, when a person with a mental illness engages in a mass shooting, I can't help but think that demons were present as well. After all, just the mental illness itself does not seem to be a full explanation. Many people with the same mental illness don't turn violent or commit murderous atrocities.

When people choose the path of self-destruction, this is anti-creational activity, and is likely the work of those who oppose the Creator. Furthermore, pursuing this path while ignoring any rational thought also seems to be indicative. When people take an action that is clearly absurd and leaves us scratching our heads when we step back from the situation, it should be a clue to us.

Demons may be at work when an institution continues to oppress a minority group, even though every sign indicates it does so to its detriment. Or when a man makes up ridiculous rumors to oust a faithful pastor, even though he knows it will cause a church split or church death. Or when a woman persists in her drug use and even brags about the addiction, even though she knows it is wrong and it will kill her. When a person finds themselves hating or being envious of a friend with no clear reason; the feelings just seem to appear "out of nowhere."

The longer I live, the more situations I see that go beyond rational explanation. We can try to offer as many scientific or psychological reasonings as we want, but in the end, there is too much I see that cannot be explained away. There are many cases when it appears there is an unseen force gently prodding individuals and institutions toward their own demise.

Again, let me reiterate, it is foolish for us to go on witch-hunts or to see Satan hiding behind every bush and corner! There are many things that CAN be explained by science and psychology. Furthermore, identifying evil is rarely an easy task. As NT Wright has stated, "evil is nameless, and slimy, and formless and seeps in other places [we do not expect.]" The moment we try to label something as "demonic" or the work of Satan is often the moment that evil jumps out from a different direction completely or even rears its head in us.

In conclusion, I don't advocate forming exorcism teams to seek out and destroy demons in your community. Evil is slippery and such efforts often further the cause of evil by attacking the innocent. However, we should not be naive and think that we live in a demon-free world. Demons are real and present, and they are at work. And, having seen the effect of these forces in my own life, in my community, and in my church, this realization prompts me to turn all the more to God in prayer. As I find in the example of Jesus, the only way to push back the darkness in lives and institutions around us is to "bind the strong man" (Mk. 3:27) through prayer and reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit. If evil does exist, and if it seeks to undo God's creation, then the people of God must join together in unity to pray for God to show up as our warrior and King who has defeated evil on the cross and who is the rightful King of this world.

"This is My Father's world
oh let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong
God is the Ruler yet!"

Missing the heart of the matter...again

The debate surrounding the death of Michael Brown is still raging. Tempers have flared on both sides and many opposing points have been thrown into the arena. I have had many thoughts throughout this ordeal, but have refrained from posting most of them. However, as I continue to watch reactions and comments from my white friends, I feel a need to point out that most whites (particularly white Christians) have missed the heart of the matter.

When this tragedy and the subsequent protests first began, I blogged and made a prediction about how most white Americans would react (read it here). Towards the end I predicted that  "many whites will minimize or dismiss charges of racism" and that this would be the most common response for white Americans to Ferguson. In particular, I noted that these same people would prefer to focus on the rightness or wrongness of police action.

Sadly, the 2 weeks that have passed since that blog have proved me more or less correct. As I scan my Facebook feed, more than half of the shared articles about Ferguson from my white friends follow this trajectory. Most of these articles amount to defaming the character of Michael Brown and attempting to defend Officer Wilson's choice to use deadly force. To summarize most of these articles--Mr. Brown stole cigars from a convenience store, was a trouble-maker, got stopped by police and assaulted this police. Officer Wilson, then fearing for his life, shot Mr. Brown to death after sustaining serious injuries to his face.

However, all of this ultimately misses what is perhaps the most important takeaway from this whole tragedy. As I mentioned in my first article, such discussion sidetracks us from more important questions. Why is the black community so upset? Why are there charges of racism every time a black teen is gunned down by police? Why are so many whites silent about this story when so many African-Americans are speaking out? Perhaps the key thing we should take away from this story is that there are still serious race issues in America. Furthermore, the black community is willing to talk about this race relation problem while the white community, by and large, is not (perhaps we can call this racist?).

So, to get back down to the bottom line: An unarmed, black teen is dead. Sadly, those articles that attack Mr. Brown's character or reputation completely ignore this point. Even if we accept the most damning account of Michael Brown's character, it still does not justify his death. If he did shoplift (an offense the responding officer supposedly did not even know about at the time), jaywalk, and assault an officer, these are still not crimes deserving of the death penalty. And even if they were, Mr. Brown still would have been entitled to due process and a trial. So, no matter what, it was AN INJUSTICE for this teen to be gunned down in the street, regardless of his character or actions.

What worries me about these articles attacking his character is that they have a nasty implication. First, it implies we do not really believe in America's justice system (and believe too strongly in violence). We do not believe in due process or human rights. If there is a criminal, we don't really care if something bad happens to them. They deserved it, right?

Or, at least we don't care if the criminal/victim is black. When we focus on the possible flaws in Mr. Brown, instead of grieving with a family affected by injustice, we unconsciously imply that the death of a black man does not really matter. We show no pain or remorse because deep down in our minds, he wasn't a person.

Which brings me back to the core issue many whites are overlooking: race relations. When many whites look at the protests and the angst among black Americans, they just shake their heads in confusion. They call the protests immature. They talk about "playing the race card" or "reverse racism." They look for stories of whites teens who were killed by police to dismiss race as an issue.

But race is the issue.

Let's step back beyond the actions of Officer Wilson. At this point, I don't care if his decision to shoot was motivated by racism or by a genuine effort to defend his life in the line of duty. I don't know the answer to that, and no one besides Officer Wilson probably will. However, in all our efforts to vindicate Officer Wilson, white Americans have ignored the ultimate reason why the black community is so upset. It's not because one single black teen was shot. It's because there is a whole system of racism that continues to work against them.

And so, the character of Michael Brown doesn't even really matter. What white Americans should have been thinking and talking about is why so many were so quick to criticize the situation. And the answer is because the death of Michael Brown is too similar to countless injustices the black community faces on a daily basis. Whites continue to have more power and influence than blacks. Whites continue to be less affected by poverty. Whites don't have to have talks with their sons about how to respond to police officers to avoid confrontation. Whites don't get stopped by police and searched for no good reason. White men don't worry about being viewed as suspicious simply because of the color of their skin. The black community isn't upset just because one teen got killed. They aren't upset because they are trying to be racist back to whites. They are upset because this death carries too many echoes of continuing racism and the white community persists in ignoring racism altogether.

So going forward I pray that my white friends and readers will stop criticizing Michael Brown or attempting to defend Officer Wilson. Instead, I pray they would do two things. First, I hope they will offer sympathy and grief to a family and neighborhood who lost a teen, remembering that this death was an injustice no matter the exact circumstances.

Second, I pray that more white will pause to ask why many black Americans are so upset. Withhold judgment and protest and instead listen. Listen to the countless stories of profiling, discrimination, suffering, and racism. Racism may not be as blatant as 60 years ago, but it is still very present. Our blindness to racism may not be a willful blindness, but it is a blindness nonetheless. The worst thing whites can do is minimize it or ignore it. For, if we continue to ignore it, there will only be more Michael Browns and more protests.

Warring Issues in Ferguson

Racism or Militarized Police?

These are the two main issues at stake in the protests and riots currently occurring in Ferguson, MO. I am no policy expert, and I am not a reporter on the scene, but I do feel like this news story may prove interesting as far as what it reveals about the American public. In particular, how will Americans (namely white Americans) respond to these two issues.

Lesley McSpadden, Michael Brown's mother

First, there is the complaint that racism is still at work. As the argument goes, Michael Brown was unfairly targeted and shot to death more or less because he was black, not because he deserved it. Had Michael been a white teen, he would have escaped with his life--if he had been troubled by police at all. This side of the story is very similar to the case of Trayvon Martin a couple of years back.

When the Trayvon Martin case was in the news, we basically saw white Americans take two different sides. There were those who sided with the black community and demanded justice because they felt Trayvon had been killed simply for the color of his skin. Then, there were others who more or less defended George Zimmerman. They questioned whether Trayvon was truly innocent and they attacked the idea that his character that night was spotless. They defended the law that allowed Zimmerman to use his gun. They denied that race had anything to do with the murder and claimed it was just certain black activists "playing the race card."

However, the problem in Ferguson is a little different. The accusation of racism does not center on a black individual and a white individual. Rather, this case centers on a black teen and an entire system. In particular, it is a system almost everyone, conservative or liberal, recognizes is probably in the wrong. While the shooting itself will likely be disputed in much the same way Trayvon's death was, the reaction of the police that followed has startled Americans. The brutal crackdown of police on protestors has left many Americans in shock.

This sets up two powerful issues that people are seeking to correct--racism and the militarization of the police. What I find interesting about this story is that those white Americans who would normally lament the overreaction of big government/police state are also the same ones who would often ignore or minimize the existence of racism in shootings like this. However, with the problems in Ferguson, we have both of these issues closely linked. It becomes much harder to condemn the use of military/police force without also simultaneously condemning the police for racism. If the police are treating ordinary citizens this harshly, is it really that hard to believe that an officer shot an unarmed teen because he was black? In both narratives the police of the city are out of line.

And so, I wonder how white Americans will react to this story. In my mind I see 3 basic reactions that will (and have begun to) occur.

First, a few white Americans will condemn both wrongs. They will admit that racism played a part in this murder and will also condemn the extreme force that was used against protestors.

Second, others will minimize the problems that exist in Ferguson. They will point out that the media has made the police reaction sound worse than it actually is (for instance). The police have not overreacted, instead the media has overreacted. Of course, this also has the effect of suggesting that the media (and blacks) have overreacted on the race issue as well.

Finally, and I suspect this will be the most popular option among whites, we will focus mostly on the militarization of the police and on big government while practically ignoring the accusations of racism that began it all. Instead, we will debate the rightness or wrongness of the police handling of the protests. Even worse, many whites will minimize or dismiss charges of racism.  I have already read of few stories and comments attacking Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for simply going to St. Louis because they want to be on camera. Yet, these same stories and comments will also ignore countless other black leaders who are calling out the racism implicit in this situation.

In my eyes, the situation in Ferguson is an excellent opportunity for white America to wake up to the reality of racism in America today. In particular, it provides a chance to examine implicit racism that may exist in law enforcement and in criminal justice systems. But most importantly, it should give us a chance to look at the racism inside each of us as well.

For instance, I am appalled by the fact that just about any adult, black male you ask can tell you stories about when they have been pulled over or stopped by police for seemingly no reason apart from the fact they are black. In fact, many of my black friends can even joke about these occurrences because they are such a common experience. But for me--the white male--I have no such experiences. I can honestly say I have never been pulled over because of the color of my skin. Not so for many of my friends and colleagues.

Racism is alive. I have seen it at work too much in central Texas. However, I guarantee it exists all over the country. Whenever we as whites assume that "white" is the default color for humanity (as most of us unconsciously do) we are giving into racism. We notice that this person is "black" or that person is "Hispanic/Asian/etc.," but we don't really notice that those like us are "white."

When the color of our skin allows us to drive around without fear of being stopped by police or being harassed about where we are going, we benefit from racism.

Whenever I wear a hoodie and don't have my character or honesty judged, I benefit from racism.

And so, I will be watching carefully as the story in Fergusson unfolds. Where will the emphasis be? What will my white friends focus on? Will they find a way to think about the police actions along with the issue of racism? Or, like usual, will we fumble through the question of race and continue ignoring ways we allow racism to live on in our country contrary to the Kingdom of God?

Scandals in the Family

In the past few days I have seen several posts on Facebook and news stories concerning the scandals and accusations surrounding Seattle pastor, Mark Driscoll. In case you missed it, a fresh round of accusations has come his way and seem to be coming to a head. Some are the same old charges of misogyny, while newer concerns have also been raised about mismanagement of church funds. The most recent revelations have led the Acts 29 network to kick Driscoll and his church, Mars Hill, out of their fellowship, Lifeway publishers to pull Driscoll's books from shelves, and church members and others to protest outside the church demanding for Driscoll's resignation.

Pastor Mark Driscoll

For a number of Christians, this news no doubt excites them. I know numerous Christians who have criticized or made fun of Driscoll because of his theological stances which they viewed to be sexist or misogynistic. I myself would tend to agree and have never been greatly impressed by Driscoll's overall demeanor. So, now that things seem to be falling apart for Driscoll and his church, it would be easy to those who have criticized Driscoll in the past to pat themselves on the back and say, "I told you so. It was just a matter of time."

But now is not the time for gloating or for seeking vindication. Rather, I think now is a time for weeping. It is becoming clearer that the ministry built by and surrounding Driscoll has not always been very ethical. In fact, this is the central reason Acts 29 gave for removing Driscoll and Mars Hill from their membership. But this is not something to celebrate.

The previous two churches I attended have experienced scandals and church splits. I can say that this is not a joyful experience. While some of us may not care for the ministry approach (or sins) of Driscoll, we cannot forget that there are many members of his church who are caught in the crossfire of these controversies. Whether their pastor resigns or simply has his credibility damaged, this congregation will suffer. And, if some of us are right in asserting that he has failed to minister in an ethical or godly way, then we should also grieve that this congregation has not been served well for years.

But even beyond grieving for this particular congregation, incidents like this should cause us to weep for the entire Church. "There is one Body." You and I are connected to Driscoll and to his ministry whether we like it or not. We serve the same Savior King. We were baptized by the same Spirit. We are part of the same Body. And so, when one minister sins, even on the other side of the country, his (or her) sin impacts us all. It damages the credibility of the Church in the eyes of the world. It hurts our brothers and sisters in Christ. And it creates a distraction from the central mission Christ has given the Church.

And so, even though I personally don't care for Driscoll, I must suppress the urge--the temptation--to gloat or celebrate. As part of the Body of Christ I need to grieve. After all, I am called to love Driscoll and his church, despite the shortcomings. So, let us grieve for this situation and seek healing and forgiveness because the love of Christ compels us to do so.

"But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it." 1 Cor. 12:24-26

Faithfulness or Ambition

I'm at an interesting point in my life right now. I finished my master's degree right at a year ago now and have thought a lot recently about future plans. At the same time, many of my friends have also recently finished their degrees and are moving on to new jobs and new cities. And yet, I am still here in Marlin working two jobs, one of them being the part-time youth pastor job I've have for 4 years now.

I would be lying if I said there weren't days when I wonder if it's time to move on and pursue a new job. After all, there are many reasons to start a new phase in my life. I could consolidate into a single (better paying) job. This would also free up time to spend with my family. I could find myself at a bigger church in a bigger town with bigger opportunities. I have a better degree than four years ago which could open up new possibilities. And, we could move closer to family to have free babysitters (aka grandparents).

However, despite all the reasons to leave, we are still here. Why?

Because I want to believe in faithful ministry. Yes, it would be easier to pack things up and seek a new, great opportunity for me and my family, but part of ministry means considering those to whom you are actually ministering. In the case of my church, my family feels a need to stick around a little longer. When I came, the church had seen 4 pastors in the previous decade and as many youth and children's pastors. Needless to say the church has grown accustomed to pastors coming and going every few years.

But I can't help but wonder if this is good. Sometimes I wonder if pastors are truly driven by God's call on their life or if they are driven more by ambition.

I suppose some could accuse me of having a lack of ambition. "Why don't you go pastor your own church? You've got a degree, do something with it! You've got so much talent, why waste it on little old Marlin?"

But I know my own heart, and the truth is I have too much ambition. I lust after those dream jobs. I dream of becoming a famous pastor, writer, teacher, etc. It's too easy for me to salivate after a community that would "actually respond". Yes, there is plenty of ambition in my heart, but I know what I also need is faithfulness.

Too many pastors are adept at the art of "church-jumping." They see an opportunity that is attractive (and just so happens to pay better as well) and find themselves resigning from their current church because "God is calling them" to such and such a church.

Now, I'm not saying that every pastor who leaves a church is like this. I believe there are many genuine calls from God to move. However, I also know it can be very easy to confuse God's voice with our own lusts, whether they be for power, prestige, or money.

Why do I stay in Marlin? Call it an experiment in faithfulness. I want to believe that God is found as much in the weak and little places as in the big and powerful places. I want to believe that amazing things can happen when we stick it out through the tough times and remain faithful. But most of all, I want to be very wary of "following my heart" before following Christ.

I'm sure one day God will call me and my family to someplace else, but when that time comes I want to make sure of a few things. I want to know for sure that it is God's voice and not simply mine, and I want to know for sure that I have done all I can do in my present location and ministry. And perhaps the American church could benefit from faithfulness like this. Maybe we as pastors need to stop bowing to the celebrity cult our churches want and bow down the the Messiah who conquered sin and death with a cross--a tool that stands for weakness, humility, and foolishness.

Hearing God's Train

I was sitting on the couch in our living room tonight while our oldest daughter was playing nearby. All of a sudden, Hadi, who will be 2 in September, said, "Train, woo, woo." It took me a second to figure out why she was making train sounds randomly. But my wife immediately knew why.

"Do you hear a train, Hadi?"
"Ya" (accompanied by a vigorous head nod)

You see, we live in a small town that has railroad tracks running through the middle of the city. Trains probably pass through our town several times every hour, blasting their horns as they run down the tracks. And, even though we live at the edge of town, you can still hear the trains' signals if you pay attention.

If you pay attention...

You see, having lived in Marlin for nearly 4 years now, I have become numb to the horns of the trains. It happens so consistently that I just block it out and rarely notice it unless it comes from a train blocking my car at an intersection. But Hadi hears them almost every time.

As my wife explained, they will frequently be playing or doing chores around the house and Hadi will suddenly stop and say "train" accompanied by her beautiful train sounds. "Woo, woo." She is paying attention.

In thinking about my daughter, I realized that this is often how I treat God's activity in the world as well. Just like the constant barrage of trains through our city, God is constantly at work in our world and in our town. He is always reaching out and moving hearts towards him.

And yet, after years in ministry and years of trying to serve Him, too often I feel I've become deaf to his activity around me. It's very easy for me to only hear silence from Him when the truth of the matter is that He is still there whispering, and maybe even shouting. I allow the daily strains of life and the busyness of the everyday to drown out His voice and blind my eyes.

But my daughter was a blessed reminder that the sound of God's train is still there. He is still moving. He is still speaking. He is still transforming. The real question is whether I will still my heart and mind for long enough to pay attention so I can join in.

"Woo, woo."

The Unasked Immigration Question

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've no doubt heard the debate over immigration heat up again in the past 2 weeks. This time the catalyst has been thousands of children crossing the border into the U.S. There have been protests and fierce arguments on both sides, but overall I continue to be disappointed by the Christian response on this issue.

Christians are talking about this issue as much as other people, and yet rarely do I hear the key question Christians should be asking: "How can we LOVE these illegal immigrants?"

Oh sure, I hear plenty of raving about how we need to tighten border security or else gangs, terrorists, and chupacabras will enter our great nation and ruin us all. I hear laments about how unchecked immigration will harm our economy and take away jobs from "deserving" Americans. I hear complaints about how these immigrants benefit from our tax dollars while we only benefit from their dirty, sweaty, cheap labor.

But I don't hear much about love.

Even worse, much of what I hear is flat out racist. In reading a recent article about those protesting against admitting the illegal children, I was struck by how their comments made these children sound like objects or property rather than people. One protester complained that we have no place to "store" illegal immigrants. Apparently we don't "house" or "shelter" immigrants, we "store" them, like a can of soup.

Or take the article I read tonight where a certain commentator ranted about how "This country belongs to us; it doesn’t belong to you ["every foreigner outside this country"]. It doesn’t belong to the 7 billion other people all over the world [emphasis mine]." I read that and didn't even know what to say, although perhaps this picture begins to get at my thoughts:

In the end, I fear few Christians are approaching this issue from the perspective of their faith. I've talked about before how many Christians claim to want a "biblical worldview," but suddenly stop thinking biblically or Christianly on certain political issues. They think the Bible and/or God doesn't have much to say so they rely on purely secular or Constitutional arguments instead (gun control, anyone?). But the reality is we must train ourselves to think in a Christian way on EVERY issue. Some issues just require more thought and work than others.

Sadly, immigration appears to be one such issue. And so, I challenge Christians to at least ask one small question which will get them closer to a Christian response on immigration: "How can I/we love illegal immigrants?"

For starters, if we ask this question it should immediately eliminate any and all racist, dehumanizing, and fear-mongering language from our speech. We cannot talk about immigrants as objects or as less than human.

Second we had better make sure the policies we advocate for treat immigrants humanly and fairly as well. I am not saying we don't need better border control (in general I am in favor of better managed borders.) However, I do seriously question the way we treat illegal aliens once they have already made it through our porous border. Sometimes it seems like we are mad they outsmarted us so we go out of our way to punish them and make their lives miserable (welcome to America). I have personally seen several individuals have their families torn apart because of the way we treat illegals who have already entered our country.

At this point, some of my more conservative readers may be thinking I am just advocating a wish-washy, fluffy idea of "just love them, man." Let me assure that is not at all what I mean by "love." When I say "love" I don't have a romantic or emotional idea in mind; I have a Christian idea in mind. And the Christian picture of love is self-sacrifice. Christian love says, "I want to see the best for you even if it costs me." Christian love says, "I would rather lay down my rights for the sake of the other than selfishly fight for and demand my own rights at your expense." Of course, Christ's view of love runs directly against the line of "this country belongs to US; it doesn't belong to you!" The opposite of love is selfishness.

I don't know what all a Christ-like immigration policy might look like, but I do know this--it will cost us. If we truly say we love immigrants, it means we will think twice before denying them a better life in our country (probably the reason why your own ancestors came to this country). It means we won't just make decisions about this topic from a distance, but will hold our tongue until we've actually seen and met the people involved. We can't have an opinion on the topic and sit passively at home. It means we will take efforts to clearly communicate to these people that they are important and valuable even if we decide to send them back to their home country. And it means we recognize the only real resource we may be running short of in this country is love for others.

So if you dislike the notion of amnesty, if you want to see closed borders, fine. But do me a favor if you are a Christian--don't dehumanize, don't put your rights above theirs, and ask yourself how you will choose to directly and sacrificially love immigrants. If you can't answer this key question about how your policies, words, and actions will show love, then please don't speak at all.

A Reflection for Lent: Evil

We stand less than two weeks from Easter and anticipation of the resurrection is growing. However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that Lent still continues until then. In my own reflections and readings during Lent I have been thinking recently about evil.

Evil is something that we often attach to others. Hitler was evil. Osama was evil. Big government is evil. Etc. This is so easy and natural for us to do. It is like breathing.

But as I journey through Lent, I am reminded that evil is not found primarily in others. Evil is also not far off. Evil lives in me. As N.T. Wright has said, "[T]he line between good and evil is never simply between 'us' and 'them.' The line between good and evil runs through each of us" (Evil and the Justice of God, 38.) Yes it is true that I have been forgiven and redeemed by Christ. Yes it is true that the Holy Spirit lives within me. But it is also true that until Christ returns, I am marred by sin and evil.

In watching the "Noah" movie this past weekend, one line from a conversation between Noah and his wife stuck in my mind. His wife was attempting to convince Noah that he and their family were basically good people. He responds by saying, "And yet, wouldn't we readily kill others to protect our children?" The fact is, when things are stripped away from us, when we feel our lives threatened, we too easily revert to those basic sinful tendencies--greed, selfishness, pride, lust, violence.

One of the things that saddens and frustrates me is the culture of anger and blame-setting I see on Facebook among other places. We as a culture are so quick to place and accuse others. Don't get me wrong, I think it is good to stand against injustice. But what I see people posting so often is inflammatory, accusatory, prideful, and (quite honestly) impulsive and ignorant. We seem to think that those who shout the loudest will be found in the right.

But what if we learned from this season and took a lesson from the cross? What if we recognized that the problem was not always in the others whom we quickly blame, but is often within ourselves? If we recognized that we don't really have much claim to the moral high ground, maybe our speech and actions would be marked with more humility.

The message of the cross is that sin and evil are real. And, it is not just a reality for "bad" people, it is a reality for ALL people. Jesus had to die for me as well as for "them." Furthermore, I am called to "take up the cross." This is not some nice metaphor for enduring hardships or sickness. It is a call to self-denial. On the cross I choose to crucify my selfish desires. I choose to sacrifice my rights for the sake of others. I choose to admit that I have sin in need of crucifying as well. May we take this message to heart during these final weeks of Lent so that when Easter comes, we can be all the more thankful that the Resurrection can overcome even an evil heart like mine.

Noah movie review blog (or novel...)

I finally saw “Noah” in theaters this weekend. I know there have been countless articles and blog posts about the movie already, but here are a few my thoughts. [Spoiler alert]

First, one of my hopes going into this movie was that seeing an interpretation of the story that relies heavily on extra-biblical sources might “break open” our own interpretation of the Noah story and help us see new aspects of it we may have missed before. Here are some ways in which I felt the movie succeeded.

1. I was reminded of the theme in Genesis 1-11 that cities are bad.

In the movie, the line of Cain develops industrialized cities and civilizations. This is portrayed negatively in the film as these cities end up destroying God’s good creation. Interestingly enough, in Gen. 1-11 we also find cities portrayed negatively. In the genealogies of Cain and Seth (Gen. 4-5) the only cities mentioned are in the fallen line of Cain. In fact, the first comment about Cain besides the fact that he gained a son is that he “built a city” (4:17). Likewise, in the post-flood world, the only cities mentioned are in connection with the fallen line of Ham. Eventually, the evil city-building finds its climax in the story of the Tower of Babel (“Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower” in 11:4). God deals with this sin by “scattering” the people.

This common theme should force us to look closer at the biblical text. Why does Gen. 1-11 depict cities as a challenge to God? The movie claims that such industrialization destroys the good earth. While this may be true today, it probably was not the main issue for the writer of Genesis. This is a import from our modern culture. Rather, in Genesis the problem is that God twice commands humans to “multiply” and “fill the earth”—once after Creation and once after the flood. Gathering in cities rather than scattering across the earth is direct disobedience of this command. In Genesis, cities are not inherently evil, but only evil in so far as they are built in opposition to the decrees of God.

2. Which brings us to the matter of ecology

Many Christians have critiqued the movie because the director depicts Noah as an ancient environmentalist. I agree insofar as saying that the strong emphasis on environmental issues has been imported into the text from our modern world. However, at least the writers and director are conscious of this imposition. Many Christian movies about the Bible have been made with little knowledge or awareness that their storytelling is also an interpretation influenced by their cultural biases.

That being said, perhaps we need an ecological reading of Genesis 1-11. American Christians have been far too dualistic in the past when it comes to thinking about the earth. Faulty thinking about the afterlife has taught many of us that we simply go to heaven when we die, so ecological endeavors are pointless. This world is going to burn after all, right? But if we remember that the Bible teaches resurrection—an affirmation of God’s good creation—then suddenly we must be more conscious of our earthly actions. God created the world and called it “good.” Why would he throw His masterpiece into the trash in the end?

Hopefully this movie refocuses our attention on Gen. 2:15 where God commands the man to “cultivate and protect” the garden. Creation does not exist simply for our own benefit. We are co-creators tasked with overseeing and being good stewards of God’s created world.

Maybe Noah will also help us expand our vision of salvation. God’s salvation through Jesus is not just about “saving souls.” It is about redeeming all of God’s good creation. Paul says in Romans that all creation “groans” and “waits for the sons of God to be revealed” (Rom 8:18-25). Paul says all the earth (animals and plants included) has been cursed because of our sin. Therefore, God’s ultimate plan for salvation includes redeeming and restoring that good creation. In that light, Russell Crowe’s Noah doesn’t sound all that unbiblical.

3. This is a dark story

Perhaps another reason many Christians got up in arms about the film was that this is not a “safe for the whole family” story. We sometimes have a bad knack of taming down the rough patches in the Bible. I remember watching an atheist rant on a YouTube video about a baby’s bible. He pointed out that key biblical stories, like Noah, David/Goliath, and the Crucifixion, completely omitted the ugly parts. For example, few children’s Bibles talk about (or illustrate) why Noah got to go on a fun wooden cruise with zoo animals.

Now, I’m not for destroying the innocence of children too quickly (another theme of the movie ironically), but I do think this same thinking affects us as adults. Have we as adult Christians truly pondered the dark places of the Bible? Or, are we still stuck in Kindergarten Sunday School mode? Do we think of rainbows and zoo animals when we hear Noah’s name, or do we think of the devastation of the world and the massive loss of human life that was the result of sin?

This new movie forces us to come face to face with the ugliness of sin and the tragedy it causes in the biblical story. One of the most haunting images of the film was a picture of the final surviving humans clinging to the last dry land of a mountain. Noah’s family hears the victims crying out, and then we see them, futilely clawing past each other like zombies to escape their fate. It reminded me that this too is in the story of Noah. While the text may not spell it out, have we seriously considered the line “All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind” (7:21)?

4. Christians critiqued Noah’s character for the wrong reason

In reading the critical reviews of the film, one thing that kept coming up over and over again was Noah’s “homicidal” character. How could any film-maker portray Noah as a person ready to kill his own granddaughter? More on this in the next point. However, by the end of the film, Noah shows mercy and chooses love. With that in mind, I think Christian critics completely missed another way they could have attacked the movie’s depiction of Noah (probably because many critics hadn’t even seen the movie when they started throwing accusations).

Toward the end of the film we get an interpretation of Noah’s drunken nakedness (which is in the Bible by the way). In the biblical text, Ham sees Noah’s nakedness, but does not cover his father. Instead, he tells his brothers who in turn cover Noah (just as in the movie). It is at this point that the film diverges from the text. In the movie Noah is grieved over Ham’s actions, but still offers a blessing for Ham in the final scene. This has the effect of us ending with a “good” Noah in the film. No longer is Noah a homicidal maniac, but a good patriarch. Meanwhile, in the Bible there is a total break between Ham and Noah. In the Bible, Noah curses Ham and his descendants. There is no ooey-gooey family love here. If the movie’s portrayal of the biblical Noah is to be critiqued, we should really critique it on its sugar-coating of the family dynamics at the end. But, like us Christians, we can easily turn family into an idol that comes before faithfulness.

5. IS humanity worth saving?

One final area many Christians were dissatisfied with was the cinematic Noah’s willingness to let humanity die out. Some Christian critics pointed to Gen. 1 to remind us that humans were made in God’s image. We are more valuable than animals, so of course the ark was to save humans, not creation. As above, perhaps we do think a little too highly of ourselves when it comes to salvation. Nonetheless, this question—Is humanity worth saving?—is a central theme of the movie. And, I think it is a good (and perhaps biblical) theme.

One of my friends pointed out to me that Noah’s “offering” to God and the rainbow scene are misplaced in the film. The order of Noah’s drunkenness and the offering/rainbow scene are reversed in the movie from its biblical order. In the Bible, the last major detail we hear about Noah is his wine debacle. This scene serves almost as a second Fall for the second creation. If you thought humans had escaped sin, you were wrong. And very quickly, sin once again escalates as we read genealogies of Israel’s enemies and hear the story of Babel. Even restarting humanity was not enough to get humans on the right track. By the time we arrive at Genesis 11, the reader should be asking, “Is there any hope? How can the cycle of sin and death ever be broken?”

This is essentially the question Noah wrestles with in the movie. He understands very correctly that evil runs through all of us. Too often we want to say with Noah’s wife that we are good people. The evil ones are “them.” But as Crowe’s Noah points out in the film, all of us are tainted by sin. None of us is good. (Isn’t this the starting point of our understanding of the Gospel.) Therefore, I can sympathize with Noah as he contemplates cutting off humanity’s future. If humans can’t escape sin and evil, maybe they should just die off to fulfill God’s command to “protect” creation (Gen. 2:15).

Yet, the film pushes us between alternate extremes. While Noah stresses human sinfulness (which is true), others including Tubal-Cain emphasize humanity as the valued “image of God” (which is also true). And both are in Genesis. Genesis 1 stresses that humans are the pinnacle of creation and are to “rule over” creation. But, then Genesis 2 places humans alongside the rest of the created order and also calls us to “protect” the garden of God. The beauty of the film is that is forces us to consider both sides and struggle to find the healthy middle ground between mercy and justice and between creation abuse and creation worship.

----------------------

I know this is a very long post and that I probably should have made at least two posts, but I need to type this while it is still fresh in my mind. So, if you’ve read this far, bear with me for two more quick points.

Another theme I loved concerned the silence of God. In one provocative scene, the villain Tubal-Cain cries out to the Creator asking him to speak. He desires God to end the silence, but there is no answer. A little later in the film, Noah pleads to God to help him decide what to do about his pregnant daughter-in-law. But instead of an answer, the sky clouds up more and Noah is met with silence.

This theme resonated with me because I have often had to deal with the silence of God. There have been times in my life when, like Tubal-Cain, I have shouted out, “Why don’t you answer?!” The film makes me ask about how to respond when it seems like God does not. This is a tough question worthy of another post, but I think a good question we Christians should take more seriously.

Second, at the end of the movie I couldn’t help but think how our current evangelical obsession with biblical literalism has caused us to miss some amazing opportunities. Once the credits began to roll, I heard one man in front of me (presumably a Christian) remark to his wife, “Well that was funny wasn’t it?” My first reaction was to wonder if we had even watched the same movie. Yes, a movie filled with violence, slavery, murder, contemplated infanticide, strained parent-child relations, and the death of thousands is “funny.” While I shed a few tears, all he could say at the end was that it was “funny.”

Of course, I knew what he was implying—the movie was not “biblically accurate.” It was “funny” to him because this Noah was nothing like the Noah he envisions when he reads Genesis. This is the attitude I think that drove almost all of the negative Christian reviews. My reply to that is simply, “Yes, it is ‘biblically inaccurate,’ but let’s get over it.”

Does a story have to be exactly what is contained in the Bible for it to carry truth? Even then, when it comes to the extra-biblical material, how do we really even know it couldn’t have been similar to the Bible’s contention? While the movie did contain some really off-the-wall moments (rock giants, anyone?) I have also heard some pretty off-the-wall ideas from conservative Christians when it comes to Genesis (such as a “firmament” of water surrounding the earth and peculiar views of the Nephilim that go way beyond anything the Bible says). The bottom line is there is much about the world of Gen. 1-11 we simply don’t know and never will.

With that being said, we need to view this movie as a work of art, not an attempt to recreate a historical account of how the Noah story actually might have happened. If we can get beyond the biblical “inaccuracies” (while not ignoring them) and really dig into the themes, we may find that this movie contains some powerful truths and questions for us to ponder as Bible-believing Christians.

Along that line, maybe we need to view the movie as a Midrash of the flood narrative. In ancient Judaism, rabbis would often take familiar Old Testament stories and add new twists or details in order to deliver a new theological point. (For an interesting look at how this movie employs some actual Jewish Midrash, check out this article.) What do these new (and yes, extra-biblical) details in the movie reveal about us as people and about our culture? What truths and questions do the themes push us toward? Does the movie allow us to rediscover truths in Genesis that we have overlooked for too long?

In the end, I don’t believe this movie is an attack on Christians or even on the Bible. There will certainly biblically illiterate people who will think this is all in the Bible, and we should gently point them to the actual story. But for the rest of us, maybe we can step back and learn something from a movie that was very intentionally and artfully constructed. Or, if you can’t do that, at least go see it to make fun of some rock giants.

*If you aren’t sick of reading yet, you may also check out this article containing an interview with one of the writers.

"Son of God" movie

Many of us have probably seen previews for or heard news about the upcoming film "Son of God," due to release Feb. 28. As the title clearly implies, it is a movie chronicling the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The movie employs scenes from "The Bible" miniseries that aired last year and will include deleted and additional footage. If you haven't heard anything about the film, check out one of the trailers below:

 

Thinking about this release reminded me of a project I did my senior year of college. In this project I explored the interplay between the biblical Gospels, "Jesus films," and culture. My underlying thesis was that any film, TV show, etc. depicting Jesus better reflects the producing culture than it does the actual, historical Jesus. For the project I studied the films The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) and Jesus (TV movie, 2000). 

What I concluded by the end was that each film clearly reflects the cultural times, trends, and tendencies of its era. For example, the Jesus of Greatest Story is a Jesus for the 1960's. This Jesus is stoic and removed from earthly life (a "heavenly" being if you will); the type of Jesus "needed" to combat the revolutionary movements of the 60's. This film's Jesus is also depicted as a hero in the style of an American Western, a popular film genre of the era. Meanwhile, Jesus offers a more "modern" Jesus fitting with the culture of the early 2000's. This new and improved Jesus is an "earthy" Jesus trying to discover his identity. He even briefly considers a romantic relationship. If it weren't for the ancient garb, 2000's Jesus could easily be mistaken for any young millennial searching for their identity and meaning in a complex world.

 

Now that we face a new Jesus film, I am fascinated by what kind of Jesus will be depicted and how he will reflect our culture in 2014. When the film comes out I hope to analyze it for myself, but first I'd like to explain how I went about studying each Jesus film so you can join me in better understanding our cultural Jesuses from the Jesus presented in our Scriptures.

To study each film, I applied a method of biblical interpretation called "redaction criticism." This method compares biblical texts with their source materials and notes how the author "redacts," or changes, the original text. Changes might include additions, deletions, or word and stylistic alterations. For example, it is commonly assumed that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke both used material from Mark as well as from other sources in compiling their gospels. We can compare the passages in Matthew or Luke that clearly borrow from Mark and observe how Matthew/Luke make changes. From there we develop theories on possible theological or artistic motivations for making those changes.

For instance, compare Matt. 16:13-23 and Mark 8:27-33. Both stories are almost identical (even word for word) with the exception of a few places where Matthew changes the story. Two changes stand out. First, whereas Mark 8:33 says that Jesus "rebuked" Peter (same word for rebuking demons), Matthew 16:23 changes "rebuke" to the weaker verb "said." It's just a statement, not a rebuke of a demon. Second, Matthew adds an entire section of praise for Peter from Jesus in 16:17-19. In Mark's version, Peter says "You are the Messiah" and immediately gets "rebuked" (the first of 2 times). In Matthew, Peter receives praise from Jesus and only gets "told" off later when he tries to convince Jesus not to die.

Biblical scholars note these changes (along with many similar changes in Matthew's Gospel) and conclude that Matthew tends to portray the disciples as constantly improving in their faith. Meanwhile, Mark holds a negative view of the disciples, observing their faith shrinking and increasing thickness with each chapter. The reason for this is because Matthew and Mark are emphasizing different aspects of discipleship to best convey different messages for different audiences.

I suggest we can treat Jesus films as a "cultural text" and apply the same method. In the case of such films, we know the primary source material--the biblical Gospels. However, no film uses the Gospels as its only source. Jesus films also borrow from pop culture, Christian (and cultural) tradition, and the director's imagination/experience. Even films with dialogue taken only from the Gospels (such as The Gospel of John) still use other sources in what they visually depict on screen.

So, as we watch any Jesus film, we need to note what is borrowed from the biblical Gospels, what is added to the Gospel narratives, and what is left out. These places in the dialogue and plot that differ from the biblical narratives are crucial for understanding the cultural Jesus being presented in the movie. When we note these changes, we need to ask, "Why present Jesus in that manner? Why make that change?" Even noting camera angles and music can tell us about what kind of Jesus we are seeing on screen.

I'll explain more of how this can work in my next post and will maybe even throw out of few ideas based on the trailer. Until then, let me know what you think about approaching Jesus films in this way.