κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα And The Apostle's Creed

1 Peter 3:18-22--- 18For Christ also suffered* for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you* to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water. 21And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for* a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him. (RSV)

Tonight in our Wed. Night group the subject of The Harrowing of Hell came up in our discussion. The Harrowing of Hell of course being:

a doctrine in Christian theology referenced in the Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult), which states that Jesus "descended into Hell". His descent to the underworld has been termed the most controversial phrase in the Apostles' Creed.[1]

The Greek wording in the Apostles' Creed is κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα, ("katelthonta eis ta katôtata"), and in Latin descendit ad inferos. The Greek τὰ κατώτατα ("the lowest") and the Latin inferos ("those below") may also be translated as "underworld", "netherworld", or as "abode of the dead". Thus, sometimes this phrase is translated as "descended to the dead." The first use of the English harrowing in this context is in homilies of Aelfric, ca. 1000. Harrow is a by-form of harry, a military term meaning to "make predatory raids or incursions"[2]. The term Harrowing of Hell refers not merely to the idea that Christ descended into Hell, as in the Creed, but to the rich tradition that developed later, asserting that he triumphed over inferos, releasing Hell's captives, particularly Adam and Eve, and the righteous men and women of Old Testament times.

D. Bruce Lockerbie states of The Harrowing of Hell:

The final clause in this sequence, "He descended into hell," is the most controversial in the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, some denominations consider it optional or refuse to include it at all. The problem with this phrase begins with what it connotes. To some, the descent into hell represents the physical agony of death upon the Cross. It was hellish in its pain. To others, the word hell means Hades or Sheol, the collective abode of the dead, divided into Paradise or Abraham's Bosom--the state of God-fearing souls--and Gehenna, the state of ungodly souls. Thus the descent into hell may suggest that the Son of God carried the sins of the world to hell; or the Son of God carried Good News of deliverance to the godly dead such as Lazarus the beggar and the repentant thief. A third-century Syrian Creed speaks of Jesus, "who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and departed in peace, in order to preach to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the saints concerning the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead."

Still others believe that the descent into hell account for the problem of God's justice by providing an opportunity for all mankind--in eternity as well as in time--to hear the message of redemption from the Word Himself. But whatever interpretation one accepts, the scriptural passages upon which this teaching is based must be studied closely. Some of the standard texts are Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6.

Also Apocryphal sources formed Early Christian opinions on the Doctrine such as the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate. The phrase has theological significance considering:

2 Corinthians 5:21 (New King James Version)
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him and Romans 6:23 (New King James Version)
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In light of the above verses and the Christus Victor theory of Atonement for Protestant thought the phrase is understood as:

The Formula of Concord (a Lutheran confession) states, "we believe simply that the entire person, God and human being, descended to Hell after his burial, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of Hell, and took from the devil all his power." (Solid Declaration, Art. IX)John Calvin expressed his concern that many Christians "have never earnestly considered what it is or means that we have been redeemed from God's judgment. Yet this is our wisdom: duly to feel how much our salvation cost the Son of God." Calvin's conclusion is that "Christ's descent into Hell was necessary for Christians' atonement, because Christ did in fact endure the penalty for the sins of the redeemed." [10] On the cross, Christ suffered hell, being separated from His Father and enduring God's wrath for the sins of humanity, but after He died He went to Paradise (Heaven), just as he told the criminal next to Him.

I distinctly remember reading in an edition of The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden that because of the controversy surrounding the phrase: "he descended into hell" that Queen Victoria had the phrase removed from the Apostle's Creed in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer though it is still in some editions. However mention of this is not in the older edition that I have now. It should also be duly noted that:

Apparently the phrase descended into hell offended someone’s sensitivities early on in American Methodism and that clause got left out. The phrase into hell in older translations and the phrase to the dead both translate the phrase into hades in the original Greek of the creed.

Shane Claiborne's Litany Of Resistance

Jesus For President Litany of Resistance

Created with the help of our friends Jim Loney (CPT Reservist) and Brian Walsh (activist theologian)

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

One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world

All: Have mercy on us
One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world

All: Free us from the bondage of sin and death
One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world

All: Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.


One: For the victims of war

All: Have mercy
One: Women, men and children

All: Have mercy
One: The maimed and the crippled

All: Have mercy
One: The abandoned and the homeless

All: Have mercy
One: the imprisoned and the tortured

All: Have mercy
One: The widowed and the orphaned

All: Have mercy
One: The bleeding and the dying

All: Have mercy
One: The weary and the desperate

All: Have mercy
One: The lost and the forsaken

All: Have mercy


One: O God -- Have mercy on us sinners

All: Forgive us for we know not what we do
One: For our scorched and blackened earth

All: Forgive us
One: For the scandal of billions wasted in war

All: Forgive us
One: For our arms makers and arms dealers

All: Forgive us

One: For our Caesars and Herods

All: Forgive us

One: For the violence that is rooted in our hearts

All: Forgive us






One: For the times we turn others into enemies

All: Forgive us

One: Deliver us, O God

All: Guide our feet into the way of peace

One: Hear our prayer.

All: Grant us peace.


One: From the arrogance of power

All: Deliver us
One: From the myth of redemptive violence

All: Deliver us
One: From the tyranny of greed

All: Deliver us
One: From the ugliness of racism

All: Deliver us
One: From the cancer of hatred

All: Deliver us
One: From the seduction of wealth

All: Deliver us
One: From the addiction of control

All: Deliver us
One: From the idolatry of nationalism

All: Deliver us
One: From the paralysis of cynicism

All: Deliver us
One: From the violence of apathy

All: Deliver us
One: From the ghettos of poverty

All: Deliver us
One: From the ghettos of wealth

All: Deliver us
One: From a lack of imagination

All: Deliver us

One: Deliver us, O God

All: Guide our feet into the way of peace

One: We will not conform to the patterns of this world

All: Let us be transformed by the renewing of our minds

One: With the help of God’s grace

All: Let us resist evil wherever we find it


One: With the waging of war

All: We will not comply
One: With the legalization of murder

All: We will not comply

One: With the slaughter of innocents

All: We will not comply
One: With laws that betray human life

All: We will not comply
One: With the destruction of community

All: We will not comply
One: With the pointing finger and malicious talk

All: We will not comply
One: With the idea that happiness must be purchased

All: We will not comply
One: With the ravaging of the earth

All: We will not comply

One: With principalities and powers that oppress

All: We will not comply
One: With the destruction of peoples

All: We will not comply
One: With the raping of women

All: We will not comply
One: With governments that kill

All: We will not comply
One: With the theology of empire

All: We will not comply
One: With the business of militarism

All: We will not comply
One: With the hoarding of riches

All: We will not comply
One: With the dissemination of fear

All: We will not comply


One: Today we pledge our ultimate allegiance… to the Kingdom of God

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To a peace that is not like Rome’s

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Gospel of enemy love

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Kingdom of the poor and broken

All: We pledge allegiance

One: To a King that loves his enemies so much he died for them

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the least of these, with whom Christ dwells

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the transnational Church that transcends the artificial borders of nations

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the refugee of Nazareth

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the homeless rabbi who had no place to lay his head

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the cross rather than the sword

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the banner of love above any flag

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the one who rules with a towel rather than an iron fist

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the one who rides a donkey rather than a war-horse

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the revolution that sets both oppressed and oppressors free

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Way that leads to life

All: We pledge allegiance
One: To the Slaughtered Lamb

All: We pledge allegiance
One: And together we proclaim his praises, from the margins of the empire to the centers of wealth and power

All: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
One: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb
All: Long Live the Slaughtered Lamb

Wed. Nights Are Back At FBC Wilmington

Wed. Nights actually started back 2 weeks ago---but we officially started back last week. 2 weeks ago, we had a seminar on world religions aided by Campbell Divinity School. More on that in a later post---but anyways, this session I am reading Shane Claiborne's Irresistible Revolution. Our Minister of Administration and Senior Adults, Daryl Trexler is leading the group study. Here is our reading schedule for the session:



During tonight's discussion the question of how many Christian Adherents there are in the world so here are the findings from a 2005 study:

1.Christianity: 2.1 billion

2.Islam: 1.5 billion

3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

4.Hinduism: 900 million

5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

6.Buddhism: 376 million

7.primal-indigenous: 300 million

8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

9.Sikhism: 23 million

10.Juche: 19 million

11.Spiritism: 15 million

12.Judaism: 14 million

13.Baha'i: 7 million

14.Jainism: 4.2 million

15.Shinto: 4 million

16.Cao Dai: 4 million

17.Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

18.Tenrikyo: 2 million

19.Neo-Paganism: 1 million

20.Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

21.Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

22.Scientology: 500 thousand

Finally the main theme of tonight's discussion was what it means to do church, so I'll end this post with a thought from my friend Drew Tatusko:

go where god is, not where you believe god ought to be.
Sep 23rd, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. Print This Post

The church, no matter what community you find, packages God into something that can be controlled for human use and whim. This sort of package is not all evil or disreputable – all of the time. God has been a source of divine legitimation for human power that people have used to kill and torture people under the despotic rule of fear and oppression. Still, the social packaging of God that is the church can be a source of grace for people which is also true. Regardless, as H.R. Niebuhr argued in 1929, the church is a human social creation that ought to be given life by God. All religious and church structures conceal and distort the presence of God even as they work to be so many media to reveal the reality of God.

However, as Jesus said, the presence of God is simply in a community which does not have to be formed by doctrine, polity, law, and God forbid property. God is not just in the Tabernacle, God is everywhere.

Perhaps our faith has been distracted by our religious institutions and we fight so hard to maintain those institutions, that we forget how frail, tentative, and distorting they are to the very presence of God. The medium of the church itself has to be transformed from the inside out if it is to transform the hearts and minds to do the basic things that Jesus commanded: love God, love neighbor, heal the sick. When we fail to do these basic things and instead begin to love the institutions that are nothing but media to accomplish this task, we may as well craft a golden calf since this is exactly the function the church then serves.

Why is your church worth saving if God is indeed everywhere? What profit do we gain to preserve the media of human invention if that media is no longer a source of revelation people are currently receiving through other means? This is no longer a question of people being "spiritual but not religious." Rather it is the offspring of those "spiritual" baby boomers who are asking: I want to be religious, but it is hard to find the God that has been revealed to me in the churches where my parents worshiped when they were children.

For this and other reasons, I often find God in my backyard, in a conversation with my wife, in the giggle of my sons, the cool fall breeze, a note from someone expressing care for me or someone I love, my dog running through the snow, the smile of an elderly person who is lonely most of her life, gratitude for healing in sickness and in death, and a song. I find God in these places more often than in a pew. After seminary, I had to leave church for a while to find God again. I continue to ask where I see God. The clarity I receive in return is this: Go where God is, not where you believe God ought to be.

The Apostle And Poimenolatry

One of the last films that we watched over the early Spring session of Wed. nights was The Apostle which unfortunately we did not get to discuss. However, before showing the film for us, Vick offered some similar sentiments to mine about the state of the American church. I believe that The Apostle offers a valid critique of the type of poimenolatry rampant in the church today. Poimenolatry of course is a term I coined from the Greek words ποιμήν and λατρεια which mean "pastor/shepherd" and "worship" respectively so all together poimenolatry means "pastor-worship or pastor-idolatry." Indeed there are cults of celebrity built around pastors of various churches as Vick said. We see this played out in ways such as this:

Luther formulated an anti-poimenolatry/anti-clericalism position by eradicating the distinctions between the clergy and laity, when he established the Protestant doctrine of the Priesthood Of All Believers---in an age when the clergy were considered spiritually superior to the laity by having direct links to God. (Although certain Christians in direct violation of the Protestant doctrines of the Priesthood Of All Believers, religious liberty and freedom are trying to reestablish clerical superiority over the laity by reasserting the clergy’s absolute authority to dictate what and how the laity are to believe---and how they are to act and what they are to do---and also, by deifying fallible clerical opinions pertaining to religious and moral issues as the end of dialogue).

We see this very Luther denying spirit in the core of the SBC as they are more and more becoming less like a Baptist denomination and more like their own version of the Roman Catholic Church complete with their own papacy to some degree at least. Although, younger SBCers are willing to change some things for the better. However, the older SBCers in violation of historic Baptist anti-creedalism are enforcers of creeds such as The Baptist Faith and Message's Role in Baptist life:

In Southern Baptist polity, actions by the Convention are nonbinding on local churches — they are considered autonomous. An individual church may choose to adopt the BF&M or may create their own statement. Despite the fact that the BF&M is not a creed, faculty at SBC-owned seminaries and missionaries who apply to serve through the various SBC missionary agencies must affirm that their practices, doctrine, and preaching are consistent with the BF&M.

This sort of nonsense is all too common in the more reformed fundamentalist churches such as these articles of application for membership to The Hollywood Church:

9. Have you thoroughly read the church Constitution, Statement of Faith, and Doctrinal Statement
as contained in the Articles of Incorporation? ___ Yes ___ No
(A) Do you have any disagreements with these documents? ___ Yes ___ No
(B) Do you agree to abide by and not teach contrary to our positions? ___ Yes ___ No
10. The Bible teaches that all believers have been given spiritual gifts and resources by God for the
edification of the church and that they need to humbly submit to the leadership of the local church as
they minister.
(A) Are you willing to submit and follow the leadership of the Hollywood Church (Hebrews 13:17;
1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)?

Of course to reformed fundamentalist nutcases, leaders were divinely preordained from the foundation of the world to be obeyed without question including Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Suddam Hussein, etc. Speaking of which here is a poignant scene beginning at 5:06 and following from The Apostle:

Kinda reminds one of a Nazi rally:

At least with the Jesus chant comparable to the seig heil chant as well as charismatic idolatry of leaders. However, I can't agree with Vick that Robert Duvall's character was a fundamentalist---a typical bible literalist yes but not so much a fundamentalist as Duvall's character "conveys a positive, ecumenical spirit. In one memorable scene, Sonny watches Roman Catholic priests blessing shrimp boats and says, "You do it your way and I do it mine...together we get it done" and fundamentalists oppose any form of ecumenism. Other themes tackled were:

The major themes of The Apostle include forgiveness and accountability. Duvall sympathetically portrays Sonny as a sincere gospel preacher whose passions get the better of him. After fleeing from Texas, he re-baptizes himself -- symbolizing a fresh start -- and seeks to accomplish as much good as possible before his inevitable capture. Sonny's arrest closes the moral circle of the narrative, showing that evil acts do not go unpunished. Yet, his final sermon motivates the fledgling church to carry on a life of faith and good deeds.

Evangelical Christian viewers applauded this film for its emphasis on personal faith and redemption (two of its characters come to crisis-faith experiences) without letting Sonny off the hook.

In conclusion, most preachers detest cults of personality built around them though some may relish in it. Also, the film The Apostle offers unique insights into one of the three major errors of the modern church---poimenolatry, bibliolatry-worship of the bible/bible literalism/biblical inerrancy and ecclesiolatry (worship/idolatry of the church, the (dead letter of the) bible and (certain) pastors/preachers/ministers and their fallible opinions contrary to the living tradition of the Scriptures, which via their spirit bear witness to and testify of Christ the criterion of interpretation and standard of Christian living (through the Holy Spirit and discernment).

The Sloppy Theology Of Henry Poole Is Here: Part 2

"On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye).
— Les hommes ont oublié cette vérité, dit le renard. Mais tu ne dois pas l’oublier. Tu deviens responsable pour toujours de ce que tu as apprivoisé. Tu es responsable de ta rose…
Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox. "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose..."
— C’est le temps que tu as perdu pour ta rose qui fait ta rose si importante.
"It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important." ----Antoine de Saint Exupéry, The Little Prince

Sorry for the week long wait, but last week I got a stomach bug that has been going around our church so that wasn't fun. Anyways, continuing from where I left off---I believe like Fosdick that miracles still happen, but we must be careful how we approach miracles---because sometimes our approaches to miracles lead to dangerous theology such as in these ways:

1- Sometimes how we approach miracles leads to spiritual materialism---turning our walk with God into one of sight and proofs rather than belief/faith in the unseen Risen Lord (John 20:28-30).

2- Sometimes our approaches lead to spiritual arrogance and pride---in that those who have experienced miracles sometimes feel spiritual more superior than those that haven't or feel that God specially chose them and not others such as: how Adolf Hitler believed God chose him to rule the world after he escaped death several times in WWI.

3- Some of our approaches downgrade theodicy (the problem of evil and suffering in the world)---which poses the question of why God would choose to heal some people and not others whom have just as much faith or more than those whom did get healed?

4-

Do you ever wonder just what God requires?
You think He's just an errand boy to satisfy your wandering desires.

--- Bob Dylan, When You Gonna Wake Up? This thought by Bob Dylan which echoes something Fosdick said is another problematic approach to miracles.



Tying miracles back to my quote from The Little Prince---a modern day view of miracles is finding God and beauty in all things. No one exemplified this more than Mister Rogers did:

No matter the weather, Mr. Rogers would still come in his house and say it’s a
beautiful day. Why do we think sunny, bright days are beautiful but if it’s raining it’s a dreary
day? I don’t think Mr. Rogers was talking about the weather when he said it’s a
beautiful day in the neighborhood. Mr. Rogers looked for the beauty in every
day things, every day life. Sitting down with a neighbor, drinking tea, taking time to play,
pretend, paint, and be creative. One day of breathing normally is a beautiful day for
someone with Asthma, Bronchitis or Emphysema. One more day to enjoy the
color of the sky is a beautiful day for someone loosing his or her eyesight.
One more day with your son or daughter before they report to boot camp is a beautify day!
Think like Mr. Rogers and enjoy the beauty of this life, this day! Yes we’ve got problems,
yes there is a war going on, sure we’ve got poverty and political unrest but there are still
miracles every day if you take the time to look. Find something today to make you say
“It truly is a beautiful day in this neighborhood”!

In conclusion, despite it's sloppy theology, Henry Poole Is Here was an interesting movie that in the end showed that love is the truest miracle of all.

The Sloppy Theology Of Henry Poole Is Here: Part 1

For we walk by faith, not by sight. (II Corinthians 5:7 RSV)



Two weeks before last we watched Henry Poole Is Here in our Wed. night group, but since I had a cold I had to rent the movie the week before last in order to finish it for last week's discussion. Anyways, the main theme of the movie is miracles and in that regard I felt the theology was rather sloppy. It seemed the whole of the movie was focused on having faith in this "supposed miracle" rather than the Risen Lord whom we've never seen yet believe. Don't get me wrong---God was a pervasive presence throughout the film, but God seemed overshadowed by the "supposed miracle." Anyways, Vick brought up the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano which is interesting in that it's mysterious. Also, the Shroud of Turin was mentioned (which has been proven to be a hoax over and over again) in our discussion. The problem with these sorts of things are the reason Luther wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Indulgences, anyone? In Luther's time the abuse of indulgences included the sell of religious relics with supposedly miraculous properties. A lot of these so-called "relics" were forged.

A second problem with the film is people see what they want to see. Take these supposed "Islamic miracles" for example: Allah Written in Arabic on Tsunami Wave — Miracles of ALLAH !, A Miracle: The Splitting of the Moon, Islam’s “Miracles”, Miracle of Islam, In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful or
Miracles can be subjective and relative to the individual.

Next I would like to say an individual's definition of miracles shapes their view. Here is a detailed definition of miracles by Harry Emerson Fosdick which has help shaped my view of miracles:

You are right, however, in feeling, as your letter reveals, that the prescientific world view which is the matrix in which the Bible’s treasures are set, does pose some difficult problems -- miracles, for example. A letter offers no adequate space for the treatment of that problem, but I venture some homely advice.

First, remember that the ancient world took what we would call miracles for granted. Not having even the idea of natural law in their heads, "signs and wonders," as the New Testament calls them, did not bother the ancients intellectually at all. Almost anything could happen. The records of Buddhism and Islam are full of miracle stories. A contemporary of Jesus, a man named Apollonius, had his biography written, and the miracles ascribed to him are so like those attributed to Jesus that some at first supposed the biography to be a deliberate attempt to discredit the Gospels. No! That whole ancient world thought in terms of miracles, and one often feels that they represent real events, looked at and thought about in a way utterly different from ours. Mohammed, for example, was credited with having made the sun stand still, with having obtained water from a flinty rock, with having fed thousands with a little food.

Second, consider the fact that some miracle stories in the Bible are more easy to believe now than they were a generation ago. This is especially true about miracles of healing. How many bodily ills, which in my youth were supposed to be physically caused, are now known to be caused or complicated by mental and emotional disorders! If you know anything about the development of psychosomatic medicine, you will understand this. When one considers that over half the beds in all the hospitals in the United States are filled with mental patients, and that many more are filled with patients whose physical ills are emotionally caused, so that cure must come rather from the spiritual than from the bodily end, Jesus’ healings become much more credible than they used to be.

Third, don’t suppose that a miracle means the breaking of natural law. I do not think that natural laws are ever broken. Ask nature the same question in the same way and it will always give you the same answer. But our knowledge of nature’s laws is limited. When I consider how many new regularities in nature have been discovered in my lifetime, I am sure that there are infinitely more yet to be discovered. Indeed, if we are tempted to look back two thousand years and condescend to the writers of the Bible because our science is so superior to theirs, we had better watch our step. Imagine the science of two thousand years ahead! How will men then think about us? They will be doing many things then that are absolutely incredible now. So a marvelous occurrence, then or now or in the ancient world, could conceivably be not a rupture of nature’s laws but a fulfillment of laws beyond our ken. Every time we learn a new law we get our hands on a new law-abiding force and can do a new thing. Cannot God do at least that?

Fourth, don’t suppose that you have to believe every miracle story just because it is in the Bible. Dr. W. E. Orchard was orthodox enough -- he ended in the Roman Catholic priesthood -- but he said once, "If I saw someone walking on the sea, I would not say, ‘This man is Divine’: I would say, ‘Excuse me, do you mind doing that again? I didn’t see how you did it.’" That is the typical modern-minded attitude, and you are in good Christian company if you feel the same way about some miracle stories in the Bible. Moses is said to have cast a stick on the ground and it became a snake, and to have seized the snake by its tail and it became a stick. Well, I wonder! Certainly my Christian faith does not depend on believing things like that.

Fifth, don’t complicate your problem by being a wooden headed literalist. The way many Western Christians think about the Book of Jonah, for example, is a tragedy. That book is one of the most magnificent affirmations of God’s universal care for all mankind, across all boundaries of race and nation, that ever was written in the ancient world. Some scholars call the book fiction with an ethical purpose, others call it a parable or an allegory, but no competent scholar that I know of thinks that the book was intended to be taken as historical fact. Of course it wasn’t. At the time the book was written -- probably somewhere around 300 B.C.-- there was developing in Israel an embittered hatred of the Gentiles. Israel was God’s chosen people, and he would destroy the others, who so often had mistreated Israel. Well, Jonah is Israel, refusing God’s commission to be a missionary to Nineveh, the Gentile city, and fleeing across the Mediterranean to escape. But God proves himself omnipresent: he sends a deadly storm; Jonah, spotted by lot as the guilty man, is thrown overboard; a great fish swallows him and three days later disgorges him. I wonder whether that is not an allegory of the exile in Babylon and the return. At any rate postexilic Israel still begrudged any help from God to Nineveh, and when, in response to Jonah’s reluctant preaching, the city repented, "it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry." Read the book and see how it ends, with God rebuking the surly Jonah and saying, "Should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?" How utterly ridiculous to interpret this moving and prophetic affirmation of God’s universal care for all mankind as a literal miracle story about a whale swallowing a man!

Sixth, don’t be afraid to doubt certain miracles which some Christians consider essential to their faith. If, for example, you doubt the virgin birth of Jesus, you have plenty of good Christian company. I am not trying to tell you what you should think about the virgin birth; I am simply indicating that personally I cannot believe it. Paul apparently never heard of it; Mark, the earliest Gospel, does not mention it; John in his first chapter seems deliberately to bypass it. Only twice in the New Testament is it mentioned -- in Matthew and Luke -- and even there it seems to be a late addition, because the two genealogies of Jesus both come down to Joseph, not to Mary. In the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai I have myself seen a Syriac translation of Matthew --evidently from an earlier Greek version than the one we now have -- in which the genealogy of our Lord ends as it must logically have ended: "Joseph begat Jesus." Moreover, so many Christians seem to think that the story of the virgin birth confers uniqueness on Jesus, whereas the fact is that miraculous birth, without human fatherhood, was a familiar explanation of distinguished persons in all the ancient world. Such miraculous birth, in one form or another, was ascribed to Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao-tse, and Mahavira in the religious realm, and to personalities like Persius and Augustus Caesar in the secular realm. A familiar argument among early Christian apologists was that, if the Romans and Greeks believed that so many other people were born of a virgin, why could they not believe that Jesus was so born. Anyway, whatever conclusion you come to, don’t treat that kind of miracle story as basic to your Christian faith. Jesus’ divinity surely was not physical -- what could that mean? His divinity lay in his spiritual quality.

Finally, never forget that, despite modern science, this is still a miraculous world. As Walt Whitman said,

Why, who makes much of a miracle?
As to me I know of nothing else but miracles. . . .
To me every hour of light and dark is a miracle,
Every cubic inch of space is a miracle.

Imagine yourself back millions of years ago, when earthquakes and volcanoes ruled the uninhabited earth, and along the ocean’s edge the first microscopic forms of cellular life were emerging --on which would you have placed your bet, volcanoes or cells? How utterly unpredictable the future of life on earth then was! So modern science has not reduced this universe and us within it to dull, monotonous, predictable uniformity. Something marvelously creative and unforeseeable is going on here. And, as for the New Testament, think as honestly and intelligently as you can about miracles attributed to Christ, but don’t forget the major fact: he is the miracle. Who ever could have foreseen a life like that?

See also: Harry Emerson Fosdick, What Keeps Religion Going and Miracles, Mormons, and Harry Emerson Fosdick: the challenge of inoculation. I shall continue my analysis of Henry Poole Is Here in my next post.

The Big Kahuna And Evangelism

First things first---we started our Wed. nights back up 2 weeks ago and Vick is doing the Faith And Films study again after our church-wide Winter hiatus from Wed. nights. We are doing new movies this time and started with the film, The Big Kahuna. Last night we discussed the film---anyways, here is a basic description of the film:

The Big Kahuna is a 2000 movie adapted from a play entitled Hospitality Suite, written by Roger Rueff, who also wrote the screenplay. John Swanbeck, the director, makes few attempts to lessen this film's resemblance to a stage performance: the majority of the movie takes place in a single hotel room, and nearly every single line of dialogue is spoken by one of the three actors.

Plot
Kevin Spacey plays Larry Mann, a relentlessly foul-mouthed cynic; Danny DeVito plays Phil Cooper, a world-weary average Joe; and Peter Facinelli is Bob Walker, a devout and earnest young Baptist. The three are in the industrial lubricant industry; Larry and Phil are marketing representatives and Bob is part of research and development. The three are attending a trade show where they expect to land a very important account, a rich businessman Larry refers to as The Big Kahuna. As the night progresses, Larry unleashes a torrent of scathingly funny witticisms, most directed at Bob, but finds himself relying on the newest member of the trio when their quarry invites Bob (and only Bob) to an exclusive party.

While Phil and Larry wait for Bob to bring them the news that could end their careers, they muse over the meaning of life. Bob finally returns and offers a bombshell: rather than try to sell their product, he has instead chosen to talk to the man with deep pockets about … religion. In the face of Larry's towering outrage, Bob stands fast for all that is pure and true. But Bob is unable to muster any reply at all when Phil quietly explains how he sees no difference at all between Bob's preaching and Larry's fast-talking.

Secondly, regardless of the language, which all language is socially constructed anyway---the film offers an interesting look at the question of evangelism in postmodernity. The word Evangelism comes from the Greek word "εὐαγγέλιον (transliterated as "euangelion/evangelion") via Latin "Evangelium", as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists). The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον originally meant a reward for good news given to the messenger (εὔ = "good", ἀγγέλλω = "I bring a message"; the word angel is of the same root) and later "good news"." Here are Vick's discussion questions:

Going back to the question of evangelism, the question is framed as such: should evangelism be as: ---part 1

---part 2 as the fundamentalists/pharisees/traditionalists/so-called keepers of orthodoxy suggest or: as the emerging/emergent/moderate progressive/liberal Christians suggest.

This quote from the movie critiques the former view and accepts the later view of believers building relationships with non-believers as Jesus does in the Scriptures:

Phil Cooper: "It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down'. That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are – just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep."

For more ideas about the movie see: The Big Kahuna.

The Movie Signs And Faith

This past Wed. night, we discussed the movie, Signs as we watched that movie for the last two Weds. Vick didn't have a handout prepared as we were going to watch the movie, The Big Kahuna, but had to substitute Signs instead. For that movie the question: how can we share our faith in this postmodern age? is appropriate. But anyways---back to Signs---here is some general background info on the movie:

Signs is a 2002 science fiction thriller film written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan starring Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, and Abigail Breslin. Although the plot revolves around aliens and crop circles, producer Frank Marshall said, "It's really about human emotions set in motion by a supernatural event." The film received generally positive critical reception and was one of the highest grossing films of 2002.

(As a side note, since Vick is involved in the movie industry, I'd just like to say that one of my relatives on my dad's side, Don Smetzer got to know the Culkin family really well when he was the still photographer for Home Alone).

One of the issues of the movie, Signs, is the loss of faith. In one of the key scenes at 9:17-9:31 of this clip:

reminds me somewhat of 1:37-1:53 of this clip from Amadeus and Family Guy: ---if just for the sense of feeling abandoned by God. Loss of faith is a mystery, but for whatever reason---it happens and tragedy like in the movie is a common cause of it. As an example the esteemed textual critic, Bart D. Ehrman:

... says the reason he turned to agnosticism was due to his inability to deal with the problem of evil and suffering as it is presented in the bible and not the reliability of the text.

Vick brought up this verse within the context of the movie:

Romans 8:29 RSV- For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

In Greek: οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις

Transliterated: oti ous proegnô kai proôrisen summorphous tês eikonos tou uiou autou eis to einai auton prôtotokon en pollois adelphois

For a more detailed study of this verse see: Romans 8:29. The two key terms are:

proginosko--- Definition
Strong's - to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
Thayer's - to have knowledge before hand; to foreknow - of those whom God elected to salvation; to predestinate.
Webster's - To have previous knowledge of; to foresee.
And: προώρισεν (proōrisen)--- Definition
-to predetermine, decide beforehand
in the NT of God decreeing from eternity
to foreordain, appoint beforehand

Predestination:
A Calvinist understanding of this verse is that individuals are randomly and arbitrarily chosen by God before God even created the world with no insight into individuals' lives as if God played Russian Roulette to determine who is saved. The Hyper-Calvinist view is that God even chose who is damned through no fault of their own. The Arminian understanding is that: "...God does not so much choose, but instead infallibly predicts, who will believe and, persevering, be saved. Although God knows from the beginning of the world who will go where, the choice is still with the individual." The Barthian view is that:

predestination only properly applies to God Himself. Thus, mankind is chosen for salvation in Jesus Christ, at the permanent cost of God's self-surrendered hiddenness, or transcendence. Thus, the redemption of all mankind is a devoutly to be wished for possibility, but the only inevitability is that God has predestined Himself, in Jesus Christ, to be revealed and given for mankind's salvation.

My view is somewhere between the Arminian and Barthian views, of course. One other note is the question of the Traditional understanding of one of God's attributes, Omniscience---which was subtly explored in the film. Although, I agree with the Traditional understanding, I am sympathetic to the valid question of Open Theism: does God know all? After all, Jesus who is God incarnate said:

Matthew 24:35-36 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Footnotes:

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.

The Mission And Liberation Theology

For the past 2 Weds. we've been watching the film---The Mission---which we will discuss next Wed. Vick Griffin's handout consisted of this information:

The Mission

[edit] Historical basis---Wikipedia
The Mission is based on events surrounding the Treaty of Madrid in 1750, in which Spain ceded part of Jesuit Paraguay to Portugal. The movie's narrator, "Altamirano", speaking in hindsight in 1758, corresponds to the actual Andalusian Jesuit Father Luis Altamirano, who had been sent by Jesuit Superior General Ignacio Visconti to Paraguay in 1752 to transfer territory from Spain to Portugal. He oversaw the transfer of seven missions south and east of the Río Uruguay, that had been settled by Guaranis and Jesuits in the 1600s. As compensation, Spain had promised each mission 4,000 pesos, or fewer than 1 peso for each of the circa 30,000 Guaranis of the seven missions, while the cultivated lands, livestock, and buildings were estimated to be worth 7-16 million pesos. The movie's climax is the Guarani War of 1754-1756, during which historical Guaranis defended their homes against Spanish-Portuguese forces implementing the Treaty of Madrid. For the movie, a re-creation was made of one of the seven missions, São Miguel das Missões.[1]

Father Gabriel's character is loosely based on the life of Paraguayan saint and Jesuit Roque González de Santa Cruz.

The waterfall setting of the movie suggests the combination of these events with the story of older missions, founded between 1610-1630 on the Río Paranapanemá above the Guaíra Falls, from which Paulista slave raids forced Guaranis and Jesuits to flee in 1631. The battle at the end of the movie evokes the 8-day battle of Mboboré in 1641, a battle fought on land as well as in boats on rivers, in which the Jesuit-organized, firearm-equipped Guarani forces stopped the Paulista raiders.[2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Released in 1986, starring Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons;
-#15 on Arts & Faith Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films list;
-Nominated for 7 Oscars; won for Best Cinematography;
-Directed by Roland Joffe [nominated previously for The Killing Fields]
-Screenplay written by Robert Bolt, whose credits included Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago and A Man for All Seasons; Bolt won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for both Doctor Zhivago and A Man for All Seasons;
-The Guaranís were actually portrayed by a village of Colombian Indians [the Waunanas], who were transported 1,000 miles to the site of the production;
-In the blockbuster animated film Madagascar, Alex the lion gets a cross-shaped cactus stuck to his back. He then falls down a waterfall referencing the opening scene of The Mission ;
-Soundtrack composed by Ennio Morricone [nominated for 5 Oscars, Honorary Oscar in 2007]. Composed and scored music to over 500 film and television projects during his career.

My Thoughts---

Watching this film, one can't help but pick up on themes of quasi-Liberation Theology especially in the thoughts and actions of the Jesuit priests. This is mainly because Liberation Theology was born out of the theology of Roman Catholic social thought known as "the preferential option for the poor." Jesuits have been known for their support of streams of thought within Liberation Theology such as in this article or in this Blog post: Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit: Marxism, Liberation Theology And The Lack Of Liberty from http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/.

Major themes of Liberation Theology included in The Mission are:

In Robert DeNiro's character:
Matthew 10:34-49 NRSV

Not Peace, but a Sword 34 ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
37Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

See But to bring a sword, Jon Sobrino, Jesuit theologian, to be disciplined by Vatican and Matthew 10:34 and Liberation Theology for more details.

In Jeremy Irons' character:
Isaiah 2:1-5 NRSV

1The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2In days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. 3Many peoples shall come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 5 O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!

See The Future of Liberation Theology , Culture and international relations By Jongsuk Chay and Isaiah 2:4 and Liberation Theology for further information.

Other thoughts on The Mission and Liberation Theology include:

The highly problematic, revisionist portrayal of South American history during the mid-eighteenth century in The Mission calls for even more scrutiny. Two Jesuit missionaries, played by high-profile Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro, participate in the resistance against the intermingled conflicts with Spain, Portugal, the Pope, and many a merchant whose monetary concerns dictate their actions. The end result is "calamitous . . . : the Battle of Caibale (1756), during which [the two Jesuit leaders], several other Jesuits, and some 1500 Indians die," according to Michael Dempsey. Speaking of the seemingly licensed fictionality of the two key Jesuit characters, Joffé refers to "liberation theology" in saying that "The film in that sense is intimately concerned with the struggle for liberation in liberation theology, and that's why the historical perspective is very important, because what it's actually saying is that these people haven't come out of nowhere" [emphasis mine]. It is then Joffé and his team's historical perspectives that enable them, as Dempsey aptly puts it, to "re-oppress the people with overbearing film technology and appropriate their story for a grandiose prestige spectacle." (For full context see: Roland JOFFÉ)

[And in dealing with non-violent Atonement (another theme in the movie) and Liberation Theology see this Blog post: Nonviolent Jesus: Fernando Lugo and the Rebirth of Liberation Theology from http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com/].

Here is another reference:

The temporal and the eternal

This is not to say that Fr. Gabriel is concerned only with his converts’ eternal state but not with their temporal condition. On the contrary, St. James’ exhortation to look after the bodily needs of the poor as well as their spiritual needs was the whole point of the ambitiously utopian Jesuit reduccion mission communities.

During Altamirano’s inspection of the Guaranís’ living conditions on their reducciones, a haughty Spanish official opposing the Jesuits’ resistance to the slave trade sniffs, "I see no difference between this plantation and my own." Whereupon Fr. Gabriel answers emphatically: "That is the difference: This plantation is theirs." It is precisely this for which Fr. Gabriel contends, and for which he is willing in the end to die — though not, as a priest, to kill.

In fact, concern for the temporal is so evidently a theme in The Mission that some Christian viewers have been concerned about possible "liberation theology" implications in the film. In its more extreme forms, liberation theology was a purely temporal ideology that merged into Marxism. Yet to me at least it seems clear that the admirable figure here is the gentle martyr Fr. Gabriel, not the armed warrior Mendoza; the film doesn’t seem to be an apologia for armed revolution. Nor is it possible to limit the scope of the film’s interest, like that of Marxism, to the merely temporal; clearly the spiritual matters here as well.

It’s probably a moot point anyway; liberation theology is effectively dead, at least in Catholic circles. To charge a particular film with promoting liberation theology is like saying that The Three Musketeers promotes dueling: That might have been an issue once, but not today.

The Mission is not a perfect film, but it is a rich, challenging one that explores the spiritual and the temporal, and the relationship between them, in a thought-provoking way. It contains moving images of despair, penance, and redemption that are among the most evocative ever filmed. It offers a positive depiction of Catholic missionaries as selfless champions and defenders of indigenous peoples and their ways of life rather than as oppressors or imperialists. It begins and ends in martyrdom — in bearing witness, signed in blood. It deserves attentive watching and thoughtful reflection.

And one more interesting article:

LIBERATION THEOLOGY

The Serra beatification highlights the issue of what kind of message the Church wants to send today to the world, especially the Third World, where the church would like to strengthen its hand. One Southern California priest has referred to the Majorca-born Serra as an "affirmative action saint," offered to a church that, in the Sunbelt at least, is becoming increasingly Latino. In downtown Los Angeles and other urban centers THE MISSION was shown with Spanish subtitles.

And while the debate over evangelizing people in the Third World may be settled, the related matter of obedience is not. Father Daniel Berrigan, a rather rebellious Jesuit who has said "no" many times to the powers that be of this culture, and who plays a bit part in the film, suggested in American Film that there is a direct line between the Jesuit reducciones portrayed in THE MISSION, and the "Christian base communities" now being created among the poor by some priests in Latin America.

Others make the connection between priests who cast off the cloth and became revolutionary guerrillas in the 1960s, as well as the more moderate adherents of "liberation theology," which has been criticized by the Pope. Joffe recently told the Los Angeles Times that while filming the picture, "I became fascinated with liberation theology." Several members of the ruling Sandinista directorate in Nicaragua are former priests, and were publicly chided by the Pope during his 1986 visit to Managua.

Those clerics like Berrigan and his brother Phillip, a former Jesuit, who ally themselves with the poor and politically dispossessed and against the established order continue to run into trouble, as evidenced by last winter's meeting of U.S. bishops in Washington, which backed the Vatican in temporarily disciplining Seattle Bishop Raymond G. Hunthausen. Two American Jesuit priests have been forced from their order in the past year because of teachings and acts alleged to be at odds with dogma, especially in the area of sexuality. For a brief period, the Pope personally appointed the order's governing Superior General in Rome, an unprecedented break in the Jesuits' history of electing their own leader.

Addressing a crowd at Corrientes, Argentina, the Pope John Paul paid a kind of backhanded (and inaccurate) tribute to the Jesuits of THE MISSION, saying, "the missions and doctrines of the Jesuits constitute, without a doubt, one of the most worthwhile achievements that unified the Spanish, Portuguese and native worlds." In the audience were many Indians, who hold an annual procession for the Virgin Mary, whom they call "the Queen of the Guaranis."

There is evidence, apart from the Serra beatification, that that the commitment displayed by the Jesuits in THE MISSION does have a place in the sainthood process. Supporters of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was gunned down by a right-wing death squad in El Salvador because of his opposition to the authoritarian regime then in power — an incident roughly recreated in the film SALVADOR — are now asking Rome to declare him "venerable," the first of the three steps to sainthood.

One other thing to note is the echoes between this film and the film version of Oscar Romero's life, which was produced in 1989. You can watch the whole film Romero in an earlier post of mine: TheoPoetic Musings: Romero-The Movie.

1:58-7:55 is similar to the last scene of The Mission part of which can be seen at 1:30 in The Mission's trailer: .

Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

E. T. As Messianic Alien

One film we haven't discussed yet on Wed. nights within the context of a Christian framework is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, so here are some thoughts about E.T. as a Christ-figure:

[edit] Themes---Wikipedia
Spielberg drew the story of E.T. from the divorce of his own parents;[20] Gary Arnold of the Washington Post called the film "essentially a spiritual autobiography, a portrait of the filmmaker as a typical suburban kid set apart by an uncommonly fervent, mystical imagination".[21] Reflections of Steven Spielberg's childhood are seen throughout: Elliott feigns illness by holding his thermometer to a light bulb while covering his face with a heating pad, which was a trick frequently employed by the young Spielberg.[22] Michael's picking on Elliott echoes Spielberg's teasing of his younger sisters,[6] and Michael's evolution from tormentor to protector reflects how Spielberg had to take care of his sisters after their father left.[8]

Critics have focused on the parallels between the life of E.T. and Elliott, who is "alienated" by the loss of his father.[23][24] The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott wrote that while E.T. "is the more obvious and desperate foundling", Elliott "suffers in his own way from the want of a home".[25] (coincidentally, E.T. is the first and last letter of Eliott's name).[26] At the film's heart is the theme of growing up. Critic Henry Sheehan described the film as a retelling of Peter Pan from the perspective of a Lost Boy (Elliott).[27] E.T. cannot survive physically on Earth, as Pan could not survive emotionally in Neverland; Neverland’s pirates are replaced by government scientists.[27] Some critics have suggested that Spielberg's portrayal of suburbia is very dark, contrary to popular belief. A.O. Scott said, "The suburban milieu, with its unsupervised children and unhappy parents, its broken toys and brand-name junk food, could have come out of a Raymond Carver story,"[25] and Charles Taylor of Salon.com said, "Spielberg's movies, despite the way they're often characterized, are not Hollywood idealizations of families and the suburbs. The homes here bear what the cultural critic Karal Ann Marling called 'the marks of hard use'."[20]

Spielberg admitted this scene triggered speculation as to whether the film was a religious parable.

[28]Other critics found religious parallels between E.T. and Jesus.[29][30] Andrew Nigels described the story of E.T. as "crucifixion by military science" and "resurrection by love and faith".[31] According to Spielberg biographer Joseph McBride, Universal Studios appealed directly to the Christian market, with a poster reminiscent of Michelangelo's Creation of Adam and a logo reading "Peace".[12] Spielberg answered that he did not intend the film to be a religious parable, joking, "If I ever went to my mother and said, 'Mom, I've made this movie that's a Christian parable,' what do you think she'd say? She has a kosher restaurant on Pico and Doheny in Los Angeles."[28]

As a substantial body of film criticism has built up around E.T., numerous writers have analyzed the film in other ways as well. E.T. has been analyzed as a modern fairy tale[32] and in psychoanalytic terms.[32][24] Producer Kathleen Kennedy noted that an important theme of E.T. is tolerance, which would be central to future Spielberg films such as Schindler's List.[6] Having been a loner as a teenager, Spielberg described the film as "a minority story".[33] Spielberg's common theme of communication is partnered with the ideal of common understanding as represented in his depiction of humans and aliens: he asks that if an alien and a human can become friends, so too can many enemies who live close to one another on Earth.[34]

Also, this website offers these thoughts about E.T. as a Christ-figure:

Theme of Persecution
Theme of Family
Critics and Supporters
Theme of Innocence
Theme of Healing
Theme of Sacrificial Love
Theme of Reserection

Also from the same website, check out this section:

Other Interesting Facts

-When E.T. died the doctor pronounced him dead at 15:36 (3:36 p.m.). It is especially significant to recall that the Gospels place the death of Jesus on the cross at some brief time after the 'ninth hour' Matthew 27:45). The Hebrew day began at 6 a.m. so the ninth hour would have been 3 p.m.

- “Both E.T. and Christ are 'extra-terrestrials,' coming into the world from the 'outside in.' Both begin their 'adventures on earth' in less-than-auspicious circumstances - E.T. in a shed behind the home where he takes up residence, Christ in an animal shelter behind the 'inn.'

- Jesus states: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3). Elliott (to Gertie): "Grownups can't see him. Only little kids can see him." And from Mark 9:37: "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me..."

- Matthew 27:51 mentions that after Jesus died, the "earth shook and the rocks split." In the 1982 E.T. novel: "They [the doctors] hardly noticed the momentary flicker in the lights, and in the equipment, nor did they fully perceive the trembling of the house, the valley. This was reserved for other men, other equipment, those that monitor disturbances deep in the Earth's core...".

- E.T. tells Elliott repeatedly: "E.T. phone home." What Bible verse is known as 'God's telephone number'? Jeremiah 33:3. ["Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know."] In Rolling Stone magazine (Jan. 18/01) Bono confirmed that he changed the airport gate-sign on the cover of U2's latest album ["All That You Can't Leave Behind"] to J33-3. Bono told RS: "It was done like a piece of graffiti - It's known as 'God's telephone number'."

- Before His ascension, Jesus promises his disciples: "And surely I will be with you always..."(Matthew 28:20). Before E.T.'s ascension in the spaceship he says "I'll be right here," fingertip glowing over Elliott's chest. [E.T.'s own chest contains a glowing heart-light, analogous to the Sacred Heart portraits of Jesus.] He also said in his final moments on earth to Elliott, 'Come.' Matthew 14:29 reads, 'And he said, Come.'

Each of these examples came from (E.t. the Extra Terrestrial Savoir, 2006) and (Mann, 2005).

One other website of interest is: Jesus Covered In a Secular Wrapper: The Christ-figure in Popular Films.

Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

Cool Hand Luke Part 2

Last week, we finished Cool Hand Luke, so this week we discussed Christ-figures in film. After a brief sketch of ideas, we looked at two scenes from Superman---so here are some ideas of Superman as messianic archetype:

Divine Paternity

[5] David Bruce considered the infant Kal-El (Lee Quigley) to be the only begotten son of Jor-El (Marlon Brando), thus forming the second member of the Holy trinity (Matt. 28:19).12 Kal-El was the son of Jor-El just as Jesus was �the Son of God� (Mark 1:1; Heb. 10:29; 1 John 4:15). Indeed, in Superman II (hereafter S2), Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) described Superman (Christopher Reeve) as �the son of Jor El� thereby mimicking the biblical form. To further establish the paternity of the Jor-El/Kal-El, God/Jesus, Father/Son relationship, the holographic Jor-El in the newly constructed Fortress of Solitude specifically referred to Kal-El as �my son� and to himself as �your father.� Their indissoluble genetic link was further indicated by their respective hairstyles. The stately Jor-El, the teenage Clark Kent (Jeff East) and the adult Superman (but not the adult Clark Kent) had cute forelocks dangling upon their foreheads. This biological fact resonated with Jesus�s identity claim that: �if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also� (John 14:7).

---http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/superman.htm

------------------
My Thoughts:

First, Kal-El and Jor-El are plays on the generic Hebrew names for God: אל (El)-singular and אֱלוֹהִים (Elohim)-plural.

Secondly, A transliteration of Jesus’ Hebrew name, which means “Jesus the Messiah.”---also, spells the tetragrammaton out in initials, which is God’s revealed name.
יהוה or Yahweh and Jesus is Yahshua or יהשוה.

Third, http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS266US266&q=Superman+as+Christ+figure for further info.

Last, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman should provide more info---especially:

Influences
An influence on early Superman stories is the context of the Great Depression. The left-leaning perspective of creators Shuster and Siegel is reflected in early storylines. Superman took on the role of social activist, fighting crooked businessmen and politicians and demolishing run-down tenements.[33] This is seen by comics scholar Roger Sabin as a reflection of "the liberal idealism of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal", with Shuster and Siegel initially portraying Superman as champion to a variety of social causes.[34] In later Superman radio programs the character continued to take on such issues, tackling a version of the KKK in a 1946 broadcast.[35][36] Siegel and Shuster's staus as children of Jewish immigrants is also thought to have influenced their work. Timothy Aaron Pevey has argued that they crafted "an immigrant figure whose desire was to fit into American culture as an American", something which Pevey feels taps into an important aspect of American identity.[37]

Siegel himself noted that the many mythic heroes which exist in the traditions of many cultures bore an influence on the character, including Hercules and Samson.[6] The character has also been seen by Scott Bukatman to be "a worthy successor to Lindberg ... (and) also ... like Babe Ruth", and is also representative of the United States dedication to "progress and the 'new'" through his "invulnerable body ... on which history cannot be inscribed."[38] Further, given that Siegel and Shuster were noted fans of pulp science fiction,[14] it has been suggested that another influence may have been Hugo Danner. Danner was the main character of the 1930 novel Gladiator by Philip Wylie, and is possessed of same powers of the early Superman.[39]

Because Siegel and Shuster were both Jewish, some religious commentators and pop-culture scholars such as Rabbi Simcha Weinstein and British novelist Howard Jacobson suggest that Superman's creation was partly influenced by Moses,[40][41] and other Jewish elements. Superman's Kryptonian name, "Kal-El," resembles the Hebrew words קל-אל, which can be taken to mean "voice of God".[42] [43]. The suffix "el", meaning "(of) God"[44] is also found in the name of angels (e.g. Gabriel, Ariel), who are flying humanoid agents of good with superhuman powers. Jewish legends of the Golem have been cited as worthy of comparison,[45] a Golem being a mythical being created to protect and serve the persecuted Jews of 16th century Prague and later revived in popular culture in reference to their suffering at the hands of the Nazis in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. Superman is often seen as being an analogy for Jesus, being a saviour of humanity.[41][45][34][46]

Whilst the term Superman was initially coined by Nietzsche, it is unclear how influential Nietzsche and his ideals were to Siegel and Shuster.[41] Les Daniels has speculated that "Siegel picked up the term from other science fiction writers who had casually employed it", further noting that "his concept is remembered by hundreds of millions who may barely know who Nietzsche is."[6] Others argue that Siegel and Shuster "could not have been unaware of an idea that would dominate Hitler's National Socialism. The concept was certainly well discussed."[47] Yet Jacobson and others point out that in many ways Superman and the Übermensch are polar opposites.[40] Nietzsche envisioned the Übermensch as a man who had transcended the limitations of society, religion, and conventional morality while still being fundamentally human. Superman, although an alien gifted with incredible powers, chooses to honor human moral codes and social mores. Nietzsche envisioned the perfect man as being beyond moral codes; Siegel and Shuster envisioned the perfect man as holding himself to a higher standard of adherence to them.[48]

Siegel and Shuster have themselves discussed a number of influences that impacted upon the character. Both were avid readers, and their mutual love of science fiction helped to drive their friendship. Siegel cited John Carter stories as an influence: "Carter was able to leap great distances because the planet Mars was smaller that the planet Earth; and he had great strength. I visualized the planet Krypton as a huge planet, much larger than Earth".[22] The pair were also avid collectors of comic strips in their youth, cutting them from the newspaper, with Winsor McKay's Little Nemo firing their imagination with its sense of fantasy.[49] Shuster has remarked on the artists which played an important part in the development of his own style, whilst also noting a larger influence: "Alex Raymond and Burne Hogarth were my idols — also Milt Caniff, Hal Foster, and Roy Crane. But the movies were the greatest influence on our imagination: especially the films of Douglas Fairbanks Senior."[50] Fairbanks' role as Robin Hood was certainly an inspiration, as Shuster admitted to basing Superman's stance upon scenes from the movie.[51] The movies also influenced the storytelling and page layouts,[52] whilst the city of Metropolis was named in honor of the Fritz Lang motion picture of the same title.[22]

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

Next we watched two scenes from Green Mile. See http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/thegreenmile.html and http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS266US266&q=Christians+themes+in+the+Green+Mile.

Last we watched the last scene of Cool Hand Luke again in honor of Paul Newman who ironically died the week we finished the movie.

---Luke's death and resurrection?

Thoughts?

Christian Themes In "Cool Hand Luke"

On Wed. Nights, I am doing a study on Faith and Film led by Vick Griffin of our church. The first movie that we are watching is Cool Hand Luke. Reprinted below is a handout that Vick prepared, which I have hyperlinked relevant sections for further study:

Cool Hand Luke


-Released in 1967, starring Paul Newman

-Directed by Stuart Rosenberg

-Written by Donn Pearce and Frank Pierson, based on the novel by Donn Pearce

-Nominated for 4 Oscars [Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Music, Original Music Score, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium]

-Won Oscar for Best Supporting Actor [George Kennedy]

-Supporting cast included Dennis Hopper, Harry Dean Stanton, Strother Martin, Jo Van Fleet, Ralph Waite, Wayne Rogers, Joe Don Baker and Anthony Zerbe, among others

-Cool Hand Luke was produced by Jalem Productions, which was Jack Lemmon's production company

-Contains arguably one of the most memorable lines in all of film history: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate."

-Luke as "Christ-figure"-

*Central character
*An Outsider
*Associates and/or Betrayer Associate
*Death and Resurrection [?]

Next week, we will finish watching the movie but we left off at this scene:


, which looks like this: doesn't it?

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?