Several people have asked me for a few comments on the new Batman film. So here goes:
This is the darkest Batman film so far and picks up again on the theme (see my previous comments on "No country for old men") of senseless evil. Heath Ledger plays a more-than-convincing Joker who kills on the flip of a coin and blows up a hospital to create havoc, his very randomness making him hard to predict, a powerful adversary and near impossible to stop.
Lurking just beneath the surface of course is the question of identity. Who are we? What would we be like if all the restraints were removed? How would we cope in the face of overwhelming darkness?
This portrays a world where common grace has been removed. Government is powerless in the face of the Joker and people begin turning in on themselves in anarchy. As he says at one point, "A world without rules and without morals."
The only relief we are given from this bleak view of human nature is a scene where the Joker designs a social experiment where two boats have to decide whether each is going to blow up the other or they will both be blown up by the Joker. Tension ensues, not least because one of the boats is filled with the scum of Gotham while in the other is its respectable citizenry. Without giving the game away, one suspects that Christopher Nolan needed to inject some basic human goodness back into the equation to combat the terror.
The most sobering note of the film is probably watching it in the light of Heath Ledger's reported struggles with the role of the Joker and his subsequent death due to an overdose of sleeping pills. This means that many scenes in the film take on a deeper significance, which will be disturbing to some: the line to a Gotham cop "you see what someone is really like in the moments before their death" is just one example.
One highlight of the film is its photography some of which is quite simply stunning - I was privileged to watch it in the building in Hong Kong featured in the movie, and for those who like dramatic cityscapes there are some exhilarating images.
One final thought is the role of Batman - here we have the superhero who is willing to be misunderstood and takes the massive evil of the city. The price, however, is that he is pursued, hounded, considered an outcast and a lawbreaker - echoes of Isaiah 53. The citizens do not recognise their protector and consider him anathema. There is at least a faint glimmer of the one person who took evil and did not hide behind his mask but revealed himself to all who had eyes to see.
Sunday, 27 July 2008
Sunday, 11 May 2008
That's another fine mess you got me into
Preaching on Ruth recently midweek gave me the chance to reflect again on Ruth 1:1-5.
1 In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. 2 The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. 3 But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, 5 and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.
When interpreting Ruth 1 we may be tempted to let Elimelech and his family off the hook too easily for the suffering they experienced. Consider the following:
1. The action takes place at the time of the Judges (v1); we are probably right then to infer that this famine in Israel (that clearly did not affect nearby Moab) was God's discipline as a covenant curse for the idolatry and degeneracy of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 28:23-24).
2. Moab was certainly an unusual choice for a devout Israelite family, given its origins in the sin of Lot (Genesis 19:30-38), its recent incursions into Israel (see Judges 3:15-30) and the fact that Moabites were not allowed in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3-6).
3. Elimelech's sons took Moabite wives and were therefore disobedient to God's law that forbade marriage to pagans (Deuteronomy 7). In fact, marriage to pagans was also considered a symptom of failing to keep God's Covenant (Deuteronomy 28:32).
4. In the Old Testament context, the barrenness of Ruth and Orpah after ten years was also considered to be part of God's judgement on national unfaithfulness to him (Deuteronomy 28:18). The implication is that Elimelech (whose name means "the Lord is my God") was not living up to his name, and sought refuge in Moab rather than in returning to the Lord.
In the light of this evidence it seems as if the tragedy that overtook Naomi's family in Moab is not an example of "innocent" suffering from the mysterious hand of God, but is rather something that Elimelech brought on them through disobedience. The sufferings of chapter 1:1-5, therefore, may be regarded as disciplinary in nature. The fact that God would one day bring both King David and King Jesus out of the self inflicted suffering of Elimelech's family only serves to magnify his greatness.
There is also an encouragement here for us: even when we get ourselves into a mess through disobedience, that suffering is not outwith God's control and it does not mean that we are now outside of his plan. The story of Ruth and Naomi has much to encourage us.
1 In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. 2 The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. 3 But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, 5 and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.
When interpreting Ruth 1 we may be tempted to let Elimelech and his family off the hook too easily for the suffering they experienced. Consider the following:
1. The action takes place at the time of the Judges (v1); we are probably right then to infer that this famine in Israel (that clearly did not affect nearby Moab) was God's discipline as a covenant curse for the idolatry and degeneracy of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 28:23-24).
2. Moab was certainly an unusual choice for a devout Israelite family, given its origins in the sin of Lot (Genesis 19:30-38), its recent incursions into Israel (see Judges 3:15-30) and the fact that Moabites were not allowed in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3-6).
3. Elimelech's sons took Moabite wives and were therefore disobedient to God's law that forbade marriage to pagans (Deuteronomy 7). In fact, marriage to pagans was also considered a symptom of failing to keep God's Covenant (Deuteronomy 28:32).
4. In the Old Testament context, the barrenness of Ruth and Orpah after ten years was also considered to be part of God's judgement on national unfaithfulness to him (Deuteronomy 28:18). The implication is that Elimelech (whose name means "the Lord is my God") was not living up to his name, and sought refuge in Moab rather than in returning to the Lord.
In the light of this evidence it seems as if the tragedy that overtook Naomi's family in Moab is not an example of "innocent" suffering from the mysterious hand of God, but is rather something that Elimelech brought on them through disobedience. The sufferings of chapter 1:1-5, therefore, may be regarded as disciplinary in nature. The fact that God would one day bring both King David and King Jesus out of the self inflicted suffering of Elimelech's family only serves to magnify his greatness.
There is also an encouragement here for us: even when we get ourselves into a mess through disobedience, that suffering is not outwith God's control and it does not mean that we are now outside of his plan. The story of Ruth and Naomi has much to encourage us.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
The one we've been waiting for
A review of Tim Keller’s, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism, Dutton, New York, 2008, $24.95
If you have longed for a book to give a sceptical friend or to help you think about your faith in a deeper and more culturally engaged way then this is the book you’ve been waiting for.
Keller will be known to many as the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Traditionally the graveyard of American evangelicalism, Keller has planted a church in the middle of the city among the types of people who have always been thought of as the hardest to reach: the urban, the young, the sceptical and the postmodern. One feature that makes this book so rich and unique is the way that it reflects his experiences.
Keller starts with the concept of doubt and invites both believers and sceptics to examine and confront their doubts: for the believer, being honest about personal and cultural objections to faith; for the sceptic, being willing to question deeply cherished beliefs.
The book is split simply into two halves. The first half seeks to deconstruct doubt, and looks at the seven most common “defeaters” to Christian belief that Keller has encountered: the exclusivity of the Christian claims, the problem of suffering, Christianity as a moral straitjacket, the track record of the church, hell, science, and whether we can take the Bible literally or not. The second half seeks to build a more positive case for Christianity and examines the clues for God in creation and human nature before covering the more traditional turf of sin, redemption, and resurrection, finishing with a characteristically winsome appeal for our response.
What separates this book out from its predecessors is firstly Keller’s style. His writing is disarming, honest, and compelling, and is interspersed with real life anecdotes from the many people who have come to him with questions. The second thing to note is that Keller brings arguments to bear on his subject matter that will be new even to many Christians. He consistently engages with the toughest contemporary nuts to crack (even addressing issues such as social justice and human rights) and it is not without significance that his book has been described as a modern day Mere Christianity. Keller would no doubt shirk from the parallel but acknowledges Lewis’s influence (along with that of American theologian Jonathan Edwards) at many points.
This is great stuff from start to finish. Whether you are a sceptic seeking answers, a believer struggling with doubts, or just seeking to be better equipped to share your faith, then this is the book for you. Keller’s stated aim is to make a case for Christianity in general, and he does this humbly and truthfully in a way that would be especially accessible to the thinking outsider. Significantly, this book is distributed by a secular publisher; it has already made the Top Ten list of New York Times’ bestsellers, and it is gratifying finally to have a Christian book that engages with the likes of Dawkins et al on their level and in their natural habitat. Let us pray that many people buy this and read it: the more the better.
If you have longed for a book to give a sceptical friend or to help you think about your faith in a deeper and more culturally engaged way then this is the book you’ve been waiting for.
Keller will be known to many as the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Traditionally the graveyard of American evangelicalism, Keller has planted a church in the middle of the city among the types of people who have always been thought of as the hardest to reach: the urban, the young, the sceptical and the postmodern. One feature that makes this book so rich and unique is the way that it reflects his experiences.
Keller starts with the concept of doubt and invites both believers and sceptics to examine and confront their doubts: for the believer, being honest about personal and cultural objections to faith; for the sceptic, being willing to question deeply cherished beliefs.
The book is split simply into two halves. The first half seeks to deconstruct doubt, and looks at the seven most common “defeaters” to Christian belief that Keller has encountered: the exclusivity of the Christian claims, the problem of suffering, Christianity as a moral straitjacket, the track record of the church, hell, science, and whether we can take the Bible literally or not. The second half seeks to build a more positive case for Christianity and examines the clues for God in creation and human nature before covering the more traditional turf of sin, redemption, and resurrection, finishing with a characteristically winsome appeal for our response.
What separates this book out from its predecessors is firstly Keller’s style. His writing is disarming, honest, and compelling, and is interspersed with real life anecdotes from the many people who have come to him with questions. The second thing to note is that Keller brings arguments to bear on his subject matter that will be new even to many Christians. He consistently engages with the toughest contemporary nuts to crack (even addressing issues such as social justice and human rights) and it is not without significance that his book has been described as a modern day Mere Christianity. Keller would no doubt shirk from the parallel but acknowledges Lewis’s influence (along with that of American theologian Jonathan Edwards) at many points.
This is great stuff from start to finish. Whether you are a sceptic seeking answers, a believer struggling with doubts, or just seeking to be better equipped to share your faith, then this is the book for you. Keller’s stated aim is to make a case for Christianity in general, and he does this humbly and truthfully in a way that would be especially accessible to the thinking outsider. Significantly, this book is distributed by a secular publisher; it has already made the Top Ten list of New York Times’ bestsellers, and it is gratifying finally to have a Christian book that engages with the likes of Dawkins et al on their level and in their natural habitat. Let us pray that many people buy this and read it: the more the better.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
No Country for Anyone
No Country for Old Men is the latest Coen brothers film and was recently awarded four Oscars, including Best Director and Best Film. Set in rural Texas, a hunter discovers a drugs deal gone wrong and rather than hand the money over to the police, makes off with it himself pursued by the psychopathic killer Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Chigurh is cool, calculating, and frighteningly evil, and mechanically dispatches his victims one after the other with a tank of compressed air and a hose. The innocent, the friendly, the helpful and the bystander are all shot, often at the toss of a coin. The film is bleak and unremittingly hopeless. We sympathise most with Police Chief Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) who is powerless and despairing in the face of Chigurh's violence. "This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming." And although we long for God to intervene he never does. "I always figured when I got older, God would sorta come into my life somehow. And he didn't. I don't blame him." Either God could intervene and doesn't, or he is powerless. Like many before it, this film raises questions about evil: who are we waiting for? Is there anyone who can save us from this apocalyptic onslaught? If God exists, why doesn't he do something? Perhaps most hauntingly, this film reminds us of the limitations of human justice in the face of gratuitous evil.
Sunday, 17 February 2008
Christianity and Islam
In a recent talk on the barge Henk Bouma shared with us some reflections on the way that Christians should seek to engage with Moslems. He talked about understanding Moslem culture, using verses in the Qu'ran to point people towards Jesus and said that to call oneself a Christian was not necessarily helpful in a Moslem country where the word "Christian" might have negative overtones and be more associated with Hollywood and militarism than Christ and the cross.
One key principle underlying this debate seems to me to be how far we are willing to go with the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 when he said "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." In short, so long as there is no compromise on gospel truth or Christian morality we are free to utilise whatever means me want in order to engage meaningfully with those around us. Therefore, if the word "Christian" is going to be misunderstood then we are free to drop it and replace it with a meaninful alternative.
A second key principle underlying this debate is how far we are willing to go with the apostle Paul in Acts 17 where he enters the culture of the Athenians and even uses pagan Greek poets and philosophers in his Christian presentation. God's fingerprints, if you are like, are present throughout his creation so that any religion, book, film, novel or cultural work will have something in it that points to the one true God. We need to start with where people are at, and in the context of engaging with a Moslem worldview this is going to involve starting with the Qu'ran itself.
In both these issues we may legitimately debate where the line is to be drawn. How far is too far? How far is too far in using someone's culture as a starting point from which to engage them with the Christian faith? How far is too far when it comes to being all things to all people? These are good questions. Henk did not compromise Christian truth, but he did challenge us how far we are willing to go in becoming all things to all people for the sake of winning some.
One key principle underlying this debate seems to me to be how far we are willing to go with the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 when he said "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." In short, so long as there is no compromise on gospel truth or Christian morality we are free to utilise whatever means me want in order to engage meaningfully with those around us. Therefore, if the word "Christian" is going to be misunderstood then we are free to drop it and replace it with a meaninful alternative.
A second key principle underlying this debate is how far we are willing to go with the apostle Paul in Acts 17 where he enters the culture of the Athenians and even uses pagan Greek poets and philosophers in his Christian presentation. God's fingerprints, if you are like, are present throughout his creation so that any religion, book, film, novel or cultural work will have something in it that points to the one true God. We need to start with where people are at, and in the context of engaging with a Moslem worldview this is going to involve starting with the Qu'ran itself.
In both these issues we may legitimately debate where the line is to be drawn. How far is too far? How far is too far in using someone's culture as a starting point from which to engage them with the Christian faith? How far is too far when it comes to being all things to all people? These are good questions. Henk did not compromise Christian truth, but he did challenge us how far we are willing to go in becoming all things to all people for the sake of winning some.
The gospel writers as eyewitnesses
According to a recent survery 50% of young people think that there is no evidence for the historical Jesus, no doubt, in part, as a result of the doubt and confusion generated by everything from the Da Vinci Code to the supposed discovery of the Jesus family tomb last year. In the light of this, CS Lewis gives us the following helpful reminder of the fact that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. This is from his essay "Fern-seed and elephants",
"I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths, all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage, though it may contain errors. or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read."
Lewis is saying that we have a choice. Either we believe that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Or we believe that the writers were able to make up a writing style that didn't appear in Western Europe for another 1,500 years. His point is that either they are eyewitness accounts or they were written to look like it - even although that would anticipate a way of writing that was not yet present. It might be argued that to believe the latter actually takes a great deal more faith than to believe the former.
"I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths, all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage, though it may contain errors. or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read."
Lewis is saying that we have a choice. Either we believe that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Or we believe that the writers were able to make up a writing style that didn't appear in Western Europe for another 1,500 years. His point is that either they are eyewitness accounts or they were written to look like it - even although that would anticipate a way of writing that was not yet present. It might be argued that to believe the latter actually takes a great deal more faith than to believe the former.
Friday, 1 February 2008
The Christian and sex
In my preparation for last week's sermon ("The Christian and Marriage"), I was struck by the following quote from Christopher Ash's book "Married for God" (p71) "Christians tend to focus on the epidemic of sexual activity outside marriage, but I suspect we ought to devote at least equal attention to the epidemic of sexual inactivity within marriages." I think this also has implications for how we relate to people who are not yet believers. For many a black mark against Christianity is that they perceive that it is down on sex. It may be that in our desire not to go weak on sin that our positive message about sex has lost much of its beauty, force and clarity. I suspect if we were to do a survey, then the balance between denouncing sexual sin and commending a positive view of sex would fall far short of a 50/50 ratio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)