Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Christian Theology (General)


by 2 Comments

Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference: Day 1, Part 2

6:00p, CST: A great first weekend! I’m excited for next weekend with folks like Nijay Gupta and Stan Hauerwas presenting.

__________

5:39p, CST: We need to live within our “creatureliness” rather than trying to be divine in how we manage nature.

5:37p, CST: Three fruits of the ecological vocation: (1) restraint, (2) resourcefulness, and (3) contentment .

5:34p, CST: Fortitude helps maintain these other virtues.

5:33p, CST: Virtues such as prudence and temperance being discussed now.

5:28p, CST: What is a virtue? What is its relationship to ecological ethics? Virtue = acquired human quality…to achieve particular goods and prevent us from not obtaining those goods.

5:27p, CST: Jorgenson presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 5.27.50 PM

5:26p, CST: Repentance is change, and this change is a radical reorientation toward ethical behavior. This isn’t a one time event, but we must do it daily

5:24p, CST: Sin is a “relational condition.” 

5:21p, CST: Repentance + a pursuit of particular virtues (restraint, resourcefulness, and contentment) are key.

5:20p, CST: Our ecological concerns have not addressed congregations as a whole. Our worship expressed our belief.

5:17p, CST: Jorgenson begins by discussing the “eco-shift” in American consciousness. But this doesn’t mean Americans are ecologically sustainable. Actually, it’s worse than ever.

5:15p, CST: Great shot of N.T. Wright presenting (from earlier today):

942717_10152845921740445_1511106366_n

5:10p, CST: Last session of Day 1:  Kiara Jorgenson (Ph.D. Candidate Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN), “The Role of Repentance and the Virtues toward the Christian Fulfillment of Ecological Vocation”.

__________

4:48p, CST: To allow the aggressive actions to continue would have been unethical for Paul.

4:42p, CST: If the agitators are being aggressive, then expulsion is permissible. This is why his attitude is different than in Romans. The insiders can be expelled.

4:41p, CST: How does a persecuted group expel agitators?

4:32p, CST: Persecution associated the oppressed with Christ, marking their identity, making them the “right kind of children of Abraham,” while those who persecute do not represent Christ.

4:30p, CST: Baptism marks out more than membership, but addresses the kind of community: one with a crucified messiah.

4:29p, CST: Dunne presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 4.29.11 PM

4:28p, CST: Suffering and persecution function as boundary markers.

4:25p, CST: The agitators are acting like Ishmael in their aggressive, persecuting behavior.

4:21p, CST: The agitators are not Jews in particular, but particular people.

4:18p, CST: Dunne addressing mission and ethics as it relates to outsiders.

4:13p, CST: Ok, I chose the paper on Paul because that is more my niche, but I do want to go back to watch the recording of Manby’s paper.

4:07p, CST: Two very interesting sessions to choose from next. Either John Anthony Dunne “Suffering, Christian Identity, and the Expulsion of the Galatian Agitators (Gal. 4:29-30): A Response to Susan Eastman” or Aaron C. Manby’s paper on absolute pacifism in the early church!!!

__________

3:47p, CST: The eschatological temple = the church.

3:40p, CST: Rosner explaining the connections between purity and being the temple based on the expectation that temples be pure.

3:30p, CST: If the church is the temple, the bread and wine are the sacrifice.

3:27p, CST: Solomon’s temple was the anti-type of the fulfilled temple which is the church.

3:24p, CST: Entered this session a little late: Brian Rosner, “The Church as Temple and Moral Exhortation in 1 Corinthians”.

__________

2:46p, CST: How does this address the prevailing wisdom of our day? (1) If this wisdom is not that of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, but the prevailing upper class of Corinth? How does that compare to eudaimonia? (2) If this not universal, but specific to Corinth, how do we understand “wisdom,” “power,” and “foolishness” of our day? (3) Does the prevailing wisdom of the day play any role in following Apollos, or Paul, or Cephas, etc? (4) If the modern self-help movement compares favorably to the Corinthians concept of eudaimonia is it compatible with the Gospel? (5) How dangerous is it for Christians today to have our own guru and own wisdom? (6) Does self-help promote the power “in me” and not God?

2:39p, CST: Paul had a specific idea of “foolishness,” it is not a generic idea. Paul is against a particular prevailing wisdom at that time that was unable to point people to God.

2:36p, CST: Paul is addressing how people in Corinth understood the Gospel, as stupid. This is less about “knowledge” and more about influence. The Corinthians see the Gospel as “slave logic,” but it is powerful in God.

2:35p, CST: The contrast is not between wisdom and foolishness, but foolishness and the power of God.

2:34p, CST: Since Paul is vague here, using words like “wisdom,” “power,” and “foolishness,” people can insert their own ideas into this, critiquing what they want to critique, using Paul’s words, but Paul may have meant something less universalistic and more specific.

2:33p, CST: 1 Cor 1:18-25 = popular Christian response to questions of human wisdom

2:31p, CST: Estes presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 2.31.22 PM

2:31p, CST: Wisdom was on the mind of the ancients, so how do we read Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 1?

2:30p, CST: How do we speak to people who are interested in the practical wisdom of our day, and speak in this language, when presenting biblical wisdom?

2:28p, CST: North Americans are fascinated with the idea of reaching the fullest potential of our happiness.

2:26p, CST: Estes shares how ancient Greeks understood eudaimonia and whether self-help is a modern form.

2:22p, CST: Estes is introducing us to the self-help movement, it’s positives, it’s negatives, it’s money making potential, and how this relates to biblical wisdom.

2:16p, CST: Douglas Estes discussing “The Transformation of Wisdom: Self-help, Foolishness, and Moral Formation in an Ecclesial Context”.

2:05p, CST: Next up, my former professor and a mentor of mine, Douglas Estes!

__________

1:45p, CST: Cruciformity is not only theology and Christolgy, but ecclesiology!

1:41p, CST: What about “just war?” Paul’s logic: although you’ve been wrong, and you have an authoritative tradition allowing you to response, don’t follow that, overcome evil with good. (1 Cor 6, 9 and “rights”)

1:38p, CST: To follow God we are to forgive and be reconciled. This is not how God is viewed by much of Western society.

1:37p, CST: Rom 5:1, 6-1; 12:9-21

1:33p, CST: I see people using #ecclesiaandethics on Twitter for those interested.

1:30p, CST: 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 18-19, 21. Messiah’s death is an act of Christ’s love and God’s act of reconciliation and forgiveness.

1:29p, CST: The church becomes like God through narrative, cruciform practices.

1:23p, CST: Cruciformity is not merely spirituality, but imitation of Christ, specifically.

1:22p, CST: Cruciformity = cruciform + conformity

1:20p, CST: God is often left out of theology, oddly enough!

1:17p, CST: Paul as theologian: (1) messianic; (2) the cross and resurrection; (3) narrative; (4) ecclesial; (5) mystical.

Michael Gorman presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 1.17.06 PM

1:16p, CST: The cross of Jesus Christ answers both of these questions.

1:15p, CST: This passage addresses (1) who or what is God? (2) what is the church?

1:14p, CST: 1 Cor 2:2 tells us about Paul’s theology, Christology, ecclesiology, etc.

1:10p, CST: Technical difficulties resolved. So far, this is the first one. Not bad for an inaugural online conference!

1:06p, CST: Michael Gorman (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary; Raymond E. Brown Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology, St. Mary’s Seminary and University) will begin the second half of day one speaking on “God, the Cross, and the Church” as soon as some technical difficulties are resolved.

See my notes from the earlier sessions: Day 1, Part 1.

About these ads


by 6 Comments

Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference: Day 1, Part 1

12:43p, CST: Until humility is the primary characteristic of the church we risk at standing in pride against God.

12:41p, CST: The only one with the right to judge is the one who has the power to carry out those judgments. We claim our anger to be God’s righteousness, but this isn’t true. God’s grace is to the humble.

12:39p, CST: Very poignant application to the judgment seen in public between “conservative” and “liberal” Christians in the public square.

12:36p, CST: The church should be characterized by humble people.

12:35p, CST: God’s presence in the congregation is not compatible with moral ambivalence and oppression.

12:33p, CST: We need to turn our desire back to God. This is how we escape the need to find success at the expense of others.

12:30p, CST: Mariam Kamell presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 12.29.52 PM

12:29p, CST: The greater you are the more you need to humble yourself.

12:27p, CST: Humility is the answer to the problems in community. We need to recognize all good things come from God. Pride is independent identity without God’s grace.

12:26p, CST: “God gives grace to the humiliates because they receive it.” The proud reject it.

12:22p, CST: Our focus should be on our neighbor, but in love, not envy. We are not to emulate the world, but YHWH.

12:21p, CST: “Have we baptized the world’s system and called it Christian?” Good question!

12:20p, CST: The world is not the material world, or people in general, but the anti-God culture.

12:18p, CST: “Adulterers” in 4:4 is an echo of Israel in the OT as a unfaithful spouse to God. Now James uses this of his audience.

12:16p, CST: God is a giver. God is not witholding gifts. Rather, we cannot wait on God, but look elsewhere.

12:15p, CST: Instead of asking from God we desire from our neighbor.

12:11p, CST: One must learn to receive from God, not push their own desires, to take from others.

12:06p, CST: Fight and disputes are reality, and acknowledging this is a necessary step toward healing.

12:04p, CST: James 4:1-12 address, directly, what it means for us to navigate living in community.

12:03p, CST: People of different groups blame “those people” when trying to explain the church’s lack of “progress.”

12:02p, CST:  There is pressure on the church to “modernize,” to get on board with the direction Western culture is moving.

11:48a, CST: Next up: Mariam Kamell, “Pride and Prejudice: Community Ethics in James 4:1-12″ for the next main session.

__________

11:32a, CST: Mark is not concerned with one or more ethical issues, but what it means to be human.

11:30a, CST: The other orientation nature of the slave metaphor used by Jesus taps into this innermost moral impulse.

11:28a, CST: Our innermost moral impulse is “toward the other,” which Jesus emphasizes in his teachings.

11:24a, CST: “We are most fully human when we are for the other.”

11:20a, CST: Morality is not a “means,” it is worthwhile in and of itself.

11:18a, CST: Morality cannot be the mere product of society. It must inform society.

11:17a, CST: Morality cannot be about “rules” alone, since rules can be kept without caring for others.

11:06a, CST: The slave metaphor underlines one’s devotion to someone. To say “slave of x” means to be devoted to that thing: food, sex, etc.

11:03a, CST: Wheaton notes the the Markan perspective of morality is under appreciated. The metaphor of slavery provides insights though.

10:58a, CST: I’ve chosen Gary Wheaton (Ph.D., Professor of New Testament at Seminario ESEPA, San Jose, Costa Rica), “To Be Human Among Humans: The Essence of Morality in Markan Perspective”.

10:56a, CST: A few minutes until the next session and I don’t know which one to choose! Thankfully, I hear that these sessions are being recorded, so if you miss one and can go back to watch it later.

__________

10:42a, CST: Wright did a good job answering my question. He observed that dispensationalist thought saw (correctly) the need to read Scripture as a narrative, but their understanding of Israel’s role and Jesus’ fulfilled work is lacking.

10:34a, CST: I’m interested to hear how Wright’s paradigm differs from popular dispensationalist readings of Scripture.

10:27a, CST: N.T. Wright presenting online:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 10.27.15 AM

10:22a, CST: Paul’s ethic is a reborn “virtue ethic.” This is not Aristotle’s telos, per se, but “new humanity.”

10:19a, CST: Wright presents Paul’s ethics as active elimination of many of the vices associated with the old age. There has been a transition. Paul mentions some large scale ones, such as the temple into the people of God (as the dwelling place of the Spirit) and Sabbath as time in general, these things transitioned through the Messiah.

10:15a, CST: 80 + attendees in this session!

10:12a, CST: In “new creation” the project of Gen 1-2 “gets back on track,” says Wright.

10:10a, CST: The arrival of the eschaton in the present conditions Christian thinking.

10:09a, CST: Paul’s ethics are grounded in his inaugurated eschatology.

1o:08a, CST: Paul understood YHWH to have returned to Zion, yet the world remained as is. This is the “already, but not yet.”

10:06a, CST: Paul taught to think Scripturally and eschatology through Messiah and Spirit.

10:05a, CST: Paul’s ethics and eschatology will be the focus of Wright’s paper.

9:50a, CST: Next up, N.T. Wright!

__________

9:35a, CST: If this creation is part of God’s future, this should impact how we relate to it now.

9:29a, CST: God has reconciled this  world to Christ, says Burkholder, so in Bonhoeffer’s thought we are responsible to participate in God’s plan for this world.

9:20a, CST: Interesting: Bonhoeffer denies the “God became human so humans could become god,” substituting it for “God became human so humans could become human,” or we may say “truly human.” Humans cannot change into deity, but deity being human allows humans to become fully human. If God has entered into creation, then creation can become fully itself through Christ.

9:17a, CST: Bonhoeffer critiques Augustine’s idea of “two cities” arguing there is one reality, that which is revealed by God in Christ. Christ is in creation. In the God who is human both realities are one.

9:11a, CST: Bonhoeffer sees in the image of God the freedom to serve others and creation. Humans aren’t to exploit creation, but serve it. Human rule over creation doesn’t mean we can ruin creation. We need creation as creation needs us.

9:08a, CST: Does Gen. 1-2 present humans as so far above creation that we can do as we want? Bonhoeffer observes that this cannot be so, because humans are “from the earth,” so our relationship to the earth is as people who are “pieces of earth.”

9:05a, CST: Burkholder addresses how the Christian tradition may address ecological crisis. He will be appropriating Bonhoeffer’s Christology, who begins with Jesus, in whom God has come into our material existence.

9:01a, CST: I’ve chosen Benjamin Burkholder (Ph.D. Candidate in Systematic Theology, Duquesne University), “Cultivating Christo-centric Concern for the Environment: Appropriating Bonhoeffer’s Anthropology and Christology in an Age of Environmental Degradation”.

8:52a, CST: Now the hard part: deciding which parallel session to attend!!!

__________

8:44a, CST: 40 + attendees in the first, early session. Cool.

8:40a, CST: Although Chen’s reading is used to critique the Korean church, it seems quite applicable to the American church as well–or the church in general! Leaders who want to be honored, kingly authority, using the people for personal endeavors, trying to gather large crowds, thinking our techniques do things without asking whether God is involved.

8:34a, CST: Interesting to see how Gideon moves from a humble, fearful figure, to one who “rules” over the people, and his “reign” is given hereditary succession (another one of the problems Chun mentioned about the Korean church).

8:29a, CST: Chun provides an interesting insight into how Gideon’s fell0w soldiers go from being presented as co-fighters, to people under his feet, participating in his personal campaign.

8:22a, CST: This story critiques the idea that we humans can do things without the glory going to the Lord. The church think more people equals more success, but this leads us to think “we” do great things. This story shows that God does great things, no matter the number.

8:18a, CST: Chun critiques the Korean church’s fascination with large congregations by observing in Judges 7-8 that God doesn’t need large numbers to do “better and successful ministry.” He calls this “the myth of number.”

8:12a, CST: Chun explores reading the Gideon-Abimelech narrative of Judges 7-8, reading through an ethical lens, asking how this narrative may address the Korean church.

8:10a, CST: Chun observes that the connection between “hurch” and “ethics” is not as obvious as it ought to be. Often, in the Korean church (where Chun lives), the church is seen as a hinderance or stumbling block to living ethically. Chun gave several examples of ethical scandals related to finance, sexuality, and so forth.

8:00a, CST: Main Speaker Session #1, Sugmin Min Chun (D.Phil, Oxford University), a Research Fellow at Nehemiah Institute for Christian Studies will begin the conference with his paper “A Theological-Ethical Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Story”.

7:50a, CST:  The Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference begins today! I plan on live blogging it. If you are “attending” (signing on?)  let me know.


by 3 Comments

Israel’s wars

Thomas_Holy-War-in-BibleI am reading Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem edited by Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan. (It is one of three IVP Academic publications I am trying to read and review, so I’m moving slowly, a chapter at a time!) In Chapter 3 “Martial Memory, Peaceable Vision: Divine War in the Old Testament” the author, Stephen B. Chapman, makes the following statement (p. 64):

 ”…in order for Christ to appear in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4) it was necessary for God to elect and preserve the people of Israel. And apparently–this is the hard part–God was not able, given the violence of the world, to preserve Israel purely nonviolently although, even so, Israel’s history witnesses to and moves toward nonviolence as it moves toward Christ.”

Now, let me be clear, I share this quote not to reflect or comment on Chapman’s essay (which I found thought provoking). Often, when I share quotes from books I have had commenters berate the author (something that is not fair if the chapter itself has not been read) with no knowledge of the broader argument, so I am cautious about short excerpts like this one (i.e., I am not asking comments about Chapman’s essay as a whole), but I wanted to share it because it does present a common view among those who both recognize (1) Christ seems to have taught his disciples nonviolence (to some degree, even if one doesn’t affirm complete pacificity) and (2) YHWH engages and even commands warfare. Many solutions to this problem are seen as too close to Marcionism or more critical of the theology of the Hebrew Bible than even Jesus himself. Chapman’s statement seems to be an attempt to hold together a view of the Hebrew Bible as theologically authoritative alongside the acknowledgment that Jesus called his disciples to a higher ethic (maybe this falls under the paradigm of “progressive revelation”?), so it is worth sharing to hear your thoughts.

Again, the basic idea is this: does it satisfy to propose that YHWH did command violence and warfare in order to preserve Israel, but not as a basic affirmation of war in general, since Jesus (his Son) both taught peace and lived sacrificially or do you think this explanation is insufficient?


by Leave a comment

Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference begins tomorrow!

As I mentioned a while back I will be one of the presenters at the inaugural Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference which begins tomorrow. The conference takes place this Saturday and the next (I am presenting on the 25th). It includes people like N.T. Wright, Stan Hauerwas, Nijay Gupta, and Michael Barber to name a few of the more familiar faces (see the full schedule here). It cost $10 for full access to both days, and that money goes to an affiliate charity, because an online with a few sponsors is economically (and ecologically, since there is no travel either) sustainable!

If you haven’t had a chance to watch some of the pre-conference interviews you can do so here.

If you’d like to learn more about the conference go here.


by 16 Comments

Pledging allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

“I pledge allegiance to the flag…”

In the comments section of the review I wrote yesterday for Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies one commenter asked whether modern Christians should (A) pledge allegiance to the government under which they live or (B) do their best to be law abiding without going as far as pledging allegiance. This is an interesting question. Does pledging allegiance to the United States (or another nation) constitute something equivalent to being loyal to “God and Mammon,” something Jesus said is not possible, or (as I see it) can it be more akin to the words of the Prophet Jeremiah (29:7) who told exiles to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” where they’d be taken, even commanding them to “pray for it?”

Personally, I suggested in response that a Christian pledging allegiance doesn’t have to mean absolute loyalty beyond one’s moral and religious convictions. Instead, I think it is possible to pledge allegiance meaning something like “I will do nothing to harm those neighbors with whom I share a government, an immediate economy, a overarching culture, land, and other possessions. I will do my best to live for the benefit of the city, state, and nation in which I live as long as this doesn’t contradict my allegiance to the Kingdom of God.” This allegiance can be multifaceted. One may oppose war or bad economic practices that lead our nation to harm other nations out of allegiance to one’s own nation. In other words, I don’t want to United States to invade Iran or bomb North Korea because I think it is bad for our people to have to be committed to those acts when there are other options. I may oppose my nation’s exploitive economic policies not out of disloyalty, but because I think our people will be grieved by their own evil over time and that if we harm others it will fracture potentially fruitful relationships with them in the future.

In other words, pledging allegiance doesn’t mean mindless subservience.

How would you respond to the question of whether or not pledging allegiance is compatible with Christianity’s confession that “‘Jesus is Lord’ to the glory of God the Father”?


by 5 Comments

Satan according to Bono and Mick Jagger

devil

“Sympathy for the Devil” by The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones became a rock band in 1962. While a member has joined and a couple have departed it has been the same group, basically, for five decades now. U2 came together in 1976 and it would be no surprise to see the same band celebrating four decades of music in a few years. I enjoy both groups, though U2′s status as my favorite band should tell you who I prefer. Oddly, though both bands have produced dozens of hit tracks two of the songs I enjoy most have Satan as a main character. Don’t worry, it has to do with my interest in how biblical literature and Christian theology are presented in art, especially music.

In “Sympathy for the Devil” (1968) the Rolling Stones do a first person impersonation of Satan. Likewise, U2 does this in “Until the End of the World” (1991). While Satan is in the forefront of both songs, the depictions are different.

In “Sympathy for the Devil” a catchy beat accompanies Satan’s monologue, but his identity is not presented until near the end of the song. Satan presents himself as being “a man of wealth and taste” who has been around for a long time stealing “a man’s soul and faith.” Satan enters the scene at Jesus’ trial: “I was around when Jesus Christ/Had his moment of doubt and pain/I made damn sure that Pilate/Washed his hands and sealed his fate”. Satan is presented as empowering this Roman Prefect. Satan is behind the “October Revolution” at the beginning of the twentieth century (“I stuck around St. Petersburg/when I saw it was a time for a change/Killed the Tsar and his ministers/Anastasia screamed in vain”), WWII (“I rode a tank/Held a general’s rank/When the blitzkrieg raged/And the bodies stank”), religious wars (“I watched with glee/While your kings and queens/Fought for decades/For the gods they made”), and even the the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy (“I shouted out/’Who killed the Kennedys?’/When after all/It was you and me”).

Finally, Satan begins to excuse himself, saying it is “the nature of my game,” then observing that humans are as evil: “Just as every cop is a criminal/And all the sinners, saints/As heads is tails/Just call me Lucifer/Cause I’m in need of restraint”. Then Satan request sympathy, tastefulness, and respect from his audience, lest he lays their souls to waste. The song ends with Satan dancing around in jubilee, almost taunting, asking for the listener to tell him his name, as if he enjoys the mere mention of it.

u2-until-the-end-of-the-world

Bono and The Edge play the parts of Satan and Jesus clashing.

Satan’s interaction with Jesus is one of many deeds he does. Juxtapose this with U2′s “Until the End of the World” where the entire monologue is Satan talking to Jesus. Jesus is the second central figure, not merely one of Satan’s many exploits. Similarly, whereas “Sympathy for the Devil” moves quickly past Christ as if he had no ability to content with personified Evil—Evil who has acted through human agents and who Mick Jagger and Co. may have sought to present as merely our name for our own actions–”Until the End of the World” seems to leave Satan perplexed by his encounter with Jesus.

The song begins with Satan addressing Jesus (“Haven’t seen you in quite a while/I was down the hole just passing time”). What is the setting for this? The song doesn’t say, but it does depict their “last meeting” where Satan says that it was “in a low-lit room.” Jesus and Satan were “as close together as a bride and groom”. When he says, “We ate the food, we drank the wine, everybody having a good time” it is apparent that this is the Last Supper. One person is not having a good time: “Except for you/you were talking about the end of the world”.

Jesus is focused on the end of the cosmic narrative as Satan attempts to blind Jesus’ followers by means of their festivities. Suddenly, Satan merges identities with Judas: “I took the money/I spiked your drink/You miss too much these days if you stop to think/You led me with those innocent eyes/You know I love the element of surprise/In the garden I was playing the tart/I kissed your lips and broke your heart/You..you were acting like it was/The end of the world”.

One figure is antagonistic, Satan. One figure is caught betwixt, Judas. Judas sees Jesus’ “innocent eyes” and kisses Jesus. Satan is the one trying to get Jesus’ mind off of what matters and who leads Judas to break Jesus’ heart. It is impossible to tell who is speaking at the end: Judas or Satan or both. This figure has sorrowful dreams that consume him like man caught in the waves of stormy sea. He can’t escape. Final words: “I reached out for the one I tried to destroy/You said you wait/Until the end of the world”. Someone feels guilty and reaches for Jesus, but Jesus postpones his verdict until the end of days.

The Satanology is intriguing in these songs. Both present Satan is working through human agents, primarily. In “Sympathy for the Devil” he shows no remorse, but reminds humans that we are like him. In “Until the End of the World” one can’t tell Satan’s mindset since he is merged closely with Judas, Judas being the embodiment of humans possessed by evil. Judas isn’t pure evil himself, but an agent, and even a victim if the final words are his plea to Jesus for a second chance. (Or does Satan ask for a second chance?)

 


by 37 Comments

Super Messiah!

I see a lot of chatter about the new trailer for the forthcoming Superman movie, Man of Steel. As Peter Enns noted on Facebook, “I think this will be the most overtly ‘messianic’ of all the Superman films.” If you watch the trailer I think you’ll agree with this observation, which raises a question that has always fascinated me about the Superman franchise: Superman is a messianic figure, so how does that impact our idea of a messiah? How does this relate to Christian depictions of Jesus? Superman appears human, but he is something superior, and he is from another world. Christianity wrestled with whether or not the idea of Jesus’ divinity meant the same for him or if there was a need to emphasize that he was as human as the rest of us. Is Jesus “like” us merely or is Jesus one of us? How one answers this questions says a lot about their Christology.

Watch the trailer: