I watched "Iron Man" last weekend. It was fantastic. Seriously, it was sweet. I love superhero movies, I always have. I'm sure that my emotions on the superhero genre as a whole are felt by many people worldwide. Why wouldn't want to save the day, get the girl, and fly off into the sunset? But it made me stop and think about something that is bothering me. Why superheroes, and not God? Let me explain; my cousin plays Little League Baseball, and I am sit in the dugout, keep the score, and try to control those who aren't in the game. I overheard a conversation last week that made me chuckle..."Spiderman is by far the best ever." "No, Batman would beat up Spiderman." "Superman could beat 'em all up!" You get the picture. What 7-10 year old boy has not had this conversation? It's a rite of passage, to discuss one's favorite superhero. And it's not just kids...I'm in my twenties, and I still leave the theater with thoughts of flying, stopping bullets, wearing a costume, the beautiful girl I save, etc. etc. Why do I get so giddy about "The Dark Knight" this summer, but feel only a twinge of excitement (if even that) when I read Scripture, watch a religious movie, or even pray? What is it about superheroes that are so appealing?
This is a question that the Church has asked, I'm sure. In fact, to research for this post, I googled "Superheroes and God", and I was blown away with the links to evangelical posts comparing God to a superhero. Is God really a superhero? Is that an accurate portrayal? Can we even begin to try to connect dots that may not be there? Hollywood is banking on the fact that at least some will. "Prince Caspian," the second Chronicles of Narnia film is set to open soon in a theater near you, and God's awesome power will be on display in the form of a lion who is a force to be reckoned with. I love C.S. Lewis and even the Narnia movies, but I also realize that we are selling God without overtly stating it, dressing Him up in a cape, and showing Him overcoming His arch-enemies in a superhero-like fashion. Yes, Aslan (the lion) had to die, the Passion depiction that keeps this series a Christian one, but is this the only apparent Christian tie that Disney will keep? That question alone will be enough for me to buy a ticket to find out.
I do have one question that keeps nagging me, is God really a superhero? Pastors and churches can paint the connections, but are they accurate? I find it troubling that instead of pointing out man's desire to do the things that God has done in Scripture (walk on water, defeat death, heal, prophecy, etc.) and display these desires in "superheroes" that defy gravity, science, logic, whatever, we instead find ourselves trying to draw connections between false characters in a children's comic book and that of the living God that is active today. It's as if we have lost so much personal connection with God that the only way we can relate to our Creator is to draw up images and actions of comic-book superheroes and connect them to how God is. This can become dangerous though. First off, God is real. Superman is not. If we make God a Superman figure, we find ourselves stating first-off that God is more fictionalized, as though His traits are really just the brilliant creation of Stan Lee. Second, super-heroes are, for the most part, human first. Some genetic change, traumatic experience, etc. has altered the human to give him or her new abilites, thus making a super-human of sorts. God was God first, then became man. This is a huge distinction. The Incarnation is central to many theological viewpoints. Lastly, super-heroes struggle to have social standing beyond that of their super-heroic actions and deeds. They are commonly lonely, confused, or just plain dorky as humans. God does not display this problem, although many people have a problem connecting with God, and thus believe that its God's fault, not thier own.
Don't get me wrong. I like super-heroes. I like the Chronicles of Narnia. I even like Bibleman (Ha Ha! sorry, I tried, but Bibleman is terrible..). But I struggle with the Church's struggle to "make" God relevant, rather than acknowledge that God is relevant, although it takes a more in-depth analysis of Scripture, theological ideals, and history. We can't sit back and let Hollywood display God, although we can reference such a display to add to truths that should already be preached and taught in the churches. God is more than a movie, music video, or even superhero. What do you think?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
A Lack of Healthy Fear, or Too Much Fear?
This week, the school I work at was shut down on Monday due to recent threats to St. Xavier University. Our school is located on the campus of the college, so we were within the range of threat as well. As I stayed out late on Sunday, slept in on Monday, and went back to work Tuesday, I was compelled to review the recent (by which I mean the last 10 years) chain of events that have sparked a nation-wide response to extreme violence in the public and private schools across America. First, a little history lesson:
April 20, 1999- Littleton, Colorado is in shock as two students run into their high school carrying weapons and firing at students. 12 students, one teacher, and the two assailants were killed. The event is forever etched in our minds as the Columbine Massacre, and it changed our preconceived notions of safety in schools.
2000-2007- At least 27 school shooting occure nationwide, claiming a total of more than 100 lives.
April 16, 2007- One student attacks students at Virginia Tech University, claiming more than 30 students and bystanders, before taking his own life. It was, and still is, the worst school shooting in American history.
Feb. 14, 2008- A gunman at Northern Illinois University shoots into a classroom on campus, taking the lives of 5 students, his own, and wounding 17 other students.
Wow, right? It's not the most encouraging historical listing ever, but it gives you an idea of how violence in schools has escalated after Columbine. So what happened that made this problem so horrific in our culture? One could post many ideas on the subject (as I am now :) ). It certainly has led to plenty of blaming and pointing fingers, especially if your name is Marilyn Manson. I for one, place little stock in the value of Manson's music to enrage one so much as to pick up a gin and kill. There are plenty of other factors at stake.
But, what interests me the most about all of this is the REACTION to Columbine. Within hours, all of America knew the names Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the two shooters at Columbine. We saw their pictures, knew their stories, and even read their journal entries. They were celebrities, even if infamous ones. Their image lives on, and so does the knowledge of thier deeds. The media had a cash cow on their hands, and they bled it dry. Still are bleeding it, in some sense. All of this coverage gave the public an in-depth and realistic view of the violence and horror of the shootings. Most parents wept, reacted in anger, or felt a ver basic human emotion, fear. Fear is the driving force here, as it has caused us to not completely put faith in the schools we send our kids to, and the fact is, most schools are NOT adequately protected. How can you adequately protect a school without removing one's basic rights? In any case, it was the parents, adults, media, and professionals who were scared. And maybe rightly so, at least for the moment. But the kids, were they afraid? Was I, as an 8th grader afraid for my life? No. I knew the kids to watch out for, or at least say hi to, to ensure that when the shotgun came out, I wouldn't be hunted down first. I never felt at risk, I never felt frightened to the point of staying home (although I probably tried that angle a couple of times!) If I, as an everyday student with no ill intent towards my fellow classmates, did not fear the action or the disciple that follows, what of the actual assailants? Do they have ANY fear of retribution? Do they see anything beyond their scope of anger and possible hope of immortality via media attention and coverage?
This troubles me in a couple of ways. First, and most importantly, how do we teach fear of God to students when they don't even fear many forms of immediate authority? Now, I know that fear of God differs from fear of retribution alone, but how can we expect students to even grasp fear in the form of awe and respect when fear of retribution alone is not enough to stave off mutliple armed attackes in schools? Why are the adults scared and not the kids? Why is fear-mongering focused at the people NOT attacking the schools, and not the people behind the source of attacks? It seems that fear in adults is more about fear FOR kids, danger, etc.
Second, how can the media both cover events that are happening without giving glory to the assailants? This is a tough line to hold. How does the Church address situations and people without becoming involved in perpetuating this same notion? I'm not sure about this.
Lastly, how do we as Americans and Christians begin to cope with forgiveness, restoration, and grace in situations such as these? Not sure, either. This is why my focus is primarily on fear, and how we can begin to strike fear back into the students, not the adults.
What are your thoughts?
April 20, 1999- Littleton, Colorado is in shock as two students run into their high school carrying weapons and firing at students. 12 students, one teacher, and the two assailants were killed. The event is forever etched in our minds as the Columbine Massacre, and it changed our preconceived notions of safety in schools.
2000-2007- At least 27 school shooting occure nationwide, claiming a total of more than 100 lives.
April 16, 2007- One student attacks students at Virginia Tech University, claiming more than 30 students and bystanders, before taking his own life. It was, and still is, the worst school shooting in American history.
Feb. 14, 2008- A gunman at Northern Illinois University shoots into a classroom on campus, taking the lives of 5 students, his own, and wounding 17 other students.
Wow, right? It's not the most encouraging historical listing ever, but it gives you an idea of how violence in schools has escalated after Columbine. So what happened that made this problem so horrific in our culture? One could post many ideas on the subject (as I am now :) ). It certainly has led to plenty of blaming and pointing fingers, especially if your name is Marilyn Manson. I for one, place little stock in the value of Manson's music to enrage one so much as to pick up a gin and kill. There are plenty of other factors at stake.
But, what interests me the most about all of this is the REACTION to Columbine. Within hours, all of America knew the names Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the two shooters at Columbine. We saw their pictures, knew their stories, and even read their journal entries. They were celebrities, even if infamous ones. Their image lives on, and so does the knowledge of thier deeds. The media had a cash cow on their hands, and they bled it dry. Still are bleeding it, in some sense. All of this coverage gave the public an in-depth and realistic view of the violence and horror of the shootings. Most parents wept, reacted in anger, or felt a ver basic human emotion, fear. Fear is the driving force here, as it has caused us to not completely put faith in the schools we send our kids to, and the fact is, most schools are NOT adequately protected. How can you adequately protect a school without removing one's basic rights? In any case, it was the parents, adults, media, and professionals who were scared. And maybe rightly so, at least for the moment. But the kids, were they afraid? Was I, as an 8th grader afraid for my life? No. I knew the kids to watch out for, or at least say hi to, to ensure that when the shotgun came out, I wouldn't be hunted down first. I never felt at risk, I never felt frightened to the point of staying home (although I probably tried that angle a couple of times!) If I, as an everyday student with no ill intent towards my fellow classmates, did not fear the action or the disciple that follows, what of the actual assailants? Do they have ANY fear of retribution? Do they see anything beyond their scope of anger and possible hope of immortality via media attention and coverage?
This troubles me in a couple of ways. First, and most importantly, how do we teach fear of God to students when they don't even fear many forms of immediate authority? Now, I know that fear of God differs from fear of retribution alone, but how can we expect students to even grasp fear in the form of awe and respect when fear of retribution alone is not enough to stave off mutliple armed attackes in schools? Why are the adults scared and not the kids? Why is fear-mongering focused at the people NOT attacking the schools, and not the people behind the source of attacks? It seems that fear in adults is more about fear FOR kids, danger, etc.
Second, how can the media both cover events that are happening without giving glory to the assailants? This is a tough line to hold. How does the Church address situations and people without becoming involved in perpetuating this same notion? I'm not sure about this.
Lastly, how do we as Americans and Christians begin to cope with forgiveness, restoration, and grace in situations such as these? Not sure, either. This is why my focus is primarily on fear, and how we can begin to strike fear back into the students, not the adults.
What are your thoughts?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Earning A Spot As A "World-Changer"
As a Indiana Wesleyan University alum, I am well-versed in the matter of "world-changing." I know the basics of being a "roaring lamb" and staking my claim for Jesus in the world today. I know, and I agree with the viewpoints, although I struggle with the actual act of making this claim a reality. Along with the lessons on world-changing, students at IWU are also introduced to major proponents of world-changing. Their busts are put up in the Library foyer in the style of most pro football Hall of Fame museums, where students can walk by and marvel at the brilliant lives and careers of those worthy to accept the title "World-Changer" by Indiana Wesleyan University.
One such person is Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and outspoken voice for the Conservative Christian Movement. Dr. Dobson was inducted while I was currently a student at IWU. I did not, however, attend the ceremony. But it strikes me as odd that someone like Dr. Dobson would receive such a noble title from a university such as IWU. Not that I don't think Dr. Dobson has changed the world, he certainly has impacted it; but I wonder about the responsibility that comes with carrying such a title, and others like it at similar universities, i'll bet.
Dr. Dobson, never shy about his stances on politics, has been outspoken in this year's current election. As I read his most recent comments, I am struck by the lack of continuity between his reasons for supporting Huckabee, and reasons for not supporting McCain. Not only that, but he has been quoted as saying that this year's election included "the worst choices for president" in his lifetime, and that he will not vote; a statement he later retracted due to the hypocracy involved with voicing such strong opinions, yet choosing to opt out of the way to impact our nation and elect the next president. Even so, his reasons seem to confuse me and leave me wondering what exactly he is looking for in a president, other than being a Conservative Republican.
One example of this is in his blastings of McCain for his stances on shutting down Gitmo, reasons stemming from his view on the atrocities that have occured there and the fact that something needs to happen, while Huckabee was quoted often as saying Gitmo was "amazingly hospitable" and "offers better conditions to detainees than most U.S. Prisons." While Huckabee has been blasted for this, it exposed Huckabee's stance that prisoners are able to be treated however we as Americans feel like treating them, and that maybe they even deserve it. Certainly not the Gospel message, in my opinion. But Dobson backed him, primarily due to the fact that he was the "Conservative nominee."
Dobson has a right to his opinions, absolutely. But he also has a RESPONSIBILITY to the many people that read, listen to, and agree with his thoughts and opinions. Each statement on political ideals and party nomination brings along certain underlining truths, some that may or may not actually be present in the mind of the person making the statement. Conservative Christians need a voice that challenges ideals that go against the heart of the Gospel, not those that dissent from the party line. Dobson has a duty and responsibility to model Christ, not upper-class arrogance and American idealism.
Maybe it's because I like to be controversial, or maybe its because I really care, but I struggle with ultimate allegiance to a party, regardless of the thoughts and ideals that are carried out in that party. What is so terrible about Obama's push for racial equality and restoration of America in the eyes of the world? What is so heinous about Clinton's push for universal healthcare and America's removal from the Middle East? And how does McCain's stance on same sex "unions" (not marriages) make him a vile enemy of Christianity?
Only Dobson can answer these questions. And believe me, people are listening. If being a world-changer means making blanket statements with little or no connection to the dignity and respect owed to all of God's creation and the value of thier opinions, then I never want the dignity of being placed in the coveted "Hall of World-Changers." I just want to change the world, popularity optional.
One such person is Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and outspoken voice for the Conservative Christian Movement. Dr. Dobson was inducted while I was currently a student at IWU. I did not, however, attend the ceremony. But it strikes me as odd that someone like Dr. Dobson would receive such a noble title from a university such as IWU. Not that I don't think Dr. Dobson has changed the world, he certainly has impacted it; but I wonder about the responsibility that comes with carrying such a title, and others like it at similar universities, i'll bet.
Dr. Dobson, never shy about his stances on politics, has been outspoken in this year's current election. As I read his most recent comments, I am struck by the lack of continuity between his reasons for supporting Huckabee, and reasons for not supporting McCain. Not only that, but he has been quoted as saying that this year's election included "the worst choices for president" in his lifetime, and that he will not vote; a statement he later retracted due to the hypocracy involved with voicing such strong opinions, yet choosing to opt out of the way to impact our nation and elect the next president. Even so, his reasons seem to confuse me and leave me wondering what exactly he is looking for in a president, other than being a Conservative Republican.
One example of this is in his blastings of McCain for his stances on shutting down Gitmo, reasons stemming from his view on the atrocities that have occured there and the fact that something needs to happen, while Huckabee was quoted often as saying Gitmo was "amazingly hospitable" and "offers better conditions to detainees than most U.S. Prisons." While Huckabee has been blasted for this, it exposed Huckabee's stance that prisoners are able to be treated however we as Americans feel like treating them, and that maybe they even deserve it. Certainly not the Gospel message, in my opinion. But Dobson backed him, primarily due to the fact that he was the "Conservative nominee."
Dobson has a right to his opinions, absolutely. But he also has a RESPONSIBILITY to the many people that read, listen to, and agree with his thoughts and opinions. Each statement on political ideals and party nomination brings along certain underlining truths, some that may or may not actually be present in the mind of the person making the statement. Conservative Christians need a voice that challenges ideals that go against the heart of the Gospel, not those that dissent from the party line. Dobson has a duty and responsibility to model Christ, not upper-class arrogance and American idealism.
Maybe it's because I like to be controversial, or maybe its because I really care, but I struggle with ultimate allegiance to a party, regardless of the thoughts and ideals that are carried out in that party. What is so terrible about Obama's push for racial equality and restoration of America in the eyes of the world? What is so heinous about Clinton's push for universal healthcare and America's removal from the Middle East? And how does McCain's stance on same sex "unions" (not marriages) make him a vile enemy of Christianity?
Only Dobson can answer these questions. And believe me, people are listening. If being a world-changer means making blanket statements with little or no connection to the dignity and respect owed to all of God's creation and the value of thier opinions, then I never want the dignity of being placed in the coveted "Hall of World-Changers." I just want to change the world, popularity optional.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Why Ben Stein is My Hero...
"Bueller....Bueller..." This was the beginning of a great career by a brilliant mind. By constantly repeating this catchphrase from the 1986 Hughes film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," Ben Stein became a po-culture icon. He then faded to obscurity for about a decade, until he reemerged as Comedy Central's game-show host to the hit show "Win Ben Stein's Money" in 1997. Contestants had to answer tough questions that ranged across a crap-shoot of topics. If the final contestant could answer more questions correctly then Ben Stein, the contestant would win a large sum of Ben Stein's own money. This show continued through 2003, and also jump-started the career of a couple people (Jimmy Kimmel was his co-host through 2001). Since then, he has primarily hung around as the spokesperson for Clear Eyes.
Jump forward to 2008. Ben Stein is re-emerging as a man with a mission. His mission: to call into question the absolute validity of Darwinism. On April 18th, his documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" will debut in select theaters across the globe. In it, Ben Stein will examine the role of Darwinism in the classroom, how it has stamped out unique ideas and suppressed "intelligent design" theories, and has also had a integral role in the Nazi movement and Planned Parenthood.
Ben Stein will bring a slew of special guests, including intelligent design theoricist Willian Dembski and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder.
So why am I stating that Ben Stein is my hero? Because it seems as though for the first time in a long time, someone is entering the ring of evolution theory with little to no religious priorities except a balance to both sides. Also, Ben Stein relates information in a almost-purely logical manner, with little to no emotional stance showing. If Christianity is missing one thing, it is the ability to discuss topics of dissention in an academic manner; at least not publicly. Now, I know that's an unfair remark, but when was the last time you saw a Christian debate with non-Christians that was televised other than political cross-fire and the 700 Club? I can't think of any.
Gone are the theologians who are willing to get attacked without attacking back. Gone are the theologians who desire conversation with others of opposite ideas in the name of academic advancement.
I miss the college classrooms for this very reason. Maybe Ben Stein will jump start theological debate in pop-culture. "Intelligent design....Darwin....Bueller...."
Jump forward to 2008. Ben Stein is re-emerging as a man with a mission. His mission: to call into question the absolute validity of Darwinism. On April 18th, his documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" will debut in select theaters across the globe. In it, Ben Stein will examine the role of Darwinism in the classroom, how it has stamped out unique ideas and suppressed "intelligent design" theories, and has also had a integral role in the Nazi movement and Planned Parenthood.
Ben Stein will bring a slew of special guests, including intelligent design theoricist Willian Dembski and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder.
So why am I stating that Ben Stein is my hero? Because it seems as though for the first time in a long time, someone is entering the ring of evolution theory with little to no religious priorities except a balance to both sides. Also, Ben Stein relates information in a almost-purely logical manner, with little to no emotional stance showing. If Christianity is missing one thing, it is the ability to discuss topics of dissention in an academic manner; at least not publicly. Now, I know that's an unfair remark, but when was the last time you saw a Christian debate with non-Christians that was televised other than political cross-fire and the 700 Club? I can't think of any.
Gone are the theologians who are willing to get attacked without attacking back. Gone are the theologians who desire conversation with others of opposite ideas in the name of academic advancement.
I miss the college classrooms for this very reason. Maybe Ben Stein will jump start theological debate in pop-culture. "Intelligent design....Darwin....Bueller...."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
