mbjones

While in Vegas, I did find the time to start and/or finish three different books. The best of those three is actually the third book in the Church and Postmodern Culture series called GloboChrist: The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn. It is the best short book on missiology I’ve read since Transforming Mission by David Bosch.

Within its pages, it looks at what the great commission means in light of the postmodern, globalized world that we live in (including the challenges to it and how it can shine, if the great commission is going to mean anything in the next age). It starts with an exploration of postmodernity and globalization and what it means to religion in general and how Christianity specifically should adapt. What intrigued me about this exploration was its use of Derrida’s idea that globalization marked a return of religion but instead of that return being in the form of Christianity, it has instead taken the shape of radical Islam challenging global imperial powers (as once the early church did with Rome). His summation of how a global, postmodern Christianity should look follows from this: decentralized, deinstitutionalized and indigenous (where universal concepts are understood in the light of specific circumstance — the cultures we all find ourselves in).

The book moves on from there to discuss postmodern ways of doing mission, the importance of incarnation, and specifically what a global, postmodern Christianity looks like (beyond the brief definition in the beginning pages of the book). On top of that, one of the most interesting chapters of the book looks at the challenge Islam poses to the Great Commission (and globalization/westernization/etc). I had not really considered Islam heavily as a major contender to globalization (or necessarily as the religion that the world was looking to, although I knew this to be more and more the case). He claims nothing short of a radical reinvention of itself will allow Christianity to triumph over radical Islam.

Anyways — when everything is tired together, this is a fascinating and thought provoking read. If you are looking for a good book to read on missiology/evangelism (in a broad sense), this is definitely one worth picking up. It will probably stay as a high recommendation of mine for quite some time (and I hope to be able to explore it more in this space as well). 5 of 5 stars, easily.

I’ve had numerous people over the past year or so tell me how much they thought I’d enjoy the Batman graphic novels. I thought about trying to read some last summer but didn’t know where to start. This past spring, though, I figured that out: Batman: Year One, Batman: A Long Halloween and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Yesterday I went to Borders to pick them up as plane reading material (just the first two). Curious, I started Year One last night and ended up finishing it as well.

Not really surprising due to the comic layout, it was quite an easy and quick read. By Frank Miller (the man behind 300), it details in Batman canon Bruce Wayne’s first year as Batman. Basically it describes the long absence of Wayne from Gotham City (to travel and learn all sorts of things, like martial arts) and his return to clean the city of evil. Exploring the seedy underbelly first, he finally realizes that he needs to be able to strike fear into the hearts of evildoers and takes on the person of a bat, fully becoming Batman. From there, his first year is spent catching criminals, bringing down corrupt officials and dodging the cops out to destroy the new vigilante. One piece of the story that I didn’t expect was the focus on Lt. Gordon. As most people know from the movies that have been made, Gordon is seemingly the sole decent cop in the city and Batman’s one guaranteed ally. Not so in Year One. He’s still the sole good cop in Gotham City but as a newcomer to the city and struggling with his own sins, sees it as his task to bring down this vigilante exercising outside the boundaries of Law. The novel ends with Gordon contemplating what needs to be done: he’s trying to seek justice and Batman is the only other one around him doing this as well.

As far as graphic novels go, this certainly kept my attention. I wanted to keep reading to see what was going to happen next. It seemed well drawn (although I’m not an expert on such matters). And Frank Miller is a good storyteller. All in all — I found it to be an enjoyable read. As far as criticism goes, my first complaint would be that it felt too short to be considered a novel. My second would be that I didn’t feel that it fully developed the character of Bruce Wayne. Gordon, definitely, but I’m still left wondering and questioning the persona of Batman. And so, because of this, I’d give it 3.5 stars out of 5. Definitely better than average but by no means the best that I’ve read.

Last night, Juli and I saw [Iron Man][1] after an enjoyable dinner with the Doke’s. If you haven’t heard about it, click the previous link to go to Apple’s trailer page. Anyways, I really enjoyed this movie as it was both action-packed and quite enjoyable. Having never read the comics, I can’t attest to its accuracy so if that is a must for you in the onslaught of various comic book movies, don’t expect to find any info either way in this brief review.

Having got that intro info out of the way, I’ll get to the movie. One of the things I liked about [Iron Man][1] is the portrayal of a superhero that lacks any super human ability innately — it all comes from the suit that Tony Stark (Iron Man) builds (much like Batman doesn’t have any super powers either). The superhero isn’t some mutant or alien or anything like that, but a man who has seen injustice and decided to do what he can about it. This movie chronicles Tony Stark’s struggle to come to terms with an unjust world: before he makes Iron Man, he is a brilliant and wealthy weapons designer for our military. Arrogant and cold to the world around him, his life consists of work, gambling, womanizing and in general, whatever he wants. This all changes though after being kidnapped by a terrorist group and faced with the reality that its not just the good guys using his weapons: the bad guys use them too and many times the supposed good guys are either propping them up (in the case of his company) or just ignoring the fact (our military). Radically shifting his focus, he takes on eyes that see a world that needs protection and vows never to make another weapon that could end up in the hands of the bad guys and instead seeks to eradicate the weapons they do have.

Because of the background work that has to be done (this is the first Iron Man movie), the story starts slowly and creates at first glance a lead that you don’t think you are going to like. That quickly changes though as Tony escapes from the terrorists in Rev 1 of the suit. And really, after this point, doesn’t really stop until the end. I’ve got to give props to Robert Downey, Jr as well; he does an excellent job as the arrogant Tony Stark. I thought of him as a ridiculous choice for a super hero when this movie was announced but he pulls it off quite well. Now, I wouldn’t be able to see anyone else playing the part. Overall, I’d give [Iron Man][1] 4 of 5 stars (due to the slow start and the mildly lame end fight to cap things off).

[1]:http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/

To write a little more about Jesus for President, I thought I’d go over one of the points I found quite interesting: the comparison of Gospel terminology with imperial terminology. Most of this I’d read before, but it was nice having it in the easy chart format.
Basilea:

• Imperial: the kingdom (empire) of Caesar
• Gospel: the kingdom of God (what Jesus went around proclaiming). Instead of Caesar at the head, YHWH is at the head.

Gospel:

• Imperial: an important pronouncement (generally something to the effect of an heir being born or a grand battle won)
• Gospel: the good news of Jesus (the Kingdom of God is at hand!)

Son of God:

• Imperial: The popular title of Caesar (and other kings and emperors)
• Gospel: Title given to Jesus (also, the truth in His case…)

Ekklesia:

• Imperial: A town meeting or public assembly (citizenship was bestowed, political concerns discussed, elders appointed, Caesar was worshiped)
• Gospel: What the early church was called

Parousia:

• Imperial: The return of Caesar to visit a town
• Gospel: The second coming of Christ

Savior:

• Imperial: Specific title of Caesar Augustus who “healed the chaos of Rome and brought it into a new golden age”
• Gospel: Another specific title of Jesus

All of the above paraphrased from section two of Jesus for President
There are other terms co-opted by the NT from the political sphere of life as well (these were just my favorites and ones I figured most people would recognize from the Gospel). It’s quite interesting to consider all of this and tends to open up some of the meaning of the NT. Co-opting things in this way isn’t just a private individual thing — it is a direct challenge to the status quo. Especially when considering the large groups Jesus was reaching — they would be able to see the challenge as the Imperial way was a part of life. Our vocab has changed significantly so it kind of falls on deaf ears nowadays, which is disappointing and leads to the privatized (and neutered!) religion that much of American (and western) Christianity seems to be.Just some more food for thought. Hopefully it also provides some context for the recently posted quotes (inasmuch why the early church fathers thought and spoke and wrote the way they did).

I finished Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw yesterday. It was wonderful. The first thing worth talking about (which is one of the first things you are going to notice about the book) is the design. It’s put together like no other book I’ve read. The aesthetic is amazing. All of the design work was done by Holly and Ryan Sharp (who have a band called the Cobalt Season that I’m told I need to check out) and comprises of lots of illustrations, pictures, proofreading marks, odd page layouts and many other tricks to just give Jesus for President a style all its own.

The next thing I figured out was that this book would likely be (and it was!) a decent summary of most of the books I’ve read in the last year. Truth be told, the majority of books I’ve acquired or read in the last year and a half or so are on the Bibliography:

• Let Justice Roll Down by John Perkins
• The Prophets by Abraham Heschel
• The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggaman (highly recommended)
• The Violence of Love by Romero
• The Powers that Be by Walter Wink
• Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh (highly recommended)
• Jesus and Empire by Richard Horsley
• Binding the Strong Man by Ched Myers
• Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder (highly recommended)
• Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon
• Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution by Andre Trocme (pdf link)
• Everything Must Change by Brian Mclaren (recommended)
• The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd (highly recommended)
• And many others that I want to read.

I list those out to hopefully help flesh out the content of the book in advance. If you’ve read my reviews or heard what I’ve said about any of the above, you likely already have an idea of what you’ll find in the pages of Jesus for President.

From there, I’ll briefly jump into the book itself. It’s divided into four sections: before there were kings and presidents, a new kind of commander-in-chief, when the empire got baptized and finally, a peculiar party. Section one is essentially a brief tour through the Bible, starting in the garden of eden and moving through the old testament until Israel demands a king (and God laments their compromise). From their, it moves to the place of the prophets (preventing and cleaning up the messes of kings) and their necessity. Section two gets into the life of Jesus and how it was/wasn’t political with particular attention given to the counter-imperial thread found in the life of Jesus. Section three takes a detailed look at the early church before and after Christendom. Particular place was given to the role that the early church inhabited in the political sphere of life. And this conversation naturally transitioned to the American empire and what the church’s role has been (and should probably be). Section four was the practical section: real life stories of Christian’s being subversive and changing the world for the kingdom of God.

Section three was my favorite. I’ll likely spend more time going through it as time allows because I think there is a lot of good to ponder and discuss found with in. Until then — I highly recommend reading it. When I get my copy back, I’d be glad to lend it out.

I finished Serve God, Save the Planet by Matthew Sleeth tonight. My initial thoughts are good not great. It’s a practical book about creation care (Christianese for environmental activism). I’ll talk about the good first. The chapter answering typical Christian excuses for a lack of any creation care ethic was quite good, answering so-called objections scripturally and thoroughly. I also thought that this chapter did well in pointing out our own selfishness (in regards to issues of dominion and our own consumption, particularly). The practical steps it details are also mostly quite good. I really appreciated its approach to change lifestyles slowly, in stride, while consistently seeking out the will of God. All of these things make this a good book.

The not great part comes into play in some of the overtly “preachy” chapters that seem to stretch and prooftext a bit more than I necessarily like. The parenting chapters and population control chapter immediately jump to mind. And even in some of the more practical chapters I agreed with wholeheartedly, the prooftexting felt a bit much.

Overall — It made for an interesting read. So far its the best environmentalist-from-Christian-perspective book that I’ve read (it’s also the first). If you are at all frustrated at our society’s rate of consumption and use of natural resources, this would likely be a good starting point. And some of the practical steps lined in the chapters are worth exploring more as well. I’ll try to get to them on here at somepoint (I don’t know when though).

Yesterday some friends called asking if I wanted to join them for Atonement, one of the movies currently out. I quickly agreed since this movie has been on my radar since late last summer when reviews started popping up on various sites I respect. Thankfully, it did not disappoint. I’ll try to be broad in the rest of the review so as not to spoil it but be forewarned, I might not completely succeed in this.

The Story

Atonement is a story told in two acts (with a prologue bringing everything together). It starts by featuring the story of two well-to-do sisters, one 13 and the other several years older, living in England just before the outbreak of WWII. The younger of the two, Briony, witnesses events she’s not quite able to wrap her mind around and does the unthinkable: tells a lie that lands Robbie (the love of the older sister Cecilia) in jail.

The story then fast forwards four years. Robbie is out of jail, having been forced to fight in the war. Cecilia is a nurse in London, having disowned her family for their refusal to support Robbie. And Briony is beginning to feel the gravity of what she did. Having found each other again, Robbie is anxious to get back to his love (as is Cecilia!) and Briony struggles to make amends for her past actions.

As I said it ends with a prologue that ties everything together. Instead of a fast forward of just a few years, the story jumps about 40. And an elderly Briony is finally able to find some, however small, means of atoning for her actions.

The Themes

I couldn’t help but like this film, primarily because of the themes it deals with (and the way in which it deals with them). It is a vivd exploration of the darker side of humanity — the side we all try to hide — and the quest for some semblance of reconciliation. Broadly, the power of words (written words, specifically) and their ability to create and destroy is toyed with. It’s in her words that Briony sins most notably and then its in her words that she’s able to find some since of atonement as well. The personal struggle and weight of sins also carried much of the second act and the accent on our darker emotions (jealousy, anger, lust, fear, etc) were able to bring forth in sense of urgency in the characters struggle for atonement.

Conclusion

One of the things I really enjoyed about this movie was the audio/visual clues that seem to hone in and reinforce the themes present. The percussive beat of a typewriter drives many (probably most) of the tense moments. And the movie starts with a play and it ends with a novel (both written struggles to understand complex emotions) and contains many written pieces throughout that seem to just highlight the struggle with and power of our word. And another visual clue that you could guarantee to highlight an important scene: the color red. Red is an interesting color — it highlights our sin, it highlights love and passion, and (for the spiritual) it also highlights the atoning work of blood. It’s used in all of these ways throughout the entirety of the film: the red wall in the library, blood flowing into the fountain, hospital curtain that surrounds Briony and the frenchman, the cape she wears throughout much of the second act, and the tulips in the closing scene. Truth be told, much color is washed out in the majority of the movie, but the color red almost never is. And there are other colors giving visual clues as well (Cecilia’s deep green dress vs the love/life she’s about to embrace, etc) the continued presence of red just jumps out though.

As to dislikes, I don’t think the story was developed quite well enough. This could just be my general ambivalence towards love stories in general but I didn’t feel that I was connecting strongly enough with Cecilia and Robbie. While I think a certain degree of disconnect between them and the audience was necessary to drive in the final moments, I still thought that their story could have been better developed. And the same goes for other pieces as well. Even though this film was quite long, several of the scenes felt a bit too rushed (entrance of Briony in the second act and the wedding seen immediately come to mind) and could have been further developed. All things said and done, thankfully none of this detracted greatly from the film overall.

And that brings me to the conclusion in which I say again that I really enjoyed Atonement and find it well worth seeing. As previously mentioned though, know that it is quite heavy and not exactly happy (or in some ways hopeful). Incidentally, the author of the novel (Ian McEwan) I regularly see lumped in with the so-called “new atheists.” As such don’t expect any particular Christian message. Outside of loose circumstances and symbolism you certainly won’t find any. But go with an interest in atonement and reconciliation and the power of our words and be open to the weight at which our sins weigh us down. And as the characters struggle to find some means of atonement within themselves and in their own actions, be thankful for the work that was done for us.

Friday night I went with Dr. Chris to see I Am Legend — the new Will Smith movie. Those that have only seen the trailer might be surprised to discover that it is a post-apocalyptic zombie movie. Unlike most zombie movies though, it is not excessive in its violence nor is it the centerpiece of the movie. Rather, the character of Dr. Neville is the focus (and his drive to save humanity).

The cinematic themes were certainly interesting. Will Smith did a fantastic job portraying a man deprived of human contact for years. It was certainly interesting to watch the psychological breakdown of one plagued by his own echoing voice by day (and the scream of vampiric zombies by night). His relationship with man’s best friend (Sammy, a german shepherd) and the mannequins he’s placed around common haunts is intriguing, particularly as they begin to breakdown.

Another interesting thread is rooted in the spiritual side of things. The good doctor passes numerous “God is for us!” signs. He himself shows no signs of faith though until the very end. Instead he approaches the tragedy at first as man undoing himself irregardless of God (“God didn’t do this; we did”). Within this worldview, nature isn’t in the hand of a sovereign God; humanity (or probably better put: science) is king. Salvation cannot be found though apart from a higher, guiding force, forcing Dr. Neville to confront a faith he never had. And just as with any story seriously examining salvation themes, a sacrifice is required.

All things considered I really enjoyed this movie. It wasn’t nearly as violent as other zombie movies I’ve seen, yet it was able to explore similar themes. The acting was superb as well. Smith does a fantastic job sharing the screen with just himself. There were downsides though. I was hoping for a highly level of intensity. Stylistically, intensity can draw you into a film much more easily than an even keel pace. And while the film makers did a good job of intermixing back story with the film’s present, I felt the story could have been better presented. Overall I’d give it 3.5-4 stars out of 5 (the final verdict is still out for me) and recommend anyone see it.

After doing some freelance work this morning, I stopped by Mardel’s to see if there were any sales happening. There really weren’t any but there was a book that caught my eye: Following Jesus in a Culture of Fear by Scot Bader-Saye. As I said, the title struck me so I picked it up to take a look at the back. The description read much as I expected it would after seeing the title. There were a couple of things though that immediately grabbed me: it is edited by the author of another book I’m reading now and loving (Torture and Eucharist) and it is promoted by two other authors I highly respect so I ended up picking it up. One nice thing about this book is that it includes discussion questions at the end of each chapter so it gives me something to explore and write about here. And so that is what I’ll do, starting with chapter 1, Fear for Profit.

Chapter 1 starts by examining how fear is sold in our culture. Fear, like sex, is a primal drive in humanity and appeals to us at a real basic level (just as sex/lust does). That makes fear quite profitable. Just look at any media source — stories are designed to draw us in using fear (*look what happened to X and here’s what you can do to prevent it from happening to you!, etc, ad nauseam). I worked in an office that for six months required CNN being on all day everyday; watching it that much made this point easy to see. Media isn’t the only source of fear peddling — our government uses it as well (the example given in the book regards the Bush’s administration linking Hussein to 9/11 to escalate public support of an invasion) as does the church (think how in some evangelical circles individuals are calling for an increased separation from the world at large and peddling products to go along with it). And with that briefest of chapter descriptions, discussion questions:

1. George Gerbner describes a “mean world syndrome.” Does this hold true in your experiences?

First of all, a definition. The “mean world syndrome” comes from a study of TV and violence. The study sought to link TV viewing to violent tendencies but instead found TV viewing better linked to an exaggerated fearfulness. And in my experiences I would say that this definitely holds true. Even just thinking back to the six months were I was constantly bombarded with CNN, there were many times when I’d have to get up and find somewhere else to work (or risk a director’s wrath and just turn off the TV). Even before reading this book or hearing the phrase “mean world syndrome” the pushing of fear by media is something that myself and co-workers discussed many times.

1. How can we avoid being manipulated by fear mongering?

I’ll give three things that immediately come to mind. The first I alluded to above: clear your mind every once in awhile. Turn off the TV. Go outside and forget about everything you may have seen and/or heard. Remove yourself from it for at least a spell. The second follows along with the first: be diligent in renewing your mind constantly (hopefully putting yourself in a place to pick out the manipulation). Being a spiritual person my how-to for this point would be prayer, meditation, scripture and community involvement and while I think this works best it might look different for other folks. The third is a simple call to wisdom: take a serious look at the issues presented definitely but know what matters and what doesn’t. Know that you can make numbers say whatever you want them to. Know that just because something happens every once in awhile doesn’t mean its every going to happen to you. (In truth for many of the things the media presents us with the likely hood of it happening is less than 1% and isn’t something we should even be bothered by)

1. Is the fear of hell as used in evangelism a legitimate use of fear?

Now this is something I’ve written of before. My short and sweet answer is no. My drawn out answer speaks to two areas: evangelism in the New Testament as well as personal example. First of all, evangelism in the NT: when Jesus came up beside someone His words were “Repent for the kingdom is near!” not “Repent or you’ll burn in hell!” This is off the top of my head but I can’t think of a circumstance where fear is used as a valid means of evangelization. Now for the second area, personal example: the story of one friend immediately comes to mind. He told me of growing up in a SB church and having hell thrust down his throat. He told me of being so scared that of course he did what the preacher said to do. He then talked of growing up and realizing how ridiculous it was that he was still afraid and how much he DIDN’T want to be involved in the church because of the fear they produced. His isn’t the only story like that that I’ve encountered. I’ve known many who have been completely turned off to the church because of this notion of fear and many who have walked away from the church because they saw and knew nothing of God other than fear and wanted no part. I see fear as having no legitimate part in evangelism.

Feel free to leave answers too if you are up for interacting…

In my first look at A Community Called Atonement, I described the beginnings of atonement — those places you first look when describing a broader, bigger picture. In the next section of the book, McKnight looks at the different images of atonement within various theological traditions. The focus of this quick note looks at the first chapter in this section, on metaphor. I’m just doing that chapter for now because I think it is one quite important to grasp and really does a fine job in setting up the rest of the book. In fact, looking back on the read, this is one of the chapters that stands out the most to me.

If you are wondering what said chapter could be about, wonder no more! It is a look at metaphors and their use in theology. In looking at various definitions of metaphor this one in particular stands out (originally written by Sallie McFague):

“Most simply, a metaphor is seeing one thing as something else, pretending ‘this’ is ‘that’ because we do not know how to think or talk about ‘this,’ so we use ‘that’ as a way of saying something about it.” (pg 36)

Atonement as metaphor then follows as the ‘that’ in which we describe God resolving the sin issue and restoring our relationship to Him, to the self, to others and to the world. Really dwelling on this was one of those ‘Aha!’ moments for me, which is why I so vividly recall this particular chapter. In my conclusion thoughts, I plan on getting back to why this was an ‘Aha!’ moment but for now I’ll move on.

So what metaphors exist in atonement theology? There is sacrifice/offering, legal/justification, interpersonal/reconciliation, military/ransom and this is just the beginning of the list. The remainder of the chapter looks at a very specific popular metaphor — penal substitutionary atonement — but for now I’ll save those details for later. For any interested enough to read this dwell on theology as metaphor for a bit and see if it resounds to you too.