Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Look at Luke 19.1-10: The Story of Zacchaeus
Zacchaeus' problem was both physical and moral. On one hand he was too short to see Jesus passing through, so it became necessary for him to gain altitude in order to see him. This is the purpose of the sycamore-fig tree. Yet his problem goes deeper than that, for as he states upon meeting Jesus, he knows that sometimes he "cheated anybody out of anything" (v8). Jesus' reputation amongst the people was dangerous for the allegations that Zaccaeus was a 'sinner' was prevalent (as stated above by the very notion of tax collecting).
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Augustine and Pelagius
Augustine saw in Pelagius’ ideas the lack of need for God. He saw Pelagianism as the denial of divine sovereignty and a rejection of our captivity to sin. Augustine wrote, “If you give what you command, then command what you give” (TeSelle, 39) indicating that we can only follow God if God helps us to follow him. Contrary to popular opinion, Augustine did not deny the freedom of the will but the effectiveness and able function of the will when constrained and imprisoned by sin. According to Augustine, the will is simply in “bondage.” Thus, Augustine could affirm “that Adam’s progeny [will] choose evil inevitably but still on their own responsibility” (41).
Augustine was disgusted by the views of Pelagius on this matter and rejected what he said as heresy. Pelagius believed in total freedom of the will, thus affirming the idea that we are capable of making the correct decision in every instance. Pelagius believed it was possible to live a perfect life if one so chose. This idea, to Augustine, denied God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of original sin, thus making void the need for salvation. Perfection was an obligation and a commandment and no man was inherently bound by sin. Augustine saw the idea that man truly had the ability to exercise his free will without God’s help as repulsive, perhaps as a result of his former fatalist ties, and argued that for God to truly be God and for grace to be grace man needed to be set free by God.
To be sure, Pelagius was controversial without the help of Augustine. He never explicitly stated whether death was natural or the result of sin and his idea that the moral law was set in place to be obeyed and, therefore, could be obeyed is unscriptural. But I do not think that he deserved the hostile reaction delivered to him from Augustine. Pelagius took the doctrine of “free will” to what he thought was the logical conclusion: the ability to live a perfect life without being required to by sin.
In my estimation, Augustine’s ideas form a paradox that inevitably turns God into the one truly responsible for sin and evil in the world (as Ulrich Zwingli consciously admitted) for ultimately he is the one that frees the will (and leaves captive) of whomever he chooses. I do not see it so starkly as to say, “It is God’s choice alone” (Augustine) or “It is man’s choice alone” (Pelagius). Our choice to choose between good and evil (and inevitably between salvation and damnation) are a combination of God and man together.
*Eugene TeSelle, Augustine (Abingdon Press: Nashville, 2006)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
A Theological Analysis of The Matrix: Christianity, Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Existentialism
Religion has been coming back into the public sphere with a vengeance as of late through the realm of cinema. Contrary to what one might expect its resurgence has not been initiated by Christian writers and directors but by the secular faces of Hollywood. Religion sells—or, more specifically, fictionalized and analogized religion sells. Aside from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ (which had its own elements of conjecture, special effects, and cinematic liberty) most religious based films in recent years have either taken the form of fantasy and analogy (i.e. Narnia) or horror (i.e. The Exorcist, Stigmata). One of the most popular films to be released in this new wave of religious interest is the 1999 Wachowski brother’s film The Matrix.
The Matrix finds religious and nonreligious analogies throughout the entire film, which I believe concentrate on four specific worldviews: Christianity, Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Existentialism. With the special effects and cyberpunk plot these ideas are ingrained into “story” so well that the average moviegoer can miss them, if going to see simply an action flick. But if one watches intelligently trying to pay attention to the worldview inherent in the movie the philosophies behind the film are hard to miss. Though there is not enough space to go into detail extensively, the four worldviews presented above need to be covered.
There are several plot points that are analogous to Christianity. In the first place, Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) must make the same choice as Adam and Eve in the Genesis account. He must choose between the red pill (knowledge) and the blue pill (ignorance) and do so without turning back. Neo’s choice obviously reflects the choice of experiencing true reality and the human condition over the Matrix. Neo could have, if he took the blue pill, woke up in his bed and continue living on in the Matrix. His choice reflects our social desire to experience truth, even if it hurts.
The second aspect of Christian analogy in The Matrix comes in the form of Messianism. One would be hard pressed to miss the fact that Neo’s name is an anagram that when rearranged spells “One”. The prophecy of the oracle represents the prophecy of the Old Testament Jews in claiming that the “One” will come to destroy the Matrix from the last stronghold of truth and reality, Zion. There is, as somewhat expected, a traitor (Cypher) who prefers ignorance and bliss to reality and truth. He turns in Neo for worldly gain. Perhaps the most outright Christian analogy is Neo’s death (though not a sacrifice) and “resurrection”. Agent Smith (representing Satan) was able to succeed in killing Neo, but was thwarted when Neo rose from the dead moments later (in a way, by the power of Trinity) in a fully human, but more than human sense to where the laws of the Matrix could no longer have a grip on him.
The Christian analogy is most definitely evident to the intelligent watcher, but there are non-Christian themes within the movie. In the first place, deliverance from the Matrix is not based on a deliverance from sin. It is based on knowledge that the Matrix is false and corrupt and in order to get back to the real world one must escape the Matrix and work to destroy it. This dualist view is very much Gnostic in its way of thinking.
Though most appropriate as a polemic of how far we are willing to take science, the fact that man produced the Matrix out of his own pride is akin to the Gnostic traditions of the material world created out of divine pride. [1] Thus, since the spirit is good and the material is bad, the only way to be saved is to escape it, which comes in the form of gnosis. Orthodox Christianity from its earliest stages has rejected this so it fails the test of orthodox Christian belief. Further, while “Neo” can be respelled into a messianic word (‘One’), his real name is Thomas Anderson, which echoes the most famous Gnostic document The Gospel of Thomas.[2] Whether this is coincidence or not it is nonetheless worth noting.
The Gnostic ideas naturally flow into Buddhist and Transcendentalist ideas. This world, as presented in The Matrix, is no more than an illusion of the real thing. There is an obvious reference to Plato’s The Cave represented in Neo’s release from the Matrix. His eyes were sore because according to Morpheus he had never actually “used” them. The Matrix was a shadow, a “prison” of the mind that everyone is “born into”. The senses we have of the world are “simply electrical signals interpreted by [our] brain.” One of the most popular taglines of the film is the transcendentalist idea that “there is no spoon.” As James Spiegel has noted in conjunction with my analysis, “…while perhaps no writer or artist has improved upon his cave allegory in presenting this theme, the Wachowski brothers' The Matrix might be as effective an attempt as any since Plato.”[3]
Neo, though obviously symbolizing Jesus in certain respects, seems to symbolize the Buddha in others. He obtains no inherently divine characteristics. Though he is the one prophesied by the oracle to bring down the Matrix, he “saves” no one but rather releases them so they can save themselves. It is not a belief in Neo that brings one out of the Matrix (none of the crew worships him or attributes divine characteristics to him)—it is through self-denial and rejection of the projected reality that one becomes free.
Last, but certainly not least, are the existentialist or humanist ideas represented throughout the film. There is no mention or belief in a “God”. In fact, Morpheus describes “when you go to church” as part of the illusion of the Matrix alongside of paying taxes and going to work. The absence of any God from the film implies an apocalypse brought on and solved by man, not God. Man needs no metaphysical salvation. The existentialist idea that man can save himself without divine intervention is thoroughly presented in the Matrix. What one might see as divine help in the Matrix is really the recognition of one’s placement in the Matrix and the ability to bend the rules of its “reality”.
In terms of my own personal opinion, The Matrix is an excellent movie, both visually and plot wise. But part of what makes it a great movie is paying attention to the theologically contradictory messages throughout. Some of the theological and philosophical analogies are obviously on the surface, so they are things that most anyone watching somewhat intelligently can pick out. I am thankful, however, that in watching it this time I have a basic understanding of what Gnosticism, transcendentalism, and existentialism all say, for if I didn’t I might be tempted to confuse those elements with the Christian analogies. I have wondered how much this movie has caused Christians (and non-Christians) to see Christianity pluralistically.
[1] Frances Flannery-Dailey and Rachel Wagner, “Wake up! Gnosticism and Buddhism in the Matrix,” Journal of Religion and Film vol 5, no. 2 (2001): access: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/gnostic.htm
[2] Dailey and Wagner, (2001)
[3] James Spiegel, “Cinematic Illustrations in Christian Theology,” Journal of Religion and Film vol 6, no 2 (2002), access: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/cinematic.htm
New Song--Let's Fly Away
* This song is owned and copyrighted by Randy Hardman.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Losing Context of the Resurrection
I've heard various answers from various people--sometimes no answer at all. The answer I usually get is as such: "I see the world in light of the fact that Jesus, God incarnate, died on the cross for my sins."
This answer, I believe, is not necessarily correct and I believe that it is one of the main problems in the modern church! I believe the fact that we tend to see the world in the context of Jesus' death gives us an incomplete picture of the world. Let me explain.
When we speak of Christianity as a story, a story through history in which God intervenes in the lives and events of mankind in order to bring about a single purpose, we are speaking of Christianity as a narrative--to be sure, we are speaking of Christianity as a meta-narrative (beyond space, time, and physical substance). There are four components to Christian belief: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation (or Restoration). The death of Christ covers the chapter of Redemption (Is 44), but it is the resurrection that ties all of it together. In the resurrection the Fall is reversed, we are made new (and better!) creations, redemption has been brought about by the action prior to the resurrection, and restoration occurs through the resurrection of the dead which is anticipated by the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15).
It is in the context of resurrection that we should see the world. I believe this wholeheartedly and I think that once we do it will become the foundation for our worldview. The dualist idea that the world is bad (or that our body's are eternally corrupted by the fall) is not biblical. In the same way that Christ will restore the cosmos and make it a "new creation" he will do the same for us! What a humbling thought!
I recently lost context for several weeks of this. I stopped seeing the world in the light that I should have and did and said things that should not have been done or said. It is unfortunate and I am having to deal with the consequences of losing this perspective. I lost it, but YHWH found me and has restored the way in which I need to see the world. I have been told I am a leader, and in this I believe that I need to and should admit my faults. To those that have supported me or have supported Ratio Christi it is to you that I come and plead with you not to lose context of the resurrection as the cornerstone for your faith!
Randy
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Christianity and the Abolitionist Movement Part 3
There is, however, one pressing question that remains to be answered. It has been made clear that both the Northern and Southern participants were very religious individuals and used God and scripture, often, to justify their actions and in everyday talk. The question remains: was it really Christianity that led to the end of slavery or was it merely a contributing factor? In other words, without the force of Christianity would slavery have ended when it did simply by economic and political factors, however strong and forceful they might be?
First off it needs to be realized that slavery in America was by no means a unique structure in world economics. Slavery existed in the Caribbean, in Islamic Countries, in Africa countries, and in Australian rural areas. Years prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in America, England had her own abolitionist movement led by William Wilberforce. It would be ridiculous to assume that the abolitionist movement in England and the nation’s overall view towards America’s Southern economy did not at all influence the abolitionist movement in America.
Secondly, polytheistic religions of the ancient and contemporary world have no record of ever condemning slaves.[1] This is an essential point. Without a foundational absolute and a proper working deontological ethic (what “ought” to be done rather than simply a pragmatic morality) based on a singular divine will it is impossible to say that something is actually immoral and ethically improper, especially since in polytheistic religions most practitioners were henotheists. In polytheism this meant that though one god may reject the institution of slavery all one need to do is find a god that accepts it. It is only in monotheism that we ever see a condemnation of the institution of slavery based on a monotheistic theology.
Thirdly, history shows clearly that Christianity has remained continuously opposed to the institution of slavery. St. Paul’s letter to Philemon, if thoroughly analyzed, turns out to be a linguistic trick of the sleeve that would have, in the end, set Onesimus free. Further, Saint Bathilde in the seventh century set forth a campaign to stop slave-trading and give freedom to all slaves. After this, several other saints, kings, and military generals set forth to ban the enslavement of Christians (which was effectively the entire population). In the thirteenth century Saint Thomas Aquinas labeled slavery a sin.[2] The very history of the religion in conjunction with the issue of slavery is a very history of abolitionism.
Last of all, the historical basis by which the abolitionist movement came into existence cries out to say, “It was Christianity through man that sought and worked to abolish slavery, not man through Christianity.” It was the moral principle of the characters of the leaders of the abolitionist movement that caused them to act. This is not the same with any other world religion. Slavery has never escaped polytheism due to moral religious disagreement. Slavery was never banned in Islamic countries due to the will of Allah. In the vast history of this world it has only been within Christianity that slavery was every regarded sinful and immoral and successfully sought to ban it from society.[3]
It can be safely said that the moral position of Christianity was the foundational point in the abolitionist movement. Economic reasons may have stopped the spread of slavery and, perhaps in time, it would have eventually caused it to cease as a working institution. Nonetheless, in answering for time and place, without the driving force of Christian principles the North would not have had neither a case nor manpower and the South would not have given up the institution.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Christianity and the Abolitionist Movement Part 2
The American abolitionist movement began in 1754 under the leadership of John Woolman. Fifty-four years earlier Samuel Sewall had published “The Selling of Joseph” in Boston. This was technically the first abolitionist tract written in America but it received little recognition. Thus, the movement by Woolman in 1754 has been recognized throughout as the official start of the abolitionist movement. His tract, Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes began with Matthew 25.40 (“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'”). At the end of his essay he notes that while God has not yet intervened in the subject of slavery He is not blind to the sin that is occurring. He “remembers them” and He “seeth their affliction.”[1]
Woolman presented his tract at a Quaker’s convention in Philadelphia in 1754. His tract convinced a good portion of the committee to side with him and, a year later, they produced their own tract entitled An Epistle of Caution and Advice, Concerning the Buying and Keeping of Slaves.[2] The document concluded that slavery was “neither consistent with Christianity nor common justice.”[3] It implored the Quaker committee to live according to the Word of God and not the world: “Finally Bretheren, we entreat you, in the Bowels of Gospel Love, ferioufly to weigh the Caufe of detaining them in bondage: If it be for your own private Gain, or any other Motive than their Good, it’s as much to be feared, that the Love of God, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, is not the prevailing principle in you, and that your Hearts are not fufficiently redeemed from the world…”[4] Further, the group set up a committee to monitor their members and discover whether any of them were, behind closed doors, buying or selling slaves.[5]
The Quaker movement was successful for various many reasons. First of all, Philadelphia was the largest city in the nation at the time. It would have had a major influence not only on Quaker members but citizens of the city as a whole. Secondly, many of the abolitionist members purchased the freedom of slaves. Third, in 1787 Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, two of the most influential American’s at the time, preceded over the Philadelphia Quaker meetings. Last of all, not to be outdone, several other Christian organizations and denominations adopted an anti-slavery mentality.[6] This approach led to an explosion in religious declarations issued against the institution of slavery.
In 1833 William Lloyd Garrison formed the American Anti-Slavery Society. Baylor Sociologist Rodney Stark states that the clergy was the “vital spine” of this group and its statements and declarations “rang high of scripture.” [7] Two years earlier Garrison had started The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper that had gained a lot of attention in the debate over slavery. The Liberator was unabashed in its desire to present slavery as against the scriptures. It described slavery as “a sin” and stated that if the slaveholder would earnestly search the Bible for truth he would be forced to release his slaves and take up an anti-slavery mentality.[8]
For the next twenty years the abolitionist movement would find its home in the Northern states. During the first year of the Civil War, debate raged not as much about slavery as about economy and union. As British historian Paul Johnson notes, Lincoln’s major concern at the time was saving the Union. He stated in reply to accusations made by Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some slaves and leaving others alone I would do that…I shall do less whenever I believe that what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I believe doing more helps the cause.”[9] Nonetheless, Lincoln knew that the war was not over economic and political struggles, per se. It was over ideas. And Lincoln knew fully well that ideas had consequences.
During the debate over slavery prior to the Civil War, religious texts were hurled between the abolitionists and the slave-advocates. The South held onto the Pauline mandate that slaves were to obey their masters, his exhortation to Philemon, and the Mosaic slave law. The North argued the slavery in biblical times was not only cultural but also significantly different. They argued that the message of Jesus lay inherently contrary to slave labor and that it was a direct sin against human kind and, thus, the person of Jesus.
Several churches split on the issue with half the church siding with abolitionist morality and half the church siding with slave labor morality. Leonidas Polk, the Bishop of Louisiana and a Confederate major-general stated, “It is for constitutional liberty, which seems to have fled to us for refuge, four our hearthstones and altars that we fight.”[10] Thomas March, the Bishop of Rode Island and vocal supporter of the Union forces stated to his men, “God is with us…the Lord of Hosts is on our side.”[11] Thornton Stringfellow, a Baptist minister in Virginia stated in his book Slavery: Scriptural and Statistical, that it is “true that Christ ordains that Christianity shall not abolish slavery…”[12] Yet John Dixon argued, “Christianity will overthrow slavery in this country, or slavery will overthrow that pure New-Testament Christianity which commands supreme love to God and universal love to man, of whatever color or condition…Those professed ministers of Christ who teach that chattel slavery or American slavery is well pleasing in the sight of Christ, or, in other words, that it is not a sin, are doing more to sap the foundations of Christianity in this land than any other class of public teachers.”[13] Frederick Douglas, in an address to President Lincoln stated, “Why is Christianity to be maintained, if Christians stand by and see men, made in the image of God, considered as things—mere pieces of property…in no sound philosophy can slavery be justified.”[14]
Lincoln was a very devout religious man and he believed that God spoke to him in ways and signs that let him know His will. There were many times within his presidential career that he relied on providential guidance before making a decision that would affect the entire country. Lincoln was a Calvinist by Baptist upbringing and held tightly to his fatalistic ideas till the end of his life.[15] Many soldiers and generals also shared this doctrine which led to a belief that since they were morally right, God’s plan would eventually lay itself out and their side would win the war. This Doctrine of Necessity placed God as the mover of chess pieces. Lincoln stated, “If it were not for my firm belief in an overriding providence it would be difficult for me, in the midst of such complications of affairs, to keep my reason in its seat. But I am confident that the Almighty has his plans and will work them out.”[16] Lincoln’s very position with the Union and advocacy of its mission showed that he believed God to be fighting with the North and against the South.
At the beginning of the war in 1861 Lincoln had approached the issue with merely a concern to save the Union. By 1862 this had changed. Lincoln believed that by freeing the slaves he would in fact save the Union. Yet saving the Union was no longer his primary goal in the war. Lincoln stated, “I am not bound to win but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to the light I have.”[17] Lincoln had gone from preserving the Union at whatever cost to making what he felt to be the right decision despite what harm the Union might suffer. How did this change occur?
William Wolfe provides us with the story: In 1861 a group of African-Americans from Baltimore had approached Lincoln and presented him with a tightly bound Bible as a gratitude gift for what he had done. As the war continued Lincoln would pick up the scriptures and read them more and more. A friend of his, Joshua Speed, found him reading it one day and said, “I am glad to see you so profitably engaged.” Lincoln replied, “Yes. I am profitably engaged.” Speed said, “Well, I see you have recovered from your skepticism [about religion and the war]. I am sorry to say that I have not.” Lincoln retorted back, “You are wrong, Speed. Take all of this book upon reason that you can, and the balance on faith, and you will live and die a happier and a better man.”[18]
From then on Lincoln felt as if the war was part of God’s plan to remove slavery from the South. One of his famous clichés of the war shows us his very heart on the matter: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”[19] As Johnson notes, it was “in this spirit Lincoln approached the problem of emancipating the slaves.”[20] For months the Emancipation Proclamation sat in Lincoln’s desk drawer as the he waited for a major Union victory to pull it out. The victory at Antietam and the defeat of Robert E. Lee’s Confederate troops came on September 17th, 1862. Five days later the Proclamation was issued.
The Emancipation Proclamation was the beginning of the end for slavery. It was the first legal document that required that as Southern states came back into the Union, as Lincoln believed would occur, they would be forced to free their slaves. Emancipating the slaves was not only a moral plus for Lincoln, it was also an economic plus if the Union did in fact win. The Southern states would not be allowed to return to the Union unscathed. This was their economic punishment. Eventually the South did give up the war and the Union took back the Southern states for the Federal Government. Slavery was abolished.
[1] Stark, 340
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, “An Epistle of Caution and Advice, Concerning the Buying and Keeping of Slaves”, (Philadelphia: Printed and sold by James Chattin, in Church-Alley., 1754), 7.
[5] Stark, 341
[6] ibid, p 342
[7] ibid, 343
[8]D.K. Hitchcock, “The Testimony of God Against Slavery”, The Liberator, (Boston, MA) Saturday, November 12, 1836; pg. 184; Issue 46; colE, http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/414/831/19250383w16/purl=rc1_NCNP_0_GT3005838467&dyn=3!xrn_4_0_GT3005838467&hst_1?sw_aep=boon41269
[9] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 469
[10] ibid, 470
[11] ibid
[12] Thornton Stringfellow, Slavery: Scriptural and Statistical (Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1856), 61. See, http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html
[13] John Dixon, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State; Including Personal Reminiscences, Biographical Sketches, Anecdotes, etc. (Philadelphia: Published by Author, 1857) 128. See, http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/long/long.html
[14] Frederick Douglas, “American Prejudice Against Color”, Examiner, 27 October 1845. Reprinted in John Blassingame et al., eds., The Frederick Douglass Papers: Series One—Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, vol. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), 59
[15] Woodworth, 38
[16] Johnson, 471
[17] ibid
[18] William Wolf, The Almost Chosen People: A Study of the Religion of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Doubleday, 1959)
[19] Abraham Lincoln, National Museum of Ancient History, http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/small_exhibition.cfm?key=1267&exkey=696&pagekey=716
[20] Johnson, 472
