“The Passion” has arrived and, like finalists at a pro bass fishing tournament, everybody is weighing in. Especially those most familiar with Christ—us Christians. The thing that jumps out at me (and irritates me) is the criticism that I’ve heard most often, which can be summarized like this:
“The Passion” focuses too much on the physical suffering of Christ and therefore the full message of the Gospel is not presented.
I could talk for days in response to this, but instead I’ll limit myself to a question and a statement:
1. I think we’re missing the trees for the forest.
As Christians, we know how the story of Jesus goes. “The Passion” is just a part of that story—a tree, perhaps, in the forest that is the Gospel. However, it’s a big and beautiful tree. Are we so hung up on doctrinal infidelities and omissions that we can’t fully appreciate an opportunity to witness a full-scale production of one of the centrally important events of our faith? Do we say, “That may be a nice tree, but it’s not the forest.” True, it’s not the whole story, but why is that a problem? There are already 5 or 6 cinematic versions of the Gospel account that could pass as “forests,” including one that debuted just a few months ago. “The Gospel of John” was a word-for-word reproduction of that entire book, so it’s not as though the Gospel isn’t getting out in the theaters.
People are worried that Gibson’s interpretation of the story slants the movie too heavily away from what the Gospels intend to teach. But who said that this film has to be a substitute for the Gospels? I’m pretty sure that neither Gibson nor anyone else associated with the film intended that it should be used for evangelistic purposes—like a new version of the Jesus Film or something. Even so, I’d be willing to bet that a lot of people will leave the theater with a renewed interest in Jesus and the story of his life and death—lack of whole story notwithstanding. Where will they turn to find out more about Jesus? I can think of a pretty good source, and I bet they will too.
2. Do we understand art?
There are people who dump on Picasso because his paintings aren’t realistic enough. I wonder if this sentiment isn’t akin to those people who dump on “The Passion” because it doesn’t tell the “whole story.” Admittedly, Gibson supposedly tried to make the film portray what it would have been like to be there, but he understands that it is still his perspective on what it would have been like to be there. We should understand that too. Instead, I think a lot of us are evaluating the film as though it were an historical documentary. There is a place for pointing out the differences between scripture and the film, but those differences shouldn’t pace our overall opinion of the film.
Let’s take time to enjoy a tree.
Now that we know Iran is lying about their nuclear capabilities, I wonder if they'll be the next to go to the top of Bush's short list.
All in jest, of course.
Right?
On a personal note, Beth and I have been planning on going to graduate school this Fall for a few months now, but recently we've felt a tremor in the force. So to speak.
Beth got a nifty promotion at work, and it's harder to cut the ties that bind when the binding is getting more comfortable. Plus, not only she good at her job, but she also enjoys it. And that, as many of us can attest, is a rare combination. So if plan #1 was grad school, I would say plan #2 is to stay in Chatty for two more years, and while Beth works at Covenant I would go to UTC for a BS in actuarial science.
I work in insurance right now, but the technical skills required by my job are (1) literacy, and (2) the ability to talk to other people. From what I know about actuaries, they make good money very quickly, use cool types of math, and only need to pass a few tests to get into the field. The BS would help me pass the first actuarial exam. Of course, BS has always helped me pass exams. (Betcha couldn't see that one coming...)
For philosophy grad school, I've applied to UGA, U of Florida, U of Virginia, UMass/Amherst, UNC Chapel Hill, Notre Dame, and Rutgers. Those are listed pretty much in the order of my chances of acceptance, decreasing as you move towards Rutgers, which might be the best grad school for philosophy in the nation (along with Princeton and NYU). So far, I've been rejected by UNC and accepted by UGA. Neither of which is surprising, I guess. If I can pull one more acceptance, my guess is that we'll go to that school in the Fall.
We're praying for Virginia.
This is part of a comment I posted in response to an article on this blog (which I like very much). This is something I've been thinking about for about a year, and I think I've finally reached sufficient clarity to say something coherent about it. Here goes:
Last year my church asked me to give a talk about evolution. My pastor basically wanted me to marshal the evidence against evolution and destroy the theory in front of the congregation. I had read plenty of stuff that I could use against evolution, so beating up (a likely straw-mannish) theory before a friendly audience wouldn't be problem. But as I worked on preparing the talk, I was bothered continually by the same issue: the authority of evidential support for the truth or falsity of an idea.
I was pretty sure most of the people who heard the talk would walk out of church that day feeling pretty safe in their creationist beliefs. But what would happen if they were to speak with an evolutionary biologist--or someone else who knew the evidence far better than they (or I) did? Would their beliefs hold up in the face of apparently damning evidence? Worse yet, what if talk turned from debate about origins to the historicity of scripture? What if all the evidence introduced in a conversation pointed to the falsity of New Testament accounts? Would their beliefs about the person of Christ hold? What if tomorrow archaeologists make a Dead Sea Scrolls-like find that strongly supports a hypothesis that the gospel-writers were lying?
My point isn't about evolution--I think evidence needs to play a fairly significant role in that issue. What I realized is that my core Christian beliefs--that I am God's child in whom Christ lives by God's Spirit--were not, and should not, be open to the authority of objective evidence. Even if the accuracy of all of scripture were repudiated by the academy, I would still believe. I don't believe due to the accuracy of historical accounts, or the authority of tradition, or even the coherence of a system derived from certain presuppositions. I believe because God testifies to me directly in my spirit, by the person of his Spirit. I cannot deny that another person lives in me--he speaks to me all the time. As John says in his first epistle "And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gives us" (3:24b). Objective, empirical evidence will never corroborate my claims that God exists and lives within me. And so external evidence will not persuade me otherwise.
As I climb down from my soap-box, I'll say that it doesn't seem like there has to be conceptual dissonance in being skeptical of historical truth while affirming the eternal truth of God's revelation. It could be that you don't believe in those eternal truths because of any type of historical evidence. Besides, if we're going to be postmodern, it seems like it ought to be OK to believe something for uniquely personal reasons ;)
Three students from Covenant College have been selected to read papers at the upcoming 2004 Undergraduate Philosophy Conference at Vanderbilt University. Rob MacDougal will read a paper having something to do with philosophy of biology, Sarah Funke on intuition and music theory, and Matthew Gillikin on epistemology/philosophy of science.
As a former Covenant philosphy major, I'm excited to see the department getting out more. I had the chance to attend last year's conference, then at The University of the South, and hear Rob Holmes, Bill McClellan, Justin Johnson, and Ryan Davidson read.
In regards to reading at conferences, there has been concern within the department and major due to the sometimes explicit nature of the Christian perspective often present in Covenant students' essays, and how that would go over in mostly secular venues. However, last year a professor from another school at the conference said that Bill McClellan's paper was the clearest exposition of Foucault's philosophy he had ever heard, depite the fact that Bill included a blatant description of salvation as a part of his conclusion. Which I thought was a good sign.
As a postscript, the conference is being held on February 14, which I think must say something about the love lives of the Vanderbilt philosophy faculty. Then again, what could be more romantic than dim lighting, guttering candles, and a glass of wine while listening to a paper on Nietszchean master-slave themes in contemporary gender roles?