A while ago Steve suggested I create some visuals for a stations of the cross thing. I still haven't done it but as a route to that I've decided to try out some stuff using the tradional artisitc theme of "Ecce Homo". Above is an early sketch.
On Wednesday I got to watch The Passion of the Christ. UGC cinema put on a free showing for Church pastor’s in Northampton [they deserve a bit of free publicity from that, probably].
So what do I think? Well, it is always weird going to the cinema at 11am at the best of times and this was no different. Especially considering the nature of the film. The first word that I would use is harrowing. It is certainly one of the most graphic, violent films I have seen. That needs to be made plain: it is not for the faint-hearted. But let’s be honest, we have all watched Jesus of Nazareth and been offended by the crucifixion scene there because it has very little relation to gruesome reality. There is no chance of that offence here. The audience is barraged with gruesome and bloody scenes for 80% of the film. The film felt long and drawn out, like 12 hours of suffering with an inevitable conclusion. I came out in emotional turmoil, drained, messed up. But I think I would prefer this presentation to the it’s relatively clinical predecessors. I have spent my upbringing persuading my parents of the ‘necessary’ violence in certain movies in order to portray reality [Saving Private Ryan] or the ‘artistic’ nature of violence that is required to make a point [Pulp Fiction; T1 & T2?]. I guess I still think that. And if those arguments are made then they are also to be made here. I should add that, personally, I feel it is over played though – blood just doesn’t run that freely!!
I appreciated the real, human nature of the film. There is nothing like a pictorial portrayal of something that you have only read about, be it Lord of the Rings or The Miracle Maker etc. Here the reality of Jesus humanity is emphasised, the fear that engulfs him, the pain that he suffers, the compassion that remains present. I felt one of the most powerful moments of the film was Peter’s denial, again you are faced with the reality of what he did and the potential for you to do the same. Points of drama were beautifully crafted, finding points of grace from Jesus amongst horror and desertion, such as the cutting off of the centurion’s ear by Peter. Every character was carefully introduced to the main plot journey bringing a reality to the encounters. Flashbacks added to the overall picture, giving light relief from the suffering, and giving some context, a touch of purpose [that is of course apart from the ridiculous one about Jesus making a table – was that purely for comedy value?].
I was less satisfied with some historical aspects to the film. The comparative presentations of the Roman authorities and the Jewish authorities, I felt, were not as I see them. Pilate is presented to be a reflective, compassionate ruler, just desperate to keep the peace, talking openly with his wife, who is presented as a semi-Jesus Follower. This I think is overly flattering. The Jewish authorities are presented as being single-minded and proud, comfortable with entering the house of Herod and being around blood and the crucifixion site. I feel that this does not deal fully with the complicated political and cultural issues of the day.
It is also clear that many of the decisions with regards the portrayal of those issues not covered in the gospels come not so much from a desire to provide an historical reconstruction, but to pull in various Catholic sources. For example, Veronica appears on the scene from the 6th station of the cross, the devil figure’s temptations in the garden of Gethsemane are from Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact she is also responsible for many of the details of the film [check more: interesting points; outline of the issues; list of items taken into the film ; frequently asked questions ]. There is not a problem with this, of course, as long as people are aware.
Overall this film has, and is, impacting me hugely. Brian McLarens’ article sums it up very well, I think, this is not ‘a great evangelistic opportunity’. Its value, for me, lies in the role it takes in my own Formation, and in that sense its value is proving to be high. I feel more aware of Jesus’ suffering, I feel aware of the grace carried in it, I feel faced by the reality of the discipleship call, I feel challenged to make a passionate response of devotion to “my Lord and my God”.
Do I want to see it again? No, not for a long, long time …
P.S. See Rick Warren’s response to Brian here.
P.P.S. Classic quotes:
- "I am a Christian and I am not so much against the movie but the merchandise that they are selling along with it, things like nail necklaces, How tacky and sick!" - random public [better leave the necklace with a cross hanging on it in the box then, luv!]
- "At least I have an answer to sanctimonious religious people who don't like my love for horror films now" - BBC reporter
- "I love horror films ...... it's an exploitation film, and I love that .... so it's a good film in my book" - same BBC reporter
P.P.P.S. Repentence Follows...
I work with a Mormon Bishop who is an evangelist. He is unapologetic, sincere and genuine, and very effective. He, along with a team of others, are initiating an agenda (political in nature and under the table) to reach the whole city of Elk Grove, CA. The core of what he is doing and why he is doing it is 2-fold: 1) Based on his belief system, his effort(s) merit God's favor and a ticket to heaven (gaining status in the after-life furnished with many planets to his name 2) The real goal is not to convert everyone to becoming Republican (although this is the platform by which he stands on)... the ultimate goal is that their prayers and baptisms on behalf of the 'lost' will eventually convert and convince them to Mormonism. Pretty smart method, but effective? He (and "his team") seem to think so.
The truth speaks for itself... our (Followers of The Way) 'pure motive' methods are failing and not reaching the culture. Oh, when will we ever come to grips with this truth! On the other hand, when will we (I) begin to obey the harvest work before us. Do we just sit back and say, "Holy Spirit, lead us as we wait for your hand to move?" This is a great foundation to build on, but we must not camp there. The exciting thing about the Kingdom of God is that we ALL get to participate and work with God in this Harvest work. What does this look like? "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." James 1:22 (NASB)
I must confess that I have found myself stuck in some "new ways of thinking." It has trapped me into a life of regular rhetoric and less doing. Rhetoric and conversation is not bad... the danger is that it easily and subtly weighs down our feet and hands. Acts 1:11 reads, "They said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing here staring at the sky? Jesus has been taken away from you into heaven. And someday, just as you saw him go, he will return!" (NLT)
Let's challenge and sharpen one another towards active Kingdom Work. Let's stop gazing, pay attention to what the Spirit is whispering, and respond. I need this kind of sharpening in my life, so I invite you to do this to me!
I was thinking today how useful it would be to try to layout some of the different ways of looking at the nature of salvation. We have discussed before the predominant evangelical view: law court imagery in which humanity has transgressed the law, Satan is the accuser, God made a guilty judgment, then laid the judgment on Jesus, mankind goes forward ‘free’ to have a relationship with God again and from the judgement of ‘hell’. This has been widely accepted as ‘the gospel’.
As I thought about putting some thoughts on ‘paper’, I remembered a book that sought to do that a little: “God so loved the world: a Christology for Disciples” by Jonathan Wilson. The book seeks to take a narrative approach to Christology by laying out the ‘story of the messiah’ and covering different ways the story has been framed. He then covers three ways in which the Gospel event in Jesus could be viewed: Christ as Victor, Christ as Sacrifice, Christ as Example. He does this by covering the NT evidence, the ways this has been approached in Church history, and finally laying out what that means for “God”, “Humanity”, “Sin” and “Salvation” by placing them in the context of the story he started with. I tell you this because I quite like the methodology – trying to draw out some threads of theology from the context of the biblical story and interpretations through church history. Unfortunately, however, the book does not quite succeed – it feels like it is trying a little too hard to use the right language, while covering up a ‘traditional’ systematic theology underneath. That is in addition to trying to cover too much ground in a small book. His broad conclusions, however are interesting starting points:
1) Christ as Victor
- God as warrior, conqueror and liberator
- Humanity as victims, captives and hostages
- Sin as enemy and prison
- Salvation as triumph, liberation and homecoming
2) Christ as Sacrifice
- God as judge and judged [note: relational judgment over legal]
- Humanity as perpetrators, rebels, collaborators and criminals
- Sin as rebellion
- Salvation as forgiveness, pardon, innocence, righteousness and peace
3) Christ as Example
- God as teacher, enabler and lover
- Humanity as ignorant, feeble and alienated
- Sin as ignorance, weakness and separation
- Salvation as knowledge, power and love
What do you think? Are all valid? Do you favour one over the rest? Do we need all of them [and more?] to get a full picture?
P.S. Maybe that is why Mel couldn't put in the meaning of events in his recent film like some would have liked ...
You may have heard that the Passion is 'the–greatest–evangelistic–oportunity–in–the–last–2000–years' (just how did they survive before the invention of the cinema) — Rubbush! Blatantly this is: Saved! the movie.** In a world where irony rules communication this will be the film for me and my friends.
** = OK so I messing about. If any film is the–greatest–evangelistic–oportunity–in–the–last–2000–years then we're doing something very very wrong. Tip: try waking up in the morning living an authenic life following Jesus.
I imagine it will be okay to rant... in love. My Spirit is experiencing an unsettling concern for what seems to be taking place. Recently I read a handbook on 'house churching' and as I flipped through the pages I had to put it down. I had this overwhelming sense in my spirit and God told me, "People in N. America do not need 'house church' for spiritual answers, they need Me." My reason for bringing this up is not to bash on those who house church, rather to exhort in love... we must not fall for quick, get-em-saved, evangelistic gimmicks or models that eliminate the foundational base for our walk(s) with God and that's constantly LISTENING to the Spirit and RESPONDING to Him in obedience. For the longest time, God's people have attempted to find the quickest, easiest gimmick to reach the culture. We must be committed to breaking the cycle! How? By seeking Jesus' heart as to what He wants to do in reaching those around us in the context we find ourselves in. My point is that this will look very different for each of us. Please, please, let's not 'package' and market house churching. I am sorely afraid that this type of effort is already out on the shelves in Christian bookstores, websites, etc. BTW, I would consider myself (our community of believers) as people who desire to be an ACTS church and probably to some it would look like a 'house church'. But it is not my (our) desire to go out and convert (believers and unbelievers) to this form of structure. We are asking ourselves, "God what is your desire for us as we seek to be missionaries here in Sacramento (as opposed to simply a gathered community)." House Church is not the answer... Jesus is and always will be!
Wanted to throw this question out there: what is leadership in relational church, simple church, organic church, house church, etc? This has been on my heart and mind for several weeks and God is not allowing me to 'shake it off.'
Some thoughts? Look forward to the conversation. Peace!
Last week I got chance to go to the leaders conference for the 'movement'* of Churches I belong to (yes, there is a Norridge boy in all the major charismatic-evangelical networks). Had a good time. It was great to have time to chat to people including Steve, and a brief chat with Jason.
The highlight, for me was the sessions by Gorden Fee. He did three talks on Philippians, and was persuaded to do two extra sessions which were, 'the pastor and his Bible' and a question and answer session. The Philippians stuff was great - some of it I heard before from listening to previous Gorden Fee lectures on tape, but even hearing this again was inspiring. As expected he was incredibly passionate and insightful. Interestingly he seemed keen on using phases like "community of faith" - in preference to "church", and "followers of Jesus" in preference to Christian.
The Philippians stuff was given some useful historical context. I'm a sucker for history so I loved this. Fee talked about Augustus (Octavia) giving Philippi to the loosing army in the battle on the plains in north Greece and making the citizens of Philippi citizens of Rome. Philippi was therefore an 'outpost of Rome', Fee drew this along side Paul's writtings to the believers in Philippi, saying (words to the effect of): you the church are an outpost of heaven, citizens of heaven, our life together should reflect that of heaven. Augustus' action also lead to him being pronounced "Lord and Saviour" - which Nero also took on when he became Emperor - again I've heard this before but to hear how subversive Paul is to declare Jesus "Lord and Saviour" over and above any earthly empire is good to hear and be reminded of.
Other snippets which caught my attention in the Philippian's talk were:
- 'Joy' in Paul is usually a verb and not a noun - it's not something you feel, but something you do. "I rejoice... ...make my joy complete (fullfillied)"
- 'when people loose sight of the future they become religious' [I wonder if people have a mis-guided view of the future then they also become religious, so bad eschatology makes bad religion].
Well, that's a few comments on the Philippians stuff, oh did I mention he handed out copies of the TNIV to go through this with us?(so we got lots of - "I was determined that we translated this bit right this time")
(* = still not convinced thats the right use of the word, but that's a whole another subject)
The Bishop blew the conference away with his huge view of the world. In this charismatic leaders conference he started as he meant to go on: “We need to get the big picture between the resurrection and the new creation. The gospel is not about us having a new religious experience, nor is it about going to heaven when you die”. That’s how to get peoples attention ;o).
There were a million and one gems, if you could type fast enough, which I couldn’t [on my iPAQ and foldaway keyboard]! Like this: The power Caesar had was based on "if you get in my way then I will kill you" - the cross was a symbol of Caesar’s power; in Jesus it became the symbol of the power of the living God.
I have never heard the implications of the resurrection so vastly expounded. I think I need to read the book [d’oh!]. “Jesus body is the same but transformed, not resuscitated nor was the old thrown away. Easter is the new creation begun - God's future appearing in the middle of history. The work of the gospel in the present is held between the Easter event and the Easter hope.” This determines who we are to be: Our lives are to be shaped by the new creation. So Paul saying “if anyone is in Christ they are a new creation” is not so much just about me, but rather about me getting caught up God’s new creation work, which will be brought to completion when it culminates in ‘new heavens and new earth’. Those ‘in Christ’ are a sign in the present that God’s future is on the way. Therefore what we do in the present and how we treat this world in the present matters, because it will not be chucked, nor resuscitated, but will be transformed. More implications followed in part 2.
He finished part 1 with what is in the last two chapters of “The Challenge of Jesus”:
The Disciples on the Emmaus Road [evangelism in a pomo world] – they were puzzled people, trying to work out what’s going on with Jesus, their hopes dashed because of his death. Jesus comes but doesn't reveal who he is, but rather he comes alongside and retells the story, probably pulling out themes of God’s people getting to place of total suffering and darkness and then coming forth, and showing how this reframes Jesus. Jesus eats with them and their eyes were opened (cf Genesis 3:7). Our world is full of people walking to and fro confused in a post-Christian culture. There is still a memory, however, over 70% still call themselves Christians. Our task is to play Jesus in that story - not to beat them over the head, but to come alongside incognito and to retell the story "it was the way is was meant to be", and to come into their homes and break bread with them to show that Jesus is alive.
Graham, Steve, I think you need to take this test .... Are You A Blogaholic?
[thanks steve collins]
What are the qualities that truly identify us?
This is an interesting competition: design a global ID card. Obviously thinking through big concepts like this are way beyond me, but the winners come up with some interesting solutions, and ask some interesting questions. The overall winner seems to be addressing the nature if Identity, and realising that trying to capture identity is like trying to hit a moving target. Our lives are fluid, we move and change. My passport phot is from my student days - and boy did I need a haircut!!
The winner is…Bryan Boyer of Providence, Rhode Island
He produces a card "that probes the complex nature of identity with devastating minimalism. A small, oblong slip of paper represents the modest resources of most people on earth. "What does an I.D. card mean for those without enough money to buy a car or have a credit card?" Boyer explained. "Do you really exist in this world if you don't participate in the great global finance machine?" Divided into sections, the card is labeled with airport-code-like abbreviations representing the questions, Where have you been? Where are you now? Where are you going? Where did you begin? Where do you wish you were? One's true self can be gleaned from the matrix of these responses, Boyer insisted, as much as anyone's identity can be pinned down in an age when facial features, names, and addresses are equally fluid. "Answering the five questions on the card tells us who you are now, and who you may be tomorrow," he said."
How would you answer the 5 questions?
Catch runners up here.
Bringing Home the Prodigals
At this conference that I went over last weekend, Rob Parsons took a session, based on his book, "Bringing Home the Prodigals". I had heard Rob Parsons speak before [on marriage and family] so I knew it would be entertaining at least. I wasn't prepared for the emotional response he was about to stir, nor the huge challenge he was about to unleash on the room of unsuspecting church leaders. Based on the parable of the two sons (better known as the parable of the prodigal son) he described the nature of church and how we have made people into prodigals and how we remain the kind of churches that prevent their return. He challenged us to not get so caught up with whether or not they are attending church and search out opportunities to commend them in right living.
For example he imagined a situation where the mother and an 18 year old son left home together on a Sunday morning, one going to church and one to a friends house to get up to who-knows-what, but as the son leaves he passes a homeless person selling "Big Issue", he stops pulls some cash out of his pocket, looks the person in the eye ["the most significant thing you can do to a person" - Rob] and says "keep the change". Will the mother continue to berate the son for not attending church, or will she see the wonderful act of grace the son did and encourage it.
Fantastic. As with centred set thinking, we were challenged to see Jesus followers not as those who looked 'in', and conformed to expectations, but those who were allowing the good in the heart to flow out in action.
I loved this: "When your prodigals do return to church, pray that they meet the Father before they meet the older brother".
