Just this week upon the heels of my last post on how we should handle doctrine John Piper gave some quick advice to the "new reformed" movement.
His advice boils down to the same thing Keller and Lloyd-Jones were saying in my previous post. As we grow to love theology and right thinking about God, we are in danger of loving thinking about God more than we love God. On the other hand, the pendulum too often swings the other way to the point where we disregard doctrine. In this case we end up worshipping a God of our imagine, rather than the true God as He has revealed Himself in scripture.
I'd encourage you to watch Piper's video and continue to grow with me in knowing God, not just knowing about God.
HT: Justin Taylor
Friday, July 16, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
How Should We Think of Doubt?
Doubt is a real experience in the life of any honest Christian. However, I think it can be hard to know how we should think about our doubt. Is it good or bad? Necessary or sinful? What do we do about it? Should we embrace it or repent of it? Should we talk to God/others about it or hide it? Should we question God or just submit? Doubt has played a major part in my Christian life, so I'd like to add some clarity to this topic from the Scriptures and my experience.
I think we can group doubt for the Christian into three broad categories: 1.) doubts about what God's Word says, 2.) doubts about whether what God's Word says is true, and 3.) doubts about how what God's Word says can be true.
1. Doubts about what God's Word says - This is an ok kind of doubt. Someone like me comes to you and says "God is in control of everything, even individual salvation." You say: "I'm not sure about that" That's ok. You shouldn't just take my word or anyone else's on things. An example of this is the Bereans. The Bible says this of them:
"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" - Acts 17:11
They are called noble because they received the word with eagerness and examined the scriptures daily to evalute whether what they were hearing is true. Notice here what they do with their uncertainties: they test them against the inerrant words of scripture. This is what we need to do with any truth claim. We examine the scriptures to see if its true. Until we have decided what God's Word says about the truth claim, we can say we "doubt" its truth, and in fact we should. But once we see what God's Word says about the claim, either affirming or falsifying it, that should settle the matter. That brings us to a second type of doubt, which I'll take up in Part 2.
I think we can group doubt for the Christian into three broad categories: 1.) doubts about what God's Word says, 2.) doubts about whether what God's Word says is true, and 3.) doubts about how what God's Word says can be true.
1. Doubts about what God's Word says - This is an ok kind of doubt. Someone like me comes to you and says "God is in control of everything, even individual salvation." You say: "I'm not sure about that" That's ok. You shouldn't just take my word or anyone else's on things. An example of this is the Bereans. The Bible says this of them:
"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" - Acts 17:11
They are called noble because they received the word with eagerness and examined the scriptures daily to evalute whether what they were hearing is true. Notice here what they do with their uncertainties: they test them against the inerrant words of scripture. This is what we need to do with any truth claim. We examine the scriptures to see if its true. Until we have decided what God's Word says about the truth claim, we can say we "doubt" its truth, and in fact we should. But once we see what God's Word says about the claim, either affirming or falsifying it, that should settle the matter. That brings us to a second type of doubt, which I'll take up in Part 2.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Keller (and Lloyd-Jones) on Doctrine
Tim Keller recently blogged about the place of doctrine in the Christian life by quoting Martin Lloyd-Jones. I would recommend just reading that post, but I'll offer some of my own comments on it here. He started by responding to churches who tend to de-emphasize doctrine. This can come out in alot of ways: "deeds not creeds" is probably the most popular tagline of today. As I've been involved with campus ministry I see it come out in Bible study when the application of the text for some is always something to the effect of: "I feel like the church today is so judgmental and divisive. Why do we debate stupid meaningless stuff like predestination? We just keep majoring in the minors and minoring in the majors. We just need to get along and get back to what Jesus was really all about." I'll simply add Lloyd-Jones' rebuke:
"Whether you like it or not, to speak like that is, in and of itself, to speak in a doctrinal manner. To make statements along that line is, in actual practice, to commit yourself to a particular doctrine… the doctrine of works and, in a sense, of justification by works. ‘Ah,’ but they reply, ‘we are not interested in such a term as ‘justification by works.’ But whether they are interested in such terminology of not, that is exactly what they are saying… In other words, whether we like it or not, we cannot avoid doctrine. … There is no such thing as an irreligious person; everyone has his or her religion, if you mean by religion that ultimate philosophy or view of life by which people live."
There is no avoiding doctrine. To say that it doesn't matter is a doctrinal statement, and the doctrine it teaches is that all God is concerned about is whether we are rightly motivated to seek Him or something like that, which is works righteousness. As Christians we should oppose such a sentiment. However, Keller makes sure to point out Lloyd-Jones' teaching on how we can handle doctrine wrongly in the other extreme:
"[Lloyd-Jones] speaks of some Christians and says, 'There is nothing they delight in more than arguing about theology' and they do this in 'a party spirit.' One of the signs of this group is that they are either dry and theoretical in their preaching, or they can be caustic and angry. They have 'lost their tempers, forgetting that by so doing they were denying the very doctrine which they claimed to believe.' In short, ministers who go to this extreme destroy the effectiveness of their preaching. What is the cause of this? Lloyd-Jones answers that they have made accurate doctrine an end in itself, instead of a means to honor God and grow in Christ-likeness. 'Doctrine must never be considered in and of itself. Scripture must never be divorced from life.'"
Man, that cuts right to my heart. I must confess that "I am the man" (2 Sam. 12:7) whom Lloyd-Jones is rebuking here. Often arguing theology and proving someone else wrong is where I can get my jollies. I often find myself angry and judgmental of those who don't accept things like the inerrancy of scripture, substitutionary atonement, and calvinism. In doing so I am making doctrine an end rather than God's glory. To add to Lloyd-Jones, I think I also do this so I can feel better about myself as I put others down. It is my own works righteousness: I feel right before God because my doctrine is right, and I get assurance of this salvation every time I put someone else down. To do so is to nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained by right doctrine, Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21).
I need to hear this as I start a series on dispensationalism, a system of doctrine I disagree with. I also know I'm not alone. Would you join me in repentance so that we don't disregard doctrine, but hold it in its proper place, as means to God's glory and Christ's likeness in our own lives?
"Whether you like it or not, to speak like that is, in and of itself, to speak in a doctrinal manner. To make statements along that line is, in actual practice, to commit yourself to a particular doctrine… the doctrine of works and, in a sense, of justification by works. ‘Ah,’ but they reply, ‘we are not interested in such a term as ‘justification by works.’ But whether they are interested in such terminology of not, that is exactly what they are saying… In other words, whether we like it or not, we cannot avoid doctrine. … There is no such thing as an irreligious person; everyone has his or her religion, if you mean by religion that ultimate philosophy or view of life by which people live."
There is no avoiding doctrine. To say that it doesn't matter is a doctrinal statement, and the doctrine it teaches is that all God is concerned about is whether we are rightly motivated to seek Him or something like that, which is works righteousness. As Christians we should oppose such a sentiment. However, Keller makes sure to point out Lloyd-Jones' teaching on how we can handle doctrine wrongly in the other extreme:
"[Lloyd-Jones] speaks of some Christians and says, 'There is nothing they delight in more than arguing about theology' and they do this in 'a party spirit.' One of the signs of this group is that they are either dry and theoretical in their preaching, or they can be caustic and angry. They have 'lost their tempers, forgetting that by so doing they were denying the very doctrine which they claimed to believe.' In short, ministers who go to this extreme destroy the effectiveness of their preaching. What is the cause of this? Lloyd-Jones answers that they have made accurate doctrine an end in itself, instead of a means to honor God and grow in Christ-likeness. 'Doctrine must never be considered in and of itself. Scripture must never be divorced from life.'"
Man, that cuts right to my heart. I must confess that "I am the man" (2 Sam. 12:7) whom Lloyd-Jones is rebuking here. Often arguing theology and proving someone else wrong is where I can get my jollies. I often find myself angry and judgmental of those who don't accept things like the inerrancy of scripture, substitutionary atonement, and calvinism. In doing so I am making doctrine an end rather than God's glory. To add to Lloyd-Jones, I think I also do this so I can feel better about myself as I put others down. It is my own works righteousness: I feel right before God because my doctrine is right, and I get assurance of this salvation every time I put someone else down. To do so is to nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained by right doctrine, Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21).
I need to hear this as I start a series on dispensationalism, a system of doctrine I disagree with. I also know I'm not alone. Would you join me in repentance so that we don't disregard doctrine, but hold it in its proper place, as means to God's glory and Christ's likeness in our own lives?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
A Tribute to the Albert Mohler Show
Aaron tells me my blog posts are generally too long for most people to actually read. I tend to agree with him. The length of the posts also prevents me from doing them as often because they're such a time commitment. So rather than always writing an article with a more obvious analytical theological bent, I'd like to start including a few short blurbs as well.
One blurb for today is on the Albert Mohler Show. The Albert Mohler Show is a radio program that's been on air for the last 9 years, until this past week when it aired its final episode. Dr. Mohler, the host of the show, is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I started listening to the show a couple years ago online and since getting my iPod touch and finding podcasts I've been a subscriber on there as well.
The tagline of the show is "intelligent Christian conversation" and I can say that I have certainly had the privilege of listening in on much of that as I've listened to Dr. Mohler's show. I consider Dr. Mohler one of the leading theologians of our time, especially when it comes to developing a Biblical worldview. His analysis of current events and cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective have been instructive and edifying for me and many others. It is a true encouragement and challenge to me to see such an intelligent, public figure taking a stand for the gospel.
So here's to you Dr. Mohler! Thank you for your service to the body of Christ; I look forward to continuing to benefit from your teaching ministry through other mediums.
P.S.: you can listen to the final episode by clicking here. I'd also recommend Dr. Mohler's website
One blurb for today is on the Albert Mohler Show. The Albert Mohler Show is a radio program that's been on air for the last 9 years, until this past week when it aired its final episode. Dr. Mohler, the host of the show, is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I started listening to the show a couple years ago online and since getting my iPod touch and finding podcasts I've been a subscriber on there as well.
The tagline of the show is "intelligent Christian conversation" and I can say that I have certainly had the privilege of listening in on much of that as I've listened to Dr. Mohler's show. I consider Dr. Mohler one of the leading theologians of our time, especially when it comes to developing a Biblical worldview. His analysis of current events and cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective have been instructive and edifying for me and many others. It is a true encouragement and challenge to me to see such an intelligent, public figure taking a stand for the gospel.
So here's to you Dr. Mohler! Thank you for your service to the body of Christ; I look forward to continuing to benefit from your teaching ministry through other mediums.
P.S.: you can listen to the final episode by clicking here. I'd also recommend Dr. Mohler's website
Thursday, July 1, 2010
What is Dispensationalism? (Introduction)
Lately for whatever reason I feel like I've had alot of conversations with people where the theological system known as Dispensationalism comes up. Dispensationalism is a system of doctrine. There are alot of facets to this system, so I must admit I lack the time/energy/blogspace and the expertise to fully address it. I'm not that well read on it, but I've interacted with it enough that I feel I can at least make some introductory remarks on it to help others recognize it. I think this is somewhat significant because it is the majority view in the evangelical world, and because I find it largely unbiblical.
Now I don't think it's unbiblical like liberal theology or the prosperity gospel. Dispensationalists are Christian brothers and sisters. They hold to the inerrancy of scripture and the basics of the gospel. The early founders believed in the sovereignty of God (e.g. John Nelson Darby), though I don't think that's as widespread now. In this series of posts I will try to answer the question of "What is Dispensationalism?" by discussing what I consider its most distinctive features, why I disagree with them, and what I see as the practical impact. In this post I'll simply give a brief historical introduction, but in future posts we'll look at the Dispensational view of:
Now I don't think it's unbiblical like liberal theology or the prosperity gospel. Dispensationalists are Christian brothers and sisters. They hold to the inerrancy of scripture and the basics of the gospel. The early founders believed in the sovereignty of God (e.g. John Nelson Darby), though I don't think that's as widespread now. In this series of posts I will try to answer the question of "What is Dispensationalism?" by discussing what I consider its most distinctive features, why I disagree with them, and what I see as the practical impact. In this post I'll simply give a brief historical introduction, but in future posts we'll look at the Dispensational view of:
- The Church and Israel
- Grace and law
- The Bible
- Salvation/sanctification
- The end times
The historical roots of dispensationalism as a system can probably be most reasonably traced back to the early 1800's in the Plymouth Brethren movement and the aforementioned J.N. Darby. In the United States the movement gained steam with adherents such as D.L. Moody and C.I. Scofield. With the publishing of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, Dispensationalism found a wide audience in America.
Dispensationalism has institutional support at a number of major Bible colleges and seminaries, most notably Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), which is really the epicenter of Dispensational teaching in America (so if you're one of the many people who's told me to go there, this is one of the main reasons I won't). Other institutions include Biola University, Moody Bible Institute, Philadelphia Biblical University, Baptist Bible Seminary, Liberty University, and Word of Life Bible Institute. Influential dispensational Bible teachers other than those already mentioned include Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, Darrel Bock, Daniel Wallace, and Norm Geisler. While denominational influence is harder to track it tends to have influence in some Baptist, E-Free, churches that end with "Bible church," and many pentecostal/charismatic circles (though hardcore dispensationalists tend to be cessationists as well).
So dispensationalism is alive and well in American Evangelicalism today. Though its proponents vary in a number of places, especially recently with the advent of Progressive Dispensationalism (e.g. Bock, Wallace, much of DTS today), there are a number of unifying features. I won't be dealing with all the variations, but I hope we can get a look at the things that tie them together in this series of blog posts.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
An Eisegetical Interpretation of the Lost Series Finale
Eisegesis (the process of interpretation whereby we simply read our ideas into a text rather than actually seeking to interpret the author's intended meaning) is generally bad. It's especially bad when it happens with the Bible, because at that point we are wrongly interpreting God's words to suit our own agendas. In my previous post I tried to engage in exegesis (correct interpretation) of the writers' intent in the season finale of LOST. I basically concluded the writers represented a pluralistic supernaturalism in the finale, obviously antithetical to biblical Christianity. I'll now engage in some eisegesis to argue that you could interpret the finale as supportive of a Reformed Christian worldview.
SPOILER WARNING: AGAIN, I'LL BE DISCUSSING THE LOST FINALE, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, DON'T READ ON.
In the LOST finale the hero of the show, Jack, embraces his ordained role in life and willingly offers his life as a sacrifice to save others. After he willingly offers his life, the next scene in the show switches to the flash-sideways timeline and displays a statue of Christ with His arms spread out, signifying His crucifixion. The message is clear: Jack sacrificed himself to save his friends and defeat evil, embodied in Easu/MiB/Fake Locke. Sound familiar? Similarly, Jesus laid down His life for His friends (Jn. 15:13) and in doing so defeated evil, embodied in satan (Col. 2:14-15). Not only that, but in some sense Jack was resurrected, as was Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
This gospel parallel takes on a distinctly reformed flavor when you consider that Jack really does only seem to be laying his life down for his friends. In the final church scene the whole world is not represented there entering paradise, only a chosen few. Esau/MiB/Fake Locke is not there, in fact there are a number of other characters from the seasons of the show that weren't there. Despite the stained glass, the redemption Jack accomplishes does not seem to be universal. Doesn't this suggest Jack's work is less valuable, as Arminians often charge? Well, is that how you felt in watching the final church scene? Absolutely not. And why not? Why weren't we so angry that Fake Locke wasn't there? Because we know Fake Locke got what he deserved. We were amazed at the redemption for those who were there, and understood the need for justice to be carried out on Fake Locke. And it's not like the people in the church were more worthy of redemption; plenty of them had been Jack's enemies and the island's as well (think Sawyer). They didn't choose to come to the island, the island chose them. Because the island chose them and the island's purpose for Jack was to redeem those the island had chosen, they end up in paradise.
In the same way, Jesus laid down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11), not the goats. When we understand that all of us deserve divine wrath because of our sin (Eph. 2:1-3), we see that there is no injustice in Jesus not dying for everyone. We rather are amazed that He laid down His life for anyone. And who are those He died to save? Those that deserve it? None deserve it, rather, it is those His father had chosen, who it was His purpose in His life on earth to redeem (Jn. 6:35-45). He will raise them up on the last day.
Obviously I'm not naieve enough to think the writers intended to communicate this message. However in writing the story in this way I do think they acknowledge (sub-consciously or consciously) certain truths of reformed theology:
1. In order to be saved we need someone to die for us. We can't do it, we need someone else. The LOST characters couldn't save themselves, they needed Jack to do it for them.
2. It is not unjust of God to choose some and not others since none deserve to be chosen in the first place.
3. Jesus' sacrifice is not devalued because He only intended it to redeem some.
SPOILER WARNING: AGAIN, I'LL BE DISCUSSING THE LOST FINALE, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, DON'T READ ON.
In the LOST finale the hero of the show, Jack, embraces his ordained role in life and willingly offers his life as a sacrifice to save others. After he willingly offers his life, the next scene in the show switches to the flash-sideways timeline and displays a statue of Christ with His arms spread out, signifying His crucifixion. The message is clear: Jack sacrificed himself to save his friends and defeat evil, embodied in Easu/MiB/Fake Locke. Sound familiar? Similarly, Jesus laid down His life for His friends (Jn. 15:13) and in doing so defeated evil, embodied in satan (Col. 2:14-15). Not only that, but in some sense Jack was resurrected, as was Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
This gospel parallel takes on a distinctly reformed flavor when you consider that Jack really does only seem to be laying his life down for his friends. In the final church scene the whole world is not represented there entering paradise, only a chosen few. Esau/MiB/Fake Locke is not there, in fact there are a number of other characters from the seasons of the show that weren't there. Despite the stained glass, the redemption Jack accomplishes does not seem to be universal. Doesn't this suggest Jack's work is less valuable, as Arminians often charge? Well, is that how you felt in watching the final church scene? Absolutely not. And why not? Why weren't we so angry that Fake Locke wasn't there? Because we know Fake Locke got what he deserved. We were amazed at the redemption for those who were there, and understood the need for justice to be carried out on Fake Locke. And it's not like the people in the church were more worthy of redemption; plenty of them had been Jack's enemies and the island's as well (think Sawyer). They didn't choose to come to the island, the island chose them. Because the island chose them and the island's purpose for Jack was to redeem those the island had chosen, they end up in paradise.
In the same way, Jesus laid down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11), not the goats. When we understand that all of us deserve divine wrath because of our sin (Eph. 2:1-3), we see that there is no injustice in Jesus not dying for everyone. We rather are amazed that He laid down His life for anyone. And who are those He died to save? Those that deserve it? None deserve it, rather, it is those His father had chosen, who it was His purpose in His life on earth to redeem (Jn. 6:35-45). He will raise them up on the last day.
Obviously I'm not naieve enough to think the writers intended to communicate this message. However in writing the story in this way I do think they acknowledge (sub-consciously or consciously) certain truths of reformed theology:
1. In order to be saved we need someone to die for us. We can't do it, we need someone else. The LOST characters couldn't save themselves, they needed Jack to do it for them.
2. It is not unjust of God to choose some and not others since none deserve to be chosen in the first place.
3. Jesus' sacrifice is not devalued because He only intended it to redeem some.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Finally Back
Hey everyone, sorry for the big delay between blog posts. I'm adjusting to a new schedule and still figuring out where blogging will fit into it. I still want to do it though, so keep your eyes peeled.
Contrary to some resistance, I am going to return with a post on the LOST series finale. Let me start by saying I was very satisfied with the finale. They didn't answer all the questions, but they did wrap up the storyline in a satisfying way. The show was about the characters, not the island, and each character's story concluded in a reasonable fashion. I loved watching the show for the years I was able to, and I'll miss it for sure. That said, I do want to level a fairly significant criticism.
WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LOST FINALE, STOP READING.
One of the great things about LOST has always been that the show is not only entertaining and addictive, but intellecutally stimulating. The writers have always been interacting with real philisophical questions (the nature of man as good or evil, free-will vs. determinism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism etc.). However they would often not show their cards as to where they stood on these issues. For instance, sometimes the island seemed to support naturalism, i.e. all the crazy stuff that happens there is really just the result of a concentrated pocket of electromagnetic energy. On the other hand, sometimes the island seemed to support supernaturalism, i.e. the island can "will" certain things or favor one person over another. The characters of Jack (man of science) and Locke (man of faith) epitomize this conflict.
While I think it's still hard for me at least to pin the writers down to one philosophy, I think the finale does reveal alot about where they stand on these questions. The trajectory of Jack's character is from the man of science to the man of faith. By the end of the show he sees himself as having some supernatural purpose in life and when he fulfills it he saves everyone. Then there's the fact that the flash-sideways turns out to be some kind of middle-ground until the characters walk into the light of paradise/nirvana/heaven. I think it is safe to conclude that the writers are communicating a supernatural worldview.
That said, they are certainly not trying to communicate a Christian supernatural worldview. They seem to be much more like universalists. Throughout the show they always borrowed from Christian traditions, but alongside Egyptian mythology, eastern religions, and so on. In the end I think they meet in a Unitarian Universalist church, where the symbols of all the major world religions are displayed in stain glass ala the popular "coexist" bumper stickers. All the characters had their own unique lives and "paths," but all ended up moving onto paradise in due time. I think this is why the writers don't take a hard line on alot of the other philisophical questions they bring up throughout the show. They present each of the characters on a journey to discover their purpose, and on the island we see various religious traditions' attempt to navigate this journey. The big philisophical questions come up, but in the end everyone goes to whatever paradise is.
I obviously did not like this aspect of the show, and in fact found it rather dissatsifying. The value of art is not only measured in its form but in what it communicates. A good painting is good not only because the artist moves the brush in a controlled fashion, but because he or she communicates something good through the painting. I'm afraid what the LOST writers communicated through the show represents a false optimism. The god of LOST (whatever it is, again the writers don't commit themselves one way or another, probably because they see all religions as various attempts to explain the same reality) seems nice because everyone goes to paradise, but the god of LOST is not good. The god of LOST seems to have no regard for the presence of sin. Maybe people are good, maybe people are evil, maybe all the characters have done wrong, but who cares? One must be left wondering just how good a paradise ruled by a god who has no concern for righteousness would really be. I for one am holding out for a better inheritance.
So I think that's what the LOST writers were communicating. It's their show, they're certainly free to communicate what they want. I really enjoyed the show, but suffice it to say the gospel is far better. While I think the LOST writers represent the pluralistic supernaturalism common throughout the world today, I think in the hero of the show, Jack, we do see something of Christ. I'll share more of my thoughts on that in a later post.
Contrary to some resistance, I am going to return with a post on the LOST series finale. Let me start by saying I was very satisfied with the finale. They didn't answer all the questions, but they did wrap up the storyline in a satisfying way. The show was about the characters, not the island, and each character's story concluded in a reasonable fashion. I loved watching the show for the years I was able to, and I'll miss it for sure. That said, I do want to level a fairly significant criticism.
WARNING: SPOILER TO FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LOST FINALE, STOP READING.
One of the great things about LOST has always been that the show is not only entertaining and addictive, but intellecutally stimulating. The writers have always been interacting with real philisophical questions (the nature of man as good or evil, free-will vs. determinism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism etc.). However they would often not show their cards as to where they stood on these issues. For instance, sometimes the island seemed to support naturalism, i.e. all the crazy stuff that happens there is really just the result of a concentrated pocket of electromagnetic energy. On the other hand, sometimes the island seemed to support supernaturalism, i.e. the island can "will" certain things or favor one person over another. The characters of Jack (man of science) and Locke (man of faith) epitomize this conflict.
While I think it's still hard for me at least to pin the writers down to one philosophy, I think the finale does reveal alot about where they stand on these questions. The trajectory of Jack's character is from the man of science to the man of faith. By the end of the show he sees himself as having some supernatural purpose in life and when he fulfills it he saves everyone. Then there's the fact that the flash-sideways turns out to be some kind of middle-ground until the characters walk into the light of paradise/nirvana/heaven. I think it is safe to conclude that the writers are communicating a supernatural worldview.
That said, they are certainly not trying to communicate a Christian supernatural worldview. They seem to be much more like universalists. Throughout the show they always borrowed from Christian traditions, but alongside Egyptian mythology, eastern religions, and so on. In the end I think they meet in a Unitarian Universalist church, where the symbols of all the major world religions are displayed in stain glass ala the popular "coexist" bumper stickers. All the characters had their own unique lives and "paths," but all ended up moving onto paradise in due time. I think this is why the writers don't take a hard line on alot of the other philisophical questions they bring up throughout the show. They present each of the characters on a journey to discover their purpose, and on the island we see various religious traditions' attempt to navigate this journey. The big philisophical questions come up, but in the end everyone goes to whatever paradise is.
I obviously did not like this aspect of the show, and in fact found it rather dissatsifying. The value of art is not only measured in its form but in what it communicates. A good painting is good not only because the artist moves the brush in a controlled fashion, but because he or she communicates something good through the painting. I'm afraid what the LOST writers communicated through the show represents a false optimism. The god of LOST (whatever it is, again the writers don't commit themselves one way or another, probably because they see all religions as various attempts to explain the same reality) seems nice because everyone goes to paradise, but the god of LOST is not good. The god of LOST seems to have no regard for the presence of sin. Maybe people are good, maybe people are evil, maybe all the characters have done wrong, but who cares? One must be left wondering just how good a paradise ruled by a god who has no concern for righteousness would really be. I for one am holding out for a better inheritance.
So I think that's what the LOST writers were communicating. It's their show, they're certainly free to communicate what they want. I really enjoyed the show, but suffice it to say the gospel is far better. While I think the LOST writers represent the pluralistic supernaturalism common throughout the world today, I think in the hero of the show, Jack, we do see something of Christ. I'll share more of my thoughts on that in a later post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
