Evangelism

I was conversing with some co-workers the other day, and one of them noted that the approach for evangelizing outsiders in the more fundamentalist sphere has been to "force them into the club." At which point I said without much forethought, "Or maybe club them into the force." As I reflect on that more, the more accurate it sounds.

Secrets in Washington?

The news today was that Dr. Jill Biden, wife of very-soon-to-be VP Joe Biden, had let slip on Oprah that he may have been offered the choice of two different jobs: VP or Secretary of State. Of course, that's a slap in the face of Hilary Clinton. But Biden's team glossed over the remark that he had only ever been offered one job, even though he may have been qualified for more than one.

This made me think. We made it through the entire election cycle with that little secret knit up in a close circle. Not that it's a particularly relevant secret, or even that it's true, given the statements to the contrary. But given Joe Biden's purportedly sheepish look and initial attempts to shush his wife, it gives the comment veracity in my mind. On the other hand, there are a large number of "secrets" that regularly make it to the public. How many of them are relevant? How many are true? How many are controlled leaks? Given the number of journalistic remarks such as "on condition of anonymity," I have to think that there really is a team someplace that plants information in auspicious spots. If something comes from a spokesman, it has the ring of spun officiality. Coming from an unauthorized anonymous source gives it the ring of truth. Which takes spin to another level. What if the team tells an individual known to be in the know, "You tell this reporter this story OCOA"? Bingo. Public swallows it.

I'm gonna go crawl in my bunker now that the CIA's after me for spilling the secret. Unanonymously.

The Body of Christ

Today my history prof noted that he grew up in a very diverse religious environment. His father was a Navy chaplain, and he went to services on base that included Catholics, Jews, and Protestants.

This reminded me of an idea that I read last summer in T.F. Torrance's The Mediation of Christ. He contends that the body of Christ is intended to be made up of Jews and Gentiles, all as God's chosen people. Torrance went further to show that the Jews are represented by the scapegoat that is cast out of the community on the Day of Atonement, and that the followers of Jesus are represented by the sin offering offered on that day (since Jesus was sacrificed). Torrance believes that the body of Christ is not truly complete until there is reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. This idea is borne out in Ephesians where Paul says, "His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility" (TNIV).

I love the language of "one new humanity out of the two." While I'm not completely sold on Torrance's idea yet, it's very intriguing. It sure sounds like Jesus's activity makes the way for Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled to God and each other . . . and not only that, but actually becoming one! A new unified humanity is to be created from hostile groups by the peace brought by Jesus. Calling back my professor's experience, I find it ironic that it takes the American military machine to bring about a manifestation of unity in the body of Christ. No other people of the Book can tolerate worshipping together, but those who are engaged in the dubious mission of peace by way of bloodshed in defense of the god America can. Fascinating.

New World

I'm sitting in American Church History class, and I just made a startling (but probably not new) discovery. The whole idea of the land Columbus discovered being known as the New World was a secular millennial hope. After the Catholics and Protestants got tired of butchering each other, thinkers realized that revelation couldn't be the authority and discovered reason as the universal authority. It would be dumb to trust a new heavens and new earth idea coming from the Bible. With the new found goodness of man and optimism from reason, they didn't need the Bible for a redeemed earth. Let's leave the Old World and set up a New World! Everybody had some form of millennialism, some based on the Bible, others on reason.

WALL • E

My wife and I finally watched the whole movie last night. We watched the first half over Thanksgiving with our nieces, and the first half again over Christmas in a crowded, not-paying-attention room because our nephew wanted to put it in.

I'm still in shock at how someone can put together a sci-fi, romantic comedy, kids' movie. Animated. A very, very impressive work.

One could contend that this movie is another propaganda piece by liberal wingnuts. I guess I don't have any defense against that thought. It did feel agenda-laden at the beginning for me, but it's an agenda that I'm very sensitive about. I abhor the consumptive habits in America, and it saddens me greatly that consumption is identified with freedom/the American dream. Consumption is being exported to people who are doing just fine without a consumer mentality. Or, worse yet, they're not doing fine because of bad government or bad resource usage, and they're still becoming consumers, because that gets them closer to America (they think). Point being, I don't think that giant trash heaps are unrealistic. I'd prefer to not find out if they're realistic, simply by being better stewards and a little more sensible about how we use resources.

SPOILER ALERT from here on: I'm also impressed with the theology in the movie. There's an interesting orders in creation thing going on. I know that this ancient idea has been used to oppress women and other races, but I think there's a general order: the Creator, all humans, then all creation, with humans lovingly stewarding the rest of creation and leading them in righteousness, justice, and peace. The point was really sharpened for me when the robots were shown explicitly subjugating humans in the fight between the captain and the autopilot. But the captain makes some explicit statements that this order is not right and the robots must submit to the humans.

I appreciated the captain's assertions that humans were made to till the soil to work for their food. In a simple movie clip, you have a fairly robust theology of work and a theology of creation wrapped together. There's the humorous bit where he says that you can grow pizza trees, but after 700 years in exile under anesthetizing robots, who wouldn't think there was a pizza tree? Also, I think this is a tree I would like to have.

It brought tears to my eyes to see the credits. In a fascinating choice, the filmmakers chose to put the point of the story (okay, only in my theological eyes) in the last minute or so of the movie and the credits. The initiative of the humans with the help of the robots brings about a restored Eden from the absolute barrenness of human-wrought destruction. To make it more explicitly biblical would have had Jesus as the captain who led the restoration of creation.

There's even an egalitarian moralization in the story of the robots. Why would EVE, apparently one of the most powerful robots, take a romantic interest in WALL • E, the oldest extant robot technology? Then they lead the charge (based on EVE's directive) to get the humans back to Earth, even though the viewer is saying, "No, don't do it! It's uninhabitable!" In a short time, with the robots help, Earth is once again inhabitable.

Another interesting point (with my warped point of view) is that one human can encourage the most excessive consumption and give up all hope for restoration. Another human, born in exile 700 years after the exile, can see the possibilities and lead humanity back to its appointed place as stewards and redeemers of the creation. It's a monodimensional point of attitude and positive thinking, but it's a good one, particularly when coupled with the idea of reclaiming humanity from consumerism.