Archives For Culture

The world breaks down into two types of people, those who see signs and those who see chance.

So says Mel Gibson’s character in M Night Shyamalan’s hit movie Signs. If you’ve ever seen a film written and directed by M Night Shyamalan, you’ll know exactly what he means. Shyamalan’s films often hinge on two ways of seeing.

Blinding Edge logo

sixth_sense_ver1.jpg

The Sixth Sense

In the Sixth Sense, Night takes his audience through the experience of Malcolm, a child psychologist, who needs to regain his professional confidence after being shot early in the film by an enraged former patient.

Malcolm spends the rest of the film working with the shy and reluctant Cole Sear, a child showing many of the same strange symptoms that plagued his assailant. As the film progresses Cole opens up to Malcolm more and more.  

Half way, Cole confesses to his counselor that he’s afraid because he see’s dead people, walking around as if they were alive all the while not knowing they are dead. Malcolm believes Cole and helps him come to grips with this gift.

The real bombshell, however, occurs in a closing scene when Malcolm, along with the audience, discovers that he himself is one of those dead people who sought his patients help. In His moment of realization the film quickly recaps half dozen scenes in which you can see how each has been wrongly perceived. Although it appears that Malcolm has spoken to others in the film, in reality no one has spoken to him since his shooting except the young boy.

Watching the movie a second time reveals how each action in the movie is ambiguous, encouraging the audience to mistakenly grasp the significance of the story until the very end.

The_Signs_movie

Signs

In Signs, Shyamalan again builds into his story this two-sided perspective. The title itself participates in the film’s double meaning.

At a first glance, Signs refers to the crops circles and other mysterious appearances that provoke the small family, around which the film centers, to believe they are being visited by aliens. Yet, as the movie progresses we find that while this may be the external situation around which the plot develops, the movie is really about Grant, the father of the family, and his loss of faith in the absence of God given signs.

Like each scene in the Sixth Sense, the title is ambiguous. Although the audience doesn’t see it at first, Grant’s statement that, the world breaks down into two types of people those who signs and those who see chance” mirrors Cole’s confession to Malcolm. It is the statement upon which the film will hinge.

Just like the title, evidence for God’s presence is often itself ambiguous. In the end, Shyamalan reveals in the ordered assembly of the numerous quirks in the story, the young daughter’s inability to finish a glass of water, the son’s asthma and the brothers desire to swing a bat a benevolent God.

Although God is never seen in the film, the order in the films closing reveals that he is in fact present to those who have eyes to see.

village

The Village

The Village, while not as popular as the Sixth Sense or Signs, still trades on the concept of sight.

The film centers on a group of families living in small colonial community and in particular two youths a quite boy and Ivy, a girl who is out going but blind. Throughout the film, the town is dominated by the fear of a wild beast – he who must not be named – that roams the forest, keeping the villagers confined to their tiny world. But when the quiet boy is wounded, the blind girl must confront the forest and seek help from the outside.

Remarkably it is she who is blind who is shown that the beast is simply a costume, a phantom created by the elders to keep the young from leaving the village.

After groping through the forest she climbs a fence to the other side. In that moment the film cuts to Ivy’s parents back in the village. They open a box and pull out some papers and old photographs. The photographs reveal a past that is not a sepia toned pioneer world; instead it’s a colored photo of the 1960’s. The audience at once experiences a paradigm shift. In an instant, past and present slam together. The village does not exist in the past, rather it is a gated community locked away from the present.

Cutting back to Ivy on the other side of the fence, we find her confronted not by a horse and buggy but a modern SUV. In Shyamalan’s worldview the blind are the ones who are truly able to see. For unlike the audience, there blindness has allowed them not to be fooled by the external trappings of this world.

It is Shyamalan’s penchant for dazzling his audiences with things hidden in plan sight which has made his films so successful. The movies in and of themselves reveal that there are truly two types of people, those that see and those that don’t. At first the audience is completely blind, ignorant of even of their own ignorance, unable to even comprehend that they are interpreting the story wrong. When the revelation comes however it not only exposes their ignorance but gives them eyes to see.

Because his audiences have come to expect these twist ending,Shyamalan has shied away from making such films in recent years. It’s made the game of the screenwriter increasingly more difficult.  But It should come as no surprise to learn that Shyamalan has named his production company Blinding Edge Pictures.

I don’t know if you happened to catch the CBS special on the birth of Jesus a few years ago. What I wanted to address in this post is the objection it raised concerning Jesus birth in Bethlehem. John Dominic Crossan, a one-time Catholic monk now turned Christian-skeptic, states,

Born in Bethlehem… nobody else seems to know anything about it in the New Testament…. It doesn’t seem, for example, that John, in John’s gospel, has any idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Crossan is referring specifically to John 7:40-44 which states,

Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him.

Since John doesn’t say anything more on the subject, Crossan concludes that John, like the multitude, isn’t aware of Jesus birth in Bethlehem. And many scholars agree with him.  Among them is Mark Goodacre who addresses this issue in this installment of his popular NT pod.

Does John think Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem?

But is this the point that John is making. Does John want us to believe that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem? Crossan assumes that if John knew of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem he would have corrected the people’s error. What he fail to recognize, however, is that beneath the text John is implicitly judging the people for their failure to know the scriptures. 

If we continue reading John 7:45-52, we find the emphasis on Jesus coming from Galilee. 

The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?” The officers answered, “Never did a man speak the way this man speaks.” The Pharisees therefore answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you? “No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?  “But this multitude which does not know the Law is accursed.” Nicodemus said to them (he who came to Him before, being one of them), “Our Law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” They answered and said to him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

Everyone knows that Jesus came from Galilee and based upon this they conclude that Jesus cannot be the Messiah – the descendant of David. The Pharisees are so bold in this assertion that they challenge Nicodemus to “search” the scriptures to “see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

What do we actually find in scripture?

We find that Galilee is only mentioned six times in the Old Testament. And one of these six instances is the well-known prophecy in Isaiah 9:1-7.

But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them… For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Does this verse have any connection with John? Absolutely!! The very next verse after John 7:52 should be John 8:12. Remember, John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition which all modern Bible translations recognize.  In John 8:12, Jesus declares,

I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.

On the surface, John never mentions Isaiah 9. However, if we listen to John’s contextual clues we see what John is saying.

John is building into this scene a great deal of dramatic irony.  He’s reminding his informed audience of Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy and as and the same pointing out the pride and ignorance of Israel’s supposed scriptural authorities.

Just as the Prophets proclaimed Christ’s birth in Bethlehem, so they also prophesied his coming from Galilee. If John points to Jesus’ fulfillment of this Isaiah prophecy, how can we suggest that John doesn’t believe Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Micah too?

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Therefore, He will agive them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel. And He will rise and shepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will remain, Because at that time He will be great To the bends of the earth. And this One will be our peace.

Sounds a lot like Isaiah 9.  

John implicitly points to Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah 9:1-7.  He says nothing about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Crossan, like the multitudes, however,  looks at the surface and fails to recognize its true significance. 

Won’t heaven be a drag?

Think about it. Our greatest amusements are found in the struggle for supremacy and survival. Reading a novel, watching a movie, playing sports, riding a roller coaster. In each we find the greater the struggle the greater the thrill. Without conflict would a movie or sporting event be as great? Isn’t the excitment of a roller coaster the exhilaration of overcoming your fear?

No wonder the world delights in the thought of hell more than heaven. The nonchristian pictures heaven as sitting on a cloud strumming a harp. I remember one episode of the Simpsons where Homer pictures himself lying on a cloud that looks much like a hospital bed. He raises and lowers the cloud repeatedly. “Cloud goes up, cloud goes down” he says.

Contrast that with the worlds understanding of hell. For them of course hell isn’t the place of torment the bible describes. It’s the party place. It’s a place of all the exhilarating vices we find here on earth.

I’m sad to say the church hasn’t done much to conteract this perception. If you ask the average Christian what will heaven be like they’ll probably say worshipping God before his throne continuously throughout all eternity. Certainly there’s excitement in this. But for all eternity? I don’t know about you but even I occasionally get board singing in church.

So what’s the thrill of heaven? How should we respond to a world that scorns the notion of a perfect world?

We need to recognize that the thrill of heaven is the same thrill we experience when we watch a great movie, read a good book, watch an incredible game, or ride the scariest of rides. No I’m not saying there will be pain, suffering or conflict in Heaven. I’m saying pain, suffering and conflict aren’t the actual source of our amusement.

The greatest stories are nothing more than a riddle in narrative form. What’s going to happen next? Will the guy get the girl? How will he or she survive? Will the team make another touchdown? The questions compel us to turn a page or sit through another commercial.

Discovery, not conflict, is the basis of our enjoyment.

And what does God have to offer us more than discovery? Heaven is the grand unveiling of all the mysteries and questions of life. It’s the throne of He who is the creator of mystery and riddle.

Hell by contrast, is a place of the unanswered question. It’s the place where questions never find a resolution.

Have you ever had a question you thought you knew but the answer simply alluded you? There’s nothing more frustrating than that situation. Hell is that but on a more tormented scale. It nags and frustrates and never comes to an end.

How does one offer Jesus to a world that does not know God?

For those of us who believe in the atoning work of Jesus, it’s sometimes difficult to see how the meaning of the cross is not at all apparent to the people around us. As we proclaim the power of the cross to save, unbelievers are scratching their heads, wondering how the death of a man two thousand years ago makes a hill of beans difference in the postmodern world. And it saves? Saves from what?

I believe this was central to the controversy surrounding the Passion of the Christ. Christians perceived in the film a universal significance that has the power to change every man, woman and child. Unbelievers saw a man brutalized for two and half hours.

Jesus Saves Us From God

Historically evangelicals have looked to a person’s recognition of sin as the starting point for sharing the good news. Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is the model. Edward’s described in graphic detail the wrath of God waiting to be poured out on sinners. It was so powerful that when he first read it (yes read it) in his Massachusetts church, people fainted and cried out with grief at the recognition of their condition.

This has been our approach ever sense. Introduce people to the wrath of God against sinners and the hope that is found in Jesus and nonchristians will accept Jesus as the means of their salvation every time.

Of course this worked well in Edward’s small puritan community where the belief in Judeo-Christian God was axiomatic and like Hester Pririm in the Scarlet Letter, people had to wear their sin on their sleeve.

The Death of God

But what happens when people cease to believe in God or at least a god that is concerned with matters such as right and wrong?

Since the Enlightenment, the world has been increasingly moving in that direction. With cosmological discoveries such as those made by Copernicus and Newton, Western civilization’s image of God shifted from an active present spiritual force which moved the heavens each and every day to a distant clockmaker who wound up his creation and left it to run.

Deism was the intellectual halfway house between theism and atheism. With the advent of Darwin’s theory of evolution, scholars were at last allowed to be, as Richard Dawkins has said, “intellectually fulfilled atheists.” Invisible deities began to be regarded like Santa Clause. True reality was found in the five senses – tangible empirical experience.

The remarkable achievements of science rooted in the senses have created today a world that trusts empirical evidence and distrusts things that cannot be tangibly verified. Today whether or not one says they believe in God, for most he has become an absent landlord or a harmless projection of the imagination.

As a result,  people are simply no longer concerned about God’s moral law.

Living in the New World

So what has become of our evangelical witness?

It’s increasingly shrill.

Witnessing no longer has the ease of placing bread before a hungry man.  Without a sense of guilt, people just don’t see the need for the cross.  So instead of simply offering the hope of Jesus, the Church has become the finger by which society is made aware of its sin.  Instead of simply bearing the message of the one who can free us from guilt the Church has become the sole voice of guilt in a society that by and large no longer feels guilty.

And thus nonchristians avoid us like the plague.

Sadly we don’t realize that in abandoning belief in God, unbelievers have begun to suffer from another disease, hopelessness, purposelessness, nihilism. The death of God is the death of meaning. Society ran from the God of absolute truth in part to alleviate itself from guilt but in the process it became mired in an equally depressing reality.

If there is no wrong then there is no right. If there is no sin then there is no purity. In denying the one they have denied the other. If one cannot error then there is no point, no meaning for ones own existence.

People still suffer for their sin they just don’t recognize it in the way that we have traditionally approached it.

So how should we respond?  How do we share Jesus with our culture?  How does He meet the felt needs our community and friends?

Did I get it right?

Sometime ago I engaged in an online discussion with Brian Kirk, a youth pastor and well known youth ministry blogger.  Brian wrote a post in which he mused

This all make me wonder: Why does the Church spend so much time pushing GLBT individuals away, labeling them, encouraging society to deny them rights and privileges, and motivating Christians to get out and vote by dangling anti-gay amendments in their faces?  What would happen if the Church spent one tenth of that energy getting to know gay persons as people -not as an issue or biblical hot topic – but as fellow children of God?  What would happen if the Church became the primary voice in our culture speaking out for justice, compassion, and inclusion of persons of minority sexual orientations?  How might such a shift affect how our teens see other students at school and their call as Christians to work for justice and peace for all people?

As one who sees it it differently, I felt I needed to respond.  Here’s the conversation.

m221044040

Brian, let me start off by saying I have two girls in my youth group who have homosexual desires. I’ve welcomed them both and I’ve even allowed them to speak about there orientation to our group. I understand your concern for GLBT youth. I echo your compassion. Christ calls us, and our love for Him compels us to seek the last, least and the lost. My problem is not your compassion but rather the line which you’ve bought. Orientation does not equal identity.

I agree that the vast majority of homosexuals for whatever reason did not choose their desire. But ones identity is more than desire. The Word of God everywhere calls us to submit our desires to the authority of Christ and find our identity in Him. It’s clear that the average heterosexual male is oriented to have sex with multiple women. Yet God calls us to surrender our orientation to practice sex within the confines of a monogamous union. I’ve surrendered to Christ. If my orientation equals my identity why should I remain sexually committed to my wife? Should I not explain to her that God loves me the way that I am and in turn she also must accept my promiscuous ways?

Or if adultery is not an issue for you, take the orientation of a pedophile for instance. For whatever reason, he or she comes to the realization that they are sexually attracted to children. Most I’ve spoken to would given a choice pick a more culturally acceptable attraction. But despite their orientation, society demands that they actively choose against their desires. In this we admit that there is a distinction between the un-chosen orientation and the individual choice to either accept or reject those desires.

The homosexual movement has gone to great lengths to convince the public that there is no choice involved in there “lifestyle” and because it’s not a choice we should accept them for who they are. But as you can see this is a morally dangerous proposition. If we must accept homosexuals for their orientation then we must accept the promiscuity of heterosexual males and equally ignore those biblical commands. In fact isn’t sin itself, in whatever form we find it, an orientation? Or have you simply abandoned the outmoded notion of sin altogether?

I don’t believe the bible teaches that homosexual sex is the worst sin committed. Paul’s point in Romans 1 is simply that homosexual sex is an obvious abandonment of what God has revealed to everyone, it being committed against our natural design. So why the Christian uproar about this particular issue? It’s really the issue of sin itself. If orientation equals identity then we might as well abandon the notion of sin altogether. They want us to believe that what is unconsciously desired is never wrong. My brother, that’s Bull Shit.

Brian said…

Matthew – just one issue I’d appreciate your response to: you make analogies between gay relationships, promiscuous heterosexuals, and pedophiles. I would affirm that promiscuous heterosexuality and pedophilia are examples of relationships in which one person does not treat the other with respect and in fact most often brings harm to the other. But what of monogamous, loving, stable gay relationships where the partners have been togther for decades and have created a positive homelife together? How is this harmful, either to the couple or to others? I understand that you beleive the Bible says that it is wrong — but why is such a relationship wrong? To put a finer point on it – if you claim that it is wrong because God says it is wrong, then WHY does God beleive it is wrong? Who is being harmed? How can God object to two consenting adults mutually loving and caring for each other? I’m not talking here about DESIRE — this isn’t all about sex — I’m talking same gendered couples who live in partnerships no less loving or stable than the best straight relationships.

Matthew Miller said…

First off God does not object to two consenting adults mutually loving and caring for each other. You’ve entirely mischaracterized the issue. No one is objecting to such relationships. You’ve heard of lifelong friendships right? The issue is sex! – Is it loving and caring to engage in a sexual relationship with a person of the same gender? You believe that despite natural design, almost universal aversion and the clear scriptural injunctions against it that homosexual sex (done properly) is okay because no one is disrespected and no one is harmed? But such a premise and conclusion are clearly wrong.

Leaving aside the issue of scripture for the moment, just look at natural design. To use a wrench as a hammer is to disrespect its purpose and ultimately its wellbeing. Whether or not it knows it, the wrench is harmed. Believe me. I’ve done it more than once. This is why I believe the issue of loving mutual consent – the main premise of your argument – is completely awry. Mutual consent does not negate injury. Homosexual sex like pedophilia and promiscuous heterosexual sex is inherently disrespectful to ones design and harmful to ones wellbeing. Would you like me to describe the physical as well as physiological injury that those who consensually engage in such acts suffer? Such sex therefore cannot be loving, no matter the expressed feelings of affection. It is not love to give what is ultimately harmful to another. And we haven’t even brought in the Bible yet. What if the Bible’s right that homosexual sex damages your spirit, violates our design and ultimately severs our relationship with God? Shouldn’t that be classified as some sort of harm?

I’ve used comparisons to adult-child sex, not because I believe homosexual sex is equally sinful, but because the things on which the argument for homosexual acceptance depends can and do often cover it as well – along with a number of other culturally abhorrent behaviors (prostitution, bestiality, polygamy). You asked me to explain God’s reasoning. I ask you to explain to me why adult-child sex is wrong in a culture that is entirely okay with it. You think stable homosexual monogamy should be the Church’s standard of right and wrong but where do you get such a notion? Certainly it’s not from scripture or natural design because both have something quite different to say. Without any fixed point of reference I find your standard of loving monogamy just a mask for whatever is culturally acceptable. I very much doubt you would have been making the same arguments 50 years ago. In a society that doesn’t care so much about the injury of others (Nazi Germany for instance), tell me your standard would be the same.

Brian said…

Matthew, I appreciate your willingness to explain your point of view. Clearly, this is a complex issue that does not lend itself easily to a discussion in a forum such as this. You and I have very different viewpoints on this issue, perhaps due to different life experiences, cultural values, places we were educated, etc that we cannot readily identify in a blog converstation. Some of the objections you have raised in your last comments regarding same gendered sex and relationships would be hard to sustain if one actually sat down and spoke with a wide variety of gay persons and asked them about their experiences, in my opinion. That said, again I appreciate your willingness to articulate your understanding of all of this. Peace,
Brian

The conversation continued a bit longer but you get the gist.

What do you think?  Was I ultimately successful or unsuccessful in making the point?  Is this the right way or the wrong way to approach the issue of same sex attractions? How would you respond?

For a fuller discussion of my take on homosexuality please watch Sam Williams – A Christian Psychology of and a Response to Homosexuality.