Truth in The Da Vinci Code: The Heroes’ View

Date April 11, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

When our friends inevitably ask what we think about The Da Vinci Code, I see two core issues that require discussion.  The first is paganism (which I wrote about here), and the second is TDC‘s view of the nature of religion.  (Spoilers below.)

 

Despite some early literary misdirection, The Da Vinci Code doesn’t end up being an attack on Christians or Christianity.  Ultimately, it’s an attack on any claim of spiritual truth (and by “truth” I mean true, real, actual truth–truth that reflects what is).

 

“Sophie, every faith in the world is based on fabrication.  That is the definition of faith–acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.  Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration, from the early Egyptians through modern Sunday school.  Metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible.  The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors” (p. 341-342).

 

The heroes of the novel are interested in keeping the wonder and mystery of religious fantasy alive in all people, regardless of which fantasy they’ve chosen.  (“It is the mystery and wonderment that serve our souls, not the Grail itself” (p. 444))  They refuse to let grail seekers dig at their sacred site not because the seekers would find the treasure there and reveal its truth, but because they wouldn’t find it, and the dream would suffer. 

 

“For some, the Grail is a chalice that will bring them everlasting life.  For others, it is the quest for lost documents and secret history.  And for most, I suspect the Holy Grail is simply a grand idea…a glorious unattainable treasure that somehow, even in today’s world of chaos, inspires us” (p. 444).

 

It’s the inspiration that matters, not the fact.  And it’s that inspiration that must be protected and promoted, not truth.

 

Tomorrow I’ll contrast this view with the villain’s view of spiritual truth and compare these ideas with the Bible.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), The Da Vinci Code Comments 4 Comments »

Interview with Scott Smith, Part I

Date April 10, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

In Truth and the New Kind of Christian you begin
by describing academic postmodernism, distinguishing it from “street level”
postmodernism. What are some of the differences between the two?

I think
that on the common, everyday (or “street”) version of postmodernism, people
seem to be quite influenced by some attitudes, including the following: (a)
suspicion of authorities’ claims, including those of religious and political
leaders, as well as of modern science, to be acting just for the betterment of
humankind; (b) suspicion of hierarchies; (c) greater awareness of peoples’
biases that impact their claims; (d) a heightened importance of seeing people who
live authentically; and (e) the sense that our moral and religious beliefs are
“up to us.”

The more
academic version, however, draws upon several key philosophical positions.  Most common is the idea, which is expressed
in a variety of ways, that we somehow have been so influenced by our language,
culture, historical situatedness, and more, that we somehow cannot transcend
their shaping influences and know the real world as it actually is, apart from
our thoughts, beliefs, cultures, and (most of all) our languages (which, by the
way, is what I mean by referring to the “objective” world).  Another way to put this is that we do not
have knowledge by direct acquaintance with any thing in the real world.  Alternatively, there is no simple, direct
“seeing,” to use the language of philosophy of perception.  Instead, there is only “seeing as,” or “seeing
that.”  On that view, inevitably
interpretation is part of experiencing the world, so we cannot know the real
world as it truly is, apart from our interpretations.

What beliefs or characteristics might define a Christian
as “postmodern”?

Let me focus
on some of McLaren’s answers.  To use his
terms, a “new kind of Christian” has laid aside the expectations of modernity
to have everything understood, including God, and instead delights in finding a
God who is full of wonder and mystery.  In
addition, he (or she) has shed the baggage of foundationalism and its
(supposed) requirement to have certainty in our Christian beliefs.  A new kind of Christian wants to embody the
story of Jesus, and not settle for abstract, ahistorical truths that have been
divorced from their context, the story of Jesus.  New, postmodern kinds of Christians genuinely value community,
especially against the rampant individualism of modernity.  I’d also see my chapter three, and the first
dialogue between Neo and Dan in McLaren’s
A New Kind of Christian.

You explain that several prominent theologians, as well
as Emerging Church voices Brian McLaren and Tony Jones, describe us as being
“inside” language in such a way as to prevent us from knowing anything about
reality. How then, on their view, can we claim to know anything about God?

First, I
should mention that various people understand the relationship of language and
world (or, put differently, the extent of the shaping influences of language,
culture, etc., upon our ability to know the real world) differently.  Like Alasdair MacIntyre, some seem to think
that there are real, objective realities that we know as such apart from our
language use.  He mentions various
minerals, and I think the laws of logic would fall into this kind of category
for him.  Others, such as Grenz and
Franke, seem to think that there is a real, physical world out there, but we
still live in a socially constructed one, one that has been made into what it
is by our use of our language. 

Second, I
don’t see anyone claiming that we cannot know anything about reality.  Nevertheless, for the Christians I examine,
the move seems to be that we know reality from “under the aspect of” the
Christian story, or the gospel.  Not
only would they think that from that standpoint we see life and the world
accurately (which I think is right), they seem to go further and also claim
that we cannot seem to know reality as it truly is apart from the use of our
particular language.  But if that is the
case, then we seem left without a way to know that our claims as Christians are
indeed true about the real world (e.g., that Jesus actually arose from the
dead).  However, I do see them trying to
maintain that despite our limitations to know reality, God participates with us
in our Christian communities and language “games,” enabling us to understand
His revealed truth.  But, I don’t think
that view will withstand scrutiny, for as I argue in the book, we still are
limited in our ability to know even that that is the case, due to our
particular (in)abilities to know reality as it is apart from our language use.

What are some of the strengths of McLaren’s analysis of
modernity?

They are
many, I think, especially when we consider how he says modernity has affected not
just the culture, but also the church. 
And even if he is not exactly right in all his assessments, they are
close enough to home to make us pause and consider carefully all his
claims.  Here are a few: (a) Christians
have acted in ways to try to conquer and control, as evidenced in part even by our
choice of terms (e.g., “crusades” for our evangelistic efforts).  (B) We have tended to reduce the Christian
life to a set of simple formulas, such that if we are not experiencing the
fruit of the Spirit, the cause must be due to our own fault, maybe due to
misapplication of the simple truths, or due to our sin.  (C) We must have “bombproof” certainty in
our beliefs as Christians, and if we doubt, woe to us.  So, (d) God is rigid and controlling,
expecting us to believe without any doubts, and to apply the simple truths of
the faith just right.

Tony Jones, National Coordinator of Emergent-U.S., has
claimed that we ought to change the presuppositions of how to do ministry in
order to effectively communicate with postmodern people. What are some of the
key changes he’s advocating?

I
think this is a wise question to consider, since it is good missiology to
consider how to contextualize the gospel to reach a given people group.  In his Postmodern
Youth Ministry book, he mentions in part that we need to realize that youth
now are being raised under the influence of postmodernism, which I think is
largely right on target.  Jones thinks we need to live as Christian missionaries in
a foreign culture, since American culture is post-Christian.  Like missionaries abroad, we have to learn
the “language” of the broader culture, so we can communicate with its members.  Youth workers need to understand mysticism
and spirituality, pluralism, and deconstructionism, to name a few.  See my chapter 3 for more details.

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 9 Comments »

The Roger Overton Library

Date April 10, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

It's probably no secret to regular readers of The A-Team
Blog that I love books. Since I think a fair number of you love books as well,
here are a couple of tools I've used to help me keep track of my books:


Book Collector– A program that's available for a one-time fee of $39.95. It
creates an Excel type database of your library pulling from information on
Amazon.com, Library of Congress, and several other resources. The database can
be exported into HTML, Palm, and more, and it can create reports to tell you
fun facts about your library. Currently, my database tells me I have 1,600
books, containing 452,012 pages, with an average cover price of $17.12. I've
also entered in the currently value of each book so it gives me an approximate
worth of my library (which I'll be using for insurance purposes). It also has a
cool loan tracking feature, which is telling me that Brett Kunkle has had my
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell since 9/6/05.

LibraryThing– LT is an internet-based database that’s a
one-time cost of $25 or $10 a year. This means that when I’m out and about and
curious about whether I have a particular book, I can just look online. It
includes a great “tagging” ability that makes categorizing my books easier.
Because it’s online, most of LT’s strengths lie in its community features. I
can browse other people’s libraries who have similar interests and see what
books we have in common. So here are some fun facts about the Roger Overton
Library…

According to LibraryThing, I have the largest
collections of books by C.S. Lewis, Ronald Nash, Francis Schaeffer, Douglas
Groothuis, Austin Farrer, Lesslie Newbigin, Richard Mouw, Norman Geisler, Harry
Blamires, Francis Beckwith, and Richard Abanes.

Deducting reference and commentary volumes I've read about 112 out of 1442 of my books (7.77%).

There are a significant number of bloggers on LibraryThing. Here are some you might know, along with the number of books we share:
Sean Choi (The Plurality of Blogs) – 222
Steve McCoy (Reformissionary) – 208
Brian Hedges (Mere Theology) – 154
Andy Crouch (Culture-Makers) – 94
Scott Lamb (Wisdom of the Pages) – 78
John Chandler (Some Strange Ideas) – 70
Tim Challies (Challies.com) – 67
Rhett Smith (RhettSmith.com) – 48

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 4 Comments »

Book Review: Storm Tossed by Jake Porter

Date April 8, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Storm Tossed tells the story of how one man fell into
a lifestyle of sexual sin and ultimately found redemption through the work of
Christ. Taking on the pseudonym Jake Porter, the author tells how his problems
began with pornographic magazines in his youth and rejection by girls in high
school and college. He led himself to believe that because God wasn’t providing
him with a wife, he was forced to fulfill his sexual desires in other ways.

So Jake Porter joined the Navy and “saw the world.” Along
the way he became addicted to prostitutes, even admitting at times that he
didn’t even want the women, but he was compelled to be with them anyway. At
first he would ask God for forgiveness after an encounter, but eventually he
gave up. He reached many points of empty depression, and though he desired to
commit suicide, he could never bring himself to do it. The final chapters tell
of how honesty and faith brought him to the point of claiming victory over his
addiction. The Epilogue provides some practical tips for wives whose husbands
who are heavily addicted, as well as for men.

My main criticism about Storm Tossed is all of the
secondary characters seem flat. This is probably due to the story being
filtered through the theme of sexual addiction. The result is that very little
is known about the personalities of the other characters, even the author’s
wife. For the most part, all the reader learns is how someone either corrupts
or aids Jake, or simply helps to move the story along.

Apart from the criticism, Storm Tossed is an
intriguing read. Jake Porter’s story shows the devastation sexual sin can cause
in a man’s life as well as the redemption that can be found in submitting one’s
life to Christ.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

A Point of Departure

Date April 7, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

I’ve already blogged on the “history” of Feminism. That is,
who is on the surface and in some isolation responsible for the movement known
as Feminism that we encounter today. There is, however, a much deeper history
and explanation for it. Radical Feminism is one evil amongst others is
postmodernity that result from common causes. Certainly Feminism would not be
what it is today without Betty Friedan, Naomi Wolf, Marilyn French, etc., and
so they must be read and discussed. However, what led to their understandings
of the world and the people in it? What we find is a problem that has as much
to do with men as it does women, as much to do with value as it does
oppression, and as much do with sin as it does liberation. And when we see the
problem for what it is we shall also see the makings of the solution.


More often than not, what’s understood as the “traditional model” of family is
that mother stays home with the 2.5 children while father goes off to work.
During the day the children are usually off to school leaving mother to clean
and cook, and sometimes knit cute fluffy things together. Perhaps Leave it to
Beaver did more harm than good in this regard (though I mean to use more as an
example of transition than a problem). This model is usually what Feminists
point to as oppression and what traditionalists are left defending, and often
not understanding why. I’m not sure that this model, as far as it should be
what is required of every family, is really all that defensible.

Leave it to Beaver left the true traditional model forgotten in most minds,
perhaps not intentionally, but it needed to do so in order to tell us we could
lead satisfying lives in (new at the time) postmodernity. Rather, the truly
traditional model found father, mother, and children at home. Home was not
simply a place for meals and slumber, or where your heart is, but home was the
heart, the center of the family’s activities. The children were educated at
home and the family’s income was produced at home. The only reason to go out of
the home on a regular basis would be to go to the store or to church. Within
the home there was a harmony of activities. One could not, generally speaking,
point to a part of it and say that it is where economy takes place, and here is
for education, and there is for entertainment, and so forth. It all blurred
together in a sort of wholeness we today know little of. The closest we can get
to it is to picture those few immigrant families who reflect this. They have
the restaurant downstairs and the “home” upstairs. But in reality the residence
is the entire building, and everyone’s job (including the kids’) is the up keep
of the entire residence.

The problem today is women leaving the home, but it is only a problem today
because men left it so long ago. Men left the home because the Industrial
Revolution forced them to, or at least they thought it did. Some left because
it was the only way they could provide for their family, others left for
reasons perhaps not so respectable. Regardless, they left. Very little economic
work could be done by a mother who was attending to annoying children all day
(who must also be educated by her), and so the economy of the home left with
father. Eventually the job of education, by which I mean the three Rs, was
handed over to the government. This took the children out of the home, after
they reached a certain age of course, leaving mother home with an empty house
and nothing to do. Did we expect her to be satisfied pushing a vacuum back and
forth all day? Perhaps some did, but it should at least be obvious why more
change had to occur. We took everything interesting out of the home; only a
dolt would want to stay there.

While this explains many things it is yet far too simplistic (as this post is
destined to be anyway). It cannot explain the deep anger embedded in Feminist
ideology toward men. Why in the world would Betty Friedan tell women they’re
less than human if they don’t leave the home? Men didn’t tell women they were
sub-human (in general, regrettably I’m sure some did), but they also didn’t
tell them otherwise. In the true traditional model men and women worked
side-by-side. When such activity takes place a common appreciation is
understood, though often unspoken, for each other’s work. Sometimes I go into
the office and see many things just as I left them days ago, as though my
co-worker did nothing while I was gone. The same thing happens to him when he
comes in after the weekend and he wonders if I did anything productive. If no
level of understanding is reached then some tension can arise. However, when
we’re in the office together we know what the other is doing and we often help
each other in common tasks. He doesn’t have to tell me he appreciates my work,
it’s understood because our work in one in the same.

When men left the home a tension arose that led to much of the resentment we
find today. Father came home and wondered what mother did all day and sometimes
mother wondered the same of Father. This led to distrust between the two, but
more importantly mother often felt worthless and unsatisfied with her life. And
why should she be satisfied? No one told how important she was or how much her
hard work was appreciated.

Feminism purports itself to be a means by which to obtain equality with men. In
many ways it exalts women over men. However, I think that most women use
Feminism as a mechanism to get men to notice them. Men won’t notice them at
home, men are never home to notice them there. And so Mother has found herself
following Father into the workforce so that maybe he will appreciate her there.
Or since Father doesn’t seem to care, mother must seek satisfaction and worth
in career and education.

I have no doubt that Betty Friedan would reject my analysis, if for no other
reason than that I’m a traditionalist male. But I believe this is the Christian
view of the problem. The problem is most fundamentally with men failing in
their God given roles. In leaving the home men pursued economic provision,
which was good, but in the process left the spiritual needs of the family
uncared for, which has been far more devastating. That is not to say that women
have no part in the blame, certainly Eve was guilty for biting the apple. Adam
was held ultimately responsible because it happened on his watch, because he
failed to lead and provide, and likewise the men of the West are to blame for
the monster that is Feminism before us today.

*Several of the thoughts in this post were either stimulated by or directly
borrowed from Dr. John Mark Reynolds.

**When I say that men’s leaving the home is a deeper
root of the problem, I also have in mind that the deepest root in original sin
due to the fall- this is simply one way it’s been manifested.

Category Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 6 Comments »

Interview with Devin Brown, Part II

Date April 7, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
contains several prophecies, mostly regarding the Pevensie children.
Why did Lewis find it important to include such prophecies in his story?

In his essay “On Stories” Lewis describes a class of stories which “turns on fulfilled prophecies” and mentions The Hobbit
as one of them. According to Lewis, such stories produce “a feeling of
awe, coupled with a certain sort of bewilderment such as one often
feels in looking at a complex pattern of lines that pass over and under
one another. One sees, yet does not quite see, the regularity.”
Prophecies, Lewis further explains, allow destiny and free will to be
combined in such a way that free will can be “the modus operandi of destiny,” as it is in TLWW.

Some Christians are troubled by Lewis’s use of spells and magic. Why do you believe his use of them is acceptable?

I am
not one of those Christians who is troubled by Lewis’s use of spells
and magic, nor am I troubled when these elements appear in the Harry
Potter stories, so I may not be able to provide a very satisfying
answer to those people who are. What exactly did
it mean for someone to be a witch in the Old Testament? These witches
seemed to tap into an evil source of power, and for this they were
condemned. In the New Testament when the Magi, who were pagan
astrologers, drew upon a non-evil source of power or information, they
were not condemned. The good uses of magic in Narnia—from Lucy’s
reading the book of spells in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to Roonwit’s interpretation of the stars in The Last Battle—are more like the practices of the Magi than the Old Testament witches.

In Inside Narnia (148-151) you provide a lengthy discussion about the appearance of Father Christmas in Narnia. As
you note, a number of prominent critics have objected to his
appearance, including Lewis’s good friend J.R.R. Tolkien. Why are you
in favor of his inclusion?

Continue Reading at Never Enough Tea…

Category Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

We All Have to Make a Choice

Date April 6, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

I can't tell you how grateful I am for the Bible.  Without it, we'd have only our speculations about who God might be, and God knows we would never come up with the right answers on our own!  The beauty of the Bible is this:  instead of letting us flail about in the dark, never truly coming to know Him, God reached into our hopeless situation and revealed everything we need to know about Himself.

 

But His revealing alone isn't enough to benefit our faith, practice, and fellowship with Him; we must also believe and trust that the Bible is God's word and then conform our beliefs to those words.  Not everyone thinks this is the right approach.  Many Christians have decided that the Bible is not God's word and/or that it can't be interpreted correctly.  Wanting to know God, yet without a standard, they must reason from their own experiences of life, or their understanding of love and goodness, or personal revelations to reach the conclusions on which they'll base their life and worship. 

 

These two paths will lead to completely different destinations, and we all have to stake our spiritual lives on one or the other.

 

Consider this description on Amazon of the upcoming book A Heretic's Guide to Eternity (HT: STR) by Spencer Burke (creator of TheOoze.com) and Barry Taylor (pastor and adjunct Fuller professor):

 

It all began with a conversation between Spencer Burke and his five-year-old son about a floatie, specifically, how far Spencer would go to rescue the boy if he were drowning. It got Spencer to thinking: how far would God go to save and redeem human beings? He reveals his quest for answers to that big question in A Heretic's Guide to Eternity.

 

The general orthodox Christian view of who gets to heaven and who is doomed to hell is based on the notion that we humans have to choose to “opt in” to God's plan for our salvation by baptism, repentance, prayer, and a righteous life. But what if it's the opposite–we are all in, from the moment we are born, no matter when or where we live, and we have to choose to “opt out” in order to be excluded from God's universal grace?…

 

What is hell? What about God's universal love? Is it really universal–or is it limited? Is there only one way to be saved? In A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, Spencer Burke wrestles with all these questions and comes up with some surprising answers, answers that are heretical but grounded in sound theological thinking.

 

It may be that Burke and Taylor will try to make a case for their positions from the Bible, but from what I've read and heard from them before, it's more likely they'll base their conclusions on their ideas of what a loving God ought to look like (e.g., if God is really loving, there must be universal grace, and therefore everyone is born saved).  They'll appeal to our common sense and analogies of everyday life and love.

 

All of their conclusions will have huge implications for Christians as individuals, for the Body as a whole, and for missions.  Again, two paths, very different destinations.

 

We each have to decide on our view of the Bible and set off on our path.  Obviously, if the Bible is not God's word, the following passage isn't authoritative; but before you make up your mind, you should know how seriously Paul took this issue in 2 Timothy 3:16-4:4.  Most people are familiar with these verses, but I hope you'll read through them one more time and consider the possible implications:

 

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.  I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus…preach the word;…reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

 

In other words, if Paul is right, God has given us the Bible as an outpost in a snowstorm.  I pray that we, as a Church, will not wander from it.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Theology Comments 25 Comments »

Defining the Emerging/Emergent-Church/Movement/Conversation

Date April 4, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the past year or so, especially the past few months,
I’ve been interacting with all sorts of people who consider themselves emerging
and many some also Emergent. In my recent conversations here I’ve noted that
there’s an important difference, but I haven’t, until now, taken the time to
spell it out. 

Luckily,
I’m not alone in my understanding. In the recent issue of Criswell Theological
Journal on the Emerging Church, Pastor Mark Driscoll describes how Emergent
came about and offers an excellent definition: “the Emerging church is a broad
category that encompasses a wide variety of churches and Christians who are
seeking to be effective missionaries wherever they live. This includes Europeans
and Australians who are having the same conversation as their American
counterparts.” He goes on to outline the three groups that Dr. Ed Stetzer
delineated– Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists.

Driscoll’s
definition is in line with what I’ve come to understand. Though, while he
“includes Europeans and Australians who are having the same conversations,” I
think the category reaches further. “Emerging” refers to any church or
Christian who takes into consideration the cultural context in which they
minister, regardless of spatial or temporal location. In other words, a church
does not need to be North American and dealing with postmodernism in order to
be “emerging.” The early church was just as emerging as many churches are
today.

While
on one hand the “emerging” category is quite broad, “Emergent” is comparatively
quite narrow. It refers to a specific group of individuals and churches within
the contemporary emerging church that have formed an organization to promote
certain ecclesiastical changes within the North American postmodern context.
This Emergent organization (Driscoll points them out as “Revisionists”) is
primarily led by Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt.

Since the emerging category includes a wide variety of
theologies and practices, I don’t think it is at all helpful to describe it as
good or bad (unless one believes we should be disengaged from culture). There
are, in fact, many good emerging churches that have not compromised the
gospel in light of postmodern criticisms- such as Kimball’s Vintage Faith
Church, Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church, and the church I currently attend,
Portico. There are also, likely, a number of emerging churches that have
compromised the gospel, but since the spectrum is so broad, whatever criticisms
are launched at them should not be based on them being categorically emerging.
Criticisms of individuals ought not be applied to the entire category.

This isn’t always the case for Emergent. While it’s true
that what McLaren believes isn’t necessarily what Jones or Pagitt believe, the
Emergent organization can be analyzed by its success or failure in promoting
the Christian faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Many have found it easy to criticize what McLaren teaches
and generalize it to the entire emerging category. The problem is that doing so
condemns missionaries worldwide for something they have nothing to do with
(something Andrew Jones has rightly pointed out). Generalizations are generally
helpful, as long as we use them appropriately. In order to use these categories
correctly, I believe we must recast the criticisms, as well as strengths, of
the emerging church toward the definitions I’ve offered here.

Another point I believe we should draw from this is that
there’s nothing chronologically profound about being “emerging.” It’s a category
churches have ministered in throughout church history, not some sort of amazing
new phenomenon. So while critics need to get their categories straight, many
emerging Christians need to get over their tendency of thinking God is doing
something in emerging churches He’s never done before. Dr. Andrew Jackson aptly
diagnosed this problem as “emergentising.”

Category Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 9 Comments »

Interview with Devin Brown, Part I

Date April 3, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Of all the people throughout history whose works and personality you could have studied, why have you spent so much time with C.S. Lewis?

There’s that wonderful phrase in Shadowlands, “We read to know we’re not alone.”  I would guess that the many of your readers feel alone lots of times because they are members of the small sub-culture of Christian thinkers. For various reasons, some of which are apparent and others which are not, in our generation many of the people who think carefully and deeply are looking to other answers besides Christianity. Conversely those who are looking to Christianity often do not tend towards much serious thought.

I find most sermons today uninspiring simply because there is not enough thought behind them. After one particularly disappointing message, I asked my wife, “Where do Christians who think go for inspiration?”  Unless you are lucky to have a group of mature Christian thinkers in your neighborhood, the answer is that you find an author who can fill your need for serious spiritual nourishment. For my wife this has been Henri Nouwen. For me it’s C. S. Lewis.

Secondly, I am of the opinion that everyday life is a lot harder than we typically let on. An ordinary day for me has more confusion, frustration, complexity, and sheer exhaustion than I would ever have expected when I was younger. So where does the power come from?  Obviously, it comes from God above and the Spirit within, but what does this power come through? Lewis’s fiction is able to inspire me in ways that I have never been able to fully explain. After I read it, I am somehow stronger and life somehow easier.

In your opinion, why have the Narnian chronicles been so popular, not only among children, but also among adults? Furthermore, why has there been so much literary analysis of these books?

Daniel Taylor has written about a certain, special kind of story that tells us “who we are, why we are here, and what we are to do.” This special type of story gives us “our best answer to all of life’s big questions, and to most of the small ones as well.” According to Taylor, these special stories “receive us at birth, accompany us through the stages of life, and prepare us for death.” They give pattern “to otherwise chaotic experience, making it memorable and meaningful.” I am sure that for most of their readers, the Narnia books contain exactly this type of story.

Rolland Hein has pointed out, “Myth is something people desperately need, cannot, in fact live without. No other demand so profoundly defines our humanity. When true myths are absent, false ones rush in to fill the vacuum.” I would argue that one reason why the Narnia books have been so widely popular with both younger and older readers is because they have been so deeply needed.

And why so much analysis? Because there is so much in these works to discover, analyze, and to think about. In addition I would add that the activity of analysis adds to our enjoyment of them. Finally, reading the stories is an activity we engage in as individuals. Reading literary analysis and responding in discussion groups or in blogs like yours becomes a way to enjoy these works as part of a larger community.

Continue Reading at Never Enough Tea…

Category Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Theological Jack Bauer Facts

Date April 2, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

You might have seen some Jack Bauer facts floating around online (such as these posted by Steve McCoy), but we've put together some other facts you might not know about Jack…

Jack Bauer believes in Divine Election because he
understands what it means to control everything.

Jack Bauer is a Complimentarian- everyone submits to him.

Jack Bauer once questioned the authenticity of the Bible, so
he brought the authors back to life and tortured them until he was convinced
they were telling the truth.

Jesus will return when Jack Bauer dies. The problem is that he keeps coming back to life.

Jack Bauer knows whether the earth is “young” or “old,” but
no one’s successfully tortured it out of him.

For Jack Bauer, confrontation is the only form of
evangelism.

1/3 of the angels fell when Jack Bauer kicked them out of
heaven for not telling him who they worked for.

Jack Bauer is proof of Intelligent Design.

Luckily, the Egyptians gave in after the 10th plague because
number 11 was going to be Jack Bauer. (HT: Amy)

The 10 spies gave a bad report because they saw Jack Bauer.

Jack Bauer is his own accountability partner and
community.

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 9 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »