C.S. Lewis on the BBC

Justin Taylor, who's co-written at least one book with John Piper, has these great links to C.S. Lewis reading some of his writings in his most recent entry at his blog. I believe excerpts can be heard of Lewis giving one of his broadcast talks, "The New Men," from "Beyond Personality" (which later became part of Mere Christianity) and giving an introduction to his book The Great Divorce. Enjoy.

Contextualizing Oedipus

Interesting story from Reuters about a new hip-hop version of Oedipus Rex. I think the image on the left here is from the time they tried to make Oedipus easier to digest during the early 80's: "Oedipus and the Masters of the Universe!" http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=musicNews&storyID=2006-02-27T192646Z_01_N27356274_RTRIDST_0_MUSIC-ARTS-HIPHOP-DC.XML

Actually, this is not the first time Oedipus has been adapted. I once watched a version of Seven Against Thebes done as a black gospel church service called The Gospel at Colonus in a class I took on tragedy and comedy. Morgan Freeman plays the messenger/preacher and The Blind Boys of Alabama fill in as Oedipus. Maybe there's something to say for it. Here's an interesting story about Lee Breuer, the adapter of Gospel at Colonus, where he equates the catharsis in Greek tragedy with something similar found in Pentecostal church services. Breuer's comment about attention spans lengthening when one is surprised is worthy of note. Greek tragedy (and other writers such as Flannery O'Connor) employ such "surprises" normally called a "reversal" that definitely draw you further into the story.

Are You Emergent? Part 2 and Chronological Snobbery

To continue the thought of the previous entry, I think it is also the optimism the Emergent group has for the present "postmodern" age that is concerning. Their optimism does not seem that dissimilar from the optimism of those believers in modernism. Were not many Enlightenment philosophers very self-conscious about their ushering in a new and glorious age (this is not meant to be only a rhetorical question)? I guess the difference lies in the moderns seeing their period as a time to free themselves from Church authority while the Emergent crowd sees these "postmodern" times as friendly toward a pre-modern Christianity (which I am sure has a view to one facet of the truth) that could help reinstitute Church authority. Nevertheless, I think it is the self-reflective language that is bothersome. It smacks more of activist language and the language of "movements." Becoming aware of yourself doing something (sleeping, etc.), makes it very difficult to do that thing. Isn't such self-awareness a result of Enlightenment thinking--as C.S. Lewis calls it in a quotation below, a kind of "backwash"... Descartes's "I think, therefore I am"?

I found the following quotes relevant to what the Emergent church is attempting to accomplish. C.S. Lewis, who is known for his quotation re: "chronological snobbery" (see below), also has these things to say about the adhering to the outlook of one's time. In his “Transmission of Christianity” essay Lewis says, "The sources of unbelief among young people today do not lie in those young people. The outlook they have—until they are taught better—is a backwash from an earlier period. It is nothing intrinsic to themselves that holds them back from the Faith." In other words, it's not something inherent in younger people that prevents them from believing; it's the residue left over from previous ages--in our case, modernism. The assumptions of modernism still play a subtle role in the "zeitgeist" of our time--no matter how much we claim we live in a new epoch. I was able to find this quote at the C.S. Lewis Foundation website where there is a good article by Art Lindsley (I don't know who he is) that discusses Lewis's idea of snobbery of the chronological kind. In the following quotation Lewis speaks of his idea of chronological snobbery in relation to his conversion to Christianity:

"In the first place he (Owen Barfield) made short work of what I have called my 'chronological snobbery,' the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also 'a period,' and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them" (italics mine). This age will pass away (just like the last one) and, though it may be unfashionable to put it this way, God's Church--which is the pillar and the support of the truth (I Tim. 3.15) (and not the philosophies of postmodernism)--will still be around.

Jesus is My Homeboy

Alright, this has already been posted as an entry at http://purgatorio1.com. My apologies to Marc of purgatorio. But, I had to post this for those who don't know about purgatorio.com. If you grew up, or are familiar with, Christian pop culture, you will find Marc's blog to be quite the entertaining site. Here's something I found on purgatorio that is sure to have a lot of pull with our teens (tongue firmly in cheek): http://teenagejesus.com/jesus.htm. Is he with a harlot or a mime? What up, J.C.!

From teenagejesus.com: Who was teenage Jesus?
The bible says nothing about Jesus from the time he was 13 until he was 28. Its pretty clear, though, that Jesus experienced the same challenges that any child would face while growing up.

DeGarmo and Key, Crumbacher, White Heart...

I found this photo and thought of my friend Dave S. who, whenever we try to name the most obscure Christian rock bands we knew as kids, he always, with fondness, remembers Crumbacher. This seems to be from a sort of farewell/reunion concert given in California. Whoa.

Are You Emergent?

I am doing some reading on the Emergent church (EC). There are some aspects of this movement I can appreciate and would even acknowledge. Their critique of the "modern" church's use of Foundationalism's categories (e.g. false dualities sprung to life from the thinking of Descartes) is well taken. What I am having difficulties grasping is why a new "movement" is necessary. If you take a look at Ecclesia's website (an EC in Houston), there are some attractive things (to me, at least): liturgy, the church calendar, prayers, etc. But why not go Anglican or Roman Catholic? These valuable practices come from these traditions. I have a hunch the issue boils down to cultural relevancy, which always must be handled carefully. I am not necessarily against being relevant, or contextualization, but where do the older saints fit into this new movement? It just seems these churches are predominately younger people who are college-educated and have a decent amount of discretionary money. Don't get me wrong; I am young, college-educated, and well, I actually don't have a fair amount of extra funds laying around. But, compared to much of the world, I do, and I do not see how this movement's concern with being "missional" (evangelistic or evangelical must be old and outmoded terms) differs too much from what many "traditionally"-minded folks are doing--except the need to be relevant. I am open to correction.

Lastly, It could be argued that Luther's reform movement--beginning as it did with Luther employing the latest Renaissance learning--breathed into the emerging Protestant body the breath of the age in which he lived. Assuming that to be true, I wonder what the Emergent movement is attempting to breathe into us? I don't mean this as an alarm to rouse us to arms against a conspiracy. I am only concerned with Emergent's quick (hasty?) adherence to postmodernism--the spirit of the age.

Here's a link to an old article that gives Brian McLaren's position on what it means to do Emergent evangelism and a reply by Duane Litfin. Litfin makes a good point about Emergent's myopia: "We've been here before." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/011/14.42.html

The Vatican on Muslim Rioting and Violence Against Christians

This is an interesting article I found today on yahoo. The Monsignior who says that it's time to refrain from turning the other cheek has a good point.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-23T214704Z_01_L2369100_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-VATICAN-MUSLIMS.xml&archived=False