|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Evan Can Wait
Against better judgment, perhaps, I really liked Bruce Almighty. The movie was hilarious, and it was driven by a fairly simple message that we aren't God. Not the deepest theology, for sure, but one could uncover a few nuggets of truth.
The sequel, however, is a modestly amusing display of slapstick based on a convoluted mishmash of earth-centered ideals and incoherent spirituality. Despite being marketed heavily to Christian audiences and being tied ever so loosely (and absurdly) to biblical narrative, Evan Almighty fails to show any real deference to Scriptural principles or reality. Morgan Freeman plays a likeable enough character, but any resemblance to the actual God of creation is purely coincidental.
The movie and its director seem well-intentioned enough, and "Evan" doesn't stoop to the level of mocking Christianity (or even mentioning the word). It does, however, seem to turn the wrath of God into a comedy -- which could be a far worse error. The Flood, we are led to believe, was sent as an act of compassion, rather than anger. And "wickedness" in the story is limited to self-centered politicians, too-busy parents, and hyper-developed Northern Virginia (in a town ironically similar to the one where I saw the movie). Yes, this is PG-rated stuff; but in truth, the justice of God usually isn't.
I know, nobody went to the movies this weekend to get a lesson in biblical exegesis from Steve Carell. But because "Evan" dares, in a sense, to speak for God, I think it is fair to view the film as more than sheer entertainment. If it hadn't attached itself to Scriptural history, maybe it would be harmless fun, however trivial the values. Maybe it still is harmless, but I think viewers will develop, if anything, as small and shallow a view of God as Evan did.
(This post also sparked an interesting response from my friend Faith at The Point.)
--- Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Priest Said to the Imam . . .
There are plenty of things wrong -- countless even -- with an Episcopal priest declaring adherence to Islam. But this, from the Anglican site VirtueOnline, perhaps captures the essence:
[The Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes] Redding says what Islam does is take Jesus out of the way of her relationship with God, "but it doesn't drop Jesus. I was following Jesus and he led me into Islam, and he didn't drop me off at the door. He's there, too." Islam and Christianity are complementary, she suggests, and that the Muslim profession of faith that there is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God, does not contradict anything in Christianity. Nor do the professions made at a Christian baptism contradict anything in Islam. "For me to become a human being means to identify solely with the will of God. Islam gives me the tools to do that," she explained. Whether the words are original or taken from Dr. Redding, the statement about moving Christ "out of the way" of a relationship with God abounds with irony. It is, after all, the most fundamental claim of Christianity that Christ is the only Way to know God.
While that point alone should be enough to render ludicrous the idea of an Episcopal Muslim, the concern is not just one priest's left-field theology, but whether the denomination will allow such thinking to seep in to acceptance. That would present the worst of all the ECUSA's recent doctrinal missteps, most of which have in some way diminished emphasis of the lordship of Christ.
Looking past the unsurprising coincidence that this fiasco took place within an already confused denomination, this declaration also brings up the important question of whether the Allah of Islam and the Jehovah of Christianity can be reconciled. If they can, then why would it be so incomprehensible to have a Christo-Muslim?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
