"We Buuuuurn Them!"

This blog title is the answer to a question posed in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.  "What do we do with witches?"  Maybe the more appropriate question this morning is:  "What do we do with heretics?"  I found out yesterday that I made an unfortunate list - a list of three people deemed to be "heretical" by a certain group of people who shall remain nameless.  I guess "they" have been reading my blog...(Shhh... they might be reading right now!) ... it goes without saying they didn't like what they read.  That's fair - blogs are public and if I was really worried about what people thought I shouldn't risk putting it on the internet.

What gets me are the reasons I'm a heretic.  I guess if you appreciate certain parts of a theologian's thought you have to buy the whole thing.  Does that mean that if I appreciate Luther's theology at certain points I'm an anti-Semite?  Or... if I think Calvin is spot on about some things I'm a platonic dualist?  Or... if I very much appreciate Kuyper's insights I'm a racist?  I guess so.  I have two links on my blog - one to N.T. Wright and one to Karl Barth.  N.T. Wright has taken some heat lately on the issue of justification.  Frankly, I'm not even sure the people in question have read Wright's three main academic works - (the big ones...) - they seem content to take other people's words for it.  Yes - Wright wants us to see Paul in the context of 1st century Judaism and not in the context of medieval Roman Catholicism.  Makes sense to me... of course this doesn't mean Luther and Calvin are wrong... it just means they were fighting a different, albeit related, fight.  Sigh....

As for Barth - what can I say... guilty.  I guess we are not allowed to develop in our theological thought.  I guess the way we speak about God and how he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ should not address the world in which we live.  I guess the cultural and philosophical developments of the last 400 years don't matter - they must somehow lie outside the reach of Christ's Lordship and therefore the gospel cannot engage them.  (Wait... isn't Luther's penal / substitutionary view of the atonement indebted to Anselm's "satisfaction atonement theory" which is very much connected to the structures of feudal society?)  What I appreciate about Barth is that his perspective engages the cultural world in which we live - the philosophical, linguistic, and social developments of the last century.  This doesn't mean I agree with him on everything. Sigh...

I was under the impression that the focus of the reformation was not to establish some static system of thought that would exist for all time, but to be "always reforming" - always engaging the world in which we live with the gospel.  This is why I believe we need to engage contemporary theological and philosophical thought as we wrestle with the contemporary issues facing the church and the world.  Just so you know... I still very much appreciate the profound theological insights of Calvin and Kuyper.

For those who are "interested"... I'm currently engaging the work of philosopher Slovoj Zizek - specifically his book with John Milbank entitled The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic?  Check it out... but you might feel some heat.  To quote my father - in law... "It's hot in these Rhinos."

Lost

Yes... I admit it.  I was hooked on Lost.  My wife and I got into it late... 2nd season... so we spent one summer watching all the back episodes.  Since then we have watched (or should I say taped and watched... yes we still use VHS tapes) every week it has been on.  I'll admit there were times when I thought it was extremely close to "jumping the shark" - I didn't particularly like the time travel episodes - but we stuck with it and put the whole thing to rest last night.

I admit to being surprised by the ending - only because I thought it would be too obvious to have it be about death.  I had read early on in the series about those who thought the Island was a form of purgatory... which sounded interesting... but since it was out there I didn't think the writers would go there.  Not that the Island was purgatory - as Jack's father insisted it was all real - but the side ways reality had to have been purgatory... especially since Ben refused to go into the church because he had to work some things out first.

I'm not sure what I think about the ending.  There were many questions not answered...most of them pertaining to the Island.  I thought the "man in black" or smoke monster issue was totally under resolved - landing with a metaphorical thud with "smoke Locke" hitting the rocks.  (Why didn't Jack turn into a"smoke monster"?  Because he was "the one"... he had drank the "kool aid"?)

What was I hoping for?  Not sure... maybe that Jack would become the smoke monster once again trapped on the Island - left to contend with Hurley as he sought a way to leave.  (After all - Jack was the one obsessed with leaving for most of the show...) That as one plane took off another would crash - starting the whole cycle over again.  Or... that they were all patients in a mental ward.

Overall it was good... not great... but good.  The ending was satisfying but I'm not sure it will stick with me like the final episode of The Sporano's.  I still think the final Sporano's episode was a work of genius - it's all there if we have eyes to see.  I guess it goes without saying that Tony Soprano could kick the crap out of Jack Shepard any day.