Lost and World-view

I have watched every episode of Lost since the beginning. That makes me a fan. I never seen any episode more than once, so I guess I am not obsessed. Lost is a clever show that shrouds itself in mystery so that fans have to keep coming back for answers. Lost executive producers, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof deftly offer just enough of a peek behind the curtains to keep viewers craving more, but never achieving satisfaction.

Those that managed to not get entangled with Lost early on never really understand what all the fuss is about. After all, the idea of plane crash victims stuck on an island that inexplicably moves through time and space, combined with characters living out two timelines (one on the island, one in the regular world--depending on what really happened when the atom bomb went off. See that explains everything!) seems preposterous!

To the credit of the show's creators, the show is written in such a way that a regular watcher of the show begins to buy in. The implausible seems plausible, at least in a world where such an island can exist. But I suspect the show's real success is its willingness to explore real-life mysteries. It blurs the lines between life and death, space and time, destiny and free-will, and faith and science. Lost refuses to come down conclusively on either side of any of these metaphysical questions. So, unless you are a person who wants a simple black-and-white answer to every complexity of life, then you are not driven away by the show's philosophical wrangling. The most devoted believer and the most ardent atheist could enjoy watching Lost together.

Personally, I enjoy a little nuance in life. I am always turned-off by answers to complicated issues that seem too simple, hence my disdain for ideological political gibberish on either side of the aisle. But in a recent interview given by the aforementioned producers of the show, I realized the biggest questions remain unanswered, because they do not believe they answerable, including whether or not there really is a God. Here's a telling piece of that interview (Carroll is the interviewer).

Carroll: It’s like purposefulness versus randomness.

Lindelof:. That’s right. It’s order versus chaos, which is what it always was. But first it had to start as science versus faith, because Jack is a doctor and Locke is a guy who got up from his wheelchair and walked. Now the question has been boiled down to its essential root—is there a God or is there nothingness?

Carroll: Presumably, if it is order versus chaos or purpose versus randomness, there is no right answer. It’s not as if in the finale you’re going to say, “Yup, it was order.”

Cuse: I don’t think there’s a right answer.

It is a frightening thought to consider that we can't really answer the question of purpose vs. randomness or even God vs. nothingness. This is why Leslie Newbigin suggests that post-modernism actually leads to nihilism. Well, Lost is the quintessential postmodern experience.

The vestige of modernism that continues to hold sway over post-modernists is the definition of knowledge. Moderns defined knowledge by what could be empirically proven. In this environment, science became king. Faith was okay, if you needed that sort of thing, but don't mistake it for knowledge! Post-modernism rejects the arrogant confidence of scientific empiricism, but still allows their conception of knowledge to be defined by it, which is why when pushed to its extreme, true knowledge becomes unattainable. In other words, post-modernists agree with moderns that knowledge requires empirical proof, but disagree that even science itself has reached that level on life's biggest questions.

The result is that a post-modern world-view will the hold metaphysical questions of life, such as those portrayed in Lost, as unanswerable. Post-modernists will not ascribe to science omnipotence as moderns did, but simply believes attempts at answers to be futile.

A Christian world-view does not counter by insisting that God is empirically provable, but rather suggests all knowledge involves a commitment, which is to walk by faith. It grounds knowledge/wisdom in the being of God himself. Certainly, Christianity needs to show itself to be intellectually viable (which it is), but it does not bear the burden of the "modern" definition of knowledge. Post-modernists are correct that the biggest questions in life cannot be answered with empirical knowledge. It does not follow, however, that there are no answers!

The Scandal of Particularity:Can you be a Christian and not believe Jesus is the only way to God?

A recent report from Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion says that 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. This doesn't surprise me. Christianity is sort of the default religion of America. If you are not Buddhist or Muslim, then you must be Christian. Of course, there is a growing number of those claiming no religion or atheism, but it seems the numbers claiming Christianity basically have held steady over the years.

As a side note, this does not mean church attendance has remained steady. Surveys continue to indicate that people (especially the millennial generation) are less willing to associate themselves with "institutions" or "organized religion." It seems for many claiming to be Christians, they have no regard for the body of Christ--the Church. I suppose, however, that's a topic for another blog.

The other interesting--almost bewildering--stat to come out of that report was that 75% of Americans think that many religions lead to eternal life. Now, I'm not very good at math, but you don't have to be to realize that if 75% of folks think many religions lead to eternal life and 80% claim to be Christians then there is a lot of overlap in those two numbers. It appears a sizable majority of those claiming to be Christians believe there are many paths to everlasting bliss.

Now I didn't see how the questions were framed. It may be that some are simply indicating that their "denomination" isn't the only way to heaven. Though I really don't think the Pew folks (they are quite reputable) would be so sloppy in how they worded their questions. So, what does this poll data tell us? Quite frankly, that a lot of those claiming to be Christians don't even know what being a Christian means.

Christianity by definition is to believe and follow Jesus as Lord of all. It necessarily means and is, in fact, a commitment to the tenet that Jesus is the only way to God (and the heaven that comes with it). This doesn't mean that God couldn't save people who were totally ignorant of the gospel. God can save whom he pleases and how that applies to those who have never heard the gospel is a different discussion. To openly profess to be a Christian and then suggest that Christianity is one of many paths to God is a contradiction in terms. It is kind of like saying you love to sail, but hate the water. It doesn't make any sense.

This kind of gap in logical coherence is usually attributed to our post-modern culture and the idolization of tolerance as its chief virtue. Undoubtedly, this is a huge factor. But the scandal of particularity goes further back than then latest cultural phenomenon. God revealed himself particularly to the Jews and then particularly through Jesus. Much of Roman culture characterized early Christians as atheists, because they rejected the Greek/Roman gods in favor of the confession that "Jesus is Lord."

It seems that many in our culture want to have it both ways. They want Jesus as a convenient Savior, but post-modern toleration (pluralism) as Lord. The Christian confession is and always will be that Jesus is Lord. For those that claim to be Christians, but reject the exclusive nature of Christianity's claim, it seems they have a choice to make. Either they will serve the cultural gods of pluralism, relativism, and toleration, or they will serve Jesus as Lord. "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15).

Does it Matter What You Think About God?

Recently, I had a brief exchange on a Yahoo! discussion board about whether or not it really matters what you think about God. It is another manifestation of the old debate regarding the relevance of theology. Those that would argue for a connection between theology and the real world are losing traction in a post-modern age. How can it can really matter what a person thinks about God, if such thoughts are restricted to the thinker's private mind. In our post-modern world, you are supposed to keep such thoughts to yourself, lest they come across as intrusive or offensive to what someone else may privately think.

I opened this discussion, on my group page, by quoting the famed theologian A.W. Tozer. He opens his magnum opus, The Knowledge of the Holy by saying, "What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Such a statement assaults the post-modern mind, which values a supposed set of shared common values, which cannot possibly be related to something as scandalous as what a person actually thinks about God!

I remember watching a celebration of such "common values" when the networks aired Michael Jackson's memorial service. The celebrity supporters gathered and serenaded the audience with an emotional rendition of "We Are the World." Behind them various religious symbols from all faiths were projected onto screens as they sang. The message was clear. We are the world and it doesn't matter what religion you practice. As human beings we are all united by the fact we share this world.

The problem of such a Utopian ideal is, of course, that it is patently untrue. We are not the world in any unified sense. We usually can't even get along in our own neighborhoods. We are a world living under the threat of constant terrorism, fractured by multiple wars, indifferent to the suffering of so many in our world, unmoved to lift our hands together against poverty and starvation, and holding little regard for justice unless we ourselves are treated unjustly.

Could it be that what we think about God might impact us a little more than many post-modern pundits would have us to believe? In reading through the Old Testament, one cannot help but to be struck by how different (holy) the people of God (Israel) were to live. What they thought about God made all the difference in the world. They were to care about justice, because they served a just God, even one who loved the alien among them. They were to have a compassion on the poor, the orphan, and the widow, because their God was a God abounding in love and compassion.

As the story of Israel goes, they often forgot their theology. They turned and worshiped other gods, including Molech. In doing so, they abandoned compassion and began to sacrifice their children by fire. How could they do such a reprehensible deed? Because they exchanged the holy and loving Yahweh for the unholy and unloving god Molech.

You can't force anyone to think about God the way you do, though it might be good to be verbally and kindly persuasive, if possible. My point is that what you think about God has everything to do with the kind of person you are and the life you live. Nothing about us could be more relevant. We become like what we worship.

The gods of today are not so despicable as Molech (in most cases), so we don't have people sacrificing their children in the fire. I recognize the common human dignity we share with all people on the planet and I do not doubt that people of all religions or no religion can do amazingly good deeds and admirable acts of compassion. There is a sense that a basic set of common values are evident to all regardless of their theology. As a theologian, I would argue that such values are obvious only because we are created in the image of God.

However, in the end, we are still becoming like whom we worship. So, isn't it amazing that in living in such an enlightened culture that so extols the virtues of common values that we have sacrificed untold millions of unborn children to the gods of choice, individualism, and convenience? Is this the world meant by Jackson's "We Are the World"? Are we capable of such capricious elimination of life and at the same time rousing demonstrations of compassion, like we have seen in the aftermath of the Haiti quake?

This is simply the reality of being human beings with our all too common values. As long as we worship humankind as the highest ideal we will never transcend that reality. Maybe Tozer was right: "What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us."

Making Peace with Postmodernism

I can remember when the subject of postmodernism was a trendy topic at every Bible lectureship. In fact, in the mid-to-late nineties you didn't really have a legitimate lectureship without a class on postmodernism. I attended some of these classes until I got tired of hearing the same stuff over and over again.

Looking back on our (speaking from my experience in Churches of Christ) early tone and rhetoric, I would say it was skeptical at best and down-right combative at worst. Postmodernism was viewed as the great cultural threat to the Church or even to the very concept of objective truth in general. It seemed that no matter how many lectureships and articles we produced on postmodernism that we usually always focused on its emphases of pluralism and insistence on subjectivity. If anyone dared to raise a positive element of postmodernism, they were usually eyed with suspicion...maybe they don't believe in objective truth either.

Now keep in mind that this is mainly my subjective recollection. I am sure we produced some fine scholarly work on the relationship between postmodernism and the gospel, but I was either to simplistic to recognize it, or I just never went on a hunt to find it.

Still I bet my recollection isn't too far off. It seems to me that our analysis of postmodern culture is much more sophisticated today. We recognize that both subjectivity and pluralism present challenges for those of the Christian faith. However, I think we eventually began to realize we were critiquing postmodernism from a modern vantage point (which is full of anti-Christian bias as well, but that is the subject of another blog) instead of a biblical/Christian worldview critique.

Now we seem to appreciate that postmoderns place a great emphasis on authentic relationships and spirituality. Postmodernism also keeps us honest in forcing us to own up to the reality that we all have biases. Truth itself may not be subjective, but we cannot evaluate truth claims in a detached and objective manner. Objective truth is still disseminated through the subjective individual. Christians are finally beginning to see the rationale in putting down our combative rhetoric against postmodernism and instead learning to contextualize the gospel for a postmodern audience.

In some ways, we are making peace with postmodernism; not because we think it is thoroughly biblical (and we must know and show where it is not), but because we realize that is no less biblical than the modernism that preceded it. Or maybe its because we finally realized that instead of focusing all of our energy on condemning the prevailing culture, we had better start finding a way to redeem it.

A good read on this subject (especially for preachers, but for all church leaders too) is Chris Altrock's Preaching to Pluralists: How to Proclaim to Christ in a Postmodern age.