The Many Faces of Jesus

Review: The Many Faces of Jesus

Frequently, I have heard the study of Jesus Christ referred to as a painting. This painting contains a Jesus that makes sense in the minds of men and women in the U.S. and Western Europe. I believe this carries over into the study of Christology. Often times a similar picture is painted regardless of where the communication is taking place. The same colors are used with a similar brushstroke creating the same image, time and time again. When the picture is completed it is placed in a visible manner as the official rendering of Jesus and the study of him. Volker Kuster’s book introduces the reader to a larger global perspective on Jesus Christ and his saving work. Kuster introduces key men and women who are involved in taking the Jesus Christ we are introduced to within the Gospels and translating it to their context and society. These individuals use new language to process Jesus Christ’s role in the world and what it means for the kingdom of God here and now.

Kuster in his introduction makes a statement that is helpful when reading the rest of his book, “Moreover, at the end of the day it is the Christology that decides whether or not for the person concerned, faith in Jesus Christ finds a home in its context or not.” This becomes a pseudo-thesis statement for the next section of his book. In this chapter we are shown the intersection of Christology and the context that the Preacher finds himself in. Kuster in his book introduces the reader to many different contexts, many different “Faces of Jesus”, but I would like to spend time reflecting on two in particular. The face of Jesus in Latin American Theology as well as the Black Messiah of James Cone.

Kuster begins in Latin America within the context of the poor. According to Kuster it is important to understand how these individuals frame Jesus Christ under the terms of suffering and poverty. The major voices in the theology of Latin America are Leonardo Boff and Jon Sobrino. Leonardo Boff is a major voice in this movement and attempts to offer an orthopraxis of Christology within his context of Brazil and this carries over into the larger context of Latin America. Within their understanding of the kingdom of God, it is not sufficient to have only a future view of the work of God. Jesus Christ must have a plan during the here and now, offering a relief to the pain and struggles of today, whether they be political or societal.

This praxis finds itself within the context of relationship, specifically the relationality of Jesus Christ. This relationality can be drawn from the teachings of Jesus, his teaching of the kingdom of God and his focus on the poor is not only an eschatological event but something present. This is affirmed by their reading of the Exodus event, God who was particularly involved with his people, hearing their complaints and creating an alternative. Finally, the Liberation Theology that Boff and Sobrino are putting together is also an incarnational theology. Kuster explains, “The resurrection is an impulse for the hope of liberation; however, often this has only an implicit effect, mediated through the span of the incarnation.” It is important that Christ was as much human as he was divine. Because he experienced the ultimate suffering for his people, that is what becomes real and tangible for these Latin American liberation theologians.

Next, we have the Black Messiah Christology in the context of Racism. About the same time as Boff and Sobrino in their Latin American contexts, in America men name Martin Luther King jr., and Malcolm X were fighting for civil rights. The major theologian of this movement was a man named James Cone. He like Boff was trained in traditional seminaries, but found the content to be lacking to his personal struggle and and situation. He did not see the connection that other european men could have for the, “young black girls and boys coming from the cotton fields of Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi seeking to make a new future for themselves.” Cone asked an important question, in terms of method, for the plight of the African Americans, “What has the gospel of Jesus Christ to do with the black struggle for justice in the United States?”

Through Cone’s growth in the movement and theological growth, he came to one powerful conviction, “the transcendent affirmation that God has not ever, no not ever, left the oppressed alone in struggle.” The overarching conclusion Cone espouses that because Jesus Christ identified with the poor and oppressed, the “blacks” can identify with him.

Volker Kuster ends his book with a discussion titled, “Conversation of models of Christology with focus’ on ecumenical learning”. Here he discusses the differences in how churches and institutions differ from one another. Their dominant literary form is pamphlets, manifestos, meditations, lecture manuscripts and short articles. There is a direct correlation between hermeneutical construction and the current context.

In conclusion, I found this book to be enlightening and helpful when considering a larger context of Christology. It introduces a wide variety of cultures and introduces key individuals that allow for further study. Kuster handles each society with care, weary of the plight and goal of each individual face of Jesus. While reading this book a single theme jumps at the reader, Jesus Christ is immanent among different cultures and emerges in a myriad of ways, but when all is said and done, He desires a relationship from the men and women surrounding.

This book, I believe, would be beneficial to be read within a church, especially an American church, to introduce the different Faces of Jesus to people who all to often operate under a limited perspective. This book is a wonderful reminder of the broader world stage and the perspectives offered give us a more complete view of Jesus Christ and his saving work.

The Nature of Atonement - Four Views

Recently, I have been hunkered down, reading and writing for my Systematic Theology class. I had to write a review of a few books. Here is the first. Why let all this work go to waste, right?

In today’s modern world of technology and information being readily available for consumption at the click of a mouse, scholarship is something that is continually lacking. With access to a myriad of topics becoming as easy as shopping in a retail store, hearing from men and women with exceptional academic backgrounds is encouraging and refreshing. The Nature of Atonement is a great example of a collection of individuals who are learned in the world of biblical scholarship and are offering insights and examples into thinking through the atonement critically.

The apostle Paul in his letter to the believers at Corinth communicated the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; with out which, our faith futile. Over the three days many different important things happened, one of which was the atonement. Atonement in its core is, “the saving work of Jesus” but how this works itself out is a much debated issue. It is argued from many different directions, taking place at different times and accomplishing a variety of things.

Paul Eddy and James Beilby in their introduction to the four views of the atonement begin with this statement, “Today however, the waterway has begun to flow anew, and the atonement is again a matter for serious and widespread discussion at the theological roundtable.” This is a great primer for this book as well as this review. The roundtable that Eddy and Beilby form contains; Gregory Boyd and the Christus Victor view, Joel Green and the kaliedoscopic View, Bruce Reichenbach and the healing view and Thomas Schriener with the penal substitution view. Each theologian provides an appropriate introduction to their view of the atonement as well as a response to the others.

The first view we are introduced to is the Christus Victor view as presented by Greg Boyd. He begins his essay by placing in in context of the broader spiritual warfare motif that runs through scripture. First, in the Old Testament it is portrayed through YHWH’s battles with hostile waters and vicious sea monsters that plague the earth. This included the broader non-israelite belief in various deities like Marduk and Baal. He moves onto Satan in the New Testament. Boyd explains it in this way, “While Jesus and his followers of course believed that God was the ultimate Lord over all creation, they clearly viewed Satan as the functional lord over the earth at the present time.” Boyd goes on to show that ultimately Christ was victorious over his enemies. He goes on, “In a word, Jesus came to end the cosmic war that had been raging from time immemorial and to set Satan’s captives free.” Ultimately, what we are given in this model is a Savior who actively stopped one thing to accomplish another. This model according to Boyd is, “makes the call to resist the powers and imitate Christ in these ways is the centerpiece of what it means to follow Christ.”

The next view is the Penal Substitution view as presented by Thomas Scheiner. Schreiner offers a helpful definition of his view at the beginning of the essay and spends the rest of his time explaining and defending,

The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested.

Schreiner’s view of the atonement focus’ its attention on the evil that is within us inherently. We, as human’s are bound by our sins through our own moral failure and guilt. That is where is Jesus Christ comes in. Christ as our penal substitution satisfies the need for us to be perfect before God. Or to use the Governmental theory metaphor that Schreiner employs, “God desires to show how seriously he takes the law without requiring a pull payment for every infraction”

The next view is the Healing View by Bruce Reichenbach. This focus’ on the need for healing in multiple ways; in the human condition, sin and sickness. Reichenach in his conclusion offers this succinct definition of atonement,

In its deepest rhythms, necessitates that the great physician take on our sin and suffering as the only way to finally address the human predicament and to restore us to shalom with God, with ourselves and with our community.

Greg Boyd in his response to Reichenbach applauds his work and attention to healing and his understanding of the atonement, “I whole heartedly agree that through Jesus’ life, death and resurrection God brought healing to humans and to the cosmos on every level”

The final view is the Kaliedoscope View by Joel Green. Green begins his essay with some theologically packed statements about the atonement, one of which being, “the significance of Jesus’ death is woven so tightly into the fabric of God’s purpose that we may never exhaust the many ways of articulating its meaning for our salvation” Ultimately, the opinion of Green is that it impossible, and potentially unnecessary, to distinguish a single goal of Jesus Christ and his time on earth. Because of the diversity of voices in scripture and christian tradition than the nature of atonement needs to be understood under a diverse framework.

Although this book, at times, is academic, its contents are compulsory for the church today. The manner in which each author handles their view communicates the seriousness required for such a topic. Reading this within the context of ministry, it provides the leader of the church with tangible ways of working through their view of the atonement and communicate these truths to the men and women listening.

Overall, I have found this book extremely helpful and would offer it to students as well as the more academically engaged men and women. This book goes much further than a simple primer for the atonement. It provides the views and also offering the rebuttals in an extremely scholarly but palpable way that allows any and all individuals to enter into the conversation it will produce and hopefully, help in the growth of knowledge as well as affirming their faith.

The Expendables: very disappointed

During the last week of basic training, we got 'town passes'. This let us visit the sites at San Antonio with friends and family. You had to wear your blues so you stuck out like a sore thumb, but it was great just to get out! Eating was a bear just because you couldn't get a crumb or mark on anything you were wearing. It was me, my mom, and my grandparents. We were at the mall and we came by the theater to see Inception. We missed it by an hour. We looked at our options and my eyes landed on The Expendables. I remember seeing the poster since before I left. Everyone was in it. Everyone I loved to see in action movies as a kid. I used to fantasize about what it would be like if you could get all your favorite action stars into one movie. That would be a heck of movie! The actors would set aside the paycheck and just come together to make a great movie. It finally happened. I bought the ticket and went in.

Stallone looked strange. I know he is old. I knew that going in. But he looks . . . strange. He looked strange in Rambo, but I forgave it, because a disturbed, warrior assassin-turned-boat-mechanic could look strange. He probably looked strange in Rocky 6, but it was too long ago for me to remember. Anyway, I was studying his face. Was it Botox again? It was enough that Axl Rose had done it. I don't get why people think it makes them look better. Why do they exchange no wrinkles for hideousness? If Robert Redford can do without it, anyone can. It also looked like he was wearing make-up. Now this is already violating major commandments for the raw-action movie genre. No make-up. For Heaven's sake, no Botox. And if you're going to be old, do it the Sean Connery way. There is a line though. Harrison Ford might have crossed it in the 4th Indiana Jones. Maybe. Even Schwarzenegger crossed it in Collateral Damage. Stallone was going in the right direction when he played an overweight cop in 1997's Copland. The Rambo years were over and 80's excess had stalled. The attempt to resurrect Rambo and Rocky is intriguing; I'd say Rambo succeeded, but Rocky failed. Schwarzenegger had it right when he went from movies to politics.

But with The Expendables, Stallone did a no-no and mixed it with a fantasy we all had when we were kids. It should have stayed a fantasy, because the odds of making the fantasy a good movie are very small. It works in a movie like Ocean's 11, full of heavyweights; it works because the people behind the scenes made it work. Who do we have behind the scenes here? Stallone: who hit it big with Rocky. In my opinion, I think Stallone got lucky with what would have been a good story if anyone made it. Rambo worked because it raised the cookie-cutter action flick to the second power: it was a game changer.

But back to Botox Stallone. Yes, he's huge, ripped, muscular. But we know it's fake. We know he is trying to look the part. We know this is a nostalgia-movie: old men reminiscing about the days when they ruled the world of action. The secret is for us not to know that. But it's hard to ignore the elephant in the library. And even when they're not old, we know they're force-fitted to suit the old guys; their coolness is supposed to offset the old dudes. Poor, poor Dolph Lundgren, the crazy guy, the unreliable loose-canon. This movie really makes it known how God-awful of an actor he is. Ultimate fighters aren't good actors. The younger-hip actors are put in to make the old ones relevant. That's it. And it's obvious. The people that go in hailing this as the best action movie since Die Hard are idiots. They can't think. Their brains are made of cheese. This is a movie you play in the background at a party while everyone is getting drunk. You look at a scene every once in a while, watch some body torn to shreds by a barrage of bullets, and then go back to drinking your guts out.

The movie is making a lot of money and it has a 7.4 at imdb.com. That tells me a couple of things. One: that a lot of people wanted this movie to work. I have a feeling that most of the 10/10 reviews secretly were disappointed, but they don't want their childhood fantasy to be tarnished. It's like trying to keep together a melting snowman as the sun comes out more and more. I'm done it myself. There's movies I wanted to be good so bad, and when it was over I'd defend it to the death, even though I'd secretly agree with what most of my detractors were saying. Two: the taste for a good, campy action flick still exists. This was done perfectly in Predator. Larger-than-life actors, thrown in a blender against the backdrop of a great story, great music. The action scenes taken by themselves are generic, but the originality lies in the execution. Commando works because it's less of an action flick than a Schwarzenegger flick, so the poor execution is forgiven. The Expendables could have been filled with the generic, stereotypical action flicks, but polished into solid, fast-paced glory, but the pace in the movie was tiring, boring. I felt nothing. That's the word, though: boring. A couple scenes moved me: the confession from Mickey Rourke's character. Schwarzenegger's cameo was almost meaningless. The only thing I appreciated was the lack of Botox - the President-comment was cute but forgettable. And all I could think was that he should leave the movie-set and get back to fixing California.

Yes, they're too old. But why was it that it didn't bother me with Bruce Willis in Live Free or Die Hard, or with Sean Connery in The Rock? It was done right. The backstory made it believable. They were characters, not caricatures of themselves. I never thought of Sean Connery as Sean Connery in The Rock; I never thought of Bruce Willis. I could care less who Bruce Willis is. It's John freaking McClane I want to know about. Who thought about Stallone's character, or Schwarzenegger's character, or Statham's character? No one. We were thinking about the actors. But that's all backwards and inside out. The whole point of the movies, of art, of mimesis, is to hide the actor and reveal the character. There was none of this in the movie. And even when a movie succeeds to entertain without the mimesis, the actor has to have the help of all the characters, an interesting story and script and all of that. True Lies, for example, or any Schwarzenegger movie, really. I could care less who his character was, because Schwarzenegger, in real life, was a character in himself - that's what made his movies watchable. But that charisma isn't there with Stallone, who is sort of goofy, and Willis, who stays to himself.

Just some thoughts. Why did Stallone use Botox? Why?

Update at Keesler AFB

I'm all settled into my room. I'm at the newest squadron, the newest building. Keesler is a very nice base. It's a base that houses the Navy and the Marines too. It's got a theater, three chow halls, lots of mini-malls, a newly built B/X (a mall), a commissary, a library (!), lots of gyms. There are always activities you can join, so there's no reason to be bored. You can join up with the Humane Society and hang out with animals. On the bulletin board, you can see what your options are. I went to the library. It's not that big; it's bigger on the inside than it looks on the outside. The philosophy section takes up a meager four shelves: buy hey! - that's more than Books A' Million!

I checked out a couple books edited by Harold Bloom, that fat, arrogant literary critic that thinks he's smarter than everyone. He did do one thing I admire: he literally did an analysis of every major thinker in the Western Canon. Thank God he only wrote the editor's preface, where he can't help but ramble on about his 'anxiety of influence', his pet-theory he applies - uncritically - to everyone! I think he planned his whole theory out, because I want to say he only put forward the 'anxiety of influence' theory because he is projecting: he wants to influence the next generation of literary hopefuls and he himself feels the anxiety to do so because of all the geniuses that came before him. On that basis, I want to discount everything he says. But it doesn't discount it; it supports it. He is doing exactly what he said literary figures do. I just have a sneaking suspicion his whole theory is a projection of a private and disgusting, narcissistic neurosis that he is suffering from.

My room is basically a hotel room. It's got a fridge, a microwave, a few dressers, a whole closet to keep valuables in, armed with a lock and key; there's a desk, a very comfortable bed, and a private shower and toilet. Something funny happened to me. I was in a rush to take a leak, and when I slammed the door, the light-cover came off and landed right on my head and into the toilet! Anyway, the hot water lasts forever and the water pressure is awesome. Laundry is a breeze; you have to buy the detergent, but after that, it's just a matter of closing the lid, and the wash starts by itself: the same with the drier.

The food is the best part. There are three lines: a healthy line, a sandwich line, and a fast-food line. The sandwich line has any sandwich you can think of; the healthy line has all the food where you know you're going to get full, but it's a good kind of full, and you know you're getting all the nutrients you need; the fast-food line has hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, and you usually leave having that sick-kind-of-full. There's also great deserts: cookies, cheese cake, chocolate cake, vanilla and chocolate pudding, with whip cream on top. There's no rush to eat and there's always a an open table.

Sorry, nothing really on culture; just giving an update on my experience. I did see the Sorcerer's Apprentice, a waste of a couple hours I'll never get back. I couldn't take Nicholas Cage seriously; he looked like a manly version of the female lead in The Departed: I forget her name. It also had the cartoonish, Disney violence that doesn't do anything for me. The only other movie playing yesterday was Predators. I kind of want to see that; the trailer looked pretty wild. I'll have to wait until next Friday to see Inception, which I heard was spectacular.

For now, all I have to do is 'details', doing chores around the base until off-duty hours, 1630, a.k.a. 4:30 PM. My classes don't start for a while. Lots of down time. Hopefully my next blog will have some culture in it.

Boot Camp is over: oh, the horror, lol

My time at Boot Camp! It wasn't what I expected at all! I don't know if you guys remember, but I was expecting it to be like Summer Camp. Oh, how wrong I was! I'll come right out and say it was the hardest thing I've ever done. As the days went by (and they felt like long, drawn out epochs), I must say I respected James Williams more and more, because I could never do (well, maybe . . .) the Marine boot camp. Holy Crap! My hat is off to him. So, funny stories. The trouble is I can't tell a lot of them here. It would be better face to face, but even then, it's hard to really appreciate them if you weren't there. So, I have that Iron Curtain to deal with.

I did have a huge locust land on my face at BEAST, a week long trek, outside in the 100 degree weather, with a million tons of gear on, in full mop gear (with the darn gas mask), sweating oceans, miserable, hungry (MREs, while good, aren't filling), tired, etc . . . I swear, the locust was the size of my face. My entire face. It scared the crap out of me. I did love standing guard outside the tents looking up at the night sky. It was so peaceful. Lots of time to talk to God. I think I read the New Testament close to 20 times.

There was a time when I made a wrong turn (because I was in the wrong zone) and when I re-emerged from some back-alley trail, I bumped into this hornet's nest of TI's. It wasn't pretty.

Over all, I stayed out of trouble. Eating was awful. There was no time. TI's are screaming at you, pounding the table, you barely taste the food, you shovel it down, you feel like a sardine. Everything is rushed from revelry to taps. I was always stressing. There was barely any down time. I felt like I was getting brainwashed. Everything is a blur now. I really couldn't describe a normal day. Every day was different, with new challenges, or new applications of old ones. I missed everything I loved: hobbies, friends, family. I missed books. I finally got my Bible in the 6th week. I was somehow put into a Special Operations flight, so the physical training was more intense. Everything was more intense. I say that because I sprained my knee in the 4th week of training, so I had to go to different squadrons to eat chow, and their chow hall was NOTHING like ours: relaxed, very little TIs, no yelling, more food, fresher food. Everything had a better quality. And here I am thinking the whole base was like MY squadron. But no! I had to be lucky one of six that got stuck in all the rigor of a Special Ops flight. Oh joy!

The obstacle course was easy, but I did sprain my darn knee. It was really throbbing at the end of the hour-long march back. After I sat down for an hour in a mandatory class and got up again to use the latrine, it locked up on me. I was just so scared and stressed. If you're too injured or sick, they send you to the 319th where you heal to the point where you can return to training. That's good and all, but at the same time I'm stressing, because I wouldn't graduate on time and everyone would have bought their ticket to come see me for nothing! I ended up fibbing to the hospital about the full extent of the pain in my knee so I could take the final PT evaluation. I took it, passed it, and the big stuff got behind me. I took a sigh of relief.

I could literally sit down and talk about boot camp all day, but it really is a blur and it's getting late and I need to get to bed. I'm in Tech School now, in Biloxi Mississippi, the same place where my brother Chase is stationed. I got to see him yesterday and we plan on hanging out more tomorrow. If you don't know already, I'm studying to be an Air Traffic Controller; the program is pretty rigorous, so please pray for me. But there's such a crowd here that I won't even be starting the darn classes until 5 to 6 weeks from now. On top of that, the National Guard and Reserve guys get to cut everyone. In the mean time, I'll be stuck doing details, which isn't bad. As the weeks go by, I'll get more freedom and thing will get more laid back.

Thanks a bunch Matt for all the kind words. Can't wait for my Mac to be mailed to me (I'm borrowing my room-mate's lap-top to type this) so I can blog a little bit more before the classes begin. There's so much stuff to talk about, so many movies and so much music and news and headlines. I feel so behind.

Love you guys!!!

Perspectives on Accomplishment

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about accomplishment. This began about a month in a half ago when Lebron James made a decision to leave Cleveland to go to Miami. I often compare myself to Lebron James because we are both exceptional basketball players and he is a year my senior. Lebron James is 25 and at that age has accomplished a lot. I, on the other hand do a lot of sitting around.

Here's a quick overview of what he's got:

He has made multi-million dollars.

He has his own shoe.

He has his own clothing line.

He has been the MVP for the NBA.

But, the one thing he did not accomplish before he left was win a championship. This in general is not something to be ashamed of. There are plenty of players who will go down in the annuls of basketball history who never won a championship. But, what makes James' departure bitter is his promise to win cleveland a championship, a town who may or may not be cursed in this arena.

James did not accomplish the one thing he said he would. I'm not mad at him. It's hard to win a championship. I remember when I was trying to win this solitaire championship, on my cell phone, I put in some serious blood, sweat and tears and never won. So, who am I to judge?

But, the reason for this blog. One of the other members of this review, Matt Damore has accomplished something that cannot be taken away. Something I could ever do. Something that I will always respect and be grateful for. He has joined the Air Force and completed boot camp.

Well Done!

I spoke to him today and he said some hilarious things. I hope to get him to write them here at some point. But, I want to share one story with you now that happened on the phone.

Matt was telling me about a mistake he made, his commanding officer person threatened Matt with a scissor kick to the soul. I found this funny and told Matt, the philosophy major;

"I wish you would've said, 'where do you think the soul is located sir?'"

"Huh? Oh I get it, thats funny. I haven't thought for myself for a while"

I hope the comedy of this interaction isn't lost on you, worthy reader. This is the same guy who you may remember wrote this.

But, in conclusion, We here at The Heretical Review (aka Matt J and Zack) are proud of you Matt Damore and you have accomplished something worthy of more than a blog, but this will have to suffice for now (or until you get he gets my package I sent).