christian

Sunday Quote!- Finding the “real” Jesus

Every Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Finding the “real” Jesus

There is a continuing quest to try to find the “real” Jesus. Whether that quest is done by critical New Testament scholars who shave off almost everything the Bible says Jesus said or did or it is done by spiritualists attempting to recruit Jesus’s teaching to their cause, many diverse people are searching for Jesus. Rediscovering Jesus offers a way forward in the cacophony of perspectives:

This is what we need to do: take in the entire New Testament, and let each biblical writer teach us about Jesus. Rather than rely upon our favorite parts, our preferred picture of Jesus, we need to rediscover the “whole Jesus”—every portrait, every picture, every single verse. By looking at many different images of Jesus, even the ones outside the Bible, we might be in a better position to rediscover Jesus beyond our preferences, challenging our prejudices and enhancing our faith. (20, cited below)

We should not unnecessarily limit the scope of our search into the “real” Jesus. Although some sources of insight are certainly more reliable than others, an a priori assumption that we must excise the biblical texts or ignore the insights of scholars could actually limit the scope of the greatest event in history: the Incarnation.

Read my review of the book if you’d like to know more about it. It is excellent.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

Source

David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

SDG.

Downton Abbey: The Final Seasion Episodes 3 and 4 – A Christian Perspective

I will be analyzing each episode of the final season of Downton Abbey from a worldview perspective. I will be doing them two at a time to make space for my series on “The Expanse.” There will, of course be SPOILERS for each episode, and I will assume readers know about each previous season and episode’s content as well. It will be assumed that readers are familiar with the characters and circumstances. I will not be summarizing the plot of the episode; I will merely interact with the content from a perspective of worldview. BE COURTEOUS AND DO NOT BRING UP LATER EPISODES THAN THE ONE DISCUSSED HERE IN YOUR COMMENTS.

Episode 3

Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes got married! The celebration and excitement that surrounds this event is a reflection of reality. Marriage is a good, one God has given to us from the beginning. There is something beautiful about seeing two people come together before God, blessing their marriage in the name of the Triune Lord. It was particularly interesting to see how the Trinitarian blessing was included in this episode, rather than being left out.

Episode 4

Lady Painswick’s offhand remark about being able to call Mrs. Carson Mrs. Hughes still is worth reflecting on: “There is a God!” We so often jokingly say things like this, but I wonder whether a more serious perspective is right. Is God not found in the little things in life as well as the big things? Is not every joy from God? This is not to say that God will never allow suffering, but it does mean we ought to thank God for even the tiniest blessings.

I’m starting to get quite worried about Thomas, the underbutler. He continues to reject any attempts to be friendly to him, but then turns around and notes to Baxter how he does feel the sometimes cruel remarks and jabs made in his direction. Part of this, of course, is reaping what he has sown. When has he ever done anything to help someone else? I struggle to think of a single instance in which he did so without an ulterior motive. But again, part of what he needs is grace. Baxter, as I noted in the last recap, has been offering that grace to him, but he continues to reject it.

The theme of rejected grace continues in how he has been treating the interview process. He has high hopes for the other positions he is applying to: but each time he is disappointed. He wants to have a position of highest import, like one in bygone years, but these positions are disappearing rapidly. Again, these opportunities are examples of grace towards him, but his own choice is to continue to reject them. I hope this story doesn’t continue to spiral down, because I could see Thomas doing something drastic.

More!

Be sure to let me know what you thought of the episodes, and what worldview-level issues you saw them raise, in the comments below.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 1/29/16- Moses on Messiah, the Ark Encounter, and more!

I can’t believe we’re almost through January already. If you haven’t yet, be sure to check out my awards post for 2015. In this round of Really Recommended Posts, we have messianic prophecy, women in the ministry, evolution and creationism, the Bible, and movies of 2015. Let me know what you think, and be sure to let the authors know as well.

Did Moses really write about Jesus?: A look at Messianic Prophecy in the Torah– An excellent post highlighting a number of biblical prophecies about the Messiah found throughout the Torah.

Prominent Biblical Scholars on Women in Ministry– It continues to amaze me how willing some are to dismiss any nod to egalitarianism as clear rejection of biblical authority and teaching. I do not believe that merely mustering names is enough to prove a position (the list of complementarian scholars is quite long), but the fact that so many clearly biblical thinkers have held to the egalitarian position should give pause to those who make this claim. Here’s a list of just a few such scholars.

Dodging Darwin: How Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is Slowly Embracing Evolution– “That which we call a rose…” is the essence of this post. As Ham and other young earth creationists decry evolution, they have been slowly embracing forms of it that go beyond the wildest dreams of modern evolutionary biologists. This post highlights the inconsistency of the Answers in Genesis answer to evolution.

Admit it: Some of the Bible is Hard to Believe– We should not sugarcoat the tough passages in the Bible. Here’s a good post that addresses an approach to problematic passages.

An Assassin, White God, and Fury Road- The Top 10 Films of 2015– Think Christian has a post highlighting major worldview-level issues found in several films from 2015.

Sunday Quote!- Paul and Patriarchy… and Egalitarianism?

Every Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Paul and Patriarchy… and egalitarianism?

John G. Stackhouse, Jr.’s Partners in Christ presents a challenging perspective on the debate over women in the church and home. One major strength of the book is the balanced perspective he offers. Here is just one example of a refreshing reading of Paul in light of the whole biblical witness (and the cultural background):

Paul means just what he says about gender… Paul is guided by the Holy Spirit… to do two good things simultaneously: (1) to give the church prudent instruction as to how to survive and thrive in a patriarchal culture that he thinks won’t last long; and also (2) to maintain and promote the egalitarian teaching that is evident throughout the Bible and dynamic particularly in the career of Jesus and that in the right circumstances will leave gender lines behind. (66-67, cited below)

 I encourage readers to pick up Partners in Christ for a wide-ranging introduction to the debate over women in the church and home. I guarantee that whatever your perspective, you will be challenged and enlightened.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

Source

John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Partners in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

SDG.

The Expanse: Episodes 6-7 – A Christian perspective

I’ve been enjoying watching SyFy’s TV series, “The Expanse,” quite a bit. Part of that is because I’m a huge science fiction fan, but another part of it is because there is plenty of worldview discussion to go around. I’ll be posting a series on worldview in episodes from the expanse biweekly as they come out. There will be SPOILERS for the episodes discussed here, as well as possibly any earlier episodes. Please don’t post spoilers for later episodes on this post.

Home, Family, and Self

Once more we have the OPA entangled in a struggle for a sense of home. I emphasized this last time for episodes 1-5, but here we have the need for home countered by the revelation that the OPA killed Chrisjen Avasarala’s son, and it has become personal for her. Family was emphasized on her side of the plot, as she tries to play that card to get more information about the OPA. It will be interesting to see whether dynamics of family, self-service, and home continue to drive some of the main characters in the series. One question I still have: how important is it to have a place we can call “home”? So far, “The Expanse” seems to emphasize that this is a great need, and this resonates with a Christian worldview when, throughout the Bible, we have continued pointers to a promised land and sense of place.

Truth and Lies

One of the most common expressions regarding lies is that we “weave a web” of them. The more we engage in deception, the more we must tell more lies to keep up the facade. Detective Miller goes deeper and deeper into a web of lies. The question is: what does he have to ground himself? His job was terminated instantly once it was found out he was delving too close into territory that others wanted to keep quiet. What does it mean to continue to seek truth even in the face of such opposition–even threat to one’s own life?

Christianity was based upon the testimony of those who were willing to die for truth. This isn’t merely an appeal to sincerity of belief, but rather an argument that shows that some truths are worth dying for–something difficult to do if you know what you’re dying for is false. Miller–technically no longer Detective Miller–seems like he is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to discover the truth. I wonder where it will lead him.

Survival and the Secular Ethic

The conversation Burton has with the stowaway spy, Kenzo, in episode 7 is interesting, because it focuses on the notion that survival is the highest good for humanity. This reflects an understanding of reality that puts mere continued existence as “the good” as opposed to anything else. Frankly, this is the kind of grounding that secular ethics almost always end up appealing to, whether it is mere survival or some abstraction like “human flourishing.” Yet in this episode we see how hollow such an ethic is. It leads to Burton’s willingness to kill anyone–whether it is someone he just met (and has completely at his mercy) or to keep from getting captured.

Later in the same episode, Kenzo has a deep conversation, asking whether he is going to be dropped out an airlock because he is found to be “inconvenient.” Perhaps with the most moving line in the series so far, he asks to be told if they’re just going to kill him so he can make his peace, because “I am not an animal.” Yet, so far, many of the people have been acting just like animals, again, with Burton’s argument for mere survival as his motto for life.

The absurdity of this way of life was revealed by Kenzo, because his words resonate with us. Mere survival is not enough–we are not animals. Indeed, even the more popular appeals to ground ethics upon “human flourishing” is little more than putting forward prettier words for the same concept. Is mere survival, or even the move towards whatever hedonistic view of “flourishing” we’d like to put forward, the best we can do? I don’t believe so, and I have argued at length that the secular grounding for morality fails even on its own criteria. We are not merely animals, and we can do better than grounding a philosophy of life on an animalistic drive to survive.

Such an ethic makes the most sense on a theistic view of the world, and Christianity is the worldview that stands up under scrutiny. Those who wish to deny this and continue to affirm a secular ethic must embrace the very opposite of that which Kenzo states in this episode. That is, they must affirm “I am [merely] an animal” and then ground their moral action on that.

Conclusion

The Expanse continues to bring intriguing questions about worldview to the forefront, while couching it all in a pseudo-noir science fiction epic. I’m loving the series so far, and would like to know what you think as well. Let me know in the comments!

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 1/22/16- Neuroscience and boy/girl brains, consent, and more!

I’ve been nose-deep in the latest Dean Koontz novel, but I still managed to pull together these posts for you, dear readers. We have neuroscience and the notion of a boy/girl brain, works of dead apologists, Consent and Planned Parenthood, oral tradition in the Bible, and Wittgenstein and Scholastic Metaphysics. Let me know what you think, and be sure to let the authors know as well.

Girl Brain? Boy Brain?: A Neuroscientist Examines the Evidence– We often hear about how boy and girl brains are hardwired to behave in different ways. What should we think about this claim? What does it mean?

Planned Parenthood’s Absurd Position on HIV Disclosure– “Consent” in sex entails informed consent, something that Planned Parenthood concedes. Why, then, do they turn around and argue you don’t need to give information to get consent?

Goodill on Scholastic Metaphysics and Wittgenstein– A philosophy-heavy post from Edward Feser on a challenge raised against Scholastic Metaphysics based on Wittgenstein’s philosophy. I enjoyed this read quite a bit.

Book Review: Understanding the Oral Tradition by Eric Eve– A substantive book review that will get you thinking about oral history and the transmission of the Bible.

Works of Dead Apologists– If you aren’t reading the works of dead apologists, you ought to be. Here’s a good place to get started.

Book Review: “The Open Minded Christian” by Richard Bushey

Richard Bushey’s book, The Open Minded Christian: How to Engage Charitably with Fellow Sinners presents a message that we often need to hear. That message is one of Christian love for neighbor.

Bushey outlines this necessary love of neighbor broadly in the first several chapters, noting that too often Christians tend to treat other Christians as though they were necessarily enemies of the faith. Moreover, this lack of charity extends to non-Christians as well. Repeated challenges are issued throughout the book for Christians to re-examine their own attitudes.

Several of the examples used to this regard are utilized very effectively. Bushey leads with a hot-button word like “evolution” or “homosexuality” and then turns around and presents analysis of how Christians tend to react to such topics. After that, he issues a call to Christians to act more Christlike in disagreement and to avoid jumping to conclusions about the “other” when it comes to issues like these. Thus, in the chapter on homosexuality, Bushey notes how quick many Christians are to disown or disavow people who are homosexual, thus leading to a continuing circle of anger and frustration. These and other examples are enlightening and help to bring to light how we ought to have a greater love of neighbor, even if we do not love everything about them.

A difficulty with the book is that there are many assertions about how certain groups shouldn’t split that ultimately seem unsubstantiated. For example: “[T]here is no ecclesiological reason that Calvinists and Arminians cannot congregate together” (7). First, what is meant by an “ecclesiological reason” as opposed to some other reason? A little ways down on the same page, Bushey seems to define what is meant by the term “ecclesiological reason”: “That is to say that if a church’s general practice is different from another, then creating different denominations make sense.” Second, why limit the scope of separation between denominations/churches to whatever is meant by “ecclesiological” reasons?

Given the definition Bushey apparently offers for “ecclesiological reason,” though, it seems that groups like Calvinists and Arminians do have reasons not to congregate together. For, if the umbrella is “general practice,” then many Calvinist churches have a general practice to speak of the sovereign decree of God in sermons and Bible studies; while many Arminian churches have a general practice to critique Calvinism from the pulpit (I have experienced both instances personally in different churches). Just a paragraph or so later, Bushey further clarifies, claiming that such ecclesiological differences are to be differentiated from “secondary” or “tertiary” differences, but again we have no definition of what is meant by those. I doubt that most convinced Arminians or Calvinists would feel their adherence to those sets of theological teachings are merely secondary or tertiary, given that it often comes back to the doctrine of God; but that is neither here nor there. The point is that some definitions offered at the outset would improve this work immensely.

Another problem is that Bushey at times mischaracterizes theological opponents when trying to demonstrate we ought not to do that very thing. For example, in section in which he is arguing that Christians ought to challenge their own beliefs in order to see if they match with reality, he writes, “The person who believes that water baptism washes away sins should dive into Romans 3-5 and try to prove that their view is wrong. They should read the text closely with the end in mind of proving that salvation comes by faith alone to the exclusion of baptism” (73). But this is a clear misunderstanding of what baptismal regeneration teaches. As one who affirms that (a Lutheran), I was shocked to see how my view was so clearly misrepresented here. It’s not as though by believing in baptismal regeneration, I deny salvation by faith alone. Far from it, and this shows how crucial a misunderstanding Bushey has here, for he seems to think that the view entails a kind of works-righteousness. Instead, Lutherans see baptism as a means of grace–an act of God; not a work of humanity. It was pretty jarring to have such a clear lack of understanding in a book that continually encourages understanding the other side.

Another example of this is the offhanded comment on the hypostatic union as allegedly entailing a kind of contradiction: “In the case of the hypostatic union, adherents deny that there are two persons within Christ, even though their view logically entails it” (88-89). Given that the hypostatic union has historically been affirmed as an orthodox understanding of Christology, and is used exactly to demonstrate that the two natures of Christ explicitly do not entail two persons, this is an astonishing statement. Indeed, one might ask how, exactly, two natures “logically entails” two persons. It doesn’t, and this basic, nonchalant dismissal of orthodox Trinitarian theology as being “inconsistent” is disappointing, to say the least.

The Open-Minded Christian is ultimately an uneven ride. The central message is one that needs to be heard, but it is surrounded by some serious misunderstandings and misrepresentations that make it difficult to take it as seriously as we ought to. It is worth a read for the good examples, but requires a critical eye.

The Good

+Some examples utilized quite effectively

The Bad

-Theologically suspect at times
-Some basic misunderstandings of opposing views
-Some grammatical errors

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the author. I was not obligated to provide any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Partners in Christ: A Conservative Case for Egalitarianism” by John G. Stackhouse, Jr.

Partners in Christ: A Conservative Case for Egalitarianism is a challenging, extraordinary work. The first thought many readers might have when they see the title of this book is “A conservative case for egalitarianism? What!?” Yet that is exactly what this is. John G. Stackhouse, Jr. presents a case for egalitarianism that will challenge those on either side of the issue to rethink various aspects of their view.

The book is organized around a number of chapters, each of which is quite short. Each chapter’s title basically states what the goal of that chapter is. For example, a chapter entitled “Counterarguments from Church History” presents counterarguments to Stackhouse’s position from, well, church history. The organization is helpful, though it should not be mistaken for a license to jump around within the book. The case made herein is progressive and builds up over the course of the whole book.

Central to Stackhouse’s model is the notion that complementarians and egalitarians often talk past each other or fail to recognize the genuine concerns and possible insights from the “other side.” Thus, he challenges egalitarians to take more seriously the arguments for maintaining complementarity in gender, while he pushes complementarians to realize how often their case is based on presupposition rather than the biblical texts themselves. In other words, Stackhouse is going to make you uncomfortable, no matter what your position is. And, frankly, that’s a good thing. I’m a staunch egalitarian who used to be just as entrenched a complementarian, and it was good for me to have a book that challenged the assumptions I’m working under now. I think that effectively any reader could benefit from Stackhouse’s approach, even in disagreement.

The breadth of topics the book addresses makes it an excellent resource. Church history, theology, exegesis, modern social science, and more are each pieces of evidence that is brought forward to shed light on the issue. Particularly interesting was the chapter “Why, then, Do Women Not Lead?” which answered the question with a number of arguments from social science to theology. This kind of integrated approach is used beneficially throughout the book.

A disadvantage of the way the book is organized is that there is little space to dedicate to individual exegesis. Make no mistake, this is not the strongest egalitarian case from the Bible that can be made. It is an introduction to the full scope and depth of egalitarian arguments, yes, but it should not be mistaken for the most powerful argument possible.

Stackhouse’s ultimate conclusion is that women should be allowed the same roles in leadership in the church and home as men are allowed to fulfill. Again, this is not to say he will not challenge those who agree with this conclusion. I was taken aback by how fair and balanced this case was, and I know of no other book that presents as broad an introduction to such a complex topic as this one. I highly recommend Partners in Christ to you.

The Good

+Will challenge virtually every reader
+Excellent case, in brief, for egalitarianism
+Addresses wide variety of topics, arguments, and counter-arguments
+Balanced approach

The Bad

-Quite brief on several key points
-Concedes the notion of the “feminization of worship”

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of this book for review by the publisher. I was not required to write any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Source

John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Partners in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Downton Abbey’s Final Season: Episodes 1-2 – A Christian Perspective

I will be analyzing each episode of the final season of Downton Abbey from a worldview perspective. I will be doing them two at a time to make space for my series on “The Expanse.” There will, of course be SPOILERS for each episode, and I will assume readers know about each previous season and episode’s content as well. It will be assumed that readers are familiar with the characters and circumstances. I will not be summarizing the plot of the episode; I will merely interact with the content from a perspective of worldview. BE COURTEOUS AND DO NOT BRING UP LATER EPISODES THAN THE ONE DISCUSSED HERE IN YOUR COMMENTS.

Episode 1

Lady Mary seemed to take some accountability in this episode. She was confronted by a woman who wanted to blackmail her for her affair, but she didn’t back down or agree to give her any money. She admitted her guilt, but did not want to tap into the family funds in order to pay off the woman. Ultimately, Lord Grantham interceded and got rid of the woman–for now. (As an aside, I’m not convinced we’ve seen the last of her. She seemed so angry! I could see her showing up again.)

However, taking accountability is not the full picture. Mary has shown little remorse for any of the acts she has done, whether it is sniping at her sister or something more serious. Moreover, her attitude of not giving into blackmail also reflected a rather nonchalant attitude towards how the news of her trist would impact others, whether the family of Tony Gillingham or her own. She seems to continue to think that her attitudes will only impact herself, completely unaware of how she impacts many others around her.

Episode 2

Thomas. Barrow. The name will almost certainly conjure up feelings in longtime watchers of Downton. This episode in particular showed how Barrow’s own attitude of bitterness and aggression towards most other people has led to his being ostracized by almost everyone else. Phyllis Baxter remains the only one who shows him any compassion and yet he continues to rebuff her attempts to be friendly towards him. There are many angles to be explored here, whether it is how our actions can bring upon ourselves the consequences thereof (without any need for things like Karma), but the angle I want to take is how Baxter’s action shows a kind of Christlike love towards Thomas.

Although this is never made explicit (or even implicit, really), the parallel is intriguing. It is one thing to love someone who is friendly to you. It is another to take compassion on someone who is hateful towards you. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Baxter’s kindness towards Thomas is a kind of sacrificial love that doesn’t require anything in return. It will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.

More!

Be sure to let me know what you thought of the episodes, and what worldview-level issues you saw them raise, in the comments below.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 1/15/16- Graphic Novel Apologetics, Stay at home dads, and more!

Brr! It’s cold in Iowa… but not as cold as it was in Minnesota! I still walk around without a coat on in 30 degrees (F) due to my time spent in the frozen north. Anyway, the cold has given me time to read, and I present this latest round of really recommended posts to you, dear readers. There are posts about stay-at-home dads and egalitarianism, Batman and Christianity, Answers in Genesis’s position on “kinds,” the flying spaghetti monster and Santa, and censoring pro-life voices! Wow, I’m excited. Let me know what you think, and be sure to let the authors know you enjoyed their stuff, too!

Egalitarianism is for Men, Too– As a stay-at-home dad currently, I wrote this post for Christians for Biblical Equality to show some of the challenges faced in my life as well as how an egalitarian theology can benefit men. This one is from the heart, folks.

Review and Christian Reflections of My Favorite Works on Batman– Here’s a literary apologetics post on different Batman graphic novels. I decided to pick up one of these to start my own reading of Batman, since I’ve always enjoyed Batman. It is important to apply the Christian worldview to every aspect of our lives–including the fiction we read–and this is a good post showing how to do that.

Are Ruminants Derived from a Common Ancestor? Ruminating on the Meaning of Noahic “Kinds”– The Young Earth Creationist group, Answers in Genesis, is known for squeezing animals onto the Ark by reducing the number of species required, appealing to the notion of “kinds” in order to allow for common ancestors. Here is an analysis of just how difficult this assertion is to maintain.

God, Santa, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster– Often, atheists claim that God is on the same level, evidentially, as things like Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here is an analysis of that claim.

Six Ways I’ve seen Pro-Choice People Censor Pro-Lifers– Here are six common ways that pro-choice people have interfered with people who are trying to choose to listen to pro-lifers on college campuses and elsewhere.