On Episode 13

Joss’ strength certainly is in dealing with stories that are epic in proportion.

I have to confess that I was not that into the idea of Dollhouse, at least initially. Besides the philosophical problems with the core premise (whole mind/body issue being skewed in a pop-scifi way), the story just wasn’t that interesting. Of course the characters showed their potential of being fascinating and lovable, but the story just wasn’t there. The first half-3/4 of the season just felt like they were dragging along. However, towards the end, they really started to pick up more speed (like swimming to the surface) and develop different characters and continue previous arcs.

Despite this, I still wasn’t super crazy about the show… but episode 13 finally broke through to the surface, in all its nice shinny, epic proportioned Joss-ness, (ironically enough because his brother and sister in law wrote it).


This strikes me as the pattern for Joss in storytelling, and certainly his strength. This certainly was the case with Angel, and to a lesser degree Buffy. He begins the story by introducing the characters in “normal” circumstances, spends half a season or so there, and then begins to unfold the real story he wanted to put those characters in: and it’s always epic in scale. Joss simply doesn’t do “small”. For Buffy, this usually got resolved at the end of the season, and most episodes would deal with the larger arcs. That being said, the show still felt more episodic (though certainly to a lesser degree in the latter seasons). For Angel, someplace in season 2 it started and it didn’t really stop until the end of season 4, and that was only for a short breather for it to pick up again in the end of season 5.

I wonder if this pattern isn’t more common for a lot of TV. It seems like the “smaller” scale stories usually are sitcoms, and most anything else (to be taken serious at least) has to have some kind of largeness to it, especially those shows that are more serialized. But even a lot of popular network shows still find success in not being as “large” in scale as others. For whatever reason, Joss really seems to gravitate towards the everyday characters in earth shattering (sometimes literally) stories.

The one possible problem to this theory is Firefly. But I think this isn’t the case. Firefly begins in the wake of an epic, system wide battle, so it’s already different from the beginning of Dollhouse. But more than that, it did follow the pattern for Angel and begin to build towards a huge story, and unfortunately Joss had to tell the Season 2 – Season 4 scale story in a 2 hour movie, (don’t get me wrong, Serenity was still amazing). I think Firefly, though not literally as “large” as Angel, still maintained a lot of the same core elements to work.

All in all, episode 13 has me real excited for season 2 of Dollhouse. There is so much potential… it is so exciting to watch a TV show that every twist and turn makes you just get excited for more. Every new page of each arc is just cool and interesting, and also feels significantly and worthy of being called good art. I’ve only had that experience with a few shows before, and outside of the new BSG and B5, Joss was responsible for all of them.


Read more...

Initial thoughts on Poythress' Symphonic Theology

So I've finally made my way (mostly) through the short monograph by Poythress called "Symphonic Theology". My dad bought me a copy several years ago because he was so thoroughly impressed with the work. This was one of those books he read nearly a dozen times, and filled every white space in the book with notes. For whatever reason, I never really took this as a positive cue to read it for myself.

Anyway, so I just finished it.


Poythress unpacks (briefly) a hermeneutic based on the principle of "symphonic theology". At its core, this hermeneutic is concerned with understanding the variety of perspectives behind the language of the biblical books, and the value in discerning this variety in building one's interpretive method and ultimately theology.

Its hard for me to really define what distinguishes "symphonic theology" from "biblical theology", even though the latter has meant several different things in academia over the last 100 years. Biblical theology started as basically a movement towards a more historical approach to biblical interpretation. While at Talbot the hermeneutic I was trained in, which was called Biblical theology, was essentially the same as Poythress' "symphonic theology". I think the difference here was between a more historical approach and a hermeneutic that was historically inclined that also takes advantage of modern linguistics. For this reason, a lot of what Poythress was taking about was very familiar.

In fact the few authors I have read on modern biblical linguistics are regularly quoted by Poythress (Carson, Silva, and Barr). This understanding of linguistics has made a very positive (in my opinion) impact on biblical studies because it challenges prior mistaken understandings of how words work, in contrast to more traditional systematic approaches.

Overall I was very impressed with Poythress' work and enjoyed it thoroughly. My one complaint is that several times Poythress' use of words (ironically enough) was not as nuanced as I would have liked. A few times, I was unsure if he was leaning more towards a relativistic hermeneutic. However, after finishing the majority of the book, this is clearly not his goal, in fact he's very intentional in not letting this hermeneutic fall into relativism.

Finally, I think one area that needs better development (or I just need to think more about it) is his approach to bringing perspectives and questions to a passage. One the one hand, this seems like a very dangerous hermeneutic, but on the other I can see the legitimacy of trying to approach passages from different perspectives. In the former case, you are in danger of interpreting a passage by a preconceived idea. However, I think Poythress' intention was to simply challenge our assumed perspectives on a passage by seeing if other perspectives shed any light on the meaning. There is certainly a need for care in one's exegesis here as it seems like a precarious balance to maintain.

On the whole, I would highly recommend this book to a wide range of people. I'm not sure how accessible it is to those with less biblical training, but the perspective he articulates ultimately is important for all Christians in our humble quest for truth from God's Word.

Read more...

The Gospel in the Bible's Language

Lately I've been reflecting on the Gospel, and what the true significance of being a Christian really is. What is core? In some respects this is a very simple question, in others its been a challenge.

I'd like to say I've shared the gospel with others so much the whole thing is second nature, but that's simply not the truth. One thing that bugs me a bit is that usually our concept and presentation of the Gospel is so thoroughly defined by systematic theology. This isn't wrong per se, but I'd imagine it can make the Bible a bit hard to understand for new believers. After all, the language of the Gospel they accepted is just very different from the story of redemption in the Bible. So what would the Gospel presentation look like if we just used biblical language?

I've been trying to think of ways to present the Gospel using the language and categories of scripture, that would still make the Gospel accessible but at the same time be close enough in proximity to the key themes and points of the Bible that a new believer would have a "head start" of sorts.

I'm certainly not there yet. What follows is a working "rough draft" of sorts. It's also a lot longer than what a practical presentation would have to be. Some details need to be cut out (like the part about covenant), others are already cut (such as details concerning the atonement). I included some examples of passages that seem to reflect certain points, but please don't treat these as "proof texts", as they certainly aren't intended that way, and since they are mostly off the top of my head, they certainly aren't exhaustive.

Thoughts / comments / ideas / critique / whatever would be great

What is the Gospel about?

• The problem - Our world isn’t right; it has a lot of problems
  
  
  
  • Why was man created?
    
    • Bible begins story in Garden pointing that man was created for fellowship with God
    • Man uniquely created in God's image, man uniquely entrusted with stewardship over creation
    • Man freely chose to break this fellowship, bringing sin into creation
    
    
  • According to the Bible, Sin is the root of the world’s problems
    
    • Sin is fundamentally an anti-God perspective (Rom. 1)
    • Because of the fall, sin entered the world and everything was affected (Rom. 5, 8)
    • More importantly, because of fall all people are now slaves to sin (Rom. 1:18-19; 5:12-14; 6:23; Jam. 1:15)
    
    
  • What's so bad about sin? Sin brings death:
    • Physical -- we weren't created to die
    • Spiritual -– Sin breaks down our fellowship with God, and so we are considered spiritually dead
    • Eternal -- Because of sin, everyone is in danger of spending eternity in a place of separation, judgment, and condemnation
    • God is equally just and loving, and so although he loves people, he cannot tolerate sin and must condemn those who are sinful
    
    
  • The problem then is:
    • Creation has been corrupted due to sin
    • Humanity, created to be in fellowship with God, is now in danger of eternal condemnation and separation from God
    
    
• The Climax of God’s story of redemption
  • God’s love and mercy for humanity drives him to act in history to bring redemption (Rom. 5:8)
  
  
  • God’s Kingdom is pictured as invading the earthly kingdom of evil (1 Cor. 15:23-25)
  
  
  • Redemption: rescuing from kingdom of this world and transferring membership to God’s Kingdom (Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Eph 5:8)
  
  
  • God's redemption is centered on covenant:
    
    • Covenant is God's promise to people to bring redemption
      
    • Old covenant was:
      
      • God's establishing of a people to be a nation that drew people to God
        
      • God revealing his standard of righteousness through law which is an important part of covenant faithfulness
        
      • Failed because people were not faithful (Heb. 8)
        
      
      
    • New covenant is:
      
      • Not "separate" from the old, but rather a natural progression and fulfillment of the old
        
      • Establishing a people without national distinction to now proclaim God's message to the world
        
      • Succeeds because of Jesus' faithfulness (Heb. 8)
      
      
  • Jesus is the fulfillment, center and climax of God’s story of redemption:
    
    • His life: proclaiming and living the Kingdom, and fulfill the expectations of the coming Messiah King
      
    • His death: sacrifice necessary to redeem us from condemnation (John 3:18; Rom. 8:1)
      
    • His resurrection: bringing life and restoring our fellowship with God (Rom. 5:12, 15, 18-19; 6:4-11)
      
  
  What does it look like to be redeemed?
  
  
  
  • Our new identity
    
    • Dead to sin, alive to righteousness (Rom. 6; John 1:13)
      
    • This life includes our minds/hearts/attitudes/etc being continually transformed, renewed, and reoriented towards God (Rom 12:1-2; Col 3; Eph. 4:15)
      
    • This life includes an identity marked by pursuing righteousness (Matt. 5:48; Eph. 4:22-24)
      
    • This is a fundamental reversal of the effect of sin: instead of being anti-God because of the fall, we are now pro-God
    
    
  • New Life includes:
    
    • Peace (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14-15)
      
    • Joy (John 15:11)
      
    • Hope/Confidence/Assurance (Rom. 8:23-24; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 4:16; 6:17-19)
      
    • Membership in God's family (Rom. 8:15; John 1:12)
      
    
    
  • Enduring trials today for rewards in eternity (Rom 8:18)
    
  
  What is required to get in?
  
  • Not by works (Rom 3:20 etc)
    
  • Repentance (Mark 1:15)
    
    • Turning from sin to God (Rom. 6:12-13)
      
    • Obedience
      
    
    
  • Believe (Mark 1:15)
    
    • Faith is the only basis for salvation (Rom 4:5)
      
    • Trusting in God
      
    • Submitting our unique gift of free will, desires, and expectations to God
      
    
    

Read more...