Sunday, July 03, 2005

"As ironic modern worshipers we congregate at the cinematic temple. We pay our votive offerings at the box office. We buy our ritual corn. We hush in reverent anticipation as the lights go down and the celluloid magic begins. Throughout the filmic narrative we identify with the hero. We vilify the antihero. We vicariously exult in the victories of the drama. And we are spiritually inspired by the moral of the story, all while believing we are modern techno-secular people, devoid of religion. Yet the depth and intensity of our participation reveal a religious fervor that is not much different from that of religious zealots."

-Geoffrey Hill, Illuminating Shadows: The Mythic Power of Film
(quoted in Brian Godawa's Hollywood Worldviews)

3 Comments:

Blogger Amber said...

Hrmm, I was trying to leave a comment under the Liethart entry, but Blogger won't let me...so I'll leave it here! It seems to me that Liethart is taking one aspect of Christianity at the expense of the other. I haven't read "Against Christianity," so I don't know what his stances are, but to blame theology for focusing on, say, the unchanging attributes of God rather than the instances in which He relents seems rather like criticizing a history book for focusing on the important decisions of American presidents while neglecting to give details concerning their family lives, hobbies, and so on. Both are important if one is to truly and thoroughly understand any one man, but for the purposes of the history book these details are inappropriate. As Christians we desire to know God as much as we can, but that does not mean that theology bears the entire weight of this responsibility. Theology is systematic and tends to focus on the "unchangeables" and stability, but it is only one part of one's life as a Christian. There is independent Bible reading and study, prayer, meditation, worship, etc. that contributes just as greatly to one's relationship with God. It is unfortunate that many Christians have made theology into a sort of replacement for a true relationship with God, but that is not the fault of theology. In any case, an unchangeable God is not incompatable with a relenting God, if it is in His nature to be relenting and merciful...I don't necessarily think that Liethart was trying to imply so, but he seems to set up an either/or dichotomy where a both/and would be more appropriate. Why can't our Father be the God of both order and celebration?

7/03/2005 7:41 PM  
Blogger Amber said...

Oh my...the whole entry disappeared! Umm...ignore above comment. ;)

7/03/2005 7:44 PM  
Blogger Stejahen said...

Amber, just to warn you in your conversion to blogger, that post just up and disappeared! I didn't delete it, but it's gone. So I've reposted it, sorry about that.

Anyway, maybe it was a bit unfair for me to quote his (already self proclaimed unfair) book out of context. I'll quote the preface in the comment to the other post.

What the book certenly does is get you thinking in a way you may not have thought before. I don't agree with everything, but it's definatly wakes you up.

I agree with you, God is the God of 'both', it seems that a lot of theologians forget that, though. I think what he's trying to do is wake people up to that.

7/04/2005 9:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home