This is part two of a blog series. Part 1 is here.
In part 1 of this series, we explored examples where satire was used to good effect by people who spoke for God in the Bible. It is obvious to us what Elijah, Paul and even Jesus were doing – right? They wanted to make all of their opponents look totally stupid. They wanted to smash all of their arguments and prove that they were right!
No.
As one of the oldest literary genres, satire seeks to uncover cultural, political or religious inconsistencies, encourage moral improvement, and ridicule error – and so, because of that, we need to take care. Some, like myself, are drawn to clever, biting criticisms – we feel the need to bash, rend, and maim the arguments of the opposition, sometimes with ruthless mockery, and we fail to realize when we have gone too far. I don’t want that for us – I don’t want that for you – so as we seek to shed light on this question be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and your own conscience. I think when we try to answer this question we need to take three things into account.
1. Who is my audience?
2. What am I targeting?
3. Where is my heart?
1 – Who is My Audience?
As we can see from the biblical examples in part 1, the audience was usually people who opposed the truth from a fortified or rooted viewpoint. None of the examples given, and I would venture to say that no example could be found in the whole Bible, of satire being used on those who were hurting, those who had made one-time mistakes or those who were genuinely wrestling with the truth. The audiences seem to be solely comprised of the religious elite, the powerful, and those hostile to the truth.
2 – What Am I Targeting?
Another interesting conclusion that can be drawn from the biblical examples is not just who is targeted, but what is targeted. In all the examples, the opponent themselves is not necessarily targeted, it is their argument or the source of their fallacy that is attacked. Elijah mocks Baal, not the prophets; Paul stabs at the view of the apostles, not the Corinthians, and Jesus slams the focus of the Pharisees, not necessarily the Pharisees themselves. The opponents in all three scenarios are made to look foolish, confused, and fake, not because of who they are, but because of the views they hold.
3 – Where is My Heart?
The last conclusion that can be extracted from the biblical interactions is the intentions of the protagonist. Elijah intended that Israel follow the true God, Paul intended for the Corinthians to not be prideful, and Jesus intended for the people to see the emptiness of the Pharisees ways. In all three examples, winning the argument for the sake of winning, making the opposition look foolish or bolstering one’s position – these were NEVER the intentions behind the use of satire. Satire was always employed to point to the consistency of the truth against the inconsistency of falsehood.
Will It Glorify God?
The goal of apologetics is to bring glory to God. Not everyone will agree that satire can be used for that purpose – and that’s fine. What we must realize is that satire is powerful, and risky – it can be used to great effect and misused to great harm. The line is thin, and we tread on uneasy ground. This is as much a discussion about Christian liberties as it is about what tactics to use in apologetics.
Do I think satire can be used in apologetics? Yes.
Do I think it is a main tactic that should be employed by everyone at any time? No.
In our apologetic efforts, we need to make sure that we understand why we are even engaging the person in front of us in the first place. If it is to prove something, or settle a score, or show that we’re good at arguing, we’ve already lost. We need to mindful of who our audience is, never mocking those who are downtrodden or struggling with sin. We need to remember what are target really is – satire should never be used to tear down a person, only a position. Being aware of where our heart is at the time we begin the discussion will make all the difference.
Key Takeaways
1. Satire is biblical.
2. Satire can be effective at getting people’s attention.
3. Satire can bring clarity to inconsistencies in a person’s worldview.
4. Satire can expose people’s hearts.
5. Satire should NEVER be used against hurting/struggling people.
6. Satire should ALWAYS focus on the argument, NEVER the person.
Denis Villeneuve and his team have finally begun to bring Dune to cinema in a way that is fitting. It is years since I read the book, but experiencing this film brings it back in a vivid and compelling way. I can smell it. This is a movie that you live through for its 155-minute running time. You can see, feel, and breath in the fabric of this story in a compelling and satisfying way. One of the real successes here is in taking a complex, politically woven novel, yet presenting the important themes in a clear and interesting way.
Frank Herbert wrote the original novel and it was published in 1965. He has brought together many ancient political, religious, and economic strands from the history of human civilization and woven his story through it giving his fictional world a real weight.
The Dune Wiki says that the religious themes of Dune are mainly derived from Islam, and the language inspired by Arabic.[1] The Middle Eastern influence is clear. But the life of Paul Atreides is a Messiah story that recalls the stories that are rooted in ancient Judaism and fulfilled by the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Set Islam aside for a moment. There is a lot of Christian symbolism in Dune.
Paul may be the Kwisatz Haderach, or Muad’Dib. These words identify the Dune universe Messiah figure who will lead people to true freedom and is expected by both the Fremen on Arrakis and the Bene Gessarit. In his blog, Scott Smith identifies links in Dune to the Hebrew Kabbalistic term Kefitzat Ha’derech.[2]
Paul is the son of a king (or Duke) and he comes to a people who are repeatedly abused and colonized. The Fremen of Arrakis are reminiscent of the Hebrew people, colonized by the Romans, and visited by the Messiah Jesus. Yet while the Jews expected a military Messiah, and the Fremen of Dune expected and got the same in Paul Atreides, Jesus of Nazareth is anything but a military figure. Like Jesus, Paul is expected and tested in the desert. Unlike Jesus, the people recognize him when he arrives on Arrakis. The film captures these themes really clearly.
Dune Reminds Me – We Are Looking for a Messiah
This reminds me that humanity has a history of expecting the divine. So many ancient mythologies and religions down through history have pointed to a coming deity – just like Dune does. J Warner Wallace has helpfully listed many of the characteristics of these religious deities:[3]
The deity is:
Predicted, like the birth of Zoroaster, and Paul Atreides.
Comes from royal heritage, like the Greek god Adonis, and Paul Atreides.
Comes from unnatural means, like the Hindu Tibetan deity, and possibly Paul Atreides.
Protected as a child, as the Buddah’s parents may have done.
Faces temptation, like Krishna the Hindu deity.
Is identified with shepherds, like the Egyptian god Osiris.
Possess supernatural power, like Quetzalcoati the Mesoamerican deity.
Active in engaging humans directly, like Tammuz the Mesopotamian god.
A teacher of human followers, like Serapis the Graeco-Egyptian deity.
One who recognizes the need for a sacrifice, like Shangdi the Chinese deity.
One who faced a judicial death, like Dionysus the Greek and Roman god.
One who establishes a divine meal, like Mithras the Persian and Roman god.
One who has the power to defeat death, like Heracles the Greek god.
One who offers eternal life to their followers, like Zalmoxis the deity of Getae and Dacian.
One who will judge the living and the dead, like Thakur Jiu, the Santal deity.
I guess we can add Paul Atreides to this list.
Jesus is the Ultimate Messiah
There are similarities here in these deity figures between these ancient religious figures and Paul Atreides of Dune. Frank Herbert was inspired by human religious tradition, so this is expected. But even more, there are similarities between the attributes on this list and Jesus of Nazareth. Wallace observes that, rather than joining this list as yet another humanly invented deity, Jesus is different. He uniquely possesses all the characteristics found in so many ancient mythologies. He embodies and personifies mankind’s expectation of God.
This similarity with mythology was the thing that kept C S Lewis back from accepting Christianity for many years, until his friend J R R Tolkien helped him see that Christianity is not just another fictional mythology to add to the list. Rather – it is the mythology which is true, being rooted in history and real events. Later in his life, Lewis wrote this:
“Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous different that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are man’s myths … Christianity is God expressing himself through what we call “real things.”[4]
I loved Dune part 1, and I recognize the power of myth. And I think it – like the many compelling fictional myths that have come before it – point ultimately to the true myth of Jesus who meets all of mankind’s needs for a Messiah. The one who finally makes us free men and women, free from the weight of mankind’s rebellion against God, free from guilt and shame, free to experience life in the future as God intends..
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” Galatians 5:1
Alfonso Cauron’s latest movie has received a limited theatrical release, which sounds like a tragedy given the quality of his past output. Yet it has also been streaming on Netflix since December, so it’s available pretty much everywhere. Cauron is telling a fictional story through a period of history he himself knows. He grew up in Mexico City in the early 1970s, and he chooses to set his story here in painstaking historical detail. His vivid backdrop is a period of great Mexican societal unrest following government atrocities of the 1960s and early 70s.
The themes of racism and inequality bubble beneath the surface of this story. Cleo is from an indigenous family who comes to the city to work as a maid for a wealthy white family. As her story unfolds we see that, even though she serves this family, she is the same as them. Even though she is financially poor, the problems in her life mirror those in their wealthy life.
As you let Roma wash over you…I think the movie is saying that life in all its vividness and grounded-ness is a real leveller. Everyone goes through similar experiences. Loss and suffering is no respecter of persons. We all hit it at some point. Including the experience of regret, of guilt.
A lot has been written about Cauron’s technical prowess that’s visible in Roma. But what struck me (I’m not a filmmaker) was the honesty displayed in his movie. He is taking a long hard look at human nature in all of its depth, and unflinchingly showing it on the screen. From the selfishness of Cleo’s partner to the selflessness of Cleo herself, I was left feeling that I’d really experienced life as the credits finally rolled. Cauron had almost given me the unique experience of actually living someone else’s life…and feeling what she felt and learning what she learned. What a gift!!
There is something about Cleo’s character that draws you. I think it might show some important aspects of humanity…of living as we are supposed to live. Imperfect yes…but yet it comes through her life and choices. Thru Cleo’s eyes, we are a person of humility, who values those around us and persists in thinking the best of them…even when they mistreat us. Of doggedly carrying on, even when the odds are stacked against us and we’ve got many reasons to give up and try something else. And – even though society around her is collapsing into violence – Cleo continues prioritising the important people in her life. She isn’t distracted from knowing what the right thing is…and continuing to do it.
I think the feel and the smell of Roma stays with you afterwards…because in many ways we’re struck by Cleo as an inspiring role model…a hero for our troubled times. She isn’t presented with all the flash and pizzazz served up by the next Marvel superhero film. She’s not Captain America. But – in a sense – she’s a real hero. The person we would want to be if we faced those sorts of troubles.
The thing is…we are facing these sorts of troubles today. Culture is under attack right now. In Britain…Brexit is threatening to drag us down into a whirlpool of dread and uncertainty. And across the pond…the horror of US Government shutdown and the resulting economic deprivation…all for the sake of a questionable (un) Presidential project…leaves you wondering whether anyone really cares selflessly about anyone anymore? It leaves you feeling like everyone is just on a short fuse…ready and willing to explode in exasperated outrage any minute.
Our world needs people who nevertheless… prioritise the feelings and needs of others. Even though they are in the minority as they do so.
In Roma, this is what Cleo is doing. I think she consciously or unconsciously tries to live out the call of Jesus Christ to “do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.”[1] We see it in her patience with her abusers, and her loyalty to her suffering family. There’s a clear attractiveness to living life this way. It’s a principle and philosophy which underpins God’s idea of what positive and healthy relationships could be like. Cleo shows us that…living this is not a soft option. Its not easy to live this way in the midst of a society that is embattled, angry and just doesn’t value you that way.
And yet…the results of persisting in living this way are so valuable. It results in a life of belonging, of family, and of facing the future together with those who love you. If our society is going to survive…it will do so in this way. So…we need to start living this way. Doing the right thing anyway, even though so many don’t. Live like Cleo, do to others as you’d like them to do to you.
Bird Box has launched a new meaning for “canary in a coal mine” into pop culture. In this story, bird’s tweet whenever the (apparently) invisible monsters are around…they don’t die before we do, rather they tell us “Don’t look….don’t look! Or you WILL die.”
There were points in this movie where I wanted to close my eyes. It’s deeply unsettling at times. The idea that, unless one is prepared to live one’s life blinded, is horrifying on all sorts of levels that are wonderfully explored in Bird Box. Trying to keep two little ones safe while riding the rapids blindfolded – now that’s an excuse for extreme anxiety right there.
People have spent time this Christmas trying to work out whether the underlying premise of Bird Box is a metaphor for some important aspect of modern life? Perhaps it’s all about the fear of becoming a parent? Well, having been a parent for 22 years, I can say that I’d sure hate to have done it blindfolded. Maybe instead, the metaphor is a warning against social media and the way people behave on it? Not sure about that one. It’s what I DO see on twitter that worries me, not what I don’t see.
But one idea that struck me hard was the notion that Bird Box is about religion, that people take a blind leap of faith to become “religious.” While I won’t speak on behalf of “religions,” I will speak on behalf of Christianity. And – at first glance – the Bible does seem to say something about “walking by faith and not sight.”
“Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see.” (Hebrews 11:1, NLT)
“For we live by believing, and not by seeing.” (2 Corinthians 5:7, NLT)
So the question is – does Christianity require its adherents to limit our vision, and to close our eyes to the things in front of everyone else’s noses. That sounds crazy…like a real tragedy…people holding themselves back for no good reason. Is Christianity the intellectual equivalent of donning a blindfold and stupidly choosing to stumble through life like “the Bird Box lady” (twitter’s name for Sandra Bullock)? After all…the monsters aren’t real…right?
No – Christianity’s not like this caricature suggests. And I’ll give you three reasons why I say that (there are many more).
1 – Christianity is about looking reality square in the face, not looking away or hiding from it.
The reality is that people are capable of evil things, and our niceness turns out to be a thin veneer of morality. One of my professors, Clay Jones, comments that having studied genocides down through human history, “genocide is what the average person does…we are all born Auschwitz enabled.”[1] If you want an example of this, the leading cause of premature death in the world in 2018 was abortion. I think it strains credulity to suggest all those abortions were done on medical grounds.
“More than 41 million children [were] killed before birth…8.2 million people died from cancer…5 million from smoking…1.7 million died of HIV/AIDS.”[2]
Christianity is about unmasking this sort of reality and saying it as it is. All of us are capable of great things, selfless things…but also evil things. The monsters in the real story turn out to be us. And Christianity recognises this. Suffering is real, and people like you and me cause it.
2 – Christianity is not about wearing a blindfold. It is about wisely recognising the limitations of my sight.
Christianity is not about limiting one’s vision. Its about facing reality. But it’s also about understanding faith in the right way. Faith is not “the blind embrace of ideas despite an absence of evidence or proof,” rather faith is about exercising “confidence, trust and reliance”[3] in the right person.
Because Christian faith is about trust and reliance, it is therefore requires us to have proper reasons, evidence and knowledge on which to base or trust and reliance.
I choose to trust the God who has revealed himself to me because on my own, I am severely limited in my abilities and my understanding of what is going on in the world, and even in my own life. It’s not that I have no vision or understanding at all, its just that I’m limited in what I can know. So, I choose therefore to trust the one who’s got the big picture in full view – God.
If you think about it, faith therefore requires reason and evidence, and it results in a widening of our confidence not a restriction of it.
3 – Christian faith is about using all our faculties to live life based on what we can see and know, while leaving the mysterious hidden stuff in God’s capable hands.
Because I’m just a limited human being, there is bound to be stuff that I simply do not know and this bothers me.
I want to know that my kids and grand-kids are going to grow up happy, healthy, successful and fulfilled. But there’s no guarantee. I can do all I can do to bring that about…but…I’m limited. I want to know that I’m healthy and, as I look after myself, I’m going to be free of disease and sickness. But – there are no guarantees.
Now – I can choose to live my life doing my best, burying my head in work and relationships and business (therefore limiting my attention to just those things)….which is not wrong. But I would suggest that an even better way of living is giving myself to all these important things while also rooting myself in my trust, confidence, reliance….or faith in God. Trusting that however it turns out…he has the best for me. This is not to say everything in my life will turn out as I want it to. It does mean that I don’t have to fret and worry about this, because ultimately God’s in control and it’ll turn out as he wants it to.
The truth is…often I am confused and scared and anxious about life. And I feel inside like “the Bird Box lady”. And yet, I also know something else to be true.
“The eternal God is your refuge, and his everlasting arms are under you.” Deuteronomy 33:27, NLT.
[1] Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil, (Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2017), 60, 62.
During her promotional tour for Mary Poppins Returns, I heard Emily Blunt say that, at the start of filming principal photography, Rob Marshall held his actors back from visiting the Cherry Tree Lane set. His intention was to wait until the conditions were just right, the lighting and the set build was complete, and the Mary Poppins score was playing over the studio sound system. Only then were the actors allowed to take their first steps back into the fictional world they were going to bring back to life for us. She remembered the emotional experience this was for the wonderful Dick Van Dyke.
I feel the filmmakers have beautifully succeeded in capturing the tone and the voice of the original classic movie (tho apparently not P L Traver’s original vision!) and again brought a positive message out for adults and children alike. Bravo, guys.
As a child who watched the original with his sister Annie, I always felt that the song “Feed the Birds” somehow captured the heart of that original story in a poignant, almost painful way. George Banks, and his opportunity to learn to cherish his family over his career. Similarly, I feel the new song “Where the Lost Things Go” does the same for Marshall’s Mary Poppins Returns. Whether it be the painful loss of the children’s mother, the agony of the loss of the share certificate that Michael and Jane hunt for, and the threat of the loss of the house.
Well maybe all those things
That you love so
Are waiting in the place
Where the lost things go.
The message of the song that Mary Poppins sings to the children is that nothing is lost without a trace. They may be out of place, but they are in a place where we will find them again.
Back in 2007, my family lost Annie, and she died way too young leaving her children behind. You can imagine the effect Mary Poppins’ new song had on me in the darkened cinema. As I think about it, this is a gentle song that fiercely faces reality. Life involves loss. It is the nature of life, it is the experience of every person at every time. It’s a universal experience. And yes – we dwell on those things or those places or those people who seem lost to us now. But – they only seem to be lost.
Memories you’ve shed
Gone for good you feared
They’re all around you still
Though they’ve disappeared…
Nothing’s gone forever
Only out of place.
This is a song of hope for all of us. How beautiful it was when the children sang the song back to their hurting and broken father. It’s a lovely sentiment. But is there any reality to it for real life? Outside of the confines of the Mary Poppins fictional world…in our all too real lives…does this song work still? When we’ve lost people, jobs, status and position… When we face the insecurity of Brexit. Does the song still work? Do our lost loved ones only live in our hearts as a cherished memory? Is security still possible for us in the midst of uncertainty? Listen to the final verse.
So maybe now the dish
And my best spoon
Are playing hide and seek
Just behind the moon
Waiting there until
It’s time to show
Spring is like that now
Far beneath the snow
Hiding in the place
Where the lost things go
As I listened to this, it reminded me of something. There’s a phrase, an idiom, a refrain that is repeated throughout the Old Testament…about those who die being gathered to their people.
“Isaac breathed his last and died and was gathered to his people.” (Genesis 35:29)
“All that generation also were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation …” (Judges 2:10)
And the message of the New Testament takes this on further. Jesus himself teaches that “My father’s house has many rooms … I am going there to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2)
The message of Christianity is not just that God is preparing a place where he longs for the lost people to go. But rather, there is a place waiting for them that they will recognise as their home. What’s more…those who we have lost…are waiting to welcome us when we die.
Believe me – I know the pain that results from the realization that I’m never again going to enjoy my little sister’s company, watch her selfless life choices, and listen to her encouraging voice. That was a tough truth to grapple with. And – I expect I’ll experience this challenge again when I lose future loved ones. Yet – in the midst of this challenge – there’s a real hope that the Bible, and “Where the Lost Things Go” reminds me of.
So maybe now the dish
And my best spoon
Are playing hide and seek
The day is coming when we will find each other again. I recommend playing this game as someone who knows and loves the Jesus who is preparing this home for us…because there’s no guarantee we will experience that home otherwise. But why would anyone reject such a wonderful offer? That meets the longing in all of us…brought out by Mary Poppins…to be reunited with everyone we lose? Jesus wants it for each of us.
After inquiring about how she died, she quickly fires the question, “Who was right about all this?” In other words, which religion correctly described the afterlife? How do we make sure we get to the good place rather than the bad place?
The response:
“Hindus were a little bit right…Muslims a little bit…Jews, Christians, Buddhists…every religion guessed about five percent.” In other words – all the religions got some things right and a lot of things wrong about heaven and hell.
This is all according to Netflix’s “The Good Place” (which is a hilariously funny show – go and watch it).
In the reality of your life – maybe you reject all religions. But then, your religion is humanity; you’re already in the good place, but its not actually very good and you’re not here to stay. The afterlife’s going to be a real, unplanned for bummer when you arrive there.
But maybe there’s part of you that’s open to seeking the truth about life in religions? Whether or not the Netflix show’s assessment of religion turns out to be correct…my personal advice to you is…always start with Christianity first.
Why?
First – Christianity has EVIDENCE that’s open to scrutiny.
Historical evidence can be verified or disproved. The great thing about this is, you can test the evidence and if it doesn’t hold up then you can quickly drop Christianity and move on in your spiritual quest.
“Christ died for our sins … was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day…was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers”.[1]
The New Testament’s claims can be assessed. So – start there.
That’s not true of Islam, which is a long-term experiment. Surah 21 says “We try you with evil and good as a test; then unto Us you will be returned.”[2] So, I don’t know Islam’s right till after I die. Buddhism? “You’d better get a Zen Master…you’re going to be working at that thing for a long time till you experience enlightenment.”[3]
However, Christianity is an evidential belief system. So, start there first.
Second – Christianity is the only religion with a true notion of GRACE.
This means God shares the riches of his love based on nothing we’ve done (or not done) but instead based on Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. Christianity is the only religion that has “freely shared forgiveness” at its core. This means qualification to enter the good place after death is based on Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, not our final score.
Islam doesn’t work this way. Cannon Andrew White led a church in Iraq for years and is an expert on the Qur’an. “The trouble is a lack of forgiveness in Islam. I’ve looked through the Quran trying to find forgiveness…there isn’t any. If you find it, tell me.”[4] What about Eastern religions? They point you towards demands involving hot coals and meditation.
Why do all that…without checking something that’s free first? Christianity.
Third – Christianity is a complete WORLD VIEW FIT.
Christianity makes sense of all aspects of our lives – everything fits together. That’s not the case elsewhere.
Chan Buddhism urges the cleansing of the mind…leading to natural illumination (tun-wu). This is sometimes provoked by riddles (koans) or questions like, “What’s the sound of one hand clapping?”[5] and “Suffering exists, but there’s no-one who suffers.”[6] Buddhists deny logic in their religious life, yet in their financial dealings and caring for their family, logic is essential. Abandon logic in the real world, you risk going bankrupt or putting your family at risk.
Yet a Christian remains a Christian in every area of life. We look the world in the face – study the exquisite complexity of nature from our limbs to our cells. Life looks designed, and there’s a good reason for that.
Christianity applies to the whole of my life – everything fits.
My final reason for trying Christianity first is…
Fourth – Jesus Christ.
Start with Christianity because of who Jesus is. Everyone wants Jesus on board with their religion. The Qur’an elevates him above Mohammad[7], Hindus have him as an avatar incarnation of Vishnu and Buddhists call him the enlightened one.[8]
If all the religions mention Jesus in some way…then doesn’t it make sense to start with Christianity? Which has Jesus at the very centre of everything it believes? After all, if everyone wants Jesus on board their train…there must be something about him. Right?
In summary, I have a strong suspicion that we only get one go at life (prove me wrong). So…doesn’t it make sense to start with the religion that’s easily disproved first? The one that’s built around the free gift of salvation and makes sense of life and the universe?
Image courtesy of Pexels, https://www.pexels.com/photo/berries-berry-blur-close-up-275706/.
From the opening frames, you can see this isn’t going to be an easy watch.
It took me a while to work up to watching this movie. I find images of war profoundly disturbing, and I know Mel Gibson’s talent at portraying horror and man’s inhumanity to man. In this movie – he did nothing less. He’s a master at it.
But – incredibly – this is not a war movie at its heart.
I’m going to give some important plot details now…go watch the movie if you don’t want to be spoiled.
Hacksaw Ridge tells the true story of Desmond Doss. Raised by a Christian mother, Desmond grew into a devout young man who decided to shun violence. When war broke out – the patriot within him longed to fight for America’s freedom. But – he could not bear to take up arms himself. Rather – he dreamed of entering the Army in a non-combat role – as a Medic.
This got him into all sorts of trouble during his Army training. His refusal to use a rifle almost landed him in an Army prison for the rest of the war. Yet through some profoundly moving circumstances – Desmond was spared Court Marshall. And instead – he was sent with the 77th Infantry Division to the bloodiest theatre of war…Okinawa in the South Pacific…unarmed. The army men who had labelled him a coward for refusing to fight…began to see saw his bravery as Desmond faced the horrors of Hacksaw Ridge carrying nothing but medical supplies, and a willing heart to bring comfort to the wounded and the dying on the battlefield.
That any of Desmond’s Detachment survived Hacksaw was pretty miraculous. The Japanese counter attack was fierce. Gibson’s movie portrays events as follows. After the first day of fighting, the 77th seem to have survived and dug in on Hacksaw Ridge. They survive the night – yet at first light, the Japanese counter attack pushes them back to the edge of the cliff again. Those who can, scramble down the cliff face to safety, leaving dead and dying friends remaining on the ridge with scores of Japanese soldiers who wander the battlefield, finishing off the wounded men that remain.
The movie shows this as the pivotal moment in Desmond’s story.
As his buddies flee for their lives…he stands at the cliff edge…feeling he could have done more. He prays to God – “speak to me. Show me what to do.” And through the confusion…the cries of wounded men reach his ears. Desmond knows his next step.
Instead of climbing down the cliff face to safety, he heads unarmed…back onto the battlefield…carefully dodging Japanese soldiers on the grotesque, body strewn battlefield. One by one, Desmond drags wounded soldiers towards the cliff edge…lowering them down the ridge cliff face to safety. He even rescues some enemy soldiers that way. The movie shows him lowering each life down to safety…and returning to the horrors of the battlefield with a single prayer – “Lord, just one more…let me save one more.” In total – he saves 75 wounded soldiers who faced certain death on Hacksaw Ridge.
Actor Andrey Garfield was interviewed about his role, and he shakes his head at Doss’s heroic actions. “Whatever it was that gave him the power to do that…it was just incredible…” Some of the Hacksaw Ridge filmmakers were quick to point out two interesting things about this true story.
First – that Desmond Doss shows that there’s a different thing between Religion and Faith. While religion is often seen as a defining demarcation line between people – often resulting in tensions and conflicts – faith is something different. It’s the power to trust, to look beyond yourself – and do incredibly acts of bravery and self-sacrifice. Whatever Desmond’s religious persuasion – he was a conservative Christian – Desmond showed how powerful faith in God can really be. I think there’s some truth to this.
The second point the filmmakers make – is that even though Desmond was a Christian, this principle he showed is not confined to Christianity alone. It simply shows the positive impact that spirituality in general can have in this world.
I am quite sure that people of all religious persuasion are capable of acts of bravery, self-sacrifice and honour. It’s happening around the world right now during terrible conflict. I’m in awe of every sacrificial person – whatever their religious background. And from my current place of comfort and security – I cheer each of these people on for their actions.
But – I’d like to point something out about Christianity. It seems to me that – there’s something uniquely Christian about Desmond Doss’s story. Why?
We consistently read that Jesus spent time with those in his Jewish society that were the lowest of the low. The religious establishment looked down their noses at Jesus for doing this. Yet Jesus made a point of explaining his actions. You can read his reply to them in Luke chapter 15 in the New Testament. He takes three instances where something of great value had gotten lost – and someone decided to go looking for that thing, even though it cost them greatly. The lost sheep…the lost coin…the lost son. There is something about Jesus that is just not content to stop when there’s even one lost person in our world…Doss echo’s the heart cry of Jesus Christ – ”give me one more…let me save one more.”
I’m suggesting – there’s something distinctively Christian about putting oneself in harms way to have the opportunity to rescue someone who is lost. We all reflect Jesus when we do it – whether we like that or not.
I’m grateful to the Hacksaw Ridge filmmakers who have helped me learn about how Desmond Doss modelled Jesus Christ in a moving and awe-inspiring way during the World War 2 battles in the Pacific.
I listened to an interesting talk recently from Simon Conway Morris, who is Chair of Evolutionary Paleo biology at the Dept. of Earth Sciences at Cambridge University.
He asks the question – are we essentially just more “evolved” animals that belong on Darwin’s incremental tree of life? Or is there something unique about people compared to the animals? However much time has elapsed, perhaps we aren’t just naturally selected incremental improvement? Rather – we are something different altogether.
Evolutionary theory has drummed into us that we are essentially no different from other animal species. We’re related to other hominids. We are just matter – we are physical – we are all related. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard this idea.
Or are we? As Morris says, “Maybe it’s not as simple as that.”[1]
First – we often misunderstand the animals we invest our lives in.
Morris thinks we have a habit of reading ourselves into the animals we relate to. Our relationship with dogs is a perfect example of this, he says. We humanize them…and they are happy to play along with our delusion. But crucially – as Morris points out – the evidence suggests that dogs have no idea what is going on inside our minds. They react to stimuli – they learn what actions and objects mean and sound like. Nothing more.
Dogs live happy and fulfilled lives as our pets. But we are of a different order to them.
We are not the only intelligent species on the planet – but it seems that our consciousness is of a completely different order to anything else. We live in an extended universe – the animals are confined to a monotonic universe. And they are happy that it is so.
What experimental evidence does Morris appeal to in making this claim?
Second – Morris offers the following evidence:
1 – Humans Uniquely Understand Cause and Effect
There’s evidence that crows are very intelligent. An experiment has been done where the bird has to perform a task – drop stones into a container – in order to raise the water level so it can have a drink. The fascinating thing is – often the crow will work this out. It will find and deposit the stones to raise the water level.
It is tempting to assume then – that it understands cause and effect, that it gets the implication of what it’s doing. Unfortunately – when the conditions of the experiment change – it becomes clear that the crow doesn’t understand this.
Yes, it has memory, yes its intelligent. But no, it’s not building up an understanding of nature. It can do one thing well – and that involves survival.
2 – Humans Live in an Out of the Box Culture
We can think in terms of “analogy”; we are meta-thinkers that can work outside of the box. We explore seemingly unrelated ideas and come up with ingenious solutions to problems.
A simple example of this is – humans use tools. We employ them in many tasks, and the evidence suggests we have done this for a long time. Chimpanzees also use tools.
Yet we go beyond them; we live outside the box. We are the only species we know today that creates tools to build tools. What’s more, we rely on the discoveries and processes laid down by previous tool builders as we do so. Human culture is cumulative, it builds on itself.
Animals like chimpanzees don’t exhibit this behaviour at all. They use tools, they have a culture. But they don’t appear to KNOW they have a culture, and they don’t build tools to make tools.
Morris opines, “This sounds like a trivial difference. But it might be larger than we realize.”[2]
3 – Human Culture Features Teaching and Learning
Humans have a sophisticated approach to teaching. We have a self-referential pedagogical approach – the teacher observes the pupil and knows where their mind is currently at. Through observation, the teacher works to move the student forward to where they need to be. We intuitively sense the student’s mind.
Do animals? Morris refers to various species of Ant, Meercat and chimp. And the scientific observation to date suggests that which the animals instinctively develop habits and abilities, they do so in a simple way. Animals don’t go to University like humans do. We are of a different order.
Do animals have false beliefs about the world? Do they have a theory of mind? Current understanding says no, it doesn’t look like it.
4 – Human Language is Very Peculiar Indeed
Morris refers to Vervet Monkeys who have been observed to make sounds that seem to relate to other animals in their habitat like a leopard, a snake and an eagle. This sounds like it could be a proto-language, like the foundations of our own language capabilities?
Well, clearly, we have words that also refer to objects and concepts. This blog post is full of them! But our language isn’t just a more evolved version of the Vervet Monkey’s sound. Why?
Morris points to two peculiar aspects of human language:
We can say things that go beyond a single meaning. Our communication can have an infinite number of meanings, depending on the context it is used in.
We have a bottomless depth of rich imagination in human discussion. We easily move between factual and fictional statements. And we have the ability to create fictional worlds – completely unrelated to our own – where the reader can enter through their imagination. And the fictional world resonates deeply with them.
5 – Humans Apply Mathematics in a Unique Way
Experiments suggest that Guppy fish exhibit numericity. They are able to judge relative numbers in terms of distance and size.
For example, if some were to say – “Imagine you have a stone and a feather. How much do I have to add or remove from each to perceive a difference in their weights?” It turns out that I have to add or remove quite a lot from the stone, but not very much at all to the feather to notice a weight change. This is numericity…and Guppy fish can do something similar to this.
Is this proto-maths? Well, it’s called a psycho-physical sensory effect by the scientists. But to suggest it is proto-maths is nonsense to Morris.
Mathematics is a rich conceptual language that bridges the abstract and the physical. Maths:
involves abstract entities that don’t exist; numbers, complex numbers.
requires that we can do sums like addition and subtraction. Animals can’t seem to do that.
Conclusion
Are we just advanced chimpanzees? Morris suggests this well-worn message fails to recognize the uniqueness of human beings. It underplays our conscious, thinking abilities that came up with that inadequate theory in the first place.
Humans are of a different order to animals. We have “dominion over the natural world” and uniquely exhibit the characteristics of our Creator.[3] This is not just the Bible’s opinion, it is born out in our relation to those animals we were supposed to care for.
But aren’t we just physical beings like the animals? Is brain simply a biological computing engine? Morris thinks otherwise. He’s a substance dualist. Mind and brain are different aspects of human existence.
The physical human brain seems to be more than a biological information processing organ. It’s a filter. Our intangible, human mind exists independently of our physical bodies. Our brain is part of the mechanism we use for intercepting, exploring and harnessing what goes on in our minds.
People aren’t just more advanced than the animals. We’re built specially; we’re of a different order altogether.
A friend sent me a Youtube link to a documentary that the BBC put together a few years ago asking the question – “Was Jesus a Buddhist Monk?”
Here’s the link I used to watch it (apologies if the link no longer works for you)
Jesus Was a Buddhist Monk (BBC Documentary)
The documentary makers claim that, because the Bible contains no description of Jesus of Nazareth between the ages of 14 and 29, that he must have gone to live in India to learn Buddhist ways. (of course!) Further, after surviving his crucifixion by the Roman Government, instigated by the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus fled to India and lived out the remainder of his natural life there.
This is a fascinating and fun story as it plays out. It reminded me very much of the story told about the comic book character Bruce Wayne, who spent his formative years learning from Ra’s al Guhl, his spiritual mentor, before returning home and donning his cape and cowl…”I’m Batman!” The documentary also feels very “Da Vinci Code”…which may give a clue to the dating of the piece itself.
From comic books + novels + movies …and back to history. This documentary attempts to dismiss the New Testament claim of Jesus supernatural resurrection from the dead and his ascension. And it portrays the people of Jesus’ time as gullible dupes who were setup to perpetuate the Christianity myth, while Jesus himself legged it back to Kashmir to live out his days there.
One wonders WHY the first Christians would be willing to be duped like that. Given that history and tradition indicates that all but one of Jesus’ inner circle were martyred for their faith in Jesus as God, killed for their persistence in sharing the world changing message that everyone who believes in Jesus can be sure of a resurrection body something like his in the future. Why would anyone die for a lie…when they personally knew the truth that their Jesus was really just an ordinary bloke…living an ordinary life…somewhere due East of ancient Israel? Certainly…the documentary makes no attempt at touching this rather relevant question.
Instead – it chooses SOME of the historical evidence we have for the life of Christ…and extrapolates wildly from that. I’m sorry…but honest scholarship would acknowledge all of the available evidence first….and build from there.
1 – Some Great Quotes from the Documentary
I heard some really head scratching statements being made while watching this documentary. I have no intention of pointing the finger here…so I’m only sharing the quotes, not the people who said them. Watch the documentary if you are interested.
“It is possible that Jesus was sedated on the cross and was removed early, before he died. This is very possible.”
Clearly this person has not studied the well documented ancient Roman practice of flogging and crucifixion. I’ve shared some details below in this blog.
Many people have tried to support the “swoon” theory, of a Jesus who survived his execution. Yet none of these attempts are historically convincing. More explanation below.
“The earliest Gospel is Mark…and it has no resurrection appearances at all. The last verses of Mark were added 200 years later.”
This misrepresents Mark’s surviving original text in chapter 16. Jesus’ resurrection is clearly announced by this text, although the women who discover the empty tomb leave it bewildered and frightened.
“When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The women were shocked,6 but the angel said, “Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth,[b] who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7 Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died.” Mark 16:5-7, NLT
It also conveniently, or mistakenly, misses the fact that the earliest record of Jesus’ resurrection isn’t Mark’s Gospel at all…but 1 Corinthians chapter 15. This creed is dated to within weeks of the crucifixion itself…
3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter[c] and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers[d] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, NLT
“The Gospels are not primarily interested in what actually happened historically…just what Jesus taught.”
Again – I’m wondering if this person cared to check their Bible? Luke the physician used great care to communicate the eyewitness reports of Jesus life.
Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us.2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.[a]3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught. Luke 1:1-4, NLT
“Jesus resurrection was just a picture and an image of hope. It was not literally true.”
What nonsense. If Jesus resurrection did not literally happen, then the message of Christianity is a dangerous delusion that leads people astray. It doesn’t comfort them at all – it misleads them in a cynical and dangerous way.
No – to be a carrier of hope, Jesus Resurrection has to have happened the way the Gospels clearly report that it did…based on eye witness testimony.
Overall – I’d say the scholarship that this documentary appeals to in making its case…is suspect. As a non-scholar myself…even I can see that! This hurts the documentary’s claims, I think.
2 – Why the Foundation of the Documentary’s Claims are Suspect
Going back to the claim that Jesus was a Buddhist, this is a great work of fiction…and this claim rests on two assumptions that seem to me to be absurd. If the assumptions aren’t solid…then you can be sure that their resulting conclusions will be unsupportable.
Assumption 1 – Jesus grew up in India between ages 14 and 29. But there is no evidence that Jesus spent any time outside of ancient Israel beyond his brief forays into regions like Samaria, as described in the Gospels.
Assumption 2 – Jesus survived his crucifixion and escaped back to India. But there is no reasonable way that Jesus could have survived his crucifixion.
Here are some of my reasons for making both of these statements.
First assumption – Jesus wasn’t living in Israel between the ages of 14 and 29.
The only ancient historical basis for this (the earlier the evidence the more credible it is to historians) is that Jesus’ biographies (the Gospels) do not mention anything about his life between those two ages. Someone once observed that – absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. This is sometimes called an appeal to ignorance…and formal logic says it’s a fallacious way of constructing an argument. It asserts a proposition’s true because it hasn’t yet been proven false (or vice versa). But there is another option – that there is insufficient data to prove whether its true or false. That’s what we’ve got in this case and – given Jesus documented peasant status – a more reasonable assumption to make – given the style and agenda of ancient biography – is just that the writers didn’t focus on any event in his life growing up in Israel between 14 and 29. Sure – they claim Jesus went to India – but they are simply inventing the story. So their assumption doesn’t logically follow from the evidence.
Second assumption – Jesus survived the crucifixion.
There was some conspiracy, or agenda to get him off the cross quickly so that he would survive his ordeal and recover. The primitive 1st century people didn’t know the difference between resuscitation and resurrection…and they leapt to a fantastical explanation…rather than go for a naturalistic one.
Again – great plot for a novel. I’m always up for a good conspiracy theory…and an episode of the X-Files too. But I don’t think the claim stands up to historical scrutiny and personally I don’t think this is a reasonable conclusion when ALL the available evidence is taken into account. Doctor Alexander Metherell is a Professor of Engineering and Medicine and he has written on the events surrounding Jesus crucifixion from a medical perspective. He is quoted by Lee Strobel’s book, “The Case for Christ”[1].
What does he suggest? He says that there is no way that Jesus could have survived his well-documented crucifixion. Look at what Metherell says about the proposition that Jesus survived his crucifixion:
“After suffering that horrible abuse, with all the catastrophic blood loss and trauma, he would have looked so pitiful that the disciples would never have hailed him as a victorious conqueror of death; they would have felt sorry for him and tried to nurse him back to health. So its preposterous to think that, if he had appeared to them in that awful state, his followers would have been prompted to start a worldwide movement based on the hope that someday they too would have a resurrection body like his. There’s just no way.” – Metherell
Metherell goes on to assert that it is just unreasonable to say that Jesus survived his crucifixion. It’s a fanciful claim. He died on the cross. The evidence that Metherell points to in the Gospel accounts for this:
Jesus sweat was tinged with blood in the garden beforehand. Hematidrosis, the result of psychological stress. Would make his skin very sensitive.
Jesus was flogged before he was crucified. The roman whips were leather thongs with metal balls and sharp pieces of bone woven into them. Ancient historians talk of the victims back…down to the backs of their legs…being shredded by this process of flogging. Often exposing the victim’s spine and his internal organs. Many victims would die there and then from hypovolemic shock. It seems reasonable to assume Jesus was in this state as he staggered thru Jerusalem holding the upright beam of his cross.
Romans used 7 inch spikes that were driven thru the wrist (considered back then as part of the hand). It would go in where the median nerve runs. This is so painful that a new word was invented to describe it – excruciating…literally “out of the cross”.
His posture would have meant that his shoulders would have been dislocated.
As they say in the video…this is death by asphyxiation. To exhale the victim must push himself upwards…tearing the flesh of his feet every time. Until the victim eventually became exhausted…leading to respiratory acidosis.
Yes – the Romans would break the legs to speed up death. It talks of them doing this in the gospels because the Sabbath was approaching. Yet Jesus legs weren’t broken. Is that because he got special treatment so he might survive? Not at all. What the documentary conveniently fails to mention is that the Romans stuck a spear in his side to make sure he was dead!!
Hypovolemic shock apparently would lead to a fluid build up in the pericardium – so when the spear was thrust in – blood and “water” came out, as the gospels report.
Maybe Jesus wasn’t nailed? Well archaeology confirms the first century gospel claims. Nails have been found in the remains of victims buried in Jerusalem with nails in feet bones.
Maybe the Romans were just mistaken and Jesus wasn’t dead? Hang on – it was a Roman soldiers job to kill their victim. This was not hard to do – it was a well-documented process – and they risked their heads if they let a prisoner escape. Yes – the documentary points to the part of Josephus where he asks for 3 friends to be removed from their crosses…two die and one survives. But the difference here is – Josephus is a Roman Official – he has the power to make a request of Governor Titus to remove these people from their crosses. In Jesus situation – he had no one in power on his side. The one that could have saved him – Pilate – washed his hands of him. Just because people have been taken off crosses in the past…does not mean Jesus was.
Many people have claimed Jesus survived crucifixion over the centuries. The swoon theory is “impossible. It’s a fanciful theory without any possible basis in fact” according to Metherell.
But – assume that by some turn of events – Jesus DID survive his crucifixion? He could not have walked around having had nails ripping thru his feet. And he couldn’t have used his arms because his shoulders were dislocated. Not to mention the gaping spear wound in his chest. Metherell’s interesting quote again…
“After suffering that horrible abuse, with all the catastrophic blood loss and trauma, he would have looked so pitiful that the disciples would never have hailed him as a victorious conqueror of death; they would have felt sorry for him and tried to nurse him back to health. So its preposterous to think that, if he had appeared to them in that awful state, his followers would have been prompted to start a worldwide movement based on the hope that someday they too would have a resurrection body like his. There’s just no way.” – Metherell
Jesus didn’t survive his crucifixion – to claim so is unreasonable when all the evidence is taken into account – the documentary misses out lots of important pieces of evidence when making its case (I’ve only mentioned one or two of them).
Here’s another quote from a Doctor.
“Clearly the weight of the historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted… Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.” – Doctor William D Edwards, Journal of the American Medical Association
No – personally I think it’s reasonable to go with medical opinion…and assume Jesus was dead when he was lifted from his cross.
And if he was dead, then there was no escape to India. And there is no simple naturalistic explanation to the historical evidence of the empty tomb and millions of changed lives down thru the centuries following the birth of the Christian church.
RESPOND 