Thursday, May 19, 2011

Thor - A Real World Savior?

Thor - A Real World Savior?



Marvel has decided to open this years' series of comic films with an introduction to Thor.  I had the opportunity to see the film this past Saturday.  What would've been more befitting is if I had seen the film on Thursday instead - given that Thursday is Thor's Day.  

Although I've never been an avid comic reader, I have always had an affinity for super-heros.  The theologian in me appreciates an illustration of evil in epic proportions.  The elevation of evil on such a grand scale requires an epic hero and this is the function of the super-hero.  The super-hero has been endowed with phenomenal power as a means to combat an all encompassing evil that threatens the well-being of the whole human race for eternity - if left unchecked.  This is really no different, however, than the stories of mythology found in antiquity.  Mythological heros, like their modern counterparts, both take on a soteriological quality.  By taking on the role as savior, the very fate of mankind depends on the outcome of armageddon like battles that only true heros can reign in victory and defeat the forces of evil.   


Through the power of cinema, if we allow ourselves to be carried away with illusion of film, we can indulge in an escape and envision ourselves as a super-hero fighting and conquering evil.  When Thor is used as the instrument of this fantasy fulfillment, we find ourselves not only fighting evil through the use of a hammer but we find ourselves involved in a fantasy that has real world roots as well.  


Long before there was a Marvel Comics, there was the god of Thunder in Norse mythology.  Merrill Kaplan, assistant professor of Folklore and Scandinavian Studies at The Ohio State University, explains that her students sometimes carry a look of confusion when they realize that Marvel Thor is not the same as the one that we have from mythology.  It's also true, as well, that Marvel movie Thor may not be identical to the Marvel comic book Thor that you grew up reading.  I think that we have all come to and have accepted this realization; movies rarely, if ever, stay true to literary canon.  With this in mind, it should not surprise us that the hero in film does not stay true to his mythological archetype.  Cinematic Thor, for example, has blond hair and a neatly short trimmed beard that are more at home in Hollywood than the rustic red haired and thick bearded Thor found in Norse mythology.  The Cinematic Thor has also reached a proportion that outmatches his mythical counterpart.  Movie Thor does not require a belt nor glove to endow him with the strength to pick up his hammer unlike the mythical Thor that requires these items.


Regardless of how movie Thor stacks up against the mythological version, one thing has remained a constant.  Thor in any variety is a hero.  Both in film and mythology, Thor protects the Earth and saves us from the giants of evil.  Thor has great strength that is a differentiating factor that we can never imitate. His heart that he has in all he does, however, is a quality that we can aspire to have in spite of our many limitations.  It is in our similarities that we want to identify with Thor.  We want to be strong like a Norris mythical god and we want to be exalted the way Thor is when he saves the day.  We want to be loved the way Thor is when he receives pagan homage.  The Thor of mythology, for example, was praised by pagans that asked for success in battle.  Similarly, we may want others to submit to our authority and ask for our approval concerning a variety of matters.  The Thor in mythology had places and people named after him.  At the same time, how much do we long for recognition and acknowledgement from others?  The Thor in mythology even found his way in prose by being the subject matter in poetry of the era.  In the same way, how many of us seek a celebrity status or hold a desire to see our mention immortalized in history books?


As much as we long to identify with Thor through his strengths, we perhaps may identify with him more readily through his weaknesses.  The Thor that I found in the movie was an immature man that had not yet learned to harness his strength through the power of his intellect.  It took the wisdom and love of a father that would teach this god a lesson that only a king could teach.  We are by no means a mythological god but how well do we identify with the role of a son that is lovingly disciplined by and through the love of a Father (Hebrews 12:6)?


In the movie, Thor is a savior that is full of pride and vanity.  Thor's father strips him of his deistic power so that he can learn humility and perhaps develop compassion for those that he is predestined to protect.  In reality, our Father who art in Heaven has given us Christ crucified.  The Father sent the Son, not as a punishment for any wrong doing on the Son's part, but to endure punishment for the sins incurred on our part.  Thor had to satisfy the wrath of a god for his wrong doings.  He had to suffer loss in order to be made worthy.  In Christ, we are adopted as sons because Christ endured the wrath of God on our behalf.  As new creatures in Christ, we loose our pride and vanity - not to be worthy but because He is worthy!


With Thor, we are presented with action packed scenes full of stunts and feats as our hero fights Frost Giants.  This, however, plays as more of a backdrop for another theme that permeates throughout the movie.  Given that the focus of the film includes the dynamics between a father and a son and includes jealousy that an inferior brother has for his superior sibling as well as an all out effort for reconciliation for all parties involved, etc, Thor is about family.  It is this familial theme that is perhaps more endearing to us than our desire to envision ourselves as superheros fighting to save the day.  It is the family that everyone in all cultures and in all eras that unites all of humanity.  In the beginning, starting with the book of Genesis, we start with the making of the family.  As with all families, at some point in time we encounter discontent, pride and a lack of faith.  In Thor, the burden of reconciliation to restore the family rests on Thor's mighty shoulders.  In reality, we are too weak to reconcile matters on our own part.  In reality, we have to become less so that He may be more.  In reality, it is not our deeds that reconcile us unto God but it is by His grace that we are saved through our faith that we have in Him that saves us.  It is only through Christ crucified that we are reconciled unto God.  


If the burdens of this world overwhelm you and you lack the power of Thor to overcome your battles, rest in Christ for He is the true vine and we are the branch (John 15:5).  It is only through Christ will we be reconciled unto God and be a part of an eternal family that has been restored according to His glory, according to His will that rests in His good pleasure.  Take comfort in that our restoration does not rest in winning epic battles found in a tale of Thor wielding a hammer.  We are, instead, made worthy and restored through the blood of the Lamb and it is with His sword we fight the good battle and are made victors through Christ.


May it all be for His glory,
Wade C. Davis 

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Is Separation of Church and State Important?



Is Separation of Church and State Important? 




As a part of my YouTube ministry, I respond to various dialogue as well as questions that are posed to me.  This week, I have decided to post a question that I've recently answered.  Please feel free to leave your comments, thoughts and ideas that you have on the subject as well.  

I will put out the disclaimer that this subject/issue is one that I'm still learning about.  Given that I'm not an authority by any means on the subject matter at hand, I may stand to correction on some of my points, etc.

Here are two questions posed to me and my responses;

"Well my first question is do you think that a separation between church and state is important?"

Yes, I think Separation between Church and State is important. 

Originally, this term - "Seperation of Church & State" originated in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the government would not interfere with the church. Over time, unfortunately, this term/phrase has been corrupted and twisted around so that a lot of people actually believe that it is a part of the Constitution. Along with this perversion of the term, a new meaning has arisen. Instead of separating the government from the church, concerns are now focused on separating the church from the schools. As a part of re-writing American Civics, a phrase that was never in the Constitution is now thought to be the legality that is in place that keeps schools from allowing religious practice, etc. In reality, the term "Separation of Church & State" was supposed to encourage religious freedom, not stifle it. 

The Constitution is not equal to scripture. It is, however, not only ethical but a legal binding document that operates as the infrastructure of our Government as well as Governmental laws that our society operates asunder. The Constitution is a brilliant document and I feel that we are very fortunate and blessed to have it as the cornerstone of our government makeup. 

Our Founding Fathers were not perfect but they did live through religious persecution as exercised through a monarchy. It was their intent to construct a country that would be rid of religious persecution. This means that freedom to practice religion of your choosing should be honored and upheld. The Constitution upholds this right as well as ensuring us that the Government will not coerce us into practicing a religion of the government's choosing but of our own. The Constitution gives us a government that is pro-religion, not anti-religion. 

"If so wouldn't it be more important not to show any sort of religious bias by teaching an idea like creation in schools?" 

I think this question contains the presupposition that creation is intrinsically linked to religion. 

You could teach creation directly from the Bible. If you were to do so, there are different angles you could employ with this approach. You could teach from the presupposition that this is the inerrant word of God. By doing this, you don't question the data/text but employ methods to extract meaning from the text to get a true understanding of what the text is proclaiming. This would be a religious teaching and is not permissible as the law stands today. 

You could teach Creation from the Bible but instead of going from under the presupposition that it's the inerrant word of God, it is a philosophical approach from history that some hold to today. 

Yet, another way to teach creation from the Bible is to teach it as a modern-day philosophical approach and report the modern-day science that is blended in with this ideology. 

Before I continue, I will take a brief pause to say, some people will insist that it is illegal to teach anything out of the Bible and that it is un-Constitutional. In reality, the Supreme Court has never ruled against teaching the Bible in schools. The Bible may be taught in a public school as a way of illustrating a historical and or literary context, a'la the "1963 US Supreme Court ruling that said schools could teach about religion in a secular way" (1). It would be completely legal for your English teacher, for example, to teach the entire book of Psalms in a public school so long as he/she is teaching it as literature. 

Now do I think we should be teaching hardcore doctrine in schools? No, I don't. The schools, to be frankly honest about it, are not equipped to teach appropriate doctrine; this is the role of the church, the pastor, the theologian, the exegete, not the schools. 

Now at the same time, do I think the schools should avoid mention of the Bible at all cost? No, I don't. I don't think there is a thing in the world that is wrong with saying something like, "The Bible says this..." or "The Bible says that..." or even, "Christians believe this..." or "Christians believe that...". 

Another presupposition that your question has is that to teach creation is to teach bias and to teach other things, like Evolution, for example, is to teach something that is lacking in bias. The truth of the matter is that people have bias and they can find ways to implement this bias regardless of the discipline. 

How are theories formed?

A scientist observes nature and from his observations, he ponders and logically concludes, that he suspects that the world operates in a certain way.

Our scientist now has to test his idea to see if it holds true. 

Through the employment of the scientific method, our scientist has an experiment and a control in place and waits to see what kind of results he will get that will suggest validation or invalidation of his theory. 

Now on the very basis of this illustration, there doesn't appear to be any bias built into the theory, etc. This is not, however, where the problem arises. The problem comes in the interpretation of data. We are never given a full written report that summarizes the results of our experiment. Our data will require not only an interpretation but an interpretation that is guided by our worldview. 

If our data yields, GODISNOWHERE.

One person can concluded that the data says that God Is No Where.

Another person, however, can come along and say that the data says, God Is Now Here.

Our worldview intrinsically has bias built into it and to say that religion is full of bias but science lacks bias is not intellectually honest. 

I haven't even talked about all of the other external factors that affect science. Just the fact that you investigate X and not Y is due to bias given that everything that you could investigate has alternatives accordingly. 

Without going into all of it, there's politics and monetary matters that influences science as well.

(1) http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p11s01-legn.html

I left my correspondance at this point but I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Perhaps I'll do a follow up with this piece sometime soon as a way of expanding upon the many things that I did not address here at this writing.  

Please feel free to leave your comments in regards to this matter.  I'd love to here what you have to say.

May it all be for His glory,
Wade C. Davis

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Church Needs More Sexy Men


The Church Needs More Sexy Men



If you have read this blog before, then you already know that I have a YouTube channel that I have in place as a ministry in service for the Kingdom of God. Always looking for material to post on my channel, I decided to post a clip of the Royal Wedding. 


Like most Americans, I did not bask in the coverage of the event. I did, however, see Kate Middleton's brother - James Middleton reading a passage from Romans. I thought Middleton did a wonderful job at reading the passage. With so much irreverence in the world that is directed at God, scripture and the Bible,  I found it refreshing to hear scripture read with such dignity.  I wanted others to be able to enjoy this reading the same as I did when I first watched it.


I posted a video of James Middleton reading Romans 12:1, 9-18 on my Youtube channel on May 1, 2011. 

Much to my surprise, the viewership of this video skyrocketed.  It is the most successful video that I have ever posted.  Within the first four days, this video had peaked with 800 views in one day.  On May 5, 2011, this video hit an all time high of 8,300 views in a single day.  Since then, this video has dropped to 1,600 views/day, dipping to less than 400 views/day and has since then bounced back to around 1,200 views/day.  Since the starting date of my channel on December 29, 2009 - this video is already the 3rd most watched video of all of the videos since the channel has started.

Curious about the way this video was being discovered, I investigated discovery statistics.  Much to my surprise, I found that this video was getting most of its hits from a gay website in Germany.  My first reaction was to pull the video since it appears that the video isn't being watched in accordance with my original intentions.  I then reasoned that I would leave the video on the channel.  At the very least, this video is delivering scripture to an audience that is in much need of hearing it.  Who knows if they understand what they are hearing since it is being aired on a German site?


As of yesterday from checking the discovery statistics, I have found that the German site has reduced its viewership but another site in Hungary has seemed to pick up viewership a great deal.  This site seems to be aimed at women - a foreign version of "e!", if you will.

The viewership from the Hungarian site has been at such a rate that it has actually affected my channel demographic.  Since my channel's beginning, my female demographic has hovered around 25%.  Today, my female demographic viewership has increased 14% - it is now 39%.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my contention that the Church does not need flag football programs to entice the populace into churches and fill the pews.  The church does not need rockin' praise bands to entice the populace into the churches to fill the pews.  The church does not need sermons about sex to entice the populace into the churches to fill the pews.  All the Church needs is sexy men.

That's right, you heard me right.  James Middleton's video where he read Romans did not generate high viewership because of his rendition.  Middleton's video received high viewership because he is a sexy man that both women and gays find appealing.  Just today, for example, there was a comment left on this video that illustrates my point.  It reads;

"Gawd that man is sexy!"

 That's right, James Middleton is sexy and I suspect that the man could've been reading the back of cereal box and his video would've received the same amount of hits as it did when he read a passage from Romans.  

Hopefully as women and apparently men as well watch Middleton read a beautiful passage from Romans, the words of God will penetrate their soul and open their eyes to the all sustaining glory of Christ as opposed to the failing of lust as it gives birth to sin and death when its allowed to permeate the heart.  

I welcome you to watch the video below for the beauty of the message that God has delivered unto us.  Today, James Middleton was used as an instrument to deliver the message but the everlasting message of God continues to ring not only today but tomorrow and for eternity!

May it all be for His glory,