Stimulus 14-2 May 2006
Posted by stimulusjournal on May 17, 2006
The May issue has come back from the printer. Lots of interesting stuff – Da Vinci Code, Parmenter, Baxter, Paul and leadership, etc. When you get a chance to read it, feel free to add comments below to this posting regarding the May issue. You will be able to see the editorial, table of contents, and selected articles on the website here. The lead article is Mark Strom’s Paul and the reframing of leadership. Excellent article. Enjoy.
Editorial Team said
Please feel free to leave a comment on any of the posts.
David Cashmore said
Just a comment on the editorial… I was discussing it with my daughter, especially my/our comments about the Da Vinci Code not being something that makes you think. She disagreed. By way of explanation (defence?) I think the Da Vinci Code actually anaesthetises thought. Brown bombards the reader with all these pseudo-facts (“showing off” my mother referred to it as) that dull your thinking and before you know it you have bought the preposterous idea that something in a painting of Da Vinci (living 1500 years after the event) somehow “proves” that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child! He is not promoting thought; his sleight of hand in fact is intended to make sure the reader does not think, otherwise the game would be up.
On the other hand, Philip Dick Dick (Blade Runner, Minority Report, Paycheck, Total Recall, Screamers – and those are just some of the films) does the opposite. His characters get into mind-boggling situations that make you think about the nature of the cosmos itself. He does not bombard the reader with pseudo-information to manipulate them into one path of interpretation, but lets the reader work it out for themself, as they enjoy a very good story!
PS Dick was of course a Gnostic, but a true Gnostic. It seems he had some kind of medical condition that led to rather bizarre experiences for him. Some of his stories are actually almost autobiographical as a result. Truly weird.
Gavin said
John Allan Turner uses a strategy of tainting something credible (Elaine Pagels’ work) with something incredible (The Da Vinci Code) in his “Gnosis” article. It’s the kind of thing Darrell Bock used recently in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, when he reviewed the Gospel of Judas alongside Michael Baigent’s “The Jesus Papers.” Hardly fair treatment.
Adding insult to injury Turner then indulges in name calling. Dan Brown and Elaine Pagels pronounced heretics. I’m not aware that Brown claims to be a Christian, which I imagine is a prerequisite to having this particular label pasted on.
The treatment of Pagels, however, is shameful. Turner obviously hasn’t understood much of what she wrote (if he bothered to read “Beyond Belief” at all.) He has the Montanist prophets down as Gnostics [p.38, column 3] – a basic error even a first year theology student could pick (I speak as just such a person). Needless to say, Pagels makes no such connection – I checked!
I’ll take an honest heretic over an agenda-driven apologetic writer any day.
PS. Otherwise a GREAT issue!
David Cashmore said
For more information on Philip Dick’s religious experience see http://www.philipkdickfans.com/weirdo.htm for Robert Crumb’s cartoon version of the events (I have read Dick’s own firsthand record, just not sure where).
John Alan Turner said
Gavin,
Dan Brown does claim to be a Christian. On the FAQs page of his website you can read:
“ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious–that is, that we are all trying to decipher life’s big mysteries, and we’re each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.”
As for the Montanist prophets being Gnostics, I’ll let Montanus himself respond: “The Lord hath sent me as the chooser, the revealer, the interpreter of this labor, this promise, and this covenant, being forced, willingly or unwillingly, to learn the gnosis of God.”
Finally, I only use the term “heretic” in a strict sense. I’m not trying to indulge in name-calling. I’m simply using categories for the sake of this argument. A heretic is someone who holds a different view from that which is accepted as orthodox. A heretic is also someone who stirs up division where there should be no division. By my account, both Dan Brown and Elaine Pagels meet both of those qualifications.
Gavin said
John
Thank you for you comments. I stand corrected on Dan Brown’s claim to be a Christian.
On whether the Montanists were Gnostics however, I think your quote is a little misleading. Many orthodox theologians used the term “gnosis” – including Paul (repeatedly!) – but that doesn’t make any of them Gnostics. Basic to the idea is some kind of belief in a demiurge or lesser creator god, as I’m sure you know. The Montanists are usually regarded as doctrinally orthodox – after all, they counted one of the greatest theologians of the their age – Tertullian – among their converts. Was Tertullian a Gnostic?? Montanism may have been apocalyptic and charismatic, but Gnostic? As one British scholar, David F. Wright, says: “In a nutshell, the New Prophecy [Montanism] was fanatical rather than heretical.”
Dale Campbell said
I’ve read Mark Strom’s ‘Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community’ and experienced a personal reformation of sorts. I appreciated this article and am currently enjoying the ‘Paul at Corinth’ free lectures at BCNZ. The question for those of us involved in church ‘leadership’ in NZ may well be this: “Are we willing to take anywhere near the kind of risks Paul did in telling – with words and more more importantly, actions – the Story of Jesus?” May God grant us humble minds, soft hearts and stiff backbones.
tovorinok said
Hello
Great book. I just want to say what a fantastic thing you are doing! Good luck!
Bye