A Quick Appraisal of Glass

I really really liked Glass. In fact, I’ve become surprised by how much I keep liking it. I found myself pondering its meaning all the following day. Granted, it’s not your typical superhero film. It’s more of a psychological thriller that uses the comic book/superhero genre as a vehicle to mostly talk about other things. On a first viewing, I think the film is doing three things:

1)      The film explores the idea that childhood traumatic suffering can manifest itself in heightened abilities.

2)      “Super powers” have a rational, scientific basis and real-world explanation … but that doesn’t make them less amazing.

Interestingly, in combining these two, the film is odd in how it weds Freudian concepts of childhood trauma with Jungian concepts of heroic archetypes.

3)      And while there is only some overt criticism of the contemporary superhero genre, a subtle critique manifests itself suggesting that the psychological origins of "heroes" is more real and substantive than its popular conception.

On top of this are the verbal and plot clues to the meaning, including the cinematic shots. These are what I liked about Unbreakable. Of course, James McAvoy’s performance was once again sublime. I believe it was even better than that in Split. He seems to effortlessly jump between 20 different personalities, changing his facial expressions, posture, and mannerisms with each character.

Now I understand why critics may not like Glass. 1) It’s doesn’t neatly fit into the superhero genre, 2) it’s more of a psychological think piece than an action film, 3) it inevitably points out the shallowness of most other films. But these are the very reasons why I really liked Glass.

Top Ten Things a Seminary President Does as a NFL Coach

1. Fire all the old football historians first

2. Insist all players play the game based on the collegiate rules of 1920

3. Start a college team and several extension stadiums to increase game attendance

4. Fire everyone who thinks women can play football

5. Fire any woman in management who publicly explains the game of football

6. Fire anyone who associates too closely with those who practice the “Hail Mary”

7. Build a massive new stadium next to the old stadium even though the old one is at ¼ capacity

8. Spend millions of dollars on a fraudulent Vince Lombardi playbook

9. Let it be known: “It’s not enough to play his way; you have to believe his way is right.”

10. If a star player is accused of assaulting a cheerleader, bring that cheerleader in to “Break her down”

Brief Advice for Social Justice Christians

This comment is true. The problem is that the term "social justice" is now too closely associated with Marxism because socialists frequently use the term to promote specifically socialist agendas. What do we do?

 

Christians who want to support social justice, specifically its biblical form have two options: 1) either distance yourself from socialism by frequently denouncing it or 2) use a different term other than "social justice" but with the same content.

 

Personally, I prefer the first option. It takes back the term for Christ while denouncing an ideology that is one of the chief causes of social injustice. Regardless, if Christians are truly serious about biblically-based social justice, they need to adopt a strategy that makes their message and mission more palatable to those wary of socialism.

 

However, I have two concerns: 1) there is an apparent dearth of social justice Christians attempting to be palatable to more traditionalist/conservative Christians. The typical approach is one of criticism, shaming, and unproductive distancing. Such approaches come off as smug and fundamentalistic. It leads me to question whether the person really believes in social justice or whether he or she is just using the issue as a badge of personal and social approval. We social justice Christians need to better explain what we are doing and why we are doing it, so we can get more Christians on board.

 

2) I am concerned that there is a sense that social justice Christians are either hesitant or unwilling to criticize socialism, even to further the Kingdom. Whether because of peer pressure or general agreement, they prefer not to do so. This is a problem on many fronts but for this context such refusals to denounce socialism hampers the Christian social justice movement. Social justice Christians are rightly quick to denounce fundamentalism and Landmarkism as impediments to the Faith; we should be just as quick to denounce socialism. Otherwise, we feed the notion that one must be socialist, communist, or liberal to be for social justice.

The Use of Genesis 3 in Hebrew 5-6

Hebrews 5:11-6:8 is something of a digression from the author’s main argument, though this aside is still within the overall subject of apostasy, or the falling away from the Faith. Note these similarities with Genesis 3:

Hebrews 5:14

“But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”

This could be a reference to the knowledge of good and evil from Genesis 2:9 and 3:5, 22 (although see also Deuteronomy 1:39, 2 Samuel 14:7 and 19:35, 1 Kings 3:9, and Isaiah 7:15-16).

Hebrews 6:4-6

“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away”

This could be a reference to the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and having one’s eyes opened (Genesis 3:1-7, 11-13).

Hebrews 6:8

“but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”

This also could be a reference to the results of Fall of Humanity in Genesis 3:18.

Hebrews 5:12 (6:1)

Finally, at the beginning of this digression, the author notes the need for someone to teach his audience the “elementary principles” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς) about God. The word “elementary” is ἀρχή and often means “beginning” and is the first, famous word the Greek Old Testament uses for Genesis 1:1.

If this passage is a digression I suspect that the author used the word ἀρχή and the Genesis 3 story sprung to his mind since the threat of falling away is central to his point.

In the Genesis 3 story, humanity is given the ideal garden environment in which to thrive with its work. However, the serpent tempts humanity into tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “Knowledge of good and evil” means being able to make decisions for oneself. It is about claims of self-determination and personal autonomy. As is evident in the citations above, kings and judges are given such autonomy. Children do not have such autonomy until they grow older. God never intended humanity to have autonomy apart from his care and provision. Humanity is not capable of such self-determination because it only leads to destruction. In the terms of Genesis 3, such autonomy apart from God turns a thriving garden into a cursed ground of thorns and thistles.

The author of Hebrews (probably Barnabas) is concerned that his audience is in the precarious position of considering abandoning their allegiance to Christ and returning to a pre-Messianic form of Judaism. Barnabas attempts to encourage them in their faith in many ways and with many arguments. Three of those ways are references to the superiority of Christ, the dangers of falling from the faith, and urging them to mature in their faith. In this passage, he pinpoints that the root problem of their danger of apostasy is there immature faith. He tells them in frustration that by now they should have matured to the point where they were teachers and spiritual adults rather than spiritual infants who don’t know the difference between good and evil. Instead, they should move beyond elementary (ἀρχή again) teachings about Christ (6:1) and press on to more advanced teachings about Christ. In an ironic inversion of the Genesis 3 story, Barnabas is encouraging his audience to gain more knowledge. Indeed, he implies that the tasting (this time of the Holy Spirit) is a good thing and brings proper, God-ordained enlightenment (6:4-5), but that abandoning that taste and enlightenment will lead to an irreversible situation (6:6). Indeed, such falling away from enlightenment brings the same curse as that of Eden (6:8). Basically, Barnabas is saying that falling away from faith in Jesus is equivalent to the Fall of Humanity in Genesis 3.           

There has been a strain of Christianity that has argued that apostasy, the falling away from the faith, is basically impossible for the true Christian. The argument is that if any self-professed Christian does fall away from the faith and reject allegiance to Christ, then they were never really a true Christian to begin with. The problem with this view is that it flies in the face of the New Testament teachings of the matter, particularly the dire warnings of Hebrews. These are not empty warnings of whistling into the wind to falsely scare Christians to shape up in light of a danger that could never really happen. Barnabas (along with other Biblical writers) obviously rejects this idea and notes that apostasy results from wavering in spiritual immaturity. He will continue with this idea throughout the letter, offering further examples of apostasy and its dangers and further ways of getting beyond that point of danger.