Zahl and the Promethean Overturning of History

This is one of the best explanations of the biblical (from an evangelical point of view) response to the current conflict rising around the question of the church's acceptance or rejection of homosexuality. The post is from InternetMonk, one of my go to blogs, and he quotes at length from a talk by Rev. Paul Zahl, and Episcopal minister. Here is a taste:

I shall begin this brief keynote address summing up the actual reasons why traditional Episcopalians are opposed to the consecration of Gene Robinson and are also opposed to the blessing in the church of same-sex unions. I won’t harp on this, but feel the reasons need to be acknowledged, publicly, and theologically. It is not fair to call people on the traditional side “homophobic”. Of course homophobia is possible, but it is also a terrible slur in the contemporary context. It is like the word “anti-semitic”. It halts all discourse. Full stop. And it destroys people and careers. Homophobia and anti-semitism are real things. But as words, they are used overmuch today to tar and dismiss voices that may in fact be sincere and liberal.

This is such an important point. It seems that on this topic, there is no room for reasonable disagreement. To do less than totally and unreservedly accept the position that homosexuality is normal and acceptable and healthy is "homophobic." The H word is the new N word.

The second “theological” argument traditionalists want to use is the hermeneutical one. I myself think this is second in importance to the theological “domino effect” I have just tried to spell out. The hermeneutical objection to the Robinson consecration is very important, but it is not decisive in quite the same way the argument from anthropology is. Nevertheless, we believe the plain and unexceptioned meaning of the Bible is against the practice of homosexuality in all cases. We cannot get around this. And I am grateful when folk on the other side acknowledge and do not try to weasel out of the “fact on the ground” of the Biblical voice against their idea. Yes, I realize there are wholly inclusive implications to Jesus’ and Paul’ s Gospel, but they stop at the Rubicon of homosexual practice.

I'll stop quoting here, but go and read it. It amazes me how the leadership of The Episcopal Church has set themselves so boldly in the role of teacher and scold, set to bring the rest of Christendom kicking and screaming along with it, for it's own good. The arrogance is breathtaking, all the while accusing the traditionalists (for lack of a better term) of being the arrogant ones. It all feels a little like That Hideous Strength.

While I have not really ever been in agreement with the basic arguments of the promoters of the homosexual agenda, I have often found myself sympathetic with their desire for inclusion, love, and acceptance. Every person wants these things. I can certainly appreciate what it feels like to feel locked out, excluded and disregarded and why it is important to help people so afflicted to find relief. For this reason I have had a hard time articulating how to reconcile the two sides in my own mind. These paragraphs have gone a long way toward at least helping me articulate my disagreement without resorting to ad hominem. I am not yet clear on how to solve the problem of exclusion in any complete and zpractical way, but I'm pretty sure that inclusion ought not be based on overturning what the church has always believed. As Zahl says, it feels promethean.

Log Driver's Waltz

The song is nice enough, perhaps a little unintended but sweet double entendre. But what grabbed me is the footage at the beginning. It humbles me. I think of the men and women who built the nations that occupy this continent, going back several generations. The sheer physical competence of those people makes me feel small and unaccomplished. We really do stand on the shoulders of giants.

Three Hundred

I have not seen the film “300” yet, other than the 6 or 7 clips available on Yahoo!Movies. Although I suspect that those 6 or 7 clips probably give a pretty good flavor of the primary themes and direction of the film, I suppose you should take what I say with a grain of salt.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I fully intend to see this film and I’m really looking forward to it. I think it will be a blast. You see, I am already biased in favor. Just thought you oughta know.

At this point, however, what fascinates me most about this film is the way the publicity has been unfolding. In general the critics hate it, the public loves it, and the historians are tearing out their hair.

It seems that the critics hate it because they are, for the most part, complete wieners. They come across as prissy little mommy’s boys (and girls) exhibiting a haughty distaste for what they see as crude, over the top, film-making with a bludgeon, saturated with (gasp) violence, and (even worse) racist and (most horrific of all) homophobic overtones. All the while they make knowing winking remarks about the buff bodies of the Spartans, as if this only proves that homophobes are all homos at heart. Hmmm.

I could be wrong (I’m not) but all such reviewers, the legion of them, seem to have committed the cardinal sin of the literary critic. They fail to judge the film by it’s own standards. Girls! Listen up. It’s a comic book!

When you read a comic book, you judge it by the standards and conventions of comic books. You allow for extreme action, superhuman postures, heroic proportions. It’s all part of the genre. Are women really shaped like that? Well….not most, that’s for sure. Men? We like to think so, but no. Can Spiderman really…? How can Wolverine do that? The simple answer is…it’s a comic book. Exaggeration, bombastic speeches, witty repartee, exciting action – it’s all just part of the fun. If we didn’t want that, we would just read Jane Austen and be done with it.

Their complaint seems to be that "300" is badly done Jane Austen. What they want is well done Jane Austen. Fine. But this is a moving comic book and they just don't seem to like comic books. I have no sympathy or much patience for people who don't like comic books. Their distaste is mostly an affected desire to appear intellectual, high-minded, or both. They do not wish to dabble in the vulgarities. Heroes, they contend, are for fools. To enjoy the heroic is childish.

The masses think differently. It seems the masses long for heroes. Bombast and big muscles have a thrill factor. They appeal to something deep. Not base. Just deep. I suspect that may be the appeal of "300." It is a story of heroes told heroically.

I have a bit more sympathy for the complaints of historians. I heard recently of a high school class that was required to see “300” as if it were a documentary on the Battle of Thermopylae. Hmmm. Not so sure that’s smart. I can see where historians are envisioning everyone from 2007 forward growing up thinking that Xerxes was a hyper-gay super-pierced drag king whose empire consisted of mobs of monsters, freaks and fiends. Of course, he wasn’t and they weren’t. And it’s probably true that many people will be unable to separate the fantasy from the fact.

But, consider this. Now EVERYONE has heard of Thermopylae. Now EVERYONE will remember what the Spartans did there. That is worth knowing. And maybe a few will be inspired by that story to do something worthwhile at great cost. Maybe.
I’ll provide my own review after I’ve seen it. Maybe I’m wrong (probably not) but I think it’ll just be a hoot. I’ve always loved comics.