High Christology

Some Bible scholars have a low Christology. That's becomes somescholars are highly secularized, so they don't believe we live in the kind of world that the Bible describes. They think that's fictional. So it's really less about interpreting the NT witness to the Trinity or the Incarnation but their belief that the world is a kind of snowglobe. There is no afterlife. There is no divine involvement in the world. There's no room in their worldview for a divine Incarnation. 

Given their worldview, they don't think it's possible for the NT to have a high Christology that's true. They don't think we live in that kind of world. So their low Christology isn't really about what the NT teaches, but their understanding of reality. Given their closed-system worldview, they are bound to view NT Christology as legendary/mythological pious fiction. Even if the NT has a high Christology, that doesn't map onto reality

So a lot of this is driven, not by exegesis but by their view of historicity and reality. Although Hurtado was something of a theological moderate, he wasn't an inerrantist, he was heavy into redaction criticism, and I don't think he had a strong view of divine revelation, so for him there's bound to be an evolutionary Christology in the NT which has antecedents in speculative theological developments in 2nd Temple Judaism. He doesn't think the Enochian literature is historical. It's just pious fiction. I agree. Point, though, is he doesn't draw a categorical line between that and Scripture. It all has an element of legendary embellishment. It ranges along a continuum. So that's less about exegesis than his view of Scripture and the history of ideas. 

This is even more pronounced in the case of James McGrath. I believe he used to be evangelical, but lost his faith in grad school and is now a progressive. It isn't possible for McGrath to have a high Christology because he doesn't believe we live in that kind of world. He's basically a secularist. His closed-system worldview precludes the possibility that the NT presents a realistic Christology. So this isn't about exegesis but his worldview. For him, NT Christology has to be pious fiction. There's a mismatch between the Bible and reality. The Bible tells stories about divine intervention, angels, life after death, God, Incarnation, the Resurrection, &c., but these don't correspond with what really happens. 

So it's important when reading monographs about the historical supernatural Jesus to keep in mind that the conclusions are often predetermined, not by exegesis, but by the scholar's view of the supernatural and the historicity of Scripture. 

"Marvel movies aren't cinema"

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/indepth/martin-scorsese-i-said-marvel-movies-arent-cinema-let-me-explain/ar-AAJSMU9

He's a great filmmaker, so his commentary is insightful. Mind you, I just don't care for the subject matter of most of his films. An exception is Silence. Two quick points:

1. First of all, there's the artist who's the primary audience for his own work. He writes fiction or makes movies which reflect what he cares about, what's important to him. In the case of a great artist, that indirectly appeals to many others, although in some cases the work is for connoisseurs. 

That's in contrast to stuff that's made to sell. Where the creators are thinking all along, how will this play? They begin with a target audience, and work back from there. 

2. Good art or great art is idealistic. It presumes that life is worthwhile. So quality matters. 

But consistent secularism cuts the nerve of artistic idealism. And if there is no immortality, and what we value is merely the instinctive byproduct of blind evolution, then everything is ephemeral. It's silly to be a serious artist. Nothing endures. 

So why not go for the buck? Quick money? Forgettable films? 

Good or great art is an act of faith, even if the artist isn't consciously Christian. But secularism erodes the faith necessary to create good or great art. It replaces faith with cynicism. 

At the moment I'm not taking a position on Marvel movies, but just making a general observation that's pertinent to all kinds of movies. 

The Christian frame tale

In this regard, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe poses a complication by virtue of being a framed story. The central action, consisting of what happens in Narnia, is set within a realistic frame of the four children's lives in the real world before and after they enter Narnia. Many stories are set within an external framework like this, and virtually all journeys into an imagery land follow this pattern. L. Ryken & M. L. Mead, A Reader's Guide Through the Wardrobe (IVP 2005), 77. 

1. The same genre is also called a frame tale or frame narration. A story within a story. Analogous plot-devices include time-travel, where an individual travels back and forth from his own time to the past or future, and the wormhole, where an individual travels back and forth from his own universe to a parallel universe. It's striking that the frame tale is so popular. That bears witness to a spiritual hunger, even among unbelievers, for a greater and better reality beyond our sublunary existence.

2. From a theological standpoint, what's interesting about this genre is that it mirrors the Christian worldview. Bible history and eschatology is like a frame tale: our universe is nested within the external reality of the heavenly realm (God, saints, angels), on the one hand, and hell, on the other hand. Outside agents enter and leave our world. The devil and demons leave hell (or the intermediate state) to enter our world. Angelic emissaries leave heaven to enter our world, then depart. And the culmination of the Christian frame tale is the Incarnation, where God leaves heaven to enter our world, then returns to heaven. The Christian worldview is the Ur-text of the frame tale genre. 

4 tips for developing a worldview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHbBYDEimWM

What are worldviews?

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2017/02/21/what-are-worldviews-why-do-worldviews-matter-how-does-one-change-worldviews/

What's your worldview?

http://renewingyourmind.org/2016/09/01/whats-your-worldview

Return of the God Hypothesis - Stephen C. Meyer, PhD

Criticisms of WYW

http://www.proginosko.com/2015/08/a-response-to-some-criticisms-of-wyw/

“A New Pagan Era”

When it comes down to it, there are only two worldviews, according to Peter Jones (“One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference – Romans 1 for the Twenty-first Century”, Escondido, CA: Main Entry Editions, 2010). For simplicity’s sake, he identifies these simply as “One-ism” and “Two-ism”. The chart here (which I have modified somewhat) should be familiar to most Reformed readers. It illustrates how these worldviews line up:

What's your worldview?

http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/what-is-your-worldview.php

What's Your Worldview?: An Interactive Approach to Life's Big Questions

Available for preorder. Highly recommended:

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Your-Worldview-Interactive-Questions/dp/143353892X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367889747&sr=1-1

Cooperating on the “Historical, Western World View”?

Dr. David Snoke, a physicist from the University of Pittsburgh, is asking the question, To what degree can we [Reformed Christians] cooperate with members of the Catholic church and other churches?

After ruling out what he calls “the doctrine of ‘holy separation’”, he goes on to explore a “three-fold” view of “not only ‘churches’ and ‘false religions’, but a third category which I would call ‘churches with radically different views of authority, and consequently radically different concepts of God’s salvation’”. Into this third group he places Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Liberals, Charismatics, and some cults.

Some may disagree with my short summaries, but I think all would agree they have radically different views from the Reformed and Protestant “Scripture alone” and “by grace alone through faith alone”. But I would say that we can find foolish Christians, who are nevertheless real Christians, in each of these.

He is clear to say “I would not view it as wise to cooperate with any of these groups in an evangelistic or discipleship ministry”, and “I would not want to have any official cooperation with, say, the Catholic church or PCUSA, even in a cultural project”.

Then he posits:

But I can support the idea of a board of trustees of a non-profit which includes individuals who, in my view, have made unwise decisions to join such churches, but who themselves are scholars, mature at the personal level, confess Christ as Lord, and show the fruits of repentance toward God. I would want the freedom and level of friendship to be able to continue to try to persuade them of the failings of their churches.

Thus:

But I think in some contexts that a cultural endeavor which presents the “historical, Western world view” could have great value even without a consensus on such important concepts as authority in the church and the concept of salvation.

He says, “One place where this comes up, obviously, is my own involvement with the ID (intelligent design) movement, which includes many Catholics such as Michael Behe... I am working through the issues, and would welcome feedback on pitfalls that may be faced.”

What do you think?