[Note: Once every few months something gets under my skin and I go off on a (mild) rant. Today is one of those days. It doesn't happen often so I hope that you will simply ignore this while I get a few things off my chest. In fact, I recommend skipping this post entirely and checking back later in the week.]
“Is Jack Bauer a Type of Christ?” asks Pastor Mark Driscoll on his blog, referring to the hero of the hit television show 24. “At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I would like to offer the suggestion that perhaps 24 is incredibly popular because Jack Bauer is a lot like Jesus,…”
From what I’ve heard about Driscoll, he sounds like a gifted preacher who has a unique ability to reach the lost. So it is painful to see him make such an idiotic blunder by making a comparison that is indeed not only blasphemous but downright stupid. (It will be equally painful to watch the fanboys come out of the woodwork to defend this nonsense.) The Savior of the World is irreverently compared to the Savior of Los Angeles.
Sadly, this is a common example of the way many Christians speak of Jesus when we are trying to be culturally “relevant” rather than being reverent. Our lack of reverence leads us to create God in our own image. Evangelicalism is particularly guilty of ignoring the holiness and transcendence of our Lord and Savior in favor of a God who is our “best friend”, exactly like us – only better. I remember as a young Baptist how we would gloss over the commands to “fear God” in favor of singing hymns about “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.”
Even the self-confessed Gnostic Harold Bloom is able to see where we err, as he wrote in his book "The American Religion":
The American finds God in herself or himself only after finding the freedom to know God by experiencing a total inward solitude. In this solitary freedom, the American is liberated both from other selves and from the created world. He comes to recognize that his spirit is itself uncreated. Knowing that he is the equal of God, the American Religionist can then achieve his true desideratum, mystical communion with his friend, the godhead.
Jesus is indeed our friend. But the idea that our relationship with Christ is not primarily Lord-to-servant but of Buddy-to-buddy is deeply rooted in our particular religious culture. Our lack of reverence expresses itself in everything from our worship to our evangelism. How many times, for instance, have we seen an earnest Christian approach someone (including, at times, other Christians) and ask, “Do you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?”
While intended as a means of carrying out the Great Commission, the question is asking something else entirely. In essence, it's asking whether we possess God rather than whether God possess us. By claiming God as our “personal” friend we are putting him in the same category as our “personal trainers” and “personal assistants”, people who serve us, rather than someone whom we are expected to serve. When Jesus becomes someone we can befriend he becomes someone we can take lightly. We feel comfortable treating him as a mythical hero – like Jack Bauer.
Another problem with our strained attempt to be relevant is that, ironically, we become completely irrelevant. Why do we attempt to build connections on such ephemera as pop culture when we know how dated it will soon become? (“Jesus is like Gabe Kotter and the disciples are like the Sweathogs…”)
I suspect the one reason is simply laziness. It’s much easier to refer to a pop-culture Christ figure than it is to actually introduce someone to the actual figure of Christ. Another reason is that we feel the need to use pop culture as a tool for evangelism in order to justify our indulgences in such “lowbrow” entertainment. (Perhaps if we had a more robust theology of culture we’d develop a greater appreciation of its intrinsic worthy rather than attempting to draft it into the service of our evangelistic enterprises.)
But the most honest reason is likely to be that we are simply ashamed of the Gospel. We’re embarrassed to talk about how we serve a master who turns the other cheek, let’s people spit on him, abuse him, and even kill him. We’d much prefer a tough-guy Savior like Jack Bauer than the wimpy Jesus of the Gospels.
Or maybe we are not the ones who are ashamed since we think Christ is just peachy the way he is. But we know from experience that you can’t show that side of Christ to the lost because, well, Jesus just isn’t relevant.
Can anyone show me the passages in the Gospels that say we are to make Christ “relevant” to our culture?
You want to see relevant, read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, a sermon first preached in 1741 by one of the foremost intellectuals in American history, Jonathan Edwards:
They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.
How many pastors today would dare preach such a sermon in a room full of Christians, much less during a “seeker-sensitive” service? Yet how many came to the Lord because of the boldness, the relevance, of Edward's preaching? Why do we avoid talking about eternal damnation and God's wrath? Are we afraid that if we do we won't be considered "hip" and "cool?" That we won't be relevant?
The lost don’t need cutesy pop-culture analogies, they need to know Christ. Jesus was relevant yesterday, he is relevant today, and he will be relevant forever. We Christians might realize this if we would kneel in reverence before our Savior rather than before the idol of relevance.
(HT: The Thinklings)
Update: After reading David Wayne's post Is Jack Bauer a Christ-Figure?, I realized that I had failed to make what I think is an important distinction.
David's title asks “Is Jack Bauer a Christ-Figure?” That is a question that I think is certainly worth exploring. But notice that it takes the form of “Is X a Christ-Figure?” In order to examine that question, we are comparing X to Christ. But if the simile is being used in order to help people understand who Jesus is, then the form becomes “Is Jesus a Jack Bauer-Figure?” This form requires an understanding of Jack Bauer and uses him as the frame of reference.
Now I’ve watched 24 and I’ve read the Gospels and for the life of me, I can’t find a relevant comparison. So what are those who know Jack Bauer but don’t know Jesus supposed to come away with from the simile?
After rereading Driscoll’s post, I realize that I may have misrepresented his point. Perhaps he was not speaking to non-Christians but to Christians. If so, I think his post is still dumb. But at least it wouldn’t be blasphemous.
And just so we're clear, I value the examination of Christ-figures in literature an popular culture (Neo, Superman, etc.). I believe, though, that they are primarily of value to those who know Christ. Otherwise, Christ just becomes a literary archetype rather than the flesh and blood Savior of the Cosmos.
Question: If you want readers to skip this post, why did you post it?
As an English teacher, let me point out that a simile is a comparison between two things that are not alike to highlight one or a few particular points of similarity. A thorough analysis of a simile should look both at what common traits are shared as well as where the commonality breaks down. Driscoll's blog post clearly does not thoroughly analyze the comparison.
However, I do not think that his point is that we can understand Jesus by understanding Jack Bauer, or that when people watch 24 they hear the gospel. Rather, he says, "perhaps 24 is incredibly popular because Jack Bauer is a lot like Jesus." In other words, people have a deep-seated need for the REAL Savior. Many of them try to deny it - but look what they choose for secular entertainment!
I don't think there's a thing wrong with teaching by analogy. Jesus did it. And to preempt the "but you're not Jesus, and neither is Driscoll" comments, that's not my point. I think it's wrong to say that we shouldn't follow his example.
Evangelicalism is particularly guilty of ignoring the holiness and transcendence of our Lord and Savior in favor of a God who is our “best friend”, exactly like us – only better. I remember as a young Baptist how we would gloss over the commands to “fear God” in favor of singing hymns about “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.”
I hope your point here is not that we should focus on fearing God, but that NONE of the Bible should be glossed over.
By claiming God as our “personal” friend we are putting him in the same category as our “personal trainers” and “personal assistants”, people who serve us, rather than someone whom we are expected to serve.
Well, but - he DOES serve us in much the same way that personal trainers and personal assistants do. They provide a service. So does Christ. He is the only one who can save us. That's really about as far as that analogy can be taken. When we accept Christ (and God) completely, we must also accept God's power to transform us, which awakens our desire to live for him.
Second, I always thought that the "personal" part of "your personal Lord and Savior" was a focus on the need for your own salvation. You are not a Christian because you have gone to church and know lots of Bible stories, or because you were raised in a Christian home. You, personally, must accept Christ's call. I have never seen it illustrated the way you put it.
Why do we attempt to build connections on such ephemera as pop culture when we know how dated it will soon become?
If it leads people to Christ, I'm all for it. (The operative word, of course, being IF.) Sure, pop culture may be ephemeral. So are blog posts. ;D And even the ephemeral can point toward the eternal.
It’s much easier to refer to a pop-culture Christ figure than it is to actually introduce someone to the actual figure of Christ.
Again, the problem is not with the reference to the pop-culture figure but with stopping short of introducing Christ.
We’d much prefer a tough-guy Savior like Jack Bauer than the wimpy Jesus of the Gospels.
Mm-hm. ... Are we reading the same Gospels? Here I think Driscoll's point is that many of the more "manly" qualities that Jesus does show have been glossed over for quite awhile.
Can anyone show me the passages in the Gospels that say we are to make Christ “relevant” to our culture?
Noooo. But is there a passage in the Gospels - or anywhere in Scripture - that says it's wrong to work with what people already know or are familiar with?
Granted, if all we do is refer to what people already know, then we're not getting anywhere. But often the best way to teach is to start with what's known, and then move forward from there. Pop culture is not the gospel, but it can provide an introduction to it. And a three paragraph blog post (four if you count the list) is hardly a full exposition.
It's not the best analogy, for Jesus didn't have to torture and kill folks in order to get His job done.
However, for a lot of the unchurched, 24 is a touchstone. To reach that audience, describing Jesus as like TV's best action hero, only far better, might not be a bad analogy.
It might not read as well in 2025, but he's not preaching in 2025. He's preaching to modern-day latte-sippers who know more about Luke Skywalker than Luke the good physician-author.
The last thing that comes to mind when I think of Jack Bauer is a comparison to Jesus. If anything, Bauer is the consummate pragmatist and a law unto himself. His life philosophy can be summed up as, "If it works, do it." He runs roughshod over anything that stands in his way. Joe is right. This comparison makes me very uncomfortable. I am really struggling to see the vaguest similarity.
These types of analogies always follow the same kind of pattern: 1) find something popular, 2) find some way that it relates to Jesus, 3) claim that it is popular because of that relation.
I appreciate Driscoll's efforts to try to communicate Biblical ideas to individuals who are unfamiliar with the normal categories used in the church, I just hope that he can strike an appropriate balance in his ministry. For example, if Jack Bauer can be a type of Christ, could someone please tell me a pop culture figure who is not a type of Christ (of whom NO analogies with Jesus can be drawn)? And if Jesus is suddenly like everyone in our pop culture, how is he unique?
Furthermore, if we baptize our pop culture with all of these comparisons to Jesus, it could have the effect of making everything in popular culture "good." (I can watch this show because it helps me think about Jesus because the main character has X in common with Jesus.) Will we be able to act as critics of pop culture when it is appropriate if we hunt for these types of analogies?
I'm, admittedly, rather ignorant of Driscoll and much of his work/writing. I hope that, as he tries this approach to the gospel, he can also be aware of some of its disadvanteges. But other than that, at least let the man try. I find the analogy rather forced, but I also don't think it was intended for someone like me. Perhaps there are those who need these types of comparisons to develop the right mindset. Then, they can put them behind themselves as they find out that Jesus is far more worthy of reverance and awe than Jack Bauer. Milk first, then solid food.
Yeah, we do have to be cautious and balanced when using analogies in teaching the Scriptures, however, I agree with the first comment. We have an entire generation of people before us who have no point of reference about Jesus, church, the bible or any of those things. I've always been deeply influenced by what Paul did in Acts 17, kind of what I see Driscoll is doing, using something this generation does understand to point to and unveil what they don't. Pretty amazing, huh?
Helping people understand by connecting to existing points of reference is one thing, but I do agree we have a nasty tendency to "dumb down" and "Buddy-ize" the message of the Gospel to make it more palatable. As Joe's written before, Christ is not our "homeboy" or our "best bud." I think the group Acapella got near to the best summary with this lyric:
"The Alpha, the Omega, the Beginning and End, the God of All Creation...and my personal friend."
David once asked "who is man, that you are mindful of him?" The awesome fact that God IS mindful of us does not in any way detract from His Majesty and Power. Before we compare Christ to anyone, including Jack Bauer, we should review Psalm 113: 4-6
The LORD is exalted over all the nations,
his glory above the heavens.
Who is like the LORD our God,
the One who sits enthroned on high,
who stoops down to look
on the heavens and the earth?
Excellent, excellent post, Joe.
Too many times, it seems, those who attempt to make the Gospel "relevant" to Western culture end up attempting to make it "acceptable."
In our happy, feel-good version of Christianity, we "invite" people to receive Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, yet R.C. Sproul noted that, in Acts 17, Paul states that God
Do culturally relevant stories or analogies necessarily make the Gospel message more relevant? Richard John Neuhas wrote,
And Mere Comments highlighted a practice, in Georgia, of "networking" with the Lord. At least one atheist, though, saw right through the irreverent facade and wrote,
A society, technologically astute enough to understand an episode of 24, is capable of understanding the inspired Word of God.
Why do we avoid talking about eternal damnation and God's wrath? Are we afraid that if we do we won't be considered "hip" and "cool?" That we won't be relevant?
Because it makes you sound crazy, and makes God sound the same way?
Honestly, the transparently manipulative quality of that kind of talk, and its psychotic flavor, is a lot of what diminished Christianity's standing in America. (Today, the problem is that the most-visible Christians sound crazier when they're not talking about God than when they are, but that's a different matter.) Having a "personal relationship with God", whatever that is, at least sounds like something you'd be willing to do on your own intiative - not something forced on you by a serial torture-killer before he snuffs you and your whole family.
The Scriptures are full of Christ-types. Take Jonah, who is widely considered to be a type of Christ - particularly his being in the fish for three days before coming out. Obviously, we could list off ways in which Jonah was nothing like Christ, but his life does paint a picture of a certain element of Christ's mission of salvation. The analogy must be kept within scope, but it can be powerful.
I agree with much of Joe's post, concerning the problem of seeking relevance above the hard truth of the gospel. This is really hurting the contemporary church. But I disagree that this is what Driscoll is, in fact, doing with his ministry. He is not presenting the sum total of the gospel in this one post, or suggesting that Jack Bauer is a perfect representation of Christ. He seems to have a limited goal with - probably trying to counter-balance the emasculated picture of Jesus that is widely accepted. I've listened to a few of his sermon's available online, and he touches on other aspects of Jesus as well - often truths that do offend our culture.
I don't watch TV and have never heard of Jack Bauer, but we ought to defend the Acts 17 method. Granted, this particular blog post did not delve into the "repent and believe" or "eternal damnation and God's wrath" (wouldn't it be a little awkward if it did?) but a man ought to be judged by the totality of his message.
Dana Question: If you want readers to skip this post, why did you post it?
Because I had to post something, even if I hope people would just skip it.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with teaching by analogy.
Nor do I. I think metaphors are the greatest invention of mankind. But I think analogies should be applicable and, dare I say, relevant. The Jesus/Jack Bauer connection is simply a pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I hope your point here is not that we should focus on fearing God, but that NONE of the Bible should be glossed over.
Well, actually I do think we should focus on fearing God. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 1:7). Often we don’t want to stand in reverent, awestruck, tremble-inducing fear of our Creator because it would mean that we are lower creatures (i.e., not God). Our egos can’t take such submission.
Well, but - he DOES serve us in much the same way that personal trainers and personal assistants do. They provide a service. So does Christ. He is the only one who can save us.
[Banging my head against the table until I lose consciousness.]
If it leads people to Christ, I'm all for it.
God used a talking ass but that doesn’t mean that we need to…Okay, let me start again. Not everything that is effective should be used. I have no doubt that if we trained missionaries to be strippers that we could reach a lot more lost souls. But we shouldn’t lower ourselves by using immoral means for good objectives. Neither should we reduce Christ to a pop-culture figure in order to make him more palatable to the crowds.
And even the ephemeral can point toward the eternal.
Indeed, I believe it can. But we shouldn’t confuse people by making it appear as if the ephemeral is as worthy or important as the Second Person in the Trinity.
Here I think Driscoll's point is that many of the more "manly" qualities that Jesus does show have been glossed over for quite awhile.
Perphaps, but I don’t recall in the scriptures where Jesus maimed, killed, and tortured people in the way that Jack Bauer does (I’m am, by the way, a fan of “24”).
Mark However, for a lot of the unchurched, 24 is a touchstone. To reach that audience, describing Jesus as like TV's best action hero, only far better, might not be a bad analogy.
I have to disagree with you, Mark. I think it’s a terrible analogy. But the more important question is where did we get the idea that we can sacrifice reverence in order to be relevant?
He's preaching to modern-day latte-sippers who know more about Luke Skywalker than Luke the good physician-author.
This is something else I don’t understand. How did people in past culture ever come to know Christ if the only way to make him “relevant” is to compare him to a present-day popular figure? Isn’t there a reason why we say that Neo from The Matrix is a “Christ-figure” rather than saying that Christ is a “Neo-figure?”
Jeff I am really struggling to see the vaguest similarity.
Amen. Sure, if we stretch the bounds of incredulity we could find some similarity. But then we could say that Christ is like Hitler (they were both men, both were leaders, etc).
We have an entire generation of people before us who have no point of reference about Jesus, church, the bible or any of those things.
First of all, I don’t think that is true. I heard the same thing about my generation and I’m sure the same was said about the Baby Boomers, the In Betweeners, the Greatest Generation, and so on down through the ages. Even if it is true, though, why don’t we use Jesus as the point of reference? I realize that the church often portrays Christ as being so dull that he’s not worthy knowing. But I have faith that Christ is interesting enough—after all He is God-- that we don’t have to compare him to the latest fictional action hero to get people’s attention.
Rusty A society, technologically astute enough to understand an episode of 24, is capable of understanding the inspired Word of God.
Great point, Rusty. Not only do such comparisons show disrespect to Christ, but it disrespects the listener. 24 is a complex show and most imbeciles aren’t going to “get it.” If the audience is smart enough to follow 24 then they are intelligent enough to hear a clear presentation of the Gospel that is not dumbed-down in order to pander to them.
Kevin Because it makes you sound crazy, and makes God sound the same way?
What can I say, I’m a fool for Christ. ; )
Daniel But I disagree that this is what Driscoll is, in fact, doing with his ministry.
Whoa, hold up. I never said that Driscoll’s post is representative of his ministry. In fact, my point is not really about Rev. Dricoll at all. While he should no better, this is a larger problem within evangelicalism. I use him as an example, not as a whipping boy.
I don't watch TV and have never heard of Jack Bauer, but we ought to defend the Acts 17 method.
I completely agree. Unfortunately, I think we may have different perceptions of what is meant by the “Acts 17 method.” First, there is nothing in that passage that would justify the Jesus/Jack Bauer analogy. I suspect Paul would have thrown a fit if he had herard someone compare Jesus to an ends-justify-the-means torturer.
Second, Paul doesn’t try to make Jesus “relevant” to the audience at Mars Hill. He also doesn’t make an analogy at all. He doesn’t say that Jesus is like the Unknown God that the Greeks claim to worship. He says that Jesus is the Unknown God that they are just ignorant about who they worship.
The comparison is an enormous insult to Jack Bauer. Jack only tortures people, as you noted, as a means to an end. Jesus' chamber of eternal torture has no end, either teleologically or temporally.
Mark Driscoll must be a big time Christian all-star for just a blog post to be taken so seriously. Did you write the "please don't read this" disclaimer to hide the fact that you are being petty? But other than that, great post.
BrettR Mark Driscoll must be a big time Christian all-star for just a blog post to be taken so seriously.
Driscoll is a the pastor of Mars Hill in Seattle, a church with over 5,000 members. He's often included on the list of most influential preachers in America. So he is something of an "all-star."
Did you write the "please don't read this" disclaimer to hide the fact that you are being petty?
Yeah, sort of. This issue really gets under my skin, though. And when a pastor of Dricoll's caliber feels justified in using such analogies I think it says something about the state of the evangelical movement in America.
A few things you wrote Joe have me scratching my head.
(It will be equally painful to watch the fanboys come out of the woodwork to defend this nonsense.)
Ad hominem?
I have no doubt that if we trained missionaries to be strippers that we could reach a lot more lost souls. But we shouldn’t lower ourselves by using immoral means for good objectives. Neither should we reduce Christ to a pop-culture figure in order to make him more palatable to the crowds.
Non-sequitor?
Sometimes it seems as though you are very clever in your writting but almost too clever. As if you know you are using tricks to deceive but the important part is to convince your readers, not the route you take to get there.
I'm willing to bet that it happens too quickly and to easily for it to be a conscious effort. And to be clear I do not mean that in an insulting way.
God Bless you Joe.
Ad hominem?
No, an ad hominem is when you attack the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. I’m not attacking Driscoll or the “fanboys” nor am I making an argument. I’m simply ranting about an issue that bugs me.
The reference to the “fanboys”, though, could be construed as an insult. But I think there is some warrant for that label. Driscoll has come under attack lately for his frequent use of profanity.
Some people find that unbecoming of a pastor but I don’t want to get into that debate and so haven’t take a position on that particular issue. But some of those who have taken a position believe that if you like someone (i.e., Driscoll) then any criticism is ipso facto invalid and that anything they do is justified since they win souls for the Kingdom.
(By the way, I think maybe you are mistaking an “ad hominem” for the “poisoning the well” fallacy -- trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (whether true or not) about the person. If I were making an argument then this might be construed as a mild form of that fallacy.)
Non-sequitor?
No, a non sequitur occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the premise. While you may disagree with the applicability, the conclusion, or the premise, I think my point (a reductio ad absurdum) is logically sound.
Sometimes it seems as though you are very clever in your writting but almost too clever. As if you know you are using tricks to deceive but the important part is to convince your readers, not the route you take to get there.
Trust me, I’m not that clever. Nor, in fact, I’m I intentionally devious. Three years of blogging have taught me that someone somewhere will call me on everything. So I don’t try to “use tricks” to cover up anything. I'd get called on it, have to correct it, etc. I'm much to lazy to go through all that trouble. It's easier to just be honest (even when I'm wrong) then to attempt to be cleverly deceptive.
But aside from that I have to say that I’m not sure which part of my post you are referring to.
I'm willing to bet that it happens too quickly and to easily for it to be a conscious effort. And to be clear I do not mean that in an insulting way.
Well, I admit that it could be unconscious. But I’m still not sure what you mean. ; )
Joe and others:
I am wondering if those of you who disagree with the comparison would put Jack Bauer into the category of heros described by Al Mohler's post today (discussed on my blog, which can be accessed by clicking on my name.)
Alex
Joe wrote;
(By the way, I think maybe you are mistaking an “ad hominem” for the “poisoning the well” fallacy -- trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (whether true or not) about the person. If I were making an argument then this might be construed as a mild form of that fallacy.)
I think I did make that confusion. I thought poisoning the well was a part of ad hominem although I didn't know it was called poisoning the well.
No, a non sequitur occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the premise. While you may disagree with the applicability, the conclusion, or the premise, I think my point (a reductio ad absurdum) is logically sound.
I probably am wrong here, but I don't see how the two things follow.
For example, while I can find complete agreement with your first statement
I have no doubt that if we trained missionaries to be strippers that we could reach a lot more lost souls. But we shouldn’t lower ourselves by using immoral means for good objectives.
Who wouldn't disagree with that? Or simply the statement that using immoral means for good objectives is wrong.
But then you go on to say
Neither should we reduce Christ to a pop-culture figure in order to make him more palatable to the crowds.
Which doesn't seem to connect or follow from the previous sentence and i'm not at all sure if I can agree with it. So you picked one obvious thing that I can easily agree with and then connect it to something else that I havn't made my mind up about it yet.
This is something that reading newspapers have taught me over the past decade or so. You have to pay close attention while reading, otherwise we'll find our minds being convinced without having given sufficient thought to the argument. This obviously isn't your fault if we do that, or the writers fault, but it seems like as writers we have some obligation to the reader. And your argument contained in that paragraph pulls me in a certain direction and while i'm not able to put it in words, i'd try by saying I feel pulled in the direction of your assertion without being convinced.
I suppose if you are saying here that reducing Christ to a pop-culture figure is immoral then it wouldn't be a non-sequitor. But isn't it a non-sequitor if you are not saying that?
Maybe I should have just assumed that you are saying that and therefore it wouldn't be a non-sequitor.
God Bless you Joe.
I am not one to typically insert my thoughts or opinions into the middle of a concert like this one, but I have would really like to say something.
I don't really know Driscoll, and I'm only vaguely familiar with 24, but I wonder if we may possibly be missing the bigger issue here.
The gospel is to be proclaimed with thundering truth and should NEVER be watered down. Edwards knew this. Joe, you seem to know this. In fact, most people commenting seem to know this as well.
This Jack character is not Jesus. Driscoll knows this (I hope). Joe, you know this.
The only addition to this fiasco that I have to offer is this:
With all of the debates, with all of the emergent issues, with all of the lost souls out there in need of a true Savior (not Jack), with all of the social injustices and calamities that plague our world, may we make sure that we are fighting the good fight. So often I fear we slay the princess we are trying to rescue instead of the beast that has captured her.
Alex Chediak:
I read your's and Mohler's posts. I definitely think Mohler is closer to the mark than Driscoll. Bauer is no Vick Mackey, but he is nevertheless cut from the same "end justifies the means" mold. Interesting read.
Eric and Lisa Which doesn't seem to connect or follow from the previous sentence and i'm not at all sure if I can agree with it. So you picked one obvious thing that I can easily agree with and then connect it to something else that I havn't made my mind up about it yet.
I realize now (I think) what you are talking about. I see that I was rather unclear in what I said in my post. I've included an update that may help clear up the confusion about what I meant.
But to be state it briefly, I was making an assumption that may are may not have been applicable to Driscoll's post. For example, I think there is a huge difference between:
(a) Jack Bauer is a Christ-figure, and
(b) Christ is a Jack Bauer-figure
(A) is legitimate, while (B) is, in my opinion, blasphemous. I believe that while he uses the wording of (a), Driscoll is actually putting the simile in the form of (b). This makes an assumption that his intended audience was non-believers rather than Christians. On this point, I could be mistaken.
Joe,
Your the one being blasphemous. For your information I've accepted Jack Bauer into my heart as lord and savior, so I'd appreciate it if you'd quit defaming him.
Joe:
Interesting post, though a bit obscure to those of us not familiar with the US pop culture scene.
I think the gem of the comments is in E & L's remark:
This highlights how people are often manipulated in and by the media these days. My remarks on media spin games and excerpting of Greenleaf's rules for the road may be useful.
Kevin's "you will sound crazy" is a classic of begging worldview level questions then dismissing what does not line up with one's worldview: aka selective hyperskepticism. KTK, have you worked through the comparativce difficulties on say Chrisytian theism and evolutionary materialism? have you addressed the key warranting arguenbt of the Christian faith as Paul put it in say Ac 17, 1 Cor 15 and Rom 1 - 3? On what grounds therefore do you reject its implications?
Okay, just a few thoughts.
Grace open our eyes
Gordon
PS: PERSONAL Saviour. I sometimes think that a better way is, to ask: Have you personally surrendered to and confessed Jesus as Lord and received him as your Saviour?
Making reference to Col 1:15 ff and Phil 2:5 - 11 in light of say Isa 45:18 - 23 is sometimes useful. [And in at least one case I recall, simply reading the passagres led to a mini revival breakig out . . .]
Gordon:
The idea that I have to take seriously every wild claim found in the Bible and prove them wrong to your satisfaction is, it seems to me, an example of selective hypergulliblism on your part.
As to why I think Christians sound crazy when they get too carried away, it's because they say things like:
"The wrath of God burns against [unbelievers], their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them . . . ."
You know, crazy things.
Joe, I enjoyed your thought-provoking article on "Reverence and Relevance" as my husband and I also watch the television show "24 Hours" after seeing it while visiting our policeman son. We'll continue to watch the ucoming season's episodes r/t China. Hopefully it won't get into a repetitious rut of "chase, chase, bang, bang." I've also enjoyed the feedback comments and the "fallacy" items which I hope to collect. This is my first visit to the Evangelical Outpost Blog, or to any blog for that matter, after finding its reference in Hugh Hewitt's informative book, "Blog". I'll be back. Grandma
Ahh, that we could all be as "crazy" as Jonathan Edwards.
All:
Re: KTK: The idea that I have to take seriously every wild claim found in the Bible and prove them wrong to your satisfaction is, it seems to me, an example of selective hypergulliblism on your part.
Interesting, but sad. KTK here simply begs major worldview questions and resorts to the rhetoric of dismissal rather than the hard work of seriously addressing issues by inference to best explanation relative to factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power through comparative difficulties in the messy province of facts.
We are not here dealing about any and all assertions anyone may dream up but with the central claims of the movement that transformed the world starting in Judaea and Samaria 20 centuries ago. Those claims go to the central questions of thought: God's existence, our alienation from him as sinners, his gracious intervention in love that we might be reconciled and the requirement of reconciliation: repentance. These are issues that it is fair comment to say constitute in aggregate forced, momentous choices.
I therefore think it appropriate to cite Simon Greenleaf -- as is in one of the links above -- to show that KTK is indulging in turnabout rhetoric in the teeth of the facts. For, all I -- and many others before me of the rank of a C S Lewis, or an Alvin Plantinga or of course that founding father of the theory of evidence just alluded to -- have asked for is that we soberly address matters of fact on the terms that we do so in serious contexts:
In short, it is KTK who wishes special exemptions for his worldview beliefs, not the undersigned. Thus, sadly, he has falsely accused and attacked the man [and more broadly the movement] rather than engaged the live issue. This -- even more sadly -- is of course exactly the "jamming" pattern that Kupelian discusses in his Marketing of Evil. [Cf interview here.]
Enough on the rhetorical resorts deplored by Aristotle, so long ago now, in his The Rhetoric:
Instead, let us turn to the substantial issues. On the core questions, I draw onlookers' attention to first a recent online discovery, F F Bruce's justly famous work on the reliability of the NT, and second, to a challenge I have repeatedly highlighted in this blog, one that has yet to be taken up seriously -- with one exception, my excellent friend AndyS [whose citation of a leading UK atheist's site failed, as the atheist in question simply distorted the book rather than addressing it fairly and squarely on the merits: but instead set up and knocked over a strawman. Andy of course was in no position to realise that such a dishonest resort had been made till I pointed it out].
Morison, circa 1930 [Cf also Craig etc]:
The issue is, that we have competing explanations on the origins of our Christianised Western history, given Paul's foundational status in the development of Western Civ as we know it: that synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome that with the later Germanic injection formed the culture in which we are having this discourse.
That brings to the fore a key question: Which explanation is most adequate, relative to facts, coherence and explanatory power?
I submit that, while it is obviously unpopular in secularised and neo-pagan circles today [so the rhetoric of dismissal and resort to ad hominems and “tu quo quo”s are, sadly, hardly unexpected], the historic Christian claim is the one that best fits the bill. By sharpest contrast, it can be shown that the secularist vision is unfortunately fundamentally and inescapably incoherent and factually inadequate as a worldview.
++++++++
Let us deal with the matter as it should be dealt with: seriously, at the bar of comparative difficulties, as a live experiment in the logic of explanation, i.e. abductive reasoning.
Grace open our eyes
Gordon
It is really amazing how far people will take types.
And it's sad that education is reduced to something that feels good rather than something of lasting value.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/