Sunday, March 11, 2007
Stranger Than Fiction meets Ellen White in Acts 20
"If a man does know he's going to die and dies anyway, dies willingly knowing he could stop it; then, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?" questions Emma Thompson's conflicted character, Karen Eiffel, in Stranger Than Fiction. If one can avoid over-analyzing the inconsistent, implausible plot, and instead consider the way this original story explores concepts like fate, freedom of choice, and even divine election, then one will be prepared to see Will Farrell's character, Harold Crick, as a type of the Apostle Paul who followed the example of Jesus. This modern day parable then becomes an illustration of a 'righteous' man. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8)
Paul does a similar thing. He is warned in no uncertain terms what awaits him in Jerusalem. Yet, the heart of Christ for his Jewish brothers and sisters compels him to go on. In Jerusalem, Paul meets with James and the other Christian leaders. The significant gift he brings from the Gentile churches is not even mentioned by Luke. Could it be that the gift seemed to do so little in facilitating the Jewish/Gentile unity that Paul so desired that Luke left it out?
In Acts of the Apostles, Ellen White attributes the pride and bigotry of the early Christian leaders to Paul's untimely captivity. Paul went willingly to Jerusalem seeking to do good and knowing that due to the prejudice of those who opposed his message of radical inclusivity, he would not leave the city a free man. He was indeed "the type of man you want to keep alive." Unfortunately, the jealous church leaders did not not seem to think so, "...instead of uniting in an effort to do justice to the one who had been injured, they gave him counsel which showed that they still cherished a feeling that Paul should be held largely responsible for the existing prejudice. They encouraged him to be exposed in the temple courtyard where he was recognized, beaten, and captured."
This interpretation of Acts 21 fits well within the context of late 1800's Adventism. The 'little flock' was growing and becoming more diverse and there must have been elements pushing to go back to traditions from their former churches. In addition, Ellen White had a more personal application where she had been forced by a decision from the church leaders to go to Australia even though she felt it was not where God was leading. In the end, there were even similarities in the results. Paul was forced into an untimely end to his ministry in Jerusalem but was then able to write the much loved prison letters and continue the contextualization of the gospel before Roman leaders and into the very heart of Rome. Ellen White also faced an interruption of her ministry in North America but was afforded the time to write portions of the Conflict of the Ages series and work to expand the horizons of Adventism.
Currently, the paradigm has shifted so that an application of Acts 21 would more likely involve encouragement to seek unity within a growing liberal/conservative polarization without regressing into the legalism of the 1950s and 60s or the 'guerilla warfare' of the 1970s and 80s (See Julius Nam's insightful review of the recent play, Red Books).
In the end the life and work of all these characters, the fictional but very real Francis Crick, the Spirit-led and controversial Paul, and the enigmatic and messy Ellen White, are ascribed value to the extent that they exemplified the heart of Christ and gave their time, effort, and in some cases even their very lives in seeking the greater good of those around them. Isn't that the type of legacy you want to keep alive?
Paul does a similar thing. He is warned in no uncertain terms what awaits him in Jerusalem. Yet, the heart of Christ for his Jewish brothers and sisters compels him to go on. In Jerusalem, Paul meets with James and the other Christian leaders. The significant gift he brings from the Gentile churches is not even mentioned by Luke. Could it be that the gift seemed to do so little in facilitating the Jewish/Gentile unity that Paul so desired that Luke left it out?
In Acts of the Apostles, Ellen White attributes the pride and bigotry of the early Christian leaders to Paul's untimely captivity. Paul went willingly to Jerusalem seeking to do good and knowing that due to the prejudice of those who opposed his message of radical inclusivity, he would not leave the city a free man. He was indeed "the type of man you want to keep alive." Unfortunately, the jealous church leaders did not not seem to think so, "...instead of uniting in an effort to do justice to the one who had been injured, they gave him counsel which showed that they still cherished a feeling that Paul should be held largely responsible for the existing prejudice. They encouraged him to be exposed in the temple courtyard where he was recognized, beaten, and captured."
This interpretation of Acts 21 fits well within the context of late 1800's Adventism. The 'little flock' was growing and becoming more diverse and there must have been elements pushing to go back to traditions from their former churches. In addition, Ellen White had a more personal application where she had been forced by a decision from the church leaders to go to Australia even though she felt it was not where God was leading. In the end, there were even similarities in the results. Paul was forced into an untimely end to his ministry in Jerusalem but was then able to write the much loved prison letters and continue the contextualization of the gospel before Roman leaders and into the very heart of Rome. Ellen White also faced an interruption of her ministry in North America but was afforded the time to write portions of the Conflict of the Ages series and work to expand the horizons of Adventism.
Currently, the paradigm has shifted so that an application of Acts 21 would more likely involve encouragement to seek unity within a growing liberal/conservative polarization without regressing into the legalism of the 1950s and 60s or the 'guerilla warfare' of the 1970s and 80s (See Julius Nam's insightful review of the recent play, Red Books).
In the end the life and work of all these characters, the fictional but very real Francis Crick, the Spirit-led and controversial Paul, and the enigmatic and messy Ellen White, are ascribed value to the extent that they exemplified the heart of Christ and gave their time, effort, and in some cases even their very lives in seeking the greater good of those around them. Isn't that the type of legacy you want to keep alive?
Comments:
<< Home
I have been thinking about what our take would be without the EGW spin -- Brent's 1st question in class.
If one just looked at the text, one's cynical side would think that Paul was foolhardy to continue to Jerusalem despite the warnings from God. Yet as many of us might have done, Paul did continue to Jerusalem. Did he want to show the "Brethren" how successful he had been and how much money he had brought for them? Either way, God looks good. Despite the failings, whether they were Paul's or the Brethren's, He (God) does optimize the circumstances for the good.
One also has to wonder what would have happened if the brethren had not sent EGW to Australia. If I remember correctly, they sent her away because they did not like her stance on 1888-Righteousness by faith. Maybe our denomination would not have gone through the legalistic phase of the mid 20th century if she had stayed in the US. On the other hand, her "writing" of the Conflict of the Ages series has turned our denomination's gaze to the war between God and Satan -- an important context to understand as we learn more about God through His dealings with humans through the ages.
So it seems as though God can use whatever circumstances for good.
If one just looked at the text, one's cynical side would think that Paul was foolhardy to continue to Jerusalem despite the warnings from God. Yet as many of us might have done, Paul did continue to Jerusalem. Did he want to show the "Brethren" how successful he had been and how much money he had brought for them? Either way, God looks good. Despite the failings, whether they were Paul's or the Brethren's, He (God) does optimize the circumstances for the good.
One also has to wonder what would have happened if the brethren had not sent EGW to Australia. If I remember correctly, they sent her away because they did not like her stance on 1888-Righteousness by faith. Maybe our denomination would not have gone through the legalistic phase of the mid 20th century if she had stayed in the US. On the other hand, her "writing" of the Conflict of the Ages series has turned our denomination's gaze to the war between God and Satan -- an important context to understand as we learn more about God through His dealings with humans through the ages.
So it seems as though God can use whatever circumstances for good.
On the Progressive Adventism blog forum there is an interesting discussion (click here) about Red Books and Ellen White. This quote from David Larson caught my eye.
"I BELIEVE THAT EGW IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE THIS CHURCH FROM THE WORST FORMS OF FUNDAMENTALISM BECAUSE SHE IS OUR MOST EFFECTIVE CONTACT WITH OUR WESLEYAN HERITAGE.
REMOVE HER FROM OUR MIDST AND THE RESULT WILL NOT BE MORE LIGHT BUT GREATER DARKNESS. THOSE WHO LIKE JERRY FALWELL, WILL LOVE ADVENTISM WITHOUT EGW!"
I really like the thought, but I have seen some very fundamentalist Adventists who considered themselves the last great defenders of Ellen White and Adventism. So, depending on ones view of inspiration, personal temperament, and above all understanding of God, Ellen White may or may not be able to save us from the worst forms of fundamentalism.
Larson's opinion goes along with Yung's comment though and it is interesting to think what might have been the results if she had been allowed to remain in North America during the 1888 Jones and Waggoner fallout.
"I BELIEVE THAT EGW IS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE THIS CHURCH FROM THE WORST FORMS OF FUNDAMENTALISM BECAUSE SHE IS OUR MOST EFFECTIVE CONTACT WITH OUR WESLEYAN HERITAGE.
REMOVE HER FROM OUR MIDST AND THE RESULT WILL NOT BE MORE LIGHT BUT GREATER DARKNESS. THOSE WHO LIKE JERRY FALWELL, WILL LOVE ADVENTISM WITHOUT EGW!"
I really like the thought, but I have seen some very fundamentalist Adventists who considered themselves the last great defenders of Ellen White and Adventism. So, depending on ones view of inspiration, personal temperament, and above all understanding of God, Ellen White may or may not be able to save us from the worst forms of fundamentalism.
Larson's opinion goes along with Yung's comment though and it is interesting to think what might have been the results if she had been allowed to remain in North America during the 1888 Jones and Waggoner fallout.
We saw the movie Stranger Than Fiction a few days ago. I am having trouble making the connection that you make in your essay, Brent--between the movie and Paul and EGW. Can you elaborate?
I liked the movie. Great character portrayal!
I liked the movie. Great character portrayal!
# posted by 
: 8:30 AM
: 8:30 AM
The connection between Crick and Paul is more straightforward. Both of them continued in the story they were a part of and sought the greater good in the face of certain personal calamity.
Connecting this common theme of selfless love with Ellen White and her ministry may be a bit of a stretch I admit. However, it seemsby to me that she sought the greater good of those around her as God's messenger despite many trials including: lack of family time, personal health issues, and misunderstandings/misrepresentations by those to whom she was attempting to minister.
In the last paragraph of the post I was trying to explore a new way in which we might value Ellen White. In some ways, her own life may be an example of the selfless love of Christ exemplified by Crick, Paul, and many other Christlike people and characters. As Karen Eiffel puts it, these are the kind of people and characters whose stories you want to keep alive.
Post a Comment
Connecting this common theme of selfless love with Ellen White and her ministry may be a bit of a stretch I admit. However, it seemsby to me that she sought the greater good of those around her as God's messenger despite many trials including: lack of family time, personal health issues, and misunderstandings/misrepresentations by those to whom she was attempting to minister.
In the last paragraph of the post I was trying to explore a new way in which we might value Ellen White. In some ways, her own life may be an example of the selfless love of Christ exemplified by Crick, Paul, and many other Christlike people and characters. As Karen Eiffel puts it, these are the kind of people and characters whose stories you want to keep alive.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]