Overall I found Eric Metaxas to be the most interesting presenter/speaker of the 2012 January Series thus far. I found him to be witty, engaging, and right on the mark on the vast majority of points he made. He definitely has a fair share of charisma – something that will no doubt help him to sell piles of his books (I’m already planning on getting the Bonhoeffer book eventually). Two minor quibbles I had with him were his insistence that Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy is truthfully history, free of his personal thoughts and opinions, and his statement that he doesn’t disagree with Bonhoeffer on any (major) issues. First, while it’s great (and perhaps somewhat obligatory) to say that a biographical book you write sticks to history just as it was, we all know that authoring such a book is impossible by definition. Part of history is the lens through which it’s viewed meaning that history can’t be practiced without some sort of spin being put on it. Secondly, I think we can also pretty easily realize that it’s (near) impossible to agree with someone else on every issue. So, to understand Metaxas’ statement that he agrees with Bonhoeffer on everything we must accept one of three possible conclusions: either Metaxas didn’t feel like answering the question (it was towards the end of our Q&A and perhaps he was growing tired of answering Bonhoeffer questions), or Metaxas interpreted the question as only referring to a limited number of issues and could indeed feasibly agree with Bonhoeffer on say, a dozen or so issues, or finally, Metaxas does in fact believe that he and Bonhoeffer do agree on all issues. I find this last conclusion to be rather troublesome as it indicates to me that Metaxas may have very well projected some of himself onto Bonhoeffer when interpreting Bonhoeffer’s writings and while writing his book. If this were to be the case then it would seem that Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy would be greatly diminished as it would begin to slide more towards a book about how Metaxas applies Bonhoeffer’s writings and teachings rather than an actual biography on Bonhoeffer. I tend toward believing that the Metaxas’ statement falls somewhere between the first and second options – he generally agrees with Bonhoeffer and didn’t feel like picking at nitty gritty details that individuals lacking much background on Bonhoeffer (such as most of our class) probably would be unable to appreciate.
The issue I (and probably a great deal of the class) found to be most interesting was Metaxas’ handling of the kill vs. assassination vs. murder distinction. On the whole I think Metaxas handled the subject quite well, warning against “all-or-nothing” and “black-or-white” approaches so often took. Circumstances dictate what action should be taken in such scenarios, making it impossible to have a sort of general rule about when it’s ok to take another human’s life. However, I do think Metaxas could have gone further on the distinction of the great weight that results from taking another’s life versus the beautiful and amazing story that unfolds when a villain is redeemed rather than killed by a hero. Thinking about the some of the great stories that have been told in literature and cinema, while stories of vigilantism and “redemptive violence” (making things right by killing someone) are extremely popular and constitute one of America’s greatest myths (think of all of the Westerns that have been told), stories of non-violent redemption have posses the potential to have even more resonance with audiences. I think this may be a good reflection on the way God has created us. While we can take drastic, somber actions in dire circumstances, we are ultimately more satisfied with actions that reflect God’s patience, forgiveness and most of all goodness.
No comments:
Post a Comment