Sick of Da Vinci Code Mania?
Excerpt: “Regarding DVC, I’m an apathist. I feel no outrage at the novelist for writing fiction about Mary Magdalene and the Church. I feel no urgency that Brown’s fiction might prevail against the Church. Call me crazy, call me complacent, but I tend to think the Church is slightly more durable than the Da Vinci Code.”
Share on Facebook
June 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Hi Mark,
This has nothing to do with the Da Vinci code–and since you posted last on my blog in an off-the-topic kind of way–I thought that I would too :). Below is a link to something that I posted last week that I thought you would like–and yes, it is a positive post. (How many times in two sentences can one use the word “post” or a form thereof?)
http://percaritatem.blogspot.com/2006/05/enns-on-apostolic-christotelic.html
Cheers,
Cynthia
June 1st, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Gee, the power of the gospel versus a second rate novel? I see no contest.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Msrk, this is actually a response to your comment on Cynthia’s blog.
If for you, any hint of anything but full-fledged, wholehearted, unquestioned devotion to Enns is just cause for the immediate severance of all relations (tweak, tweak), likewise for me when it comes to Poythress. I know you took Hermeneutics in Spring 2005, and its hard for me to imagine I took a different class in Spring 2006. Consider the following: Poythress’ primary assignment is a Biblical-Theological paper; his multiperspective analysis, wherein the text is considered from numerous perspectives, including promise-fulfillment, and sin, suffering and glory, with each perspective considered in light of Christ; he spent an entire class (2 hours) on the subject of a Christological reading of the Psalms - they’re all “messianic”; after having engaged the tough analytical work, he considers any text from a Genesis to Revelation perspective, etc.
I don’t think Enns would at all disagree with Poythress’ firm belief that a thorough engagement with the text as its presented on a first reading yields the fullest Christotelic reading.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Mdrk, see how angry you’ve made me. I can’t even spell your name properly.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:53 am
John,
I would have preferred that you had responded on Cynthia’s blog. I don’t want to take this off into a discussion on Poythress’s class, which I much appreciated. I enjoyed all the things you mentioned; I was thinking more of the rhetorical analysis and linguistics sections, which made my brain hurt.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Yes, I’m so sick of the whole thing–including Tom Hanks’ hair–that I coined a term for it: “hypesteria”
If that doesn’t describe a movie that was soundly trounced by X-Men 3 I don’t know what does.
Now you can go back to your squabbles about Enns, et al.
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 pm
But Steve, X-Men 3 is the witnessing opportunity of the century!! Obviously you need to buy my new book Breaking the Decoding of the Truth Behind the X-Men. It will be on the shelves of your local Family Positive Life Center Book Storre as soon as Thomas Kinkade gets back to me with the cover art.
June 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
i totally agree with Mr. Lucke.
my friend and i discussed this and i think the biggest problem is the lack of education in the church, so that when something like DVC comes along everyone freaks out. Bible Belters HATE DVC like it’s the anti-chirst, it’s highly annoying.