Movie Review: Heretic
If you're looking for a good movie to see and don't mind thrillers or horror, Heretic is a good choice. It's hard to talk much about it without giving anything away. So I'll keep my comments brief by speaking more about what the movie might speak into in our cultural moment.
For one, Hugh Grant does a masterful job of depicting a man jaded by a total deconstruction of belief. The characters he interrogates and keeps hostage are two young women from the church of the Latter Day Saints. The movie does a great job of humanizing it's religious characters. It's very rare for a Hollywood movie nowadays to depict religious characters as the protagonists. Mormonism, however, is peripheral to the point of the movie. The point is belief vs. unbelief. One of these young women represents the first naivete, an idealistic and simplistic understanding of the world and their religion, while the other woman represents the second naivete, standing somewhere between belief and unbelief.
How things play out between this sadistic and fully deconstructed believer and these two women is sure to surprise and shock.
Notes From Rudolfo Luna teaching on 1 John 2:27b at the Teleios Conference at the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio (Summarized in my own words)
"You do not need anyone to teach you." (1 Jn. 2:27b)
My teachers taught me to approach scripture with a soft heart and a sharp mind. Christian education is very important to me as a teacher in a school of theology. So is this scripture spelling an end to Christian education? Well, let's explore if this is the case.
First, let's get into the background of 1 John. The book is written from the anonymous "I" or "we" and is clearly from a position of authority. Most scholars consider the writing style to be that of the apostle John.
Now let's look at some of the content of this letter. In 1 John 2:18-19 and 4:4-6, we have hints that this is a polemic against dissidents from the community to which John is writing. A schism occurred in this community that led John to speak about the dissidents in "us" vs. "them" terminology. This schism is clearly fresh, something that had recently happened, and the community is likely reeling from it. John reframes missionary success of the dissidents as the work of the devil. Numbers do not matter and those who stick to the truth will be on God's side regardless of present optics. The situation then may have been different than today where there may not have been another orthodox community outside of John's church, so the "us" vs. "them" terminology was necessary to differentiate themselves from the dissidents, and not give the impression that they were the same.
This is where the statement emerges: "You do not need anyone to teach you."
The language John uses of this dissenting group indicates that they were likely a Gnostic sect: They taught Jesus was not human (did not come in the flesh). John is speaking against the elitism of this Gnostic sect. They were teaching that they were the ones who were allowed to teach others, perhaps through a supposed chain of apostolic authority. But John is saying they are taught by the Spirit and do not need any specific person to teach them. There is no human teaching or tradition they must follow. They all received the Spirit of God and are able to discern the word of God as a community.
In John 4:1-3, we also see that this community was troubled by multiple contradicting claims to God's Spirit. So John tells them to turn to their first hearing of the gospel. It is very interesting that the only concrete example between John's community and the dissidents is that one gives of their possessions and the other community does not (3:16-19). Somehow the Gnostic teaching that Jesus was not in the flesh had real world implications on charity and love. John does not separate Christology or spirituality from the incarnate life of the Christian. This is likely exactly what the Gnostic sect was doing. From this perspective, the dissenter's theology came after their lack of generosity. This was the root issue. In other words, they found a theology to excuse their lack of love and generosity.
Augustine has said, "Love, and do what you want." If you aren't ready to die for your brother, get ready to give of your goods to your brother.
Charity is the school of martyrdom.
Love your brother and you will see God.
Thoughts on the Translation of Doulos as Slave
Should “doulos” be translated in English Bibles as “slaves”? The LEB often translates it as “slaves”, but the ESV often translates as “servants.” This is one case where translators have to make a decision between a literal rendering of a word, and a contextual rendering.
I once heard a Sunday message on this word doulos where the preacher was insistent that this word should always be translated as “slave” rather than “servant.” In my opinion, the message was highly insensitive given the historical situation of black people in the congregation. Being a slave in the US often has racialized overtones, which he failed to mention or express any sympathy for. It was, in effect, tone deaf.
However, I am not trying to give a red herring to the question: Should doulos be literally translated as “slave” or as “servant”? In the end, I respect both ways of translating the word. For one, the choice likely depends on the passage’s context. It would be a mistake to assume that every time the word “doulos” is mentioned that the most literal rendering is “slave.” While I don’t understand Greek, and I’m reasonably certain that the minister speaking that day also did not understand Greek, a quick google search reveals that the literal rendering is often “slave,” but “servant” “in contexts where the agency of doulos is better understood as a servant, such as in some of Jesus’ parables. For example, the ESV uses ‘servant’ in contexts that indicate a wide range of freedom.” And Bondservant can also be a good cultural translation, “when it refers to someone who is bound to serve their master for a specific period of time, but may still own property or achieve social advancement. For example, the ESV uses ‘bondservant’ in 1 Corinthians 7:21-24.”
Second, it matters what our culture around slavery is today as well. Did slavery look different in first century Rome than it would look today or in our recent cultural past. Sometimes translators take this into account not because they are a bunch of pandering liberals who don’t want to offend anyone. No, it’s because words change meaning in different contexts. For example, if a translator was translating into a language where slavery looked more or less exactly like slavery in first century Rome, they should likely translate doulos as “slave.” But if “slave” in the first century Roman empire often looked more like a bondservant than a slave, it should likely be translated thus with a footnote providing other possible translations. What I’m saying is not profound, but common sense when you think about the kinds of things an intelligent translator has to consider.
Lastly, I think there is a consideration of what we are trying to do when we are insistent that doulos always be translated “slave.” Are we trying to make our congregation more “compliant” and “submissive”? If so, we might insist that we should think of ourselves as “slaves” who do not question anything and simply comply with what is given from the top down. And does the leader who gives this message think they are speaking for God and so their congregation should comply without question? Has obedience to God and “slavery” to God been equated to obedience to church leaders? Is this the subtext?
This would be a very manipulative use of this translation issue indeed. Maybe we should preach more about reorienting our understanding of power than delving into translation issues we don’t really fully understand and require someone who specializes in translation. Additionally, if we are to bring up slavery we should not fail to mention how the New Testament begins to reorient the slave in the Church community giving them an equality that had never been seen before.
Perhaps our exegesis would lead us to understand that the more we think of ourself as a leader, the more we should consider ourselves “slaves of all” (see Luke 22:24-30). From this perspective, the leaders of congregation should be the most “submissive” and “compliant” of the whole church.
Comments