I began writing a blog to introduce why I both loved and loathed the show “Lost”. That introduction turned into a blog of its own which I posted yesterday. What I said of “Lost” was that:
"it was a show that sucked you into a world without answers. It was like being a part of early man, where existence and experience defied explanation and subsequently, definition. It took me to a time reminiscent of childhood where everything was new and was received with excitement and awe. It was a world of mystery. A world in which our paradigm no longer worked and a new paradigm had to be learned."
The great thing about “Lost” was the mystery. It was about the discovery and the process of learning. The characters had to learn why the island was there, how the island operated, and why they were on the island in the first place (purpose not plane crash). The exciting thing was that they did this process of discovery not autonomously but dependent upon one another… and then the ending came.
The last episode of “Lost” totally blew. Here’s why:
It explained the mystery
As I said before, the key to the excitement of “Lost” was in its mystery. What happens when mystery itself is lost? There can no longer be reverence for that which is now defined. Richard Dawkins says that: "As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful." I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. I believe that the ancients held the rainbow in much more wonderment than do we, especially when they saw it as a covenant between themselves and their God.
I find a great deal of similarity between the disappointing explanations of the season’s finale with doing the task of theology. Christian theology in the West is done in such a way that we seek to define God, and in defining him we think we have come to know him.
Much like the reverence for the island was lost once an explanation was given by the show’s creators, we lose reverence for God believing that our theology has encapsulated him. We ought not think of ourselves as having mastered a theology but rather we ought to be mastered by the God of our theology.
In thinking about God, we ought always to remember that our source is inexhaustible and yet he has made himself known. God is mysterious and yet he is not distant. We must live in the tension of “knowing” the incarnate Jesus yet not being able to grasp him in his entirety.
Here are the rest of my thoughts that got edited out:
ReplyDeleteTheologians who continue to operate in this way find themselves bored with God which is not surprising. Seeking to define every nook and cranny of God, through the extraction of categories from a book which is mostly narrative leads us to conclude that by mastering our definitions of God, we have encapsulated Him. So for example, if we are reading the bible with the imposed view of soteriology, we may not be able to hold in tension a Pauline view of atonement with the thoughts of the synoptic writers.