Cranach on Lost
There’s an interesting posting & discussion going on over at the Cranach blog. Granted, this is not an uncommon occurrence, but in this case it happens to be centered on one of my favorite TV shows (non-realitytv division), ABC’s Lost.
More specifically, it’s dealing with the fairly reasonable treatment that Christianity is getting with the recent (2nd season) addition of the ‘Mr. Eko’ character, who is, for all intents and purposes (i.e., setting the quibbling over specifics that we’ve learned form his backstory aside for the moment) a Roman Catholic priest. For the most part, the Christian faith is getting a reasonably decent shake from the writers, although I would certainly like to take them to task for some of the baptismal theology that they put forth in last week’s episode. In all, though, I was very happy that in the end Baptism was given such a respectful & generally accurate treatment — i.e., the theology put forth was one of Baptismal Regeneration.
A development that I’m not quite as comfortable with is (and this will only matter to those of you who actually watch the show…) how they are changing the tenor of Locke’s “faith” as a result of Eko’s emergence. Over at Cranach, some commenters are chalking that up to Locke being emblematic of a more postmodern Oprah-like “faith-in-faith”, something with which I think I can agree. But, as Locke has always been the voice of “faith” vs. Jack’s voice of “reason”, I’ve found the recent, shall we say, refinement in his character to be more than a little jarring — especially in the dismissive attitude he had towards evil & Baptism in the last episode.
The show is good, and the discussion over at Cranach is good — check ‘em both out.
-ghp
Comments
3 Responses to “Cranach on Lost”
Leave a Reply
-
Analytics & Hosting
I personally didn’t care that much for the episode. The baptism was as artificial as it gets. The emphasis was placed on the water, not the words. The baptism being for JESUS’ forgiveness was blatantly wrong. And the suggestion that it bought you “a ticket to heaven” reeked of choice-based, always-saved theology.
On the other hand, I was never deceived by Locke. He was ultimately a humanist. The power to believe is external yes but comes from within. Ecko was truly repentant, doesn’t expect miracles, confronts life and death in this fashion and finally cares for his neighbor rather than being selfish and self-focused like Locke. Locke always has some other motivation, even with Claire.
If you watch Battlestar Galactica, it was sacramental last week as well. The president received blood from the miracle alien baby, curing her.
Chris
The line about Jesus being forgiven in baptism was so far off, I almost wonder whether I misheard it. I don’t think so, but yikes–it was bad! I’m wondering if it was poorly written — or maybe even done on purpose, because Eko technically is *not* a priest. He wouldn’t be the most theologically literate guy, having been an evil drug-runner in his past life. So maybe the writers put that line in there to remind us that he’s still basically “playing” priest. (Best construction, and all that!)
That being said, I don’t think the baptism was really that artificial. I mean, yeah, the scene gave short-shrift to baptism. But a 2-minute sermon on baptism would necessarily give it short shrift, too. There’s just not a lot you can say in 2 minutes that brings home the fullness of the sacrament. I much prefer this treatment to the treatment evangelicals would give baptism as a personal choice.
Glen, I’m also mourning the Locke I loved. But if they’re doing what it seems they’re doing, they’ve done it beautifully. Think about the Oprah parallel. Oprah is wonderful and lovable and delightful, and she seems so spiritual and faithful — at first. But then as you dig deeper, you realize she’s not really “faithful” in any meaningful sense. It’s the same with Locke. I so wanted him to be the man of faith, and he so seemed to be the man of faith. But dig a little deeper, and just as Christopher said, he’s nothing more than a humanist. His faith is in humanity, or in faith, but it’s ultimately misplaced.
You both bring up good points, especially regarding the horrific statement that Jesus had His sins forgiven in His baptism. To be honest, that really did just about ruin the whole episode for me. Other than that
it wasn’t all that bad, at least in terms of how Eko presented baptism, as well as how the eventual baptisms were portrayed. Were they ideal? No. Did I appreciate the symbolism in Charlie’s dreams, and the (dare I say it?) faithful ferocity with which he acted upon his understanding of those dreams? Yes!
For me, our perception of two characters has been quite radically manipulated/altered in season 2 — Locke & Charlie. For me, both have been made much less likable & sympathetic. In the big picture, I find Locke’s transformation (perhaps exposure is a better word…) into someone who merely has faith in the Island to be more troubling. In the small picture, however, I’ve been much more disappointed in the way that Charlie became so unsympathetic as he fought his heroin-fueled demons. Mitigating Charlie somewhat is the fact that, in the context of 50 days it’s quite understandable that he’d fight such a fight — even as it’s quite bothersome in the context of 30+ episodes over 1.5 years.