No matter how big of a fan you are, or how many times you’ve watched every episode, or how many of the producers’ podcasts you’ve listened to we are all to some degree lost. No one on the outside truly knows what is going on with ABC’s hit series. We may have some greater knowledge as each episode ends but we have not yet reached complete understanding. It has, however, been interesting for me to watch as various religious themes keep popping up throughout the series, and last night’s season finale was no exception (WARNING: Spoiler Alert!).
Last night’s season finale of Lost ended with a gripping cliffhanger, as all season finales do. But what interested me more was the character of Jacob. The interest was not only because we get our first glimpse of him here, but also because of the triangle of tension going on between him, Locke, and Ben. It was the final confrontation scene that developed the most intrigue in me and led to me to consider if Lost does not have some underlying religious, particularly Christian, themes to it.
Here in this scene Benjamin Linus confronts Jacob for having never responded to him. Ben is furious. He has served faithfully for all these years, done everything asked of him, and never once disobeyed a direct order. And for all his service his daughter is killed, he gets diagnosed with cancer, and is finally banished from the island. And when, after all his years of service and faithfulness, he had asked to see Jacob he was told “no, be patient.” But John Locke, the new leader of the Others, asks once and is immediately escorted to Jacob, “like he was Moses” (Ben’s own words). So all this leads Ben to ask his master, “Why did you ignore me? What about me?”
It is a provocative question. Benjamin has the chance to ask the invisible controller of his destiny, the ruler of the island, the one from whom he received all his commands, “why have you been so far from me?” It’s a question that rings in my ears like a critique of God. It’s a question that the Psalmist asked. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest” (Psalm 22:1-2). It is the complaint of Jeremiah when he continually cried up, “How long, O Lord?” And it was, most famously, the question of Job (see particularly chapter 23). As Job had been a “righteous man” so Benjamin had lived up to his responsibilities and honored Jacob’s requests. Why, then, were they not answered?
It’s an age old question, and one every person who has suffered has at some point thought to themselves. I know I myself just recently pondered the reasons God allows evil. It is not a question I intend to attempt an answer to now, but I can’t help but wonder if Lost is proposing some direction for its viewers on the relationship between the mysterious/the divine and their daily lives and sufferings. Everything in the show seems revolve around those two themes: the tension between faith and sight, and the relationship of individuals to their sufferings. This season’s finale seems to be asking the question that is at the heart of the whole matter: what’s the relationship between the divine mysterious and my suffering.
Unfortunately the finale ends without an answer, and Ben kills his god. And as Jacob lies stabbed through the heart and going up in flames I can only pray that those of us facing suffering will look to God’s Word for more sure comfort. The solution is not to “kill God,” but to look to the Bible for answers that encourage our confidence in an almighty God of love and providential care. I trust you will find them there just as I have, and while that may not resolve some of the lostness we feel in understanding this relationship, it will at least give us the patience and hope to persevere.
David R. Dunham (Co-Founder) is a pastor, blogger, and avid fan of pop-culture. He has long been interested in the arts. He received honors for acting throughout high school and college, even being given a scholarship for musical theater to Youngstown State University. He is also an amateur musician, with one album, Get Well Soon, released in 2004. David has a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature and in Pre-Theology from Ohio University, and a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently teaches English Composition at Shawnee State University and serves as a staff pastor at Christ's Community Church. David and his wife Krista have two children, and they currently live in Portsmouth, OH. 
You’re right, the season ends without an answer. But there’s still another season to go, so I’m not willing to say that it’s all hopeless. After all, this is Lost we’re talking about, so I’m sure that there will be plenty of more twists and turns regarding the “trinity” of Locke, Ben, and Jacob.
And besides, let’s not forget that Ben was deceived, more or less, into killing Jacob by someone that he thought was Locke. Sure, Ben had plenty of grievances with Jacob, but it was only after “fake” Locke twisted and emphasized them that Ben resolved to kill Jacob.
I wouldn’t be surprised, given how twist-y and turn-y Lost is, that this sets the stage for Ben’s redemption, among other things.
You’re absolutely right Jason. Of course I can only deal with what we’ve seen so far, but I haven’t discounted those possibilities.
I’m not reading any of this post ’til next year (since I won’t have seen the finale until it’s released on DVD), but I just wanted to say, “Hey Rich and Ben, if you’re gonna talk about this on the podcast you should note the timestamps (beginning and end) between which listeners who don’t want any spoilage should skip.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
Dane’s not watching it, Alan’s not seen it yet…man, I should have written this a year from now!
Heh, this just goes to illustrate my point on the other post when I said that we should be careful about using illustrations from pop culture in our teaching. Say I were in your audience and you used any illustration from LOST, season five: I would be upset, because you’re illustrating a point from something I desperately want to take in as a surprise.
Now it’s okay that you do it here because this is an online magazine and we expect that.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
So should we never use illustrations from popular culture because there might be that one rare, out-of-touch, person who is intentionally waiting a year to see something that is out right now?
I’m just saying that if the goal of preaching is to communicate the gospel as revealed in Scripture, it seems unnecessary to rely on an explanatory tool that will almost necessarily obfuscate your point to some number in your audience. My pastor makes lots of references to LOTR, which is one of the most viewed films of the last decade. Still, I know a lot of people who’ve never seen it.
If I’m relying upon people’s knowledge of LOTR in order for my point to be understood, I’m not making my point very well. I’m adding an unnecessary complication. My audience is looking for Scripture to be explained; they don’t also need an explanation of a movie so that they can understand why I’m making reference to the movie in order to help them understand Scripture.
The thing is: that rare, out-of-touch person is not really all that rare.
Using LOST as an example, I may wait for them to come out on DVD to watch them, but at least I’m watching them. I know a ton of people who either aren’t interested in watching, who are waiting for the whole thing to finish before they start, or who watched the first two-and-a-half seasons and refused to ever watch another episode because it was just a big, confusing mess.
My pastor uses illustrations from football fairly often and though I understand the rules of the game fine, I don’t know any of the personalities to whom he refers. Nor does more than half the congregation. When he cites movies, he has to spend time explaining the whole set-up for the movie in order for us to have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. And oftentimes the best illustrations come out of a film’s conclusion—I can’t count the number of times I’ve been pissed off during a sermon because a movie I was interested in seeing was just ruined.
I’m not saying that illustrations can’t be used well, just that when relying on the produce of pop-culture to explain your point, more often than not, your obfuscating and the thing you think everybody knows about isn’t nearly as well known as you believe.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
I was really just making a joke, but you’ve highlighted some good points. In response I will say two things: (1) Illustrations are often very helpful in explanation, whether they come from pop-culture or not. The background of the Old and New Testament is at least as foreign to many in the audience as are some rare elements of our culture, if not more so. (2) While it is true that not everyone watches, listens to, or enjoys the same elements of pop-culture they are considered elements of “Popular Culture” because, generally speaking, they are popular. You can’t reach everyone in a talk with every point, so you try to reach as many as you can. Just basics of good communication.
I agree with both of those points in their basic form. Illustrations can be helpful and pop culture is to one measure or another popular to some audience. Your point that you can’t reach everyone in a talk with every point, so you try to reach as many as you can is spot on and the reason why, generally, pop culture illustrations fail when compared against other possible illustrations.
Oprah is extremely popular in America and yet I don’t know if I know a single person who watches her program. And yet everybody has been a kid and has a common set of experiences that while differing in nuance are all shared unanimously under the heading Growing Up. So which source would be the better choice to pull from purely in terms of effective communication? Answer: not Oprah.
I think that for most people who pull illustrations from uncommon sources like literature or music or film or other expressions of pop culture, effective communication is a secondary concern. It’s still a concern and they try to do as good a job with the handicap they’ve chosen, but it’s still second fiddle to their main reason for choosing a pop-culture illustration: i.e., to look cool.
Pastors who reference the kinds of things they imagine their congregants think are cool are trying to get some of that cool-stink to rub off on their own image. They want to be seen as engaging what’s cool. They want congregants to thing that they are as cool and hip and with-it and popular as the popular culture they reference.
And this often works because as I said in the youth ministry post, adults suck at detecting a phony. Also, because the coolness of their pastor reflects on them. His imagined cool-stink might rub off on his congregants and they can be cool because their pastor is quote-unquote cool.
cf. Saddleback Church and Rick Warren.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
p.s. It’ll be awesome to revisit this article in a year to see if I have any comments on whatever it is you said about LOST ^_^
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty
I’ll look forward to your comments…in a year…
I would caution you, however, about assuming to know the motivations of those who reference pop-culture. It seems unwise at best to suggest that those who quote popular culture are simply after the appearance of “coolness.” In some cases that may be true, but I would imagine that for many it’s simply a reference from their own interests and familiarity that seemed like a good example. If you disagree with the approach that’s fine, but I hardly think it an attempt at self-promotion on the part of the user. And while it may be true that “growing up” is a better field from which to mine examples, there simply may be better examples in other areas of life than just this one. So the question, then, is do you choose a weak example that communicates the point, though in a diminished form, or do you choose a strong example that may not register with as many people? There are obvious weaknesses and strengths to each approach.
Yeah, you’re right that there are people who choose those examples not out of any motivation other than clear communication, but I do suspect that that number is probably much fewer than we would like it to be. And of the remainder, my guess is the majority simply don’t realize that making an L.A. Law reference really doesn’t serve their point as well as they would like it to. My guess is that the things you think everyone is familiar with are not as commonly known as one might guess.
I was talking to someone the other day and made a reference to swine flu in explaining something. This was a full week-and-a-half after the news media exploded over it. Person had no idea what I was talking about. Had never heard of swine flu.
Last year when things were going crazy in Myanmar, I was teaching a class and mentioned it. Only one person out of twelve (small class) had even heard of the governmental abuses and people dying. Some didn’t even know what Myanmar was. These were all adults between 25 and 55 and this stuff was all over the news. Fortunately, I wasn’t using it to make a point.
Once, when I was preaching in Romania, I was talking about the worst that humanity has to offer. I mentioned Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. My translator said, “Hitler, Stalin, and some other guy.”
I do my best to keep my illustrations few and far between now. And when I do resort to them, I talk about common experiences rather than pop-cultural expressions that I think people should be familiar with. And if I can’t clearly communicate my point using an illustration from common experiences, then I don’t use an illustration. They’re rarely better than just explaining something anyway.
The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty