When I think of Hurricane Irene now on the morning after, with my “cup half empty,” I am regretful that we canceled our church service today. That decision was really out of my hands, however, because the building where we meet was closed and a number of families said they would not be coming anyway, or at least didn’t want to. That is very understandable because of the possible flooding, blocked roads, and power outages that we were warned about. But now after the anticlimax of last night (our power didn’t even go off), it seems like this may have been another example of the media “manufacturing news.” I just finished watching Andersoon Cooper on CNN ask his weatherman “What happened to the hurricane?”—he seemed a bit embarrassed or even regretful that it turned out to be more of a speedbump for New York, the city where he was “on location” in his deluxe windbreaker. (But I won’t judge…)
On the other hand, when my “cup is half full,” I can look at it this way: Jesus calmed the storm! It could indeed have been much worse, but he spared us from that by His gracious providence. The weatherman’s answer to Cooper was that North Carolina “got in the way,” meaning that area took the brunt of the hurricane’s force and it diminished after that to a mere tropical storm. And that itself is an illustration of what Jesus did for us on the cross…we still have to face some troubles and trials in this life, but we never have to worry about the horrible hurricane of hell, because He bore that penalty in our place (2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:10-14, 1 Peter 2:24). So we have many reasons to worship the Lord today, by ourselves or together with our families, which would be especially good to do if your church didn’t have a service! Here are a few suggestions for how you could do that…
Even though the storm did not affect us as badly as was feared, we still had to face our fears of the storm, so you could start by listening to or watching a video for the song “Praise You in this Storm,” by Casting Crowns. You can simple google it to find the audio, or better yet check out one or more of the nice videos for the song on YouTube. Then you could read Luke 8:22-25 and other parallel passages about Jesus calming the storm, and listen to my friend Dyke Habegger’s message on those verses, appropriately called “Jesus Calms the Storm.” The message can be found under July 13 on this page: http://www.faithchurchpca.net/sermons_2008.html. Finally, spend some time in prayer, thanking God for His gracious providence that keeps us from disaster in this world, and His gracious provision of Christ that keeps us from ruin in the next. And ask God to give you the opportunity to be His “hands and feet” to provide help and hope for others, both physically and spiritually. Pray for those you know who have needs in one or both of those areas.
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:13).
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Problems with Christianity and Atheism
I came across a quote in Neal Stephenson's novel Snow Crash recently, which will be offensive to most Christians and also to most atheists (what fun!). It said, "Ninety-nine percent of everything that goes on in most Christian churches has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual religion. Intelligent people all notice this sooner or later, and they conclude that the entire one hundred percent is bull___, which is why atheism is connected with being intelligent in people's minds."
I think "ninety-nine percent" is hyperbole or overstatement, but the basic sentiment is true. As always, Christianity is in dire need of reformation, though many of its adherents don't seem to notice. Recently I've had a number of conversations with or about young people who are "disappointing" their very sincere parents by not following in the traditions of their faith. And it occurred to me that in these situations this difficulty only exists because the traditions they are rejecting are not even found in the Bible! If only the older generation would not invent or perpetuate "standards" that originate from man rather than the Holy Spirit, the consciences of the believing younger generation would not have to conflict with what they have been taught so often. On the other hand, parents who are careful to draw the line between what are scriptural convictions and what is mere wisdom and preference find that they share a sweet fellowship with their grown children, because the main thing is the main thing and that is what bonds them together. (I'm not saying it's easy, however...in my own case I have had to say, "I wouldn't do it that way, but he has freedom before God and I'm determined to not be legalistic about this.")
The quote above also waylays atheists, in case you didn't notice the subtle implication. The character in the novel says that intelligent people can see there is a lot wrong with "Christianity" as it is commonly practiced, so they reject the whole kitten caboodle, and thus atheism has become associated with intelligence (wrongly, because atheism only goes "halfway" toward a more thorough intellectual investigation that would reveal true biblical Christianity to be reasonable). A friend said to me recently that she discovered by reading the New Testament that Jesus was not nearly as concerned with "right-wing politics" as many of his followers are today, and so she was also questioning "the whole Son of God thing." But these are apples and oranges. The connection between Jesus and right-wing politics is not one that can be made by a careful exegesis of Scripture, but nothing is more clear on its pages than Jesus' own claim that He was the Son of God. Christians do misrepresent what the Bible says (because we are all sinners, as the Bible says), but that doesn't mean the Bible itself is wrong. That widespread leap of logic is understandable, but fallacious nonetheless.
Another example of atheism being "halfway intellectual" is Penn Jillette, who has a new book out called God, No! in which he says that atheists (shouldn't it be agnostics?) are humble and Christians are arrogant, because the latter claim to know the truth about God. "I don't know," he says, "so I'm an atheist." Well, I don't know either...so...I would need someone greater and more knowledgeable than myself to tell me what the truth is, like someone who made the universe and then condescended to communicate with us by inspiring human literature that could then be available for people of later generations to study as an objective source of truth. And therefore I am not being arrogant when I say I believe something to be true based on those books, I am actually being humble because I am admitting that I do not have the ability in myself to determine what is true. In fact, I not only am incapable of observing or comprehending enough to discover or discern truth on my own, I am very likely to misunderstand it because of my many biases. So I am utterly dependent on outside revelation and supernatural illumination. This is hardly self-aggrandizing, in fact it goes against my natural pride to admit that I am so pathetically helpless without God's grace.
I think "ninety-nine percent" is hyperbole or overstatement, but the basic sentiment is true. As always, Christianity is in dire need of reformation, though many of its adherents don't seem to notice. Recently I've had a number of conversations with or about young people who are "disappointing" their very sincere parents by not following in the traditions of their faith. And it occurred to me that in these situations this difficulty only exists because the traditions they are rejecting are not even found in the Bible! If only the older generation would not invent or perpetuate "standards" that originate from man rather than the Holy Spirit, the consciences of the believing younger generation would not have to conflict with what they have been taught so often. On the other hand, parents who are careful to draw the line between what are scriptural convictions and what is mere wisdom and preference find that they share a sweet fellowship with their grown children, because the main thing is the main thing and that is what bonds them together. (I'm not saying it's easy, however...in my own case I have had to say, "I wouldn't do it that way, but he has freedom before God and I'm determined to not be legalistic about this.")
The quote above also waylays atheists, in case you didn't notice the subtle implication. The character in the novel says that intelligent people can see there is a lot wrong with "Christianity" as it is commonly practiced, so they reject the whole kitten caboodle, and thus atheism has become associated with intelligence (wrongly, because atheism only goes "halfway" toward a more thorough intellectual investigation that would reveal true biblical Christianity to be reasonable). A friend said to me recently that she discovered by reading the New Testament that Jesus was not nearly as concerned with "right-wing politics" as many of his followers are today, and so she was also questioning "the whole Son of God thing." But these are apples and oranges. The connection between Jesus and right-wing politics is not one that can be made by a careful exegesis of Scripture, but nothing is more clear on its pages than Jesus' own claim that He was the Son of God. Christians do misrepresent what the Bible says (because we are all sinners, as the Bible says), but that doesn't mean the Bible itself is wrong. That widespread leap of logic is understandable, but fallacious nonetheless.
Another example of atheism being "halfway intellectual" is Penn Jillette, who has a new book out called God, No! in which he says that atheists (shouldn't it be agnostics?) are humble and Christians are arrogant, because the latter claim to know the truth about God. "I don't know," he says, "so I'm an atheist." Well, I don't know either...so...I would need someone greater and more knowledgeable than myself to tell me what the truth is, like someone who made the universe and then condescended to communicate with us by inspiring human literature that could then be available for people of later generations to study as an objective source of truth. And therefore I am not being arrogant when I say I believe something to be true based on those books, I am actually being humble because I am admitting that I do not have the ability in myself to determine what is true. In fact, I not only am incapable of observing or comprehending enough to discover or discern truth on my own, I am very likely to misunderstand it because of my many biases. So I am utterly dependent on outside revelation and supernatural illumination. This is hardly self-aggrandizing, in fact it goes against my natural pride to admit that I am so pathetically helpless without God's grace.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly, and The Meaning of the Universe
I've been going through some of Philip K. Dick's fiction catalog lately (I won't call it science fiction, because it defies categorization), and I read A Scanner Darkly completely for the first time (I guess my tastes have matured enough that I could finally get through it). I also watched the movie adaptation, which I found to be unique and interesting (I have an edited version that omits the completely unnecessary nudity).
If the term "God-haunted" fits anyone, it fits Dick. Even before he ended his career, and life, with a trilogy of "theological mysteries" (Valis, The Divine Invasion, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer), he invented the religion of Mercerism in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (the basis for the movie Blade Runner) and named this award-winning novel after the verse in the Bible that says, "We now see through a glass darkly" (I Cor. 13:12, KJV). A Scanner Darkly has too much rambling and seemingly random content for me to call it a favorite (my favorite Dickian titles are Androids, Ubik and the early Vulcan's Hammer). But there are some classic passages in it, like the one below, which captures well the truth about how the universe started out and what has happened to it since. It's toward the end of the novel, when Donna is bemoaning the fact that her employers in the narcotics division have manipulated her fellow undercover agent Bob Arctor not only to investigate and inform on himself (!) but also to become addicted to Substance D and fry his mind so he could be their mole in the New Path recovery program, which they suspect of producing the very drug that they are treating (!). (And, of course, because it's Philip K. Dick, neither Donna or Bob know that the other is a narc, even though they are "dating.")
"How can justice fall victim, ever, to what is right? How can this happen? She thought, Because there is a curse on this world, and all this proves it; this is the proof right here. Somewhere, at the deepest level possible, the mechanism, the construction of all things, fell apart, and up from what remained swam the need to do all the various sort of unclear wrongs the wisest choices has made us act out. It must have started thousands of years ago. By now it's infiltrated into the nature of everything. And, she thought, into every one of us. We can't turn around or open our mouth and speak, decide at all, without doing it. I don't even care how it got started, when or why. She thought, I just hope it'll end some time...I just hope one day the shower of brightly colored sparks will return, and this time we'll all see it. The narrow doorway where there's peace on the far side. A statue, the sea, and what looks like moonlight. And nothing stirring, nothing to break the calm.
"A long, long time ago, she thought. Before the curse, and everything, and everyone became this way. The Golden Age, she thought, when wisdom and justice were the same. Before it all shattered into cutting fragments. Into broken bits that don't fit, that can't be put back together, hard as we try."
As I've always said, people without a Christian worldview can see what's wrong, very astutely at times. Unfortunately Dick, like many such astute observers, did not seem to find the answer. Here are some passages from an even better Author, which contain both the problem and the solution:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned....Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death....For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body....And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (excerpts from the book of Romans)
Now we do see through "a scanner darkly," but one day we will see "face to face" with the One who bore the curse for us (Gal. 3:13)! My prayer is that all who share Dick's observations about this fallen world will not only see what he saw about its disease, but will also learn about the only true cure.
If the term "God-haunted" fits anyone, it fits Dick. Even before he ended his career, and life, with a trilogy of "theological mysteries" (Valis, The Divine Invasion, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer), he invented the religion of Mercerism in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (the basis for the movie Blade Runner) and named this award-winning novel after the verse in the Bible that says, "We now see through a glass darkly" (I Cor. 13:12, KJV). A Scanner Darkly has too much rambling and seemingly random content for me to call it a favorite (my favorite Dickian titles are Androids, Ubik and the early Vulcan's Hammer). But there are some classic passages in it, like the one below, which captures well the truth about how the universe started out and what has happened to it since. It's toward the end of the novel, when Donna is bemoaning the fact that her employers in the narcotics division have manipulated her fellow undercover agent Bob Arctor not only to investigate and inform on himself (!) but also to become addicted to Substance D and fry his mind so he could be their mole in the New Path recovery program, which they suspect of producing the very drug that they are treating (!). (And, of course, because it's Philip K. Dick, neither Donna or Bob know that the other is a narc, even though they are "dating.")
"How can justice fall victim, ever, to what is right? How can this happen? She thought, Because there is a curse on this world, and all this proves it; this is the proof right here. Somewhere, at the deepest level possible, the mechanism, the construction of all things, fell apart, and up from what remained swam the need to do all the various sort of unclear wrongs the wisest choices has made us act out. It must have started thousands of years ago. By now it's infiltrated into the nature of everything. And, she thought, into every one of us. We can't turn around or open our mouth and speak, decide at all, without doing it. I don't even care how it got started, when or why. She thought, I just hope it'll end some time...I just hope one day the shower of brightly colored sparks will return, and this time we'll all see it. The narrow doorway where there's peace on the far side. A statue, the sea, and what looks like moonlight. And nothing stirring, nothing to break the calm.
"A long, long time ago, she thought. Before the curse, and everything, and everyone became this way. The Golden Age, she thought, when wisdom and justice were the same. Before it all shattered into cutting fragments. Into broken bits that don't fit, that can't be put back together, hard as we try."
As I've always said, people without a Christian worldview can see what's wrong, very astutely at times. Unfortunately Dick, like many such astute observers, did not seem to find the answer. Here are some passages from an even better Author, which contain both the problem and the solution:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned....Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death....For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body....And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (excerpts from the book of Romans)
Now we do see through "a scanner darkly," but one day we will see "face to face" with the One who bore the curse for us (Gal. 3:13)! My prayer is that all who share Dick's observations about this fallen world will not only see what he saw about its disease, but will also learn about the only true cure.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Far Beyond (Song for Jaclyn's Baptism)
I wrote these words (from Psalm 127:3-5) for my daughter Jaclyn's baptism (five months old), and they were put to music by my son Nathan (college student). Yes, we have quite a variety of ages in the olive branches around our family table. The song and the psalm it's based on apply to all my seven children, of course, and to all other covenant children as well. It struck me as I was studying the passage one day that arrows enable the warrior to reach far beyond where he could without them...they increase his "range," if you will. And that is exactly what our children do in the spiritual battle, when they are raised according to God's Word. So here are the words for "Far Beyond," and if you want to hear the music, go to Nathan's Facebook page and you'll see a video of him singing it.
CHORUS:
I believe that you will go
Far beyond where I’ve been
I believe that you will see
Far beyond what I’ve seen
I believe that you will try
Things I’ve never tried
And I believe you will fly
So much higher than I
VERSE 1:
Like arrows in the hands of the warrior
Can make his reach so long
So the children of our youth
Will carry the battle on
Further up and further in
To well outside our range
And having many blessed weapons
Will bring a world of change
CHORUS
VERSE 2:
Like allies in the face of aggression
Will stand and defend your name
So the man with many children
Will not be put to shame
Further up and further in
And to the very end
The reward is that our children
Will end up as our friends
CHORUS
CHORUS:
I believe that you will go
Far beyond where I’ve been
I believe that you will see
Far beyond what I’ve seen
I believe that you will try
Things I’ve never tried
And I believe you will fly
So much higher than I
VERSE 1:
Like arrows in the hands of the warrior
Can make his reach so long
So the children of our youth
Will carry the battle on
Further up and further in
To well outside our range
And having many blessed weapons
Will bring a world of change
CHORUS
VERSE 2:
Like allies in the face of aggression
Will stand and defend your name
So the man with many children
Will not be put to shame
Further up and further in
And to the very end
The reward is that our children
Will end up as our friends
CHORUS
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Pray for the Prosperous
If we would learn to profit [spiritually] from our prosperity, we should not need so much adversity. If we would gather from a kiss all the good it might confer upon us, we should not so often smart under the rod... Charles Spurgeon
"The squeaky wheel always get the grease," they say, and all too often that is true in our relationships and ministries to others. But in my recent studies for teaching the book of Ephesians, I noticed again that the apostle Paul took time to pray for those who were spiritually prosperous, not just for those who were hurting. In Ephesians 1:15 he begins his prayer saying that he had heard "of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you, and your love for all the saints." Many members of the Ephesian church were walking by faith and showing sacrificial love to all Christians without discrimination (even those in other cultures). These are marks of spiritual maturity and stability, so some of us might think that Paul was wasting his time by praying for them when there were so many others trapped in sin and doctrinal error. Shouldn't we primarily pray for those who are especially "needy"? Not according to Paul; in fact, a study of his other prayers recorded in the New Testament reveals that he actually seems to have prayed more often for those Christians who were succeeding spiritually. He did pray for people with problems, but he certainly did not take them off his prayer list when they had "conquered their problems" and were living in a manner pleasing to God.
One reason for this is that Paul knew there is always room for growth in any believer's life. None of us reaches perfection while we are in this world. We trust Christ but we do not trust Christ as much as we should. We love the saints but we do not love the saints as much as we should. We serve Christ, but we do not serve Him as much as we should. We know some of the Word of God but none of us knows as much as we ought to know. No church is as spiritual as it could be, and no individual Christian will get to the point in this life where he or she does not need our prayers any longer. On the contrary, there is actually a serious danger in withholding or removing prayer support from people simply because they are "doing well." First Corinthians 10:12 says, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."
How do you think the Notre Dame football team took a 24‑0 halftime lead over USC in 1972, only to lose 55‑24? And how do you think the Buffalo Bills accomplished the greatest comeback in National Football League history in 1993 when they beat the Houston Oilers 41‑38 after being behind 35‑3 in the third quarter? Part of the answer must be that the Notre Dame and Houston players became overconfident with their big leads and relaxed their efforts enough to allow such debacles to occur.
Unfortunately, that kind of defeat can happen in the spiritual dimension as well, in the lives of churches and their individual members. The history of the church at Ephesus itself is a testimony to that sad fact. Paul wrote in his letter that it exhibited great faith and a love for all the saints, but not many years later Jesus had to speak these words to the church: "I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen" (Rev. 2:4‑5). And not only can churches or individuals "lose their first love," but they can also fall hopelessly into a spiritual deadness or even an outright denial of Christ (Rev. 3:14‑18; cf. Demas in Philemon 24 and 2 Tim. 4:10).
That danger should motivate us to not only pray fervently for churches and individual members who are in the midst of crises, but also for those who are currently in a spiritually prosperous condition. They can lose their enthusiasm, their stability, and their commitment to Jesus Christ and His truth. But through our prayers God can deliver them from such a fate and grant them His continued blessing (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11).
"The squeaky wheel always get the grease," they say, and all too often that is true in our relationships and ministries to others. But in my recent studies for teaching the book of Ephesians, I noticed again that the apostle Paul took time to pray for those who were spiritually prosperous, not just for those who were hurting. In Ephesians 1:15 he begins his prayer saying that he had heard "of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you, and your love for all the saints." Many members of the Ephesian church were walking by faith and showing sacrificial love to all Christians without discrimination (even those in other cultures). These are marks of spiritual maturity and stability, so some of us might think that Paul was wasting his time by praying for them when there were so many others trapped in sin and doctrinal error. Shouldn't we primarily pray for those who are especially "needy"? Not according to Paul; in fact, a study of his other prayers recorded in the New Testament reveals that he actually seems to have prayed more often for those Christians who were succeeding spiritually. He did pray for people with problems, but he certainly did not take them off his prayer list when they had "conquered their problems" and were living in a manner pleasing to God.
One reason for this is that Paul knew there is always room for growth in any believer's life. None of us reaches perfection while we are in this world. We trust Christ but we do not trust Christ as much as we should. We love the saints but we do not love the saints as much as we should. We serve Christ, but we do not serve Him as much as we should. We know some of the Word of God but none of us knows as much as we ought to know. No church is as spiritual as it could be, and no individual Christian will get to the point in this life where he or she does not need our prayers any longer. On the contrary, there is actually a serious danger in withholding or removing prayer support from people simply because they are "doing well." First Corinthians 10:12 says, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."
How do you think the Notre Dame football team took a 24‑0 halftime lead over USC in 1972, only to lose 55‑24? And how do you think the Buffalo Bills accomplished the greatest comeback in National Football League history in 1993 when they beat the Houston Oilers 41‑38 after being behind 35‑3 in the third quarter? Part of the answer must be that the Notre Dame and Houston players became overconfident with their big leads and relaxed their efforts enough to allow such debacles to occur.
Unfortunately, that kind of defeat can happen in the spiritual dimension as well, in the lives of churches and their individual members. The history of the church at Ephesus itself is a testimony to that sad fact. Paul wrote in his letter that it exhibited great faith and a love for all the saints, but not many years later Jesus had to speak these words to the church: "I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen" (Rev. 2:4‑5). And not only can churches or individuals "lose their first love," but they can also fall hopelessly into a spiritual deadness or even an outright denial of Christ (Rev. 3:14‑18; cf. Demas in Philemon 24 and 2 Tim. 4:10).
That danger should motivate us to not only pray fervently for churches and individual members who are in the midst of crises, but also for those who are currently in a spiritually prosperous condition. They can lose their enthusiasm, their stability, and their commitment to Jesus Christ and His truth. But through our prayers God can deliver them from such a fate and grant them His continued blessing (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11).
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The Passion of the Christ
Yesterday was Good Friday, and tonight we are planning to watch and discuss an edited version of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (with the violence toned down some...see below), so I thought I would reproduce here a newspaper interview I did years ago, during the week that the movie was first released. I hope you find it interesting and edifying, and that it will help you to better understand the event that is truly the "crux" of history...
1) Are you planning special church programs on The Passion movie? Why or why not?
The only thing that our church might do is have a message around Easter time entitled "The Passion--Fact and Fiction," or something like that. The goal would be to instruct our congregation about the truth of Christ's sacrifice, but also to possibly attract some people that are interested in the movie and its topic. I am frankly surprised that so many church leaders are endorsing this movie, and viewing it as a form of evangelism, in many cases even before they have seen it! I have seen it, and find it to be a somewhat disconcerting--and potentially dangerous--mixture of truth and error.
2) Do you see this movie as bringing people to your church and/or Jesus? Why or why not?
Of course I do want people to be drawn to Jesus, and also to our church, if that is the best place for them. But if people are truly drawn to Jesus by the Holy Spirit, it will not be through the movie itself, or the emotional experience of viewing it. It will be through the Word of God (biblical truth) contained in the movie and expressed through it. The gospel itself is "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). The medium of film definitely has the power to move people emotionally, but the power to change people spiritually can only come through an understanding of the words about Christ, as Romans 10:17 says.
3) What role does Jesus' suffering play in your spirituality? Why?
Wow! I would need to write a whole book to answer that question! But in shorthand, the source of all my motivation for living as a Christian comes from the conviction that because Jesus died for me, I should live for Him (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Peter 2:24). I love Him because of what He did for me, bearing the penalty for my sins and freeing me from any fear of the judgment of God. Also, Jesus' suffering is a model for me, since He said that I should take up my cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23-25). I need to be willing to give myself up for the glory of God and the good of others.
4) What do you think of the way the movie treats the Virgin Mary? Why? What role does she play in your spirituality? Why?
This is one of my biggest misgivings about the movie. Knowing that Mel Gibson believes strongly that Mary is both a "co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix," as he told an interviewer recently, and merely having my eyes open while watching the film, it is obvious that he wants people to place their trust not only in Christ, but also in His mother. Mary is referred to as "Mother" by everyone, is portrayed as if she is offering up her Son, and at one point she matches steps with Satan on the other side of Jesus, implying that she is also a more-than-human character playing a significant spiritual role in the proceedings. But most significant is the fact that every time Jesus falls under the cross, he looks to Mary and receives from her the strength to go on. Mel Gibson himself said that he was surprised that evangelicals are so supportive of the film, "because it is so Marian."
I believe what the Bible says about Mary, and nothing more. She was a good model for us when she submitted to God's will and praised Him (Luke 1:38-55). But she was also a sinner like everyone else who needed to be saved like everyone else (Luke 1:47). The big problem with making her more than that is what I alluded to above: people direct their trust and worship toward Mary when the Bible is very clear that we should trust and worship God alone. So what we end up is a dangerous form of idolatry--or "maryolatry," as some have called it. And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that idolatry is displeasing to God and dangerous to those who practice it.
5) Do you consider the movie too violent? Why or why not?
Yes, that is the other biggest problem I have with the movie. I can't say it better than so many of the critics have ("the goriest story ever told," "a merciless excursion into motion-picture ultraviolence," etc.). But I can suggest a couple possible reasons for Gibson's enigmatic excesses. First, he is a product of Hollywood, where whole companies exist to create special effects for the purpose of depicting grisly realities. So if it can be done, they will do it, sometimes only because it can be done! Second, and more significantly, he is inordinately preoccupied with the physical suffering of Christ, which is actually consistent with his Roman Catholic beliefs. He believes that the mass (which the cast of the movie observed every morning on the set) is a re-sacrifice of Christ, in which the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. The belief of Reformed Christians (and I would say the teaching of the Bible), on the other hand, focuses more on Christ's spiritual suffering, when the Father turned His face away and Jesus bore the pains of hell in a once-for-all, unrepeatable atonement.
For your information, by the way, Matthew and Mark and John only mention briefly that Pilate "had him scourged," without giving any further details. Luke does not even mention the scourging, and records a speech that Christ gave after He was scourged (Luke 23:28-31), which is long enough and cogent enough that it would have been unlikely he could have delivered it after the kind of beating that the movie depicts. The fact is, Gibson got the excessive scourging idea from a mystic and stigmatic 19-century nun who claimed to be receiving visions from God about the passion.
I think it is very unfortunate that what many will remember most about the movie is the overdone violence and gore. The Bible simply doesn't linger on it like the movie does, not even close. So it will be known as the movie Roger Ebert called, in a positive review, "the most violent film I have ever seen." The fact is, Jesus' physical death was not the most violent death ever, so the movie warps reality. On the other hand, His spiritual suffering--the Son being separated from the Father--was utterly unique. But that can't be captured on film, and Gibson makes little attempt to communicate it.
6) Would you take children to see the movie? Why or why not?
Not unless I thought they were old enough, and mature enough, to discern the truth from error and to realize that it is merely a movie, the gore is just special effects, etc. Rather than watching it in a theater where the screen is huge and we are at the mercy of what flows across it, I would rather view it on video where it can be fast-forwarded and discussed along the way. I also do not believe my children, or anyone for that matter, would be impoverished in any way if they do not see this movie. The written Word of God, read and taught, is sufficient to produce faith and godliness, and a wonderful relationship with God, as I alluded to above (see 1 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).
7) How does Mel Gibson's Catholicism affect your view of the movie? Why?
Well, I think you can figure that out from the comments above! I view the movie as a kind of "evangelistic tract" for Roman Catholicism. In fact, it has been reported that cast and crew members were converted to Catholicism during the filming. Mel Gibson is not just selling Christ--he is selling a particular perspective on the person and work of Christ. That being said, I am grateful for the scriptural truth that is included in the movie, and I believe and pray that God can use that truth to draw people to Himself.
8) How does your spirituality treat the suffering Jesus? Why? Do you focus more on the Resurrection? Why or why not?
Yes, you keep reminding me of problems I have with the movie! I don't want to be overly negative, because I think much of the source material (namely, the New Testament) is fantastic! But maybe my criticisms can serve as a helpful balance to those who are uncritically accepting the movie...
I understand that the movie was about the passion of Jesus Christ, and not His resurrection, and that one movie cannot cover everything about Christ, or even everything about His passion. But again, when it lingers so long on the gory details of his suffering, and adds the resurrection merely as the cinematic version of a footnote, it seems to say something about the perspective and priorities of the filmmaker. It also implies that the resurrection, and the details surrounding it, are not necessary to an understanding of the passion. I would say they are, and that in true biblical thinking about Christ, the resurrection is just as important as the passion. Narratives about the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances are given just as much space in the gospels, if not more. And the epistles almost always mention the resurrection, in one way or another, when they mention the death of Christ.
9) Do you think Christianity needs to focus more on Christ's suffering? Why or why not?
We are always in danger of forgetting the great price that our Lord paid for our sins, and we need to be reminded of it. However, I don't believe we need to meditate extensively on the details of His suffering, especially on the extra-biblical details that this movie fabricates and obsesses over.
10) Do you see Christ's sufferings merely as past history,or something still relevant today? Why or why not?
I do not believe Christ's suffering are continuing today, or being repeated today, as Romans Catholics do. But I certainly do believe they are relevant today, as I explained in my answer to number 3 above: The source of all my motivation for living as a Christian comes from the conviction that because Jesus died for me, I should live for Him (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Peter 2:24). I love Him because of what He did for me, bearing the penalty for my sins and freeing me from any fear of the judgment of God. Also, Jesus' suffering is a model for me, since He said that I should take up my cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23-25). I need to be willing to give myself up for the glory of God and the good of others.
11) What do you think of crucifixes? Why?
Crucifixes are problematic in several ways. First, many people venerate them or use them as an aid in worship (e.g. kissing them, praying to them), and that can be a form of idolatry--placing trust in the object, as if it had some kind of magical powers, rather than trusting in God, who alone has divine power. Also, I think the fact that Jesus is represented as "still on the cross" often reflects the Roman Catholic misunderstanding of the Lord's Supper and the nature of His sacrifice (which I discussed above under number 5). So if we choose to display a cross, in our churches or around our necks, I prefer an empty one, so we can remember that the Lord is risen and reigning in heaven at the right hand of the Father!
12) What is the role of suffering in your spirituality? Why?
I assume that you mean my own suffering, because you already asked about Christ's. My suffering plays a very important role in my spirituality. I do not go looking for it, nor do I enjoy it, but when God allows suffering in my life by His providence, He uses it to help me "become conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29). Suffering turns my heart toward heaven and away from the things of this world; suffering strengthens my character; suffering gives me an opportunity to trust God more; suffering enables me to help others who are going through tough times; and suffering for the sake of Christ gives me assurance that I belong to Him.
1) Are you planning special church programs on The Passion movie? Why or why not?
The only thing that our church might do is have a message around Easter time entitled "The Passion--Fact and Fiction," or something like that. The goal would be to instruct our congregation about the truth of Christ's sacrifice, but also to possibly attract some people that are interested in the movie and its topic. I am frankly surprised that so many church leaders are endorsing this movie, and viewing it as a form of evangelism, in many cases even before they have seen it! I have seen it, and find it to be a somewhat disconcerting--and potentially dangerous--mixture of truth and error.
2) Do you see this movie as bringing people to your church and/or Jesus? Why or why not?
Of course I do want people to be drawn to Jesus, and also to our church, if that is the best place for them. But if people are truly drawn to Jesus by the Holy Spirit, it will not be through the movie itself, or the emotional experience of viewing it. It will be through the Word of God (biblical truth) contained in the movie and expressed through it. The gospel itself is "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). The medium of film definitely has the power to move people emotionally, but the power to change people spiritually can only come through an understanding of the words about Christ, as Romans 10:17 says.
3) What role does Jesus' suffering play in your spirituality? Why?
Wow! I would need to write a whole book to answer that question! But in shorthand, the source of all my motivation for living as a Christian comes from the conviction that because Jesus died for me, I should live for Him (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Peter 2:24). I love Him because of what He did for me, bearing the penalty for my sins and freeing me from any fear of the judgment of God. Also, Jesus' suffering is a model for me, since He said that I should take up my cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23-25). I need to be willing to give myself up for the glory of God and the good of others.
4) What do you think of the way the movie treats the Virgin Mary? Why? What role does she play in your spirituality? Why?
This is one of my biggest misgivings about the movie. Knowing that Mel Gibson believes strongly that Mary is both a "co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix," as he told an interviewer recently, and merely having my eyes open while watching the film, it is obvious that he wants people to place their trust not only in Christ, but also in His mother. Mary is referred to as "Mother" by everyone, is portrayed as if she is offering up her Son, and at one point she matches steps with Satan on the other side of Jesus, implying that she is also a more-than-human character playing a significant spiritual role in the proceedings. But most significant is the fact that every time Jesus falls under the cross, he looks to Mary and receives from her the strength to go on. Mel Gibson himself said that he was surprised that evangelicals are so supportive of the film, "because it is so Marian."
I believe what the Bible says about Mary, and nothing more. She was a good model for us when she submitted to God's will and praised Him (Luke 1:38-55). But she was also a sinner like everyone else who needed to be saved like everyone else (Luke 1:47). The big problem with making her more than that is what I alluded to above: people direct their trust and worship toward Mary when the Bible is very clear that we should trust and worship God alone. So what we end up is a dangerous form of idolatry--or "maryolatry," as some have called it. And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that idolatry is displeasing to God and dangerous to those who practice it.
5) Do you consider the movie too violent? Why or why not?
Yes, that is the other biggest problem I have with the movie. I can't say it better than so many of the critics have ("the goriest story ever told," "a merciless excursion into motion-picture ultraviolence," etc.). But I can suggest a couple possible reasons for Gibson's enigmatic excesses. First, he is a product of Hollywood, where whole companies exist to create special effects for the purpose of depicting grisly realities. So if it can be done, they will do it, sometimes only because it can be done! Second, and more significantly, he is inordinately preoccupied with the physical suffering of Christ, which is actually consistent with his Roman Catholic beliefs. He believes that the mass (which the cast of the movie observed every morning on the set) is a re-sacrifice of Christ, in which the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. The belief of Reformed Christians (and I would say the teaching of the Bible), on the other hand, focuses more on Christ's spiritual suffering, when the Father turned His face away and Jesus bore the pains of hell in a once-for-all, unrepeatable atonement.
For your information, by the way, Matthew and Mark and John only mention briefly that Pilate "had him scourged," without giving any further details. Luke does not even mention the scourging, and records a speech that Christ gave after He was scourged (Luke 23:28-31), which is long enough and cogent enough that it would have been unlikely he could have delivered it after the kind of beating that the movie depicts. The fact is, Gibson got the excessive scourging idea from a mystic and stigmatic 19-century nun who claimed to be receiving visions from God about the passion.
I think it is very unfortunate that what many will remember most about the movie is the overdone violence and gore. The Bible simply doesn't linger on it like the movie does, not even close. So it will be known as the movie Roger Ebert called, in a positive review, "the most violent film I have ever seen." The fact is, Jesus' physical death was not the most violent death ever, so the movie warps reality. On the other hand, His spiritual suffering--the Son being separated from the Father--was utterly unique. But that can't be captured on film, and Gibson makes little attempt to communicate it.
6) Would you take children to see the movie? Why or why not?
Not unless I thought they were old enough, and mature enough, to discern the truth from error and to realize that it is merely a movie, the gore is just special effects, etc. Rather than watching it in a theater where the screen is huge and we are at the mercy of what flows across it, I would rather view it on video where it can be fast-forwarded and discussed along the way. I also do not believe my children, or anyone for that matter, would be impoverished in any way if they do not see this movie. The written Word of God, read and taught, is sufficient to produce faith and godliness, and a wonderful relationship with God, as I alluded to above (see 1 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).
7) How does Mel Gibson's Catholicism affect your view of the movie? Why?
Well, I think you can figure that out from the comments above! I view the movie as a kind of "evangelistic tract" for Roman Catholicism. In fact, it has been reported that cast and crew members were converted to Catholicism during the filming. Mel Gibson is not just selling Christ--he is selling a particular perspective on the person and work of Christ. That being said, I am grateful for the scriptural truth that is included in the movie, and I believe and pray that God can use that truth to draw people to Himself.
8) How does your spirituality treat the suffering Jesus? Why? Do you focus more on the Resurrection? Why or why not?
Yes, you keep reminding me of problems I have with the movie! I don't want to be overly negative, because I think much of the source material (namely, the New Testament) is fantastic! But maybe my criticisms can serve as a helpful balance to those who are uncritically accepting the movie...
I understand that the movie was about the passion of Jesus Christ, and not His resurrection, and that one movie cannot cover everything about Christ, or even everything about His passion. But again, when it lingers so long on the gory details of his suffering, and adds the resurrection merely as the cinematic version of a footnote, it seems to say something about the perspective and priorities of the filmmaker. It also implies that the resurrection, and the details surrounding it, are not necessary to an understanding of the passion. I would say they are, and that in true biblical thinking about Christ, the resurrection is just as important as the passion. Narratives about the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances are given just as much space in the gospels, if not more. And the epistles almost always mention the resurrection, in one way or another, when they mention the death of Christ.
9) Do you think Christianity needs to focus more on Christ's suffering? Why or why not?
We are always in danger of forgetting the great price that our Lord paid for our sins, and we need to be reminded of it. However, I don't believe we need to meditate extensively on the details of His suffering, especially on the extra-biblical details that this movie fabricates and obsesses over.
10) Do you see Christ's sufferings merely as past history,or something still relevant today? Why or why not?
I do not believe Christ's suffering are continuing today, or being repeated today, as Romans Catholics do. But I certainly do believe they are relevant today, as I explained in my answer to number 3 above: The source of all my motivation for living as a Christian comes from the conviction that because Jesus died for me, I should live for Him (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Peter 2:24). I love Him because of what He did for me, bearing the penalty for my sins and freeing me from any fear of the judgment of God. Also, Jesus' suffering is a model for me, since He said that I should take up my cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23-25). I need to be willing to give myself up for the glory of God and the good of others.
11) What do you think of crucifixes? Why?
Crucifixes are problematic in several ways. First, many people venerate them or use them as an aid in worship (e.g. kissing them, praying to them), and that can be a form of idolatry--placing trust in the object, as if it had some kind of magical powers, rather than trusting in God, who alone has divine power. Also, I think the fact that Jesus is represented as "still on the cross" often reflects the Roman Catholic misunderstanding of the Lord's Supper and the nature of His sacrifice (which I discussed above under number 5). So if we choose to display a cross, in our churches or around our necks, I prefer an empty one, so we can remember that the Lord is risen and reigning in heaven at the right hand of the Father!
12) What is the role of suffering in your spirituality? Why?
I assume that you mean my own suffering, because you already asked about Christ's. My suffering plays a very important role in my spirituality. I do not go looking for it, nor do I enjoy it, but when God allows suffering in my life by His providence, He uses it to help me "become conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29). Suffering turns my heart toward heaven and away from the things of this world; suffering strengthens my character; suffering gives me an opportunity to trust God more; suffering enables me to help others who are going through tough times; and suffering for the sake of Christ gives me assurance that I belong to Him.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
God's Eye Better Than Ours
Spurgeon's Morning and Evening devotional for today is about 1 Peter 1:19, "The precious blood of Christ." He says, "The blood of Christ is likewise 'precious' in its preserving power. We are safe from the destroying angel under the sprinkled blood. Remember it is God's seeing the blood which is the true reason for us being spared. Here is the comfort for us when the eye of faith is dim, for God's eye is still the same."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
,+by+John+Singer+Sargent.jpg)
