Some time ago I had posted three lists of mispronounced terms and words overheard at a hardware store I used to work for. After much delay, here are the last of those mispronunciations. Those who are interested in the rest may go here:
http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-1.html
http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-2.html
http://hymnusdeo.blogspot.com/2008/03/hardware-mispronunciations-pt-3.html
*********************************
Jig jag blades - jig saw blades
Inchulation - insulation
Eproxy - epoxy
Limber - lumber
Almanacre - almanac
Ben Gay Roach Spray - Bengal (the brand of roach spray)
Java rocks - lava rocks
Butane tanks - propane tanks
Helium tanks - again, propane tanks
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, on the Differences Between the Heresies of Men and the Heresies of Women
From the book The Invisible War, by the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, former pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Dr. Barnhouse was writing in the early twentieth century, and so his times were slightly different than our own. As since his time American culture has found itself more confounded in its understanding of gender distinctions, the differences he notes aren't as sharp as they used to be. Nonetheless, he is addressing matters that are derived originally from the creational difference between men and women, and as such, the distinctions will always be largely correct, until the effects of the Fall are completely eradicated from the world.
*****************************************
"(I)t is enlightening to note the familiar pattern of difference which runs through those false religions which have come from women teachers as opposed to those which come from men. The religion put out by an Annie Besant, a Mrs. White [Ellen G. White}, a Mrs. Eddy [Mary Baker Eddy] or their imitators, is much more subtle than what might be called a masculine heresy. For Theosophy, Seventh-day Adventism, Christian Science, New Thought, Unity and other religions which have come from women, stress the love of God, without His hatred for sin, and with fair words deceive. They offer a "key" to the Bible which says that the Book is true, and then denies its truth. Men are different in their heresies. Boldly they affirm that the Word of God is not true. Modernism strikes at the first chapters of Genesis as folklore and legend, and declares the birth of our Lord to be a biological impossibility. He was mistaken, they say, when He declared Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, and so on throughout the account. There is a brazen characteristic in most of the heresies put forth by men which is not found in the women's heresies, and there was this same difference in the sin of the garden as seen in Eve and in Adam." (pg. 90-91)
*****************************************
"(I)t is enlightening to note the familiar pattern of difference which runs through those false religions which have come from women teachers as opposed to those which come from men. The religion put out by an Annie Besant, a Mrs. White [Ellen G. White}, a Mrs. Eddy [Mary Baker Eddy] or their imitators, is much more subtle than what might be called a masculine heresy. For Theosophy, Seventh-day Adventism, Christian Science, New Thought, Unity and other religions which have come from women, stress the love of God, without His hatred for sin, and with fair words deceive. They offer a "key" to the Bible which says that the Book is true, and then denies its truth. Men are different in their heresies. Boldly they affirm that the Word of God is not true. Modernism strikes at the first chapters of Genesis as folklore and legend, and declares the birth of our Lord to be a biological impossibility. He was mistaken, they say, when He declared Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, and so on throughout the account. There is a brazen characteristic in most of the heresies put forth by men which is not found in the women's heresies, and there was this same difference in the sin of the garden as seen in Eve and in Adam." (pg. 90-91)
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
On Mark 1:40-45
It is significant that Jesus, in healing the leprous man, chose to touch him. Such an act would have made Jesus ceremonially unclean, and unable himself to enter the Temple or to participate in Israel's cultic life. By touching the man, Jesus showed himself to be greater than the Temple system (Mt. 12:6), that his work was bringing it and the Old Testament order to an end. As Jesus' work was not complete and the old order still in effect, Jesus did command the man to act in obedience to the commands of Moses. Yet the man in his actions showed that the old order was becoming obsolete by Jesus' coming. Rather than proclaiming the law of Moses by his works, he proclaimed Jesus with his mouth. And this, in spite of the fact that we are told that "Jesus sternly charged him" (vs. 43). How could the man have ignored such a command? Though the man may not have known it, he had already shown himself to the Heavenly High Priest, Jesus, and whereas the earthly high priest could only declare him clean, Jesus the true High Priest could make him clean. We also see in this act that Jesus symbolically took the man's uncleanness upon himself, and gave the man His own cleanness, which he would later do definitively upon the cross. Jesus was shut out of Israel's religious life, and therefore shut out from God, on our behalf. The diseases that Jesus went around healing were exactly the diseases that made people unable to participate ceremonially in the life of Israel. He was opening the way into the Temple for those who had previously been excluded. Yet a new Temple had arrived, Jesus himself, and it was into himself that he was ultimately calling all men.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Two on Baptism
1 Peter 3:18-22 tells us that in the event of Noah's ark and the flood we should see baptism. As the ark passed through the flood, so we pass through the waters of baptism. But it also points to the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17). The dove that Noah sent out first returned to rest at the ark, finding no land. Being sent out a second time, she returned with an olive leaf. And being sent out a third time, she found a resting place elsewhere, and did not return to the ark. The fact that she was sent out every seven days, seeking a Sabbath rest, in essence, should not be overlooked. This occurred as the waters receded, and the ark came up out of the waters, as it were. In Jesus baptism, the Spirit descended as a dove and rested immediately upon Jesus as he came out of the waters of the Jordan. Jesus is our ark of deliverance from the waters of God's judgment.
*****************************************
In Matthew 3:11-12, John the Baptist tells of the coming of Jesus, who he says will baptize "with the Holy Spirit and fire". The baptism with water by John precedes the baptism with fire by Jesus. Baptism is a sort of judgment. For the righteous, it is purifying and saving. For the wicked, it is destructive. We then see in vss. 13-17 the arrival of Jesus and His own baptism with water. To accomplish is mission of baptizing with fire, He Himself must first pass through the baptism with water. This is echoed in Peter's treatment of the coming judgment in 2 Peter 3. The judgment on the ancient creation came first by water (vss. 5-6), speaking of the flood. But the judgment to come would be by fire (vss. 7-12). Jesus himself spoke of this judgment by fire in connection with baptism (Luke 12:48-49). He would first pass through His baptism by fire, only later to bring the fire of judgment upon the earth Himself. I will leave aside, for now, questions of the fulfillment of 2 Peter 3. It is worth noting, however, that Jesus Himself never passed through a judgment of literal fire.
*****************************************
In Matthew 3:11-12, John the Baptist tells of the coming of Jesus, who he says will baptize "with the Holy Spirit and fire". The baptism with water by John precedes the baptism with fire by Jesus. Baptism is a sort of judgment. For the righteous, it is purifying and saving. For the wicked, it is destructive. We then see in vss. 13-17 the arrival of Jesus and His own baptism with water. To accomplish is mission of baptizing with fire, He Himself must first pass through the baptism with water. This is echoed in Peter's treatment of the coming judgment in 2 Peter 3. The judgment on the ancient creation came first by water (vss. 5-6), speaking of the flood. But the judgment to come would be by fire (vss. 7-12). Jesus himself spoke of this judgment by fire in connection with baptism (Luke 12:48-49). He would first pass through His baptism by fire, only later to bring the fire of judgment upon the earth Himself. I will leave aside, for now, questions of the fulfillment of 2 Peter 3. It is worth noting, however, that Jesus Himself never passed through a judgment of literal fire.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Both Hodge and Podge
So while I haven't been blogging regularly, I do spend a fair bit of time on Facebook, where I make my own attempts at wit and wisdom rather frequently. Since I haven't found the space to do any serious writing recently, I thought I would post what Facebook comments I thought were worth repeating here. They're largely in reverse chronological order, going backwards to sometime last Spring. As the reader will see, there's no rhyme or reason to them otherwise. Hopefully they will prove interesting to others, and not merely an exercise of narcissism on my part.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The recent rise of the local 24 hour news channel is an interesting phenomenon. It tells me that in spite of all the ideas of a global culture that are promoted, people have a inescapable longing for local culture. A person can't be more than one place at a time, and the longing for a place called "home" is natural and normal, even for those who try to live their lives hopping from place to place across the globe.
*******************************************
Genesis 9:18-27 parallels Gen.3. In both, the partaking of fruit results in nakedness, or the realization of nakedness, which is subsequently covered. The result is the proclamation of curses upon the descendents of the parties involved, though in the case of Noah, righteous men are found, to whom are proclaimed blessings. Noah acts in imitation of God in proclaiming blessings and curses. Noah's sons act righteously in imitation of him (Gen. 6:9) just as he acts in imitation of God. When taking Gen. 6-9 as a whole, as over against Gen. 1-3, one sees that the flood and the covenant with Noah are a re-creation, a redoing (of sorts) of the original creation - a New Creation. Peter shows this to be linked to the death and resurrection of Christ, therefore also to our death and resurrection, that is, our salvation, including our baptism (1 Peter 3:18-22).
********************************************
Cross references for Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes Ps. 102:25-27, points out the parallel with Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same...". The Book of Hebrews is bracketed on either end by the proclamation of the eternality of the Second Person of the Trinity, only He is transformed by the end of the book, having been incarnated in the hypostatic union, eternally now both God and man. Heb. 1:1-4 summarizes the Book of Hebrews, and therefore the work of Christ.
*********************************************
Jesus has been the head of the Church since its founding. He then appointed the apostles, who appointed other Church leaders. The fact, therefore, is that the true Church has always been an organized body with a structured leadership, not just an invisible entity with no governing body.
**********************************************
The Christian life is one of ongoing repentance. We recognize our sins, confess, and repent. This is the reality of sanctification in our lives. Where there is no ongoing repentance, there is no sanctification, which means there is no justification. And if there is no justification, the person was never born again to begin with.
**********************************************
Dispelling myths: It's perfectly possible to be an Evangelical, Bible-believing Christian and not believe in a Pre-trib rapture. The notion of a Pre-trib rapture didn't appear until the early 19th century, and it has nothing to do with the Gospel.
***********************************************
1 Cor. 15:23-24: There is no break in time between Christ's Second Advent/the resurrection of the dead, and the end of all things when Christ's earthly reign ends. This means that the end of the Millennium coincides with the end of the current age, and there is no Millennium yet to begin after Christ's return.
************************************************
Romans 6: If you think the Gospel means you can now live however you want, you've misunderstood the Gospel. If you live the same way you've always lived, you don't have resurrection life, but are still dead in sin. And if you are still a slave to sin, you were never enslaved to Christ to begin with.
************************************************
Psalm 39: Your time in this life is short, and therefore so is your opportunity to speak for the glory of the Lord and for the good of his people while in this life. Reflect on life's brevity, and don't waste it with silence.
*************************************************
If children were included among God's people in the Old Covenant, and they are now excluded in the New Covenant, how can the New Covenant be a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6)?
*************************************************
A person is saved, neither by going forward during an altar call, nor by praying the "sinner's prayer", but by trusting in Jesus Christ alone. Those who are truly saved will persevere in faith to the end, and that means a pursuit of holiness and spiritual growth are inevitable. There is such a thing as false conversions.
**************************************************
The sudden interest in the latest cause celebre, opposition to bullying, is a good thing, though a few decades too late. A big problem remains, though, in that the relativists running the schools have no moral basis on which to oppose bullying. On Darwin's thesis, which still reigns in the government schools, bullying is just survival of the fittest.
**************************************************
Nondenominational churches are just denominations in denial. When you have declared denominations, at least it's clear what your church believes. In nondenominationalism, one is left with a large amount of confusion and guesswork. Perhaps this is why people are so quick to latch on to heretical dogmatism from New Age gurus and televangelists.
**************************************************
Adventures in language: the English word "scholar" is derived from the Greek word "schole", which means "leisure".
**************************************************
Any doctrine not worth defending isn't worth believing.
**************************************************
Pop/rock music is designed to enslave the listener to the temporal. What's new is what's best. Radio stations play the same songs over and over again, causing the listener, who at first is interested in the new song, to grow sick and ready for the next new thing. The songs are short and catchy, and require little thought or depth of engagement. This is a radical contrast with the worldview of Scripture, which instructs us to seek wisdom, to love God with all our minds, to honor the past, and to think in terms of a thousand generations.
***************************************************
"You live in a world in which a spontaneous worship service has to prove nothing...and in which a formal worship service has to prove that it isn't dead...I would suggest that is an unbiblical state of affairs." - Douglas Wilson. Putting on a show or stirring up emotions aren't necessarily signs of spiritual vitality. It's perfectly possible that groups of people in such settings are dead as a three day old corpse.
***************************************************
Wandering around Barnes & Noble this evening, I was surprised to find they have a section of books entitled "Teen Paranormal Romance". It was a sheer accident that I ran across it, though. I was looking for the "English Gardening How-To Books Written by Guys with the Middle Name 'Jed'" section. I never found it.
***************************************************
Parents: do you want your children to remain faithful to God, and to be sustained through the difficult times of life when they get older? Then teach them theologically-rich songs when they are young. It is those songs that God will use to communicate His word to them when they need it most throughout their lives.
***************************************************
The influence of pop culture: growing up in Fundamentalism, I didn't hear the word "holy" used as an adjective very often (such as "Holy Scripture", "Holy Trinity", "Holy Christian Church", etc.). Consequently, when I hear those phrases now, I always am tempted to follow them with the word "Batman".
***************************************************
Watching "Chariots of Fire" for the first time in a long time. Interesting to see Eric Liddell pushed to run on the Sabbath in the name of love of his country, taking precedent over his love of God. He made the right choice. Which leaves a question - are you an American first, or a Christian first? Earthly nations come and go, but the Kingdom of Christ abides forever.
***************************************************
In all my years of working with elderly folks, probably the most repeated statement I've heard from them is "I'm old, so I can say anything I want." But that isn't the way of Scripture. Grey hair should be a sign of mature wisdom and godliness, not foolishness, selfishness, or a loose tongue.
****************************************************
A man goes to see his doctor and the doctor tells him he's going to die if he doesn't change his lifestyle. "Doc, don't tell me I have to give up wine, women, and song," the man says. "I'm not," says the doctor. "You can sing all you want."
****************************************************
"Now listen, brothers and sisters. Now listen. Now listen." But I was listening, Charles Stanley...
****************************************************
Today is the anniversary of the first sustained flight by a manned aircraft, performed by brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright at Kitty Hawk, N. C., in 1903. The flight almost never took place, however, as Orville refused to either pass through the body scanner or to let Wilbur pat him down before boarding the plane.
*****************************************************
When I've spoken to defenders of Contemporary worship music and raised the complaint of copyrighted worship music, the response I've usually received has been that copyrighting protects the songwriter from someone abusing his song. And yet someone can take an old hymn, tack on three or four new lines, and make a bundle of money through CCLI, as if it were a new song. "Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)". Who's going to protect the old hymns? Does a songwriter cease to matter once he's dead?
******************************************************
Good theology is like a cathedral. We all enjoy its beauty, but few of us really understand the time and effort it took in building it.
*******************************************************
I've gotten to the point that I don't want to read any contemporary Evangelical literature, just because I'm sick of seeing the word "broken" - which I'm pretty sure, according to its current usage, doesn't really have a definition.
******************************************************
It is often assumed that in order to have a genuine Christian society everyone in that society must be converted. But that isn't the case. When the Church is believing and behaving as it should, it becomes the leader in the society it's in, by virtue of the positive effects of God's Law. And then even the unregenerate begin to act like Christians, because of the fear of man and the weight of tradition.
******************************************************
I consider it one of the supreme ironies in life that those who talk the most usually have the least interesting things to say.
******************************************************
Jim Caviezel is my co-pilot.
******************************************************
You know, if I found myself in a desert on a horse with no name, I think one of the ways I might entertain myself would be coming up with a name for that horse.
*******************************************************
Classic metal group Black Sabbath has announced they are planning a reunion in the near future. Commenting recently on the upcoming tour, lead singer Ozzy Osbourne said, "uhwa bluba puh buba fuba duh, uh pwa tuh fuh puhduh uhh."
*******************************************************
In the news: Prince William proposes to long-time girlfriend Kate Middleton - British citizens rejoice to have something to live for again
*******************************************************
Difficulties in life are inevitable, and are God's means of saving His people, of shaping them into what they are to be. The choice is whether one will try in vain to avoid the trouble, or accept it with gratitude as a gift from God, and allow Him to show how to rightly deal with it.
******************************************************
Harry Potter. By the time these kids graduate from Hogwarts, they'll be able to draw Social Security.
*****************************************************
When I worked for a counseling ministry a number of years ago, a counselee I worked with ran across 2 Samuel 1:26, where David said that his love for Jonathan was greater than that of women, and the fellow mentioned the passage to me. He couldn't get past the idea that Jonathan and David must have been gay, and no amount of my trying to explain the passage in light of male friendship got through to him. He was just another victim of our society's sinful perversity. An over-sexualized society, and especially the prevalence of homosexuality in our society, destroys male friendships.
*****************************************************
Notice: This evening's Procrastinators Anonymous meeting has been postponed until Monday evening.
*****************************************************
In a day in which selfishness and self-righteousness are often confused with love and justice, much clarity could be found simply through repeated watchings of Tombstone.
*****************************************************
It is interesting that the two sacraments Christ gave His Church to celebrate are symbolic of death - Baptism, of burial, and the Lord's Supper, of flesh and blood given over to crucifixion.
*****************************************************
Fairy tales are a display of beauty, goodness, and truth, and set before us those things that, though we see them now only in glimpses, we will see fully one day in the resurrection of the dead and the eternal kingdom.
*****************************************************
Nine out of ten people agree that the tenth guy will always disagree with them, because he's just difficult like that.
******************************************************
If Train A is heading west from Raleigh at 55 miles per hour, and Train B is heading east from Greensboro at 50 miles per hour, what flavor of ice cream is the eight year old boy in the third car back on Train A eating?
******************************************************
There are three social strata of adults in American society - "Jeopardy", "Wheel of Fortune", and "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader".
******************************************************
Ah, teas. Just like skin color, black tea isn't black, white tea isn't white, and green tea isn't green. This was pointed out to me by a green friend of mine.
******************************************************
The word "priest" is actually a Latinized, and then Anglicized, form of the Greek word "presbyteros", which is typically translated today as "elder".
******************************************************
I have a feeling that future generations, looking back on our culture, will think the "f-bomb" was a real bomb.
*******************************************************
I've been doing a fair bit of thinking on the theology of the cross vs. the theology of glory, as per Luther, born out of study of Rev. 4 & 5. And watching the Beatification of Cardinal Newman on EWTN. As I watch, I am struck by the bittersweet nature of the traditional liturgy of the Church, though laden in beauty, and how it contrasts with the theology of glory as found in the contemporary church.
********************************************************
I'm atching Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I haven't seen in a long time. What a great movie. It just struck me that there is a common theme throughout the Indiana Jones series - there is such a thing as knowledge forbidden to man, certain things that God has made off limits to us. True "success" in God's world only comes through acknowledging and honoring mystery. This can seem ironic in a movie series about finding out ancient secrets, and yet rightly understood, it is essential to finding all truth. Unless one understands one's limitations - both inherent and given by authority - one cannot become greater than he is.
**********************************************************
Christian cliche #3245: "Jesus Christ - 'H' isn't His middle initial." For some people, I know this is a sincere attempt to address blasphemy. But it's about as effective as the Southern Baptist Convention's boycott of Disney a few years back. Cliches like this trivialize Jesus' name, reducing it to a hollow slogan, and they merely give pagans more occasion to mock and blaspheme.
**********************************************************
I noticed that a local church was holding a ADHD support group, and I'm trying to imagine how that would work out. If nobody has the attention span to listen to you as you complain about your problem, and they're interrupting you the whole time, wouldn't that sort of work counter to the purpose of a support group?
**********************************************************
Christian cliche #3246: "God couldn't be everywhere at the same time - that's why He made grandmothers." Saw this one on a throw pillow in a neighbor's house a couple of years ago. A good example of how sentimentalism is a fertile seedbed for heresy. As a guest in their house, I didn't feel that pointing out the heresy was the most appropriate thing to do.
***********************************************************
Books of the Bible that we would not immediately think of as directly connected, other than the fact that they are God's Word, are often more related to each other than we might realize. The Book of Proverbs, for instance, features the contrast between the Adulterous Woman and Lady Wisdom. Likewise, the Book of Revelation contrasts two women, the Harlot Babylon and the Bride of Christ, the Church. Adultery and harlotry are regular Biblical images for idolatry. To live unwisely is to worship false gods. In contrast, to be part of Christ's Church is to live wisely and purely. All sin is idolatry, but to worship the true God and to be united to Him is to live in accordance with His Law.
*************************************************************
It is often regarded as impolite to discuss religion and politics in social settings. The funny thing is that Jesus went around discussing both, and he did so in social settings, where everyone could hear Him, and could be offended.
*************************************************************
How the word "religion" can to be regarded as a bad thing, or at least redefined such that it came to be regarded as a bad thing, is a bit baffling. But the idea that a religion is a scheme of self-salvation, or man's attempt to get to God by his own doings, and therefore contrary to Christianity, is false. Christianity is a religion, the only true religion, and is about one's relationship with God.
**************************************************************
Tradition is not only inevitable, but is also necessary and good. The question is whether or not your tradition is shaped by a Biblical worldview, and whether or not you're willing to let it go when it becomes an idol.
**************************************************************
Everybody knows generalizations are bad.
**************************************************************
Christian cliche #3247: "You'll never find the perfect church." Absolutely true. But I think people have the right to expect a church that doesn't use that as an excuse for not doing what it should.
**************************************************************
Dispensationalism's self-fulfilled prophecy:
1.) Declare that the world is getting worse
2.) Sit back and do nothing to prevent the world from getting worse
3.) Watch as the world gets worse
4.) Point out that the world - at least within ten miles of your house - is getting worse, just like you said
**************************************************************
The loss of modesty has broader effects than we might initially think. The attack on modesty is in effect an attack on mystery, and therefore an attempt at supplanting God. And one outworking in our society is that we find it hard to believe that there may actually be some things that are none of our business. This is especially manifest in the celebrity gossip subculture. Holiness honors the hiddenness of God, even as it exists in His image, which is man. This is simply another example of loving the Lord your God and loving your neighbor as yourself.
**************************************************************
Contrary to the commonly held view today, not all sins are equal in terms of their wickedness, and some sins are actually worse than others. If that weren't the case, then there wouldn't have been varying degrees of punishment in the Mosaic Law. When Jesus said, "He who hates his brother has already committed murder in his heart," he wasn't saying that murder is equal to hate, but rather that sin is more than action, it is also attitude, from which sin acts arise.
*************************************************************
It was no mere coincidence that a crown of thorns was placed upon Christ's brow in his suffering. God told Adam that due to his sin, man would tend the ground by the sweat of his brow, and that the earth would brings forth thorns. Christ took Adam's curse, the curse of the ground, upon himself. Man is from the dirt, and the redemption of the earth is inseparable from the redemption of man.
*************************************************************
In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan the prophet comes to Jerusalem to confront King David with his sin by means of a parable. In so doing, David pronounces his own judgment upon himself. Likewise, in Matthew 21 Jesus comes to Jerusalem and confronts the chief priests and the Pharisees by means of a parable with their failure to rightly shepherd the people of Israel. Like David, they pronounce their judgment upon themselves.
**************************************************************
Dante's "Inferno" - was it the fourth or the fifth ring of Hell that contained telemarketers and time share salesmen?
**************************************************************
Genesis 2:18-25: It is interesting that God brought the animals to Adam to name them (in connection with the creation of and naming of Eve), but we find no specific statement of God directing Adam to name other parts of the creation, such as the plants. This is not to say it isn't proper to "name" plants. And yet we see from this that not all living things are equal. In other words, tree hugging isn't allowed.
**************************************************************
New Student Orientation: the term "orient" derives from medieval church architecture, and is to point the direction of the eastern wall in a church, where the altar is, and where Christ was believed to reside in the Sacrament. True education can only come in conjunction with a proper looking toward Christ.
*************************************************************
Do the earthly promises of the fifth commandment still apply in the New Covenant? Scripture seems very clearly to say so: "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit......" (1 Peter 3:8 and following for the context). This life is short, and man is but a vapor in it. And yet we are called to love life, even in its fallen state, and not just the lives of others, but our own life as well. This is a reality that transcends the unique characters of the Old and New Covenants.
************************************************************
True spirituality: Just use the word "broken" alot. "Struggle", "feeble", "real", and "heart" are good ones too. And talk about falling down on your knees. The key is to make sure everyone knows you're being self-deprecating. Hey, what's that in my navel?
************************************************************
One of the glories of the Westminster Divines and the catechism questions they composed is that they understood that the commandments had a broader application than what is explicitly stated in the commandment. This comes out clearly in the fifth commandment (WSC 64). The command to honor father and mother has at its heart the issue of obedience to God-ordained authority, and therefore has application in areas beyond the parent-child relationship.
***********************************************************
If the eternal God, He who never slumbers nor sleeps, who never grows tired such that He needs to rest, still rested on the seventh day, is it not appropriate that we, subject to the weakness of flesh and the effects of the fall, by walking after His example, should also rest on the seventh day?
************************************************************
On Matthew 7:1-5: I always find it funny that those who are quick to quote verse one couldn't tell you what the other four verses say. In fact, I find such people not only ignore the fact that Jesus is passing judgment in this statement, but He does so in ...all that he says elsewhere, as do the prophets and apostles throughout Scripture, by the sanction of God. So this passage obviously doesn't mean what some people want to make it mean. In addition, those who say "judge not" usually manage to do so simply when you say something they don't like, mostly on an issue about which they are thinking more like the ungodly culture around them rather than in accordance with what Scripture says about the matter. And all of this, summed up in the fact that those who tell someone "judge not" are themselves judging, and proving themselves hypocrites. Judgment is inevitable; what God calls us to do is to make a righteous judgment.
**************************************************************
In His prophecy spoken through Jeremiah, God said that He had given the "beasts of the field" to serve King Nebuchanezzar (Jer. 27:6). This is obviously reminiscent of and a continuation of Adam's reign (Gen. 1). But it was the very "beasts of the field" that Nebuchadnezzar was driven out among when God judged him (Daniel 4:32). He lost his rule over them and became like them. Note also that Nebuchadnezzar was walking on the roof of his palace when his vanity overtook him (Daniel 4:30), just as David was walking on the roof of his palace when he saw Bathsheba bathing (2 Samuel 11:2). They were both guilty of the... same vanity and pride, that which those who are in positions of power and authority are so prone toward - that of failing to remember that their power and authority are not their own, and that they answer to a greater King.
*************************************************************
Jesus came as the beginning, or the genesis, of a New Creation. Just as the Spirit of God hovered over the deep in the conception of the Old Creation (Genesis 1:2), so the Spirit overshadowed Mary in the conception of the New Creation (Luke 1:35). And so anyone now who is united to Christ is himself a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).
*************************************************************
Blended worship is like being a little bit pregnant.
**************************************************************
Mark 1:40-45. The significance of Jesus touching the leper as he healed him is easily overlooked. But the point is that in healing him by touching him, Jesus took the man's uncleanness upon himself, becoming unclean in the man's place. This is why Mark adds that Jesus was then forced to walk in desolate places (Mark 1:45, Leviticus 13:46). To be unclean is to be shut out from the Temple, thus from God, as well.
*************************************************************
It would be nice if the minsters of the church were to return to wearing distinctive clothes that symbolized their office, especially in worship. Everything we do, including how we dress, is a symbol, and communicates something about ourselves and how we view God and the world around us. In a unique way, how our ministers dress, especially when they are functioning in their office, points to the God they serve. This is true of all God's people, but particularly for minsters, as their vocation is uniquely to the full-time ministry.
************************************************************
There is no Christian who has "no creed but Christ". It's just that some write it down on paper, while others merely hold it in their heads.
************************************************************
"My Utmost For His Highest" by Oswald Chambers: There was a time in my early twenties when I practically lived on every word in this book. I read it over and over again, and tried desperately to live out what it taught. I have since come to the conclusion that this book was one of the biggest sources of spiritual distress in my life. Chambers' focus in the book is on the surrend...er of all of one's life to God, as if that were possible in this life. Those who are serious about God will confess all of their sins and surrender fully to God, Chambers says. This is the Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian doctrine, and it is a false doctrine that has probably done more damage in the church than we will ever know. There is only one kind of Christian - justified in Christ and striving toward holiness, but constantly faced with his failures as a Christian. He rests in the grace of God, knowing that forgiveness is his, in spite of the fact that he could never remember all his sins to confess them. Lutheran pastor Rod Rosenbladt once said that Oswald Chambers should have stuck with painting rather than becoming a pastor. That might be calling it a little harsh, but if this book is any example of Chambers' teaching, Rosenbladt's statement isn't far from the truth.
***************************************************************
When couples who appeared in eHarmony commercials go through a rough spot in their marriages, do they think to themselves, "we can't get divorced. We laughed together in slow-motion on an eHarmony commercial"?
***************************************************************
So if the race for the office of governor is called a gubernatorial race, is the winner the biggest guber?
****************************************************************
It is true that being in a church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car. Still, there are certain places where one expects to find cars, and the ninth hole on a sunny Sunday morning isn't one of them.
*****************************************************************
I'm regularly struck by the fact that Evangelicals tend to be obsessed with images, sometimes using them as a substitute for the Word. And yet the images they use are from pop culture, rather than folk or high art. What a shame. If you're going to do art, at least do it right.
*****************************************************************
I'm regularly intrigued at the things we have children participate in, that have nothing to do with preparing them for adulthood. This year, rather than sending your child to summer camp, why not stick him in a cubicle for a week?
******************************************************************
Dr. Jeremiah: the text says that the mark of the beast is "on" the hand or the forehead, not "in". Computer chips don't qualify.
******************************************************************
This morning on David Jeremiah's radio show he noted the similarities between Adam and Eve, and Job and his wife. Just as Satan used Eve to get at Adam, so Satan used Job's wife to get at Job. I had never made the connection before. Even a Dispensationalist finds some typology every once in a while, I guess.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The recent rise of the local 24 hour news channel is an interesting phenomenon. It tells me that in spite of all the ideas of a global culture that are promoted, people have a inescapable longing for local culture. A person can't be more than one place at a time, and the longing for a place called "home" is natural and normal, even for those who try to live their lives hopping from place to place across the globe.
*******************************************
Genesis 9:18-27 parallels Gen.3. In both, the partaking of fruit results in nakedness, or the realization of nakedness, which is subsequently covered. The result is the proclamation of curses upon the descendents of the parties involved, though in the case of Noah, righteous men are found, to whom are proclaimed blessings. Noah acts in imitation of God in proclaiming blessings and curses. Noah's sons act righteously in imitation of him (Gen. 6:9) just as he acts in imitation of God. When taking Gen. 6-9 as a whole, as over against Gen. 1-3, one sees that the flood and the covenant with Noah are a re-creation, a redoing (of sorts) of the original creation - a New Creation. Peter shows this to be linked to the death and resurrection of Christ, therefore also to our death and resurrection, that is, our salvation, including our baptism (1 Peter 3:18-22).
********************************************
Cross references for Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes Ps. 102:25-27, points out the parallel with Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same...". The Book of Hebrews is bracketed on either end by the proclamation of the eternality of the Second Person of the Trinity, only He is transformed by the end of the book, having been incarnated in the hypostatic union, eternally now both God and man. Heb. 1:1-4 summarizes the Book of Hebrews, and therefore the work of Christ.
*********************************************
Jesus has been the head of the Church since its founding. He then appointed the apostles, who appointed other Church leaders. The fact, therefore, is that the true Church has always been an organized body with a structured leadership, not just an invisible entity with no governing body.
**********************************************
The Christian life is one of ongoing repentance. We recognize our sins, confess, and repent. This is the reality of sanctification in our lives. Where there is no ongoing repentance, there is no sanctification, which means there is no justification. And if there is no justification, the person was never born again to begin with.
**********************************************
Dispelling myths: It's perfectly possible to be an Evangelical, Bible-believing Christian and not believe in a Pre-trib rapture. The notion of a Pre-trib rapture didn't appear until the early 19th century, and it has nothing to do with the Gospel.
***********************************************
1 Cor. 15:23-24: There is no break in time between Christ's Second Advent/the resurrection of the dead, and the end of all things when Christ's earthly reign ends. This means that the end of the Millennium coincides with the end of the current age, and there is no Millennium yet to begin after Christ's return.
************************************************
Romans 6: If you think the Gospel means you can now live however you want, you've misunderstood the Gospel. If you live the same way you've always lived, you don't have resurrection life, but are still dead in sin. And if you are still a slave to sin, you were never enslaved to Christ to begin with.
************************************************
Psalm 39: Your time in this life is short, and therefore so is your opportunity to speak for the glory of the Lord and for the good of his people while in this life. Reflect on life's brevity, and don't waste it with silence.
*************************************************
If children were included among God's people in the Old Covenant, and they are now excluded in the New Covenant, how can the New Covenant be a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6)?
*************************************************
A person is saved, neither by going forward during an altar call, nor by praying the "sinner's prayer", but by trusting in Jesus Christ alone. Those who are truly saved will persevere in faith to the end, and that means a pursuit of holiness and spiritual growth are inevitable. There is such a thing as false conversions.
**************************************************
The sudden interest in the latest cause celebre, opposition to bullying, is a good thing, though a few decades too late. A big problem remains, though, in that the relativists running the schools have no moral basis on which to oppose bullying. On Darwin's thesis, which still reigns in the government schools, bullying is just survival of the fittest.
**************************************************
Nondenominational churches are just denominations in denial. When you have declared denominations, at least it's clear what your church believes. In nondenominationalism, one is left with a large amount of confusion and guesswork. Perhaps this is why people are so quick to latch on to heretical dogmatism from New Age gurus and televangelists.
**************************************************
Adventures in language: the English word "scholar" is derived from the Greek word "schole", which means "leisure".
**************************************************
Any doctrine not worth defending isn't worth believing.
**************************************************
Pop/rock music is designed to enslave the listener to the temporal. What's new is what's best. Radio stations play the same songs over and over again, causing the listener, who at first is interested in the new song, to grow sick and ready for the next new thing. The songs are short and catchy, and require little thought or depth of engagement. This is a radical contrast with the worldview of Scripture, which instructs us to seek wisdom, to love God with all our minds, to honor the past, and to think in terms of a thousand generations.
***************************************************
"You live in a world in which a spontaneous worship service has to prove nothing...and in which a formal worship service has to prove that it isn't dead...I would suggest that is an unbiblical state of affairs." - Douglas Wilson. Putting on a show or stirring up emotions aren't necessarily signs of spiritual vitality. It's perfectly possible that groups of people in such settings are dead as a three day old corpse.
***************************************************
Wandering around Barnes & Noble this evening, I was surprised to find they have a section of books entitled "Teen Paranormal Romance". It was a sheer accident that I ran across it, though. I was looking for the "English Gardening How-To Books Written by Guys with the Middle Name 'Jed'" section. I never found it.
***************************************************
Parents: do you want your children to remain faithful to God, and to be sustained through the difficult times of life when they get older? Then teach them theologically-rich songs when they are young. It is those songs that God will use to communicate His word to them when they need it most throughout their lives.
***************************************************
The influence of pop culture: growing up in Fundamentalism, I didn't hear the word "holy" used as an adjective very often (such as "Holy Scripture", "Holy Trinity", "Holy Christian Church", etc.). Consequently, when I hear those phrases now, I always am tempted to follow them with the word "Batman".
***************************************************
Watching "Chariots of Fire" for the first time in a long time. Interesting to see Eric Liddell pushed to run on the Sabbath in the name of love of his country, taking precedent over his love of God. He made the right choice. Which leaves a question - are you an American first, or a Christian first? Earthly nations come and go, but the Kingdom of Christ abides forever.
***************************************************
In all my years of working with elderly folks, probably the most repeated statement I've heard from them is "I'm old, so I can say anything I want." But that isn't the way of Scripture. Grey hair should be a sign of mature wisdom and godliness, not foolishness, selfishness, or a loose tongue.
****************************************************
A man goes to see his doctor and the doctor tells him he's going to die if he doesn't change his lifestyle. "Doc, don't tell me I have to give up wine, women, and song," the man says. "I'm not," says the doctor. "You can sing all you want."
****************************************************
"Now listen, brothers and sisters. Now listen. Now listen." But I was listening, Charles Stanley...
****************************************************
Today is the anniversary of the first sustained flight by a manned aircraft, performed by brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright at Kitty Hawk, N. C., in 1903. The flight almost never took place, however, as Orville refused to either pass through the body scanner or to let Wilbur pat him down before boarding the plane.
*****************************************************
When I've spoken to defenders of Contemporary worship music and raised the complaint of copyrighted worship music, the response I've usually received has been that copyrighting protects the songwriter from someone abusing his song. And yet someone can take an old hymn, tack on three or four new lines, and make a bundle of money through CCLI, as if it were a new song. "Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)". Who's going to protect the old hymns? Does a songwriter cease to matter once he's dead?
******************************************************
Good theology is like a cathedral. We all enjoy its beauty, but few of us really understand the time and effort it took in building it.
*******************************************************
I've gotten to the point that I don't want to read any contemporary Evangelical literature, just because I'm sick of seeing the word "broken" - which I'm pretty sure, according to its current usage, doesn't really have a definition.
******************************************************
It is often assumed that in order to have a genuine Christian society everyone in that society must be converted. But that isn't the case. When the Church is believing and behaving as it should, it becomes the leader in the society it's in, by virtue of the positive effects of God's Law. And then even the unregenerate begin to act like Christians, because of the fear of man and the weight of tradition.
******************************************************
I consider it one of the supreme ironies in life that those who talk the most usually have the least interesting things to say.
******************************************************
Jim Caviezel is my co-pilot.
******************************************************
You know, if I found myself in a desert on a horse with no name, I think one of the ways I might entertain myself would be coming up with a name for that horse.
*******************************************************
Classic metal group Black Sabbath has announced they are planning a reunion in the near future. Commenting recently on the upcoming tour, lead singer Ozzy Osbourne said, "uhwa bluba puh buba fuba duh, uh pwa tuh fuh puhduh uhh."
*******************************************************
In the news: Prince William proposes to long-time girlfriend Kate Middleton - British citizens rejoice to have something to live for again
*******************************************************
Difficulties in life are inevitable, and are God's means of saving His people, of shaping them into what they are to be. The choice is whether one will try in vain to avoid the trouble, or accept it with gratitude as a gift from God, and allow Him to show how to rightly deal with it.
******************************************************
Harry Potter. By the time these kids graduate from Hogwarts, they'll be able to draw Social Security.
*****************************************************
When I worked for a counseling ministry a number of years ago, a counselee I worked with ran across 2 Samuel 1:26, where David said that his love for Jonathan was greater than that of women, and the fellow mentioned the passage to me. He couldn't get past the idea that Jonathan and David must have been gay, and no amount of my trying to explain the passage in light of male friendship got through to him. He was just another victim of our society's sinful perversity. An over-sexualized society, and especially the prevalence of homosexuality in our society, destroys male friendships.
*****************************************************
Notice: This evening's Procrastinators Anonymous meeting has been postponed until Monday evening.
*****************************************************
In a day in which selfishness and self-righteousness are often confused with love and justice, much clarity could be found simply through repeated watchings of Tombstone.
*****************************************************
It is interesting that the two sacraments Christ gave His Church to celebrate are symbolic of death - Baptism, of burial, and the Lord's Supper, of flesh and blood given over to crucifixion.
*****************************************************
Fairy tales are a display of beauty, goodness, and truth, and set before us those things that, though we see them now only in glimpses, we will see fully one day in the resurrection of the dead and the eternal kingdom.
*****************************************************
Nine out of ten people agree that the tenth guy will always disagree with them, because he's just difficult like that.
******************************************************
If Train A is heading west from Raleigh at 55 miles per hour, and Train B is heading east from Greensboro at 50 miles per hour, what flavor of ice cream is the eight year old boy in the third car back on Train A eating?
******************************************************
There are three social strata of adults in American society - "Jeopardy", "Wheel of Fortune", and "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader".
******************************************************
Ah, teas. Just like skin color, black tea isn't black, white tea isn't white, and green tea isn't green. This was pointed out to me by a green friend of mine.
******************************************************
The word "priest" is actually a Latinized, and then Anglicized, form of the Greek word "presbyteros", which is typically translated today as "elder".
******************************************************
I have a feeling that future generations, looking back on our culture, will think the "f-bomb" was a real bomb.
*******************************************************
I've been doing a fair bit of thinking on the theology of the cross vs. the theology of glory, as per Luther, born out of study of Rev. 4 & 5. And watching the Beatification of Cardinal Newman on EWTN. As I watch, I am struck by the bittersweet nature of the traditional liturgy of the Church, though laden in beauty, and how it contrasts with the theology of glory as found in the contemporary church.
********************************************************
I'm atching Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I haven't seen in a long time. What a great movie. It just struck me that there is a common theme throughout the Indiana Jones series - there is such a thing as knowledge forbidden to man, certain things that God has made off limits to us. True "success" in God's world only comes through acknowledging and honoring mystery. This can seem ironic in a movie series about finding out ancient secrets, and yet rightly understood, it is essential to finding all truth. Unless one understands one's limitations - both inherent and given by authority - one cannot become greater than he is.
**********************************************************
Christian cliche #3245: "Jesus Christ - 'H' isn't His middle initial." For some people, I know this is a sincere attempt to address blasphemy. But it's about as effective as the Southern Baptist Convention's boycott of Disney a few years back. Cliches like this trivialize Jesus' name, reducing it to a hollow slogan, and they merely give pagans more occasion to mock and blaspheme.
**********************************************************
I noticed that a local church was holding a ADHD support group, and I'm trying to imagine how that would work out. If nobody has the attention span to listen to you as you complain about your problem, and they're interrupting you the whole time, wouldn't that sort of work counter to the purpose of a support group?
**********************************************************
Christian cliche #3246: "God couldn't be everywhere at the same time - that's why He made grandmothers." Saw this one on a throw pillow in a neighbor's house a couple of years ago. A good example of how sentimentalism is a fertile seedbed for heresy. As a guest in their house, I didn't feel that pointing out the heresy was the most appropriate thing to do.
***********************************************************
Books of the Bible that we would not immediately think of as directly connected, other than the fact that they are God's Word, are often more related to each other than we might realize. The Book of Proverbs, for instance, features the contrast between the Adulterous Woman and Lady Wisdom. Likewise, the Book of Revelation contrasts two women, the Harlot Babylon and the Bride of Christ, the Church. Adultery and harlotry are regular Biblical images for idolatry. To live unwisely is to worship false gods. In contrast, to be part of Christ's Church is to live wisely and purely. All sin is idolatry, but to worship the true God and to be united to Him is to live in accordance with His Law.
*************************************************************
It is often regarded as impolite to discuss religion and politics in social settings. The funny thing is that Jesus went around discussing both, and he did so in social settings, where everyone could hear Him, and could be offended.
*************************************************************
How the word "religion" can to be regarded as a bad thing, or at least redefined such that it came to be regarded as a bad thing, is a bit baffling. But the idea that a religion is a scheme of self-salvation, or man's attempt to get to God by his own doings, and therefore contrary to Christianity, is false. Christianity is a religion, the only true religion, and is about one's relationship with God.
**************************************************************
Tradition is not only inevitable, but is also necessary and good. The question is whether or not your tradition is shaped by a Biblical worldview, and whether or not you're willing to let it go when it becomes an idol.
**************************************************************
Everybody knows generalizations are bad.
**************************************************************
Christian cliche #3247: "You'll never find the perfect church." Absolutely true. But I think people have the right to expect a church that doesn't use that as an excuse for not doing what it should.
**************************************************************
Dispensationalism's self-fulfilled prophecy:
1.) Declare that the world is getting worse
2.) Sit back and do nothing to prevent the world from getting worse
3.) Watch as the world gets worse
4.) Point out that the world - at least within ten miles of your house - is getting worse, just like you said
**************************************************************
The loss of modesty has broader effects than we might initially think. The attack on modesty is in effect an attack on mystery, and therefore an attempt at supplanting God. And one outworking in our society is that we find it hard to believe that there may actually be some things that are none of our business. This is especially manifest in the celebrity gossip subculture. Holiness honors the hiddenness of God, even as it exists in His image, which is man. This is simply another example of loving the Lord your God and loving your neighbor as yourself.
**************************************************************
Contrary to the commonly held view today, not all sins are equal in terms of their wickedness, and some sins are actually worse than others. If that weren't the case, then there wouldn't have been varying degrees of punishment in the Mosaic Law. When Jesus said, "He who hates his brother has already committed murder in his heart," he wasn't saying that murder is equal to hate, but rather that sin is more than action, it is also attitude, from which sin acts arise.
*************************************************************
It was no mere coincidence that a crown of thorns was placed upon Christ's brow in his suffering. God told Adam that due to his sin, man would tend the ground by the sweat of his brow, and that the earth would brings forth thorns. Christ took Adam's curse, the curse of the ground, upon himself. Man is from the dirt, and the redemption of the earth is inseparable from the redemption of man.
*************************************************************
In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan the prophet comes to Jerusalem to confront King David with his sin by means of a parable. In so doing, David pronounces his own judgment upon himself. Likewise, in Matthew 21 Jesus comes to Jerusalem and confronts the chief priests and the Pharisees by means of a parable with their failure to rightly shepherd the people of Israel. Like David, they pronounce their judgment upon themselves.
**************************************************************
Dante's "Inferno" - was it the fourth or the fifth ring of Hell that contained telemarketers and time share salesmen?
**************************************************************
Genesis 2:18-25: It is interesting that God brought the animals to Adam to name them (in connection with the creation of and naming of Eve), but we find no specific statement of God directing Adam to name other parts of the creation, such as the plants. This is not to say it isn't proper to "name" plants. And yet we see from this that not all living things are equal. In other words, tree hugging isn't allowed.
**************************************************************
New Student Orientation: the term "orient" derives from medieval church architecture, and is to point the direction of the eastern wall in a church, where the altar is, and where Christ was believed to reside in the Sacrament. True education can only come in conjunction with a proper looking toward Christ.
*************************************************************
Do the earthly promises of the fifth commandment still apply in the New Covenant? Scripture seems very clearly to say so: "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit......" (1 Peter 3:8 and following for the context). This life is short, and man is but a vapor in it. And yet we are called to love life, even in its fallen state, and not just the lives of others, but our own life as well. This is a reality that transcends the unique characters of the Old and New Covenants.
************************************************************
True spirituality: Just use the word "broken" alot. "Struggle", "feeble", "real", and "heart" are good ones too. And talk about falling down on your knees. The key is to make sure everyone knows you're being self-deprecating. Hey, what's that in my navel?
************************************************************
One of the glories of the Westminster Divines and the catechism questions they composed is that they understood that the commandments had a broader application than what is explicitly stated in the commandment. This comes out clearly in the fifth commandment (WSC 64). The command to honor father and mother has at its heart the issue of obedience to God-ordained authority, and therefore has application in areas beyond the parent-child relationship.
***********************************************************
If the eternal God, He who never slumbers nor sleeps, who never grows tired such that He needs to rest, still rested on the seventh day, is it not appropriate that we, subject to the weakness of flesh and the effects of the fall, by walking after His example, should also rest on the seventh day?
************************************************************
On Matthew 7:1-5: I always find it funny that those who are quick to quote verse one couldn't tell you what the other four verses say. In fact, I find such people not only ignore the fact that Jesus is passing judgment in this statement, but He does so in ...all that he says elsewhere, as do the prophets and apostles throughout Scripture, by the sanction of God. So this passage obviously doesn't mean what some people want to make it mean. In addition, those who say "judge not" usually manage to do so simply when you say something they don't like, mostly on an issue about which they are thinking more like the ungodly culture around them rather than in accordance with what Scripture says about the matter. And all of this, summed up in the fact that those who tell someone "judge not" are themselves judging, and proving themselves hypocrites. Judgment is inevitable; what God calls us to do is to make a righteous judgment.
**************************************************************
In His prophecy spoken through Jeremiah, God said that He had given the "beasts of the field" to serve King Nebuchanezzar (Jer. 27:6). This is obviously reminiscent of and a continuation of Adam's reign (Gen. 1). But it was the very "beasts of the field" that Nebuchadnezzar was driven out among when God judged him (Daniel 4:32). He lost his rule over them and became like them. Note also that Nebuchadnezzar was walking on the roof of his palace when his vanity overtook him (Daniel 4:30), just as David was walking on the roof of his palace when he saw Bathsheba bathing (2 Samuel 11:2). They were both guilty of the... same vanity and pride, that which those who are in positions of power and authority are so prone toward - that of failing to remember that their power and authority are not their own, and that they answer to a greater King.
*************************************************************
Jesus came as the beginning, or the genesis, of a New Creation. Just as the Spirit of God hovered over the deep in the conception of the Old Creation (Genesis 1:2), so the Spirit overshadowed Mary in the conception of the New Creation (Luke 1:35). And so anyone now who is united to Christ is himself a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).
*************************************************************
Blended worship is like being a little bit pregnant.
**************************************************************
Mark 1:40-45. The significance of Jesus touching the leper as he healed him is easily overlooked. But the point is that in healing him by touching him, Jesus took the man's uncleanness upon himself, becoming unclean in the man's place. This is why Mark adds that Jesus was then forced to walk in desolate places (Mark 1:45, Leviticus 13:46). To be unclean is to be shut out from the Temple, thus from God, as well.
*************************************************************
It would be nice if the minsters of the church were to return to wearing distinctive clothes that symbolized their office, especially in worship. Everything we do, including how we dress, is a symbol, and communicates something about ourselves and how we view God and the world around us. In a unique way, how our ministers dress, especially when they are functioning in their office, points to the God they serve. This is true of all God's people, but particularly for minsters, as their vocation is uniquely to the full-time ministry.
************************************************************
There is no Christian who has "no creed but Christ". It's just that some write it down on paper, while others merely hold it in their heads.
************************************************************
"My Utmost For His Highest" by Oswald Chambers: There was a time in my early twenties when I practically lived on every word in this book. I read it over and over again, and tried desperately to live out what it taught. I have since come to the conclusion that this book was one of the biggest sources of spiritual distress in my life. Chambers' focus in the book is on the surrend...er of all of one's life to God, as if that were possible in this life. Those who are serious about God will confess all of their sins and surrender fully to God, Chambers says. This is the Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian doctrine, and it is a false doctrine that has probably done more damage in the church than we will ever know. There is only one kind of Christian - justified in Christ and striving toward holiness, but constantly faced with his failures as a Christian. He rests in the grace of God, knowing that forgiveness is his, in spite of the fact that he could never remember all his sins to confess them. Lutheran pastor Rod Rosenbladt once said that Oswald Chambers should have stuck with painting rather than becoming a pastor. That might be calling it a little harsh, but if this book is any example of Chambers' teaching, Rosenbladt's statement isn't far from the truth.
***************************************************************
When couples who appeared in eHarmony commercials go through a rough spot in their marriages, do they think to themselves, "we can't get divorced. We laughed together in slow-motion on an eHarmony commercial"?
***************************************************************
So if the race for the office of governor is called a gubernatorial race, is the winner the biggest guber?
****************************************************************
It is true that being in a church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car. Still, there are certain places where one expects to find cars, and the ninth hole on a sunny Sunday morning isn't one of them.
*****************************************************************
I'm regularly struck by the fact that Evangelicals tend to be obsessed with images, sometimes using them as a substitute for the Word. And yet the images they use are from pop culture, rather than folk or high art. What a shame. If you're going to do art, at least do it right.
*****************************************************************
I'm regularly intrigued at the things we have children participate in, that have nothing to do with preparing them for adulthood. This year, rather than sending your child to summer camp, why not stick him in a cubicle for a week?
******************************************************************
Dr. Jeremiah: the text says that the mark of the beast is "on" the hand or the forehead, not "in". Computer chips don't qualify.
******************************************************************
This morning on David Jeremiah's radio show he noted the similarities between Adam and Eve, and Job and his wife. Just as Satan used Eve to get at Adam, so Satan used Job's wife to get at Job. I had never made the connection before. Even a Dispensationalist finds some typology every once in a while, I guess.
Friday, February 25, 2011
So...
...I've reverted back to the old template for now. I hope to make more changes in the future. The circumstances of life have prevented me from doing much blogging as of late, let alone any site alterations. Hopefully that will change soon. In the meantime, thanks for visiting.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Many Mansions
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." -- John 14:1-3
One passage of Scripture that has often been pulled out of context in contemporary Christianity is John 14:1-3. Regularly used as a passage of comfort, Jesus describes to His disciples His leaving them to "prepare a place" for them, attaching the promise that they would someday be where He will also be.
One can hardly quarrel with the idea of using this passage to provide comfort to others, especially to those struggling with a life-threatening illness, or those trying to cope with the recent loss of a loved one. After all, the promises in the Gospel include the desire of every true believer, that of being with the Holy Trinity forever.
Yet a mistranslation of a key word in verse 2 in the most commonly used version of the Bible over the past four hundred years, the King James Version, has caused some measure of distraction from the typological significance of the passage. The mistake comes in the translation of the word for "rooms", as most modern translations have it. For reasons that are beyond the scope of my knowledge, however, the translator of John for the KJV saw fit to translate this as "mansions", an entirely incorrect rendering.
This mistake has had no small effect on popular Christianity. Anyone familiar with hymnody over the past couple hundred years is aware of the theme of "mansions" in heaven, a theme also popularized in the Gospel music from the early twentieth century up until today.
For those living through some of the poorer conditions occasionally found in twentieth century America, it is easy to see how the vision of receiving a mansion upon death could be entrancing. Yet Scripture tells us "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9). And so to reduce heavenly glory to a mere mansion seems to show, as C. S. Lewis said in his sermon "The Weight of Glory", that our desires are way too small.
The bigger issue, however, is what the text in question actually says, and that leaves us with the reality that mansions in no way figure into this passage. We are left instead to consider the Father's house with its rooms.
What "house", though, is Jesus talking about? This is where comparing Scripture with Scripture shows itself to be the place to begin in Biblical interpretation. Bible scholars often make much of context, and the broader context of the Gospel of John gives us our answer. In John 2:12-25, we are presented with the occasion of Jesus cleansing the Temple. Furious at the use of the temple as a place of making a profit, Jesus drives out those profiteers, and in the process accuses them of turning His "Father's house" into a market. The Father's house, then, according to Jesus, is the Temple. That the Tabernacle, and then later the Temple, were considered dwelling places for God, albeit symbolically, is confirmed several times in the Old Testament (see 2 Sam. 7:5-17 and 1 Kings 8:27-30, for example).
When we look at the arrangement of the Temple, as originally constructed under Solomon, the reference to "rooms" makes more sense. Constructed on the pattern of the Tabernacle given to Moses, the Temple had two foundational rooms: the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. And yet Solomon's Temple was a more detailed structure, having numerous external chambers as well (1 Kings 6:5). It is to these rooms that Jesus seems to be referring.
Whereas the side chambers of the earthly Temple were used for storage, however, Jesus seems to suggest that these rooms would now be used as dwelling places. In the vision describing the restored Temple, Ezekiel sees rooms for the priests within a few feet of the Temple (Ezekiel 42:1-10). Yet in the heavenly Temple, of which Jesus speaks, the priests rooms have merged with the side chambers. The priests now dwell in God's house with Him.
And so, having looked at the typology, the basic thrust is the same as that of popular Christianity: God has a house, and His children will dwell with him in that house forever. But to miss the typology is to miss larger implications of the passage. Not only has the Church taken the place of Israel, God has brought Her into the priesthood itself. Any future restoration of the Temple that excludes Gentiles from any of the promises of Israel is unscriptural. In fact, the Temple of which we are a part is in the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12), which is already coming down out of heaven, to reach its culmination in the end of time. And in this Jerusalem, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28).
One passage of Scripture that has often been pulled out of context in contemporary Christianity is John 14:1-3. Regularly used as a passage of comfort, Jesus describes to His disciples His leaving them to "prepare a place" for them, attaching the promise that they would someday be where He will also be.
One can hardly quarrel with the idea of using this passage to provide comfort to others, especially to those struggling with a life-threatening illness, or those trying to cope with the recent loss of a loved one. After all, the promises in the Gospel include the desire of every true believer, that of being with the Holy Trinity forever.
Yet a mistranslation of a key word in verse 2 in the most commonly used version of the Bible over the past four hundred years, the King James Version, has caused some measure of distraction from the typological significance of the passage. The mistake comes in the translation of the word for "rooms", as most modern translations have it. For reasons that are beyond the scope of my knowledge, however, the translator of John for the KJV saw fit to translate this as "mansions", an entirely incorrect rendering.
This mistake has had no small effect on popular Christianity. Anyone familiar with hymnody over the past couple hundred years is aware of the theme of "mansions" in heaven, a theme also popularized in the Gospel music from the early twentieth century up until today.
For those living through some of the poorer conditions occasionally found in twentieth century America, it is easy to see how the vision of receiving a mansion upon death could be entrancing. Yet Scripture tells us "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9). And so to reduce heavenly glory to a mere mansion seems to show, as C. S. Lewis said in his sermon "The Weight of Glory", that our desires are way too small.
The bigger issue, however, is what the text in question actually says, and that leaves us with the reality that mansions in no way figure into this passage. We are left instead to consider the Father's house with its rooms.
What "house", though, is Jesus talking about? This is where comparing Scripture with Scripture shows itself to be the place to begin in Biblical interpretation. Bible scholars often make much of context, and the broader context of the Gospel of John gives us our answer. In John 2:12-25, we are presented with the occasion of Jesus cleansing the Temple. Furious at the use of the temple as a place of making a profit, Jesus drives out those profiteers, and in the process accuses them of turning His "Father's house" into a market. The Father's house, then, according to Jesus, is the Temple. That the Tabernacle, and then later the Temple, were considered dwelling places for God, albeit symbolically, is confirmed several times in the Old Testament (see 2 Sam. 7:5-17 and 1 Kings 8:27-30, for example).
When we look at the arrangement of the Temple, as originally constructed under Solomon, the reference to "rooms" makes more sense. Constructed on the pattern of the Tabernacle given to Moses, the Temple had two foundational rooms: the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. And yet Solomon's Temple was a more detailed structure, having numerous external chambers as well (1 Kings 6:5). It is to these rooms that Jesus seems to be referring.
Whereas the side chambers of the earthly Temple were used for storage, however, Jesus seems to suggest that these rooms would now be used as dwelling places. In the vision describing the restored Temple, Ezekiel sees rooms for the priests within a few feet of the Temple (Ezekiel 42:1-10). Yet in the heavenly Temple, of which Jesus speaks, the priests rooms have merged with the side chambers. The priests now dwell in God's house with Him.
And so, having looked at the typology, the basic thrust is the same as that of popular Christianity: God has a house, and His children will dwell with him in that house forever. But to miss the typology is to miss larger implications of the passage. Not only has the Church taken the place of Israel, God has brought Her into the priesthood itself. Any future restoration of the Temple that excludes Gentiles from any of the promises of Israel is unscriptural. In fact, the Temple of which we are a part is in the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12), which is already coming down out of heaven, to reach its culmination in the end of time. And in this Jerusalem, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28).
Monday, November 01, 2010
A Brief Defense of Postmillennialism
The following is something I cobbled together in response to a friend on Facebook. It seemed good enough to warrant posting here.
**************************************************
When Jesus ascended into heaven, He proclaimed that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him - Matthew 28:18. In other words, since the first century, Jesus has been King, not just of heaven, but of earth also. On this basis, He then told His disciples to go make disciples of all the nations. He gave no hint of this being a failing mission. Quite the contrary, the fact that He gave them the order the way He did implied success.
If Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth now, then that means there is no future authority to add to Him. And if this is true, then that means the thousand years referred to in Revelation 20:1-6 doesn't refer to a period later in history, it refers to right now. It began in the first century AD. The number 1000 is used symbolically throughout Scripture (God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, etc.), and in this case, it is symbolic of Christ's entire reign from His ascension into heaven until His second coming.
Eventhough Christ is reigning now, there is still evil in the world. There are those who are still His enemies. Christ will reign until the time comes when all His enemies will have been put under His feet (Hebrews 10:13; 1 Corinthians 15:25), that is, until they are finally all conquered. That will be the end of the world, the end of history (1 Corinthians 15:23-28). We are to participate with Him in the conquering of the world, through weapons not of flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:10-20). One might more properly say that He is conquering the world through us. Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). That is not the image of a weak, defeated Church, but one that is strong and conquering. The Church is not on the defensive, but is on the offensive, storming as it were the very gates of Hell, which can't prevent it. Christ is reigning, and will conquer all His enemies (Psalm 2, Psalm 110). And every knee will bow to Him, whether it wants to or not (Phil. 2:9-11). Those who submit to Christ will be part of the many nations God promised Abraham he would be a father of (Gen. 17:4-8). They will receive the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is fulfilled in Christ (Romans 4:9-13). God promised He would bless all the families of the earth through Abraham, He has done that through Christ (Gen. 12:3). All who have faith in Christ are children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9), and inherit not just the land of Israel, or even just the planet earth, but the entire universe (Romans 4:13 - the word usually translated "world" is actually "kosmos" in the Greek, or "cosmos", which means exactly what it says - it means "universe").
The kingdom then, is something that will come into its fullness gradually. It began with Jesus ascension and will continue to grow until He returns. Jesus spoke of this in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Matthew 13:31-33). Just like the sanctification of an individual Christian, so it is with the sanctification of the whole world, if you will. If you stare at it at any one point and time, you can't necessarily see it. But it's still happening, just very slowly. You can stare at the mustard seed in the ground right after you've planted it, and it looks like nothing is happening. But something is happening - it's just invisible to you. Only a few months later will you see its progress. The coming of the kingdom is not something that can be observed (Luke 17:20). If it were an immediate, catastrophic event, that wouldn't be true. Jesus speaks the same way in the Parable of the man who sowed seed (Mark 4:26-28).
The Kingdom promised is to more than just Israel - it is to all the nations (Isaiah 2:2-4; Is. 27:6; Is. 56:3-8). There will be cultural ramifications of the spreading of the Gospel, such as in a growth of peace (Is. 2:4; Is. 11:6-9). Physical and material blessings will accompany the spiritual blessings that flow to the nations (Is. 35:1-10; Is. 41:17-20). We are given images of these things in Scripture, but the exact shape they will take only time will tell. It is common for people to go to these passages in Isaiah, and assume that because they don't see them fulfilled right now, that they won't be fulfilled during this age. But, as we've said, the kingdom comes gradually. And since the kingdom comes gradually, so do the blessings that are a part of it. Will there ever be a time during this age in which the things mentioned in Isaiah 11:6-8 literally take place? Or are they merely symbols? The latter may be true, but I see no reason why the God of the universe couldn't make them literally take place in this age.
**************************************************
When Jesus ascended into heaven, He proclaimed that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him - Matthew 28:18. In other words, since the first century, Jesus has been King, not just of heaven, but of earth also. On this basis, He then told His disciples to go make disciples of all the nations. He gave no hint of this being a failing mission. Quite the contrary, the fact that He gave them the order the way He did implied success.
If Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth now, then that means there is no future authority to add to Him. And if this is true, then that means the thousand years referred to in Revelation 20:1-6 doesn't refer to a period later in history, it refers to right now. It began in the first century AD. The number 1000 is used symbolically throughout Scripture (God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, etc.), and in this case, it is symbolic of Christ's entire reign from His ascension into heaven until His second coming.
Eventhough Christ is reigning now, there is still evil in the world. There are those who are still His enemies. Christ will reign until the time comes when all His enemies will have been put under His feet (Hebrews 10:13; 1 Corinthians 15:25), that is, until they are finally all conquered. That will be the end of the world, the end of history (1 Corinthians 15:23-28). We are to participate with Him in the conquering of the world, through weapons not of flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:10-20). One might more properly say that He is conquering the world through us. Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). That is not the image of a weak, defeated Church, but one that is strong and conquering. The Church is not on the defensive, but is on the offensive, storming as it were the very gates of Hell, which can't prevent it. Christ is reigning, and will conquer all His enemies (Psalm 2, Psalm 110). And every knee will bow to Him, whether it wants to or not (Phil. 2:9-11). Those who submit to Christ will be part of the many nations God promised Abraham he would be a father of (Gen. 17:4-8). They will receive the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is fulfilled in Christ (Romans 4:9-13). God promised He would bless all the families of the earth through Abraham, He has done that through Christ (Gen. 12:3). All who have faith in Christ are children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9), and inherit not just the land of Israel, or even just the planet earth, but the entire universe (Romans 4:13 - the word usually translated "world" is actually "kosmos" in the Greek, or "cosmos", which means exactly what it says - it means "universe").
The kingdom then, is something that will come into its fullness gradually. It began with Jesus ascension and will continue to grow until He returns. Jesus spoke of this in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Matthew 13:31-33). Just like the sanctification of an individual Christian, so it is with the sanctification of the whole world, if you will. If you stare at it at any one point and time, you can't necessarily see it. But it's still happening, just very slowly. You can stare at the mustard seed in the ground right after you've planted it, and it looks like nothing is happening. But something is happening - it's just invisible to you. Only a few months later will you see its progress. The coming of the kingdom is not something that can be observed (Luke 17:20). If it were an immediate, catastrophic event, that wouldn't be true. Jesus speaks the same way in the Parable of the man who sowed seed (Mark 4:26-28).
The Kingdom promised is to more than just Israel - it is to all the nations (Isaiah 2:2-4; Is. 27:6; Is. 56:3-8). There will be cultural ramifications of the spreading of the Gospel, such as in a growth of peace (Is. 2:4; Is. 11:6-9). Physical and material blessings will accompany the spiritual blessings that flow to the nations (Is. 35:1-10; Is. 41:17-20). We are given images of these things in Scripture, but the exact shape they will take only time will tell. It is common for people to go to these passages in Isaiah, and assume that because they don't see them fulfilled right now, that they won't be fulfilled during this age. But, as we've said, the kingdom comes gradually. And since the kingdom comes gradually, so do the blessings that are a part of it. Will there ever be a time during this age in which the things mentioned in Isaiah 11:6-8 literally take place? Or are they merely symbols? The latter may be true, but I see no reason why the God of the universe couldn't make them literally take place in this age.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Peter Leithart, on the Importance of the Shape of the Text of Scripture
The following is a great quote from Peter Leithart's book Deep Exegesis (pg. 55), which I have been reading as of late. I'll resist the urge to comment on it any at this time, other than to say I highly recommend it for anyone whose task it is to study and teach Scripture. Here, Dr. Leithart has been discussing how texts are like music, and are, in fact, musical. He then comments on our own tendencies in approaching a text:
The fact that this is a foreign notion to most Evangelicals strikes me as odd. If, after all, we proclaim belief in the plenary inspiration of Scripture as a key tenet of our faith, how can anything other than what Dr. Leithart has said above be true?
We are often impatient with music, and we are impatient with texts. A writer lingers, and we want to grab him by the throat and say, "Get to the point, man!" Evangelicals would reverently refrain from throttling an apostle, but the demand for practical Bible teaching often has this threatening subtext. "Don't give me all these names, lists, genealogies, stories. Tell me what to do. Tell me about Jesus."
God in his infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, a very long book, and not a portrait or an aphorism. God reveals himself in his image, Jesus, but we come to know that image by reading, and that takes time. God wants to transform us into the image of his image, and one of the key ways he does that is by leading us through the text. If we short-circuit that process by getting to the practical application, we are not going to be transformed in the ways God wants us to be transformed. "Get to the point" will not do because part of the point is to lead us through the labyrinth of the text itself. There is treasure at the center of the labyrinth, but with texts, the journey really is as important as the destination. "Get to the point, man" is the slogan of the liberal theologian; it is a demand for the kernel without the annoying distraction of the husky twists and turns of the text itself.
The fact that this is a foreign notion to most Evangelicals strikes me as odd. If, after all, we proclaim belief in the plenary inspiration of Scripture as a key tenet of our faith, how can anything other than what Dr. Leithart has said above be true?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Summer Movies 2010
Summer is nearly officially over, yet we continue to have ninety degree weather here in North Carolina. The leaves are gradually falling, and yet it seems to be more from the lack of rain than anything, said lack being visible in the brown grass that surrounds my house. And with all this dryness and heat, who can think of Fall and all that it brings? For that reason, if no other excuse will work, a Summer movie recap seems in order.
My movie pickings were slim this Summer, in spite of all the offerings. Lack of time and money are always a motivator, of course. I opted not to attend some of the famed remakes (A-Team, Karate Kid), for no other reason than they didn't appeal to me. And I have already reviewed a couple of others (Toy Story 3 and Prince of Persia). I did take the time to catch a couple of films after that, though, so let me make a few comments about them.
The first one was "Despicable Me". This one, interestingly enough, is still in a few theaters around here, in spite of having come out over two months ago. It got rave reviews, which would sort of explain it. From my perspective, however, it is hardly worth the praise it's received. I had found myself intrigued with the trailer for the movie, so I made time on my day off to slip out to the theater to see it. Thankfully, the movie was only about an hour and a half long, because I found it to be an utter waste of time. As is often the case, all the good jokes and gags (which were few) appeared in the trailers for the film, leaving nothing left of interest in the film. The dialogue was flat and boring, and the characters were uninteresting. (Come to think of it, the characters were uninteresting because the dialogue was flat and boring. But I digress.) There were some good themes to the film: a measure of reflection on how bad parenting makes children into bad adults, how approval from a parent is a fundamental human desire, and how love can conquer evil, to give a few examples. Yet while it was clear what the filmmakers were attempting to communicate, the setting and presentation were such as to keep the viewer from actually taking these things all that seriously, and left him with the sense that the filmmakers didn't take them seriously either. There was little depth of feeling to the film, no gravity to give the viewer the sense that these are as weighty themes as they in reality are. The evil characters weren't all that evil - when the main character, Gru, goes from attempting to be the world's most evil villain, to being the loving adoptive parent of three little girls, the only thing the viewer is surprised about is that any adoption agency would be so poorly run as to allow such a situation to transpire. No regeneration was necessary for this pseudo-villain.
In addition, I was particularly bugged by the dialogue from the three "little girls". Their dialogue, as well as the delivery of it, carried a sophistication that seemed way disproportionate with the characters' visual depiction. Perhaps next time the filmmakers should choose less precocious children to play such roles. I found it hard to take those characters seriously as a result.
Some of the music of the film was okay, but it was generally poor as well. The presence of more pop styles of music, especially disco and R&B, neither of which I care for, nor that I would want my children to hear if I were a parent, were frequent in the film. This comes to a head in the last scene of the film, when a ballet recital by the three girls turns into a disco party. This is a common enough occurrence in movies, but the implications are rarely understood. The movement from the one to the other implies that a sort of maturity takes place, carried out in the styles of music. Ballet, and the classical style of music that accompanies it, is treated as the more immature style of music. It's something that is fine for children. But true maturity, it seems, comes in popular music, particularly disco, in this case. In reality, the opposite is true. The cultural setting of disco is no accident, a further proof that musical styles, and aesthetic styles more broadly, aren't neutral. Disco has always carried with it many elements of immature and immoral behavior. Lack of responsibility toward one's actions, manifested in many ways, though most recognizable in things like drug and alcohol addiction, plus sexual promiscuity, is a part of the worldview of which disco is a part. In contrast, ballet and classical music communicate order and self-control, key Biblical virtues (Galatians 5:22-24). True maturity isn't the autonomous freedom of disco, but living within the bounds that God has created in the universe and given to His creatures.
All in all, this movie was simply bad, and it was bad enough that I'm baffled that millions of Americans missed that it was bad. Come to think of it, no, I take that back. I know Americans. This doesn't surprise me at all. It is just more proof that ten thousand Frenchmen can be wrong after all, and, believe it or not, it has nothing to do with the fact that they're French. It turns out I'm not the only person to give "Despicable Me" a bad review anyway, as noted on the Wikipedia page for the movie. But the majority apparently disagreed. Oh well. People liked this movie, they think Lady Gaga is interesting, and they elected Barack Obama to the White House. There's no accounting for taste. And so we move on.
The next movie I went to see was "Salt", featuring Angelina Jolie. I don't see alot of action-thriller types of movies, largely because of the "R" ratings they generally garner. So the fact that this one was "PG-13" was a bit of a draw for me. I thought the trailer was intriguing, and I have found Jolie to be a convincing and interesting actress, especially in action films, though this is often clouded over by an overuse of her sex appeal. Still, I felt comfortable that this wouldn't be something to worry about here, given the rating of the film, so I gave it a go.
It turned out to be a good choice. It wasn't what you would call high art - it is, plain and simple, a shoot 'em up, fast paced spy thriller. And yet there was a beauty to it that kept me interested (no, I'm not referring to Jolie). Jolie's character is accused of being a Russian spy, part of an organization seeking to recover the days of Communist occupation, and the viewer gradually learns whether or not the accusation is false. That suspense in itself is enough to maintain interest. But the film was well done all the way around anyway. Great acting, good soundtrack, visually stimulating - just great.
It is a violent film, of course, appropriate to its rating. Beyond this, there is little for a Christian to quibble with. Jolie does appear in little clothing near the beginning of the film - but with all the appropriate parts covered - in a scene in which she is being held captive in a foreign prison. Consequent to the context, there is nothing sexual about the scene (quite the opposite), and Jolie's sexuality is not exploited at all in the film.
I won't say any more, so as not to give anything away. It's still in the theaters, so if this is the type of film you generally like, you should check it out.
I was then prompted by a friend to go see "Inception". I knew it had received high praise, but as this often means little (see above comments on "Despicable Me"), I wasn't in any hurry. But I finally took the time to check it out.
Before I saw it, one friend commented that everybody she talked to either loved or hated "Inception". I hate to be the one exception here, but I sort of stand in the middle of the road on it. The basic concept of the film is that certain people have the ability to enter a person's mind while they're in a dream state, and to implant ideas in that person's mind. The viewer is then taken on a trippy ride of visual effects for two and a half hours as said mind manipulation is explored. Wrapped up in this is the struggle of the lead character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, as he deals with his own dream-associated demons of the past.
There is a lot to be said for "Inception". The concept of the film was clever. The struggles of the lead character were interesting. And the visual effects were stunning. But that said, the movie just didn't do anything for me overall. Part of that, I must confess, has to do with my own view of Leonardo DiCaprio. One reason I was in no hurry to see the film was that I find him utterly unconvincing as an actor. I can't really say why that is. Some actors have the ability to convince me that what is happening on the screen is real, and others do not. For whatever reason, DiCaprio falls into the latter category. Unfortunately, he wasn't the only one in this film for whom this was true. Both of the other lead actors failed on that account for me. Even Ellen Page, who I have thought was excellent in other things I've seen her in, just didn't do it here. Perhaps it was the directing, I don't know. Whatever the case may be, it kept me from being fully engaged in the plot.
In addition, the ending, I felt, was fairly predictable. A long, drawn out ending (like DiCaprio's "Titanic", incidentally) resulted in success, with everyone surviving. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if Jack had died - oops, mixing up my films there. At any rate, I found the whole thing fairly boring.
Lastly, and wrapped up with the previous matter of the acting, was the discussions of how dreams work, and how this matter of "inception" took place. And once again, where the blame lies here, I don't know. But the talk about "inception" just came across to me as pretentious and artificial. As I said before, the movie just didn't sell me.
So all in all, it was an okay film. I don't think it nearly deserves the high ratings it has received. But I can't say it was a terrible film. I give it a solid "eh".
A couple of weeks after "Inception", I was scanning the movie offerings online when I ran across a documentary called "Winnebago Man". For whatever reason, my interest was piqued, and I went to see it. The movie was about a twenty year old viral video of outtakes from a Winnebago sales training video, in which the trainer, who is the star of the video, regularly loses his cool and curses up a storm. The documentary follows the filmmaker as he tracks down the "Winnebago Man", whose name is Jack Rebney, to find out what became of him after making the video.
I had never seen the video, but that didn't keep me from enjoying the movie. It was a quite interesting consideration of viral videos, and what causes people to be drawn to them. Rebney's video turns out to be a cult favorite, passed from person to person across the country, long before the invention of the internet. In addition to being a source of humor, it proves to be therapeutic for many, the sort of thing they turn to after having a bad day. Somehow watching someone else in misery is cathartic, allowing people to let go of their own problems.
The main thing that struck me about the video, and how it was used by those who watched it, was how impersonal the whole thing was. The film features all sorts of fans of the Rebney film, their comments on their love of the video, and so on. The end of the film even shows Jack meeting some of his fans at a film festival, and their responses to him. Yet while they express their appreciation, he is clearly only an object to them. His disproportionate anger, his lack of self-control, his own troubles, which go clearly deeper than his immediate circumstances - they are all merely means of the viewer's enjoyment. Take a coliseum, add a gladiator and a couple of tigers, and you have a show. Unlike the fans of the Rebney video, I couldn't get past the fact that this was a man with deep spiritual problems, and the fact that nobody involved in the film seemed to care.
The ending was somewhat moving. This man, wrapped up in his own personal concerns, suddenly found he was a minor celebrity to people he had never met. That he was moved by this fact was noticeable, and that itself was moving to me. And yet here was this man, a spiritual cesspool, without the real solution to his problems. I don't normally react this way to movies, but in this case, I was watching a real man, without Christ. It soured the ending for me, though it provided a place for prayer. Mr. Rebney, the film showed, was a man who had spent much time studying the history of religion. May the true God use his studies to reveal Himself to him.
That is pretty much the summary of my recent movie experiences, with the exception of "What If...", which I will reserve for a separate review. But I close with a question for you, the reader. Is there some movie you have seen recently that you would recommend? If so, let me know. I'll even write a review on request. Just mention it in the comments section, and I'll check it out as I have opportunity.
My movie pickings were slim this Summer, in spite of all the offerings. Lack of time and money are always a motivator, of course. I opted not to attend some of the famed remakes (A-Team, Karate Kid), for no other reason than they didn't appeal to me. And I have already reviewed a couple of others (Toy Story 3 and Prince of Persia). I did take the time to catch a couple of films after that, though, so let me make a few comments about them.
The first one was "Despicable Me". This one, interestingly enough, is still in a few theaters around here, in spite of having come out over two months ago. It got rave reviews, which would sort of explain it. From my perspective, however, it is hardly worth the praise it's received. I had found myself intrigued with the trailer for the movie, so I made time on my day off to slip out to the theater to see it. Thankfully, the movie was only about an hour and a half long, because I found it to be an utter waste of time. As is often the case, all the good jokes and gags (which were few) appeared in the trailers for the film, leaving nothing left of interest in the film. The dialogue was flat and boring, and the characters were uninteresting. (Come to think of it, the characters were uninteresting because the dialogue was flat and boring. But I digress.) There were some good themes to the film: a measure of reflection on how bad parenting makes children into bad adults, how approval from a parent is a fundamental human desire, and how love can conquer evil, to give a few examples. Yet while it was clear what the filmmakers were attempting to communicate, the setting and presentation were such as to keep the viewer from actually taking these things all that seriously, and left him with the sense that the filmmakers didn't take them seriously either. There was little depth of feeling to the film, no gravity to give the viewer the sense that these are as weighty themes as they in reality are. The evil characters weren't all that evil - when the main character, Gru, goes from attempting to be the world's most evil villain, to being the loving adoptive parent of three little girls, the only thing the viewer is surprised about is that any adoption agency would be so poorly run as to allow such a situation to transpire. No regeneration was necessary for this pseudo-villain.
In addition, I was particularly bugged by the dialogue from the three "little girls". Their dialogue, as well as the delivery of it, carried a sophistication that seemed way disproportionate with the characters' visual depiction. Perhaps next time the filmmakers should choose less precocious children to play such roles. I found it hard to take those characters seriously as a result.
Some of the music of the film was okay, but it was generally poor as well. The presence of more pop styles of music, especially disco and R&B, neither of which I care for, nor that I would want my children to hear if I were a parent, were frequent in the film. This comes to a head in the last scene of the film, when a ballet recital by the three girls turns into a disco party. This is a common enough occurrence in movies, but the implications are rarely understood. The movement from the one to the other implies that a sort of maturity takes place, carried out in the styles of music. Ballet, and the classical style of music that accompanies it, is treated as the more immature style of music. It's something that is fine for children. But true maturity, it seems, comes in popular music, particularly disco, in this case. In reality, the opposite is true. The cultural setting of disco is no accident, a further proof that musical styles, and aesthetic styles more broadly, aren't neutral. Disco has always carried with it many elements of immature and immoral behavior. Lack of responsibility toward one's actions, manifested in many ways, though most recognizable in things like drug and alcohol addiction, plus sexual promiscuity, is a part of the worldview of which disco is a part. In contrast, ballet and classical music communicate order and self-control, key Biblical virtues (Galatians 5:22-24). True maturity isn't the autonomous freedom of disco, but living within the bounds that God has created in the universe and given to His creatures.
All in all, this movie was simply bad, and it was bad enough that I'm baffled that millions of Americans missed that it was bad. Come to think of it, no, I take that back. I know Americans. This doesn't surprise me at all. It is just more proof that ten thousand Frenchmen can be wrong after all, and, believe it or not, it has nothing to do with the fact that they're French. It turns out I'm not the only person to give "Despicable Me" a bad review anyway, as noted on the Wikipedia page for the movie. But the majority apparently disagreed. Oh well. People liked this movie, they think Lady Gaga is interesting, and they elected Barack Obama to the White House. There's no accounting for taste. And so we move on.
The next movie I went to see was "Salt", featuring Angelina Jolie. I don't see alot of action-thriller types of movies, largely because of the "R" ratings they generally garner. So the fact that this one was "PG-13" was a bit of a draw for me. I thought the trailer was intriguing, and I have found Jolie to be a convincing and interesting actress, especially in action films, though this is often clouded over by an overuse of her sex appeal. Still, I felt comfortable that this wouldn't be something to worry about here, given the rating of the film, so I gave it a go.
It turned out to be a good choice. It wasn't what you would call high art - it is, plain and simple, a shoot 'em up, fast paced spy thriller. And yet there was a beauty to it that kept me interested (no, I'm not referring to Jolie). Jolie's character is accused of being a Russian spy, part of an organization seeking to recover the days of Communist occupation, and the viewer gradually learns whether or not the accusation is false. That suspense in itself is enough to maintain interest. But the film was well done all the way around anyway. Great acting, good soundtrack, visually stimulating - just great.
It is a violent film, of course, appropriate to its rating. Beyond this, there is little for a Christian to quibble with. Jolie does appear in little clothing near the beginning of the film - but with all the appropriate parts covered - in a scene in which she is being held captive in a foreign prison. Consequent to the context, there is nothing sexual about the scene (quite the opposite), and Jolie's sexuality is not exploited at all in the film.
I won't say any more, so as not to give anything away. It's still in the theaters, so if this is the type of film you generally like, you should check it out.
I was then prompted by a friend to go see "Inception". I knew it had received high praise, but as this often means little (see above comments on "Despicable Me"), I wasn't in any hurry. But I finally took the time to check it out.
Before I saw it, one friend commented that everybody she talked to either loved or hated "Inception". I hate to be the one exception here, but I sort of stand in the middle of the road on it. The basic concept of the film is that certain people have the ability to enter a person's mind while they're in a dream state, and to implant ideas in that person's mind. The viewer is then taken on a trippy ride of visual effects for two and a half hours as said mind manipulation is explored. Wrapped up in this is the struggle of the lead character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, as he deals with his own dream-associated demons of the past.
There is a lot to be said for "Inception". The concept of the film was clever. The struggles of the lead character were interesting. And the visual effects were stunning. But that said, the movie just didn't do anything for me overall. Part of that, I must confess, has to do with my own view of Leonardo DiCaprio. One reason I was in no hurry to see the film was that I find him utterly unconvincing as an actor. I can't really say why that is. Some actors have the ability to convince me that what is happening on the screen is real, and others do not. For whatever reason, DiCaprio falls into the latter category. Unfortunately, he wasn't the only one in this film for whom this was true. Both of the other lead actors failed on that account for me. Even Ellen Page, who I have thought was excellent in other things I've seen her in, just didn't do it here. Perhaps it was the directing, I don't know. Whatever the case may be, it kept me from being fully engaged in the plot.
In addition, the ending, I felt, was fairly predictable. A long, drawn out ending (like DiCaprio's "Titanic", incidentally) resulted in success, with everyone surviving. Perhaps it would have been more interesting if Jack had died - oops, mixing up my films there. At any rate, I found the whole thing fairly boring.
Lastly, and wrapped up with the previous matter of the acting, was the discussions of how dreams work, and how this matter of "inception" took place. And once again, where the blame lies here, I don't know. But the talk about "inception" just came across to me as pretentious and artificial. As I said before, the movie just didn't sell me.
So all in all, it was an okay film. I don't think it nearly deserves the high ratings it has received. But I can't say it was a terrible film. I give it a solid "eh".
A couple of weeks after "Inception", I was scanning the movie offerings online when I ran across a documentary called "Winnebago Man". For whatever reason, my interest was piqued, and I went to see it. The movie was about a twenty year old viral video of outtakes from a Winnebago sales training video, in which the trainer, who is the star of the video, regularly loses his cool and curses up a storm. The documentary follows the filmmaker as he tracks down the "Winnebago Man", whose name is Jack Rebney, to find out what became of him after making the video.
I had never seen the video, but that didn't keep me from enjoying the movie. It was a quite interesting consideration of viral videos, and what causes people to be drawn to them. Rebney's video turns out to be a cult favorite, passed from person to person across the country, long before the invention of the internet. In addition to being a source of humor, it proves to be therapeutic for many, the sort of thing they turn to after having a bad day. Somehow watching someone else in misery is cathartic, allowing people to let go of their own problems.
The main thing that struck me about the video, and how it was used by those who watched it, was how impersonal the whole thing was. The film features all sorts of fans of the Rebney film, their comments on their love of the video, and so on. The end of the film even shows Jack meeting some of his fans at a film festival, and their responses to him. Yet while they express their appreciation, he is clearly only an object to them. His disproportionate anger, his lack of self-control, his own troubles, which go clearly deeper than his immediate circumstances - they are all merely means of the viewer's enjoyment. Take a coliseum, add a gladiator and a couple of tigers, and you have a show. Unlike the fans of the Rebney video, I couldn't get past the fact that this was a man with deep spiritual problems, and the fact that nobody involved in the film seemed to care.
The ending was somewhat moving. This man, wrapped up in his own personal concerns, suddenly found he was a minor celebrity to people he had never met. That he was moved by this fact was noticeable, and that itself was moving to me. And yet here was this man, a spiritual cesspool, without the real solution to his problems. I don't normally react this way to movies, but in this case, I was watching a real man, without Christ. It soured the ending for me, though it provided a place for prayer. Mr. Rebney, the film showed, was a man who had spent much time studying the history of religion. May the true God use his studies to reveal Himself to him.
That is pretty much the summary of my recent movie experiences, with the exception of "What If...", which I will reserve for a separate review. But I close with a question for you, the reader. Is there some movie you have seen recently that you would recommend? If so, let me know. I'll even write a review on request. Just mention it in the comments section, and I'll check it out as I have opportunity.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 88
Q. 88. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
A great division exists between modern Evangelicalism and what would rightly be called Historic Christianity, and that division has to do with the question of how God gives salvation to His people. In modern Evangelicalism, individualism is... the operating philosophy. Salvation is about "me & Jesus". The institutional Church, while an okay idea, is secondary, if not a hindrance to spiritual growth. And the main way that a Christian's faith is nourished is through his "quiet time". With such a philosophy, the constant wandering of sheep from fold to fold should surprise no one.
Historic Christianity, on the other hand, sees the individual's salvation as normally connected to the institutional Church. While one's personal time of Bible reading and prayer is a good and normal practice, and while God uses all things in a Christian's life to save him (Romans 8:28), God's primary and normal means of saving a person and nourishing his faith is through the public worship of the Church. The Means of Grace given to the Church by God are public and external to the individual, neither private nor merely internal, though they then work salvation internally for the Christian. Contrary to Evangelicalism, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not mere acts of devotion and obedience on the part of a Christian, but means by which God delivers the salvation procured by Christ to His people. The public reading and preaching of the Word of God, along with corporate prayer, are salvific, and are central to the life of the Christian in a way that one's personal devotions cannot substitute.
If there is a section of the Catechism that the modern Christian needs to hear, it is the next few questions. Jesus Christ didn't die to save lots of disconnected individuals, but to save a group of people, His Church. There are no Lone Ranger Christians.
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
A great division exists between modern Evangelicalism and what would rightly be called Historic Christianity, and that division has to do with the question of how God gives salvation to His people. In modern Evangelicalism, individualism is... the operating philosophy. Salvation is about "me & Jesus". The institutional Church, while an okay idea, is secondary, if not a hindrance to spiritual growth. And the main way that a Christian's faith is nourished is through his "quiet time". With such a philosophy, the constant wandering of sheep from fold to fold should surprise no one.
Historic Christianity, on the other hand, sees the individual's salvation as normally connected to the institutional Church. While one's personal time of Bible reading and prayer is a good and normal practice, and while God uses all things in a Christian's life to save him (Romans 8:28), God's primary and normal means of saving a person and nourishing his faith is through the public worship of the Church. The Means of Grace given to the Church by God are public and external to the individual, neither private nor merely internal, though they then work salvation internally for the Christian. Contrary to Evangelicalism, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not mere acts of devotion and obedience on the part of a Christian, but means by which God delivers the salvation procured by Christ to His people. The public reading and preaching of the Word of God, along with corporate prayer, are salvific, and are central to the life of the Christian in a way that one's personal devotions cannot substitute.
If there is a section of the Catechism that the modern Christian needs to hear, it is the next few questions. Jesus Christ didn't die to save lots of disconnected individuals, but to save a group of people, His Church. There are no Lone Ranger Christians.
Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 89
This, as well as the previous post, is something I posted on Facebook. I have been posting the questions and answers from the Westminster Shorter Catechism on a regular basis, and occasionally offering some commentary on them, which is what you see here. Whether or not I write commentary on any of the other questions is yet to be seen, though I imagine I will.
******************************************
Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching,
of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners,
and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto
salvation.
The pastors and theologians at the Westminster Assembly, who composed the Catechism, had a very different view of the Word of God than we tend to have today. With the Church havin...g recently come out of a time in history in which the preaching of the Word was left out of the corporate worship service entirely, they understood how central preaching is to the life of the Church, and how necessary it is for the spiritual nourishment of believers. In the late middle ages, the Latin Mass was the form of worship of the Church in Europe. Latin had long been a language no longer spoken by the common people, and so worshipers who bothered to attend Mass never understood a word spoken by the priests in worship. The common Christian was left to obey the rules of the Church, whether Biblical or unbiblical, with no way of examining Scripture to see if those rules were of God, and with no way of actually learning what Scripture has to say on any matter. In addition, literacy rates with regard to the common language were low. Most people were common laborers, with no need to read, it was thought, and certainly no ability to do so. The Church told people what to believe, and any questioning of the Church was held in the same regard as questioning God Himself.
So when the Reformation of the Church began, a great emphasis on education, as well as a reformation of the corporate worship service, began to take hold. Along with the Reformation came a push toward educating the laity, especially the fathers, that they might be able to instruct their own families in the word of God. The corporate worship service ceased to be carried out in Latin, and was carried out in the local language, so that all could understand and learn, worshiping God with their own minds as well as their lips.
(As a brief aside, let me make an important modern application. Contrary to what some professing believers think today, knowledge is not contrary to true faith. The anti-intellectualism of Revivalism and Fundamentalism is an enemy of Biblical Christianity, and has more in common with late medieval Romanism than with Protestant Christianity.)
Yet to the modern Christian today, this might all seem strange. Why the need for preaching then? We live in a time in which the majority of the population can read for themselves. Can I not read and understand the Bible for myself? Why do I need some preacher telling me what it says?
But contrary to the apparent wisdom of this response, our time does not provide as good an argument against preaching as it might seem. While most can read, it is still true that not all can. Today we see the government schools graduating students who can't read at all. And of those who can read, we see a decrease of comprehension when reading a text. Reading has become a pragmatic activity. We seek to do as little work as possible, for the purpose of gaining as little as it takes to get by in life.
In addition, in our time we are especially lacking when it comes to a proper understanding of legitimate authority. We consider it liberating to not need others telling us what to believe. Yet this is also counter to the teaching of Scripture. From the beginning of the New Testament Church, there have been God ordained teachers, set apart to communicate God's Word to those who would hear. Even Christ Himself set apart the first ministers of the Church, the twelve Apostles, and the Church ever since has done the same, based upon the example of Christ. The ministers of the Church are to be especially educated for the purpose of teaching the laity the Word of God. These ministers are not infallible, or above being questioned. And yet, based on their gifting, education, and calling of God through the Church, they are to be regarded with respect. Once having fulfilled the Church's requirements for ministry, and having been lawfully called by the Church, their call is to be considered of God, and their authority to be from Him. And because they are believed to be called by God, when they preach the Word of God, their words are held to be the Word of God itself, insofar as it conforms to the actual teaching of Scripture.
While there are those today who are abandoning the Church for do-it-yourself religion (or "spirituality", as some prefer to call it), we see churches setting aside the Word, especially the Word preached, for drama presentations, testimonies from lay people, and other such things. Aside from the fact that none of these appear in Scripture within the context of corporate worship, one can't help but wonder what would make a church think they are a sufficient substitute for the means of communicating truth that God has given, that being the preaching of God's Word. Whatever the answer to that might be, a simple looking to the decreasing Biblical knowledge of professing Christians should reveal that perhaps these trends aren't the wisest. In conjunction with this is the trend toward the use of video and images in worship. And yet God spoke the world into existence (Genesis 1). Words in Scripture precede images in the order of creation, and as Scripture bears throughout, in the order of priority. To give up words - that is, the Word - is to give up the means of converting power inherent in the world. Images serve no use apart from the Word. They are empty symbols, and can at best give the illusion of salvation. And even with words, those words must contain the Word of God in substance.
While testimonies can encourage people, they are often given by those lacking in substantial Biblical knowledge. We, after all, tend to assign people to that task when they are young, immature Christians, and we do so based on their excitedness. Yet not only do new Christians have a severe deficit of informational knowledge when it comes to the Bible, they are lacking in the appropriate maturity by which to understand it, and by which to instruct others. The result is a case of the blind leading the blind, leaving large portions of congregations merely lying in ditches.
With all this before us, our best hope is to return to the God-chosen means of godly, mature, educated men, reading and preaching Holy Scripture to us. We should rightly ask this question: is the failure to be strengthened by the Word to be found in the Word, or in us (Mark 6:5-6)?
******************************************
Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching,
of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners,
and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto
salvation.
The pastors and theologians at the Westminster Assembly, who composed the Catechism, had a very different view of the Word of God than we tend to have today. With the Church havin...g recently come out of a time in history in which the preaching of the Word was left out of the corporate worship service entirely, they understood how central preaching is to the life of the Church, and how necessary it is for the spiritual nourishment of believers. In the late middle ages, the Latin Mass was the form of worship of the Church in Europe. Latin had long been a language no longer spoken by the common people, and so worshipers who bothered to attend Mass never understood a word spoken by the priests in worship. The common Christian was left to obey the rules of the Church, whether Biblical or unbiblical, with no way of examining Scripture to see if those rules were of God, and with no way of actually learning what Scripture has to say on any matter. In addition, literacy rates with regard to the common language were low. Most people were common laborers, with no need to read, it was thought, and certainly no ability to do so. The Church told people what to believe, and any questioning of the Church was held in the same regard as questioning God Himself.
So when the Reformation of the Church began, a great emphasis on education, as well as a reformation of the corporate worship service, began to take hold. Along with the Reformation came a push toward educating the laity, especially the fathers, that they might be able to instruct their own families in the word of God. The corporate worship service ceased to be carried out in Latin, and was carried out in the local language, so that all could understand and learn, worshiping God with their own minds as well as their lips.
(As a brief aside, let me make an important modern application. Contrary to what some professing believers think today, knowledge is not contrary to true faith. The anti-intellectualism of Revivalism and Fundamentalism is an enemy of Biblical Christianity, and has more in common with late medieval Romanism than with Protestant Christianity.)
Yet to the modern Christian today, this might all seem strange. Why the need for preaching then? We live in a time in which the majority of the population can read for themselves. Can I not read and understand the Bible for myself? Why do I need some preacher telling me what it says?
But contrary to the apparent wisdom of this response, our time does not provide as good an argument against preaching as it might seem. While most can read, it is still true that not all can. Today we see the government schools graduating students who can't read at all. And of those who can read, we see a decrease of comprehension when reading a text. Reading has become a pragmatic activity. We seek to do as little work as possible, for the purpose of gaining as little as it takes to get by in life.
In addition, in our time we are especially lacking when it comes to a proper understanding of legitimate authority. We consider it liberating to not need others telling us what to believe. Yet this is also counter to the teaching of Scripture. From the beginning of the New Testament Church, there have been God ordained teachers, set apart to communicate God's Word to those who would hear. Even Christ Himself set apart the first ministers of the Church, the twelve Apostles, and the Church ever since has done the same, based upon the example of Christ. The ministers of the Church are to be especially educated for the purpose of teaching the laity the Word of God. These ministers are not infallible, or above being questioned. And yet, based on their gifting, education, and calling of God through the Church, they are to be regarded with respect. Once having fulfilled the Church's requirements for ministry, and having been lawfully called by the Church, their call is to be considered of God, and their authority to be from Him. And because they are believed to be called by God, when they preach the Word of God, their words are held to be the Word of God itself, insofar as it conforms to the actual teaching of Scripture.
While there are those today who are abandoning the Church for do-it-yourself religion (or "spirituality", as some prefer to call it), we see churches setting aside the Word, especially the Word preached, for drama presentations, testimonies from lay people, and other such things. Aside from the fact that none of these appear in Scripture within the context of corporate worship, one can't help but wonder what would make a church think they are a sufficient substitute for the means of communicating truth that God has given, that being the preaching of God's Word. Whatever the answer to that might be, a simple looking to the decreasing Biblical knowledge of professing Christians should reveal that perhaps these trends aren't the wisest. In conjunction with this is the trend toward the use of video and images in worship. And yet God spoke the world into existence (Genesis 1). Words in Scripture precede images in the order of creation, and as Scripture bears throughout, in the order of priority. To give up words - that is, the Word - is to give up the means of converting power inherent in the world. Images serve no use apart from the Word. They are empty symbols, and can at best give the illusion of salvation. And even with words, those words must contain the Word of God in substance.
While testimonies can encourage people, they are often given by those lacking in substantial Biblical knowledge. We, after all, tend to assign people to that task when they are young, immature Christians, and we do so based on their excitedness. Yet not only do new Christians have a severe deficit of informational knowledge when it comes to the Bible, they are lacking in the appropriate maturity by which to understand it, and by which to instruct others. The result is a case of the blind leading the blind, leaving large portions of congregations merely lying in ditches.
With all this before us, our best hope is to return to the God-chosen means of godly, mature, educated men, reading and preaching Holy Scripture to us. We should rightly ask this question: is the failure to be strengthened by the Word to be found in the Word, or in us (Mark 6:5-6)?
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Reflections on Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 90
Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer; receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.
Too often today, our approach to the worship of the God of the universe is more than a bit casual. But this would make sense. After all, if the worship of the church is carried out in a flippant manner, it should be no wonder that the congregation would approach it flippantly. We cruise into church, coffee in hand, and schmooze for a few minutes until given the signal by the band or some "worship leader" that it is time to settle down and remember why we're there. And any notion of preparation for worship is out of the realm of thought.
Yet traditionally, the sacred nature of worship has been better understood, and has led those attending corporate worship to approach it with greater care than the contemporary church tends to exhibit today. Preparation for worship has begun at home, even during the week prior to coming to worship on the Sabbath. There is no activity comparable to the corporate worship of God, it has been understood, and while He is with me wherever I may be, and I may worship Him in all that I do, there is something unique and special about gathering with His saints to lift our voices up jointly in praise and adoration of Him. I live my life always before Him - and yet the culmination of all that living before Him is in union with His people. And so I am ever conscious, no matter what day it is or what I am doing, that that day is coming, the day to gather with His Church.
Once coming to worship, the minutes before the beginning of service has been used as a time of silent prayer and meditation. Our God is a Holy God. He is high and exalted, and there is none other like Him. And this reality has shaped the whole atmosphere of the worship service, even the time just before it.
This preparation has special bearing on how we approach the reading and the preaching of the Word of God. We all own Bibles, and by the grace of God we still live in a society where we remain largely free to read it as we wish. And so we grow accustomed to it, like an old friend that we take for granted will always be there, no matter how much we neglect him. Yet this casualness is a failure of our own, not of God's Word. It is a sin to be confessed and repented of.
The reading and the preaching of God's word holds a central place in corporate worship. Without the Word of God, after all, nothing in the universe would exist, let alone corporate worship. He creates by His Word, and He sustains the universe by His Word (Hebrews 1:3). It is by His Word that he raises the dead, both spiritually and, as He will when Christ returns, physically. And it is by His Word that He upholds and strengthens His Church during our sojourn now. We hear God's chosen minister reading the text of Scripture to us, and as God's representative, we hear him explain and apply the text so that we might better live in obedience to God. We are to prepare; we are to listen with diligence; we are to obey it. And so hearing the reading and preaching of the Word is an act of worship. We are not to be passive with regard to the Word. We are not an audience, as at a concert. God calls us to be mentally engaged when His Word is presented to us. And while it is always presented in authority and power, it is especially so when presented by an ordained minister of God, during the time He has set apart for that purpose. We then leave, having heard from the King's emissary, and go out as servants of the King, to do His bidding alone.
As the Catechism question states, the effectiveness of the Word of God in our lives relies upon our approaching it properly. In a time when the Evangelical church drifts further and further morally from the standards of Holy Scripture, perhaps we should consider whether it is not because we do not duly approach His Word, particularly when we present it and receive it in corporate worship. If we truly want to see people saved, and we want to redeem society for Christ, we would do well to consider this matter with care.
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer; receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.
Too often today, our approach to the worship of the God of the universe is more than a bit casual. But this would make sense. After all, if the worship of the church is carried out in a flippant manner, it should be no wonder that the congregation would approach it flippantly. We cruise into church, coffee in hand, and schmooze for a few minutes until given the signal by the band or some "worship leader" that it is time to settle down and remember why we're there. And any notion of preparation for worship is out of the realm of thought.
Yet traditionally, the sacred nature of worship has been better understood, and has led those attending corporate worship to approach it with greater care than the contemporary church tends to exhibit today. Preparation for worship has begun at home, even during the week prior to coming to worship on the Sabbath. There is no activity comparable to the corporate worship of God, it has been understood, and while He is with me wherever I may be, and I may worship Him in all that I do, there is something unique and special about gathering with His saints to lift our voices up jointly in praise and adoration of Him. I live my life always before Him - and yet the culmination of all that living before Him is in union with His people. And so I am ever conscious, no matter what day it is or what I am doing, that that day is coming, the day to gather with His Church.
Once coming to worship, the minutes before the beginning of service has been used as a time of silent prayer and meditation. Our God is a Holy God. He is high and exalted, and there is none other like Him. And this reality has shaped the whole atmosphere of the worship service, even the time just before it.
This preparation has special bearing on how we approach the reading and the preaching of the Word of God. We all own Bibles, and by the grace of God we still live in a society where we remain largely free to read it as we wish. And so we grow accustomed to it, like an old friend that we take for granted will always be there, no matter how much we neglect him. Yet this casualness is a failure of our own, not of God's Word. It is a sin to be confessed and repented of.
The reading and the preaching of God's word holds a central place in corporate worship. Without the Word of God, after all, nothing in the universe would exist, let alone corporate worship. He creates by His Word, and He sustains the universe by His Word (Hebrews 1:3). It is by His Word that he raises the dead, both spiritually and, as He will when Christ returns, physically. And it is by His Word that He upholds and strengthens His Church during our sojourn now. We hear God's chosen minister reading the text of Scripture to us, and as God's representative, we hear him explain and apply the text so that we might better live in obedience to God. We are to prepare; we are to listen with diligence; we are to obey it. And so hearing the reading and preaching of the Word is an act of worship. We are not to be passive with regard to the Word. We are not an audience, as at a concert. God calls us to be mentally engaged when His Word is presented to us. And while it is always presented in authority and power, it is especially so when presented by an ordained minister of God, during the time He has set apart for that purpose. We then leave, having heard from the King's emissary, and go out as servants of the King, to do His bidding alone.
As the Catechism question states, the effectiveness of the Word of God in our lives relies upon our approaching it properly. In a time when the Evangelical church drifts further and further morally from the standards of Holy Scripture, perhaps we should consider whether it is not because we do not duly approach His Word, particularly when we present it and receive it in corporate worship. If we truly want to see people saved, and we want to redeem society for Christ, we would do well to consider this matter with care.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A Long Overdue Redesign
So I've been thinking about doing this for a long time, but am finally now getting around to updating the look of things around here. The old template has been looking dated to me for awhile, though I'm never one for rapid change. But the time has come. There may be some changes back and forth as I make adjustments (I'm not crazy about the current template either), but we'll settle in before too long. To sum up, then, keep visiting - we aren't going anywhere.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Let's Don't and Say We Did
That's it. I've had enough and I'm calling it, since Hollywood won't.
The movie line "Let's do this!" and its variant "Let's do this thing!", as an attempt at creating dramatic tension:
R.I.P. 7-20-10
May you never be uttered again.
The movie line "Let's do this!" and its variant "Let's do this thing!", as an attempt at creating dramatic tension:
R.I.P. 7-20-10
May you never be uttered again.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Money in the Bank
So Creflo Dollar is coming to Greensboro later this week, no doubt because The Dollar is looking for some cash. And I'm sure many will turn out to hear him, a sad testimony to the spiritual state of our city. But this is what I don't get. He's a televangelist, and his last name is "Dollar", allegedly. How much more truth in advertising do you want? Would it help if his middle name was "Imgonnatakeyour"?
A Fifth of Disney: Toy Story 3 & Prince of Persia
Since I had an extra day off last week, I thought I'd take the opportunity to take in a couple of movies. I doubt I have any long reviews in me, but here are a couple of thoughts.
I first went and saw "Toy Story 3". I went to a noon showing, on July 5th, so it was me, and a theater full of families with little kids, which made the whole experience more enjoyable. That may not be what you'd expect to hear from a single guy, but there you have it.
The movie itself was just wonderful. The only complaint I might have is that it dipped a little deep into the sentimentalism at times. But I'm not sure they could have made a movie with such subject matter as this one without that being an issue. I also couldn't help but wonder if it wasn't a bit intense for smaller children at times. But not being a parent, I really couldn't say for sure. Overall, though, it was fantastic. I have nothing more to say about it at this point, other than that Pixar has hit another one out of the park.
Later that afternoon, I slipped out to another theater and saw "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time". This is a Disney film that came out a number of weeks ago, preceded by all the hype that Disney tends to throw behind its films. It seemed to me to get buried among all the other Summer films that have come out, so I was under the impression that maybe it had done poorly. But quite the contrary is true, according to Wikipedia, although the film seems to have been better received overall in the rest of the world than in the U. S. My impression of the film wasn't helped, I might add, by the turnout at the showing I went to. I thought at first I would be watching it alone, until one lone woman wandered in during the previews. Yeah, I was disappointed. Not by the low turnout, but that I didn't have the theater to myself. I know, it was selfish. Mea culpa.
I knew almost nothing going into the film. I knew there was a dagger that turned back time, and that Jake Gyllenhall spent alot of time in acrobatic stunts through the film, jumping from roof to roof and the like. Yet it seemed like fun, and worth checking out.
And fun it was. Not "stop what you're doing and go see it right now" fun, but "not a waste of money" fun. The cinematography was great. There were lots of beautiful aerial shots, the kind that are only worth seeing on the big screen. The fight scenes were very enjoyable. The acting was mostly good, and the script was pretty good - though both of these could have been better.
Another fun thing about Disney films, though, is that whenever you watch one, you get to play the "Find the Leftist Agenda" game. Disney is often using its movies to promote some Leftist ideology, and it was no different with "Prince of Persia". The fact that the movie was set in Persia provided Disney with an obvious target, and that is United States foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. What was once considered Persia covered what is now Iran, though the Persian Empire at its height covered much of the Middle East, and spread into Europe and Asia. In the movie, we have Persia, the world empire (like the U. S.), invading a city (a smaller power, like any of the Middle Eastern countries), due to spy reports that alleged the city was producing weapons that it was selling to Persia's enemies. If by now the supposed WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of Iraq haven't come to mind, then you haven't been paying much attention to world events over the past decade. In addition, the fact that the movie is essentially set in Iran suggests some allusion to U. S. sanctions against Iran, born out of a fear of them attaining nuclear weapons.
Having referred to this as a "Leftist ideology", however, is a bit dishonest, unless one considers Libertarians "Leftist". And while I'm no Leftist myself, my leanings are Libertarian with regard to the subject of intervention in world affairs. My own tendency is to regard the move of U. S. troops into Iraq as an unjust invasion, a view that would equally find a home in classic Conservatism (in contrast to the Neo-conservatism of today). So far as I've been able to determine, U. S. troops never did find the WMD's in Iraq that were the excuse for our invasion (which is mirrored in the false reports of weapons production in the city of Alamut in the movie). And I have a hard time seeing how the U. S. has the right to tell Iran whether or not they should have nuclear weapons. To do so is a violation of national sovereignty, and is more likely to cause more violence, jeopardizing more lives, American and otherwise, and causing more problems all around.
The film leads to a Romantic turning back of time, as if the majority of troubles in the story never happened to begin with, except for the invasion of Alamut itself. This is easily solved through a "why can't we all get along" treaty between Persia and Alamut, which actually makes no sense, in that Alamut was already a Persian city prior to the invasion. Then they all held hands and sang "It's a Small World After All". Okay, not really. But it wouldn't have been entirely out of place. The bad guy gets it, nobody else ends up actually suffering as a result, and they all live happily ever after.
I don't know how other viewers might feel, but there's something incredibly dissatisfying about a movie that proposes a story that is entirely undone by its ending. All the joys and sorrows that the characters went through were for nothing after all. What a waste. It leaves no place for good change, no place for maturity. And it proposes a world which could be forever left in a place of limbo. It could be that everything I go through in my life I will end up having to just repeat sometime later. It is the cyclical worldview of the East, and it is a cesspool of death and depression. And it makes me feel as if I've just wasted two hours of my life on this movie. Eschaton, it turns out, is absolutely necessary, or else nothing in the world has meaning.
None of this is new for Disney, however. "Prince of Persia" is supposed to be the new "Pirates of the Caribbean", and was made by the same group of folks who made the "Pirates" trilogy. I have my doubts about Jake Gyllenhaal having the same draw as Johnny Depp, at least enough of a draw to turn "Prince of Persia" into a series of films as successful as "Pirates". Nonetheless, alot of the same themes are present in "Prince of Persia" that one finds in the "Pirates" trilogy, especially the last two films. There is the cyclical worldview of the East. In fact, what is "Eastern" is generally lifted up as being superior to what is "Western" in both "Persia" and "Pirates". You also have a confusion of gender roles, which is itself counter to Western Christian culture. In connection with this, you have a sort of sexuality that is particularly violent in nature, built more upon power and control than on love and sacrifice. This is also true of the recent "Clash of the Titans". Interestingly enough, actress Gemma Arterton was at the center of said sexual tension in both "Prince of Persia" and "Clash of the Titans", playing "Tamina" and "Io" in each, respectively. In "Pirates" 2 and 3, this is seen in Keira Knightly's character Elizabeth Swann, who departs from the classic feminine role of the first film to take on explicitly masculine roles in the second and third films, a sort of slap in the face of the traditional Western feminine societal role.
At the end of "Prince of Persia", the men of Persia bow to Tamina and confess their error in invading Alamut. The feminine spirit of the East triumphs over the masculine spirit of the West. The masculine West is violent, you see, whereas the feminine East is peaceful. Yet to achieve this a confusion of gender has to take place. To triumph is to have power, even if it is carried out in a passive-aggressive way. And passive-aggressive behavior is, after all, an expression of or a type of violence. While Tamina's actions throughout the movie are at times explicitly violent, they are often passive and manipulative. Such is the feminine way, when the men in a society have failed. And the failure of men in our society is what has led to the confusion of gender roles in feature films such as "Prince of Persia".
This is not to say, of course, that there is no manly sacrifice that occurs in the movie. The main character Dastan is very much so an image of manly, Christ-like sacrifice. And yet such is the state of modern American storytelling. Thankfully, we still have elements of truth in our storytelling, remainders of Christendom that have yet to be fully eradicated from our society, though folks like Disney might be doing their best to complete the task. However, the confusion still remains. In the end, the only truly righteous character in the movie is Tamina, the female character. The men are, in the end, all failures.
So while it may appear that Disney is attempting merely to repeat the success of "Pirates" in "Prince of Persia", they seem to be doing more. They are continuing to promote the same anti-Western, anti-Conservative, and anti-Christian worldview that they sought to push via "Pirates". Hopefully they will fail in this endeavor.
Ironic in all of this is that I began the day with "Toy Story 3". It is also a Disney film, and yet, as has usually been the case, the fact that it is a Pixar film seems to have made all the difference in the world. While one can find its share of sleazy masculine characters, "Toy Story 3" is also shot throughout with manly sacrifice. In fact, the film itself ends with Andy's sacrifice of his toys, by giving them all, including Woody, his most prized toy, to a little girl. Andy has grown up, and is leaving for college, and to grow up is to grow in sacrifice.
Maybe someday I'll grow up to be like Andy, and won't be so disappointed when I don't have a movie theater all to myself.
I first went and saw "Toy Story 3". I went to a noon showing, on July 5th, so it was me, and a theater full of families with little kids, which made the whole experience more enjoyable. That may not be what you'd expect to hear from a single guy, but there you have it.
The movie itself was just wonderful. The only complaint I might have is that it dipped a little deep into the sentimentalism at times. But I'm not sure they could have made a movie with such subject matter as this one without that being an issue. I also couldn't help but wonder if it wasn't a bit intense for smaller children at times. But not being a parent, I really couldn't say for sure. Overall, though, it was fantastic. I have nothing more to say about it at this point, other than that Pixar has hit another one out of the park.
Later that afternoon, I slipped out to another theater and saw "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time". This is a Disney film that came out a number of weeks ago, preceded by all the hype that Disney tends to throw behind its films. It seemed to me to get buried among all the other Summer films that have come out, so I was under the impression that maybe it had done poorly. But quite the contrary is true, according to Wikipedia, although the film seems to have been better received overall in the rest of the world than in the U. S. My impression of the film wasn't helped, I might add, by the turnout at the showing I went to. I thought at first I would be watching it alone, until one lone woman wandered in during the previews. Yeah, I was disappointed. Not by the low turnout, but that I didn't have the theater to myself. I know, it was selfish. Mea culpa.
I knew almost nothing going into the film. I knew there was a dagger that turned back time, and that Jake Gyllenhall spent alot of time in acrobatic stunts through the film, jumping from roof to roof and the like. Yet it seemed like fun, and worth checking out.
And fun it was. Not "stop what you're doing and go see it right now" fun, but "not a waste of money" fun. The cinematography was great. There were lots of beautiful aerial shots, the kind that are only worth seeing on the big screen. The fight scenes were very enjoyable. The acting was mostly good, and the script was pretty good - though both of these could have been better.
Another fun thing about Disney films, though, is that whenever you watch one, you get to play the "Find the Leftist Agenda" game. Disney is often using its movies to promote some Leftist ideology, and it was no different with "Prince of Persia". The fact that the movie was set in Persia provided Disney with an obvious target, and that is United States foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. What was once considered Persia covered what is now Iran, though the Persian Empire at its height covered much of the Middle East, and spread into Europe and Asia. In the movie, we have Persia, the world empire (like the U. S.), invading a city (a smaller power, like any of the Middle Eastern countries), due to spy reports that alleged the city was producing weapons that it was selling to Persia's enemies. If by now the supposed WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of Iraq haven't come to mind, then you haven't been paying much attention to world events over the past decade. In addition, the fact that the movie is essentially set in Iran suggests some allusion to U. S. sanctions against Iran, born out of a fear of them attaining nuclear weapons.
Having referred to this as a "Leftist ideology", however, is a bit dishonest, unless one considers Libertarians "Leftist". And while I'm no Leftist myself, my leanings are Libertarian with regard to the subject of intervention in world affairs. My own tendency is to regard the move of U. S. troops into Iraq as an unjust invasion, a view that would equally find a home in classic Conservatism (in contrast to the Neo-conservatism of today). So far as I've been able to determine, U. S. troops never did find the WMD's in Iraq that were the excuse for our invasion (which is mirrored in the false reports of weapons production in the city of Alamut in the movie). And I have a hard time seeing how the U. S. has the right to tell Iran whether or not they should have nuclear weapons. To do so is a violation of national sovereignty, and is more likely to cause more violence, jeopardizing more lives, American and otherwise, and causing more problems all around.
The film leads to a Romantic turning back of time, as if the majority of troubles in the story never happened to begin with, except for the invasion of Alamut itself. This is easily solved through a "why can't we all get along" treaty between Persia and Alamut, which actually makes no sense, in that Alamut was already a Persian city prior to the invasion. Then they all held hands and sang "It's a Small World After All". Okay, not really. But it wouldn't have been entirely out of place. The bad guy gets it, nobody else ends up actually suffering as a result, and they all live happily ever after.
I don't know how other viewers might feel, but there's something incredibly dissatisfying about a movie that proposes a story that is entirely undone by its ending. All the joys and sorrows that the characters went through were for nothing after all. What a waste. It leaves no place for good change, no place for maturity. And it proposes a world which could be forever left in a place of limbo. It could be that everything I go through in my life I will end up having to just repeat sometime later. It is the cyclical worldview of the East, and it is a cesspool of death and depression. And it makes me feel as if I've just wasted two hours of my life on this movie. Eschaton, it turns out, is absolutely necessary, or else nothing in the world has meaning.
None of this is new for Disney, however. "Prince of Persia" is supposed to be the new "Pirates of the Caribbean", and was made by the same group of folks who made the "Pirates" trilogy. I have my doubts about Jake Gyllenhaal having the same draw as Johnny Depp, at least enough of a draw to turn "Prince of Persia" into a series of films as successful as "Pirates". Nonetheless, alot of the same themes are present in "Prince of Persia" that one finds in the "Pirates" trilogy, especially the last two films. There is the cyclical worldview of the East. In fact, what is "Eastern" is generally lifted up as being superior to what is "Western" in both "Persia" and "Pirates". You also have a confusion of gender roles, which is itself counter to Western Christian culture. In connection with this, you have a sort of sexuality that is particularly violent in nature, built more upon power and control than on love and sacrifice. This is also true of the recent "Clash of the Titans". Interestingly enough, actress Gemma Arterton was at the center of said sexual tension in both "Prince of Persia" and "Clash of the Titans", playing "Tamina" and "Io" in each, respectively. In "Pirates" 2 and 3, this is seen in Keira Knightly's character Elizabeth Swann, who departs from the classic feminine role of the first film to take on explicitly masculine roles in the second and third films, a sort of slap in the face of the traditional Western feminine societal role.
At the end of "Prince of Persia", the men of Persia bow to Tamina and confess their error in invading Alamut. The feminine spirit of the East triumphs over the masculine spirit of the West. The masculine West is violent, you see, whereas the feminine East is peaceful. Yet to achieve this a confusion of gender has to take place. To triumph is to have power, even if it is carried out in a passive-aggressive way. And passive-aggressive behavior is, after all, an expression of or a type of violence. While Tamina's actions throughout the movie are at times explicitly violent, they are often passive and manipulative. Such is the feminine way, when the men in a society have failed. And the failure of men in our society is what has led to the confusion of gender roles in feature films such as "Prince of Persia".
This is not to say, of course, that there is no manly sacrifice that occurs in the movie. The main character Dastan is very much so an image of manly, Christ-like sacrifice. And yet such is the state of modern American storytelling. Thankfully, we still have elements of truth in our storytelling, remainders of Christendom that have yet to be fully eradicated from our society, though folks like Disney might be doing their best to complete the task. However, the confusion still remains. In the end, the only truly righteous character in the movie is Tamina, the female character. The men are, in the end, all failures.
So while it may appear that Disney is attempting merely to repeat the success of "Pirates" in "Prince of Persia", they seem to be doing more. They are continuing to promote the same anti-Western, anti-Conservative, and anti-Christian worldview that they sought to push via "Pirates". Hopefully they will fail in this endeavor.
Ironic in all of this is that I began the day with "Toy Story 3". It is also a Disney film, and yet, as has usually been the case, the fact that it is a Pixar film seems to have made all the difference in the world. While one can find its share of sleazy masculine characters, "Toy Story 3" is also shot throughout with manly sacrifice. In fact, the film itself ends with Andy's sacrifice of his toys, by giving them all, including Woody, his most prized toy, to a little girl. Andy has grown up, and is leaving for college, and to grow up is to grow in sacrifice.
Maybe someday I'll grow up to be like Andy, and won't be so disappointed when I don't have a movie theater all to myself.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Dr. T. David Gordon, on Worship and Technology
T. David Gordon, professor at Grove City College, seems to have been a busy man as of late. He is the author of two books on the convergence of Christian worship and the media: "Why Johnny Can't Preach: How the Media Have Shaped the Messengers" and "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal". Unfortunately, I haven't read either one, but they seem to be well worth checking out, if the following two interviews are any indication. First, here is an interview with Todd Wilken on the Lutheran radio show "Issues, Etc." They discuss the declension of worship music in the American church over the past few decades, and how there's no such thing as aesthetic relativism:
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/522062910H1S1.mp3
Then there is the following interview on the White Horse Inn. Dr. Gordon discusses how our lives have been overrun by media and technology, and how succumbing to this takeover has made us a shallow people, incapable of sustained reflection and contemplation:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/white-horse-inn/listen/distracting-ourselves-to-death-121250.html
Both worthy conversations, and too often avoided in the church.
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/522062910H1S1.mp3
Then there is the following interview on the White Horse Inn. Dr. Gordon discusses how our lives have been overrun by media and technology, and how succumbing to this takeover has made us a shallow people, incapable of sustained reflection and contemplation:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/white-horse-inn/listen/distracting-ourselves-to-death-121250.html
Both worthy conversations, and too often avoided in the church.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Mt. Vesuvius and the First Century Tribulation
Hershel Shanks asks if the the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (79 AD) and the resulting devastation was God's act of vengeance on the Roman Empire for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. Scripture would seem moreso to support the idea that it was part of God's answer for Rome's persecution of His Church, which they carried out along with the Jewish people, until the Jews turned on Rome, resulting in Jerusalem's destruction, foretold by Jesus, the end of the Jews' apostasy from God and His Covenant. Vesuvius was a part of "the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world" (Rev. 3:10):
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=4&ArticleID=6
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=4&ArticleID=6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)