I'm building a bridge while they're digging a moat.

I often get the feeling these days that as I labor in the trenches, working on a regular basis with governmental workers who are trying to help the poor and with un-churched people that know next to nothing about God that far too many of the people on our own side would rather dig a deeper moat around the Church than help me work on this bridge.  Why do they feel the need to be defensive all the time, fighting a rear-guard action instead of attacking the enemy on his own turf?  There are many reasons why a Christian living in America in the 21^st Century might become a pessimist, but in the end they all boil down to this: they think we’re losing. 

It hurts down deep, to the core of who I am as an American, when I hear the “woe is us” doom and gloom of my fellow Americans who believe that the best days of our nation are behind us.  This isn’t a rational conclusion based upon evidence, it is simply a gut feeling based upon far too many frightening anecdotal reports spread by politicians and preachers with an agenda who are profiting financially off of the fear of those who listen to them.

It hurts me even more when I hear Christian parroting this line of pessimism.  The Church founded by Jesus Christ has triumphed over, through, and in spite of circumstances far more challenging and desperate than anything faced by the Church in America today.  Why are we filled with such despair?  Men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who faced down the Nazis and refused to compromise the integrity of the Church to serve political masters would be ashamed of our lack of resolve and courage.  The Word of God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  The victory of the Son of God has already been accomplished; his final victory of sin, death, Satan, and hell is likewise assured.  So why do those who profess faith in this all-conquering Son of God believe so little in the next generation of their own Church?  Are they so eager for the Second Coming of Christ that they’re willing to accept, even welcome, a downward slide of humanity to make it happen?  Forget for a moment that this is one particular interpretation of Scripture’s teachings on the End Times, and also that Jesus repeatedly said that the End will come as a thief, when nobody expects it.  If you’re wrong, if Jesus tarries for another two thousand years, or more, don’t we need to persevere; don’t we need to build the Church by engaging with our world both now and in the future?

I, for one, will keep working on the bridge.  I’m trying to get as many people as possible to see the Light of Christ, come over the bridge of faith in him, and enter in his kingdom.  I just wish more people in his Church were willing to stop working on the moat long enough to help.

The previous “rant” is not an indictment of the wonderful people I’ve come to know and love here in Franklin, especially those I shepherd at First Baptist, my fellow ministers in the Joint Ministerium, and my fellow workers with Mustard Seed Missions.  They understand the need to work together to reach the Lost; they haven’t given up on the future.  Who will join us?

Is Noah all wet? Thoughts on the new movie.

The new Noah movie will undoubtedly upset a variety of Christian because it takes liberty with the text of Genesis by adding some things to fill out the story, and because it changes some things in order to further the plot.  The questions surrounding this movie are similar in many ways to those faced by devoted fans of J.R.R. Tolkien who had to decide if they still liked Peter Jackson’s movies despite the changes he made to the story from the books.  I can understand those who cannot see past the changes to evaluate the movie on its own merit, in both cases, but it would be a mistake not to evaluate this version of the story by its own merits.

            What is the purpose of a movie?  Is it to be a copy of the original source material, be it a book or historical event, or is it to be an interpretation of that source material in its own right?  Movie makers, like novelists, poets, and historians, pick and choose what they wish to emphasize and how they present the material they work with.  When the source material is a beloved novel, historically significant event, or in this case, Sacred Scripture, most viewers are willing to give the writer/director/producer a lot less slack than they would if the material that the movie was derived from is unknown.

            The story of Noah in Genesis, word for word, would not make a good movie.  There isn’t enough material there to fill out a whole movie, and there certainly isn’t enough dialogue.  If you look closely at the account of Noah, the only one talking is God; Noah doesn’t say a word until he wakes up from his drunken stupor to curse his youngest son.  How is a movie, or play, or novel, based upon the life of Noah supposed to portray him if we have no idea what he was thinking or what he said.  In Genesis we’re told that Noah did what the LORD commanded him, but virtually nothing else beyond the background information that he was “a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.”  We have absolutely nothing from Genesis about Noah’s wife, his sons, or his daughters-in-law.  In order to turn this story into other medium, things are going to have to be added to the account that we have.  There will be some who disagree with the choices that this particular film makes in that process, but the process is inevitable.  If the most reputable evangelical icon were to make a Noah movie he would have to do the same thing.

            There are also three types of “Christian” movies: those that preach to the choir and tell us the things we already think, feel, and believe; those aimed at Church goers, but designed to challenge us and make us think; and those aimed at the un-churched with the hopes of inspiring them to consider God.  The recent movie, God’s Not Dead is primarily one of the first types; its focus is almost entirely on the choir, with some hopes of speaking to the un-churched, although as I said in my earlier blog post, I think they misfired on that goal.  Noah is a combination of the second two types.  It is designed to make those who already know the story from Sunday school think, and it is likely to cause those who have no idea who Noah was to wonder about God.  If Christians who were hoping that Noah was going to be a message to the choir can let go of that hope and see it on the other two levels, much of their disappointment or anger should be dissipated.

            The “Watchers” in Noah will certainly raise some eyebrows, they reminded me of the Ents in LOTRO, but are actually supposed to be the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, a term that our English Bibles either translates as “giants” or simply leaves as Nephilim because we have no real idea who/what they were.  That Noah turns them into partially-fallen angels, an idea picked up from the Apocryphal book of Enoch, shouldn’t be viewed harshly when and minister is going to skip this verse when talking about Noah because he has no idea what it means either.

            There will be some people bothered by the environmentalism they see in the movie.  To that I respond that it is sad that evangelicals have allowed politics to turn them against their Biblical mandate to be stewards of the Earth, and have allowed American consumerism to blind them to the living conditions of the poorest on our world that often resemble the Mad Max like conditions portrayed in the movie.  There is a reason why the end of Revelation contains a new heaven and a new earth.

            There will be some who are bothered that the Creation account in the movie, which I found to be visually very beautiful, looked like theistic evolution because there was a clear passage of much time while Noah was talking about each “day”.  Rather than rehash that issue here, let me just point out that it was clear in the movie that God made humanity separate and different, in his own image, and that God was clearly portrayed as the sole maker of all things in the universe, life included.

            The subplot of Noah thinking that God wants him to end the human race raises important theological questions: How does God communicate with man?  How do we know is God is talking to us?  We tend to assume that the heroes of the Bible knew exactly what God wanted of them, all the time, without any doubt, but that is of course not in keeping with our own experience and not a genuine reading of the Bible anyway.

The second question it raises is on that the Bible itself will answer, but only over time.  That question is this: Is there value in each human life?  Is humanity worth saving?  God makes it clear over time, through Abraham’s experience with being asked to sacrifice Isaac, with Moses’ mother protecting him from death, etc. that God cares about human life, and it answers that ultimate value of humanity to God through the promises that God will send a Messiah to redeem humanity, something the New Testament expresses fully.  Was Noah worried that humanity was too far gone to be saved?  I have no idea, the text of Genesis doesn’t tell us anything about what Noah thought, but having lived amongst such violence and wickedness, wouldn’t it be normal to at least think that thought?  If Noah in the movie goes further than you think he should have down that line of reasoning, chalk it up to cinematic suspense building, but don’t dismiss the whole question.  We live in a world where human life is cheap; abortion and euthanasia are but the surface of the problem of devalued human life.  We live after a century in which more than 100 million people were murdered by three separate societies at the hands of three separate dictators during the same generation.  If God could be grieved enough at the behavior of the people of Israel while Moses was on Mt. Sinai that he wanted to wipe them out, then surely Noah could be worried that the humanity of his day was no better and deserved no less.

            There is also a conversation between Noah and his wife in the movie that contains a truth that both Judaism and Christianity would agree with.  She contends that her sons and future grandchildren deserve to live because they aren’t like the people God decided to destroy with the flood.  Noah responds to this by telling her that we aren’t any better.  The people of Israel were holy because God called them out, not because they were better than the Gentiles.  Christians are better because God has saved and cleansed us, not because we were less sinful than the non-repentant. 

            Overall, for those looking to watch a version of the Noah story that is word for word from the Bible, you’ll be disappointed.  For those looking to see a story that contains a God who created the world, including mankind in his image, that cares about that world and is upset enough by the sin committed by humanity to do something about it; you’ll at least by provoked to thinking by Noah even if you don’t enjoy it.  When is the last time someone who doesn’t go to church asked you, “Does God really care that much about sin?”  Or, “Does God care about what’s going on down here?”  If Noah prompts them to do that, isn’t that the perfect opening to share the Good News that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world?

P.S.  I can tell by many of the online reviews of the movie that many Christians will be veiwing this film through their own political lense, they'll probably chalk this up as an attempt to ruin "our Bible".  The Church isn't a political party, where we get the choice to throw out those we don't like, where we can lose elections (i.e. turn people off to God) on principle and celebrate it.  In case you're wondering, lots of non-believers hated "God's Not Dead" while Christians swooned over it.  Is that the only kind of movie we want to see, one that we like, but that ticks off non-Christians?  Or is there room for a message, even a misguided one, that might open the eyes of those living in darkness?

To read a helpful article about this movie byRev. Robert Barron, click on the link below:
Noah film review

Sermon Video: "he was pierced for our transgressions" - Isaiah 53:1-6

If you watch a movie about the death of Jesus Christ on the cross you would have an understanding of what happened.  It’s important that we know the details of what happened during the passion of Jesus, but it can’t end there, we need to know more.  We need to know why God would not only allow this brutality, but plan it.  We need to know what God was trying to accomplish by sending his only Son to die a martyr’s death.  There has to be larger purpose to the cross.

Isaiah 53 contains a detailed description of a servant sent by God who would one day be rejected by his people, suffer, and die.  In Isaiah’s prophecy we see that this servant would not attract people to himself because of his beauty (not a celebrity), and that instead he would be “despised and rejected by men”.  Sadly, that wouldn’t set him apart from the rest of the prophets, the majority of whom, like Isaiah, were rejected by the people of God.  We’re also told that he was a “man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.”  So, what is God up to?  Why would he send an ordinary looking servant, only to have him suffer real sorrows, what would that accomplish?

In verses four through six we find out that “he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows”, and that “he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities”.  How can this be?  You or I can’t do anything of the sort for those we love; any loving parent would do that for his/her child if possible, but we can’t.  So, how can this servant of God actually take these horrific things from us?  As a man just like us, but without sin, Jesus could do something you or I could never do.  Here is where we understand why the cross was necessary.  It enabled Jesus to stand in our place so that the “punishment that brought us peace was upon him.”  Sin is rebellion against God, it has consequences, it has to have consequences or else our existence is meaningless.  Without judgment, anarchy reigns.  Therefore God cannot just ignore our sins; he can’t just pretend it doesn’t matter.  Jesus wasn’t hiding our sin on the cross, he was carrying it.  Jesus wasn’t finding a way around the consequences for our sins, he was paying for them.

Why did Jesus die on the cross?  To save us from our sins.  It wasn’t to be a good example, it wasn’t to prove a point, it was to do the only thing that could be done to reconcile humanity to God.  The next time you watch a depiction of the crucifixion, or contemplate an artist’s rendering, consider something beyond the nails and the crown of thorn.  Consider the heaping pile of moral filth resting on the shoulders of the innocent Lamb of God.  It was this sin that caused the Father to look away for three hours as darkness covered the land; it was this sin that caused Jesus to cry out, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  And it was this sin that Jesus knew he had fully paid for when he cried out at the end, “It is finished.”

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

God's Not Dead - thoughts on the movie

The new movie, God’s Not Dead, will be applauded by many Christians and absolutely hated by some Christians, many agnostics, and most atheists.  That in and of itself doesn’t really say anything about the quality of the movie, but more about the fractured nature of modern American politics and culture.  I was hoping that this movie would portray Christians more as we are, flawed but forgiven, and the issues surrounding belief with more depth as the direction we are going in life, not just a moment’s decision.  That really wasn’t the case, but I sympathize with the difficulty of making such emotional and intellectual decisions of faith into a film’s format and actually having it come off as genuine.

The premise of the movie itself reflects one of the deepest fears of Evangelical Christians, namely the institutions of higher education in America.  There is good reason to be wary of the education offered by some institutions, it isn’t intended to be from a Christian perspective, nor is it intended to be a place that teaches Christian morality.  This fear of what will happen to Christian teens when they go away to college reflects more upon the Church, however, than the colleges.  Christian parents worry what will happen when their child is taught something they wouldn’t approve of by a professor who has a pluralistic agenda {as all professors and teachers do, an agenda is natural}.  One of the biggest reasons why this fear continues to pervade the modern Church is that too many churches only teach children what to do and what not to do without teaching them how to think in a God honoring way.  A list of rules is not the way to teach a child how to experience the love of God in his/her life.

When a kid is two or three the answers are simple, but as they grow and mature we need to take their intellect seriously and actually teach them how to read and understand the Bible, how to deal with complicated and difficult social issues, and how to resist the temptation to join in on the short-sighted, pleasure based, culture of college campuses.  The real danger to a young, and not very worldly wise, Christian teen is not the college professor, it’s the rest of the people sharing his/her dorm.  That is, if they’ve been told, “don’t drink, don’t have sex” without anything to go with it that shows them the truth that God has a larger purpose and plan for their lives, that the choices we make today have consequences that echo though our lives, and that God wants what is best for us, not just to take away all the “fun” that they’re being offered.

Taking the moral issues faced by our congregations seriously starts from the top down.  Sermons on Sunday morning need to digest the Word of God, not be just a time for telling stories or sharing platitudes.  We, as pastors, need to demonstrate that we take the Word of God seriously.  We ponder it, we wrestle with it, we admit when we don’t understand it.  We need to show that being a good Christian is far more about living a life of justice, love, and mercy than it is about how we dress, what music we listen to, or which Bible we read.  We need to show our own vulnerability, let our people know that their shepherd struggles to be a man of God {the pastor in the film did reflect this}, but also that we have more to offer to them when they’re struggling than simply quoting back Scripture to them {sadly, that’s mainly what the pastor in the movie did}.

Is God’s Not Dead a good movie?  The movie is ok, but I long for a movie that portrays Christians with more realism than idealism, the issues we face in life with more candor than quotations.  The Christians are still too one dimensional and the non-believers equally so.  Is God’s Not Dead a good Christian movie?  Once again, it’s ok, but the writers are still having the characters speak lines for the audience to hear consisting of full-fledged theological statements rather than realistic dialogue you or I would actually say.  The best example of this is the climactic scene: If I saw someone I didn’t know hit by a car, I’d certainly rush to his/her side, I’d try to comfort them while awaiting the paramedics, and if I thought they were dying I’d ask him/her if they’d found forgiveness from God, I’d ask him/her if they wanted to trust in Jesus, I just wouldn’t ask them so dramatically if they are willing to accept Jesus Christ “as Lord and Savior”.  It isn’t a formula that we have to follow, it’s a commitment to repent and change.  God already knows the sinner’s heart; he doesn’t need me to make sure they get the words exactly right, it was enough for the thief on the cross to ask Jesus “remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  God’s Not Dead is a step in the right direction, better than earlier Christian movies, but it still lacks some of the realism that would really engage both the minds and hearts of believers and non-believers alike.