Intelligent Design Prevails Again

Well, he may not be Christian (yet), but a famous atheist has succumbed to the evidence that there is a God, perhaps in a fashion not all that alien from C.S. Lewis's slow conversion. Anthony Flew, whose most famous statements had to do with the fact that asserting the existence and/or love of God was meaningless since “nothing could disprove it” to the believer, now believes in a deist-like God. That science can convince an avowed atheist (for 66 years, since he was 15, no less!) of the existence of God should worry people in the “Bright” movement.

It just shows that we as Christians should not fear things like science. On the contrary, we ought to spend our time appreciating how all ways of looking at God's creation can give pointers to the Creator. “Seek truth knowing that there can be no conflict between God and truth.”

The Question of God Revisited

Well, I finished the four hour PBS special The Question of God with Dr. Armand Nicholi, which follows the lives of two very bright, but very different men: Dr. Sigmund Freud and Clive Staples (C.S.) Lewis. The biographical sections and the debates between Freud and Lewis are well done, complete with photos, interviews and reenactments with actors who bear an uncanny resemblance to the two historical figures.

The panel of “smart people” that was assembled to discuss the segments was wanting, however. Dr. Frederick Lee did a pretty good job of representing the orthodox believer, although he was stumped on a few issues that I thought he probably should have been able to answer. One other gentleman representing the believing side seems to be a bit too into seeing faith as adjusting “power dynamics,” and the two women on the theist's side both seemed to be mystics, albeit of a Christian flavor (despite the one rejecting miracles and the other rejecting the existence of the devil as a component of dualism). The skeptics were represented by only three men, but they seemed to be more on Dr. Lee's level than the other believers were.

They could have, and probably should have, left the panel out. On the other hand, it strikes me that one could make an excellent small group or Sunday School class out of the Freud/Lewis segments. They make great conversation starters, and obviously, given the panel, they were divided up in a way meant to encourage discussion. Dr. Armand Nicholi's lead in questions were good starting points as well.

On a merely aesthetic point, the two part series was done in a very slick fashion. It “felt” well done, rather than the cheap, cheesy feel that goes with many religion-focused documentaries. I just saw one with Houston Smith the other day, and I think the video technicians must have taken the day off when they produced it. Good production might not save a doomed piece, but it does allow a good piece to thrive by avoiding distracting the viewer with annoying camera angles, bad sound and so on.

As a whole, I liked the series, and I think I'll recommend that my church library purchase a new copy (we are presently working on getting some DVDs as we phase out VHS tapes). The series could have been vastly improved had the panelists been better, but as it stands it was still probably the most thoughtful discussion of the “Question of God” to hit the airwaves in a long time. Lewis would probably be quite pleased.

Rating: ***+

The Question of God

I started watching PBS's special the Question of God tonight. It aired here in St. Louis at 2:00 A.M. on two Fridays in September since KETC was running a pledge drive. I obviously didn't watch it live, so now I'm watching a recording of it. So far, its pretty good, although mostly biographical information on the two key people of the special — Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis.

I'll post more on it when I get farther along in it.

Predestined Not to Comment?

Well, after reading Christopher's interesting post on election (as he guest blogged on another blog through BlogSwap), I wrote up a post on my thoughts on the subject, including some concerns about what the doctrine of election means to other parts of the Bible. Unfortunately, the post disappeared. I guess I must have closed the web browser window it was in (I had several tabs opened, maybe I switched tabs and then closed the whole thing) or something, because it is gone now.

Oh well. Maybe I'll write something up again another day.

Wow

I knew the National Council of Churches was an extremely liberal group that has been promoting ecumenism with non-Christian religions to the point of minimizing the necessity of Christ, but I still was surprised to see just who one of their member groups is. I thought all of their members were the (fading) mainline denominations like the UCC (my old denomination, ABC and PCUSA… but they have the Amercian Swedenborgians in there too! Mary Baker Eddy would probably be hurt that they didn't want a few scientists to go along with the mystics.

Nothing like adding a weird sect/cult to your group to help in the credibility department! Yes sir! That's sort of like the other thing the NCC seems to be up to: spamming my e-mail box. They subscribed my webadmin address from my church to their daily newsletter without my requesting it.

Is the Christian Right Christian?

There are some good points made by Carter, but a lot of it borders on seriously misguided at best, I think. Carter suggests prejudice permeates the “Christian right,” for example, a sweeping — and, in my opinion, unchristian — generalization. Is their prejudice in the “Christian right”? You better believe it. Here's the big but: there is also prejudice in the “Christian left” and just about everywhere else.

Carter also notes that the Christian right has abandoned some basic Christian principles. I agree — but I also think pretty much EVERY Christian has. The question is, does that make the Christian right not very Christian? No.

Do you see the theme of my response? For every attack Carter makes on the right, it can also be applied to the left. And, for the most part, Carter attacks the Christian right on political issues, ignoring its strong points on theology (whereas, unfortunately, much of the mainline Christian left has been jetisoning away from Biblical theology — a bigger issue from the standpoint of salvation). The Apostle Paul faught modifications to the Gospel in his day:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” — Galatians 1:6-7 (NIV)

What is actually worrying is Carter's apparent hints at relativism. He talks about a person's “concept” of God and refers to his “concept of Christ.” Now, that might be harmless, but I almost get the impression in his abortion comment that he actually feels that while he opposes abortion it is only based on “his concept of Christ” and not the Christ. There is only one Christ and one Gospel — remember again Galatians 1:6-7.

Carter also talks about moderately accepting certain forms of abortion, which is disturbing — if he believes it is wrong, how can it be “acceptable”? I suppose it depends on if he thinks it is wrong or WRONG — but if he agrees that it is the killing of an innocent God created person, how can it ever be acceptable? Is murder acceptable so long as it is done within certain guidelines? I'm sure you'd agree it isn't. But if murder is murder is murder is murder, than where does it leave these “acceptable forms” of abortion in a Biblical worldview?

Also, a note on helping the poor. Carter overlooks that many on the right (myself included) don't have something against helping the poor at all, rather we feel that it isn't something done best by the government. That's what a lot of it boils down to: can the government do a better job than the Church at helping the poor (part of the Church's job)? Let's face it, government welfare has a dismal record — it seems to encourage people not to work. That's not what we want! If every dollar that is presently devoted to welfare was kept by taxpayers and was instead distributed by them to churches and charities to help the poor, I would be almost postive more good would come out of it and it would allow the Church to fulfill its job to help the poor rather than having a secular government do that job for it.

Every Christian is going to have some theological problems, but does that mean they aren't Christian? There are some theological issues I would argue are absolutely necessary to be Christian — Christ was fully both God and Man, He literally died for our sins on the cross, rose again physically, Christ alone provides for atonement and salvation, there is no God but the God of the Bible Jesus alone provides access to the Father, and other points — basically the points of the great creeds such as the Nicene Creed. If you deny the exclusivity of Christ as savior of the world, yes, I think it might be time to say you aren't Christian. If you worship Gaia and support “reimaging”-related theology, ditto that last statement. But is being against larger government programs for the poor because one doesn't believe that the government should do that kind of stuff in the same league? Is it even the same universe?

Short of the essentials — none of which Carter seems concerned about — I find such suggestions of an entire group of Christians not being Christian seriously problematic. Unchristian, in fact.

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3 (NIV)

Easter Meditation

He is RISEN! What a joyous day it is — I hope everyone reading this had a wonderful and blessed Easter!

{1} Early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to see the tomb. {2} Suddenly there was a great earthquake, because an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled aside the stone and sat on it. {3} His face shone like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. {4} The guards shook with fear when they saw him, and they fell into a dead faint. {5} Then the angel spoke to the women. “Don't be afraid!” he said. “I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. {6} He isn't here! He has been raised from the dead, just as he said would happen. Come, see where his body was lying. {7} And now, go quickly and tell his disciples he has been raised from the dead, and he is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there. Remember, I have told you.”

What Wondrous Love Is This, Oh My Soul?

The Crucifixion
{20} When they had mocked him, they took the purple off of him, and put his own garments on him. They led him out to crucify him. {21} They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross. {22} They brought him to the place called Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, “The place of a skull.” {23} They offered him wine mixed with myrrh to drink, but he didn’t take it.

{24} Crucifying him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots on them, what each should take. {25} It was the third hour, and they crucified him. {26} The superscription of his accusation was written over him, “THE KING OF THE JEWS.” {27} With him they crucified two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left. {28} The Scripture was fulfilled, which says, “He was numbered with transgressors.”

{29} Those who passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who destroy the temple, and build it in three days, {30} save yourself, and come down from the cross!”

{31} Likewise, also the chief priests mocking among themselves with the scribes said, “He saved others. He can’t save himself. {32} Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe him.” Those who were crucified with him insulted him.

{33} When the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. {34} At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is, being interpreted, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”*

{35} Some of those who stood by, when they heard it, said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.”

{36} One ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Let him be. Let’s see whether Elijah comes to take him down.”

{37} Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit. {38} The veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. {39} When the centurion, who stood by opposite him, saw that he cried out like this and breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

From Mark chapter 15 (WEB)

The Explaination
{3} He was despised, and rejected by men; a man of suffering, and acquainted with disease. He was despised as one from whom men hide their face; and we didn’t respect him.

{4} Surely he has borne our sickness,and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted.

{5} But he was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought our peace was on him; and by his wounds we are healed.

{6} All we like sheep have gone astray. Everyone has turned to his own way; and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all. {7} He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth.

{8} He was taken away by oppression and judgment; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living and stricken for the disobedience of my people?

{9} They made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. {10} Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand.

{11} After the suffering of his soul, he will see the lightand be satisfied. My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself; and he will bear their iniquities.

{12} Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

From Isaiah chapter 53 (WEB)

The Passion of the Christ

By the sound of some reviews, such as the two in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, one would think that it gloried in what the one review called “NC-17 level” violence. Now, crucifixion is a horribly violent act, the question was if the movie portrayed the violence in a way intended to provide insight or simply to be violent. If you believed the P-D critics, the latter option is the case (of course, one should always be wary of what the Post-Dispatch says, but that's another story).

After seeing the movie, I am glad to say that I can call the Post-Dispatch view of the movie completely off base. I can truthfully say that the violence, whilst very graphic and agonizing, was not violence for the sake of violence. Instead, it seems truly to have been arranged by Gibson in an attempt to make the viewer experience a very small bit of the suffering involved (obviously only a small bit since one is sitting comfortably in a theater). Sometimes that kind of thing is necessary - especially in the case of Gospel portrayals, dozens of which have provided a sanitized version of events that simply do not lend themselves to appreciating the magnitude of what is going on.

This movie is stunningly powerful. It was physically exhausting to watch, and, as I said, agonizing, but for a purpose: it pulls the audience through the experience of the crucifixion in a way that I do not believe any passion play or “Jesus movie” has ever accomplished. While virtually nothing in the movie is “new” to anyone familiar with the Gospels (and that's a good thing in a case like this), it allows you to experience the narrative of Christ's suffering and death in a whole new light.

From Jesus' praying in Gethsemane at the beginning, to Pilot's conflicting motives and desires, to the actual torture and crucifixion, the Passion is really an experience that immerses you in itself. The beauty of the film is that it makes one reflect on the familiar because seeing it in realistic detail makes it seem new again.

There were a few moments that were especially poignant, I thought. Exquisitely drawn out from the Gospel of John was Jesus' confrontation with Pilot. The way it was done didn't excuse Pilot in anyway, but showed the conflict within him as he fought to figure out what to do before finally taking the easy way out by washing his hands of the matter. When the film cuts back to Pilot during the earthquake after Jesus' death he appears to be reflecting on what has just happened - maybe not completely understanding it, but at least realizing some of it.

Also, as Jesus is carrying the cross, the scene between him and Mary was a hard one to watch. As he falls again from the weight of the cross after the brutal scourging, she rushes through the guards to try to help him. Yes, I know that isn't in the Bible, but certainly it seems like something that could have reasonably happened. He looks up at her and says “Behold, mother, I am making all things new” (that's from Revelation 21:5) - it communicates so perfectly exactly what Jesus was doing, and that, even in the middle of some of the worst torture that could be inflicted on anyone He still had His desire to make us new on his mind.

I think the choice to film in Aramaic and Latin was also wise, despite the fact that the decision essentially requires most people to read subtitles, rather than just watching the film. While the manuscripts of the New Testament available to us are in Greek, translating the words back to Aramaic adds to the environment of the film. The sound - the character - of the Semitic language being spoken lends itself to the effort to create an authentic environment for the film.

The movie is also rich in great symbolism that allows anyone looking for it to experience an even more in-depth narrative. Gibson did a stunning job of tying Jesus' life and Bible prophecy into other parts of the Bible. Early on, the reference to Genesis 3:15 is perfect for the scene before Jesus begins the sacrifice that will ultimately lead to the crushing of Satan forever. During Jesus' torture, the devil appears again, this time with a baby, presumably the anti-Christ. Even as Jesus is winning the battle, Satan is “previewing” his (well, in this case, her) last plan to take as many souls as possible. Finally, toward the end of the film, right after Jesus dies, the “tear of God” is a unique and dramatic interlude before the earthquake rends the curtain in the temple, ending the separation between God and man.

Finally, I thought the brief scene of the resurrected Jesus was extremely powerful. When the scene fades in, after the camera pans over to Jesus, you have the excitement of the resurrection, but also the expression that what he just went through was excruciating. Its one last reminder, just incase the rest of the movie wasn't able to drill it in enough, that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't easy, it came at a terrible cost. This was a case of less being more, I know some people thought more of the resurrection should have been shown, but I think that would have shifted the viewer's focus completely to the joy of the resurrection and have diluted the picture's message. Everyone likes to think about the resurrection, the crucifixion is much less comfortable but no less important to remember.

I've spent a number of hours since seeing the film trying to write this and I find it is almost impossible to really put the experience into words. The Passion of the Christ is a unique and breathtaking rendering of the Gospels. No, it may not cover every part of the Gospels, but what it does include it includes in a way that seems faithful in every way to the Gospels.

This is one movie that truly uses every resource the medium of film offers to provide a better understanding of God's sacrifice for us. On Wednesday night at the Lenten service, one of the hymns was What Wondrous Love is This, a hymn that I always find especially moving.

What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this that caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul.

Seeing the Passion the week before, I couldn't help but really dwell on the words “dreadful curse.” Again, even though I knew the kind of things Jesus went through, the experience of actually witnessing what it might have been like only amplified the words to that great hymn.

The Passion, in my opinion, accomplishes its goals perfectly. It is one of the most masterfully produced films I have ever seen (if not the most), and the only one that truly shows the extent of suffering Jesus was willing to go through for me and for you.

RATING: *****

I saw it.

I saw the Passion of the Christ tonight. I need to think about what I saw for a little bit and then I'll provide my “review” of it. All I'll say right now is that it was both amazing and agonizing at the same time.