The danger of words
Over the past couple of weeks there has been a dustup over Rush Lumbaugh’s criticism of Sandra Fluke’s, a law student at Georgetown, about birth control coverage. The political aspects of the issue aside, what is more telling is the impact of words and assumptions.
In what would seem to be an unrelated situation, a young girl has taken Limbaugh’s words personally and it points to how what we say can have unintended consequences. (warning: the language may be strong, but the context in which they are spoken matters.) Even if Limbaugh is being bombastic and playing to a crowd, he should take responsibility for the uncivil tone and impact of his words.
Shades of Nebuchadnezzar
Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia again. In his victory speech, Putin said, “I promised you we would win. We have won. Glory to Russia.”
It reminds me of Daniel 4:30-32 and Herod in Acts 12:23. While his win was numerically resounding, there are questions about it’s legitimacy. I’m wondering if there will be any fallout from these words and what happened with the election process.
credibility of the Gospel
I was reading about Jesus and the Samaritan woman and was struck by something I never had given consideration. When I’ve heard the text taught/preached, many comment that the woman visited the well at the hottest part of the day, the sixth hour of the day (noon). But is that true?
It is my understanding that the hottest part of the day tends to be the afternoon some time between 2 and 5pm. This can be tested by simply checking the weather forecast for any city. Furthermore, there is no indication about what time of year Jesus is making this trip through Samaria.
Asserting that it is the hottest part of the day is sloppy thinking and exegesis, and hurts the credibility of the Gospel.
If we are not careful with how we expand upon what we see in the text OR are unwilling to acknowledge that there are some things we don’t know, we do our listeners a disservice. If we make up spin a good illustration to catch the ear of our audience then we bring more attention to ourselves than to God. Sadly, I’ve heard (and, being guilty myself, have told) amazing, fictional insights about the significance of the Samaritan woman enduring the heat of day to go to the well alone. It was no doubt, warmer in the day than the morning but that’s about all we can say regarding the weather.
It is disconcerting to realize that I can create false obstacles because when readers go to the text they won’t see the same thing and may come away thinking that they need more learning or spiritual maturity like that of the preacher/teacher in order to understand Scripture.
I appreciate discovering things I haven’t seen or thought about before, but it is also humbling to find that some of the assumptions I’ve made are not true.
Free will or robots…
There is a common saying/belief that God had to give humans “free will” or we’d be automatons. Is that really true? I think this view is
flawed for a couple of reasons.
First, it assumes the “will” is truly free. However, this can be tested by simply asking, “Why does a person do something?” (what is their motive?)
The reality is, the “will” (volition) is subject to something, either intellect (cognition) or heart (affection), as demonstrated by motive (why do you do what you do?). The will isn’t free because it is directed by motive. Motive, in turn, comes from affection/desire (“heart”) or cognition.
Without going into all the details, I would argue that affection is the driving motive, and not cognition. There is a body of research that shows why this is true, but I’ll leave that for another post. A brief example of this assertion though is the power of marketing. Businesses sell products based on our affections and not intellect. They appeal to our desires and not statistics. Why? They understand that motive (based on affection) drives the purchase decision (volition).
Therefore, intellect (cognition) provides information to affection, but in the end affection determines action. In short, there is no such thing as “free will” because it is captive to (driven by motive, our affections).
Second, “free will” is not the same thing as freedom of action. I think what people mean is that God, within His sovereignty over everything, allows for freedom of action. This means God does not proscribe a specific action, and is fine with a range of actions. Based on the notion that there is no free will because it is subject to motive, then affection/love is the source of action/behavior. For example, as a husband I want to show love to my wife. I can choose how to express love in a variety of ways — go on a date, give her time alone by taking all the kids, bring her flowers, etc… Likewise, God allows us to see Him for who He is (1John 4:19, Romans 5:5, Ephesians 2:1-9). We are in a love relationship with Him, initiated by Him, and we are “free” to express this love in any way we wish.
God wants us to love Him and express this love in the way we would choose — freedom of action.
Grace is good
Harold Camping, of the “May 21st rapture prediction,” made a mess of it, and lots of folks are reminding him, and his followers of how he was
wrong. I get that piece. Inside, I was hoping for his comeuppance. A recent blog post put me in my place. By virtue of its compassion and thoughtful response, I realize how much I need grace, just as Mr. Camping would need and hope for.
Tim Dalrymple offers an excellent response and reflection on what Mr. Camping could do. It’s worth checking out. His interaction with Camping’s prediction are good reads as well.
Celebrating death by death
I’ve been struck by the lyrics of this song. I heard it at an Easter service, and appreciate the message of hope. For me, there is something about putting Scripture and biblical theology to music that is stirring.
Christian movie porn?
I found this post on the internet. It is insightful and challenging.
This week I was invited to preview the movie, “Courageous” by the makers of “Fireproof” “Facing the Giants” and a couple of other “Christian” movies by Sherwood Baptist Church. Their movies are meant to be evangelistic. They come off preachy in all the worst ways.
They actually have some shards of good stories, but the way they Christianize them is sad. They make all of the conversation stilted and flatly religious. I have been a Christian for years–committed Christian–and I have never had conversations like that.
As a theologian, I am terribly offended by the movies. The theology is “If you believe in God and become a Christian, God will make everything right. If you don’t, you are going to be miserable for now and forever.” Pure crapola.
Theologically I am opposed. But I think I am most offended as a movie watcher.
This does to evangelism what porn does to romance.
There are scenes in movies that are so incredibly sexy that they make our minds race wild even heat up our bedrooms. They are scenes that are romantic, relational, intense and they don’t show everything.
By contrast, porn focuses less on romance, relationships, intensity and in exchange, they show physical, sexual acts from every possible angle.
Good romance gets in touch with what is basic to humanity. It connects people to people and allows sex to have its proper place. (The discussion of when it should occur in a righteous relationship notwithstanding.) Porn discounts the most important aspects of our humanity and focuses on a single aspect, albeit an important one.
By making every scene and every conversation in the movie about coming to Christ and taking every possible opportunity to have someone give a homily about how God will make all your dreams come true through Jesus dying on the cross, they discount some of the most important aspects of being human to focus on one, single aspect, albeit an important one.
I think sexy evangelism should be the mark of a good, Christian movie. Let us see lives (realistic lives), tell a story (a good story) and let us see what a man of faith looks like in real skin (and with his clothes on.)
Remember when “Shadowlands” came out? It was the story of CS Lewis’ life. It was made by unbelievers. Anthony Hopkins played CS Lewis. Leaving, I wanted to know more about this man and about his faith. It was sexy.
When I left “Courageous” I was done. My mind didn’t race. My soul was not quickened. It wasn’t very sexy.
What is a good way for Christianity to engage non-believers? When engaging on levels of shared culture, in this case, movies, what does “good” interaction look like? How are non-Christians portrayed in Christian-themed movies? Is it realistic or caricature? What movies have you seen that were good or bad?
