Return of the King

Far be it from me to disagree with the masses, but I just watched the Return of the King Extended Edition, and I found it disappointing. I did thoroughly enjoy Peter Jackson’s creation of the wonderful trilogy, but I do believe he missed it. Or at least destroyed it in order to make it more movie friendly.

The new scenes that did not make it into the movie were actually well cut out scenes. In the new scenes he destroyed Sauroman by making him on the verge of helping out Gandalf when Worm Tongue kills him. The book have Sauroman evil to the end and vengeful in his destruction of the Shire just to get even. He completely ruined Faramir in the second movie along with Treebread. Not to mention the neglect of song that is so prominent in the books. A real disservice to the movie. And in this movie I believe he ruins Sam. Sam actually turns his back on Frodo and starts going back down the stairs. He also makes Sam hesitate in giving back the ring when he rescues Frodo. There is no hint of this in the book. I was Sad he never made Sam put on the ring, as he did in the book. Perhaps that was artistic, but I believe it was because Jackson tried to change the story to make Frodo the hero rather than Sam.

Yes, I believe in the book the only real hero is Sam. Sam is the purest of the pure. Frodo gives in at the end. Frodo was wrong about Smeagol. Sam wore the ring, and did not have any ill effects, none at all. He freely gives it back. He stays devoted to Frodo the whole time, and in the appendix to the book, after his wife’s death, he too travels to the Grey Havens and over the sea. In the end, it is only Sam who embodies all that is good in loyalty, honor, friendship, and courage. Anyway, the movie is worth getting, but Jackson does mess up what is a truly great story. His inability to end the movie and his fake endings are still as annoying as they were in the theater, but now you can skip scenes if you want.

Wild but not Right

John Eldredge is one of the hottest evangelical authors out there today. He has his Wild at Heart ministry, which is the name of his retreats, and the name his most popular book. He has been on the cover of Christianity Today, and recently been interviewed by Dr. Dobson for his radio show. Sadly, Eldredge is one of the growing examples of popular evangelical leaders that led people astray and down paths that have little to no substance at all.

Eldredge stated mission is to teach Christians, especially men, how to live a better life, a life where the desires of your heart are achieved. After all, the desires of our heart are given to us by God, and therefore, he will grant them if you pursue Him, according to Eldredge. It must be admitted that Eldredge has hit on a major problem in America, the weakness of the man. They seldom live up to their biblical responsibilities, and many churches actively distort the biblical teaching on the subject; however, Eldredge does little to better the situation. His answer is not explication of Ephesians 5 or others biblical discussions on manhood, rather, he advocates living like the warrior that God wanted you to be and spends too much time explicating movies like Braveheart as the example for males. I have two major problems with Eldredge’s teachings.

1. He down plays the Fall and sin. This has numerous manifestations in his theology. He has a muddled view of Christ’s death. It is much closer to a moral persuasion than an actual atonement. Eldredge also shows affection for the ‘mouse trap’ theory of the atonement as well. Christ is God’s greatest attempt to woo mankind. It also shows up in Eldredge wanting people to live out there inner most desires. He wants people to listen to their hearts, and thinks that those who teach otherwise are dangerous. He brushes aside versus that teach the heart of man is deceitful and wicked in favor of a rosy view of the human condition. It seems that Eldredge believes the Christian does not have a remaining sinful nature. A third manifestation of this down played view of sin, is that Eldredge often comes out as dualistic. He likes the idea of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. Man seems to be the neutral prize over which God and Satan duel it out. These things combine to show a real lack of understanding of sin. Thus, his teachings lead down dangerous roads.

2. He openly advocates a Medieval mysticism. He loves the Desert Fathers as he calls them. The ones who escaped the Church, the World, and everything else to pursue the Sacred Romance, as he calls God from time to time. In effect, Eldredge advocates this type of worldview. He gives example after example of mystical encounters with God that he believes to be the norm. His contempt for the established church is clear, and his role of the Bible is diminished in favor of experience. He loves Soren Kierkegaard, any mystic, and most Romanists. He loves movies for they are the modern way to have your soul touched, and they show the desires of the heart. Anything it takes to get that fleeting experience where you feel romanced by God is good, and right. Quite contrary to the Bible, and its teachings of restricted worship in the 2nd Commandment.

Over all, Eldredge is a dangerous man. He will lead people to search for truth apart from the Scriptures. He will lead them out of the established churches because they do not teach as he does. And, he will lead them into movie theaters to get a good glimpse of Romance in action. The effects of his movement are yet to be really felt, but it will come soon enough. The church will be sorry they did not do more to stop this movement in its early stages.

Christianity and Historic Norms

Matt has an interesting blog discussing the attacks upon Christmas. I must say that I agree with most of his thoughts. I do disagree with the off hand idea that we should let the pagans have Christmas. It seems to be against the principle of being salt in the world, but that is not the main point of Matt’s thoughts. He is saying that we should make sure Christ is our savior and lord before getting caught up in making sure people say Merry Christmas. Good advice.

However, I will be quibbling with his opening lines. Again, it is not the main point at all, but it is a point that caught my attention. He states that America is returning the historical norm, and becoming antagonistic to Christianity. I disagree that the historical norm is countries being antagonistic to Christianity.

Yes, the first 3 centuries were persecution after persecution. However after Constantine there are at least 3 more of peace and a government protective of Christianity. In fact, during this time the Church received great creeds and weeded out heresy from among her own boarders. Then in the 7th century Mohammed and Islam begin to persecute those who live under their rule. Yet, this is hardly the majority of the Christian world. America is also not reverting to Islam, so I think that example does not fit into the idea of historical norms.

Even during the Middle Ages when the Pope put to death Jan Huss and others for proclaiming the gospel, it hardly qualifies as countries being hostile to the gospel. At best a few centuries could be added to list of times of persecution. Even during this time, John Wycliff survived under a country that did not care to persecute those who preached the gospel. The Reformation broke out and many places were protective of Christianity. Luther was added by the local lords. So were many Swiss cities. Heidelberg Germany and the Elector Fredrick III protected true Christianity. England and Scotland went through brief persecutions, but came to embrace the gospel. America, as admitted, was founded on Christian principles. Even when examining Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (admittedly I have an abridged edition) the martyrs go from Rome in the 400’s to the Spanish Inquisition of the 1200’s. It seems that at best the historical norm is 50-50. Persecution is by no means necessary. Yes, Christ promises us that. We should not be surprised by it. Yet, he also promises us that the gospel preached will not return void. Countries have often been made receptive to Christianity by the pure proclamation of it. While, I agree that America is turning its back on Christianity, I do not think we need see it as inevitable, nor as a historical norm. If the church does her job, the culture will follow.

Kobe's Ego

The latest in the fall of superstar Kobe Braynt is his now public feud with future Hall of Famer, Karl Malone. Kobe says Karl made a pass at his wife. Of course, Kobe's image took another hit. People are angry with Kobe. The young Laker star made the talk show rounds yesterday trying to rebuild his image. It is not working. All the sportscasters don't get it. They even asked why on "I, Max" today, and they couldn't figure it out. Let me explain it to them.

1. No one really believes Kobe. Karl has no history of this sort of thing, and Karl is respected around the league. The charges seems stupid and made up.

2. Kobe does not really care. That is what no one is willing to say on the air. Kobe wants us to believe that he is mad at Karl Malone for hitting on his wife, while he was off sleeping with countless women, and perhaps raping one. Since when did Kobe start caring about his wife. This seems a little like an attempt to rebuild an image as a protective and caring husband. I am afraid that ship has sailed.

What does this have to do with theology? Not much, but I couldn't resist blogging on it anyway.

Courting Disaster

I someone wants to read a thought provoking book, Pat Robertson’s Courting Disaster is pretty good. The book overall is well researched and written with a great deal of knowledge from a Christian perspective. While I usually disagree with Pat Robertson’s theology on the 700 Club, his theology degree combined with his law degree provides an interesting slant on the American situation. His thesis, with which I agree, is that the Supreme Court and the Federal Court system is out of control, over reaching their constitutional bounds and needs to be stopped. He has great research on quotes from Justices and other amazing sources that will give great insight into the liberal mindset, and the amazing arrogance of the Supreme Court.

Yet my first major problem with this book is Robertson’s lack of a solution. He stresses the role of prayer, and with that I agree. Yet, he seems to state that the way we overcome this problem is by appointing good Justices in the first place, but this solution is completely depended on constant political victories and the ability of individuals to keep their hands off of the unlimited power. Something that even Robertson admits has not been done by Republican appointees.

Robertson gives 6 Constitutionally possible options.
1. Congress can deny, by a simply majority, the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction.
2. Congress can pass legislation stating that the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land.
3. Congress can pass tort reform.
4. The House can impeach judges who over step their good behavior clause by being activists.
5. Congress can increase the number of justices from 9 to whatever it takes to get a majority.
6. The people and their representatives can make the case to abide by the 10th amendment.

Elsewhere Robertson notes disobedience as an option, both by the President and by people. Yet, while granting that maybe a President could disobey, all of these situations are not enough. The first can be overturned by the next Congress. The second is meaningless and can be overturned. The third does not really address the issue of an activist judge, but rather simply limits law suits. The fourth has some merit, but opens the can of worms of impeaching judges because you disagree with them. Only extreme cases should be brought forth for impeachment (someone overturning an American law based on International precedent would be a reason in my opinion). The fifth was a bad idea in FDR’s day, and is today as well. The sixth is close to a solution but people asking their representatives to limit their own power will never work.

Which brings me to my next point. Robertson seems to actually be a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Robertson desires a National answer to a national government problem. He wants people to talk to their Nation representatives about returning the to the 10th Amendment, which states power is reserved for the states. He ends the book with a plea to reelect President Bush and Republican or at least conservative Senators. In the most blatant example of contradiction he lauds the judicial activism in Brown v Board of Education, but does not like it elsewhere. He notes, by quoting George Wills, that an unintended consequence of Brown is that the Supreme Court now tries to right perceived social ills by activism. One cannot really uphold activism when you like it and rail against when you don’t. Please don’t misunderstand me, segregation is morally wrong, but the issue is did the Supreme Court have the right to strike it down, were their reasons for striking it down correct, and can one be allowed and not another. Robertson never really gets down to the root cause of this trouble, at least not in my opinion. He concentrates on the recent decades of the 60’s and forward because they are the worst. He mentions the founders, but never draws a distinction between Nationalism and Federalism. He does touch on some early court cases of activism, but does not show how they fit into the modern picture. Robertson is writing a book about the stakes in modern politics, but not really proposing long term solutions to anything.

Of course, I must offer my own solution. The answer lies within the states, not the national government. The 10th Amendment exists, as does the 9th (a similar amendment reserving rights to the people). We do not need to talk to Congress about these rights, we need simply to exercise them. The people of South Dakota, for example, should simply ban abortions on the state level. Some federal judge will strike it down, but South Dakota should refuse to acknowledge this ruling. Constitutionally South Dakota would be correct. Arrest those who perform abortions and enforce the state law. What would the Federal judiciary do? This sort of Constitutional Crisis needs to happen. The states must act on their own rights. One cannot expect help from the National Government. Why would they give up such power? Even if they did, it would only be for a time. If states never exercise it on their own, it will never be ensured.

Leo III and Christmas

Emperor Leo III always seems to get bad press in the history books. I am not sure I have found one yet that treated him even fairly. Leo III was the emperor of Constantinople in A.D. 717-740 followed by his son, Constantine V (740-775). In 726, Leo III began a propaganda campaign against images of Christ. He seems to have been motivated by the 2nd Commandment, although it appears hard to deny that he was also an orthodox Chalcedonian (many historians do try to deny this). The propaganda did not really work, so Leo ordered that the image of Christ on top of the palace be thrown down and broken. Of course riots ensued.

I think about Leo III a lot during Christmas. Never will one see more icons of Christ than at Christmas. Every yard becomes a place for statues of the baby Jesus. Stamps in the mail have pictures of our Lord, and this year many will receive a DVD of Mel Gibson’s The Passion. I truly believe that if someone were to smash all the icons, riots would ensue. Protestants forget their faith during the Christmas season an bring out statues of Christ, not only to decorate their lawn, but to set up inside their house on their mantle like the old household gods of old. Sadly many churches put on nativity plays, and Christ is either the cutest recently born child in the church or a stuffed doll. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problems with Christmas as a feast day for the church or as a holiday, but I do have a problem with images of Christ.

The Council of Hieria, A.D. 754, included 338 bishops, and they declared that only legitimate representation of Christ is “the bread and wine in the holy supper.” The reason, Christology. If Christ is one person in two natures, and the natures are not to be united or divided, mixed or separated as all Reformed Creeds suggest following the Council of Chalcedon, then any picture of the person of Jesus Christ is a picture of both divine and human natures. It is that simply. Every nativity scene and play is a representation of God, God made flesh yes, but God nonetheless. That is strictly forbidden in the second commandment. Thus, every nativity scene reminds me of Leo III because he took a stand. When we don’t take a stand every Christmas it shows our ignorance, or worse our unfaithfulness, or worse our indifference.

Catholicity?

One of the sights I like to visit, is Reformed Catholicism
I do not endorse their views in general. It is a sight that propagates the Federal Vision type theology. They prefer Reformed Catholicism. They desire to open a dialogue with all groups of believers even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Now I like this sight because they are very honest. Straight forward. They don’t often try to dance around what they believe in order to fit the Confessional standards that they don’t much care for anyway. They are open about what they are doing and why they are doing it. It has some names you may recognize and some you may not. I plan to comment on some of their stuff in the future. Let me know just leave you with a quote from Philip Schaff:

Closely connected with what has just been said, is the last and most important point to be presented. I mean, the bearing of this view of Church History on the great work of Christian Union.

This helps prove my earlier point that Historical Development is important in the new Federal Vision scheme of things. We are seeing a re-emergence of Mercersburg Theology.

History, Justification, and the current controversy

I don’t think it can be denied that the Reformed Community is no longer unified. The new movement within the Reformed camp known as Shepherdism, Federal Vision, or Reformed Catholicism has divided most denominations and turned everything on its head. I will comment more on them in later posts I am sure.

What I wanted to touch on in this post is the importance of one’s view of history. Yes, history, and how that impacts this current controversy. I believe that the Federal Vision is not all that different than Mercersburg Theology, which grew out of Mercersburg Theological Seminary in the mid-1800’s. The Mercersburg movement started with Philip Schaff and John Nevin, and most accurately it started with Schaff’s speech about Historical Development. This is the idea that history unfolds via the dialectic of Hegel. Consequently doctrine in the church develops, grows, changes, and matures. This led to views that can be found today, baptismal regeneration, denial of the invisible church, grace actually present in the Lord’s Supper, denial of the active obedience of Christ, denial of Regulative Principle of Worship, and ending in a denial of creeds in general. All of which can be found in the Federal Vision in some form or other. So it might not surprise you to find out that these men, so far as I can see, hold to a belief in doctrinal development. Andrew Sandlin has been upfront about it in several places on the Internet. It can be seen in Doug Wilson’s book, "Reformed" Is Not Enough. This debate is important, and it saddens me to see many people fall prey to it, but I must say the aspect of Historical Development is not getting enough attention.

I didn't know

I can't resist making a comment about the Balco scandal that has rocked professional sports.

If you are not familiar with what has been going on, the company Balco has been accussed of giving illegal steriods to professional athletes. Big names were called to testify in front of a grand jury. Names like Barry Bonds, third all time on the MLB homerun list. Jason Giambi, a former MVP that now plays for the Yankees. Also many high profile names from Track and Field.

Someone in the government's office has been leaking Grand Jury testimony. It turns out Giambit admits using steroids during his best season. It seems that Marion Jones, 5 time Gold Medalist in Track, actually injected herself with needles.

Yet, it is Barry Bonds that I want to discuss. He claims he used some things that he now knows are steroids, but that when he took them, he did not know they were illegal. It was a cream, I believe, not an injection. His defense is he had no idea what was in the cream. His trainer gave him something, and he took no questions asked.

Before I go further, it should be noted that many are not accepting his testimony as truthful. Apparently there are some documents that show Bonds took steroids the year he set the single season home run record, which he denies. Other things about his testimony have made many shake their heads in disbelief. Making a call on this stuff is not my intent.

There seems to be a debate over whether or not Mr. Bonds should be allowed to keep his records. He will most certainly set the all time home run record, should this record count. The answer is simply, absolutely not. He used steroids by his own admission. It does not matter if he knew or not. He used a substance designed to help you cheat. His records are based on enhanced abilities thanks to drugs. Some argue that his eye hand coordination is not helped by drugs. True. No one denies that Bonds hits the ball, what is in question is how far he hits it once he hits it. This is helped by steroids.

How does this show up on a theology page? Because many people make the same argument about sin. I didn't know it was a sin, they say. Therefore, I am innocent. Bonds wants to argue the same thing, I am innocent because I didn't know. Yet, it is clear that a violation of the law is just that a violation of the law. How many people know what there blood alchol level is when they drive? Not many. Should they not be held responsible for any crash they might cause because they didn't know how much they were impaired. A lack of knowledge is no an excuse. Sin is sin. Cheating is cheating. If Mr. Bonds cared about fair play, he would volunteer to give up his homerun record, or take a suspension or something. He should realize that he cheated, and it helped him. It seems obvious that people look for excuses whether it be baseball or Christianity.

Election Results

Many things worried me about the last election. Yet, I am not sure that anything was more disturbing than seeing the poll results in Washington D.C. I know that it is not a state, and it is just a city, but it is the city where government takes place. 90% of the people in the city voted for John Kerry. 9% for Bush and I guess 1% for other candidates. I think that it should worry us that the employees of the government, major press reporters, and a nice size group of lawyers all voted for John Kerry. Think of how out of touch those who actually do the work of government are with the people. Not only did Bush win a majority of the popular vote, and the states, but if you look at the county by county voting, Bush won a vast majority of the United States. It is overwhelming. Yet, those in government and in the Nations Capital are 90% for Kerry. When the capital is that out of touch with the rest of the country, can good things really be around the corner?

Free Will Calvinist?

An interesting conversation has broken out on some theological blogs that I read from time to time. It began with Jolly Blogger, who posted his thoughts on God’s sovereignty and Man’s Free Will. He affirmed both. Basically Jolly Blogger concludes both are true, and must be held with a tension, but not a contradiction. He concludes,

"I am suggesting that the fact that God disclaims responsibility for evil
intentions does not negate his absolute sovereignty. Yet, even the evil of man
is controlled by the will and plan of God. Can I reconcile such things? No, I
can’t. Can I affirm that the bible affirms them? Yes."

Matt then responded with a post of his own declaring absolute free will and God’s sovereignty to be contradictions. He concludes,
"Therefore, it is not a "tension" or "polarity" to assert a sovereign God and an absolutely free will. It is a contradiction."

I would like to disagree with both. It seems to me that saying any two things appear to contradict, but they don’t and I can’t explain it is always a bad idea. Yet, denying that man’s actions are free destroys any possibility of human responsibility. Thus, the obvious point of debate is what constitutes a free will. Traditionally something is free as long as it is not bound by necessity to do something (ie. Gravity pulls to the ground always, or wood burning in a fire) or if it is not forced to do something by an outside agent. The age old question now arises, are we simply robots forced to do things by God? No. God does not force or coerce our wills. No one goes to hell against his will or to heaven against his will. God moves in such a way to allow our movement to come from us. Thus, I agree with Matt that "absolute" free will does not exist. God is indeed the first mover or first cause of all things, but that does not mean that we do not have freedom. His first move does not then coerce us. He moves move us, but our movement comes from ourselves. In other words, His work does not destroy our wills. Our wills are dependent, but not coerced. God is the first cause in all our actions, but we are second cause, and that second cause is the principle cause. God is the first cause and man the second cause, but that does not mean that man is not a true cause.

This is why James 1:13-14 tells us not to blame God when we are tempted, but instead blame yourselves. Yes, God acted first in all things, but that does not mean you can blame him because you acted on it, you were morally responsible for it because you are free.
I think it is best illustrated in the regeneration described in Ezekiel 11:19-20.

"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I
will take the stony heart out of their flesh; and give them a heart of flesh
(20) That they may walk in my statutes; and keep my ordinances . . ."

Here we see that God will give them a whole new heart, a whole new will. That will then wills to follow God. Thus even salvation should not be talked about as being against the will, for our old sinful will is not forced to do something it does not want to do, but instead it is replaced. Replaced with a new will, a new man, one that has faith and follows after God.

In conclusion, the Bible does not talk of forcing man to do things. It always upholds his moral agency along side of his dependence. Man always does what he wants to do most, and that is freedom, doing what one wants. Even salvation is not a contortion of the will, or a moving against man’s will, it is a replacement of it, so that man does will to follow Christ. Even Calvinists such as myself should uphold a free will because without man is not responsible for anything.

P.S. Matt has since updated his post, and he has clarified that he was attacking mainly the idea of 'absolute' free will. I believe he and I are in complete agreement. Jolly Blogger is not that far behind, but I have trouble with the idea of a Scriptural Paradox that he seems to be advocating.

Why a blog

This is my meger attempt at a blog. Someone once said, "every idiot has a blog." I thought to myself 'that is not true I don't have a blog.' So, I decided to join the masses on the Internet. I hope that you explore, read, and enjoy. Please, feel free to comment and react.