How Christians Watch Movie (Part II)

In the last post on how Christians watch movies, I outlined three different ways.

"What is the content" simply asks how bad a movie is content-wise.

"What is the worldview" simply asks how this movie either coincides or contradicts the Christian worldview.

"Where is the Gospel" asks how can we see where the Gospel is in any movie we watch. The main difference between this view and the "What is the worldview" perspective is that asking where the Gospel is is largely a constructive endeavor while asking, "how does this contradict my worldview" is largely a destructive endeavor.

So what is my position?

My Position
I think that any one of these perspectives is open to some dangers, which leads me to my own perspective which I'll call, "What is the point?" My own view is that Christians must take into account audience, gospel and holiness when talking about any movie. Taking into account those three things should lead us to ask the overarching question, "What is the point of me watching this movie?"

Audience
We need to gauge who the intended audience is. A film discussing adult themes in realistic ways is not intended for children. We should not expect a movie talking about sexually explicit themes to talk about them in a PG or even PG-13 way. Further, movies that are attempting to depict realistic violence are not intended for younger audience.

This seems overly obvious but it is important to say. Much Christian culture evaluates all movies using a line that says, "This movie doesn't line up with my G or PG" standards. It may not. But an R rated film is also able to explore to a great level things that adults really do encounter. We must take note who the audience is.

Gospel
This point really has two elements to it. If every human heart was designed for relationship with God, then we should expect that many movies will echo that longing in some way. We should also expect that without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, many directors will provide the wrong solution to that yearning. Therefore, when looking at any movie we need to ask:

• 1) Where do we see a Gospel-driven yearning? Where can we connect this back to God's big story of redemption?
• 2) Where does this movie provide the wrong answer and where can we, as Christians, provide the right one?

Those principles allow us to engage in a manner that is both constructive and destructive. We construct by building a bridge and affirming what is God-glorifying. We destroy that which sets itself up as a solution to the God-shaped hole in every heart.

Holiness
Finally, we as Christians need to ask if a movie we are watching will aid us in holiness and help us think thoughts that are glorifying to God. For instance, Paul lays down a fairly clear instruction regarding the life of the mind in Philippians 4:8 when he writes,

"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (NIV)

Unlike some movie viewers, I think that there are some films that are simply off-limits to Christians. The idea that we are called to redeem every part of culture, while sounding good, can often lead to blatant disregard for what God has called us to do. Kevin DeYoung, in his book The Hole in Our Holiness, writes 

"God doesn't ask us to get familiar with sexual immorality on the big screen, TV screen or smart phone screen so that we can engage the culture. He commands us to get away." 

1 Corinthians 6:12-20 is a clear warning against sexual immorality. Paul's command in verse 18 is particularly important: "Flee from sexual immorality."

I highlight this issue because sexual immorality is so prevalent and destructive and it is portrayed so realistically in movies and TV, that we need to exercise real discernment in what we watch. We need to flee from movies that are dominated by sex. We need to flee from TV shows that are dominated by sex. This is one of the reasons why I skipped the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. Even though it was critically acclaimed, it was also saturated in sex.

It doesn't really matter if we can connect it to the gospel. It doesn't matter if we can use it to engage culture. We need to flee! 

The Big Question: "What is the point?"

All of this leads to the big question, "What is the point?" In other words we need to ask, "Why am I watching what I am watching?" Is it going to harm you? Is it going to advance the kingdom? Is it going to help me engage in culture in a way that is glorifying to God? Is the content something that I am clearly told to flee from?

If the answer is no, then by all means go watch it! Watch and ask where we see the gospel! Delight in the beauty of movies and the story they tell!

If the answer is yes, however, strongly consider skipping. The life of the mind is too important to jeopardize for a movie.




 
 

"God Ahead of Us: The Story of Divine Grace" Book Review

God Ahead of Us: The Story of Divine Grace by Paul O'Callaghan is probably the toughest book I've ever had to review. Why? Well for one, I am a Protestant and he writes as a Catholic. Therefore our understanding of certain key ideas like justification and (more importantly) grace are going to be different. In some cases the gap between our theologies seems too large to be crossed.

Second, I am not totally sure who this book is written for. It is too scholarly to be of much benefit for laity (maybe more advanced members in church) and yet there just isn't really a thesis advanced here to make it of much use to scholars. In other words, God Ahead of Us feels like a book without a home.

However, one of the largest things that makes this book difficult to review is how much I can affirm in this work as a Protestant, while simultaneous disagreeing with so much. Virtually everything I affirm would need to come with qualifications.

So let's begin in what I affirm...

O'Callaghan's basic argument is that all of God's workings in history flow from His grace. He states, "...God is the one who searches for human beings, placing them joyfully on his shoulders as the shepherd does with tired, wounded, and needy sheep (Luke 15:5)." (Loc. 100) Further, he says, "...Christianity has little else to contribute other than grace, although many other things derive from it and give it full expression." (Loc. 143). So far, O'Callaghan sounds like someone in the Reformed branch of the Protestant church.

To demonstrate this basic idea (that grace is central to Christianity) he explores how grace impacts various issues in systematic theology like predestination, vocation and holiness, justification, the Holy Spirit, sanctification, ethics and free will. I would imagine that just from the opening chapter, most within my tradition would celebrate what O'Callaghan is advocating.

But things get tricky as we go along. For one, the author seems to assume that while grace is based upon God's initiative, it is our responsibility to stay within God's grace. In other words, we can fall from grace. Further, because the author blends justification and sanctification into one act, moral transformation and the act of being declared just are literally inseparable. That is problematic because the author insists that it is our responsibility to practice true virtue in light of the grace we have received. But if my justification is tied to my own moral progress that I must make, then I fail to see how justification truly functions in a gracious way. The author states, "Right until the end of our lives we can make the sad choice of separating ourselves from God and losing the grace he has given us. Final perseverance is guaranteed to nobody." (Loc. 652) This again strikes me as the very antithesis of what grace is. Grace deals with us in our rebellion. Grace deals with us in our stubbornness. Grace is what causes us to persevere. So what it seems that the author is saying that grace functions as a "gift" because God did not need to offer us anything. Therefore, it is our responsibility to respond to this grace.

There were other times that the lack of precision in language confused me as to the author's beliefs. For instance he states, "Humans carry within themselves a mysterious and indestructible desire for God." (Loc. 631). Desire? I have no doubt that humans have a need for God and may even be aware of there need for something "other." However, Scripture is clear that we do not yearn for God and that we are rebels against the divine (see Rom. 3 and Rom. 5). It is precisely because we are rebels that God's grace shines so brightly! In was in His love and mercy that He freely chose to covenant with us and rescue us!

O'Callaghan's view of election could be viewed as a problem as well. He seems to follow Barth (although I do not think he states that he is following part) in a Christocentric model of election. What this means in his model is that Christ is elected and so all who are part of his Body, "partake of this predestination." (Loc. 311) Without diving into much detail on this contentious topic, I'll just say this: I find it hard to square this view of predestination with Romans 8:29-30. There, Christ has predestined us and therefore we are saved by God's plan worked out before time. Here, Christ is predestined and so we can believe and be saved. Some might argue that this is mere semantics. That is fine. But it seems to me that if we want to talk grace, we need to talk about how we ourselves are predestined before time to be in Christ as well as (if you wish to say it this way) the predestination of Christ.

So in conclusion, I think that my issues with this book flow out of a bigger issue: I am not Catholic. It is terribly unfair for me to give a negative review for a book where I was not the target audience. Further, I would hate to sound as if I am not desirous of being ecumenical. I desire unity in the Body of Christ, not division.

However, I feel like this book highlights the exact reason why there is a divide between Protestants and Catholics. Even when some within my own tradition are attempting to close the gap on the issue of justification (like the New Perspective on Paul) between Catholics and Protestants, I just cannot affirm what this book states. I feel as if every statement must be qualified.

But perhaps that is one of the goals of theology: dialogue. We serve a big God and our knowledge of Him is imperfect. Having these conversations are necessary. Therefore, I can affirm this book because it helped sharpen my own thinking on the issue of grace and what I mean when I talk about the grace of God. Isn't that what a good book is suppose to do?

I will leave off with a quote that I found particularly stirring from Paul O'Callaghan:

"Grace in other words is not something 'instrumental' that God 'invents' with a view to resolving contingent problems arising within human history. For Paul, grace is everything. It determines the entire course of human history. Humans are created in order to live in eternal communion with God, that is in the grace of God. The meaning of their existence, the beginning, development, and fulfillment of life, is to be found in grace." (Loc. 221-22)

I believe that we can all respond to that with an "Amen!"

*Thanks to Fortress Press for providing me a free copy of this ebook in exchange for an unbiased review*

How Christians Watch Movies (Part I)

In discussing media with Christians, I have noticed that Christians often view movies through one of three lenses.

1) "What Is the Content" Lens

This lens basically evaluates all movies on the basis of its content. The movie is good if its content is largely unoffensive and appropriate (appropriate is defined, of course, by the standard of that family). A great example of this can be seen in Plugged In movie reviews which is run by Focus on the Family. The movie is considered worthwhile watching if, and only if, it contains no sex scenes, little to no violence and very few curse words. 

2) "What is the worldview" Lens

This lens is a popular lens among youth pastors and those in the field of apologetics. It asks the question, "How can I critique this movie's negative message with the positive message of the Bible?" Most movies are fair game, provided that one can point out how its bad worldview is replaced by the good worldview shown by the Bible. As a result, movies containing sex, violence and swearing are not immediately taken off the list. The most important thing, however, is showing where the movie falls short of the ideals found in the Bible.

3) "Where is the Gospel" Lens

This lens affirms an important maxim: all truth is God's truth. It also advocates that every story, in some sense, is a yearning of the larger Gospel story. Rather than seeking to critique the worldview of a particular movie, it seeks to find where the movie in some way highlights the story of the Gospel. This view is advocated in Mike Cosper's book The Stories We Tell (Crossway, 2014). It is important to note that this view essentially dismisses the directors and script writers original intent by saying that ALL humanity in some sense yearns for the same things that only the message of the Gospel can deliver upon. As you also might imagine, there is really no movie that falls outside the "content" limit for this perspective, except for what the viewer himself is comfortable with. 

Tomorrow, I will attempt to offer my own proposal on how Christians might want to watch movies. Until then though...

Which of these lenses do you find yourself most attracted to? Why? Comment below and let me know!

Atonement, Holiness and Kingdom: A Quick Unifying Proposal

I am currently reading two books that have really got me thinking about how Jesus' death, our holiness and God's kingdom all are unified: The Hole in Our Holiness  by Kevin DeYoung and The Crucified King by Jeremy Treat.

Jeremy Treat argues that much theologizing on the atonement is divorced from the kingdom. What many scholars have done, as a corrective, have advocated the Christus Victor approach to the atonement (where Christ has triumphed over the forces of evil at the cross) and have downplayed the penal substitution approach (where Christ died in our place so that we might be declared righteous before God by taking on the righteousness of Christ). It is argued that the Christus Victor model lends itself more to the idea that God is bringing his kingdom than the penal view.

DeYoung's book actually doesn't talk much about kingdom (at least not yet). However, he points out that Jesus' death was to purchase for himself a people who are made holy. That was one of the ultimate goals of the atonement.

So here is my extremely quick proposal on this Saturday morning. The unifying factor between the two atonement theories and the kingdom is this: holiness.

The Christus Victor model rightly shows that Jesus overcame the forces of evil so that we do not need to worry about anything unwholesome or evil being in God's future kingdom (see Rev. 21).

The penal substitution model rightly shows that Jesus also overcomes our sinful hearts to make us holiness and make us fit for his kingdom.

So in the past I used to say that the ultimate end goal of God was this: God's people, living in God's place, under God's rule.

I think now I would modify it slightly to say "God's holy people, living in God's holy place, under God's holy rule."

One final quick note: the Puritans (of whom I am a big fan), do not talk MUCH about God's Kingdom in the future but talk often about God's rule over human hearts now. That is good.

But one thing I would also say is this: if holiness is a unifying theme between atonement and kingdom, then the Puritans, who talked often about godliness, were much more kingdom centered than we take notice of.

Our talk of holiness is kingdom talk.  

The People, The Land and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God

Anything involving the Middle East tends to be a hot topic in politics and theology. Much of the interest in the events transpiring in Iraq and Israel can be traced back to dispensational theology which claims that God will eventually restore the Jewish people to their land in a physical kingdom. This theology stands in contrast to covenant theology which argues that the church has replaced Israel and, as a result, the covenants made in the Old Testament have either been fulfilled or are spiritualized in some way. This has the effect of making the promises of God no longer literal. For example, the land promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 was really a promise made to the church that God would one day claim the entire earth as here (Matthew 5:3 is often argued in support of this).

With that as background, The People, The Land, and the Future of Israel (published by Kregal Publishing), emerges as a collection of essays (originally given as speeches in 2013) centered around what Israel's future actually is. Let me be upfront: this is a work written by dispensational thinkers (and progressive dispensational thinkers) for dispensational thinkers. This work functions as an abridged rebuttal to covenant theology's insistence that the church has replaced Israel.

The work is divided into four sections: Old Testament evidence, New Testament evidence, hermeneutics and theology and church history (all one section), and practical theology. Each section contains about two to three chapters, written by different authors, approaching various issues concerning Israel's future. So how does the book stack up?

As you might imagine from a work composed by different authors, some chapters are better than others. For instance, Bock and Vanlaningham's chapters on Luke-Acts and Romans, stand out as two of the better essays. They argue cogently and persuasively that Israel does in fact have a plan in God's future. Further, I found Craig Blaising's chapter entitled "Israel and Hermeneutics" to be a stimulating read where he shows the inconsistencies present in much Covenant theology.

Other chapters were much more disappointing. For instance, Craig A. Evans writes an extremely disjointed and confusing chapter on "Israel according to the Book of Hebrews and the General Epistles." I was left wondering if he was actually arguing AGAINST Israel having a future! Baffling indeed!

The practical theology section has some shining moments (such as Michael Rydelnik's chapter on "The Jewish People: Evidence for the Truth of Scripture) but as a whole it just feels like a bunch of sermons put together. It fails to really fit the scholarly tone the book presents itself as. On the topic of scholarly, I can't help but feel a bit irritated that we were left with endnotes in this book. I get that Kregal was trying to appeal to a wider audience but I just found it super annoying that I had to keep flipping back and forth to read any citation. Many critical arguments are made within those notes and it just became so taxing to read each chapter after awhile.

One oddity that I both like and am unsure of (yes, I know, I am conflicted) is that at the end of each chapter they give a QR code where you can watch the conference video and an interview with that author. I think this is a cool way to get the reader connected with the author and the conference. However, I can't help put think that this also will date this book. Five years from now, will this book be relevant (will QR codes even be used?)? I don't know, but it does add a certain amount of interaction between the reader and the book. I like that.

So should you buy it? Honestly, I don't think so. The good articles don't justify the price of the book. You can find blogs and other websites that will essentially give you the same material. There is nothing new here. I don't think that this book actually advances the Israel conversation very far. Rather, it is just a distillation of many of these author's larger works. The condensing of their thinking doesn't do much. As a result, I just can't recommend this book.

*Thanks to Kregal Academic for providing me a free review copy in exchange for a fair, unbiased review*

"Interpreting the General Letters" Review

Kregel Academic has been releasing a set called "Handbooks for New Testament Exegesis." This set is designed for pastors with a working knowledge of Greek to more ably exegete the New Testament. The newest volume Interpreting the General Letters by Herbert W. Bateman IV continues the purpose of this series by focusing on in-depth exegesis of the General Letters (Hebrews, James, 1 &2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, Jude). So is this volume worth a spot on your shelf?

Let me start off by saying that I theologically differ from the author. He holds to a dispensational view of biblical theology while I lean toward a New Covenant perspective. Disagreement aside, I still think this is a solid volume full of excellent advice and is full of help for pastors who want to hone their exegetical abilities. The first chapter is devoted to exploring the genre of the general letters. I particularly enjoyed the charts that Bateman included. This is not thrilling reading but it is necessary for a proper interpretation of the text.

The second chapter is devoted to the background of the General Letters. This chapter was actually pretty interesting. It involved a fairly intensive look at some of the influences of the General Letters. I learned several new things (including a plausible background of the rebellion in Jude [see pages 84-87]). The author spends a great deal of time focusing on the Greco-Roman background of the text.

Chapter three, in my opinion, is my favorite chapter in the book. Again, I disagree with the theological position of the author, but I still found is discussion of covenants and the fulfillment in the book of Hebrews enlightening. The chart on Hebrews on pages 111-113 is just fantastic. There are a number of other visuals in this chapter that really help bring to life the General Letters. 

Chapters four through seven, involving the actual process of exegesis all the way to preaching. There are numerous examples and charts that really help the exegete. I would actually suggest that this section is fairly exhaustive. I must also be honest: this is dry reading. I found it was best to read this section with my Greek New Testament open and a product of caffeine by my side.

Which makes me ponder a deeper question: why do so many exegetical works make the actual task of exegesis so dull? Chapters four through seven read like a textbook. Authors such as Michael Bird have made works of theology and exegesis interesting. Is there nothing to remedy this? I know I leave myself open to the charge of being immature or unprofessional but I will wager this: if I find this section unbelievably dull, the pastors it was intended for will to.

Let me go one step further: the pastor who is busy with his day to day work will not only struggle to make it through this text, he will become increasingly disenfranchised with the entire process of in-depth exegesis. That is tragic and frustrating. So how do I sum all this up?

I think the information here is valuable. I think it is helpful. I just do not like most of the way it is presented. It is dense. It is technical. It is not thrilling to get through.

Yet...

yet...

yet...

I think pastors should buy this. I think they should struggle through it. I think they should endure the difficult and technical nature of this work. Why? Because our churches need sound exegesis. The method laid out in this work is incredibly beneficial (albeit time consuming).

So it is worth a buy. Be aware this is not an easy, breezy text. You make disagree with elements of it. Yet ministry leaders need works like this because exegesis is an art. This book is a reminder of it.

*Thanks to Kregel Academic for the free book in exchange for a fair review*

Review of "A Commentary of Judges and Ruth" by Robert Chisholm Jr.

Kregel Academic has done us a great service by releasing A Commentary on Judges and Ruth, by Robert Chisholm Jr., professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Much like Zondervan's new exegetical commentary set, Kregel aims to present academically rigorous commentaries that are beneficial for pastors, who posses knowledge of Hebrew. For the pastor coming out of seminary who is hoping not to lose his knowledge of the languages, this is truly remarkable.

 There is space given on themes and application (helpful for any pastor laboring through how to apply tough passages to his congregation). Each section is also outlined and major exegetical issues involving Hbrew words is also given. The Hebrew is untransliterated (but honestly, how many people use the transliteration?) so knowledge of the language is a must to truly appreciate this series.

So the question is this: how does Chisholm Jr.'s contribution on Judges and Ruth hold up? Having spent some time in this fairly large volume, I can report that it is an excellent addition to the current list of Evangelical commentaries. It stands along side Block's work as my new go to commentaries. It is thorough (almost exhaustingly so) and heavily footnoted. It leaves no stone unturned and provides good insight into all of the controversial texts I looked up. For instance, in Ruth 3 (where an abundance of sexualized metaphors are used to discuss the encounter between Ruth and Boaz) Chisholm rightly notes that the language is used to highlight exactly what did NOT happen-there was no immorality involved.

My one issue with this series in general is the layout; it is just not a fun series to read. The font just screams, "fall asleep."  I also want to point out that the style of Chisholm Jr. is not the most engaging to read. It is fairly dull. Make no mistake: this is a reference work, not an evening read.

Those minor quibbles aside, I heartily recommend this work. It will, I trust, be truly valuable for those seeking to teach and preach through this complex and brilliant literary works.

Thanks to Kregal Academic who provided this book to me for free in exchange for a fair review.