On March 23rd, Dr. Gregg Strawbridge debated James White on the topic of infant baptism. Here is a presentation Dr. Strawbridge gave to Providence Church in Pensacola, FL. It contains the main arguments he used in his debate with James White. You can also buy his book, using the link on the sidebar, covering the same topic.
Book Review: Intellectuals
I do not usually post my book reviews, but reading this book helped me understand better our current cultural climate, in particular the elastic notion of truth that is so prevalent in politics, media, the church, and the university setting.
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
A book that is devastating to many of those that modern thinkers hold in high esteem, such as Rousseau, Marx, Tolstoy, Sarte and Brecht. Johnson knows a lot, has studied a lot, and is willing to call these men (and one woman) what they were: mean, greedy for fame and often money, immoral, hateful towards women and children, and above all persistent liars. Truth for them was malleable, especially when their reputation was at stake.
One reviewer said that Johnson ignored their good contributions, which is not true. He notes that if Tolstoy has stuck to writing he would have been fine. He says that Hemingway’s devotion to his craft was unsurpassed. But the point of the book is that they did not just write or speak. They thought they were messiahs who had some special destiny to guide humanity in truth. The theme is not what they did well, but how their lives were staunchly immoral, despite their accomplishments.
As I look around our world the thoughts and ideas of these men still echo, but it has shifted to Hollywood. Today it is not philosophy professors or even playwrights who shape thinking, but actors, directors, and the movies they make. Fascination with sexual freedom, the love of money, the shading of the truth in the name of Humanity, the desire to identify with the workers, excusing violence when it accomplishes their ends, and the vicious intolerance of all opposing viewpoints was characteristic of intellectuals and is now characteristic of Hollywood and our ruling class in general.
Unfortunately, Johnson’s book assumes, what can no longer be assumed, a standard of right and wrong that has long since be lost. Most who read it today will be fascinated, but ultimately will say, “So what that Hemingway was a drunk adulterer? Who cares that Marx lied? Who cares that men claimed to be pacifists, but often supported violence to accomplish their goals? What is that to me? I like their books and their ideas and their movies. And isn’t my opinion and feelings what really matters?” That response goes to show that, at least in America and Europe, the intellectuals have won.
Preach Good Works
The struggle between good works and justification by faith alone has roots that go deep into the history of the Church. One of the key debates in the Protestant Reformation was works and the role they play in the salvation of a man. In modern times, the lordship salvation debate between John MacArthur and some others in the 1990’s was really a debate about the nature and necessity of works in the Christian life. Numerous Scriptures were used throughout the debates both in the Reformation and in the modern quarrels. James 2:14-24 was beaten to death during the lordship salvation debates. Christ calling His people to obedience throughout the Gospels was also scrutinized by scholarly eyes. Paul’s letters to Rome, Corinth and Galatia were used on both sides of the argument.
One of Paul’s lesser known letters gives us some perspective on the issue of good works in the life of the Christian. In particular, I want to briefly address the reformed tendency to avoid any mention of good works from the pulpit for fear of being misunderstood.
Titus was written by St. Paul late in his life, probably between 62-64 A.D. The recipient, a Gentile Christian probably converted by Paul, was left in Crete to finish the work Paul had started there. It is not the most famous New Testament book. It is short and probably preferred by ministers for its pastoral content. You will rarely find it listed in someone’s “favorite books of the Bible” section. Despite its relative obscurity, it has numerous practical exhortations that are worth looking at.
In a recent reading of Titus I found the issue of good works being brought to my attention. Paul’s advice to Titus is particularly important because Titus was a pastor. What was Paul’s exhortation to this pastor on the island of Crete? Did he tell Titus to be very careful about mentioning good works? Did he imply that pressing good works upon the flock will make them legalists, who are earning their way to heaven? Did he only mention works in the context of our free salvation? Let’s see what was Paul’s admonition to this pastor.
There are seven uses of the Greek word, ergon, in Titus. Normally ergon is translated as work or deed. Here are the seven uses. I am using the New King James Version text.
1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.
2:6-7 Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, (7) in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility,
2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
3:4-5 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, (5) not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.
3:14 And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.
The verses that are most familiar to me, and probably to you as well, are the magnificent encapsulation of the Gospel found in Titus 3:4-5. These verses show that works are not the basis for our salvation. It is only because God is merciful and kind that we are redeemed. Works are left out of this equation entirely. Most Protestants are comfortable with these verses.
It is the remaining verses that make us uneasy. Paul is vocal, almost pushy, in exhorting Titus to preach good works to his people. Look at the language Paul uses, “a pattern of good works…zealous for good works…maintain good works…maintain good works.” Note especially 3:8. Paul wants Titus to constantly affirm (or ESV insist on these things) that those who believe in God should maintain (ESV devote themselves to) good works. For Paul good works are not a sign of legalism. Good works are the necessary fruit of a Christian life. They are absolutely essential. Pastors everywhere are to exhort their people to good works. I know of many pastors, especially reformed ones, who are afraid to use this type of language. They fear that they will be misunderstood. They fear that they will be accused of being legalistic or preaching works righteousness instead of justification by faith alone. But if we are going to preach Titus 3:4-5 we must also preach Titus 3:8 and 14. Paul did not shrink back from telling his people and his pastors to make good works a priority. A man who wants a ministry like Paul’s must not shrink back from that duty either.
Legalism in our preaching must be avoided. However, an issue of equal importance, if not greater, in the modern evangelical church is the failure to be holy, the failure to be zealous for good works. An effective minister will know which way the cultural wind is blowing and fight against it. In our age the danger is not just those who create new laws, like the Pharisees, but also those who reject obedience to God’s Word. A faithful minister will cut down this folly by preaching good works, exactly like Paul told Titus to.
Throwback Thursday: St. Chrysostom-Love of Reputation
I found this quote in On Living Simply. I really enjoyed the book. This quote shows great pastoral wisdom. It uncovers the hidden sin of pride that so many of us cover up with external virtues.
There are many disciples of Christ who can justly claim that they are indifferent to material possessions. They happily live in simple huts, wear rough woolen clothes, eat frugally, and give away the bulk of their fortunes. These same people can justly claim that they are indifferent to worldly power. They happily work in the most humble capacities, performing menial tasks, with no desire for high rank. But there may still be one earthly attribute to which they cling: reputation. They may wish to be regarded by others as virtuous. They may want to be admired for their charity, their honesty, their integrity, their self-denial. They may not actually draw people’s attention to these qualities, but they are pleased to know that others respect them. Thus when someone falsely accuses them of some wrongdoing, they react with furious indignation. They protect their reputation with the same ferocity as the rich people protect their gold. Giving up material possessions and worldly power is easy compared with giving up reputation. To be falsely accused and yet to remain spiritually serene is the ultimate test of faith.
Loving Better on Valentine’s Day
In my room, hidden away in a shoebox are all the love letters that I wrote to my wife while we were dating. Most of them are embarrassing, bad poetry mixed with terrible sentimentality and lack of masculinity. If you wanted to make me blush then get some of these and post them on the web. However, there is one piece of paper I am proud of. After we got engaged, we spent a summer counseling kids at a camp out in Oregon. It was a good summer, but also a hard one. I was not ready to care for a woman. We were not married yet, which added to the tension. I was generally selfish and arrogant, which made me a hard fiance. As I worked through my own selfishness I decided to try to love her better. Naturally I went to I Corinthians 13, the love chapter. I wrote down on a sheet of paper each characteristic of love Paul mentions in verses 4-7. Then I wrote specific ways I would try imitate that love in my relationship with my bride to be. Here are some examples:
Love is patient/long suffering-I will not interrupt her when she talks. I will not be upset when she is late to meet me. I will keep my hands off of her and wait patiently for marriage.
Love is not rude-I will speak kindly to her. I will not make fun of her or her views on things like movies. I will be attentive when I am around her family and respect them.
Love rejoices with the truth-I will rejoice when she is more righteous in an area than I am. When she shares what she learns from reading Scripture I will listen, assuming that God has something for me in what she is saying.
I listed at least ten specific things I would do for each characteristic of love that Paul mentions in I Corinthians 13:4-7. Many of them are trite, but they expressed a desire to be more godly. The total came to almost four pages of lined paper. At family worship this morning we read this passage. I was reminded of how wonderful and how painful that text is. Paul cuts us up with the Word.
Perhaps this Valentine’s Day you should take some time and examine how well you are loving those around you. How are you treating your spouse, your children, your parents, your friends? Make a list of all those traits Paul mentions, patience, kindness, not irritated/easily provoked, not seeking your own, bearing all things, etc. Then list some specific ways you would like to change. Ten per item is too many. My exuberance got the better of me in that cabin nineteen years ago. Now I realize how hard it is to improve in one area, much less ten. So list one specific way you would like to be more patient. One way would stop rejoicing in iniquity/wrongdoing. One way you should stop being puffed up. Keep the list somewhere you can look at it, perhaps in your Bible or journal. Pray over it. Work at it. It will not make you more spiritual overnight. It is not going to taste as good as chocolate or smell as good as that dinner you are planning for your wife or look as good as what you plan on wearing this evening. But it may be the best thing you can do on Valentine’s Day for those you love.<>
The Swimsuit Issue and the Failure of Egalitarianism
I read SI.com (Sports Illustrated for the uninitiated) most of the year. During the NFL season Peter King’s Monday Morning Quarterback is one of my favorite reads. However, every February I have to avoid the site for a few days. When they roll out their annual swimsuit issue, scantily clad women are everywhere. Here are some facts about the SI Swimsuit Issue.
-In 2005, the latest date I could find figures for, this issue generated 35 million dollars in ad revenue. Secondary products, such as calendars, generate another 10 million dollars in revenue.
-This single issue makes up 7% of the SI’s total annual revenue.
-All advertisers, including those who make the swimsuits and jewelry that the women wear, see substantial increase in sales.
-Tourism spikes in the locations where the models get photographed .
-The Swimsuit Issue sells over 1 million copies on newsstands, which is 10 to 15 times the average sales of an SI issue. There are also over 3 million SI subscribers. Last year they launched a Swimsuit Issue website where millions more folks read it.
-It is the single best selling issue in Time Inc.’s magazine franchise, which includes well known magazines, such Time, People, Entertainment Weekly, and lesser known gems like Rugby World.
-Cover models and many of those within the magazine become famous, go on to promote numerous other products, and become rich.
The Swimsuit Issue is a cultural phenomenon and financial goldmine.
The SI Swimsuit Issue is a good case study into how well egalitarianism works. Egalitarianism is the flattening out of differences. It tries to destroy hierarchy in the name of “all men being equal.” In reality it is a fight against gravity, against the way God made the world. One would assume in world devoted to the “advancement of women” that the Swimsuit Issue would slowly fade away and become a relic of a bygone era of male domination. Yet despite all the protests of the cultural elite, despite years of egalitarian indoctrination, despite egalitarianism being the default worldview of most Americans, the Swimsuit Issues not only goes on, but becomes more powerful. The Swimsuit Issues shows that gravity wins in the end. Egalitarianism has failed in its stated agenda; to make things better for women. There are exceptions to what I am about to say and this is but one slice of our cultural pie. However, we see egalitarianism’s failure in the Swimsuit issue.
First, despite egalitarianism’s contrary claim, women are different from men. Women have things men don’t. Men want to look at those things. Put a half (mostly?) naked man on the cover and do you get the same sales? Of course not! Why? Because men and women are different both in body and in personal make up. But, of course the scholars contest this. “Men and women are really the same,” they opine. “What is in our pants doesn’t make us who we are.” Just because women have wombs and breasts doesn’t mean they were made to have babies. I am not saying SI agrees with my assessment about why women are different. And I know they are using those differences between men and women in a twisted way. But they and their readers know that women and men are not interchangeable. The auto mechanic who reads the Swimsuit Issue knows more about how God made the world than the Ph.D. who has spent years and millions of dollars in grants trying to prove men and women are really the same.
Second, some women are more beautiful than others. Egalitarianism denies any hierarchy, including a hierarchy of beauty. Christians tend to deny this as well. We think we are being nice by denying that some women are more beautiful than others. But in reality we are just lying. Of course, all women are beautiful in certain ways. I think my wife is beautiful. And you should think the same about your wife. The definition of beauty can shift from time to time and place to place. Yet in every culture there are women who are more beautiful than other women. Again the Swimsuit Issue proves this. Why not just put your average woman on the cover in a bikini? Because your average woman, while probably a wonderful woman, is not as beautiful as Kate Upton. Despite egalitarianism’s claim, all women are not created with equal beauty.
Third, egalitarianism has not caused men to stop treating women like sex objects. Men buy 1 million copies of the Swimsuit Issue because they want to look at half-naked women. There is a reason for this. Women were made for sex and so were men. SI has taken that and perverted it, but there is a truth in their perversion. I find it odd that many egalitarians fight against men who they think are too patriarchal, but refuse to protest things like the Swimsuit Issue, pornography, and Fifty Shades of Grey. You can’t on the one hand claim that women are more than sex objects, but then encourage women to parade their breasts to the watching world as a sign of their freedom from being a sex object. This goes for many of pop music’s female stars as well. They dress provocatively, dance provocatively, sing provocatively, but then they don’t want women to be treated like objects. By the way, I am not saying men who treat women like objects are justified. It is wrong to do so. My point is that egalitarians speak out of both sides of their mouths. You can’t say, “Don’t treat us like objects” and then go make yourself an object to be stared at. A vast majority of the women in this world were made for a sexual relationship. Either they become sex objects for leering men, are rejected because they are not sexy enough, or they become objects of affection and protection for loving husbands. Egalitarianism only provides us with the first two.
So how should Christians respond to SI’s perversions and egalitarianism’s siren songs?
First, we should rejoice in the differences between men and women, including the physical differences. God made us with certain parts. He likes it that way. Solomon encouraged husbands to be intoxicated with their wife’s breasts (Proverbs 5:19). All attempts to flatten out the differences between men and women should be rejected. Instead these differences should be properly celebrated.
Second, we should acknowledge that God has given certain people gifts that are to be used to his glory. Strength, intelligence, riches, and power are all gifts from God. Beauty is a gift from God as well though we don’t often think about it that way. Women who are beautiful should not trust in their beauty, but neither should they deny their beauty. They should use it in a way that honors God. Often beautiful women get a platform that other women do not just as men who are strong will be called on to do things that other men are not.
Third, Christians should acknowledge that a vast majority of the people in this world were created for a sexual relationship. Single men should look forward to the day when sex is a regular part of their life. Single women should know that God made them to have regular sex with a man and bear children with him. I am not saying all people get this. Nor am I saying you are less of a Christian if God does not provide this for you. But this is the norm and should be treated as such. Sex is good when the boundaries in Scriptures are maintained. Christians should teach this basic concept without giving mini-sessions on how to have a good sex life.
Finally, Christians must remember that egalitarianism destroys women. Egalitarianism is one of the foundation stones of modern thinking. It claims to improve the status of woman and to empower them. However, it has helped create an environment where in February 2015 we will get the best selling issue of any English magazine in the world and it is completely devoted to women being willing objects of lust. Later we will get a movie based on a book, written by a woman, that has sold over 100 million copies where women again are treated like sex objects, this time in bondage fantasies. We could go on about TV shows by women that treat women as sex objects to pop songs sung by women where they act like sex objects. Of course, there is more rotten fruit from egalitarianism, such as women going to war. But even looking at this one sliver, how women are treated sexually, egalitarianism has not improved the plight of women. In fact it has lead down the opposite path; the degradation of women. A church that compromises with egalitarianism will wake up to find that some of the people she loves and needs the most, grandmothers, mothers, wives, and daughters are broken not by wicked, harsh tyrants, but rather by those who speak the soft, soothing sounds of equality.<>
Happiness Begins With Knowing That Your Sins are Great
The 2nd question in the Heidelberg Catechism is this:
Q: 2. How many things are necessary for you to know, that you, enjoying this comfort, may live and die happily?
What a great question! What do I need to know that I might live and die happily? Isn’t this what everyone wants? What man, woman, or child does not want to live a happy life? Who doesn’t want to die happy? But what is the answer? How much do I need to know that my life might be a happy one? Do I need to know how to get rich? Do I need to know how to be a good person? Do I need to know how to get married? Do I need to know the joys of freedom from law? What do I need to know to live and die happily? Here is the answer given by the Heidelberg:
A: Three; the first, how great my sins and miseries are; the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.
Not what you expected? We don’t usually put the fact that our sins are great as the first thing that will help us live and die happily. In fact, sin is usually considered the beginning of all our problems. But here is where happiness begins. Your best life now begins with the fact that your sins are so great that if they were drops of water the oceans would be too small to hold them. The life of joy and happiness begins with your heart being black and your hands being covered in blood.
Why does happiness begin at such an odd place?
First, the fact that we are great sinners is reality. Human beings, even Christians, often think we are not really that bad. We justify our sins. We minimize our sins. We pretend we don’t sin. We blame our sins on other people. We cover up our sins. We do anything we can to make sure our sins don’t look too black. But reality is always defined by God’s Word, not by us. Psalm 130:3 states that our sins are great. Romans says the same thing. It is assumed from Genesis 3 on that our sins are so great that we cannot save ourselves. Understanding that we are great sinners helps us see the world (and ourselves) the way it is and not the way we want it to be.
Second, only when we know our sins are great will we understand Jesus and His substitutionary work on the cross for us. When we minimize sin we minimize the cross and Jesus. When we minimize Jesus happiness, joy, comfort, delight, and peace are lost. Without sin there is no need for Christ. Without Christ all good things disappear. Until our sins are seen for what they are we cannot see Jesus rightly. And only by seeing Jesus rightly can we have pleasures forevermore.
As odd as it sounds, happiness begins with seeing yourself as a great sinner.
Are you a happy person? Do you enjoy life? Do you enjoy the comfort of the great salvation given to us in Jesus Christ? Would your spouse, your children, your co-workers, your neighbors describe you as a joyful person? If you died tomorrow would you “die happily?” If the answer is no, then perhaps you think too much of yourself. Perhaps you do not realize how great your sins are. Perhaps you spend a lot of time hiding your sins, pretending they are “mistakes” or “flaws.” Perhaps you are more concerned about how you look to others than about the reality of who you are. Step into the light. Your sins are great. That is a fact. But Jesus is greater. And only in a great Jesus can true happiness be found.
<>
Fathers, Send Your Sons to Battle
“When God gets excited about his sons, he wants to send them into battle. He sends his sons into the fray. ‘This is my son!’ he announces proudly, and then he sends him to face Satan.’This is my son!’ and he sends him to battle demons. ‘This is my son!” He sends him t o face false accusations, to be mocked, spat upon, and beaten to a bloody pulp. When God loves his sons, he sends them into battle. If God did not spare his own Son in his love, how much more so will he love all of his beloved sons. His love is not aimless; it is not sadistic. His love rejoices in the glory that comes after the battle, the glory of victory, and preeminently the glory of communion with him.” (Pastor Toby Sumpter in Job Through New Eyes: A Son for Glory)
In this section of Pastor Sumpter’s book he is answering the question, “Why did God point Job out to Satan?” The scene disturbs us. Satan comes to God and God puts a big bull’s eye on Job’s back (Job 1:8). We look at that and say, “I hope God never does that to me.” “I hope I never reach the status of blameless and upright or God might send Satan my way.” I like Pastor Sumpter’s answer to this dilemma. Job is a good, God-honoring man. But that is not enough. God wants to move Job from “good” to “very good.” God delights in Job and therefore God sends him to the front lines. Job is a righteous man so God kicks him out of the nest. Job is like Christ: a true, faithful son who must suffer.
No thought from this book struck me like this one. I have six sons. I want them to seek glory, the glory that a faithful servant of God gets. I want them to delight their Father in Heaven. I want them to walk by the Spirit and trust in Christ. But like so many fathers, I do not want them to suffer. I don’t want them to go through what Job went through. I do not want them to be mocked, hated, despised, suffering. I do not want to see them in pain. I do not want them to lose what they hold dear. I do not want them to wallow in dust and ashes. In short, I want them to take the Devil’s bargain in the wilderness: glory, but no cross (Luke 4:5-7).
Fathers, if we are to raise sons like the Son then we must send them into battle. We must watch them suffer, bleed, and die. We must not live in fear. We must not hide them. We must not shield them from the world, the flesh, and the Devil. Too many fathers do this, especially homeschooling fathers. Instead, we must give our sons the tools, the weapons to fight. We should put a sword their hand and tell them, “Son if you want to be like Jesus you must fight, suffer, bleed, and die, but in the end you will be raised.” We must love them enough to send into the fray. If we delight in our sons then we will rejoice when they enter the battle.<>
On Making Movies and Being Christian
Recently my son spent some time with another young man who was visiting our church with his family. Both of these boys are eleven. They talked about movies. But they did not talk watching them. They talked about making them. How many young men are out there who want to make movies or act in them? Humans love stories. We love to hear them and we love to tell them. As our children grow we should expect them to write great stories. But we should also expect them to direct great stories. Here are some thoughts on the present state and suggestions for the future growth of Christian movie makers.
First, Christian movie making is in its infancy. Hopefully, in time, the industry will gain maturity and wisdom in how movies are made. We need to give these men time to grow up. We can’t expect a six year old to act forty-five. By the way, this also means we need older Christians involved in the movie making business. Maturity often comes with age. Unfortunately, too many Christian film makers are young.
Second, I am grateful for the men who are making these movies. I do not agree with everything they do, but they are paving the way for the next generation. Critics should be more humble. It is hard to make a good movie, just take a peek at all the trash on Netflix that somehow still got made.
Third, Christian movie makers need to be open to criticism. Many Christians, especially in the arts, insulate themselves from criticism. Just because you are doing it for Jesus doesn’t mean you get a pass. And this doesn’t just mean criticism from other Christians.
Fourth, if we want the next generation of movie makers to make better movies, we need to give them better stories. Our educational system, public and Christian, has gotten rid of many great stories. Here is where the older practice of a classical education can help us with a very modern issue; how to make good movies. Shakespeare, Dante, Beowulf, Steinbeck, Dickens, and of course, the Bible fill our minds with great stories. If we absorb these stories it will go a long way towards making better movies.
Fifth, a good story on paper does not magically become a good movie. We need Christians who understand what a visual medium is for. A movie is not a lecture, novel, or short story. Words on a page are not the same as dialogue plus images. Christians need to examine how this medium can be used to help people to see the world as God made it. Studying great directors can be a help here. You may not agree with Scorsese or Spielberg or Fincher, but they should be studied none the less, much as one studies Hemingway or Twain when it comes to literature.
Sixth, movies are not preaching or evangelism. A movie cannot do the work of a minister or an evangelist. This is one of the most helpful things a Christian movie maker can remember. Your movie cannot do what the preaching of God’s Word does. Don’t shove it into that hole. Let movies do what they are supposed to: tell a story using words and pictures. They can pave the way for the preaching of the good news, but they cannot be a substitute for it.
Seventh, Christians need to find ways to show sin in a way that does not cause a sailor to blush but is realistic. This is a difficult balance, but not impossible. Older horror movies can give some guidance here. What is implied, but not shown, is often most effective. We are used to seeing everything so we forget the impact of not seeing, but still knowing. One example of this is in the Coen Brothers’ film, No Country for Old Men. The villain meets the main character’s wife. We know he is going to kill her. They talk inside the house. Then we see the bad guy on the front porch wiping blood off his boot. Nothing is seen. But everything is understood. Great directors, such as Alfred Hitchcock, are masters of the unseen. Evils, such as rape, adultery, dismemberment, etc. can all be a part of a Christian movie when we understand this. These scenes should not be pornographic, exploitative, nor simplistic, but they should sufficient impact. The one dimensional nature of sin is a great deficiency in Christian movies. The Devil with horns, the wicked man who is always converted, or the happy ending for all is not true to Scripture or experience.
Eighth, piggybacking on my last point, Christian movies do not have to end with an altar call, be explicitly about God, be sappy, void of sex, violence, and language, or end with the couple sitting contentedly watching the sun set. Saul committed suicide and his body was cut into pieces. David’s son killed his incestuous half-brother. Jehu piled up heads. Judas hung himself and his guts spilled out. Paul was stoned and then walked back into the city. The structure and content of Christian movies should reflect God, his ways, and the fallen world we live in. But all genres, horror, action, animation, drama, science -fiction, comedy, period epics, and even romantic comedies and almost any topic can be used to do this. Too many Christians view Hallmark films as the paradigm for making their movies instead of the Scriptures.
Ninth, on the flip side, Christians should not be afraid of putting a hero on the screen. Antiheroes are all the rage these days. But, in many ways, having a true hero, who is good, but not perfect is more difficult than putting a wicked man on screen. Often the good guy in a movie comes across as one dimensional. But we have a real hero in Jesus Christ. Somehow that idea needs to be translated to the screen without us having to make a movie about Jesus. Along with this, we should not be afraid of happy endings either. The world really does end with overwhelming joy for those in Christ. Some of our movies should as well. Just as Hallmark films should not be our paradigm, neither should the nihilistic darkness that represents so much of modern movies and TV shows. Just as there is Saul there is also David. Just as there is Judas, there are the faithful disciples who see the risen Christ. Just as there is Jezebel there is also Ruth and Esther.
Tenth, we need rich Christians to finance the movie making endeavors of other Christians. A good product does not always require money, but it usually does. Money does matter.
Eleventh, it is okay for Christians to make movies for a narrow audience. Secular people do that all the time. Many movies that play at places like Cannes are narrow in their audience appeal. If Christians want to make movies that are primarily apologetic, just for church goers, or a documentary about the evils of public education that is fine. The problem is that we have not yet effectively branched out into “mainstream” movie making.
Twelfth, we need Christians who see movie making as a vocation, not a hipster fad. Movie stars and directors are the gods of America. They are rich, pampered, and most of all cool. It is easy for a Christian to think he is getting into movie making for God when his ego is the real motivation. He chooses to make movies to fill a need in himself instead of as a way to serve. Movie making is like being an architect, auto mechanic, or business manager. It is a job that needs to be done well, to the glory of God, and as way to love our neighbor. We don’t need more Christians who want to be hip and reach out to the hip people of the world through movies. We need Christians who view movie making and all its side jobs, lighting, costumes, etc as a calling that requires skill, training, and diligence. We need normal, grounded, men in the movie business who have wives, children, go to worship each Sunday, and have done something besides make short films with their phone.
Thirteenth, there is nothing wrong with Christians making movies for fun and entertainment. It is odd that many Christian movie makers and those who love the secular, small budget, indie movies both believe movies must be profound to be worth making. They disdain movies that are just for entertainment. But there is nothing wrong with Guardians of the Galaxy or Jason Bourne. They are McDonalds, instead of the local steak house. They are the Saturday morning t-shirt instead of a three piece suit. They usually won’t change your life. But they are fun, exciting, and well-made. There is nothing wrong with Christians making these types of movies.
There is more that needs to be said, especially about how Christians interact with the Hollywood complex and all her wickedness. But in the end, God, His world, and the people who live in it are amazing. There are millions of stories out there, some true, some not so true, and some pure myth that can be told. There are tragedies, comedies, horror stories, and love stories. Christians can and should be telling all these types of stories. The glowing screen presents many dangers for God’s people, but like any tool it also presents an opportunity to tell the world Who we worship and what the world He made is like.<>
Knocking on the Paedo Baptist Door
Here is an older article by Tim Challies on when credo baptists should baptize their children. He is gracious with those who believe that young children can believe and be baptized, but he suggests that Baptists should wait until children are older, particularly the later teen years. This position is similar to Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is senior pastor. I realize that the position Challies holds is not what all Baptists hold. But it is a common one and the dominant paradigm in my experience. There are several points I want to make about this article.
First, Challies’ definition of “credible profession of faith” is not found in the book of Acts. He argues that someone must have knowledge and maturity in order to have a credible profession of faith. But almost every baptism in Acts immediately follows a response to the preaching of the Word. There is no delay to determine whether or not someone has knowledge or is mature enough to receive baptism. In Acts 2:41 3,000 people are baptized the day that Peter preaches to them. In Acts 8:12 we see that Philip baptized people who heard him preach the same day. At the end of the same chapter Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. There are numerous other examples in Acts (10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) of baptisms quickly following a profession of faith. There does not appear to be any biblical reason to delay baptism following a profession of faith. In some cases, like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, there could have been discussion about the faith. Even here it would have been only rudimentary. But almost every case in Acts there is nothing other than preaching and response. With the 3,000 on Pentecost there would not have been time to evaluate the participants knowledge and maturity. May be Challies is pulling his definition of credible profession of faith from another book of the Bible. If he is, he does not say so. This brings us to one of the central problems with the Baptist “credible profession of faith” approach. If we use the Biblical text then we baptize immediately upon “profession of faith.” That is the example in Acts. But with children and many adults Baptists often wait. Why? And if a Baptist would immediately baptize an adult who professes faith, why would they not immediately baptize a child who professes faith? What makes an adult profession of faith more valid than a child’s? In Acts knowledge and maturity is not a requirement for baptism. This means a four year old child who says, “I believe in Jesus” should be taken as seriously as a 24 year old.
Second, he does not mention a single passage that talks about children. The New Testament mentions children numerous times. It is odd to develop a thesis about baptizing children without at least referencing passages on children.
Third, he seems to think the only problem is baptizing children too early. But what if a child really does trust in Christ, which Challies says can occur, and we refuse to baptize him? Doesn’t that create doubt in his mind about his own conversion? What if credo-baptists teach their children that “your profession is not good enough?” Do Baptists create doubt by making them wait and then they fulfill the prophecy by acting unregenerate? Baptists tell their children, “We don’t know if you belong or not.” Then are surprised when the children act like they don’t belong. At the end of the article he states that by postponing baptism Baptists allow the child to pass through periods of uncertainty. But what if a period of uncertainty is created by postponing baptism?
Fourth, it sounds like he is arguing that we should not treat someone as truly saved until they leave their parents behind. Where is the Scriptural proof for this particular point? Parents are told to instruct their children in the faith and the ways of Christ. If a parent does this well then Christ will be present in the child’s life from the moment they are born. An obedient child is one who listens to their parents and obeys their commands. This would include the command to trust in Christ. Where is the Biblical data that says, “Once someone shows years of being faithful then we can baptize them?” Where in the Bible are parents told, “Wait to treat your children like Christians until they show years of faithfulness?” Again, this paradigm creates a culture of doubt for both parents and child. Parents are never quite sure of their child’s standing and not surprisingly the child doubts any conversion as well.
Fifth, it is not inevitable, but there is a danger that his perspective leads to baptism by works. If you stay faithful after you leave your parents then we will know you are really saved. If you show enough theological knowledge then we will know you really believe. If you show enough maturity then we will know truly trust in Christ. Once we know you really believe, then we will baptize you. Under this view baptism is no longer an entrance into the Christian life, the beginning of someone’s discipleship (Matthew 28:18-20). It is an entrance to graduate school. It becomes a sign of spiritual maturity instead of a sign of God’s grace. It makes assurance of salvation through works a prerequisite to baptism instead being a fruit that springs from baptism. Need less to say, that seems backwards. I know that Baptists will refute this, but logically it is hard to see how baptism is not something you earn using Challies’ paradigm.
A couple of closing points.
A Baptist who refuses to baptize quickly upon a profession faith is not holding to the explicit pattern of baptism given to us in Acts. This might be fine, if they are drawing principles from passages outside of the baptisms in Acts. But an accusation often hurled at paedos, especially in popular books, is that we do not take seriously enough the explicit pattern set in Acts. However, it is hypocritical of credo-baptists to accuse paedo-baptists of ignoring the explicit baptismal pattern in Acts when Baptists are doing the same thing with their profession of faith theology.
Popular credo-baptist theology often does not deal sufficiently with the New Testament passages on children.
Making someone’s acceptance into the people of God dependent upon their spiritual maturity would seem to contradict numerous passages in the Bible, including Jeremiah 31:34 where the New Covenant includes the least to greatest. It can also create a works oriented paradigm and lead to doubt. Creating doubt is one way we cause little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6), which makes doubt just as dangerous as premature baptism.
Finally, a Baptist paradigm rooted in Acts would baptize quickly upon profession of faith and would take the profession of a three year old as seriously as that of 23 year old. There is no reason to do otherwise, unless you make maturity a prerequisite for baptism, which is unbiblical. Of course at that point they are knocking on the paedo baptist door. It is only a matter of time before someone opens and says, “Welcome, you and your children.”<>
