How will they Know We are Christians (if We don't Know)?

Beware of Christians, an independent film surrounding the orthopraxy of Christian living, discusses what it means to live out the teachings of the Bible and how believers struggle to be set apart, truly practicing their faith, and allowing Christianity to make a difference in human lives.

Beware of Christians, inspired this post, but the approach herein is from a different perspective. However, I am asking a question the film implies. How will they know we are Christians? Whoever they are, they probably don’t know we are Christians or they know because we call them sinners.

  

We, all professing Christians, do not see Christ and scripture within the same lens. We are a mixed breed and the best (or worst) of sinners. We are liberals, legalists, complacent, conservative, spiritual, fundamentalist, moderate, and/or religious. We are not the same, but we share the same God and the same label.

Apart from a mixture of differing theological views, Christians are redeemed from their sinner state through the work of the cross event (Jesus’ death and resurrection). Whether they focus on sin or grace, Christians, like the rest of the world, are people and the Son of God died for people (Christians, sinners, non-believers, everyone) as God’s gift to the world.

Are we, as Christians, aware that we are the ones responsible for our own disrespect? Christians who are anti-sins have driven people to disregard what we say about God. Christians who are pro-grace have spent so much time “being all things to all people” that we are forgetting to see if it’s made a difference to the rest of the world.

Will we start loving each other in a way that lets the world know who the God of the cross is and why Christ’s redemption is relevant to all humanity?

The world knows who Christians are and that is why they don’t know Christ.

How will they know we are Christians, is the wrong question. Instead, I ask, knowing that I am equally responsible, how will we (the world) know Christ? We will know because the cross event has redeemed the world through God's love.

 

Fear vs. Hope: "Written on the Bullet" (A Film Reflection)

In a gripping case of art imitating life, the film April Showers took me back to April 20, 1999, where I sat in my Freshmen Government class at my Denver High School, as we watched the events of the infamous Columbine shooting on the local news.

As a Denver native, the effects of the Columbine High School shooting have always different – like it went down in my neighborhood. On the other hand, the bombardment of attention Columbine received got old after too long. I, like many others, just wanted to move on from the tragedy. After watching the movie April Showers, which pays tribute to the countless victims of school shootings, I was reminded of Columbine, and thought about something deeper.

What would I think about God if I lived through something like that; moreover, what would I think if I lived and a friend didn’t? On top of that thought, how would I feel if one of my friends did something like that? A tragedy like Columbine has a lot of complex facets that don’t exactly wrap up into a neat package. Events like this changed the nation. In turn, what is a Christian response to violent, deadly, events that change the face of our schools and our nation?

Our world is broken, this is nothing new. It’s okay to feel sorrow when things fall to pieces. It’s okay to doubt and question God when the chaos of the world unfolds before our eyes. Yet, we are here with a life to live, even if that life is amidst chaos, pain, tragedy, violence, and other human brokenness that we don’t fully understand. We can choose to live in hope or in fear. But, a line from April Showers shares some insight, “The fear of pain is the fear of living.” Hopefully, these horrific events in our world don’t leave us bound in fear and we can put our hope in the redemption of the cross through the faith God gives us.

  

The God Who Wasn't There: a Scholarly Response

The documentary film, The God Who Wasn’t There, by Brian Flemming makes a lot of statements, but not all of them are obvious to the film’s creator. The filmmaker is a former Fundamentalist-Christian, turned Fundamentalist-Atheist. Thus, his interpretive lens is trapped by his past and present bias; unable to see Christianity, its scriptures, its doctrines, or traditions outside of that Fundamentalist viewpoint. Strategically, the documentarian attempts to turn “Moderate Christians” and Fundamentalist Christians against one another, by claiming that Fundamentalists have it right. In the film, Flemming uses historical criticism and literary criticism to bolster his anti-theology. However, his historical criticism is weak, his literary criticism fails miserably, and he completely ignores any cultural analysis.

In a historical timeline, the documentarian refers to the time between the gospel events and the gospel recordings, as the period “everyone forgot.” He goes on to state that this was a forty year time span. As for forgetting, in the words of scholar Rowan Williams, “There is little or no trace in the first Christian decades of a Christianity unmarked by devotion to Jesus as a living agent.” In contrast to the film’s proposed 70 A.D. authorship, of the gospel accounts, and the forty year gap between events and their recordings: the first accounts of Mark could be as early as 65 A.D. (Christopher Tuckett). Additionally, Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians and Galatians were recorded around 50 A.D. (Markus Bockmuehl). Okay, so what, the film’s historical timeline is off by two, possibly three, decades; Flemming still has literary criticism.

In conjunction with the filmmaker’s weak historical criticism, there are at least three major literary criticism failures. The first, claiming that “God isn’t a moderate,” the film quotes Luke 19:27 for support, and ignores that this is the end of a parabolic text. In other words, Jesus was telling a story. The second, inferring that Paul never thought Jesus was, “on Earth,” the documentary uses a quote from a verse in the book of Hebrews. Yet, if “nobody told Paul,” why does he mention Jesus’ interaction with Peter and the twelve (1 Cor. 15:3-7)? Nevertheless, many scholars – conservative and liberal alike – indicate that we don’t know the author of the book of Hebrews.

The third fail, claims that the Gospel according to Mark was not based on history; this automatically implies that the accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John weren’t either – because the documentarian, Brian Flemming, says they all came from Mark’s account. Using the film’s position against itself – because the Synoptic Problem (Matthew and Luke) and the Two-level Drama concept (John) are too great for the scope of this post – if the events of the gospel accounts were not historical, why did non-Christian figures in history, like Josephus, mention that Jesus was put to death by Pilate? Perhaps, The God Who Wasn’t There showed up in the scholarship. Perhaps, The God Who Wasn’t There is gracious enough to redeem a trapped interpretive lens. Perhaps, The God Who Wasn’t There is no reduced God, to this “Moderate Christian.” The God who is there, died for you.


 For more thoughts on this film visit:The Logic of the Cross.

 

A Divine and Sinless Christ: The Last Temptation of Christ

If a snake said to me, “look at my breasts, do you recognize them,” I’d put myself in a straightjacket. This is just one of many provocative, albeit controversial, moments in the novel turned film, The Last Temptation of Christ. The story deals with two primary theological questions (though there were others): Was Jesus without sin and what is the nature of Christ (is he God)? The film depicts Jesus as a sinful being and waivers back and forth with his Godhood.

In the film, the “last temptation,” if you will, thwarts the cross event – death and resurrection – and the justification (salvation) of the human race. Compared to that, the other temptations in the film (sexual encounters, lying, retribution, and so on) are just playful mockery of the divine essence of Jesus Christ. As the story goes, Jesus sinned, by being deceived out of fulfilling the resurrection. One could infer, he did not have the power of God in him and that is why the Archangel of Satan was able to trick him.

Truthfully, the deception of Jesus Christ is quite a claim and one ought to ask, how does a Christian respond to The Last Temptation of Christ? First, it is important to remember that the film is fiction. Second, learn to laugh at the controversially-erotic content of the film – you might be entertained by the absurdity. Third, don’t be afraid to allow films, like this one, to make you think over challenging questions.

As for the primary theological questions raised in the film, Paul talks about the sin nature, in conjunction with Jesus, in 2 Corinthians 5 (it is found elsewhere too) and says Christ was without sin. And, for the divine characteristic of Christ, John 10:22-30 emphatically declares that Christ, the Son, and God, the Father, are one. Finally, the cross event – death and resurrection of the Messiah – is the most important event in human history and its salvific effect cannot be thwarted.

The Silent Shadows

Inspired by the film Listen to Your Heart.

What if I could not hear?

What if I could not see?

What if I could not speak?

Would beauty be the same to me?

I take life for granted,

In spite of all the miracles;

Selfish and lackluster,

In spite of being lyrical.

What if I could not hear?

What if I could not see?

What if I could not speak?

Would love be the same to me?

I’ve walked roads of faith and doubt;

Missing the point, as much as ever.

Treating love, like a selfish gain,

Causing its truth to sever.

What if I could not hear?

What if I could not see?

What if I could not speak?

Would sorrow be the same to me?

In the silent shadows, I sit,

Longing for a better life than the one that exists –

Something with this picture doesn’t quite fit.

How much havoc do I have to list?

If I could not hear, beauty would be the feeling of sound.

If I could not hear, love would be captured with a smile.

If I could not hear, sorrow, would still be sorrow.

If I could not see, beauty would be the feeling of a breeze or the warmth of a hug.

If I could not see, love would be blind to all that is tainting.

If I could not see, sorrow, would still be sorrow.

If I could not speak, beauty would be that feeling we get when someone treats us well.

If I could not speak, love would be an action; not a string of words.

If I could not speak, sorrow, would still be sorrow.

Since I can hear, since I can see; since I can speak,

Couldn’t beauty and love be all of those things to me?

I take life for granted, as we all do,

That’s why sorrow will always be sorrow –

No matter what we’re going through.

Yet, beauty and love could always change tomorrow.

"You Sholdn't Say Sucks:" The Chaperone Review

I’m starting to feel like a bit of a movie critic, but I assure you it’s just coincidence that I talked about a movie in my last post and am about to in this post. The Chaperone stars “Triple H” (of WWE fame) and will probably be overlooked by most people. Admittedly, I would have passed this film up if I weren’t a “Triple H” fan.

The family comedy, filled with heartwarming sentiment and nose-breaking action, illustrates why it’s important not to judge a book by its cover. Personally, I’m not surprised that “Triple H” can act, I saw Blade Trinity and if you’ve ever seen his DX bits on WWE television, you know the man has a knack for humor. I was expecting another WWE Films, flop, but got enjoyable entertainment instead.

Truthfully, The Chaperone is worth watching. One does not have to be a WWE fan to enjoy this movie (in fact, it would probably help if you’re not into WWE). Unlike, John Cena, who was all muscle and no character in The Marine or Steve Austin (who seems a bit stoic on the big screen) “Triple H” portrayed a decently realistic father trying to rebuild a broken relationship with his adolescent daughter. The Chaperone is a mix of Con-Air, meets, Senior Trip, fused with self-help, and second chances. I’m not saying that “The Game” is going to win an Oscar for his performance as “Ray Bradstone” in The Chaperone, but the movie is enjoyable, entertaining, and worth the watch (an added bonus is that you can find it on Netflix streaming).

The Legend of Virtue

Virtue is part of what keeps people human. Understanding the depths of virtue may be a different story. In pondering virtue, one might ask, is it better to possess virtue or to believe in virtue? Tonight, I watched the film, The Next Three Days and the idea of believing in virtue was a driving force within the film. If you don’t want any film spoilers, skip the next paragraph.

In the film, a woman is accused of murder and sent to prison for life. Her husband never gives up believing in her innocence. His belief in her virtue is so pronounced that he plots to break her out of prison. Once plans are in motion, laws are broken and people die at the hands of the husband. Did the husband forfeit his own virtue because he believed, so strongly, in the virtue of his wife? The film The Next Three Days delivers entertainment, while prompting a philosophical question.

Using film as a framework for discussion, one asks, is it better to possess virtue or to believe in virtue? First, let’s define the idea of virtue: it is one who possesses outstanding character and moral conduct. This definition is a paraphrased interpretation of what one would find in a dictionary and it presents a vexing question; does any human being truly possess virtue as defined herein or in the dictionary? This author doubts such fortitude is either natural or possible for people to exhibit. The idea of outstanding character seems lost in Western culture amidst the Millennial generation – we are a fast-food-nation with an appetite for individualism. Furthermore, moral conduct has no common standard anymore because beliefs have been whittled down to what feels good or right.

Considering the constraints on valor, believing in virtue may be all that is left of the attribute. Nonetheless, confidence in the fortitude of others is, likely, more natural to the human condition than a personal possession of excelling character and morals. How often do people want to acknowledge that their friends or their family are capable of unimaginable horrors? The movie that prompted these questions makes it clear that most of us probably want to see the good in people. Without inspecting one’s own morality first, there is little credibility to believe in the ideal of valor. In order to provide substance or meaning for morals and character, one has to acknowledge their own selfishness and be slightly more concerned with the needs of others than they probably are (if they are honest with themselves). Fortunately, there is the grace of God – who knows the human propensity for selfish desire – and that grace is always sufficient. Virtue exists through God. Therefore, it is better to believe in virtue if it attributed to the divine and not to humans.