A strange thing happened in the John Carter trailer

I had no idea that there were plans to make a movie from Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Barsoom series.

Like many other grade-school boys, I read the science fiction fantasy novels such as The Princess of Mars and the Gods of Mars with gusto over thirty years ago. I have not seen a copy of any of them in that time, and if you had asked me prior to this year, I would have been able to give but faint recollections of the stories in the Burroughs classics.

But an odd thing happened during yesterday’s Super Bowl.

I was multi-tasking, as usual, watching the game with one eye while reading with the other and herding the proverbial cats which are our children with a rudimentary form of mind control when the first moments of a television ad caught my eye. In a split-second I processed an other-worldly battle scene, the chief warrior of which was tall and green with four arms and tusks. With only that brief data, I said to my wife “I think I read that –” when I was interrupted by the voice-over describing “John Carter of Mars” and completing my thought for me.

Strange. Strange that Burroughs’ description of his characters was so good and so impressive (in the sense of making an indelible impression) that thirty years after reading them I recognized them in the depictions that someone else made from them.

Odd, indeed. And full of import for ultimately recognizing things we’ve never seen. And reminiscent of C.S. Lewis’ suggestion that humans who believe in Jesus Christ and the afterlife feel a sort of nostalgia for heaven, even though we’ve never been…yet.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Culture

Government’s New Testament Fiscal Policy

I must say, I’m a bit confused…

At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, President Obama extolled the virtues of his particular views of tax policy by appealing to the example of Jesus, to his command “love your neighbor as yourself,” and to his prediction ”to whom much is given, much will be required.” According to President Obama, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, too, hold to a version of this “golden rule.”

Most other times when a prominent government officials suggests that U.S. citizens do or not do a thing based upon the tenets of a particular religion that might not be their own, howls of protest go up from sea to shining sea that the U.S. is not a “theocracy” and that “you can’t legislate morality.”

This time, I can hear the proverbial crickets chirping.

So, let’s see if I have the formula right: marriage and abortion policy based on Scripture…bad; tax policy based on Scripture…good.

Makes perfect sense.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Government & Politics

What God says about Hell

ReviewErasing Hell: What God said about eternity, and the things we made up (Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle: David C Cook 2011).

This book by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle was released earlier in 2011, and was among several that responded to Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. As is usual for my particular book-review-niche-market, my reading and review come after the wave of interest and popularity has crested. For the stragglers out there, this is for you.

Chan and Sprinkle present a response of sorts to Bell’s thesis, although it is not completely directed solely at countering his book. They instead use Bell’s arguments by reference to frame their discussion of what Scripture truly says about the subject of hell and eternal punishment.

Erasing Hell is an impassioned plea not to consider the subject of hell purely from a philosophical standpoint, or from the view of detached, scholarly research into what Scripture says about it. Instead, we should recognize the sober reality of hell’s torments and do what we can to ensure that people don’t go there. When we consider the awful destiny that awaits those who reject Christ, Chan and Sprinkle argue, we should find great motivation to proclaim the gospel.

Balanced against this call to sober consideration of hell from the emotional perspective — and giving proper foundation for it — is the responsible and skilled handling of the Scriptural instruction on hell itself. In stark contrast to Bell’s biblical method, Chan and Sprinkle treat the Scriptural material rightly, giving proper deference to languages, context and original understanding to arrive at a conclusion about the Bible on hell: or more accurately, about God on hell.

Erasing Hell is fairly short and is very accessible, despite a thorough treatment of biblical material. It is worth reading.

Rating: 5/5

4 Comments

Filed under Book Review

Dying for Ingrates: Jesus at his last supper

In Mark 14:12-31, Jesus is viewed by the larger group of disciples as the father-figure who arranges the Passover celebration for his family.

In commemorating Israel’s escape from Egypt, in which the lamb was slain, its body eaten and its blood smeared above the doorpost, Passover looked back to God’s deliverance of his people, his new covenant and new beginning with them, and looked forward to the time when all things would be reformed and made new.

Jesus reformulated the Passover blessings, announcing that it was no longer the flesh of a lamb what was torn and consumed, but that “this is my body.” He announces that it is no longer the blood of the lamb that covers the family, but that “this is my blood of the covenant.” All this is astounding enough, but even more amazing is the company Jesus keeps as he makes these announcements, all in view of his imminent death and actual sacrifice.

Judas is there, celebrating with the Lamb. Peter is there, celebrating, arguing that he would never reject Jesus when it was he who is recorded as deserting Jesus first. And everyone else there celebrated even as Jesus predicted that they would all fall away.

It was easy to claim fealty in comfortable surroundings: it became much more difficult in the face of angry Roman soldiers and venomous religious leaders, or, in the case of Peter, the prying questions of a servant girl.

Jesus announced his coming sacrifice and celebrated the fact not with perfect followers who deserved his blessings, with those who would betray and desert him. As we receive the Lord’s Supper today, we sit at table as murderers, thieves, adulterers, idolaters…not as those who deserve his blessings.

God demonstrates his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

In receiving the Lord’s Supper today, we commemorate the fact that he received us while we were rebelling against him, and he continues to receive us despite our ongoing fits, tantrums and generally poor behavior.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commentary

What do you really think about wealth?

ReviewMoney, Possessions and Eternity (Randy Alcorn: Tyndale 2003)

If you don’t want to be challenged regarding your beliefs, attitudes and actions regarding a Christian’s use of money, don’t read this book.

This has been out for several years, but is nevertheless a thorough and biblical look at what Christian’s should think about money, and how we should think about money. Alcorn leaves virtually no subject untouched in his call for believers to approach wealth and possessions with a view to building up treasures in heaven, rather than on earth. And no one’s ox remains ungored as he calls on us to examine whether we truly trust God for our daily provision, or whether our blind acceptance of western wealth practices reveals that we really trust in Mammon.

Alcorn’s treatment of the subject tends toward lengthy, with several appendices as well, but one should remember that this is as thorough a treatment as you are likely to find.

Worth a read, but be sitting down when you do.

Rating: 5/5

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Spilt Nard & Zealous Faith Embrace Gospel Suffering

The account of the anonymous woman who broke an alabaster flask and poured nard onto Jesus’ head (Mark 14) is difficult to relate directly to post-resurrection discipleship. I’ve never seen alabaster, and wouldn’t know nard if it hit me in the face, and, besides, even if I had and would, Jesus isn’t here.

We know that her act was criticized by others, even those close to Jesus, but Jesus commended her for it. Which shows that those close to Jesus don’t always ‘get it’ and sometimes place a good thing (caring for the poor) above the best thing (lavishing praise on the Christ who would soon be gone). It also shows that zealous acts of faith and worship are often a threat to moderate religion, which thrives on mediocrity and standard works-based feel-good-ism.

Perhaps a key to understanding this is to understand joy. God calls us to it, but we frequently find ourselves not knowing Him well enough to find our greatest joy in Him. Those who do — like the nard lady and naked-dancing David — pose a real threat to those of us who find joy in other things. Nard lady found joy in expending a very valuable item in worship; David in dancing naked before God. When we find our joy in such comparatively pedestrian things as sports results, market gains, and even children — all things that benefit us — that someone else expresses ultimate joy in (simply) God demonstrates in stark contrast our utilitarian happiness.

Nard lady sacrificed material wealth in worship of One who would suffer as substitute. She perhaps grasped the notion that the gospel, the good news, is about suffering: that either we endure it alone or Christ endures it alone. This is why what she did, but not her name, is proclaimed with the gospel — it embraced the suffering of Christ in her behalf.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commentary

Real Marriage is apparently Real Trouble (Part 2)

ReviewReal Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Mark & Grace Driscoll, Thomas Nelson 2012)

In Part 1 I addressed what I consider to be the minor objections to the Driscoll’s book, those that would not necessarily keep someone from reading it. I also addressed the first of the major objections, which is whether such things as anal sex, oral sex, manual stimulation, and other sex acts between married couples should be discussed in public at all.

The other Major objection relates to the method that the Driscolls use to determine “Can we _____?” Whether or not such things are discussed in public, reason suggests that they should be addressed somehow, and responsible Christian leaders ought have a way to work through these questions with their members, or for members to work through them themselves.

The Driscolls propose a sort of “grid” through which to view questions of which sexual activity is permissible for Christian married couples. Scripture is clear about what sorts of sexual behavior are forbidden, but does not detail what things marries couples can do.

Their “grid” is to ask three questions derived from Paul’s statement to the Corinthians (1Co6:12): Is it lawful? Is it helpful? Is it enslaving? Many have criticized using this method, or apparently, of using any method at all. Yet where Scripture is silent on specific behavior, we haven’t many alternatives. Some might suggest using the Regulative Principle or its variants (most commonly used regarding worship), which propose that behavior that is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden. Hence, oral sex and all the rest — even between married couples — would be off limits. Yet we need also realize that applying such a principle too rigidly would leave us no longer celebrating Christmas, and might jeopardize even the most mundane intercourse, since Scripture never gives us the mechanics of how “she lay with him.”

A Normative Principle might be better here, which suggests that whatever is not prohibited is permissible. “Permissible” might then relate to the Driscolls’ first question, Is it lawful?

Using the Driscolls’ grid, there could be legitimate disagreement over the application to specific situations and conclusions drawn from them. For example, there could be disagreement regarding what is lawful for married couples. The Driscolls argue that Scripture’s prohibition of sodomy does not limit married couples, with which some might disagree from the standpoint of interpretation.

Further, the Driscolls don’t spend quite enough time explaining the lawful/helpful/enslaving criteria, which leaves much of the application of their grid open to too much interpretation. For example, when addressing cosmetic surgery, the lawful/helpful/enslaving falls a bit flat, and omits — as one commenter rightfully suggested — the ‘heart issue’ involved. That is, cosmetic surgery (and other sex acts) might pass the lawful/helpful/enslaving tests, yet still fall short if the desires of the heart for engaging in them are anything other than the glory of God in marital relations.

Conclusion

It seems that much of the criticism of Real Marriage is overblown, perhaps the product of lingering Victorian tendencies to avoid embarassing talk. And it is also possible that Mark Driscoll’s reputation precedes him, and fuels the rush to treat this material in light of prior disputes.

The Driscolls’ aim is to strengthen marriage, and if used wisely the material largely accomplishes this. They pull no punches in challenging men and women to fulfill biblical roles and responsibilities in marriage, which is more than many other books and well-known examples give us.

However, if I were to suggest a general text on marriage, this would not be first on my list, simply because there are others that are better written, and because I would hesitate to suggest the Chapter 10 material to just anyone. For someone dealing with Chapter 10 issues, though, I might suggest this as material to work through with me in pastoral counsel (most pastors would object to this suggestion), so that I could add to the Driscolls’ lawful/helpful/enslaving grid the important matter of the heart’s desire.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Real Marriage is apparently Real Trouble (Part 1)

ReviewReal Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Mark & Grace Driscoll, Thomas Nelson 2012)

At first, I thought I must have picked up the wrong book. But I’d been reading too long, so I figured that I had received one of those freak printing errors that put the wrong cover on, like opening War and Peace only to read Watership Down. But then I hit Chapter 10 — the Chapter 10.

Mark and Grace Driscoll have received much attention — frequently negative — for their book, so any review unfortunately should address the negative press at least in part. Generally speaking, the Driscolls aim in Real Marriage to address issues of weakness in Christian marital relationships, covering the standard spectrum of topics germane to biblical marriage, with an aim to improving them biblically. It is where they divert from the norm — infamous Chapter 10 — and discuss permissible sex acts within marriage that they run into opposition.

Broadly, criticism of Real Marriage can be categorized as Minor objections and Major opposition. This post will address the minor objections and the first major objection.

Minor Objections

Mark Driscoll refers briefly to receiving some sort of vision, or knowledge, from God on certain topics and regarding certain people. These revelations are apparently used by Driscoll to confront a member’s hidden sin and to counsel him about it. The criticism is that he claims to receive information from God and that the information is usually about sexual sin. One may legitimately want to know more about this, but it does not figure prominently in the book and should not cause anyone to avoid reading it.

The Driscolls reveal an episode of sexual sin in Grace’s single life that caused friction in their marriage. The criticism is that Mark does not honor Grace in revealing this information, and that he presents himself as without fault. Yet the Driscolls point out that they demonstrate problems in their own lives in order to help other married couples with theirs. Perhaps they went into too much detail on this point, but again, this is not a reason for wholesale rejection.

Other objections — such as that Mark inconsistently complained that Grace cut her hair — seem to be examples of the diligent picking of nits, and amount to little more than the other Minor objections: red herrings.

Major Objection 1

Chapter 10 is the basis of the Major objections levelled against Real Marriage. It is the “Can we _____?” section in which the Driscolls address anal sex, oral sex, manual stimulation, and a host of other bedroom activities between married couples that people just don’t discuss in polite society.

Which is precisely the problem with the first objection: in case you haven’t noticed, we don’t live in polite society. This first major objection to the Driscolls’ book is that no believers should be discussing such things, especially prominent pastors with large churches who sell lots of books. But we do need to discuss things such as these, because the world is discussing them, and if pastors think that their members don’t deal with these things on some level, they are mistaken. For people who were once unsaved and acting as the world with regard to sexual activity — in which anything goes — the conversion to holy living in Christ raises questions about what still goes. It is much better for a believer’s pastor to address those things than the man on the street, or the MTV reality show hotline.

The legitimate question on this point is whether it is proper for a pastor to address these things on a national stage, rather than in a private counseling session. Propriety might suggest that such an open forum should be avoided. But pastors should ask themselves how available they are to their members for these discussions. Do their members ask about these things? What would the pastor do if they did?

More than likely, the church’s attitude toward sex-talk has caused even faithful, sincere believers to find sex answers somewhere other than their spiritual leaders. The sexual relationships of married couples are part of the Lordship of Christ, to be entered to the glory of God. Pastors and other church leaders should be prepared and willing to discuss this aspect of discipleship with those they lead.

In Part 2 I discuss the second major objection, and my conclusion regarding Real Marriage.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review

Reviewing Reviewers: the limits of indirect critique

I thought initially that it only applied to Mark Driscoll and his “scandalous” book, Real Marriage.

It seemed that everyone and his proverbial brother were hopping on the pummel-Mark bandwagon and offering critiques of his book, causing me to wonder how I — a normally fast reader — were woefully behind the blogosphere in reading, then reviewing, Driscoll’s book.

As it turns out, buried in the blogs and articles labelled “reviews” of Real Marriage was the whispered disclaimer, “I have not yet read the book, but…” The reviews were so fast in coming, as it were, because the reviewers skipped a crucial step: reading the book.

Occasionally what was not whispered in the dark was proclaimed from the housetops, and some actually took pride in the fact that they not only had they not read the book for which they offered scathing critique, they also boldly announced that they “would never read such a book”, obviously possessing a gift of the Spirit for sanctimony, private revelation and Solomonic wisdom, to boot.

But I find that such talents are not just applied in critique of whipping-boy pastors of the West Coast, but also to prominent, well-known pastors from the heartland. One well-known website offering ostensibly Christian critique of culture posted an article blasting John Piper’s book, Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian (offered as a free download by Piper). The author admits in his article that he has not read the book. Yet he is comfortable saying things like:

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Bloodlines yet, if Mulder’s review is accurate, I have to agree with him that Piper’s solution ignores the reality of institutional racism.

“Piper’s solution” has not been explored by the author, but by someone else. Does anyone else see the obvious problems with this? The reviewer is disparaging Piper’s conclusion based upon what someone else has concluded about Piper’s conclusion.

This is madness.

There are certainly occasions when I read that someone’s book is forthcoming and I see the flurry of activity in reviews, articles and blogs about the book. That might reasonably prompt me to write something on the topic. And there are times when other bloggers and writers take up a topic in a way that spurs my own thoughts on the matter and prompts me to post them. But without having read book or blog, I dare not make statements to the world claiming how I know that they are wrong (or right, for that matter).

Yet this is precisely what happened ad nauseam to Driscoll, and what appears to be happening to Piper.

My plea to my Christian brothers is simply this: should you be tempted to offer your conclusions about what someone has said, read what he has said.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Culture

Should individual liberty be a society’s sole measure?

In It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong, Andrew P. Napolitano argues his central premise that liberty is the overriding concern of the U.S. Constitution and of the American experiment, and is precisely the realm of individual freedom that government is most likely to now impede.

A brief background of the founding principles of the United States is given, and then numerous examples through our history are given to demonstrate how those principles are overlooked, neglected, and sometimes outright trampled. At times the treatment of historical issues becomes a bit labored and tedious.

Napolitano does a fair job illustrating government encroachment with real examples, and most readers will find themselves irate that such actions are being undertaken by our own government, which has historically existed to serve the people.

However, Napolitano sometimes gives a confused view of how liberty actually works. For instance, in criticizing national government actions in the realm of marriage in relation to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Napolitano suggests that the U.S. government should leave such things to the States. But he also challenges any State encroachment upon marriage relationships, too, leaving the reader wondering who is left to regulate marriage, if anyone should.

After lauding the Judeo-Christian heritage that gave rise to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government, Napolitano seems to set as the highest goal of any organized society the preservation of individual liberty. Yet this ignores the Judeo-Christian heritage that limits individual liberty, as we see in the Old Testament laws that directed farmers to leave the corners of their fields unharvested so that the poor could get it themselves.

I also would have liked Napolitano to treat the question of how those principles that he asserts preserve liberty are either consistent with or violate a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Book Sneeze (BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com>) book review program. I was not required or encouraged to write a positive review; the thoughts expressed here are my own.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Book Review, Government & Politics