In an unintentional trip through most of the 2008 Best Picture nominees, I've seen There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, and Juno, in that order, over the past few weeks. Yes, please applaud my cinematic hipness, however delayed it may be.
Out of the three, Juno is the one that I enjoyed the most. It is one of a recent string of films depicting pregnant women deciding what to do about their, um, problem. In each of these films, the mother eventually decides not to terminate her pregnancy. In Juno, the title character explains that, "Well, you know, I was thinking I'd just nip it in the bud, before it gets worse, because they were talking about it in health class, how pregnancy, it can often lead to… an infant." She makes her way to the abortion clinic, only to change her mind after a protesting fellow-classmate informs her that the baby has fingernails. While the film certainly is not overtly or dogmatically pro-life1, it seems worth noting that this teenage mother chose not to abort the baby.
Last night's Grey's Anatomy offered up another example of this on-screen pregnancy pirouette. After receiving confirmation that she's pregnant, the HIV-positive mother-to-be asks to schedule an abortion. By the end of the episode, Izzy (played by Katherine Heigl of Knocked Up) confronts the mother, informing her that her baby would have a 98% chance of being born without the disease. The mom, relieved by this news, begins to cry and decides not to abort her baby.
So, here's what I don't get. It's no secret that an overwhelming majority of our film-making friends on the Left Coast are stridently pro-choice (and pro-everything that's not traditional, moral, or religious). So, why can't any of them pull the trigger? Why would they present us with multiple examples of women contemplating abortion, only to be won over based on, of all things, medical facts? If it really is just a lump of tissue, and if women really do have "reproductive freedom," why not show us this perfectly normal, valid choice on screen?
One hunch is that it just wouldn't make for a good story. I can see that, to a point, but if these folks really believe what they keep telling us they believe, why not tell the courageous story of a young, pregnant mother defying all odds and making a triumphant choice that's "right for her"? My guess is that, despite all the rhetoric, no sane human being can truly bring himself to see things this way. We know better, and we won't buy (or tell) a story that ignores this intrinsically understood truth.
Doug Wilson, on the Westminister Confession's statement that our interest (i.e. stake) in Christ, along with the benefits thereby implied, is confirmed in the sacraments:
Some might say that if you have the faith, then that is sufficient–you can go off by yourself, you and your faith, and do all your confirming of interest away from God's people. The bread and wine are entirely optional if faith is sufficient, right? But if God said to meet Him here in the bread and wine, how is it faith to try to meet Him somewhere else? Detaching faith from the instruments God has appointed is neither right nor safe.
Of course we know from Scripture that evangelical faith is the catalyst. When Namaan was told to wash in the Jordan, it would not have been appropriate for him to conclude that another river, or no river at all, would do just as well–even if he recognized that the Jordan was nothing in itself. In the same way, we insist on the potency of faith alone, which means that the faith must do something other than what unbelief would do.
Come, the bread and wine are here. Confirm your interest in Christ by partaking now, together with your brothers and sisters.
Yes, the efficacy of the ritual is wholly tied to the presence and application of faith. Without faith, the ritual becomes something else entirely different than the covenant confirming, spiritually edifying interaction that the Believer experiences. Even still, that is not to say that the ritual should be done away with or its importance lessened. Remember, Moses was saved by faith, AND by an ark.
Read the rest of Wilson's piece here.
1. What exactly are they trying to communicate here?
2. Can you imagine a helpless, frustrated Jesus standing on the sidelines like this?
3. Why is "Christian drama" usually this bad, or worse?
4. Why does Jesus look like Justin Timberlake in a purple and white bathrobe?
HT: Fide-O
John over at Reformation Theology had some interesting thoughts on the "reformation" going on up at Willow Creek.
From an Out of Ur article:
Hawkins (Executive Pastor of Willow Creek) says, "We used to think you can’t upset a seeker. But while focusing on that we’ve really upset the Christ-centered people." He spoke about the high levels of dissatisfaction mature believer have with churches. Drawing from the 200 churches and the 57,000 people that have taken the survey, he said that most people are leaving the church because they’re not being challenged enough.
Because it’s the mature Christians who drive evangelism in the church Hawkins says, "Our strategy to reach seekers is now about focusing on the mature believers. This is a huge shift for Willow."
Before you start doing cartwheels about the death of the Seeker Sensitive movement, read John's thoughts:
Our first response to this might be "great!" but upon closer inspection it is evident that no real changes have been made whatsoever - which shows they have learned nothing. Why? Because this decision was derived from a poll and not the word of God. It is obvious that the consumer is still sovereign in Willow churches. And as long as they are sovereign whatever new doctrinal teaching that they plan to implement is already deeply flawed at the outset. Until the Word of God drives the content of church, including the reason and pattern of doing church, then you have dethroned God and set man in his place. This philosophy of worship assumes the Pelagian view of man that believes Christianity is just a product like any other product and that sold in the markets. Biblical preaching, in this model, is not what God uses to raise up the dead, but rather, Christianity is decided by a democratic vote. This is disastrous to the faith and, if evangelicalism has any hope of surviving, must be confronted lovingly but firmly so that we recapture the truth of the gospel. (emphasis mine)
Effectively, what Willow Creek is doing is what any savvy corporation would do. Identify your target market, and adjust your product to meet their needs. If what you're selling isn't marketable anymore, set up a focus group and find out what you should be selling. If they change their minds later, you change your business model so you can keep up. Brilliant.
If they really do end up engaging their people in more Bible study and place a higher emphasis on doctrine, I'll be curious to see what happens next. When people start consuming the meat of Scripture they soon grow tired of watered down pop-culture substitutes.
Barack Obama, speaking about sex education:
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.
- Ben Smith, emphasis mine
In the same speech, Obama said that women must have the right to an abortion. From the same article:
"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."
Yep. We can all agree that reducing teen pregnancies is good. We can all agree that adoption should be a viable option. We can all agree that women should be able to kill babies "if they make a mistake." Wait. Maybe not that last one.
Which "values and morals" BHO is teaching his daughters? Apparently in his "belief system" it is OK to kill a child because its conception was a "mistake." Better to kill a child than for its mother to be "punished" by its existence.
Can someone please explain to me how a Christian could vote for this guy? I'm by no means a McCain supporter, but it blows me away that someone who loves God and studies his Word (Ps 127:3, for example) could vote for this guy with a clean conscience. If you are one such Christian, I really would like to hear your thoughts on this one. I just don't get it.
From a New York Sun article about U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey:
Asked about so-called profiling of Muslims, Mr. Mukasey said that tactic is not used at airports. However, he used blunt language to defend extra scrutiny the Justice Department gives to militant Islamic groups.
"So far as focusing investigations, we investigate where the threat is coming from. The threat is coming from Islamist extremism. It's not coming from Calvinism," the attorney general said. "We'd be out of our minds not to mention the waste of resources to look everyplace simply in the name of being correct."
It's the free will Baptists I'm worried about…
HT: Founders
For I the Lord love justice…
Isaiah 61:8
My new route to work has a two-lanes-become-one merge point both on the way to work and on my commute home 1. Typically, the good Nebraskans line up in the through lane and wait their turn, but occasionally somebody who is way more important than us slips into the merging lane and floors it when the light turns green. Usually I'm too many cars back to do anything about it, so I watch helplessly as the "cutter" moves to the front of the line.
But not today.
On the way home, traffic was backed up more than usual northbound on 27th street at Highway 2. I waited my turn, missed the light, and ended up two cars back. As expected, a couple of cars pulled up in the right lane while the rest of us behaved ourselves. When the light changed, the first car gunned it and blew past the guy in front of me. The second car, to my right, tried to speed past me but couldn't. They slowed down, and so did I. They sped up, and so did I. And then they had to turn into the Shopko parking lot when the lane ended.
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but seeing that car get snubbed absolutely made my day. I felt like, at least in some little, insignificant way, that I had participated in the righting of an injustice. Somebody tried to cheat, and I didn't let them get their way.
So, that's my question…. Is there something wrong with me? Am I a huge jerk for not letting that car in? Does it matter (in either direction) that it was a snobby-looking lady driving a Lexus and talking on her cell phone? Or, is there maybe something good and just about turning back a cheater who is breaking the rules to put themselves ahead of everyone else?
I grew up in the Lutheran church (LCMS), so I'm no stranger to Lent. Thus, I was pleased to learn that this year our church (PCA) is taking a step in the liturgical direction and encouraging us to observe the liturgical period lasting from Ash Wednesday through Maundy Thursday.
One of the classic Lenten rituals is fasting from something dear to you for the entire period. In the past I've given up soda (pop for you Texans), bubble gum, ice cream, and so on. This year I decided to really think hard about it to come up with something that would hurt a bit; something that I would really rather not do without. So, after much deliberation I have decided to abstain from Google Reader (and all of the blogs represented therein) from tomorrow through the end of Lent. I will still be posting occasionally, but I won't be reading anyone else's blogs.
If you're also giving something up for Lent leave a comment below. I'm always curious to hear what others think would be a real sacrifice to do without for a brief stretch.
See you on the other side…
One of my favorite times of Sunday worship is when Pastor Stu leads us in a few simple, acapella worship songs while the elements are being distributed to the congregation. Hearing everyone's voices ring out in worshipful unison seems like the closest thing to a heavenly celebration that we'll taste around these parts. Sometimes I actually get goosebumps.
There are other Sundays when we don't do this. Instead, an organist will typically play something slow and somber-sounding while we sit there waiting for the bread and the cup to come our way. I suppose that this is intended to be a time of reflection, to calculate one's own sin and repent of it in preparation for receiving communion. On some level this seems appropriate, given the warnings to examine oneself so as to not eat the bread or drink the cup in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:27-32). However, at that point in the order of the worship service it seems out of place.
By the time we get to communion we've already had worshipful singing, personal and corporate confession of sins, the declaration of pardon, and teaching from the Word. We come to the table as people who have been forgiven by their Creator, and who have been ministered to by their Lord through his Word. The table is one of celebration. The blind can see and the deaf can hear, and tax collectors and "sinners" can now come to a feast provided by the Son of God, who calls us to join him in his "ministry of reconciliation" as he is "reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:11-21). It seems out of place to me at this point of communion with our Savior and within his Church to double back to the part where we feel really bad for being sinners. We already dealt with that half an hour ago, and if we truly believe all of this "as far as the east is from the west" business (Ps 103:11-12) we ought to be able to trust that the blood of Christ, the same shedding of which we remember in communion, was and is and will forever be sufficient to cover our sins.
I understand the impulse to go through a "no, Jesus, I really am sorry" routine before we approach his table. If we really are repentant people our sin will always be before us. But, I think it does some unintended damage to the power of the gospel when we feel the need to confess and re-confess the same sins, as if Jesus blood and righteousness can only cover them after a second pass. We need to trust in the power of Christ to proclaim our pardon once and for all, and then to live our lives as if we've really been forgiven. And what better way to begin living that way than by rejoicing in the powerful grace and mercy of God by singing his praises as we approach his table?
Isaiah 33:5-6
[5]The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high;
he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness,
[6]and he will be the stability of your times,
abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge;
the fear of the Lord is Zion's treasure.
RSS 2.0
