III: "Saved!"

30 October 2004 Common Era

I have just finished seeing the movie "Saved!", and while this movie is old news and has already been condemned roundly by Evangelicals, it is worthy of comment.

I will first say that I by no means endorse the movie's attempt at "moralizing" for progressivism. The movie attempts to provide the message that Christians ought to be accepting of fornication and homosexuality and other matters where "people are just that way" despite what the Bible may say. The New Testament is very clear: those who engage in such acts without repentance will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-22). The movie does attempt to glorify those who do not walk the Christian path and is very critical of those who do outwardly. This is perhaps one of those matters where we need to deal with such attitudes inwardly-- we ought to be able to attack such attitudes from within, and no Christian appreciates Hollywood throwing salt on the wound...

...but the wound must be recognized and dealt with. The main character in the movie, who fornicates with her boyfriend to "bring him back from being gay," becomes pregnant, and the only person at her "Christian" school who can tell is the wordly Jew who has been kicked out of every other school. This "other," the excluded character, is the only one who provides support, and in the end, one of the few redeeming characters in the film.

This may be likened to the parable of the "good Samaritan" in Luke 10:30-37:

Jesus made answer and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, 'Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee.' Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?
And he said, "He that showed mercy on him."
And Jesus said unto him, "Go, and do thou likewise."

In the movie, the two "outsiders" represent the "good Samaritan," while the supposedly pious Christian girls remain clueless and sanctimonious. This is certainly a time where Christians are spoken ill of, and we do not appreciate it, and it provides to many a stumbling block (1 Peter 2:12), yet we have the ability to turn people around by not only professing but also performing Christianity.

In the context of Evangelicalism, this movie does get right to the core of many of the flaws of that religious system as it has developed today, particularly in regards to the youth movement. The movie makes it seem to be merely a show, a false pretense. In many ways it probably is. The movie directly confronts the sanctimonious, self-righteous, "holier-than-thou" attitude that it can be easy to fall in. The main antagonist in the movie is "Clueless with Jesus," a social climber who uses her profession of Jesus to become the queen of the campus. She is proven, however, to be a hypocrite, setting up her enemies-- and even an old friend-- to be removed from the school. She represents Christianity in worldly, impetuous, youthful terms. When she is told to bring her friend back to Jesus, she goes out, kidnaps the friend, and attempts to exorcise her. When she is told to do the "Christian" thing and suffer wrong, she goes and gets revenge. She represents in full one who has knowledge of Christianity but lacks the wisdom and maturity to actually live a Christian life. One may dare say that she wants to maintain the outward profession of Christianity but cannot endure to live by the "harder" principles of loving one's enemies, suffering wrong and humiliation. Her final scene in the movie, in that regard, is rather appropriate-- in her anger and disillusionment after she is revealed as a fraud, she drives her minivan right into the statue of Jesus. She has merely done in a physical sign that which she had done in her previous words and actions.

If there can be a truly redeemed character in the movie, it may be the young man who eventually becomes the boyfriend of the pregnant girl. He is represented throughout as thoughtful, although the movie suffers by not developing his character. If one omits the last speech he makes to his father, one of the examples of moralizing for the progressives, you can find the character who perhaps best represents the type of teenager that Christ would desire. He is wanted by the antagonist but recognizes her hypocrisy and superficiality. He is always more interested in the girl who is pregnant...even after this is known. He tells her that it does not bother her. He represents one who can forgive and see through stumblings to get to the real person.

If you have never seen the movie, I am sure that from this material you can understand why it is controversial and that many who profess Christ would not want any "Christian" to see it. It sometimes has inappropriate language and sexual material, and if such provides difficulties for one, then it should be avoided. I think, however, that the message of the movie (except, of course, for the moralization for the progressives) really can help the Christian. Even if we attempt to create a world-- at least for ourselves and our children-- that is all-Christian, most of the time, sin can and often will enter. We must never condone the sin, but we must have mercy on the sinner. We all were sinners. We all are sinners. We will all stand before our God at the judgment and we shall all be guilty of sin. The difference is that we who are Christian desire to obey our God and claim the blood of Christ for our defense. If we, however, cannot forgive one another, and cannot support one another, and cannot show mercy on any of us (or any in the world) who stumble, then we cannot claim the blood of Christ.

Then came Peter and said to him, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?"
Jesus saith unto him, "I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, who would make a reckoning with his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, that owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not wherewith to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.' And the lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him a hundred shillings: and he laid hold on him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay what thou owest.' So his fellow-servant fell down and besought him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay thee.' And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay that which was due. So when his fellow-servants saw what was done, they were exceeding sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him unto him, and saith to him, 'Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou besoughtest me: shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee?' And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due. So shall also my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.
Matthew 18:21-35 ASV

ELDV

II: The Episcopalian Controversy

22 October 2004 Common Era

Well, round 2 has begun on the Episcopalian controversy.

I picked up on the Episcopalian controversy as it happened last year. If you are not aware of what occurred, well, last year the Episcopal Church USA voted in a homosexual bishop to the position of bishop in New Hampshire. This action met with strong resistance by many in the US and far more so in Africa. The situation so clearly spoke to the conflict between progressivism and conservatism in spiritual matters that I wrote a lesson about it and what can be learned from it.

When I wrote the lesson I put forth the position that if "conservative Episcopalians" do create their own organization on account of what has occurred, they would be considered the ones who did the dividing, not those who precipitated the event. Well, even though the progressives were sure that division would not occur, some groups have begun to splinter. We shall see what happens.

Anyway, the Windsor report just came out-- the Anglican forum that was brought together to deal with the manifold issues that have caused controversy in the Anglican organization. It does call upon the Episcopal Church USA to cease from appointing homosexuals and blessing homosexual relationships, but also calls upon those who disagree to not create new dioceses.

What is far more interesting, however, have been the responses. The progressives are not happy about being lectured and given a "cease-and-desist" order, but the conservatives, especially many African ones, feel that the report does not go far enough in disciplining the USA for "departing from the faith" and such things.

The sad irony is that both the US and African churches of the Anglican communion have departed from the faith long ago, but the Episcopalian controversy remains a fertile field for demonstrating the damaging effects of progressivism. Progressives care not for real unity, only unity in their progressivism. They do not bother to recognize or do not care about the fact that many times the conservative position is not sinful or inherently wrong. It's just too "traditional" or "intolerant"-- basically, it is not what they want to do. And when the dust settles, and the divisions have occurred and all sides are bitter, the conservatives are considered the divisive ones.

The Episcopalian organization has demonstrated how far it has departed from the Bible by their "great concern" for the "inclusion" of their "gay and lesbian brethren." The Bible establishes that there are far greater things to be concerned about-- specifically, that their sexual deviancy will lead to condemnation (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21). The Episcopalian church has so conformed to the world that it's hard to separate the two. And this squabble within the church-- not even about homosexual members, mind you, but homosexual bishops-- exemplifies the progressive agenda, even if a progressive does not go to that level. Members of churches of Christ, just wait: you yourself may have "brethren" attempting to include homosexuals before long. The path of progressivism ends only with conformity to the world in all respects.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:1-2 ASV

I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry.
2 Timothy 4:1-5 ASV

ELDV

I: Politics

22 October 2004 Common Era

As I sit here, ten days before the election, thoughts turn toward politics and the Christian’s role in such matters. There are two main groups: those who believe that a Christian ought not participate in politics, and those who thnk that a Christian can do so. The latter group is comprised mostly by those who feel that morality ought to be a significant concern in one’s vote. Such generally vote Republican.

I would like to go back to the Scriptures and see what they say about the role of the Christian in political affairs.

1. The Christian’s main role is obedience. Romans 13 is the primary source for this idea. We are to obey our government as long as we are not caused to sin against God by doing so.

2. The second role is spoken of in 1 Timothy 2:1-2:

I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.

The only other matter from the Scriptures that can be discussed is citizenship—we see that Paul in the book of Acts uses his Roman citizenship to protect himself on many occasions and to further the cause of Christ.

We can see, therefore, that political action is not directly authorized, nor are there any examples of the Apostles or others using political means to achieve the goals of Christ. This should strike everyone as significant. Yes, the first century saw the prominence of the Roman Empire, but despite a monarchic system any citizen could make a case to the government. If we were to achieve the goals of Christianity through political government, Paul certainly would have made such an appeal to Nero. If Christianity were to be a religion involved in politics, Jesus would have established such a political state that Christians could live in. Jesus not only did not do so, He refused to when made able (John 6:15). He made it extremely clear that His Kingdom was spiritual, not physical (John 18:30). Christianity transcends earthly realms and has no fear of such things.

On the other hand, we do have Paul using his Roman citizenship, and the Scriptural command to pray for peace and quietness from our leaders. I, personally, believe that since we do live in a democracy and have a share of choosing our leaders, the command to pray can be extended to the vote, being an intercession to maintain tranquility and quiet, and fulfilling one of the requirements of being a good citizen of this country.

What can we say then? Many will not accept the extension of 1 Timothy 2:1-2 that I have made. I will not condemn or criticize such a belief, and such persons are free to not vote or be involved in politics. I recognize, however, that many Christians, and perhaps for many different reasons, believe that we do have the right, as Christians, to vote. But for whom shall we vote?

We must constantly return to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, for it is the only basis upon which the right to vote can be found in the New Testament according to my studies. The goal of our prayer—and our intercession with the vote—is the ability to live tranquil and quiet lives. What is significant is what is not stated as the goal—a state enforcing Christian morality, a theocracy, or any such thing. When the Christian votes, the only purpose I can find from the Scriptures is that he is trying to preserve his tranquility and peace.

It is morality, however, that seems to compel many Christians to vote and for whom they vote. It is not overall morality, however, but morality in regards to particular issues, generally abortion, and in this election, the issue of homosexual marriage also. Can morality be the appropriate measuring stick for candidates?

If the foundation of one’s choice for election is position on moral issues, then it would be expected that the candidate adheres to the totality of Christian morality. If morality is the basis of voting, it would be inconsistent, hypocritical, and a Biblically unjustifiable elevation of certain sins as being worse than others to vote for someone against abortion and homosexuality but not against drinking, gambling, lying, covetousness, fornication, adultery, and such like. It is argued that since generally candidate x and candidate y are both not against the majority of those things but x is against abortion and homosexuality but y is not, then candidate x is the candidate to vote for since he is morally “better” than the other. This argument exhibits that such a one is willing to compromise the majority of moral positions for the benefit of one or two, and exposes the inconsistency of the position. In the end, if morality is the basis upon which one desires to vote, that vote cannot be for either a Republican or a Democrat, since neither party upholds Christian moral values.

We must return to the matter of tranquility and peace. If the Christian is to vote, and he desires his vote to be cast in accordance with Scriptural principles, then he must ask the question: will this candidate preserve the tranquility and peace of life? This is what we must consider.

ELDV

The Beginning

16 October 2004 Common Era

Welcome to this blog-- A Christian's Deliberations!

A Christian's Deliberations is a blog designed to give expression to my thoughts-- my "deliberations"-- on a variety of topics. Many times ideas will come to me, generally reactions to events going on in the world, in the church, and in life, and they never coalesce into sermons or articles but are thoughts that may be considered profitable to others.

Who am I, and who am I to think that I can do this kind of thing? Well, I am Ethan Longhenry. Information about me can be accessed at http://www.deusvitae.com. At this very moment in my life I am 23 years old, husband of Sarah, father to Julianna and another child due in May, living in Rockford, Illinois, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison majoring in Hebrew and Semitic Studies and Classics, and, above all, a Christian. I associate with churches of Christ, a member of the church in Rochelle, Illinois, and hold to the Bible as the sole standard for truth and the guidebook for salvation. This blog may be only profitable to me or it may be profitable to others; regardless, I write in here in humility and in a desire to serve and glorify our great and awesome God.

Thus the beginning; as I have time, energy, and thought, I will post further.

ELDV
deusvitae@hotmail.com