Posted on

Comments Are Open

I’ve been encouraged to open up comments on my posts. My reason for not opening comments has been twofold: First, I do not have time to moderate them carefully before they are posted. Second, there are those who might try to take advantage of the commenting option for nefarious purposes. But those concerns notwithstanding many have asked for the ability to comment.

Please let me explain several “ground rules” for commenting. First, I will not respond to comments or questions posted in comments. If you want to direct a question to me, please send me an e-mail. Second, I will immediately ban anyone using vulgarity. Third, I will not allow this blog site to become a forum on political issues in my church.  Fourth, comments should deal with the  issue of the blog post. Off-topic remarks are subject to deletion and continuing to post off-topc remarks will result in banning.

Please understand that I will not hesitate to ban those who will not conform to standards of common decency, courtesy and Christian charity. So, with those provisos in mind, feel free to offer comments.

Posted on

A Sane Voice in What Seemed a Pretty Wacky Calvinist Reformed World

I’ve just made a new Blogosphre friend, Michael Spencer, of both Internet Monk and the Boar’s Head Tavern. He helped me understand that Dispensationalist Fundamentalist so-called “Reformed Baptists” attack-dogs like James White and others like him do not represent Reformed theology or Calvinism. I find this a relief, to say the least. Here is what Michael had to say over at Boar’s Head Tavern about my post on Calvinism.

Link: Boar’s Head Tavern.

Paul McCain on Calvinism

Paul McCain- Lutheran Blogger and recently in a fracas with Hays and White- posts his concerns with Calvinism: The Calvinist doesn’t have Jesus at the center of his “system.” It’s a serious charge.

While I wouldn’t write Paul’s essay exactly as he has, I think no one will be surprised that I sympathize with much of what Paul is saying and feeling, and it is part of why I no longer call myself a Calvinist. There is an issue here- an issue that even my Calvinistic friends in the BHT have to deal with. How many footnotes have to be inserted in our “Calvinism” to keep Jesus Christ- rather than some theological point in the mysterious nature of God- as the center point of our faith? If you choose to live in the “house of Calvinism” these days, how much time do you have to spend explaining that you aren’t like the people burning heretics in the back yard?

It’s a particularly good point to be made as we approach Christmas. I call myself a Christian Humanist because I meet God not in a theology text’s discussion of the attributes of the Divine Being, but in the point-in-time, historical, human person of divine infant in Bethlehem, fulfiller of all God’s promises made in God’s auto-biographical story of Israel and revealer of the God who is wholly other. Nothing is more admirable about Luther than his commitment to the quest to make Christianity a meditation on Christ Incarnate, Christ Crucified and Christ Reigning.

In my opinion, what McCain has experienced and read in some quarters of the Reformed blogosphere is the outworking of theological hubris that puts the theology of the adherent in far too prominent a place. It runs the constant danger of not being a confession of simple faith in Christ alone. In some versions, it seems to be the gospel of presenting a commitment to a system, some of which goes beyond the “revealed God” of the incarnation to the “mysterious counsels of God” deduced by the theologian’s ruminations.

What I would say to McCain is that his experience of internet Calvinism can be very deceptive. The Barney Fife’s make a lot of noise while they are nipping everything in the bud. The Tim Keller’s and the Michael Horton’s don’t spend their time gutting bloggers for trophy. When you calmly survey the entire reformed web, and don’t give too much place to the camp that sees dispensational independent Baptist fundamentalism as the only proper heirs to Reformed Theology, you will see a more balanced- and Christ centered- picture.

Internet Calvinists themselves know this. The lines in the PCA are clearly there to see, as well as many other places. Many Calvinists (see Founders.org for instance) are warmly Christ-centered, and put theology in its proper, helpful, but not central, place in the Church’s life.

Posted on

The Conversion of the Evangelical Imagination

The Internet Monk has a great new article challenging the legalistism of those who would eschew the visual arts. Here is a snippet from it.

“The Great Christian Tradition- especially in its early centuries- was always visual without being idolatrous. It engaged culture through mind and imagination. The risks of idolatry were never absent, but the rewards of a holy, and living, imagination are too rich to avoid. In eras of illiteracy and spiritual warfare, the church sought to appeal to and capture the imagination of those who heard the Gospel. Whether liturgy, cathedrals, musical compositions or great works of visual art- all were arrayed for the purpose of taking the loyalties of the imagination captive for Christ the Lord.

Evangelicals have dabbled. They have denounced. They have demeaned. They have experimented. Are they ready to admit that we can preach through our engagement with story, image and aesthetic, and not only through propositions? Art and imagination, great writing and creative expresssion: they all preach the Gospel and engage human beings with the truth of God. If evangelicals are opening their minds to more than outlines and answers, will they seek out those God has gifted in the realm of the imaginative and release them to create, praise and evangelize?”

Link: internetmonk.com

Posted on

For Narnia! For Aslan!

Narnia_poster

I urge everyone to go see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the The Wardrobe. I just returned from seeing it with my family and I’m absolutely stunned and amazed at the depth of Christian content in this movie. I suppose those who have no idea that C.S. Lewis was, perhaps, the greatest Christian apologist and writer in the 20th century, may see the movie, and leave again, with no idea what this film is about; that is, what it is  really all about.
     Ironically, because of secularist reviewers trashing the movie for its “overt Christian symbolism” many people will be sensitized by those who despise the Faith to be aware of what the true meaning of this movie is.
    I would be hard pressed to identify a better witnessing tool than Narnia. What a wonderful way to draw people into the “great story” of the Faith,without necessarily rubbing their noses in things that may seem so obvious to believers, but are not at all  clear to unbelievers.
     If we want Hollywood to be sensitive to the needs of the Christan community and if we want movies that reflect the truths we hold dear and the values flowing from those truths, we must support movies like this.
    I believe you will be as delighted as I was by the quality of the movie. The special effects are truly amazing. I have to tell you that I’ve never read Lewis’ “Narnia” books and in preparation for this movie I began to read the second volume of the seven Narnia series, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but frankly, I got bored and put it down. I’m a huge fan of Tolkien and so I guess I expected something a bit more in-depth in the books.
    Now, I’m rather pleased I only read half the book, for it gave me a chance to evaluate the movie more from the standpoint of not being familiar with the story’s details. The movie made perfect sense. The symbolism of Christ and His sacrifice and resurrection is keenly powerful. The realism of life as battle against evil and sin and death came through so strongly. How many of our Evangelical brethren wil catch the amazing symbolism of the Lord’s Supper in this film? Look for it.
    Finally, the joy and promise of eternal life, given as a gift now, to be enjoyed forever brings the movie to a powerful emotional conclusion.
    And so, I say, for Narnia and for Aslan, go see this movie.

Posted on

Roger Ebert’s Take on Narnia

I may not always agree with Roger Ebert’s film reviews, but over the years I’ve found him to be consistent and relatively fair. Check out what he says about Narnia. Note Ebert’s matter-of-fact assertion that Aslan dies for Edmund’s sin, “just as Christ died for ours.”

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
‘Narnia’ yarn mixes magic and myth

Release Date: 2005

Ebert Rating:
   
***
 

BY ROGER EBERT / 
Dec 8, 2005


C. S. Lewis, who wrote the  Narnia books, and  J.R.R. Tolkien, who wrote the Ring
trilogy, were friends who taught at Oxford at the same time, were
pipe-smokers, drank in the same pub, took Christianity seriously, but
although Lewis loved Tolkein’s universe, the affection was not
returned. Well, no wonder. When you’ve created your own universe, how
do you feel when, in the words of a poem by e. e. cummings:: “Listen:
there’s a hell/of a good universe next door; let’s go.”

Tolkien’s universe was in
unspecified Middle Earth, but Lewis’ really was next door. In the
opening scenes of “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe,” two brothers and two sisters from the Pevensie family
are evacuated from London and sent to live in a vast country house
where they will be safe from the nightly Nazi air raids. Playing
hide-and-seek, Lucy, the youngest, ventures into a wardrobe that opens
directly onto a snowy landscape where before long Mr. Tumnus is
explaining to her that he is a faun.

Fauns, like leprechauns, are
creatures in the public domain, unlike Hobbits, who are under
copyright. There are mythological creatures in Narnia, but most of the
speaking roles go to humans like the White Witch (if indeed she is
human) and animals who would be right at home in the zoo (if indeed
they are animals). The kids are from a tradition which requires that
British children be polite and well-spoken, no doubt because Lewis
preferred them that way. What is remarkable is that this bookish
bachelor who did not marry until he was nearly 60 would create four
children so filled with life and pluck.

That’s the charm of the Narnia
stories: They contain magic and myth, but their mysteries are resolved
not by the kinds of rabbits that Tolkien pulls out of his hat, but by
the determination and resolve of the Pevensie kids — who have a good
deal of help, to be sure, from Aslan the Lion. For those who read the
Lewis books as a Christian parable, Aslan fills the role of Christ
because he is resurrected from the dead. I don’t know if that makes the
White Witch into Satan, but Tilda Swinton plays the role as if she has
not ruled out the possibility.

The adventures that Lucy has in
Narnia, at first by herself, then with her brother Edmund and finally
with the older Peter and Susan, are the sorts of things that might
happen in any British forest, always assuming fauns, lions and witches
can be found there, as I am sure they can. Only toward the end of this
film do the special effects ramp up into spectacular extravaganzas that
might have caused Lewis to snap his pipe stem.

It is the witch who has kept
Narnia in frigid cold for a century, no doubt because she is descended
from Aberdeen landladies. Under the rules, Tumnus (James McAvoy) is
supposed to deliver Lucy (Georgie Henley) to the witch forthwith, but
fauns are not heavy hitters, and he takes mercy. Lucy returns to the
country house and pops out of the wardrobe, where no time at all has
passed and no one will believe her story. It is only after Edmund
(Skandar Keynes) follows her into the wardrobe that evening that her
breathless reports are taken seriously. Edmund is gob-smacked by the
White Witch, who proposes to make him a prince.

Peter (William Moseley) and
Susan (Anna Popplewell) believe Lucy and Edmund, and soon all four
children are back in Narnia. They meet the first of the movie’s
CGI-generated characters, Mr. and Mrs. Beaver (voices by Ray Winstone
and Dawn French), who invite them into their home, which is
delightfully cozy for being made of largish sticks. The Beavers explain
the Narnian situation to them, just before an attack by computerized
wolves whose dripping fangs reach hungrily through the twigs.

Edmund by now has gone off on
his own and gotten himself taken hostage, and the Beavers hold out hope
that perhaps the legendary Aslan (voice by Liam Neeson) can save him.
This involves Aslan dying for Edmund’s sins, much as Christ died for
ours. Aslan’s eventual resurrection leads into an apocalyptic climax
that may be inspired by Revelation. Since there are six more books in
the Narnia chronicles, however, we reach the end of the movie while
still far from the Last Days.

These events, fantastical as
they sound, take place on a more human, or at least more earthly, scale
than those in “Lord of the Rings.” The personalities and character
traits of the children have something to do with the outcome, which is
not being decided by wizards on another level of reality but will be
duked out right here in Narnia. That the battle owes something to
Lewis’ thoughts about the first two world wars is likely, although
nothing in Narnia is as horrible as the trench warfare of the first or
the Nazis of the second.

The film has been directed by
Andrew Adamson, who directed both of the “Shrek” movies and supervised
the special effects on both of Joel Schumacher’s “Batman” movies. He
knows his way around both comedy and action, and here combines them in
a way that makes Narnia a charming place with fearsome interludes. We
suspect that the Beavers are living on temporary reprieve and that
wolves have dined on their relatives, but this is not the kind of movie
where you bring up things like that.

C.S. Lewis famously said he
never wanted the Narnia books to be filmed because he feared the
animals would “turn into buffoonery or nightmare.” But he said that in
1959, when he might have been thinking of a man wearing a lion suit, or
puppets.

The effects in this movie are
so skillful that the animals look about as real as any of the other
characters, and the critic Emanuel Levy explains the secret: “Aslan
speaks in a natural, organic manner (which meant mapping the movement
of his speech unto the whole musculature of the animal, not just his
mouth).” Aslan is neither as frankly animated as the Lion King or as
real as the cheetah in “Duma,” but halfway in between, as if an animal
were inhabited by an archbishop.

This is a film situated
precisely on the dividing line between traditional family entertainment
and the newer action-oriented family films. It is charming and scary in
about equal measure, and confident for the first two acts that it can
be wonderful without having to hammer us into enjoying it, or else.
Then it starts hammering. Some of the scenes toward the end push the
edge of the PG envelope, and like the “Harry Potter” series, the Narnia
stories may eventually tilt over into R. But it’s remarkable, isn’t it,
that the Brits have produced Narnia, the Ring, Hogwarts, Gormenghast,
James Bond, Alice and Pooh, and what have we produced for them in
return? I was going to say “the cuckoo clock,” but for that you would
require a three-way Google of Italy, Switzerland and Harry Lime.


Cast & Credits

White Witch: Tilda Swinton
Lucy Pevensie: Georgie Henley
Edmund Pevensie: Skandar Keynes
Peter Pevensie: William Moseley
Susan Pevensie: Anna Popplewell

And the voices of:
Aslan: Liam Neeson
Mr. Beaver: Ray Winstone
Mrs. Beaver: Dawn French
Mr. Fox: Rupert Everett

Posted on

A Muted Defense of the Unborn

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations is releasing this month a document concerning the status of so-called “pre-implantation embryonic life.” I prefer to refer to such things as: “children” or “human beings.”

No doubt more will be said going forward, but let this much now be said. Rather than sounding a clear trumpet call, the forthcoming document is off-pitch and muted. It spends so much of its time wringing philosophical hands over the “thoughtful” arguments put forward by those who would destroy the unborn children conceived in petri dishes that it winds up sounding an unclear signal. One is led to wonder if the drafter of this document in fact does clearly confess that a human life begins at the very moment of conception. I for one can not tell from this document if that is so, and that is deeply troubling to me. I would welcome clarification on this very point.

Consider this extremely unfortunate way of putting things:

“The approaches proposed thus far do not succeed in providing clear and
convincing evidence to lift the burden of proof that lies on those who
propose to destroy embryos . . . In the absence of
decisive arguments, pre-implantation embryonic life should be afforded
the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of life.”

Since when should the church ever even entertain any notion that would require it to “give the benefit of the doubt” to what Scripture is so clear about? Whose doubt is this report entertaining? That is the question that perhaps might be most disturbing to me.

I am more than extremely disappointed at what the Synod’s CTCR is offering up by way of “guidance” on this significant issues. And I assure you that many others are as well.

Touchstone magazine immediately saw the problem with this document and commented on it. Please follow the link for the whole story, as well as the official LCMS news release. Touchstone editor, David Mills, really nails it when he writes:

I
may be missing something, having only the press release to go by, but
arguments like “Is the absence of decisive arguments, pre-implantation
embryonic life should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and the
benefit of life” strike me as very odd. The commission seems unwilling
to grant the embryonic child an absolute right to life, despite almost
saying so here and there.

I wouldn’t think this was a particularly difficult matter.
If the embryonic child isn’t a human being, what is he? There aren’t
any other options. And if he is a human being, why should his survival
depend on the “absence of decisive arguments” and “the benefit of the
doubt”?

Posted on

Pastor, Let Our Gladness Have No End

I know there are many reasons for pastors to be concerned about the “commercialization” of Christmas, and generally most every pastor I know goes through his “I must rail against it” period. But hopefully, most grow out of it. I know I did. Pastors should realize that people gathering for Advent services and Christmastide services are there precisely because they do know, and love, the reason for the season: Christ. So, dear pastor, please stow the “Bah! Humbug!” attitude. You are just preaching to the choir. The faithful are joyful at this time of year, not because of the trappings and trinkets, but because of the Savior. Can we agree that the best way to “combat” the crass secularization of this season is not to send congregants on guilt trips about Christmas customs and holiday traditions? Pastor, we don’t need you to tell us how Christmas is too commercialized. We know it. Tell us of how much we need a Savior, and why, but don’t let your preaching of the Law at the time of year turn into a scold or nagging. Please help us take great joy in our Savior’s birth. Point us to the wonderful love Incarnate. Yes, point out our sins, but don’t let your Advent or Christmas sermons consume themselves with negative rants against the way “the world” comports itself. Raise our hearts, souls and minds to something better. Besides, you just never know who might be listening to you who has not been in church in a very long time, a person returning home to the community of the body of Christ. So, let our gladness have no end. Take joy in Christmas. Don’t let anything, or anyone, rob us of that joy.

Posted on

The Golden Ardie

Aardie_1

Cyberbrethren has received the highest honor in Lutheran blogdom: the coveted Golden Ardie award. I received it some time ago, but due to the recent disaster with Cyberbrethren it was not able to be publically announced until I had Cyberbrethren moved to a new and working location. I’m overcome with emotion at news of this prestigious award.

Here is the citation:

‡ Paul McCain of Cyberbrethren (he of the crashed blog) receives first acknowledgment. His post, Is Christian Art Idolatry? Thoughts on the Error of Calvinism’s Iconoclasm
triggered comments, complementary and competing blog posts, and an
ongoing discussion of Christology and Biblical understanding. If you
haven’t yet read the original, start with it and move up the old blog. Then visit his new site and continue with Where’s Jesus? The Question That Comes to My Mind When Reflecting on Calvinism and any subsequent posts on the subject.