Provocative Or Accurate Movie Of Noah?

I was advised not to see this movie called "Noah" because of biblical inaccuracies and I read a bad review on it, too, but my friends invited me to see it and I was up to the challenge and see what I could glean from a secular understanding of the Deluge. The special effects, editing, and dialog were all entertaining and so was cast, especially Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah. Russell Crowe played a convincing character, though not the Noah I know as "just, perfect and walking with God." They call God the Creator and otherwise call him "he." It is true that this was before Moses and there were no Ten Commandments to judge morality by or a revelation to know God personally. The king of the descendants. of Cain say that God hadn't spoken since Cain killed Abel and was unconcerned with mankind.

Almost everything about the flick was fantasy and even surreal to the mind--indeed a stretch of the imagination. But it makes you wonder about things and it provokes speculation and discussion about the Bible. Noah is seen as a madman bent on killing his grandchildren because he thinks God wants to annihilate all mankind instead of replenishing the earth. There are many intriguing subplots and the characters are developed enough that you have love/hate relationships. There is a real human element that makes you realize that someone with real insight into human nature wrote this. Noah, for instance, says that all men are evil not just the children of Cain and the world at large. He finds fault with his children while his wife sees the good.

You really get emotionally involved in this film and even though you know the outcome, can't wait to see what happens. I was brought to tears more than once and I could have watched it even past the more than two hours it was playing because I wasn't bored at all--I guess if you have something at stake and are literate in the Bible you are more interested in judging or critiquing the film. The only inaccuracy that bothered me was that all three of Noah's sons were supposed to have their wives aboard, not just one. The recurring motif that I noted was the overriding power of love over hate. In the final analysis, it is a good film, worth the money and time and doesn't expect Hollywood to be too religious--there trying to sell tickets and make it entertaining. But this film might just make you think a little.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Jesus Freaks, Holy Rollers, Both, Or Neither?

It is an honor to suffer shame for the name of Christ-like it says in Hos. 9:7 when the inspired man is called demented, (not to be an offensive Christian though) and to be his ambassador proclaiming the good news; but holy rollers think they are "holier than thou" and refrain from so-called secular activity or worldly things, such as going to the movies or theater, watching TV, going to sports events or even concerts. The Amish tend to have this type of religiosity and think they are better by virtue of their separatist-type living and peculiar way of life-an insult to progress and technology.

My pastor seems to be proud to advertise himself as a Jesus freak, but he is an avid hockey fan and is not a holy roller also. These are not mutually exclusive terms and one can be both. Isaiah chapter 65 condemns those who think they are "holier than thou." 1 Pet. 1:16 says that because God is holy, we are holy ("You shall be holy, for I am holy," 1 Pet. 1:16) Because we are in Christ and have imputed or transferred holiness, which means consecration or being set apart for a use--otherness or "apartness." The only holiness we have is Christ's--not our own.

For instance, some believe in shotgun evangelism, in that you should tell literally everyone about Jesus, (which I call promiscuous and indiscriminate witnessing or canvassing) regardless of whether you have earned the right and have a testimony, and whether God has opened the door or not. The person who engages in this type of spreading the Word hasn't learned how God opens doors and even closes them. This apparently does more harm than good and puts a bad name of Christianity, because Jesus was not a freak or oddball, but a well-balanced and adjusted personality to be worshiped and adored. If these unbelievers actually met Christ they could find no fault in him just like Pilate didn't. I think this does more harm than good and is a waste of time--we are just being a stumbling block to the unsaved and not being productive.

You earn the right to speak up for Christ and don't ever be ashamed of your witness and testimony on Christ's behalf. Talk to God about the person before talking to the person about God! I believe the Great Commission was given to the church and not to individual believers who are to be witnesses (and we are, either good ones or bad ones). We should be in a church that is fulfilling the Great Commission and not just making converts but making disciples, teaching them to observe all that Jesus taught. But note well that follow-up is absolutely imperative!   Soli Deo Gloria!

Where Is Oswald Chambers Coming From?

The acclaimed author of the number one bestselling devotional My Utmost For His Highest is a product of the Keswick movement that preaches the Second Blessing or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in addition to the initial salvation experience or initial evidence validation. I have perused his volume and can't help but notice a doctrinal error and hardly any reference to Scripture for his doctrinal assertions. For instance, he talks about "entire sanctification" on Jan. 15 and this refers to the end-product of Wesleyan perfectionism ("I have seen a limit to all perfection....") which is not orthodox to the mainstream of Protestantism and believes we can reach a spiritual state where we don't sin any longer "intentionally."

A Christian can be defined as one who has repented of his sins and is not practicing known sin intentionally, but if he sins he has an Advocate with the Father and intercession is made on his behalf. All sin is in some sense intentional or willful because we will it, but there is sin in some sense that is considered unintentional or original sin and cannot be helped, like a baby's selfishness. As long as we confess our sins God can forgive us; the important thing is to acknowledge it and move on and sincerely repent, even if we do it again God can forgive us; his grace is inexhaustible.

What is meant by intentional is open to debate, but the sacrifices of the Old Testament didn't cover intentional sins. Study Heb. 9:7 and Num. 15 about unintentional sin being atoned for (or sin by mistake). Psalm 19 talks about presumptuous sins and this is more likely the case because a mature Christian has learned not to take advantage of grace and test it for the sheer pleasure of it. 1 John 3:9 says: "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning...." Hebrews 10:26: "For if we go on sinning after receiving a knowledge of the truth there remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment ["It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."] and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." I do not wish to expound on this dogma but if you are so inclined to be a Wesleyan or Methodist, then Chambers is up your alley.

Another error is on Jan. 14 (cf. Matt. 22:14): "Many are called, but few are chosen," (cf. Matt. 22:14) means that only a few prove themselves to be chosen. What actually is the case is that the general call to salvation goes out to multitudes, but only the elect will obtain unto it (Rom. 11:7).

On Feb. 7 Chambers makes a dichotomy between salvation and discipleship. In reality, all believers are disciples and disciple was just one of the names they were originally known by before Christian became the moniker. He says, and I quote: "Discipleship has an option with it--if any man...." In summation, there are not two classes of believers or ranks of those baptized and not (1 Cor. 12:13 says we have all been baptized into the body, for example). We are all one in Christ!  NB:  Chambers is associated with the Keswick movement.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Should Ministers Diet?

You may have heard that Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California led his church on a mass diet and loss an unbelievable amount of weight. My pastor isn't doing that, but he is focusing on the main thing which is preaching Jesus Christ and exalting him. God accepts us the way we are physically and we do not have to lose weight to be spiritual.

We all know quite well that the Bible says that physical exercise is of some value, but spiritual exercise is of eternal value. It is paramount that we pray, witness, meditate, fellowship, study, worship, and read Scripture; but God has given us a body and we are to accept it. It is true that we were born with a body that had nothing wrong with it and what we have now is only a sign of our stewardship of this precious gift. Some of us do indeed take care of the gift better!

But we are not to exalt the body (i.e., extreme physical training for vanity sake, nor negligence due to our own fault when we know better. There is a happy medium; Jesus did not work out and I doubt he was overweight, but had a body not-to-be-ashamed-of, also. Remember that Adam was embarrassed that he was naked and feared God. The Bible talks about those who have forgotten how to blush and are a past shame; some of us should not be too proud of our physiques or figures. My pastor says that he is not ashamed of the body that God has given him.

However, the body we now have is really the body we gave ourselves by a lifetime of neglect or care. We should neither exalt nor show contempt for or mistreat the body. Ministers are examples to the flock and shouldn't draw too much attention to the issue. My pastor is very much overweight and it doesn't affect his ministries effectiveness--he says he's just had a lot of donuts and fellowship! Not everyone has the opportunity to get regular exercise, I might add. There is a reason why the Scriptures say that "your sin will find you out." Paul says the Cretans were "lazy gluttons" but that doesn't entail being fat, because it was known that people would eat and then vomit to eat more just for the pleasure of it.

My pastor says that he used to be skinny and as he aged his metabolism slowed down; I have noticed the same effect. There is no condemnation of fat people in the Bible I have noticed. Some people's sins are all too readily evident and others' are not as apparent--though they are still there. We are not to judge our brethren by their body types and be graceful in our attitudes. I would rather have a weakness for ice cream than for pornography which might be a secret sin that only God knows about.   

We all want to feel accepted and must realize that there are more serious sins to worry about than the so-called deadly sin of gluttony (per Roman Catholic dogma, that is). There are many body types and one should not be biased than the one that is in fashion is the only acceptable one--a lot has to do with vanity and not health; in fact, being a little over your ideal weight adds years to your life, according to one scientific study I read. One can be thin and also guilty of gluttony and likewise obese and not a glutton, so it is wrong to judge by appearance.

Righteous people eat to their heart's content according to the Bible and as far as I know the New Testament doesn't command fasting or dieting for believers in this age, but as long as we are thankful we can eat away. We should never develop a guilt complex or let someone put a guilt trip on us. Personally, I don't believe in dieting (because most fail), but in making reforms to my eating habits step by step. Christians should say that they will stop trying and start trusting.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Gays Beyond Redemption?

In my day we were homophobes and gay-bashers and were proud of it--we called them "queers." They were fearful to come out, too, they kept it in the closet. It was mean but we knew no better. My first encounter with gays in the media was watching Soap with Billy Crystal playing a homosexual. Then I watched Three's Company and laughed at John Ritter mocking and using stereotypes for his shtick. Since then there has been a gradual acceptance by society into the mainstream and people actually welcome gays and lesbians in the media now without reservation. There is Anderson Cooper on CNN, Rachael Maddow on MSNBC, Ellen DeGeneres, and Rosie O'Donnell, and no one discredits them because of their sexual orientation--would you discredit the plumber for this?

The latest is when I saw Michael Sam (a gay football player and the first to come out as openly gay in the sport) being applauded by a crowd and given a standing ovation. Surely the Bible warns against calling evil good and good evil (cf. Isa. 5:20). "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psa. 11:3). We must rebel if the government forces us to do something contrary to Scripture like making men of the cloth perform gay marriages in churches--God forbid!

They say that Jesus said naught about homosexuality--au contraire! In Matt. 19:4 Jesus points out that it was God's plan for a man to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (male and female created He them). God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Anything contrary to God's plan is sin or, in other words, going against God's will or the Law. We draw the line to disobey the Law when it mandates us to do something unscriptural or prohibits us from following God's commands.

They have now mapped the entire human chromosome in the Human Genome project and I have news: there is no homosexual gene! Lady Gaga is wrong: "Born This Way." We all reach an age of accountability when we are capable of choosing between the good and the evil (cf. Isa. 7:16). But let's take another look at the issue: Does having nature entitle you to indulge it? What about pyromaniacs, pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, sadists, and perverts of any sort? I believe in calling a spade a spade. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus can change us no matter how depraved we are: "Such were some of you [homosexuals]..." (1 Cor. 6:11). We learn when we mature not to act on impulse and to indulge our every desire.

Scripture plainly condemns homosexuality, sodomy, and perversions. I refer you to Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:27ff, 1 Tim. 1:10. This sin is an abomination and detestable in God's sight even though it is apparently not the worst sin, nor the unforgivable sin. Prov. 6:16ff lists seven things the Lord hates and it is not mentioned. Pride is the worst of sins and how often do we hear sermons attacking this weakness of man? We must keep in mind that we can love a person and also disapprove of their sin: to use the hackneyed phrase "loving the sinner and hating the sin." Parents often disapprove of their children's behavior, yet they love them nevertheless. In summary, "whosoever will may come," but even though you may come as you are, God will not let you stay that way!   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is It Worldly And Carnal?

I have been told not to admire "mere mortals" like The Beatles. Doesn't the Bible say that we are all mere mortals and not divine? I believe in rendering credit where credit is due, respect to whom it is due, honor to whom it is due, fear to whom it is due (Fear God, honor the emperor), accolades to whom due, et cetera. All music is a gift of God and James 1:17 says that "every good gift" is "from above."

This kind of logic (to avoid secular music) is erroneous. Why? Isn't most classical music composed by unbelievers also? Yet these same Christians are not on the bandwagon to abolish classical music. Whitney Houston was a Christian (just listen to her sing "Jesus Loves Me") and she sang R & B. Now, take The Beatles, for instance: Most of their music is innocent love songs and fun to sing along with--what is wrong with that?  Elvis won his only two Emmys with gospel music!

We must show some discernment but to judge a whole genre of music is out of line and too critical. Music is not evil per se, but sometimes lyrics can be a bad influence. Believers are at different stages of growth and we cannot be intolerant of one another's taste in music--there is no one-size-fits-all genre.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Pardon My French!

Nota bene: "out of the abundance the heart, the mouth speaks" according to our Lord. You can't be too safe or conservative and it is best to err on the side of decency than take chances.

I know that we can let our guard down and get carried away amongst friends, but we should strive to maintain dignity and poise as it behooves us. When someone addresses me abusively I feel they don't respect me or are treating me like they don't think I have feelings. When we are intimate we are to be sensitive also and know our boundaries respecting others.

Is there a time and place for vulgar lingo? I, personally, evade dubious expressions and words to be on the safe side, because I believe in maintaining dignity, respect, and testimony. Our manner of speech should be beyond reproach and blame if we desire to be an elder or a deacon. There is such an animal as appropriateness and just between guys on a fishing trip, for example, the language might become less restrained and more informal. But we never stoop to the level of the lowest common denominator if we are in bad company. I still take umbrage at certain four-letter words even though I've been in the military and don't expect to hear this from Christians, even though I have heard it from the horse's mouth. Are we trying for shock value sometimes or to make a point? Is it an aberration or customary usage?

Our verbiage should be clean and uncorrupted, but that is open to interpretation and other factors. Sometimes it just doesn't become one to stoop to such a level when he should know better, and better is expected of him or her. Certain words should be a no-no and clearly verboten, so to speak; I will not delineate which ones. Our tongue gives our mind away and is a telltale sign of what we are thinking. Indiscriminate usage is out of line and also the free and easy overuse of expletives to drive home a point. Educated people should have refined language; it is expected of them.

There are four verses to consider: Eph. 4:29; Col. 4:6; and Psa. 19:14. The latter says: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, Oh LORD." What exactly is corrupt communication is open to debate and one must judge for himself? Note well that our liberty is curtailed and limited by our brother's conscience--we can't be reckless or careless by any means. If ever I use a word to make a point I make it clear that I do not approve of its usage and be apologetic; however, there are words that are a no-no at any time, under any circumstance if one claims to be a follower of Christ.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Under The Auspices Of God

You may feel that I was just lucky or that Providence was in my favor, but I don't attribute my sense of being lead by God as fortuitous or just good fortune--God was with me to teach me a lesson or two. One day I got sick and tired of my room in disarray and felt compelled to make my bed, carry out the trash, dust and vacuum to make it livable--I didn't think at the time that it was necessarily being led by the Spirit, but it was: "As many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

It just so happened that that afternoon I was visited by a survey team and I was sure glad I didn't have to be embarrassed--in fact, I was a little proud. Now we have never had a surprise inspection before, but that day we did have one and I gave God the glory that He had "saved" me and kept me out of trouble: "He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake." I have a testimony to guard and God does too!

It was important for me to see God at work on my behalf and I do not take it for granted that He is obliged to always rescue me (I could have gotten in deep trouble--most of the guys only clean their rooms for inspection and I was getting lax myself). I am now all the more conscientious to keep things as tidy as possible and not to procrastinate and to continue trusting in God who I can call upon in the day of trouble and He will deliver me (Ps. 55:22).

There is a balance between responsibility and faith and not "testing" God--in a certain vein this was my wake-up call, and I passed the test. Indeed, it was not auspicious, (some like the term fortuitous) but providential, as God led me in cooperation.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You Content?

We don't want to be like those whose reward or portion is in this life (Psalm 17:14).

Ever hear of the phrase "he who dies with the most toys wins?" We have become a materialistic society that is trying to serve money, or mammon, as Jesus called it; he also said you cannot serve God and mammon. We are to be content with what we have and not to covet: it was this command that convicted Paul of sin. Sinners use people and love things; the godly use things (to God's glory) and love people. Billy Graham cites a man who says that it is not the abundance of our possessions that makes us rich, but the fewness of our wants. "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want...." A. W. Tozer, in The Pursuit of God, says that there is a blessedness in possessing nothing: when we possess nothing (i.e., claim exclusive rights to and see things as "mine" and "my" instead of God's in the vein of selfishness), then we own all. In Obadiah God says that Israel "shall possess its possessions." Corrie ten Boom says to "hold all things loosely." We are only stewards: God actually owns everything we are using for His glory.

This life is only a staging ground to prepare for eternity and blessings are only God's way of testing us. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God." The poor usually have a better attitude toward riches and often enjoy the little things of life more than the rich: there are those who are rich, with everything to live on, and nothing to live for. I recall The Beatles' song that goes, "I don't care too much for money; money can't buy me, love." There is an abundance of blessings that money cannot buy and these are the best things in life. Money can buy food, but not appetite and time, but not leisure, and a bed, but not sleep. Blessings come only from God. Sometimes it is a curse to get everything we want, because we may not get the ability to enjoy it, like the rich man who had laid up treasures for himself and didn't realize that that day his soul would be required of him.

God has chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith, and the rich and poor have this in common: "God is the maker of them both." The song goes, "As rich as you are, it is better by far, to be young at heart." Paul emphasized contentment and said that he would be content to have food and clothing. Hebrews 13:5 says to be "content with what you have." The desire for things and money can buy a lot of things, never can be satisfied; we don't want to get caught up in this never-ending rat race if you will--even if you win, you're still a rat (acc. to Lily Tomlin).

However, on the positive side, God has given us all things to enjoy (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10), and there is nothing inherently wrong with things but only when they keep us from putting God first. Having too much of the devil's delicacies can keep us from having an appetite for heavenly things though.

Try to see things in light of eternity and stewardship, and not become too secure ("Woe to those who are at ease in Zion" cf. Amos 6:1)) in our thinking that God can't take away, as surely as He can bless: I have been there and the song goes: "You don't know what you've got, till it's gone." Job said, "The Lord gives, the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." You don't really know that Christ is all you need until Christ is all you have, you might say. Billy Graham says it well when he tells of a rich man who came to him and said he had everything to live on, and nothing to live for.

The key is that we own naught: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." It is not how much of our money we give to God, but how much of God's money we keep for our stewardship to His glory." Remember, "For where your treasure is, there your heart shall be also," (cf. Matt. 6:21)  Soli Deo Gloria!

To Ignore Minor Doctrine

Martin Luther said, "I dissent, I disagree, I protest." He saw the doctrine of soteriology (this is perhaps the most significant doctrine and yet most misunderstood) seriously distorted and sought to reform the teachings regarding salvation because he was shocked at the condition of the church in his day (i.e., Tetzel selling indulgences et al.). He saw this as vitally important: to challenge the authority of Rome and the Papists. He was brave and faced the king and the pope at the Diet of Worms (1521).  He is known for saying: "To go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

Likewise, Jesus chose not the path of popularity, but called His followers a "little flock." It takes the character to stand alone and not to a conformist. There are two ways to get ahead in the church: playing church politics and taking a stand. Usually, God will bless you for taking a stand, especially if you are right. These seem to be mutually exclusive just like we have few politicians who are willing to do what is right and take a moral stand: that's why we have politicians and statesmen. I would not want to be known as one who compromised the truth or watered it down to gain followers. If I get promoted spiritually, I want it to be of God and not man. It is also wrong to brown-nose your way up in your company as well as in church: i.e., not do it as unto the Lord, but unto men.

We are to teach to the whole counsel of God: Paul said, "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine [teaching]...." To distinguish between major and minor doctrines is not biblical since there is no mention of this nomenclature. You could say that creation, judgment, and rapture are minor doctrines, too. I have been in a group that doesn't want to mention the wonderful doctrine of the eternal security of the believer because it might offend some who are Arminian. R. C. Sproul says to avoid controversy is to avoid Christ. (John Stott wrote a book, Christ the Controversialist and showed that He was not afraid of it.)

I have no personal agenda nor ax to grind and have made it clear that I am Reformed in my doctrinal viewpoint. If you attend a church they have the right to their doctrinal understanding and don't have to be interdenominational or nondenominational. Personally, I believe in the autonomy of the local church and it alone has the authority to decide its doctrines. But some would say ecclesiology is a "minor" doctrine. There are doctrines that sincere believers disagree on and one shouldn't be dogmatic on them, but that doesn't mean we can't mention them in passing when they come up; we just don't make them our agenda.

No matter what doctrines we teach, we are bound to offend some--that's the very nature of truth. The measure of truth is not what doesn't offend or the lowest common denominator. I am not afraid to ruffle some feathers or to give my opinion on a disputable topic, even if it only serves to stimulate interest, debate, or study.

Parachurch organizations (churches are organisms, on the other hand, and Christ is the head of the body), those not associated with any particular church and usually nondenominational, tend to outreach and not devoted to certain doctrines. I was involved with the Navigators, for instance, in the Army and they had a mission to the military personnel; they didn't see themselves as in competition with the local church, but supplemental. If we are not in a position of authority we cannot change doctrine or policy but must comply (to rules and bylaws, for example) if we want to be part of the ministry (this doesn't mean we have to always be conformists and can't be an influence). But Christ established the local church and gave it the Great Commission--"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Augustine said it well: "In essentials (NONNEGOTIABLES), unity; in non-essentials [NEGOTIABLES], liberty; in all things, charity." We are not to be dissentious or disagreeable, but to agree to disagree. Cut some slack! There are doctrines that are not necessary to salvation; they should not be ignored either. For sure, to ignore doctrine just because one thinks it is minor is spiritually detrimental. We are not to major on the minors and get sidetracked. Let's not be petty and quibble over non-issues respecting salvation. Some Christians like to split hairs or get trivial about the details, but this defeats the purpose of teaching to stimulate thinking and growth. To sum it up, we are to keep the main thing the main thing, and not forget our focus on the gospel message and plan of salvation and how they relate.
Soli Deo Gloria!