God's not dead, but He could do with a better defense

As a film God's Not Dead will be sure to replenish the arsenals of Christians who long for substance in a form Hollywood might use if this was Heaven. Critically it did have the decency to leave out the worst of the cliches including guy-getting girl (thank goodness, that blond was pushy) and everyone lives happily ever-after (it's not too late Superman!). For that I am grateful.

B movies make me almost as uncomfortable as 'real' movies.

Yet, with just a dash of Christian grace, I have sat through the latest evangelical production to hit the big screen and, remarkably unscathed, I write to tell of my experience:

The acting was decent, the dialogue was characteristic of most Christian films. (ironically) It had a line quoting Matt 10:32-33, followed up with the rhetorical "if they won't hear it anywhere else, shouldn't you stand up for Jesus?" To which our impassioned Josh responds by standing up. 
For three lectures. 
At a podium. 
Defending God.

But before we move to the defense, let's address the irony. God's Not Dead is a film that longs to be seen by an audience that will come to know Jesus, in part by watching it. It says so, right in the script. What it actually does instead, is join the litany of Christian films that do a splendid job of preaching to the choir, but offend or upset the rest of the pagans. (Such a pesky challenge, that film conversion stuff.) But who knows? With an answer to prayer, perhaps the choir will incite a revival after watching.

In the meantime, defending God on the big screen came in two broad brushstrokes:

1. Beating the dead horse of intellectual debate
2. Showing what it means to Love Jesus

Let's start with 1. It's only fair, the main plot line of debate between a starry eyed believer and his emotionally scarred professor can be boiled down into the title of the film. Somewhere between the Big Bang and a very trivial handling of the moral imperative (lectures one and three respectively) our hero does a good job of hitting some valid points in logic and cosmic query that meets the rational needs of most the working class. 

But despite the staged silence of our professor, a more herculean effort of defending evolutionary atheism could be mustered by... well anyone really. For example with the problem of evil: atheist arguments use heavy anecdotes to hammer away at the simpleton wall of moral absolutes. Furthermore the circular arguments of Creationism were given no floor time, while the circular arguments of Dawkins were ridiculed as unsound. Granted the show was one sided, but if you're going to debate, at least let Hercules get a few punches in. The only swing that might have connected was a Hawking quote which our hero eventually undermined by saying that if the professor agrees with one thing Hawking says he must, ergo, agree with everything Hawking says.

Now for the more redeeming outreach of point 2. Swirling about the contest are several stories that mixed together capture some genuine aspects of Christian living. With the reverend whose work feels under powered, and the Muslim girl who gets disowned for her new faith in Jesus. Mixed alongside the foreign exchange student whose oppressive obedience gives way to redemptive faith and the combative reporter whose life crumbles and leaves her seeking hope. God's Not Dead does the Gospel more justice with these underpinnings than in the main plot. While somewhat contrived, they have a heart for Jesus that more purposefully addresses fallen man than the gently intellectual script could. 

One particularly stirring impression comes when the embattled professor reads a letter written by the mother he lost as a boy. The words struck me as something a Christian woman would say to her children. So much so that the strength of a godly mother's love is made very powerfully clear in that scene. Nonetheless this is unfortunately mixed up with the notion that every atheist has an axe to grind with God due to some past 'injustice' (such as losing a mother), which is not necessarily true,and should have been left out entirely. Even if it stole the professor of his redemptive impetus in the final scene.

Leaving this on the shelf next to Fireproof will be a likely end to God's not Dead. But the one thing that will stick with me is the somewhat priggish chuckling that arose in the theater during some of the hero's less rational hubris. If there's one thing Christian's don't need more of, it's a unsympathetic and uninformed opinion of the opposition to deism. But movies can't make fools all by themselves. So perhaps the chance this movie might inspire some questions about apologetics should make me hopeful. As it is, I did like that scene with the letter. 

It's Not What You Think You Heard or Saw

Children have an interesting way of stripping down adult concerns to their uncomfortably basic realities. Who better to study then, when we desire to better understand reality? 

Two cases: 

A little girl who's damaged ears went untreated for some time, and a little boy who's blurry vision was unnoticed. Each child had loving but unaware parents, and what is interesting isn't the challenges they underwent during their perceptive handicap, but rather their reactions to the world around them after healing. 

The girl was heard telling her father informatively "Dad, did you know that leaves make a rustling sound? Did you know pencils make noise on paper?!" While the newly four-eyed boy remarked at a family reunion "Grandma! You have teeth!" The humor in these novel realizations isn't lost on us. What might be overlooked, however, is the unnerving questions that are raised when two highly functioning human-beings are observed re-evaluating the way they perceive the wonder of the world around them; after their handicaps are removed. 

The power of the image in this case rests upon the age of our characters. They exist in a season of life FULL of adaptation and comprehension. Admittedly, nature vs. nurture is a common debate; but there is no doubt that our formative years hold great potential for learning and unveiling the perceived mystery of the physical world around us. I use the word mystery with a particular nod to the Apostle Paul, whose choice of language for understanding and exploring our faith often included this vague and inconclusive word.

It is this mystery that I would like to turn our attention to. Little children whom untreated could live a life devoid of normal senses that our healing can reinstate, make me wonder what other portions of the human existence we 'little children' might be missing out on. 

Allow me to explain my skepticism. The vast majority of humankind will not dispute that our five senses have a typically universal ability to interpret the world around us. Much has been made out of the abnormal cases (see above) but in general, you and I will each hear the siren of an ambulance, it is intended that nearly everyone should hear it. I would suggest that a parallel  but unique sense exists innately in Christianity. I believe that this sense or heightened awareness remains unused in the deaf world of secularism, because Christians see things only those of faith can perceive (Colossians 1:26-27). 

In our post-modern and skeptical world then I am at home as a skeptic. But my skepticism does not revolve around religious texts. My doubt is concerned with the ridiculous notion that our observation, and consequentially our qualification and quantification of the world around us is all that there is to be found in this existence. I find this qualm in the example of little children. Children who left untended and unloved might have lived a life reduced of experience, and therefore ran the risk of misunderstanding their world.  

We live in an age of reason and doubt. The savor of the former and the salve of the latter is found in the scientist's cry of "repeatable verifiable." Yet, if leaves had no sound in the 'science' of the little girl. How plausible is it then, that God hath no voice in the ear of the scientist? 

One final thought. If we, priviledged few who identify with Paul, have been healed. Was it not by a benevolent God? Can you imagine the joy of a parent whose child has been diagnosed and cured? Now empathize with that same parent, as their joy is watered down by the regret that they hadn't rescued their offspring from want and suffering earlier. How much more then, does our Father in heaven desire to heal those destined to be his children? To reveal new truths, new perspectives and new senses to those in His image! (All the moreso because he knows what we miss out on!)

I do not discount what I see and what I feel first hand, but I know that mysteries exist in our faith, and our faith is the solution. I pray that you will chase after that faith above all physical understanding, for it isn't what you see, but what most people miss seeing, that assures us of a narrow path home.

For the sake of simplicity I've left out some of the necessary parallels between scientific research and perception, as well as the ties between observation and post-modern skepticism in contrast to Faith. Should you find an error or have a concern, please comment and I will be happy to edit or elaborate. 

Cold Virtue

This year was almost perfect. Almost. I was 20 days from saying that 2013 was cold and flu free. 

Yet escape I did not. Now my nose is stuffy and red, and I can't talk to anyone for fear of impromptu coughing and sneezing. Alas sickness, even the mild forms healthy 1st world adults encounter, is out of our control. 

You know the type, it's no life threatening situation (but you can make it out to be). Its not even worth complaining about but it's much easier to complain than to stoically wait it out. For that matter, it seems that once we've resigned ourselves to its inevitable visitation, waiting it out is just the way of things. Once or twice a year our bodies become an embattled fortress where we holdout for health to return. 

Nevertheless, might I suggest that this isn't all that is available to us? Whether whining or waiting I believe many of us are missing an opportunity to grow stronger.

There are three things that we can garnish from being sick:

1. Hope
2. Humility
3. Gratitude

Let's expand on these virtues and exactly how we can discover them while trapped under the weather:

Hope

The wretched state of being sick would not be wretched if it were the only life we knew. Some of us rarely know what it is to be unhealthy. But all of us know that when we are sick, we long to be well. We hope to be made well again. This subtle characteristic is one of our strongest attributes as Christians. What is a follower of Christ if not someone who has hope in His coming kingdom? But hope is not merely a expectation of being well, it is as much an attitude as it is anticipation. When we are ill, and wishing to be well, we choose how to express that desire. We can do it grouchily as we cling to memories of what it was to be healthy, or we can decide endure it happily and joyfully, by anticipating a day when we will be more whole and more in line with our Creator's intent.  

Humility

Being "brought low" requires no elaboration when you have a cold. Morning workouts are not an option, food and activities... those become arduous acts of decision or restraint. We are readily confronted with the ghost of a feeling that "once we were," and "now we are no longer." Once we were strong, now we are no longer strong...Once we could, now we can't. The list is a long and depressing damper on our power and ambition. But that is the real blessing of humility through illness. 

Our power and our ambition are tightly entangled in our own selves, and they continually plant seeds of pride in our hearts that without weeding, will grow into solid oaks of arrogance. Illness not only can catch us before we fall into this trap, it can do it to anyone. Even rulers of nations can become sick (this and death are the great equalizers of the human race). When we are robbed of our own strength and we see the weakness of all men, we can begin to realize the real source of control in our lives is not in and of ourselves, or in the machinations of Mankind, but that it rests in the hands of the Almighty. Being weak (and often involuntarily) brought low before Him, we are reminded of who we worship in a powerful and physical way. 

Gratitude

Just as we can hope in the promise of health, we have a similar chance to heighten our memory of what was before illness, and more importantly our feelings on what is happening in our illness. When I spoke of grouchy recollections in the virtue of hope, I did not mention another way to reflect on the times that we weren't sick. Not every perspective must face forward to the future, the blessing of illness in this respect is that when we look back, we can powerfully contrast the blessings of the past with the struggles of the present; and be grateful for the good times. But thankfulness for past blessings is just the start of instilling this virtue in our hearts. Gratitude is in itself a matter of perspective. It should never be so reliant on comparison to generate its action, that it loses its real role in our lives. 

Let me explain: Once you can be thankful for the big comparative things, a year of almost complete health for example, you can grow into appreciation of the real things, like breathing. Are you grateful for breathing? You bet! (When you consider the alternative it makes us very grateful.) You might also be simply grateful for that chicken soup you were able to keep down, or the blanket keeping you warm. Even in our wretchedness, turning our thankful eyes onto even the smallest blessings is an exercise worth pursuing. It is a wonderful personal reminder that grace has not left us even as Mistress Illness attends to us.

If you are sick, I hope you feel better soon, and that this season of challenges would build in you much perseverance, a quality ornamented with many great promises in our Christian faith. 

What if we can't all get along?

"I felt, even upon first meeting him, that Mr. Wilberforce and I could never assume so close a partnership as our mutual colleagues had divined to each of us individually. His amiability and warmness were as clear to me at our parting handshake as they had been at our first. Yet, something felt amiss in our conversation. Though our aims are mutual, our passions similar, I knew almost at once a secret distaste for cooperation with him. 

As a gentleman I pride myself on setting trifling disagreements aside, yet upon learning a few of his less outspoken positions (yes, there are a few), I could not fight entirely the colour with which his views painted my opinion of him. I am somewhat burdened with guilt at letting down such prosperous prospects for our camaraderie. Nonetheless, I will not let time develop my distaste for a man so deserving of my respect. No. It is best we parted as we did, amiable acquaintances, with kind words for one another, untroubled with commitments beyond our passing appointment."

-Sir Patrick Dempsey June 12 1816

Have you ever felt guilty for disagreement? Not guilty that you are wrong, assume this is a case where you are not. In fact, assume they are just as sure that they're right, too. Have you ever felt perturbed when you answer the question "can't we all just get along?" with a confident "NO"?

We feel the pang of remorse because we are being made to long for peace, and a greater part of peace is the absence of conflict. It is assumed that in the Body of Christ we will observe a peace and unity of mind amongst the brethren. Paul extols and encourages the virtue; so much so, that we are riddled with guilt when our idea of peace isn't realized, especially within our church family. 

So how do we interpret this dichotomy? How do we acknowledge reality is not in line with the ideal, while still striving for the ideal rather than questioning its foundations? 

The above excerpt is an example of splintering. Whether we like it or not we can all admit to meeting people in our lives that we have a secret (or perhaps not so secret) dislike of. What I hope you can see in the example above is this: 

1) people don't agree on every thing

2) distaste can be handled tastefully 

3) proximity impacts opinion

Not every person you don't like will interact with you as Dempsey and Wilberforce did. Not every reaction will be so civil. You may even have an expectation that you should get along, just like Dempsey's friends implied to him. It's unsettling when the person you don't 'click' with seems like a great person to interact with initially, but does not work so well with you in relationship. 

Let's put this on a far bigger scale: As long as you're not a stickler for one fan-club. Denominations of the Church appear to be a sad break from the unity Christians should exercise. How can so many followers of Jesus find so much to break apart over? 

But, if we really do believe in a God who remains outside of time, yet is concerned with every soul on a planet where everything happens for a reason. If we further acknowledge that same God uses the iniquities of a creation that has broken away from Him for good. Is it so hard to imagine a Church whose splinters can be used powerfully in this Age for the one to come? 

Say that Dempsey and Wilberforce both served the Lord. Could it be that in God's great plan these two were made to do more apart than they could ever accomplish together? (Strength in numbers is a military tactic, it isn't always true for Christians. In fact gathering together in majorities might do more to hinder the Gospel than it does to spread it. We need to pray for the wisdom of God on this matter, not the wisdom of earthly generals.)

What I hope to point you to in this series of rhetorical questions is this: Perhaps instead of worrying over guilt at the lack of peace, you need to make your peace. Make your peace, especially with those you don't get along with that know the Lord, and seek Him for your next direction. Even great godly people were not meant to be at peace with one another in every case. 

As we grow in our faith, and begin to disciple others, we need to see disagreement not always as a cause for guilt. Let's at least consider it as a possible catalyst. An opportunity where one circle of influence can be made into two. Yes sometimes the rift is saddening. Sometimes a rift needs mended. But splinters can make good kindling, and two fires are brighter than one. How many fires in the darkness are shining now, I wonder, because of splinters?

Bias and Prejudice

It has occurred to me that there exists a great injustice to the cause of faith in relativist circles. A circular line of reasoning that is, while seemingly logical, astoundingly dishonest.

The good post modern thinker will strive, whenever a stereotype is issued in their hearing, to argue that such claims are falsehoods by the simple virtue that they cannot be truthful in every instance. 

For example, one might firmly claim: "Clearly anyone who smokes pot is an irresponsible degenerate."

To which, the smug, and aware-enough-to-be-wary, intellectual would counter with a fine example of upstanding politicians (who once partook of the finer herb). Or they might take the course of empathy: Mentioning the cancer patient who prefers this medicinal application over more damaging medicines to manage their pain and suffering.

How can you argue with that? They are, in an exact sense, right. Your stereotype is just that.

I must insist though that they are, in a greater sense, frauds. Here's why:

The initial example is potentially backed by the viable repetition of some action by many members of the group. This is statistically reasonable. If you observe the same action in multiple cases, you tend to anticipate the next case to fall within the same trend. You have outliers, which your humble friend uses to undermine the gross generalization, but nonetheless, there are observable facts associated with many stereotypes, which can be reliably anticipated amongst a majority of members of the group to which the action/behavior is attributed.

Your friend, in their (laughably) 'humble' opinion will only really go after you if you threaten to apply the bias to an undeserving individual, as shown above. But let us flip the perspective a bit and see if they afford you  mutual respect with regards to their own occasional bias.

Say for example you claim that there is an absolute God who offers salvation though His Son Jesus Christ, and that with this promise of salvation comes a certain moral perspective on the world that objects to certain actions of your friend.

A common way of beating around the bush in their reply is for your friend to take your individual claim, apply it to the general group of Christendom, then break the group down into their favorite anecdote of hypocrisy, brutality, etc. In this way they create a Stereotyped Prejudice, or in more common terms, they argue that one bad apple ruins the whole bunch.

Now this line of argument has noble roots. In an effort to avoid prejudice, the good post-modern thinker will strive to point out the good examples in the midst of some negative generalization as well as the bad examples in some overly positive generalization. This allows them to have a balanced view of the world. Therefore it is not surprising that in the face of an individual claim (that is made also by others), they are quick to point out the worst cases to undermine yet another generalization. 

And here is where this noble pursuit turns into sour dishonesty: Christendom makes a general claim. Imperfect humans grasp it and follow imperfectly. Yet the happy condition of the good post-modern thinker is that to them: every claim is a generalization; and they prefer to focus on the individual story or example. This goes on until they are faced with a generalization that is so absolute, so unyielding that no longer is it a claim,  it is absolute TRUTH. Then they desperately prejudice themselves against truth, in the most unflattering aerobatics of thought you will ever see.

Allow me to explain it in another way. One of the finer barbs of relativism is that it liberates a person so greatly from general trends, that everything becomes a distinct perspective. It is a discourteous slight of hand to then use those perspectives to turn about and make some prejudiced generalization about the group which in spite of itself offers the greatest general claim to TRUTH. That is the cause of many a post-modern objection to Christ, the notion of truth is inexorably bound to absolutes, and absolutes are relevant for every perspective. That is a hard pill to swallow for the good post-modern thinker, and it is why we must as followers of Christ strive to align ourselves with His claims daily; we can validate or betray the claims of our Lord in everyday life. 

So I close with this thought: In spite of the tricks of the frauds we are called to reach in the world, the best case for faith is still by our own example as living and breathing Christians. So I ask you reader: in what ways are you stumbling? With that in mind, how might you be the cause of a prejudice against the great grace of God? We should pray that we grow in His grace moment by moment. 

Christians are not perfect but they can curtail the prejudice, and alongside the Holy Spirit, play a part in turning today's post-modern frauds, into forever followers of Christ.