The Book of Eli – reviewed by Jeff Stauffer

08 Mar 2010 | 1 Comment »

In the movie The Book of Eli, we meet Denzel Washington (Eli) heading west in a post-nuclear war torn America. Eli is a man on a mission, a mixture of Mad Max and Frodo. As the movie plays on, we slowly unravel the driving purpose for his life: to carry the only surviving copy of the Bible to an unknown destination out west. Eli is not only a knife-wielding traveler, able to take on entire gangs of vigilantes, but he also wields the sword of scripture, gracefully and poignantly reciting from the good book. Eli is sometimes preacher and other times prophet, choosing wisely his words in times of crisis.

Without spoiling the movie ending, which has a nice twist that will make you want to see it one more time, there are several spiritual topics that come to mind that might be worth pondering.

 1)         The Word of God.        The character of Carnegie, played wonderfully by Gary Oldman, is a power-hungry man on his own mission: to find for himself a copy of the Bible. Carnegie’s motives are not so noble, however. As Bibles are extremely rare in this movie setting, Carnegie realizes that if he can find one he can use it to control the people who follow him, not with brute force but instead with the “right words.” While the commoners are not familiar with Christian teaching or even know what the Bible is, Carnegie is old enough to remember its teaching as a youth. He knows the power that religious authority can wield and he’s willing to do whatever it takes to grasp hold of it.

This is a good reminder for all of us concerning the responsibility of our church leaders and others in positions of authority. God’s word is powerful but must be used in the hands of the humble and loving. Have we not all learned of instances of the Bible being used throughout history to control people or to abuse its powerful message? In Carnegie’s character we see the beginnings of a cult leader, a man who will twist God’s message to serve his own ambitious pursuit of power.

 2)         Water.              There is a subtle parallel that I found in the movie, where water has become a valuable asset in the scorched, arid western landscape. The earth is barren, showing little signs of producing vegetation, and Eli is always searching for sources of water to survive another day. People come from miles around and stand in line and pay hefty prices to fill their canteens at a watering hole. It reminds me of when Jesus would speak to the crowds regarding a different kind of water. Whereas Jesus offers “living water” (Jn 7:38) that never runs dry, the people often didn’t understand his use of spiritual allegory, instead wondering if he himself dug a new, deeper well around the corner somewhere. In the movie, people are thirsting for truth, for hope, for a way out of their bleak existence. And when Eli begins to quote from Psalm 23 to his friend Solara, she craves more. She leaves everything behind to follow him.

 3)         Living out one’s faith.                While Eli has clearly been given a task in life, he struggles with “staying the course.” Early on we see his westward trek interrupted by a group of motorcyclists who kill and rape innocent travelers. He is torn as whether to intervene or ignore the atrocities being carried out before him. As he hides nearby he repeats the phrase, “This is not your concern… stay on the path.” Eli is a private man, unwilling to get involved in other people’s lives. Yet, when he meets the young girl Solara who yearns to learn about his book, he can no longer ignore evil when it crosses her path. He finally realizes his life is more than just being a courier for the sole remaining Bible known to man: “In all these years I’ve been carrying it and reading it every day, I got so caught up in keeping it safe that I forgot to live by what I learned from it.” In the end though, Eli is grateful for how his life has played out, quoting from 2 Tim 4:7, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race…”

 4)         The Miraculous.            It goes without saying that people will have varying opinions regarding whether or not miracles occur, and if so what they might look like. The movie provides several examples where one is confronted with opportunities to answer this question. Also, the ending provides new information that makes you reflect back and reevaluate where miracles may have come into play. And so I found myself asking these kinds of questions after the movie: Just what is a miracle? Can it be a “chance” meeting? What if someone literally dodges a bullet? What if they dodge 50 bullets? Did God move the bullets out of harms’ way or did he align the universe so that 50 defective bullets came off the assembly line headed for this particular battle? Or maybe He whispered in all of their ears, distracting their focus momentarily? Perhaps some of you are as strange as I am and actually think about such things?

What begins in the movie as explainable through skill or luck, you soon recognize to be the miraculous. Where one crosses this line depends on how closely you view God’s participation in this world.

 While there are many spiritual aspects to this movie that makes it intriguing to watch and think about, it is also a very violent and often vulgar film. Its ‘R’ rating is very appropriate. Yet despite this, it is refreshing to see a Christian character, portrayed with a mostly positive spin, coming out of Hollywood.

Category(s): Christian Living, Faith & Culture, Movies, Moview Reviews, Reviews

Tag(s): , , , , , ,

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Book Summary)

08 Mar 2010 | 2 Comments »

Book by D.A. Carson

Editors Note:  This article is part of the Book Summary Project, an initiative designed to provide Christians with summary statements of the main ideas of each chapter of important books.  Inclusion in the Book Summary Project DOES NOT constitute endoresment of a book.  Rather, inclusion in the Book Summary Project indicates that we believe followers of Jesus should we aware of the book and its central ideas.

(Book Summary by Craig Smith)

 Chapter 1  – The Emerging Church Profile

Carson begins the book with an attempt to define the Emerging church movement, or as some of its leaders prefer, the Emerging church conversation.  Recognizing the difficulty in defining such a diverse collection of ideas, people and churches, Carson focuses on those elements which seem to be common across the Emergent landscape: 

At the heart of the “movement”…lies the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is “emerging.”  Christian leaders must therefore adapt to this emerging church.  Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression that no longer communicate with the new generation, the emerging generation.[1]

From this definition, Carson focuses on three elements which seem to characterize most of the Emergent movement:

1.  Protest against traditional evangelicalism - Here Carson describes the Emergent frustration with arrogance, absolutism, hypocrisy, showiness, naively simplistic Christian maxisms, etc.

2.  Protest against modernism – Here Carson describes the epistemology of modernism (i.e. truth can be known absolutely) and of postmodernism (i.e. truth is always subjective and relative to the perspective of the individual), arguing that the Emerging movement is generally in favor of postmodern epistemology.  This need not mean that all Emergent leaders are anti-truth but merely that they are suspicious of claims to have found absolute truth or even of claims to have understood God’s revealed truth rightly.

3.  Protest against the seeker-sensitive church – Here Carson describes the Emergent protest against mega-churches and the perceived inauthentic worship of the seeker-sensitive church movement, arguing that Emergent leaders are calling for churches to be built around an authentic experience of connectedness with God.  Whereas in the modern or seeker-sensitive church the focus is perceived to be on the sermon as explanation, the Emerging church focuses on the whole worship service, making worship, community and sermon-as-example all parts of a holistic experience of God’s presence.

Carson concludes this first chapter with an analysis of three criteria on which he believes the Emerging church ought to be assessed:

1.  First, the Emerging church ought to be assessed with regard to its reading of contemporary culture.

2.  Second [though Carson's language here is a bit less clear than in the other two points], the Emerging church ought to be assessed with regard to the way it sees and uses Scripture.

3.  Third, the Emerging church ought to be assessed with regard to the biblical fidelity of its proposals for adapting to wide-spread cultural changes.

Chapter 2 – The Emerging Church Strengths in Reading the Times

In this chapter, Carson speaks to both the importance of adapting our communication to contemporary culture (which has clear biblical precedent) and praises the Emerging church for their contributions in this area.  In particular, he applauds their focus on:

1.  Authenticity – Though Carson wonders if “corporate worship is any more ‘authentic’ just because there are candles or centers for journaling”, he acknowledges that it is disturbingly common to be able to go through all the motions of worship, Bible-study and even prayer without ever sensing the presence of the living God.  Moreover, siding here with many Emergent leaders, Carson says that:

The issue is not gimmicks or entertainment, carefully orchestrated to attract a crowd addicted to entertainment, but a profound sense of reality, of authentic knowledge of God, manifested in goodness and transformed living.  When emerging church leaders foster the kind of authenticity that builds a contagious church thoughtful Christians will be grateful for their unease with the superficial and their passion for what is real.[2]

2.  Recognizing Our Own Social Location –   Though Carson warns against adopting a thorough-going postmodern view of epistemology and interpretation, he admits that “there is some insight in the postmodern insistence that the readers themselves are socially located and that this social location plays a contributing role in their interpretations.”[3]

3.  Evangelizing Outsiders – Here Carson applauds the Emerging church’s focus on evangelism, especially with regards to people who are often overlooked by the church.

4. Probing Links with the Tradition – Carson also applauds the Emerging church for re-establishing important links between the modern church and our past, arguing that we have much to remember and learn from God’s people who have gone before us.

Having praised the Emerging church for several important things, Carson concludes this chapter by arguing that, while these contributions are often made by the Emerging church, they are not exclusive to the Emerging church, noting that many of these same concerns are voiced by church leaders who have no desire to be identified with the Emerging movement.

Chapter 3 – Emerging Church Analysis of Culture

In this chapter, Carson assesses the Emerging church’s reading of contemporary culture.  His analysis focuses on two areas[4]:

1.  On the Evaluation of Modernism – Carson argues that the Emerging movement suffers from a simplistic evaluation of modernism, failing to understand that much of what it finds attractive in postmodernism:

…is nothing but the popularization of one strand of modernistic thought, which itself is a reaction against other strands of modernist thought.  In any case, I see the analysis of modernism itself within the emerging church movement so stylized and reductionistic as to represent a major historical distortion.[5]

Because of this simplistic understanding of modernism, Carson believes that “the distortion of modernism extends, in the case of some emerging church thinkers, to a distortion of confessional Christianity under modernism,”[6] arguing that much of what the Emergent movement idealizes can be found within the church of the recent past and in the contemporary, but not Emergent, church of today.

Carson also accuses some Emergent church leadership of condemning the contemporary church on grounds that are theologically shallow and intellectually incoherent.  As an example, he points to the Emergent emphasis on tolerance which has been re-defined in the postmodern world to mean a refusal to think that any opinion is bad, evil or stupid when in fact, the very notion of tolerance requires evaluation and disagreement because “one has to disagree before one tolerates.”[7]

2.  On the Evaluation of Postmodernism – Here, Carson suggests two things by way of a critique of the Emerging church’s embrace of postmodernism:  First, that their understanding of postmodernism is, like their understanding of modernism, overly simplistic; while postmodernism has made some positive contributions, it has also made some contributions that are obviously not compatible with historical Christian faith.  Second, Carson notes that most of the Christian books on postmodernism are being published in America whereas postmodernism has already become passé in Europe.  Thus, as is often the case, American intellectuals are late to the game and what they are now making so much of is already passing away.

Chapter 4 – Personal Reflections on Postmodernism’s Contributions and Challenges

In this chapter Carson perhaps more clearly than anywhere else articulates his struggle with the Emergent movement:

I want to state quite clearly that my quarrel with Emergent is not that it is trying to read the times or that it thinks that postmodernism, properly defined, introduces serious challenges that need to be addressed; rather, its response is not as penetrating and biblically faithful as it needs to be.[8]

As this chapter continues, Carson discusses his assessment of postmodernism, arguing that pre-modern epistemology began with God (understanding our knowledge as a small subset of the divine knowledge), modern epistemology began with “I” (but still assumed that knowledge could be objective and absolute) and postmodern epistemology begins with “I”, but has rejected the possibility of knowing things as objective or absolute.  This fundamental shift in epistemology has led to what Carson calls “entailments”:[9]

1.  Notions of objective morality are among the first things to be questioned.

2.  Evangelism is often viewed in the broad culture as intrinsically obnoxious because “no matter how gently it is done, it cannot avoid giving the impression that Christians think they have something superior.”[10]

3.  People are likely to be helped into adopting a new position by something other than, or at least more than, careful argument.

4.  Postmodern people are likely to be happy with personal narratives (the story of an individual and how he or she thinks about the world), but suspicious of metanarratives (a big story which claims to be able to describe all of life in a meaningful and cohesive way).

Carson acknowledges several strengths of postmodern epistemology (1.  It exposes the weaknesses and pretension of modernism, 2. It grants necessary legitimacy to intuition and imagination, 3. It fosters sensitivity to other cultures, 4. It demands humility and thus mitigates arrogance).  In spite of these strengths, Carson points out several weaknesses of postmodern epistemology:

1.  Postmodernism often depends on manipulative and false antithesis:  either we can know something absolutely, perfectly and exhaustively or we can only claim a small perspective on something without any mechanism for discovering whether our perspective is an important part of the whole, a distorted view of the whole, etc.[11]  In reality, there is a broad landscape between these two extremes and there is no particular reason why we cannot know things accurately in part while still acknowledging that we do not know all things.

2.  Postmodernism ignores the simple fact that, “in spite of the difficulties of knowing things and in communicating things with other human beings, a great deal of knowing and effective communication do take place.”[12]

Carson concludes this chapter with some comments about how to offer a “measured response” to postmodern epistemology and, correspondingly, to those aspects of the Emergent church which depend on it.  Here, Carson speaks of the importance of the intentional “fusion of horizons of understanding,”[13] the “hermeneutical spiral,”[14] along with a few other helpful concepts.

Chapter 5 – Emerging Church Critique of Postmodernism

In this chapter, Carson argues that while the Emerging church movement has thoroughly (though perhaps simplistically) critiqued modernism, it has not been nearly so thoughtful with regards to postmodernism.  Carson illustrates this short-sightedness with an analysis of several Emergent church thinkers, including Brian McLaren and Stanely Grenz, both of whom, Carson maintains, do not handle “the truth claims of Christianity very well”,[15] but instead duck the real questions about absolute truth or falsehood which are required by essential Christian doctrine.

Moreover, Carson argues that the Emerging church often fails to use Scripture as a “norming norm” over and against an eclectic – and therefore subjective – appeal to tradition.  Because of this eclectic approach:

1.  Emergent leaders speak of the importance of “Tradition” yet fail to live in any long-standing tradition, instead creating their own ad-hoc view of church which has neither tradition nor Scripture to offer it legitimacy.

2.  Emergent leaders fail to recognize that some Christian traditions contradict each other on fundamental points and do not turn to Scripture to adjudicate these conflicts.

Carson also addresses here the Emergent call to forgo arguing about the details of historical reliability of the Bible and to, instead, “live in the flow of the biblical narrative.”  Regarding this issue, Carson says that Emergents have again oversimplified their analysis, failing to realize that: 

When liberals began to doubt that it [e.g. the biblical narrative] is true, conservatives replied in similar detail that it is.  Of course, in itself such discussion does not constitute living joyously within the narrative.  But the discussion of Frei, and of Lindbeck and others who followed him, that we must simply return to living within the narrative while refusing to consider, once these doubts have been raised, whether this narrative is telling the truth, is myopic counsel.[16]

In this chapter, Carson also assesses the Emerging church emphasis on “belonging” vs. “becoming” [by which they mean that it is wrong to insist that people become like us in Christian behavior before belonging to our community].  Carson points out that the New Testament teaching on church discipline and even excommunication presupposes that becoming and belonging cannot be completely separated.

Chapter 6 – Emerging Church Weakness Illustrated in Two Significant Books

In this chapter, Carson looks in detail at Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren and The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke, both important books which have had a profound influence on the development of the Emergent movement.  Carson uses this analysis to give concrete illustrations of the kind of thinking which he has previously critiqued in a more general sense.

Carson’s strongest critique of these authors, and of those factions of the Emergent movement which are indebted to them, comes in this chapter when he writes:  “I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel.”[17]

Chapter 7 – Some Biblical Passages to Help Us in our Evaluation

In this chapter, Carson provides a rather extensive list of biblical passages (along with the occasional commentary) that bear on the issues discussed throughout the rest of this book.

Chapter 8 – A Biblical Meditation on Truth and Experience

In the concluding chapter, Carson argues that much of the Emergent vs. non-Emergent discussion boils down to a debate between the claims of truth and the claims of experience. He then offers exegetical insights from a brief study of 1 Peter 1:1-21 to demonstrate that faithful adherence to the Bible requires a view of this debate which recognizes that truth, rightly understood, may correct experience, but that it can never be the other way around.  Experience can, and should, cause us to reevaluate whether or not we have rightly understood the truth, but it can never alter truth itself. He acknowledges that both truth and experience, wrongly functioning in our lives can corrupt us.  Over-emphasis on truth alone can lead to arrogance while over-emphasis on experience can lead to idolatry.

[1] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church:  Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2005), 12.

[2] Ibid, 50-51.

[3] Ibid, 51.

[4] Carson has a third area as well, what he calls the emergent church’s attraction to “particular isms”.   Though important observations are made here, I do not feel that this section quite belongs alongside his assessment of the emergent church’s evaluations of modernism and post-modernism.

[5] Ibid, 60

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, 69.

[8] Ibid, 87.

[9] Carson lists 5 entailments, but his fifth (“even the hard sciences do not escape postmodern analysis”) seems to me more a statement of the broadness of the  effect of postmodern thinking rather than a distinct entailment.

[10] Ibid, 101.

[11] Ibid, 104.

[12] Ibid, 106.

[13] This occurs when we work to understand the world of an author and his/her readers so that we can see the world in some degree as they saw it and thus improve our chances of rightly understanding what they intended to communicate when they wrote.  This is often accomplished by studying the historical context of an author and his/her texts.

[14] This is the recognition that we are unlikely to ask the right questions of a text on the first go-round, but on each subsequent interaction with the text, we gradually become better able to ask the appropriate questions and thereby “spiral” in to a proper understanding of the author’s intention for it.

[15] Ibid, 130.

[16] Ibid, 144.

[17] Ibid, 186.

Category(s): Book Summaries, Christian Living, Christian Ministry, Faith & Culture, Philosophy

Tag(s): , , , ,

Finding a Christian Speaker

22 Feb 2010 | 3 Comments »

Finding a Christian speaker for your event can be a daunting task.  A quick search on the internet will generate several thousand pages of possibilities, but how do you narrow down that list to a manageable size?

 Begin with your budget in mind

The first thing to do when trying to find a Christian speaker is to get some idea what your budget is.  Getting a gifted speaker shouldn’t be a financial burden to your ministry, but you shouldn’t expect them to do the job for nothing, either.  It’s not uncommon for churches to think they should be able to get a professional speaker to their event for next to nothing because “it’s ministry.”  Others think that they should be able to get a Christian speaker cheaply because “they’re only speaking for 30 minutes three times…why should I have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for an hour and a half of work?” 

 There are two things to keep in mind when you’re thinking about what a Christian speaker will cost:

 1.  While Christian speaking is ministry – and most professional Christian speakers think of it in precisely this way – it is also how they make their living.  To be available to fly around the country or around the world on weekends and, often, during the week, these individuals can’t work a regular job.  So, while they consider speaking a ministry, they also have to make a living doing it.  Remember the Apostle Paul’s instruction:  For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:18). 

 2.  You can’t think about a speaker’s honorariums as an hourly wage.  Yes, you’re paying them for 3 or 4 talks of a fairly short length each, but you’re also paying them to be at your event which means time away from family and time away from other sources of needed income.  Think about it this way:  if you pay a speaker a $1500 honorarium for 3 talks of 30 minutes each, that would be $500 per talk…pretty good wages!  But wait: the speaker had to leave home at 8:30 am to catch the plane to your city, then drive to the event location, meet people at the event, speak, hang out between sessions, etc.  By the time the weekend is over, the speaker has essentially been “on the clock” for maybe 40 hours.  That’s only $37.50 per hour.  Still not a bad wage, but remember, speaking isn’t like working at most jobs.  Most speaking engagements only happen on the weekends, so during the week, professional Christian speakers often have no income at all.  And, even the most popular Christian speakers may only get 2 or 3 bookings a  month, so the honorariums they get paid for their weekend engagements have to go pretty far!

 So, what’s an average cost for a professional Christian speaker?  There may not be any such thing.  The cost depends on many factors including the speaker’s popularity, experience, etc. 

 Our advice is to look for a speaker with a sliding scale for honorariums.  What this means is that the speaker doesn’t have rigid pre-set fees but works with the event organizers to find an agreeable rate.  At Shepherd Project, our speaker fees vary depending on:  how many people will be at the event, whether or not attendees are being charged for the event, what the purpose of the event is, et.al.  For evangelistic events where no one is being charged to attend, our rates are lower than for huge conferences where thousands of attendees are being charged hundreds of dollars each to attend.  Typically, our speaker honorariums run from $800 to $2000 (including travel costs) for weekend events.

 As you think about speaker honorariums, keep in mind that some speakers include their travel costs in the honorarium and others tack those costs on top of the honorarium.  Make sure you find out which it is.  At Shepherd Project we always quote all-inclusive deals that have already accounted for travel costs so you don’t have any unexpected fees to pay later.

 What kind of speaker do you want?

The second thing to do when trying to find a Christian speaker is to decide what you’re looking for.  Most Christian speakers fall into two broad categories:  equipping and inspiring.  Christian speakers who fit into the “inspiring” category will generally be fun and encouraging to listen to, but relatively short on biblical content.  Christian speakers who fit into the “equipping” category will generally have more in-depth teaching from the Bible.  Of course, there’s no reason why a Christian speaker can’t both equip and inspire audiences, but the unfortunate truth is that this combination of gifts is rare.  They’re out there, but they’re not common…and they’re not necessarily cheap.

 As with so many things in life, you may have to strike a balance.  When it comes to booking a Christian speaker, you will often juggle three things:  ability to engage, ability to equip and cost.  You can get someone who isn’t very engaging but is a solid teacher for relatively little money.  You can also get someone who is engaging but relatively shallow without spending much.  To get someone who is able to engage audiences and then give them life-changing teaching, you’re going to have to pay a professional-level fee (though this shouldn’t be a burden; see above).   

 Doctrinal Position

 Since you’re hiring a Christian speaker to teach at your event (even if you’re mostly looking for an inspirational message), it’s crucial that you know if their beliefs fit with your group’s.  Hiring a supposedly Christian speaker who doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible to speak at an evangelical church will be a disaster, and hiring a conservative Bible teacher for a very liberal denomination can be equally unpleasant.  Check any potential speaker’s statement of faith, which should be located on their website.  Ask follow-up questions to make sure their doctrinal position won’t be a point of conflict at your event.

Demo materials

Ideally, you should watch a video or listen to an audio recording of a speaker you’re interested in.  Even better, request a DVD or CD that your planning team can all watch.  Beware of speakers who have no such material available.  This is often a signal that the speaker is relatively inexperienced.  There’s nothing wrong with being inexperienced, of course.  Everyone has to start somewhere, but a new speaker should have lower rates.

Value-added options

Another thing to keep in mind when choosing a Christian speaker is whether or not you need any additional assistance in planning your event that they can help you with.  For instance, at Shepherd Project, we often provide graphics, videos and other materials to help planners promote their events.  Full-color posters, postcards, professional video teasers, etc. are all available for little or no cost.  We want your event to be a blessing to as many people as possible and we’re always happy to do what we can to get the word out.

 If you have more questions about finding a great Christian speaker for your event, please feel free to contact us at info@shepherdproject.com or call 1.800.253.1869.

Category(s): Christian Living, Christian Ministry, Christian speakers

Tag(s): , , , ,

Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, by N.T. Wright

16 Feb 2010 | No Comments »

Summary by Jeff Stauffer

Editors Note:  This article is part of the Book Summary Project, an initiative designed to provide Christians with summary statements of the main ideas of each chapter of important books.  Inclusion in the Book Summary Project DOES NOT constitute endoresment of a book.  Rather, inclusion in the Book Summary Project indicates that we believe followers of Jesus should we aware of the book and its central ideas.

Chapter 1: Not Another New Gospel? 

In this introductory chapter, Wright laments the difficulties faced by the historian of ancient documents. Texts from antiquity are almost always found in fragments and often find their way into the academic setting through not so fortuitous routes. For this reason he is always delighted in discovering new documents regardless of their condition, or the implications they may make on modern Christianity. In the case of the Gospel of Judas, this document took 30 years from discovery to publication, passing through several hands, private dealers, collectors, etc. before being published. Scholars generally agree; however, that despite its modern wanderings the Gospel of Judas is believed to be authentic (in the sense of a being a legitimate ancient document rather than a forgery), and in fact an ancient writing describing some of the beliefs known as “Gnosticism,” which will be discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 2: Second-Century Gnosticism

Wright points out that the Gospel of Judas portrays the basic tenets of Gnosticism, an ancient group sometimes described as a spinoff from Judaism, whereas others categorize it as its own sect:

  • There is a “dark dualism” in the world, where the physical universe is considered a bad place created by an evil lesser god.
  • There is a separate and greater divine being, sometimes referred to as “Father,” who is pure and wise.
  • The goal of all people; therefore, is to escape this evil world and be delivered into the spiritual realm where everything is pure and good. We are at fault for worshipping the malevolent creator God of this world.
  • In order to achieve the spiritual world, one requires special knowledge or “salvation.” (The word Gnosticism itself contains the root for knowledge, “gnosis”). This knowledge can only come from one who is from the spiritual realm, often referred to as the “revealer.”

From the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic writings, a theme emerges that tends to turn one’s view of the Old Testament on its head: because the physical world is an evil place, and its creator not worthy of worship, Gnostics were very critical of the Jewish community and their view of the creator God from the OT. This in turn led Gnostics to paint a very different picture of Jesus: a man who comes from the spiritual realm proclaiming that our problem is not sin, but materiality and that we need to escape this world.

Chapter 3: The Judas of Faith and the Iscariot of History

Beginning with some initial comments about Judas from the Bible, Wright points out that Judas’ name was fairly common during that time period. Nothing about his name implied any sort of status as a traitor. Wright also dispels opinions that Judas was a fictitious character, arguing that his story is too tightly woven into early source material for this to be a realistic option. Wright then goes on to present the basic story of the Gospel of Judas:

Jesus is the first person to experience “salvation” from this earthly world, and has returned to share this knowledge with us. The God of Israel and the Old Testament is belittled as a “lesser god,” one that created the Earth and all the evil within. Jesus asks Judas to free him from his physical body, thus allowing Jesus’ “divine spark” to escape. Thus, Judas is the hero in this gospel version, not the villain.

Chapter 4:  When is a Gospel not a Gospel? 

There is a fairly clear transition beginning in chapter four. Wright is finished talking about the Gospel of Judas and begins his critique of it instead. He starts with a strong statement: “Anyone knowing the relevant history must realize there is no chance of the Gospel of Judas giving us access to the genuine, historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.” He places the like date for the composition of the Gospel of Judas to be mid-second century at best, compared with mid to late first century at worst for the four biblical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. While early church fathers are found to have been quoting from the biblical gospels in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, no one from antiquity was quoting from non-canonical sources like the Gospel of Judas until the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries.

Wright also begins to generalize what we find in Gnostic writings as compared to the biblical gospels. For one, the Gnostic writings tend to be largely a gathering of sayings or advice. They don’t write history or narrative like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do. They also do not have consistent theological themes throughout like we find in the four biblical accounts, such as the coming of God’s kingdom, the life of Jesus, or a recounting of God’s relationship to Israel.

Chapter 5: Lord of the World or Escaper from the World

Those who are excited about Gnostic writings (Wright includes Dan Brown, Elaine Pagels, and Bart Ehrman) want to paint a picture of the Gnostics as “radical alternatives to the oppressive and conservative canonical gospels.” But Wright goes on to argue that the exact opposite is true based on the historical data. One of the common myths from this era (Wright expands on this in chapter six) is that the Christian Church shut down all rebellions and destroyed any document that threatened their power structure. However, Christians were not yet even in control of the culture. This would not begin for a few centuries yet. They were vulnerable, and martyrdom was quite common among Christian leaders as they lived in fear from Roman rulers. The Gnostics on the other hand, were quite happy to “blend in” and even recant their beliefs if needed. He also points out the clear financial incentive on the part of publishers to market this idea to sell more books, asking what’s more enticing, an academic book to sell to a few colleges, or a “racy, now-at-last-we-know-the-truth” presentation?

Chapter 6: Spinning Judas: The New Myth of Christian Origins

Modern proponents for Judas want to spin him as a hero, begins Wright; one who does Judaism a favor instead of contributing to the ancient condemnation the Jews received for their role in Jesus’ death. However this modern reinterpretation is again contrary to the historical facts. Gnostic scholars such as Marvin Meyer or Bart Ehrman want to usher in a new direction of dialogue with modern Judaism, based on the teachings of the Gnostics. However, this wouldn’t be a mere slight shift, states Wright, but a fundamental change in the Jewish worldview. Remember that Gnostics were highly critical of the God of the Old Testament and how they worshipped this “lesser God.” To somehow present Judas as a “continuation of Judaism” as Ehrman puts it, is “wishful thinking,” says Wright.

Wright concludes this chapter with a fascinating overview of the “New Myth of Christian Origins.” The main points of this philosophy include:

  • Jesus was not divine but merely a teacher who was a catalyst for many new movements. He did not intend to die and was certainly not resurrected.
  • There were varieties of early Christianity, each producing different “gospels.” It wasn’t until the Roman emperor Constantine in the 4th century that the four traditional gospels were chosen and all others destroyed as part of a greater goal of power and control.
  • The true meaning of Jesus’ teaching was supposed to be an inward search for meaning, divinity and goodness. It was not about a need for atonement or forgiveness. In essence it was a “soft version of Buddhism.”

 Other cultural factors come into play as well. Wright states that Americans in particular are fond of conspiracy theories and rebelling against “the establishment.” So we tend to prefer inner experience over exterior appeal to authority or evidence. This feeds the myth and provides lots of opportunities to allow Gnostic thoughts to invade culture and even the Church. Therefore, “the quest for the divine turns out to be a quest for self-discovery.” We take the “pursuit of happiness” to further and further heights of escapism. No need to change the world… we’re just passing through!

In terms of politics, we see this play out on both the right and left. On the right you have the “prosperity gospel” since we are members of God’s elite. On the left you have a complete disregard of sexual norms, since our innermost experience is “the ultimate test of spiritual validity.” Searching for our own sexual identity is part of the journey. 

Chapter 7: The Challenge of “Judas” for Today

In this brief final chapter, Wright calls us to see the Gospel of Judas for what it truly is: It is “…dark, so uncompromising, so utterly dualistic… the only thing to hope for is bodily death.”  This world is a dark and wicked place with no promise of it being anything else. Wright wants us to see that if the ordinary citizen was given this honest portrayal of the Gospel of Judas, not many people would accept it. So its proponents must fluff it up with language about “finding your inner light” or the “divine spark within.” The true gospel, he concludes, is a world created by a benevolent all-powerful God, who loved us so much he sent us a Messiah to make eternal life possible, eternal life in a physical place that is worthy of settling down in, not one that needs escaping from.

Category(s): Alternative Gospels, Apologetics, Bible, Book Summaries, Books, Historical Jesus

Tag(s): , , ,

Craig Smith & Megan Isaacson Interview on Daystar

12 Feb 2010 | No Comments »

Category(s): Christian Living, Encouragement, Faith & Culture, Videos, Worship

What Kindergarten Taught me about Valentines’ Day

12 Feb 2010 | 3 Comments »

By: Stacey Tuttle

They say that everything you need to know you learned in Kindergarten.  As a single facing another Valentine’s day alone, I tend to feel that this is a holiday that doesn’t apply to me.  However, my friend was talking this week about her kindergartener’s upcoming Valentine’s Day party and it changed my perspective.  In Kindergarten, you bring Valentines and candy to your whole class. It isn’t about having someone romantic in your life.  In Kindergarten it’s just about spreading a little love to everyone you know.    The Bible says in Matthew 13:44 that, “they will know we are Christians by our love.”  So, in light of that, maybe what I learned in Kindergarten about Valentine’s Day really is all I needed to know!

So, that brings me to a brief look at what it is to spread a little love to everyone I know, such that others will know I’m a Christian by the love I give.  There are different kinds of love, and certainly, we don’t need to spread more of the romantic love to everyone we know.   So, what is the kind of love that God wants us to be spreading?  While the Bible is full of advice on this topic, I think just a couple short verses will be enough to steer us straight and get us started. 

Phil 2:3-4, “Do nothing out of selfishness or vain conceit, but in humility, consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”  I must admit, it’s a struggle to really grasp considering others better than myself.  I mean, it may be easy with some people, but there are others … people I don’t like or maybe don’t respect their lifestyle, or whatever the case may be…and those people I struggle to truly consider better than myself.  We have a natural instinct for self-preservation it seems.  And the command to look to the interests of others often feels as if it flies directly in the face of that natural instinct.  But if people saw us truly living out this verse, wouldn’t they have to notice something different about us?  Wouldn’t they be likely to see that it was Christ in us that enabled us to love? 

John 15:13, “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”  Pretty hard to do if you don’t begin to consider others better than yourself and look to their interests and not just your own.  This is revolutionary love.  Whether a person lays their life down for a specific person or a group of people, it’s the stuff of heroes.  It’s what Jesus did for us, and as we do it for others people cannot help but see Him in us.  Thus, they know we are Christians by our love.

And while I am on the topic of Jesus laying his life down for us, let me mention here that Jesus was the ultimate Valentine.  He loved more purely and truly than any ever has.  He pursued a romance with mankind so desperately that He gave his life for it.  And he continues his pursuit of your heart today.  So, whether you have a someone to spend your Valentine ’s Day with or whether you are single like me, let me encourage you not to forget that Jesus is the ultimate romancer of your heart.  He longs to be your valentine, to shower you with His love.  And when you know you are loved by Him, overflowing with the love He lavishes on you, you will find that letting it spill over to those around you will be so much easier. 

May Valentine’s Day forever be a reminder of the lover of your soul who gave His life to win your love.  And may you remember the lessons of Kindergarten – that Valentine’s Day is about showing love to all of those around you.

Category(s): Christian Living, Faith & Culture

It’s Complicated

12 Feb 2010 | No Comments »

Review by Stacey Tuttle

For every example of noble, sacrificial love there are at least a thousand examples of self-serving , shallow love.  It’s Complicated was a story about several people with the latter type of love, each using the other to meet their needs. 

Lest you think I am being too harsh, let me say that I actually liked the movie.  To be honest, I laughed hysterically through it…twice.  I also felt that it was actually very honest about the questions and motives and uncertainty behind the actions of some of the characters, as well as the types of advice and support we get from the general public.  (Oh, how I hope you have at least one trusted voice that offers better advice than what was in that movie!) However, just to say that it was honest does not say that it was right.  You can ask a good question but act completely wrongly in response to that question.  To say that the advice Jane received from friends and counselors was “honest” is to simply say that it typified the types of advice people usually get from their friends and counselors, not that the advice was good.  It wasn’t.  The advice was common, not wise.

Here are some quotes from the movie along with some biblical responses:

Jane: “So you’re saying, this is a healthy choice for me.” (To have an affair with her ex husband.) The path of righteousness is always the healthy choice. 

Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out. Prov. 10:9
“Since we were together that long it’s not really that wrong.” (Jane’s justification for the affair) Jane is justifying her present by her past.  Your history doesn’t change the standards of right and wrong.

Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death.”
“You’ve never done anything bad or wrong, ever. So you’re allowed this one.” (Jane’s friends’ advice to her) There is a reason why Jane has never done anything wrong or bad – because it’s wrong or bad!  Sin is not like sick days at work – you are allowed to have 3 in a year, so sick or not, you take it – it’s a freebie!  Sin is ugly, wrong and has consequences.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death…”
Jane’s psychologist’s vacant response to Jane’s affair is that, “It’s not good.  It’s not bad.”  And later he offers, “It can’t hurt”. I am still trying to understand how he could possibly advise her that an affair could “not hurt.”  It did hurt.  It hurt her kids.  It hurt her own estimation of herself.  It hurt her architect who she was also seeing.  And it hurt her ex husband because it allowed his charm to be more powerful than his character – a dangerous lesson for anyone.  But lest I be unclear, let me point out that “do not commit adultery” is one of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:2-17).   It IS bad to commit adultery. 

 

I said that this movie was basically a story about people using each other.  I think Jake is pretty transparent – everything he does is to suit his own interests.  But Jane is not quite so obvious. She is a more mature character who has generally taken the high road it seems.  But this may just be her downfall.  She is worn out from doing the “right thing”.  So suddenly, something comes along that feels so good and so right.  So what does she do? She turns to friends and counselors for some sound advice – literally begging them to steer her in the direction she knows she needs to go.  But every one of them encourages her to just “live a little” and see what happens. 

I think the most dangerous thing about this film is that it ought to be a cautionary tale.  It ought to warn you against affairs.  It ought to let you know that sin is painful and has consequences.  It ought to encourage you to seek wise counsel.  But in the end, it doesn’t warn you of anything because there aren’t really any consequences in the movie.  But, maybe that too is honest in a way.  Maybe the truth is we don’t always see the consequences and we often feel we have gotten away with it, whatever “it” is.  But know that God sees.  Know that there are consequences and that sometimes God is showing you patience.  Romans 2:4, “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?”

Questions for Discussion:

  • Do you feel that it is healthy to always explore your curiosity?
  • Are you justifying actions in your life because of your history?
  • Do you feel you are “allowed” sins once in a while – like a diet plan, you are “allowed” 2 “freebies” a week?
  • Do you think there are consequences to your actions, even if you don’t see them immediately?
  • Are you more likely to use a relationship to meet your “needs” (usually your wants and desires) or to sacrifice your wants and desires to meet the needs of the other person?

Category(s): Christian Living, Faith & Culture, Movies, Moview Reviews, Reviews

Tag(s): , , ,

Dear John

12 Feb 2010 | 3 Comments »

Review by: Stacey Tuttle

 It isn’t all that often that Hollywood produces a main stream movie about sacrificial love.  There have been a few that have stood out to me: Gran Torino, The War (Kevin Costner), Life is Beautiful (Ok, it was foreign, but Hollywood gave it some big awards!)…  But none of those are examples of sacrificial romantic love.  The only one that really comes to mind is Nicholas Spark’s The Notebook because James Garner’s character stayed by his wife faithfully when she didn’t even know who he was, patiently hoping and working for that moment of recognition.  Six years later, we get another story from Nicholas Sparks about sacrificial love.  Only this time, the main character isn’t making sacrifices to be with the woman he loves; this time his sacrifices are for her benefit alone.  In fact, they almost guarantee he won’t be with her at all.  

It’s unfortunate that this point is so understated.  The poignancy is almost lost in the movie when it should have been the turning point, so let me draw a little attention to it. John’s military commitment was extended due to the 9-11 attacks.  While he is gone, his girlfriend, Savannah, ends up marrying someone else.  John comes home to find that her husband is dying of cancer and their only hope is medication which insurance won’t cover and they cannot afford.   It would have been easy for John to be hurt and offended that Savannah didn’t wait for him to come home.  In truth, part of him was.   To add to that hurt and confusion, her husband confided in John that she had never loved him like she loved John.  And Tim, her husband, further confided that he knew she still loved John.  This seems an odd thing for a husband to share with his wife’s former boyfriend, but he knew he was dying and was presumably doing what he could to ensure his wife’s future happiness and in a way confer his blessing and encouragement to John being a part of her life. 

So, John is left with the knowledge that the woman he loves still loves him, never stopped loving him and never loved her husband with the same kind of love that she loves him…and her husband is dying.  In a world where people cheat and have affairs and do what they feel like without thinking twice about it, the very fact that John didn’t try to take advantage of the situation was impressive enough.  But John’s ideas of love and service had been greatly expanded by his past history with Savannah.  She inspired him and challenged him to think more about truly loving others by living his life in selfless service to them.   Now, he finds himself facing the ultimate test of love – is he willing to essentially lay down his life, his will for her?  Is he willing to do everything in his power to do what is best for her – even though it means potentially losing her forever?  In an incredible act of selfless love, he sells his inheritance and gives the money (anonymously) to provide for Tim’s medical treatments, buying Tim another 5 years of life.  

Matthew 13:44 says, “They’ll know we are Christians by our love”.  What kind of love, though?  There are many things in our society we call “love”.   John 15:13 says, “Greater love hath no man that this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” So, whatever kind of love you find yourself in, romantic, brotherly, etc., the real test of its greatness is the degree to which it ennobles one to lay his or her life down in submission and sacrifice to the other. 

Questions to Ponder and Discuss:

  • Do you know people who love with such a great and noble love that you cannot but believe they must be Christians? 
  • What examples have you seen of that “greater love” – of people who were willing to lay their lives down for someone else?  Either in real life or in movies/books. 
  • How do you personally do with loving others in the way that the Bible describes?
  • Do you know that Jesus loved you enough to die for you?

Category(s): Christian Living, Dating, Faith & Culture, Movies, Moview Reviews, Reviews

Leap Year: What would YOU grab?

12 Feb 2010 | No Comments »

Review by: Stacey Tuttle

The pivotal question in Leap Year is when Declan asks Anna if her house was burning and she had 60 seconds, what would she grab.  Interestingly, we don’t ever know Anna’s answer to that question.  However, her search for an answer changes how she has evaluated the men in her life.  She watches as her fiancé, Jeremy, scrambles to grab electronics – cell phone, iPod, computer, camera, etc. – thinking there is a possible fire in the building.  Certainly, we understand to a point – it’s hard to replace a phone or computer – all the work and files and contacts, etc.  But it was all centered around possessions and work and accomplishments.  This is starkly contrasted with Declan who said he would grab a ring, significant in that it was a family heirloom and had belonged to his mother.  Declan was sentimental and put little stock in name brands and titles.  Anna had to choose: did she want to spend her life with a man who would be married to his job and possessions, or to a man who would be married to her and his family?  One guy might make better money, but the other was nearly guaranteed to take better care of her.  One would know her taste in shoes, the other would know her heart. 

It’s a simple question, but can reveal so much about a person.  It’s a great question to ask – whether it’s in response to Leap Year or just in casual conversation – if you only had a few minutes, the house is going down in flames, what would you grab?  See what matters most to the people around you.  It can lead to some great discussions about their priorities and what fulfills them (or what they think fulfills them!).  It’s a great question to ask for a natural segue from your culture into areas of faith.

Category(s): Christian Living, Faith & Culture, Movies, Moview Reviews, Reviews

Avatar – Movie Discussion Guide

11 Feb 2010 | 25 Comments »

Avatar

By: Stacey Tuttle

While there are a variety of interesting topics for discussion from Avatar [1] the topic which is probably most obvious and of greatest concern to Christians centers around the New Age philosophy which permeates Avatar.  Neytiri teaches Jake Sully the Na’vi way of life and philosophy – and it’s a lesson in New Age religion – centered on the connectedness and sacredness of all things. 

Rather than launch into an exposé of all things New Age in Avatar, or a criticism of the New Age “agenda”, I would like to simply point to Jesus and show you how the Bible differs from the New Age.   First, let me state a couple disclaimers.  It is easy to get offended at the New Age philosophy and say there is a pointed effort to push the New Age teaching on the masses.   However, don’t the non-Christians say the same about any movie that has a Christian message?  You may choose to see or not see the movie, but I find it inconsistent for Christians to complain about any other religion trying to teach or convert people when we are commanded, Biblically, to do the same. 

This brings me to a second disclaimer:  when you launch into conversations comparing any religion or world view to Christianity, do this prayerfully and with humility, or as the Bible says, with “gentleness and respect” (I Pe 3:15).  If you go in looking to attack and reveal to someone all the faults in what they believe, you are likely to make them more determined to keep their beliefs.   It is often more effective to simply point people to the truth than it is to point out the flaws and/or lies of their own beliefs.  When they see the truth, it will naturally bring error to light.  They will be quicker to let go the lies if they see that there is truth to grab hold of, whereas a direct attack on the lies will often make them clench hold even tighter.

A final comment before we look closer at the New Age philosophy is that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6).  Jesus is the difference between Christianity and every other religion on the earth.  Any discussions about faith ought to center on Jesus – remember that “no one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (John 14:6).  You can show the flaws in New Age thinking, you may even get people to renounce false beliefs, but unless you teach them about Jesus you cannot bring them to the truth. 

New Age vs. Christian

The following look at New Age is excerpted from Douglas R. Goothuis’ book, “Unmasking the New Age”:

The idea that “all is one” is foundational for the New Age; it permeates the movement…  Another name for this idea is monism.  Mono means “one”.  Monism, then, is the belief that all that is, is one.  All is interrelated, interdependent an interpenetrating.  Ultimately there is no difference between God, a person, a carrot or a rock.  They are all part of one continuous reality that has no boundaries, no ultimate divisions.  Any perceived differences between separate entities—between Joe and Judy or between Joe and a tree of between God and Judy—are only apparent and not real… 

Monism, the basic premise of the New Age movement, is radically at odds with a Christian view of reality.  A Christian world view affirms that God’s creation is not an undivided unity but rather a created diversity of objects, events and persons. Genesis 1 records God creating particular things. God separated the light from the darkness, day from night, the earth from the sky and the dry round from the seas.  He then created plans and animals according to their various kinds.  Finally, he created humans in his image.  Creation is thus not a homogenous soup of undifferentiated unity but a created plurality.  Creation is not unified in itself but in the plan and purpose of God –in Christ “all things hold together” (Col 1:17).  Our world is, as C.S. Lewis put it, “incorrigibly plural.”  Even God himself, according to the Bible, is not an undifferentiated unity but a tri-unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit—the Trinity.

ALL IS GOD

Once we admit that all is one, including god, then it is a short step to admitting that “all is god.”  This is pantheism.  All things –plants, snails, books and so on—are said to partake of the one divine essence…  Going further, it is argued that if everything is one and if all dualities in reality dissolve into the cosmic unity, then so does the idea of a personality.  A personality can only exist where it defines itself in relation to other beings or things…  If all is one, then there is only one being—the One.  The One does not have a personality; it is beyond personality.  God is more an “it” than a “he.”  The idea of a personal God is abandoned in favor of an impersonal energy, force or consciousness. 

Yet, the Bible affirms that all is not god.  God the Creator stands transcendently distinct from his creation. While God is present in his creation—not being an absentee landlord—he is not to be confused with the creation.  Creation does not contain him.  The apostle Paul spoke against those who “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25).  The book of Ecclesiastes tells us that “God is in heaven and you are on earth” (5:2).  To identify what is not God as God is what the Bible calls “idolatry”.

Does God Take Sides?

Jake Sully prays to Aywah for help before entering into battle.  Neytiri explains, however, that Aywah doesn’t take sides; Aywah only protects the balance of power.  I know that people throughout history have committed horrendous atrocities claiming that God was on their side.  And it is likely in response to this that a non-committal personality holds such appeal.  However, on the flip side of that you have people who are persecuted who cling to the idea that God has a personality and will eventually get involved and come through for them.  Ultimately, even Avatar rejects the idea of a completely neutral supreme being when Aywah answers Jake’s prayers and provides enough help in the battle to turn the tide and win the war.  As I heard Neytiri’s comment that Aywah doesn’t take sides I immediately recoiled.  Who wants to serve a God who won’t defend them?  Isaiah 41:10 says, “Do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed for I am your God.  I will strengthen you and help you.  I will uphold you with my righteous right arm.”   And in Isaiah 52:12 it says “the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard”—in other words, God’s got your back, and your front as well.  Not only that, but the God of the Bible “opposes the proud” (Jas 4:6).  The Christian God is not simply defending some balance of power.  He is personal, involved and even takes sides.  Don’t believe me?  Why else would the Bible say, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31) unless it is to say we have a God who gets involved and takes sides?  I am not saying that God takes the side of anyone who asks.  I am also not saying that God takes the side of someone every time they ask.  Nor am I saying that everyone who claims God is on their side is right.  God is not a genie that is required to do as we command.  The point here, however, is not to examine when God takes sides, but simply to point out that he is personal and he does get involved.  I’ll leave the discussion of when and why for another day.

[1] Some other ideas for discussion include the idea of destiny and the question of what happens when you aren’t the ideal person for the job, but you are the only one there is.

Category(s): Apologetics, Christian Living, Faith & Culture, Movies, Moview Reviews, New Age, Reviews

« Older Entries