Gimme Some Truth

Ah, I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

John Lennon, from the song "Gimme Some Truth"

A recent book by reporter Dave Shifflett (Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity) chronicles the exodus of Christians from liberal denominations and into conservative ones. The reason for this exodus, he explains, is that "Most people go to church to get something they cannot get elsewhere. This consuming public--people who already believe, or who are attempting to believe, who want their children to believe--go to church to learn about the mysterious Truth on which the Christian religion is built. They want the Good News, not the minister's political views or intellectual coaching. The latter creates sprawling vacancies in the pews. Indeed, those empty pews can be considered the earthly reward for abandoning heaven, traditionally understood."

If Shifflett is right in his analysis, and I believe he is, there is a hunger among many to find answers-- truth-- in a world that is increasingly violent, chaotic and seemingly devoid of principle. With the identity of "Deep Throat" revealed recently, we are reminded of the political spectacle of Watergate and the changes in the social and political landscape that followed in its wake. Post-Watergate, we have lived in an age extremely suspicious of power and authority, an age that doubts that any one group, be it church, political party or the media, can be trusted to give us the Truth.

This cynicism has been reflected in the way media and the arts have been relentless in presenting stories of moral failure, with exposes of failed preachers, dirty politicians, and drug-addicted superstars. Few today are lifted up as heroes or examples to follow, and the public image of even those few considered recent American heroes, men like John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, have been tarnished by many reports of their pecadillos.

What I think many today want to know is, "Can anyone be trusted?" Is there a politician that we can say is a good man, who isn't covering up some dark secret? Is there a genuine religious leader we can look up to with confidence? Is there a sports star or athlete who isn't just out for himself, who plays for love of the game?

Yes, there are men and women in these arenas who live with integrity and pursue their vocations honorably. But for the most part, we hear more about moral failures-- athletes who take steroids or cocaine, actors who get into repeated fights, adulterous preachers and lying politicians. It's almost as if there is an expectation that secretly everyone is not really what he or she claims to be-- that no one is good (but then again, it's not really their fault)!

Well it is true that not one of us is good-- the Bible teaches that "there is no one who does good, not even one" (Psalm 14:3). This simply means that every human being experiences moral failure, that is the result, not primarily of our parent's failures or a lousy social environment, but mainly because of flawed human nature. On the other hand, the Bible also teaches that Jesus challenges all to "love our neighbor as ourself" and that this means in part that we ought to look for the best in others. "Love is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance (1 Corinthians 6-7).

So we're a bit confused. We hunger for truth, but we're not sure it can be found anywhere, whether in people or institutions. We long for answers to the timeless questions of life-- who am I, where did I come from, where am I going, why is there suffering, etc., but we're not so sure there are clear answers. Is it presumptous for Christians to say that we have found the Answer? After all, what is true for one person may not be true for another, right? Might it not be better to make a commitment to seek for knowledge, rather than "Answers", making adjustments as we get new information, and stay faithful on the never-ending path of seeking?

This sounds perhaps democratic, an enlightened way to live. If all paths ultimately lead to the same destination, why not glean from the wisdom of all kinds of traditions, and connect all my understandings together in a way that makes most sense to me? It sounds great, but there's a problem with this approach--it makes me the arbiter of truth. I pick and choose this idea or that principle, put it all together and pronounce-- "this is my truth." But is there any objectivity to this process? How can I be sure that the things I have chosen to believe are not merely ideas with personal appeal to me, but are indeed True? One might object, what does it matter, so long as it works for that individual?

Well, if you're one who says that, then at least be honest-- you're not looking for Truth, you're looking for something that suits you. Because truth, by definition, stands over against what is false. But if truth is only what happens to suit a person, then it isn't truth, it's just preference.

Truth is universal; it applies to all, it stands over against the false. If I were to assert for example, that John Lennon was not murdered by gunshots in 1980--that in fact, tired of touring and fame, he secretly left the Beatles back in 1967, married his lover Brian Epstein, staged Brian's death and had a look-a-like take over for him in the Beatles and marry Yoko-- you would say that's preposterous! Because there are facts known about Lennon, who was in the public eye for many years, and these simply do not bear out such an insane story. Yes, I agree, this story is not true.

But today people want to say truth is relative and subjective and can't be found out through observation. I say hogwash. We all live as if truth is something that can be ascertained--albeit imperfectly, but nevertheless we do our best to find it, because we believe it's out there. For example, what is the truth in the Michael Jackson case? Did he molest those children or not? Well, I don't know because I wasn't there (now if I had been I would know the truth, right?) but that's what the trial was all about. Arguments and evidence were presented by those who assert that he did molest a particular child, and counter-arguments and evidence presented by those who believe and assert that he didn't. A jury then decided the "truth", based on the presented evidence. Now, has the real truth been revealed? Jackson was acquitted on all counts, but even some members of the jury who voted him innocent now say that they believe that he has molested children, just not the child who was accusing him in this case.

I would argue that most everyone believes that the truth of what really happened in the Michael Jackson case exists, it's just that it's pretty hard to determine, what with all the expert lawyers, and all the media coverage and the determination of many to hide it. But if someone had set up, unbeknownst to Jackson, video cameras that recorded virtually everything that had taken place in his home, his innocence or guilt could probably be proven conclusively in this matter (that is, if such evidence was allowed to presented in court).

My point is that we yearn for truth and instinctively know that it means more than just personal opinion, but a part of us is also afraid of the Truth. We don't want to be nailed down, to be committed to accepting truth, for fear of then having to live according to the truth that has been revealed. The truth is often unpleasant.

And yet, like the many who are returning to the conservative churches that offer the revealed Truth of the Word of God, people are drawn to someone who can offer them definite answers to the burning questions of life. We want something or someone that offers hope and meaning to live by.

Those who are flocking to the churches are on the right track, because the message of salvation that is in the gospel may be found there. Still the follower of Christ must remember that truth is more than merely facts and principles and abstractions; Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. And if we want to become men and women who can reveal truth to others, we must become more and more like Him. He lived what he preached, He spoke of things He knew, He modeled the Way of Truth for us.

We ought not to be "hypocrites" like John Lennon's song condemns, or like the Pharisees of old, but rather men and women for whom truth is a way of life, a means of expressing the love that God generates within us. And we ought to be humble, knowing that without the gracious light of truth that came through Jesus Christ, we would have no real understanding. The Bible says that the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came to us by Jesus Christ. So as we share truth, let's do it with all the grace that God gives.

And if you are not a follower of Christ, but you hunger for truth, consider that Jesus said of Himself "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father, except through me"? Doesn't sound very democratic, does it? But what if it's true?...

Intelligent Design Is Common Sense

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:18-21

These days there is much controversy being reported by the media because a number of American school districts are challenging the school science curriculum that teaches only evolution. Some want to teach theories such as intelligent design or creationism alongside evolution, which according to its critics (and even some of its proponents) is a theory with serious flaws. Critics of this proposal say that intelligent design is not science; if taught at all, it should only be included as part of a humanities curriculum.

Intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Intelligent design is a scientific theory that posits that the complex nature of life and of the universe is best explained as the result of a genuine design, rather than by the random or spontaneous processes speculated by evolutionary theory. Although some who believe in intelligent design are theists, the theory itself does not attempt an explanation of the source of the design, only that there is a design.

I am no scientist. But I like to think that I have some common sense. And intelligent design makes more sense to me as an explanation of how this world came to be than evolution. Just as the passage above states, we see all around us evidence of a very intricate and complex universe, in which all parts fit together just so, in order for life as we know it to exist. That such a universe could have come into being as a result of random, un-designed events seems to me preposterous and absurd. It's like saying my car spontaneously manufactured itself and appeared in the driveway.

It seems to me that the reason evolution has such a stronghold on the minds of academia, in spite of the common-sense objection I have just stated, and despite the fact that the scientific evidence simply has not borne out the validity of the theory, must be due to a profound desire (on the part of those who hold the theory) for it to be found true. Why? Simply because if evolution is true (at least the atheistic brand commonly known and taught in American high schools and colleges) then God is removed from the picture-- and if there is no God, there is no claim of God on my life and I can live as I like.

I believe that Paul summed it up quite well: men unrighteously suppress the obvious truth that we live in an intelligently designed universe, which in turn means that there is an Intelligent Designer. They do this because they do not want to honor God nor thank Him; they want to live their lives just as they please, and by suppressing the knowledge of God they attempt to do so.

Unfortunately the result is only to bring upon themselves the wrath of God, since He designed the universe to function in a certain way which humanity only ignores at its own peril.

For deeper exploration of this topic, check out these links:

Design for Living- Article on Intelligent Design by one of its leading proponents, Michael Behe

Chuck Colson’s Ten Questions about Origins

More Than Coincidence. Positive Arguments for Creation By Chuck Colson

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center

An Evening With Pastor David Cho

Last night a men’s prayer group I’m part of attended a revival service at which the main speaker was Pastor David Yonggi Cho, pastor of the world’s largest church (750,000 members in Seoul, South Korea) and author of hundreds of books, both in Chinese and English, including “The Fourth Dimension”.

I have to admit I went to hear Cho with a certain amount of skepticism, not because I’m not open to signs and wonders (which are supposed to occur often during his services)-- after all, I attend a charismatic church where people regularly speak in tongues and pray for "signs and wonders". But I was concerned by what I had read on the Internet about Cho, especially concerning his theology.

It had been years since I read “The Fourth Dimension”, but I remember when reading it thinking that the visualization techniques Cho suggests might be misdirected towards the pursuit of goals not necessarily God’s will for one’s life. For example, he told a story of a woman he counseled that had been praying for over 10 years for a husband, but had not received an answer. Cho identified her problem as not praying specifically. He took out paper and pen and interviewed the woman, asking her questions about the kind of husband she wanted and writing down her answers. Now, with a mental picture of her husband based on the characteristics she desired, he advised her to begin praying daily according to this specific vision, by faith believing that her prayers would be answered, because she was now praying specifically. Sure enough, a short time later a man visited her church fitting the description in her vision; he took an interest in her and soon after they were married.

It is a nice story, but I wondered about some of its implications. Could it be presumptuous for a believer to decide in advance what kind of outward characteristics they want in a spouse and then expect God to answer according to their desires? What if God has a person in mind for you that doesn’t match your specific vision? I noticed too that Pastor Cho asks her the specifics of what she desires in a husband, yet he asks only about outward characteristics, such as height, occupation, hobby, etc.; no questions are raised concerning the character of her future husband. Why is this? The moral the story seems to teach is that so long as I’m praying specifically it doesn’t matter what I’m praying for? Wouldn’t God be more concerned about the character of my potential spouse than about merely outward traits? Perhaps Cho takes it as a given that the woman, being a believer, would have new desires that are directed by the Lord, and therefore her specific desires and the Lords’ will would line up together. However, he doesn’t make that very clear.

The danger in Cho’s teaching about visualizing goals then, is that he doesn't always balance it with teaching about God’s sovereignty. One could easily read the example above and go away with a strategy to seek out a spouse in a way that makes my personal desires paramount, over and above what the Lord’s will might be. How do I know in advance the precise characteristics of the spouse God has in mind for me, especially in context of His sovereign plan for my life? I cannot. Certainly as a human being I will have preferences and desires, and should pray to God about these. But because the Lord sees my future and is all-wise, I should pray with an attitude of humility that leans upon Him for understanding, and trusts Him to provide for my best, rather than dictating what I think is best. Cho elsewhere does speak of our dependence upon the Holy Spirit for guidance and direction, so I think that he isn’t saying that all of our visualized goals are necessarily right to pursue, but only those imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I think his teaching would benefit from making that important point more clear.

Thankfully, Cho’s evening message turned out to be both God-centered and gospel-oriented. A diminutive yet charismatic presence, Cho spoke powerfully and convincingly, with many examples from his life and ministry, of the believer’s need to learn to think in a new paradigm. Although he did not title his message, it probably could have been called something like, “Living Out the New Paradigm of Faith”. He began the message by pointing out how a believer might remain stuck outside of the “promised land” that God is trying to lead him into, just as the Israelites wandered around in the desert for 40 years after the Lord delivered them from Egyptian captivity. This happens he says, because even though God brings us out of Egypt, Egypt hasn’t left our hearts. In other words, worldliness continues to exert a strong grip on our minds and in our hearts, keeping us from thinking and acting in the new way we ought.

So Cho’s first key to entering into the inheritance God has for us as believers is renewing of the mind according to” revelation knowledge”(God’s word), which enables us to think in terms of faith, rather than according to mere “sense knowledge”. This is living the God-centered life of faith, which learns to see things according to God’s word and is not limited to man’s wisdom or ingenuity in response to solving life’s problems.

Cho taught on themes familiar to those who have read his books. He spoke of knowing, through the revelation gained by much study and meditation in God’s word, our true identity as believers. He showed how our new identity is directly linked with what Jesus did for us on the cross, explaining that on the Cross, the old person we were died when Jesus died, and the new person we have become arose when Jesus arose. He said that Jesus became a curse, in order to remove the curse of the law (sin) that was destroying our lives, quoting Galatians 3:13.

Cho mentioned Abraham as an example of someone who was able to possess the promise of God because he was first shown it— God had him look and count the stars above and also look all around him at the land he was treading upon. These actions of seeing according to the vision God has for our lives is key to realizing that vision: “Seeing precedes possession”, said Cho.

Cho also described poverty as a curse, and spoke of how envisioning a successful outcome in business will bring about the power of God working in your situation, bringing supernatural wisdom and vision (he used the story of Jacob with Laban’s sheep as an example to illustrate his point).

But as I mentioned above, there are times that Cho is so enthusiastic about emphasizing our potential as believers to act on our dreams and goals that it is possible that some of his listeners may receive a lopsided message. For example, although I agree that poverty and sickness are curses, I think too that there are seasons in which God may sometimes permit these to touch us. The Apostle Paul was afflicted by difficult trials and difficulties in his ministry, including at times, lack of money or physical ailments. Yet certainly this was not a sign that Paul was no longer in God’s will. Rather, the apostle states that through such experiences he had learned the secret of contentment. "Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to get along happily whether I have much or little. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little" Phippians 4: 11-12 (NLT).

I agree with Cho that our God is very good and certainly I want to grow my faith to receive all that God has for me. Yet I am troubled by teaching that seems to imply that all Christians must become rich, or that we can never ever be sick. Again I think balance is needed in teaching abot these things, because the Scriptures are balanced in their teaching about money and health. Regarding money for example, there are numerous warnings about the danger of money and possessions becoming an idol that distracts us away from serving the Lord and the kingdom priorities– at the same time, money and resources are seen to be desirable and good when used rightly. My impression is that Cho’s ministry uses its vast resources towards ends which fulfill the Great Commission of making disciples and being salt and light in the community. This is wonderful. At the same time, we must always be on guard against materialism and greed creeping into the ministry. Some ministries that begin with right motives are corrupted by the allure of worldly wealth. And since the marketing and selling of all kinds of Christian merchandise these days is something that even turns me off, as a believer, I can imagine how it might be really distasteful to those outside of the church. Many are looking for justification to reject Christ and His teaching. Therefore I think that we ought to be very, very watchful in this area for two reasons. One reason that vigilance is needed is so that we are not seduced by the materialistic spirit of this age. Another reason is to guard our witness to the world from being compromised by appearing to be more about profit and greed than about the love of Jesus. We ought not to give any unbelievers any ammunition to be able to say that the way of Christ is somehow phony.

I am happy to say that overall I was encouraged and inspired by Pastor Cho to believe that God will do incredible things in us and through us as we are seeking to do His work on earth and submitted in obedience to His word.

Imagine- A New Heaven and a New Earth

It is hard to believe that 30 years have already passed since the Beatles disbanded and went their separate ways, and John Lennon and his wife Yoko went off and staged their famous "Bed-In" for peace. I was only a young child in the decade of the 60's, but the social landscape today seems so far removed from that era's idealism. The 1960's had been a time of great unrest and turmoil-- the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bob Dylan, The Beatles, hippies, drugs, "free love", and the Vietnam War were just a few of the personalities and phenomena making up the volatile social scene. But with all the unrest and violence that existed, there was yet a feeling, reflected in the arts and especially the music of the time, and perhaps bolstered by the elections of youthful and different kinds of leaders, like President John F. Kennedy and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, that the love and peace movement would somehow triumph over the evils of the "establishment". If people could somehow find the love and peace existing within themselves, and want them badly enough, they could foment a social revolution that would stop the evils promulgated by the "establishment"--the wars manufactured out of greed, the repressiveness of traditional societal roles, racism towards the Negro, intolerance of alternate sexual expression, and conformity to the status quo. The ideal of seeking harmony through "free love"-- the "Make Love, Not War" attitude--appealed to a young generation that, behind the facade of happiness of the previous generation, saw what it thought was hypocrisy, prejudice, hate and materialism.

I recently watched a documentary entitled "John & Yoko's Year of Peace" (2000), which follows John and Yoko's activities in the year 1969. The Beatles were soon to break up when John Lennon met Yoko Ono, an avant-garde Japanese artist, at one of her exhibitions, fell in love and married her. Like star couples of today, John and Yoko were major celebrities whose every move was being reported by the media. So Lennon and his new wife, spurred on by the thrill of honeymoon love and by their idealism, ingeniously decided to turn the media circus to their advantage and promote the cause of peace.

Watching footage of the Lennons in various interviews, including the famous "Bed-In" (the honeymoon rendezvous in which John and Yoko invited reporters to interview them while in bed to talk about peace), I was struck by the seriousness of their demeanor, yet also their light-heartedness and humor. Lennon is articulate and intelligent, gentle but also forthright when expressing his views. Yoko is serene and less vocal, but also shares her views with dignity and conviction. They talk about the cause of peace in the world with the optimism and sincerity of true believers. They seem convinced that their voice, being just one of many, will help spur on many like-minded people to speak out for peace, to become an effective worldwide movement. As their famous slogan plastered all over the world at the time declared: "War is over, if you want it".

Alas, we know today that Lennon's peace crusade, admired by some and vilified by others, did not mushroom into the powerful force for peace that they had hoped for. Conservatives shunned them, viewing the Lennons as foolish and naive at best, arrogant and dangerous at worst. Liberals sympathetic to their cause may have been too busy pursuing other agendas to join in mass, although the documentary shows that the Lennon's campaign did generate a certain momentum, which included a concert. Like Woodstock, the Lennon's year of peace seemed to be of the moment, generating a buzz that dissipated quickly. Yet the social and sexual revolution of the 60's did result in a certain measure of envisioned changes, including improved treatment of black people in America, better opportunities for women in the marketplace and new trends in politics, media and the arts that began then and continue to unfold today. Depending on your worldview, these changes have been either good or bad (or somehwere in-between) for America.

As a person of artistic temperament and an admirer of the songwriting genius of Lennon, I was, in my pre-Christian days, quite drawn to his message of love and peace. I would say that I'm still of course, sympathetic to his dream of a world where love and peace triumph over hate and war. Yet I also believe that Lennon was short-sighted in that, rejecting the Christian explanation of reality, he necessarily moved into a position that required him to believe that the innate "goodness" of humanity was a real thing, and if tapped into would become a potent force for radical change. In his song Imagine, Lennon dreamed a utopian world where, through the power of vision, humanity would reject all the illusions that separate us from one another-- "Imagine there's no... "Heaven", "hell", "religion", "countries", "possessions". Detached from all these divisive influences, these constructs of man, mankind's beauty would shine forth, enabling people to live "life in peace" and "be as one".

But world events since 1969 reveal, just as the world events did before 1969, that mankind is plagued by evils that have been part of human interaction since the dawn of history. The idea that simply getting enough people to wish for (or strongly desire) a world full of peace will bring it into reality has a certain easy charm. But can we continue to stare into the face of evil that we see all around us worldwide--the genocide, the rape, the murder, the starvation, the injustice-- all resulting from our inhumane treatment of one another--and believe that innate goodness will win the day?

Or is the answer to be found in rational thinking and education? If we train our children to be "tolerant", to view history according to our conceptions, and to think properly, will it prevent them from becoming criminals, of either the blue or white-collar variety, and instead becoming great and caring citizens?

Today across America we find among our young people rampant cheating, kids that start experimenting with sex at ever earlier ages, even kids killing other kids at school, sometimes for their iPods or sometimes just because a kid snaps and goes on a killing spree. We have heard of very young children beating each other brutally. Of course, there are many wonderful children in this country who don't steal, don't cheat and do become productive members of society. Yet it seems the negative patterns we see here in America are also present in Europe and in other "developed" nations.

The evils perpetrated by the adult world is their model. And this is not even taking into account all the horrific crimes perpetuated globally by terrorists, suicide bombers, and regimes that can only be properly described as evil in how they treat their people. With all of this wickedness surrounding us, are we naive enough to think that simply wishing for peace will make it come?

I applaud the fact John Lennon used his celebrity to advance a worthy cause (when he could just have easily, with his wealth, avoided controversy), and the fact that he was willing to confront hypocrisy and evil even as he sought to be a peacemaker; nevertheless it can be seen that his dream of peace was ultimately ineffective, because it did not properly diagnose the problem: the evil at the heart of mankind.

This is not a pleasant or politically correct message, though it is an accurate one. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" There is no time to be politically correct. Jesus may come back at any moment. The message of Jesus Christ is that we are in desperate need, and if we recognize our need, Jesus will fill it. What is our need? Our need is to know Jesus in order to be saved from our sins, which otherwise will destroy us forever.

Jesus spoke often of the reality of His kindgom and of the beautiful nature of it. It is a spiritual kingdom, one that is not of this present world, yet one that will someday physically reign over a new Heaven and a new Earth. All who are part of it will also be new people, with hearts (our spiritual center) and bodies completely made whole. And yes, peace will reign there. Yet His message to all who seek to enter this kingdom is "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand."

Why I Didn't Burn My Beatles Records

I don't remember what Beatle song was the first I ever listened to, but I do remember the first Beatle albums I listened to-- "The Beatles' Second Album" and "Something New"-- and the incredible thrill I experienced hearing them for the first time.

I was a very musical child. Even as a baby, my mother says I used to always stop everything I was doing and sit mesmerized the moment there was music playing. Some people are tuned in to visual beauty, some to words, some to abstract concepts; growing up, I seemed at times to be attuned to all of these, but music especially brought me joy and excitement.

My parents were great lovers of music, and we had all kinds playing in our home, from the Tijuana Brass to the Cowsills to the Sound of Music to Simon and Garfunkel and more. It was a wonderful time in popular music; a time when what was commercially appreciated also seemed to have quality, originality and creativity behind it. Not that everything one heard on the radio was great, but it was a time when strong melody, craftsmanship and creativity were abounding.

Unfortunately the demise of popular music has been steady, and it correlates with a culture that has become increasingly superficial and shallow. The triumph of vulgarity and sensuality in popular music has been far-reaching, especially the travesty that is hip-hop and rap music. I know it isn't politically correct to say so, but that genre of music generally is bad.

To me, it is almost non-music, spoken words shouted over repetitive, hypnotic rhythm tracks. Even in the backing tracks there is often little originality, as they are many times nothing but re-worked samples-- a riff or a bass line-- lifted from previous hits. Yes, there is a kind of talent or skill involved in the making of rap or hip-hop. Some of its stars have talent with words; some are engaging performers. But I feel that the true beauty of music is in melody, and rap and hip/hop major on rhythm and rhyme at the expense of tunefulness.

But worse than the missing melodies of rap/hip hop are the banal lyrics, which it seems aim to provoke and offend. The impression I have when I hear most rap/hop-hop is of insecure singers boasting about themselves in angry tirades, ranting about how their sexual prowess, their rich lifestyle and their ability to rap makes them so much better than the next rapper. Who cares?

By contrast there have been periods in American popular music when lyrics of popular tunes were urbane, witty and well crafted. There was true artistry behind the lyrics of such greats as Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin, and Oscar Hammerstein. Perhaps some of the rappers have talent on this level, but in my opinion it is talent utterly wasted in their chosen genre.

But getting back to the Beatles. It's hard to believe, given the almost quaint words and sounds of the early Beatles, that when they first appeared on the American scene, they were considered to pose as great a danger to morals and to the culture as today's vulgarians. For in listening to the music of the early Beatles, one encounters a joy and sweetness that is completely absent from today's pop music. That is not to say that either they, or their music, were innocent. Those who have read biographies of the Beatles have learned that they were a pretty wild bunch, as far as their private lifestyles were concerned. But in their music the Beatles used their gift as songwriters to convey the exuberance of romantic love in a fresh way; yet it was not at all crass. Early hits like "Please Please Me", "She Loves You", and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" demonstrated their gift for memorable, catchy melodies, interesting musical arrangements, great harmony singing and an original way of putting all of these elements together. In their live performances, one could sense their pleasure in performing and in the music itself. They dressed in elegant, matching Pierre Cardin suits; they humbly bowed before the audience at the end of their performances.

Contrast this with the self-exalting swagger of today's performers, who pounce upon the stage and try to impress you with their incredible "badness" through raunchy dance moves and outrageous clothes (or lack of them). Many of these performers' costumes make them literally look like clowns, yet they don't seem aware of it.

Just as the Beatles were making their mark on America, the always outspoken John Lennon made an offhand remark to a reporter that the Beatles were now "bigger than Jesus". What he meant simply as an honest observation about their popularity among youth, many took offense at as the arrogant remarks of a pagan. Soon, apparently at the instigation of zealous pastors and Christian parents, Beatle records were being burnt at bonfires by the same young fans who had previously rushed to buy them. Now I suppose one might argue that if the Beatles were anti-Christian then shouldn't Christians not listen to them? Certainly, their music reflected the spirit of the times rather than a Christian approach to life.

Well, if a fellow Christian told me that they had decided that the Beatles were not good listening material for them because of their conscience, I would certainly support their choice. At the same time, I think that so few musicians that have come along that possess the musical genius of the Beatles, and it would certainly be a shame to not listen to them anymore. Besides, I believe that as non-Christian bands go, the Beatles were among those whose music was more spiritually oriented than others, with themes of seeking love, peace and understanding among humanity prevalent in their body of work.

I can appreciate the beauty and the talent in the songs of the Beatles, while at the same time, not seeking identity as a human being in their music or in following them as a band. And believing that all true talent and creativity is a gift from God, I can even glorify God for the music of the Beatles. What I celebrate is not those moments when their lyrics promoted Eastern religion or seemingly advocated the use of drugs.

But I celebrate the amazing beauty in the melodies and lyrics of songs like "Yesterday", "If I Fell", "Golden Slumbers", "For No One", and so many others. I celebrate the artistic impulse that inspired and challenged the Beatles to always try to improve, stretch and grow in their music. I celebrate their amazing instincts and innovations as recording artists, leading them from simple collections of songs on their early albums to increasingly sophisticated songs presented on the first-ever "concept" album (Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band). I celebrate the exquisite three-part harmonies of "Nowhere Man", "Because" or "This Boy"; the wild inventiveness of "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "I Am the Walrus"; the wonderful energy, humor and camaraderie that the band exhibited when playing together, the idealism and depth of emotion in songs like "Hey Jude", "All You Need is Love" or "Let It Be".

I credit the Beatles with inspiring me with a view that popular music could be a vehicle for touching many people with the joy of music. That one could be an excellent musician, taking the craft of songwriting seriously as a professional, but aim for the higher goal of artistic success, above and beyond mere commercial success. The kind of a songwriter I am today owes much to their influence.

That Old Feeling: Meet the Beatles-great article on the Beatles by Richard Corliss of Time

The Beatles by Kurt Loder-Time100 Essay

Getting to Know The Real You

"So, what do you do?"
"Tell me about yourself"
"What's your story?"

When someone is trying to get to know you, these are common questions you might be asked, especially here in America. You might also be asked, "What college did you go to? What was your major? What do you look like? (maybe you're getting to know them via Internet)... Do you 'work out'? What are your hobbies? What kind of music, books, movies do you like? What are your dreams? What are your goals for the next five years? Are you married or single? Have you ever 'been in love?' Are you a Republican or Democrat, religious or atheist, conservative or liberal?", and so on.

A lot of these questions might yield worthwhile information, although if someone asks you all of them at the same time your head is liable to explode. Some of these questions probably reveal more about the real you than others. But then again, who is the real you?

When someone asks me, "Who are you?", would I be most inclined to:

a) tell them what I've done
b) tell them where I've been
c) tell them what I hope to accomplish
d) salute and give them my name, rank and Social Security number
e) hurl myself to the floor in a fake epileptic fit, complete with foaming of the mouth
f) run away, flapping my arms frantically and shrieking "leave me alone!!!"
d) all of the above
e) none of the above?

Is there an easy, unobtrusive way for someone to find out who I am? Maybe if they just had a sly look at my CV or resume? I dont think that would tell them very much about the REAL me... Perhaps if I send you my un-official, personal resume, 20 pages long, listing jobs held, college major, chronological bio (my story), interests, hobbies, passions, goals, with a nice glossy head shot of my handsome smiling face, you'll get a better idea of who I am (I'll send it to you for $12 US funds--I accept all major credit cards and PayPal). Or you could visit my web site (oh wait, that's just a starter page). Maybe it would be helpful if I also sent you a video with crucial footage of Me-- Me graduate college, Me get married, Me open all my birthday presents (video is only an additional $10, with purchase of the resume bundle). If you shelled out these nominal fees, read the resume/bio, went to the website, and watched the video, would you know me then?

Of course, the answer is no. Certainly you might now understand many things about me (or perhaps you'd be quite perplexed), but unless you and I had interacted somehow, you still wouldn't really know me, would you? To really know someone, we must be acquainted with something beyond the mere facts of their lives, even if those facts have been conveyed to us in great detail by the person themselves. We need finally, to talk and interact with the individual face-to-face, in order to experience their essence and come into contact with the living soul that resides underneath all the outward trappings.

[At this point I must apologize because this began as quite a serious post but unfortunately Mr. Silly keeps trying to take over. Down boy! Down! OK, now where were we? Oh yes].

My point is that you won't know me by watching my videos (actually I don't have any yet anyway), reading my blog, listening to my music or even, should you lead such a charmed life, by "hanging out" (Americanese, meaning "spend informal time with") with me. Of course, of all of these options for getting to know someone, spending much time together is the most informative, if your purpose is to really know someone. Yet even then, there is an essential, mysterious part of me that you'll never know. Why, you may ask-- am I the "Marlboro Man"--macho and aloof? No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there something mysterious about us all, as human beings.

Each of us is created by a Masterful Designer who has intricately woven together, not only the physical, emotional and intellectual parts of our beings, but also the events of our lives, into a package that is unique, meaningful and beautiful. And this complex package that is each one of us cannot be reduced to our resume plus our biography plus our accomplishments. All of these things may reflect a portion of who we are, but they don't and cannot completely define us.

What role does Christian faith play in all of this? I'll comment on that in a moment. But first note that the world system tends to try to define us superficially--by some outward aspect of ourselves. Perhaps you have seen yourself as a clever wit, or perhaps, as an innocent; maybe you view yourself as sophisticated and with above-average intelligence. Maybe you are just overflowing with charisma and sex appeal. Perhaps you pride yourself on being a man or woman of humility. We tend to forge an identity out of our natural strengths, and define and measure these strengths according to prevailing cultural, and highly subjective, standards. For example, one person thinks it's crucial to be extremely physically fit (because they have good genes, enjoy exercise and have the good fortune of health); the next treasures inner spiritual growth (because they happen to have a reflective temperament, like smoking more than running, and enjoy spending time in meditation).

I believe that the role Christian faith plays in all of this is that it says, "Wait a minute, you are not just what you do or what you accomplish; you are made in the image of God, you were uniquely fashioned by Him, for a divine purpose." We have been granted the dignity and freedom to make choices that effect our ultimate destiny, yet many of the things that help define who I am are simply given, not chosen. For example, I did not choose where and when to be born, who my parents are, what sex I would be, what my natural strengths and weaknesses are. God has chosen all of these things for me.

Yet what I now choose to do with all these givens is vitally important. Will I acknowledge that there is a Maker? Will I make the most of my talents and gifts, in service to mankind? Do I face my faults honestly, acknowledging the sinfulness I find in myself and turning to the Maker's solution for this problem, His Son, Jesus Christ? It is making these types of choices, I believe, that help us progressively forge a truly human identity, one that reflects the Maker's design and His image in us.

Papal Matters

A new pope has been selected, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. He will become the 265th Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. Many liberals are alarmed by the Pontiff’'s conservative positions on abortion, birth control and the ordination of women, which are very much in line with those of his predecessor, John Paul II. Such positions, they say, will prevent the church from modernizing and becoming more relevant to today’'s concerns. Others applaud the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger as a man who will carry on the work begun by his predecessor. Until now, I hadn'’t commented upon the passing of John Paul II, nor the fanfare that surrounded his funeral and the selection of a new Pope; I was simply taking it all in.

As a non-Catholic, I have to admit that the huge outpouring of grief for the Pope, and the tremendous world turnout for his funeral, surprised me. I didn’'t realize what an important religious figure the Pope is—, or that the Roman Catholic Church has over a billion people members! Pope John II seemed to me a very decent, sincere man with strong conservative beliefs and the backbone to proclaim them. He possessed a fine mind, capable of writing scholarly theological works and conversing in eight languages. Many have commented on his personal charisma, which he apparently continued to exude to his very last days, despite the ravages of old age and Parkinson’s disease. Still, it was difficult to understand all the attention being paid to his passing by the liberal media, except that (as pointed out by Gene Edward Veith in WORLD) 1- this was an extraordinarily huge event, the biggest in television history, that was watched by as many as a billion viewers; and 2- in many ways it was the kind of event, visually speaking (complete with "celebrity" at the center of it) that television does well.

I don't have anything truly profound to say about John Paul II, since I write from the perspective of an outsider regarding all things popish. But I am puzzled, I must say, by the inconsistency displayed by those who seem to venerate him. The Pope took a hard-line stance on issues that many, if not most Catholics, seemed to disagree with him on. He did not think priests should marry; he upheld the Church's traditional stance on birth control; and also upheld the Church's positiona against women priests and gay marriage. American Catholics especially have largely ignored, disobeyed or criticized the Church on these issues. What does it mean when someone says they belong to the Roman Catholic Church, yet chooses to disagree with and even challenge the orders of the one whom they claim is infallible when it comes to official Church teaching/pronouncements on such matters? What love and respect for him is demonstrated by this disobedience? And since the newly appointed Pope is known for having the same immovable convictions regarding these modern concerns, such disparity may well continue.

Yet just as there are both serious and non-committal Christians within the Protestant Church, so there are casual Roman Catholics and those who do not display the inconsistency described above but rather submit themselves to the teachings of the Pope in all things.

I am thankful that John Paul II valiantly stood up for crucial Christian beliefs, including the sanctity of life, the protection of individual liberty (such as the freedom to worship), and the obligations we have towards the poor, among other things. His was a voice that was influential and eloquent in defense of Christian truth in these areas. He dared to criticize such men as Fidel Castro and Mikhail Gorbachev. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholicism that the Pope represented is a religion founded upon many erroneous interpretations of Scripture and on the traditions of men. And the question that comes to my mind is: with so much error abounding in their Church, does a sincere Roman Catholic have opportunity to connect with the real Jesus? I don’t know. I sincerely hope so.

Some will ask, "Who are you to say you know that Roman Catholicism is in error?" I don't claim to be the authority; I only read the Bible and interpret it according to the light the Holy Spirit gives me, and look for help in this from my teachers (my pastor and other experienced Christians). Yet I believe that anyone seeking the truth from the Word of God will find it, because it is God's intention that His truth be revealed. I'm not saying that everything in Roman Catholic teaching is wrong. Their beliefs about the Bible, Jesus and many other issues are biblical, and such beliefs were well-expounded by the Pope.

It is not my intention here to launch into critique of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is important to note that mixed in with the truths that are biblical, the Roman Catholic Church has included numerous, serious errors. And this is critical because the millions of people drawn to Roman Catholicism and the Pope seem to be looking for a true religious experience, but in Roman Catholicism, they find these false ideas mixed in with truth. Again, Gene Edward Veith describes their quest in his excellent examination:

"... a revitalized Roman Catholicism may prove tough competition for evangelicals. The casualties of postmodernism yearn for "spirituality." Unlike modernists, they are open to the past. They do not prize abstract, rational arguments and formulas. Rather, they are attracted to mystery, mysticism, and the supernatural made tangible."

I think that there is nothing wrong with mystery, mysticism or the supernatural --all these are an authentic part of genuine Christian experience. I seek a deeper connection with God and long for more spiritual power to be expressed in my life and in the life of the church (see my previous post Bearing Fruit for the Kingdom) . Yet such experiences, without being anchored in a truly biblical worldview, will lead people into false religion.

May the Lord speak to us through His Word and by the Spirit lead us into all truth.

John Paul II- The Man and His Legacy

The Catholic moment, Gene Edward Veith's WORLD magazine article

Pros and Cons- Conservatism in a new Pope is both a positive and a negative, Joel Belz in WORLD

The Bible vs Catholic Tradition

Not Just "Preaching to the Choir"

I note with enthusiasm and a bit of trepidation that I had the most visitors ever to my site yesterday, for reasons completely undeterminable (by me at least). In light of this unexpected development, I thought I would like to say something to any of my visitors here. And that is, I'm not just “preaching to the choir”.

What I mean is, yes, I do without apology express a consistent Christian point of view here, but I don’t have everything completely figured out regarding my politics, my views on the world, or even my theology. I think that becoming a Christian gives one an excellent foundation for pursuing truth in all these arenas, because one is provided an explanation of the way things are; a view of reality. But I am not only speaking to Christians. I hope that what is written here will benefit anyone.

I did not just accept the doctrines of Christianity wholesale, without examining them and confirming their validity, by observation and thought, over the years. People often think that Christianity is all about faith, but by this they mean that one suspends rationality so they can believe fantastical things and be comforted with the notion that God likes them personally and that they will get to heaven someday. I suppose there are some who do believe in Christ that way, but I would say that unless one has thought through their faith, such a conversion is not likely to last past the first blows of the storms of reality. In other words, you need real faith for a real world that has real problems.

As Elisabeth Eliot once said, we could use a few heroes today. A hero doesn’t have to be someone with extraordinary gifts or valor, but he or she is must possess integrity of character, manifested by perseverance in being true to what they believe, even in the face of opposition. But beyond this, a hero also believes in the right things. One can give their life to a cause consistently, passionately and determinedly, yet find out on the other side of eternity that they wasted their time.

Hitler was certainly driven, but his cause was evil, was it not? How does one determine what is the right thing to get passionate about and to give one’s life to? Is there only one right thing?

If you watched the movie "The Passion of the Christ", you saw a man living out the last twelve hours of His life on earth, absolutely determined to fulfill the mission for which He had come. You saw a man beaten mercilessly by his enemies; the movie vividly portrays both the violence and the evil of what happened, exposing the cruelty in men’s hearts. And yet, what passion this man had! This man, who was able to look past his own physical and emotional pain and see a glorious future for humanity, endured the ordeal of crucifixion out of His love, extended even to those who inflicted this upon Him. This is beyond all natural, human comprehension. And yet, don’t we too have moments (hopefully more than fleeting) when we reach beyond ourselves and love another? In those moments, the joy of giving makes us forget to think about ourselves. How freeing and glorious is that feeling! Jesus was One who lived His entire life in this freely giving mode, on a level beyond on any other man who ever lived. And yet, He lived His life of love in His human identity, and not as His divine self. For He was our example of how to live on Earth: He lived out of His relationship with God, and from His connection to the Father, drew upon the supernatural strength that became available to Him. So in that sense, it was not easy. He was burdened with the frailty of His humanity, just as we are. He was subject to temptations, due to that human weakness, that are common to us all: pride, anger, lust, envy, doubt. Yet He was heroic in His choices– He chose to act only as His Father would have Him act; to be holy, as His Father in heaven was/is holy. And He really did choose, and in choosing was strengthened by the Spirit.

Today we have the dignity of “free will”, the God-given right to choose our actions, our beliefs and our responses. Yet I believe the God who created us has a claim on our lives. I am not here just to please myself. Of course, I can make the choice to live a life of self-indulgence, but then I am sure to find unhappiness and misery and miss out on the whole point of living. If the God of the Bible (a personal God who loves His creation) exists, He must have a claim on me. And because I believe that He exists, and has revealed most fully who He is and what He is all about through His Son Jesus, I choose to believe and follow Him. And if God came and lived life on Earth, then the kind of life He led and the choices He made and the priorities and values He had reveal to me what is really worth living for.

I hope from my explanation above that you see that there is a logic to Christian living. You may not yet be convinced that Jesus is who Christians believe Him to be. But perhaps you may understand a bit more, that if He truly is the divine One, then we all have a choice to make about Him. Yet there is also mystery here, for in certain passages the Bible teaches that faith is a gift from God. So I choose, yet I am also enabled to choose.

Jesus said simply, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." Take up His challenge and find out for yourself.

Bearing Fruit for the Kingdom

Lately I have been reading (speed-scanning is more accurate) a number of books dealing with the theme that there is power in true Christianity that often isn't utilized by the evangelical community. We evangelicals who grew up in the faith in a Western cultural context lean heavily toward an "academic" approach to spiritual growth (e.g., Bible studies, discussion, analysis, learning lots of information). This results in much "head knowledge" concerning principles for Christian living, but lives and hearts that often are only minimally impacted and transformed by the power of God.

On the other hand, the "post-modern" generation is one that seems to desire above all personal relevance as it approaches Christian living; this may not be a bad thing, since it counters the lack of application that head-knowledge is guilty of, but it seems these believers care not so much for biblical study, but want action and experiences. And of course, this presents its own dangers.

It seems to me that we must achieve a balance between these extremes, and wed disciplined study of God's word with dynamic application of its truths. If we go out and do the things the Bible is telling us to do, the truths of the Word will come alive for us, and not remain merely theoretical abstractions.

Today we have more Christian books, ministries, articles, websites and other resources than ever before, yet it seems rare to encounter Christians who walk in the same power as the early disciples.

Part of the problem I believe is that our Christianity has been influenced by our culture's individualistic approach to life. I know I personally have been guilty of making my walk with God about actualizing myself, and therefore emphasizing private devotions, reading for personal growth, and prayer only for myself and my immediate circle at the expense of obeying the call to engage with the world in a pro-active way.

Of course, much time spent with the Lord is crucial to spiritual development, and Jesus was our example in constantly getting away from the crowds to be alone with the Father, receiving guidance, instruction and simply enjoying His relationship with the Father. Yet Jesus used this time to become energized for the mission of reaching out to the world with the love of God and the saving message of the gospel. And He did so in a way that demonstrated the reality of "the kingdom of God", His constant theme in preaching. His wisdom was both profound and authoritative, and the signs and wonders He performed were living, powerful examples of His teaching about this kingdom.

So I have been excited and challenged by these books that speak on the authority and power we have in Christ, not to make our own lives full of ease, comfort and prosperity, but to do the works God has called us to do: healing, casting out demons, teaching about the kingdom, making disciples. Now as we pursue these tasks, God is very often pleased to bless us personally and materially, but such blessings are secondary to the higher blessing of service in the kingdom. Besides, in terms of material blessings, Western Christians already have so much to be thankful for.

I have been especially excited by prophetic gifts that function in the life of the church to encourage and challenge us to obedience and growth as words from the Lord can do. And as I have been learning more about the spiritual authority we can use against the demonic world, I'm gratified to know that by exercising that authority, we can bring a freedom to ourselves and to others that perhaps we did not even realize we were missing. In the area of healing, as well, although I still have questions as to why prayers for healing may go unanswered, I have heard enough testimonies to become convinced that healing is real and ought to be a vital part of kingdom ministry.

There is controversy over some of these things, with some Christians believing that spiritual gifts such as healing, tongues and prophecy are no longer valid today. Many also object to the strange "manifestations" that may take place in Pentecostal, Charismatic or Third Wave churches: things like being "slain in the Spirit" or dancing or waving banners. My thought on this is that, yes, some people may be so eager for an "experience" that they attempt to manufacture one. But on the other hand, it seems that many who are really seeking God wholeheartedly and open themselves to receive the Holy Spirit do have authentic, unpredictable encounters with the Lord. I won't venture to say that such people are not experiencing God; I will wait to see the fruit in their lives. I know that I personally welcome encounters with the Lord that help me overcome my selfishness as I see Him better and the light of His glory shines upon my darkness, canceling it out. I also believe that it’s probably because of the human tendency to think and do "in the natural" that our expectations of seeing God work often stay so low. As He performed miracles, Jesus tried to open the eyes of His disciples to see the possibilities of divine power available, not only in His ministry, but also in theirs (see Matthew 17:20, John 14:12, Mark 11:23).

But the foundation for operating in this kingdom power, and a necessary safeguard for our hearts as we begin to operate in these gifts, is cultivation of intimacy with Jesus.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples" (John 15: 5-8).

P.S. Here's the titles of some the books I've been reading: "Authority to Heal" by Ken Blue, The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? Gary S. Grieg, Editor, "Defeating Dark Angels" and "I Give You Authority" by Charles H. Kraft, and "Dialogue with God" by Mark Virkler. I recommend these and welcome any comments for those of you who have read them or will do so.

Brothers Judd Fallacies

As I often do, I was "Google" searching the Internet. On this particular occasion, I was doing a search for "The Screwtape Letters" (that unique novel by C.S. Lewis) and happened upon a site called BrothersJudd.com, which has a review of the novel. As a preamble to the review, Mr. Judd (I'm not sure which of the brothers is the author) testifies that he is a Christian, depite the fact that he doesn't attend church and likes to swear, along with other (presumably) un-Christian behavior. He thinks it strange that, because of such behavior, people have questioned the integrity of his claim to be Christian, since he doesn't claim to be "pious" but only Christian. Apparently he thinks being Christian means believing a certain set of propositions; he goes on to state what these beliefs are, outlining a personal creed of his Christianity.

I felt I should respond to Brother Judd's statement, lest someone who wants to know what Christianity really is should stumble upon the site, and be led seriously astray.

First I'll address his initial statement: his thought that others should not question his being Christian because he outwardly behaves in ways that seem contrary to his profession of faith. Well, Brother Judd, that is as it should be. According to Scripture, Christians do not merely believe certain doctrines--they are people who have been "born again" of the Spirit, as a result of having placed their faith (belief) in Jesus Christ. In so doing, they become, not what they once were, but "new creations", so that the "old (way of being and acting) has gone, and the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17). It is such changes that authenticate the claim of belief.

Now of course, even Jesus Himself was often negatively judged, according to false standards of piety (e.g., healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners and tax collectors). Nevertheless the Bible presents clear standards of right behavior for one who calls himself Christian. James 1:26 says: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless". And there are many more such verses dealing with acceptable behavior for believers.

Now this does not at all mean that a Christian will never sin again, or that once someone becomes a Christian, there is never again a struggle with sinful behavior. On the contrary, the Bible teaches there is no instant maturity and that there is struggle for Christians as they pursue righteous living (see especially Romans 6-8). Yet Christianity is a call to holiness; not merely a matter of believing certain propositions about reality. The Bible maintains that the struggle of the "flesh" continues because Christians have not yet been perfected. So long as we remain in our mortal bodies, Christians are susceptible to the same moral weakness that all humanity inherited through the sin of Adam and Eve.

And speaking of Adam and Eve, the Brothers Judd also have a post on their site which completely misinterprets the truth and message of the biblical account, and blasphemously charges God as the "malefactor" in the story.

According to them, God didn't want the "competition" of the man and woman attempting to become like Him; that's why He banned them from Eden and didn't let them eat from the Tree of Life. While correctly asserting that mankind did not have the moral capacity to use eternal life properly (represented by the Tree of Life), Brother Judd attributes God's banishment of Adam and Eve not to love, but rather to divine egoism. It is not for Adam and Eve's sake that He banished them--it is because He's afraid of the competition. This would be laughable except that is also insulting to God, and that's not funny. So rather than see the story of Adam and Eve as a fall into sin, Brother Judd says we should view it as a testament to man's heroic, on-going quest to become "Gods".

This is about as wrong an interpretation of the story as one could possibly come up with. It was Satan's desire to be like God that got him banished from heaven; infected with this sinful desire, he now comes to tempt Adam and Eve to believe the worst about their God. It is ironic that Brother Judd's twisted view of Adam and Eve's original sin comes in the context of a review of the book "The Screwtape Letters". For the theme of Lewis' Screwtape Letters is how unseen demonic powers subtly pervert truth to lead souls away from God, and ultimately, to their doom.

I know exactly where Brother Judd's interpretation of this passage comes from. It comes from the one who in his pride long ago decided he could not stand being just a created angel, and sought to exalt himself as a god. Now, as I read the Bible's tale of creation and the fall of man, Brother Judd would like me to think more highly of man and satan and less highly of God. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Maybe Brother Judd should read Screwtape Letters again, and take its message more to heart. It sounds like a screwtape has got into his head somehow.

No, Brother Judd, Christ doesn't call us to become "Gods" through accumulation of knowledge and the extension of life. Rather we are "blessed" when we are "poor in spirit" and "meek" in attitude, and recognize our lostness and utter estrangement from God, due to our own sinful choices. Then individually we cry out to the Lord, "God be merciful to me, a sinner". Whatever God makes us of after that, all the glory will go to Him.

Blogger Blues

I'm just a lonely blog, man
Nobody done read me in a long, long time

I keep postin' it up baby
But seem like my game is up and I just get left behind

I tries to be funny...I tries to be kind...
But it ain't working out baby, and ama 'bout to lose my mind...

I got them BLOGGER BLUES, o oh ye-ah!!!
I got them BLOGGER BLUES

You know I always lose, o oh ye-ah
because because because be-cah -aw-ozz....

I got them nasty-nobody-gonna-know-nohow-cause-they-dont-read-my blog-anyways-BLOGGER BLUES...
Yes I've got them nasty-nobody-gonna-know-nohow-cause-they-dont-read-my blog-anyways-BLOGGER BLUES

Homeless Riff

[Humor]
Have you ever seen one of those homeless guys in NYC who's skinny and fit, young-looking, with lots of hair? Sure, he's a bit disheveled, smells a bit...but the guy has muscles..not a trace of fat on his body. He could kick your butt, easy. And where does he get that mop-top? Does sleeping in a cardboard box make your hair grow (maybe I should try it)?...Anyway he's racing up the street with a steel shopping cart (yes, a shopping cart from your local Food Emporium) full of bottles loaded up in black or blue platic garbage bags. Well here in NYC I've seen a guy like this RACING to get to the next garbage can...so he can find all the empty cans and bottles and load them up in bags and put them in his cart and bring them to the local grocery store and redeem them for...5 CENTS EACH??

Now this guy works hard, man. That's why he's so thin and muscular. He's constantly on the move, lifting his heavy bags full of cans, hurtling down the streets. He knows his stuff too-- which streets get the most bottles, the best back alleys to search, what times are best for scavenging. And he knows he has competition..that's why he's frantic to get to the bins before the next guy...well, anyway I was thinking. Why doesn't this guy just...GET A JOB!!

I mean, he's shrewd, fit, energetic, industrious..if he got himself cleaned up, wore a suit and tie, and applied all this energy and intelligence to a job interview..well I'm sure he'd get the job! Then he could get himself off the street, start paying rent, start being a productive member of society...Yes...Maybe he's meet someone, get married, start a family...Wake up early everyday to go to work, day in, day out, buy a TV and watch it for hours with his family, eat lots of food, get nice and fat, buy lots of stuff, pay bills--car payments, mortgage, electric, cable, doctors, credit cards--spend time with the kids, go to sleep, commute to work, work all day, commute home, maybe share an intimate moment with his wife once in a while, sleep, wake up, go to work, go home, eat, watch TV, play with the kids, sleep...start all over again. Yep... The great AMERICAN DREAM....oh....OHHH...

Give me a shopping cart and plastic bags, baby, Move over brother, here I come!

The Schiavo Legacy --The Crippled Soul of America

Bad Judgment
What have we come to in this nation when the President, a Governor, and our elected leadership could exert no power to intervene over faulty rulings made by judges? Was this yet another example of the dangerous powers judges have been given, powers that often overreach by making law rather than ruling on it?

Bad judgments "legitimize" immorality--what was once thought of as wrong comes to be seen as right, because the courts decide it is so. Over time, seeing evil happen over and over again, we become de-sensitized to it. Our conscience cannot live with these actions so we devise rationalizations to quell our collective guilt. Thus has the murder of the unborn become a "woman's right to choose"; some will now attempt to portray Terry Schiavo's case as "death with dignity".

But Why Did She Have to Die?
Now Schiavo's case involves an adulterous husband who decided he no longer wanted to abide by his marital vows (presumably, "till death do us part"). Certainly many people would have done the same in his shoes; i.e., have found someone else to live with. As a husband myself, I empathize--it's very difficult to contemplate the pain and suffering Mr. Schiavo underwent as he watched his once vital wife deteriorate. To be robbed of the opportunity of a normal married life was surely a deep personal tragedy, and certainly there would have been much temptation to find companionship elsewhere. Apparently even the Schindlers encouraged Michael Schiavo to date other women.

Yet at the same time, others have experienced what he has and handled it differently. Despite the fact that he could have moved on with his life by turning the reins of his wife's care over to her willing family, he (selfishly?) refused to do so. Was letting Terri die a way for him to drown out feelings of guilt over his failure to keep his promises to his wife? If he was just emotionally exhausted and no longer capable of dealing with her, why not just let her family do so? Why did she have to die? Some have speculated that Mr. Schiavo was motivated by desire for money coming from her death, but giving him the benefit of the doubt that money was not the motivation, why then?

Choosing Life or Death-Whose Perogative?
In commenting on the film "Million Dollar Baby", I mentioned the difference between turning off life support for a person who otherwise would have absolutely no hope of living, and killing a person (as that movie portrays) who could continue living because we (or they themselves) decide that their life is no longer "worth" living.

Beyond the Schiavo case, the question at the heart of the matter is this: who has the authority to determine when someone (not a criminal or an wartime enemy, but a civilian) dies? The court's decision to disconnect Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube was based on the premise that it had been her wish not to be kept alive by artificial means, and that such a wish therefore obligated her family and the court to comply with it. But is her family or the state morally compelled to obey this wish (if indeed this was her wish)? It seems they must follow her wishes if the premise is accepted that the individual has the right to determine if they should live or die, based on a subjective notion of quality of life.

Imagine a different scenario altogether. Suppose Mr. Schiavo, knowing that it was Terri's desire not to be kept alive by artifical means, nevertheless couldn't bring himself to become the agent of her death, out of love for her and because of a deep conviction about sanctity of life. Would it have been wrong then for him to keep her alive, despite her wishes? Apparently yes, according to prevalent belief; it seems the individual's desire is thought to be paramount in such decisions. But this raises many questions.

In the absence of the knowing the individual's choice regarding how they wish to die (e.g., a living will) does a husband/wife have authority to decide whether their spouse should live or die?

Was the court that decided Terri's case obligated, despite conflicting reports from experts about whether or not she was vegetative, and in light of the fact that she would otherwise have continued to live and be cared for by her family, to mandate that Ms. Schiavo must die, because supposedly this was her wish?

I agree that a husband should have authority over decisions regarding his wife in these types of scenarios. But this husband broke his marital vows, which would seem to nullify some of his rights. And in any case, I do not believe that a husband's authority extends to taking the life of his wife. I don't think the court has that right, nor do I think that even Terri Schiavo would have had that right. This perogative belongs to God alone.

"Whose life is it, anyway?"
This was the title of a popular play a few years ago. It is a key question here.
If extraordinary measures must be used to keep a person alive, who otherwise would die, then perhaps that person should be allowed to die. Not so much because it is the person's desire, but because it would seem that under such circumstances we would be fighting the will of God by keeping the person alive. But otherwise it seems to me that we must consider, as we make such serious decisions, the truth that life is valuable in and of itself; that it is a gift from God and we are accountable to him for it. The Bible says to the Christian particularly, "You are not your own, you were bought with a price", referring to the fact that the Christian's body has been purchased by Christ's death on the Cross. But even for the non-believer, the claim of God's ownership remains. For who creates the body? Who creates life?

Last week a group of us got together and prayed for Terri Schiavo, that perhaps God would do an incredible miracle and heal her, and that she would be able to speak for herself and give glory to God for her healing. Sadly, that did not happen, but perhaps the legacy of Terri Schiavo will be to have exposed the crippled soul of America.

Other recent and thoughtful takes on the topic:

C. Everett Koop on Euthanasia

"Always to Care, Never to Kill", A Talk with Robert P. George on NRO

Debra Saunder's piece "Why Terri Must Die"

Jeff Jacoby "Terri Schiavo: Less certainty, more prayer"

There They Go Again

The news story that follows is another example of how courts are misinterpreting the notion of "separation of church and state"; in this case, to mean that jurors should not be able to consult religious principles, and specifically, the Bible, to render a decision.

Death Penalty Tossed Over Jury's Bible Study

Monday, March 28, 2005

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said that "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling and could ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, defense attorney Kathleen Lord said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.

Prosecutors had argued that jurors should be allowed to refer to the Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.

Comments
Why should a juror not have liberty to consult the Bible, or whatever other religious book he/she feels might help them, for aid in making a proper judgment about a case? The jurors were apparently trying to make the right decision, and for them this meant a decision that could be backed up by the moral authority of a book traditionally regarded as God's law. Now whether or not they were interpreting the Bible correctly is immaterial; ultimately they were responsible to make as wise and fair a decision as possible, based upon the facts of the case and using their best judgement. And in order to fulfill this responsibility they sensibly sought wisdom according to the highest authority they likely thought was available: the Bible.

And in this they were right. The law, after all, is ultimately founded upon the ethical system whose roots can be traced back to Judeo-Christian influence.

The court's decision reflects the mistaken idea that morality and ethical systems must function independently of religious (especially Christian) influences, or else there will be conflict of interest. Do they believe that the law is a kind of self-generated system, that came into being without any influence of religion?

For many today, even those who would not consider themselves highly religious in practice, the Bible or church teachings contribute greatly to their understanding of right and wrong. Moreover, I argued in a previous post (Becoming Moral) that without appeal to absolutes (such as are found in the Bible) one cannot develop an ethical system that is not arbitrary. The system of law we have today is only possible because of those thinkers who believed in the Judeo-Christian God and in His divine revelation of right and wrong-- their view was that His laws could be universally apprehended.

It is ironic but not surprising then, that judges and courts today presume to remove God out of the decision-making process. It is ironic because without Him law cannot be defined; but not surprising, since the attempt to remove God/religion from the spheres of education, law, arts and the marketplace of ideas has been systematically pursued for years, and has proven quite successful.

To counter this influence, biblical thinking must be restored to the marketplace of ideas, for as Francis Schaeffer so ably showed us, ideas have powerful consequences. And if there is such a thing as truth, then true ideas ought to prevail over false ones.

Click here for Charles Colson's comment on Breakpoint regarding NY Times ironic coverage of this case

When in Doubt: Choose Life--Janet Parshall

I'm posting Janet Parshall's statement here on my blog because I wish I'd written it --she states very eloquently and succintly the heart of the matter in the Schiavo case. Bravo!

When in Doubt: Choose Life
—Janet Parshall

The case of Terri Schiavo is yet another indication that America may have lost its soul. The facts of Terri's case were clear--and clearly avoided by several judges: Terri was not terminally ill, she was not on a respirator and her condition was questioned by a myriad of neurologists as to whether or not she was in a persistent vegetative state.

Her husband had broken his marriage vows by moving in with another woman and fathering children with her--so much for the "'til death do us part" segment of the marriage vows. Her family clearly loved her and proved their willingness to stand by her no matter what--something her husband couldn't or wouldn't do.

But in the final analysis, it all came down to one issue. When in doubt do we come down on the side of life or the side of death? The president, the governor of Florida and the leadership in the House and the Senate challenged us to choose life. Unfortunately, the courts chose death and Terri has to pay the price.

Becoming Moral

A recent press release presents a short statement from Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, about the foundation of morality. Mr. Brook argues that morality does not need to be rooted in faith in God, as some claim, and moreover, that faith in God, being "blind" and not rationally chosen, is incompatible with morality. The press release appears below, followed by my response.

Morality vs. God

The idea that morality is impossible without faith in God is an endlessly-repeated theme of several Fox News Channel talk show hosts. “This idea must be challenged,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

“It implies that man has no reason or purpose to be moral; it implies that no rational standard of morality is possible; it implies that in questions of morality man must suspend reason and blindly submit to faith or blindly obey some authority’s ‘revelations’ or ‘mystical insights.’ To imply that we have no earthly reason to be moral is profoundly immoral.

“The purpose of morality,” said Dr. Brook, “is to discover and teach the principles that lead to life, achievement, happiness, success, joy. There is only one means to discover and understand these principles: reason. A proper morality, one for living on earth, requires rationality and independence of soul, not faith and obedience to self-appointed interpreters of an alleged omnipotent being. A proper morality looks not to the supernatural but at man’s nature and the reason why he needs values--and then defines the values he must reach and the virtues he must practice to reach them.

Dr. Brook concluded: “Properly understood, not only does morality not require faith in God--morality is incompatible with faith in God. The moral is the rationally accepted and chosen, not the mindlessly believed and followed.”

My Response
Certainly the use of reason or rationality is involved in one developing morality; however, it is an overstatement that one becomes moral only through a process of reasoning, as Mr. Yaron maintains. For example, even young children seem to know when they are doing something wrong, prior to having been fully taught the reasons behind their ethical choices. What of those who are mentally impaired, whose reasoning powers are thus severely limited— are such people incapable of acting morally? On the contrary, it seems that many such people can exhibit a true sense of right and wrong, and are able to discern and act according to moral sense.

The Judeao-Christian argument that God is the ultimate source of morality is founded upon the idea that morality is only possible when derived from absolute truth, from a standard outside of humanity itself. How can a moral code based upon the idea of self-interest not be rife with conflict, since what I perceive to be in accord with my self-interest someone else will say conflicts with their self-interest? And if one of us appeals to the other to change their behavior, on the basis that the proposed adjustment would actually be to our mutual self-interest, would I not be appealing to some kind of outside standard that governs us both?

Without absolute truth as a foundation, any system of morality is arbitrary. How, or why, shall I agree with you that certain things are right or wrong, unless somehow the rightness or wrongness of certain actions is self-evident? And how can they be self-evident, unless based upon absolute truths we may readily perceive and agree upon?

A moral code based upon the reasoning powers of its practitioners is limited by the ability of one person to propose better, more “rational” arguments than another. But how do you define the rationality upon which such a moral code is built? Is it most rational to live in such a way that my self-interest is served, or is it more rational if our self-interest guides my ethical choices? On what basis do I make these determinations? Perhaps a “rational” world should function according to a moral code that when followed brings the most good to the largest number of people. Yet without absolutes to compare against, even this definition of what is rational and good is arbitrary. How is the “good” defined? Whose good is it?

The Bible says we are made in God's image. For this reason, I propose, we are ethical beings by nature; God built into us the ability to be moral, as He is. However, as we are flawed beings, so also our moral sense is flawed. Only God, in His moral perfection, is absolutely unerring in distinguishing right from wrong. Only One whose motives and actions are pure (undefiled by sin) can understand true righteousness and act accordingly. We, other the other hand, need divine revelation in order to see right and wrong fully and clearly.

I believe this revelation comes in part through the conscience, the God-given instinct that enables us to know right and wrong, even prior to being taught. The development of moral maturity involves education, but not only the education of the mind. The deep-rooted and fatal flaws of human nature (known as sin) must also be removed.

How is this accomplished? Again Christians look to the Bible as a gracious revelation of God's laws, helping us see more precisely which actions are right and wrong, as compared against the absolute standard of the holiness of God’s character. Because God Himself has absolute quailities, such as moral perfection, such as thing as absolute truth exists. it is only by comparing our ideas of morality against the absolute and pure standard of God and His revealed truth that we can determine their validity. But as we do so the ethical standards of the Bible, and especially Jesus, seem impossible to attain. Can I really "turn the other check" and "love my enemies" as Jesus commands?

Philosophies based upon the idea that an enlightened self-interest will lead people to live ethically and find peace and harmony with each other don't fully take into account the reality of the evil in the world and within ourselves. The Bible calls this evil sin and has a solution for it, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His death killed sin and sin's effects--removing the guilt of sin from our shoulders, removing the destructive power of sin out of our lives. For those who have put their trust in the gospel, the evil inside them was dealt a fatal blow by the power of Jesus Christ. In its place, the Spirit of God comes to give the Christian a new life, filled with the power of the Spirit. A new desire is born, to live a life that does not serve self-interest alone, but instead delights in and serves God. It is this power that makes the "impossible" standards of Jesus possible to live out.

I agree with Mr. Yaron that morality is required in order to live life right here on Earth. Yet to become a truly moral person must mean to find what true morality consists in, and I have argued above that one cannot make such a determination without an appeal to absolute, self-evident principles. Followers of Ayn Rand would perhaps argue for self-interest being one of those. But the realistic view of human nature that the Bible presents shows that even enlightened self-interest cannot overcome the limitations imposed upon it by the evil present in ourselves and others.

In contrast to self-interest, Jesus Christ lived His life to serve others. Paradoxically, such a life does end up serving the "self-interest" of both the individual and others.

Mat 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Top Ten Greatest Actors for a New Generation

GQ picked the top ten greatest actors of our generation in its March 2005 issue. The list included the following actors: Johnny Depp, Clive Owen, Don Cheadle, Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Nicolas Cage, Benicio Del Toro, John C. Reilly, Gael Garcia Bernal, and Jim Carrey.

Their top 10 list is a forward-looking one. While some of these actors already have a substantial and well-known body of work, many of them do not. So it seems that GQ was listing the actors it feels have potential to become the new Hanks, DeNiro, Pacino, Nicholson, Hoffman, Hackman, etc. They will have big shoes to fill.

I am not familiar with the work of some of these actors-- Del Toro, Owen, Bernal, Cheadle-- so I won't comment on them.

I think there are two kinds of great actors: first, those with great charisma and a powerful on-screen persona; these actors do best playing characters that display their special, innate star quality. Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington, Al Pacino, Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Paul Newman, Gene Hackman, John Travolta, Richard Gere, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are contemporary actors in this category. Many of yesterday's stars were in this category as well-- Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, Clark Gable. This is not to say that this type of actor can't, or never plays against type--but mostly, we are drawn to them by their "star" quality--a certain strength of personality that comes through in every role they play.

Then there are those great actors who have the ability to transform themselves from one role to the next: DeNiro, Hoffman, Penn, Hanks, Spacey, Macy, Day Lewis, Norton, Malkovich and Crowe are among these. Occasionally, a great actor comes along who has both of these qualities--along with great personal charisma, an ability to transform himself--Marlon Brando-- for example. But most actors seem to excel in one or the other of these categories.

From GQ's top 10 list, I agree that Cage, DiCaprio, Depp, Crowe, Carrey and Reilly are extremely talented actors whose best work lies ahead. And although all of these actors convey strong on-screen personalities, the body of work of this group seems, as a whole, more character-based.

Besides talent, is physical beauty also required in becoming a great actor? With enough talent, many actors in Hollywood history became matinee idols without necessarily being extraordinarily physically attractive-- actors such as Cagney, Bogart, Stewart. But yesterday's leading men also included many who were amazingly handsome-- Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Rock Hudson, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, to name a few. But none of these actors was dependent upon looks alone in their success. In today's Hollywood, there is a broader range of looks considered handsome. Thus actors with great ability can become stars without "matinee idol" looks. It does seem however that the box-office "superstars" tend to be those with great physical attractiveless--Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise.

In my opinion, there are other actors that might be added to the list of great actors in the new generation:

I think Edward Norton has yet to receive his due. Jamie Foxx gave an incredible performance in Ray but will need the right roles to continue displaying that same level of ability. Tobey McGuire is a very good, sensitive actor but it remains to be seen whether he can portray darker, more passionate types. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems to have both great sensitivity and range. Samuel L. Jackson is always very interesting to watch. Matt Damon has great intelligence but seems very self-effacing for an actor--needs a breakout performance. Hugh Jackman is someone to watch--with his looks and talent he could become a very big star. Ben Affleck needs to a bit more choosy with his roles. In "The Passion", Jim Caviezel gave a beautiful performance playing Jesus Christ-- a role that many actors before him could not pull off. Though the movie was flawed, Mr. Caviezel's performance conveyed both the tenderness and the strength of Christ.

So I look forward to the next generation of actors, though I wouldn't write off people like Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, Sean Penn-- who are still at the top of their game. And I think Tom Cruise is underrated--the quality of his body of work demonstrates growth as an actor and thoughtfulness in role selection. We may see him pick up an Oscar some time soon.

It's also interesting to note that actors once considered hot prospects: Matt Dillon, Kevin Bacon, John Cusack, Rob Lowe, among others, have done fine work but have not necessarily reached the top echelon. This just demonstrates the role that good fortune (divine intervention, from my perspective) as well as talent, plays in all of this.

Million Dollar Baby- Rumination on an Unseen Movie

I've always been a big fan of movies and being a critic comes quite naturally. I can remember even at an early age typing out some "mini-reviews". Back then I really didn't know how to evaluate a movie. I hadn't yet developed a philosophy of life, nor had I lived enough to be able to relate to many things I was seeing portrayed on screen. So how could I know what to make of them? Part of growing up means learning how to evaluate the meaning and value of things, not only in movies, but also in life.

For example, it seems there are a number of criteria one might use in critiquing, let's say, a film-- aesthetic values, morality, entertainment value--it really depends on what one is looking for. Now what one looks for says much about the person-- what they consider important.

It seems safe to say that today's movie going public (which generally ignores critics) mostly goes to movies seeking "entertainment". What this means to them is hard to determine, since what's popular among moviegoers is constantly changing and seems so subjective. Judging from the films that usually fare biggest at the box-office, most of the time people seem to be looking for thrills, chills and laughs. Why is that? What does that say about popular taste?

The big wins for Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" at the recent (77th) Academy Awards (director, actress, supporting actor, picture) caused me to ponder the following: What exactly makes a movie worth seeing? It's been reported that Million Dollar Baby was not a big box office draw. Why then did it win so many awards? Is it worthy of them?

I have read evangelical Christian commentaries about Million Dollar Baby-- many stating that since the film apparently endorses the idea of assisted suicide, it is not the kind of movie Christians ought to see, let alone one meriting a Best Picture award. Some also complain that this picture is being so lauded, while Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was pretty much snubbed by the Oscars.

As a Christian, I certainly understand this complaint. So many films today lack a traditional morality. And the storytelling gift of talented filmmakers enables them to portray characters who make evil, or at least morally questionable decisions, in a sympathetic light; thus their choices don't seem so wrong after all. This is a very insidious and dangerous thing. So I'm all for seeing more films made about characters who are morally upright and who make good ethical choices. Nevertheless, a film with a "good" character may be a bad film. Why? Because one may have ethically decent characters, but to make a great film requires many other elements : fine acting, a well-written screenplay, strong dialogue, skillful cinematography, and so on. The art involved in doing these things well can be learned; surely some of this ability derives from that mysterious thing known as talent.

I haven't yet seen Million Dollar Baby-- when I heard what is was about, I was a bit put off. But it's not because I reflexively decided that a film containing a certain message about assisted suicide would be morally wrong to see--- it's mostly because I hate getting attached to a character and then seeing them get killed off. Now as a Christian I don't agree with assisted suicide [though giving someone the right to choose whether or not they want to be kept alive by machines-- when otherwise they would die-- might be a different story]. Yet having seen other Eastwood films, and having seen these actors in other productions, I wouldn't be at all surprised if all the accolades and awards regarding the film's direction, acting, and storytelling are indeed well deserved. So my feeling is that the desire to see, or even actually seeing the movie, doesn't equate with endorsing it's pro-assisted suicide message (if indeed that is the film's message). Perhaps viewing the film might give me an opportunity to discuss the film's meaning with someone who's not a Christian, and enter into a constructive dialogue. But I think that what I'm really trying to say is that I want to see quality films--sure, I'd prefer if the movies were more Christian-- more decent, less selfish, embodying biblical values--but Christians ought not to expect the world to produce such movies; we've got to make them ourselves.

But as we move in this direction, let's not lose sight of the fact that certain skills are required. A noble story and characters does not a great movie make. The influence of decency that comes when Christians fulfill their God-given calling as “salt” in the culture will help elevate the moral and aesthetic standard of what constitutes entertainment nowadays. We see today a world of entertainment propelled by what the Bible calls the “lusts of the flesh”; Christian artists must operate on the higher plane of the Spirit, yet without becoming overly mired in didactics and without neglecting the development of true artistry. Bible narratives suggest a possible model for the Christian artist wanting to convey truth. The Scriptures show us people who love God, yet are human, flawed and make mistakes. Often they become heroes--not because they achieve moral perfection, but because in their determination to follow and realize God's higher purpose for their lives, God's grace works out that purpose. Evildoers and their negative ends are presented as warnings, not romanticized or glorified. Of course, the stories of the Bible are ultimately meant to instruct. Though at times literary, entertaining or poetic, the Bible is not Art, at least not as we traditionally understand art. Yet the Bible might be viewed as a collaborative work of art, one fashioned by God and man. However, its unique authority as divine revelation gives it meaning that transcends merely human creations. But perhaps the best art can aspire to reflect truth with the same degree of honesty and decency as the Bible. As artists who are Christian, this is a worthy goal.