Prince Caspian

Jean and I liked this film of C.S. Lewis's story very much.  It has a maturity and an impact that the first film in the series, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, did not, though it was certainly worth seeing.  

The cinematography in Prince Caspian draws in the viewer with striking scenery and intriguing close-ups of the story's characters.   The viewer follows the story line without difficulty. Several scenes are tense in a good way. The special Narnian characters are delightful (Trufflehunter the Badger), dignified and imposing (the Centaurs), and the Minotaurs are scary and courageous. There are surprises even for those who have read the books. A special hat tip to Trumpkin the dwarf!

But the deepest satisfaction comes from the playing out of the hard, real-life issues that the main characters have to deal with that are the heart of Lewis's work. The sense of Aslan's absence and indifference is one of these, and the pain of coming back to a Narnia that has changed since their first visit is another among several.

So yes, by all means go see it on the big screen and take everyone with you! I came away saying, "I would like to see that one again."

Your comments welcome

The Comments have now been activated.  Click on the link under a post to add your comments.  Brief, constructive comments are appreciated by all!

"Sexy" enough?

"Sexy" is now sometimes used to describe political policies and other decidedly non-sexual entities. It basically means sufficiently attractive to sell to enough people. Is Jesus' teaching that obedience the one thing necessary in the Christian life sufficiently "sexy" to convince Christians and church-goers to actually do it?

I think so, although he would perhaps prefer to keep "sexy" in its usual place. Here's why:

Do I want my doctor to obey the Hippocratic Oath?

Do I want my spouse to obey his or her vows?

Do I want my pastor to obey everything Christ taught?

Do I want my children and grandchildren to obey Christ in everything?

Do I want my fellow Christians to obey Christ in everything?

If not, who would I want them to obey?

To obey Christ in all is the best thing I can do for myself, my family, my church, and the world.

Back to the Basics

This past Sunday I began a sermon series called "Back to the Basics."  It has long impressed me that the one thing that Jesus said to teach new Christians was to obey everything that he has commanded (Matthew 28:20).  George Patterson is right that spiritual growth and maturity are best measured not by knowledge but by obedience.  

Paul used the image of warfare to describe his apostolic ministry (II Corinthians 10:3-5).  His goal was to take as many captives as possible. "Submission to Christ is the new land into which they are carried," wrote Alfred Plummer in his commentary on this passage.    

Sound oppressive? Not when you remember that the old land was called Obedience to the Law of Sin the Dwells in My Members, which previously had taken them captive (Romans 7:23). We always obey someone (Romans 6:16-18). "Who will I obey now?" is a question that can help us when we are tried or tempted. 

Paul's means of taking people captive were not violent, but gentle, spiritual ones. He loved people as his own children and shared himself as well as the Gospel with them. 

So there is really only one "Basic" in the Christian life: to obey the Lord Jesus Christ.  His yoke is easy, and his burden is light.  

Achan and the wrath of God

Yesterday on www.jesuscreed.org (probably my favorite web site), a home-schooling mom asked a searching question about the passage in Joshua 7 where Achan and his family are stoned because of his sin.  The comments posted by readers come at the question in very different ways, and the mom herself takes part in the discussion after a while.  Go to www.jesuscreed.org and scroll down to the entry : "God's Wrath: A Question."  

Bible translations

In  just over a year at ABCW, I have moved from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) to Today's New International Version (TNIV), and now to the English Standard Version (ESV) for the end of the short series on Romans 8.    Here are a few of their strengths and weaknesses for the use I make of translations: 

The NRSV and TNIV are gender inclusive, using "brothers and sisters" instead of "brethren" and "person" instead of man when this is the intent of the biblical authors.  The ESV unfortunately relegates many of these inclusive terms to the footnotes, but at least they are there.

The NRSV annoyingly translates "son of man" in Ezekiel and many other places as "mortal", which then loses its obvious connection to Jesus calling himself the "Son of Man."  TNIV and ESV stay with the word for word translation.  

The TNIV translates "flesh" in Romans 8 as "sin nature" to avoid the mistake of thinking the term refers to the body as such.  But this is too narrow a limitation on the rich term "flesh"; an explanatory footnote or glossary would have been better.  At least it indicates the term "flesh" in the notes.  NRSV and ESV keep the literal meaning in all its complex ambiguity.

The language of the TNIV is quite contemporary, that of the NRSV and ESV a little less so in places.  

Christ's intercession for us (Part 2)

A second help to getting our mind around Christ's intercession for us (Romans 8:34) is to look at how he prayed for people during his earthly ministry.  His cry from the Cross jumps immediately to mind: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" (Luke 23:34)  If he prayed for his enemies to be forgiven because of their weakness and ignorance, how much more must he pray for his brethren in our unfaithful failings?

A wonderful example of this is found in Luke 22:31-32.  In the discussion after the Lord's Supper, Jesus says to Peter that Satan had demanded to have the disciples, "that he might sift you [plural] like wheat."  They were going to be severely shaken out.  Then Jesus adds, "But I have prayed for you [singular, referring to Peter] that your faith may not fail.  And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."  

Jesus apparently sees no contradiction between Peter's faith not failing on the one hand, and Peter's needing to "turn again" on the other.  In other words, Peter's threefold denial of Jesus, which Jesus foretells in v. 34, does not mean that his faith has ceased to exist or completely deserted him.  (That is the meaning of the Greek word translated "fail".)

So the risen and reigning Christ prays for us that when Satan throws his worst at us, our faith will continue to exist, even if it appears to go underground for awhile.  And when that faith rises again to the surface and we come to ourselves, so to speak (as in Luke 15:17), we will strengthen our neighbors and friends whose faith has been shaken.   

Christ interceding for us

In this morning's sermon on Romans 8:31-39 we tried to get a better feel for what Paul means in v. 34 when he speaks of Christ's interceding for us at the right hand of the Father.

We began by looking at how Moses interceded for Israel in their battle against the Amalekites in Exodus 17:8-13.  Unlike Moses, Jesus Christ doesn't need anyone to prop up his hands as he intercedes.  But we may rightly think that just as Israel prevailed against their attackers when Moses' hands were raised in prayer, we shall prevail against whatever Satan throws at us.  Satan's aim is to separate us from the love of Christ (v. 35, 39).   We prevail because of Christ's intercession.  

"Prevail" is another way of saying "conquer" (see v. 37).  But to "conquer" suggests a final, decisive victory that ends the battle.  As we wait for the new heavens and new earth, it is more accurate to speak of our constant prevailing over Satan's unending, persistent pressure on us to drive us to despair, defeat and destruction.  He seeks to get us focused on our failings and those of others (Revelation 12:10).  The Son, on the other hand, works constantly to keep us free from guilt, from shame, and from the fear of death or anything else that might happen to us (Rev. 12:11).   

Since Christ's intercession for us never stops, we will prevail if we just keep on fighting, refusing to yield to the voice of the Accuser and commanding it in Jesus' name to be silent.

Interaction

A second "Bible vitamin" that George Patterson (see previous post) encourages for congregations is "dialogue to develop".  Instead of the "devastating myth" that "pulpit monologue is the most powerful teaching tool," churches which practice dialogue, teaching one another, encouraging and exhorting one another, and other kinds of edifying interaction "consistently see amazing results." 

Of course, good preaching and teaching is not a monologue, even though only one person is speaking.  Good teaching is done in a spirit of dialogue, which is in large part what makes it interesting.  The speaker has prepared by dialoguing with both God and the biblical authors, so that his or her hearers are listening in on a dialogue that has been going on for some time. (Perhaps eavesdropping is the expression of a desire for good preaching!) 

A good speaker also anticipates the questions and possible objections of the hearers.  Without saying a word, the hearers feel that they are part of the interaction.  

Dialogue is a remarkable and consistent characteristic of the God of the Bible, and hence of the Bible itself.  From Genesis to Revelation, God is listening and people are talking to him - praising,  complaining, pleading, lying, inquiring, confessing - and God is responding.  

So yes, I agree with Patterson.  The Church is called to be a demonstration community of the reign of God in the world.  Since God is a God of dialogue, we his people express his image when we listen carefully and respond thoughtfully and with humility to each other and to the world.

Small congregations can pack a punch!

George Patterson was an early and healthy influence on my church planting ministry.  I am happy to acknowledge him as the inspiration behind our upcoming sermon series on The Basics.  

On his web site at www.acquirewisdom.com, Patterson writes that "Scripture, history and recent research all agree that small congregations are more effective in mobilizing believers to win friends to Christ and do vital ministries."  He adds that "big is always better" is a "debilitating myth."  

Of course, such effectiveness is not automatic.  A church of any size can fossilize and fail to effectively bring people to Christ and Christ to people.  

Patterson suggests that the starting point for fruitfulness is Christians obeying Jesus. Everything flows from that.  

The Kite Runner

A rich, sensitive and heart-warming film about two childhood friends in Kabul and how they respond in different ways to evil.  Their choices and their consequences follow them into adulthood and don't go away.  The excellent story is complemented by rich views of Afghan life before and during the Taliban takeover, and of the life of Afghan immigrants to the U.S.  

Highly recommended; newly released on DVD.  

Toynbee on growth

Toynbee (see previous post) says that a society grows in response to challenges through the action of a creative individual or small minority.  This creative individual or group discovers a fresh way to move forward and influences others to go with them.  

But creativity has its nemesis: the idolatry of a previously successful identity, institution or technique.  

Creativity has to come from outside that which already exists.  Toynbee's argument is that ultimately such creativity comes from participation in the Kingdom of God, which alone is eternal.  

This leads to the thought that followers of Jesus Christ have as part of our mission to be so in touch with God's reign that we receive from him fresh insights as to how our own lives, our families, churches and nations can reject the idolizing of past achievements and serve God in our generation.  This doesn't mean devaluing or rejecting what God has done in the past, but building on and learning from it without being limited by it.  

And as we building our generation, we will do so in the full awareness that our work, too, shall pass as we will.  For we await the time when the new creation will bring in a world without evil or decay.  Our work is of value as it moves toward that Day.

Challenges

Historian Arnold Toynbee, in his A Study of History, saw the growth and decline of civilizations as depending on how they responded to the challenges that were theirs.  He wrote that history is an succession of: challenge → response → new challenge arising from that response → response to the new challenge, etc.  A successful response leads to growth and to a new challenge, whereas an unsuccessful one brings the society around to a repeat of the previous challenge, and to decline if there are repeated failures to respond creatively.  

This sounds to me like a useful model for the growth and decline of churches and individuals. 

Toynbee lists five kinds of challenges for a people.  Referring to "the virtues of adversity," he treats each challenge as a stimulus to the growth of a people if they respond creatively to it:

1.  The stimulus of a difficult terrain to work in.

2.  The stimulus of new ground to explore, occupy and develop.

3.  The stimulus of a blow or setback that is inflicted.

4.  The stimulus of some kind of constant pressure.

5.  The stimulus of one's own handicaps and weaknesses.