Sola5 Wednesday Recap - 7/1/09

This weekly topic is an effort to recap the Wednesday night Bible study I teach at Sola5, my youth group. I hope it serves to help us all in contemplating the ceaseless riches of God’s grace as revealed through the Scriptures.

After a very busy June, last night was our first regular Sola5 Bible study in nearly a month. It was great to be back with all my students again as we continued our summer question and answer series, “You Asked For It.” We looked at the question, “Why was Jesus never involved in a romantic relationship with a woman?” This is a question that has popped up more often over the last few years since the release of the book and movie The DaVinci Code. For those unfamiliar, the novel is about a professor who discovered the long-buried secret that Jesus actually married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her. Why does this bother Christians so much? After all, marriage is a gift from God, right? Genesis 2:24 holds it up as the most precious of all human relationships. Heck, an entire book of the Bible (Song of Solomon) is devoted to it! So why, then, did Jesus never pursue romance?

I tried to answer the question in two ways. The was to answer historically – why don’t we believe that Jesus ever married? Why do we find Dan Brown’s version of history so problematic. Well, quite simply, the Bible doesn’t say anything about Jesus getting married (or indeed entering a romantic relationship of any kind) or having a family. Now, the Bible doesn’t tell us everything there is to know about Jesus (in fact, John tells us that all the libraries in the world couldn’t hold the books required for that), so some might say that this is perhaps just a detail that the gospel writers left out. That hardly seems plausible, though. Wouldn’t you find it a little odd if you had a friend who you knew for years and they never mentioned the fact that they were married? That’s hardly a small detail. So, it would be equally as strange for the disciples to record Jesus life over 3+ years of ministry and never think to mention the fact that he was married with children.

The second aspect of the answer is to answer explanatorily – why didn’t Jesus pursue romance and marriage? On that front, the answer is a question of purpose. What was Jesus’ purpose in coming to earth? Though he was fully human like all of us (including sexual desires), he was also fully God, meaning his purpose on the earth was different than any other human being who has ever lived. His purpose was to save us from our sin by the sacrifice of his death and the power of his resurrection (John 3:16-17, Colossians 1:19-20). His purpose was to demonstrate to us by his life what God is like (John 18:37, Colossians 1:15). So then, the question to ask is this – did romance and marriage serve the purpose for which Jesus came? The answer would seem to be no. Jesus' task of traveling Israel preaching the coming of the New Covenant and dying to usher that covenant in caused him to live a life of singleness - with many friends and followers, but no wife or children to commit himself to. This shouldn't serve to denegrate marriage and family, but to highlight the supremacy of Christ's calling. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 tells us that as important as the marriage relationship is, it is subject to a higher calling – our calling as followers of Christ.

This brings us to the point of application. If Christ’s purpose on earth dictated what he did in his life – even when it comes to romance – then each of us must ask ourselves, “What is my purpose?” As Christians, we live to glorify God and to take his gospel to all people. That, then, is the filter that we need to pass our conception of dating, romance, and marriage through. Last night, I asked several questions to get my students thinking in this direction. First, why do you date? I would bet that most American teens get their concept of dating from the culture. I certainly did when I was in high school. However, one look at the divorce rate in this country should tell us that our culture’s view of romance isn’t exactly one worth emulating. Stop dating because it’s what your friends are doing and start asking yourself what you’re looking for. Are you dating to find a potential spouse? Is that something that you’re ready for at this stage of your life? If you’re not dating with marriage as the goal, then what is it you’re after - and is it something that is honoring to God? Secondly, who do you date? We have an explicit command in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 not to marry a non-Christian. If the purpose of your dating is to seek a spouse (and again, if it’s not, then what are you doing?), then it follows that you have no business dating an unbeliever. What sort of person are you looking for in a mate? All the good looks and all the personality in the world won’t mean a rip when you are an infinity apart on the most foundational aspect of human existence – your relationship to God. Thirdly, should you date? As I said earlier, we tend to be big cultural followers in this area. Have you ever stopped to ask whether the purpose that God has for your life is served by dating? Perhaps some, like Paul, will never marry in order to follow the calling God has placed on your life. Perhaps some will, like Peter, embark on a life of Christian ministry and balancing it with family life. Some will be called to singleness for a time in their lives to follow where God is leading, and some may meet their spouse in high school, and marry young, like Heather and I did. The point of it all is this – are you willing to submit your dating life and your search for a spouse to the wisdom of God’s word, or are you going to follow the lead of our culture which sprints headfirst into romantic or sexual behavior that is pointless at best and destructive at worst? Are you cultivating a biblical worldview, where what you know to be true about God and his word actually impacts the way you see the world and live your life? Wherever you’re at in life, take time this week to rethink the way you view romance and to pursue it (or not) to the glory of God.

Blogroll Change

My good friend, Corey Reynolds, has changed up his blog a bit. My Great Blogs sidebar used to point you to his Wanderlust in the Word blog, but he's now moved his address and renamed the blog Chasing the Wind. In addition to Corey's sermons and theological insights, which are always thought provoking, he's also beginning to blog some about other things. Definitely worth checking out - especially if you, like me, share some of Corey's interests in the realms of geekdom.

Guns For Jesus?

I'd hope that phrase would strike us as a little bit strange. Apparently, it didn't for a church here in Louisville. On Saturday, New Bethel Church - an Assemblies of God congregation - held an "Open Carry Celebration," inviting people to come to the church packing their (unloaded) pistols to celebrate their second amendment rights.

Now, I'm all about the second amendment. I don't own a gun, but if you do, it's your constitutional right, and more power to you. However, this event strikes me badly in a couple ways. One, I don't believe that the church should be a place for politics. I may agree with gun ownership rights, but what about someone who is a gun control advocate? You may think their politics are wrong and stupid, but are they not in need of the gospel just like you are? This church has just crushed any chance that they'll ever darken their doors. By making a stand on an issue that is not Biblical but political, they've unwittingly put a political credo over their God-given mandate to preach the gospel. They've alienated many people from the gospel by their actions. Whether or not you believe in gun ownership, the gospel isn't just for the Red State crowd. That's not the message this event broadcasted. This story was picked up by national and international news outlets. Instead of boasting in Christ, they're reporting on Christians boasting in their guns.

Secondly, what does this event say about Jesus? After I just preached a sermon Sunday night from 1 Samuel 26 highlighting David's great mercy in sparing Saul's life, even when Saul deserved death for attempting to murder David several times, I can't imagine that God is pleased with this image of his gun-totin' church. While they're celebrating their right to self-defense, Romans 12:19-21 is telling us never to avenge ourselves. Hebrews 10:34 talks of joyfully accepting the plundering of your property because of your hope in a better reward, not putting a 9mm shell in someone who's looking to rob you. Jesus talks of turning the other cheek to the one who would strike you. Our culture isn't going to be convinced of the glory of God when they see us willing to take up arms to protect ourselves. They're going to be convinced when they see us enduring suffering with patience and grace, even unto death.

Do you own a gun? If so, it's certainly your right. Scripture doesn't speak with clarity on the issue, so my conviction is to keep my mouth shut about it. But I would ask you to carefully consider what your gun says about your savior. Everything we do as Christians makes a statement about Christ. What does your gun ownership say? Only you can wrestle with that question. I would ask, though, that when we gather for worship this week - please leave the gun at home.

Friday's Featured Film - 6/26/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Munich

What does revenge cost? What does it do to a man to take another man’s life, even if it was justified? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? Perhaps no film has explored these questions recently quite so thoroughly and devastatingly as Steven Spielberg’s 2005 Best Picture nominee Munich. Heather and I saw the movie last weekend with her parents and sister, and I found it difficult to watch – but in a positive sense. This is a film that examines a bloody and nasty conflict, but in its focus shifts attention away from socio-political debate and toward the realities of the individuals most involved. The result is a film that inevitably causes the viewer to look inward, pondering what it would be like in the shoes of these men who sought revenge at the request of their government but at the peril of their souls.

The film follows the events of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre, in which Palestinian terrorists took hostage and eventually killed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Avner Kaufman (Eric Bana) is an Israeli intelligence agent approached by his superiors to lead an off-the-books mission. He and a team of four others will track down and kill 11 men believed to have had a part in planning the Munich massacre. The men move through Europe eliminating their targets, all the while finding that their mission’s external dangers are exceeded by its personal toll.

Since Munich’s story is an intensely personal one, the strength of the five actors who make up the squad is of the utmost importance, and the cast delivers tremendously. Bana gives a terrific performance, especially as the film progresses and his leadership becomes ever weightier. Daniel Craig’s Steve is a great contrast, becoming ever more set in his hatred for their enemies and his determination to carry out vengeance. Ciaran Hinds is very engaging as the mysterious Carl, Mathieu Kassovitz plays the part of the team's conscience as Robert, and Hanns Zischler’s Hans is the weakest of the group, though it’s more due to a shallower character than an inferior performance. The film's best moments come as we watch this group morph from a group of committed idealists to men struggling for their physical and emotional survival. Bana in particular portrays a brutally honest look into the human toll of revenge. As his bloody task is contrasted with his wife and new baby back home, we begin to see the stark effects of his every action. Spielberg came under much scrutiny from both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli debate, and I think that indicates that he did what he set out to do - make a movie that avoids political trappings and explores the much more intimate and human aspect of the war. I give this one a big recommendation, but also with big reservations. This is no popcorn flick, so if you're expecting a light Spielberg action film, this probably isn't for you. Also, this is a very graphic film, with some brutal and tough-to-swallow violence as well as some graphic nudity (though, it isn't particularly sexual in context). If those two factors will be a deal-breaker for you, I'd urge you to stay away. This is definitely much closer to Schindler's List than any of Spielberg's other films. However, if you're in the mood for a film that will make you think about - and feel - the human side of war, this is a great film that's well-deserving of the praise it received at awards season. - **** (out of 4)

Munich is rated R for strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language.

You Are What You Tweet

Check out this great post by Stephen Altrogge over at The Blazing Center on what our online personas say about the real us. A good reminder, and an interesting 21st-century look at what Jesus said in Matthew 12:34.

Curse You, New Jersey

My Bobcats were one pick away from pulling off the draft that I've been hoping to see. Too bad the New Jersey Nets had to go and screw it up. The Nets drafted Louisville forward Terrence Williams at #11, one spot before the Cats scooped up Duke G Gerald Henderson as a consolation prize. Henderson should be a good player (and shut up all the Duke fans who constantly gripe about Charlotte's Tar Heel-centric nature), but after watching T-Will here in Louisville I was very excited about what he would bring to the team. Charlotte rounded out their draft with Xavier power forward Derrick Brown in the second round. I don't know much of anything about him, but hopefully he can provide us with the backup power forward that Sean May never became. How was your team's draft? Weigh in in the comments.

The Ultimate Youth Pastor

How many of you have ever sat through something like this? I see those hands.



HT: Douglas Wilson

What a Difference a Year Makes

June 20, 2008June 20, 2009

Incedentally, I just noticed that I'm wearing the same shirt in both. Weird. Happy Birthday, Jordan!

Friday's Featured Film - 6/19/09

New movies are usually released to theaters every Friday, but who’s got 10 bucks these days to drop on a movie that may well be a load of crap? Given those odds, each Friday I offer an alternative on DVD that you can rent at your local video store (or in some cases, avoid at all costs). Some will be new releases, others you may have to hunt for, but all of them are available to light up your small screen should it be a lazy Friday night.

Marley & Me

My wife is a big-time dog person. I’m more the take-em-or-leave-em type. So, when we rented the Owen Wilson/Jennifer Aniston dog dramedy Marley & Me last weekend, suffice it to say that she was a little more excited than I was. I wasn’t dreading the movie; I just wasn’t expecting a whole lot from it. I figured it would be formulaic and cute with a heartstring-tugging ending. I figured it would be pretty much like every other dog movie that’s ever been made. I was right on all counts. What I didn’t anticipate was that in spite of its blatant predictability, it’s actually pretty good.

The movie is actually based on newspaper columnist John Grogan’s autobiographical book of the same name (so it’s hard to get too upset at the formulaic nature, since most of this stuff really happened). Wilson and Aniston star as Grogan and his new bride Jenny as they leave Michigan to pursue new jobs at newspapers in South Florida and start their life as a family. The two of them adopt a yellow lab puppy named Marley, who very quickly shows his colors as “the world’s worst dog.” The film follows the Grogans as jobs change, their family grows, and their marriage is challenged – with Marley there every step of the way, for better or for worse.

If that plot setup seems a little thin, it is – and it’s actually one of the movie’s strong points. The film finds its drama in the ins-and-outs of daily life and the challenges and joys of marriage and family. There’s no contrived, over-the-top antagonist, no implausible crisis to face. Screenwriters Scott Frank and Don Roos and director David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada) realize that there’s plenty of drama in day-to-day life to sustain an interesting film without resorting to cheap cinematic tricks. Wilson and Aniston are both strong in the lead roles, contributing to a movie that is one of the more refreshingly honest, realistic, and moving depictions of family life I’ve seen on screen in recent memory. This is a film that’s not deprecating marriage and children, but showing the family as something of high value that is worth the many sacrifices life demands to sustain and nurture it. With my little girl about to turn 1 tomorrow, perhaps my heart was a little more tuned to what amazing blessings marriage and family are, but I found the film genuinely moving. The standard “bad-dog” gags are played - but not overplayed - and many of the film’s scenes can be predicted before the previous scene even finishes. As I said, it’s formulaic, and for that reason I didn’t really want to like it, yet I did, in spite of itself. So guys, if your wife wants to rent Marley & Me this weekend, rest easy – this is no vapid chick flick, and it’s certainly not a film you have to dread seeing. In fact, in a culture that sees marriage as a joke and children as a hindrance to personal freedom, it’s actually rather refreshing. - ***1/2 (out of 4)

Marley & Me is rated PG for thematic material, some suggestive content and language.

The Chicken or the Egg?

A couple weeks ago, when I went out shopping for books for my high school grads, the first place I visited was a local Lifeway. I must say, I was absolutely disgusted by the drivel that filled the shelves, and the associated lack of solid content. It's a shame that this is the best our SBC dollars can do. There were three or four books I had in mind for my students, all by known authors, and none of them were anywhere to be found. The place had more Don Piper than John Piper. Fluff was the name of the game. My wife had a similar experience a week earlier looking for a family and parenting book for some friends of ours. No wonder everybody's using Amazon. I mean, it's not like there's not good stuff out there. This got me thinking recently - what's the problem? Are our bookstores stocked with fluff because that's what our biblically anemic American Christianity wants, or is our American Christianity biblically anemic because our bookstores are full of fluff? My sense is that it's much like the classic "chicken or the egg" conundrum, where the two are so interconnected it's impossible to say which begat the other. I'd be interested to hear your take.

Note: For any Louisvillians out there, let me recommend the Christian Book Nook, where I easily found what I was after. It's a great, locally and privately owned bookstore with great prices, selection, and service. Check it out. Lifeway - take some notes.