Exodus: Gods and Kings...and Children?

First of all, I have to be honest. Despite much of the skepticism surrounding the newly released Exodus: Gods and Kings, I truly believed that Ridley Scott was going to accomplish something that many other directors failed to accomplish when making film adaptations of biblical history. I expected this masterful filmmaker to turn the tide of Hollywood's gross and negligent treatment of the history of the world contained in holy Scripture. Ridley Scott was, without a doubt, my favorite director before I saw this film. I'm a huge fan of historical fiction that takes place in ancient and medieval eras. Scott has a knack for bringing history to life with his movies. With a wonderful resume' that includes Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Robin Hood, I had high expectations for Exodus. My expectations were sadly dashed 15 seconds into the film. It starts with a sad and pathetic:

1300 BCE

This set the tone for the entire rest of the film. For those of you who are not familiar with the acronym BCE, it stands for Before the Common Era and is a modern effort to reframe history so that Christ Jesus is not the central figure of human history. Despite replacing "Before Christ," however, the timetable remains exactly the same. 1300 BCE is the same year 1300 BC (Before Christ). It's just a way to make liberal historians less offended that Christ is still the central figure throughout human history and nothing they do will ever change that.

As a film, I have no problems with Exodus except for a few terrible casting decisions (one of the Egyptians was trying really hard to cover up his Scottish accent). It's visually stunning, the characters (and they are characters) are as developed as a two hour film can really allow, and Scott presents the historical story in a way that makes the history come alive.

The biggest problem with the film, however, is that this is not Scott's story to tell any way he wants to.

When Peter Jackson took The Hobbit and Hollywoodized it into a nine hour, epic re-imagining of Tolkien's literature, there was some push back from diehard Tolkien fans. There were some hurt feelings, people wrote the movies off as another expensive money grab effort from Hollywood, some people have bore through watching the tiresome films try to recreate the magic of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (which has washed off a long time ago), and for the most part, Hollywood just made some fantasy nerds mad.

Ridley Scott, however, decided to join the ranks of many of Hollywood's most deplorable agents by treating Scripture like The Hobbit. You can re-imagine literature all you want, and the audience will be the judge of whether or not your rendition of the story is worthy or not by buying or not buying a ticket. However, you cannot re-write history so haphazardly and expect an intelligent, scholarly, and resilient faith community to stand by, shrug their shoulders, and watch as you make us out to be incredibly ignorant foolhardy nut cases who will believe just about anything.

I'm going to spoil the movie for you: the Israelites make it out of Egypt after crossing the Red Sea. It is all thanks to their heavenly child god.

No, you read that correctly. Child god.

The movie started out somewhat promising despite the glamorization of Moses and Ramases' relationship. It was like a live-action version of The Prince of Egypt at first, portraying Moses and Ramases as good friends who grew up together as if they were family. Although they are cousins, their bond is fraternal. Scott deviates from the biblical record quite grievously several times before his biggest mistake, and the next thing you know, Moses meets Zipporah, climbs up "God's mountain" chasing after some sheep, gets caught in a mud slide that breaks his leg, and wakes up to find a young boy stacking rocks in the shape of a pyramid. Just for the record, though, there is a burning bush in the background.

I don't expect Hollywood to follow the biblical account exactly. However, this is a very blasphemous deviation from the historic record. For the rest of the film, Egypt is represented by a strong, caring, loving father who is devastated when he and the rest of Egypt awake to find their firstborn children dead and Israel is represented by a unintelligent, and uncaring mob and a schizophrenic who abandons his family to follow the whims of a blood-thirsty, vengeful, and immature child who is supposed to represent the creator of heaven and earth. I feel very confident, that despite the blatant mockery of the the Christian faith (and the Jewish faith as well), most people who are ignorant of the biblical record still know that Christians and Jews do not pray to their child who art in heaven. Who do they think they are fooling?

From a business perspective, I am once again floored and confused by production companies making film adaptations of biblical stories and then alienating the only audience that has any invested interest in viewing the film. Atheists could care less about a movie about what they view as a make-believe fairytale. They'll see it once, wag their heads at the Christian community for believing any of that nonsense is true, and then they'll go on their merry way. Christian film is big business, and I know because I'm tired of watching all of the nauseating, poorly done ones that receive five stars on Netflix just because it's "Christian" and the main character has values. I don't understand why Hollywood hasn't caught on that, if they put their agenda to the side and stick to the biblical record, they can make buku bucks on a generation of Christians who are dying to see their faith accurately portrayed on the big screen. There is a generation of Christians out there that want their faith to be legitimized and taken seriously by an artistic community that continuously portrays them as nut cases who believe in rock people that saved Noah and now an oddball that left his family to follow a young boy who can stack rocks (I'm seeing a theme with the rocks).

The film was extremely confusing to me. I couldn't wrap my head around the message behind the film. On one hand, Scott decimates any and all influence that the Exodus has on the Christian and Jewish faith communities by detracting Israel or Moses' faith in God from the story completely. The only people in the movie with faith are Zipporah and a witch doctor. The Hebrews are not resting in God's promises, Moses spends most of his lines ridiculing the imaginary boy god for being a vengeful brat, and the Passover is all about pitying the poor lambs (boohoo). And yet, Scott doesn't shy away from presenting the story as a historic event that took place in a historic place and time with historic people. What's more, he also portrays the plagues as supernatural (albeit somewhat natural chain of) events. At first, the Nile turns into blood because ships of fishermen are attacked by blood-thirsty crocodiles, but Scott portrays every drop of water in Egypt eventually turning to blood and killing all of the crops and fish. He didn't clearly demonstrate that the plagues only affected the Egyptians, but by this point in the move, I was used to disappointment.

Overall, the message was mixed and confused. Quite honestly, I felt like I was watching a film made by a man who doesn't believe an iota of the biblical record as historical but cannot understand how billions of people around the world today and throughout history have not only believed that the Exodus is true, but point to it as a crucial part of their faith in God. It's a film by a man who quickly realized that he bit off far more than he could swallow, regretted making the film, but finished it because he had to. The first ending credit was, "For Tony Scott" (Ridley's older brother who committed suicide a few years ago). I feel like this is a film made by a man who is desperately wrestling with the reality of God, death, eternity, and faith, is struggling to understand his brother's suicide and reasoning behind it and made this film throughout his grieving process.

As Christians, we expect film adaptations of biblical history to be accurate through and through. There is no place for the artist in these films. However, film making isn't always about the story as much as it is about the filmmaker. This film clearly abandoned all reason and fidelity to the faith communities who were hoping it would turn the tide in Hollywood. However, taking a step back after seeing it, there are a couple of things to be observed from the artistic license Ridley Scott took with this story.

First of all, Scott portrays God as a mere, pathetic, immature, boyish child. This could be an allegory of Scott's personal struggles with the living God that has recently culminated in the difficult reality of the finity of life demonstrated by the abrupt death of his beloved brother. He portrays God as a fickle boy who just wants to see the people who bullied His people suffer and endure hardship. There's no glimpse into God's love, wisdom, sovereignty, authority, promises, faithfulness, and grace. Rather, God just wants pay pack. I wonder why Scott thinks God called Moses in the first place, since Scott basically has God challenge Moses and then do it himself after he sees how pathetic Moses is in his rendition of the story. This is clearly a film made by a filmmaker who is wrestling with God, and is struggling with balancing his worldview with the truth that he suppresses. This clearly comes out in the film, and Christians who see the film should recognize that the director of the film clearly has some battles taking place in his life.

Additionally, I found it somewhat ironic that this film portrays God as a child (quite blasphemously) during the time of year where the broader Christian church exalts baby Jesus (quite blasphemously). I would actually like to have a conversation with someone who is a die-hard "Jesus is the reason for the season" Christmas celebrator to explain why they find it offensive when Scott portrays God as a boy while they don't think it is offensive at all to exalt baby Jesus as "the reason for the season." When Jesus was born, He was fully God and fully man. God took our flesh, and at one very real point in history, He was a humble, nursing, weak, fragile, helpless, baby boy. However, even at this point, He was still God and the wise men traveled thousands of miles to worship Him as God. However, the way many Christians can speak about "baby Jesus" is not revering, not honoring to God, and is blasphemous towards the attributes of God. Jesus was a baby, and therefore, in His human nature He was vulnerable and as weak as a newborn babe. However, Jesus was still completely God, possessing every immutable attribute of God at that same time. That has to be balanced this time of year, as many people want to exalt a baby over and above almighty God.

In conclusion, Exodus: Gods and Kings is a major letdown. I had high expectations of Ridley Scott, and he made another blasphemous film adaptation of biblical history. I saw the movie, and I can save you the money of seeing it in theaters. However, as Christians, I think these films are not complete wastes of time. If you wanted to see if for the legitimization of what you believe, then yeah, you should probably skip it because it's going to hurt your feelings that, yet again, the world portrays the object of your faith as nothing but a foolhardy fairy tale. On the other hand, if you want to be objective and critical of the film's portrayal of what you believe, then it might just be worth renting at Redbox. It is a great insight into the eyes and minds of the nay sayers. Honestly, it's a strawman argument wrapped up in filmmaking clothing. It just comes to show that the world is not yet ready to take us seriously, and cannot accurately portray our argument (faith) before they tear it down. Don't be offended, but rather, use it as fuel to set the world ablaze by setting the record straight. Our faith, albeit foolishness to the world, is truth to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
        and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
  
        Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

(1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ESV)

Racial DiscrimiNATION

Ferguson. A year ago, you'd never heard of it. You couldn't locate it on a map if you tried. Today, many of us still can't find it on the map, but we're bombarded from every direction about Ferguson, MO. I've loathed checking my Facebook news feed for several weeks now because everyone wants to share their opinion on this "polarizing" topic. It's a mixture of supposed police brutality coupled with racial profiling. It's a tough subject to stomach. Either you stand behind the "Hands Up! Don't Shoot" protests or, well, to put it bluntly, you're ignorant or racist.


Is it possible, however, that America is letting their emotions get to them and making a big deal about race when race isn't the underlying problem?

Let's play a little word association. I want you to think of the color that comes to mind when you see the following words:

Criminal.

Police officer.

Why did you think of the color you did? Was it because you're racist? I don't think so. I think it is because you're a keen observer. Before you think you know what I mean by that statement, hold on a second and keep reading. I'm sure you don't know where I'm coming from or headed.

Now, let's play the same word association game. This time, don't even try to escape racial profiling. What race comes to mind when you see the following words:

Terrorist
President
Politician
News Anchor
Basketball
Hockey
High school dropout
Doctor
Cartoon
Janitor
Model
Baptist
Presbyterian

Hmmm. That's interesting. A race immediately popped into your mind with each word. Why is that? Of course you thought of a Chinese terrorist, a Colombian president, a Cherokee politician, an Indian news anchor, a Western European basketball player, an African American hockey player, a Japanese high school dropout, and a female, red-haired Scottish doctor. No? What does that say about you as a person? Are you discriminating?

Where am I going with this? Well, let me demonstrate the very sad racial problem with America's response to Ferguson. You see, the very sad reality about America is that we are a country full of racial discriminators, and most of the racial discriminators don't even know that they're discriminating. The problem in America isn't that people with different colors of pigmentation are treated differently, but rather, that we're still seeing skin color and letting it affect our decisions and worldviews.

Point in case, is the problem in Ferguson that a black man was shot by a white man? If that is the underlying problem and the one that needs to be addressed throughout this nation, then we need to hold every man that shoots a person of a different ethnicity accountable for his actions. If a black man shoots a white man, then that needs to be addressed by a congressional committee. Or if a Hispanic man shoots an Asian man then that needs to be addressed with the same amount of outrage. However, that's not happening.

Shouldn't the real problem in Ferguson be that a police officer shot and killed an innocent man with his hands up (if that is what really happened)? Isn't that the real issue, here? How did this become about black and white? What made the citizens of Ferguson and America blow this problem out of proportion and make it a black and white racial issue?

I've grown up in Colorado Springs all of my life. The community that I grew up was a suburb filled with primarily white people. There were about a dozen black kids in my elementary school. One thing that separated them from me and the rest of my classmates was the color of their skin. But, as kids, we didn't really care. We didn't see the color of their skin as something that should cause us to treat them differently. It wasn't until adults started making a big deal of the disproportionate numbers of white and black kids in schools and the disproportionate amount of time that we focused on "white" history that us kids started to think that the color of skin should matter.

By the time I was in high school, things had progressed even further. It was a harsh reality to me and many of my classmates that our eligibility to attend certain colleges around the nation would be determined by the color of our skin and the college's quota for our skin color (something called affirmative action). What's more, we would all find it hard to stomach that our ability to pursue certain jobs in certain large corporations would be hindered by our skin color in an acceptable form of racial discrimination.

In my junior year of high school, I started to apply for jobs to pay for gas money and car insurance. Towards the end of every application, I was asked to check a box next to my ethnicity. The options were always disheartening to me:

• Native American
• Asian American
• Hispanic American
• African American
• White

They never had a box for German/Polish/Scottish/English native American.What I found most amusing by this question on every job application is that there was always a little section of legal jargon before the question that stated that no hiring decisions would be determined by the color of my skin. And yet, the question is on every job application. Why is that? If it doesn't matter what color your skin is when applying for a job, then why ask the question? Racial discrimination?

Some things haven't changed since the 60s. We're still not color blind. Our country is still obsessed with discriminating color. Did you know that the definition of the word "discriminate" is simply: recognize a distinction; differentiate? There is a lot of racial discrimination in America these days. Most of it is by people pointing fingers at other people and calling them out on exactly what they're doing. A lot of people in this nation need to recognize the log in their own eyes before they start complaining about a speck in someone else's.

Criminal.

Police officer.

I want to revisit my statement that you probably thought black criminal and white police officer and that's because you're a keen observer. I didn't want you to jump to conclusions based upon that statement, but rather, I wanted you to hear me out. I said you were observant because the attention this story has garnered by the media is causing a form of brain washing on those who are not thinking critically about the story. When you listen to the radio talk shows (who does that?), watch the news stations, read the newspaper, and check out the blog postings posted on Facebook, you keep hearing and seeing black and white juxtaposed with the words criminal and police officer. The more and more you hear it, the more and more you let your guard down to discern the connection and/or disconnection between the two race words and the words they are attributed to. It's actually a form of propaganda and brain washing, and I'm watching more and more of my friends and family fall victim to the media's mind games.

Take a step back, now. Is the problem in Ferguson that a white man shot a black man? Or is the underlying problem in Ferguson that a police officer shot and killed an unarmed man and that there was little to no investigation into the officer's actions by the department and outside agencies? I really don't think it is both.

Does the color of these two men's skin really have a bearing in the problem? If a Hispanic officer in a predominately Hispanic police department shoots and kills an unarmed Asian man in a predominately Asian neighborhood and the department hardly investigates the officers actions is this country going to respond the same way? Would we have a racial problem that needs to be addressed or would we a problem with the system that needs to corrected?

From a theological standpoint, it's interesting that God's Word completely neglects to mention skin colors. Nationalities played a huge role throughout Scripture, but never the color of people's skin. As Christians, we have to recognize that this negligence in Scripture does have theological implications.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

Many Christians seem to think of Adam and Eve as two white people with brown hair and fair skin. However, such a view of the first two human beings is quite pathetic. Every race that covers this entire globe was present and represented in the genes of these two people. We know that throughout history "selective breeding" occurred often in nations, and over thousands of years we have a full spectrum of the human genome's skin pigmentation possibilities. Every unique feature of every race on Earth was present when God created Adam and Eve in His own image. Therefore, diversity, beautiful, precious, lovely, colorful, pure, genetic diversity is part of the image of God created in humanity. And yet, Scripture blanks on mentioning skin color when speaking about a person's humanity. Our humanity rests in our being image bearers of God and that alone. Skin color plays no bearing.

Therefore, as Christians, we have to set aside the race issue. Nothing in Scripture leads us to believe that we need to unite as a race and battle against other skin tones. Rather, Scripture clearly demonstrates that what is precious to God about humanity is His image and not our skin color. When a life is lost, no matter what color that person's skin is, we should always be up in arms, confronted with our sinful natures and our constant need to be restored to the perfect image of our Creator through the blood of Christ, our Savior.

Christ came to redeem mankind. Every color. Every tongue. Every gender, Every nationality.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 ESV)

[For] in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
(Galatians 3:26-29 ESV)

If you call yourself a Christian, therefore, you must rally behind Christ and not the color of your skin. For it is not the colors of  our skin that need to be restored and redeemed, but rather, it is our fallen humanity that needs to be restored to the image of God by being united and conformed into the image of Christ. Christ became flesh and dwelt among us so that those resting in Him are sons of God despite their nationality, their political position, or their gender. Union with Christ is the light that bleaches all racial, national, and gender lines and unites all who rest in Him as sons of God and precious offspring of faithful Abraham.

The true tragedy of Ferguson is that a precious life ended. Even, perhaps, a life that was not united to Christ. In the last resurrection, the color of our skin won't matter. Rather, union with Christ will separate the wheat from the chaff. Is this the message we're rallying behind as Christians when it comes to what is taking place in Ferguson and everywhere around the world where human lives are being snuffed out by sinful actions? Or are we, even as Christians, divided by racial, national, political, and gender lines?

Who I am and what I do has nothing to do with my skin. It's freckled, dry and flaky, constantly needs lotion, is easily burned by the sun, and will rot with the rest of my body in death. It doesn't determine who I follow, what I believe, how I treat people, who I hire for jobs, who I love, and what social issues I will rally behind. Rather, it is my faith and union in Christ that defines me as a person created in the image of God, fallen in my federal head, Adam, and redeemed in my federal head, Christ Jesus. That is what's worth rallying behind, but you don't see much of that, anymore.

And that's my opinion about Ferguson.

Eyes

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides--excuse me--I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

-- Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

As the sun finally begins to rise over the horizon, she makes her way to the lobby on the first floor of the building. As employees begin to arrive, the door is finally unlocked and she takes the opportunity to seat herself in one of the two chairs. This is perhaps the highlight of her day; after surviving another frigid night in the elements, she can feel warmth in her bones once more. All she owns is wrapped around her or is in the bag that she carries with her.

I saw her every morning for a while as I came downstairs to grab the mail. She never looked up. She would gaze out the glass as the sun rose higher and higher, but she would never look elsewhere. I would come down the stairs, and I would hope to catch her eyes. However, in all the days that I saw her, our eyes never met. Not once. She was either fixated on the rising sun or on the floor.

However, I do remember another set of eyes that I did catch once. I was leaving work and I was one of the last ones to leave as snow was quickly blanketing the world. Walking out of the warm building, I remember the cold hitting me so hard in the gut that it almost knocked the wind out of me. As the door closed behind me and I made my way to my car, I remember looking behind me. I caught the man's eyes. He was huddled up against the building, almost certainly seeking shelter from the chilled wind. I distinctly remember how large that man appeared as he wore every article of clothing he most likely owned. I also remember his eyes. They were not pathetic, desperate, or convicting. They were deep. Our eyes only met for a second, but it felt like a lifetime. Our eyes met, and we both agreed. We both felt sorry for each other.

I felt sorry for the man, as I rushed to my car to get out of the cold, knowing that he would remain huddled against the building as long as he could. As I started my car and patiently waited for the engine to warm up, I kept thinking about what I had seen in the man's eyes. I would have expected to see desperation, envy, and anger in the eyes of a man that had to weather the snow storm while surrounded by heated buildings on every side. Perhaps he was once maddened by the inhumanity of shop owners and home owners closing their doors to him merely because he didn't have a job or a home of his own. But the eyes I saw were past that. I saw eyes that looked at me with pity.

Why would a homeless person ever pity me?

I guess after a while, I would start to pity those that didn't see me or didn't stop to help me. I guess it is far more pitiful to be the one that turns a blind eye to the pain of another than to be the person in pain. I caught that man's eyes almost a year ago, and I can't stop thinking about them to this day. Sadly, I feel that the Lord taught me more about ministering mercy to others in those two eyes than in a lifetime in the church.

I learned that the homeless and destitute are human. I learned that I was looking into the eyes of an image bearer of God. I learned that I was looking at more than the shell of a broken person, but rather, I was looking at a fellow man with a beating heart and an estranged soul. I looked at an analogy of my life before Christ, and quickly saw the reality of this poor man's plight. In my darkest days, I never knew this man's pain and grief. When the world felt like it was crumbling all around me, I still had a bed to sleep in; I was still surrounded by people that loved me.

I learned that, despite my theology and my "heart"for my neighbor, I was still not ready to be Christlike. I was still not willing to decrease so that Christ might increase. I was still not willing to take up and bear my cross daily. I was still unwilling to serve others with love and compassion. I was still not willing to love God more than mammon, and I was still not prepared to be unclean so that my righteousness might reside wholly and completely in Christ my Savior.

I learned that I still prided myself in my ability to help those who need mercy the most by serving as a deacon in my local church and working for the city's rescue mission. I learned that that is not enough. I learned that the good Samaritan wasn't the man that picked up the phone, dialed 911, and called it all good. I learned that the good Samaritan was the man that risked his life to take the time to dress the naked and beaten man's wounds, pick him up from the road, place him upon his only mode of transportation as he walked alongside him to the nearest inn, paid for a room for the man as long it took him to heal, and told the innkeeper that he would cover any other expenses the man required.

Go and do likewise! I learned that that imperative isn't optional. It's not, Go and do likewise if you have enough time. Go and do likewise if you have an extra room in your house. Go and do likewise if you an extra bathroom for them to use. Go and do likewise by giving to the church and organizations that I have called to do this. Go and do likewise if you feel so compelled, but don't sweat it if you don't feel like you're the best person for the job.

As Christmas approaches, Christians will be reminded of a homeless family that arrived in a small town only to find that no one would welcome them into their home. They will be reminded of a King who didn't enter this world in a palace, a mansion, a large home, or even in the upper room. Rather, they will be reminded that Christ Jesus, King of kings, Lord of lords, God with Us, the Word that became flesh, was born homeless and spent his lifetime as a homeless man. He became poor so that we may be rich in Him.


The next time you see a homeless person, I don't expect you to invite them into your home. That takes great faith in Christ, and God help our unbelief. However, if you come away with anything from this silly blog post, I challenge you to look the next homeless person you see in the eyes. Let them know that you see them. Try not to shed a tear, try not to feel sorry for them, but rather, try to remember the words of Christ and take them as seriously as the words "It is finished!":

Whoever gives to the poor will not want,
        but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.
(Proverbs 28:27 ESV)

What, then, will you give to the poor? A warm smile? A warm meal? A warm bed? Warm clothes? A warm embrace? A warm invitation to join you at church? Anything would be better than a cold shoulder. 

This Poor Man Cried

 

  I sought the LORD, and he answered me
        and delivered me from all my fears.
    Those who look to him are radiant,
        and their faces shall never be ashamed.
    This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him
        and saved him out of all his troubles.
    The angel of the LORD encamps
        around those who fear him, and delivers them.
(Psalm 34:4-7 ESV)

 I sought the Lord, and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears

You've tried it all, and yet, nothing seems to work. Despite your great anger and frustration with this sinful habit in your life, you constantly find yourself crawling back to this pile of vomit, lapping it up like a filthy dog.

The internet has been turned off. The computer has been placed in a locked closet when you are home alone. You've installed software on your computer that allows your accountability partners to monitor your internet history. You've configured the leading internet filters and protective services. You did everything you needed to put this problem out of reach.

However, you were able to plug the router in and get back online. You only put one of your computers in the locked closet, knowing full well that the laptop under your bed is fully accessible. You installed the internet filters and you know how to disable them or turn them off. You never allowed your accountability partners access to monitor the web history on your phone. You put pornography just out of your reach, but if you stretch out just a little bit...it's back in your grasp.

Terrible and destructive sins like pornography require drastic and immediate actions. Although taking drastic action is good and necessary, it is not enough.

If you find yourself consuming too many cookies, you can put them on top of the fridge so that they are out of reach. But eventually, it will dawn on you that you are the one that put them on the fridge. If you put them up there, then you can take them down.

This is precisely why pornography is not a sin that you can defeat by your own will-power and imaginative self-help strategies. You need the help of someone that is going to put that sin out of reach once and for all. The reality is that pornography will never be physically out of reach. As our culture grows to appreciate and downplay the dangers of pornography, there will be no escaping the physical temptation to indulge in it yourself (especially if you have already tasted of this toxic fountain). You need someone to deliver you from a heart that is addicted, enticed, and drunk in pornography's toxicity.

You know how powerful this temptation is. Despite placing your hope in false deliverers, nothing and no one seems big enough to crush this sin in your life. You thought that going on a mission trip would cure you. You thought that getting married would cure you. You thought that having kids would cure you. You thought that going to a Christian school would cure you. You thought that reading those books would cure you. You thought that reading that blog would cure you. And yet, you are still searching for your deliverer from this great enemy.

Stop searching. The deliverer you seek is the Lord God Almighty. He created you. He knows you intimately. He can restore you and He will restore you if you seek Him. Bow before His majesty in prayer, prostrate yourself before Him, confess your sin, confess your need for a Savior, and He will answer you. He will deliver you from all of your fears. You have already tried to place your hope in physical deliverance, but what you need is a spiritual renovation. You need a new heart to replace the toxic filth that pumps death through your veins right now. This problem is much worse than skin deep, and only your creator can recreate you with a new heart.

Those who look to him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed

Cross eyed. That's what you must be. It is a bad thing to think that you need no deliverance when you truly do. It is a worse thing to think that no one can deliver you from your plight.

Don't lose hope. You recognize the great distance by which your sins have alienated you from God, but God can still see you. You realize the great depth by which you have sunk under the dark, mirky waters, but God can still snatch you out. You know the great cost that was paid to redeem you from your sins, but that cost was paid freely so that you may know life.

If Israel would only look upon the snake in the wilderness, then they would be saved from the plague. Jesus Christ crushed the serpent's head when He breathed his last breath on the cross. His last words were "It is finished." He used His last breath to reassure you that there is now an end to the dominion of death, sin, and the powers of evil over this world once and for all.

Do you look to Christ on the cross and see your Savior from pornography or do you see your judge?

Those who practice sexual immorality will not see the kingdom of God. You cannot look to him and look at pornography. Christ and sexual sin are incompatible. You cannot serve two masters. He is either your Savior or He is your judge.  He either saves you from pornography or judges you for you constant indulgence in it. There is no alternative.

Look to the cross as the end of the sin of pornography and the end of all sin in your life. Look to the cross and be cured, sinner. Look to the cross and see the glorious love and grace of God poured out to all mankind.

Those tasked with ending Jesus' life proclaimed, "Truly this was the Son of God!" shortly after Jesus breathed His last. Imagine that. How is it possible that these gentile dogs could reach the conclusion that a man was the Son of God right after He died? He died! Does that not nullify any claim of being God? And yet, the centurion charged with monitoring Christ's agonizing death on the cross proclaimed Christ's deity after He breathed His last breath. Why? Because God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that whosever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. Sound familiar?

Are you looking to Christ and being touched by the light? Is His countenance shining upon you? Or are you still a lover of darkness? Those who look to Him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed. Do not let your face fall. Keep your eyes upon the cross, sinner. Keep your eyes on your righteousness by keeping your eyes fixated on the radiant light of your Lord and Savior, the Christ, Jesus, Emmanuel. Look and know that your sins have been forgiven. Look and see Christ as the propitiation for your sins. Look and see your redeemer. Look and see the crimson blood that takes away the sin of the earth.

This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him and saved him out of all his troubles

Many things will be revealed when you keep your eyes on the cross. First of all, you are poor. You quickly discover that you do not have two coins to rub together. You are enlightened to see that the very best you can offer to the Lord as propitiation for your sins are filthy rags (literally menstrual cloths). You cannot possibly come before the King of kings and ask for pardon for a lifetime of rebellion against Him with nothing but a tattered hankerchief covered with feces and rotten bodily fluids. You have never felt so poor and lacking.

Secondly, you will see your humanity. You will see just how far you have fallen. God created you to bear His image perfectly, but by the sin of your federal head, Adam, you have fallen from perfection. You still bear the image of God, but all you can do is abuse it, tarnish it, and perpetually ruin it. However, you will never be rid of it. God created you above all creatures. God only placed His image on mankind.

"'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

What do God and man have in common? The common ground started in Adam, wherein man was created to bear the image of God. Man was to have dominion over the creatures entrusted in his care. Man was to be a good steward of God's creation. He was to take care of it and protect it from abuse and neglect. Furthermore, God created woman as a helper for man. Adam's reaction to the creation of Eve was one of unadulterated thanksgiving. Bone of his bone. Flesh of his flesh. Together, man and wife bore the image of God.

As you look at the cross, however, you start to see how far man has fallen in his sin and separation from his holy God. In your struggle with pornography you do not see bone of your bone and flesh of your flesh when you look upon a woman. You see flesh and that's all you see. You do not see a creature made in the image of God. You do not see a creature that you should protect from abuse and neglect. You do not see the mother of all living. No, you just see adulterated flesh.

Finally, you cry. You are poor, with nothing to justify you before God. You are fallen man, having done nothing with the breath of life that fills your lungs than use that breath to blaspheme your creator.

You are poor, but you are made rich in Christ. 

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (2 Corinthians 8:9 ESV)

You are man, but the image of God is being renewed in you by the work of the Holy Spirit, who is conforming you to a better image than that of Adam before the fall.

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
(1 Corinthians 15:45-49 ESV)

What do God and man have in common?

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
    And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:9-14 ESV)

The Lord heard you cry, and He has answered you by saving you out of your troubles. In Christ, you no longer come before God in fear of His wrath and condemnation, but rather you come before the throne of grace wherein you may pray, "Abba, Father." You are no longer poor, with nothing but filthy rags to give to your king as recompense for your rebellion. Christ has taken you debts and paid them with His life. Christ has taken your death sentence and paid it with His own precious blood. What's more, He has taken His inheritance as the Son of God and given it to you. He has shared with you His birthright so that you may be adopted as a child of God. He has taken His righteousness and place it upon your shoulders. He has taken your sins upon Himself. You stand before God justified. You stand before God without spot or blemish. There is no trace of sin, evil, rebellion, and putrid pornography as you stand before the face of God as long as rest in Christ by faith. Your holy Creator looks upon you and sees a perfect man, His beloved child, and a precious man that bears His glorious image perfectly.


The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them

Sin, death, and the forces of evil have been routed. They will regather their troops and they will try once more to lay siege to your heart. They know exactly where your walls are easily penetrated. They know exactly how to take advantage of your weaknesses. They see a weak, penetrable wall defending a fragile city. They will batter the gate with tremendous force. They will catapult fire, brimestone, and rotting flesh upon the city, patiently awaiting your surrender. They would have you believe that your Savior liberated the city and now requires you to hold it from the second assault by your own power. They would have you believe that your Savior has abandoned you when you needed Him the most. They would have you believe that God has changed His mind, has sent them as His messengers to judge you for failing to protect the city He worked so hard to liberate.

The enemy has many siege weapons at his disposal, and perhaps the greatest of them all is doubt. The enemy would love nothing more than to have you believe that God has abandoned you as he (the enemy) seemingly encroaches closer and closer to the walls of defense. He wants you to think that you have been liberated like Iraq, only to be abandoned by your liberator so that the enemy can once again take control. This terrible tactic will surely work as long as you look to your own wall as the source of your defense rather than keeping your eyes fixed upon the angel of the LORD encamped around you.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The fear of sin is the beginning of spitirual blindness.

The LORD made a covenant with them and commanded them, “You shall not fear other gods or bow yourselves to them or serve them or sacrifice to them, but you shall fear the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm. You shall bow yourselves to him, and to him you shall sacrifice. And the statutes and the rules and the law and the commandment that he wrote for you, you shall always be careful to do. You shall not fear other gods, and you shall not forget the covenant that I have made with you. You shall not fear other gods, but you shall fear the LORD your God, and he will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.” However, they would not listen, but they did according to their former manner.
(2 Kings 17:35-40 ESV)

Don't be like Israel. Having been delivered from slavery under the Egyptians by the great revelation of God's power and wrath, they did not take but a few steps in the wilderness before they were begging to go back to Egypt. You have been liberated from the enemy's grasp by God's awesome power. Do you now think that He will leave you to die in the wilderness. Certainly not! He has liberated you, and now He dwells with you. God first liberated Israel, then He tabernacled with them. Similarly, God has redeemed you from the grasp of sin and He now dwells in you by His Spirit.

The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and delivers them. Continue to bow yourself before the Lord, asking for His constant protection from the powerful temptation from each front. As often as you ask for your daily bread, you should also be asking from deliverance from evil. You do not ask so that you might persuade God to protect you, but rather, you pray for deliverance so that you might be reminded that the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him.

Sacrifice. Never forget the lamb that was slain for you. The unblemished lamb that was silent as it was led to the slaughter has made atonement for your sins. The Lamb of God has died and come back from the grave. He is the firstfruits of the resurrection, and we too will be raised with Him in the last day. Never forget this sacrifice as sin encroaches.

As you fear sin, you are more prone to fall to temptation. As you fear God's law, you are more prone to keep it. A fear of sin distracts us from wherein its sinfulness lies. Oftentimes, we can make gods out of sin and sadly we can make some sins out to be more powerful than God. We can make some sins so powerful that not even the love, grace, and Son of God can overcome them. We fear them as the indestructible habits, temptations, and thorns in our sides that cannot be defeated. Sin becomes this powerful only when we lose sight of God's Law, lose reverence for God's Word, and lose a healthy view or and participation in the means of grace.

A constant focus on sin without a diligence in the means of grace is not healthy. If you work diligently to avoid sin but you do not work diligently to avail yourself to God's Word, preaching, the sacraments, and prayer then you cannot hope to be delivered from that sin. Your actions reveal a great fear of sin without any fear of the Lord. Fear of sin without the fear of the Lord is idolatry for you fear sin apart from Him whom you are sinning against. You are fearing sin for other reasons than fearing sinning against your Father, Savior, and Comforter.

Therefore, keep constant watch and see that the angel of the Lord encamps around those that fear Him, and delivers them. Do not keep your eyes fixed on the enemy, but rather, keep your eyes fixed on the encampment of the Lord that protects you. Do not try to make your wall impenetrable, but rather look to Him who will not let any evil one in the midst of His camp. Do not look for ways to reinforce your gates, but rather keep your eyes fixed on Him who stands outside the gates so that the evil one may not step foot in the city lest he be destroyed.

The Lord your God is your protector, and never let sin, no matter how large an army it may seem to possess, distract your sight from the encampment of the Lord.

When you feel tempted to sin, don't look within yourself for the will-power to flee. A moment's hesitation and you're lost. Use that moment to cry to the Lord for deliverance, and He will surely answer you.

When you feel tempted to sin, don't try to walk away from the temptation. Rather, fall to your knees where you stand and look with eyes of faith on the encampment of the Lord that surrounds you. Rest by faith, knowing that God dwells with you, and ask for the deliverance from sin through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit within you.

Fear the Lord in your weakness and be delivered.

Television's Rape Epidemic: A Response

Recently, blogger and author, Tim Challies, wrote a blog titled, "Television's Rape Epidemic" that challenged readers to consider the growing proliferation of sexual violence in hit television shows. Challies writes, "Sometimes...rape is shown explicitly or psuedo-explicitly, while other times it is recounted as a past event. But either way, this much is clear: Television has never been crueler to women than it is right now." Anticipating the rebuttal that the Bible contains many accounts of rape (Genesis 34, Judges 19, and 2 Sam. 13 to name a few), Challies writes:

Within the great drama of Scripture, Tamar’s story serves not to entertain, but to inform and reform. It is sin told sinlessly. It avoids being salacious and being explicit. It displays the far-reaching consequences of David’s sin, it highlights the sickening idolatry of mankind, it explains some of the battles that will soon come. Best of all, it calls the reader to cry out for a Savior, another Son of David, who can fully and finally put an end to such horrors. It is a far cry from rape as a shocking plot twist meant to generate buzz, rape as character development when all else has failed, rape as the explanation for vengeance.

Challies ends his blog with these questions: If Christians won’t allow explicit scenes of sexual violence to keep them from watching television shows, what will? If scenes of rape are not over the edge, what is? If we won’t draw the line there, will we draw it anywhere? (the link to the blog is here).

I also saw a recent blog by Tony Reinke that provides an edited transcript of John Piper's recent episode "Should Christians Watch 'Game of Thrones?'" wherein Piper provides 12 biblical reasons why Christians should not watch the HBO hit series (the link to the blog is here).

Both articles are deeply thought provoking and reminded me of a conversation I found myself in the midst of at work concerning a very similar premises concerning the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street." One of my co-workers (an avid movie-goer) was expressing their great disappointment and disgust of the Martin Scorsese film that contains several scenes of graphic nudity. My coworker felt that the film terribly overstepped the boundaries of morality and tried to disguise it as an acceptable form of art. One of my other co-workers was arguing on Scorsese's artistic behalf that the film, although deeply disturbing and immoral, served as a means of communicating and exposing the atrocities of humanity and our sinful nature. Both of my co-workers left the conversation unpersuaded by each other's argumentation, and I cannot help but feel like I witnessed a microscopic skirmish of a greater (dare I say it) culture war taking place in the midst of the church today.

These are the kinds of battles that have been and will continue to be waged in the broader war taking place within Christendom as postmodernism continues to creep in and persuade Christians away from black and white morality and into the grey fray. Morality, more and more, is judged by artistic license more than by the Word of God within the church, and more and more Christians are excusing the immorality portrayed in movies, television shows, video games, and other forms of media as an artistic expression meant to reveal and communicate social problems that exist around us as opposed to graphic displays of immorality and sinfulness meant for entertainment purposes.

A couple of years ago, the opportunity to watch Schindler's List presented itself and I took it. I was in my early twenties, I was alone, and I was deeply engrossed in a self-proclaimed film studies. I had heard all the hype behind the movie, and I wanted to see what all of the hype was about. I found the film deeply disturbing as I watched the shameless cruelty of men who thought themselves to be gods as they inflicted gross forms of physical and emotional torture to fellow image bearers that they saw as nothing more than viruses needing to be exterminated.

The movie was not entertaining, and after it was over, I knew that the film was never made as a form of entertainment. Rather, it was made as a visual representation of an atrocity that we all read about in our history books but never really contemplated how disgusting the atrocity truly was because our comprehension of the sinfulness of the evil of the Holocaust was marred by our immaturity and adolescence in American high schools (unexposed to pain and suffering in suburbia). The Holocaust never really seemed real until after I saw Schindler's List, and I think that's why the movie was made. It made money, yes. People probably did go to see it to be entertained at first, but they most likely left the theater in tears. The movie was never produced to entertain, but to expose a culture that doesn't really know the meaning of cruelty, evil, and sin to the atrocities that, sadly, are still taking place around the world today. The film was made at a time when many American's were unaware of the genocide taking place in Africa, and it opened a lot of eyes and hearts that were shut and closed to the historical repeat taking place on the other side of the world without them even knowing it.

A couple of months ago, the opportunity to watch 12 Years a Slave presented itself and I took it as well. Again, I watched the film by myself and I only watched it because I wanted to see what all the hype was about. After all, this film was awarded "best picture" of the year. This was a decision I quickly regretted making.

Unlike Schindler's List, this film tried too hard to be another Schindler's List by overexposing a far more outdated atrocity in modern history, dig up buried hatchets, and reveal slavery in a "new" light to American movie-goers. When Schindler's List came out, there had never been another film like it about the Holocaust. However, 12 Years a Slave tries to portray the American slave-trade in a new light despite a long history of phenomenal films that have already broken that ground. I left the movie unentertained and unenlightened. The film had no redeeming value, in my opinion. It displayed immense cruelty upon human beings, and the only "moral" characters in the film were the slave owning, Bible-thumping men and women whipping, raping, and killing their human property in the name of God. Although the main character was supposed to be portrayed as the most moral character in the film, his moral compass points to the sheer act of survival (quite Darwinian) by whatever means possible more often than not.

If I take a step back, however, there's not much difference between Schindler's List and 12 Years a Slave. Both films portray some of the greatest sinful atrocities in the history of mankind by a medium that is most popularly used for entertainment purposes. Somehow Schindler's List left a far more positive impression with me than 12 Years a Slave, but both films equally portray human nature at its worst by means of paid actors, elaborate sets, and simulated recreations of all-too-real events.

So, Challies' questions struck a nerve with me. Where do we draw the line? When do we know that a medium has crossed the moral line in the name of entertainment?

I can certainly see where Challies is coming from, and I agree with him far more than I disagree with him. My greatest contention with him is that his article implies that all tv shows and movies are created for entertainment purposes. Certainly, the shows that he lists in his blog are meant for entertainment purposes, but television shows and movies are starting to progress more and more out of the realm of entertainment and into the realm of education. Since my wife and I have gotten Netflix, I have been immersed in a new world of film called documentaries. I was first exposed to documentaries in high school with Super Size Me and Bowling for Columbine, but documentaries have come a long way since my high school days. Netflix has several documentary films to choose from, and although some of them have entertaining facets, they are meant to expose, enlighten, and reveal more than entertain.

The problem is that since the advent of documentaries, more and more tv shows and films are incorporating documentary-like styles. More and more films are being made as commentaries on contemporary or past culture, and they are disguised as entertaining movies. They're not documentaries because they are not produced with any journalistic finesse, but they seek to serve the same purpose as a documentary. They portray themselves as entertaining films, but the viewer leaves the theater (or couch) feeling like they have just been exposed to some form of subliminal messaging or propaganda.

The problem with this style of film-making is that it is effectually greying the moral line between right and wrong, and many Christians are falling for it (to include myself). 12 Years a Slave is such a film. I put the DVD back into it's case, and couldn't help but think that I just watched a movie that was more about the intolerance of some in our culture against homosexuality (perhaps those nasty Christians who owned slaves) than a film about the horrendous abuse of slaves across America in the 18th and 19th centuries. The message behind the film wasn't "Slavery is really really bad," because such a message wouldn't resonate with our contemporary culture that is starting to show progress in the racial equality realm (despite a constant barrage of counterproductive propaganda engines like the NAACP, ghetto rap music, and films like 12 Years a Slave).  

12 Years a Slave was an artistic expression made by Steve McQueen, and I couldn't help but think that I had just been duped into watching a film with a subliminal message that had nothing to do with the atrocities of slavery. Worse yet, this film utilized nudity to cover up the jedi-mind-trick taking place. I was supposed to believe that the nudity in the film was adding legitimacy and realism to the story, but it didn't and I didn't fall for it. I do not know why filmmakers feel like a terrible action is portrayed as even more terrible when the person inflicted is nude. Terrible things do happen to people when they're not clothed, but why the persistence in film and television to show it graphically and explicitly? You want to know why? The travesty enlightens (documentary side) and the nudity (entertainment side) sells tickets. That's why.

Challies is surprised by the growing amount of sexual violence portrayed in television and film, and I do find it surprising that more and more Christians are growing accepting of watching shows with nudity, sexuality, and even sexual violence. However, I am not surprised by the increase of films and movies displaying sexual violence graphically in their plot lines. In fact, I am surprised that Challies, who is one of the leaders in the anti-pornography front in the church, is surprised that sexual violence is growing more and more acceptable in our culture and even within the church. As sexual violence portrayed in pornography becomes more and more mainstream and more and more acceptable and accessible by our culture, it should be of no surprise that our moral filter in what is entertaining in television shows and movies is growing more and more penetrable.

Where I disagree the most with Challies is in his interpretation of this phenomenon. Movies and television shows do not create culture, but rather, they reflect the culture that creates them. Television and films are artistic expressions of human beings with certain worldviews, philosophical ideas, and theologies. Immoral films do not make people immoral, but rather, immoral people make immoral films.

More and more filmmakers who have a warped and perverted view of sex are making films that portray warped and perverted plot lines engrossed with sex, and a pornographic savvy culture is all too happy to embrace these filmmakers' "artistic expression."

As I have stressed over and over in my blogs, the problem with this society is not the supply of sexual immorality, but rather, it is the growing demand. The problem is not that more and more television shows and movies are placing sexual immorality on a pedestal, but rather, the problem is that more and more people in this world have no qualms with those who do so.

Rape and sexual violence have been in movies for a while. I grew up watching films made in Hollywood's "Golden Years," and I remember several films with sexual violence in them. They weren't graphic and explicit like they are today, but the movies included sexual violence in the plot line. My dad would rush to turn the film off, apologize that he didn't remember that was in the film, ask for our forgiveness, and then pick something more palatable to watch as a family.

Back when these movies were made, however, there was a lot of push-back from people who went to the movies unawares that such content was in the film they paid to see. Believe it or not, there once was a time when people would walk out of a movie theater and demand their money back when the film contained sexually suggestive and violent material. Those days are long gone, and I don't think it is because ticket prices are so high and more and more cinemas have a no-money-back policy.

I'm ashamed of the number of times when a movie or tv show has been recommended by a Christian friend of mine and I look up the parental guide on IMDB and see that it contains nudity, terrible language, and graphic violence. I'm ashamed of the number of Christian friends that cannot wait for the next episode of Game of Thrones to come out. I'm ashamed of the number of professing brothers that rushed to purchase the latest release in the Grand Theft Auto video game series. I'm ashamed that I am guilty of making similar bad "entertainment" choices, and I am ashamed that I will probably make others in the future against my better judgment because I want to keep up with our culture (when in fact, I need to do the exact opposite).

Despite my disagreement with Tim Challie's interpretation of the growing phenomenon of the prevalence of rape and graphic sexual material in films and tv shows today, I could not agree more with his and Piper's challenge to the members of Christ's body. Why are we watching this filth? What do we stand to gain from it? What do we risk losing by watching it? Has Hollywood duped us into believing that we are watching a film for enlightenment while they subliminally fill our minds with propaganda and further jade us to the sinfulness of sexual immorality? We all know rape is bad, so how will a movie or show further enlighten us to its atrocities by simulating it in a film or show that's meant to make us think? Why are we watching shows or films wherein rape is used merely to make a bad guy more sinister or make a good girl more damaged?

There's nothing entertaining about rape, and the only reason rape is more and more popular in our entertainment is because we are less and less sensitive to recognizing the sins before us as sin (simulated or not). Murder in movies is simulated. No one really died, and no one really murdered anyone. The whole things is synthetic, no matter how realistic it may appear. Rape in movies is simulated. Although no one really got raped in the scene, sexual immorality was not simulated and you just embraced it because you have concluded that nudity in film and tv is just "movie-magic." Guess what? It's not. That's real nudity, real pornography, and real sexual immorality before your eyes. There is a fine line, and more and more Christians cannot even recognize when that line gets crossed. That's shameful.


 

The First Offering

Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
(Genesis 4:2-7 ESV)

Having looked at positive law in the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve's disobedience to the Word of God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we come now to the first generation of fallen men. Abel and Cain were two of the first men (if not the first men) born under the curse of death, conceived in sin due to Adam's disobedience and the Fall of man. In Genesis 4, we see all too tragically how far mankind had fallen in the fratricide of Abel by Cain. God's Word reveals that the fratricide was provoked by Cain's sinful jealousy of his brother's acceptance by God for his offering. Now, it is certainly possible that there were hundreds of offerings brought before the Lord before Cain and Abel brought theirs before the Lord. Some argue that this is a sacrifice (which I will address below), but the Hebrew language denotes an offering (the Septuagint uses sacrificial language). Although Abel and Cain may have been taught by their parents how to present an offering to God before this, this is undoubtedly the first offering recorded in the Scriptures, and there is much we can learn from what God reveals about this first offering.

First of all, the Pulpit Commentary makes an interesting observation that I will only share and allow you to research further if you so desire. It is observed that Abel and Cain brought their offering to the LORD. The commentator explains that the location of their giving was, "Probably to the gate of the garden, where the cherubim and flaming sword were established as the visible monuments of the Divine presence." Certainly, given the place of the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle and the Temple it would stand to reason that where the cherubim and flaming sword were was the established place of worship for the first family. Like I said, this is an interesting observation and I would have to research further how widely this position is shared and what significance scholars place upon the location of Abel and Cain's offering. However, as this is another discussion altogether, I digress.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding why the LORD regarded Abel and his offering and did not regard Cain and his. The two most popular positions are that 1) this was a sacrifice and Abel brought an offering that required blood to be spent while Cain only brought produce, or that 2) Abel brought the best of his flock while Cain only brought some fruit that he had grown (not the firstfruits and not wholeheartedly). I have been presented with arguments for both positions, but I have always been of the position that the LORD had no regard for Cain and his offering because he did not bring the first and best of the fruits he had grown with a thankful and generous heart.

In the IVP Bible Background Commentary on the Old Testament, John Walton, Victor Matthews, and Mark Chavalas (2000) explain that:

"The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are not depicted as addressing sin or seeking atonement. The word used (minhâ) designates them very generally as 'gifts'--a word that is most closely associated with the grain offerings of Leviticus 2. They appear to be intended to express gratitude to God for his bounty. Therefore, it is appropriate that Cain should bring an offering from the produce that he grew, for blood would not be mandatory in such an offering. It should be noted that Genesis does not preserve any record of God requesting such offerings, though he approved of it as a means of expressing thanks. Gratitude is not expressed, however, when the gift is grudgingly given, as is likely the case with Cain."

In Banner of Truth's Sermons on Genesis: Chapters 1-11, John Calvin argues that, "God looks at the quality of the heart. That is why he accepted Abel's sacrifices, but not Cain's." Calvin's position is that Cain and his offering were not regarded because they were offered halfheartedly and not because he offered produce while his brother spilled blood for his offering. In his commentary on the passage, Calvin further explains that:

"The Jews foolishly imagine that the oblations of Cain were unacceptable, because he defrauded God of the full ears of corn, and meanly offered him only barren or half-filled ears. Deeper and more hidden was the evil; namely that impurity of heart of which I have been speaking; just as, on the other hand, the strong scent of burning fat could not conciliate the divine favor to the sacrifices of Abel; but, being pervaded by the good odour of faith, they had a sweet-smelling savor."

In his An Old Testament Theology, Bruce Waltke (2007) also agrees with this position when he explains that:

"The key to the Cain and Abel story (Gen. 4:3-4) is found in the narrator's choice of minhâ to designate the kind of sacrifice they offered. Minhâ means tribute, and to a king, and even more so to God, one offers the best--of domesticated animals the firstborn and of cultivated grain the firstfruits. Abel brought the best, 'fat portions from some of the firstborn,' but Cain brought 'some of the fruits,' not the firstfruits. By his choice of words, the narrator indicts Cain of tokenism."

In InterVarsity Press' Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (2003) argue that:

"If animal slaying were integral to this act of worship, the writer could have selected any of several other terms that often (or in some cases always) required slaying an animal. These include [the Hebrew words for burnt offering, fellowship offering, sin offering, and guilt offering] to list the primary sacrificial categories. In contrast, minhâ in Leviticus is restricted to grain offering, absent of blood. Thus by its definition a minhâ was designed to obtain favor--not expiation--thus explaining why it need not include animal sacrifice. Is it possible that the Septuagint's translation thysia ("sacrifice") for Cain's minhâ ("offering," Gen 4:3) has misled interpreters to presume a divine requirement of blood in the elder brother's gift?"

Therefore, regarding the question of whether or not Abel and Cain's offering was one seeking atonement and the forgiveness of sins or was one presented as a thanksgiving offering and as an acknowledgement of the provisions that God had graciously granted, I lean more towards the latter than the former.

Before I leave the debate, I do want to note that those who argue that this offering was a sin offering typically point to the cursed ground from which Cain's gift came from, while Abel's gift was not of the ground and required the spilling of blood (which is required for atonement). I too think that the cursed ground is significant and plays a major role in this offering. Both Abel and Cain present an offering to the Lord that is a gracious product of God's love and provision for man after the Fall, because despite the cursed state of the ground due to man's disobedience, God still provided pastures for livestock to graze upon and nourishment for produce that required good soil in order to grow. Despite their sinfulness and hardened hearts, God still provides for His image bearers. I am reminded of Christ's words on the sermon on the mount that are significantly pertinent to Abel and Cain:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48 ESV)

Jesus draws a connection between the love God pours out upon mankind by His common grace and the love His followers should have for their neighbors and their enemies. Our Father brings success to those whose lips cry out for His destruction, and He cares for His beloved children who are persecuted for their unabashed faith in Him. God's common grace can appear to bless those who seek to spit in His face and curse those who recognize that their every last breath is a gift from Him. However, God hears the cries of His beloved, and their persecutors will receive God's righteous judgment and He will bless those who suffer for His name's sake. This we see as God responds to the cry of Abel's blood from the ground and His judgment upon Cain. Like His common grace, God's saving grace is poured out upon His enemies: every man that draws breath. Consider Paul's words to the Romans:

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8 ESV)

God takes good care of His enemies, and Abel and Cain recognize God's common grace poured out towards mankind. There is no doubt that we are enemies of God and that our sin has cursed the ground we walk upon. God's grace is far more powerful than man's sin, however, and God brings life where man can only bring death. God nourishes Abel's flock and Cain's fruits and vegetables from the cursed ground.

The author of Genesis does not tell us if God required such an offering from Abel and Cain, but I do not think it is necessary that He did. Thanksgiving for the provisions that God graciously pours out upon His enemies rightfully stems from a recognition that apart from the grace of God there is no good thing in this world of which man can enjoy. Therefore, how much greater should the thanksgiving be when there is a recognition of God's gracious provision of a Savior, having been adopted as children of our Almighty Father by the blood that speaks a better word than Abel's? But more upon that later.

All of this to say, Abel and Cain presented an offering of thanksgiving to God for the many gracious provisions He supplied upon the first generation of fallen men from the cursed ground. They were not seeking atonement by this offering, but rather, they were returning a portion of all that the Lord had bestowed upon them. They recognized that they were enemies of God as they witnessed the cherubim guarding the Garden of Eden, and yet God sustained their flock and crops. However, one brother was truly thankful, giving back to the Lord the best that the Lord provided while the other brother merely went through the motions of giving a portion back to God. One brother's heart was resting by faith in the Lord's provision of all that man needed not only for physical life but spiritual life, and the other brother couldn't see past the fruits and vegetables he hardheartedly brought before the Lord.

God provides man with all that He requires of him. God does not ask anything from us that He does not first give us freely. As the Puritan Richard Sibbes articulated, "God knoweth we have nothing of ourselves, therefore in the covenant of grace he requireth no more than he giveth, and giveth what he requireth, and accepteth what he giveth."

A passage that clearly demonstrates this Biblical principle is Genesis 22, where God tests Abraham's faith by requiring the sacrifice of his only son, the son of promise. Just before Abraham faithfully fulfills God's requirement, an angel cries out for Abraham to stop his swift, lethal, downward stroke of the knifeblade. Behind Abraham, with horns caught in a thicket, is a ram that the Lord provides as a substitute burnt offering for the sacrifice of his only son. Abraham calls the place "The Lord will provide" and to the day of the writing of Genesis is was said, "On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided." Obviously this is an allusion to God's future provision of salvation by the sacrifice of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in our place on that very mountain.

The Lord requires perfection from those who will see His face, and He provides that perfection in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as our substitute. Christ's substitutionary atonement is the pinnacle example of the concept that God provides us with all that He requires from us, but our tithes and offerings are another example of where we see God giving us all that is required to obey His commandments.

Back to Abel and Cain as we wrap up here. Both brothers give an offering back to the Lord in thanksgiving for God's provision. Abel brought the firstborn of his flock and the fat portions and Cain only brings a portion of the fruit of the ground. Abel brings the firstborn. Abel brings the best of what the Lord provided. Abel holds nothing back. Abel brings it all and places it before his Lord and Savior, faithfully proclaiming that all he has is a bountiful gift provided to him by God. Abel's heart for the Lord is clearly evidenced by his offering. Cain, on the other hand, brings some of the fruit of the ground that he had grown. Cain is not said to have brought the firstfruits of his crop, but rather, he brings fruit of the ground. Cain brings a portion, but whether or not it is the firstfruits, his heart is obviously not in the giving.

In the account of Abel and Cain, we have two lessons to learn as Christians concerning tithing.

1) We shouldn't require a clear articulation of a law or commandment in order to bring a tithe and offering to the Lord (although I believe such a requirement could easily by fulfilled by careful and thoughtful consideration of Scripture). The writer of the account in Genesis does not tell us whether or not God required the offering that Abel and Cain brought before Him, and it does not really matter. If God did require it from Abel and Cain, then why would we think that God doesn't require a similar offering of thanksgiving for all that He has provided us. If God did not require it from Abel and Cain, then we see that God had regard for Abel and his offering. If the offering wasn't required, then we see that God regarded the gift and it was not an abomination before Him. Either way, God enjoys a cheerful giver.

2) Tithes and offerings must, first and foremost, be given from the heart. Cain parted with his precious produce, but his heart still clung to his crop. His hands let go of the offering before the Lord, but his heart still clung to his precious food. Tithing is not about money, just like Cain's offering before the Lord was not about produce. God did not regard Cain and his offering because Cain had not really made an offering. He merely went through the motions of bringing his offering before the Lord as if that was all that was required of him by God. God did not need the firstborn of Abel's flock, He didn't need the produce that Cain brought, and He doesn't need your money. Rather, God wants us to love Him with our whole heart, soul, and might (Deut. 6:5). Therein lies our offering. God does not require the physical offering but, rather, He requires the sacrifice of what is precious to us in thankful, loving, faithful worship of Him, resting by faith that He truly is our Alpha and Omega.

I wanted to use this passage as the foundation of the argument for tithes and offerings that I will make. I'm not going to go about trying to prove to you that the Old Testament tithe of produce is still binding upon New Covenant believers in the form of a tenth of your income. My main points in the blogs to follow will be that regardless of whether or not God requires a tenth from the Church today, the New Testament teachings on bringing a thanksgiving offering before the Lord do not differ from those of the Old Testament. Christ and His apostles placed a special emphasis on giving to the poor and giving a portion back to the Lord (a message that is no different from that of the Old Testament). Also, I want to emphasize in the following series of blogs that tithing is not the mere process of taking a portion of your income and throwing it at the poor or the church. To do so would be no different from what Cain did. Tithing and giving to the poor is primarily a condition of the heart. God will only have regard for you and your tithe, thanksgiving offering, and gift to the poor inasmuch as your heart truly let's go of it, that you pray that the Lord would truly bless it to the service of His Kingdom, and faithfully desire that God would be glorified by your gift and by those who receive your portion.

For our next stop...Genesis 14!

A Trip to Eden

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17 ESV)

A beautiful, lush garden with every type of fruit imaginable. What a strange place to start a series of blogs about tithing. What in the world does Genesis 2:15-17 have to do with tithing?

You might be rolling your eyes at this point and thinking that I'm off my rocker, and you have very good reasons for thinking so. However, what better place to start looking at the Biblical teaching of tithing than in the Garden of Eden?

First, let's review what we know about the Garden of Eden from what is revealed to us in Scripture:

    And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
 
    A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis 2:8-14 ESV)

I want to mainly focus on what is revealed to us in verse 9 wherein we learn that every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food was made to spring up in the Garden. I cannot imagine a garden full of every type and variety of fruit imaginable let alone a garden that also contained the tree of life! God provided Adam with everything he needed for sustenance and then some. God planted the Garden, then He placed Adam within it, and then He charged Adam with working it and keeping it. God provided a home for Adam, a steady job for Adam, a never ending supply of food for Adam, and all that was required of Adam in order to remain in this paradise was obedience to one simple command, "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat."

What was so bad about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God required Adam to stay away from it? Would Adam know a secret that God was trying to keep away from him if he sunk his teeth into its nectar? Was it's fruit poisonous and God was trying to protect Adam? Would Adam gain an ability to be godlike if he ate that fruit? No on all three accounts.

Parents and Sunday school teachers, try this little experiment with your kids and students. Buy an assortment of snacks and candies and spread them all out on the table. Sort out the number of a certain kind of candy and separate that candy off to the side. Introduce your children or class to the large assortment of candy and tell them, "You can eat any kind of candy you see here to your heart's contentment. But you may not eat any of this candy over here." The first question out of the mouths of babes is, "Why can't I eat those?!" You're response, "Because I said so."


Due to our sinful inclination our hearts will gravitate towards and obsess with that one candy which has been removed rather than focusing on all of the assorted candy at our disposal. The only thing wrong with the candy that you set aside is that you set it aside and told your students or children that it was off limits. There is nothing inherently immoral about that candy, but because of the fifth commandment, your children and students now need to heed and obey your instruction as their superior or risk sinning against the command of God. This is an example of positive law.

A positive law is one that requires or prohibits that which is not inherently moral or immoral but God has commanded something so that disobedience to it is therefore immoral. A.W. Pink explains that:

"By 'positive' law we mean that God also placed certain restrictions upon Adam which had never occurred to him from either the light of nature or from any moral considerations; instead, they were sovereignly appointed by God and were designed as a special test of Adam's subjection to the imperial will of his King. The term 'positive law' is employed by theologians not as antithetical to 'negative,' but in contrast from those laws which are addressed to our moral nature: prayer is a 'moral' duty: baptism is a 'positive' ordinance." (From Divine Covenants)

 In The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Herman Witsius explains:

"For its being called the tree of knowledge of good, intimated, that man, if from principle of love he obeyed this probationary precept, should come to the knowledge, sense, and fruition of that good which is truly and excellently so, and the full knowledge of which is only obtainable by sense and enjoyment. On the other hand, when called the tree of the knowledge of evil, thereby is signified, that man, if found disobedient, should be doomed to the greatest calamity, the exceeding evil and wretchedness of which he should at last know by experience."

There was no evil contained in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Additionally, Adam and Eve did not have to taste of the fruit of this tree to know what was good because God created them in His image, perfectly sinless, and surrounded them by His pronounced "good" creation. Also, shortly after commanding Adam not to eat of the tree, God further reveals what goodness is by revealing that Adam's being alone was "not good." Therefore, all that Adam and Eve stood to "gain" by eating of the forbidden fruit was a physical, intimate, destructive, and eternally damning taste of evil.

In the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we see how can God set aside a good thing and prohibit it's consumption from those He loves not only as a test of their obedience and fidelity but also as a demonstration of how man's greatest good is to obey and glorify God. As good as the fruit of that tree appeared, Adam and Eve were to place their trust in the Lord above their every desire, knowing that which God forbid would only cause destruction upon consumption. Witsius explains it further when he states:

"[Man] was sincerely to contemplate and desire the chief good, but not to endeavor after it, but only in the manner and way prescribed by heaven; nor here to give in to his own reasonings, how plausible soever that might appear...[Man]'s happiness was not to be placed in things pleasing to the senses of the body. There is another and a quite different beatifying good, which satiates the soul, and of itself suffices to the consummation of happiness."

Now, what does all of this have to do with tithing?

Imagine your bank account as the Garden of Eden. Now, imagine that ten percent of your income is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God constantly replenishes the "fruits" you have already consumed week in and week out, and one of every ten trees that grow in your bank account are off limits. The fruit of these trees are "good for food, and [they are] a delight to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6), and they will surely be pleasurable to consume. They'll pay a few more bills. They'll give you that much more cushion in your tight financial situation. They'll give you that extra edge you need to be able to afford that one thing that you're saving up for. You're right, there is nothing evil about that ten percent but it would be evil to spend it for your own desires. Ninety percent of the trees in the Garden are not off-limits and you can eat of their fruit to your heart's desire, but ten percent are to be set aside for another purpose.

Much like the law given to Adam and Eve in the Garden, tithing is another positive law wherein our fidelity to God is tested. Tithing is as much about money as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was about food. Satan was able to tempt Eve into believing that God had only forbidden the fruit because He wanted to withhold some good thing from her and her husband. Is not Satan's temptation the very same when it comes to setting aside a tenth of all that the Lord provides? Is it not a struggle to tithe because that tenth is perfectly good money that we can take to the bank? Was not the forbidden fruit perfectly good fruit that would satiate Eve's hunger? But Eve did not consume the fruit for she was hungry, and God's people do not hold back their tithe today because they are poor.

No, the Garden of Eden is not about tithing, but therein we see the same temptation that consumes Christians today when it comes to tithing. We fail to trust and obey God's Word, allowing ourselves to be convinced that it would be far better for us to consume that which God has prohibited. Either we excuse ourselves because we believe that tithing is not required of God's people any longer, or we believe that it is not required of us when we cannot seemingly afford to spare any more of God's provision for us. Neither positions, however, have a trust in the promises of God as their focus. For even if God no longer requires a tithe, should we not use all that the Lord has provided in order to bless those who have less than we with an abundance of provision and thanksgiving? Is that not a teaching that permeates the New Testament where the word "tithe" may be lacking? As for those who close their purse when funds are tight, does not Jesus command us to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and rest in the knowledge that God will provide for your every need (Matthew 6:24-34). 

We have forgotten Psalm 52's warning to the those who place their trust in riches, and its wonderful contrast with God's faithful servant and the rich man:

But God will break you down forever;
        he will snatch and tear you from your tent;
        he will uproot you from the land of the living. Selah
    The righteous shall see and fear,
        and shall laugh at him, saying,
    “See the man who would not make
        God his refuge,
    but trusted in the abundance of his riches
        and sought refuge in his own destruction!”
   
    But I am like a green olive tree
        in the house of God.
    I trust in the steadfast love of God
        forever and ever.
    I will thank you forever,
        because you have done it.
    I will wait for your name, for it is good,
        in the presence of the godly.

(Psalm 52:5-9 ESV)

For our next excursion on the subject of tithing we won't be going very far from Eden. In fact, we only jump to Genesis 4...