It’s a bit disturbing to me that NBC’s solution to Heroes’ rapidly falling ratings was to introduce a lesbian love story. Why?

First off, it’s an indicator that we’ve reached such a level of political correctness that “tolerance” has become one of our society’s greatest virtue. By this I do not mean that tolerance (in itself) is a bad thing, but I do mean that what we now term tolerance goes far beyond that. Tolerance means “I will not prohibit you from doing something,” and typically understands the action/belief in question to be one that contradicts what the tolerating person believes. Tolerance does not equate to agreement or support, nor does it entail unilateral pluralistic license.

I will tolerate it if the neighbors’ music is a little too loud up until a certain time of night. If asked, I would prefer that they keep the noise to a reasonable level, and I will even state that it is disrespectful, selfish, and unkind for them to violate my need for restful sleep. Nevertheless, I might tolerate it up to certain levels in order to maintain a more amicable relationship with my neighbors. However, there is a point at which tolerance is no longer a virtue: if I cannot sleep at 3AM because of the noise next door, or have chronic headaches from their chronic partying, I will demand that they stop and involve the police if necessary. You wouldn’t call me intolerant for that, you’d say I was standing up for my rights, my beliefs that I need sleep to function properly at school, work, etc.

So, I will tolerate homosexual couples and beliefs to a certain degree. Homosexual activity (as opposed to temptation) is a sin per God’s judgement as revealed in Scripture, but I also recognize that humans have free will and there is only one Lawgiver and Judge, and that said Lawgiver is not me. However, when Heroes (or anyone else, for that matter) attempts to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual ones, they are preaching a morality against Scripture that unfortunately has deceived many. Wrapping it in the attractive context of trust and love makes the moral precepts being pitched that much more dangerous. Satan masquerades as an angel of light. For the sake of current and future believers, I must resist this wholeheartedly.

Lest you miss it, I am also highly disgusted by how Hollywood does this with heterosexual relationships as well: takes extramarital sexual relationships, couches them in “devoted love,” and portrays them as a good, desirable thing. This too is opposed to Scripture and deserves our censure. Why the “double standard?” It’s partially due to the compounding nature of homosexual activity (not only is it illicit in it’s nature, but it is also further sinful in its typical extra-marital context), and partially due to the fact that the extramarital relationships battle has been largely lost in our culture and avoiding all references to such activity would likely shut us out from the media entirely. The homosexual topic still has enough of a taboo and minority status attached to it that prevention of its popularization may still be feasible.

So, here we are. Heroes was starting to be lame, but I was still hooked. I just won’t support a homosexual agenda in my viewing habits.

I got an email from Joel Osteen today, telling me I could pay $15 to come hear him tell me how much God wants me to get rich. Um, no thanks. But it did get me searching the Internet again to see if anyone else has caught on how much Joel Osteen really isn’t at all about the Gospel or the God of Scripture. And I found Nathan White commenting on Joel Osteen.

Unfortunately, while he starts out OK, he turns this into a plug for Calvinism? Where the heck did that come from!?!

“I must say that Arminianism, or an emphasis on free will, is certainly (emphasis mine) the root of this man-centered approach by Osteen. Sure, not all Arminians take their free will theology to his extreme, but most certainly he is only acting consistent with this foundational belief. When man is that captain of his own ship; when man gets to decide if he deems his Creator worth the time to submit to and worship; when man’s sinfulness is covered up to the point where he still has the innate goodness within to make the most important ‘decision’ in all of eternity; when God’s kingdom is more like a self-help club which members choose to enter into as they see fit, then these types of ministers and messages will only continue to flourish. This is precisely why we should proclaim God’s sovereignty in all situations, whenever possible.

This is certainly a gross exaggeration. Let me break it down: free will states that our will is capable of choosing between right and wrong, not that we get to decide God’s role, or make our own salvation. To claim that our ability to actually make choices somehow diminishes our need for (or the efficacy of) Grace is completely and utterly wrong. Arminianism != a self-help gospel.

Sure, it is certain that determinism doesn’t leave room for self-help theology, but that doesn’t mean that Joel Osteen’s bad doctrine is merely the result of him believing in free will. If you drink motor oil it will kill you, but if you put it in your car it will keep your engine running smoothly. In either case, reason demands that we attribute the outcome to you, not the oil. If you turn Arminianism into a self-help gospel, you’re to blame, not Arminianism.

Nevertheless, if you want me to proclaim God’s sovereignty whenever possible… “God’s sovereignty means that He is making Joel Osteen preach this health-and-wealth message,” so don’t complain when God’s will is being accomplished. Quit fighting against it! Why must you kick against the goads?!

Joel Osteen may be wrong and Arminian, but his being wrong is not the natural result of his being Arminian.

I saw Prince Caspian on Monday, and I sincerely hoped for the best. Really, I did. I was slightly disappointed by The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe for minor deviances from the book, but all in all it was pretty faithful and thus palatable. Not so much with Prince Caspian.

I guess the big problem comes in the fact that I don’t see the Chronicles of Narnia as “nice stories.” They’re powerful depictions of Christian truths, and as such they can’t be directly adapted by Hollywood, who seems to want to have nothing to do with traditional values.

In order to get on with the story more quickly, Prince Caspian makes some early changes to the book, which are certainly understandable and not really objectionable. But quite rapidly the movie degrades: it’s all about the girl power. Susan is transformed from a doubting yet proper girl into a butt-kicking Amazon warrior. Puh-lease! Rather than the “High King Peter” leading, she often overshadows him, and doesn’t hesitate to jump into battle, even though Aslan has discouraged her and Lucy from doing so (“You must use the bow only in great need, for I do not mean you to fight in the battle…battles are ugly when women fight”). To say that gender roles have been modernized in this book would be an understatement.

Speaking of Aslan, he is almost entirely removed from the plot, despite being the central theme around which the book revolves. (But again, it seems as if Hollywood cannot handle having such a strong Christ figure!)

Finally, Susan kisses Caspian at the end of the movie, despite knowing she’ll never see him again. Is this the moral we’re left with? Forget about protecting hearts and guarding purity, if you can grab a quick rise from some one-time-only intimacy, go for it?!?

The Bottom Line: Watching Prince Caspian was like seeing an old friend be horribly mutilated. It just hurt too much to watch the solid morals of the book die to Hollywood values and sensationalism. I’m the kind of guy who enjoys about any movie out there…but I just plain didn’t like Prince Caspian. Lisa and I both agreed: when we have children, they will not be watching this movie, at least not until they’ve read the books (multiple times!) and are old enough to discern the seriously lacking values set forth in this movie.

…don’t hurt me, no more.

Today I met with Seth, (an old friend and associate) and I asked about the idea of “screwing things up.”

You see, I’m far from perfect (well, actually, not even in the same universe as perfect), and I often find myself wondering about how my body of flesh—my physical self with all its bad habits and selfishness—so often does the very things I hate myself for. (See Romans chapter 7) How can something I despise so much in my self and others be so oddly tempting at times that it overcomes my resolve? The crux of the matter is that I often wonder what my flesh is capable of.

You see, I’m in seminary, training to hopefully become a pastor some day. It scares me that in some weak moment I might fall into some sin that totally destroys all I’ve dedicated my life to teaching and living out. How can I be assured that the strength of my flesh won’t overcome the redeemed and renewed will of my spirit?

I guess it then boils down to the question: What is love? Or, more specifically, what is God’s love for me? He cared enough for humanity to send Christ to die for our sins even while we were still horribly rotten sinners. (Romans 5:8) This, while hew knew that many would purposely reject him, and all the rest would deny him (eg. Peter) or continue to sin against him (eg. Me). Can I even grasp that kind of love?

I guess my point is this: when Christ carried out the ultimate expression of love on the Cross, dying as payment for sin, no one had done anything to deserve that. God knew what was in all of us, from pastors to addicts to super-apostles like Paul (Saul “I do what I hate” of Tarsus), and He still laid down his only Son to restore us to Him. Rather than fleeing/hiding my face over my sin, then, my proper response ought to be to run back to God, and thank Him all the more for redemption.

I guess I still don’t understand the magnitude of his love or forgiveness, because every time I sin, I fear that I’ve let him down and somehow pushed myself farther out of his supreme “circle of trust.”

First of all, if you haven’t read it yet, please read my opening remarks and disclaimers on these posts on Calvinism. It’s worth it, trust me.

Total depravity as purported by Calvinists, states that there’s nothing we do that’s “good” at all. We’re totally depraved, and thus cannot bring anything good from ourselves. The big proof text? Romans 14:23, which states “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”.

Excuse me when I scream “CONTEXT!!!!”

Paul is talking about eating food dedicated to idols, and other questionable practices that, if done with the wrong motives, can be sin. He’s not talking about every single act imaginable.

Let me clarify. When I eat breakfast in the morning, I do not do so out of faith. I do so out of hunger, or habit. According to Piper’s reasoning, eating breakfast in such a matter would be considered sin.

Or how about going a little deeper? The main point of Total Depravity is that it means we can’t be the origin of saving faith, for that faith can only come from the Grace of God. If then, our faith doesn’t come from faith (for how could it?) this reasoning would make that faith itself sin. Kind of twisted, huh?

The intended point is that man cannot even come up with the faith required to accept God’s grace, because they’re entirely against him. Therefore, Salvation originates entirely in God, and “free will” has nothing to do with it.

I personally don’t claim to have it all figured out, but I look at it this way:

1. We are flawed, sinful creatures, but this doesn’t mean that we can’t do good
2. What good we may do, however, can’t earn us favor in God’s eyes, because they are stained with our other sins (Is 64:6)
3. Just like Adam and Eve, despite being perfect beings, were able to sin even though that wasn’t “in their nature”, so we as humans have the capacity to make right choices, even if we are fundamentally evil

The whole bit about men being condemned regardless of what they do is fine by me—once man has fallen the only way to remove the guilt of sin is death (Rom 6:23)—but using this reasoning to prove we can’t have faith without God forcing us to, is a weak argument at best.

When I refer to Piper in these upcoming posts, I am citing “What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism”, a position paper of the pastoral staff of Bethlehem Baptist Church, written by John Piper, and available from Piper’s website.

Outside of this treatise, my arguments will come from two sources: Scripture, and my own human reasoning. There are two things to keep in mind here:

1. I hold Scripture to be infallible in its original writings. This means that our modern translations could be slightly off on some wordings, but I believe that God has been faithful to preserve the root meaning of the text for our use.

   However, this also means that I believe nit-picking at words and such—while it can be tremendously helpful at times—is de facto a risky enterprise, and could lead us to reading a lot into a text that was never intended to be there. I have witnessed very smart, educated, well-intentioned readers and scholars mis-interpret literature (as confirmed by the authors themselves) in the past, so I understand the danger.

   That is to say, I heartily accept that seeking clarification in the original languages of scripture is both beneficial, and indeed, necessary in many cases, but I also caution scholars that one of the marks of a false teacher that Paul laid out to Timothy is “He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.” (1 Timothy 6:4b-5, NIV)

2. I understand myself to be human. This means that both my interpretation of said infallible Scriptures, and my own human reasoning should be examined in light of the Scriptures. I pray that I listen to the Holy Spirit well enough to properly see God through these two mediums, but I dare not consider myself infallible. I will state what I state as it if were fact, because I in all sincerity believe it to be so, but I also accept that I have made mistakes in the past (see my previous blog entries if you want proof of my fallibility!) and that I will make mistakes in the future.

   By this same reasoning, when I question Piper (or Calvinists in general) I do not intend to make him out to be evil nor purposely deceptive, (for I am sure that he believes he is faithfully perceiving the truth of God) but rather assert that he, too, is human and therefore inherently fallible.

Finally, I must also state that this doctrinal disagreement seems pointless to waste too much time on. Some of the most heated arguments occur between two side who will both categorically state that salvation is by grace alone through faith. While it may have further theological impact farther on down the road, if you are reading this (or interested in the debate) out of curiosity of whether or not you’re actually “saved”, simply ask yourself this:

Do you believe that Christ was the Son of God who died for the forgiveness of sins, and have you trusted that act to be the sole reason for your salvation?

If you’ve answered “yes,” both sides would probably agree that you’re saved. I certainly do.

Now, if that satisfies you, I would advise that you move along to other more pressing concerns in your mind rather than blindly plunging ahead into this endless circle of debate. If God ever lays it on your heart to revisit this issue, or if you’re up for a lot of smart people arguing against each other about where that faith came from, I suppose you could read on. I don’t want to say that the question isn’t a valid one, but I do want to say that there are much better things you could be thinking about, and much more useful ways you could be growing in your Christian walk.

In the question of Calvinism, ignorance is bliss, and I would argue that it’s not always necessarily a detrimental type of bliss.