Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 101

News about Noah

The trailer for Noah looks compelling. I’ve been wary of it because of rumors I’ve been hearing for the last year about the early scripts, but you can’t see that trailer and not at least hope they got their act together. Now that we’re close to the release date, we finally have more solid news about it. Brian Godawa (creator of Cruel Logic, writer of To End All Wars, and author of Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment) recommends some reviews “From 3 Guys Who Have Seen It.” Regarding the third guy’s review, he says:

Jerry Johnson, president of NRB was in my opinion the most balanced in his presentation of Five Positive Facts About Noah, and Five Negative Features About Noah.

I say this because his view represents what I think most movies are, a mixture of good and bad elements. And he acknowledges both with fairness.

His five positives are:
Noah’s context among all films is positive.
Noah knows its place among Bible films.
Noah follows the basic plotline of the biblical story.
Noah takes some key Gospel doctrines seriously.
Noah takes some textual elements literally.

His five negatives are:
Noah’s main character does not ring true.
The environmental agenda is overdone.
The theistic evolution scene will be a concern for many.
The Nephilim concept seems convoluted.
Secondary biblical details are blurred.

Those first two were my biggest concern about the script that I had read. We will see if they have pulled back on the extremity of those depictions or not. As I’ve always said, I was analyzing a script, not the movie, and we will see if there is much of a change there.

I have to say, I’m especially disappointed to find out that “in the trailer where Noah says, ‘I am not alone,’ he is not talking about God.”

See Godawa’s post for links to the other two reviews.

Challenge Response: That's a Fallacious Slippery Slope Argument

Here's my response to the challenge that some arguments against same-sex marriage commit the slippery slope fallacy.

  

Pioneering Women's Education in China

Eliza Bridgman's lifelong ambition was to be a missionary. She began her work in China in 1844. Over the course of her career, she founded school for girls in Shanghai and Peking, giving opportunities for young women who otherwise would have ended up as prostitutes, in forced labor, or starving. Her school in Peking eventually became part of Yenching University, one of the first Chinese universities.

You can read more about a fascinating study about the positive long term affect proselytizing missionaries had on the cultures they served, in temporal terms as well as eternal. The pattern that emerges over time and across the globe is pretty astounding.

How Being Part of a Local Church Shapes Us

In response to Donald Miller’s explanation of why he’s not a regular attender of a local church, Jared Wilson argued for the importance of it, saying that local church involvement plays an important role in confronting our tendency to reject authority and embrace an unhealthy individualism:

I think a lot of the rejections in evangelicalism today of God’s sovereignty and biblical infallibility are not unrelated to the more recent conversations about the need to attend regular local church services…. I think it’s because we don’t want anyone being the boss of us, and because doctrines like biblical infallibility (and biblical perspicuity) and experiences like church services are too restrictive, too conforming, too narrow a space for “me to be me.”…

Certainly one can be self-centered inside a church gathering, but the church gathering is nevertheless where all the sinners ought to be at the appointed time, smack-dab in the middle of a congregational experience specifically organized against the idolatry of personal preference. Not just because God says to do it — although that’s reason enough — but because it is good for us to have our singular voice lost in the sea of corporate praise and it is good for us to shut our social-media-motor-mouths for a bit and hear “Thus saith the Lord.” We should go to church — not mainly, but nevertheless — because it confronts and stunts our spiritual autonomy and individualism. We should go lest we become Cainites, saying “I’m not my brother’s keeper.” Or reverse Cainites, “My brothers aren’t my keepers.”

Of course most of us prefer to worship at the First Church of Hanging Out With My Friends at The Coffee Shop. Of course the more elite of us prefer to worship at My Own Speaking Engagements Community Church. Because, we believe, we “learn better” when we’re the ones doing the talking.

But something happens when you stop submitting to the communal listening of congregational worship and start filling the air with your own free range spiritual rhetoric. Your talk of God starts to sound less like God. He starts sounding like an idea, a theory, a concept. He stops sounding like the God of the Bible, the God who commands and demands, the God who is love but also holy, gracious but also just, et cetera. He begins to sound less like the God “who is who he is” and more like the God who is as you like him….

Awe and reverence. Authority and submission. Proclamation and supplication. Command and obedience. We fear these dynamics because we fear losing our selves, but we know what Jesus said to do to find yourself. If what Jesus says is true, maybe saving reverence for God is lost in the refusal to put one’s self in positions of difficulty, vulnerability, self-denial. Maybe seeking to find our own true path away from the “stifling confines” of the “traditional church” has actually taken us out of the garden of worship and into the wilderness, right into the rubble of Babel in fact.

Read the rest of his post.

Links Mentioned on the 3/04/14 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

The Rap on the Rapture by Greg Koukl


Bad Arguments against Religion by Greg Koukl


Frank Beckwith's blog


The Final Days of Jesus by Justin Taylor and Andreas J. Köstenberger

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Challenge: That's a Fallacious Slippery Slope Argument

Here's a common challenge on the issue of marriage:

One of the standard arguments provided by the homophobic right against gay marriage is a form of what we call the domino fallacy or the slippery slope argument. The idea is that if you take that seemingly innocuous first step, it automatically leads to a second, which will force a third, and so on and so on until, next thing you know, there we are in Satan's own livingroom listening to Yanni on 8-track. In the case of marriage, the argument goes, if we open up the institution to same-sex couples, then we will be forced down the slippery slope to include all sorts of unusual couplings including cross-species arrangements.

How would you respond to this one? Let us know in the comments, then look for Alan's answer to this challenge on Thursday.

(Incidentally, if you read the rest of the post linked above, you'll find that the author commits the fallacy of begging the question by defining marriage in a way that "proves" opposing same-sex marriage is bigotry. But of course, it's the definition of marriage that's the very thing in question.)

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

Are There Any Useful Analogies for the Trinity?

Brett shares a useful visual to help understand the Trinity.

 

What's Missing in Son of God

The beginning of Son of God was captivating. John tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And then we’re hovering over the waters of creation. Jesus was there in the beginning, John continues to explain. He was there when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. He was there when God rescued Noah from the flood. He was there when Moses spoke to the burning bush, when God parted the waters, when the Israelites were rescued from slavery. As we watch images from the history of God’s work in this world, we get a sense of Jesus’ majesty. His power. His eternality. His central role in the entire sweep of history. “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” A sense of anticipation and awe had me on the edge of my seat.

Then Jesus showed up.

And herein lies the problem for any filmmaker daring enough to take on the Bible: how to portray Jesus? How does one visually communicate the truth about who He is? How does one make Him stand out from the crowd? Unfortunately, this film took the same road as too many others: they made him tall, pretty, and “spiritual.”

This was highly distracting, and it set him apart for all the wrong reasons. People didn’t follow the Jesus of history because He appeared ethereal and spiritual (in the sense that we tend to mean when we say someone is “spiritual” today), they followed Him because of His authority, power, wisdom, and grace. Ethereal Jesus holds someone’s face and smiles—always smiles, real Jesus amazes people as He “teaches as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” He declares, “I am He,” and soldiers draw back and fall to the ground.

One can’t leave out this aspect of Jesus, for it’s only when this strength and authority is present that we truly feel the impact of the unexpected grace He shows to the weak, the hurting, and the sinners—when He welcomes little children and heals unclean women. It’s commonplace to see a mother stoop down to bless a child. It is quite shocking when the King of the universe takes time out of His day to do it. The greater the condescension, the more striking the love and kindness. When filmmakers show only kindness and leave out authority and strength, much is lost.

I had no sense of Son of God’s Jesus’ authority—not even when he was turning over tables in the temple. It may simply be that having an actor play Jesus is an impossible task. But I think there was something else that was getting in the way here. I think the filmmakers were trying to convey a sense of piety (more and more so as the film went on), but they would have better served their audience by conveying a sense of reality.

Jesus was not a religious tale, He was real. He lived in Israel. He was Jewish. The “otherworldliness” the filmmakers attached to him—through camera work, his appearance, and the actor’s interpretation of what it means to be “spiritual”—had the effect of separating him from the more realistic human beings in the film (but again, not in the way that the Bible separates Him from others). The Pharisees said Jewish prayers in Hebrew in the film, why not Jesus? A Hebrew prayer when he blessed the fish and loaves would have rooted him in history. A solid appearance of him eating fish after the resurrection would have clarified the reality of the situation: Jesus was dead, then Jesus was alive—not in a “spiritual” sense, in a real sense.

But now comes the big question: why? Why his death and resurrection? Could anyone not already in the know answer that question after seeing this movie? I really appreciated that the film linked Jesus’ death to the Passover sacrifice, but what is Passover? What is the sacrifice for? What does this mean for Jesus? For us? In the film, Jesus invites the disciples to “change the world” and “change their life.” There’s no real explanation of Jesus’ death and resurrection, not even so much as a “given for you” after “this is my body.”

One could argue that the filmmakers were trying to stay within the Gospels, and the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection isn’t expounded at length there (though even including a “this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” would have been helpful). But when the movie returns to John on the Island of Patmos, and he tells us what ultimately happened to the disciples, why not give a clear declaration of the good news the disciples died for? I don’t say this because I think a Christian movie needs some sort of an altar call, I say this because I’m not sure the story makes sense without the gospel. I tried to imagine what a filmgoer who knew nothing about Christianity would think Jesus’ message was, and the best I could come up with was, “Be kind to sinners.” I think I would be confused about why people died for that.

Son of God wasn’t a poorly-made film, for the most part, and Christians will likely automatically fill in what’s missing as they watch. My hope for you is that you'll be consciously aware of what’s missing so you can steer the conversations you have with friends and coworkers about the movie in a helpful direction—towards the compelling and real person and work of Jesus Christ.

For more details on the film, here’s a review by Ben Witherington.

[Note: The difficulty of writing about a movie is that I only get one shot at watching it. I can’t go back to check quotes or scenes, and it’s possible I missed something that would have been relevant for this review. I welcome corrections below.]

What Does It Mean to Avoid Every Appearance of Evil?

Dan Wallace says the King James translation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (“abstain from all appearance of evil”) has led to a misunderstanding of the text, causing many to say that if anyone thinks a particular action is wrong (e.g., drinking, smoking, playing cards, etc.), then no Christian ought to engage in it.

Does it really mean that even if something looks like it’s evil to some, we can’t enjoy it? Hardly.

The Greek text really should be translated, abstain from every form of evil. There is a genuine correspondence between form and the state of being evil: that is, stay away from evil things. But the reason that form (or, in the KJV, appearance) was used is because Paul is speaking about false doctrine. This verse, in fact, was more often attributed to Jesus than to Paul in the early church, suggesting that Paul got this line from the Lord and that it was one of the sayings which for some reason didn’t make it into the gospels, but was nevertheless an authentic saying of Jesus. It was used with literal reference to coins. Thus, to abstain from every form of evil was to avoid counterfeit teaching. Further, in the context, it seems clear that Paul is speaking about false teaching. Verses 19-22 read as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit;
Do not despise prophecies;
But examine all things: cling to the good, abstain from every form of evil.

In context, Paul is saying that false teaching should be avoided, but true teaching should be what believers follow. They shouldn’t be duped, shouldn’t become gullible, but must test prophets and see whether they are from the Lord. They need to examine all these teachings and cling to the good and throw out the bad.

If we look at the broader context of the New Testament as a whole, we see that Paul was certainly not speaking about avoiding every appearance of evil in 1 Thessalonians 5. His own mission was governed by the mantra, I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some (1 Cor 9.22).

In a similar post, Walt Russell breaks down the passage this way:

“Do not quench the Spirit” (v. 19) (the general exhortation);

“Do not despise prophetic utterances (v. 20) (the specific negative aspect of the exhortation).

“But examine everything carefully” (v. 21) (the contrasting positive aspect of the exhortation);

“hold fast to that which is good” (v. 22) (what to do with good prophecies after examining);

“abstain from every form of evil” or “every evil form of utterance” (v. 23) (what to do with the evil prophetic utterances).

Wallace concludes:

To wield 1 Thess 5.22 as a weapon to restrict a believer’s personal freedom is against the general tenor of the New Testament and of the Lord’s life in particular. Ironically, to avoid every appearance of evil is far more in keeping with the Pharisees’ model of righteousness than with Jesus’!

The Difference Between Believing the Gospels and Trusting the Gospel

I leaned over and said, “I think it may be true.” “What may be true?” asked Susie. “Christianity,” I responded. “The more I look at the Gospels, the more I think they look like real eyewitness accounts.” I spent months examining the claims of the Gospels, evaluating them with the template I typically apply to eyewitnesses in my criminal investigations. At the end of my examination, I was confident in their reliability. I believed the Gospels were telling me the truth about Jesus. But I wasn’t yet a Christian. I had what I often refer to as “belief that.” I examined what the Gospels had to say about Jesus, and after testing them rigorously, I came away with confidence in their accuracy, early dating, reliable transmission and lack of bias. But I still had a profoundly important question: “What is the cross all about? Why did Jesus have to die that way?” My wife, Susie, had been raised as a cultural Catholic, and although she was familiar with the language and doctrines of Catholicism, her answer was simply, “I don’t really know.” After months of investigation, I believed what the Gospels told me about Jesus, but I wasn’t yet ready to accept the Gospel of Salvation.

Yesterday, CBN posted the story of my journey from “belief that” to “belief in.” It’s really the first time I’ve told the story this completely, and I hope it will help you see the role evidence can play in moving someone from intellectual assent to volitional submission:

For me, the transition from “belief that” to “belief in” can be summarized simply. My investigation of Jesus brought me to a place of certainty and confidence. What I read about Jesus in the Gospels led me to “belief that.” But what I read about me in the Gospels led me to “belief in.” For months I had been focused on testing the reliability of the Gospels without really embracing the teachings of Jesus related to my own condition as a human. I can still remember where I was when I first read through the accounts from a new perspective, searching this time for what they said about my own human nature. It was convicting.

I was never someone who saw myself as a bad person. In fact, my role as a police officer only amplified my own pride and sense of “goodness.” I took bad guys to jail. I thought I understood the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. I was on one side of the bars; bad people were on the other. But the New Testament eroded my confidence in my own righteousness. As I saw myself on the pages of Scripture, I had to admit their accuracy. They described me perfectly. The more I read, the more I recognized my need for a Savior. Suddenly the Gospel made sense.

Every worldview asks and answers three questions: How did we get here, why is it so messed up, and how do we fix it? As I came to understand the answer to the second question, I was ready to embrace the answer to the third. Our problem is rebellion, the same kind of rebellion I had been demonstrating so vividly for thirty-five years as a non-believer. How can we fix it? The Gospel. When I first stepped into an evangelical church and heard the pastor describe Jesus, I wasn’t ready to accept the message of Salvation. I had to begin by examining the Gospel eyewitness accounts:

This investigation of the Gospels led me to a place of readiness. I was prepared, as a result of my investigation, to hear what Jesus had to say about me. Make no mistake about it, my old “belief that” was not a saving faith. But my present “belief in” would not have been nearly as robust and animated if not for the evidential confidence I gained from my initial investigation. “Belief in,” when informed by the evidence required for “belief that,” is far more likely to engage the world in a vigorous, confident manner. This is an often overlooked aspect of evidential Christian Case Making (apologetics). But, informed trust looks and feels different than blind faith. I can see the difference when I travel across the country. When our questions are answered and the evidences are clear, we begin to live differently. When we are confident the Gospels are an evidentially accurate description of human history, we are far more likely to share our trust in the Gospel of Salvation.