My Confession: My reflections of Job 16-17

I continue my reflections on Job.

Miserable comforters

Job again rejects what Eliphaz the Temanite said.

“I have heard many things like these;
    you are miserable comforters, all of you!
 Will your long-winded speeches never end?
    What ails you that you keep on arguing?" - Job 16: 2-3

Job maintains that God has targeted him.

"God has turned me over to the ungodly
    and thrown me into the clutches of the wicked.
 All was well with me, but he shattered me;
    he seized me by the neck and crushed me.
He has made me his target;
     his archers surround me.
Without pity, he pierces my kidneys
    and spills my gall on the ground." - Job 16: 11-13

Job still says he is innocent

"My face is red with weeping,
   dark shadows ring my eyes;
yet my hands have been free of violence
    and my prayer is pure.
Earth, do not cover my blood;
    may my cry never be laid to rest!" - Job 16: 16-18

Job's reputation has been tarnished

Job reveals that his misfortune was known in the land, and that people lost their respect for him.

 “God has made me a byword to everyone,
    a man in whose face people spit.
 My eyes have grown dim with grief;
    my whole frame is but a shadow.
 The upright are appalled at this;
    the innocent are aroused against the ungodly." - Job 17: 6-8

Job then says he is simply waiting for death.

“But come on, all of you, try again!
    I will not find a wise man among you.
 My days have passed, my plans are shattered.
    Yet the desires of my heart
 turn night into day;
    in the face of the darkness light is near.
 If the only home I hope for is the grave,
    if I spread out my bed in the realm of darkness," - Job 17: 10-13

Impressions

As Job rightly pointed out, none of whatever his friends said addressed the issue. What did Job do wrong to be a target of God's wrath? 

Despite this poignant rebuttal, tales of Job's misfortune had spread and a majority of people assumed that Job must have sinned.

Alternative Culture: God's not Dead review

Wheaton debates Professor Radisson

A thinking Christian film?
In 1882, German philosopher Nietzsche declared that God is dead after exploring the depths of his moral philosophy. This year, the Christian film God's not Dead attempts to present logical explanations for the existence of God. This happens after Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) forces everyone in his philosophy class to sign a statement to declare that God is dead.

Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) refuses to sign and is asked to present the evidence for God the class. Although discouraged by his girlfriend (Cassidy Gilfford), Wheaton takes up the challenge.

In this review, I will focus on the theological arguments presented in the film, and then talk about some of the minor characters of the film.

The arguments
Creation
Wheaton begins explaining how the Big Bang was explained by the Bible. This point is debatable, but Wheaton explains that God was the uncreated Creator of the universe.

The atheist counter-argument was unfairly simple. Professor Radisson simply states, Stephen Hawkings (one of the leading scientists in real life), does not think so. With a simple appeal to authority, Professor Radisson dismisses Wheaton's argument. There was no exploration of Wheaton's presentation.

In this way, the film is being unfair to many of my atheist friends. A genuine atheist would not simply appeal to authority and stop there. He/she would attempt to dig further, asking questions or proposing that the universe was a necessary consequence.

Evil
Wheaton also brings but evil in his debate, saying that the cause was human free will. Instead of addressing his argument directly, Professor Radison mocks the idea of moral absolutes. In this, the film seems to portray that the atheist objectors as lacking.

From what I know, most atheists I have debated would automatically asked about natural disasters (since they were not caused by human free will). I was disappointed that this point was overlooked.

Ultimate proof of God
Despite it being a Christian movie, the film fails to highlight is about Jesus. In the Christianity, we must often seek to point our friends to Jesus Christ. As Pastor Timothy Keller said,

In the Christian view, the ultimate evidence for the existence of God is Jesus Christ.

Little mention is made of Jesus, other than he was the son of God, and he paid for our sins.

A cost to follow Jesus
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. -- Matthew 16:24

One thing I feel that the film does well (despite the lack of character development) was to portray the cost of discipleship.

While Wheaton lost his girlfriend (a bit far-fetched I say), Ayisha (Hadeel Sittu) is disowned after she converts to Christianity. Mina (Corey Oliver) breaks up with her boyfriend in order to live closer to the gospel.

Ayisha's situation hits me the hardest, because I am reminded of a friend whose father would beat her if he found out she was a Christian. I could never imagine what the cost of following Jesus is for her.

Conclusion
The film would make well-meaning atheists cringe due to its unfair portrayal of non-Christians. Nevertheless, I think it has at least raised awareness on the importance of apologetics and the cost of discipleship.

For further reading
The cost of discipleship:



Importance of apologetics

Alternative Culture: The Law Demands Grace Supplies review

[Disclaimer: I have reviewed this DVD as part of my Lent series. Before watching this DVD, I had only listened to Joseph Prince preached once on Leviticus, a long time ago. Thus before this review I had a neutral view of Pastor Prince.

I do not claim to be an expert in theology or apologetics. I merely attended a few theological courses in my free time in university. I consider myself a Christian who is interested in knowing God better and more.]

Pastor Joseph Prince

A few years ago, a friend passed me the DVD from New Creation Church, The Law Demands Grace Supplies (2011). After promising to review it, I chucked it in my cabinet and clean forgot about it. Recently, as part of my Lent series, I decided to review some of the Christian literature I have. Thus I pulled it out to do a review.

Synopsis
After an enthusiastic introduction by two Americans, a band begins to play a few worship songs I am unfamiliar with. Then Pastor Prince begins his sermon.

He starts by talking about the Passover, specifically on how God promised physical deliverance to the ancient Jews. He then explains that God also promised us to deliver us from sickness.

Then he moves on to the meat of his sermon -- how under the law, we are all condemned. However, under the grace of God, we all can obtain his blessings which includes "health and wealth".

Theological Review
Law demands
I liked this segment. Prince accurately how under God's law, no one is justified, and all are guilty. This follows closely to what the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 3: 19-20:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

If we follow tightly to God's law and justice, our rightful reward is death. As in Romans 6:23:

 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Grace supplies
Although I looked forward to the second part on grace, unfortunately I found much of this part disagreeable. While I passionately agree with Pastor Prince that Christ died for our sins (past, present and future), I depart in the area of blessings.

 Pastor Prince eloquently asserts that we can access God's blessings for us and that included the "lesser blessings" of "health and wealth", using the example of Abraham. We just needed enough faith in grace of God.

One of his quotes that irked me was "Jesus lived a short life so that we can live long lives". I find that quote disingenuous. Christians for the first 300 years after the death of Christ were severely persecuted by the Roman authorities. Presently, Christians in North Korea and the Middle East are hunted down. To say that Christ died so we can all materially benefit is neither safe nor right, especially when so many of my siblings-in-Christ suffer so much.

Misquoting the New Testament
Furthermore, Pastor Prince's draws references to 2 Corinthians 8:9 which says

 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 through his poverty might become rich.

and follows it up with the next chapter (in the video he says "next verse", but I will treat it as an honest mistake) in 2 Corinthians 9:7:

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver

He then concludes that God wants to makes us (financially) rich so that we can give back to him.

However, a close examination of 2 Corinthians 8:9 shows that the richness of Jesus did not refer to material finances (Jesus was a carpenter, and did not have enough money to feed his followers at times, like in Matthew 14.). Thus I am puzzled how Pastor Prince can pull such a reference to material richness.

Conclusion
I took a long time to write this article, as I wanted to be accurate. It was not easy to write as I find myself a bit too eager to condemn, so I re-watched several parts in order not to misrepresent any view.

I must say I am disappointed with the DVD. I expect him to emphasise on justification -- not that we rely on our good works for salvation, but faith in God.

On the issue of law and receiving grace, I find myself in agreement with Pastor Prince, but I start to depart from him on the issue of the blessing that grace supplies. To give the idea that God blesses us materially as long as we have faith is false.

God was with Joseph in Genesis 39, but he was in prison. John the Baptist was a holy man, but he was beheaded in Mark 6. To empahsise God's blessings as "health and wealth" is neither safe nor right.

For further reading
Persecution of Christians

With Due Respect: Isn't Christianity for comfort purposes only?

WELLS (Dairy Nature Farm), Singapore, 2012

A just a way to get through the night?

Often religion is portrayed only as a form of comfort. The philosopher Karl Marx described religion as the "opium for the masses"-- it was only meant to give the peasants some comfort from hardships of their daily routine.

The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud (1927) best summs up this position by this:
"They (religious beliefs) are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life."

 His stand is clear-- religious beliefs (in Freud's case, Christianity) are due to a deep-seated desire for protection from a father. Hence such beliefs are merely a psychological crutch-- stronger people do not need them.

But this argument cuts both ways
One thing Freud and Marx fail to realise is that whether a belief is comforting has no bearing on whether it is true. In other words, just because some belief gives us comfort does not mean it is false.

If Freud's argument held water, then it is also true for what he believes or not believes. If Freud's disbelief in Christianity gives him comfort, then his disbelief cannot be true either.

A deep-seated desire?
Even if Freud's argument from desire (that Christians desire a heavenly father to match their earthly fathers) is true, it can also also cut the other way. Freud had a terrible relationship with his biological father, and I guessed it can be argued that he rejected Christianity because of that. Personally, it is not an argument I would used for or against Christianity.

Works for you, but not for me!
If Christianity provides purely just comfort, then the old argument that "Christianity works for some but not others" is valid. Truth become secondary.

However we all know the dangers of such reasons. In the field of medicine, this is known as the "placebo effect". A false remedy might make you feel better, but does nothing to cure the illness.

For instance, a cancer patient might take morphine to relieve his agony, but will not stop his cancer from being worse. A placebo could be fatal in the end, but I submit to you Christianity is the cure for our human condition.

Conclusion
I invite you readers to see that Chrisitainity is not a placebo or a mere comfort tool, but something is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. It is not something that is a mere crutch for weak people, but a cross for everyone to bear.


References
Freud, S. (1927) The Future of An Illusion.


For further reading
Bethinking