Alternative culture: The banning of the Lord's Prayer

Recently, some cinemas in the UK has banned an advert on the Lord's prayer. While many articles have been written for and against it, I personally was quite surprised that the cinemas proceeded with the ban. Do not get me wrong; I am neither for or against the decision, as I feel as an outsider (who only studied in the UK for 4 years), it is not my place.

Why I am surprised
Firstly, the Church of England is a political entity in the UK. Unlike secular Singapore, the Church of England has some level of political sway. Being accustomed to seeing the Archbishop in Parliament and Bishops on the regular BBC news programmes, I was surprised to hear that cinema-goers might be offended by it.

Secondly, so wouldn't denying them a right to advertise would be against free speech? Sure one may say that the Muslims and Hindus would have to be given that right, and I would agree-- if they paid for it, they should be allowed to advertise.

That's all I have to write about it.

The video in question.


For further reading
Seven reasons to ban

Theology 1.0: Dr Tan Lai Yong

Two things I ask of you, Lord;
    do not refuse me before I die:
Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
    give me neither poverty nor riches,
    but give me only my daily bread.
Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
    and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
    and so dishonor the name of my God.   -- Proverbs 30: 7 - 9

Recently, I had the honour of meeting Dr Tan Lai Yong. Hailed for his charity work by the Singapore Parliament in March 2014, I have sometimes heard his name mentioned as a bright shining example of Christendom.

Inspired by Proverbs 30:7-9, Dr Tan dedicated his life to help people who are less well-off. This includes the poor in China and foreign workers, the elderly and ex-offenders in Singapore.

What amazes me is his simple lifestyle. Clad in a simple pair of jeans and a university-sponsored shirt, he greeted my students while advocating a life of volunteerism to my students.

Thanks Dr Tan, for living a live dedicated to God and avoiding a materialistic lifestyle so endorsed by our affluent lifestyle.

For further reading
Wandering Saint

Theology 1.0: What is a cult?

What are cults?
A cult is a sub-group that claims the beliefs of its parent, but deviates from the main doctrine of the parent.

For instance, many consider the Eastern Lightning a Christian cult This because it claims to follow the doctrine of Christianity, but argues that Jesus has returned in the form of a woman.

The Arian movement is also considered a Christian cult, as it denies the triune God.

Do Christian cults challenge the truth of Christianity?
As with any ideology, it is inevitable that variants would crop up. Even in atheistic philosophy such as Communism, there are many deviants like Leninism and Stalinism.

However, just as a counterfeit bank note does not disprove the existence of a real Singapore note or the Monetary Authority of Singapore, cults do not bring into doubt religious belief.

If anything, they should make us examine closely our own beliefs.

My confession: My biggest fear for the churches in Singapore

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."
-- Revelation 3: 14 - 18

In Singapore we are blessed with prosperity. And maybe it's our Asian drive mixed with Western ingenuity that has led us to pursue success in every area of our lives. I mean we can easily define success as the amount of money we earn every month, the brand of the cars we have, or even how well our kids are coming. It can be even the less tangible things, such as the amount of options our education degrees gives us, or how happy we are with our current job.

We may even stretch this in the context of our Christian lives. Some people gauge the success of the church by the number of people attending, or the amount of donations. Others look at reputation, or highlight the number of celebrities at their church.

What if I were to tell you none of that mattered?

The costs of following Jesus
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.  In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
-- Luke 14: 25-33

In my interactions with my fellow Singaporean Christians, there seem to be an idea that following God would results in blessings gained. However in the verse above, the message is clear: in following Jesus, we must be prepared to give up everything.

That is what has been missing from a lot of preaching I heard in Singapore. The idea that we will suffer, lose or even die when we following Jesus. To deny that is disingenuous to the early Christians or our suffering siblings in North Korea and the Middle East.

The genuity of worship
But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
    as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
    and to heed is better than the fat of rams"
-- 1 Samuel 15:22

As shown in the verse above, God desires genuine worship. It is not enough to give money, time and effort if our intentions are not enough. So what if we are wealthy and give God 10%, 50% or 90%? So what if we hit all the right notes in the songs?

Sincerity in worship is more important. If I am allowed to be frank, I rather have a smaller congregation with real worshipers, than to be in a church with many numbers but little sincerity.

The choice between truth and peace
Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
-- 2 Timothy 4: 2-4

If we are not careful, we may fill our ears and thoughts with things we simply like, and not what the Bible says. As the song goes, "the heart wants what it wants."

If we want someone to affirm Christian homosexuality, we can find someone to that. If we want to find a respectable person to support the idea that Christianity is about being wealthy and healthy, we can look for that too.

That would be contrary with what the Bible teaches. Christianity is not about peace at the expense of the truth of Jesus. It is about the truth that Jesus died for our sins, and the only way for reconciliation with God is through Him.

Often we are afraid to offend people in Singapore, especially since the country prides herself in religious harmony and secularism. Thus there is a tendency to treat all religions as equal. Even my ex-pastor recently went on a Buddhist meditation trip.

It may be unpopular, and even cost us our jobs. But we must declare that Jesus is the only way.

Conclusion
The truth is this --  in our lips we may condemn the prosperity gospel or claim we are following God, but in our hearts in may be different.

Dear friends, it is my plead that we all follow Scripture, even it is brings us to the unfavourable conclusion that we must change our lives in order to follow God.

For further thinking

With Due Respect: No one knows everything about God

Recently, I heard about an argument between my siblings-in-Christ, with each insisting on the validity of their interpretation of Scripture. In anger, one of them remarked that "no one can know everything about God, therefore you could be wrong!"

Anger issues aside, I want to be academic about the statement, which echoes shades of Isaiah.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the Lord.
"As high as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
-- Isaiah 55:8-9

Impossibility of knowing God fully
Firstly, I would agree that it is impossible to know everything about God. Since God is limitless, knowing God fully would require omniscience. However, only God has the quality of omniscience.

There are some things we can know for sure
That said, my friend's retort misses the point. While it is true that it is impossible for us to know everything about God, we can do know some things. For instance, though careful study of the Bible, we can know that God is plural (Genesis 1:26), God loves us (1 John 4:7-12) and that Jesus is God (John 1).

In fact this line of logic applies to every aspect of academia, not just theology. For instance, while it is currently impossible for us to know the exact number of people who ever died, we are pretty sure the answer is not two.

Conclusion
While it is impossible for us to know everything about God, that statement should not stop us from attempting to know God better.

Theology 1.0: Who is Maximilian Kolbe?

Stained glass of St. Maximilian Kolbe. His feast day is assigned to be on 14th August

"Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end." -- GK Chesterton

War does terrible things to people. Despite his best efforts to hide the Jews from the Nazis, Roman Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe was caught by the Gestapo. Assigned to the concentration camp at Auschwitz as Prisoner #16670, Kolbe volunteered to take the place of a man (Franciszek Gajowniczek) who was assigned to be executed.

After two weeks of starving him, the prison guards discovered he was still alive. They gave him a lethal dosage of carbolic acid to finish him off on 14th August, 1941.

Conclusion
In my university days, one of my colleagues often dismissed that martyrs hated life and was merely glorified suicide. But in Kolbe's story I see a person who loves life so much that he was willing to give up his to save the life of another.

And that is something beautiful.

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."
-- John 15:13
For further reading
Wikipedia

With Due Respect: There are so many denominations in Christianity!

Often, my non-Christian friends object to Christianity as there seem to be so many sects within it. In fact, there is a claim that there are over 33, 000 denominations in Protestantism. If all of them make exclusive claims to the truth, then how can we be sure then we choose the "right" Christianity?

In this post, I will only be exploring the denominations in mainstream Protestantism. I will not be writing about Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let's explore this objection:

1) Nature of the differences

Let's be clear-- just because not all denominations consider each other heretics. Some of the differences between denominations are due to national interests, traditions or methodology, rather than genuine doctrinal differences.

For instance, the Church of Scotland and the Church of Tuvalu ascribed to Reformed theology, even though they are considered two different denominations (as they also serve a national role).

True, there may be genuine clashes of doctrines. For instance while I differ with many of my close Christian friends on the issue of child and infant baptism, I do not consider them heretics or having horrible ideas of God. 

2) Claims of Protestantism

The traditional claims of Protestantism include Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus and Sola Gloria. None of the claims ever give the idea that Protestants will agree on every issue all the way. 

3) The inevitability of differences

As with any idea, there is going to be a difference in doctrine. Even among my Muslim friends, there are some who are Sunni and Shia. Some of my Buddhist friends are Zen Buddhists and Shinto Buddhists.

Even atheistic ideas like Communism have its variants such as Maoism, Stalinism and Marxism.

The point is this-- just because an idea has many variants, it does not mean that it is somehow false. It means that as we live out the ideas, they are worth refining. 

Conclusion

If anything, variants in ideas does not diminish the truth behind it. Every theological idea must be examined on its own merit.

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: 5 Big Ideas All Christians Must Agree On review

Recently, Relevant Magazine has produced an article called 5 Big Ideas All Christians Must Agree On.

The five ideas presented are
I: God created the universe
II: Christ is the light in the darkness
III: Communion brings unity
IV: We are called to make disciples
V: Jesus is coming back

While they are ideas I agree with, I would think these ideas are insufficient in on itself. Mainly because it does not address who Jesus is, the conviction of sin or what Jesus's death means to us. Even on point III, it fails to explain the significance on the Lord's supper.

 I would stick to the Apostle's creed.

Creed? What's that?
A creed is a statement that summarises core tenants of a belief. The earliest Christian creed we know about comes from 1 Corinthains 15: 3-7,

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

In this creed, dated about five to twenty-four years after Jesus's death showed the following statements about Jesus -- that he lived, died for our sins and came back to life (which was witnessed by many).

Why would I want a creed?
Creeds seem unnecessarily divisive -- would it not be better if we define things as vaguely as possible so that we can be as inclusive as possible. It would be so much easier for Christians to accept all religions or even suggest non-believers go to heaven. Yet that is not how God has revealed his judgement and mercy.

In saying creeds, we affirm that God has spoken, and we are defined according to God's will, rather than the will of the world. For instance in saying the Nicene creed, we argee that God has revealed Himself as triune, and this excludes any Unitarian (people who reject the trinity) from the church.

So what should Christians agree on?
I would start with definitely start with this:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

For further reading
The importance of doctrinal basis

Theology 1.0: What is the Inquisition?

Martin Luther, a target for the Inquisition

A dark period for Christianity?

In a period where accusations of heresy and witchcraft were rampant, the Western Churches  (Catholic) started a series of trials in 1184 to combat such claims. Their punishments include imprisonment, banishment and execution. The last execution was carried out in Spain in 1826. This series of actions is called the Inquisition.

This is often raised as a sore legacy of Christianity but is the story really as simple as that?

Law and Order

Regardless of whatever you think of it now, we must remember that the Inquisition was set up as the first attempt at a universal legal system to investigate heresy (Hannam, 2010). Before the Inquisition, a victim could be convicted based on the accuser's reputation. In other words, if a noble accused a peasant of committing theft, the peasant would be found guilty.

The Inquisition (introduced by the Catholic Church) set up the requirement of evidence (in the form of witnesses) in the persecution of a alleged heretic. Furthermore, it provided the accused some level of defence as he/she could name people who had "mortal hatred) for him/her, and this would dismiss the accusations.

In addition, while torture was used, execution (by handing heretics over to secular authorities) was often avoided by the Catholic as it was seen as a failure to convert.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

A modern person may ask, "why was fighting heresy so important?" Unlike religious disagreements in developed countries now, we must remember that heresy was often associated with rebellions and disorder.

Let's clear the air

Let me state some things clearly before I conclude:

1) I am not justifying the violence or punishment that happened during the Inquisition.

2) Fatalities did happen during the Inquisition, sometimes to innocent people.

3) Sometimes proper procedures are not carried out during the Inquisition.

But if we think about, are our modern secular courts perfect? While we must remain appalled for the wrongly sentenced, we also must recognise the Catholic Church for initiating a system to protect the innocent accused.

References

Hannam, J (2010) God's Philosophers

For further reading

Wikipedia

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

Alternative Culture: Erasing Hell review

[This is yet another of my reviews on Lent.]

Introduction
Earlier this week, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore passed away. This made me think deeply about mortality and final judgement.

Thus I decided to re-read a book I bought a few years ago, called Erasing Hell (2011). Written as a response to Pastor Rob Bell's book Love Wins (2011), Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle set out to closely examine what the Bible's say about hell.

The main issue
In 2011, Bell argued (in Love Wins) that everybody will eventually recognise Jesus as Lord and saviour and be with in heaven, even if they did not believe in Jesus in their lifetime. (In Christian theology this is called universalism. To be fair to Rob Bell, he does not use this term in his book.)

In Erasing Hell, Chan and Sprinkle argues that the person who talks most about hell in the Bible is Jesus Christ. While admitting the temptation to water down the concept of hell is high, the duo managed to present hell and judgement as realities described in the Bible.

For instance, Jesus uses the word gehenna (from the Greek New Testament, one of the earliest copies we have) to refer to hell. Chan and Sprinkle explain that this gehenna is a place of punishment, and Jesus used imagery of fire to described the place, in contrast to Bell who described it as a garbage dump (to be fair to Bell, he got the idea from a commentary of a Middle Ages rabbi David Kimhi).

Theological review
Again, I appreciate the duo's attempt at exegesis. Erasing Hell forces me to think closely about my own theology. Do I believe things about hell because I am comfortable with it? Or do I believe in the real hell that Jesus spoke about?

For further information

Alternative Culture: The Encounter Review

Professional wrestler Sting playing the businessman Nick in the Encounter

[As part of my Lent series, I decided to review some Christian books and films that I have watched recently. Here is my review of The Encounter.]

Synopsis
Five people get stranded in a mysterious, remote diner due to poor weather conditions. The dinner is manned by a stranger named Jesus (Bruce Marchiano) and he reveals that each person has an important decision they have to make concerning the ultimate destiny of their lives.

Each of the stranded has their own set of problems and grievances. Businessman Nick (Steve "Sting" Borden) is prideful. Runaway teenager Kayla (Madison Gibney) is suicidal. Couple Hank (Jamie Nieto) and Catherine (Dannah Davis) have marriage issues. Melissa (Jaci Velasquez) has relationship problems.

Theological Review
Jesus's ability
One of thing the film plays up is the omniscience of Bruce's Jesus. He's revealed to know all events in the past, present and future. This causes the stranded strangers to accept that he is really Jesus, and not an impostor or charlatan.

The film also emphasised that everyone falls short of the perfectness of God, although Catherine and Nick trust to justify themselves via their morality and achievements respectively.

The reasons for disbelief
Another potent thing the film brings up is objections to Christianity. Nick objected to the apparent cruelty of God in the Old Testament, and calling his Kayla's attraction to Jesus an emotional "exploitation". Kayla objects to apathy of God in the face of evil.

Nevertheless, I found it weird that this film's Jesus seem to hesitate to answer when Nick grills him. Another thing I felt should be in the film should be that most people should reject God's message of love and salvation. In fact real Jesus said in Matthew 7: 13-14,

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Conclusion
Despite having a generally unknown cast, the movie is decent. I give it a 65/100.

Alternative Culture: Rust review

A scene from Rust

[As part of the season of Lent, I will be reviewing some Christian literature over a course of 40 days. So let me begin with the movie Rust (2010).]

Synopsis
Many years after his pastorate falls apart, ex-pastor James Moore (Corbin Bernsen) returns to his hometown to find that his friend Travis (Lloyd Allen Warner) in prison. Travis confessed to arson and manslaughter of an entire family, but James refused to believe him.

With a sudden purpose and anewed vigour, James set out to find out the truth forcing him to confront his estranged father, his bitter sister, forgotten friends and even the problems caused and faced by the town's youth.

Theological review
As usual, I will doing a short review on the theological issues I felt were raised by the movie.

Quest for truth
One thing I felt was very engaging about the movie was James's attempts to discover the truth about the arson. Even though the matter inconvenienced him and further strained his relationships with the community, James found himself unable to rest till he unearthed the truth.

On the flip side, the mentally-challenged Travis chose to cover for the community. In doing so, he sought to find peace for and with the community whom he felt he never belong to the first place. It was not a surprise he obtained neither.

For us Christians, do we often choose inclusive peace with the world over the divisive truth of the Gospel? We should be choosing the liberating truth of the Gospel to find peace with God.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. -- Romans 1:25.

Suffering
One issue that I felt the film handled poorly was the issue of suffering. Although bringing up ideas about suffering that builds character, the film does not address the origin of suffering (i.e. sin) and the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice (i.e. to die for the sins of mankind).

Instead, God is portrayed as a problem-solver, only if we have faith in him.

Conclusion
A decent film, considering that the producer used a the local cast and a low budget. I like the emotionalism and flashbacks used in the film. I give it a decent 65/100.

With Due Respect-- The Bible is not history!

You can't trust the Bible because it is not history

Well, it depends on what you mean. The Bible is a collection of books, inclusive of differing genres. For example, Psalms is poetry, while Proverbs contains advice and Isaiah is regarded as prophecy. Some like Daniel is a mixture of history (Daniel 1-6) and imagery/prophecy (Daniel 7-12).

Even among certain" historical" books like 1 Kings and 2 Kings, the books only present a theological relationship of the kings of Israel and Judah with God. The books emphasis this by saying that other events of the kings' reign were written elsewhere (namely the annals of the kings of Israel or Judah).

But some parts of the Bible are intended to be literal history

Of course, we cannot expect Biblical history to be exactly like how modern history is written, as the concept of history (as a academic subject) was formalised much later (Lewis, 1946).

That said there are parts of the Bible intended to be literal history. For instance in Mark 14, it is recorded that there was man who was almost caught by the Romans.

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. -- Mark 14: 51-52

This naked youth played no further role (literal or metaphorical) in the narrative. Thus the only reason for including this part was that the events actually happened.

Conclusion

While some parts of the Bible was not meant to be literal history, it does not mean the other parts are not.

References

Lewis, CS (1946) Mere Christianity

For further reading
Bethinking resources 

Alternative Culture: Taken 3 Review

World's most wanted?
Having watched Taken and Taken 2, I could not wait to watch Taken 3. The premise of the movie takes retired CIA agent Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) on a race to prove his innocence after he is framed for the death of his ex-wife.

Chased by Inspector Dotzler (Forest Whitaker), Mills has to throw the cops of his trail while he interrogates the murder suspects.

Theological issues
This, being a theological site, will focus on certain issues raised by the movie. The issue I want to examine here is on the investigation and the run from the authorities.

Truth claims
Whereas Inspector Dotzler is interested in finding out the truth of the matter, most of the police were content to see Mills as guilty, most evident by their interactions with Mill's daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). Unfortunately, for most people (whether believers or not) rather be not investigate truth claims too carefully lest it challenges what they deeply believe in.

After if Jesus claimed to be "the way, truth and the life" in John 14:6, why should Christians be afraid of examining the claims of Christianity?

Versus the world
Jesus predicted the following for his followers:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15: 18-19)

Like Mills on the run from the authorities, Christians should not be surprised if the world tends to reject them. That does not mean Christians should knowingly and purposely violate secular law to prove a point, but rather that their lifestyle and truth claims would tend to offend people around them.

My review
To be honest, this movie was decent. It was definitely not as good as Taken, but comparable to Taken 2. The lack of twist and turns of plot made me miss the first Taken, and the lack of a nationwide search for Mills really hampered the urgency of the story. I thought it might have been better if the French intelligence from the first movie tried to take revenge on Mills (or demand extradition), and then Mills would be on the run.

Nevertheless, Neeson's gruff acting and the action scenes were the movie's saving grace. I give this movie a 60/100.

Theology 1.0: What is a just war?

Battle of Keppel

Just war? Aren't all wars evil?
We have often been told of evils of war. Yet even with the formation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 to promote global peace, there has been more than 200 wars fought across the world. In addition, the UN has participate actively in some of these wars, such as the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.

As being members "in the world", Christians are also not immune to war, either as masterminds, soldiers or victims. Genuine Christians in the militant role have to ponder about their duties especially since the Sixth Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder".

In this post, I want to explore the idea of a "Just War", focusing mainly on the ideas of the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas.

What did Aquinas say?
Thomas Aquinas summarised his stand on a justified war based on three conditions

1) Authority of the sovereign. The authority that is going to war has to be divinely appointed and sanctioned. (In other words, the government.)

2) Rightful cause. The action for war must be for a greater good, rather than for selfish gain. For instance, to punish a rouge nation or the restore stolen property.

3) Rightful intention. There must be an aim to end the war from the start. In other words, peace must be a central outcome after the war.

Examples of a Just War?
Let's explore these examples of war, using the ideas of a Just War.

1) 1991 Gulf War.
Reason for war: In 1990, Iraq unilaterally invaded Kuwait to control its oil fields. The United States led a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait.

Participants: USA (and its allies) VS Iraq

Just War: Probably
The aims of restoring Kuwait sovereignty and lost property was fulfilled.

2) 2003 Iraq War.
Reason for war: To rid Iraq of an unjust ruler and weapons of mass destruction.

Participants: USA (and its allies) VS Iraq

Just War: Unlikely
While the purpose of ridding of a dictator (Saddam Hussein) was fulfilled in this war, but the evidence of weapons of mass destruction proved to be false.

3) 1967 Six Days War
Reason for War: Due to constant aggression from its Arab neighbours, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike to reduce the military capabilities of its enemies.

Participants: Israel VS Egypt, Syria and Jordan

Just War: Maybe
It can be argued that the three nations were deserving punished by Israel. Israel's capture of West Bank, Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip ensured reduced attacks from its neighbours.

Conclusion
The fact that we live in such an imperfect world should force all of us to think about our stance on war, or even if we think a "Just War" is possible. To pretend we are immune or above such world arrogance does no good.