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.

With Due Respect: The Bible is so misunderstood, it is a sin.

Recently, a Newsweek post by Kurt Eichenwald was brought to my attention. He argued that the idea that Christians rely on Biblical beliefs is totally flawed because the actual Bible does not exists.

Although Eichenwald stated that he does not intend to "advance a particular theology", he begins his first point by writing,

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

He also claims that his arguments are supported by "scores of theologians and scholars".

In this post, I will be exploring a few of his points. I will largely not address most of his points, especially those regarding textual criticism of the Bible. For a full rebuttal, check textual critic James White's video.

Playing telephone with the Word of God
1) No punctuation and no spacing

Eichenwald writes that the original New Testament manuscripts were written in common Greek which had "no spaces between words and no punctuation", and therefore it could lead to misunderstanding of the text. He emphasised the need for such things via his example, "weshouldgoeatmum" could mean "we should go eat mum" or "we should go eat, mum".

What he fails to understand is that the meaning of the sentences can be easily understood if you read the whole passage in context. To press his example-- if the passage was talking about a nearby eatery where they served burgers and fries, then it would be obvious which interpretation would make more sense.

2) More variants than words in the New Testament

Eichenwald writes,

And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,

This gives the impression that there are so many variants in the New Testament copies, it is difficult to know what was said originally. Eichenwald draws support from New Testament scholar Erhman (2005) who stated that there are 200,000 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts.

But let's put it in perspectives. We have about 2,000 copies of the Gospels which have 64,766 words in the original Greek (according to this site). If every copyist made 1 mistake every 1,000 words, there will be about 65 variants per copy. Hence there will be a total of 130,000 variants. That sounds like a huge number of variants. However, this number is due to the large number of manuscripts, rather than the inefficiency of the copyists.

In fact by comparing between the variants, it is possible to reconstruct the original manuscript.

The sociopath Emperor

1) Jesus's divinity

The majority of the time at Nicaea was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the son of God, as Arius proclaimed, or God himself, as the church hierarchy maintained.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the issue of Jesus's divinity was never in question. Bishop Arius (the dissenter) argued that Jesus did not share the same substance as the Father (and that the Father allowed Jesus to achieve godhood), while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria asserted that Jesus did share the same substance as the Father and therefore was existed eternally with God. Even a cursory check of wikipedia would reveal that.

2) Emperor Constantine I

But Constantine sided with those who believed Jesus was both God and man, so a statement of belief, called the Nicene Creed, was composed to proclaim that. Those who refused to sign the statement were banished.

Eichenwald argued that Emperor Constantine I enforced Trinitarian views on the followers of Arian. This does not wash as 

A) Emperor Constantine I had an Arian tutor (and was probably an Arian himself)

B) It were the Trinitarian Christians who were persecuted by the Arians in the political realm.

No three kings

1) Different accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection

The stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’s death and resurrection differ as well. When brought before Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks only two words and is never declared innocent. In the Gospel of John, Jesus engages in extended conversations with Pilate, who repeatedly proclaims this Jewish prisoner to be innocent and deserving of release.

Eichenwald argued that the four Gospels differ from each other. This is to be expected as they came from different eyewitnesses accounts. How can he expect them to be exactly the same?

Furthermore, the Gospels agreed on the important points-- Jesus died and rose again.

Conclusion

There are many more issues that I do not have the time nor expertise to deal with. However, I felt that as a reputable online magazine, Newsweek had a responsibility to be accurate and fair in its reporting. Despite Eichenwald's claim that his article was not to attack the "Bible or Christianity", I fear that this article was very judging.

References

Erhman, B. (2005) Misquoting Jesus

For further understanding

Alpha and Omega