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.