Why do good Christians often go bad?

I write this post out of experience. So often I feel as if I am going backwards. So many times I have awoken realizing that I have less hope, faith, and love than I did the day before. It scares me. I know that “he who began a good work in my will perfect it” (Phil. 1:6), but why aren’t I being perfected? When I look back on myself twenty-years ago, I sometimes don’t see a progressive growth from better to worse, but a decline in the virtues that God is supposed to be working within me. I remember John Piper once said “When do I doubt God?  Not in tragedy, but when I see the slowness of my sanctification.” Not only is our sanctification often slow, but it sometimes goes the opposite direction.

Here is a list of ten issues that cause good Christians to go bad that are less obvious than the blatant sins that we often account for such a state.

1. Dried up Passion

When we first begin to follow the Lord, life is new and exciting. We are going to do great things for the Lord. We can’t wait to see what is around the corner. Our passions are high and our commitment is unable to stumble. However, at some point down the road we find ourselves tiring and slowly replacing this passion for what we believe to be the new “reality.” All the answers that we had at the beginning are not so simple. God’s hand is heavy and his movements at a crawl. We started the race sprinting, but now we are not that far down the track taking break after break. Our passion dries up and we begin to consider whether we need to run this race at all. We walk with our hands in our pockets kicking the dust up as we go.

Christ tells us that we can “lose our first love”: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place– unless you repent.” (Rev 2:4-5)

2. Entitlement for Sorrow

It is so easy to go through so many trials and troubles that we “cut ourselves some slack.” I feel as if this is something that I have done quite a bit over the last six years. Things have been so hard in my family (most of you know the stories). I held up great at the beginning, but at some point I began to feel sorry for myself. In doing so, I allowed myself to enter into self-destructive self-pity.

Unfortunately, this will often be the advice of others. “You got to start thinking about yourself [insert your name]. After all, not many people have to go through what you have been through.” If we listen to this advice, we will quickly replace our spiritual life for one of paralyzing sorrow. And, even though this sorrow does not help anything, it is addictive and counter-productive to all we know.

The Lord tells us: “If you have run with footmen and they have tired you out, then how can you compete with horses?” (Jer 12:5). There is the ever present reality that our pains and sufferings may very well get worse. We must be weary of the advice that may come our way that we are entitled to sorrow. We are entitled to joyful suffering for the sake of Christ.

3. Wrong Companions

Don’t ever give up your kindness, love, and friendship with those who are in desperate need of life change. But keep in mind that bad company does corrupt your morals (1 Cor. 15:33). The companion of fools suffers harm (Prov. 13:20). If your Christian life has gone in the wrong direction, take a look at those around you. With whom are you surrounding yourself? Are they people who inspire you to greatness or pull you down to the base hopes of this world?

4. Overly Critical

I see this so often with apologists. So many times we seek to defend ourselves as those who are not naive. We want people to see us as those who seek rational justification for everything we do and believe. This gets unhealthy and destructive to the Christian life when we build a methodology which puts the Bible on the witness stand at every point. “I am not going to believe this verse until it is rationally justified on its own merits.” The idea here is that God is guilty of falsehood until proven innocent (although we would never put it that way). In doing so, we think we are doing God a favor.

However, after a while, this will tear our faith apart. We don’t need rational justification for everything we believe. Hang with me. Just think if you did this with your spouse. What if everything Kristie said to me needed to be questioned. “I am going to pick up the kids,” she says to me. “I don’t believe you unless you can prove it,” I respond. “Dinner is ready,” she says. “We will see about that,” I think to myself. At some point in our marriage, Kristie has earned the right to be trusted. I don’t need to critically evaluate everything she says. If I did, our relationship would fall apart.

Some of you have quit believing the Lord and the Scripture. You put everything in a queue of future belief. But there is a point when you decide that God and the Bible are trustworthy and you set aside the critique. It is not a matter of “just believing” for no reason at all. It is a matter of “just believing” because God is trustworthy. Some of you need to get back to reading and believing the Scripture.

5. Not Working Hard

Laziness is a companion of spiritual lethargy. God did not create us to be idle. One of the greatest gifts is that one can have is a job that is labor intensive. I have rediscovered this recently. I spend quite a bit of time everyday doing hard labor in the sun in my backyard. I have three and a half acres of land. The lack of rain over the years has cause about forty trees to die. I have logged quite a few hours cutting down and burning these trees over the last few months. I don’t know if there has been anything else as spiritually satisfying as this.

Many of us need to fill our idle time with sweat. Don’t underestimate how spiritually invigorating this can be.

6. Other Christians

Other Christians can be such a drain. I often get this on this blog. I can be brought so low as I see how mean Christians can be to one another. It sometimes makes me think “What is it all worth?” Some of you have had your worst experiences with those who profess Christ. Some of you don’t want to live the Christian life any longer because of other Christians.

As easy as it is to sympathize with this, realize that this is a counter-productive dead end. The answer for all of us is simple: Be everything that they are not. Every minute of every day, you surprise people by your kind and gentle spirit. You are a force for good. You are only responsible for yourself. You can inspire and change people with one comment, smile, and act of grace at a time. If other Christians are acting worse than heathens, you be Christ to them and be everything they are not.

7. Misreading God

It is so easy to misread God. We often interpret him one way when he is really going in the other. This can disillusion our spirituality causing us great hopelessness and a derailed Christian life. I have a friend who, a few months ago, was in serious trouble with the law. He had done something wrong and he got caught. He came to me in great sorrow and repentance, fearful of what was going to happen to him and his family if he went to jail. His repentance was sincere and heartfelt. He was broken beyond belief. We all entered into prayer for him. A few weeks later we get the word that no charges were being filed. He came to me and talked about all the blessings this difficulty had brought about in his life. It restored his family and caused him to be closer than ever to God. When he found out that the charges were not being filed, he rejoiced with tears, praising the mercy of God. I have never seen someone so happy. It has been like that for weeks. However, last week the bomb was dropped on him. They suddenly decided to press charges and it does not look good. His joy has been turned to the deepest sorry. And it is not just that he is being punished for a crime, it is that God seemed to, from his perspective, toy with him.

We must be careful about misreading God. We don’t really know which way he is going and he does not guarantee the type of deliverance we so often long for. When we go left and God goes right, it is important for us to quickly submit and adjust course. But the best is simply to wait to turn until we are certain that he has turned.

8. Liberty Leading to License

It is easy for those of us who believe so deeply in grace to fall into license. This can cause our faith to fall apart. We can sometimes keep from falling into serious sin, but it is the little liberties in which we indulge that can slowly erode our spirituality. When we give ourselves too much license, although lawful, they are not profitable (1 Cor. 6:12). One of the liberties I started giving to myself a few years ago was watching series on TV. Why not? There is nothing wrong with relaxing, taking a break to enjoy some entertainment. As well, much of this can be somewhat educational. But liberties are so easy to become addicted to. After a while, we don’t find any enjoyment outside of them.

The same could be said for Christians who enjoy alcohol, relief that comes by prescription meds, food addiction, sexual indulgence (even with one’s spouse), or rest. All of these, in and of themselves, can be good things and are gifts of God. However, it is so easy to give ourselves so much rope in these areas that we eventually find ourselves hung by this rope. Addictions are among the hardest sins to break and can prove to be among the most spiritually draining of all. The danger comes by way of their subtlety.

Heb. 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.

9. Not Accepting God’s Grace

Just as dangerous as giving yourself too many allowances due to liberty is not accepting God’s grace every day. There will rarely, if ever, be a day when you don’t sin. Many good Christians struggle with so many issues including pornography, homosexual attraction, food addiction, and the like. Not only is the sin draining, but neglecting to accept our only hope—the unmerited mercy of God—is fatal to our spiritual life. I know how hard it is to accept God’s grace for the thousandth time in a week for the same sin. But if you don’t, not only are you cutting yourself off from your only renewal, but you are saying that Christ’s sacrifice is only for those things that are not too difficult or addicting. Christ died for all your sins no matter how many times you commit them. Learning to be a beggar for grace is learning to be a Christian.

10. Excessive Pampering

I have a little jewel of a book called A Knight’s Own Book of Chivalry written by Geoffroi de Charny in 1356. In it he gives advice, knight to knight, about how to be a knight of virtue. One of his contentions is that a good knight needs to guard against “excessive pampering.” This, according to de Charny, leads to an inability to be effective in life. His advice is to make sure that one does not get used to nice beds and soft pillows. We need to learn to sleep out in the heat and the cold. We need to make sure we don’t become to fond of pampering ourselves or we will find ourselves impotent in many opportunities the Lord may give us.

We can pamper ourselves in so many ways. The basic principle is to never get to the point where you think you must have something to survive. This can be something as small as giving up our morning coffee to something much great like giving up our savings account. The point is that when we structure our lives to take away all the stress that we need to engage, we can find ourselves slipping spiritually. This is why fasting and self-discipline are such important parts of the Christian life.Similar Posts:

• How Do I Overcome Sin in My Life?
• Sometimes Faith Does Take Faith
• Does God Approve of “Greater-Good” Theology?
• “Still Waiting for Something Good to Come Out of It” or Here in the Real World
• “Memorize these Two Verses and Call Me in the Morning” or Dealing with Doubt – Part 2

Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, JJ Seid and Sam Storms as they continue their series on Roman Catholicism by discussing the Sacraments.

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 13 – Indulgences
• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 12 – Mariology (Part 2)
• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 11 – Mariology (Part 1)
• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 9 – The Mass (Part 3)
• Theology Unplugged: Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 8 – The Mass (Part 2)

That’s not to say that every preference in every area needs to have an argument that supports it. In matters of artistic predilection or taste, no reasons are required other than, “I just like it.” Whatever kind of music sounds good to you, enjoy. Feel free to load up your device and belt it out at your leisure. You don’t really owe anybody a sophisticated explanation. You also don’t have to make a case for how and why certain foods taste better to you than others. They just do.

But what if I treat everything else this way? What if I take political stances, proclaim spiritual realities, assert opinions about history and offer declarations about moral principles – all “just because”?  After all, maybe those views are simply the ones I like. Does that suffice? Do I need reasons or can I just say that I believe those particular things, period?

I’ve been surprised time and again to run right up against this way of thinking in recent years. At first I was caught so off guard by it that I wasn’t sure what to say in response. It was so foreign to me that a blank stare was my only reaction. But I’ve been trying to learn just how I can begin to demonstrate how utterly wrong-headed it is for people to hold beliefs for no substantive reasons at all. So permit me here to say some things about it, starting with those who profess to be Christians who think along these lines, and then moving on to the larger context of society in general.

Faith is Not Blind

No less a giant of influence than Charles Haddon Spurgeon said nearly those exact words (faith is not blind) as he sought to convince his many hearers that faith is not random, fanciful speculation, not just a vague attitude. It is trust or belief in someone or something specific. “You will never get comfort to your soul out of what you do not understand,” he said, “nor find guidance for your life out of what you do not comprehend.” Some level of clear perception and understanding is required.

Nevertheless in our time it is too common for Christians to carry in their minds a hazy collage of beliefs they haven’t thought all that much about. If someone asks them why they believe this or that, they may just subjectivize the issue and say it’s how they were raised or that it is private and personal. Most likely, having been asked about a belief, they’ll answer with a feeling.  Sometimes their passions may run high in certain conversations when they feel their views are being challenged, threatened, or even attacked, but rather than showing a capability to better explain or defend those beliefs, they again tend only to get emotional and feel offended.

The blame for this can’t be thrown onto the culture, even though this tendency mirrors the culture, as I explain in the next section below. Cultures are always rife with problematic ways of thinking, and the Church can never fall back on the excuse that it’s the fault of her specific culture, whatever problems are prominent within the flock of a given generation.  The Church is supposed to stand for truth and to that extent stand against (whilst being a corrective for) whatever errors of thought, perspective or habit are dominant in the larger culture. It’s always been an uphill fight, of course, given the fact that the pull and influence of culture is always so strong and surrounds everyone all the time.

Our own culture displays a certain intellectual apathy that is detrimental to the disciplines of the mind. Reason itself is a casualty of this, and among very many contemporary evangelicals, this has taken a Christianized form in which an anti-intellectual approach is falsely honored as some sort of spiritual high road. The nearly-prophetic David Wells thus describes the Church’s “self-betrayal through its theologically emptied-out faith” as the reason the Church is of such little actual relevance in our culture, and so seemingly impotent in the face of contemporary challenges. Similarly Dallas Willard has pointed out that leaders in the Church have co-opted the cultural mistake of prioritizing emotion as the primary truth-vehicle. “Christian ministers try to get people to do things by making them feel things,” Willard told an interviewer. Pastors and preachers have to return to a biblical model in which emotions are a natural bi-product of realized truths. A new paintjob on a house with no foundation is a waste of labor.

The regrettable irony of this situation is that scores of believers who would be eminently qualified for biblical scholarship, theological depth and apologetic usefulness sit idly on the inactive list. Some of our best and brightest will warm the bench (pew) for decades and skip what might have been stellar careers in kingdom work, because they were convinced early on that their minds were given to them for their ‘secular’ lives while God only wants their ‘hearts’. They will satisfy all of their more rigorous fascinations on other things and accomplish greater depths in various other fields, but remain – in their Christian lives – at a permanently remedial level. In the name of “simple faith” or a reduced notion of “lay people,” the church, with its engineers, surgeons, builders, planners, teachers, technicians, artists, business people, etc., will nonetheless remain a vast body of theological 5^th graders.

This need not and ought not be the case. It is cultural, not biblical. How shocking it would be to contemporary Christians to learn that some of the most prominent revivalists were also theological giants.  Maybe the most famous sermon by the most famous preacher of the First Great Awakening (“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards in 1741) was from the pen (and mouth) of one who is also considered by many as among the greatest minds ever produced on this continent. That’s right – a simple parish pastor and revivalist preacher, as well as president of what became Princeton University (and whose father-in-law was a founder of Yale), a man who wrote sermons for common New Englanders as well as theological tomes of such length and detailed philosophical density that most of us would not be able to soldier all the way through them.

Christians need to go against the grain and explore fully all of the reasons for beliefs – our own and those of others, the good reasons and the bad reasons (and the important differences between the two). To float with the postmodern current and make “belief” an intransitive verb – something without an object – is a mistake. Reason is a basic kind of revealed knowledge, maybe the most basic of all. No beliefs can be sensible or of any value without it. John Wesley said that it is “a fundamental principle … that to renounce reason is to renounce religion,” and asserted further that “all irrational religion is false religion.” I remember when it began to be repeated more and more that Christian parents and church leaders must teach kids and converts not only what to believe, but why. I’m afraid that today we cannot even take the “what” for granted, since it seems like an alarming number of those coming out of our churches don’t know what or why. They just believe.

The Confused Culture

It is important to see that this pattern in the Church simply follows the pattern of society as a whole. This is not a problem of religion itself, as the renowned British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out years ago when he wrote, “I believe myself that the age we are living in will go down in history as one of the most credulous ever.” Muggeridge pointed to early commercialization, mass advertising and the shaping of public opinion by mass media, as evidence for this. He refuted the common idea among many British intellectuals of his time which said that the secular society would move forward beyond shallow credulity while the religious would remain behind. It has not turned out that way.

Since I teach a lot of classes every semester in particular subjects that point this out in the most glaring way, I can say with fairly solid assurance that even a basic “common sense literacy,” if you will, is lacking today. It is by training, by practice and by choice, of course. It has nothing to do with IQ or natural perceptive ability. There is a kind of cultural coma that has been brought on by our being completely submersed at every moment in shallow media, entertainment and social networking.

Thus people continue to say that they believe things, but don’t bother to give many reasons, or at least not many reasons that are any good. They confuse emotion with reasons, as though the stronger they feel about it, the more powerful the case they are making for that belief. They also confuse exterior causes with reasons, as though it suffices simply to say, “I was raised this way” or mention some other circumstance that played a role in their coming to believe the way they do (e.g., “I’m for gay marriage because my brother is gay” or “I’m opposed to abortion because my daughter had one”). Such conditions may give indication as to why the issue is close to someone, but they offer nothing in the way of reasons why the belief is good, right or true. A life circumstance may provide a clue as to what caused you to end up where you did on the matter, but it offers no basis for why I should end up there.

Terms like “argument” and “debate” are anathema to so many today, because political correctness has soured people on the general idea of citizens disagreeing or someone suggesting that someone else’s point of view is incorrect. I constantly explain to people that the classical use of these terms is not pejorative. The true meaning of an “argument” is simply a claim for which you have one or more reasons. A “debate” is merely what happens when those making contrary claims offer their respective arguments for their beliefs (an informal version of the basic scenario people are used to seeing portrayed in all of those movies and TV shows featuring courtroom drama). Not only is it OK to have or make an argument, it is right and necessary to do so. Not only is debate allowable (not intolerant), it is natural and unavoidable. As long as people have beliefs and those beliefs have reasons, these things must be part of life, and we will all be better for it.

But so long as we are under the foolish illusion that belief is just a matter of personal preference – even religious, moral, or political belief – we will mistakenly see argument and debate as, at best, empty wasted chatter, and at worst, mean-spirited rudeness (or even [insert weary sigh] “hate speech”). The danger of this is that a person may well realize someday that without any good reason(s) for his belief in, say, human rights, there’s nothing to compel him to continue holding that belief.  Just as so many young adults scrap their Christian beliefs once they see that they never had any reasons for them, there may come a day when moral principles without reasons are also swapped out or let go.

I cannot tell you how often I hear people take moral points of view and offer no reasons for them.  One legacy of secularization is the disjunction between moral obligation and a basis for moral obligation.  Just recently I explored this with a particular man, probably in his late twenties, who had been raised in a non-religious home on the East Coast. His understanding of Christian belief was woefully deficient and crafted mostly by caricatures in the media. But he undoubtedly considered himself a person of strong moral convictions. As I attempted to locate his reasons for believing that we ought to be just and good, to practice kindness and non-violence as much as possible, to treat all people fairly and deal honestly with our money, etc., I repeatedly ran into a void. He simply had no substantive reasons other than the sense of moral intuition that – thanks be to God – is common among human beings. He went no further than to say, “I just believe it’s right (or wrong).”

I was reminded of a quote from the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, who in an essay called “Religion and Morality” likened this to “the attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground.” As a society we can hope that people continue to hold to most of the basic traditional moral views handed down to them, even though they have no roots or foundation any longer. But people believing in all of those things for no good reasons (that is, no reasons outside of personal feeling, lingering peer pressure, and pragmatic self-preservation) cannot be very reassuring. At least the earlier rivals to traditional Christian morality (like good ol’ fashioned utilitarianism, for example) had reasons.

This is probably why some cultural prognosticators, especially ones who have lived longer and can appreciate the dramatic degree of change that has been wrought, tend to be pessimistic. A good example, again, is David Wells, who sees parallels in our present culture with that of the internally decomposing late Roman Empire: “Then as now, many were skeptical of authority and became easy victims of superstition. Political language began to disintegrate, even as it has today, though in our case one of the main causes is that it has to carry the burdens of a fake piety, which is what political correctness has become.”

Belief is not just a posture or disposition. Despite the popular media usage of the word, “faith” is not just a generic description (e.g., “I’m a person of faith,” which is just a colloquial way of saying, “I’m religious in some way.”). The noun “faith” and the verb “believe” are the same word in the language of the New Testament, and it is a word with a connotation we’ve lost in our common usage today.  The public, and especially that part that claims to be Christian, has to wise up to the political emasculation of language (as well as of thought itself).  “Believe” is primarily a transitive verb. Without an object, what meaning does the word really convey? Belief has content. Faith does not hang in the open air, but is directed toward and rests upon something or someone. It is the same with the word “trust.” In fact faith is a kind of trust.

So whatever you believe, you should consider the reason(s) for it. There are only a few exceptions, in the rare category of those most basic beliefs (i.e., basic axioms or principles that can’t be derived from any previous ones but must be presupposed at the outset). Any and every other belief you hold, about anything whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously, if it is to be of any value or worth anyone’s consideration, it must have in its favor more than your emotions, personal history or external circumstantial factors. It must have reasons.Similar Posts:

• Why I Reject Other Gods: An Answer to Stephen F Roberts
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Conversations with an Atheist Concerning the Irrationality of Atheistic Rational
• Can anything good come from France?
• Ignorant Evangelicals

As most of you know, it is hard for me to write an unbiased review about any superhero movie. Either I go in with too many expectations, get my hopes dashed, and kick dirt all the way home while calling for the coming of Christ…or I see the movie seventeen more times before I even considering sharing my thoughts with others. You must understand, there were only three career possibilities for me since the night I was conceived: pastor, country music singer, or superhero. In the interest of full disclosure, I almost chose the last.

Though my license tag says BATMAN3, Superman is my first love (he just does not have a cool car that I could be expected to name mine after, like Batman). Ever since I was six years old, when the first Superman came out, my imagination has been consumed with Kal-El’s greatness in a world that did not deserve such grace. After all, who can really do what Superman can? No one in the entire comic world, DC or Marvel, can compare. The legend of Superman has, at times, had to blush at his seeming perfection; through time, his creators have had to insert ways for this immortal to (possibly) fall. After all, when you have a guy who can displace entire planets, who is really going to serve as a legitimate foil for his powers? But the big screen has never seen a Superman who lets loose. The closest yet has come in the Justice League Unlimited cartoon, where Superman finally breaks free from his cardboard box and punches Dark Side through an entire city. But even then, they held back the Man of Steel’s power to make it interesting.

Let me start with this: This is not your mom’s and dad’s Superman.

This is Superman in the raw. Now, don’t get bent out of shape, apart from a few incidentals here and there (and these will probably be spoiled by people in the comments who blast me for calling these “incidentals,” so don’t read them if you don’t want to know), the boy scout we all know and love is still there. But it is darker. It is not that Superman himself is darker, but this movie re-imagines Superman and reads between lines that often get left unexplored (except for those of us who watched Smallville). You enter into the struggle of Superman’s two sides at a deeper level than any previous movie. You may find yourself saying a silent prayer for Clark as he attempts to overcome the reality of his power and let bullies skate without witnessing his wrath. 

Because of the depth of character they develop for Clark, this Superman proves to be every bit as good as any we have seen. Henry Cavill is perfect for this role. No slight to the original portrayer of the big screen superhero, Christopher Reeve, but I think we finally have someone who can handle the depth to which Superman needs to go. (And, thank God, Cavill does not try to be Reeve). His look and stature are fitting for the Man of Steel. His character has yet to be rounded out, but starting with this level of emotional depth, it only gets easier. Cavill is going to be donning the cape for a while and I can’t wait to see what they do with him as the explore different aspects of his character.

This darkness is extended into the character of Zod. Zod, Zod, Zod… How do I do justice to Michael Shannon’s portrayal of Zod? It is not that he overshadows Terrence Stamp (Zod in the 1980 Superman), it’s that he digs underneath him (just as Henry Cavill does with Superman), exploring the unexplored aspects of his character. In the end, I hate to say it, you really empathize with Zod. He is the best villian, far and away, of any Superman movie yet (sorry, Gene).

Russell Crowe is out of this world as Jor El (Superman’s real father)—literally, out of this world. His role was much larger than I expected and I think you will be very pleased to see how Jor El’s contribution is mined out for the first quarter of the movie. Lois was on par, at best. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) was, unfortunately, hardly noticeable. But my biggest surprise was Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent. They departed from the canon a bit with him (and where they did most was quite possibly my favorite part of the movie), but his role was so crucial to understanding why Superman was the way he was. The interplay between Superman and his “earthly” father creates the core of the emotional drama.

Don’t mistake this movie for Marvel. This is modern Nolan DC. It is not the action, laughter, action, laughter that you may be expecting. I was at the 12:01am showing so believe me, we were all willing to be moved in whatever direction the movie wanted to take us. But I remember only one time that anyone laughed, and, upon further thought, I don’t think we were supposed to. This is 2.5 hours of white-knuckling it, so be prepared. You may want to take a cab, as you might pass out immediately after this thrill ride is over. The special effects and utter destruction that take place may be quite disturbing to many but, let me tell you, this is the zenith of what Hollywood can do. I thought that pinnacle had been reached by Transformers, but let June 14, 2013 mark the end of this era. All other movies can only attempt what has been done by Zach Snyder. From now on, there can only be copycats.

Even though the darkness is present, I don’t think the mood or tone will serve for the hopeful marrying of Nolan’s Dark Knight with his Man of Steel. Though more down to earth than you might think, Man of Steel is just too other-worldly to imagine its eventual incorporation into a Justice League Movie. I am sorry. They will have to reboot Batman for that to happen.

Please understand, Superman movies are not easy to make. God give thick skin to anyone brave enough to attempt such a feat. After all, this is not some barely-known character like Iron Man or Thor, where whatever you pull off is more than expected. There are such high expectations for this movie both because of the grandeur of its 1978 predecessor (the father of all Superhero movies) and because Superman is so culturally well-known and loved that it is almost impossible to please people (especially me). So (and here comes the snapshot review) for those of us who have been waiting for Superman to punch his way out of that cardboard box, we finally have our hopes realized. For those of us who wanted the wrestling-with-himself-and-his-mission Clark, of CW’s Smallville, to somehow be presented to the world, this is it. This movie is no joke. I think I can safely say that this should be the best Superman you will ever see.

Besides saying thanks to Nolan and Synder for taking up this dangerous ball and putting on the big screen everything this Superman fan could have hoped for (with great expectations for what is coming), let me say thanks to them for not being shy about making Superman the Christ-figure he was meant to be (see more below) and for making Superman an American again! (You will see what I mean.)

Superman: Man of Steel Parallels to Christ

• Jor El (El meaning “god”) sends his son Kal El to Earth to save humanity even though humanity does not deserve it.
• It takes an alien righteousness to make us righteous.
• Superman is given to parents (originally named Mary and Joseph) who raise him as their own.
• Superman’s human earthly father dies early.
• When Superman is 33 he travels to the “wilderness” (the arctic) to be qualified for his mission.
• Superman is guided the entire time by Jor El, from whom he learns his mission.
• Superman is of two natures (Kryptonian and Human).
• Superman has two names, Kal El and Clark Kent, which finds perfect expression in one personification, Superman (Hypostatic Union)
• Clark Kent is rejected and made fun of by peers.
• Superman is continually tempted by the outside world.
• Superman is nearly omnipotent with the power to destroy the humans who hate him, but does not ever use it for such a purpose.
• The “S” on Superman’s chest can mean “Savior” (in Krypton is means hope).
• The most overt of all: Jor El on the ship says to Superman: “You can save her Kal. You can save them all.” Then Superman lightly floats away with arms stretched out in the form of a cross.

Of course, there are many things that don’t parallel the Christ story, but this should at least give you a strong conviction that the producers of Man of Steel are not shying away from his Messianic parallels.

(And, just as a side note to all atheists: this cannot be used against the historicity of Christ (you know. . .  the parallels/myth thing?), so wipe the spit off your chin. Remember, it must come before the Christ-story.)Similar Posts:

• Movie Review: Green Lantern
• From the Dust: Conversations on Creation – a Review

Spong claims, both in the book and in an article on Huffington Post promoting the book, that The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic is the result of an “intensive five-year-long study” of the Gospel of John and of Johannine scholarship. “I have now read almost every recognized major commentary on John’s gospel that is available in English from the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries” (Fourth Gospel, 8). Unfortunately, it doesn’t show. Spong has left himself some wiggle room by using the qualifier “recognized,” which is probably code for “non-evangelical.” Spong’s nine-page bibliography at the end of his book does not include a single conservative or evangelical commentary on John and only one monograph on John by an evangelical (Craig Evans’s Word and Glory, an academic study on John’s Prologue). The only other work by a conservative author listed in the bibliography is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, attributed to Richard “Bruckman,” which is a reflection of just how little attention Bauckham’s excellent study received. Neither Evans nor Bauckham is actually cited in the book, and Spong’s arguments show his usual studied ignorance of conservative biblical scholarship. If Spong did read the commentaries on the Gospel of John by George R. Beasley-Murray, Gary M. Burge, D. A. Carson, Craig S. Keener, Andreas Köstenberger, J. Ramsey Michaels, Leon Morris, Grant R. Osborne, Merrill Tenney, Ben Witherington III, or any other evangelical scholar, he apparently learned nothing from them. Keener’s massive two-volume commentary is especially important because its 300-plus page introduction alone thoroughly refutes the assertions that Spong makes concerning the Fourth Gospel.

The main points that Spong seeks to make in his book are as follows:

• The Fourth Gospel was not written by the apostle John or any of the disciples.
• It was produced by at least three different authors over a period of perhaps thirty years.
• Jesus probably said not even one word attributed to him in the Gospel.
• Jesus did none of the miracles narrated in the Gospel.
• Many of the figures appearing in the Gospel never existed.
• The Gospel contains many indications that it was not meant to be taken literally.
• The message of the Gospel is not that God became incarnate for our salvation but that human beings can experience personal transformation and a sense of mystical oneness with God (i.e., with being itself).
• The orthodox creedal doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity depend in large measure on misreading John by taking the Gospel’s statements literally.

Spong would have his readers believe that he came to these conclusions only after his recent intensive five years of research: “Among the conclusions that I have reached in my intensive five-year-long study of John’s Gospel are these…. These are the conclusions to which my study of John’s Gospel has led me.” Yet anyone the least bit familiar with Spong’s nearly forty years of published writings knows that he has been beating these same drums repeatedly throughout his iconoclastic career. Notably, in his 1996 book Liberating the Gospels, Spong presented the same view of the Gospel of John as he does in his newest book. For example, he says in that earlier book, “I do not think that there is one word in the Johannine text that Jesus actually came close to saying” (Liberating the Gospels, 178). He strenuously objected to “literalized” readings of the Gospel of John and blamed such misreading for the “rigid” doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity (ibid.). Spong even claimed in Liberating the Gospels that he had already read “almost every major English-language commentary on this gospel published this century and many in the nineteenth” (180)!

Of the many points that could be addressed here, I will focus on Spong’s claim that the Gospel of John contains indications that it was never meant to be taken “literally.” In his Huffington Post article, Spong claims, “John’s Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history.” For example, Nicodemus looks silly taking Jesus literally about being “born again,” and the Samaritan woman responds to Jesus’ offer of “living water” by commenting that Jesus didn’t even have a bucket. But in both of these passages Jesus is using metaphorical language to describe spiritual realities, and in both cases the text records Jesus correcting the misunderstanding. Thus Jesus tells Nicodemus that he is referring to being “born” of the Spirit, not of being born a second time in the womb (John 3:3-8), and he tells the Samaritan woman that the “water” he is offering her is not water one draws from a well but is rather the source of eternal life (John 4:10-14). When the woman still does not understand (v. 15), Jesus changes the subject in order to lead her gradually to a better understanding (vv. 16-26). Nothing in these passages suggests that the Gospel as a whole is to be taken metaphorically.

If we look at a similar passage involving a misunderstanding by Jesus’ hearers, we can see quite clearly why Spong’s inference is itself a misunderstanding. When Jesus drove out the sellers and moneychangers from the temple and the Jewish authorities challenged him to produce a sign validating his authority for doing so, Jesus replied: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). They misunderstood him to be referring to the man-made temple building in Jerusalem (2:20), but, John comments, “he was talking about the temple which was his body” (2:21). Here “the temple” is the metaphor and “his body” is the literal referent symbolized by the metaphor. One should not take the metaphorical reference literally, but one should also not take the literal reference metaphorically. That “his body” is meant literally is clear from two facts in the immediate context. First, John is expressly explaining what Jesus meant by his metaphor. Normally, one would not expect a metaphor to be explained using another metaphor. For example, if I asked someone for some “bread” and they didn’t understand that I meant money, it would be unlikely for me to respond, “When I said ‘bread,’ I meant clams”! Second, John tells us that Jesus’ disciples understood what he meant “when he was raised from the dead” (2:22). That is, what Jesus meant by “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” was that his body would rise from the dead three days after it was killed. (Spong glosses over this part of the passage in his book; see The Fourth Gospel, 85, 226-27, 257.) Thus, reading the saying of Jesus in the context of the narrative as a whole, one can clearly distinguish the metaphor of Jesus’ saying from the literal explanation that John gives. But this means that the narrative itself is meant to be understood “literally,” that is, as historical narrative, not as mythical “tales” with esoteric spiritual meanings.

Spong’s whole approach to the Gospel of John is askew because of his assumption—and that is really what it is, an assumption, not a conclusion—that the Gospel is not meant to be read as historical narrative. Some important recent scholarship on the Gospel of John, not all of it by evangelicals, has shown that the Gospel is meant to be read historically. For example, Richard A. Burridge’s book What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge University Press, 1992; 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 2004), established that the Gospel of John (like the Synoptic Gospels) was written in the genre of ancient Graeco-Roman biography (bios). “The focus of the geographical and dramatic settings upon the person of the subject, the selection of biographical topics, the rather serious atmosphere and the range of purposes are all typical of bioi” (231). Burridge, who does not appear to be evangelical, would agree with Spong on some critical issues, including seeing the Gospel of John as the product of a “Johannine Community” rather than a single author and as having been produced over time (214). Burridge also finds John’s “stress on Jesus’ divinity and his unity with the Father” to result in a characterization of Jesus that is “not realistic” (227). Yet these “stereotypic” elements are mixed with realistic, human characterization, such as references to Jesus becoming tired and thirsty, crying at a friend’s funeral, and the like. Such a mixture, he argues, is comparable to what one finds in the Synoptic Gospels and in Graeco-Roman biographies (227). The author’s didactic purposes are consistent with and even carried out through his intention to “provide information about Jesus” in a “chronological narrative” designed to enable “the reader to realize the true identity of Jesus” (230). Thus, even a scholar who does not accept at face value the theology of the Gospel of John or assume that every element of the text is true can (and should) be able to recognize that conveying factual, historical information about Jesus is a basic intention and purpose of the Gospel. It is one thing to assert that although the Gospel claims to be biographical its claim is dubious; it is another thing altogether to assert that the Gospel makes no claim to be biographical. The latter assertion is plainly false.

Evangelical scholar Craig S. Keener acknowledges that because so much of the narrative in the Gospel of John has no independent attestation in the other Gospels, it is impossible to prove that John’s account is historically factual in all respects. “That John falls into the general category of biography, however, at least shifts the burden of proof on the matter of reported events (albeit not the particular ways of describing them) onto those who deny John’s use of tradition for the events he describes” (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:51). This is the sort of nuanced judgment that Spong never offers. Instead he makes extreme, unjustifiable assertions such as that Jesus never said one word attributed to him in the Gospel.

In closing, let me recommend just three books on the Gospel of John. One of these I have already mentioned twice: Keener’s commentary, which is by far the most important exegetical commentary on the Gospel sensitive to historical issues currently available. Here are the three books:

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Bauckham, Richard. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.Similar Posts:

• Dan Wallace on “The New New Testament”
• Why did He let them walk away: John 6 and transubstantiation
• Book Review: Evidence for God
• 14 Evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—and 14 References
• 10 Books Every Christian Should Have (Tim’s List)

To the Catholics, Protestants are no longer anathema (which is pretty bad), but are “separated brethren” (which is not so bad).

Attitudes are changing, we could argue, for the better. But have the issues changed?

Four hundred years ago we had a “situation” in the church. We call it the “Great Reformation.” Catholics understand it as yet another rebellious schism. The first major division in the Christian church happened in 1054 when the Eastern church got fed up with the Pope and thumbed its nose at him (or something like that). The Great Reformation was the second. For Protestants, this was not only a reforming of the church, but a reclaiming of the Gospel, which had been obscured and overshadowed by the institutionalized church of the day.

While there were and are a lot of issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestants, there are two which overshadow the rest: authority and justification. The issue of authority has been called the “formal” cause of the Reformation, while the issue of justification was the “material” cause. In this brief post I would like to focus on these two issues.

1. Authority: Where do we go for truth?

To the institutionalized church of the day (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), both Scripture (written tradition) and Tradition (unwritten tradition – notice the capital “T”) represented the one ”deposit of faith” that was handed down from the Apostles. The church, as represented by the Pope and the congregation of bishops, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, could interpret both infallibly. Think of a three-legged stool. These three entities (Scripture, Tradition, and the Church) support the stool of ultimate authority for the church.

To the Protestants, this represented an abuse of authority. While the institutionalized church had authority, it did not have ultimate authority. While tradition (notice the lower case “t”) was very important and to be respected, it did not share equal authority with Scripture; rather, it served Scripture. Everything, including unwritten tradition, the councils, and the Pope, had to be tested by and submit to Scripture. Protestants repositioned both the church and tradition underneath Scripture.

The battle cry of the Reformers here was sola Scriptura; the Scriptures alone were the final authority and the only infallible missive from God.

2. Justification: How is a person made right with God?

Here the issue was not necessarily the nature of justification, but the instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) of justification. The institutionalized church believed that justification was a process brought about by the individual’s cooperation with God through their faith and works. People were not justified, but were being justified, and they could never really know of their own eternal security. For most, the best that they could hope for was that they died and spent a certain amount of time (usually very extended) in a place called Purgatory, having their venial sins (the ones that are not so bad) purged through a painful process of cleansing. Then, once released from Purgatory, they would move on to heaven. As modern Roman Catholics would put it, “Purgatory is the time to wash before dinner.”

The Protestants believed this was a serious distortion of the Gospel message, likened to the Galatian error. This distortion, argued the Protestants, arose in the late middle ages with the rise of the sacramental system (you know, the necessity of Mass, confession, baptism, etc.). Protestants believed that justification was through the faith of the individual alone and that works did not contribute in any way. Otherwise, it was believed, grace is not really grace. To the Reformers, justification was an event, not a process. It was a “forensic” or a legal act in which the believing sinner was declared righteous, having Christ’s righteousness imputed to their account. There was nothing that man could do to add to or take away from their justification. Any attempts to work for one’s justification (including time spent in Purgatory) diminished the value of the cross; in essence, saying Christ’s  work was not enough. As well, Protestants, unlike Catholics, believed that we could have assurance of our ultimate salvation.

The battle cry of the Reformation was sola fide; justification is by faith alone, not by any works man can do.

Again, there were other issues that caused great strife during the Reformation (Mariology, relics, communion of the Saints, etc.), but they all paled in comparison to these two. While the tension and heat that immediately accompany any fight have since cooled, recent events have not changed the centrality of these two issues. Most Protestants and Catholics still believe that these are hills upon which we should die, even if neither side conclusively believes the other is going to hell.

We must keep in mind, however, how much the two sides do agree. When it comes to the person and work of Christ, conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with Eastern Orthodox) all believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man (fully God and fully man) who died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave as the atonement for sin. All believe that salvation is purely by the grace of God and that the faith of the individual is necessary. And, significantly, all believe that Christ is the only way to God.

Was the Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the concessions being made today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much. We can love each other and appreciate the common heritage we share. We can even learn much from one another. But there is still a serious divide and Protestants dare not compromise the Gospel by sweeping the Reformation under the rug. The Gospel is too important.Similar Posts:

• Reformation in a Nutshell
• The Rise of Rome in a Nutshell
• The Rise of the Roman Catholic Church in a Nutshell
• Are Roman Catholics Saved?
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?

Never again will you be able to get a T-Shirt, the much-needed Textual Criticism course, a book from Dr. Wallace and full digital access for such an amazing low price.

For the next hour you can still get involved by clicking here.

We are so excited for the Church to finally have a well-produced, thorough AND accessible study of Textual Criticism!

Learn more, watch videos, see all the great prizes and be a part of it all by clicking here in the next hour…before it’s too late.

Excited to team up with you to disciple the Bride of Christ,
Credo House Team

Similar Posts:

• Only 6 Hours Left to Kickstart Textual Criticism!
• Seven Reasons to Love Textual Criticism: #7 It’s the first step in all of Bible Study
• Help us Strengthen Christian Minds
• Just 24 Hours Left! – Credo Course – #1 Reason to Love Textual Criticism: The Enemies of the Gospel know Textual Criticism
• Seven Reasons to Love Textual Criticism: #6 This is a FULL Course on Textual Criticism!

For the next six hours you can still get involved by clicking here.

We are so excited for the Church to finally have a well-produced, thorough AND accessible study of Textual Criticism!

Learn more, watch videos, see all the great prizes and be a part of it all by clicking here in the next 6 hours…before it’s too late.

Excited to team up with you to disciple the Bride of Christ,
Credo House Team

Similar Posts:

• 1 Hour Left to Kickstart Textual Criticism!
• Seven Reasons to Love Textual Criticism: #7 It’s the first step in all of Bible Study
• Just 24 Hours Left! – Credo Course – #1 Reason to Love Textual Criticism: The Enemies of the Gospel know Textual Criticism
• Seven Reasons to Love Textual Criticism: #6 This is a FULL Course on Textual Criticism!
• Help us Strengthen Christian Minds

Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, JJ Seid and Sam Storms as they continue their series on Roman Catholicism by discussing Indulgences.

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 14 – Sacraments
• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 12 – Mariology (Part 2)
• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 11 – Mariology (Part 1)
• Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 9 – The Mass (Part 3)
• Theology Unplugged: Theology Unplugged: Roman Catholicism – Part 8 – The Mass (Part 2)

You see, Bart Ehrman knows about textual criticism. In fact, he is the only person in the history of the world to write a bestselling book about this subject. But his conclusions are irresponsible, imbalanced, and outright wrong. But, as I saw on the forum, most Christians have never studied the subject so it becomes a prime target for atheists to attack. After all, if there are so many errors, changes, and lies about the story of Jesus presented in the text, where do we turn to to get the Gospel?

The fact is that textual criticism is not a subject that the enemies of the Gospel should be able to use against Christianity. But if Christians are not informed about this subject, they will quickly get steamrolled as this is one of the primary ways that people use to attack the Bible. You should love textual criticism because you love the defense of the Gospel.

And this is the reason why we want you involved in this project. This project is about defending the Gospel against the very concerted attack of the enemy. Join with us at whatever level you can. Yes, we are funded for the minimal amount. But the more support we get, the more we will be able to produce this course at a high level and the best price you will be able to get the course.

With just 24 hours left, please help us kick-start Textual Criticism in a Big Way!

Keep the Faith. It is a cross to bear, but it is true.

Michael Patton
President, Credo House Ministries
www.credohouse.org

Similar Posts:

• 1 Hour Left to Kickstart Textual Criticism!
• Seven Reasons to Love Textual Criticism: #7 It’s the first step in all of Bible Study
• The Greer-Heard Forum: A Few Observations
• Seven Reasons to Love Textual Criticism: #6 This is a FULL Course on Textual Criticism!
• Only 6 Hours Left to Kickstart Textual Criticism!