Biblical Movie Review: 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'

Last night with the wife out of town and my son asleep at his Grammy's house I was able to sneak out and see Exodus: Gods and Kings with a friend of mine. When it comes to biblical movies I'm not usually one to rush and see them. I actually have never seen Noah. After I read reviews I just decided not to see it.  I didn't go and see Son of God because again I heard mixed reviews. So, this time I decided I would go and see it before I could even read any reviews! I figure this would give me an opportunity to come to my own conclusion about the movie.

I think it is a given at this point that Hollywood is going to take artistic liberties with the narrative of the Bible. in Exodus this continues. The movie basically follows the outline of the biblical story while taking artistic liberties and also filling in gaps, adding and taking away certain characters and events. However, the movie basically sticks to the outline of the story pretty well.

Therefore, I want to take this review to examine the way that God is depicted in the movie, as this is what I think is of most importance, and what most Christians will be questioning the most after leaving the movie.

In the movie God is depicted as a young boy. In the old movie 10 Commandments God was depicted as a distant voice. What is interesting about the biblical exodus account is that it is the angel of the Lord that meets Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2). The figure is not clearly identified but many scholars throughout church history, including nearly all of the early church fathers, have identified the angel of the Lord with the preincarnate Christ, Son of God. Others just considered the angel of the Lord as a theophany, an appearance of God in human form. Therefore, it seems warranted to actually depict God in human form. However, the choice of a young boy is questionable, and Exodus 33:23 says that Moses saw his back, but not his face.

What is more concerning is the temper of this young boy. There are far too many misunderstanding about the God in the Old Testament, and my hope is that this movie doesn't continue that misunderstanding. It is true that God is one of justice and wrath, but not one with a temper! Theologians have traditionally affirmed the impassibility of God, which means that he is "not subject to passions/emotions." This does not mean that God has no emotions, but that God is not subject to them. They don't control him, make him impulsive, or cause him to act irrationally. In other words, God doesn't throw temper tantrums. This is important since the depiction of God in Exodus does seem to have a bit of a temper and seems to be acting out of these passions.

Also, the way that the Old Testament depicts God is one of compassion. The traditional notion that the God of the Old Testament is one of anger and the God of the New Testament is one of love is just plain wrong. In fact, one of the clearest explanations of God in Exodus 34:6 says that the Lord is "a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness." 

This doesn't seem to be the depiction in the movie. Instead, God is spiteful towards the pharaohs and gives this reason for the plagues: "These pharaohs, who imagine they are living gods, are nothing more than flesh and blood! I want to see them on their knees begging for it to stop!" This is not the reason the Bible gives for the plagues. In Exodus 9:16 the purpose is given: "for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth". 

The reason for the plagues in the Bible is not about the pharaohs, and its not about God seeking revenge on them. Instead, it's about God displaying his glory and greatness. In fact, many of the plagues resemble powers of the Egyptian pantheon, ultimately showing that God is more powerful than the gods of Egypt.

There are some other issues in the movie that could be addressed. For example, Moses is depicted as fairly defiant towards God, and he is essentially depicted as a humanist Atheist before encountering God. This is possible, but might take some off guard.

Also, the movie gives some naturalistic explanations for some of the miracles, and a possible naturalist explanation for Moses' communication with God. The most obvious of these is the parting of the Red Sea, which has more to do with an approaching storm that creates a Tsunami, pulling the water back and creating a wave that destroys the Egyptians, rather than Moses performing a miracle. In fact, the movie doesn't depict Moses as doing anything supernatural, like the Bible does. The first time Moses sees God it is after he bangs his head on a rock, and later when Moses is talking to God a witness sees Moses talking to no one. This could cause some to think that the movie has naturalistic presuppositions.

Ultimately, Exodus: Gods and Kings is cinematically creative (the plagues are pretty interesting in 3D!), yet at times it is concerning in the way God is depicted and the narrative unfolds. My hope is that this movie will encourage people to investigate God's Word for themselves, and ultimately then people will hear about the loving, covenant-making and covenant-keeping God of the Old Testament that ultimately fulfills all of his promises in Christ.

Book Review: Andrew Farley's "Relaxing with God"

It's the beautiful time of year for me where I have a break in between classes. I recently completed an M.A. in Biblical Studies but have decided to pursue a Grad Certificate in Teaching, and possibly a D.Min in Christian Education after that... So, during my off times I really enjoy getting to read some books out of my own will, rather than what's required for a class (although those reads are often really good)

I have many on my list, but the first book I chose to read this winter was Andrew Farley's Relaxing With God. I heard good things about it from some podcasts and blogs I read so I gave it a shot. 

When I first started to read the book, my first thought was "Yes! A book on relaxing in the gospel!" And, interviews that I had heard with Farley were very encouraging. Yet, although there is definitely some aspects of the book that involve relaxing in the gospel, I was surprised to find that the book was much more a book about the particulars of Farley's unique theology that are in a lot of ways at odds with the majority of Christianity. The book in a lot of ways came off to me as neglecting biblical tension and over emphasizing certain aspects of the gospel (in many good ways) while neglecting other important parts of the Christian faith. The sad part is that Farley seems to indicate that his unique theology is the only way to "relax with God". Let me offer some examples... 

In one chapter Farley says that we can relax with God because "we are dead to law based religion". He goes on to argue that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, including the moral laws of the Old Testament. Although there are many Lutheran and Reformed Baptist scholars that would agree in a way, Farley offers some pretty harsh claims against people that believe in the distinction between the moral, ceremonial, and civil law. I see his points, and I think there are valid arguments to the fact that the Christian is no longer under the Mosaic Law, but this is a pretty limited view to suggest that it's the only way to rest in the gospel.

There is also a chapter on being totally forgiven that is good, but has some troubling nuances. Now, first off, I want to say that there is a lot of great stuff from Farley on this. Farley concludes that our job is not to "try to get forgiven" daily but instead to rest in forgiveness and give gratitude to God for it. Ultimately this is good stuff. But, again, I think Farley goes to far and neglects biblical tension. Farley concludes that we don't need to ask God continually for forgiveness... Now, I see some merit in this view, but Farley goes on to conclude that Jesus words in the Lord's Prayer to ask God to "Forgive us our debts" is pre-cross and Old Covenant so doesn't apply to us New Covenant Christians. This is a scary. How far do we take this? If we take this to it's logical conclusion than Jesus Sermon on The Mount, etc. is not applicable to the Christian (which Farley basically argues in chapter 15). This is a very radical hermeneutical presupposition that I would consider dangerous. Jesus words are the foundation for Christians life, not some afterthought before the cross. (For an understanding of the Sermon that is both grace centered and theologically sound listen to THIS)

In another chapter Farley argues for a one nature theology in the Christian. This, again, is a very limited theology. I definitely see the merit in the idea that our old self has died, but the idea that we no longer possess a sinful nature is very limited, and there is clearly a way to rest in God while maintaining a belief in the fact that we still possess, as Christians, a sin nature. Farley wants to stress here the good news that we are a new creation in Christ and we are saints, not sinners. This is great! But, again, Farley, to support this, over emphasizes a very unique set of theological presuppositions to "relax with God". 

In another chapter Farley goes on to argue that if one believes that God individually elects Christians to salvation that it is "tough to relax with God." But again, this is a unique position by Farley that he finds comfort in. I on the other hand, and many others, am extremely relaxed in the fact that I am chosen by God based on grace alone and nothing that I have done. So, again, Farley seems to indicate in his book that only his unique theological positions lead to relaxing with God. 

This is not to say that everything Farley says is off... I do believe that a lot of his views are very encouraging and gospel centered. However, in this book, and based on other reviews I have read about Farley's other books, Farley seems to limit the gospel to some pretty unique and rare theological view points that he continues to bring up in all of his books. 

Although there is much in this book to bring encouragement, I would have trouble recommending this book, and Farley's other books, because of some theological and hermeneutical views that are not only uniquely limited, but at times troubling. 

I think there are much better ways to deal with these issues, give the same encouragements to rest in the gospel, while remaining more theologically and hermeneutically balanced and sound. 

Is Smoking Marijuana Biblically Permissible? A Response to "Marijuana: A Theology"

Recently, some friends and bloggers that I follow on Twitter posted about a recent article written in the Huffington Post. The title of the article was "Marijuana: A Theology" which immediately caught my attention. After reading the article I was compelled to respond. I found it necessary that I personally respond for three reasons.

First, I am a Theology teacher and have years of graduate work in Theology. So,  when people use the term "Theology" it indeed catches my eye, and I feel like I have the theological knowledge to give reasoned response. 

Secondly, before I was following Christ I saw and experienced first hand the damaging effects of recreational marijuana. 

Thirdly, I work with students, and sadly students are often the ones that are confronted with the peer pressure to try/use this drug. 

The article in the Huffington Post was written by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a professor of Theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. 

In the article Thislwthwaite first argues positively for the legalization of marijuana and calls for continued decriminalization for drugs. Personally, I will not respond to this. I don't consider my self an expert on government policy or law and therefore will pass over this. The part that follows is what I find particularly concerning.

Thistlethwaite, after her political thesis, continues into the realm she calls "theology of the body" concluding that marijuana use is fine and healthy (even Spiritual!) in moderation. 

For these arguments, Thistlethwaite states that Jesus and his disciples drank wine in moderation and that wine has been used in moderation by the church for centuries. On this point I do not disagree. Although I do not personally drink alcohol, I do believe that alcohol can be biblically used in moderation, and can actually be healthy even according to the bible (1 Timothy 5:23, Psalm 104:15). Also, Scientific studies have shown that alcohol, particularly red wine, can be healthy in moderation (1). 

However, where Thistlethwaite particularly fails is when she compares this to marijuana use. She states that marijuana might not be good for the body, but it's not necessarily bad either. However I have to strongly disagree for several reasons.

First, marijuana is not like "having a drink" at all, and it does not honor the body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). marijuana, particular the active ingredient THC, is known to have harmful effects on both the body and the brain. The list is huge and cannot be compared to alcohol. Everything from lung disease, cancer, brain impairment, impaired memory, impaired cognitive function, mental illness including psychotic episodes and neurosis episodes, a-motivational behavior, addiction, impaired immune system, and increased heart disease (2). Therefore, recreational marijuana use is clearly in disobedience to the command to "honor The Lord with your body", contrary to the claims of Thislwthwaite. Of course, with medicinal drugs, there is always a benefit/risk ratio that should be examined. With recreational marijuana use, however, there is no benefit, long term or short. marijuana has been tested as a use for nausea and other ailments; in that case, the benefit/risk ratio should be assessed, and in that case medicinal marijuana use could be biblically permissible. But, this is not what Thistlethwaite is talking about. She is talking about marijuana use for recreational or spiritual purposes.

Secondly, Scriptures condemns alcohol use to the point of intoxication (Ephesians 5:18, Galatians 5:21, Proverbs 20:1, Proverbs 31:6-7), and marijuana is just as strong, if not stronger, than intoxication. One can have a drink (or two) and still be perfectly in their right mind. marijuana, on the other hand, does not have this progressive effect; a small amount of marijuana can produce effects equal to and more powerful than being intoxicated. Also, studies have shown from police reports that's there has been at least a 15% increase in the amount of THC in recreational marijuana from an average of 4mg THC in the 80's to 15mg today and climbing (3). Therefore, marijuana cannot be used in moderation as Thistlethwaite claims. It is far too strong of a drug, and any use of marijuana violates the command to "be filled with the spirit" and "be sober minded" (1 Peter  5:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8). 

Thirdly, Thistlethwaite argues that marijuana is not the gateway drug people think it is. But, studies are mixed on this. Just from a small search there are at least two large scale studies done in the last couples of years that clearly affirm the link between marijuana and other drugs and affirm that it is indeed a gateway drug. So, this claim cannot just be written off. Even the website that Thislethwaite quotes claims that it might not be a gateway drug, not that it is not a gateway drug.  Therefore the use of marijuana is not wise, as it could lead to more sin, addiction, and worse drug use (4) (5) (6). This is especially prevalent for those that have addiction in their family (7). 

Lastly, Thistlethwaite argues that marijuana can be used religiously because other religions have used/use marijuana. But let's be clear, religions that have used marijuana, say, Hinduism (her example) is a monistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, religion that does not follow the God of Christianity. The bible condemns regularly the use of pagan worship forms, like drug use (Deuteronomy 18:9-12, Galatians 5:20). Sadly, however, Thistlethwaite compares marijuana use in false religions to wine use by the Jews to say that it is okay for a Christian to use marijuana for recreational or religious purposes. But, again, Thistlethwaite is drawing a false comparison. The Jews and early Christians never used wine in the Passover or in the Eucharist for the purpose of spiritual mind alteration, but instead as a symbol. Hindus and other pantheistic religions like those found in Native America, on the other hand, clearly used/use narcotics, opiates, and stimulates in order to alter the mind for religious purposes. This is very different then the way Christians have used wine. 

Therefore, in conclusion, "Marijuana: A Theology" as far from a biblical view on marijuana. Sadly, because of recent legalization, the use of this harmful drug amongst Christians might increase, so it is now more important than ever that pastors and teachers make their flock aware of the bible's view on the use of marijuana and the overall danger of the use of this recreational drug.  


Footnotes
[1] http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you. Particular studies like this show that the biblical view of alcohol is coherent with scientific studies. Most studies suggest that wine use in moderation is beneficial, yet excessive wine use, or using wine to get drunk is not beneficial.  However, this same thing is not shown to be true with the recreational use of marijuana, which has no known benefits for the average person. 

[2] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana. Just a small review of this website will show the damaging effects long and short term from marijuana use. 

[3]http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/potency.htm

[4]http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Stages_of_Progression_in_Drug_Involvement_from_Adolescence_to_Adulthood_Fu/1830.html,

[5] http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09595230500126698.

[6] There are some studies that indicate there might not be a gateway effect. But for just as many studies that say there might not be an effect, there are just as many that indicate that there probably is. So, the issue isn't as simple as Thistlethwaite makes it out to be. It has not be concluded that "marijuana seems not to be the feared gateway drug to becoming an addict" as stated in her article.

[7] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460398000380

I Live For The Applause: How Lady Gaga Got It Right.... Kind of...

You have probabbly heard of Lady Gaga's  recent hit song "Applause". In this song, Gaga relishes over how her life centers around the applause of men, repeated in the chorus of the song, "I live for the applause"

This makes sense doesn't it? The vast majority of us do it. I do it. How often do we let our hearts, our joy, our peace, be effected by the applause of others? 

We make money and we purchase, to be applauded by others.

We work hard, to be applauded by others. 

We achieve, to be applauded by others.

We perform, to be applauded by others. 

We post of our achievements, our performance, and our work on social media to be seen, to be applauded by others. 

How amazed would we be to know how much of our daily lives are influenced by the applause of others. 

Sadly though, this system fails. 

The applause will stop. It always stops. 

One who is famous one day, is old news the next. One day we are on a pedestal, the next we are cast down to nothing. 

If your not aware, Lady Gaga's album flopped according to the critics. The album with the lead hit single chorus "I live for the applause" didn't get any applause, but was bashed by the critics. 

And this happens to us all. The applause of men is not consistent, and we have all felt the crushing blow of being let down by the opinions of others. 

Only the Christian has an answer to this basic problem we all experience.

First, we as Christians base our life not on getting our own applause, but on getting applause for God... or to use biblical language, we bring glory to God... That is our purpose in life. This purpose protects us from living a life based on the shifting opinions of men, but causes us to lean on the purpose of God that will never be thwarted. God will be glorified in the end, and every knee will bow and applaud before Him. (Romans 14:11, 1 Corinthians 10:31)

Secondly, we Christians find our security and our identity in the applause God has for us. We do not live for the applause of men, but the applause of God. And the good news is, if we are in Christ, then we have His righteousness... His perfection... His applause from God. God looks at us everyday in Him, and sees Jesus works and applauds His efforts in us. We get applause, and we will get applause... God will glorify us in the end, and it's a promise (Romans 8:30, Matthew 13:43).

So, I guess it is safe to say... "I live for the applause". But I will settle for nothing less than the "eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Cor 4:17). The real applause... The applause for God and the applause that comes from God. That's the only applause that matters. 

Can an Atheist have a Moral Standard?

Recently New Atheist religious leader Richard Dawkins has more to say about the bible he hates.

As I have said in my classes, what sets apart New Atheism from Atheism in general, is the militant desire to proselytize and condemn any other belief as if New Atheist thinkers are the only logical people. Sadly, this is not so, and Dawkins shows this again in his recent words.

Prof Dawkins, writing in the Observer, recently accepts the controversial idea that there should be a bible in every school, but for different reasons than one might expect: "It is not a moral book and young people need to learn that important fact because they are very frequently told the opposite".

Dawkins goes on and says, "People who do not know the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality."

He adds, "I have even heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that, without the Bible as a moral compass, people would have no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem... The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself..."

Without commenting specifically on what Dawkins is criticizing, I have to first ask this simple question in response to Dawkins: What is your standard of morality? What is the morality your appealing to? If the world is just a cosmic ball of chance that has formed together by random genetic mutations and natural selection, how in the world did morals enter the scene? What makes something, or the bible in your view, 'immoral'?

The only logical conclusion of Atheism is moral relativism; If there is no God, morals can only be relative to people & cultures, and if morals can only be relative then it is improper to judge one moral better than another.

If this is the case, again, we see a huge contradiction in Atheistic thought. If the bible is really immoral, as Dawkins claims, he has absolutely no authority or standard by which he can say it is immoral, unless he appeals to a concrete Standard, or Moral Law. And, if there is an Absolute Moral Law, there must be an Absolute Lawgiver.. a Creator... So, for now, he, and his followers, are stuck in a bundle of contradictions claiming a moral standard, without any basis for it's existence. Will they ever recognize God and his Law of liberty & love? Only by His grace...

The Pain Of The Cross: Why is Good Friday good?

When we talk about the pain of the cross, most people think of the physical pain of the crucifixion.

I have heard many give detailed sermons on Good Friday about the physical pain of Jesus' death.

But why is that good? And, If Jesus was so anxious the night before His death that He was sweating blood, why have others who were crucified not go through similar pain in expectation?

For example, even Peter was crucified and gladly went to the cross considering it joy. If that is the case than why did Jesus look with so much horror to the cross?

Jesus said in the garden of gethsemane, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me" (Luke 22:42).

But what is the "cup"? Is it just the suffering of the physical crucifixion?

The Hebrew Word for cup, kôs, in the OT was used for many different reasons, but in terms of figurative language, as Jesus is clearly using it here, the word primarily refers to the cup as the cup of suffering (Lam. 4:21), but even more specifically to the "cup of God's wrath" (Isa. 51:17), and to the cup of the Lord's fury (Jer. 25:15).

Therefore, when Jesus was looking in suffering expectation, It was to the "cup of God's wrath".

Jesus took the wrath of God and was treated as if He was personally responsible for the sins of all men.

And, after being in a perfect, joyous fellowship with God for all eternity, Jesus was forsaken, willingly taking the wrath of God.

As St. Chrysostom said, "By the cross we know the gravity of sin and the greatness of God's love toward us."

Sin demanded a just punishment; it's a grave crime against God Himself! But, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 ESV).

On Good Friday, the wrath of God was propitiated, so we could have "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). Good news! But there is more good news to come! Sunday is coming!

Doctrine and Education Still Matter: Is Christianity a doctrine or a way of life?

To begin my Christmas break I read the book "Christianity and liberalism" by Gresham Machen. The book is a classic originally published in 1923 and is only 99 cents on Kindle. This book essentially was written to combat the rampant theological liberalism that was entering the church in Machen's time. The liberalism of his time taught that doctrine was not important, and all that mattered was a life that followed the example of Jesus. Therefore, the atonement, the doctrine of sin, and all other central doctrines of Christianity were thrown out the window to teach a Christianity that revolved around Jesus being a prime exemplar and nothing more. Does this sound familiar? I think so. In fact a hear this very often in the present day emergent church. To them doctrine no longer matters, the atonement does not need to be articulated, and education in the christian doctrines is pointless because to them it is all about the presence of Jesus in our lives and following his example. Sadly, this is a half-truth, and the situation Machen present in 1946 is still alive and well, just with some different names and faces. Today many in the evangelical church are teaching that Christianity is a way of life, not a message, a social gospel, not a gospel. So, according to Machen, what is Chrisitianity? Is it a doctrine or a way of life? Machen responds with a great balancing and paradoxical answer to say that Christianity is BOTH a way of life AND a message/doctrine. Here are some great quotes from the book to this point:

"But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine."

"'Christ died for our sins" --that is doctrine. Without this... There is no Christianity."

"Certainly we shall remain forever in the gloom if we attend merely to the charter of Jesus and neglect the thing that he has done, if we try to attend to the Person and neglect the message." 

"Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life."

"Jesus (for the liberal theologian) is only an example for faith, not the object of faith"


"The example of Jesus is a perfect example only if He was justified in what He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, but salvation; He presented Himself as the object of men's faith."


"Faith is essentially dogmatic"

To this great problem that existed, and still exists today in the emergent church Machen gives one remedy: biblical education.

"There must be a renewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance... An outstanding fact of recent church history is the appalling growth of ignorance in the church. The development is due partly to the general decline of education...The schools of the present day are being ruined by the absurd notion that education should follow the line of least resistance...And this is in danger of being made permanent through the sinister extension of state control. But something more is needed...  Ignorance in the church  is the inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity... This must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian education in the family, but also by the use of whatever other education agencies the Church can find. Christian education is the cheif business of the hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is..."

Doctrine and education still matter in the church. Although Christianity is a way of life; it is about the presence of Christ; it is about Christ's example; and it is about building relationships; it is ALSO about doctrine, education in the truth, and the ultimate message of the gospel rooted in the person and work of Jesus Christ. We cannot forget that. Machen does a good job of reminded us of this, and this issue still applies today.