The Art of Being You
By Bob Kilpatrick
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book; in fact, I couldn't put it down. In many ways, I believe it will revolutionize my approach to ministry; in fact, it serves as the inspiration for my current preaching series, “The Art of God”.
Kilpatrick does an amazing job explaining the difference between "math" and "art" when it comes to our perceptions concerning God. For example, most followers of Christ take a "math" approach to their spiritual life, breaking it down into a system of "do's and don'ts", with the Bible as their "rulebook". However, as we develop a more in depth understanding of God's grace, and how it operates in our lives, we realize that a mathematical approach can only go so far. To truly grow in our relationship with God through Jesus Christ, we need to understand Him in terms of "art". Through His creation, God has revealed Himself to us as a great artist. And through studying all that Christ has done for us, we realize that we are God's masterpiece, created to do good works in Him!
In this thought-provoking and engaging book, Kilpatrick beautifully explains what it means to live as God's masterpiece. I can't recommend this book enough, especially for artistically minded people.
We were both actually kind of surprised. Admittedly, Kirk Cameron isn't a great actor. But neither, I guess, is Nick Cage, and I like some of his movies.
Most of the characters were kind of shallow and undeveloped.
And even though Kirk played a firefighter, there weren't a lot of "fire action" sequences. I was kind of hoping for a little more "Backdraft" if you catch my drift.
So technically speaking, it wasn't really a great movie. But for some reason, I didn't think it sucked.
The message was really good. Unlike many Christian films, they actually very clearly presented the gospel, and it was definitely the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. No works righteousness at all. There is a difference between doing good works to earn something, and doing them out of gratitude for what Christ has done for you. And the movie, believe it or not, made that clear.
So I would not consider it a good movie. But I would consider it a good teaching resource, as long as you know what it is and what it isn't.
I can see how it helps failing Christian marriages, by reorienting people to the grace of the gospel. If you truly want to love others, you need to first truly understand the love of God. Again, this was beautifully illustrated.
So the message is very powerful. It is not a substitute for a good Bible study, but it can compliment one. It can be a great counseling resource as well. Just don't treat it like a great movie, or you will be misleading people.
Here is a recent radio interview with Baptist Pastor Wiley Drake, where he talks about praying for the death of President Obama.
http://www.incarnationauburn.org/incarnation_forum/index.php?topic=103.0
I must confess, it is a bit disturbing.
He claims that his basis for such prayers are the imprecatory psalms in the Bible.
The imprecatory Psalms are Psalms that call down curses against the Psalmist's enemies. They do exist in the Bible. Examples are found here:
* Psalm 55:15 - Let death take my enemies by surprise; let them go down alive to the grave.
* Psalm 58:6 - O God, break the teeth in their mouths.
* Psalm 69:28 - May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.
* Psalm 109:9 - May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.
* Psalm 137:9 - How blessed will be the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
There are multiple ways people have interpreted these Psalms throughout history. However, I would have to argue that Pastor Drake's interpretation, that we can use them to pray against our perceived enemies, are way off base. Especially if that "enemy" is the President. There are many reasons I could give, but here are just two.
1) We are called elsewhere in scripture to pray for our leaders, whether we agree with them or not. 1 Timothy 2: 1-4 says "2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." We need to interpret what is unclear in scripture in light of what is clear. Nuff said?
2) According to Jesus, all the scriptures point to Himself. So how would an imprecatory Psalm do this? Simple. They point to the future judgment day, when Jesus will judge the entire world for its deeds. But it is Jesus doing the judging here, not us. In Romans 12:19, Paul tells us "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” David could write imprecatory Psalms because he was speaking as a type and shadow of the Christ to come. He was not presenting these particular Psalms as a way that we can pray against our leaders.
With that in mind, please forgive Pastor Drake for his words that do damage to the cause of the Kingdom of God. His views do not represent the views of the majority of the church. And pray that he would see the error of his ways and the damage he is doing.
OK, so I know it is technically not a "new" movie, but in order to show my cultural diversity, I thought I'd post some musings on the Watchmen movie, which I absolutely loved.
First, I agree the movie was violent. It is not your typical comic book movie. And people who were unfamiliar with the comic book would be understandably disappointed, especially if they were expecting something more along the lines of a Batman, Spiderman, X-Men, Superman, etc. Most of the characters are extremely flawed, anti-heroes at best. The world they inhabit is a dark place. It is a "more fallen" version of our world. To paraphrase Dr. Manhattan, it is a world that is a watch without a Watchmaker. And I think the movie does a great job portraying what that kind of world would look like.
As far as the excessive violence goes, I'll admit there were a few parts that shocked me. My initial thoughts were that they were too excessive. I felt uneasy watching some of them. But as I thought about it afterward, they were no more violent than the first 40 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. And the violence of Watchmen was much less sporadic as well. And if the purpose of the violence was to show some of the truth of the horrors that can exist in our own fallen world, I think it served its purpose.
If we were to apply the litmus test of, say Philippians 4:8 to this movie, how would we respond?
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
Is it true? I think there is plenty of truth in the movie; especially in the flawed characters and how tormented they were because of how ineffective their individual worldviews were for dealing with the world. In that respect, I think it was a just portrayal as well.
Was it honorable or commendable? I think parts of it were. The existence of miracles was promoted. The futility of placing all one's trust in the government, or in any individual for that matter, was also clearly communicated. Granted, the gospel was not communicated, and a message that we need to place our trust in God was not explicit at all, but that doesn't mean there weren't hints here or there. There was a great line at the end, where Dr. Manhattan recognizes that he is not divine. For all his power, he says, "I can not change human nature." Beautiful. I got chills when he said that. No matter how much man evolves, how powerful he gets, he can't change human nature. That's Biblical!
Jeremiah 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
Anyway, I could go on and on about some of the metaphysical questions Dr. Manhattan raises. I do think that implicit in the movie is this question: Who will save us? Not the government, not ourselves, and not any of the Watchmen. Who then?
If the world is a watch, then perhaps the answer can only be some sort of Divine Watchmaker!
All of that being said, I recognize this is not a movie for everyone. Certainly not for young kids. It deserves its R rating. I think it is one of those Love it or Hate it movies. People will love it or hate it. Kind of like the book The Shack (though comparisons stop there).
Artistically, and stylistically, I thought it was a great film. I knew the characters would not get too deep. I knew there would be some graphic fight scenes. The use of music in conjunction with the cinematography was incredible. Some of the shot compositions were just perfect. The way visual elements were woven together was also great; much like the comic book had done.
So I definitely fall into the Love It category, though as I said, I can fully understand why other people would strongly disagree with me. But I can't help but think that one of the underlying messages of the movie can also be found in Psalm 127, verse 1.
"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."
Recently, my wife, who loves me dearly, got me a copy of the movie Fanboys.
Fanboys is the story of five friends with a common love, or should I say obsession, with all things Star Wars. Hmmmmm.....sounds familiar.
Yes, I am a Fanboy.
Anyway, in this amazing story, one of the friends has cancer and is going to die a few months before Episode I, The Phantom Menace, is released. So the rest of his friends decide to make a trek across the country to Northern California, where they plan to break in to George Lucas' Ranch, and steal an advanced copy of the movie, so their friend can watch it before he dies.
So far, so good. If that is all there was to the movie, it would be a winner.
What follows in an amazing adventure full of all kinds of crazy encounters. Many of these encounters are rated "R" encounters, so this is definitely not a movie for the kids. But they are quite funny.
The movie has some great underlying themes, including the importance of being who you were "called" to be, though it doesn't approach this from a Biblical perspective. The theme is there, regardless, and as the fanboy writing this review, I will include it. My prerogative!
There is plenty of conflict in the movie as well. Most of it focuses on the fanboys' encounters with Trekkies. I for one think there can be peace between these two types of extreme sci-fi, uh, can I say, nerds? I count myself among their numbers, so I can use that word, right? Anyway, particularly funny in these encounters are the Trekkies with the Spock ears. If you look extra close, you will notice that they are wearing their ears upside down. It's hilarious.
Anyway, I loved the movie. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. The dialogue amongst the fanboys is the same kind of dialogue I have had, time and time again, amongst my fellow fanboys.
Here is the trailer for those who want to know more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUjrG8gTmM0
The only thing I was left wondering, after the movie concluded, was why, since I have now lived in Northern California for four year, have I not had access (authorized or not) to the secret Lucas vault on his ranch?
It has recently been announced that the 4th Century Manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, will be scanned, translated, and made available online. This has in turn reinvigorated many critics of the Bible, who think that this will deal some some of blow to Christianity as we know it today. Why? Because, now the whole world can see how the Bible has been manipulated over the years, and how untrustworthy the thing Protestants call the Bible is.
Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest document in existence that contains a full version of the New Testament. (Scholars call this an "extant copy" of the New Testament.)
Here is an example of a recent article on the Codex (from CNN) that makes some pretty large implications:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html?iref=newssearch
Much of the article is accurate, but a few things are misleading.
For example, they say “And some familiar—very important—passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus”.
This does not mean the resurrection is not supported by Sinaiticus at all. Quite the contrary.
The one text that refers to the resurrection that CNN has in mind is Mark 16:9–20, a passage that scholars have questioned for over 125 years. This is nothing new. The same passage is not found in Codex Vaticanus, a manuscript known since 1475. And this missing text doesn't even refer to the resurrection; it is about a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples. The resurrection is very present in the rest of the Gospel of Mark (as seen in the codex).
CNN also says "Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, said it should be no surprise that the ancient text is not quite the same as the modern one, since the Bible has developed and changed over the years” This seems to imply that "modern" versions of the Bible are based on outdated manuscripts and don't take in to account recent discoveries. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most modern translations (for example the ESV) are based on the best scholarship with the earliest documents we have discovered. Codex Sinaiticus has actually helped get us closer to what the original documents must have said, and modern translations reflect that. In fact, close inspection and comparison has shown just how accurate most of the translations we have been using are to the originals! Sure, there are some minor differences, but nothing that affects any major doctrines. Most differences are the equivalent of using the word "a" versus "the".
There are some other issues people may bring up.
The order of books are different. So what. I don't think anyone has ever said the "order" of books in the New Testament was inspired. OK, maybe someone said it, but most people haven't.
It contains "other" New Testament books like "The Epistle of Barnabus" and "The Shepherd of Hermas". Again, so what. There is nothing in the Codex to suggest that EVERY book it contains was considered inspired or even authoritative. They were just books in use by that religious community. I have a copy of Star Wars Episode III in my bookshelf next to a Bible. I even make reference to it in my sermons. That doesn't mean I view both books the same way.
OK, so here's the deal. As a pastor, I get asked lots of difficult questions all the time. You'd be surprised. People take any occasion to play "Stump the Pastor." I don't mind. If I didn't want to answer life's difficult and challenging questions, I wouldn't have wanted to become a pastor. That being said, there is one question I find I am asked more than any other.
Why did Star Wars, Episodes 1, 2, and 3 suck so bad? ? ?
My answer often surprises people. I don't think they sucked. I thought they were great. But I do think there are some very good reasons why people don't like Episodes 1, 2, and 3.
For starters, there is a shift in the overall Star Wars focus. Who is the central character in episodes 4, 5, amd 6? Luke Skywalker (nice name, isn't it?). But with the addition of 1, 2, and 3, this changes. Who becomes the central character to all 6 movies? Anakin Skywalker. This changes everything, especially the way people who grew up on 4, 5, and 6 have to view those movies. Now the main theme to Star Wars becomes the creation, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. His son, Luke (wow, again, nice name...) becomes more of a secondary character that facilitates his father's redemption.
So that's one reason. The other reason is Biblical.
In Episode 1, we are introduced to young Anakin Skywalker, the little boy who would eventually become the wicked, twisted, Darth Vader. Now, most people who saw this movie had already seen 4-6, so knew where Anakin was headed. They knew who and what he would become; but seeing him as a cute, innocent little dirty blond kid was disturbing. How could anyone so sweet and innocent become evil and corrupt like Vader? Even Oprah Winfrey was disturbed by this presentation of young Anakin.
But you see, my friends, the reason we are disturbed by this portrayal of Anakin is because it is true to life. By that, I mean that no one is really as innocent as they may appear to be...not even young kids. Think about it; what parent has to teach his child how to be disobedient? None. Why? Because what King David says in Psalm 51:5 is true: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We are sinners from the moment we are conceived; that means we all have the potential to become Darth Vaders, just like little Anakin. The Star Wars prequels remind us of that fact, and it isn't an easy pill to swallow.
So forget about Jar Jar Binks, or poor casting, or too much computer generated imagery. Those are not the reasons why people don't like Episodes 1, 2, and 3. The real reason is because, deep down, the critics don't like being reminded that they too have been seduced by the Dark Side. Why? Because, like King David and the rest of humanity, they too were sinners from the moment they were conceived.
So the next time you hear anyone being critical of any of the Star Wars movies, remember that "there but for the grace of God go I..."
