past wisdom applies to blogging today

Dear Sir,
As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the outcome of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but also over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of armor; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive that it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier—the Word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For methods sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.


1. As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

If you account him as a BELIEVER, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly! The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others—from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven—he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now! Anticipate that period in your thoughts, and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.

But if you look upon him as an UNCONVERTED person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger! Alas! "He knows not what he does!" But you know who has made you to differ from him. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel! You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes—and not his!

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles, to the exercise of gentleness and compassion. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts—then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy! But if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is not to argue, but in meekness to "gently teach those who oppose the truth—if perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth."

If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions which may exasperate their passions, or confirm them in their false principles, (humanly speaking).


2. By PRINTING your article, you will appeal to the PUBLIC—where your readers may be ranged under three divisions:

First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly—there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to true religion, who have no settled system of their own, and yet are biased in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion they naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer's spirit. They know that meekness, humility and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper. And though they treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no beneficial influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such attitudes and dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments.

The Scriptural maxim that "man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires," is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn—we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit! The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual. They are arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not—we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth's sake. If we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification, if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen; otherwise you may do them harm.

There is a principle of SELF, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a fitting zeal in the cause of God.

I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart! But I would be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind! I think I have known some Arminians, that is, people who for lack of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord—yet are of a prideful, harsh and bitter spirit. Whatever it is that makes us trust in ourselves, that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party—is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit!

Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines—as well as upon works! A man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace!

Yes, I would add—the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such caricatures as hold up our adversaries to ridicule—and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge—rather than to repress this sinful disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince—and puff up those whom they should edify!

I hope your article will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.


3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides—and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented.

And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance; or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit; or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those spiritual truths which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith—and spend their time and strength upon matters that are at most but of a secondary value! This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is also dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary—if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made?

Your aim, I doubt not, is good, but you have need to watch and pray—for you will find Satan at your right hand to entice you. He will try to pollute your piety; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you—it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct your communion with God! Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated—this will give you an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who "when reviled—He did not revile in return; when suffering—He did not threaten, but committed Himself to the One who judges justly." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, and "not paying back evil for evil or insult for insult—but, on the contrary, giving a blessing, since you were called for this."

The wisdom that is from above, is not only pure, but also peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the jar of ointment, will spoil the fragrance and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit—we shall bring little glory to God; do little good to our fellow creatures; and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves! If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side—you have an easy task!

But I hope you have a far nobler aim; and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands! Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit!

Science fiction: a Biblical view

*****click on squirrel image for special effect*****

i came across this article recently and all i can say concerning this is to answer from the Bible:

Corinthians 8:6-12 (The Message)
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson
4-6Some people say, quite rightly, that idols have no actual existence, that there's nothing to them, that there is no God other than our one God, that no matter how many of these so-called gods are named and worshiped they still don't add up to anything but a tall story. They say—again, quite rightly—that there is only one God the Father, that everything comes from him, and that he wants us to live for him. Also, they say that there is only one Master—Jesus the Messiah—and that everything is for his sake, including us. Yes. It's true.
7In strict logic, then, nothing happened to the meat when it was offered up to an idol. It's just like any other meat. I know that, and you know that. But knowing isn't everything. If it becomes everything, some people end up as know-it-alls who treat others as know-nothings. Real knowledge isn't that insensitive.
We need to be sensitive to the fact that we're not all at the same level of understanding in this. Some of you have spent your entire lives eating "idol meat," and are sure that there's something bad in the meat that then becomes something bad inside of you. An imagination and conscience shaped under those conditions isn't going to change overnight.
8-9But fortunately God doesn't grade us on our diet. We're neither commended when we clean our plate nor reprimanded when we just can't stomach it. But God does care when you use your freedom carelessly in a way that leads a fellow believer still vulnerable to those old associations to be thrown off track.
10For instance, say you flaunt your freedom by going to a banquet thrown in honor of idols, where the main course is meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't there great danger if someone still struggling over this issue, someone who looks up to you as knowledgeable and mature, sees you go into that banquet? The danger is that he will become terribly confused—maybe even to the point of getting mixed up himself in what his conscience tells him is wrong.
11-13Christ gave up his life for that person. Wouldn't you at least be willing to give up going to dinner for him—because, as you say, it doesn't really make any difference? But it does make a difference if you hurt your friend terribly, risking his eternal ruin! When you hurt your friend, you hurt Christ. A free meal here and there isn't worth it at the cost of even one of these "weak ones." So, never go to these idol-tainted meals if there's any chance it will trip up one of your brothers or sisters.

Science fiction: a Biblical perspective
TJ Archive > Volume 15 Issue 2 > Science fiction: a Biblical perspective
First published:TJ 15(2):81–88August 2001
Browse this issue
by David J. Laughlin
Interest in science fiction has grown dramatically in recent decades. While science fiction has predicted many beneficial technologies, the genre is permeated with unrealism, humanism, occultism, New Age philosophy and Eastern mysticism. Furthermore, science fiction is firmly rooted in Darwinism and presents a distorted view of reality.
Science fiction is more popular than ever. Of the ten all-time top-grossing movies as of 1998, six are of the science fiction genre.1 This does not include the recently released Star Wars: The Phantom Menace which broke the record for the fastest box-office gross, earning $300 million in just four weeks.2 The original Star Wars trilogy, even before the special editions were made, grossed $1.3 billion worldwide at the box office,3 and over $4.5 billion in merchandise sales.4 The impact of the Star Trek phenomenon is also impressive. The original television show inspired three spin-offs [Ed. note: Enterprise had not aired when this article was written], including Star Trek: The Next Generation which aired for seven seasons and became the highest-rated syndicated show in the history of television.5 And the number of science fiction book titles has increased from less than 1,000 in the early 1970s to 2,000 in the mid-1990s. One third of these are hardbacks.6 Renowned director Steven Spielberg remarks: ‘Sci-fi has supplanted the Western as the most popular genre of the 20th century.’7
Defining science fiction is not as easy as recognizing its popularity. Although the genre’s origin goes further back, the term ‘science fiction’ was coined in the late 1920s and usually involves fantasy situations (time travel, outer space exploration with alien encounters, etc.) sustained by an atmosphere of scientific credibility.
Predicting useful technologies
Probably the greatest appeal of science fiction is the technological wonders that it presupposes. Predicting beneficial technologies is certainly a positive aspect of the genre, as it has inspired scientific research which has brought many dreams into reality. Inventor and science fiction pioneer Hugo Gemsback (1884–1967), ‘passionately believed to the end in “true prophetic science fiction” and that it should “forecast the wonders of man’s progress to come”.’8 In his first novel, written in 1911, Gemsback prophesied many technologies which have since come true: solar energy, plastics, tape recorders, liquid fertilizers, microfilm and television to name a few. Appropriate, therefore, is the motto for his Wonder Stories: The Magazine of Prophetic Fiction. Other existing technologies predicted by science fiction writers of the past include submarines, airplanes, satellites, spaceships and nuclear energy. The application of scientific knowledge to produce practical technologies and to develop the Earth’s resources for mankind’s benefit is, of course, in line with Genesis 1:28.9
Unrealism
Regrettably, however, too much of science fiction depicts phenomena or technologies that could never exist. Franz Rottensteiner acknowledges that ‘the “science” of science fiction is often indistinguishable from magic É’.10 For example, animals becoming half-human (or vice versa), contradicts everything scientists know about the limits of genetic variation. The creation of mass/energy from nothing, or its annihilation (e.g. by a mere laser blast), violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, one of the best proven laws of science. And the notion that dead matter can transform itself into a living organism (spontaneous generation) has never been observed and flatly contradicts the Laws of Biogenesis (that life always comes from life).
Because of this unscientific element, the setting for a story is usually far from mainstream society, where verification of imagined phenomena is either difficult or impossible. Kyle notes that many writers ‘locate their stories in far-away locales conveniently removed from reality, where no-one can disprove or discredit what they imagine there’.11
Much of early (19th century) science fiction takes place in what was, at that time, relatively unexplored regions of the Earth—the poles, under the sea, inside the Earth, etc. However, when these regions became more familiar to science, settings for science fiction were often relocated from the Earth to other celestial bodies—especially the Earth’s moon and Mars. But science eventually revealed the truth about these worlds. The manned missions to the Moon, as well as the unmanned probes to the planets of our Solar System, showed that life does not or could not exist on these bodies, forcing the locales to be changed again—this time to other star systems. How many science fiction stories are there that portray life on the Moon which were written after the Apollo program? Or the number of tales which depict intelligent civilizations on Mars that were written after the Viking probes beamed their results back to Earth? Writer Hal Clement understands the problem:
‘The fact is, I like to lay the scenarios of my stories on non-Earthly planets of my own devising. We know too much about the planets of our own solar system to let me use them very freely for this purpose, so I have to set up elsewhere. This forces me to assume faster-than-light travel for many of the stories.’12
Clement introduces here one of science fiction’s most common violations in the laws of physics—exceeding the speed of light. This is the ‘granddaddy of them all’ according to novelist Norman Spinrad.13 Spaceships hop from one star system to another in what appears to be a matter of hours or days. This violation, as far-fetched as it is, is nevertheless necessary for intergalactic exploration, because if a spacecraft were limited to travelling at light speed (as fast as that is) it would take tens of thousands of years just to exit our Milky Way, let alone journey to a neighbouring galaxy. Spinrad complains that this light velocity limitation is
‘a pain in the neck to science fiction writers. The literary necessity for faster-than-light travel is all too obvious. Without it, we could have no stories of galactic empires, not much anthropological science fiction, few pictures of alien cultures or outré planets, a dearth of first-contact stories—in short, science fiction writers would be pretty much confined to our own solar system É . Thus hyperspace. Or overdrive. Or whatever it takes to get our literary spaceships from star to star in literarily usable time.’14
Using an unreality to justify (or ‘as a basis for’) other fanciful notions is misleading, especially when it is done in the guise of science. Whether it is intergalactic travel, or creating half-human monsters in a laboratory, the uninformed can be led to believe that the realization of such ideas is just a matter of a future technological breakthrough. When concepts are built from unrealities, the end result is an elaborate system of fabrication that is as sturdy as a house built on sand (Matthew 7:26–27). What value can such a system offer the real world? How edifying can a scheme of impossibilities be, however impressive or clever its presentation? In a Wonder Stories editorial, Gemsback writes:
‘Many modern science fiction authors É do not hesitate to throw scientific plausibility overboard and embark upon a policy of what I might call scientific magic, in other words, science that is neither plausible, nor possible. Indeed, it overlaps the fairytale and often goes the fairytale one better.
É I have gone to this length to preach a sermon in the hope that misguided authors will see the light and hereafter stick to science as it is known, or as it may reasonably develop in the future.’15
Paul, as he draws his letter to the Philippians to a close, exhorts: ‘Finally, brethren, whatever is true É let your minds dwell on these things’ (Philippians 4:8, NASB).
Not only are the laws of physics broken, but in science fiction movies, television shows and paintings, outer space is usually portrayed in an unrealistically attractive manner. The landscapes of celestial bodies, for example, almost always have a more romantic or inviting appearance than knowledge of our own solar system will warrant. Often shown are mountains with pointed peaks that tower majestically behind a foreground of mysterious craters, crevices and caves. This is the way the Earth’s moon was conceived until the space program replaced such imaginative ideas with reality. Apollo 16 moonwalker Charlie Duke recalls: ‘None of the surface looked like the terrain depicted in science fiction movies of jagged peaks or precipitous cliffs. Instead the hills and mountains were all smooth and rolled gently toward the horizon.’16
Also unrealistic are stars which can be seen in settings that normally would wash out their appearance—for example, in a black sky as viewed from a brightly lit lunar surface, or surrounding a planet or moon as it is observed close-up from space. Admittedly, a star-filled sky is more appealing than an empty one. But in reality, the bright albedo of a celestial object prevents surrounding stars from being seen, as astronauts17 and photos of our solar system testify.
Even sound effects in television shows and movies can be misleading. For example, outer space is a vacuum in which sound does not travel. Yet we hear explosions in space, starships thundering over our heads and small spacecraft as they whiz past, complete with the Doppler shift in sound.
Furthermore, science fiction has a tendency to depict outer space as an easily habitable environment. Practically every planet visited can sustain human life. However, there is little solid evidence that planets exist at all outside our solar system, let alone possess the right conditions for life to exist. Mars is the most Earth-like planet we know of, yet it is a deadly environment—over 95% of its atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide with very little ozone to shield the Sun’s ultraviolet light, and its temperatures can be as low as -87¡C and as high as 244¡C.
Why, then, does science fiction continue to depict outer space in such an alluring, but unrealistic fashion? First, as Kyle observes, through the ages man has always ‘enjoyed the thrill of unreality. He wasn’t necessarily concerned with practicality, his psyche merely demanded this kind of entertainment É.’18 In a sin-cursed world filled with pressures and anxieties, we want to escape; get away from it all. ‘Readers yearn: “Take us far away from today—take us far away from earth!” and the writers happily comply.’19 Spielberg adds, ‘The public has an appetite for anything about imagination, anything that is as far away from reality as is creatively possible.’20
Second, because of mankind’s rejection of God (1 Corinthians 1:18), he has not found genuine meaning or peace in this world. So, he searches elsewhere to fulfil these needs. Maybe, he reasons, outer space has something to offer that cannot be found here. Perhaps the grass is greener on the other side of the galaxy. Consequently, man exalts the heavens. He makes outer space to be far more friendly than it really is. Unfortunately, this results in a misdirected placement of hope. The extravagant and expensive efforts to search for intelligent life in space is an example of this. The Scriptures condemn such glorification of the heavens (Deuteronomy 4:19; Isaiah 47:13–14; Jeremiah 8:1–2).
All of us, at times, feel like getting away, escaping. In Psalm 55:6–8, David, in response to the pressures from his enemies, cries out:
‘O that I had wings like a dove!
I would fly away and be at rest.
Behold, I would wander far away,
I would lodge in the wilderness.
I would hasten to my place of refuge
From the stormy wind and tempest.’
David did not, however, look to the stars for help. In verse 16 of the same Psalm, he declares: ‘As for me, I shall call upon God, And the Lord will save me.’
Those who try to escape to unreality, or who place their hope in whatever they imagine may be in another world, will be in for a big disappointment. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, wrote in Proverbs 28:19: ‘He who tills his land will have plenty of food, But he who follows empty pursuits will have poverty in plenty.’
The word translated ‘empty’ comes from the Hebrew req and refers to that which is ethically empty, idle, worthless, vain, or unprofitable. The New International Version renders the second line: ‘But the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty’. This verse, in context, apparently refers to get-rich-quick schemes. However, a more general application could be made, namely that the one who lives and functions within the realm of Biblical reality will accomplish much, while the one who runs after myths and fantasies will have his fill of spiritual poverty. Man will not find peace until he places his faith in the Prince of Peace (John 14:27; Romans 5:1).
To the glory of man
There are those, however, who believe that salvation and peace cannot be attained from God as mentioned above, but only through man. In Humanist Manifesto II, Paul Kurtz asserts: ‘No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.’21
Man believes he can accomplish this through technology. There is certainly no shortage of it in science fiction. In fact, futuristic gadgetry is one of the main attractions, whether it is a hand-held tricorder that can distinguish humans from androids, or a magnificent starship capable of whizzing across the expanse of space to new worlds. So impressive are the achievements, that many are tempted to go along with Arthur C. Clarke’s boyhood vision of ‘science as saviour of mankind and of mankind as a race of potential gods destined for the stars’.22
Perhaps the most presumptuous technology in science fiction is the one which is made in the image of man—the robot. Today’s industrial ‘robots’, which are often nothing more than extended, computerized arms, are not to be compared with the mechanical marvels of fantasy. The science fiction version usually has a complete, human-like encasement, with locomotion abilities that enable it to go practically anywhere. More significantly, it is conscious of itself and has a will of its own. Some models can even express emotion.
The word ‘robot’ comes from the Czechoslovakian robota which means ‘forced labor’. It was coined in 1920 by the Czech dramatist, Karel Capek, when he used the term to describe the entities featured in his masterpiece play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots). In the play, the inventor of these automatons hopes to ‘make the existence of God an irrelevant question and prove that Man—with the aid of science—is truly the master of his world’.23
Although the inventor in the play is eccentric, it is interesting that in science fiction stories following R.U.R., mankind’s motive for creating robots does not seem to change much. Kerry O’Quinn, in his preface to Robots, expresses his enthusiasm over this deification of man in science fiction through robot technology:
‘So while the creators of science and technology have given us actual robots that improve the upward climb of the human race, the creators of science-fiction drama show us that we are almost God-like in our conquest of the Earth—and of all we survey! To those movie and television artists who have given us this rare and exalted view of ourselves, this book is dedicated.’24
It is not surprising that Clarke views science fiction as ‘the literature of the gods’.22
As mentioned, predicting plausible scientific breakthroughs is beneficial and desirable. But the humanistic glorification of human technology to the exclusion of God is a return to the Tower of Babel mentality. Thankfully, the Bible brings us back to reality and warns:
‘Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
How blessed is he whose help is in the God of Jacob,
Whose hope is in the Lord his God;
Who made heaven and earth,
The sea and all that is in them’ (Psalm 146:3–6).
No God means no absolutes
The exaltation of man in science fiction through his achievements gives the impression that God is redundant and that faith in Him is obsolete. Also contributing to this reasoning is the promotion of evolutionary philosophy. Naturally, with God eliminated, His laws become meaningless and a new system of ethics will prevail. Science fiction has always been a very effective medium for promoting humanistic values.
One of the most powerful examples is seen in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called ‘The Outcast’, written by supervising producer Jeri Taylor. In the story, Commander Riker of the Enterprise falls in love with an alien named Soren, a member of the J’naii race. Long ago, the J’naii were male and female, but evolved into their present genderless state. They now reproduce by artificial means and consider those few among the J’naii who have strong inclinations of gender to be throwbacks to their primitive past. Therefore, expressing feelings of gender is forbidden. Soren is among those who have gender, so when her intolerant superiors learn of her affair with Riker, they administer the dreaded psychotechic therapy which brings her back to ‘normal’. Although the story is an allegory, it draws an obvious parallel with today’s conflict between ‘bigoted’ Christian fundamentalists and ‘persecuted’ homosexuals. Mark A. Altman, regular contributor to Cinefantastique, comments: ‘Taylor’s script is a stunning reminder of how effective the science fiction genre can be in providing allegorical explorations of political and social concerns.’25
Virtually any issue can be treated this way in science fiction. Other cleverly written, anti-Christian allegories from both Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager, warn of the ‘dangers’ of moral absolutes, expose the ‘myth’ of Satan, show how illogical it is to believe there is a heaven, and promote ‘death with dignity’. Novelist Katherine MacLean explains in her instructions to science fiction writers:
‘Writer, think of a drastic plot. Write in as villain the most far-out alien horror of a creature you can conceive, then build for him his logical ancestry, his sources, his training, his needs and morality in the shape of his world around him until irresistibly you and the reader agree with his logic and you can see no other way to be right and moral than his way. Then you and your readers turn and look back at humans on Earth. Back on Earth you will see a very strange and weird flat-eyed monster.’26
Occultism, New Age-ism and Eastern mysticism
The promotion of humanism, however, does not mean that all supernaturalism is excluded from science fiction—just Christ-honouring supernaturalism. The occult and Eastern religious thought, on the other hand, open many doors to the eerie and bizarre. Writer and lecturer, Reginald Bretnor explains:
‘If we accept the existence of telepathy and all other “wild talents”, limitless fictional opportunities open up before us, in interpersonal relations first and foremost, in our possible relations with other beings and cultures, in the relationship of God and man (or gods and men), in how we view the past and future (or futures), in how we see ourselves.’27
Spinrad also encourages this kind of mystical exploration:
‘Just as science fiction writers of the 1950s added the “soft sciences” of psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics to their spheres of interest, the science fiction writers of today should be looking into psychopharmacology, Eastern and Western systems of consciousness alteration, media analysis, perceptual psychology, systems analysis, the social and internal psychology of lifestyles and, if you will, psychedelia.’28
Dr C. Fred Dickason of the Moody Bible Institute points out:
‘The term occult derives from the Latin occultus, a form of the verb occulere, to cover up, hide. It means hidden, secret, dark, mysterious, concealed. It is used to describe phenomena which transcend or seem to transcend man’s senses or realm of natural experience.’29
The popular Star Wars trilogy is a prime example in which much of the occult and Eastern mysticism can be seen. By using the ‘Force’, one is able to see the future (similar to occult divination). One can also jump higher, dodge laser blasts and perform other supernormal feats. And those who are ‘strong with the Force’ are able to supernaturally move inanimate objects (psychokinesis). Writer and director George Lucas sums up the applications of the Force: ‘If you use it well, you can see the future and the past. You can sort of read minds and you can levitate and use that whole nether world of psychic energy.’30 Also occultic are the metaphysical phenomena such as the after-death appearances of Obi-Wan Kenobi. All the above phenomena are somehow made possible by using the Force—a universal, impersonal energy field which surrounds, permeates and binds all things. Thus, the religion of Star Wars might be described as Western occultism with an Eastern pantheistic twist. Philip H. Lochhaas, an authority on religions and cults, comments:
‘The entertainment industry must be seen as a primary vehicle for promoting occult New Age views. Films are powerful instruments for influencing millions of minds. The Star Wars trilogy was only the first among many films to make statements about a pantheistic “Force” that represents deity, intuitive communication with “the other side” and “ascended masters” that form a hierarchy for bringing humanity into the New Age.’31
Star Trek entertainment is also saturated with the occult as can be seen with the telepathic abilities of Spock, Tuvok and other Vulcans, and Counselor Troi to name a few. Telepathy involves the communication of two minds by means other than the five senses.
In no uncertain terms, the Bible condemns all forms of the occult:
‘There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord’ (Deuteronomy 18:10–12a).
Those who turn to mediums and spiritists do not seek assistance from God (Isaiah 8:19), but play the harlot (Leviticus 20:6) and become defiled (Leviticus 19:31).
It is easy to shrug our shoulders to this aspect of science fiction. After all, these strange wonders occur ‘in a galaxy far, far away’, or ‘where no man has gone before’. What is the harm, many may reason, as long as these things happen at a great distance? Also contributing to this attitude of indifference is that the words the Bible uses with regard to the occult are rarely used in science fiction, but are exchanged for modern, ‘scientific’ terms. This is deceptive and can even mislead Christians. Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon warn:
‘What the secular world calls “mind power” many Christians confuse for “faith”. Likewise, the impersonal “Force” that occultists also refer to as Universal Mind or Nature is naively accepted by large numbers of both Christians and non-Christians as just another way of referring to God, when in fact it is a substitute for Him. Consequently, what often passes for “the power of the spirit” in the church can scarcely be distinguished from the alleged “mind powers” of psychics. Parapsychologists have been conducting scientific experiments with psychics for years and the idea of “psychic power” is gaining credibility.
É These New Age techniques are not new at all, however, but are the same old sorcery under new labels. Many modern practitioners, including leading Christians, seem unaware of the true nature of the dangerous mind-game they are playing. Sorcery called by any other name is still sorcery and it is everywhere in today’s space-age society, seeking to hide its true identity behind scientific or psychological terminology and success/motivation and self-development labels.’32
Johanna Michaelsen, once deep into the occult before being delivered, also warns: ‘The occult is not a passing fad. It is here and will continue to grow and spread like a mass of suffocating jungle vines until the promised return of Jesus Christ.’33
Roots in evolution
Since many enthusiasts cannot agree on a definition of science fiction, it is not surprising that opinions also vary as to its origin. There are those who maintain that the genre began toward the end of the 19th century with the novels of Jules Verne (1828–1905) and H.G. Wells (1866–1946).34 Some make a case for the works of Edgar Allan Poe (1809–1849).35 Others, however, go further back and pinpoint modern science fiction’s birth to Mary Shelly’s historic novel written in 1818: ‘Inspired by a dream, she wrote Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus, about a doctor obsessed with creating life. The Gothic tale was one of the first works to explore science’s destructive side and, as such, marked the birth of sci-fi as we know it.’36 That the monster ‘was created by science, or at least pseudo-science, rather than by any pacts with the devil, or by magic’37 also contributes to the placement of the story into the science fiction genre. The events and persons surrounding the composition of this tale reveal more and are worth mentioning.
William Godwin (1756–1836) was an English political socialist philosopher and novelist who was very influential on young writers of his time.38 Shortly after serving for several years as ‘a minister of a dissenting religious sect’, he became an atheist.38 He resented all forms of external restrictions and laws imposed on individuals, whether by another person or by government. His beliefs were similar to those of Erasmus Darwin. ‘Although Godwin and Darwin never met, they had connections and sympathies in common and were pilloried together as atheistical writers É’.39
In 1797, Goodwin married Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) author of the first modern feminist work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. However, only ten days after giving birth to their only child, named Mary Shelly (1797–1851), Mary Wollstonecraft died of puerperal fever.
In May of 1814, when Mary was sixteen, she met the poet Percy Bysshe Shelly (1792–1822), a friend of her father. Shelly was one of the most influential leaders of the romantic movement. He co-authored a pamphlet The Necessity of Atheism with a fellow student at the University of Oxford before his expulsion. Aldiss describes him as ‘a poet of science, a rebel, an atheist, an ardent lover of freedom and the west wind. No wonder he admired [Erasmus] Darwin, in whom these qualities were strong.’39
Two months after Shelly and Mary met, they left England while Shelly was separated from, but still married to, his first wife (she would commit suicide in December of 1816 at which time Shelly and Mary would get married).
During their stay in Switzerland, Mary began to write Frankenstein. Her dream which initiated the story was, according to Mary,40 inspired by late-night discussions with Shelly and other friends, including Lord Byron (1788–1824), the English romantic poet whose writings reflect his own life of promiscuity, purposelessness and theological unorthodoxy.41 Their conversations dwelled on vampires and the supernatural, ‘and Byron and Shelly also discussed Darwin, his thoughts and his experiments’.40
Frankenstein was completed in 1818 and tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a scientist who fashions an artificial man partly by using pieces of corpses, then brings it to life, but eventually loses his own life while searching for the renegade monster. Aldiss describes him as ‘a modern, consciously rejecting ancient fustian booklore in favor of modern science, kicking out father figures. His creation of life shows him further usurping paternal power, invading what was previously God’s province.’42 The reasoning goes that if God does not exist and thus has nothing to do with Creation, then man could take on this role.
‘The concept of Frankenstein rests on the quasi-evolutionary idea that God is remote or absent from creation: man is therefore free to create his own sub-life; this was in accord with Erasmus Darwin’s statement that evolution, once it had begun, continued to progress by its own inherent activity and so without divine intervention. We can see that Erasmus Darwin thus stands as father figure over the first real science fiction novel.’43
Whether or not this is indeed the origin of science fiction proper, one fact is certain: evolution has permeated the genre from its beginning, giving writers the basis for humanistic themes and for imagining all sorts of strange phenomena. Kyle observes: ‘Charles Darwin, grandson of the mighty Erasmus Darwin, was upsetting the world with his evolutionary theories, greatly affecting thoughtful [i.e. science fiction] writers.’44
Significantly, Rottensteiner’s chronology of historically important literary works of science fiction lists only five stories written from 1817 (which includes Shelly’s Frankenstein) to 1859, the year Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. Following the publication of Darwin’s book, however, the same timespan of 42 years (1859–1901) produced no less than 26 important science fiction works.45
Six of the novels listed were written by H.G. Wells, a political philosopher and sociologist who opposed Christianity:
‘None of [Wells’] contemporaries did more to encourage revolt against Christian tenets and accepted codes of behaviour, especially as regards sex, in which, both in his books and in his personal life, he was a persistent advocate of an almost complete freedom.’46
Wells studied under Thomas H. Huxley46 (Charles Darwin’s ‘Bulldog’) and throughout his life was a firm believer and promoter of evolutionary philosophy.47 He was also a Fabian socialist for a time.46 Regarding his views on the implications of evolution, he wrote:
‘If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards.’48
His writings naturally reflect his philosophy. In his classic The Time Machine, for example, the time traveller journeys to the year AD 802,701, the setting in which man has evolved into two species—the passive, child-like Eloi and the monstrous, ape-like Morlocks. Marxist themes can be seen in the division of the ruling and working classes of these races.49 After his encounter with this civilization, the time traveller advances further into the future to a time when the Earth stops rotating. In this era, he witnesses strange crab-like creatures and a winged oddity that resembles a giant butterfly. Travelling still further into the future, he arrives 30 million years from the time when he began. Here he is so horrified by the deathly calm of the cooling Earth, that he races back to his own time.
The Time Machine was one of the early works of science fiction which depicts the evolution of different life forms on Earth. But evolutionary philosophy also provides the basis for the existence and evolution of life in other worlds. Since life evolved here on Earth, it is reasoned it must have evolved elsewhere because the universe is so large. Perhaps there are millions or even billions of planets upon which life exists. In science fiction, the diversity of these life-forms is only limited to one’s imagination where often the characteristics of human, animal and plant life are exaggerated or deformed to create bizarre creatures. This has resulted in one-eyed giants; slimy, bubble creatures; long-armed creepizoids with suction cups for fingertips; half-man, half-animal mutants; and 5-m-tall horrors with four arms, white tusks and eyes positioned on antennae.
Of course, oddities like these have never been observed on Earth and never will be. Mutations, which are supposed to account for major evolutionary changes, are nothing more than random alterations or departures from a programmed genetic code. Such random rearrangements result in a loss of DNA information which is the opposite of what macroevolution requires—the addition of genetic information. Neither will natural selection account for such strange creatures since it is simply a conservation process in nature which weeds out the harmful/disorderly effects of mutations, thus preserving a created kind.
At any rate, some civilizations of these creatures are ‘primitive’, while others are highly advanced with the means of invading the Earth. With the dazzling special effects in today’s entertainment, surrounded by an atmosphere of scientific and philosophical sophistication, alien life becomes more believable. Even Christians who reject evolution can be tempted to jump on the sci-fi bandwagon by reasoning that God could have created life in other worlds. After all, why would He go to all the trouble to create billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each galaxy if the Earth was to be the only place on which He would create life? John C. Whitcomb responds:
‘In answer to this question, it must be recognized, first of all, that it required no more exertion of energy for God to create a trillion galaxies than to create one planet. “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. He gives strength to the weary and to him who lacks might He increases power” (Isaiah 40:28–29)’.50
Humanistic reasoning suggests that if God created life only on Earth, then our vast universe is a ‘waste of space’ (as promoted in the anti-Christian movie Contact). However, God does not need to fill the heavens with extraterrestrial life to be glorified. The Psalmist writes:
‘The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands’ (Psalm 19:1).
The tremendous variety, complexity and incomprehensible distances of celestial objects, including planets, nebulae, stars and galaxies, proclaim God’s glory as they show His invisible attributes of eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20). This does not depend on the presence of extraterrestrials. We need not imagine alien life forms or other unconfirmed fantasies to be in awe of God’s creation. Jules Verne, who generally wrote within the sphere of plausible inventions and discoveries, said: ‘Reality provides us with facts so romantic that imagination itself could add nothing to them.’51 Similarly, when astronaut John Glenn was asked just before his historic flight aboard the space shuttle: ‘Do you watch sci-fi shows, like The X-Files?’ he responded, ‘I don’t need to get into the made-up stuff. The real thing is thrilling enough’.52
Conclusion
Although science fiction has predicted a number of useful technologies, the genre is permeated with unrealism, humanism, occultism, New Age philosophy, Eastern mysticism and evolutionism which are of no value in the real world and are condemned in the Scriptures. It is because science fiction has its roots in evolution that the false belief systems mentioned have emerged and thrive in the genre.
A high percentage of scientists have been inspired toward their profession by reading science fiction during their youth.53 Unfortunately, they are also influenced by its evolutionary worldview. Regarding the importance and relevance of one’s foundational beliefs, Dr Henry M. Morris comments:
‘It does make a tremendous difference what men believe about their origin and the sad history of the Christian church of the past 150 years ought to be sufficient proof of this fact. The evolutionary-uniformitarian cosmology is far more than a mere biological or geological hypothesis. It is a complete world-view, a philosophy of life and meaning. One cannot really believe in an evolutionary history of the world without also believing in an evolutionary future of the world. His philosophy of origins will inevitably determine sooner or later what he believes concerning his destiny and even what he believes about the meaning and purpose of his life and actions right now in the present world.’54
Let us commit ourselves to the Lord and to the foundations which He established in His Word. May we build our worldview upon those foundations and apply them to every sphere of life.
David Laughlin received a B.A. in Bible-Theology from the Moody Bible Institute and an M.A. in theological studies from Wheaton College. His Master’s thesis was entitled, The Identifications of Behemoth and Leviathan. He has also written for the Creation magazine. David has been studying and teaching the subject of origins since 1986, and plans to teach Old Testament—especially Genesis—at a Bible College. Return to top.
References

Golden Compass part 2 by al mohler

spanish translation first followed by original article in english:



The Golden Compass -- una reunión informativa para los cristianos en cuestión Publicado: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 a 5:26 am hora La liberación de The Golden Compass como una de las principales película representa un nuevo desafío para los cristianos -- especialmente de los padres. La puesta en libertad de una popular película con actores principales que presenta un mensaje directamente subversivo del cristianismo es algo nuevo. No es probable que sea la última. Después de ver la película en un anticipo de visualización y de haber leído los tres libros de Su Dark Materials, puedo asegurar a los cristianos que nos enfrentamos a un verdadero reto -- una que requerirá una cuidadosa reflexión y el compromiso intelectual. ¿Por qué esta película es un reto así? En primer lugar, The Golden Compass es una película muy atractiva. Al igual que el libro en que se basa, la película es una historia muy sofisticada que está muy bien contada. El casting fue excelente. Nicole Kidman y Daniel Craig (el último actor de James Bond) se sumarán otros incluidos Sam Elliott y el debutante Dakota Blue Richards, que juega el papel central, de 11 años, Lyra Belacqua. Kidman es escalofriante como la bella pero mal Marisa Coulter y Craig es perfecto como Lord Asriel. El actor Ian McKellen (Gandalf en el Señor de los Anillos trilogía) es la voz de Iorek Byrnison, los vehículos blindados de soportar. La película está muy bien hecho y será muy atractivo para un público de todas las edades. Los efectos especiales son superiores a cualquier anterior película del tipo, incluido el Señor de los Anillos trilogía (también publicado por New Line Cinema). Todo está en su lugar para que esto sea un éxito en la taquilla. En segundo lugar, la película se basa en una historia que es cautivadora, sofisticados, y realmente interesante. Philip Pullman es un experto escritor de cuentos y escrutador. Su inventado mundos de The Golden Compass y de toda la trilogía His Dark Materials son tan buenos como el género de la fantasía pueden ofrecer. Sus personajes son creíbles y el diálogo es constante -- en gran parte debido a Pullman de la brillante invención de un acompañante por cada carácter -- un "demonio". La conclusión es que estos libros y esta película atraiga mucho la atención y cautivar a muchos lectores y televidentes. Entonces, ¿cuál es el problema? No se trata sólo de la trilogía de fantasía o de cualquier proyecto cinematográfico. Philip Pullman tiene un programa -- un programa acerca de como sutiles como un ejército de tanques. Su programa es nada menos que para exponer lo que él considera es la tiranía de la fe cristiana y la iglesia cristiana. Su odio de la historia bíblica es clara. Él es un ateo más importante de las obras literarias cuyo proyecto está destinado a ofrecer una descripción en la que se morales invertir el relato bíblico de la caída y proporcionar una liberación de la mitología laica para una nueva edad. El gran enemigo de la humanidad en los tres libros, The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife y The Amber Spyglass (en conjunto, conocido como Su Dark Materials) es la iglesia cristiana, identificado como el mal Magisterio. El Magisterio, en representación de la autoridad de la iglesia, tiene miedo de la libertad humana y trata de reprimir la sexualidad humana. El Magisterio se utiliza la narrativa bíblica de la caída y de la doctrina del pecado original para reprimir la humanidad. Es a la vez violento y vil, y no se detendrán ante nada para proteger sus propios intereses y de preservar su poder. Pullman del ataque contra el cristianismo bíblico es directo e innegable. Una vez, él preguntó por qué sus libros atrajo poca controversia incluso como los libros de Harry Potter atraído tanto. Él le dijo a un periódico australiano que lo que está "diciendo cosas que son mucho más subversivas que nada pobre Harry ha dicho. Mis libros son sobre la muerte de Dios". ¿Los espectadores de la película ver todo esto? El ataque directo contra el cristianismo y el Dios es suavizado en la película. Pero cualquier persona informada reconocerá el Magisterio como representantes de la Iglesia y el cristianismo. Por supuesto, en nuestro mundo el Magisterio es la autoridad de liderazgo de la Iglesia Católica Romana. Pullman en el mundo que representa el cristianismo en su conjunto. De hecho, la historia le dice Pullman de John Calvin asumir el papado y traslado de la sede a Ginebra, combinando así las tradiciones católica y Reforma en uno. En la película, el magisterio parece estar situado en Londres. En cualquier caso, el punto no es sutil. La mayoría de los ataques directos a Dios y el cristianismo no aparecen hasta que el último libro, The Amber Spyglass, en la que Lyra y Will (un chico de su edad que primero aparece en el segundo libro) eventualmente matar a Dios, que resulta ser un decrépito y Débil viejo impostor, que no merecía la pena era la muerte. Pullman es el ataque contra el cristianismo exageradas por sus críticos? N -- su ataque no es ni sutil ni ocultas. La premisa de la trilogía es que el niño es Lyra predicha por la profecía que invertir la maldición de la caída libre de la humanidad y de la mentira del pecado original. Considerando que en la teología cristiana es Jesucristo, que invierte la maldición a través de su labor de expiación en la cruz, Pullman presenta su propia teología de la clase en la que el otoño se invierte a través de la violación de esos niños. Como se insiste en Pullman, Eva y Adán se derecho de comer el fruto prohibido y Dios era un tirano a prohibir el ejercicio de la fruta del Árbol del Conocimiento del Bien y del Mal. El elemento sobrenatural de la historia de Pullman es "Dust", que es visto por el Magisterio como el pecado original, sino por Pullman se presenta como la esencia de la vida misma. En The Golden Compass, Lyra se da una "alethiometer" o "brújula de oro", que se llena de polvo y le dice la verdad a un cualificado para su utilización. Los lectores se les dice que una gran batalla que se avecina en el que las fuerzas que luchan por la libertad humana y la felicidad se enfrentará (y destruir) el Magisterio y Dios. En el último volumen de la trilogía, un personaje conocido como Dr Mary Malone explica su descubrimiento de Lyra y Will: "Yo era una monja, que ve. Pensé que la física se podría hacer para la gloria de Dios, hasta que vi A la no existencia de Dios a todos y que la física es más interesante de todas maneras. La religión cristiana es un muy poderoso y convincente error, eso es todo. " ¿Hay más a la más grande historia? Sí, y tiene que ver con el sexo. Sorprendentemente gráfica y sexo explícito. Pullman cree que la iglesia cristiana es horriblemente represivas sobre el sexo y que esto tiene su origen en la idea de la de otoño. Como le dijo a Hanna Rosin de la Atlantic Monthly, "¿Por qué la Iglesia Cristiana ha pasado 2000 años la condena de este glorioso momento, así, eso es un misterio. Quiero confrontar que, supongo, diciéndole a una historia que el llamado pecado original Es cualquier cosa pero. Es lo que nos hace plenamente humanos ". Pubertad es una gran parte de la preocupación de Pullman. Viniendo de edad historias son una de las formas más comunes de la ficción, pero Pullman de paquetes de un golpe que los lectores no pueden olvidarse. Él quiere celebrar la llegada a los adolescentes del conocimiento sexual. Recuerde que el demonio del niño puede cambiar las formas hasta la pubertad. En ese momento se fija en una sola criatura, que refleja la personalidad y el carácter de los jóvenes adultos. Pubertad significa la venida de los sentimientos sexuales. El Magisterio se prefiere que los niños crezcan sin experimentar sexuales tentación, por lo que está llevando a cabo un experimento con el fin de separar los niños de sus demonios antes de la pubertad, cuando su demonio ya no puede cambiar. Este procedimiento, conocido como "intercision" crea en el niño un "niño separado", que no tiene ningún demonio -- y por lo tanto no alma. El Magisterio Sra Coulter ha asignado la tarea de secuestrar a los niños y llevarlos al Norte para este experimento. Como se explica a la Sra Coulter Lyra (que se revela a ser su propia hija) en el primer libro: "Todo lo que sucede es un poco cortado, y entonces todo el pacífico. Forever! Verá, su demonio es un maravilloso amigo y compañero cuando usted Son jóvenes, pero a la edad que llamamos la pubertad, la edad a la que está llegando muy pronto, darling, demonios traer todo tipo de molestias, pensamientos y sentimientos, y eso es lo que permite Dust in Una rápida operación poco antes de eso, y usted ' Volver nunca perturbada de nuevo. " En The Golden Compass, Lyra y sus compañeros libres de los niños celebrado en esta estación experimental en el norte y destruirlo. In The Amber Spyglass, Lyra y Will invertir la historia de la Edenic Fall por consumar un acto sexual en el jardín. Una vez más, Pullman no es sutil. Tenga en cuenta que se trata de una serie de libros comercializados a los niños, niñas y adolescentes. Lyra pone una fruta roja a los labios y Will's Will "a la vez sabía lo que ella significaba, y que él era demasiado alegre de hablar." En momentos, los 13 años de edad participan en algún tipo de acto sexual no especificado. "La palabra amor establecer sus nervios en llamas", escribe Pullman de Will. "Todo su cuerpo encantado con él, y él contestó ella en las mismas palabras, besando su cara caliente una y otra vez, con la adoración potable en el aroma de su cuerpo y su cálido, miel, y su cabello fragancia dulce, húmedo, que la boca Probado de la pequeña fruta roja. " Apenas unas pocas páginas más adelante, Will y Lyra se atreven a tocar los otros demonio. Ese paso es aún más acusada y sexualmente explícita que la primera. Los adolescentes ahora saben "que ni el demonio iba a cambiar ahora, después de haber sentido un amante de las manos de ellos. Estas fueron sus formas de vida: les gustaría que ningún otro." ¿De qué se trata Pullman y CS Lewis? Dicho simplemente, Pullman odia el trabajo de CS Lewis Las crónicas de Narnia. Él le dijo a Hannah Lewis Rosin que la famosa obra es "moralmente repugnante" y "una de las más feas y venenosas cosas que nunca lee". Narnia, dijo, "es la cristiana.... Y el mío es el no cristiano". Cuando la primera película de Narnia fue puesto en libertad en 2005, Pullman describió el libro como "una peevish mezcla de racistas, misogynistic y reaccionaria perjuicio". De hecho, el Pullman His Dark Materials pretende ser una respuesta a la Lewis crónicas de Narnia. ¿Qué Lewis (y JRR Tolkien) hizo por el cristianismo, Pullman quiere hacer por el ateísmo. Entonces, ¿qué deben hacer los cristianos? Un buen primer paso sería tomar una respiración profunda. La fe cristiana no está a punto de ser derrocado por una película, ni por una serie de libros de fantasía. Pullman, tiene una agenda que está claro, y los cristianos necesidad de informarse de lo que es este programa y lo que significa. Al mismo tiempo, nada serviría su programa mejor que tienen a los cristianos hablando con imprudencia temeraria o unintelligently acerca de la película o de los libros. Se trata de la batalla de ideas y visiones del mundo. Si bien los cristianos no celebramos la liberación de esta película, hay que reconocer que la mezcla de desafío y la oportunidad que viene con millones de personas viendo la película y hablando de las cuestiones que plantea. Cuando la película se menciona en el lugar de trabajo, en la escuela, en el patio de recreo, o en el campus de la universidad, esta es una gran oportunidad para demostrar que los cristianos no tienen miedo de la batalla de ideas. Tenemos que reconocer que la Iglesia Cristiana tiene algunos momentos muy embarazoso de su historia, momentos en los que ésta no pueda representar a la verdad del Evangelio y del amor de Cristo. Autores como Philip Pullman aprovechar estas deficiencias con el fin de la pintura a toda la Iglesia Cristiana como una conspiración contra la libertad y la felicidad humana. Por supuesto, que el cargo no permanecerá atento examen, y podemos afrontarlo frontalmente con un reflexivo respuesta. Algunos cristianos han celebrado también muy poco útil opiniones de la sexualidad humana. Estos, debemos admitir, que incluyen las cifras tan grandes e influyentes como Agustín y, desgraciadamente, CS Lewis. Pero estas cifras, con razón, influyente en otras esferas de la fe, no son representativos, en este caso, de la sexualidad bíblica. Podemos poner las cosas. En caso de que se trate de que las personas, jóvenes y viejos, se confunden con esta película? Por supuesto. Pero no creo que un boicot disuadir a la población en general de ver la película. Me preocupa mucho cuando pienso en tanta gente que se entretuvieron por un subversivo mensaje emitido por ese medio seductora. Somos responsables ante ellos muestran, en la medida de nuestras posibilidades, que el Magisterio de The Golden Compass es justo o no una representación exacta de la Iglesia Cristiana. Sólo puedo pregunto cuántos padres y abuelos permitirá a los niños y jóvenes a ver la película y luego ellos comprar los libros -- blissfully desconocen lo que viene en los libros dos y tres. El Evangelio de Jesucristo ha enemigos, lo que conocemos. Cristianos los padres deben ser informados de su Dark Materials e informar a los demás. Tenemos que tomar la responsabilidad de utilizar el interés en esta película para enseñar a nuestros hijos a pensar bíblicamente y que se discierne en su compromiso con los medios de comunicación en todas sus formas. Debemos armar a nuestros niños a ser capaces de hablar de este proyecto con sus compañeros de clase sin miedo ni rencor. Philip Pullman, tiene una agenda, pero nosotros también. Nuestro programa es el Evangelio de Cristo -- un mensaje mucho más poderoso que el de The Golden Compass. Pullman del mundo humano sin restricciones de la autonomía sería de pesadilla de lograrse. Su historia promesas de liberación, sino que esclavizan a los seres humanos a sí mismos y destruir todas trascendente valor. La historia bíblica de la Caída es cierto, después de todo, nuestro único y de rescate es a través del Evangelio de Jesucristo. La maldición del pecado no fue invertido por los adolescentes jugando en el sexo en un jardín, sino por el Hijo de Dios derramando Su sangre sobre una cruz. Entonces, vamos a conseguir nuestros cojinetes recto como pensamos y hablar de The Golden Compass. Esta película representa un gran reto, pero un reto, que los cristianos debemos estar siempre dispuestos a cumplir. __________________ Hemos discutido The Golden Compass, el lunes de la edición de The Albert Mohler Program [escuchar aquí]. Vamos a continuar con el debate en el día de hoy. Escuche y llamar



The Golden Compass -- A Briefing for Concerned ChristiansPosted: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 at 5:26 am ET
The release of The Golden Compass as a major motion picture represents a new challenge for Christians -- especially parents. The release of a popular film with major actors that presents a message directly subversive of Christianity is something new. It is not likely to be the last.
Having seen the movie at an advance viewing and having read all three books of His Dark Materials, I can assure Christians that we face a real challenge -- one that will require careful thinking and intellectual engagement.
Why is this movie such a challenge?
First of all, The Golden Compass is an extremely attractive movie. Like the book on which it is based, the movie is a very sophisticated story that is very well told. The casting was excellent. Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig (the latest James Bond actor) are joined by others including Sam Elliott and newcomer Dakota Blue Richards, who plays the central role of 11-year-old Lyra Belacqua. Kidman is chilling as the beautiful but evil Marisa Coulter and Craig is perfect as Lord Asriel. Actor Ian McKellen (Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) is the voice of Iorek Byrnison, the armoured bear.
The movie is very well done and will be very attractive to audiences of all ages. The special effects are superior to any previous movie of the type, including the Lord of the Rings trilogy (also released by New Line Cinema). Everything is in place for this to be a blockbuster at the box office.
Second, the movie is based in a story that is captivating, sophisticated, and truly interesting. Philip Pullman is a skilled writer and teller of tales. His invented worlds of The Golden Compass and the entire His Dark Materials trilogy are about as good as the fantasy genre can offer. His characters are believable and the dialogue is constant -- largely due to Pullman's brilliant invention of a companion for each character -- a "daemon."
The bottom line is that these books and this movie will attract a lot of attention and will captivate many readers and viewers.
So, what's the problem?
This is not just any fantasy trilogy or film project. Philip Pullman has an agenda -- an agenda about as subtle as an army tank. His agenda is nothing less than to expose what he believes is the tyranny of the Christian faith and the Christian church. His hatred of the biblical storyline is clear. He is an atheist whose most important literary project is intended to offer a moral narrative that will reverse the biblical account of the fall and provide a liberating mythology for a new secular age.
The great enemy of humanity in the three books, The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass (together known as His Dark Materials) is the Christian church, identified as the evil Magisterium. The Magisterium, representing church authority, is afraid of human freedom and seeks to repress human sexuality.
The Magisterium uses the biblical narrative of the Fall and the doctrine of original sin to repress humanity. It is both violent and vile and it will stop at nothing to protect its own interests and to preserve its power.
Pullman's attack on biblical Christianity is direct and undeniable. He once questioned why his books attracted little controversy even as the Harry Potter books attracted so much. He told an Australian newspaper that what he is "saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."
Will viewers of the movie see all this?
The direct attack on Christianity and God is toned down in the movie. But any informed person will recognize the Magisterium as representing the Church and Christianity. Of course, in our world the Magisterium is the authoritative leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In Pullman's world it represents Christianity as a whole.
Indeed, Pullman's tale tells of John Calvin assuming the papacy and moving the headquarters to Geneva, thus combining the Catholic and Reformation traditions into one. In the movie, the Magisterium appears to be located in London. In any event, the point is not subtle.
The most direct attacks upon Christianity and God do not appear until the last book, The Amber Spyglass, in which Lyra and Will (a boy her age who first appears in the second book) eventually kill God, who turns out to be a decrepit and feeble old imposter who was hardly worth the killing.
Is Pullman's attack on Christianity exaggerated by his critics?
No -- his attack is neither hidden nor subtle. The entire premise of the trilogy is that Lyra is the child foretold by prophecy who will reverse the curse of the Fall and free humanity from the lie of original sin. Whereas in Christian theology it is Jesus Christ who reverses the curse through His work of atonement on the Cross, Pullman presents his own theology of sorts in which the Fall is reversed through the defiance of these children. As Pullman insists, Eve and Adam were right to eat the forbidden fruit and God was a tyrant to forbid them the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The supernatural element of Pullman's story is "Dust," which is seen by the Magisterium as original sin but is presented by Pullman as the essence of life itself. In The Golden Compass, Lyra is given an "alethiometer" or "golden compass" which is filled with Dust and tells the truth to one qualified to operate it. Readers are told that a great battle is coming in which forces fighting for human freedom and happiness will confront (and destroy) the Magisterium and God.
In the last volume of the trilogy, a character known as Dr. Mary Malone explains her discovery to Lyra and Will: "I used to be a nun, you see. I thought physics could be done to the glory of God, till I saw there wasn't any God at all and that physics was more interesting anyway. The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all."
Is there more to the larger story?
Yes, and it has to do with sex. Surprisingly graphic and explicit sex. Pullman believes that the Christian church is horribly repressive about sex and that this is rooted in the idea of the Fall. As he told Hanna Rosin of the Atlantic Monthly, "Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that's a mystery. I want to confront that, I suppose, by telling a story that the so-called original sin is anything but. It's the thing that makes us fully human."
Puberty is a big part of Pullman's concern. Coming-of-age stories are one of the most common forms of fiction, but Pullman's packs a punch that readers cannot miss. He wants to celebrate the adolescent's arrival at sexual awareness. Remember that the child's daemon can change forms until puberty. At that point it is fixed as a single creature that reflects the personality and character of the young adult.
Puberty means the coming of sexual feelings. The Magisterium would prefer that children grow up without experiencing sexual temptation, so it is conducting an experiment in order to separate children from their daemons before puberty, when their daemon can no longer change. This procedure, known as "intercision" makes the child a "severed child" who has no daemon -- and thus no soul. The Magisterium has assigned Mrs. Coulter the job of abducting the children and taking them to the North for this experiment.
As Mrs. Coulter explains to Lyra (who is revealed to be her own daughter) in the first book: "All that happens is a little cut, and then everything's peaceful. Forever! You see, your daemon's a wonderful friend and companion when you are young, but at the age we call puberty, the age you're coming to very soon, darling, daemons bring all sorts of troublesome thoughts and feelings, and that's what lets Dust in. A quick little operation before that, and you're never troubled again."
In The Golden Compass, Lyra and her companions free the children held at this experimental station in the North and destroy it. In The Amber Spyglass, Lyra and Will reverse the story of the Edenic Fall by consummating a sexual act in the garden.
Again, Pullman is not subtle. Keep in mind that this is a series of books marketed to children and adolescents. Lyra puts a red fruit to Will's lips and Will "knew at once what she meant, and that he was too joyful to speak." Within moments, the 13-year olds are involved in some kind of unspecified sexual act.
"The word love set his nerves ablaze," Pullman writes of Will. "All his body thrilled with it, and he answered her in the same words, kissing her hot face over and over again, drinking in with adoration the scent of her body and her warm, honey-fragrant hair and her sweet, moist mouth that tasted of the little red fruit."
Just a few pages later, Will and Lyra will dare to touch each other's daemon. That passage is even more sexually charged and explicit than the first. The adolescents now know "that neither daemon would change now, having felt a lover's hands on them. These were their shapes for life: they would want no other."
What is it about Pullman and C. S. Lewis?
Put simply, Pullman hates C. S. Lewis's work The Chronicles of Narnia. He told Hannah Rosin that Lewis's famous work is "morally loathsome" and "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I ever read." Narnia, he said, "is the Christian one . . . . And mine is the non-Christian."
When the first Narnia film was released in 2005, Pullman described the books as "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice."
Indeed, Pullman's His Dark Materials is intended as an answer to Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. What Lewis (and J. R. R. Tolkein) did for Christianity, Pullman wants to do for atheism.
So, what should Christians do?
A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.
This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.
We should recognize that the Christian Church has some very embarrassing moments in its history - moments when it has failed to represent the truth of the Gospel and the love of Christ. Authors like Philip Pullman take advantage of these failures in order to paint the entire Christian Church as a conspiracy against human happiness and freedom. Of course, that charge will not stand close scrutiny, and we can face it head-on with a thoughtful response.
Some Christians have also held very unhelpful views of human sexuality. These, we must admit, would include figures as great and influential as Augustine and, alas, C. S. Lewis. But these figures, rightly influential in other areas of the faith, are not representative in this case of biblical sexuality. We can set the record straight.
Should we be concerned that people, young and old, will be confused by this movie? Of course. But I do not believe that a boycott will dissuade the general public from seeing the film. I am very concerned when I think of so many people being entertained by such a subversive message delivered by such a seductive medium. We are responsible to show them, in so far as we are able, that the Magisterium of The Golden Compass is not a fair or accurate representation of the Christian Church.
I can only wonder how many parents and grandparents will allow children and young people to see the movie and then buy them the books -- blissfully unaware of what is coming in books two and three.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ has enemies; this we know. Christian parents must be informed about His Dark Materials and inform others. We must take the responsibility to use interest in this film to teach our own children to think biblically and to be discerning in their engagement with the media in all forms. We should arm our children to be able to talk about this project with their classmates without fear or rancor.
Philip Pullman has an agenda, but so do we. Our agenda is the Gospel of Christ -- a message infinitely more powerful than that of The Golden Compass. Pullman's worldview of unrestricted human autonomy would be nightmarish if ever achieved. His story promises liberation but would enslave human beings to themselves and destroy all transcendent value.
The biblical story of the Fall is true, after all, and our only rescue is through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The curse of sin was not reversed by adolescents playing at sex in a garden, but by the Son of God shedding His blood on a cross.
So let's get our bearings straight as we think and talk about The Golden Compass. This movie does represent a great challenge, but a challenge that Christians should always be ready to meet.
__________________
We discussed The Golden Compass on Monday's edition of The Albert Mohler Program [listen here]. We will continue the discussion on today. Listen and call with your questions or comments.

program:

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-12-03

a article by Miachel horton

I came across this interesting article:

Transforming Culture with a Messiah Complex
By Michael Horton
Evangelicals have been talking lately about transforming the culture, doing kingdom work in all of life, and incarnating the church in the world. Sound good? The trouble is, these movements can conceive of the church as a substitute for Christ, shifting the focus of Christians from his promised return to your best life now.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: FROM REVIVALISM TO WARREN
To understand this, it’s helpful to consider how the evangelical church has related to the wider culture over the last couple of centuries. We are often told that evangelicalism was a sleeping giant—aloof and passive toward social, political, economic, and wider cultural concerns. As the story goes, the separatist giant was awakened from its dogmatic slumbers by Francis Schaeffer and the Moral Majority, unleashing the enormous energy of conservative Protestants, with the result that, at least since the 1980s, evangelicals can make or break political campaigns.
However, this picture isn't quite accurate. The evangelical revival in Britain, led by both Calvinists like George Whitefield and John Newton as well as Arminians like John and Charles Wesley, contributed significantly to the abolition of the slave trade throughout the empire. Historians often credit this movement, known in its American theater as the Great Awakening, with galvanizing the colonies into a republic. It is impossible to tell the story of American independence, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, child labor legislation, and prohibition without mentioning the impact of revivalism.
Moral Reform
In fact, by the nineteenth century, the leading evangelist Charles Finney was actually defining the church as "a society of moral reformers." Taking advantage of every opportunity to attack Calvinism, Finney's theology was not even Arminian, but Pelagian: he explicitly denied original sin, substitutionary atonement, and justification; and he considered the new birth to be a self-generated conversion from sinful behavior to upright living. His sermon with the title "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts," which he preached at Park Street Church in Boston, summarizes the Second Great Awakening and much American revivalism ever since.
True to their pragmatic and self-confident instincts, American Protestants did not want to define the church first and foremost as a community of forgiven sinners, recipients of grace, but as a triumphant army of moral activists. Even if one does not explicitly endorse Finney's Pelagianism, the undercurrent of assumptions and practices that evolved from his Pelagianistic social activism are powerful and pervasive. In the nineteenth century, most Protestants were optimistic about wider cultural change. Temperance societies emerged as one of many movements organized around the vision of a Christianized America.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, fellow evangelicals Josiah Strong and D. L. Moody would represent the growing cleavage between the triumphalistic postmillenialists and the pessimistic premillennialists. "The kingdoms of this world will not have become the kingdoms or our Lord," Strong opined, "until the money power has been Christianized." Long before the conservative-liberal polarizations, American evangelicalism had championed the so-called "social gospel," as one notices in the following comment from Horace Bushnell:
Talent has been Christianized already on a large scale. The political power of states and kingdoms has been long assumed to be, and now at last really is, as far as it becomes their accepted office to maintain personal security and liberty. Architecture, arts, constitutions, schools, and learning have been largely Christianized. But the money power, which is one of the most operative and grandest of all, is only beginning to be; though with promising tokens of a finally complete reduction to Christ and the uses of His Kingdom….That day, when it comes, is the morning, so to speak, of the new creation. Is it not time for that day to dawn?
But evangelist D. L. Moody marched to the beat of a different drummer. Although he was initially representative of Charles Finney’s social activism, Moody became increasingly pessimistic about the extent to which earthly empires could become the kingdom of God. "I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel," he would later write. "God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, ‘Moody, save all you can.’" Whereas many people increasingly regarded revival as an instrument for Christianizing society through evangelism and social action, Moody saw it as a means of converting individuals. In Josiah Strong’s vision, however, an American version of the Holy Roman Empire began to proliferate with Protestant hospitals, colleges, women’s societies and men’s societies, all signs of God’s approval and, indeed, of the advancement of the kingdom of God.
Everyone’s Hero
Finney has been hailed as an evangelical hero by Protestants as diverse as modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick and fundamentalist Bob Jones, Sr., and, more recently, as the exemplar of left-wing political causes by Jim Wallis and right-wing causes by Jerry Falwell. It is perhaps no wonder that a bewildered visitor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, could describe American religion as "Protestantism without the Reformation." As George Marsden has documented in various places, both the Christian Right and the Christian Left derive from this late nineteenth-century evangelicalism. It is this quite recent train of thought (or, more precisely, activism), rather than the profound reflection of Augustine and the reformers, that guides contemporary evangelical activism. Ironically, even staunch premillenialists like Jerry Falwell sound a good deal like the postmillenialists of yesteryear. The agenda for moral reform may have divided in liberal and conservative directions, but both owe their origin to the revivalism of Charles Finney.
So when a conservative Southern Baptist like Rick Warren embraces "new measures" in church growth by advocating a vision of the church as an army of reformers who can end the plagues of disease, war, and poverty as well as promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and alcoholism, he stands in a long line leading from Finney to Strong to Sunday to Graham. "Deeds, not Creeds!" used to be the mantra of the social gospel of mainline churches, but Warren has revived it today as if it were newly minted. After a brief dispensationalist interlude, American evangelicals returned to their more positive and triumphant (postmillennial) message of transforming American culture into "a shining city upon a hill."
Of course, this cursory overview does not answer the normative question about what the church should be doing in relation to the wider culture, but it does provide a context that helps us understand perennial assumptions often taken for granted at least in American churches. Ironically, in the land that prizes the legal separation of church and state, the identification of church and sub-culture, each with its political agenda, is nearly total: white suburban evangelicals, the Black church, mainline social gospels, and the more recent "new urbanism" of the emergent movement. Yet in spite of their different agendas, each of these ecclesiastical demographics is largely dependent on the heritage of American revivalism.
So far we’ve considered the historical context of the question, "What should the church's role be in the wider culture?" Now to the biblical and theological context.
BIBLICAL/THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT: CHURCH AS MESSIANIC SUBSTITUTE
Many writers today are calling for a greater emphasis on the resurrection. What’s overlooked, ironically, is the importance of Christ’s ascension.
Christ’s Ascension
The resurrection and ascension of Jesus generate a remarkable paradox. Right at the place where the Suffering Servant has been exalted as conquering Lord, the first fruit of a new creation, and the head of a body, he disappears. Then, precisely in that place that is vacated by the one who has ascended, a church emerges.
The most direct ascension account comes from Luke (Luke 24:13-27; 24:50-53). Acts 1 reprises this episode in its opening verses (Ac 1:6-11). Thus the ascension (and parousia) became part of the gospel itself. Not only was Jesus crucified and raised according to the prophets, but the Messiah will be sent again. Jesus, says Peter, "must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets" (Ac 3:20-21, emphasis added).
As they were taught by Jesus in the Olivet and Upper Room discourses and on the road to Emmaus (Matt. 24-25; John 14-16; Luke 24:13ff), the apostolic preaching in Acts follows the familiar pattern of descent-ascent-return, justifying the confession in the eucharistic liturgy, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Jesus’ departure is as real and decisive as his incarnation, and he "will come [again] in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Ac 1:11)—that is, in the flesh. In the meantime, he is absent in the flesh.
Under-realized Ascension, Over-realized Eschatalogy
One problem in the history of interpretation, however, has been to treat the ascension as little more than a dazzling exclamation point for the resurrection rather than as a new event in its own right. The ascension of Jesus in the flesh opens up an interim within history that keeps us looking forward to the return of the same Jesus. Nothing can replace Jesus in the flesh.[1]
As the first fruits of the new creation, Jesus in his ascension does not abandon history but redefines all that has preceded it as the old age of sin and death, subjecting it to judgment.[2] The history of human misery and pomp, autonomy and strife, which can only yield the fruit of condemnation, is now passing away. It’s becoming obsolete. Even now the "age to come" is reconfiguring reality around its glorified head. The time that the church thus occupies because of the ascension is defined neither by full presence nor full absence, but by a eucharistic tension between "this age" and "the age to come." The church is lodged in that precarious place of ambiguity and tension between these two ages, and it must live there until Jesus returns, relying only on the Word and Spirit.
Yet the church does not like to stay put. It wants to jump the gun and realize the kingdom of glory when, for now, God has determined for it to be a kingdom of grace.[3] Looking away from the absence of Jesus of Nazareth, the church, as the body of Christ, can easily come to see itself as his visible and earthly replacement. As Douglas Farrow notes, "When the earthly church is seen as a mirror of heavenly triumph, when its success on the horizontal axis is thought to display the dizzying heights to which its Lord ascends, it is difficult to set limits to the glory which should accrue to it." Augustine spoke of a totus Christus, the whole Christ consisting of its head and its members.[4] In other words, that which is human about Jesus—visibility, temporality, fleshiness—is now transferred to the church as a historical body. Jesus proclaimed himself as Jacob’s ladder (Jn 1:50-51), but in his bodily absence the church offers itself for that mediation. The history of Jesus in the flesh is at least implicitly replaced by the history of the church as the kingdom of God. The deity of Christ remains transcendent, but his incarnate existence is "fleshed out" by and as the church.
In this context, it is not surprising that the kingdom of God was identified directly with the church—a kind of "over-realized" amillennialism that was no longer palpably aware of the church's location in the already/not yet tension of God's plan in history. The kingdoms of this world are gradually becoming the kingdom of our God and of his Christ.
Church As Christ’s Regent
This transition to what we might call anachronistically a "postmillennial" optimism was more plausible with the conversion of Constantine since Christianity was given imperial status. Constantine's admiring assistant and biographer Eusebius announced that Christ had, as it were, handed over earth's title deed to his servant, Constantine, who advances Christ's reign "through the ordinary usages of war." Eventually, the bishop of Rome would vie for the keys to the kingdoms of this world.
For Thomas Aquinas, Christ's physical presence was under the control of the church, which could summon him with the ringing of a bell in the mass. The miracle of transubstantiation "placed Christ fully in the church’s possession," notes Farrow. "Indeed, it meant that the church now controlled the parousia. At the ringing of a bell the Christus absens became the Christus praesens…Seated comfortably with the Christ-child on its lap, the church soon became his regent rather than his servant."[5]
Incarnation Or Substitution
Why this excursus on the ascension? Because there is so much dangerous talk these days about the church as the continuing incarnation of Christ, the active agent of redemption, who completes the work that Christ came to accomplish. In short, the church is substituted for Christ.[6] Both Protestant and Roman Catholic followers of German idealism have made this move, and the trail leads all the way to Pope Benedict XVI, Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson, Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz, and the circle of brilliant writers known as Radical Orthodoxy.[7]
Graham Ward, a representative of Radical Orthodoxy, has recently written,
We have no access to the body of the gendered Jew…It is pointless because the Church is now the body of Christ, so to understand the body of Jesus we can only examine what the Church is and what it has to say concerning the nature of that body as scripture attests it...As Gregory of Nyssa points out, in his thirteenth sermon on Song of Songs, ‘he who sees the Church looks directly at Christ.’"
I realize that most evangelicals bristle at such grandiose claims for the institutional church, much less the pope, but do we not regularly encounter the claim that Christians are called to save Western civilization, transform the culture, and build the kingdom of God as the extension of Christ's redeeming mission in the world?
According to the late Archibishop of Canterbury, William Temple, "The church should recognize in itself the earthly body of the ascended Lord; and not only in itself, but also in the world, it should recognize the work of the Spirit drawing all things to God." The question of Christ's bodily whereabouts is no longer important, because the church is alive and well, picking up where he left off.[8]
In fact, "incarnational" is becoming a dominant adjective in evangelical circles, often depriving Christ’s person and work of its specificity and uniqueness.[9] Christ’s person and work easily becomes a "model" or "vision" for ecclesial action (imitatio Christi), rather than a completed event to which the church offers its witness.[10] We increasingly hear about "incarnational ministry," as if Christ's unique personal history could be repeated or imitated. The church, whether conceived in "high church" or "low church" terms, rushes in to fill the void, as the substitute for its ascended Lord. In its train, the sacramental cosmos returns. As Christ and his work is assimilated to the church and its work, similar conflations emerge between the gospel and culture; between the word of God and the experience of our particular group; and between the church’s commission and the transformation of the kingdoms of this age into the kingdom of Christ.
It is this recurring temptation to look away from Christ’s absence—toward a false presence, often substituting itself as an extension of Christ’s incarnation and reconciling work—that distracts it from directing the world’s attention to Christ’s parousia in the future. Yet a church that does not acknowledge Christ’s absence is no longer focused on Christ; instead, it’s tempted to idolatrous substitutions in the attempt to seize Canaan prematurely.
The parallel with Moses is striking:
When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him" (Ex 32:1).
Of course, the church has seen and heard a lot since then, including confirmation upon confirmation of God's saving promise. Yet we must wait for the restoration at the end of the age. We hope and act in the present not in order to save the world or build the kingdom of God, but because "we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken" (Heb 12:28).
IS ALL OF LIFE KINGDOM WORK?
If this theological argument is correct, then we should question popular statements like, "All of life is kingdom work." No, proclaiming the Word, administering baptism and the Supper, caring for the spiritual and physical well-being of the saints, and bringing in the lost are kingdom work. Building bridges, delivering medical supplies to hospitals, installing water heaters, defending clients in court, holding public office, and having friends over for dinner are "creation work," given a pledge of safe conduct ever since Cain under God's regime of common grace. In this work, Christians serve beside non-Christians, as both are endowed with natural gifts and learned skills for their common life together.
Only when Christ returns in glory will the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ. Until then, the New Testament does not offer a single exhortation to Christianize politics, the arts and sciences, education, or any other common grace field of endeavor.
Of course, Christians will bring their worldview and values to their secular callings. Instead of simply working for the weekend out of pure self-interest, believers should choose and fulfill their vocation as a way of best loving and serving their neighbor. What the church does for those who are of the household of faith is different from what individual Christians do as neighbors in the world.
Where we might hope for triumphant calls to "redeem culture," the New Testament epistles offer comparatively boring yet crucial exhortations to respect and pray for those in authority, to treat employers and employees well, and to be faithful parents and children. We are called "to increase more and more" in godliness through the ordinary means of grace in the church. And in our secular vocations we are called to "aspire to lead a quite life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that you may walk properly toward those who are outside and that you may lack nothing" (1 Thes 4:10-12).
SHOULD THERE BE "CHRISTIAN" INSTITUTIONS?
Again, if this theological argument is correct, we should ask whether there should be Christian hospitals, Christian businesses, or Christian entertainment industries. Haven't such enterprises, which often do no more than mimic their secular counterparts, distracted the church from its primary focus and ministry? What if churches were more seriously Christian, concentrating on Christ as he is delivered to sinners through Word and Sacrament, and their members were scattered throughout the week to occupy posts alongside their non-Christian neighbors instead of being driven into an ostensibly Christian sub-culture? What if, instead of trying to discipline a pagan culture, we restored the evangelical practice of church discipline in our own churches (a point made better by Paul in 1 Cor 5:9-12)?
Surely the abolition of the slave trade was a noble work. Yet in Britain it was not the church as an institution that abolished slavery, but Christians in public office who had been formed by the church's ministry. When William Wilberforce came to John Newton for advice on whether he should enter the ministry, Newton encouraged his friend to pursue politics instead. It was as a member of parliament that Wilberforce loved and served his neighbor, benefiting from the ordinary means of grace that Newton ministered to him. The church preaches God's transcendent law and gospel, and her children pursue their cultural mandate in their secular vocations. One wonders what might have happened if, instead of dividing over national policy, Protestant churches in the antebellum American North and South practiced church discipline against slave-holders. After all, according to numerous accounts, South African apartheid in our own time came crashing down when the Dutch Reformed Church confessed that its religious justification of the system was "heresy." Disciplined by its sister Reformed churches around the world, the church did what only the church could do, and the result was that the system lost its moral legitimacy.
CONCLUSION
I realize that this argument only scratches the surface. It is too broad to offer an adequate answer to important questions about whether and to what extent mercy ministries should be extended to those outside of the household of faith. However, I hope to have offered some more general thoughts to help frame such a discussion.
The ascension highlights Christ's bodily absence, while Pentecost highlights his presence in saving action by his Spirit, working through the Word. Even now, the powers of the age to come are breaking in on this present evil age, yet we remain pilgrims, not emperors or architects of a new world order.
In imitation of our Father, who in this era of common grace sends rain upon the just and the unjust alike, we are called to fulfill our secular vocations as a loving service to our neighbors. As citizens of the City of God, we are called to grow up into maturity together in the body of Christ and proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth. Only at Christ's appearing will these two callings—the creation mandate and the Great Commission—become identical.
The law can guide us in godly living, but it can never—even after we’re justified—give us any life. "Deeds, not creeds!" means "Law, not Gospel!" By going beyond God's law, this moral agenda imposes on Christ's sheep burdens that he has not commanded to be borne, agendas that do not have his authorization; and it dulls that patient and hopeful cry engendered by the Spirit in our hearts, "Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!"
At the same time, by placing an emphasis on unwarranted "kingdom movements," Christians are distracted from the concrete vocations God has given us in the world simply to love and serve our neighbor with patience, respect, and excellence.
Just as we cannot derive any life from the law, we cannot derive any confidence in our cultural triumphs in so many fields. As with law-and-gospel, our earthly and heavenly citizenship are not opposed unless we are seeking a way of salvation for ourselves or our nation. But once we recognize that there is no everlasting rest from violence, oppression, injustice and immorality through our own political or cultural works, we are free to pursue their amelioration with vigorous gratitude to God for his saving grace in Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, we pursue this cultural task looking back to the creation which God blessed and looking forward to this same creation that will be restored when the kingdoms of this world will finally be made the kingdom of our God and of his Christ forever, world without end. Amen.
Michael Horton is J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, editor of Modern Reformation magazine, and a host of the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated radio/internet broadcast. His latest book is Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (WJK, 2007).
1 More than any work I have come across in recent years, Douglas Farrow’s Ascension and Ecclesia has sought to remedy the apparent marginalization of the ascension in theology, seeing it as "the point of intersection in Christology, eschatology, and ecclesiology." The ascension was not invented by the church as a way of dealing with the failure of the kingdom and its king, but was understood by the early Christians as the very form in which the kingdom was being inaugurated in this present age.
2 In the epistles, the ascension marks the present heavenly work of Jesus Christ on behalf of his church (Ro 8:33-34; 1 Jn 2:1), as the first fruits of the harvest (1 Cor 15), who will return from heaven (1 Thes 4:13-5:11) in judgment and salvation to fulfill the "Day of the LORD" (Ro 2:5; 1 Thes 5:2; cf. Heb 10:25; Jas 5:3; 2 Pet 3:10). The ascension is attested in Stephen’s vision as he was martyred, not to mention Paul’s on his way to Damascus. United to Christ, believers have been seated with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6-7) and there is explicit mention of the ascension (interpreting Psalm 68:18) as the source of the gifts being poured out on the church (Eph 4:7-10). The writer to the Hebrews appeals to the ascension as part of the contrast between old and new covenant worship (Heb 7:23-26; 9:25). A further contrast in chapter 10 is that whereas the Levitical priests never sat down during their liturgical service in the sanctuary, "when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet" (vv 11-13).
3 This doctrine of the ascension radically challenged Platonism, but it also burst the wineskins of early Jewish eschatology and cosmology. Nevertheless, the church has frequently looked away from the ascension of Christ in the flesh. Of course, there was the extreme position of Gnosticism, which explicitly denied that God had assumed human flesh in the first place, much less died, rose, ascended, and will return in the flesh. However, even the orthodox, steeped in the Platonic worldview of their age, could fall short of realizing the full impact of the ascension on their whole outlook. Origen affirmed "more of an ascension of the mind than of the body," which explains the rise of monasticism and asceticism. Even Athanasius and Augustine explained the ascension as a way of Jesus' finally being able to free his disciples from their attachment to his humanity, so that they could recognize his deity. Jesus’ being removed from us "exteriorly" in his ascension, says Augustine, allows finally for his filling us up "interiorly," which refers to the divine essence per se rather than to the Spirit. Christ’s humanity is necessary "only ‘for our weakness.’"
4 "The totus Christus notion combines with a Nestorianizing analysis of the ascension to allow what belongs to Jesus to pass more or less directly into the church." For Augustine, the church is now "‘the ladder of heaven on which God descends to earth’ and the one ‘through whom we ascend to him who descended through her to us.’"
5 This totalizing and absolutizing trend is evident in the bull of Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302), which consolidated papal power over all souls and bodies, both the ecclesiastical and civil spheres, requiring submission as necessary for salvation. While Luther emphasized the humble descent of God in the flesh over personal or corporate striving to ascend triumphantly to the skies, Farrow judges that Calvin placed the emphasis once again on the ascension. Yet because he also believed that Christ--not just his spirit or divinity, but in the words of the Belgic Confession, "his true and natural body and blood"--was given to believers through the Supper, Calvin was able to reckon more clearly with the tension between absence and presence that required the Spirit's mediation. It also highlighted the "already" / "not yet" tension in the relationship of the visible church to its living head. The church could not substitute for Jesus Christ. The presence of the Spirit, through the Supper itself, was as much the source of expectant longing for his return as of fulfillment here and now.
6 As Origen's "ascent of mind" was revived by Hegel and Schleiermacher, the substitution of the church for Christ was complete.
7 Following the Hegelian Catholicism of Johann Möhler, Karl Adam insisted that as the extension of the incarnation, the church is the actual occurrence of the Absolute Idea in history. Only now are we at the place, according to Adam, where we can envision a return of alienated children to Rome, so that "the great and urgent task of the West is to close at long last the unwholesome breach that has divided us for centuries, to create a new spiritual unity, a religious centre, and so to prepare the only possible foundation for a rebuilding and rebirth of Western civilization" (emphasis added). (Only two months ago I read a TIME cover story in which a conservative Roman Catholic theologian said that Pope Benedict's "role is to represent Western civilization.") The Roman Catholic Church is "the realisation on earth of the Kingdom of God." "Christ the Lord is the real self of the Church," and the church and Christ are "one and the same person, one Christ, the whole Christ."
8 British theologian John Webster observes "the emphasis in certain Roman Catholic and Anglican ecclesiologies of the last two centuries on an ‘incarnational’ principle in which Christ, church, sacrament and ministry (and sometimes culture and ethos) threatened to become points on a continuum of God’s ‘embodied’ saving activity." Such reflections owe "as much to Hegelian theory of history as to theology." This emphasis "has become something of a commonplace in some now dominant styles of modern theology and theological ethics" which "emphasize the coinherence of the divine work of reconciliation and the church’s moral action, in such a way that the work of the ecclesial community can properly be considered an extension (fleshing out, realization, embodiment) of the gospel of God’s reconciling act." Interpreted within a more cultural-linguistic paradigm, Stanley Hauerwas, Timothy Gorringe, and others join this trajectory.
9 To be sure, as Webster acknowledges, these approaches often appeal to the Trinity and grace. "Nevertheless, they are characteristically less drawn to expansive depiction of the sheer gratuity of God’s act of reconciliation, and more commonly offer lengthy accounts of the acts of the church, sacramental and moral, often through the idiom of virtues, habits and practices." According to Timothy Gorringe, "the community of reconciliation" is "the means through which atonement is effected, which is the reason, presumably, Christ bequeathed to us not a set of doctrines or truths, but a community founded on betrayal and the survival of betrayal." To which Webster replies: "What this opposition of ‘truths’ and ‘community’ signals is simply…a theological ontology of the church’s acts of reconciling…The moral force of the Christological ephapax [once and for all] is simply lost."
10 Robert Jenson goes so far as to say that the modernist Catholic Alfred Loisy’s infamous quip, "Jesus announced the Kingdom, but it was the church that came," despite his sarcastic intent, "states the exact truth." Recognizing that the identity must leave room for referring distinctly "to the one and then to the other," Jenson nevertheless appeals explicitly to Hegel and Fichte in developing his constructive proposal. "The church with her sacraments," Jenson summarizes, "is the object as which we may intend Christ because she is the object as which he intends himself." Therefore, "The relation between Christ as a subject and the church with her sacraments is precisely that between transcendental subjectivity and the objective self…; the church is the risen Christ’s Ego." Fellow Lutheran Mark C. Mattes points out that the wide appeal to theosis/divinization represents this priority of ecclesiology over soteriology, the church over the gospel, and the inner word over the external word. Jenson and his circle ("evangelical catholics") are oriented toward a theology of "‘supernaturalizing the natural,’ as John Milbank has interpreted Blondel’s and de Lubac’s work." The problem with this view is not its refusal of autonomy to creation; rather, it is that its conception of participation is "configured within a transcendence dominated by the metaphor of ‘ascent.’ This implies that our agency has bearing coram deo."
It ignores the truth that before God, we are fundamentally passive—solely receivers…The moral life that accords with such passivity is active service to the neighbor, and the appropriate metaphor for the Christian life is ‘descent’ in charity toward others…In a radical departure from the Lutheran affirmation that the church is an assembly of people shaped by the gospel’s message and sacraments, Jenson believes that God expresses his identity to the world as a creature, the body of the church.
In fact, according to Jenson, the church as "the body of the totus Christus" is "that creature that makes sense of the rest."
November/December 2007©9Marks