You're a Good Man, Mankind?

I just started reading an excellent book called "Superheroes and Philosophy". It's a collection of essays about the philosophical ideas presented in superhero comics, comparing them to Socrates, Aristotle, the Bible, etc. Sounds silly, I know. But superheroes, whether in comics, movies, or Saturday Morning Cartoons, do present a lot of topics for discussion. Some of these are the nature of man, the idea of good vs. evil, and the concept of friendship. The book addresses why Batman, though surrounded by allies, doesn't seem to have anything consisting of a true friendship, or why superheroes even decide to fight for justice.

Some of the chapters are silly or poorly written, and initially, the use of Greek philosophers raised my eyebrow (metaphorically), as it may have for you. But the editors, who do most of the writing, have sound ideas, and seem to even have a correct understanding of theism. The main editor may even be a Christian.

In any case, this post is not meant to be a review, so I'll get to the point. One of the biggest issues is why anyone with superpowers would decide to fight for good, especially when it meant giving up so much. One philosopher cited in the book claims that justice only exists as a way for weaker people to protect themselves from stronger people--and thus any intelligent stronger person would overrule justice and take what he wants for himself. But superheroes don't do that--and neither do most people. The conclusion is reached that most people do have some inclination to good that draws them to do the right thing.

But wait! Doesn't this violate everything we know about Total Depravity? Isn't that humanistic propaganda, saying that mankind is inherently good?

Well, maybe not. This is a big topic is superhero media, and one of the reasons I think people like superheroes. Superheroes are a fantasy about incorruptible people--realistic people who go through struggles, yes, but also people who inspire us because in the end they do the right thing.

But how fantastic is the idea of human good? Take the first Spiderman film, where the citizens of New York, though usually antagonistic to the wall-crawler, stand up against Green Goblin in the name of New York Pride. Look at The Dark Knight, when the two ferries decide to risk their own lives in not destroying the other ship. Would this really happen? Well, even if it wouldn't, I don't count this as a point against the movies, since unrealistic idealism is part of the point of superheroes.

But let's go back to the original question--Is mankid inherently good? Usually our first answer is an adamant "no". We are marred by the sin nature and incapable of good without Christ. This is true. But is the sin nature, our "nature"?

Ultimately, no. Never forget that humans are created in the image of God. It is never natural for humans to sin. Our inherent nature is perfection, innocence. Sin is a disease which corupted that. A man with cancer is not cancer. A man with leprousy, though he be called a leper, is not leprousy incarnate. He is an otherwise healthy man marred with an external disease that has infected him.

In many ways this quesion is pointless. Since the sin nature dictates our actions, for practicaly purposes we are sinful creatures. But our inherent nature is one of good. This is how even the unregenerate sinner knows that what he does is wrong--he simply has no ability not to do it. Mankind, even unsaved mankind, does have an inclination to good, they just practice only evil.

Granted, this means the scenes from Spiderman or Dark Knight may be unrealistic, but I wouldn't call them humanistic. They acknowledge that there is an unchanging idea of good and evil behavior, something humanists deny.

And the most important thing is this--we must never forget where we came from. Too often we see only the sin nature and forget the image of God. When you look at a lost person, do you see someone God fashioned with His own hands in His image to be perfect, or do you only see the sin nature marring that perfection? Never forget that the sinful person you are witnessing to is a man or womn Christ died for. While we may be covered in cracks and burns, we are pots made by the Expert Potter--and so are the lost world.

The Answer to Life, the Unverse, and Everything

Why are we here? This seems like a question only someone without a knowledge of the truth would ask. Obviously we as Christians know, right? God made us. Why the question is...why? What are we put on this earth to do?

Many would say we are put on this earth to spread the gospel--to witness. Without being harsh I answer to that an emphatic no. Man cannot be created to witness because without sin, a result of man's own disobedience, there would be no need to witness. Eden needed no evangelists, and neither will heaven. Also, God can (and often has) brought men to Him entirely without our help. Witnessing is a blessing for us in participating in God's plan, but it is not our chief end.

Our chief end, the reason we were created and still exist, is to glorify God. This is why we were made. This is why He gave us a will--because we can praise Him better than any animal.

I've been thinking about this as we discuss Worship in the class Foundations of Church Music. Since worship is our purpose, it must be pretty important to God. But why?

When I was a little kid the hardest part of prayer for me to understand was praise. How do you praise God? I started by simply saying, "You are a Great God." But, I thought, didn't God already know this? How can it satisfy God to hear us telling Him what He knows infinitely better.

This leads to another important fact I have come to believe--Our worship does not benefit God. It pleases Him, yes, but it does not improve Him or change Him at all. God cannot grow, cannot be made greater by our praise or anything else. What do you get the God who has everything?

So why does He want worship? It often strikes us as strange how much God likes to focus on His greatness. He commands us to praise. As I said in an earlier note, He often even breaks us down just so that we realize how much we need Him. Is this pride? Obviously not, because He deserves it. But still, it sometimes seems petty, like something a pagan god would demand, to demand our praise. How can our praise mean anything to Him?

I submit that He wants our praise more for our sake than His. God is a God of order. He desires things to be as they should be. The natural order is for the weak to praise the Almighty. Even the rocks and trees know this--as they are all prepared to sing if we slack off. So He created us--vessels to praise Him, because that's the way things are supposed to work.

That's why He likes to break us--not so He can stand over us and say, "I told you so. I told you you needed me." But because when we are lying on the ground, our back broken and face crushed in the mud, we can finally have peace. We can stop trying to do things ourselves and let Him take care of it. It's much better for us to rest in the medical tent than to try and run into a battle only He can win.

Worship should never be done with a selfish attitude. Our goal is to praise God, not to benefit ourselves. But as we worship Him, we find ourselves overwhelmed with the peace that comes from things being as they should. And somehow, in some inexplicable way, the refuse that we offer up as praise is a sweet smell in His nostrils, and our feeble attempts to do Him justice put a smile on the face of the God who cannot be improved upon.

Why Can't We Be Friends?

In chapel today Dr. Anderson made the comment that we live in a fractured culture. He made this comment in reference to the generation gap, but it got me thinking about the idea of a broken society. Has our culture broken itself? Does it undo the very ideals it is trying to achieve?

Look out For Number One
One of our chief "virtues" in America is independence. The day most people equate with patriotism is Independence Day. We frown at the collectivism the Chinese displayed in the Olympic ceremonies. Many still consider our greatest enemy to be communism. (Communism is a very flawed idea, to be sure, but mainly because it is too perfect. Such an ideal is not possible, though if it were it may be sound.) But Americans think the problem with communism is simply the fact that everyone looks out for each other instead of themselves. We cannot grasp the concept of caring more for the group than the individual. This thought scares us--if we start seeing our communities as more important than ourselves, we will become mindless Borg.

Individualism Brings Isolation
What has this mindset achieved? What is the result of unbridled individualism? This brings us back to the fracturing of society. It is my opinion that our individualism has brought us only isolation. We try to be our own people--and in the end that is all we are.

Consider the counter cultures for a minute. A Goth teen will say that he is tired of doing what everyone else is doing--he will be his own person. But in the end he is just like every other Goth. Though he claims he doesn't need support, in reality he simply goes elsewhere--to a counter culture--to find it.

Everybody... Needs Somebody...Sometimes...
In this way many Americans don't seem to realize how much they need companionship. We think we can do it all on our own--and the solution to all of our problems is to separate more and more from those we are dependent on. This has led to the degradation of an important part of society--Friendship.

Take, for example, the way people look at brotherly love. It is not acceptable in our culture for two guys to hug or say they love each other without bad connotations. People watch Lord of the Rings and immediately think Frodo and Sam are gay because they have a true friendship. Two guys can only be friends in the capacity of hanging out and having fun--but imply that they care about each other and assumptions are made. The same thing happens with a guy and a girl who are genuinely "just friends."

I think a lot of this has to do with our "me" mentality about friends. I have friends because they do something for me--provide enjoyment or amusement, or for the sake of romance. Once a friendship stops benefiting me, I end it. And in a paradoxical way, when you reach that point, friendships don't benefit at all.

I think this is specially true among guys. I have the blessing of great Christian friends. But it is still awkward sometimes to talk about something serious with a friend with whom you joke around a lot. Now that I know my friends very well, I can switch from Chuck Norris jokes to discussing temptation or struggles with sin. But for many this is not easy.

Why have we become so awkward about discussing our feelings with each other? Why is it so hard to rely on a friend and trust them with private information? Maybe it is because we wouldn't want to hear our friends bare their souls to us. A friendship needs to be for the sake of our friend, not ourselves. Only then can we truly benefit from the friendship, and have a deeper relationship than discussing whether Batman would beat Jackie Chan in a fight.

I don't presume to be a scholar of social trends, but it seems to me that our friendships have become more selfish and superficial, and by focusing so much on ourselves we are hurting not only potential friends, but ourselves as well. Fellowship is a foundation of Christian living, and our nation truly is lost if we have forgotten how to make friends.

Why Do We Fall?

Recently I re-watched the movie Batman Begins, obviously in connection to the recent sequel. This post will not be a review on either of those excellent movies, but rather a comment on a line from the first.

In a style similar to Uncle Ben's famous power/responsibility phrase, Bruce Wayne is inspired by a quote from his father of which Alfred later reminds him. The line is, "Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up."

This is one of my favorite lines from the movie, but thinking about it I realized that it is only half true. We do fall in order to learn a lesson, but are we learning to pick ourselves up?

This summer I worked at a summer camp as a counselor. It seems like a job that is all fun and games, but anyone who has counseled before knows that a full summer of 24-hour days with kids is both physically and spiritually draining. We are responsible for the physical safety, fun, and spiritual growth of all of our campers. And every week seemed to be a struggle for at least one counselor. One would get a concussion, another would become ill, another would have a cabin of rebellious or unruly kids. It got to the point where I would ask "Why?" It seemed like camp was hard enough without all of these difficulties.

But this summer I got closer to God than I have ever been. I was forced to develop better devotions and more honest prayer time, because without that connection with God, I would have collapsed. And just when I thought I knew what I was doing and began to be confident in my counseling abilities, God would send another rough week of camp. I soon realized I could do nothing without God.

After this experience I would like to reword Mr. Wayne's famous phrase. Why do we fall? So we stop trying to pick ourselves up and reach out a hand for God. God breaks us so He can put us back together. He puts us through hard times to force us closer to Him.

At first glance this seems barbaric. God delights in knocking us down just to remind us how much we need him? This seems more like the actions of a petty Greek god than a perfect Lord of Creation.

But the reason God does this is not pride. God delights in His own glory, yes. In a man this would be pride. But God cannot be prideful, one reason being that He actually deserves glory, unlike anyone else. Another reason is that God's desire for praise and recognition is not for His own benefit, but ours. God knows what is best, and out of love always does what is best for us.

And God knows that we will never be truly happy unless we realize our relationship to Him. The hard times He sends to break us are merely so we do not try to stand against even greater storms. He allows us to stop trying to stand up on our own feeble feet and finally lean on the only One who can hold us up.

Some Thoughts Allegorical

Recently I watched the movie Prince Caspian in the Chronicles of Narnia series. I will try to keep this from being a review (though I do like reviewing) but I wanted to share my thoughts on allegories. I have heard time and time again that the Narnia stories (and, an even more ridiculous claim, Lord of the Rings) are allegories. These claims are not only false, they annoy me. C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien both stated clearly that their works were not allegory.

A nice claim, but can they prove it? Well, check the definition of an allegory. Dictionary.com calls an allegory "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms." An allegory must represent something spiritual by something physical. Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory. Christianity, Despondency, Vanity; these are all represented by people, swamps, cities.

Now take, for example, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. People cite this as the most blatant allegory because the correlation to the cross is so obvious. But take a second look--is Aslan dying on the Stone Table a physical representation of a spiritual event? Absolutely not--and this thinking can be dangerous. Christ's death on the cross was neither abstract nor primarily spiritual. It was a physical, real, historical event. Aslan was not a picture or type of Christ--He was Christ.

Anyone familiar with the series can tell you that Aslan the Lion was simply the form Christ took coming to Narnia. In the world of men, He came as a man. In a world of talking animals, He came as an animal. Narnia is not a world where the spiritual is made physical--it is portrayed as a world where real, physical things that happened on Earth such as Creation and the Crucifixion happen in a slightly different way, but just as real and physical.

What I find interesting is that some say Prince Caspian is less allegorical than the first book. I disagree. Neither are allegorical, but Prince Caspian includes some physical representation of spiritual events. It is less clear in its purpose because it does not portray a past Bible event--it portrays a struggle we have today. Peter tries to fight the battle in his own strength--and loses. His failure is graphically shown as many die for his choice. But when he puts his trust in Aslan, all is well. We do not fight physical battles, but we still need to trust in God. Only by His strength are we kings and queens.

That said, I would like to return to the idea of allegory. It is important that we realize that things portrayed in so-called allegories like Narnia and Lord of the Rings are just as real as they were in the stories. The events described in the Bible are not abstract, and they are by no means only spiritual.

There is a difference between having a spiritual point and being an allegory. Any good movie or book will have a spiritual point. This often leads to ridiculous claims of type and allegory. Superman is often compared to Christ (especially in Superman Returns) because he is a hero. I have even heard Harry Potter called a type of Christ because he was willing to give his life to help is friends. This is missing the point! Any good hero will be self-sacrificial! This does not mean he is anything like Christ, and it is nigh blasphemous to presume so. Yes, most protagonist show Christlike attributes, but this is because Christ is the ultimate example. Anything anyone does right is Christlike.

I look forward to more Narnia movies--while some cite the first as the best because the symbolism is most obvious, I like many of the others because they give lessons not just in the events of the Cross, but in the character of God and in righteous living (though the first had much of this as well). Be careful not to spiritualize the events of the Bible or carry allegories too far. Don't look for symbolism where it's not there when watching movies based on Christian tales--just try to see where you can learn from what the characters learn. Every allegory falls apart eventually--even the parables of Christ cannot be taken as detail-by-detail correlations. But a good story giving deep spiritual points--these will last a long time.

see more song memes


see more song memes


see more song memes


see more song memes


see more song memes

Dayenu--It is Enough

דַּיֵּנוּ

LORD,

It would have been enough if you had created the first man perfect, but you provided a test to prove his faith.
It would have been enough if you had provided a test, but you promised a redeemer when he failed.
It would have been enough if you had promised a redeemer, but you gave us a law to remember that promise.
It would have been enough if you had given us the law, but you also chose a people to protect that law.
It would have been enough if you had chosen a people, but you allowed those not chosen to partake of blessing too.
It would have been enough if you had allowed Jews and Gentiles to partake in the law, but you provided a Lamb for those unable to obey the law.
It would have been enough if you had only provided a Lamb, but you sent him as flesh to dwell among us.
It would have been enough if he had dwelt among us, but he also committed no sin.
It would have been enough if he had committed no sin, but he died to defeat Satan.
It would have been enough if he had defeated Satan, but he also defeated sin and death.
It would have been enough if he had died for our sins, but he rose again.
It would have been enough if he had risen again, but he also gave us the Holy Spirit.
It would have been enough... but you also gave us eternal life.
It would have been enough... but you gave us the ability to do good.
It would have been enough...but you give us spiritual blessing on earth.
It would have been enough...but you give us peace and joy.
It would have been enough...but you give us physical blessing.
It would have been enough...but you give us suffering to bring us to you.
It would have been enough...but you give this to any who will come.
It would have been enough...but you spread your gospel so all can hear.
It would have been enough...but you let us partake in this miracle by ministering through us as vessels.
It would have been enough...but you give us rewards in heaven for work you do through us.
It would have been enough if you had offered all this to any who will accept it, though sinful man's heart cannot and will not. But you chose some to be regenerated and able to accept your gift.
It would have been enough if you had chosen some...but you chose me.

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory...Amen.
--Ephesians 3:20-21

Let Us Feast

I intended to post this on Good Friday, but my time was otherwise occupied. Easter is a fitting day to post this as well, though.

America has many holidays. The bank closes on days such as Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, and Valentine's Day. These are usually just an excuse for corny ads and a day off of school, however. Few consider the origins of the holiday or observe the holiday in any major way. Catholics celebrate many days of the year for their religious significance. But as American Protestant Christians, we do not have many holidays that we actually celebrate. Palm Sunday is usually just an occasion for special music at church. Good Friday is sometimes ignored entirely, though it commemorates one of the most important events in history. And many events the Catholics observe, Protestants ignore.



What's the point of bringing this up? Well, I thought of it because of some unique circumstances this year. Easter is unusually early, so Passover, which usually falls close to Easter, is now a month later. But another Jewish holiday falls on the same day as Good Friday--Purim. Purim is the celebration of the events of the book of Esther--the preservation of the Jews under the Persian Empire.

Christians rarely celebrate Purim. Neither do many celebrate Passover, though both these feasts commemorate Old Testament events, which are of course included in our Bible as well as the Jewish one. Even Hanukkah, a holiday many think is simply a pagan version of Christmas, is an event that affected Christians--if the Jews had not been preserved through the events of Passover, Purim, and Hanukkah, Jesus would not have been born and we would still be in our sins. The salvation of the Jewish race was vital to the salvation of Gentiles, so we should celebrate as well.

We as Christians tend to think of Judaism as ritualistic and legalistic. But especially in the feasts, Jews have an advantage. A Gentile nonbeliever would not be as prepared as a Jewish nonbeliever to hear the gospel--because much of it Jews already know. Jesus is clearly seen in the feasts of Israel--and we have much to learn from Jewish Christians in this respect.



Besides giving us a picture of Christ, I believe celebrating Jewish feasts would greatly benefit our Christian culture. We have so few true religious holidays--Thanksgiving does not even have roots in the Bible, and is nearly as commercialized as Christmas. Easter is often simply forgotten aside from wearing pastel colors one Sunday.

Easter is one of my favorite holidays because it is always so joyous. Christmas is a peaceful time--I enjoy it the most in the evening with Christmas lights and singing soft carols. But Easter is a time for enthusiasm! Singing "Christ Arose" or "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" always puts an excited smile on my face. Holidays should always be time of rejoicing--and Jewish holidays are no different.

We tend to think of somber holidays like the Day of Atonement when we think of Jewish feasts. But think of the Feast of Tabernacles--an enjoyable time of camping in self-made tents outside while celebrating God's provision. Purim is a happy feast--cheering at mentions of Mordecai and booing at Haman's name.

Purim includes one interesting tradition I discovered this year. Celebrants dress up in costumes like Esther, Mordecai, or simply random costumes like mimes or cowboys. This has to do with the theme of mistaken identity which permeates the book of Esther. Xerxes was unaware of Esther's identity as a Jew. Haman thought the king wanted to honor him instead of Mordecai. And one presence is hidden throughout the book. The name of God is never mentioned in the book--but He is clearly behind the scenes dictating every event. This hidden identity is celebrating through the use of costumes. Everyone likes dressing up--and celebrating Purim is a way to enjoy this activity without supporting Halloween.


The point? I think American Christians have too few holidays where God is truly celebrated. God wants us to be full of joy. We should celebrate Him constantly, but frequent holidays remind us of this too. The Old Testament is as much a part of our faith as the New, so there is no reason not to celebrate Old Testament feasts. We would have more occasion for appropriate and godly celebration, and more importantly, we would be often reminded of the great things God has done.

I Need a Hero

As a minor note of news, you can now view comments to a post while staying on the main page of this blog--just click the "X Comments" link and it will pop open.

On to the post.

With recent changes in superhero movies and the increased popularity of fantasy stories, the concept of "hero" has changed dramatically. Should the hero of a story be infinitely powerful and morally perfect, like the early concepts of Superman? Should the hero be constantly challenged by inner conflict, likeFrodo? Should the hero even be a hero?

The fantasy genre is especially going through this conflict, with its many subgenres such as sword-and-sorcery, high fantasy, and low fantasy. The main difference between genres within fantasy, besides types of mythology used, seems to be the concept of heroes. I realize I am now in the minority as a fan of high fantasy.

High fantasy is a dying art--because it includes admirable heroes. And the trend seems to be away from this type of hero. Many people don't want to look up to the characters in a book--they want to relate to them.

Role-playing Games
When did this trend start? Besides the simple fact that moral heroes make our increasingly sinful world feel uncomfortable, there is another factor. Fantasy has seen a comeback since the days of Tolkien largely due to role-playing games.

Role-playing games began as a form of cooperative storytelling--everyone assumes a character and describes that character's actions based on their personality and character traits. Not surprisingly, the more popular these games became, the more corrupted they became. The word "game" led people to believe that the object was winning, not coming up with a good story. So players built their characters to do whatever would make them stronger and wealthier, not what would be most realistic.

When role-playing games moved to computers and video games, the game obviously had to become about growing stronger and wealthier, not about the story. Who would play a computer game where the goal wasn't to get stronger? So the heroes no longer wanted to save the world, as much as they want to make money and gain experience.

The Mercenary
For a player who wants to make a character that will gain wealth and experience fast, the easiest character to create is the mercenary. This character does not care about other people unless helping them will earn him rewards. He may do good or evil--whichever helps his personal gains.

This character is almost necessary is computer and video game RPGs. But because of the popularity of RPGs in general, this character has spilled over into standard fiction. Fantasy books are full of characters who only wish to serve their own ends--and these are more often than not the favorite character. No one respects a true "good guy" any more.

Heroes and Anti-Heroes
This doesn't mean that heroes can't have struggles. The anti-hero can be a great character in a lot of fiction--someone who can't decide whether he is good or evil, someone who does evil thinking he is doing good, or someone who tries to be good (or evil) and constantly struggles with crossing the line. No character should be perfect. However, there is a line crossed. A good guy should be good. Never perfect, but someone one can admire. I want a hero to be someone at least a little better than I am--but so many stories have even the main characters behaving worse than the average person. And if the writer wants to get across that a certain person is a good guy, I should know that he's a good guy--and in the end he should have conquered at least some of his demons--not given in to them.

The Hero and the Mercenary
An example of the breakdown of heroes is the Pirates trilogy. Take Jack Sparrow in Pirates 1. He's an antihero. He mostly does everything for his own benefit--or so we thought. He just can't bring himself to betray the good guys even when it was in his best interests. He does things that he calls "incredibly stupid"--he can't explain why he does good, but he does it. Jack Sparrow was a man one could respect, yet retained the mystique of a "bad boy" nature.

But in Pirates 2 and 3, this changed. Writers noticed that it was Jack's bad side that attracted viewers, not his good side. So they played this up in the next movies. He changed into the mercenary. He no longer had any conscience at all. Any good he did was only because he thought it would benefit him more. He changed from a mysterious, intriguing anti-hero to a selfish, grubby, pitiable mercenary. This, I believe, is why these movies were not received as well as the first by many. As much as people say they want to relate to a character, everyone wants someone they can look up to.

This is why Spiderman is more popular than, say, The Punisher. Spiderman is relateable in that he possesses weaknesses and flaws, but he does what is right when he can.

Mercenaries can be great characters in fiction--as can anti-heroes. But sometimes, it's refreshing to have a character "just trying to do the right thing in a mixed-up world"--someone doing good, simply because it's the right thing to do.

Shedding the Blood of Prophets

This post is sort of a pet peeve, but I have reanimated that decaying corpse quite enough--so I will refrain from using that term in this post.

I was reading Matthew 23 recently, and came across this passage--

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" (Matthew 23:29-33, NASB)

The Pharisees boasted in their descent from the heroes of the Old Testament, while at the same time declaring that they would not have made the same mistakes. Christ declared that they made the exact same mistakes and so demonstrated the lineage they boasted in.

We look at this example and wonder how the Pharisees could claim that they would not kill prophets while planning to kill Christ? Couldn't they see?

But here we make the exact same mistake as has been made all through history--we think we are too smart to fall into the same holes as our fathers, and we fall. We say to ourselves "How could the Israelites in the desert continue to doubt? How could Moses disobey God in striking the rock? How could the disciples not have faith when the storm clouds came? How could Martha not see that Mary had chosen the better part? How could Peter deny Christ? How could Israel praise Jesus only to crucify Him a few days later?

We say, "If I had lived in the time of Christ, I would have followed Him." But when we look honestly at ourselves, can we still say this? We have the full revelation of the Bible and the Holy Spirit to help us live rightly, yet still we sin. How then can we condemn characters in the Bible when they erred, in absence of these benefits? Would we, without seeing the whole story, accept the claims of a country preacher to be God incarnate?

When looking at Bible stories that present characters in a less than favorable light, remember this--these were the founding fathers of our faith. We should not give them the status of demigods as the Catholics have done, but we must not condemn every sin committed without keeping in mind our own flawed nature.

A couple examples--

(1) Martha. So often we see Martha as the carnal busybody with no concern for the spiritual. Foolish Martha, why can't you be like your sister Mary?

But we forget to look at Martha's other appearance. John 11 gives us considerably more insight about Martha's character. We see how Mary and Martha respond to the death of Lazarus because Christ delayed.

Often we read this story with our anti-Martha filter on. We see her say "if You had been here, my brother would not have died," and see her rebuking Christ for not getting there sooner. Then we see Mary say the same thing and think, Poor, wounded Mary.. She just wanted her brother to live. Why are we so biased? They say the same thing--yet Martha adds more. Mary's faith stops there until she actually sees Lazarus raised up. But Martha says more--

"Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give you."

She understood that Jesus has the power to do anything--faith we don't see in Mary. See what she says next.

"Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'"

Martha saw that an immediate resurrection was not necessary--she would see Lazarus again and it would be enough. Later she acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, demonstrating theological knowledge beyond her time--namely, the resurrection and the fact that the Christ was also the Son of God. She had more faith than many, since she did not need to see a miracle to believe. So instead of criticizing her, we should learn from her example.

(2) Peter. Peter is another example of a hero of the faith whom we bring down to make ourselves feel better about our own faith. We tell ourselves that we would never deny Christ, or that we could have walked on the water without doubt.

Peter is one of my favorite characters in the Bible because he's an excellent example of how God uses the traits we already have. Peter's personality? He was a rock--in more ways than one. He was a scandalon-- a rock of offense who said what was on his mind no matter what people thought. This was both an advantage and a disadvantage. He was often the first to speak--and sometimes he was right, sometimes not. But at least he spoke up. A good example is in Matthew 16. Peter is the first to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ--not being afraid that the others wouldn't follow. Not long later he rebuked Christ for talking of his death--once again speaking up first, but this time he was wrong.

Take the example of walking on water. Peter didn't have the faith to walk when the waves grew large--but everyone else stayed in the boat! Would we have gotten out?

One of Peter's biggest blunders is his denial of Christ. We criticize the fact that he was only in the courtyard a short time before he broke and denied Christ. But except for John, all the other disciples had already forsaken him! (Matt. 26:56) Peter's denial was not an example of how he was weaker then the other disciples, but how even he could not boast in his strength.


The main thing to remember is that the people in the Bible we often criticize were great men of the faith (why is it that Peter is called "the one who denied Him" instead of "the one who walked on water" or "a pivotal character in the founding of the church"?). They kept the faith without the Holy Spirit or the complete Scriptures. So go a little easier on them when they "shed the blood of prophets".

Yet another video...

Eventually I'll start doing some real posts on here...