The Shadow of Christ in Braveheart

Ok, I admit that I get a little tired of "Finding God in _____" books. As a sidenote, I recently saw there are two of those books out on The Shack. Seeing as The Shack is supposed to clearly be about God, it's probably a bad sign that you need some other book to help you find Him in it. While all of its supporters were touting The Shack as a modern day pilgrim's progress, can you imagine a book called "Find God in The Pilgrim's Progress"? Of course you can't, because anyone who's read Pilgrim's Progress has no problem seeing God in it on their own (I did search amazon for a book of this sort for Pilgrim's Progress; didn't return any results). Anyway, I digress.

Even though these types of connections can be trite, as I watched braveheart for the 700th time today (rough estimate), I was struck with the many connections between William Wallace and Christ. This is particularly evident to me in the mini-redemption of Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce starts out a slave to others, mainly his father. This is in stark contrast to William Wallace, who because of his commitment to a principle (freedom), is a slave to no one.

Ultimately Wallace's commitment to a principle, a principle that also committed him to a people (the Scottish), cost him his life. He never backed down from suffering, but willingly accepted his death on behalf of his cause. Yet in his death he was victorious. I think two things impact Robert the Bruce about the suffering and death of Wallace: 1. That he himself betrayed a great man in Wallace 2. That Wallace loved a principle and a people enough to die for them. Robert the Bruce knew that wasn't him. He realized he was rather a selfish man, only after his own crown. But in Wallace he saw the emptiness of such a hope and was empowered to die to his selfish desires, that he might truly live. His heart was captivated by what Wallace did on behalf of his people, so Robert the Bruce was changed in such a way that he now wanted to live, and possibly die, for freedom. He wanted to be like Wallace.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think we get a full blown gospel parallel in Braveheart. Even Chronicles of Narnia couldn't deliver that. But I think there are some definite parallels. To name a few:

• Wallace suffered and died for a principle and a people. Jesus suffered and died for God's glory (Jn. 12:27-33, 17:5) and for the redemption of all who would trust Him (Heb. 10:14).
• Wallace suffered and died to set the Scottish free from British oppression. Jesus suffered and died to set us free from our slavery to sin under the law (Gal. 3:10-13, 5:1).
• Robert the Bruce realized he betrayed a great man. The centurion present at Jesus' crucifixion realized that they crucified the Son of God (Mark. 15:39)
• Wallace was victorious in death. Jesus was victorious in death (Col. 2:14-15)
• Robert the Bruce is drawn to Wallace because Wallace was willing to die for his cause and people. Jesus drew people to himself when He was crucified (Jn. 12:32)
• Wallace did not resist his punishment once he was caught. Jesus likewise did not answer back to those who sought to kill Him, but continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:23)
• Wallace finally dies on a cross, before which he yells out "FREEDOM!" Jesus also died on a cross, and in a similar fashion yelled a victorious "IT IS FINISHED!" (Jn. 19:30)
• The result of Wallace's death is that Robert the Bruce is now committed to his cause and wants to be like him (freedom). The result of Jesus' death is that His people are now committed to His cause (God's glory) and want to be like Him (Titus 2:14, Phil. 2:12-13, 1 Cor. 10:31).
• In order to follow Wallace, Robert the Bruce had to deny himself (his desire for the crown, glory from men, etc.). Jesus similarly calls us to deny ourselves and follow Him (Luke 9:23)
• The result of Robert the Bruce's change and allegiance to Wallace is his joy (as is so clear in the final scene when he leads the Scots in battle). The result of allegiance to Christ is fullness of joy (Jn. 15:11, 17:13, Ps. 16:11)

Nonethless, the gospel is much better than Braveheart. Wallace himself wasn't perfect (having sex with another man's wife, albeit a poor excuse for a man, is still sinful). Wallace never makes provision for the guilt of his own sin or Robert the Bruce's for that matter. He also dies permanently, so he can't rule anymore. Therefore the freedom he purchases is temporary, and the kingdom he leads is temporary as well. But Christ was sinless (Heb. 4:15), bore the curse our sin incurred (Gal. 3:13), and rose again (1 Cor. 15:3-4). He therefore purchased us eternal freedom (Heb. 4:9-11, Gal. 5:1) in an eternal kingdom (Isa. 9:7, Eph. 2:6, Rev. 21-22) if we place our trust in Him alone. And in Him there is truly fullness of joy.

I Love This Article

Today I was surfing Desiring God looking for a sermon to listen to to do something different in my time with my God. As I was doing it I stumbled across this article. It drove me to tears and confession before God. I want to pass it along to you:

What Is That To You? You Follow Me!

Enjoy!

Some Initial Reactions to Wayne Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible"

If you catch my sidebar on the books I'm reading you may have noticed that I've recently been going through Wayne Grudem's newest book entitled Politics According to the Bible. I've finished the first 4 chapters. These all fall under the first part of the book, which is entitled "basic principles." This is the part of the book I was most excited to read. I've been frustrated in the past when I hear other Christians debating individual political issues. The reason that can be hard for me is because I find myself unsure of how to even approach politics. How involved should we as Christians be? Should we legislate morality or leave freedom? Should we feed the poor via government or leave that to the people? Should we care for the environment via government sanctions or the will of the people?

Christians fall down on either side of these issues, especially younger Christians who are fed up with the politicizing tendencies of the Christian right. However I think myself and most of my peers also forget the politicizing tendencies of the Christian left (generally seen in the more liberal, mainline churches). The difficulty for me in sorting through these arguments is that I feel I don't know how to even approach them. What constitutes a "correct" view on a given issue? What does God want politics to look like? So, I got Grudem's book and was excited to read it. Here are some initial reactions 4 chapters in:

1. Grudem is an excellent communicator of biblical truth. He writes with such clarity and in general his reasoning flows clearly from the scriptures. He calls error error and truth truth. I really appreciate this about him.

2. In his second chapter Grudem puts forth the idea of "significant Christian influence on government." This is in his view the Biblical position. In support of this he offers a number of OT texts where governments in general, not just Israel, are condemned for their failure to obey God's law in their governance. From this we see God has a moral will for government. He then cites two stories in the NT where Christians confront rulers about their sin. John the Baptist confronts Herod (Matt. 14, Luke 3) and Paul confronts Felix (Acts 24).

The interesting thing to me about these NT texts is the text itself doesn't specify what John the Baptist and Paul confront their counterparts about. It says they call them to repentence, but it doesn't say that has anything to do with their political positions. In fact, in the case of John the Baptist he confronts Herod about his personal sexual immorality. Grudem simply assumes that political advice or calls to repentence in their policies were also there. Thus he finds NT precedent for believers engaging in policy issues. I find this suspect at best. We have no evidence that this is what John the Baptist and Paul were doing, yet these are the only examples Grudem gives of NT people "engaging in politics."

I don't think any evangelical denies that God as a moral will for governments. The question is what we as Christians are to do about it. Should we simply evangelize and disciple everyone, including politicians, such that as they are progressively sanctified by the Spirit they grow in holiness that then overflows to their vocation? Grudem says no, this is not enough. He calls this the wrong view of "do evangelism, not politics." But this seems to be all we know the NT church to be doing. Where is the imperative for the church to be engaged in politics? It seems what we see more of the NT church actually doing and being commanded to do is to submit to the government and to reach the people in it with the gospel, not try to fix the system itself. All he has to counter this are 2 suspect examples.

I'm still not totally convinced one way or the other, but it's the kind of question I wish Grudem had addressed more thoroughly. He speaks of the gospel as God's "good news for all areas of life." I'm fine with that, but it leaves so much unanswered. If the gospel includes the redemption of governments, does that automatically mean it's a redemption we bring about progressively? Is this a post-millenial view where we bring about the millenium by redeeming all areas of life? (But then again Grudem is pre-mil). These theological underpinnings of our view of governments were exactly the thing I was hoping Grudem would have addressed more adequately.

3. This ended up being longer than I thought. More to come.

I'm Still Here

Hey everyone, not much to say in this post, just mostly wanted anyone still reading this blog to know that I am in fact still alive. Haha, I know it's been over a month since my last post and I do want to get back into it. I'm working through alot of good books right now (see right) so hopefully there will be some things the Lord teaches me through them that I could share with you all.

I've started working full-time with The Navigators as a campus missionary at Texas Tech University. The move and getting started have been excited but have also kept me busy, hence my absence from blogging. Keep your eyes peeled though; more to come shortly.

DeYoung on Homosexuality

Kevin DeYoung has a very helpful blog post today in light of Prop 8 being struck down. In it he goes through specifics of what Christians should do in response to this. I appreciated his candor and specificity. I think he's right to point out that many times our advice in dealing with homosexuality is vague and not ultimately helpful. I'd encourage anyone to check out this article. One point I really appreciated:

3. We should assume that there are people in our churches right now struggling with same gender attraction. Leaders need to verbalize this (not specific names obviously) in sermon application and in pastoral prayers. We need to convey that the church is a safe place for those fighting this temptation. Second to Jesus Christ and his gospel, those struggling with same gender attraction need gospel community more than anything else.

And actually one more good measure (this one particularly convicting for me):

9. No gay jokes. None. It doesn’t help our witness and they’re not funny. Plus, the more we laugh at sin the more it gets normalized

Applying God's Sovereignty and Means

My church recently went through 1 and 2 Samuel and I've recently been going through 1 Chronicles in my personal time with God. As the Lord has been teaching me through these portions of scripture, I've noticed something that the Spirit has recently brought conviction about.

My observation is that there are a number of stories where people act in such a way as to bring about a certain result. That result then comes, i.e. the people are successful. Then the text does something perhaps unexpected: it says that God did it. It doesn't say "so such and such happened because the people planned well, tried hard, etc." It just says "such and such happened because God did it." Let me give a few examples:

"And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For the Lord had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the Lord might bring harm upon Absalom." - 2 Sam. 17:14

"and Jehozadak went into exile when the Lord sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar." - 1 Chron. 6:15

"But he took his stand in the midst of the plot and defended it and killed the Philistines. And the Lord saved them by a great victory." - 1 Chron. 11:14

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations." - 1 Chron. 14:17

In each of these cases, something happens that we could explain without God. We could say Absalom perferred Ahithophel's counsel because Ahithophel was a wise guy and Absalom was prideful. We could say Judah and Jerusalem went into exile because King Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful, dominating, king. We could say Israel defeated the Philistines because they had a better army. We could say the nations feared David because he was killing a bunch of their surrounding nations.

But God does not choose to reveal Himself in that way in scripture. He inspires the writers of scripture to instead ascribe these various events as being done by the Lord Himself. They don't say "God allowed such and such to happen," they say that God Himself did it. How are we to understand this? Another text from 2 Chronicles is helpful here.

"But it was ordained by God that the downfall of Ahaziah should come about through his going to visit Joram. For when he came there, he went out with Jehoram to meet Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom the Lord had anointed to destroy the house of Ahab." - 2 Chron. 22:7

Here God ordains both the downfall of Ahaziah and the means through which it happens. God uses means, but is just as sovereign and in control of those as He is the ends. As a result, in any situation we would be right to say that if it happened, God ordained it to happen.

So what does this have to do with real life? Well for me I experienced conviction in the fact that I rarely if ever speak of events in this way. I especially see this come out in the successes of others. For instance, beats me in a sport, has more people in a Bible study, raises more money than I have for their ministry, I'm quick to explain it by "well you know they play more, they're more extroverted, they know more Christians." I'm not saying those things aren't true, it just seems the scriptures might choose to emphasize it differently. I find I hesitate to do so because I don't want to believe that God's plan for my life might not include the same level of "success" as others.

But the fact that everything in my life happens according to God's will is good news, because His will is to conform me to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:28-29), and this is the best thing for me!

What is A Stumbling Block?

If you've been around Christian circles long enough you've undoubtebly heard the term "stumbling block." On the surface the meaning of this term is fairly clear: acting in such a way that you temp another person to sin. Probably the most common example is women dressing modestly in order to not be a "stumbling block" to their Christian brothers. This is certainly a legitimate application of the term and I'm personally thankful to women who observe it as such.

However, I think there is some confusion on how this principle applies in other situations, specifically as it deals with those who have differing convictions. What I mean by that is, one person thinks something is permissible for a Christian and the other doesn't. I've seen this come up in a number of scenarios: drinking, gambling, what movies one watches, what constitutes profane language, the extent of our observance of the law of the land (e.g. speed limit, downloading music), and the list continues. In Biblical times food practices and feast days fell into these categories.

As always the question that should guide our thinking and practice here is "what has God said about it in His Word"? Probably the clearest passage answering the present question is Romans 14. I'd encourage you to read the whole thing or at least have it in front of you as you read my comments on it.

First let's identify the stronger and weaker brothers. Notice the passage is talking about brothers, so we are here discussing relationships between Christians. In verse 2 we see that the weaker brother is the one with stronger, or more strict, convictions (in the case of Romans 14, the one who abstains from meat). This brother could be called weaker either because he has not fully embraced his freedom in the gospel to eat whatever he wants or because actions might cause him to stumble that don't cause others to stumble. So if someone is choosing to abstain from something we are not required to abstain from in scripture, they are the weaker brother.

What then should be our attitude towards one another? To put the matter simply, the one who feels freedom to engage in something that the other is abstaining in should not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains should not judge the one who doesn't (v. 3). This is because we've both been accepted by God and He is our judge (v. 4). We should each do what we do because we are convinced in our minds it is right, and we should do it as unto the Lord (v. 5-6). We shouldn't abstain or not abstain to please others, but because we feel it is what God has called us to do.

If that describes our attitude, what should our actions look like towards one another? In this section of the passage (v. 13ff), Paul addresses mainly the "stronger" brother. He is the one Paul associates himself with (since Paul feels the freedom to eat any food), and he is the one at risk of being a stumbling block. Paul basically says they should not partake of the thing the weaker brother is abstaining from if they are in close contact with the weaker brother (v. 15-16, 19-20).
The reasons given are:

• so that our conduct will not be spoken of as evil (v. 16)
• the kingdom of God isn't in it (i.e. loving people is a bigger deal than abstaining from these things) (v. 17)
• it is the peaceful and mutually upbuilding option (v. 19)
• if we cause a brother to be tempted towards doing the thing he feels God has called him not do, we are tempting him to act out of step with faith, and anything that does not proceed from faith is sin (v. 23, in other words to do the thing he is abstaining from is "unclean for him" (v. 14))

To my mind this text gives us very clear guidelines in how to approach these issues: For those with the more strict convictions (the abstainers), don't judge those who don't abstain. For those with the looser convictions, don't despise those who do abstain. Futher, don't carry out the action the other abstains from in such a way that they might be tempted to go against their convictions.

A quick example of what I mean: I drink. I believe drunkenness is a sin (cf. Eph. 5:18), but I think God gave alcohol for a good purpose (cf. Psalm 104:15) and when used in moderation it is ok. Hardcore Southern Baptists disagree with me. When I am around them or influencing them in some way scripture commands me to abstain from alcohol so as not to be a stumbling block to them.

A note in closing: I want to be very clear that I don't think everyone in the Christian community agrees with what I've just summarized. I hear much more of something to this effect: "If you abstain from the thing the other person is abstaining from, what you're saying is that we don't have freedom in the gospel. This either supports legalism or at least looks legalistic to non-believers. It is therefore a barrier to the gospel." Given the clarity of Paul's thought in Romans 14, the case is just the opposite. Paul sees NOT abstaining when around an abstainer as the real barrier to the gospel, and Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.