Pages

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Transformers 3: A Philosophical Mashup

transformers 3

I just had the opportunity to watch Transformers 3 with a couple of good friends. In keeping with the previous two movies, I could not recommend this movie on account of language, some suggestive humor, and some unnecessary immodesty. That brings me to the story itself which is . . . intriguing to say the least. I would like to note that I will sound like a complete nerd talking about all of the characters and elements of this story. I am, however, writing this not out of some obsession with science fiction; I am writing this with the hope of causing us (believers) to think about the way that the world programs our thinking even in what many of us might consider to be “neutral” ground. After all, how much of a worldview does an action-packed science fiction movie really have? That is a question that I will now try to answer.

As a preliminary note, this post contains a number of spoilers. You certainly do not need to see the movie to understand my perspective, but if you choose to watch the movie and want to enjoy the story as it unfolds, you might wait until after you see the movie to read this post.

That being said, I could not help but notice a number of glaring worldview conflicts. To give a brief but necessary synopsis of the story, the Autobots remain in their alliance with the humans helping them to deal with various national security threats, Deceptacon or otherwise. As the story progresses, it becomes apparent that the Decepatcons are far from defeated and now pose a greater threat than ever before. Through a series of intricately planned events, the Decepatcons successfully turn the humans against the Autobots resulting in the Autobots being exiled from earth. In keeping with their normal conduct, the Autobots warn the humans that the Deceptacons will not keep their bargain but peacefully accept the humans’ request and leave. The space vehicle carrying the Autobots is then destroyed by the Deceptacons as it is beginning to break Earth’s atmoshphere. After being rid of the Autobots, the Deceptacons unveil their real plan, just as the Autobots had warned, and begin their destructive takeover of Earth. It is only after the Deceptacons inflict incredible destruction that the Autobots return after narrowly escaping the shuttle. It is here that the Autobots make the key point that I would like us to focus on: humans will only see their plight after they have been ripped from their comfortable, self-indulgent lives. Though my synopsis is does not do the story justice, I believe that the point is sufficiently clear.

As I was watching, I could not help but think of our own country and how we are rushing toward our own destruction but refuse to see it due to our own hedonistic and pragmatic concerns. While our country marches down the path to international impotence, moral inversion, and economic death, its people willingly sit by in a haze of self-absorption. Such a degradation in society makes me wonder if Transformers 3 accurately depicts what a wakeup call really will entail. In many ways, such a depiction might make us think that a return to good ol’ fashion American values is what we really need but here is where the story really gets interesting.

The heroes of the story certainly do “the right thing” and stand up for freedom, stand up against the imminent tyranny and slavery. The flaw is that most of the heroes in this story are motivated by self-interest. The main character and hero, played by Shia LaBeouf, continually demonstrates an attitude of entitlement and self-exalting arrogance. Such an attitude from someone who is supposed to be a hero gives us quite the mashup of worldviews in that he makes some of the right choices for completely wrong reasons. Good heroes are supposed to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others, not so they can gain some skewed sense of self-worth.

Bringing those thoughts into the context of our own nation,the question that I find to be so thought-provoking is this: how many of us, in our patriotic attitudes, are motivated by similarly wrong motivations? Do we seek our freedom because we think that we have certain inalienable rights or entitlements (which are in reality merely privileges given by God)? Do we seek our freedom so that we may continue to heap to ourselves? Do we seek our freedom because losing that freedom would be ripping away the security blanket of affluence? That is not meant to come of as judgmental in any way but rather to provoke self-examination and make us think about why we so desperately desire the freedom that our Constitution has afforded to us. These are issues that I personally struggle with myself. I do not want to lose any of my freedoms but I have to ask why. Is it because I think that such a loss will inhibit my ministry or because it will just cause me some discomfort?

In the end, both types of people portrayed in Transformers 3 are self-absorbed and neither one reflects what a Christian should aspire to. In our Christian lives, everything that we pursue should be driven by a concern for others and the glory Christ alone. In that, we must always be conscious of the dangers that can happen by going to either extreme; we know that apathy and lethargy are wrong but we should also consider that zeal for the wrong reasons can be just as wrong even if the action itself is right. We do not want end up as the Pharisees who “cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence” (Matt. 23:25).

Monday, June 20, 2011

The Faith of a Father: A Profound Impact

Dad and IThis post comes at a unique time considering Father’s Day was only yesterday. In some ways, I hesitate to publish this now on account of the fact that I do not want it to be construed as just something that I have written in light of Father’s Day. These thoughts actually flow from a question that I have been pondering for a number of days. The question: who has had the single greatest impact upon your spiritual life and walk? As I pondered that question, I thought of a number of different people that have greatly impacted my thinking but when I narrowed it down to one single person, my father stood out as the single most influential.

To give a little background, my father is pastor so I was raised knowing nothing else. Through the years of sitting under his teaching I always respected him and what he taught, but I never really applied myself to learning the things that he was teaching. I believe that part of my attitude had to do with the fact that people always told me that I was going to end up being a pastor like my dad. Though I had a tremendous appreciation for my dad’s ministry, I did not want follow in his footsteps having seen firsthand the hardship and difficulty that comes with such a position. To make a long story short, the Lord ended up bringing me to see my own selfishness and through His leading I feel that God is calling me to pastoral ministry. In hindsight, I have realized how much I shortchanged myself by not paying attention to the teaching that was right in front of me. Nevertheless, the one truth I did not miss was how my dad always elevated Scripture as being the only absolute and source of truth.

That principle, though seemingly rudimentary, has been all but forgotten in the modern realm of ministry. As I have started to iron out various doctrinal issues and philosophies of ministry, I have tried very hard to study in a manner that is honest to Scripture and biased by nothing other than what is found in the text. I have always tried to ensure that my faith was not inherited, not built upon my father’s faith. At the same time, I recognize that such thinking has been the result of my dad’s influence in faithfully upholding Scripture as the only God-given standard for truth and conduct.

As I pondered my dad’s influence, I began to realize that he could not have given me anything of greater value. To instill in me anything more would have been to give me a foundation and a set of rules that was not my own and would have resulted in blind legalism, to instill in me any less would have been to leave me without bearing in a dangerous sea of conflicting and often Godless worldviews. As I have begun to come to some of my own convictions, I am starting to see what my dad has given me cannot led me astray because it always leads me back to the feet of my Lord. It is for that single principle that I will never be able to thank my father enough. It is now my goal to simply follow the challenge of II Tim. 3:14-15, “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Heartless?

Joel 2_12.jpgI have heard some people say that a Reformed view of Scripture and the Gospel promotes an elitist, heartless, intellectual determinism. Though that can happen, I do not think that it is exclusive to a Reformed understanding of Scripture. Nevertheless, Reformed thinking is what I was thinking about this morning.

As I was driving to church, I was listening to an introduction to the White Horse Inn Discussion Group. They were recounting the inception of the group and the general intent of the group. One particular sound byte that they were talking about was from a show a number of years ago. It was a recording that they took while interviewing a number of professed believers. In the interview, they basically asked the question: can you describe the Gospel? As one might assume the answers were widely varied and every single person interviewed missed the point completely. That of course made the point of those on the panel of the White Horse Discussion Group and they went on.

Some time later, the White Horse Inn members heard about how that particular set of interviews impacted Dr. R. C. Sproul who was, at the time of the original airing, driving in his car. As he listened to people’s understanding, or lack thereof, of the Gospel, he became overwhelmed with sorrow; it was said that he actually had to pull his car to the side of the road as he wept over the lack of understanding that has so permeated Christianity at large. There are few men in Christianity that have such an incredible burden for people to know the truth about the one true God and Savior of men.

I think of my own life and I am shamed by that. In thinking about my past, I can recount breaking down in that type of anguish only over losing a dear friend or relative. I have not yet come to such a point of love for the truth that I weep when people do not comprehend or even care to comprehend it. In many ways, Dr. Sproul’s response almost makes me look like the one  who is heartless.

So then, I would ask: Does the example set by Dr. Sproul demonstrate a heartless, determinism? Have you ever been burdened for God’s truth to such a degree? Instead of criticizing the finer points of his theology, though they probably exist for most of us, let us (myself included) be challenged by his example; why don’t we cultivate the same kind of love for our God and Savior.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Cheapening the Name of Jesus

Over my spring break, I have had the opportunity to read Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason for my Introduction to Philosophy class. I had already had the chance to read How Should We Then Live and thoroughly enjoyed it. I can once again say the same for Escape from Reason. Since I do not have time to post a full review of the book, I would like to share what I believe to be one of the most eye-opening points in the book.

To give a little bit of context, Schaeffer traces the historical progression of Western philosophical thought. His goal is to show why the modern man thinks in the manner he does. Though most people are unaware of their own philosophical views, the general consensus among the modern man amounts to relativism. Thus Schaeffer says,

I have come to the point where, when I hear the word "Jesus"—which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and his work—I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word "Jesus" than almost any other word in the modern world. The word is used as a contentless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from those which Jesus taught. Men are called to follow the word with highly motivated fervency, and nowhere more than in the new morality which follows the New Theology. It is now Jesus-like to sleep with a girl or a man if she or he needs you. As long as you are trying to be human you are being Jesus-like to sleep with the other person, at the cost, be it noted, of breaking the specific morality which Jesus taught. But to these men this does not matter because that is down-stairs in the area of rational scriptural content.1

It is a scary thing to think about how many people have fashioned a Jesus according to their own liking. It is worse yet to think that Christians are guilty of the same thing by softening the message of the Gospel, feminizing Christ, or simply failing to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). It seems as if we are able to slap Jesus’ name on something, it becomes okay. Though I have heard it joked about, there seems to be a “Christianized” version of everything the world comes out with. As a result, Christianity no longer stands for anything; affirming the name of Jesus is cool as long as you have do not have truth to back it. Those are just some thoughts that really hit me as I was reading. I hope that they can remind us all to make sure that our affirmation of Christ really does mean something.

“Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”
Jude 24–25


1 Schaeffer, Francis. Escape from Reason. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books), 
Pgs. 100–101.