Transformers 3: A Philosophical Mashup

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).

Heartless?

I 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.

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.

Living in the Moment

It seems that God has brought a recurring truth into my life. That truth is that I need to keep my focus in the here and now. It is too easy to get caught up in thoughts about where my life is headed in the coming years, months, weeks, and even days. That is not to say that planning is a bad thing and it is necessary but it must always be kept in check. In some ways it seems that college is an exaggerated portion of life where I am not really at home while at the same time I have not really begun a life either. That being the case, I tend to look forward to when I am no longer required to go to class, write papers, and meet Christian ministry requirements; I look forward to when I will be able to apply myself to the studying of God’s Word as I am led and to minister as I am needed. Though it is fine for me to anticipate those things, it is important for me to not miss what God has for me right here, right now.

Some months ago now, my church had a guest speaker by the name of Conrad Mbewe. If you are not familiar with him, he is a pastor from Lusaka, Zambia. He has partnered with Ken Turnbull and a number of other Godly men to start African Christian University. I have even heard him called the Spurgeon of Africa and after hearing him preaching, I can understand why. Since Pastor Mbewe has been in the ministry for well over 20 years, I took the opportunity to ask him what advice he had for a young man entering ministry. I will never forget what he told me. He told me to focus on my day-by-day walk with Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what God has down the road but what God has right now. It was a truly humbling thing for me to hear partly because it is so simple. I so often tend to complicate it by wondering if/when I will go to seminary, if I will pastor a small rural church, if I will end up being a church planter on the other side of the world, and so many other things. Leaving all of those questions unanswered, I must simply conclude that I will live by faith (Gal. 3:11).

Living by faith is a very simple concept yet it is one of the hardest things to practice. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” (Matt. 6:26-27). Jesus’ point is that dwelling upon the things of tomorrow will not change anything. I can sit and think about tomorrow for as long as I want to but that will not change that tomorrow will bring what God ordained it to bring. That is why just a few verses later Jesus said, “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things [temporal goods] shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). When I look to Christ and what He has for me today, I need not worry about what tomorrow may bring.

It is a tremendous comfort for me to know that I do not have to have it all figured out. I must simply be faithful day by day. It is when I am faithful in the little things of today that God can entrust greater things to me tomorrow (Matt. 25:23).

Surrogates: Pursuit of Illusion

I just finished a movie entitled “Surrogates” starring Bruce Willis. Upon finishing the movie some thoughts came to me regarding how the movie relates to modern society. If you are not familiar with the movie, the plot centers around a futuristic world of remote controlled machines called surrogates. The surrogates look, sound, and function in the same way that humans do all while allowing the human “operators” to stay in the safety and comfort of their own homes. The story unfolds to show these surrogates implemented en masse transforming the culture into a practically danger-free environment. Overall, it is an intriguing premise but I do not want to go into the finer details of the story. What I would like to do, however, is point out how such an idea is truly the logical end of the extreme Facebook usage so often seen today.

I would like to preface my observations by saying that I do not think Facebook is evil and I doubt one would conclude such a thing after following a link to this post from Facebook. My only purpose is to point out how we must use Facebook in moderation just like anything else. It is an excellent tool to keep in touch with friends that we might otherwise never be able to. That being said, abusing that tool is still a very real danger.

I think what hit home to me when I saw this movie was that the people operating the surrogates were people trying to create and live that ever illusive “perfect life.” The entire idea is based around physically perceived beauty and what the world thinks is attractive. The film portrays a beautiful society filled with perfect looking people while the imperfect operators veiled their true identities. Living such a life leaves no room for true experience, perceiving emotion, or being able to just “be there” for someone. In reality, it leaves no room to see past a person’s imperfections and see them for who they really are. What kind of life is that? The answer is: It’s not. It is an illusion, a virtual or even alternate reality of sorts.

What’s my point? Well, the same can be said for Facebook when it is improperly used. How often do we try to create an image of ourselves, rubbing out or omitting the imperfections? In the past days and weeks I have been considering that very idea as it applies to my own life. I sometimes hesitate to post certain things because I do not want to create a counterfeit image of myself; I do not want to create an affectation of myself. I want to be just as genuine in real life as I am on Facebook or in any other environment.

Though such genuineness does have its personal benefits, it should be noted that the real motive should not be centered on self. Our real motive should be that we are representing Christ. Ephesians 2:6 tells us that God has “made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” It is that truth that demands a genuineness of life. To misrepresent who we are is to misrepresent Christ because we are in Christ. Furthermore, I Corinthians 6:19 asks the question “know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” Verse 20 then tells us that we “are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” To put it succinctly, our body (and how we portray it) is not our own, it is God’s and to misrepresent that is to misrepresent God.

God did not save us because we are perfect. If we were perfect we would not need to be saved. In fact, it is our imperfection and our need for a Savior is something that gives God glory. That being true, we do not need to cover our imperfections but glory in the fact that God can use us in spite of those imperfections. We do not need to put on false airs to impress our friends, we need to put on the genuine lifestyle of who we are in Christ to reach a dying world. May we never get sucked into Satan’s trap of “perceived beauty.”

Please feel free to contribute if you have any further thoughts.

Some Perspective on Losing the Ones We Love

While I was in Hot Springs for the Cornerstone graduation we had a very good time of fellowship which at one point included a time of singing. One of the songs we sang was “It is Well.” The words of that hymn have come to mean a great deal to me as I have learned of the circumstances under which they were written. For those unfamiliar with the story, “It is Well” was written by Horatio Spafford as he dealt with the loss of his 4 daughters. Some sources cite that Spafford had actually lost his son just a few short years earlier. Even so, this man could still say “Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,It is well, it is well, with my soul.”

As we were singing this song, I was thinking about the loss that was felt by Horatio and his wife. From the depths of his grief, Horatio turned to Christ and the truth of His accomplishment on the cross. What a humbling thought. As I just meditated upon these things I began to think about God and specifically how He relates to loss. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that “we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are.” This is often related to the fact that Christ was tempted and yet without sin as the verse obviously states, but I believe that it goes further than that. The high priesthood of Christ has to do with compassion for our weakness; it has to do with the sympathy of understanding that can come only by experience. It is a comfort to know that when we struggle with sin and temptation, Christ has struggled in the same way and knows the difficulty of residing in a weak flesh. But what about the times when we are dealing with loss? Does He really know what we are going through? Has He been there? The answer is without question: YES!

To understand the parallels between God and man in feeling loss, we must first articulate the perception of loss. In short, what makes loss so emotionally traumatic is the reality of separation. We cannot bear to lose someone because of the fact that we are separated from them. In our grief it might be easy for us to turn away from God saying “He may understand suffering but He doesn’t know what it’s like to lose someone.” On the contrary, throughout the Bible we see that God has experienced loss and He has experienced it to an extent that we will never know. The greatest example of this is the sacrifice of Christ. Matthew 27:46 says that “Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” As Jesus hung on the cross, He was separated from the intimate fellowship of the Father because of the sins that He bore. Just as no human is corporeally changed in death, neither was Jesus any less God as He died on the cross. Just as we do not cease to love those whom we lose, neither did God cease to love Christ as He took upon Himself the penalty of our sin. But, just as we are separated from the fellowship of those we love by physical death, so was Christ separated from the Father as the sins of men were laid upon His shoulders. Isaiah 53:5 tells us that Christ “was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” It was because Jesus bore our sins that He was separated from God the Father; His fellowship with the Father had been severed by the weight of sin.

Have you ever considered what Christ’s sacrifice truly encompasses? The physical aspect of Christ’s suffering is enough to make us quiver but what about His loss of fellowship with God? The intimacy of the relationship between God the Father and Christ goes so much deeper than anything a human has ever known, yet God still allowed it to be broken. Severance from the presence of God was part of the punishment that Christ had to bear for our sin; it is a part of what makes sin so horrible. So, just as we experience the severance of a relationship as a result of death, so God’s relationship with His Son was broken by the weight of our sin upon Him. He experienced that loss so that our losses can be restored. When we lose someone dear to us, we can have a confidence in knowing that our Lord knows what we are going through because He has experienced a loss far greater: being severed from the presence of God. It is because Christ was forsaken that we never will be.

As we see our own losses in light of the cross, they pale in comparison. As believers, we will never have to know what severance from the presence of God is like; we will never have to know more than temporal separation; we will always have that intimate relationship with Christ. Jesus Christ knew the ultimate loss so that we would never have to. To me, that puts it into perspective.

The Breakdown of the Family: A Parallel of Rome and America

The breakdown of the Roman Empire has some striking similarities to what is happening in America today. Today we are seeing a breakdown in every aspect of our culture from morals, to work ethic, to even basic social structure. For those who are interested in politics and other mainstream social issues, there is often a tendency to ask the question, “what is causing such a breakdown?” Often times, that can even be a puzzling question for the believer. To see an example and illustrate the answer to this question, we will again take a moment to look back in history.

Originally, Rome was a nation that was based upon hard work, simplicity, discipline, and character. Even those who were considered to be “nobles” plowed their own land and were ready to fight for their country at a moments notice. As the nation began to develop, they began to expand their borders through military campaigns known historically as the Punic Wars. The increased focus upon conquest, new land, and greed began to adversely affect the entire Roman culture. The focus upon external conquests led to a loss on family focus. The shift led to a breakdown in morals, family values, and often even the dissolution of marriages. That is a result that may well have been due to the fact that the male head of the home was so often gone to war, leaving the family without the proper leadership.

In sync with the breakdown of the family was the breakdown of the national economy. As Rome encompassed other nations, national trade increased and the price of imported goods dropped greatly. As the market was inundated by new trade, Roman farmers often could not compete and would be forced into the cities in search of work. Even then, the farmers were often hard pressed to find work due to the prolific slave market. That progression led to cities being inundated with jobless, hungry mobs of impoverished citizens.

On the other end of the spectrum was the upper class that leveraged the national shift to their own personal benefit. As the smaller farmers were forced into selling their farms to move to the city, the wealthier men of the empire were able to buy up huge estates that were managed and cared for by slaves. In fact, at one point, all of the land in Italy was owned by less than 2,000 men. Other members of the upper class were able to secure similar monopolies in the area of business. The one thing that most of the upper class had in common was that most of them were somehow involved in government. The resulting system was one of extreme debauchery and corruption.

As the upper class began to develop, they realized a definite need for controlling the mobs. Instead of trying to better the impoverished, the rich upper class did only what they found personally expedient. Often times, the upper class did such things as buying the votes of the people by handing out bread and entertaining the people with the gladiatorial games. As the people began to embrace this demeaning new way of life, they lost every ounce of dignity that they had left. The Roman civilization became a culture that was focused on handouts and entertainment, not family and the cultivation of values. In short, Rome had become an entirely entertainment driven society. From that point the corruption only grew worse and though there were periods of reformation, the breakdown eventually led to the collapse of the Roman society.

The most important thing to take from this tragedy is the fact that it all began with the breakdown of the family. Regardless of cultural background, the proper management of a household and the rearing of children is an extremely difficult task. That being true, there must be solid, consistent principles taught and applied within the home. When they are not, the results are catastrophic.

Sadly, the same thing is happening in America. The difference is that the downfall began through a simple shift in the educational field. That shift was the institutionalizing of education. Through the implementation of a public school system, the schools were entrusted with the responsibility that actually belongs to the parents. Instead of the parents teaching their own children, the responsibility of education fell to a person totally disconnected from the home. Over the years, the public school system progressed by adding new subjects, new programs, and more educators. With those developments, the emphasis on family and the amount of time available for family diminished. The death blow was dealt in 1963 with the ruling on the case of the Abington School District v. Schempp. It was in that case that the public reading of Scripture by teachers was banned. The result was a turning away from Godly life principles and the basis from which to teach moral absolutes; its effects are still being felt today.

Today, parents are not generally concerned about training or preparing their children for the arena of life. For many parents public school is just “free” daycare and the after school activities are little more than an extension of the same. That gives the parents more of an opportunity to advance their own careers or even their own hobbies. The remaining time that the family has together is often filled with movies or video games so that the parents are able to simply get the kids out of their hair. Even the church has embraced this idea of separation by having a Sunday school class for every age while frowning upon the idea of family worship. So often this is done to keep everyone happy and appeal to the entertainment philosophy that we have embraced. Just like Rome, America has become an entirely entertainment driven society that is beginning to reap what it has sown.

Though there certainly are differences, the similarities are striking. First, just as Rome moved away from family and toward what seemed to be national advancement, America began to move away from parental education to advance what seemed to be the good cause of secular education. In both cases, education suffered in order to embrace ideas that were seemingly good. The problem in both instances, however, was the fact that neither move was Biblical. The second, and most obvious, parallel is that as both societies moved away from a family emphasis, they became enthralled with entertainment and personal gratification. The whole issue boils down to the fact that having a family and doing it properly takes a great deal of work. When we desire our own personal gratification over that work, our families will suffer and eventually our society will suffer.

May the example of Rome be a constant reminder of the importance of family. Proverbs 22:6 is probably the best summation of the parental responsibility as it commands parents to “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” That verse makes no mention of personal comfort. It is not about the parent, it is about the training of the child. This is most certainly not to say that it is not a joyful experience but simply that the focus must not be on self. When the focus is on self, the family suffers and ultimately the society will suffer.