home | archives: September 2008

Welcome

FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion, politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about all seven.
 

Features
 



Tags
 

Archives
 



 

Search
 



Updates



Follow me on Twitter
 



Recently read:
Nonfiction
 


Recently read:
Fiction
 



Palin pick should force Liberals to face Grace

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 04:25 PM ET , Friday, Sep 12, 2008

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Media: Left-Handed News, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Legalism



For several years, I’ve barely written about political issues. Since retiring somewhat from the incidental position of “token campus-newspaper right-winger,” my interests have diverged more into socio-cultural tenets and worldviews. That especially includes the struggle of true, God-focused, Biblically balanced Christianity against heretical views and other bad stuff.

Meanwhile, the presidential election kept going and I didn’t much care. The conservative crop of candidates was underwhelming, and I’m not just saying that because all the other conservatives were saying that. Sure, many bloggers and such were trying to muster sufficient enthusiasm to defeat either Clinton or Obama with whoever we had to work with. But I would rather write about honoring God in art and fiction, discouraging seriously false doctrine, or the nature of films and books that reflect tenets of Scriptural truth, whether intended or not.

Then along came that governor of Alaska as John McCain’s vice-presidential pick. And right away I reverted into a flag-waving, fired-up neo-con artist cliché with the rest of them.

For a few days, I had just a mild case of struggling. No politician is perfect, I told myself, and that includes the former mayor, current governor and pro-life mother of five from the 49th state. I’ve enjoyed the Republican convention and Sarah Palin’s speeches; I find her presence in the campaign inspiring — but I know it’s propaganda. It’s propaganda, I keep telling myself.

Ah, but then I’m reminded that some propaganda is true. This very site is propaganda — most websites are. My own thoughts include propaganda, which I often hope to repeat to myself, such as the Gospel and its effects on my life. All political movements are propaganda.

And that’s all right. With the hope of a glorious and legalism-free life, I am at liberty to enjoy propaganda and make some of my own. Lord willing, I won’t elevate politicians or political causes over the centrality of the Gospel, or the Church’s need to proclaim that Gospel in-depth to believers, and to non-Christians at the same time — whomever the Lord will draw, often with our blessed involvement. But that doesn’t mean other topics are unimportant or off-limits.

Therefore, once again on this site, I can write about political issues from that point of view. Palin and all the discussion and the (oft-manufactured) controversy surrounding her brings such fascinating frontiers to explore. In this case, such exploration can be done specifically regarding the issue of Grace in the Christian faith.

As usual, Liberals don’t get the Christian concept of Moral Law. But even more so, whether knowingly or not, Liberals even less comprehend the existence of God’s Grace toward sinners.

Continued ...



The obscurity of ‘purity’ and Christ-honoring art, part II

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 04:09 PM ET , Thursday, Sep 04, 2008

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Christian Novels, Life Applications



(As I did last week, I've also posted this part-two-of-three column to Speculative Faith today.)



Last week’s column, the first in this three-part series, began with a rebuttal to the pervasive notion among some Christians (both real and merely professing) that Christians are meant to avoid exposure to any type of evil, whether real or represented.

To that we find several objections, backed solidly by Scripture itself. Verses such as Philippians 4:8 never encourage Christ-followers to think about only nice things. The Bible itself often represents rebellion in much of its rot-gut disgustingness. The Gospel narrative itself comprises dark and bloody elements. And lastly, Christians were never taught to avoid the world and all its cultural products by the Apostle Paul, who illustrated the point with both words and by example. One of those examples is the below verse:

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything.

1 Corinthians 6:12 (ESV)

Here, Paul quotes what was apparently a Corinthian proverb, and this instance, qualifies it with the Christian view. “All things are lawful,” the Corinthians apparently liked saying, but Paul goes on to say: Yes, but not all is beneficial. What is the point of doing “all things” if they only enslave you? The Apostle doesn’t even use the it’s-just-wrong-or-could-tempt-you-toward-evil argument. Instead, he goes for a more obtuse objection: what would be the benefit of doing something? Will it help you in Christ, or glorify sin?

That’s the argument I hope to make here, hoping to correct the opposite extreme of the first of three views on portrayals of evil. The first was a notion that Christians are commanded to think only about pleasant and Godly things and expose themselves to as few portrayals of evil as possible. But the second view goes something like this:

2. Because we’re saved, there’s nothing wrong with seeing the same movies, listening to the same music, reading the same books as others. After all, they’re just movies, music, books; I’m mature enough to handle these things. Besides, for much too long Christians have segregated themselves and been legalistic, and we’re supposed to be “all things to all people.” How should we evangelize if we don’t understand the culture we live in?

Continued ...



Debunking Davis on doctrine, labels and Gospel parallels

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 11:29 AM ET , Tuesday, Sep 02, 2008

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Media: Film and DVD, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology





Three weeks since my response at the Dragons in Our Midst blog, the author has kept up his negative contentions about the newest and beyond-blockbuster movie Batman film. According to Bryan Davis, the film was much too dark, encouraging sin and hopelessness, and with muddled moral meanings that — unlike some Christians claim, including myself — in no way reverberate the penal-substitution aspect of Christ's sacrifice.

But after Davis warned he would not publish further comments from me if I continued “labeling” (itself a label, by the way) Davis's views (with terms such as “neo-Pelagian”), apparently the author has seen fit not to approve my most recent response, which I tried to post on Wednesday, Aug. 27.

Naturally, then, I'm re-posting it here, after only adding Davis' original comments that I was addressing.

For now, I am not accusing either you or Truth Seeker [another commentator who disagreed with Davis] of holding to a false gospel. I don't know enough about your beliefs to make such a call. In fact, I haven't accused you of anything, yet you have labeled me as being neo-Pelagian. Enough said on that.

[. . .]

More later ... maybe. I don't want labels thrown around. If you continue doing that, I won't publish your comment.

Bryan, firstly, as for throwing around “labels” in my last contribution — well, I also like to call those “words,” and you yourself used 188 of them in your response. ;-) The label I used in capital letters was neo-Pelagianism, meaning that your views on man’s nature, before and/or after salvation, are remarkably close to that idea.

Theologians both professional and amateur, “good guys” and “bad guys,” have used and continue to use such terms all the time, in order to save space, sort and organize ideas and compare today’s doctrinal views with those of their earlier advocates.

(If you like, I will later use other terms on myself as well, and thus demonstrate their harmless nature and lack of weaponized damage!)

Such terms do not count as an “accusation” per se as you said, but are merely descriptive. And the term I used was in support of my view that your perspective on matters relating to man’s nature are affecting your views on the story elements of films such as The Dark Knight, and apparently other media as well.

To be sure, it is my view that your foundational views are wrong, contrary to common sense and moreover, Biblically untenable; but whether the views are right or wrong — or my ventured connection between the views and your dislike of the film is right or wrong — is another issue.

Continued ...