Who has your back?

Asante Samuel of Philadelphia Eagles makes many interceptions. At times he will see something and tell the other defensive back “Cover my man for me,” and make his play. The play works when someone has his back, giving him the freedom to go for it.

Who has your back allowing you to go for it?

Whose back do you have allowing them to do the same?

SBC Statement on Agreement and Differences

Today I ran across the statement that was released by the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the various area of belief where they agree and where they differ. I found it quite interesting and in most areas a statement that could have been written for the Evangelical community at large. It does not address some hot topic issues that are used to divide today, which I like. It actually appears to recognize that those topics will change as time goes along. It looks at the overarching theological concepts that seem important. It clearly is addressing the Calvinism/Armenian divide. I like how it says repeatedly, “We agree that . . . but we differ on . . .” or “agree to disagree” while remaining believers in the same camp. I have pasted it below. It would be interesting to see how other view this statement.

With a full recognition of the limitless wisdom of God’s Word and the limited wisdom of ourselves, we urge Southern Baptists to grant one another liberty in those areas within The Baptist Faith and Message where differences in interpretation cause us to disagree. For instance,

§  We agree that God loves everyone and desires to save everyone, but we differ as to why only some are ultimately saved.

§  While we all heartily affirm the article on election in The Baptist Faith and Message (Article V), we differ as to whether the response of faith plays a role in one’s election.

§  We agree that the penal and substitutionary death of Christ was sufficient for the sins of the entire world, but we differ as to whether Jesus actually substituted for the sins of all people or only the elect.

§  We agree that the Gospel should be proclaimed to everyone, but we differ as to whether or how every hearer will be enabled to respond.

§  We agree that everyone has inherited Adam’s hopelessly fallen sin nature, but we differ as to whether we also inherit his guilt.

§  We agree that men and women are sinners, but we differ about the effects of sin on the mind and the will.

§  We recognize the differences among us between those who believe that sin nullifies freedom to respond to the Gospel and those who believe that freedom to respond to the Gospel is marred but not nullified.

§  We agree that God is absolutely sovereign in initiating salvation, uniting the believer to Himself, and preserving the believer to the end, but we differ as to how God expresses His sovereignty with respect to human freedom.

§  We agree that the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel enables sinners to be saved, but we differ as to whether this grace is resistible or irresistible.

§  We agree on the necessity of regeneration that results in God-ordained, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered obedience from the heart, but differ as to whether faith precedes regeneration or regeneration precedes faith.

§  We agree that most Southern Baptists believe that those who die before they are capable of moral action go to heaven through the grace of God and the atonement of Christ, even as they differ as to why this is so.

The History Channel’s The Bible: My Thoughts, Part 6

This weekend we will see the final segment in the mini-series. As I look forward to this Sunday I have been asked by some to give it a grade. I have said, I do not think that is fair to do for a couple of reasons. First, it is not over yet. But also because that would cause me to focus on some of the things I did not agree with when there were far more things I did agree with.

One of the more pleasant surprises for me has been the way they have woven extra-Biblical history, and Jewish Rabbinical commentary, into the accounts. The beauty of the history is that it supports the accuracy of the Biblical text. It allows us to see how these other nations records weave into, quite often, briefly worded accounts in our Bible. The beauty of the Jewish commentaries and other historians is we get a view that we miss in simply reading the Biblical account. They often reveal the utter sinfulness of the nations of Israel and Judah which led to their judgment. This also forces us to ask questions about God and not simply gloss over things we do not understand. One example would be when we see such violence portrayed on both sides, as it really was in the ancient world. (More will be said on that in the next posting.)

As we look forward to this weekend’s segment, it will cover the crucifixion, resurrection and early church. I have seen several clips ahead of time and already know some responses. It will show the suffering of Jesus more graphic than most of these movies do, without being quite as “on screen vivid” as The Passion of the Christ. This week I would encourage you to watch how Jesus interacts with Peter. Peter denied Jesus, and cannot forgive himself or even as Jesus for forgiveness. Watch Jesus say things like, “Tell our brothers . . . and Peter.” I would like to go into how at some point Peter received a private time with the risen Lord, but I will resist.

I am eager to see the depictions of the early church and how it grows. As I said in an earlier post, “People are actually talking about the Bible!” Many of them have never read it or do not understand it. Perhaps this series will lead some to a beginning of faith, while it leads other to a deepening of their faith. Count me in the latter group.

The History Channel’s The Bible: My Thoughts, Part 5

Week three of The Bible mini-series is now history. I am sure that once again there are an numerous critics who will feel the need to point out the “errors” in the presentation. I am encouraged by the many folks who have reached out to me and said they intend to look beyond the perceived differences to see what God may be saying to them as they watch the series, just as I stated I intended to do. As I have stated, there is more than one account where I think they have some details incorrect. But there are far more where I feel they got it right. That is encouraging.

This week my thoughts went a different direction. As I sat and watched week three, I was taken by the number of times they took a different slant on the interpretation of how an event (we both believe actually happened) may have gone down. Here are a couple of cases in point.

When Joseph is visited by the angel to tell him to go ahead and complete the marriage to Mary, it happens right out in a public environment. A child takes his hand, who then transforms into the angel of the Lord and gives the word by the Lord to Joseph. After the visitation, Joseph is alert and still in the same location and no one around him notices what has taken place. Earlier, when Mary is visited by the same angel, it also happens in the middle of the day. Now, do I think that is exactly how that scene played our 2,000 years ago? I do not know. And neither do you. But as I said to my wife as we watched it, “Now that is an interesting take on the event. God could have an angel visit someone in broad daylight and in a full crowd if he desired. Who is to say the visitation occurred in the middle of the night as he slept as we usually picture it.” He was in a dream and asleep according to Matthew, but it does not have to have been sleep as we think of it at night. There are accounts in Scripture of this sort of event in front of folks who had no idea what was taking place. In Luke, Mary’s visitation does not mention sleep at all. Whether or not I agree is not the point. It is a dramatic interpretation that comes from the mind of someone who believes Jesus birth was miraculous just as I do, and it speaks truth to me and I am sure to many who viewed it.

A second time this was well played was at the birth of Jesus. (And witnessing that scene HAD to bring tears to your eyes; the portrayal was very moving!) While I do not think the Magi and Shepherds appeared at the same time, the scene where they were all present and at once bowed to Jesus was magnificently done! The look of shock on Joseph and Mary’s face was masterful directing and incredible acting on both their parts. It showed how this young couple (although Joseph may have been in his thirties) would have probably responded to the actual worship being given to this child. In Luke it never says the Shepherds bowed down. In Matthew the Magi clearly did, just as depicted. That does not take away from the power and the beauty of the scene and God spoke peace to my heart while I watched it.

Before closing this entry, I must say that I was troubled that some tried to make the depiction of Jesus’ temptation political in 2013 by implying a Satan character was chosen to look like the current President of the United States. When you see the renowned actor who played Satan, without makeup, it makes the controversy seem even more ludicrous. My fear was that something such as that could slow the movement of folks who may actually read the Bible after watching The Bible. I will pray that is not the case, especially as we move into these final two week.

The History Channel’s The Bible: My Thoughts, Part 4

Week three of The Bible mini-series will air tomorrow evening. Since I have access to portions ahead of time, I am privy to some of what we will see. I am sure there will once again be the array of critics who will feel the need to point out the “errors” in the presentation. I intend to look beyond that to see what God may be saying to me.

One of the scenes to be depicted involves Daniel and his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s disturbing dream. That is the very passage I will be speaking on in worship tomorrow as I follow along with the series throughout the month of March. It is one of the most marvelous passages in the entire Bible when it comes to God giving His plans to humanity. One of the most interesting parts in this passage carries a great parallel to Joseph in the book of Genesis. In both account, God reveals what is going to take place to a non-believing monarch. In both instances the recipient is very distraught over the incident. In spite of the fact that they have no idea what it meant, they both know it is something of extreme importance.

Tomorrow in my sermon I will not be spending much time tomorrow in the analysis of the interpretation of the dream. Others far superior to me on all levels have undertaken that task. But that is not the primary reason I do not intend to camp out there. It is because the man who interpreted the dreams for the king, Daniel, did not think that was the primary lesson. He thought the primary lessons revolved around the character and attributes of God, in this case God’s wisdom and power. It is pretty clear why Daniel focuses on those attributes of God. He is wise enough to understand all that is in store for humanity and wise enough that humans cannot understand it on their own. But also, God is powerful enough to see that it comes to pass, just as He said it would.

That would be cool if it simply stayed there, but of course that is not how I roll. I am going to push into it with my hearers a bit tomorrow. Do they really believe in those two things? Do they really believe Gods is wise enough to know what is best for them in all circumstances and responses they may have to activities in their life? Do they really believe God is powerful enough to see that things in their life transpire in a way that would be in their best interest, even in cases where they may make a decision that is less than what He would desire? Can God take an act meant for evil or just simply for foolishness and redeem it into something honorable? Does God know what it should be and can God bring it to pass in my life and in your life?

The History Channel’s The Bible: My Thoughts, Part 3

The second night of the series is now history. (Pun fully intended.) I can almost hear the screaming at the sets across the nation. I would be less than honest if I were to say that I agreed with every interpretive element and the way it was portrayed on the screen, because I was not. Numerous time sensitive elements we out of place, or skipped over but for crying out loud, as I said the first week, they only had ten hours to cover a this material.

However, once again, I intend to look beyond those to what I consider to be the bigger picture. The way I view the “bigger picture” falls into two primary categories.

Folks are actually talking about the Bible! It is “trending” on Twitter. Facebook is screaming with folks comments. I cannot help but think that if folks are talking about The Bible on television, that many of them may actually be reading the Bible . . . perhaps on their free app! If we who believe the Bible, believe it as we say we do, then we believe that God’s word will not return to Him barren or void. We believe it is alive and powerful. We believe that if we just get it out there it can take care of itself. The Bible does not need us to defend it any more than a lion needs us for defense. Just let it out. It can take care of itself. The ensuing dialogue among co-workers, students, neighbors, friend, acquaintances and family members will bring fruit for the kingdom.

The producers got the big themes right. For the sake of cinematography and film making, some items are a bit different than we may like. I get it. But the primary themes have been accurate. Do you hear the characters saying some of them?

   ·         “What the Lord gives, he can take away.”

   ·         “You think God doesn’t see everything?”

   ·         “If we obey the Lord, anything is possible.”

   ·         “You have a God who commands the winds and parts the seas.”

   ·         “A king is never above his God.”

As we move toward the final three Sunday nights, I have great anticipation that the portrayal of Jesus will do just what he said. “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” While that “lifting” first occurred on a cross 2,000 year ago, perhaps now we can do a different kind of “lifting up,” and Jesus can draw folks to him. Look around friends. Our nation is in deep need of the love and grace and direction only Jesus can bring.

The History Channel's The Bible: My Thoughts, Part 2

After my first entry on The Bible, a friend of mine asked me about my statement regarding our “interpretive differences.” His comment was that does not Scripture have only one interpretation and many applications. It is a good, honest and worthwhile question. Here is a part of my response to him along with some further discussion.

First, I have heard (as you have) the “one interpretation – many application” thing for as long as I remember. What I have found often is it is a hermeneutic ploy used quite often when someone wants to trumpet their particular interpretation of a passage. While “technically” it is a very true statement, and I agree with it, the fact is, quite often it is not as easy to determine what that “one interpretation” is. I cannot tell the times I have gone into a passage with my one interpretation, only to have someone suggest, “Have you thought about it this way?” It has often caused me to reexamine my “one interpretation” as truly accurate to what God was actually saying. This to me is not a lowering of Scripture but a raising the standard of the text. I so believe that the Scriptures are “God breathed,” to quote Paul, that it behooves me to be sure I really am getting at what was being said, and not allowing my western eyes or my evangelical eyes or my male eyes or whatever to influence me from the truth being taught in a particular passage.

Secondly, and more to the point in this discussion, most of the “interpretive differences” that occur in a video or television series such as this one are from narrative passages. They are not depicting the letters of Paul, Peter or John for example because . . . well, how would you? They are depicting what 85% of what the Bible actually is . . . narrative. The many narratives are given to us to show how faith in God is played out in real life experiences. In these narratives we have different views (or interpretations, although as I think about it, perhaps “interpretations” is not the best word) as to what may have happened. For example, in the account of Isaac, they surely omitted some items in the television production. Some quick examples: They did not depict clearly the three days travel of Abraham and Isaac and the servants were not with them. Another would be that Moses wife and children never appeared on the screen. A final example would be the number of Israelites in the Exodus. There were possibly as many as 3 million persons who crossed the Red Sea. That would be difficult to show on screen I imagine.

But here is where our difference can get in the way. Take two examples. Abraham, Isaac and his servants traveled for 45 miles from Beersheeba to the region of Moriah. In that entire time, Genesis 22 only records two one sentence conversations. One was Abe to the servants and the other was Abraham answering Isaac’s question. Surely in a three day journey there was more said than that. Surely in the 2-3 hours it would take Abraham and Isaac to build the altar more was said than the one sentence that is recorded. Yet we are left to our own to think what that discussion may have entailed. It does not take away from believing in the text just because what I think may have been said and what someone else thinks is different. The narrator who wrote the passage (Moses?) is only giving details that support his main point, which is “Abraham was tested.” A second example is the crossing of the Red Sea. There was no image of the pillar of fire/cloud that separated the Israelites from the Egyptians and the parting of the waters was done in very dramatic fashion. That is to be expected. However, all Scripture says is that a strong east wind blew all night and dried up the ground for them to cross. How it looked, we do not know.

Those are some of the types of differences I am referencing. They are just different ways of looking at the same event, while both lenses may give equal credence to the accuracy of Scripture. 

The History Channel's The Bible: My Thoughts, Part 1

I was a speech communications major in college. That meant 30 plus hours of speech, theater and classes in that vein. I was involved in several productions and enjoyed the time spent acting immensely. After college I remained in the speech realm in preaching and teaching. Later I was in a drama group where we performed all manner of productions. In addition to acting, I was able to be involved in directing and writing a lot of drama, including a full three act play.

While I was in that group, we led our church of 3,000 in an annual production called a “Praise Pageant,” which was a combination of music and theater done with the highest quality by trained individuals. It was attended by 10,000 folks a year. I was privileged for four years to play Jesus in that production. It was, and is, the highlight of my dramatic involvement. I have some of my fondest memories from those events.

In addition to other outcomes, it also led me to a great love of what I like to affectionately call, “Bathrobe Dramas.” Some are quite well done and very accurate Biblically. Others are less well done, and less accurate. I simply take them as they are intended and enjoy them. At times they have given me a new perspective on a passage that I had not thought of before.

In my collection I have numerous DVDs of Biblical productions. Many have some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry playing key roles. For example, I have one on the life of David where Leonard Nimoy (Spock from the Star Trek series) plays the role of the prophet Samuel. These DVDs are a great source of Biblical discussion between Gavin and me. He and I will play a portion of one and then talk about what we have just seen. At a later night we pick up where we left of. It is a great way to open up discussion with children regarding the Scriptures.

For those reasons and many others, I was very excited to learn that the mini-series The Bible was in production and sought to be Biblically accurate and cinematographically done of the highest quality. You will notice some “artistic license” in this series as with all of its predecessors. After all, they only have so much time and so much material.

I was a bit dismayed reading online this evening some of the numerous criticisms on the production after only one installment. Can we not forget our interpretive differences? I know some things shown do not line up exactly, but come on people, if you get lost in those all I can say is you have simply lost the plot!

While we are at it, let’s be honest here, some of the things folks are complaining about are not as clear in the Biblical text as we want to believe they are. In many of the Biblical narratives, there are details that quite honestly are not given at all! What do we do? We fill in the details as WE think they were or as we want them to be. Some of our blank filling comes from ideas, thoughts, past sermons, or whatever, that we bring to the actual text. Then when it is not portrayed on the screen as we think it should be, we get all over it. In truth if we go back read the text slowly and thoughtfully, we find it is not as cut and dried in some of the narratives as we may have thought.

Can we not simply be glad that people are actually talking about our Bible in a positive light on two major cable TV channels? Do we need to pick apart items that are moved around for the sake of artistic license or to make a story flow on the screen? Do we have to get on them because of the English or American flavor in places? Can we not give credit where credit is due? This was a monumental task they have undertaken and I for one cannot applaud their efforts enough. Would we really rather folks were watching Honey Boo Boo or Teen Mom? Have WE lost the plot of why God has us here in the first place?

I have read so many criticizing the accents, or the portrayals that I wonder if they noticed some key items. Did you not notice that there were more people of color in this version than in any of these films I recall ever seeing? There were two angels with Abraham and Lot. That should be accurate enough for the most cynical. But did you notice that one was portrayed as a Black man the other as an Asian? Did you see that throughout each scene, God was portrayed as ultimately FOR us not against us?

In my weekly emails to each congregation I have served as pastor in recent years I close them with the phrase “Come expectantly,” in regard to Sunday worship. For this television mini-series my phrase is “Watch expectantly.” See what God may have for you.  Why is that so hard? Could it be that somewhere deep down we are afraid of what God may actually say to us?