"Strict Communion Less Exclusive than Paedobaptists?" or "Should the Water Divide Us?"

The Open Communion VS. Strict Communion debate has once again enticed a generation of Baptists holding to competing views. The question is an old one, "should our churches invite all Christians to partake of the Lord's Supper or just those who have been baptized?"

The open communicant answers, "All Christians should be invited to partake of the Lord's Supper."

In contrast, the strict communicant (under which I include both "close" and "closed," though I disagree with the latter) answers, "Only those Christians who have obeyed Christ and have been properly baptized (baptism meaning "immersed as a believer upon profession of faith") may be invited to take the Lord's Supper." This sort of answer immediately brands persons of this persuasion as exclusive, divisive, and more committed to ecclesiasticism than Christian love.

For the sake of putting my cards on the table, I confess I lean closer to the strict communion tradition.

This nuanced debate is unique to Baptists, as far as I can tell. Baptists are concerned about how to treat a Christian of another denomination if he should attend a Baptist worship service in which the Lord's Supper is being served. Is excluding him from the Lord's Table equivalent to an insult against his godliness?

The best argument I have heard on the subject is quite simple. I encountered it in John Quincy Adams' (not the U.S. president of the same name) Baptists: The Only Thorough Religious Reformers (1876).

To paraphrase Adams' argument:
1. In the New Testament churches, all who were baptized and members of the church were admitted to the Lord's table.

2. One considered a proper subject of baptism would never be excluded from the communion.

3. Baptists receive all proper subjects of baptism (i.e. believers who have been immersed upon their profession of faith).

4. Paedobaptists consider infants who are sprinkled to be legitimately baptized and members of the visible church.

5. According to this logic (of #4), all baptized infants should be admitted to the Lord's Table.

6. Yet, these infants are excluded, and thus the "paedobaptists are most inveterate closed communionists."

7. Paedobaptists have no argument against strict communion Baptists, who "refuse to receive persons whom we consider unbaptized, when they will not receive their own baptized members."

John Quincy Adams, Baptist thorough Reformers (1876), Reprinted: Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers, 1982, 160-161.

Solid paedobaptists and the like all believe that no one should be admitted to the Lord's table without being properly baptized. I find it ironic that on this particular point, strict communion Baptists agree with them 100%. The disagreement is on what constitutes a proper baptism. At the risk of sounding cliche, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "is" means.

Speaking of the Dead (in Christ)

Speaking of the dead... I'm finally getting around to updating my blog!

The title of this entry carries a double meaning.
There are a number of reasons I have cut my blogging back to a minimum these days. One is that I have a very slow computer that always eats away more time than I can spare on little exercises like blogging. Another is that my brain is low on creative impulses. But the biggest reason is that I am trying hard to bridle my tongue so that I won't write something I might regret later. I believe blogging is a good thing, but I'm trying to mortify a few areas of my life that need more discipline.

One important reminder in this struggle occurred a few months back when I forgot the important fact that what one writes on the internet doesn't always communicate as well as a face to face conversation.

I left a mildly sarcastic comment on a blog in response to something another commenter had written. I'll spare the names of all parties involved, but the gist of the exchange was:
Commentator: "Was [said theologian] fat? I like fat theologians!"
Me: "Yes, and skinny theologians everywhere are offended. :-)"

At the time, I did not think my comment was rude or disrespectful.
A few weeks later, however, a respected mentor of mine came across the same blog and noticed my comment. He confronted me about the matter, and ,while not expressing any explicit signs of anger, challenged me to consider whether such a comment displayed appropriate respect to the legacy of this particular glorified saint. As a result of this conversation, I realized that my statement was careless if not intentionally disrespectful.

I was challenged with the concept of speaking of the dead in Christ as if they are still alive. In a very real sense, of course, they are. As Hebrews 12:1 reminds us, "Therefore, having so great a cloud of witnesses around us . . . let us run with endurance the race that is set before us."

I want to be careful not to suggest anything akin to saint worship, but the Bible reveals that God's glorified people, faithful in life, faithful at death, now serve as historical testimonies to the grace of God. Their lives and ideas are not above criticism and godly evaluation, but they are all certainly worthy of our respect, no matter how prominent or how obscure.

So, as I continue to meditate upon the application of this truth, I conclude this entry with a deep appreciation for those who have tilled the soil in which I now labor.

I am,
On the Shoulders of Giants

"Iron Sharpens Iron" or "Spiderman Returns"

Matthew Crawford offered his thoughts on the flawed spiritual foundation of two of this summer's biggest blockbuster movies. One of them was, you guessed it, Spiderman 3.

Matt makes some insightful points that I avoided for spacial reasons in my original critique of the movie [Read it here]. Although he takes a very different conclusion away from the movie than I did, his insight is a wonderful example of how we need other voices in the Kingdom of God to illuminate the full truth of Scripture.

In the end, we both agree that Spiderman 3 is an imperfect movie when judged against the criteria of Scripture. However, I stand by my analysis that the movie does have commendable relative merits for what it was made to be: a superhero movie about struggling with personal depravity, forgiveness, and reconciliation of friendships. Does it succeed in telling the whole story? Of course not, and Matt makes that fact oh so clear. That said, I still recommend the movie for both enjoyment and evaluation. Just remember, Christians are never given a free pass to turn their brains off for anything!

But even more than Spiderman 3, I recommend everyone check out Matt's articulate cultural commentary [Click it here!]. You'll be glad you did.

"Family-Friendly" the New Orthodoxy?

Ok, I'll eat crow.

You see, I really believed the majority of Bible-believing evangelicals would be offended by the premise of the new movie, Evan Almighty. So imagine my surprise when I spotted the cover of the latest issue of Christianity Today. The new "Noah" is featured complete with about a dozen pairs of wild beasts and a giant ark of gopher wood. The headline reads "Evan Help Us: How a movie- and a movement- are partnering with the church to change the world." Also don't forget the little note at the bottom of the page reading "Popcorn in the Pews."


To be fair, this isn't the actual cover to the magazine on account of the fact that there isn't even any story about the movie in the issue. No, this apparent "cover" is actually just a special advertisement. But its a very blatant advertisement. Seeing as how the famous CT title is boldly in view, we can't assume anything but that the magazine's creative board went along with this marketing scheme with gung-ho gusto. The inside cover of this advertisement promotes a new parachurch evangelical benevolence ministry (http://www.arkalmighty/) officially licensed by the movie's brand name. Willow Creek Association, Youth Specialties, and International Bible Society have all joined hands with Hollywood to promote the "family-friendly comedy" and its inspired "ministry initiative that matches up the needs in your congregation with the talents and skills of the members of your church." In short, ArkALMIGHTY promotes church-based volunteer benevolence ministry.

Granted, I haven't seen Evan Almighty. Granted, I don't plan on spending the money for the movie ticket in the near future. And, granted, I didn't see the original Bruce Almighty (staring Jim Carrey) until it aired on cable last week (which I had mixed feelings about). If I may be granted all those grants, then (I'd be a rich man at least) let me assert that I think American evangelicals are in deep trouble if this recent development is any indication of Christian cultural engagement at large. Evan Almighty is a comedy that uses the Bible as the set-up joke for the punchline. I don't know whether or not it lampoons the Bible specifically. I'm sure that the film contains a mix of good and bad elements as regards morality and religious discussion. I don't even know whether or not the movie is any funny or not. [Believe it or not, the film's director is a professing Catholic and Augustine fan in this interview.]

But, what I do know is that making a movie about a "god" who decides to rehash "Noah & the Ark: Part 2" as a means to teach people how to better care for their environment and do good deeds for one another is a dangerous undertaking. Evan Almighty may be a decent movie with the usual mix spiritual strengths and weaknesses, but its fundamental premise about an actor playing God with dialogue written by Hollywood writers unsettles me. I feel this way when anyone (real or fictional) tries to speak words for God that we have no account of Him saying in Scriptural revelation. I am simply surprised that more evangelicals aren't exhibiting similar anxiety, but are actually standing behind the film as a triumph of evangelical-friendly values suitable for the whole family (here is at least one exception).

That said, let me acquit myself of three potential misunderstandings: (1) I really do like the environment. Green is my favorite color, for crying out loud! Although I'm not a tree-hugger, I believe personal stewardship is both biblical and ethically significant. (2) I'm all for churches getting involved with benevolent ministries, especially for needy people within our own churches. (3) I like family-friendly movies. All these things are fine and good in general.

But this present evangelical lobbying of movies that are high on family-friendly virtues (no violence, minimum intense thematic elements, mild language, no sex, etc.) but shallow on godly reverence disturbs me. Maybe I'm just being paranoid (wouldn't surprise me really, heh), but I think evangelicals' lack of second thoughts in promoting this particular movie is a symptom of a deeper problem. What's the problem? Christians have become so desperate for entertainment they can share with their families that they have thrown in the towel on the Gospel. The biblical account of Noah and the Ark is about man's sin against God, God's judgement of sin, and (most importantly) God's mercy and salvation of men. I'm pretty sure that Evan Almighty's story doesn't center around those themes.

I would appreciate reader input on this. I won't get mad if you disagree with me. I only hope I have made my point. Is "Family-Friendly" the new orthodoxy? I hope not.

"Want Forgiveness? Get Religion!"

Warning: NO major spoilers. This review will NOT ruin the movie if you've yet to have seen it [, that includes you, Joseph!].

Spiderman The Third.

Oh wait, sorry, I meant Spiderman: At World's End.

No, that's not right either! Uh... Spiderman 3, maybe? I think that's right. . . [checking guess with Wikipedia] . . . Yes, Spiderman 3! (With all these new sequels out, I get confused!)

After being the last person in America who planned on seeing the new movie that still hadn't seen it (except for maybe this fellow), I have to say I enjoyed it. I find all the harsh critical reception this movie has received a little harsh, though somewhat understandable. The most justified criticism I've heard is from a NY Times writer that "the three villains [Sandman, Green Goblin II, and Venom] here don’t add up to one Doc Ock." And I have no choice but to agree. Alfred Molina's portrayal of Doctor Octopus was simply masterful in Spiderman 2. Despite the film's 2 hour 36 minute running time (that's 28 minutes longer than the last one, and you can really feel the length if you're one of those people like me who is addicted to movie theatre soda drinks), the introduction of villains like Sandman feels rushed and cliche. Thus, Spiderman 3's biggest problem is that it doesn't quite live up to its own standard of excellent, at least in my opinion.

All that negative stuff out of the way, let me proceed with the point of this essay. I am not seeking to review the quality of Spidey 3 but simply to offer a reflection on the movie's moral theme from the lens of a Christian worldview.

For context's sake, let's review the moral theme of the previous 2 movies:
Spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility."= Uncle Ben's motto that Peter Parker learns to appreciate as he grows from boy to man.

Spiderman 2: "Sometimes in order to do what is right, we have to give up what we want the most." = Parker learns that moral absolutes do exist in this crazy mixed up world, and they should take priority over the selfish hedonism of the 'Hakuna Matata' philosophy (ok, I made that last part up).
Honorable mention: "Intelligence is gift (not a privilege) to be used for the good of mankind."

And now, the motto of Spiderman 3:
"If you find a black alien goo that wants to bond with you, don't let it!"
Ha, just kidding! Actually, I got the sense that the central theme of this movie was that we all have to learn how to forgive one another, as we are all capable of great evil under the right circumstances. Or as director Sam Raimi stated.

"He considers himself a hero and a sinless person versus these villains that he nabs. We felt it would be a great thing for him to learn a little less black and white view of life and that's he not above these people. He's not just the hero and they're not just the villains. They were all human beings and that he himself might have some sin within him and that other human beings, the ones he calls criminals, have some humanity within them and that the best we can do in this world is to not strive for vengeance, but for forgiveness."

Forgiveness. The best thing we can strive for in this world, according to the director. I was profoundly struck by the sobriety of this third installment in the Spidey series. Yes, it had plenty of action and special effects. Yes, it had some well executed sprinklings of humor. And, yes, it had plenty of angst and frustration that were so common to the first 2 films. What sets this sequel apart from its predecessors, however, is that the hero becomes the true villain of the story. Peter Parker's obsession with power and responsibility bring trouble upon himself. No longer is he just a poor, misunderstood kid who always tries to do the right thing. Rather, he has allowed himself to become a slave to power and a glutton for fame and pleasure.

Spiderman learns that even his soul is not above that of the villains he seeks to bring to justice. In the course of the movie, he betrays the trust of his would-be fiance, gloats his power over everyone else, and nearly commits murder with a sense of vindication. All these sins lead him to a sense of brokenness and he retreats to the sanctuary of a cathedral to ponder the shambles his life has become. As Spiderman despairs of himself, he realizes that he must choose to begin making amends with those he has hurt. Thus, begins his long road back to redemption.

Not everything in this movie is compatible with the Christian worldview, of course. For instance, Aunt May tells Peter he must "forgive himself." Even though I know what she meant, I think forgiveness is something that can only take place when there are 2 or more parties involved. Forgiveness (humanly speaking) is the admission of wrongdoing on the part of one party against another. With the admission, the guilty party seeks reconciliation with the victim and promises to do whatever is necessary to make restitution for damages done. It is a lot more than saying "I'm sorry." This movie isn't so much an illustration of Christian soteriology as it is a lesson in Christian anthropology. All men have sinned (indeed all men are wicked in nature) and fall short of the glory of God, the only Holy One who alone is worthy to judge the hearts of men.

In conclusion, I think Spiderman 3 has a great message that Christians can appreciate, even if it doesn't quite succeed in its character development. For Spidey fans, I think the movie wraps up the loose ends from the previous movies nicely. If nothing else, it is a heck of a lot better resolution to the series than X-Men: The Last Stand's blood crazy martyr-fest of iconic characters. I recommend this movie to a mature audience, but just use some discretion about buying a soda pop at the concession stand.