Thursday, April 28, 2011

Reflections on the First Chapter of First Peter

Here is what the apostle Peter said in I Peter 1:11-12:

"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

According to these verses, the purpose of the prophecies was for us, the saints who are alive after the resurrection of Christ. Now, the prophets themselves must have had some understanding of “the things, which are now reported unto you,” such as “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” However, their understanding was incomplete: we as New Testament saints can now look back and have a more complete understanding of the events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

I think this principle applies to a lot of the Old Testament. Just as we can not fully understand Christ’s redemptive work from Old Testament prophecies alone, there are many things in the Old Testament that we can not understand from the perspective of the Old Testament alone. Take the Law for example.

As Paul says in Romans 3:20, “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” This confused many people in the Old Testament, for they thought that the purpose of the Law was to lead to salvation. However, there was still an understanding among Old Testament saints that salvation was not by the Law, but by grace (for example, David speaks of salvation by grace in Psalms 32:1-2, which is also quoted by Paul in Romans 4: 7-8). But, the full application of justification by grace was not understood. This confusion carried over into the early Church, where there were disputes as to what parts of the Law the Gentiles must follow (which was addressed by the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15). Here is what Paul had to say about one part of the Law:

"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, they circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumsicion be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, it if fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" (Romans 2:25-27)

Apparently, circumcision has no significance, it is keeping of the righteousness of the Law this is significant (Paul does say in I Cor. 7:19 that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God”).

Now, would an Old Testament saint know that circumcision is of no account to God? Maybe not. As pointed out before, they did have an understanding that salvation was through grace, not works, but considering that circumcision was an issue that was disputed among the early Church (and came to a head in the council at Jerusalem), there was some error in the thinking on circumcision. The same would apply to other aspects of the Law, such as eating unclean versus clean animals, keeping holidays and feasts, and other issues dealt with by the apostles in the Epistles. However, we have the New Testament to clarify and explain what is the significance of the Law to New Testament saints.

The purpose of this discussion is not to say that the Law is outdated or old, but the purpose of this discussion is to highlight that the Law (and the Old Testament as a whole, for that matter) is merely the beginning of God’s plan. That plan was completed and fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection, and now, looking back, we can have an understanding of what the whole plan looks like and better understand the various parts of the plan. Again, as Peter said, to the prophets “it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel.”

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Villain-Turned-Heroes in Animated Movies

My sister commented that there have been several animated movies that came out in the last year that have a prominent character who starts out as a villain but eventually changes and becomes a hero in the end. I know of two of these characters: Gru from “Despicable Me” and Flynn Rider from “Tangled.” I want to compare these two characters to examine their “turn-around” from being a villain to being a hero. The purpose is to examine the “turn-around” and see how believable it is. Are these conversions a genuine change of character? Are these villains-turned-heroes laudable or subtly misleading?

(Warning: There will be many spoilers in this discussion, so if you haven’t seen either movie and don’t want to know what happens, you should not read on.)

Gru is the main character in “Despicable Me” while Flynn Rider is only the lead male in “Tangled.” Gru is a master criminal who has his own secret lab, a mad scientist at his disposal, and a legion of minions to do his will, while Flynn works with a couple of thug brothers. Despite these differences, they actually have a lot in common. They are both thieves. They both stumble upon a woman/girls that they have to work through. Gru find a trio of orphan girls who he finds can help him in his plot to steal the moon. Flynn Rider has the crown he just stole taken from him and hidden by Rapunzel, who will not give it back until he takes her to see the floating lanterns. Neither Gru nor Flynn like the arrangement: they seem to accept the prospect of working with these women grudgingly. But, eventually, they begin to have a fondness for the women.

Now the stories of Gru and Flynn Rider deviate from one another. I’ll focus on Gru first. Gru begins to be attached to the girls, and the movie demonstrates that the girls also have an attachment to him. This is shown in a scene where Gru has just been turned down by the Bank of Evil for a loan to build a rocket in order to steal the moon. This is a huge blow to Gru, as it has been his dream since a child to go to the moon, and now that dream has morphed into stealing the moon. He eventually has to tell his minions that the plan to steal the moon is off, but the girls decide to give him what little money they have to help Gru build the rocket. This action inspires the minions to do the same, and working together, they build the rocket.

The scene described above is the first thing I dislike about the plot of “Despicable Me.” The girls show their support for Gru by helping him steal the moon. Sure, stealing the moon is a fantastic idea, but why did the movie show them become supportive of his criminal actions? It’s like the viewers are not supposed to care that Gru is planning a theft, it’s just touching that the girls want to help him.

Anyway, while building the rocket, Gru faces a fork in the road: his mad scientist calls the orphanage so that they can come and take the girls back. The scientist, Dr. Nefario, says that the girls are slowing down the plan: Gru has to choose between them or stealing the moon. Gru chooses the moon. Later on in the movie, Gru calls this choice the worst mistake he ever made, demonstrating that he felt a remorse for giving up the girls. But how remorseful was he? When did he decide that the girls were worth keeping at the expense of the moon?

Never, actually. Gru does eventually rush to the girl’s rescue, right after he steals the moon. He has to rescue the girls from his enemy, Vector, who kidnapped them in order to get the moon from Gru. Gru does hand over the moon in an attempt to free the girls. It doesn’t work, however, and a chase scene ensues and the moon inadvertently is put back into orbit. Now, it may appear that Gru was willing to give up the moon to save the girls, implying that he considered the girls more important than his criminal activity. However, I don’t see that as the case. Remember what his original dream was: to go to the moon. He had accomplished that. Even though he gave the moon up, he could still say, “I went to the moon and stole it.” Quite simply, he accomplished his goal. It was only after accomplishing his goal that the girls took such a priority that he had to go rescue them. So he never really gave up anything valuable to save the girls, his priorities changed simply because the first priority was accomplished. This does not seem like true repentance to me.

So was Gru a true example of a hero-turned-villain? I don’t think so. Not only did caring for the girls become important only after he stole the moon, he never returned the moon to orbit himself: that was simply a lucky accident. So the movie “Despicable Me” made an attempt to show repentance, but failed to show Gru actually have change of heart.

Now what about Flynn? If anything, this guy starts out even worse than Gru does. After stealing a crown right out of the castle with the help of the Stabbington brothers, he eventually double crosses his associates in order to save his own skin. So not only is he a thief, he is a liar and a traitor, which puts him in stark contrast to Rapunzel, as she makes it very clear that when she makes a promise, she will always keep it (this becomes critically important later on).

In the course of taking Rapunzel to see the floating lanterns, Flynn begins to fall for her. Nothing unique there: why wouldn’t a guy begin to become attached to a pretty girl after spending several days with her? Then the test comes. Mother Gothel, Rapunzel’s fake, and extremely devious and manipulative, mother, tells Rapunzel that Flynn has no interest in her, he only has an interest in getting the crown back. So, she challenges Rapunzel to return the crown and see what Flynn does. So after Flynn takes her to see the lanterns, Rapunzel returns the crown to him. And Flynn does not abandon her.

Now, to be honest, events happen rather quickly after Rapunzel returns the crown to Flynn: the Stabbington brothers show up again and this time, they take advantage of Flynn and turn him over to the authorities. Mother Gothel double crosses the Stabbington brothers all for a show to convince Rapunzel that the world is just far too dangerous for her in order to convince Rapunzel that she must return to her tower and stay there. With all of this happening, we really don’t get to see whether Flynn was willing to give up the crown, and more importantly, give up his old way of life, for Rapunzel. As things go, there is actually reason to believe that he will continue a life a crime, for as he is on his way to be hanged, he is rescued by a gang of ruffians. But to be honest, that was not Flynn’s doing, that was the work of the horse, Maximus.

After being rescued from the gallows, Flynn Rider immediately rushes off to the tower to find Rapunzel, fearing that she is in danger. I might point out that at this point, he does not have the crown and he does not appear to have any intention of reacquiring it. Also, his fear that Rapunzel is in danger was true, for after arriving in the tower, he finds Rapunzel tied up, and then Mother Gothel mortally stabs Flynn. Rapunzel desperately wants to save Flynn by using her magical hair. Pleading with mother Gothel, she promises her that if she lets her save Flynn, she would stay with Mother Gothel forever.

Now here comes Flynn Rider’s true test. He has two choices: be healed by Rapunzel and let her become a permanent slave to Mother Gothel (not by force, but because Rapunzel promised it) or somehow try to save her. Guess what Flynn Rider does? He cuts Rapunzel’s hair. This renders her hair powerless, making Rapunzel useless to Mother Gothel, therefore permanently freeing Rapunzel from Gothel. But without her hair, Rapunzel cannot save Flynn. So unlike Gru, who accomplished his dream before rescuing the girls, Flynn gave up all his dreams (because, quite simply, he died) in order to rescue Rapunzel.

Now, a Disney princess movie could not end with the lead male character lying dead on the floor, so unbeknownst to anyone, enough magic remains in Rapunzel’s tears to revive and restore Flynn. But that doesn’t matter, as far as the test goes. Flynn had no idea that would happen, therefore when he cut her hair, he gave up all hope of rescue for himself in order that Rapunzel would be free. That is genuine repentance: Flynn Rider gave up everything, including his old way of life, to save someone he genuinely loved.

So while “Despicable Me” attempts to show a villain-turned-hero change, it failed, but instead showed a man who never gave up his way of life, only refocused it. “Tangled,” however, showed genuine devotion and repentance, and that makes it a much better movie than “Despicable Me” could ever be.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The Foundation of Human Rights

Here is a quote from Mark Levine which he spoke on his radio show on Thursday (4/14): “But in order to have unalienable rights, there has to be a power beyond man and beyond government.” To set the context, Levine was talking about elected officials who want to be fiscal conservatives but avoid the social issues. Levine’s point was that our country was founded on morality that came from religion (another quote from the same segment is “the founding [of our country] is based on a belief system,”), so one who wants to be a conservative but is avoiding a moral code is in fact acting contrary to the constitution and is thus not a true conservative.

I agree with Mark Levine. I agree that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles derived from the Bible. In particular, I want to focus on the idea in the first quote above: the idea that unalienable rights (which are considered to be precious in our country) can only exist if there is “a power beyond man and beyond government.” I will do this by contrasting two ideas for the foundation of unalienable rights. The first idea for the foundation of unalienable rights is the Judeo-Christian view. In this framework, rights come from God. Quite simply, that is why they are unalienable: they come from Him and since He is unchangeable and all powerful, He will not take them away and no one else can take them away. In this sense, to say that unalienable rights are natural is to mean that because they have been given to us by God, they are therefore part of our nature. In a similar fashion, since God is the Creator of the world, He is also Nature’s God.

The other view of unalienable rights also sees rights as natural, but their idea of nature is different. Instead of being a part of the nature that God gave to man, rights are natural because they are derived from nature. This is the atheistic or agnostic view: since God does not exist (or we don’t know or care whether He exists), rights are not coming from an outside authority, they are simply intrinsic in the way the world works. The problem with this view is that rights can not be unalienable. If there is no eternal God outside of nature, then there is no guarantee that these rights will not change. For instance, most atheists and agnostics acknowledge some form of biological evolution. In this framework, man has not always existed. Rather, man’s lineage arose from apes. So were there human rights before man existed? There couldn’t be, because there was no concept of a human. Human rights must have arisen after the arrival of humans. Therefore, human rights can not be eternal, for they must be conditional on something (at the very least, on the existence of humans). If those conditions change, the rights change (or vanish).

Some sharp atheists might note, “But in the Bible, humans weren’t created until the six day. Therefore, human rights could not have been in existence the first five days of the creation week and therefore, they must also be conditional on the existence of humans.” The error with this statement is simply that in the Bible, human rights are not dependant on humans: they are dependant on God. God always intended to create humans (He even built the world around the existence of humans) so He had human rights in mind from the beginning of creation. Without an outside authority who bestows rights on His creation, the only thing rights can be derived from is the natural world itself, and if that is always changing, human rights can also change, and they are therefore not unalienable.

So I agree with great conservatives like Mark Levine who hang our sacred rights on the existence of a God who grants rights to His creation. Denying this outside authority is to deny the foundation of human rights.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Which Sabbath?

Which “Sabbath” should be honored? The fourth commandment instructs us to honor the Sabbath, which is Saturday, the last day of the week, yet most Christians worship on Sunday and treat that like the Sabbath. Now there is a precedent for meeting to worship on Sunday. The early church met on Sundays for breaking of bread and apparently for worship (Acts 20:7) and Paul gave instructions for the collecting of gifts that were to be sent to Jerusalem to occur on Sunday, presumably because that was when the Christians congregated (I Cor. 16:2). The reason for Christians meeting on Sunday is because we commemorate Christ’s resurrection by worshiping Him on the day of the week that He arose. What of Saturday? Are we no longer to honor Saturday? After all, the reason the fourth commandment instructs us to keep the Sabbath is because that is the day God rested from His creation during the creation week. Has Christ’s resurrection exceeded the end of God’s creation in importance? I think that question is faulty because it presumes that only one day of the week can be honored. Why not honor both Saturday and Sunday? Our society already does this: Saturday and Sunday are the weekend, a time distinct from the rest of the week. The reason for the separation of Saturday and Sunday has been largely lost by our culture, but the template is still there: honor the weekend as special days distinct from the other days of the week.