Jesus the Sith Lord?

I'm a big Star Wars fan - a really big fan.  I have a large Star Wars collection, have seen the movies many times, and even have a big Yoda image decorating the hood of my car.  Make no mistake though.  Star Wars' Light Side and Dark Side are not comparable to Good and Evil in the Christian worldview.  The "Force" is not the Holy Spirit.  When I was a child and young teen, I thought it was kooky and extreme how some Christians would be critical of Star Wars, cautioning Christian parents against it by citing the Eastern mysticism and other non-Christian philosophies it presents cloaked in Jedi goodness.  As an adult, though still an avid Star Wars fan, I now see the reason behind their wariness.  Watch the following clip.  It is from the third prequel movie, one of the coolest lightsaber duels of the whole saga, but the thinking Christian should be able to detect some worldview problems:

[Be advised that this is not a G-rated fighting scene; it contains some scenes of anguish at the beginning and some slightly gruesome images toward the end]

If you know your Scripture well, you will notice that Anakin virtually quotes Jesus (Matt 12:30) soon after Obi-Wan confronts him:

[Movie dialogue is in bold]

ANAKIN: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." 

OBI-WAN: "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must." 

Again, here are Jesus' words in Matt. 12:30:

[Jesus' words are in red]

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Do you see how similar Jesus' statement is to dark-side-turning Anakin's statement?  The Jedi are supposed to be good guys - like disciples of Jesus or something.  Hmmm.  In the Star Wars universe however, thinking in black and white terms means you're thinking like a Sith - the bad guys.  Jesus would seem to be a Sith Lord!

As a matter of fact, Jesus issues many absolutistic statements in Scripture.  Here are several:

"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).

"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).

"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).

"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

"I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).

By Obi-Wan's standard, It seems like Jesus has the makings of a Sith Lord.

Later, same duel, Obi-Wan and Anakin do a philosophy reversal - and don't seem to be aware of it:

ANAKIN: "I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over . . . "

OBI-WAN: "From the Sith!!! Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil." 

ANAKIN: "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 

OBI-WAN: "Well, then you are lost!" 

OK, let me get this straight.  First, Anakin is told by Obi-Wan that only Sith Lords deal in absolutes - then when he reasons in a relativistic fashion and avoids absolutes, Obi-Wan issues an absolutistic statement about Chancellor Palpatine being evil and pronounces condemnation on him for the conclusion he had come to!  I hope you see the problem here.  

In short, the dialogue really shows both Obi Wan and Anakin turning to hypocrites before our very eyes.  I don't think that was Lucas' intention, but the critical Christian reader/watcher should be able to discern this even if others don't.  The original three movies (Episodes IV-VI) are much more philosophically consistent, and for this reason I enjoy them more - even though the lightsaber duels are not as cool.  In the original three I can make sense of the bad guys being the bad guys and the good guys being the good guys - and though the worldview of the old movies was not perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview, it was at least enough so that I could feel good about the Jedi being good and the Sith being bad.  

There is much more that could be critically examined about the Star Wars saga - and others have done that in great degree.  Much of this was done nearly 10 or more years ago when the prequels started coming out.  I wasn't much bothered by Anakin's virgin birth in Episode 1 ("The Phantom Menace") came out, but it still seemed to signal the establishing of parallels to the Biblical account of Christ where there should not be parallels.  After all, we knew Anakin later becomes Darth Vader.  The Jesus of Scripture never has a similar huge fall from goodness; he never falls at all because he was and is sinless!  Episode III ("Revenge of The Sith") is much more troubling in its more overt promotion of relativism and its philosophical confusion.  

 For me and my family, we still watch and enjoy Star Wars - but I am convinced that the saga needs to be enjoyed in the context of knowing what Scripture actually teaches about the universe, God, the Person of Jesus, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of Good and Evil.  In this way the movies can be a critical thinking tool as well as awesome entertainment.  When making comparisons and observing parallels we must also be able to make and recognize the contrasts.  Without a well-grounded knowledge of the contrasts, Star Wars could prove a stumbling block for a Christian who is more well-versed in the Star Wars universe and Jedi teachings than in the real (God's) universe and Christian Scripture.  Illegitimate parallels and comparisons could easily be made - leading to a non-Biblical view of goodness and of God.  Sadly, this would be the danger for many in modern watered-down Christian larger community.  As awesome as Yoda and Obi-Wan are, a Christian should not desire to be fully Jedi-like - or for that matter, fully Sith-like.  A Christian should seek to be Christ-like.

Old Catechism For The Young: Not Impossible At All

Since moving away from a somewhat conventional and broadly-evangelical seeker-sensitive church that never went too deep into historic Christian doctrine and into a more historically aware and doctrinally-defined practice and churches, I have come to appreciate the value of catechism.  Until that time, I had only heard the word "catechism" in the context of Roman Catholicism.  What a shame! I had no idea what it was!  Now, for my specific theological expression and practice I use the Westminster Shorter Catechism - a teaching tool composed in the mid-1600's.

A catechism is a series of logically-ordered questions and answers; each building upon the foundation of the preceding question and answer.  The mid 1600's saw the creation of both the "Shorter" and the "Larger" catechisms.  The "Shorter" was composed with the young and the (relatively) spiritually immature in mind.  The "Larger" catechism was composed for adults and the more advanced.  I like memorizing things - and I like to have answers to questions - so about a decade ago I started memorizing the 107 questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism.  This took me about two years.  Since that time.  For me and for many unaccustomed to specific, doctrinally-sound answers, the answers to many of these questions were not "short" at all!  However, they are very satisfying.

Here are the first seventeen (in bold):

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Q. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?
A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?

A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

Q. 11. What are God's works of providence?
A. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
A. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, 

descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

I have found this kind of memorization very helpful in answering my own questions as well as answering the questions of others.  I can give the rote, memorized answer - or I can quickly mentally access and silently rehearse the rote memorized answer and then regurgitate it in a more simplified or modern-English version for the questioner.  

Early on, after I was convinced of the usefulness of the catechism, I started teaching the whole family these questions and answers.  All it took was carving out a little time each day for practice.  It doesn't take more than 15-minutes a day.  I also became aware of a more modern catechism versions specifically made for children.  My initial thought toward these versions was "why?"  That is, why create an even shorter catechism than the one already called "Shorter"?  Why create an even shorter and more simplified version for 20th and 21st century children when ordinary non-genius 17th century children were able to memorize the original "Shorter" catechism.  These are still my sentiments now!  

Here is my encouragement for you: You may look at the questions and answers and think they are long.  You may wonder how a young child can do this.  Let me tell you that both you and they can - if only you take the time.  I've successfully done so with my two oldest daughters - both beginning at roughly age eight.  I'm also currently doing so with my son (age seven) and my youngest daughter (age five).  They are both learning and progressing well.  We are currently at question 17, and we have been going at the pace of one question every 1-2 weeks. Two weeks for the longer questions and answers; one week for the shorter and easier ones.  What I am most impressed with is the ability of my five-year-old to memorize these questions and answers.  I did not even intend to formally catechize her until she was at least six - but since I was taking the after-dinner time to catechize her older brother (which also served as review for the older sisters who had gone through the whole thing already) she was being exposed to the information and hearing the recitation.  She eagerly expressed her desire to try answering the questions the rest of the family was getting!  So, I thought "why not?" She was four-years-old at that point.  It's been more than four months since I started including her, and since that time she has demonstrated her ability to memorize these questions and answers.  Needless to say, this has pleased and encouraged me.  To keep it low-pressure, I keep the time investment to about 15-minutes per day and I don't press her as hard as I press the older kids.  This keeps it a fun and do-able challenge for her.  

I encourage and recommend any and all my Christian brothers and sisters to start catechism practice as a family.  Just make it a habit and stick to it.  Before you know it, you will have 10+ questions and answers memorized and so will your kids.  Keep it low-pressure though!

Starting Points Matter In The Life Issue

In the Life/Abortion issue, recognizing starting points is vitally important.  Starting points can also profoundly influence the way words are used - so in this way words are important too.  One thing I always see as a red flag is the way words are being used.  When you see something like: "This is what people trying trying to restrict a woman's right to choose actually think and say."  It's the "right to choose" verbiage that I find so insidious - because at face value it sounds so innocuous.  The object of the choice is many times left out.  I suspect it is because it would quickly become apparent that this is not the "right to choose" which gas station to fuel your car at, which ice cream to buy, which clothes to wear, or even which health plan to select - but rather something much more serious.  Many times some detail is added, but it will be something like "...what to do with her own body" or something using the words "reproductive rights" or "family planning."  The word "abortion" (i.e. "...right to have an abortion") is even sometimes used.  The pro-choice side, in order to be intellectually honest, needs to be very upfront.  It needs to say "...right to choose death without a trial and without any means of defense for the little human being inside her."  That's pretty long, so maybe it should be "...right to choose death for an innocent human being."

Starting points.  What I said about starting points earlier amounts to this: The Pro-Choice side either denies the humanity, the personhood, or the equal value (compared to post-utero human beings) of the unborn human in the womb.  The Pro-Life side vigorously AFFIRMS those three things.  Given the starting points of the Pro-Choice side, whether it be one or all three, its easy to see why it thinks it is utter madness and ridiculousness for the Pro Life side to want to legally restrict or ban abortion.  It's also easy to see why the Pro-Life side will seek to legally ban abortion at any stage including abortion in the case of rape.  Some pro-lifers will waver at the "any stage" or waver in cases of rape, but I think this severely weakens their case against abortion in general.  After all, if the little human life is an innocent human being, why is it OK to put it to death for the crime of the biological father? Or, if  the little human being is very very small and/or undeveloped (think first few weeks of pregnancy) and thereby more OK to put them to death, then why wouldn't it be more OK to give less legal protection (i.e. permit the killing of) the Down-Syndrome (or simply less-intelligent or disabled) person to death?  For that matter, why wouldn't it be OK to legally put a senile Grandpa to death over you or me...or put me to death over a super-genius or super-athlete.  The examples abound.  So, keep starting points in mind when you analyze the statements or Pro-Life people, including bumbling pro-life congressmen who should have more polished answers.

Does it matter if a pro-lifer stumbles at or doesn't know the answer to why a woman would seek an abortion?  No.  Why?  Because, given his starting point (see paragraph above) the answer to the question is irrelevant.  In other words, if it is the legal protection of innocent human life we're talking about, knowing the reasons someone would want to take those lives is of 2nd order importance, not first.  Take this example: You want to give legal protection to children against adult-child sex and sex acts.  Currently (in the alternate reality I'm inviting you to for this example...or it could be ancient Greece) adult-child sex and sex acts is legal.  Many will say it's even a "good" thing.  You however, know it's wrong.  You believe that a child should be legally protected against the power and control of a sexually -hungry adult.  You see the harm and the wrongness of popular practice, but you have not seriously investigated why an adult might want to seek out children for sex and have sex with them.  The interviewer asks you "What do you think makes an adult male want to have sex with a child?"  You give a stammering "I don't know" kind of answer.  Well, now you're disqualified from legislating against things you don't understand, right?  Wrong!  In the same way, the congressman doesn't need to understand the motivations of the woman seeking an abortion.  He just needs to understand the status of the object he is trying to protect (i.e. why it should be protected.)   Granted, the congressman would do well to polish-up his interview skills and be ready for all types of questions likely to be asked, but a  bumbling answer to the question regarding a woman's situation or a woman's motivation does not disqualify the congressmen (or anyone) from the argument.

About "Reproductive Rights" language:  Legal rights should not include the right to kill an innocent human being who has committed no crime.  All the pregnancy hardship and other womens' hardship cases in the world don't change the fact that the Pro-Choice side favors taking away legal protection of life from the most innocent of human beings.  I shudder to think that this is supposed to be subsumed under the umbrellas of "Reproductive Health."  Health?  Seriously?  Whose health?  Abortions "safe" and "rare"?  Whose safety?  Even if the mother is kept safe 100% of the time (which won't happen - even with the best technology), a 'successful' abortion results in the death of an innocent human being 100% of the time.  Again, starting points are important.

A Short Easter Message

Whether you call today's holiday "Easter" or whether you call it "Resurrection Sunday" - or even if you follow the Puritan example and don't celebrate a specially designated day at all, the message I want to share and celebrate with you is the same - and it is appropriate for every day of the year:  He is risen!  Jesus rose from the grave and lives forevermore! He conquered Death!  

The message of the resurrection was so central to the apostles that Paul vigorously argued in his first letter to the Corinthians that their faith was "vain" (i.e. empty, useless, without worth) if indeed Christ was not raised.  Yes, both they and we who trust in Him are still dead in our sins if he is not in fact raised. Truly, this stuff is important - because if we are still dead in our sins then there is no hope for escaping the just wrath of a Holy God.  Christ is the Last Adam - not a failure like the first.  He is the Perfect Prophet, Priest, and King.  He is the Unblemished and Perfect Lamb.  He is also the Lion.  He is the Bread from Heaven.  He is the Good Shepherd.  He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  He is The Resurrection and the Life. (John 11:25).  Right now, he stands at the right hand of the Father and makes perfect intercession for His sheep. 

I encourage you to read through the gospel accounts of His death, burial, and resurrection.  If you don't read all four, read at least John's Gospel.  I also encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 15 - where Paul labors the point of the importance of the resurrection.  May you find perfect peace and rest in Jesus Christ.

Simple Words We Shouldn't Hold Back

There seem to be a significant number of people who don't say "you're welcome" after "thank you" or "thank you" after a sincere compliment. I think doing both of these things make both the giver and the receiver feel good - and both benefit. I will add to my list "I forgive you" after someone says they're sorry. Of course there will be those times when you really don't forgive them or don't think you should forgive them - and that whole subject is another discussion in itself.  For right now though, I'm referring to those times when you do (or at least should) forgive them. Saying "Oh, I've moved on...why are you still worrying about that?" Is really not a good substitute. In fact it can be belittling. Why do we keep back the open and spoken forgiveness? Like the other things, I am convinced this helps both sides.

Some more expanding on this:

Misplaced humility in the case of "you're welcome" and "thank you" may be the culprit when these things are not said.  I suggest that you can still be humble and nonetheless acknowledge that you did something to help someone (in the case of someone saying "thanks" to you) and you can also still be humble and nonetheless acknowledge a compliment.  How?  In doing so, you're not necessarily saying "I'm so great!" - but you are in fact validating the other person's statement and thereby you validate them.  Trust me, they want to hear these things.  Don't you like to hear these things?

Forgiveness really is really hard to give sometimes.  If someone is asking for your forgiveness they are opening themselves up to you; they are acknowledging something they did wrong or felt they did wrong.  If nothing else, something they had done against their own conscience.  Give them the forgiveness.  Don't hold it back.  Don't blow it off with the typical "oh, I've forgotten about that..." or "I've moved on..." response.  I cannot stress deeply enough that this makes the person asking forgiveness feel very small.  As I mentioned before, it can be belittling because you're basically telling the person what he finds important enough to open himself up to tell you is actually not important at all.  It is also somewhat implied that he thinks about petty and unimportant things but you yourself think about serious and important matters - and that you're superior to him.  Don't just forgive him in your heart.  Forgive him openly with actual words.

The Useful T Jefferson

It's funny how both Democrats and Republicans try to claim Thomas Jefferson. (They so the same thing with Lincoln -but regarding different issues.) Democrats, when Jefferson agrees with them, will note that "Jefferson was a Democrat." I've seen the bumper sticker - as well as other permutations of that attempt of position-bolstering. Of course when his views are compatible with the Republican Party or some conservative group he is instantly disowned and it is quickly noted that he owned slaves - (as if that disqualifies him from saying or thinking anything GOOD). Party names stick along much longer than the actual substance of what they represent and espouse. I don't think Jefferson would find a ready home within the establishment GOP. He also wouldn't find agreement with the likes of conservative Christians like me on a number of things. However, where he's right he's right - and I'll support him and publicly agree with him when I think so. I think that he'd find friends both within TEA Party and Libertarian circles.

Being In Adam

[Note: I made some minor changes (links to cited Scripture and better explanation of the participation concept) the morning of 4.6.2014]




Several nights a week after dinner I lead my family through catechism practice.  We use the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and have been taking 1-2 weeks for each question.  This evening we started a new catechism question, question 16: 

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

This question is perhaps one of the most significant questions out there - and when explored beyond a surface level, the most enigmatic.  The question is important because if not all mankind fell, then "The Fall" was not as significant an event as Christianity historically posits it to be.  Why?  Because if the The Fall did not involve all mankind (i.e. was not universal) then there is the possibility that there are some people out there who have not sinned - and thus would not need a savior.  I will not explore all the necessary implications of this, but suffice to say it would change our view of mankind, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  

I said in the previous paragraph that I will not explore all the implications of a non-universal fall, but I will touch on one: If there are some people out there who do not share in the sin nature and indeed have not sinned, then the problem of evil and the problem of pain becomes much trickier.  The "thorns" of daily life and toil, the presence of death and disease, and the pain, suffering, and sadness these non-sin nature sinless people experience (like the rest of us do) would be unjust.  We could justly ascribe unjustness to God for causing all these things - since these things would affect the unfallen person as well as the fallen person.  For God to be just, the presence of the little "thorns" in life as well as the great calamities needs to be deserved.

We might resort to postulating that while Adam's posterity might not have automatically fallen at his fall, none of his posterity would be able to live a sinless life in thought and action.  That is, just like Adam, they would have to choice whether to choose Good or Evil but would, like Adam, not be able to withstand the temptation of evil.  This sounds good - until you think about babies, severely mentally-deficient people, and the unborn.  How could any sort of pain, sorrow, death, or calamity be "deserved" for these types of people?  If we say they are not deserving of it, we immediately are confronted with creepy solutions of the Andrea Yates variety (i.e. killing them while they are "pure" to ensure they go to heaven.)  Yes, this is creepy stuff - but how do we escape the seeming rationality of that kind of 'solution' unless we posit that we are all fallen and that there is not one innocent among us?

I love my seven-year-old son, and I love his questions.  He's a very thoughtful boy.  He immediately had questions of his own when I introduced WSC Question #16.  He wondered how we could have sinned "in Adam."  He wondered how we know we would do the same thing as Adam if we had been in The Garden.  He was pretty sure that he (my son) would not disobey as Adam had.  Isn't that the way many of us think? I tried the best I could to explain that he in fact would do the same thing - that in fact we all would.  I mentioned the fact that he does and thinks things everyday that he knows are wrong - and so do his parents! With this obvious fact in front of us, what makes us so sure we would be able to withstand the Serpent's craftiness and be perfectly obedient in that context...continually and forever?

I also explained the concept of representation to him.  This can be found fairly clearly in Romans 5:12-21 as well as 1 Corinthians 15:22, although it is also implicitly found throughout all of Scripture. Adam perfectly represented us.  As our congressmen and sports teams represent us and we necessarily share in both their victories and their failures, Adam perfectly represented us.  However, Adam perfectly represented us - because he was specially appointed by God to be our representative.  Our sports teams and congressmen are chosen by us - fallible human beings who do not possess all the facts and who also have very uncertain and fickle judgment.  I explained the concept of God standing outside of the timeline yet acting freely at all points in the timeline while we ourselves are time-bound and cannot do the same thing.  God, standing outside the timeline, possessing all the facts, knowing the end from the beginning, and working all things according to the counsel of His will, appointed Adam as our representative.  We, those of us who lived at any point in subsequent history, in some mysterious but nonetheless very real way, were so perfectly represented by Adam that in the main current of Christian theological history we have been said to be "in Adam" and to have sinned "in Adam."  This identification is so close to actual participation that the "Realist" view (i.e. that we and all mankind were in fact there and participated in Adam's sin) was formally postulated by St. Augustine and has been a viable and orthodox interpretation throughout Christian history.  Whether federally imputed to mankind by perfect representation or whether by some mysterious kind of actual participation, both views leave us with a fallen nature and thereby make sense of all the trials and tribulations we face - which would in either view be perfectly just and perfectly deserved.  This is deep! This is the stuff that makes theology so exciting for me - but also the stuff that makes things very frustrating for a seven-year-old boy.  

I did not have all the answers though.  No one does except for Him to whom we owe worship and all adoration and thanks.  Things are the most interesting when we don't have all the answers, but do have enough to understand the problem and make sense of some kind of solution.  When we don't understand the problem and have no answers it's boring - especially when we're not even able to identify that there is a problem at all.  When we have (or think we have) all the answers to something it becomes uninteresting and boring as well - because there is nothing left to explore; nothing to investigate.  I love my son.  I love him all the more because he cares about stuff.  He identifies weighty issues and he seeks to investigate - as I am convinced we all should.