Some of the readers out there may be aware that I have been writing (with Jim Spiegel of Taylor U) a Christian intro to philosophy text. Well, it's finally finished. We sent the manuscript to the publishers last week. It has been a labor of love for me, a project that we have been excited to work on. Part of me will miss working on it, but it is a great relief to have it done--I may actually get some sleep now!
The book is entitled, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy. It will be published by Broadman & Holman in Spring of 2009. I hope you will all buy a copy and help me pay a few bills!
May 25, 2008
Feb 6, 2008
Undermining Freedom to Save Freedom? A Review of The Golden Compass
The following brief review of the film The Golden Compass was recently published in Areopagus Journal (Sept-Oct 2007).
It was one of the best movies I have seen in a while. And it was one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. Let me explain. When it comes to purely aesthetic qualities (acting, cinematography, special effects, plot development, etc), The Golden Compass should (and most likely will) win some awards. Based on the first novel in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series, the movie tells the story of a girl named Lyra who, according to the Wikipedia article, is “an orphan living in a fantastical parallel universe in which the dogmatic dictatorship of the Magisterium threatens to dominate the world. When Lyra’s friend is kidnapped, she travels to the far North in an attempt to rescue him and rejoin her uncle” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Compass_(film)).
Those who have read Pullman’s novels or have followed the press on the film know that Pullman’s stories are militantly atheistic. Intentionally offering a contrast to C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series, His Dark Materials portrays God as a bumbling tyrant served by the malevolent Magisterium (an unsubtle stand-in for the Catholic Church and perhaps all organized Christian groups). The heroes of the story are the “free inquirers”—those dedicated to science and reason, rather than religious dogmatism.
Though the film’s atheism and antagonism toward religion is more subdued than that in the novels, it is present nonetheless. Right at the beginning of the story, one scientist, Lord Asriel (Lyra’s uncle), seeks funding to explore the possibility of the existence of a substance called “Dust” which supposedly permeates and composes all things. The Magisterium opposes the investigation of Dust and calls those who believe in it “heretics.” The Dust seems to be a metaphor for materialism, the view that reality is entirely composed of matter—which entails that spiritual, non-physical things do not exist. So, right at the beginning we have a clash of fundamental worldviews: the theistic worldview in which God exists as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and atheistic materialism. Like the novels, the movie leaves no doubt as to which side reason belongs. The Magisterium is portrayed as stiflers of free inquiry, dogmatic fideists who simply desire to maintain their cultural authority and influence. The scientific materialists, of course, are the defenders of rationality and tolerance.
So, it was a good movie in one sense. As an adventure story it was riveting and suspenseful—downright fun, in fact. The characters were likable and believable. But, whatever aesthetic qualities the movie has, they are overshadowed by the false worldview being subtly foisted on the unsuspecting children (and adults) who view it, not to mention the egregious stereotype and straw man constructed for religion.
For this reviewer, the most absurdly ironic thing about this movie (and perhaps the books too), is the idea that atheistic materialism is put forth as the savior of free will. In the film’s last scene, the witch Serafina warns the aeronaut Lee Scoresby of a great war that is coming, a war in defense of “nothing less than free will.” This is not simply a remark about the tyrannical ambitions of the Magisterium. It is an allusion to the idea that God, if he exists, would make human freedom impossible. What is ironic about this is that the alleged defense of free will is being made in the name of atheistic materialism, a view diametrically opposed to any notion of free will. If all I am is a collection of atoms whose every motion is dictated by the command of blind physical laws, then how can I be free in any relevant sense? What’s more, how can there be any real meaning and purpose to life if all there is or ever has been is the physical universe? Serafina is right. The battle between theism and atheism is a battle over no less than free will—and meaning and human dignity, too. But, the threat to those things is not theism, but atheism.
It was one of the best movies I have seen in a while. And it was one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. Let me explain. When it comes to purely aesthetic qualities (acting, cinematography, special effects, plot development, etc), The Golden Compass should (and most likely will) win some awards. Based on the first novel in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series, the movie tells the story of a girl named Lyra who, according to the Wikipedia article, is “an orphan living in a fantastical parallel universe in which the dogmatic dictatorship of the Magisterium threatens to dominate the world. When Lyra’s friend is kidnapped, she travels to the far North in an attempt to rescue him and rejoin her uncle” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Compass_(film)).
Those who have read Pullman’s novels or have followed the press on the film know that Pullman’s stories are militantly atheistic. Intentionally offering a contrast to C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series, His Dark Materials portrays God as a bumbling tyrant served by the malevolent Magisterium (an unsubtle stand-in for the Catholic Church and perhaps all organized Christian groups). The heroes of the story are the “free inquirers”—those dedicated to science and reason, rather than religious dogmatism.
Though the film’s atheism and antagonism toward religion is more subdued than that in the novels, it is present nonetheless. Right at the beginning of the story, one scientist, Lord Asriel (Lyra’s uncle), seeks funding to explore the possibility of the existence of a substance called “Dust” which supposedly permeates and composes all things. The Magisterium opposes the investigation of Dust and calls those who believe in it “heretics.” The Dust seems to be a metaphor for materialism, the view that reality is entirely composed of matter—which entails that spiritual, non-physical things do not exist. So, right at the beginning we have a clash of fundamental worldviews: the theistic worldview in which God exists as the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and atheistic materialism. Like the novels, the movie leaves no doubt as to which side reason belongs. The Magisterium is portrayed as stiflers of free inquiry, dogmatic fideists who simply desire to maintain their cultural authority and influence. The scientific materialists, of course, are the defenders of rationality and tolerance.
So, it was a good movie in one sense. As an adventure story it was riveting and suspenseful—downright fun, in fact. The characters were likable and believable. But, whatever aesthetic qualities the movie has, they are overshadowed by the false worldview being subtly foisted on the unsuspecting children (and adults) who view it, not to mention the egregious stereotype and straw man constructed for religion.
For this reviewer, the most absurdly ironic thing about this movie (and perhaps the books too), is the idea that atheistic materialism is put forth as the savior of free will. In the film’s last scene, the witch Serafina warns the aeronaut Lee Scoresby of a great war that is coming, a war in defense of “nothing less than free will.” This is not simply a remark about the tyrannical ambitions of the Magisterium. It is an allusion to the idea that God, if he exists, would make human freedom impossible. What is ironic about this is that the alleged defense of free will is being made in the name of atheistic materialism, a view diametrically opposed to any notion of free will. If all I am is a collection of atoms whose every motion is dictated by the command of blind physical laws, then how can I be free in any relevant sense? What’s more, how can there be any real meaning and purpose to life if all there is or ever has been is the physical universe? Serafina is right. The battle between theism and atheism is a battle over no less than free will—and meaning and human dignity, too. But, the threat to those things is not theism, but atheism.
Jan 24, 2008
Over 40 million and counting
Two days ago, January 22, 2008, marked the 35th anniversary of the landmark decision of the Supreme Court known as Roe v. Wade, a decision that effectively permitted abortion on demand in the United States. The anniversary came and went with hardly a mention in the mainstream press. I must confess that I would've overlooked it myself except for stumbling on a reminder in an online news story and in Doug Groothuis's blog. Most Americans are sadly unaware that since 1973 well over 40 million unborn children have been slaughtered. Though the number of abortions has decreased in recent years, it still remains a fact that a woman can kill her baby for almost any reason at almost any time in her pregancy--and many, many women (and the abortion providers) still take advantage of the Supreme Court's permisssion of this atrocity. The stats are that 1 in 5 pregnancies today end in abortion.
40 million and counting. . .
40 million and counting. . .
Nov 26, 2007
Two Reactions to the Doctrine of Hell
I have found that people react in two very different ways when they learn about the traditional Christian doctrine of hell. The doctrine, of course, is the biblical teaching that unrepentant sinners will suffer eternal torment in a place called hell (cf. Matt. 25:46, etc.). The first reaction that I will describe is by far the most common one today. The second one is (IMHO) the correct one, but seems to be strongly disfavored in our contemporary postmodern culture.
The first, more common, reaction to the notion of hell goes like this: "Ugh! God must be a mean, sadistic ogre!" The basic idea behind this popular reaction is that the doctrine of hell, if it's true, casts negative aspersions on the character of God. That is, hell is seen as inconsistent with the idea that God is good and loving.
Now, those who react to hell in this first way can wind up in one of two positions. (1) they can become atheists or agnostics. These, like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), believe that the Bible does teach the doctrine of hell and that the God of the Bible must therefore be really bad and unworthy of serious belief. Alternatively, (2) they can convince themselves that the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of hell--perhaps the texts that seem to teach this are not to be taken literally or are simply not true--and they continue to believe in a good and loving God. For the latter group, God (as they understand him) simply would never consign anyone to eternal torment.
The second (I think correct and biblical) reaction to the doctrine of hell is: "Whoa! I must really be bad!" The idea here is that the doctrine of hell, if it's true, casts negative aspersions NOT on God, but on us! Hell, on this view, is perfectly consistent with God's goodness and love. In fact, on this view, if hell did not exist, God would be wicked! He would be unconcerned about justice; uncaring toward the victims of our unrighteous deeds. He would be someone who simply winks at sin and never holds people accountable for the evil that they do. Hell, then, is an indictment against us. It points us to the sad truth about our sinful condition. It points us to the biblical teaching (confirmed in our daily experience) that human beings are morally corrupt, depraved, desperately wicked.
Those who react to hell in this second way are not disposed to see an inconsistency between God's goodness and hell. Rather, they are strongly inclined to feel an inconsistency between God's goodness and the gracious and merciful way he treats us deperados. That is, there seems to be a "problem of God's goodness"--why and how can he be so kind and good to us who are so bad? Why is it that we are not all cast into hell from the moment of our first breaths? (This was the question and the theme of Jonathan Edwards' great sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God").
The problem with the first reaction to hell is that it starts with the assumption that human beings are basically good (or, if bad, not all that terribly so). No wonder then that a God who makes a hell is seen as a malicious ogre! But, if we begin with the assumption that human beings are basically wicked (an idea taught on almost every page of Scripture (cf. Rom. 3:10ff., Eph. 2:1-3, etc.)), one will cry out with Paul, "Oh wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24). And one will stand awestruck and eternally grateful when one finds that the God who owes him only His eternal wrath casts his sins into a sea of everlasting forgetfulness. Then one will know just how amazing God's grace truly is.
The first, more common, reaction to the notion of hell goes like this: "Ugh! God must be a mean, sadistic ogre!" The basic idea behind this popular reaction is that the doctrine of hell, if it's true, casts negative aspersions on the character of God. That is, hell is seen as inconsistent with the idea that God is good and loving.
Now, those who react to hell in this first way can wind up in one of two positions. (1) they can become atheists or agnostics. These, like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), believe that the Bible does teach the doctrine of hell and that the God of the Bible must therefore be really bad and unworthy of serious belief. Alternatively, (2) they can convince themselves that the Bible doesn't really teach the doctrine of hell--perhaps the texts that seem to teach this are not to be taken literally or are simply not true--and they continue to believe in a good and loving God. For the latter group, God (as they understand him) simply would never consign anyone to eternal torment.
The second (I think correct and biblical) reaction to the doctrine of hell is: "Whoa! I must really be bad!" The idea here is that the doctrine of hell, if it's true, casts negative aspersions NOT on God, but on us! Hell, on this view, is perfectly consistent with God's goodness and love. In fact, on this view, if hell did not exist, God would be wicked! He would be unconcerned about justice; uncaring toward the victims of our unrighteous deeds. He would be someone who simply winks at sin and never holds people accountable for the evil that they do. Hell, then, is an indictment against us. It points us to the sad truth about our sinful condition. It points us to the biblical teaching (confirmed in our daily experience) that human beings are morally corrupt, depraved, desperately wicked.
Those who react to hell in this second way are not disposed to see an inconsistency between God's goodness and hell. Rather, they are strongly inclined to feel an inconsistency between God's goodness and the gracious and merciful way he treats us deperados. That is, there seems to be a "problem of God's goodness"--why and how can he be so kind and good to us who are so bad? Why is it that we are not all cast into hell from the moment of our first breaths? (This was the question and the theme of Jonathan Edwards' great sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God").
The problem with the first reaction to hell is that it starts with the assumption that human beings are basically good (or, if bad, not all that terribly so). No wonder then that a God who makes a hell is seen as a malicious ogre! But, if we begin with the assumption that human beings are basically wicked (an idea taught on almost every page of Scripture (cf. Rom. 3:10ff., Eph. 2:1-3, etc.)), one will cry out with Paul, "Oh wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24). And one will stand awestruck and eternally grateful when one finds that the God who owes him only His eternal wrath casts his sins into a sea of everlasting forgetfulness. Then one will know just how amazing God's grace truly is.
Oct 10, 2007
Dawkins-Lennox Debate
Last week, a debate was held at the University of Alabama-Birmingham between atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian theist John Lennox, both of Oxford University. Though the format was less than ideal, it was still a lively and worthwhile exchange. You can order CDs or DVDs of the debate from Fixed Point Ministries (www.fixed-point.org). Also, the next issue of Areopagus Journal, the apologetics magazine that I edit for the Apologetics Resource Center, will feature a column discussing the debate and adding some arguments and responses to Dawkins that could have been made by Lennox if time had permitted. You can order Areopagus Journal at www.arcapologetics.org.
Oct 2, 2007
Perpetual Teenagers
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a great commentary on and review of Diana West's new book The Death of the Grown-Up. You can link to it here:
(http://almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1013.
The book and Mohler's commentary lament the cultural phenomenon of near-perpetual adolescence. Many pundits and scientists in our society are telling us that adolescence now extends from puberty to age 34. Age 34! Can you believe it? We live in a society that refuses to grown up. West suggests that it's worse than that--people in our society don't know how to grow up. Moreover, the adult generation seems to work hard to emulate teenagers and 20-somethings. The young people set the cultural agenda and the older folks bend over backwards to accomodate and imitate them. This is, as West points out, a new phenomonon. In earlier times, the young folks looked up to adults and sought to imitate them. What kids wanted to do was to grow up; to become part of the larger (adult) society. But, apparently there is no more adult society. The adult society is collapsing into a perpetual teenager society.
Truth be known, the whole idea of the "teenager" as a distinct demographic entity is a late 20th-century invention. Before the 1950s, there was no such thing as teenagers. There were simply human beings in their teen years working hard in preparation for an adulthood that came very much sooner than age 34. Prior to the 20th-century adulthood usually arrived around age 16 or 17 when the average young man had to go to work an contribute to the family or start one of his own. And the average 16 or 17 year-old woman got married and started having babies. And these young peope were NOT children! The average 16 or 17 year-old a century or more ago was a mature-thinking adult! He/she could handle the reponsibility of adulthood because he/she had spent his/her early teen years learning to do so! But no more. Now we have 34-year-old teenagers who have no desire to grow up and probably couldn't if they wanted to!
Now I'm not saying that we need to return to a culture in which people have to grow up by age 16 or 17. After all, growing up by that age was somewhat a matter of economic necessity. But, there is no virtue in prolonging adolescence (you will only think there is if you think that the purpose of life is "living for the weekend"--which it's not). Requiring our kids to grow up by 20 or 21 isn't asking too much. Maybe even 18 or 19 is reasonable too. Of course, those of us who have "put away childish things" will have to teach them how. Are there enough of us left?
(http://almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1013.
The book and Mohler's commentary lament the cultural phenomenon of near-perpetual adolescence. Many pundits and scientists in our society are telling us that adolescence now extends from puberty to age 34. Age 34! Can you believe it? We live in a society that refuses to grown up. West suggests that it's worse than that--people in our society don't know how to grow up. Moreover, the adult generation seems to work hard to emulate teenagers and 20-somethings. The young people set the cultural agenda and the older folks bend over backwards to accomodate and imitate them. This is, as West points out, a new phenomonon. In earlier times, the young folks looked up to adults and sought to imitate them. What kids wanted to do was to grow up; to become part of the larger (adult) society. But, apparently there is no more adult society. The adult society is collapsing into a perpetual teenager society.
Truth be known, the whole idea of the "teenager" as a distinct demographic entity is a late 20th-century invention. Before the 1950s, there was no such thing as teenagers. There were simply human beings in their teen years working hard in preparation for an adulthood that came very much sooner than age 34. Prior to the 20th-century adulthood usually arrived around age 16 or 17 when the average young man had to go to work an contribute to the family or start one of his own. And the average 16 or 17 year-old woman got married and started having babies. And these young peope were NOT children! The average 16 or 17 year-old a century or more ago was a mature-thinking adult! He/she could handle the reponsibility of adulthood because he/she had spent his/her early teen years learning to do so! But no more. Now we have 34-year-old teenagers who have no desire to grow up and probably couldn't if they wanted to!
Now I'm not saying that we need to return to a culture in which people have to grow up by age 16 or 17. After all, growing up by that age was somewhat a matter of economic necessity. But, there is no virtue in prolonging adolescence (you will only think there is if you think that the purpose of life is "living for the weekend"--which it's not). Requiring our kids to grow up by 20 or 21 isn't asking too much. Maybe even 18 or 19 is reasonable too. Of course, those of us who have "put away childish things" will have to teach them how. Are there enough of us left?
Aug 20, 2007
Future Publications
To whom it may concern, I wanted to let you know about a couple of my writing projects that will be seeing publication in the near future (Lord willing). The Christian philosophy journal Philosophia Christi just accepted my article, “’It Would Have Been Good for that Man if He Had not Been Born’: Human Sinfulness and Hell as a Horrendous Evil." In this article, I argue against the claim that the traditional doctrine of hell constitutes a horrendous evil (an evil which would make the one who suffers it have a life that is not worth living) that calls into question the existence of God. Hopefully this article will be in print in a few months.
Also, Broadman-Holman just agreed to publish the introduction to philosophy text that James Spiegel (Taylor U) and I are currently writing. This book should be finished some time next Spring and then released early in 2009. We hope in this book to capture a niche in the market between the extremes of Christian philosophy texts that are broad in their coverage but superficial, and ones that are more indepth, but cover only a few topics. We also intend to aim at accessibility for an undergraduate audience.
Also, Broadman-Holman just agreed to publish the introduction to philosophy text that James Spiegel (Taylor U) and I are currently writing. This book should be finished some time next Spring and then released early in 2009. We hope in this book to capture a niche in the market between the extremes of Christian philosophy texts that are broad in their coverage but superficial, and ones that are more indepth, but cover only a few topics. We also intend to aim at accessibility for an undergraduate audience.
Aug 3, 2007
Government, Justice, and Romney
A few weeks ago I posted on the Christian view of government and how it should and should not affect whether a Christian could vote for Mitt Romney for U.S. President. I just discovered an ariticle by Christian scholar John Mark Reynolds making the very same case, but much more thoroughly and effectively than me. I hope all Christians will heed his timely wisdom. Here's the link:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/04/20/this-next-presidential-election-truly-and-impartially-administer-justice/
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/04/20/this-next-presidential-election-truly-and-impartially-administer-justice/
Jul 18, 2007
Teaching on Book of Exodus
For those who might be interested, you can hear recordings of Bible studies given by myself and Mike Gaydosh on the Book of Exodus during the Sunday School hour at our church. The link is given below. You can also find our lessons on Genesis and Daniel at the same site.
http://www.gracecovenantbaptist.org/Exodus.html
http://www.gracecovenantbaptist.org/Exodus.html
Jul 17, 2007
Spider-Man and the Mortification of Sin
Okay, I know I've taken my time to get around to it, but I finally saw Spider-Man 3 today. I took my time mainly to save money and go to the discount theater. Also because some of my acquaintances told me it wasn't all that good. After having seen it, I must beg to differ. I really enjoyed it. I'm not yet sure which of the Spidey flicks is my favorite, but this one is a contender.
There are several reasons for this judgment. For one thing, the special effects and action sequences are top notch. I even liked (contrary to some of the aforementioned friends) the romance aspects of the movie (though the scene in the Jazz Club was silly--and Peter Parker be-boppin down the street in a zoot suit was downright goofy!). But, what I liked the most about the movie were the obvious spiritual metaphors in the plot.
For the observant Christian viewer, there are some clear connections (intended or unintended I'm not sure) with Christian theology. I haven't read many reviews of the movie, so perhaps others have already pointed this out--but the black-suit/red suit contrast echoes the biblical theme of taking off the old man and putting on the new man. Along with that theme is the idea of the Christian's struggle agains indwelling sin and the importance of mortifying it. In the film, Spider-Man's body (or is it his suit?) is infected with an alien substance that amplifies his negative characteristics (e.g., his selfishness, desire for revenge, etc.) and turns him into the black-suited Spider-Man. He is led to do some pretty dastardly things under the suit's influence. Eventually Spider-Man realizes that he is being dominated by an evil force and has to fight with all his might to remove the black suit. Interestingly (and this can't be an accident), the climax of his struggle takes place in a church. The symbolism is striking. With the implied help of divine grace, Spider-Man is able to tear off the black suit (the old man with its carnal lusts) and put on the red suit (the new man renewed in holiness and virtue).
Of course, the movie sounds the Christian "bell" with less than crystal clarity. At one point in the movie, Aunt May reminds Peter that he is a "good man" who will find his way. Christians know that there is no one good but God. But, perhaps this is just Aunt May's distorted sentimentalism. When she says this to Peter, he doesn't look entirely convinced. Maybe he knows better--knows, that is, that he really isn't all that good. At the end of the movie he is able to forgive Marko Flint for killing his uncle mainly because he realizes (and confesses) that he has done some bad things too--reminiscent of the Christian call to forgive others because we are forgiven sinners ourselves. In any case the movie does seem a bit ambiguous about whether evil is something outside us that seeks to dominate otherwise good people, or whether evil come from within us. But, as I see it anyway, the movie tends to lean in the latter (Christian) direction as suggested by the fact that the alien substance amplifies bad tendencies in people rather than creates them.
The first Spider-Man movie gave us the well-worn catch-phase "With great power comes great responsibility." This third installment ends with a new one: "We can always choose to do what is right." From a Christian point of view, this is only true with qualification. The Apostle Paul said that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). However, those who have been given the new birth, who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, can always choose to do what is right. We can indeed take off the old man and put on the new, and "be imitators of God" (Eph. 5:1). Not because we are intrinsically good, but because God is "at work in us to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
There are several reasons for this judgment. For one thing, the special effects and action sequences are top notch. I even liked (contrary to some of the aforementioned friends) the romance aspects of the movie (though the scene in the Jazz Club was silly--and Peter Parker be-boppin down the street in a zoot suit was downright goofy!). But, what I liked the most about the movie were the obvious spiritual metaphors in the plot.
For the observant Christian viewer, there are some clear connections (intended or unintended I'm not sure) with Christian theology. I haven't read many reviews of the movie, so perhaps others have already pointed this out--but the black-suit/red suit contrast echoes the biblical theme of taking off the old man and putting on the new man. Along with that theme is the idea of the Christian's struggle agains indwelling sin and the importance of mortifying it. In the film, Spider-Man's body (or is it his suit?) is infected with an alien substance that amplifies his negative characteristics (e.g., his selfishness, desire for revenge, etc.) and turns him into the black-suited Spider-Man. He is led to do some pretty dastardly things under the suit's influence. Eventually Spider-Man realizes that he is being dominated by an evil force and has to fight with all his might to remove the black suit. Interestingly (and this can't be an accident), the climax of his struggle takes place in a church. The symbolism is striking. With the implied help of divine grace, Spider-Man is able to tear off the black suit (the old man with its carnal lusts) and put on the red suit (the new man renewed in holiness and virtue).
Of course, the movie sounds the Christian "bell" with less than crystal clarity. At one point in the movie, Aunt May reminds Peter that he is a "good man" who will find his way. Christians know that there is no one good but God. But, perhaps this is just Aunt May's distorted sentimentalism. When she says this to Peter, he doesn't look entirely convinced. Maybe he knows better--knows, that is, that he really isn't all that good. At the end of the movie he is able to forgive Marko Flint for killing his uncle mainly because he realizes (and confesses) that he has done some bad things too--reminiscent of the Christian call to forgive others because we are forgiven sinners ourselves. In any case the movie does seem a bit ambiguous about whether evil is something outside us that seeks to dominate otherwise good people, or whether evil come from within us. But, as I see it anyway, the movie tends to lean in the latter (Christian) direction as suggested by the fact that the alien substance amplifies bad tendencies in people rather than creates them.
The first Spider-Man movie gave us the well-worn catch-phase "With great power comes great responsibility." This third installment ends with a new one: "We can always choose to do what is right." From a Christian point of view, this is only true with qualification. The Apostle Paul said that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). However, those who have been given the new birth, who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, can always choose to do what is right. We can indeed take off the old man and put on the new, and "be imitators of God" (Eph. 5:1). Not because we are intrinsically good, but because God is "at work in us to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)