Attention Word Slingers readers: Beginning December 11, 2019, all posts will be available at BaptistMessenger.com. Thank you for reading Word Slingers!
Let’s face it. The Christian film genre has not always had the closest table at the Golden Globes. As Christians looking for edification or Gospel tools at the theater, we have forgiven cheesy scripts, sub-par acting, and paid our fair share of money to support our tribe. Thankfully, as of late, Christian filmmakers have invested more time and resources into their projects.
“Home Run” is the latest evidence of great strides in Christian filmmaking. The story centers around Cory Brand, a major league baseball star and out-of-control bad boy. His alcoholism has led to stunts on and off the field putting his career in jeopardy. One such stunt gets him suspended and through a series of related events, Cory finds himself facing life in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, with ghosts from his past. Cory is forced to attend Celebrate Recovery, a Christ-centered 12-step program, as he faces his past, present, and future as a man struggling with alcohol addiction.
The film wholeheartedly accomplishes its main goal as a Celebrate Recovery vehicle. The program is shown in a very real and honest manner. The movie does an excellent job of exposing hurts, habits and hang-ups in many of the characters, showing that we all have struggles in life that need God’s restoration. The film also exposes the rippling effects of unchecked sin. There is great hope that Celebrate Recovery groups across the nation will see a fresh harvest of people wanting to bring their hidden and dark struggles to light.
While the direct goal is accomplished, the movie itself accomplishes a leap forward in Christian film. Lead actor Scott Elrod and actress Dorian Brown give standout performances as the story’s central characters. There are a few hokey moments in the film, but overall I enjoyed the story as well as the way it was told.
If there is a weakness to the film, it is one that falls with many movies in the Christian genre. While the movie does focus on God’s power to transform us in our addictions and struggles, there is little about the Gospel or Christ Himself. Jesus is implied in the film, but there is no real mention of Creator God, our depraved nature, justification by grace through faith, and growth in Christ through the Spirit. While Christians assume these things, and they may be offered thematically, they are not directly afforded to us in the movie.
This may be too high an expectation for what the filmmakers were hoping to accomplish. However, we do need to remember that one does not need the gospel to quit drinking, be a more committed father, let go of pornography, or win the football state championship. While many of those things can come through the transformation of the gospel in Christ, those things are not the gospel or Christ.
This is where the church comes in. Movies don’t save people. Jesus saves people. Home Run is a great way to begin a conversation about Jesus. I highly recommend it. There are many individuals who may not walk through church doors, but will gladly sit in a theater with a box of Junior Mints and a five dollar Mr. Pibb. The job of the church is to take that tool and use it for the gospel. In making a quality movie with a God-honoring message, the makers of Home Run have put an excellent arrow in the church’s quiver.
* A note regarding the movie’s PG-13 rating: I would have no qualms about taking a child as young as ten to the movie. While there are some intense moments, great care is taken to ensure it is honest without being gratuitous.
As a writer knowing I have some degree of influence, no matter how small, I usually try to choose my words judiciously.
Today I am not.
There is an outrage in me that should spread like wildfire not only at what is considered “news” in our mainstream media, but what is silenced for the sake of it. Today I give my voice, no matter how small, to those with the smallest voices who were never given a chance to speak.
You may have heard the story by now – though likely only through social media platforms. Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell is under trial for extreme acts of brutality, murder, and infanticide. Gosnell’s former employees are testifying as to what they were led to do and witness over years in the abortion clinic.
If you want the gory details, Kirsten Powers has written a superb opinion article in USA today with all of the details I am literally too nauseated to type here. Read it. What I can tell you is that Gosnell’s procedures and practices were outside the law, outside of human conscience, and outside the realm of what any being or entity can justify.
Perhaps on a lower strata, yet outrageously concerning, is the lack of attention given to this trial which began on March 18th – nearly one month ago at the time of this writing – and took place over the course of more than ten years.
If you haven’t heard about the trial during your regular television or Internet viewing cycle, you’re not alone. No major news show on any of the top three networks has given a second of air space to the story. Even a quick review of major Internet news outlets finds them void of the massacre. At the time of this writing, Yahoo! News does not have the story in its top 95 stories, or even listed under its general news feed.
So what is listed?
Hugh Hefner’s 87th Birthday Celebration
Taylor Swift quits wearing eyeliner
Top All-Beef Franks
Cosby Show Cast Now!
…and a story expressing concern over whether or not a violent video game is “too real.” You know what IS too real? The fact that hundreds of children had their spines cut, “heads severed,” and were murdered – even outside of the womb and considered “viable.”
The outrage over the event is warranted. The fact that Planned Parenthood continues to deny and hem-haw around the issue is vile. The reasoning of major news executives in shying away from the story because of its pro-life implications is infuriating. The fact that this scenario may be playing itself out in countless other abortion clinics is frightening. Above all, the idea that these murders happening outside the womb warrant trial, yet inside the womb are simply a day at the office for abortion doctors should bring us to anger and action.
So what can we do about it?
If the mainstream media is afraid of the story because of its pro-life bent, we must use social media to champion it. We all have a voice, no matter how small. Use it.
As a father I weep. As a human I am enraged. As a victim of this charade by the media I am irate. As a Christian, I pray Lord come soon, ask for justice, and pray somehow for the gospel to be made known through this.
Hundreds of children have been silenced. Let us not be so.
If you’re like me, your head is virtually spinning from all the talk, Facebook icons and pithy slogans surrounding the gay marriage debate. As the Supreme Court faces a difficult decision that could send shockwaves throughout the cultural and religious landscape, it is not the argument on both sides that I find disturbing, but the conversation it seems we are not having.
The difficulty I see in taking arms for or against redefining marriage is that while people are talking about the re-definition, no one is talking about the definition.
So why add one more voice to the confusion? My aim is to help Christian readers define what it is we are actually defending. For those who will immediately dismiss my argument, I want us to recognize the fact that what we are differing over is not an emotive or equality issue, but is a division over biblical authority. What is being missed in large part on both sides of the debate is the understanding of marriage’s original definition and why some are so stalwart in opposing a re-definition.
This is not about “hate,” cultural neanderthalism or tradition. For those who believe the Bible is the true word of God, we trace marriage back to the very beginning.
“The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” – Genesis 2:20-25
From this passage, and the preceding creation account, we see that God is a God of separation, boundaries, and order. He separates light from dark. He separates land from sea and provides boundaries for both. He creates creatures for sea and creatures for land. He creates man and woman. He gives order, roles, and purposes.
Then the God who creates separation, boundaries and order performs a startling act. The one thing he reunites after separation is the man and woman in the act of marriage. God brings the woman to the man (v. 22). There is covenant language (v. 23). There is a pronouncement made (v. 24). The woman is then called his “wife.”
For Bible believers, this is the gift of marriage initiated, ordained, and purposed by God. This is the definition of marriage.
Biblically, marriage is to be a life-long covenant (Mal. 2:16, Matt. 19:6) between male and female (Matt. 19:4) and should not be separated (Matt. 19:6-8). It contains boundaries for the sexual relationship (1 Cor. 6:16). This purpose cannot be fulfilled by a male/male or female/female relationship (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:25-32) nor in a human/animal relationship (Lev. 18:23), nor incestual (Lev. 18:6-17), or polygamist (1 Tim. 3:2, 12).
This list is not exhaustive, but as you can see, there are biblical boundaries for marriage. Ultimately, Paul sums up the purpose of marriage in Ephesians chapter five. He says the marriage relationship is given by God as a representation of Christ’s relationship with the church. It is for mutual building up, humble service, love and respect. He again quotes the Genesis 2:24 passage as Christ does in Matthew 19:5 referring to the male and female counterparts of the marriage relationship.
This is what marriage is. It is the genesis and definition. I did not make it up. I did not define it. If you find it objectionable, you are not bound to participate in it. You have all the right in the world to say, “If that’s marriage, then I don’t want it.”
The difficulty stems from the fact that the government has borrowed the term “marriage” to offer governmentally sanctioned privileges such as tax breaks, hospital visitation and the like. The issue is, while these are governmental rights attached to marriage, they have nothing to do with marriage itself.
The government is free to give rights to whomever the government wishes, assuming the government is free to bequeath those rights. But the government has no right to alter the definition of marriage any more than it has the right to redefine baptism. This is because neither marriage nor baptism are given by the government. Their parameters are given by God. Therefore He stands as the judge and standard-bearer.
Whether or not the government should afford the civil privileges to a gay couple that they provide for heterosexual couples is an entirely different debate. However, the government cannot call those rights “marriage” or redefine the term to have civil implications that are not, or were not, originally attached to it nor coincide with its Author’s intent or design. They should not be officiated by a minister, but a senator or government official. They are not ordained by God nor do they honor Him as they are not in line with His purpose and design for what the Bible defines as marriage. It is something else entirely.
If you are for so-called gay marriage, hopefully this article provides some clarity on the discussion and its terminology. If the idea of marriage repulses you, you are not obligated to submit to it – just don’t use the term to describe something it is not. Biblical marriage is not simply “traditional” marriage since it is not tradition that gave us marriage. Biblical marriage is just that: biblical.
I believe we can aim the discussion more precisely when our terms are properly defined. When we are borrowing words and remaking boundaries that are not ours to make, the shouting match ensues and no one comes across clearly in a shouting match. May we be able to approach one another with love even as we disagree. I do not hate gay people. I am not afraid of gay people or homosexuality. What I do object to is anyone, gay or straight, misusing the institutions or words of God for their own agenda. Let the comments ensue and may they be graced with as much tolerance and love as we seek for ourselves.
(Editor’s note: Within Evangelical circles, there is great division as to how to respond to the election of Pope Francis I. In this analysis, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, offers thoughts on the papacy in light of this week’s development. Blogger Ryan Smith offers some reactions below. Feel at liberty to send your writings, opinions and comments on this or other topics to baptistmessenger@okbaptist.net, or make use of the comments section below. The views of contributing writers do not necessarily represent those of The Baptist Messengerof any its affiliated publications.)
Like most people, I spent last Tuesday and Wednesday going about my normal business of weight-lifting and charity work. However, for millions of Catholics across the globe, these two days not only were spent in anticipation and excitement, but in preparation for a possible new direction for one of the world’s largest religious denominations.
As a born-and-raised Southern Baptist, the papal conclave seems intriguing, yet wrapped in a bit of pomp and circumstance I would be fine without. The robes, secrecy, white smoke, it all seems somewhat extraneous. However, this is the method of a church that genuinely believes they are seeking God’s will in finding a leader in the line of St. Peter.
As Baptists, of course, we do not answer to the pope. Often times our biblical doctrine comes into conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As Christ-followers, there are tremendous implications wrapped in the selection of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis I. Here are a few reasons why this selection could have major ramifications not only for Catholics, but for the world at large:
1) SEXUAL MORALITY. In a move that may have more cultural implications than anything, the papal conclave chose not to cave to public trends or cultural waves in regard to sexuality, but chose a man who has been unwaveringly orthodox on sexual morality issues. He is outspoken against abortion, so-called same-sex marriage, and contraceptives. With over a billion Catholics worldwide, a pope taking such stands will likely keep sexual issues on the front lines of the cultural battle for years. For pro-life and sanctity of marriage advocates, this will be viewed as a huge win.
2) JORGE BERGOGLIO IS A JESUIT. While you may not know about the Jesuits or Ignatius of Loyola, their founder, Jesuits are a pretty imposing brood. Ignatius founded the Jesuits to be “Soldiers of God” in 1534. Known also as “God’s Marines,” this group takes a sincere vow of chastity, poverty, on-call mission, and strict obedience to the pope. If you are wondering why all the news outlets and media are so surprised by Bergoglio’s low-key and relatively bare lifestyle, this may be why.
3) THE PLIGHT OF THE POOR. As a Jesuit, Pope Francis reportedly will focus much of the Catholic Church’s attention on the poor and disadvantaged. Jorge Bergoglio himself is noted for going to a hospice center for AIDS patients in 2001, washing and kissing the ailing feet of twelve patients. He was also a key figure in the Argentine economic crisis. He noted in 2007, “The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”
4) MAN ON A MISSION. Jorge Bergoglio has been noted for his evangelistic efforts. He recently stated, “It’s true that when you get out into the street, as happens to every man and woman, there can be accidents. However, if the church remains closed in on itself, self-referential, it gets old. Between a church that suffers accidents in the street, and a church that’s sick because it’s self-referential, I have no doubts about preferring the former.” If you thought the Lou Holtz commercials about “Coming Home” were pushing the envelope, just wait.
While the ideals of Pope Francis are just that—ideals—his focus and direction will no doubt have impact on the 1 billion-plus Catholics across the globe. Despite the Catholic theology, methodology, or church polity, as those of us who are mission, it is important for us to know what this major religion teaches and the direction they are headed. This not only has implications for the Vatican, but for our neighbors, co-workers, family and friends.
Regardless of where we agree or disagree, we should pray for all those in a leadership role. Finally, it is important to learn our distinctions, and be ready to make a defense for the exclusivity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and biblical orthodoxy.
Lets face it: sex sells and we’re buying. Consider Sunday’s Super Bowl.
With $4 million per 30-second spot and the brightest world stage at stake, we were being hit with marketing’s strongest punch. For many, their best idea was to appeal to the basest level of human desire – sex. Stick a scantily clad person or provocative image next to anything and suddenly the lust is linked to the product. It’s quick. It’s easy. It’s effective.
Amidst all of the glitz and thrusting pelvices (pelvi?), one commercial went beyond the base urge of the body and went toward something much deeper – the heart. The main actors were clothed in layers. The most skin was the worn hands and broken fingernails of an elderly farmer. The soundtrack was an old recording reminding us of hard-working people who impact what we take for granted every day.
What we felt after watching a simple commercial about farmers wasn’t lust. It wasn’t humor. It was gratitude.
Matthew 9:35-38 says, “When (Jesus) saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers...’”
When we see people duped into watching an electronic box for the sake of a sexual emotion, we can get angry or we can pray. Like Jesus, we should see these advertisers and consumers compassionately as sheep without shepherds. We should pray for harvesters – spiritual farmers.
The effectiveness of this commercial should show us consumers, teachers, ministry leaders and parents that it is not always the easy or “sexy” way of communicating that has the most impact. Ministry, discipleship, spiritual disciplines and life in general are not quick or “sexy”. Discipleship requires dirty fingernails. People require time, sacrifice, investment and patience.
But at the end of it all, it’s not the quickest or sexiest that lasts or grows. It is the hard work that yields the greatest produce. Let us pray for more farmers of the gospel and respond with gratitude to those who sow the gospel among us.
