A Highway to Hell?

The Pew Forum recently published the findings of a survey of over 35, 000 religious Americans. We all know the problems with these types of polls, how the questions can be manipulated and the answers vague. Still the findings were interesting and should give us pause as to what type of culture we are living in, especially what kind of church culture. Time Magazine has an analysis of the report. I wanted to comment on a couple of findings from the survey.

First, I found it surprising that Catholics were so weak in numerous areas. For example, 79 percent of Catholics surveyed believe many religions can lead to God. Also, "More than most groups, Catholics break with their church, and not just on issues like abortion and homosexuality." Only six in 10 Catholics described God as "a person with whom people can have a relationship" — which the church teaches — while three in 10 described God as an "impersonal force." In case you missed it, that means 40% of Catholics surveyed find God unknowable. Add to this that 25% of Catholics surveyed express some doubt about the existence of God at all and a bleak picture begins to develop. I guess I expect this from liberal mainline denominations like the PCUSA and the Methodists, but I did not expect this from Catholics.

Second, only 14% of those surveyed said that religion is the main influence on their politics. The reason for this is not hard to find. Politics is religion for most evangelical Americans. Notice this quote from news story, "But it [the report] also showed support across religious lines for greater governmental aid for the poor, even if it means more debt and stricter environmental laws and regulations." While this may at first appear insignificant, it is a disturbing quote. It shows a shift in allegiances. In Scripture, caring for the poor is the task of God's people. We are called upon to care for widows and orphans. We are called upon to serve our communities. It is one thing for pagans to expect the government to do the work of the Church. It is entirely another for Christians to expect the government to do the work of the Church. The American empire has replaced the Church as the hope for believers. Our messiahs wear three piece suits and placate us with soft words. And worst of all we listen and invite them to speak at our churches. Christ has everything to do with politics, but unfortunately instead of making Christ Lord of politics, we have made politics Christ. We have replace the Word made Flesh, with an idol of stone. Anyone who knows their Bible can see that this will end badly.

The Deception of Simeon and Levi

I am currently preaching through Genesis. This is a follow up to my sermon yesterday from Genesis 34.

Yesterday, John asked a good question about how the deception of Simeon and Levi is different from the previous deceptions we have seen in Genesis or even in other parts of the Scripture. Here are my thoughts.

First, almost every other lie mentioned in Scripture is done in the interest of protecting someone from a tyrant. Sarah, the Hebrew mid-wives, Rahab, and Michal are good examples. Even Rebekah's suggestion to Jacob that he deceive his father and Jael's lie were designed to protect someone weak. Simeon and Levi were not interested in protection. They wanted revenge. They lie to destroy, not to save.

Second, generally lies are used by women. Every example mentioned above has a woman at the center of the deception, even if there was a male involved. In Genesis 34 women play no part in the deception. This links with my first point. Women do not have the strength to force a tyrant to obey. They must use deception. Compare Abraham's reaction to Lot being taken to the reaction of Simeon and Levi. In Scripture, men often fight directly with their enemies. We see this with Abraham's rescue of Lot, Moses' confrontation with Pharaoh, Joshua taking the Promise Land, and David fighting with the Philistines. Men, because they are stronger, generally do not resort to these types of deception. Simeon and Levi were not acting like men.

Finally, the use of the covenant sign of circumcision is abominable. Imagine, there is a church plant near a tribe that a minister is trying to win to Christ. A member of this tribe kidnaps and seduces one of the daughters after falling in love with her. When marriage is suggested, the sons of the minister say that if everyone gets baptized they will let them marry. The tribal leaders agree. On the day of the baptism, the minister's sons invite the men into the church to be baptized and then lock the church doors and burn the church to the ground. A glorious thing, which represents God's free grace and calling, which represents life, becomes a symbol of death and all witness is lost. Jacob's condemnation of his sons at the end of the passage is correct, even if he does not see that his abdication is the ultimate cause.

Context is King

I just watched the Jimmy Stewart movie Shenandoah again. I had seen it before and really enjoyed it. The agrarian life pictured in the movie appeals to me. Here is a man with six sons, a daughter, and a daughter in law eating dinner around his table. He has a huge farm where all the children pitch in and help with the tasks. He loves his children and has instilled a love for family in them. The children respect their father, even when they are in disagreement. I will not rehearse the whole movie. However, there is one point that struck me as I watched it a second time.

The movie is set in the Civil War and makes the point that war is hell. Stewart loses two of his sons and his daughter in law to the war, even though they are not even fighting in it. Men try to steal his horses and his sons to fund the war effort. I Samuel 8:11-18 came seeping into my mind as I watched these two scenes. Much of what Stewart says throughout the movie I agree with, especially as it pertains to how the government tends to see it citizens as property in a war effort.

However, on second viewing I began to get the impression there was something else going on. It is not simply a realistic picture of war with all its death and pain. It is in many ways an anti-war movie. By the end one is left with the vague notion that war is always evil. War is because of sin. There is no doubt of this. But in our fallen world, war is not only at times necessary, but can be righteous and just. The movie does not depict the nobility of fighting for a good cause. It is perhaps hinted at with the release of a slave boy, but even that is not clear. Stewart is in some ways noble, as he tries to rescue his son. But there is not good and bad in the war. There is only raping and pillaging. Stewart is not fighting for what is right. He is scrounging to save his family in the midst of all this madness. I began to wonder when it was released. Was the director making a point? What was the historical context? I checked the box. It was released in 1965, as the Vietnam War began to escalate. A theme in the movie is that Stewart does not want to get involved in a war that is not his. This could be the battle cry of those who opposed the Vietnam War.

Another note of interest is that The Sound of Music was released the same year, 1965. Comparing the plights of the two families in the movies is a good exercise in dissecting what a movie is trying to say about its subject.

Shenandoah is still a very enjoyable movie. Stewart is a great actor and certainly delivers here. I would still recommend it. By the way, I am not making a statement about the current war or about Vietnam. I am simply pointing out that putting a movie in its historical context can help with interpretation.