Showing posts with label redemption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redemption. Show all posts
Friday, April 18, 2014
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Doc Martin and redemption
As a result of suggestions made by you, Dear Readers, Valerie and I are watching the British TV series Doc Martin on Netflix. We just finished the third episode of season 4, and don't want spoilers, thank you very much.
The premise of the series is that Dr. Martin Ellingham, accomplished surgeon, is suddenly seized by hematophobia. Accordingly, he leaves surgery (hard to do the slicing without some splashing), and ends up as the GP in a beautiful bayside town called Portwenn. The latter is played by Port Isaac in North Cornwall, England.
The basic format is that of a medical mystery / romantic comedy. Locals persist in calling Ellingham "Doc Martin," against his frequent but now-fading corrections. He is himself a surly, rude man, bereft of the least whiff of tact, and proud of it. He calls tact and sensitivity "rubbish" (which is a modern Britishism for "humbug"), and he'll have none of it.
But Ellingham is medically well-nigh brilliant, and eventually sees through everything sent his way. And while he virtually never shows the least bit of kindness or compassion per se, one of the most recurrent sites is of him running at full speed to some medical emergency.
As you're probably already thinking, it is impossible not to make comparisons to the American series House, MD, which started the same year. Both men are rude and churlish, both men have handicaps that irritate them, both men are medically brilliant, neither man rests until he figures out the medical mystery.
But there are major differences. One dissimilarity is that there's little real malice in Doc Martin. He's guileless. For the most part, Ellingham isn't trying to be mean; he just IS mean because he doesn't care what people think about him or what they make of what he says. Occasionally he effects a puzzled look indicating that doesn't seem to understand what others' problem is — if he even takes note of their reaction.
House, by contrast, was deliberately cruel, setting out to make fools and liars of people and expose their (assumed) hypocrisy. The least flicker of virtue in others constituted a glowing target for House, compelling him to search for a pathology of some sort.
And yet here also is a place where early House was superior to anything we've yet seen in Doc Martin. As I discussed elsewhere, in the early years Dr. House was longing and searching desperately for redemption. He knew he was a broken man, sometimes admitting his need for help; and he hated the horrid place the world was. House longed for something transcendent to cling to, something to give him hope; yet he had the settled conviction that there was no such thing. So House's compulsion to "expose" people who did have hope and transcendent values was driven by a bitter certainty that no real hope existed, a fury at that fact, impelled by a remaining flicker of hope that he'd find something he couldn't deconstruct.
There's nothing of that in Doc Martin. Ellingham's only discomfort is with his hematophobia, and that only because it keeps him in that dreary little village with those dreary little people. He neither longs nor searches for redemption of any sort. When he thinks of it at all, he thinks the rest of the world is off-kilter, addicted as it is to "rubbish" like tact and kindness and compassion. They should all be like him. Or not. He just doesn't care.
One's view of Ellingham is ameliorated a bit by glimpses of his upbringing. He alludes (admiringly) to severe and unloving discipline as a child. More becomes clear when we meet Ellingham's parents. Horrible people, sneering and loveless. Ellingham's father has few or no redeeming traits; and his ice-cold mother tells him, in so many words, that his birth and very existence ruined her life. She was happy before Ellingham as born; then, with his arrival, her life was rubbished. It hurts more to see Ellingham take abuse from both parents with no sign that he thinks them out of line, that he sees what a wretched, inexcusable cruelty it is. This is what has formed him.
Yet the humanist's version of redemption does nibble at Ellingham, in the form of a pretty little teacher named Louisa Glasson. For reasons which baffle and elude any viewer not schooled in abnormal psychology, Louisa is attracted to Ellingham early on, and he to her. Their conversations are really funny, in that every slight encounter turns into an argument. The first time they kiss, he instantly — without a pause — launches into speculation as to the medical causes of her bad breath. The second time they kiss, he speculates that a bad menstrual period explains her being over-emotional. Yes, it's that bad. He's that bad.
Then, in a careening plot line, Louisa finally shows some sense, and breaks up with Ellingham. He is utterly miserable. They happen to encounter each other, and he... proposes marriage. And she accepts! Yes, they literally have not put together two consecutive happy days together, let alone two consecutive happy hours, but they're about to marry.
But even that is doomed. They end up leaving each other at the altar.
In this sequence, both are revealed as selfish people, though Louisa less so. That is, they both primarily want to be made happy by someone. She doesn't want to take Ellingham on as a project, and I daresay anyone who cared a whit for her would agree. He won't make her happy, and she won't make him happy, so they leave each other.
Valerie and I continued watching because the locations are lovely. The cameraman only seemed to notice that fact with the beginning of the third season, and we started being treated to more artistic views. Also, the people are quaint and quirky, rather like the characters in the All Creatures Great and Small series.
Yet, as my dear wife has observed, it's only rather like. Something keeps the series from being fun. The writers seem to hold all their characters in contempt. The series has a negative attitude towards almost everyone in it. Every last person is unhappy and/or broken in some way. There are no exceptions.
And they're not "quirky-but." Some are insane, most are stupid and self-destructive and mean, none of them really seems to care for anyone other than himself, with the sole exceptions of Ellingham's aunt (who cares for him), a rotund father (who cares for his son), and a "chemist" (who adulterously lusts for Ellingham).
For instance, there's a ranger who's insane and has come close to killing several characters. Funny? Not a lot. Then there was the episode where a 15 year old girl was eager to lose her virginity, and overdosed on drugs because she was stung by her girlfriends' relentless ridicule over the size of her breasts. The happy ending? Ellingham gave her a placebo, and she viciously mocked one of those friends for the shape of her ears. She "won," you see, by getting the last hateful word in.
Like House, there's no redemption for Ellingham thus far. Unlike House, there's no longing for it. You watch a series like this, hoping for some epiphany to hit Ellingham, but so far none has so much as tugged on his sleeve. One religious character had an ongoing presence, yet his religion was shapeless and powerless, and both it and he were ultimately mocked and waved aside dismissively.
Only two even semi-hopes came by. One was a psychologist who immediately diagnosed Ellingham as having Asperger's, which at least would have explained his rudeness pathologically. The other hope of course is Louisa. Ellingham adopts a softer tone around her, and looks rather twitterpated. His voice becomes softer, and he looks like a big puppy, when she's around. Until they start arguing. Which they usually do.
But to date, they've not put themselves together, and in the real world (A) Louisa wouldn't even be available in the first place, and (B) this link-up never would have happened. Barring a sad, sad self-destructive pathology on Louisa's part.
And where does that leave Ellingham? He cared for Louisa as much as he cared for anyone other than himself and, to a lesser degree, his aunt. Nothing else calls to him but a return to his career as a surgeon, if he can just overcome this pesky phobia.
This is where modern screenwriters dip into a dry inkwell. How can they not? They live in a dry inkwell. All mankind is still banished from Eden, still longs for a way back, but still is unwilling to admit either the real cause of the problem or confront the real and only hope for a cure. So we wander on with Cain as strangers in the land of wanderers, complaining about the severity of our punishment but not owning up to our guilt. This is why all long for redemption, and this is why the best storytelling always contains an element of redemption.
But modern Brits, like modern Americans, have no redemption to offer. Amusement, anesthesia, diversion, yes. Mockery and derision of our supposed inferiors, yes.
Redemption, no.
So we watch broken characters like Dr. House and Doc Martin, longing to see them find the redemption we ourselves hope for. But the writers of House ran dry long before the series closed, and gave up all hope of the theme. So they resorted to the formula of House being monstrously cruel and hateful and brilliant. They had nothing more to offer. And so far, while their protagonist isn't the monster House become, neither do the writers of Doc Martin.
Because the only genuine hope for redemption is in the Redeemer... and facing up to that reality would entirely jostle their very world in a way which they are still denying and still fighting with all they've got.
Which is, ultimately, very sad.
Valerie and I have now finished watching the entire series. There is no need to revise anything I wrote above. We enjoyed many things about it. The actors are excellent, the writing is clever, the characters are sad. Bert Large runs his business deep into debt, takes money from a loan-shark, and then won't pay the interest. (Point: the loan-shark didn't specify the interest at the outset; Counterpoint: if Bert is so dim-witted as to think the money was a gift, it's hard to his credit.) His son helps him... by stealing from his aged employer, taking advantage of her trust and affection for him. Nice. All the more so because she's not much more a "people" person than Ellingham, but she likes Al... who takes advantage of her, and barely apologizes. (He had to, you see.)
The poor messed-up constable is fleetingly reconciled to the estranged wife he adores, and loses her, humiliating himself all over again. The poor adulterously love-struck chemist abuses drugs and has a psychotic break. Louisa's long-estranged mother returns, all coos and kisses, only to endanger Louisa's baby and continue the same appalling behavior that shattered her relationship with Louisa in the first place.
Life at Portwenn, in other words, continues as usual.
Meanwhile, Dr. Ellingham and Louisa come to live together, courteously. Martin tries to try to try, Louisa is very patient...in some ways. Ultimately, she has her fill of Ellingham being who he is, and leaves him. Again.
But at the end of the final episode, there's a sweet reunion that does give some horizontal hope to both of them. Ellingham tells Louisa that he loves her, and it looks as if they have a future. More hopefully, Ellingham says he's not going to be a father like his own wretched father, and he doesn't want their son to grow up to be like him. All viewers will cheer both resolutions.
Commenting on this paused story, then, such redemption as we now see serves to glorify God's greater redemption in Christ, by contrast.
Louisa is Martin's only horizontal hope. His aunt Joan, who tried feebly to be an influence, has died. Her death saddened Ellingham, but seemed to provoke no great reflection or introspection. Instead, he used the funeral to blame her for her own death and to lecture everyone about their obesity.
Only Louisa softens him, reaches him, touches him, humanizes him. His voice is always softer in talking to her (until they start arguing, which is usually the case), and his face always takes on a puppylike look.
At the same time, while she shows him a lot of patience, it is limited and aimless — except insofar as it is selfish. Louisa puts up with a lot from Martin... but not so that she can help him grow or change. Nor has he indicated (until the end of the last episode) that he feels the need for any change. Indeed, it is the world that should change. It should become more like him.
Louisa appears to want only to change Martin to make him into someone more suitable for her. And who could blame her? What is more, if he did learn to suit her better, Ellingham would probably become a better person in the bargain.
But Louisa shows no sign of knowing God, so she has no Christ-centered goal for herself or for Martin, and thus doesn't have any idea what either he or she should become. She doesn't have it, so she can't give it.
Christ, by contrast, is hard at work in the lives of His people to conform them to the image of their Creator (Col. 3:10; Titus 2:11-14). To do this, Jesus Christ must be the epitome of long-suffering patience in His dealing with us (1 Tim. 1:16). Unlike Louisa, He will never under any circumstances leave His people (Heb. 13:5-6), and will save us not just part-way, but all the way (Heb. 7:25), and will never, every put us out (Jn. 6:37). His love for His people is unfailing, sovereign, invincible (Rom. 8:35-39).
You see, that's real redemption. That's what it is to know God. It is a redemption that finds us as ruined and with nothing whatever to offer (Eph. 2:1ff.). It finds us not even as "fixer-uppers," but as hopeless wrecks. Yet there is hope for the hopeless, and that only because the Redeemer Himself brings it (Eph. 2:4-10). It is a redemption that begins with us in the very worst condition, and never rests in the good and joy and blessing and recovery that it brings us, not even to the endless ages of eternity.
Now, that is a redemption. Unfortunately, like Louisa, today's authors and screenwriters as a rule do not have that redemption themselves.
And so, like Louisa, they cannot offer what they do not possess.
The premise of the series is that Dr. Martin Ellingham, accomplished surgeon, is suddenly seized by hematophobia. Accordingly, he leaves surgery (hard to do the slicing without some splashing), and ends up as the GP in a beautiful bayside town called Portwenn. The latter is played by Port Isaac in North Cornwall, England.
The basic format is that of a medical mystery / romantic comedy. Locals persist in calling Ellingham "Doc Martin," against his frequent but now-fading corrections. He is himself a surly, rude man, bereft of the least whiff of tact, and proud of it. He calls tact and sensitivity "rubbish" (which is a modern Britishism for "humbug"), and he'll have none of it.
But Ellingham is medically well-nigh brilliant, and eventually sees through everything sent his way. And while he virtually never shows the least bit of kindness or compassion per se, one of the most recurrent sites is of him running at full speed to some medical emergency.
As you're probably already thinking, it is impossible not to make comparisons to the American series House, MD, which started the same year. Both men are rude and churlish, both men have handicaps that irritate them, both men are medically brilliant, neither man rests until he figures out the medical mystery.
House, by contrast, was deliberately cruel, setting out to make fools and liars of people and expose their (assumed) hypocrisy. The least flicker of virtue in others constituted a glowing target for House, compelling him to search for a pathology of some sort.
And yet here also is a place where early House was superior to anything we've yet seen in Doc Martin. As I discussed elsewhere, in the early years Dr. House was longing and searching desperately for redemption. He knew he was a broken man, sometimes admitting his need for help; and he hated the horrid place the world was. House longed for something transcendent to cling to, something to give him hope; yet he had the settled conviction that there was no such thing. So House's compulsion to "expose" people who did have hope and transcendent values was driven by a bitter certainty that no real hope existed, a fury at that fact, impelled by a remaining flicker of hope that he'd find something he couldn't deconstruct.
There's nothing of that in Doc Martin. Ellingham's only discomfort is with his hematophobia, and that only because it keeps him in that dreary little village with those dreary little people. He neither longs nor searches for redemption of any sort. When he thinks of it at all, he thinks the rest of the world is off-kilter, addicted as it is to "rubbish" like tact and kindness and compassion. They should all be like him. Or not. He just doesn't care.
One's view of Ellingham is ameliorated a bit by glimpses of his upbringing. He alludes (admiringly) to severe and unloving discipline as a child. More becomes clear when we meet Ellingham's parents. Horrible people, sneering and loveless. Ellingham's father has few or no redeeming traits; and his ice-cold mother tells him, in so many words, that his birth and very existence ruined her life. She was happy before Ellingham as born; then, with his arrival, her life was rubbished. It hurts more to see Ellingham take abuse from both parents with no sign that he thinks them out of line, that he sees what a wretched, inexcusable cruelty it is. This is what has formed him.
Yet the humanist's version of redemption does nibble at Ellingham, in the form of a pretty little teacher named Louisa Glasson. For reasons which baffle and elude any viewer not schooled in abnormal psychology, Louisa is attracted to Ellingham early on, and he to her. Their conversations are really funny, in that every slight encounter turns into an argument. The first time they kiss, he instantly — without a pause — launches into speculation as to the medical causes of her bad breath. The second time they kiss, he speculates that a bad menstrual period explains her being over-emotional. Yes, it's that bad. He's that bad.
SPOILER ALERT ON
But even that is doomed. They end up leaving each other at the altar.
In this sequence, both are revealed as selfish people, though Louisa less so. That is, they both primarily want to be made happy by someone. She doesn't want to take Ellingham on as a project, and I daresay anyone who cared a whit for her would agree. He won't make her happy, and she won't make him happy, so they leave each other.
SPOILER ALERT OFF
Valerie and I continued watching because the locations are lovely. The cameraman only seemed to notice that fact with the beginning of the third season, and we started being treated to more artistic views. Also, the people are quaint and quirky, rather like the characters in the All Creatures Great and Small series.
And they're not "quirky-but." Some are insane, most are stupid and self-destructive and mean, none of them really seems to care for anyone other than himself, with the sole exceptions of Ellingham's aunt (who cares for him), a rotund father (who cares for his son), and a "chemist" (who adulterously lusts for Ellingham).
For instance, there's a ranger who's insane and has come close to killing several characters. Funny? Not a lot. Then there was the episode where a 15 year old girl was eager to lose her virginity, and overdosed on drugs because she was stung by her girlfriends' relentless ridicule over the size of her breasts. The happy ending? Ellingham gave her a placebo, and she viciously mocked one of those friends for the shape of her ears. She "won," you see, by getting the last hateful word in.
Like House, there's no redemption for Ellingham thus far. Unlike House, there's no longing for it. You watch a series like this, hoping for some epiphany to hit Ellingham, but so far none has so much as tugged on his sleeve. One religious character had an ongoing presence, yet his religion was shapeless and powerless, and both it and he were ultimately mocked and waved aside dismissively.
But to date, they've not put themselves together, and in the real world (A) Louisa wouldn't even be available in the first place, and (B) this link-up never would have happened. Barring a sad, sad self-destructive pathology on Louisa's part.
And where does that leave Ellingham? He cared for Louisa as much as he cared for anyone other than himself and, to a lesser degree, his aunt. Nothing else calls to him but a return to his career as a surgeon, if he can just overcome this pesky phobia.
This is where modern screenwriters dip into a dry inkwell. How can they not? They live in a dry inkwell. All mankind is still banished from Eden, still longs for a way back, but still is unwilling to admit either the real cause of the problem or confront the real and only hope for a cure. So we wander on with Cain as strangers in the land of wanderers, complaining about the severity of our punishment but not owning up to our guilt. This is why all long for redemption, and this is why the best storytelling always contains an element of redemption.
But modern Brits, like modern Americans, have no redemption to offer. Amusement, anesthesia, diversion, yes. Mockery and derision of our supposed inferiors, yes.
Redemption, no.
So we watch broken characters like Dr. House and Doc Martin, longing to see them find the redemption we ourselves hope for. But the writers of House ran dry long before the series closed, and gave up all hope of the theme. So they resorted to the formula of House being monstrously cruel and hateful and brilliant. They had nothing more to offer. And so far, while their protagonist isn't the monster House become, neither do the writers of Doc Martin.
Because the only genuine hope for redemption is in the Redeemer... and facing up to that reality would entirely jostle their very world in a way which they are still denying and still fighting with all they've got.
Which is, ultimately, very sad.
ADDENDUM: SPOILERS
Valerie and I have now finished watching the entire series. There is no need to revise anything I wrote above. We enjoyed many things about it. The actors are excellent, the writing is clever, the characters are sad. Bert Large runs his business deep into debt, takes money from a loan-shark, and then won't pay the interest. (Point: the loan-shark didn't specify the interest at the outset; Counterpoint: if Bert is so dim-witted as to think the money was a gift, it's hard to his credit.) His son helps him... by stealing from his aged employer, taking advantage of her trust and affection for him. Nice. All the more so because she's not much more a "people" person than Ellingham, but she likes Al... who takes advantage of her, and barely apologizes. (He had to, you see.)
The poor messed-up constable is fleetingly reconciled to the estranged wife he adores, and loses her, humiliating himself all over again. The poor adulterously love-struck chemist abuses drugs and has a psychotic break. Louisa's long-estranged mother returns, all coos and kisses, only to endanger Louisa's baby and continue the same appalling behavior that shattered her relationship with Louisa in the first place.
Life at Portwenn, in other words, continues as usual.
Meanwhile, Dr. Ellingham and Louisa come to live together, courteously. Martin tries to try to try, Louisa is very patient...in some ways. Ultimately, she has her fill of Ellingham being who he is, and leaves him. Again.
But at the end of the final episode, there's a sweet reunion that does give some horizontal hope to both of them. Ellingham tells Louisa that he loves her, and it looks as if they have a future. More hopefully, Ellingham says he's not going to be a father like his own wretched father, and he doesn't want their son to grow up to be like him. All viewers will cheer both resolutions.
Commenting on this paused story, then, such redemption as we now see serves to glorify God's greater redemption in Christ, by contrast.
Louisa is Martin's only horizontal hope. His aunt Joan, who tried feebly to be an influence, has died. Her death saddened Ellingham, but seemed to provoke no great reflection or introspection. Instead, he used the funeral to blame her for her own death and to lecture everyone about their obesity.
Only Louisa softens him, reaches him, touches him, humanizes him. His voice is always softer in talking to her (until they start arguing, which is usually the case), and his face always takes on a puppylike look.At the same time, while she shows him a lot of patience, it is limited and aimless — except insofar as it is selfish. Louisa puts up with a lot from Martin... but not so that she can help him grow or change. Nor has he indicated (until the end of the last episode) that he feels the need for any change. Indeed, it is the world that should change. It should become more like him.
Louisa appears to want only to change Martin to make him into someone more suitable for her. And who could blame her? What is more, if he did learn to suit her better, Ellingham would probably become a better person in the bargain.
But Louisa shows no sign of knowing God, so she has no Christ-centered goal for herself or for Martin, and thus doesn't have any idea what either he or she should become. She doesn't have it, so she can't give it.
Christ, by contrast, is hard at work in the lives of His people to conform them to the image of their Creator (Col. 3:10; Titus 2:11-14). To do this, Jesus Christ must be the epitome of long-suffering patience in His dealing with us (1 Tim. 1:16). Unlike Louisa, He will never under any circumstances leave His people (Heb. 13:5-6), and will save us not just part-way, but all the way (Heb. 7:25), and will never, every put us out (Jn. 6:37). His love for His people is unfailing, sovereign, invincible (Rom. 8:35-39).
You see, that's real redemption. That's what it is to know God. It is a redemption that finds us as ruined and with nothing whatever to offer (Eph. 2:1ff.). It finds us not even as "fixer-uppers," but as hopeless wrecks. Yet there is hope for the hopeless, and that only because the Redeemer Himself brings it (Eph. 2:4-10). It is a redemption that begins with us in the very worst condition, and never rests in the good and joy and blessing and recovery that it brings us, not even to the endless ages of eternity.
Now, that is a redemption. Unfortunately, like Louisa, today's authors and screenwriters as a rule do not have that redemption themselves.
And so, like Louisa, they cannot offer what they do not possess.
Friday, April 06, 2012
"It is finished"
...before He died, Jesus cried, ―It is finished‖ (John 19:30). These three English words translate one Greek word: tetelestai (teh-TELL-ess-tie). With this marvelous word, Christ says, "It stands accomplished." Everything that needed to be done has been done; every bit of the mission the Father gave Him for His glory, the redemption of His people, the defeat of Satan, and the reclamation of the planet, has been brought to completion.
Jesus is saying that everything necessary for the completion of God‘s saving plan has been accomplished. At that moment, the great curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place tore in two, from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51; these compartments were discussed in chapter 4). This was an act of God, trumpeting that the way into the Holiest Place had been thrown open by the sacrifice of Jesus (cf. Heb. 9:8; 10:19–20).
The reality that all the sacrifices had foreshadowed throughout the many centuries of OT history now had come to fulfillment. The picture gave way to the reality, the shadow to the body, the promissory note to the full payment. God‘s very presence was open to sinful man through the substitutionary atoning death of the Son of God.
(from The World-Tilting Gospel, 128)
Friday, April 22, 2011
Good Friday/Easter video and shared thoughts on the Cross
Blessed Good Friday, friends.
Here's how we'll put our minds there. First, enjoy this video suggested by reader Susan:
Second, share what verse in the Bible is standing out in your mind at this moment as most revealing and meaningful to you concerning Christ's work on the Cross that Friday. We won't hold it to you as your here-I-stand position-statement on the most important verse in all of Scripture; just share what is standing out now, as you sit before your monitor.
Warming up to the topic: my surrface thought is actually a carol. "The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight" is sung of Christ's birth, in "O Little Town of Bethlehem." It occurs to me that this applies richly to Easter as well.
The Scripture I go to is Ephesians 1:7 — "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." I think of that verse a lot; I often reflect on it as I partake of the cup in Communion.
The redemption rests on the truth that I was born a slave to sin, unable to obtain my own freedom. By nature, thought and choice, I was sold over to rebellion against God. I was a captive, willing and helpless, miserable of my bondage but wanting no part of the real God. It took a miracle to liberate me.
The blood reminds me that my salvation is objective and external, in this sense: it did not rise from within me. It was not improvement, enlightenment, a new leaf. It was conceived, bought and paid for by the Son of God. It was not a philosophy or a program of moral improvement that He taught. It was Him dying, Him pouring out His personal life in His blood, that purchased my release. My release was not secured by, and is not retained by, my feelings of piety or deeds of holiness. It was in spite of both. It was secured and is maintained by the infinite value of the blood of the Son of God.
And this blood secures both freedom and forgiveness. All my sins were atoned for by His blood. This includes my sin yesterday, and my sins today, for all my sins were future on that Friday; so all my sins were encompassed by His blood atonement.
All this is in Him, borne by His strong, immense shoulders, with the undergirding of His eternal resolve and His impeccable character. Apart from Him, nothing of lasting good. In Him, all good and blessing and hope and joy.
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
What Scripture stands out to you, and why, Christian friend?
Here's how we'll put our minds there. First, enjoy this video suggested by reader Susan:
Second, share what verse in the Bible is standing out in your mind at this moment as most revealing and meaningful to you concerning Christ's work on the Cross that Friday. We won't hold it to you as your here-I-stand position-statement on the most important verse in all of Scripture; just share what is standing out now, as you sit before your monitor.
Warming up to the topic: my surrface thought is actually a carol. "The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight" is sung of Christ's birth, in "O Little Town of Bethlehem." It occurs to me that this applies richly to Easter as well.
The Scripture I go to is Ephesians 1:7 — "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." I think of that verse a lot; I often reflect on it as I partake of the cup in Communion.
The redemption rests on the truth that I was born a slave to sin, unable to obtain my own freedom. By nature, thought and choice, I was sold over to rebellion against God. I was a captive, willing and helpless, miserable of my bondage but wanting no part of the real God. It took a miracle to liberate me.
The blood reminds me that my salvation is objective and external, in this sense: it did not rise from within me. It was not improvement, enlightenment, a new leaf. It was conceived, bought and paid for by the Son of God. It was not a philosophy or a program of moral improvement that He taught. It was Him dying, Him pouring out His personal life in His blood, that purchased my release. My release was not secured by, and is not retained by, my feelings of piety or deeds of holiness. It was in spite of both. It was secured and is maintained by the infinite value of the blood of the Son of God.
And this blood secures both freedom and forgiveness. All my sins were atoned for by His blood. This includes my sin yesterday, and my sins today, for all my sins were future on that Friday; so all my sins were encompassed by His blood atonement.
All this is in Him, borne by His strong, immense shoulders, with the undergirding of His eternal resolve and His impeccable character. Apart from Him, nothing of lasting good. In Him, all good and blessing and hope and joy.
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
What Scripture stands out to you, and why, Christian friend?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
"I was born that way... so it's OK" (Josef Fritzi, "gays," and us)
Why do homosexuals work so hard to say that their disordered affections are genetic, that their "orientation" is determined by DNA? It's been t
ransparent to most, I think, that the notion of determinism removes moral onus. If you "don't have to be that way," then you carry the responsibility for being that way. If it isn't a choice, then you're unaccountable. The activists don't want that; they want acceptance, enabling free indulgence of their perversion. Ergo....
They gin up scientific studies (which later prove to be bogus) locating the cause of homosexuality in the brain, somewhere. Mission Accomplished.
This tactic clashes with the other arm of their public assault on public moral borders. This approach labors hard to portray the homosexual lifestyle as beautiful, happy, wonderful, and... well, gay! (IOW, you'd be nuts not to choose it if you could.) If only people would stop being so mean to these happy, carefree souls, everything would be peachy.
Increasingly, Biblically-faithful Christians have begun to mount a different response than proving homosexuality not to be hard-wired. We've focused on arguing that it doesn't really matter, morally. The specific case I've made, a number of times, is that we're all hard-wired for sin.
For instance, it's been often indicated that men are not by nature monogamous. Yet most have not argued that this rationalizes adultery. "I was born that way" isn't a great cover. Don't try it at home, or anywhere else.
I've also made the argument, "If that behavior is acceptable, because it's natural to you — then why doesn't the same argument work for lying, theft, child molesting, rape?" Add a sprinkling of Darwinian evolution, subtract the Biblical worldview, and I think you have an air-tight theoretical case.
And so now along comes a monstrous figure named Josef Fritzi. I'll let you read of his abominations here, rather than rehearsing them.
In explaining himself to a psychologist, Fritzi says that he was "was born to be a rapist."
Now, my questions for homosexual agenda activists, so desperate to force their particular perversion down the gullet of every society on the planet:
Might people be born inclined to perverse desires? Oh, yes. Not might, but are — without exception.
Originally, man was designed to represent God (Genesis 1:26-28). That is what is natural, in that it is what we were created and designed for: to be a whole, fully-integrated reflection of the glory of God. But while "God made man upright...they have sought out many schemes" (Ecclesiastes 7:29). The first, righteous man plunged into sin (Romans 5:12).
Sin brought dis-integration. Sin marred the image. The fall into sin hard-wired all of Adam's progeny into a predisposition in the wrong direction, body and soul.
And so, the truth is, we're all born with perverse desires. We're all born dominated by the desire to be gods, to make our wills absolute, to turn away from the true God and to our own ways (Genesis 3:5; 5:3; Romans 3:1-18).
Those desires for self-deification are perverse desires, they're unnatural desires. They are every bit as deviant as the desires of the rapist, the murderer, the child molester, the homosexual. In fact, they are worse, because they are the fountainhead of all those other desires (Romans 1:18-32).
You look at Josef Fritzi, and you recoil in horror. You see a wreck. Fritzi needs something, badly.
But what Fritzi needs is the same as the moralistic atheist, the New Age navel-gazer, the fuzzy PoMo, or the walking question-mark, who reads these words. Fritzi needs reconciliation to God. He needs his sins to be dealt with; but not only that, he needs the womb of those sins plucked out and replaced. He needs a new heart, a new nature. He needs to be born again.
Fritzi needs what you need, what we all need. He needs what can be found only in Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ was born without those perverse desires. Only Jesus Christ was motivated, 24/7/365, by pure, God-given, genuinely natural desires for the glory and will of God above all. Only Jesus Christ was without sin, and with the perfect righteousness we lack.
And so, Jesus Christ could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins, a sacrifice of infinite value and supernatural efficacy.
Interested in knowing more?
Read this.
ransparent to most, I think, that the notion of determinism removes moral onus. If you "don't have to be that way," then you carry the responsibility for being that way. If it isn't a choice, then you're unaccountable. The activists don't want that; they want acceptance, enabling free indulgence of their perversion. Ergo....They gin up scientific studies (which later prove to be bogus) locating the cause of homosexuality in the brain, somewhere. Mission Accomplished.
This tactic clashes with the other arm of their public assault on public moral borders. This approach labors hard to portray the homosexual lifestyle as beautiful, happy, wonderful, and... well, gay! (IOW, you'd be nuts not to choose it if you could.) If only people would stop being so mean to these happy, carefree souls, everything would be peachy.
Increasingly, Biblically-faithful Christians have begun to mount a different response than proving homosexuality not to be hard-wired. We've focused on arguing that it doesn't really matter, morally. The specific case I've made, a number of times, is that we're all hard-wired for sin.
For instance, it's been often indicated that men are not by nature monogamous. Yet most have not argued that this rationalizes adultery. "I was born that way" isn't a great cover. Don't try it at home, or anywhere else.
I've also made the argument, "If that behavior is acceptable, because it's natural to you — then why doesn't the same argument work for lying, theft, child molesting, rape?" Add a sprinkling of Darwinian evolution, subtract the Biblical worldview, and I think you have an air-tight theoretical case.
And so now along comes a monstrous figure named Josef Fritzi. I'll let you read of his abominations here, rather than rehearsing them.
In explaining himself to a psychologist, Fritzi says that he was "was born to be a rapist."
Now, my questions for homosexual agenda activists, so desperate to force their particular perversion down the gullet of every society on the planet:
- Can you prove Frtizi wasn't "born to be a rapist"?
- If he was "born to be a rapist," does that make Frtizi's behavior okay?
- If not, why not? Because it's immoral? How do you know?
- If your argument is that what feels natural must be right, how would you tell Josef Fritzi that what he is doing is not right?
Might people be born inclined to perverse desires? Oh, yes. Not might, but are — without exception.
Originally, man was designed to represent God (Genesis 1:26-28). That is what is natural, in that it is what we were created and designed for: to be a whole, fully-integrated reflection of the glory of God. But while "God made man upright...they have sought out many schemes" (Ecclesiastes 7:29). The first, righteous man plunged into sin (Romans 5:12).
Sin brought dis-integration. Sin marred the image. The fall into sin hard-wired all of Adam's progeny into a predisposition in the wrong direction, body and soul.
And so, the truth is, we're all born with perverse desires. We're all born dominated by the desire to be gods, to make our wills absolute, to turn away from the true God and to our own ways (Genesis 3:5; 5:3; Romans 3:1-18).
Those desires for self-deification are perverse desires, they're unnatural desires. They are every bit as deviant as the desires of the rapist, the murderer, the child molester, the homosexual. In fact, they are worse, because they are the fountainhead of all those other desires (Romans 1:18-32).You look at Josef Fritzi, and you recoil in horror. You see a wreck. Fritzi needs something, badly.
But what Fritzi needs is the same as the moralistic atheist, the New Age navel-gazer, the fuzzy PoMo, or the walking question-mark, who reads these words. Fritzi needs reconciliation to God. He needs his sins to be dealt with; but not only that, he needs the womb of those sins plucked out and replaced. He needs a new heart, a new nature. He needs to be born again.
Fritzi needs what you need, what we all need. He needs what can be found only in Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ was born without those perverse desires. Only Jesus Christ was motivated, 24/7/365, by pure, God-given, genuinely natural desires for the glory and will of God above all. Only Jesus Christ was without sin, and with the perfect righteousness we lack.
And so, Jesus Christ could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins, a sacrifice of infinite value and supernatural efficacy.
Interested in knowing more?
Read this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
