Submitting Our Worldview to God: Clothing

I was gonna just write a short comment to Monica's post, but then I realized I would write too much, so here are some thoughts that are interesting to me.

So, Monica wrote some thoughts she had on modesty, kinda in response to the Harris twins' Modesty Survey. I thought there were lots of good thoughts, including these:

- “despite what a woman is wearing, she still needs to be treated with utmost respect”,
- “you really can't please everyone”,
- “most women do not dress with the sole intention of getting a male reaction”

However, I would like to challenge us (meaning whoever will read this) to consider what the purpose of clothing actually is. Monica mentioned that clothes are a means of self-expression. No doubt many (maybe most North Americans) agree. But who told us that: The Bible or culture? Maybe we should wonder whether this has just been a North American assumption that needs to be challenged.

We really need The Word to form our opinions about everything, including clothing. If, in fact, there are other Biblical mandates for the use of clothing, those values should take precedence over "self-expression". Right now, the purposes of clothing that come to my mind as being Biblical are to cover our bodies and to communicate, as Monica quoted from 1 Timothy 2:9, "decency and propriety". If those are the highest values, than modesty is actually the no. 1 most important purpose of our clothing.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't want to say that this is the gospel truth, but whatever the truth is, it needs to be one that, instead of us being conformed to this world, results from us being transformed by the renewing of our minds through the Spirit and His Sword, the Word. Then we will be able to discern the Will of God in this area.

So, I'd challenge us to open up the Bible and consider this question: What is the purpose of clothing, and how should I dress accordingly? And if you have some (Biblical*) suggestions, I'd like to hear them (I'm very sure that my short contribution was not sufficient).

*If you do comment, please may it be Bible-focused

Thoughts on Prince Caspian: the book and the movie and a comic strip

a)

I recently read Prince Caspian, and of course thought quite a bit about how it compared to the movie. So, although these thoughts are real late (since the movie came out a year ago), here are my thoughts:

Prince Caspian is subtitled The Return to Narnia, but rather than simply revisiting the same themes as Wardrobe, the book explores a Narnia more than a millennium after the great deliverance of Aslan. This is a place where unbelief rules, history has been rewritten, and Aslan has been forgotten. Thus, the Pevensies return to restore Narnia to those who serve Aslan, and to bring back the chivalry and honour of earlier days. Essentially, it was a criticism of an unbelieving, corrupt world and a celebration of Christian faith and morality.

Caspian: The Movie shares the same general storyline, but attempts to discuss quite different questions. The Pevensies have had a hard year back on earth, and when they are transported back to Narnia, they are not greeted by Aslan. The small amount of guidance that Aslan gives them seems more like a test than help. When they finally begin to fight, they suffer a terrible loss as their attempted raid of the castle results in innumerable deaths. It is then that they are approached with the possibility of an alliance with a dangerous power. The question of how we can continue to have faith when it seems like Aslan is absent becomes the center of the movie.

In short, the movie has a much different spirit than the book, though it is hard to fault the movie for being able to add more action and craft its own identity in the process.

But it is interesting to wonder what the differences tell us about our culture. Perhaps the answer is that the question of how we can have faith in the midst of suffering is more relevant to our generation.

Yet, can that really be true when we compare our times to Lewis’s just-post-WW2/Red-scare 1949? Would a movie that was closer to the spirit of the book been embraced by this generation? Or have contemporary Christians ironically become like the world Caspian criticizes: a generation cynical towards clear answers and childlike faith?

b)

No other original thoughts worth mentioning. Here is a webcomic, with some insightful thoughts.

Movies and Anti-Canadianism/Quebecism

a)

So, just recently saw Wolverine, which I thought was semi-crappy (and I’m an X-men fan and a wannabe-comic book nerd). Then I checked out what Roger Ebert (the dude who used to be real enormous, now is more average in bigness) said. He hated it.

What’s interesting about that to me is that five years ago, Stephen King grouped Ebert in with a whole lot of critics who were giving good reviews of everything. He said “Even Roger Ebert, that fierce partisan of the movies, all too often seems to have one thumb up and one thumb up his...aw, never mind.” Diss…

Now it’s five years later, has anything changed? Does Ebert actually give good reviews to big blockbuster movies? What say ye, Ebert?

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian:

“Its premise is lame, its plot relentlessly predictable, its characters with personalities that would distinguish picture books, its cost incalculable (well, $150,000,000).”

Terminator Salvation:

“It gives you all the pleasure of a video game without the bother of having to play it.”

Star Trek

“Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before.”

Fast and Furious

“This is an expertly made action film, by which I mean the special effects are good and the acting is extremely basic. The screenplay rotates these nouns through various assortments of dialogue: Race. Driver(s). Nitro. Meth. Sister. FBI. Border. Dead. Mexico. Murder. Prison. Traffic violations. Tunnel. Muscle car. Import. Plymouth. Funeral. Helicopter(s). Toretto. Ten seconds. Corona. Cocaine.”

Monsters vs. Aliens

“I didn't find the movie rich with humor, unless frenetic action is funny. Maybe kids have learned to think so. Too bad for them. Think of the depth of "Pinocchio." Kids in those days were treated with respect for their intelligence.”

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

“But wait! -- you say. Doesn't "X-Men Origins" at least provide a learning experience for Logan about the origins of Wolverine? Hollow laugh. Because we know that the modern Wolverine has a form of amnesia, it cannot be a spoiler for me to reveal that at the end of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," he forgets everything that has happened in the film. Lucky man.”

There were more, but you get the picture. I don’t follow movies or watch a lot of them, but it makes you wonder: has Ebert gotten meaner, or have the movies gotten worse?

b)

So, to continue my thoughts on foreigners, here is the most offensive comment I’ve heard about Canadians (in my opinion):

British Lady: Oh, you are from Canada? I lived in Montreal for a few years teaching there.

Me: Oh, cool. Did you learn a lot of French there?

BL: Heavens, no. I wouldn’t want that horrid accent. Their French is terrible. They don’t know how to speak French or English.

Me: [Smiles]

Well, I forgive her. She was kinda old.

Though this comes in a close second:

Me: So, professor, you've met DA Carson, right? By the way, he's Canadian..

My American Professor, who will remain unnamed: Yeah, he's one of those good Canadians, the kind that live in America.

...

Christian Spirituality (thoughts from Carson and Piper)

a)

I’ve been thinking this year quite a bit about “spirituality”. Lots of Christians trying different things to build in spirituality in their life (silence, fasting, Gregorian chant, yoga, hours of prayer*). What should we be doing?

I naturally think some of those things are weird, but that’s not too important. My great burden is that our spirituality should be Christian. That means having to do with accessing the triune God of Christianity through the (true) Gospel of Christianity and to the end of seeing Jesus Christ**.

An excellent article on the issue (in my opinion) is in The Gagging of God by DA Carson (the appendix). Unfortunately, I am an intellectual hobo and can’t give you a proper/careful summary of the article, but in general, Carson evaluates what people call spirituality, including its origins, and then calls Christians to have a Christian spirituality.

What Carson thinks (and of course, Adam agrees with):

Carson doesn’t give clear practices (don’t use candles, do use breathing exercises, etc.), but gives some very helpful considerations:

1. Spirituality must be thought of in connection with the gospel.

2. Christian reflection on spirituality must work outward from the center

3. (paraphrase) There is a healthy experiential/affectional side to Christian experience

4. (paraphrase) God’s primary means of grace for Christian sanctification (and everything) is the Word of God (more on that later***)

5. Our definition of Spirituality must be defined by the Word of God (as in the concept must be constructed by the Word, since the word “spirituality” isn’t actually in the Bible)

b)

The End and Means of Christian Spirituality

I’m reading God is the Gospel, by Dr. John Piper. He discusses at length this verse:

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. - 2Co 3:18

To oversimplify and paraphrase Piper (again, a dubious enterprise considering my intellectual hobo-ness), one big point from this text is that Christian sanctification occurs through “beholding” Jesus Christ****. That’s what the Spirit’s job is to do (that last sentence): to help us see Jesus.

Isn’t that true? My most “spiritual” days are not ones where I simply have prayed a really long time or spent the most time in silence, etc., but when I have enjoyed clear meditation on Jesus Christ, especially in the Cross*****.

Surely this includes “Spirituality”. If “beholding the glory of the Lord” and “being transformed into the same image” is not what Spirituality is about, it’s not of much value.

Here is the test of Christian Spirituality. Does some author/pastor recommend a special kind of meditation or prayer? Where is the (true) Gospel in it? Is Christ the object of that meditation/prayer? If not, it’s by definition not Christian.

Here’s a smart guy, Carson (from that article mentioned in part a)),

If spirituality becomes an end in itself, detached from the core, and largely without biblical or theological norms to define it and anchor it in the objective gospel, then pursuit of spirituality, however nebulously defined, will degenerate into nothing more than the pursuit of certain kinds of experience. – Gagging of God 567

So, let’s have our whole lives, including our spirituality, be about preparing for the next life, where we will worship and sing “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain”. I think that would be a pleasing thing to God and to our souls.

*Some of those are good, some bad, some neutral. It’s just a list.

** In an interesting interview with Mark Dever, Professor Donald Whitney said (worst paraphrase in this whole thing) that a big problem with “spirituality” books is that they advocate access to God that is unmediated by the finished work of Christ, and that he is really working to teach how to build spiritual practices that flow out of the Cross. I’d like to think/read more about that in the future

***later means like five months from now, if I remember

**** But the whole book is about how beholding Christ is the ultimate end of sanctification. Consider Matthew 5:8. So, Beholding Christ leads to Sanctification, and Sanctification leads to Beholding more of Christ

***** Though certain practices might aid in meditation on the Gospel.

A Funny Story from Rock History, A Rebuke/Rank about Anti-Americanism

a)

Been listening to Neil Young lately, in an attempt to get to know Canadian music more.

Here’s an interesting story (put together as well as I can understand it):

So, ’82, Geffen Records signs Young, who is known for his introspective rock/acoustic albums. This was three years after the critically acclaimed Rust Never Sleeps. However, Young is half involved in music, half taking care of his son with cerebral palsy.

His relationship with his son inspires his first Geffen album, ‘83’s Trans, which experimented with dance beats and synthesizing his voice. Young had found when his voice was altered, his son was better able to communicate with him. It wasn’t received too well, cause it was a little strange, and people didn’t understand the personal significance.

Anyways, Young decides that the next album will be a straight country album. But Geffen is not cool with that, and demand that he put out a Rock and Roll album. So, Young gives them exactly what they ask for, and records a 25-minute rockabilly album, with him doing Little Richard/Elvis-style tracks.

At this point, critics and fans are real confused, and it becomes the worst-selling Young album since his debut. So, Geffen sues Neil Young for putting out uncharacteristic albums. Well, in the end, REM left Geffen, and Young finally put out his country album, Old Ways. Another win for Rock, and one more loss for the man.

b)

Just a small snapshot of life here overseas: I’ve had the opportunity to meet many people from many countries. Of course, I meet many Americans.

Americans are often accused of being the loudest, most overly-patriotic/ethnocentric people.

However, my experience is that it is the Canadians who are the loudest and most obnoxious. I would attribute it to an attempt to overcompensate. I have been there many times as Canadians loudly explain our superiority to Americans as they politely smile and listen.

Who knows… that’s just my experience. But point is – if you go overseas, don’t be the obnoxious Canadian.

Oh, and I’ve noticed many Canadians assume the worse when they hear a southern accent. Don’t do that either.

Movie Face-off: Slumdog Millionaire vs. Fireproof

Movie Face-off

I recently watched Fireproof, everyone’s favourite Christian movie of the year, and Slumdog Millionaire, which is, by far, everyone’s favourite British Indian movie of the year. But the question is: Which movie is better? Let us consider some criteria:

Location:

Slumdog – From some sources, a very realistic look of a very exotic location – Mumbai, India.

However…

Fireproof – Albany, Georgia, where people speak with southern accents and have Tabasco sauce drinking contests.

Conclusion – Tabasco puts Fireproof over the top. One point for Fireproof

Cast:

Slumdog – Apparently has a number of famous Hindi actors, and some pretty good child actors.

But…

Fireproof – Kirk Cameron, from Way of the Master and Growing Pains.

Way of the Master!!

Conclusion: Two points for Fireproof

Story:

Slumdog – Love story + Hindi Movie + Who Wants to Be A Millionaire

Fireproof – Love story + Jesus

Conclusion – No additional comments are even necessary. Three points for Fireproof

Cinematography:

Uh… I don’t know what that is. But either way…

Winner of Movie Face-off – Fireproof!

What I've been doing lately, It's a sin to not be baptized

a)

Things I have enjoyed lately:

- This thing they sell outside my house that is like a giant round youtiao with sweet stuff on it.
- Reading about Vietnam
- Niel Young and Bruce Cockburn
- Free Shepherd’s Conference audio
- Frozen Char Siew Bao

b)

(Not what you might think it's about)

So, I’ve wanted to encourage people over here to get baptized. I’ve lately been reminded that it’s a command, not an option.

But I can’t find many resources online to help. Maybe it’s just what I’ve been reading and seeing lately (in other words, Reformed stuff), but it seems that although many argue, rightly so, over how it should be done, few people are teaching why it should be done. I do not see many championing the truth that Baptism is an important part of the Christian life.

Out of forty years of preaching, John Macarthur has one single resource that explains why someone should be baptized (to be fair, in it he confesses that he has not given it as much weight as it should have). Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s extensive audio/resource page had no relevant resources at all. Finally, I found only John Piper (also a Baptist) to have a few resources available (very few, considering the impressive volume of resources on his desiringgod.org).

When you think about it, the pressure isn’t even on the Baptists. Almost every denomination agrees that if you are a convert who’s never been baptized or sprinkled as a child, you are commanded by the Word of God to be baptized. There’s no controversy! Therefore, even the interdenominational parachurch campus ministry I am a part of (or the other ones) should have some resources on baptism, especially given that they all claim to be committed to the Great Commission (“baptizing them…”).

Well, I am going to do my best over here to get people baptized (in a Church). I strongly encourage you to also do likewise. If you know someone who isn’t baptized, tell them it’s a sin. And tell your pastor that, whether he’s a topical or expositional preacher, his application point should at some point be “repent and be baptized”.

Note: A very famous pastor is trying to get 2000 people to get baptized and join his Church membership this Easter. His strategy involves giving an incentive package, including a free subscription to his magazine and a free photo of the event (where they will be baptized by the top dog himself!). The above comments do not endorse such marketing of Baptism.