Protestantism

Posted by Brian Tubbs

Sherwood Pictures, the media division of Georgia-based Sherwood Baptist Church, is releasing its third film this Fall. This film, titled Fireproof, which profiles a gritty firefighter struggling to salvage his marriage. The movie stars former Growing Pains TV star Kirk Cameron.

Sherwood Baptist Church has produced two movies thus far. The first was Flywheel, made for approximately $20,000, has enjoyed modest success in DVD sales and Christian television. Sherwood's second film, Facing the Giants, achieved nationwide distribution and an impressive box office showing for an indie picture. Facing the Giants cost approximately $80-100,000 to make, and exceeded $10 million in the domestic box office. It then went on to make even more money in the DVD market.

Flywheel and Facing the Giants were low-budget indie films, to be sure. Those looking for flashy CGI effects or multimillion dollar cinematography won't be impressed. However, those interested in a good story with captivating characters shouldn't miss them. They are among the most inspirational movies I've ever seen!

If Fireproof is half as good as the first two, I can't wait! Get my popcorn and soda ready, please! And the tissue box too.....for my wife of course. Ahem.

For more up-to-date info on Fireproof, check out their official website here.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? Should we consider the doctrine of the resurrection a valid tenet or pagan-inspired myth?

One person in these discussion boards has written: "The suffering/dying/rising atoning god story was firmly established in 'pagan' beliefs before the Christian era." Ergo, the Christians stole the story from pagan beliefs and the resurrection of Jesus is nothing more than fable.

Were there myths before the life of Christ? Of course. Did some of these myths contain elements that echo parts of Christianity? In the sense that most religions share certain points in common (such as a recognition of the supernatural), the answer would have to once again be "Of course." But was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ specifically inspired by (and taken from) other pagan mythical accounts of "suffering/dying/rising atoning god stories"?

To make an argument in the affirmative, the proponent of such a charge must do more than point to parallels between the Bible and pagan resurrection myths. She must establish (with documentary evidence) that the suffering/dying/rising atonement myths themselves predated Jesus. Unfortunately for those who try to discredit Christianity, the earliest documentation attesting to the suffering/dying/rising atonement myths POST-date Jesus. For example, the religion of Adonis predates Jesus, but the story of Adonis returning from the dead is an addition to the legend -- an addition that postdates Jesus. This is an inconvenient problem for those charging that Christ came from Mithras or Osiris or whatever - and it's a problem they haven't been able to overcome.

What's more, these parallels are a smoke screen for them to escape an even greater problem, namely the strong historical evidence backing the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. For more on this issue, read this article and watch this video.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

Why doesn't God heal amputees? According to many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics, the fact that God apparently hasn't healed amputees shows Him (or Her or It) to be a fantasy.

The argument goes like this: In the case of a person being healed from AIDS or cancer or some disease within the body, there's ambiguity. But, in a "non-ambiguous situation" (like a person's limb magically re-growing), the folks at "Why Does God Hate Amputees" explain: "There is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not."

Here are my responses...

1. Can anyone prove that no amputee has ever been healed? The best that can be said is that we are unable to verify an actual, documented case of amputee limb regeneration.

2. Doesn't God call us to faith? Like it or not, the Bible repeatedly calls God's followers to faith. That requires the possibility of doubt. If God were to supernaturally regenerate limbs, there would indeed be no ambiguity. There would also be no room for faith. Healing an amputee would be the same as God audibly speaking from Heaven. Faith would be impossible. We would have certainty.

3. Does God's refusal to do something mean He doesn't exist? Even if it's "unfair" for God to heal cancer patients but not amputees (and if I were an amputee, I would be emotionally sympathetic to that position), does this disprove God's existence? Is it not equally possible that God exists, but we simply don't agree with God's way of doing things?

The bottom line...the amputee argument is emotionally effective, but that is all. Logically, the amputee issue doesn't disprove God. It doesn't even come close.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

Critics of the Bible and Christianity often call the Bible "sexist." They point to confusing aspects of the Mosaic Law, Jesus' selection of male disciples, and Paul's doctrines concerning women in the home and the church. And, of course, they attack the notion of a male God as being particularly offensive.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this issue is that men are often considered unworthy of participation - unless they, of course, agree with those criticing Christianity. For this reason and the fact that debates over these matters are increasingly bitter and "no-holds-barred," I am reluctant, in a public forum, to even wade into these issues.

The issues are important, though, and can't be avoided - no matter my or anyone else's reluctance. And when I listened to this part of a speech from Amy Orr-Ewing, a scholar and theologian for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, I knew I had to share it.

I highly encourage you to click on this link - and listen to Ms. Ewing's excellent - indeed, BRILLIANT - response to the question "Is the Bible Sexist?"

Posted by Brian Tubbs

What is postmodernism? Defining postmodernism is extremely difficult. Why? Because no one (especially postmodernists) agree on what it is. According to the website "All About Philosophy," postmodernism is "difficult to define, because to define it would violate the postmodernist's premise that no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist."

According to "All About Philosophy," a postmodernist "views the world outside of themselves as being in error, that is, other people’s truth becomes indistinguishable from error. Therefore, no one has the authority to define truth or impose upon others his idea of moral right and wrong."

Needless to say, such a philosophical approach runs counter to Christianity, which rests on definite truth propositions -- namely that God exists, Jesus is the Son of God, mankind is corrupted by sin, etc.

In the context of Christianity and history, postmodernists more or less DISMISS the idea that one can authoritatively certify knowledge of the past or offer any credible conclusions about history. The effect of this thinking is to destroy history, says Keith Windschuttle, author of The Killing of History. "Rather than leading [history] somewhere fruitful," says Windschuttle, postmodernism "is a movement that turns the writing of history into a blind alley and leads it up to a dead end."

While the postmodern era has caused us to look again at certain assumptions and narratives with a more critical eye (a good thing!), it has done more harm than good. Taken to its extreme (and this is where academia is indeed taking it), postmodernism will bring all of us to a dead end!

Posted by Brian Tubbs

I am not one to harp on old news. But conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, in a recent op-ed, writes: "[Barack] Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright makes him unelectable in the general election, even though neither he nor most of the pundits seem to have recognized this yet."

D'Souza explains by envisioning the following Republican campaign commercial:

It begins by showing the rantings of Wright: America deserved to be attacked on 9/11, the government sponsors the Ku Klux Klan, AIDS is a federal plot, God damn America! These images are accompanied by a voice-over noting that Wright is Obama's longtime mentor, and that Obama has attended this church for two decades. Then we see Obama saying he will no more disavow Wright than he would disavow a family member. Finalloy we see pictures of the two men embracing while a voice says, “Is this the man who is going to bring America together and stand up to our enemies?” At this point, it's done!

I admit that it would be hard for any candidate to survive such a commercial - especially if it were broadcast regularly and repeatedly in every major media market in the nation. However....

I don't think John McCain will authorize such a campaign. Say what you will about the Arizona senator's age, but his age brings with it a sense of "Old Boy" (and "Girl" - if the nominee is Hillary) cordiality between national leaders, especially US senators.

The question is...would such a refusal be to McCain's credit? Is this not a legitimate issue? Obama has condemned some of Wright's specific statements, but it's hard to see the media (or the American people) giving McCain a pass had he claimed Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church as his longtime spiritual mentor.

We shall see if D'Souza's prediction comes true.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

It's hard to believe that Easter is upon us. Time sure flies. Of course, Easter is taking place rather early this year. I'm used to Easter being in April. Nevertheless, Easter is here. And I want to wish all Suite101 Protestantism readers, contributing writers, and discussion board participants a happy one.

Easter isn't simpy a day to hunt Easter Eggs and get pictures with the Easter Bunny - although I have no problem with those things. (I say that, knowing that some of my more fundamentalist readers may cringe). I think family-friendly fun activities are a great way to enjoy the Easter weekend - and that most certainly includes hunting for Easter eggs.

The key is to make sure that we don't lose sight of the true meaning of Easter, as we do with pretty much all our holidays. Christmas has become centered on Santa Claus and presents. Memorial Day is about the opening of swimming pools, retail sales blitzes, and family picnics. George Washington has completely lost his birthday to the vain "Presidents' Day," which has become our most meaningless holiday. And the Fourth of July is all about fireworks. There's little mention of those men who risked their lives, putting their names to the parchment that heralded our independence.

Likewise, Easter is becoming lost in egg hunts and bunny rabbits. It should not be this way, for Easter is the most important holiday on our calendar. It is the day that confirms the very purpose and nature of Jesus' coming to earth. So explains Paul in I Corinthians 15. Without the resurrection of Christ, Christianity is all but vanity.

So, this Easter Sunday, celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ - knowing that His resurrection confirms our faith in Him as our Lord and Savior.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

Have you been hurt by someone you considered a role model or hero? Even worse, were you hurt by someone who supposedly was a strong follower of God? Maybe it was a pastor. Maybe it was a parent. Maybe a husband or wife. Maybe a Sunday School teacher, Christian school principal, or Bible study leader. Maybe it was a church. Have you been hurt by someone who claims to follow and imitate Jesus Christ?

Many people have been hurt by professing Christians. And...for many, that hurt has shaken their faith in Christianity itself.

The book of Psalms hits this problem square on. In fact, it does so with a verse that sits right at the center of the 66-book Bible. The verse is Psalm 118:8 and it reads: "It is better to trust in the LORD; Than to put confidence in man."

Where is your confidence? Is your confidence and trust in a person who claims to follow Jesus Christ - or is it in Christ? Is your confidence in the those who claim to follow God - or is your confidence in God Himself?

How you answer that question will determine much about the strength of your faith and your ability to endure pain and achieve victory in your life.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

On February 28, 1953, scientists James Watson and Francis Crick made perhaps the most remarkable discovery in the history of biological science. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the chemical code for all life.

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, has written that DNA's discovery "dealt the final killing blow to the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material."

Scientist George Williams says not so fast. One of the foremost authorities on gene selection, Williams argues that DNA is not the object of information, but rather the "medium" of information. Thus, says Williams, scientists are really grappling with "two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter." According to Williams, the gene "is a package of information, not the object."

What's the relevance of this disagreement? The following illustration should explain:

A book is more than just paper and ink. Paper and ink are the means by which information is transmitted from the author to the reader. The information is something that utilizes paper and ink, but it is not paper and ink. Your DNA is the "paper and ink" of the illustration. That DNA conveys information in a language that is, in the opinion of a growing number of scientists and philosophers, more than the DNA itself.

So, who is the author of that information? A great question - and one that should lead you eventually to the God of the Bible.

Posted by Brian Tubbs

Well, it took a few years, but I now have my first master's degree. On February 14, Liberty Theological Seminary awarded me a Master of Arts in Theological Studies. I told the congregation at Sligo Baptist Church (where I pastor) that this degree means that I'm now "smart." I don't believe they are convinced of that. Of course, neither is my wife.

What does having a master's degree mean? Well, frankly, I'm not sure. I don't feel any different from before receiving the degree. And come to think of it, I've only been electronically notified of the degree. I don't yet actually have a framed diploma. Probably a consequence of being a distance-learning student.

Maybe that's the ticket! Get a framed diploma on the wall. THEN...the feelings of smartness and scholarly accomplishment will kick in. Okay....maybe not.

In all seriousness, I have nothing but praise for Liberty Theological Seminary. The distance learning program is fully accredited - and it's not for slackers. You have to be committed to get through it. I know, because I've dropped a few classes due to a lack of commitment. You can't just skate through it. You don't just fill out a workbook, send it in, and get credit for it. Liberty's DLP is the real thing.

So, thanks to all my professors and fellow students - and thank you to my wife and kids for their patience and support.