Thursday, February 25, 2016

Prata's Potpourri: The Queen of England, Risen, ShepCon, Narcigesis, more


Risen, a movie centered around the resurrection of Jesus, is just out. The plot synopsis says,
In 33 AD, a Roman Tribune in Judea is tasked to find the missing body of an executed Jew rumored to have risen from the dead.
I won't see "Risen." I'm not a demographic, I'm not a market, I'm not merchandise. I won't trade money on my faith, because it's not entertainment. I won't participate in the merchandising of my faith. (2 Peter 2:3).

That's not to say that I never buy any Christian merchandise. I do. I buy Bibles. I buy theological books. I buy Christian fiction. I pay for movies that have Christian themes. So what's the difference between that merchandising and the merchandising I mention in Risen? Risen purports to show a foundational doctrine of our faith, with an actor playing "Jesus." It purports to show His resurrection, THE main ingredient of the Christian faith. (1 Corinthians 15:14). And as some reviewers admit, there are added elements in the film and other elements which occurred are omitted. Why go see a movie that from the outset you know has twisted the Doctrine of the Resurrection and included errors and omissions?

There is another kind of merchandising I've mentioned frequently on this blog. Whenever a 'Christian' movie is released, churches are inundated with merchandise sales pitches. Study guides, devotionals, bracelets, workbooks, bookmarks...trinkets. That's another kind of merchandising. Both kinds diminish the glory and uniqueness of our faith and makes our Jesus small. Didn't he cleanse the Temple? I'd rather save my money to buy a solid book to give away to a friend than spend the money to see a flawed movie for myself.

However, I hold no judgment against anyone who chooses to see that or any other Christian movie. It's an area of liberty. I personally know that if I see Risen with its added and omitted elements that those will remain in my head and I won't be able to get them out. My mind is weak that way. So my choice is to refrain. If you're considering seeing the movie, here is the author of Gentle Reformation with three reasons to consider not to. And he really is gentle.

Risen: Movies, Faith, and the Bible

Here is AW Tozer  (1897-1963) on The Menace of the Religious Movie

----------------------------------------


It's time for the annual Shepherd's Conference! It is one conference I look forward to every year. It is a conference ministering to Pastors held at Grace Community Church, annually in March. It makes it sweeter this year because a friend of mine started at The Master's College (a college associated with the Church) this past January. He will be helping there. What a blessing this conference has turned out to be. The dates are March 9-13. Speakers are John MacArthur, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, Paul Washer, Tom Pennington, Phil Johnson, Steven Lawson, and Nathan Busenitz. And time flies, it's the 36th annual conference.
The first Shepherds' Conference was held on March 19, 1980, on the campus of Grace Community Church. That year, 159 men gathered under the leadership of our pastor to focus on the theme of pastoral ministry. ... [in 2015] nearly 1,200 volunteers served in a variety of different capacities—and from our high school students to our experienced senior saints, everyone's effort made a difference. As a result, more than 60,000 printed resources were distributed, 40,000 cups of coffee were served, and more than 13,000 volunteer hours were invested.
Last year, about 4,000 men attended. What a blessing this conference has come to be for the attendees, volunteers, and virtual pastors and participants all across the globe. Definitely tune in when you can. The sound of 4000 men all singing traditional hymns to the glory of God is an experience you won't soon forget.


----------------------------------------


Narcigesis is a newly coined word. The word exegesis means "critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture." Since our world is so narcissistic today, the word narcigesis is a take-off on that, meaning to make the interpretation of the text be about one's self (instead of about Jesus, John 5:39, Luke 24:27).

Though this clip is new, it's made the rounds quite a bit. That's because it is a classic example of narcigesis. As Beth Moore opens the scripture to explain it, she says,

"We're about to put ourselves in the storyline, because that's what Jesus is after today."

Um, okaaay. So somewhere in the Bible Jesus changed His mind about all scripture pointing to Him, and now says, scripture points to you." I think not. I also think not that Beth knows what Jesus is after and is teaching from this "knowledge".

Jeff Maples explains more at Psalm 12 Outreach.


----------------------------------------


I like Queen Elizabeth II. My grandmother was from England and one of my early memories is Gramma's dish with the portrait of the Queen on it displayed on the wall of her apartment. The Queen seems nice, from what a commoner can know about a monarch who rules another nation and lives a private life in a castle with carefully scripted and choreographed interview sessions. I've often wondered if the Queen worships Jesus. This article discusses it a bit more.

Queen Elizabeth Calls Jesus Christ 'The King She Serves' in 90th Birthday Book

Did you know QEII watches Downton Abbey? In this article it's reported that the Queen caught a historical error on the show.


----------------------------------------



A Pair of Adorably Useful Earplugs Shaped Like Each End of a Tiny Dachshund

That is all.

----------------------------------------

I'm a cat lover but in attempts to be an equal opportunity pet promoter here is another thingie about dogs. (Well not really equal, I'm just throwing you a bone. See what I did there?)


Here is Boo the Pomeranian getting groom, eyes closing in delight as someone plays with his hair. Who hasn't been there? Come on, you know you have.



19 comments :

  1. Hmmm...I don't think one can be serving the Lord by signing her name to the Royal Assent to Marriage Equality as the queen did in July 2013.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Same_Sex_Couples)_Act_2013


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jane,

      I remember when she did that. I was hoping she wouldn't at the time. As sad as her signature on the document was, it isn't a disqualifier for salvation.

      Delete
    2. I'm not judging her salvation. I never even mentioned or questioned that. Only that how is she serving Christ by giving her assent and affirmation to sexual sin?

      Delete
    3. From what I understand of salvation, one cannot serve the Lord is one is not saved. Saved= service, unsaved = sinner in filthy rags. In answer to your question, I don't know how she is serving the Lord by signing the gay marriage document. I guess you will have to ask her, or read her book where she says in her own words she is serving the Lord.

      Delete
    4. She is a person of great power and influence. If Jesus is truly her King, she should be mourning for the sin of homosexuality in her country, not putting her signature to a document consenting to it. She is not serving Christ doing this, she's serving Satan.

      Delete
    5. Again, Jane, one incident does not destroy salvation and one incident in a person's life is not a be-all and end-all for determining whether they are likely saved or not. I agree, it's not good, and I hope she is truly saved, as I said before. The Queen said she serves Jesus and I hope she truly does.

      I'm glad Jesus has more patience with us that you do.

      In addition, we don't know she doesn't mourn her nation's sin.

      Let's let it go for now, and we can see how it all turns out at the Bema seat or at the great White Throne Judgment

      Delete
    6. I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you, sister. And I don't know how you are reading impatience or judgment in my comments. I do not know the queen's heart any more than you do. I do hope she is saved as well. And maybe she regrets signing the assent, and has repented for it. She hasn't said so publicly, but who knows. It was three years ago.

      Forget we're talking about the queen, then. I'm only questioning how one can say they serve Christ (no matter who they are), and then consent to a practice they know will send people to face the wrath of God?

      Delete
    7. I really only wanted to post a nice little hopeful link. I really did want to let this rest. Sigh.

      To use the Queen’s phraseology, “Serving God” occurs over a lifetime after salvation. We already know that serving God is not possible before salvation.

      After salvation and before glorification, we sin. I said you were impatient before because your beef is that the Queen did something once at one moment of time that indicated she may not serve Jesus. However “serving Jesus” is a continual act over a lifetime, not a snapshot.

      I agree that signing a Parliamentary decree allowing civil ceremonies (not marriage) is an act that is at odds with the moral precepts of the Bible. However we can’t use one snapshot to say as you did “The Queen serves satan.” At that moment in time, yes, she served satan’s will, but to declaratively say “The Queen does not serve Jesus” is wrong.

      Further, to maintain that the Queen serves satan and not Jesus because she had power and used it to sign a decree is to say the same about David. He sinned with Bathsheba. He engaged in adultery and used his governmental position to murder Uriah. Solomon was a monarch who wielded national power to allow idolatry in the nation. Lot was a city councilman in SODOM, (that’s what it means to “sit at the city gate” it means administering the governmental affairs of the city) AND pimped his daughter, and yet God that Lot was righteous. David, Solomon, and Lot consented to a practice they knew would send people to face the wrath of God. Yet they are in heaven.

      I HOPE the Queen is not deceived into thinking she is saved when she isn’t, and I HOPE she isn’t one of those saying “Lord, Lord…as in Matthew 7:21-23. I hope her statement that she serves Jesus is spiritually true. However, she is not a teacher who we can test. For example, I said many times on this blog that Beth Moore does not serve Jesus, she is a false teacher. We can say this with confidence because we test what Moore says in her teachings, and she fails. We can see her lifestyle over many decades and it’s void of fruit. We cannot do that with the Queen. /shrug/

      Q. Elizabeth is a private citizen and worse, a monarch who leads an extremely private life. We will never know her worship, her giving, her fruit, her transparency. We can’t see her Christian lifestyle. We can’t test her words because she only speaks scripted speeches in public. Therefore only Jesus knows for sure who she serves over the long run. The best we can do is take her autobiographical words at face value and hope she serves Jesus and is in heaven with us in the end.

      Delete
    8. I think we are on the same page, but you misunderstood me when I said, "she serves Satan". I am not calling the queen a satanist. I apologize if I come across as impatient or judgmental. I should have said it just as you said in your above comment, that she served him at that one moment in time when she put her signature to the assent, in essence giving her approval of homosexual sin. I am passionate about the Gospel, and as a servant of Christ, I would never purposefully want to mislead anyone into thinking their sinful lifestyle is acceptable to God. I agree, the queen is not a teacher we can test, but she is a person that claims to be a servant of Christ, one that possibly millions look up to and respect. That gives her a greater responsibililty, as a servant of Christ, to speak the truth in love.

      Thank you for responding and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

      Delete
    9. Great! We ARE on the same page. Thanks for hanging in there with me!

      Delete
  2. Thank you for your daily teachings. Today's is chock-ful of great ones! I especially like that you posted a link to AW Tozer's message on the menace of religious movies. Too many churches are airing the War Room and Tozer's message would, hopefully, open a few eyes. (I have to go make copies now! :) )

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post as usual and adding "Boo" really made my day :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Anonymous and Robin! I'm lad you got something from it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I loved this whole post. Weiner dog ear plugs? Amazing!

    Jennifer

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can really identify with your comment about stuff getting stuck in your head. I struggle with that alot, especially the stuff from before God saved me. I've also noted several times an acquaintance has mentioned something as biblical fact, when after investigation it was really from a movie or t.v.. Very sad.I think it is just another way that the Christian community is failing to guard themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jennifer the minute I saw those ear plugs I said, eureka, why didn't someone think of that like a billion years ago?! Thanks Eugenie. That is sad about people saying something from tv or a movie thinking it was in the Bible. I'm thrilled you investigate to discover the source! Good job!

      Delete
  7. I really like your reasoning for not seeing "Risen," and agrees with my sentiments. I will be posting that at my blog. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Queen of England signed into law statutes that allowed for abortion and homosexual "marriage." I don't find a person like that very likeable.

    ReplyDelete