Disgusted with Christianity Today
- Thread starter toddpedlar
- Start date
- Status
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have read several reviews - I would avoid them like the plague.
As if I didn't have enough in Christianity Today to be disgusted with, they just put in a plug for one of the more (well, two of the more!) blasphemous movies I've ever heard of, in Bruce Almighty and, now, Evan Almighty. Check this out.
Words like disgust and blasphemy are harsh, indeed. Did you write to CT first before “sharing” your disgust?
Have you thought about praying for brothers whose judgment you disagree with?
Have you thought about writing a more measured review of something that will attract all kinds of viewers? http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13067
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Well, the movie is blasphemous. So, harsh as it is, there is no getting around that.
CT publicly put out a favorable review - I publicly call a spade a spade. They have made a gross error in judgment, and it is no surprise, given the nature of the magazine.
How do you know I am not praying for them? You're making lots of assumptions. (i haven't but now that you mention it, I will, but it
is inappropriate for you to speculate as to whether I had held them
up in prayer for their repentance or not)
Why would I write a review that would attract any viewer to a blasphemous movie?
reformedcop
Puritan Board Freshman
Unfortunately ... The magazine's title is accurate. They are a reflection of Christianity in today's America. I'm sure that the sermon clips and power point presentations will be all over the net based on that blasphemous movie very soon if not already.
Been so long since I looked at a CT I don't know if it's blasphemous. I do know those "Almighty" movies are........I saw Bruce Almighty with my own two eyes,man afterwards Megan and I went off to pray. I felt guilt for supporting it......about wore out my Anglican Rosary that night.
yup! I think we all tried that, Sproul (I think) said we are now in a time when Christians are ashamed to act like Christians, we no longer bear our reproach well.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Ha. Me too.
So did WORLD Magazine -- and the nature of CT reflects the nature of teh church, to whom we are to be salt and light.
I didn't know -- that's why I asked.
Writing reviews of what's in the culture is a good way to think about how to express truth to confused people.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I used to call it "Christianity Astray."
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
The good news is the subscription rates for periodicals like Modern Reformation and by Faith are going gangbusters.
I think people interested in knowing and living a biblically faithful theology recognize that Christianity Today (among others) is the periodical equivalent to an airport interfaith chapel.
I think people interested in knowing and living a biblically faithful theology recognize that Christianity Today (among others) is the periodical equivalent to an airport interfaith chapel.
Since many Christians are still in denominations whose doctrines stray, it's helpful to be able to read what they are doing -- and their coverage in international events in the church is worth noting.
I am more impressed with folks who take the time to explain, and argue persuasively than those whose comments are limited to harsh words.
eternallifeinchrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Honest question: What makes the movie blasphemous? (I have not seen it...)
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I'm speaking here only of Bruce Almighty, which I saw 5 minutes of on a plane once before realizing what it was (and then buried myself in, oddly enough, John Owen's Christologia)
The primary issue with the movie is that God is pictured in human form (Morgan Freeman). This is enough.
Secondly, however, the whole premise is a flippant treatment of God - that He would grant divine powers to a human being in order to make some kind of point with that person. Naturally enough, in the film, all kinds of silliness ensues when Bruce finds out what kinds of things he can do.
It is an utterly disgraceful film in both these respects - and the fact that CT and/or any other Christian publication can actually suggest that Christians should see it is very sad to me.
turmeric
Megerator
Partial quote from the movie on an ad they play incessantly on the Christian station in Portland;
(Speaking of Noah's Flood) You wouldn't do that again. Would You do that again?"
In the movie, supposedly He does do that again, which in Scripture He said He would never do. God breaking His own covenant? Oh, well, I don't get my Covenant Theology from Hollywood. (she says smugly).
bwsmith;
One reason for the apparent harshness in regard to these issues is that many of us have tried to reason with our brethern and even pastors in the mainstream evangelical churches on these kinds of issues to no avail. There are certain kinds of evil that appear to no longer be being restrained. That's one reason I'm an amillennialist.
(Speaking of Noah's Flood) You wouldn't do that again. Would You do that again?"
In the movie, supposedly He does do that again, which in Scripture He said He would never do. God breaking His own covenant? Oh, well, I don't get my Covenant Theology from Hollywood. (she says smugly).
bwsmith;
One reason for the apparent harshness in regard to these issues is that many of us have tried to reason with our brethern and even pastors in the mainstream evangelical churches on these kinds of issues to no avail. There are certain kinds of evil that appear to no longer be being restrained. That's one reason I'm an amillennialist.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's easy. Its mythology. What makes it acceptable is the better acting and story line. Remember the scene where Perseus rescues Andromeda (sp?)? That was awesome.
I'm sorry. I was just trying to lighten the mood.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
Since they're representations of false gods, there should be no worries.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Very, very, very few people (except for some on the West Coast) would be tempted to worship Greek gods. However, many Americans (and american christians) would be very much persuaded by something like Evan Almighty.
Greg
Puritan Board Sophomore
I wouldn't call the basis for Evan Almighty mythology since the Ark and the Flood actually did take place. Not to mention the fact that this movie is simply just bad theology. After all, God did say that He would never again destroy the Earth by flood.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
reformedcop
Puritan Board Freshman
I am of the opinion that the title is even blasphemous. There is only one Almighty and Evan aint it.
This might not fall in to the blasphemous category, but I really do not like how Hollywood has made a comedy of an event in human history where God judged the world to an extent that he wiped the slate clean of every living thing except the inhabitants of the ark! More life was lost then than probably all of the wars and disasters this world has seen ... and its funny.
I wonder how they deal with that in the movie. In the movie is all flesh that is not in the ark killed? Is everyone just cool with that because Morgan Freeman is hard to hate?In regard to movies such as this, my opinion regarding to it would be that it is not only blasphemous in its essence, but that it would also be sinful for one to sit by and tolerate the name of God to blasphemed in just such a way by watching a movie such as this.
Our holy God is to be worshipped and His name is to be reverenced and adored. The Israelites were commanded not to take the name of the Lord in vain, a command that extends in my view not merely to oaths, but in all manners of conversation. Gill, in his commentary, remarks:
In regard to reading about mythological characters or ancient false gods, there is of no course mention of using their names in vain. It is a sin of course worship any god made with hands, but I do not believe it is wrong to obtain knowledge of the myths or false gods that cultures past embraced.
Our holy God is to be worshipped and His name is to be reverenced and adored. The Israelites were commanded not to take the name of the Lord in vain, a command that extends in my view not merely to oaths, but in all manners of conversation. Gill, in his commentary, remarks:
In regard to reading about mythological characters or ancient false gods, there is of no course mention of using their names in vain. It is a sin of course worship any god made with hands, but I do not believe it is wrong to obtain knowledge of the myths or false gods that cultures past embraced.
- Status
