The following is my list of 50 of my favorite films that explore spiritual themes in a significant and serious manner. The criteria for inclusion was that the film:

(a) Must exemplify a high degree of quality as a work of narrative art.
(b) Must address a spiritual theme that would be of theological interest to a religious believer, especially a Christian.
(b) Can be found on DVD.

Some of the movies on the list (i.e., To End All Wars) were created from a distinctly Christian worldview. Most of the selections, though, could not in any way be considered "Christian" yet share a significant degree of common grace that makes them worthy of engagement and dialogue.

As with the previous entries in this series, I don’t pretend to be compiling a list of the best or most profound works in a particular category. This is simply the list of my favorite movies that fit the narrow criteria I’ve outlined. These artificial constraints skew the list toward more recent movies (though it appears the "Golden Age" of cinema seems to have been far less concerned with spiritual themes than we might have imagined) and cinematic features released or produced in America.

The first ten are ranked in order of preference while the rest are listed alphabetically. Sequels and series are treated as one entry. [Note: This list was originally created a few years ago and may be missing worthy entries from the past 2 -3 years.]

Here then are my favorite spiritually significant films:

1. Ponette (1996) (This story of a child grieving over the death of her mother is one of the most devastating explorations of loss ever captured on film. Four year old Victoire Thivisol, delivering one of the best performances of any actor ever, shows the profundity of a child’s faith.)
    
2. The Apostle (1997)
    
3. Unforgiven (1992)
    
4. Groundhog Day (1993)
    
5. It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)
    
6. Dekalog ("The Decalogue") (1989) (Ten one-hour television dramas made for Polish TV by Krzysztof Kieslowski, each one a modernized, free-standing part based on one of the Ten Commandments. Considered by many critics to be one of the best film series of the 1980s.)
    
7. Three Colors: Blue, White, Red (1993-1994) (A three-film collection of stories about contemporary French society based upon the 3-colors of the French flag by Krzysztof Kieslowski.)
    
8. Barcelona (1994)
    
9. Dancer in the Dark (2000) (You are as likely to hate this movie as you are to love it. At times director Lars von Trier makes it hard to appreciate his work (slow-pacing, experimental cinemetagrophy). But those who can appreciate this strange musical drama will be haunted by it long after it is over.)
    
10. To End All Wars (2001)
     
11. The Addiction (1995)
     
12. Angels & Insects (1995)
     
13. Babe (1995) (A beautiful story about human dignity is disguised as a film about a young pig.)
     
14. Beauty and the Beast (1996)
     
15. Ben-Hur (1959)
     
16. Blade Runner (1982)
     
17. Breaking The Waves (1996) (Another difficult masterpiece by Lars von Trier.)
     
18. Changing Lanes (2002)
     
19. Chariots of Fire (1981)
     
20. Citizen Ruth (Alexander Payne pulls no punches in this infuriating and hilarious satire about abortion politics. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life you’ll see your ox being gored. But it will make you appreciate the fact that human depravity complicates the issue more than we often let on.)
     
21. The Claim (2000) (Based on Thomas Hardy’s "The Mayor of Casterbridge", this movie follows the story of miner who traded his wife and newborn daughter for a gold mine.)
     
22. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
     
23. The Eyes of Tammy Faye (A documentary that examines the rise and fall of Tammy Faye Bakker Messner and her televangelist ex-husband Jim Bakker that shows that Christians are both flawed and redeemable.)
     
24. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
     
25. Finding Nemo (A deeply prodound pro-life message is hidden is this disarming Pixar film about a fish who loses his young son.)
     
26. Fight Club (1999) (An unfliching look at the logical outcome of the pop-nihilism that pervades Western consumerist culture.)
     
27. Gattaca (1997)
     
28. Grand Canyon (1991)
     
29. In the Realms of the Unreal (2004)
     
30. Leon (The Professsional) (1994)
     
31. Les Miserables
     
32. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)
     
33. Magnolia (1999)
     
34. Matchstick Men (2003) (An examination of how we cannot escape the "revenge of conscience.")
     
35. A Man For All Seasons (1966)
     
36. The Matrix (1999)
     
37. The Passion Of The Christ (2004)
     
38. Pulp Fiction
     
39. The Rapture (1991) (Although a caricature of fundamentalism, this movie treats pre-millinarianism more seriously than The Omega Code or the Left Behind Series.)
     
40. Requiem for a Dream (2000) (An unflinching look at the dehumanizing effects of hardcore drug use.)
     
41. Schindler’s List (1993)
     
42. The Seventh Seal (1957)
     
43. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
     
44. Signs (2002)
     
45. Spider-Man 2 (2004) (Oddly enough, this film presents a the comic-book superhero as the best allegorical representation of Christ since Aslan.)
     
46. The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
     
47. Tender Mercies (1983)
     
48. The Third Miracle (1999)
     
49. The Truman Show (1998)
     
50. Wit (2001)

Ludwig Wittgenstein, considered by many to be the premier philosopher of the 20th century, believed that the proper task of philosophy was to make the nature of our thought and talk clear. Wittgenstein believed that the problems of philosophy were illusory and arose as a misunderstanding about language. While I think he greatly overstates the case, I agree that many problems not only in philosophy but in other areas result from the imprecise use of language.

I must confess that my own muddled use of language often contributes to this problem. When communicating with those who do not share my basic presuppositions, I often forget that we may not be using language in quite the same way. In order to help make the nature of our thought and talk clear, I want to examine a question that is essential to the analysis and comparison of worldviews: What is a religious belief?

In order to define the term in such a way that it is neither too broad nor too narrow, we must list all of the features that are true of all religious beliefs and true only of religious beliefs.* While this may appear to be an obvious point, we are often surprised to find what has been pruned when a definition is stripped to its essential components. Imagine, for instance, trying to define the concept of tree in a way that is limited to what is true for all trees but only true of trees. Paring the explanation down in such a manner would not only be difficult but leave us with a curious, and likely unsatisfying, definition.

What is true of trees will be equally so for religious beliefs. After we cut away the foliage and underbrush that are features of specific religious beliefs we are likely to be unimpressed by the bare, slender reed that remains. We should also expect to find that a minimally precise definition will have exposed the fact that some beliefs that we might have considered to be religious really are not, while finding that others are actually more religious than we might have imagined. Nevertheless, while we might be surprised, unsatisfied, or unimpressed, the important point is that we have defined the term correctly.

Let us begin by examining the features that are commonly (though, I contend, mistakenly) believed to be essential to religious beliefs:

[Note: This is a compilation of several previous posts.]

"Virtually all the people on Time magazine’s list of ‘The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals’ share at least one glaringly significant trait," said pastor Phillip Johnson in 2005, "For the most part, these are the fadmakers." Phil goes on to list a number of "cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable", including the usual suspects such as Rick Warren and Tim LaHaye, and explains why their programs are fads:

Not one of those movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals merely a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. Some will last a few short months (like the Jabez phenomenon did); others may seem to dominate for several years but then die lingering deaths (like Bill Gothard’s movement is doing). But they will all eventually fade and fall from significance. And some poor wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets, Purpose-Driven" merchandise, and stacks and stacks of "emerging church" resources.

Like Johnson, I’m concerned about the way in which evangelicals tend to embrace whatever trends and kitsch happen to be hot sellers at "Christian" bookstores. But while Johnson laments that most of the "stuff you are currently being told you must read and implement will soon seem as hopelessly out of date" I take comfort in knowing that most of this stuff is nothing more than a passing trend. It is not the dernier cri that will soon be gone that concerns me but the faddage that becomes a fixture. Fads still receive scrutiny while fixtures remain largely unquestioned.

#1 The Sinner’s Prayer — The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner’s prayer." I’ve searched through the entire New Testament and can’t find an example of anyone who was "saved" after reciting such a prayer. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, "Christians" will discover after it’s far, far, too late.

#2 Making Converts — I’ve always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion, much less helping make true disciples.

Over the next few days I’ll mention the others. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #10) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes. I’d be interested in hearing what would make your list.

#3 "Do you know Jesus as…" — In the fall of 1987 I began my freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics, philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at me.

Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"

For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. "I’m, yeah, actually I have." I finally managed in reply.

"Oh," he said, visibly disappointed. "Okay, that’s good." He wore a look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my burger. He ate quickly and excused himself. After that lunch, I never saw him again.

This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into ignore mode. Instead of asking about a "personal savior" you might want to simply try to get to know the person.

#4 Tribulationism — Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of "the Rapture" and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" — an overemphasis on pre-millenial eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I’m sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.

#5 Testimonies — Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my "testimony." The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn’t enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith. Now you may have a great story about how the hound of Heaven" chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that your story doesn’t much matter. You are only a bit player in the narrative thread; the main part goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, He already has a pretty good story so why not just tell that one instead?

#6 The Altar Call - In the 1820’s evangelist Charles Finney introduced the "anxious seat," a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting "the anxious may come and be addressed particularly–and sometimes be conversed with individually." At the end of his sermon, he would say, "There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord’s side." The problem with this approach, as theologian J.I. Packer, explains is that,

The gospel of God requires an immediate response from all; but it does not require the same response from all. The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from. It is not in his power to accept Christ at any moment, as Finney supposed; and it is God’s prerogative, not the evangelist’s, to fix the time when men shall first savingly believe. For the latter to try and do so, by appealing to sinners to begin believing here and now, is for man to take to himself the sovereign right of the Holy Ghost. It is an act of presumption, however creditable the evangelists motive’s may be. Hereby he goes beyond his commission as God’s messenger; and hereby he risks doing incalculable damage to the souls of men. If he tells men they are under obligation to receive Christ on the spot, and demands in God’s name that they decide at once, some who are spiritually unprepared will try to do so; they will come forward and accept directions and "go through the motions" and go away thinking they have received Christ, when all the time they have not done so because they were not yet able to do so. So a crop of false conversions will result from making such appeals, in the nature of the case. Bullying for "decisions" thus in fact impedes and thwarts the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Man takes it on himself to try to bring that work to a precipitate conclusion, to pick the fruit before it is ripe; and the result is "false conversions," hypocrisy and hardening. "For the appeal for immediate decision presupposes that men are free to "decide for Christ" at any time; and this presupposition is the disastrous issue of a false, un-Scriptural view of sin.

My friend Jared Bridges has pointed out another reason for me, as a Baptist, to despise the term "altar call": We don’t believe in transubstantiation and we don’t burn offerings, so we have no need for an "altar."

#7 Witnessing — Evangelism ain’t Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News.

If you want to be a more effective "witness for Christ" then start by doing what Christ did and love other people. Start by loving the "unlovable" — the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. Yes, you need to tell people about the Gospel. But that is evangelism, not "witnessing." In the context of the Christian life, "witness" should be a noun more often than a verb.

#8 Protestant Prayers — Last week one of my fellow coworkers, a young Catholic man, was asked to open our meeting with a prayer. Without hesitation he began reciting the "Lord’s prayer." Afterward I joked that, having come up with such a fine prayer, he might want to write it down for future use. What I didn’t say what how his recitation of the prayer made me uncomfortable.

First, I’m not used to hearing prayers that don’t contain the word "just" (as in "We just want to thank you Lord…") so it had an odd ring to it. Second, it seemed to violate the accepted standards for public prayer. I had always assumed that praying in public required being able to interlace some just-want-to’s in with some Lord-thank-you-for’s and be- with-us-as-we’s in a coherent fashion before toppping it all with an Amen. Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous–from the heart, off the top of the head–emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations. If it ain’t original, it ain’t prayer, right? Can I get an amen?

But where did this idea come from? We have entire books to teach us how to pray yet Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn’t that prayer good enough for evangelicals to use? Why do our prayers sound nothing like His example? (And if you are wondering what prayer is doing on a list of evangelistic fixtures then we are really in trouble.)

#9 The Church Growth Movement — Sadly, this has moved from fad to fixture. Think I’m wrong? Ask the next person you see to define that phrase. In fact, ask the next 100 people you see. Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples. 

#10 Chick Tracts — Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact — and yes it is a fact — is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner’ Prayer after finding "The Long Trip" on the floor of a truck stop restroom.

The term evangelism derives from the Greek word evangel–"good news." So it’s rather odd how so much evangelism appears to be about "selling" Jesus and hoping that you can convince the unsaved heathen to buy into salvation. This was the way I had been taught during Vacation Bible School classes at the First Baptist Church of Fire and Brimstone. Pass out Chick tracts, recite the canned "how to get saved" speech, get them to say the sinner’s prayer. Above all, close the deal for Jesus. They may die at any time and their souls would be lost to eternal damnation if I didn’t "make the sell." By the age of eight I’d become a cross between Billy Graham and Willy Loman.

Whenever I began to seriously read the Gospels, though, I noticed something strange. People constantly flocked to Jesus despite the fact that he never passed out a single tract. He would walk up to people and say "Follow me" and the next thing you know they’re giving up their lives to follow him around the countryside.

The people responded to Jesus the way they did because he is God. He is what our hearts have always been seeking. When we come face to face with him we may accept or reject him. But we can’t not know him. John Calvin claimed that there is an awareness or sense of God (sensus divinitatis) implanted in all people by nature. The context of this universally distributed belief being rather minimal: there is a God, He is the Creator, and that He ought to be worshiped. The Gospel, though, fills in the essential details.

We evangelicals don’t need tools of evangelism. We don’t need fads and fixtures. We don’t need anything more than the Gospel. For that is one fixture of our faith that will never go out of style.

#9 The Church Growth Movement — Sadly, this has moved from fad to fixture. Think I’m wrong? Ask the next person you see to define that phrase. In fact, ask the next 100 people you see. Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples. 

#10 Chick Tracts — Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact — and yes it is a fact — is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner’ Prayer after finding "The Long Trip" on the floor of a truck stop restroom.

The term evangelism derives from the Greek word evangel–"good news." So it’s rather odd how so much evangelism appears to be about "selling" Jesus and hoping that you can convince the unsaved heathen to buy into salvation. This was the way I had been taught during Vacation Bible School classes at the First Baptist Church of Fire and Brimstone. Pass out Chick tracts, recite the canned "how to get saved" speech, get them to say the sinner’s prayer. Above all, close the deal for Jesus. They may die at any time and their souls would be lost to eternal damnation if I didn’t "make the sell." By the age of eight I’d become a cross between Billy Graham and Willy Loman.

Whenever I began to seriously read the Gospels, though, I noticed something strange. People constantly flocked to Jesus despite the fact that he never passed out a single tract. He would walk up to people and say "Follow me" and the next thing you know they’re giving up their lives to follow him around the countryside.

The people responded to Jesus the way they did because he is God. He is what our hearts have always been seeking. When we come face to face with him we may accept or reject him. But we can’t not know him. John Calvin claimed that there is an awareness or sense of God (sensus divinitatis) implanted in all people by nature. The context of this universally distributed belief being rather minimal: there is a God, He is the Creator, and that He ought to be worshiped. The Gospel, though, fills in the essential details.

We evangelicals don’t need tools of evangelism. We don’t need fads and fixtures. We don’t need anything more than the Gospel. For that is one fixture of our faith that will never go out of style.

#7 Witnessing — Evangelism ain’t Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News.

If you want to be a more effective "witness for Christ" then start by doing what Christ did and love other people. Start by loving the "unlovable" — the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. Yes, you need to tell people about the Gospel. But that is evangelism, not "witnessing." In the context of the Christian life, "witness" should be a noun more often than a verb.

#8 Protestant Prayers — Last week one of my fellow coworkers, a young Catholic man, was asked to open our meeting with a prayer. Without hesitation he began reciting the "Lord’s prayer." Afterward I joked that, having come up with such a fine prayer, he might want to write it down for future use. What I didn’t say what how his recitation of the prayer made me uncomfortable.

First, I’m not used to hearing prayers that don’t contain the word "just" (as in "We just want to thank you Lord…") so it had an odd ring to it. Second, it seemed to violate the accepted standards for public prayer. I had always assumed that praying in public required being able to interlace some just-want-to’s in with some Lord-thank-you-for’s and be- with-us-as-we’s in a coherent fashion before toppping it all with an Amen. Third, I thought that prayers are supposed to be spontaneous–from the heart, off the top of the head–emanations, rather than prepackaged recitations. If it ain’t original, it ain’t prayer, right? Can I get an amen?

But where did this idea come from? We have entire books to teach us how to pray yet Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn’t that prayer good enough for evangelicals to use? Why do our prayers sound nothing like His example? (And if you are wondering what prayer is doing on a list of evangelistic fixtures then we are really in trouble.)

Next: The Church Growth Movement and Chick Tracts

#6 The Altar Call - In the 1820’s evangelist Charles Finney introduced the "anxious seat," a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting "the anxious may come and be addressed particularly–and sometimes be conversed with individually." At the end of his sermon, he would say, "There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord’s side." The problem with this approach, as theologian J.I. Packer, explains is that,

The gospel of God requires an immediate response from all; but it does not require the same response from all. The immediate duty of the unprepared sinner is not to try and believe on Christ, which he is not able to do, but to read, enquire, pray, use the means of grace and learn what he needs to be saved from. It is not in his power to accept Christ at any moment, as Finney supposed; and it is God’s prerogative, not the evangelist’s, to fix the time when men shall first savingly believe. For the latter to try and do so, by appealing to sinners to begin believing here and now, is for man to take to himself the sovereign right of the Holy Ghost. It is an act of presumption, however creditable the evangelists motive’s may be. Hereby he goes beyond his commission as God’s messenger; and hereby he risks doing incalculable damage to the souls of men. If he tells men they are under obligation to receive Christ on the spot, and demands in God’s name that they decide at once, some who are spiritually unprepared will try to do so; they will come forward and accept directions and "go through the motions" and go away thinking they have received Christ, when all the time they have not done so because they were not yet able to do so. So a crop of false conversions will result from making such appeals, in the nature of the case. Bullying for "decisions" thus in fact impedes and thwarts the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Man takes it on himself to try to bring that work to a precipitate conclusion, to pick the fruit before it is ripe; and the result is "false conversions," hypocrisy and hardening. "For the appeal for immediate decision presupposes that men are free to "decide for Christ" at any time; and this presupposition is the disastrous issue of a false, un-Scriptural view of sin.

My friend Jared Bridges has pointed out another reason for me, as a Baptist, to despise the term "altar call": We don’t believe in transubstantiation and we don’t burn offerings, so we have no need for an "altar."

Next: Witnessing and Protestant Prayers

#4 Tribulationism — Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of "the Rapture" and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" — an overemphasis on pre-millenial eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I’m sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.

#5 Testimonies — Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my "testimony." The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn’t enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith. Now you may have a great story about how the hound of Heaven" chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that your story doesn’t much matter. You are only a bit player in the narrative thread; the main part goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, He already has a pretty good story so why not just tell that one instead?

Next: The Altar Call

The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

#3 "Do you know Jesus as…" — In the fall of 1987 I began my freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics, philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at me.

Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"

For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. "I’m, yeah, actually I have." I finally managed in reply.

"Oh," he said, visibly disappointed. "Okay, that’s good." He wore a look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my burger. He ate quickly and excused himself. After that lunch, I never saw him again.

This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into ignore mode. Instead of asking about a "personal savior" you might want to simply try to get to know the person.

Next: Tribulationism and Testimonies

 
What are the ten fixtures of evangelism that I find particularly harmful? Great question. Here, are my first two. I’m not sure that these are necessarily the two most pernicious problems, but they are definitely in the top ten.

1. The Sinner’s Prayer.  Amen and Amen (and Amen).  The idea that the dynamic, awesome, humbling, heroic, life-giving opportunity to form intimate relationship with Jesus could be reduced to a bunch of words that will purportedly provide insurance against eternal damnation is, well, from hell. Few things in the last 2,000 of the Christian faith may have more eternal downside than this so-called "Sinner’s Prayer." As with most things that are wicked it was conceived with the best of intentions - a sincere desire to help people enjoy the heroic fellowship of life with Jesus. But what it did instead was offer a cheap, two-dimensional, lifeless "invitation" to the Jesus life. I’m with you when you write, "I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit," but oh the damage that it has done to Believers, pseudo-believers, non-believers and everyone else… Jesus included.  Ok, one last thing. Can you imagine what Jesus’ response might have been as he was up on the cross were he to have been told, "Hey, 2,000 years from now people will say a little prayer saying they believe in you but live a life no different from the thief who just denied you."

Ok, that’s enough for now… 

This part from your last post, David, really resonated with me: "I fear for myself and I fear for so much of our country who believes themselves on the "Jesus insurance" track - those who have said a few words and then gone on with lives that are little different than if they never said the words in the first place."

I completely agree. In fact, I consider this to be #1 (the "Sinner’s Prayer") on my list of the ten fixtures of evangelism that I find particularly harmful (#2 Making Converts is closely related):

#1 The Sinner’s Prayer — The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner’s prayer." I’ve searched through the entire New Testament and can’t find an example of anyone who was "saved" after reciting such a prayer. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, "Christians" will discover after it’s far, far, too late.

#2 Making Converts — I’ve always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion, much less helping make true disciples.

Over the next few days I’ll mention the others. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #10) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes. I’d be interested in hearing what would make your list.

 
Wow. That was a great post Joe.  Seriously great. I need to process it for a bit. 

What really  struck me about the Ramirez/Congo contrast wasn’t just the media coverage, it was the horrifically stark contrast between our frivolous wealth and the massive poverty and horror around the world. Ramirez’s agent was complaining because the $60 million the Los Angeles Dodgers was offering was far too low. Meanwhile, there is the devastation occurring in Congo. It is so jarring. It is an incomprehensible contrast. But it is one that will not last forever… and that should scare us all. One of the things that Jesus promises is that when his Kingdom is fully come things will be turned upside down. The last will be first and first last. Those who suffer greatly will be greatly comforted. Those who are the least and the forgotten will be first. 

Then there is that other thing that Jesus promises - a day of surprises. How many times does he say that when that Day comes a bunch of people who think that they are outside of the Kingdom will be ushered in… and those who thought themselves inside ushered out… Jesus is the great lamb of God but he is also the ferocious Lion of God… and when he returns justice returns and there will be a whole lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. I fear for myself and I fear for so much of our country who believes themselves on the "Jesus insurance" track - those who have said a few words and then gone on with lives that are little different than if they never said the words in the first place.

Anyway, these are 2am thoughts. 

Thanks again for your post. It was really good and I’ll get back to it. 

In your recent post, David, you asked which news story would be getting more attention, a humanitarian crisis in eastern Congo or the Dodger’s offer to Manny Ramirez. Do you think there is something inherently inappropriate about that? I ask in all seriousness for it isn’t simply a hypothetical concern for us (we do, after all, run a media company).

Thinking about the issue reminded me of this passage from a an essay by Eric Cohen on "Bioethics in Wartime":

In the midst of World War II, C. S. Lewis addressed a class of Oxford students on the question of "Learning in War-Time." With so much uncertainty, so many peers dying in the trenches, so much suffering and destruction, why should any decent person spend his time reading and studying? Or doing anything else that men and women normally do: laughing, marrying, lighting Sabbath candles? With so much horror, what room can there be for happy pursuits? With challenges so obviously large, why worry about problems so seemingly small?

The answer Lewis gave, in his typical way, was both sharp and deep: "The war creates no absolutely new situation; it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice" If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with "normal life." Life has never been normal." It has always been an uncertain mix of greatness and misery, joy and heartache, long-term plans and sudden disasters.

Should we only write about atrocities until we reach a state of "normal life?" Must we wait until there is no genocide in Darfur, no poverty in Appalachia, no persecution in China? Should we wait until there is no evil to be found in the heart of man before we turn our attention to "happy pursuits?"

I understand how it might seem that Americans have misplaced priorities because of the type of news we prefer to consume. But I’m not sure there is anything wrong with focusing on the trivial, rather than tragedies we cannot prevent. Often enough tragedy strikes in our own country or own lives, filling up the space of our attention and demanding that we cease talking about trivialities and focus on the horrors that have occurred.

But the world is not normal and won’t be until Christ returns to establish a new creation. We can’t wait until war has ceased or before human nature has been redeemed before we carry on with the job of living, laughing, marrying, lighting Sabbath candles and — as seemingly small as it might be — caring about sports.

 Livvy, my 3-year-old daughter, is going through an "I’m scared" phase at night. She wants us to sleep in her bed and check on her all the time. As I write, her shades are up, a little nightlight is on, and she’s hugging her Raggedy Ann…and a dozen other stuffed animals… simultaneously.

A few nights ago as I was tucking her in she said, "Daddy. I want to see the angels." I didn’t quite get it. "I want to see the angels that protect me. That way I won’t be so scared."

Every night during tuck-in Kim prays with Livvy and one of the things she prays is for angels to surround Livvy. And so the question.

I felt like saying, "Yeah, me too." But I don’t think that she would have understood me.

So I told her that no, she couldn’t see them and I couldn’t either but that we knew they are there.

Were she older I would have told her about the one or two times that I felt angelic presence - palpably.

One of them was 5 1/2 years ago as I recuperated from brain surgery (but not on the sensory part of the brain - just in case you were thinking I was imaging things).

During that time in our lives, our intimacy with God was profound. There was no life apart from him. We knew that. We’d seen the instant fragility of life and so we clung… not to religion but to Jesus.  

Every night before we went to sleep we spent a good bit of time praying not just for ourselves but for others and also just marveling at God’s goodness.

In the middle of one of those nights I was turning over when I became aware of a presence - an almost electric presence - in the room. It didn’t feel like anything I’d ever come across before. It certainly wasn’t malevolent. But neither did it exude any syrupy niceness. It felt weighty, certain, sturdy, good. As I said, it was was unlike anything I’d ever experienced.

I didn’t make the full turn. Instead I just laid there on my back, fully conscious, feeling like I needed to be fully still. And so I was.

I wanted to tap Kim and wake her up and try and explain it all but I had this sense that by the time I did that the experience would have been over, the force gone… the sense that this was for me. 

Thankfully Livvy isn’t old enough to understand that story just yet. She just has an intuitive sense of whether she feels safe or not. And so I hold her close and I am teaching her to pray and telling her about the Good Shepherd and all the while reminding myself that I can’t see the angels either but I know that they are there.

 
Two news stories from today. 

Fighting in eastern Congo has turned a breadbasket into a hunger zone where hundreds of thousands of people chased from their lush fields now rely on imported food, U.N. food agency WFP said.

Malnutrition rates in Rutshuru, which has seen weeks of fighting between government soldiers and dissident Tutsi general Laurent Nkunda’s rebels, are almost double emergency thresholds and aid workers are battling insecurity to deliver rations.

The latest wave of fighting has worsened a humanitarian disaster that began in the 1990s.

Over 5 million people have died since Congo’s last war began in 1998, more than in any conflict since World War Two and nearly all from war-related hunger and disease.

And here is the second story:

Manny Ramirez could become the $60 million man if he stays in Los Angeles. But the slugger is guaranteed at least $45 million if he accepts the Dodgers’ initial offer, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Dodgers’ initial offer to Ramirez contains a club option for a third year that could take the deal to $60 million, but includes a $7.5 million buyout guaranteeing him at least $45 million, the Times reported on Tuesday.

Ramirez’s agent, Scott Boras, who already has said that the length of the initial Dodgers offer is not acceptable, said in Thursday’s editions of the Times: "On behalf of Manny Ramirez, we will, for the first time, begin accepting serious financial offers on Friday."
 

 Guess which story is getting more attention?

 
Joe - Thanks for your response. I love our discussions and so appreciate your passion for the unborn. In fact I share your passion for reducing abortions - for eliminating abortions actually. We just have different ways of approaching it. That being said, I’d like to try and steer this conversation away from abortion if I might. If you’ll let me, let me synopsize your argument about the spiritual state of our union by saying that you believe Christians are ignoring BIblical priorities in their voting and that abortion is the most obvious example. Is that fair?

And let me do one other thing. Let me narrow the topic slightly. Instead of talking about the ’spiritual state of our union" in generic terms, I’d like to focus it on Christians since that is what we are. 

In the interest of length, I’m going to stop here for now. I’ll post something a little later today on my first take on the election. 

In 2004, Obama gave an interview to Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani in which he talks in detail about his faith. The full transcript had never been published in a major publication until yesterday when Beliefnet reprinted it in its entirety. The interview is well worth reading for it provides a fascinating glimpse into the religious beliefs of our President-elect.

I’m sure that David will agree with me that from a political point of view, whether the President is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever, should make no difference. But I believe it is useful to have an idea of what theological commitments we might have in common. And after reading this interview, I would say that Obama and I share very few beliefs. 

If you tell me that you’re a "Christian" I take that to mean that you subscribe to a common set of doctrines outlined in either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. Both of these creeds are ecumenical Christian statements of faith accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and almost all branches of Protestantism. They outline what it means to be a "mere" Christian.

Included within these creeds is the belief that Jesus is the "Son of God", that Christ is a divine being. From this interview it does not appear that Obama believes this is true:

FALSANI: Who’s Jesus to you? (Obama laughs nervously)

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

This is, of course, exactly wrong. Jesus is not merely a "bridge" between God and man, Jesus is both fully-human and fully divine. Obama’s statement is more akin to something his role model Gandhi would say, rather than the claim made by an orthodox believer.

In fact, nowhere in the interview did I ever get the impression that Obama subscribes to even the most basic beliefs that are typically associated with being a Christian. For example:

On Sin

FALSANI: What is sin?

OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

FALSANI: What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

On Hell

Obama: …There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.

FALSANI: You don’t believe that?

OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

 

On Heaven

FALSANI: Do you believe in heaven?

OBAMA: Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

FALSANI: A place spiritually you go to after you die?

OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ. 

What did you think of it, David? Would you be comfortable calling Obama a Christian?

Update: I respond to Andrew and Freddie here.

What does this election say to you about the state of the Gospel in America circa 2008? My initial inclination is to answer, "Absolutely nothing." But that isn’t quite accurate.

As much as I would like to claim that the election is not a barometer of our America’s spiritual state, I think the evidence is against me. Christians — the only group whose spirituality I understand well enough to comment on — continue to take their cues on how to vote from wordly priorities rather than Biblical principles.

For instance, one of the greatest issues of justice in our era is the protection of the unborn. Defending innocent human life from destruction should not be merely one of many priorities, but should be our top priority. Therefore, at a minimum, no Christian should, in good conscience, vote for a politician whose policies encourage abortions.

If a plurality of Christians would simply be guided by this simple tenet, abortion in American would cease to be legal within one election cycle. If all Republicans and Democrats realized that they could not win an election if they supported abortion, they would quickly put in places laws protecting the most vulnerable members of the human community.

But the parties need not worry for Christians love a mulititude of other things more than they do justice. Think I’m being unfair? Consider: Obama — the most radically pro-choice presidential candidate in history — won 95% of the black vote. Are we to believe that there were no pro-life Christians in that 95%? If there were, then what possible excuse would they give for betraying their principles? What issue was more important that caused then to cast a vote for a man whose policies will increase the number of abortions, not only in America but across the globe? I’d really like to know the answer.

It isn’t just black Christians, of course, who should be ashamed. All those who betrayed the unborn will one day have to answer to their Creator for how they cast their ballot, in this and all elections.

So while I can’t say exactly what this says about the spirituality of America, I know it can’t be good. What is your take on the situation?

 
So Joe, we’re a week out from the election. There is a tiny bit of perspective that has been gained about what happened and what didn’t happen. There has already been a massive amount of (virtual) ink spilled analyzing the political implications of the race. And there have already been plenty of Republican and conservative conclaves to lick wounds, form circular firing squads, and try and plot a way back to power - I’ve even heard talk that some people think conservative policies might be the ticket.

But there hasn’t been a lot of talk about the spiritual implications of the election. So, since we both love Jesus more than politics or religion, I’d like to talk to you about what you think this election taught us about the spiritual state of our union in general and then about the evangelical movement in particular. 

What is your take?  What does this election say to you about the state of the Gospel in America circa 2008?