Movies, Martinis, and Musical Moves

“As obedient children, not conforming yourselves

to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;

but as He who called you is holy,

you also be holy in all your conduct.”

1 Peter 1:14-15

The gaunt old man pulled a squeezebox from its case and stepped to the pulpit. He looked into the distance, as if remembering a special day sixty years earlier, and paused. A few snickers sounded toward the back of the auditorium. And then he pulled the bellows apart and began to croon his way through a fifth-rate poem set to sixth-rate music, the hymn he himself had written, a hymn we ourselves had never sung.

The year was 1987, and the speaker was a visitor at Cedarville College. His appearance as a chapel speaker that day was a ‘one-off’, a one-chapel presentation by a guest; and none of the students, myself included, had ever heard of him. We didn’t expect much.

I tried to follow the message, but it seemed irrelevant. He talked about life ‘back then,’ read a few verses, and told the back-story of the hymn he had written. To hear him tell the story, that hymn had been a real bestseller. This seemed a little farfetched, as I had heard better jingoes for breakfast cereals. And I faded out and started to review my Greek vocabulary cards.

Then he said something that caught my attention and hit me like the proverbial two-by-four between the eyes. It proved to be one of the most memorable things I ever heard at Cedarville. Here’s what he said:

“When I was boy, my mother and father refused to give me a dime to go to the movies. They knew about the lifestyles of the people who made those movies, of the writers, the directors, and the actors. They knew what those people believed. And they refused to permit me or my siblings to give one solitary dime to support those folks and their lifestyles. And the other believers refused to let their kids go either.

“Nowadays, you’all are watching movies on VCRs and TV. Some of you even go to movie theaters. But, what I want to say is this: those folks haven’t changed, you have!”

This statement hit me hard, because the watching of movies by Cedarville College students was a widely discussed topic (at least among the student body). The rule of the college, one of the rules students agreed to when enrolling, was that attendance at movie theaters was forbidden. This was a throwback to earlier days, when fundamentalists believed that attending cinemas was immoral, and it had been a longstanding rule. What had precipitated increasing debate was the rise of VCRs. With the introduction of VCRs, it was possible now for a person to rent and watch a movie in the privacy of one’s home. This raised the obvious complications of a rule that forbid watching a movie in one location but not another. Was the movie itself the problem? Or was it attendance in a public venue to view the movie? Or was it a combination of the two?

The students, at least the more vocal students, were lobbying for the abandonment of the rule. Students should be free to attend movies in cinemas, they argued. The only standard that should be demanded is that they exercise personal spiritual discernment and avoid questionable content.

Fast forward to today. Students at Cedarville are now free to attend cinemas. The issue of attendance at movie theaters is history, and new issues have arisen, issues such as social drinking and dancing.

Let’s consider those two issues for a moment. During the last century, most Baptist fundamentalists – more often called evangelicals now – were opposed to social drinking and dancing. We acknowledged the evils that accompanied social drinking and decided to separate ourselves corporately and publicly from the practice. We did the same with dancing. In recent years, however, many of us, including the folks at Cedarville University, have been reconsidering.

That’s a good thing, right? After all, we all know that the evils related to alcohol consumption are less now than they used to be, right? Alcohol-related incidents of domestic abuse and vehicular homicide are fewer, right? And we know that dancing today is more modest and God-pleasing than it was in the days of Elvis, right?

No. That’s ludicrous, of course. (And sorry about the sarcasm.) We all know that alcohol is no less of a problem than it was fifty years ago, and dancing is no more modest today than it was years ago. In fact, if you consider modern day ‘dancing,’ I would suggest that what is considered ‘family-friendly’ and acceptable during prime-time television would have been considered porn fifty years ago. Case in point? Beyonce’s performance at this year’s Super Bowl’s ‘family-friendly’ halftime show.

So what has changed? Have the standards of God’s Word changed? Are we finally unshackling ourselves from our puritanical, legalistic roots? Or are we falling into licentiousness?

I would suggest it is the latter. Those who lobby for less restrictive standards often put their arguments in the context of grace, but, in doing so, fail to recognize and affirm that the call of grace is greater than the call of law. Law asks what the least is one must do. Grace asks what is the most one can do.

The issue here, ultimately, is the standards that should accompany salvation, not the requirements to attain it. The standards to which we hold ourselves as believers should reflect the highest standards of God’s Word. Discussions of those standards should not degenerate into arguments over whether a particular is so worldly that it should be abandoned. The question raised should be: Is this behavior pleasing to Holy God? Not, Is ‘okay’ with us doing this behavior.

Incidentally, have you noticed that things usually deteriorate rather than get better? Perhaps it is the same with colleges, mission agencies, and local churches. Apart from the grace of God and the determination to live separated lives by the power of the Holy Spirit, we can do no better. We will fall into spiritual and moral laxity.

But, praise God, we need not fall! God has given us His Spirit in full, to convict us of our sins, to call us to repentance, and to conform us to the image of His Son. In His strength, we can realize higher standards, cognitively and practically. We can glorify Him with holiness, if we will listen to and heed His Spirit. Will we?

-Christian Pilet

A Slice of Pie

“There’s a land that is fairer than day,

And by faith we can see it afar,

For the Father waits over the way

To prepare us a dwelling place there.

In the sweet by and by

We shall meet on that beautiful shore;

In the sweet by and by,

We shall meet on that beautiful shore.”

The hymn “The Sweet By-and-By” was published in 1868 and quickly became a Gospel favorite. Louis Armstrong, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson and Loretta Lynn have all recorded versions of it; Charles Ives used it in sections of several orchestral works; and several movies have featured it, including, most recently, Django Unchained. But why has it become so popular? Is it the words, the tune, or the combination of the two?

It’s probably the latter, but I suspect its popularity arises primarily from the Christian optimism it expresses, that a future home exists to which believers shall one day retire, a place in which the voices of the redeemed will mingle in praise of the One Who has secured and prepared that eternal rest, a place where “We shall sing on that beautiful shore the melodious songs of the blest, And our spirits shall sorrow no more Not a sigh for the blessing of rest.”

The hymn has not always been well received. Any song played over and over grows odious, and this one was no exception. As its strains filled the parlors and churches of America, Mark Twain paid it a dubious homage by including this spurious account of its origin in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court:

In a gallery a band with cymbals, horns, harps, and other horrors, opened the proceedings with what seemed to be the crude first-draft or original agony of the wail known to later centuries as "In the Sweet Bye and Bye." It was new, and ought to have been rehearsed a little more. For some reason or other the queen had the composer hanged, after dinner.

On the basis of that narrative, we can guess that Twain’s objection was to the melody, as only the composer was hanged, not the lyricist. Other critics have not been so charitable.

One of those critics was Joe Hill, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, the anarchist-syndicalist labor organization (a group known as the “Wobblies”). In 1911, he wrote a parody the hymn in which he lambasted the Salvation Army for offering salvation to the homeless, but not enough food. It went like this:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

This parody gave rise to the expression “pie in the sky in the great bye and bye.”

The first time I heard that expression. I was sitting in a U.S. history class. The class took place after lunch in an overheated room without windows, the teacher was a bit of a droner, and his lecture series was entitled something like “Pre-Civil War Circumstances in the Southern States,” so I was having trouble staying awake. But I did catch an offhand comment he made about the slaves. He said they found, in Christianity, a panacea that enabled them to endure the hopelessness of their bondage. He said Christianity gave them “pie in the sky in the great bye and bye,” and I think he added “opiate of the people” under his breath. It was not a flattering description.

So, wow, two very different understandings of Christianity. But which is it? Panacea or promise?

The answer to that question is found in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the resurrection of Jesus Christ really occurred, then His claims were substantiated and He really was the Savior of the world. If He is risen, then Christianity proclaims the Promise, the Hope, of humanity. But if the resurrection did not really occur, then Christianity is a man-made religion and offers no hope beyond the grave. If Jesus died as all other men die, then Christianity is nothing more than a lie and a panacea.

Thus, to determine if Christianity is panacea or promise, one must answer this question: Is Jesus risen from the dead?

Fortunately, that question can be answered beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer is, “Yes, He is Risen.” The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact demonstrable through the accounts of eyewitnesses, written records (both Christian and non-Christian), external evidences, and its historical impact. Don’t believe me? Study the evidences for yourself. Need to know where to find them? Just give me a call or jot me a note, and I’ll point you in the right directions.

I am not a Christian because it serves me well; I am a Christian because Christianity is true. Yes, it serves me well, but it serves me well because it is true.

Why are you a Christian?

“If in this life only we have hope in Christ,

we are of all men the most pitiable.

But now Christ is risen from the dead,

and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

1 Corinthians 15:19-20

A Religion of Peace?

Breadcrumbs taste better than nothing;

Nothing tastes better than a big, juicy steak;

Therefore, breadcrumbs taste better than a big, juicy steak.

Ah, equivocation…

My informal introduction to this informal fallacy took place in geometry class as the teacher was droning on about lines and rays. I had doodled my way forward several chapters into the textbook, and then I stumbled upon the syllogism above. As I read it, my heart soared. Words, words! How mighty are words, I thought. Used adroitly, they can trap the truth, encapsulate it, and then twist, contort, and invert it. They can make falsehood truth, and truth falsehood. They have the power to prove the improvable. And I realized then that, if I learned to use this simple rhetorical sleight of hand, this verbal trick called equivocation, I too could wield that power. – Oh, equivocation, mighty equivocation. You sure seemed like a key to power back then. – If I remember correctly, equivocation’s unexpected appearance at that moment hit me like a swat from a storm trooper’s boot, and I popped out an evil prepubescent chuckle. Or was it the school lunch’s fault? Anyhow…

In reality, of course, the syllogism above does not prove the improvable. The carnivores among us will not be convinced by it that breadcrumbs are tastier than a slab of prime rib, and they will quickly point out the obvious, that a new meaning has been substituted in the second line for the word ‘nothing’, and that the conclusion is created by assuming the equality of the ‘nothing’ on the first line with the ‘nothing’ on the second line.

We could lay out the syllogism in simpler terms, like this: A is better than B; B is better than C; therefore, A is better than C. And when we lay it out that way, it becomes clear that the syllogism remains valid as long as “B” is really “B”. If, however, we insert something else for the second “B”, then it is no longer a valid argument. That pseudo-argument would then look like this: A is better than B; X is better than C; therefore, A is better than C. And any nitwit can see that this latter argument is a failure. The second statement says nothing in relationship to the first.

In the years that have passed since geometry class, I have learned a lot more about deception. (I wish I could say I learned a lot more about geometry, but that wouldn’t be true.) And I have learned that the one of the best ways to pass off a flawed argument (like the one above) is to add “spikes.” These “spikes” are needless details included in an argument for the purpose of diverting attention from the overall logical structure of the argument. Inserted skillfully, they can lull hearers into a stupor in which they fail to catch the logical error included in a premise. The use of spikes (and other rhetorical devices) can make simple arguments complex and cause perceptive people to play the part of patsies.

Now, let’s change topics. For just a moment, consider with me these two concepts: “Islam” and “peace.”

I suspect you have heard these two concepts used in relationship to each other. If you heard President Bush’s speeches following 9-11, or President Obama’s speeches during the past several years, you have. And they are often used in the context of proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace. Here are a couple of examples:

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace.”

President George W. Bush – September 17, 2001

"Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace."
President Barack Obama – November 7, 2010

Yep, in the past decade, Islam has been routinely referred to as a ‘religion of peace’ by our public officials, usually in the aftermath of some horrific attack perpetrated by Islamic ‘extremists.” As we hear our governments make such statements, most of us say, “Huh?” We have witnessed the destruction of the twin towers, the beheadings of American citizens, the bombings at the Boston Marathon, and the murder yesterday in the streets of England; and we wonder how anyone could claim that the religion these people claim to follow is a “religion of peace.” And, yet, we are assured, Muslim authorities maintain that the Quran teaches the way of peace and Islam is a religion of peace.

So, what’s up? Is Islam a religion of peace or isn’t it? Are these terrorists just the lunatic fringe or aren’t they?

Today, I want to suggest to you that we are witnessing a reappearance of our old friend equivocation.

The word being equivocated upon is “peace.” The peace of Islam is not the ‘peace’ that most Westerners consider peace. The peace of Islam is universal submission to the will of Allah. It is a ‘peace’ that will occur once all people have submitted to him (that is, when all people have become Muslims); and, toward that end, toward that “peace,” violent means are acceptable. In other words, violent means utilized in the pursuit of ‘peace’ are justified in the proselytizing of nonbelievers (infidels).

There is not time or space here to address the violence encouraged by the Quran. I will simply observe that there are at least 109 identifiable war verses in it, one out of every 55 verses. As author Don Richardson notes, “These verses are scattered throughout Mohammed’s chapters like blood splatter at a crime scene.” These verses, he adds, “leave readers in no doubt – he [Mohammed] obviously intended his war verses to arouse Muslims to compel the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, even by violence if necessary.”

I was horrified by the violence in England, as I am sure you were too, but I was not surprised. Such events should serve as a wake-up call for us, as Westerners and, more importantly, as Christians. Islam is a religion of violence that demands submission to a despotic god and ushers its followers into the depths of hell. We must proclaim loudly and courageously that the way to true peace is found in Jesus Christ, not in Islam, and we must refuse to allow ourselves to be dulled into complacency by rhetorical sleights-of-hand.

Bottom line? The time has come for another crusade, a crusade of evangelization. Yes, the time has come for believers to rise up in mass and fight Islam with purposeful, focused evangelism. Believers must join together in strategic ways to enter and evangelize the Islamic world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must overcome evil with good. And we can, because we know that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to Jesus Christ.

Could you be a missionary to the Islamic world today? In the future? I’ll bet you could. Sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with those who persecute you is the very best way to spread genuine peace.

“I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you.”

Matthew 5:44

-Christian Pilet

Is Justice a Political Issue?

[Please note: The following is my opinion on a delicate topic -- detainees in Guantanamo Bay. I believe Christians should be thinking and speaking about this topic, and I offer my opinion here in hopes of fostering and continuing the conversation.]

‘I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”

Luke 6:27

Have you ever had you head held under water? I have. It’s terrifying.

I don’t think the kid doing it meant any real harm. He was just roughhousing, but it scared the snot out of me. I panicked, flailing and thrashing as I desperately tried to get to the surface and suck in a breath of air. And from that experience, I learned this: it’s not fun to feel like you’re drowning.

Around that time, I memorized this verse (and, yes, it was an assignment for the Christian school I attended): “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.” (Matthew 7:12). Now, I wasn’t a rocket scientist then, and I’m not one now, but I did get the basic idea behind this verse: be nice. And, applied to the experience above, I’d add, don’t hold people underwater. It’s not nice to terrify people.

Another terrifying experience occurred to me when I was older, at the age of twenty-one.

I had become a Christian as I was being treated for depression in a mental hospital. At that time, I gave my life to Christ and then asked permission to depart the unit, having become convinced of the truthfulness of another verse I had memorized as a child: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly.” (Ps. 1:1) Bottom line: I was convinced that I needed to seek Christian counsel, not secular counsel.

Anyhow, after I made my request, two doctors interviewed me and determined that I was ‘psychotic,’ basing their opinions on the fact that I had ‘created’ a religious conversion to deal with my emotional difficulties. They declared that “when I realized that what I believed wasn’t true, I would attempt to kill myself.” And, in all fairness to these doctors, I must admit that believing one can converse with a person who died and was resurrected about 2,000 years ago does seem psychotic, unless it were true. But, regardless, they decided I was psychotic and a danger to myself.

Thus, labeling me psychotic and a ‘danger to myself’, these doctors were within their legal rights to order me to be involuntarily committed to the hospital – for six weeks, and then two months, and then six months, and then a year, and then two years, and every two years after that, This commitment would be reviewed at each of those points, but the only requirement for its continuation was the agreement by any two doctors that I presented – in their opinion – a danger to myself or others.

This was not the terrifying part. Yes, it was scary, but not terrifying. The terrifying part occurred when I received a visit from my lawyer.

He listened to everything I had to say, and then he answered: “Well, Chris, I’m glad to hear you’ve found something that makes you feel better.” (He wasn’t a believer either.) “But, I have to tell you the reality of how things work here. When you appeal this decision, it will be taken before a judge, and the judge is an elected official. If he lets you out and you kill yourself or someone else, then he will lose the next election. If you stay in here until you die, it will cost him nothing.” He paused, and then added, “You’re not getting out of here.”

Then I was terrified. I was terrified by the realization that I could be held against my will, without genuine legal recourse, without justice, subject only to the whims of a couple of other people.

This was another moment when I remembered Matthew 7:12 “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them,” and I extrapolated this: don’t imprison people and give them no legal recourse. Don’t take away justice. It’s not nice. Give them genuine legal recourse. Give them justice.

Lately I have been thinking a lot about the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay, and I want to raise my voice in protest.

I happened to catch a radio interview with Lt. Col. Stuart Couch. Couch was assigned to serve as a prosecutor for one of the detainees, but in 2003, he withdrew, because he believed he was asked to use evidence obtained through means of coercive interrogation that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During the radio interview, he described some of these methods, and, I think it’s fair to say, they weren’t ‘nice.’

Couch is a Christian. He argues that his faith in Christ necessitated that he declare his opposition to the way Guantanamo detainees have been held.

Laying aside the use of waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and other forms of ‘enhanced interrogation,’ the indefinite detainment of these people is unconscionable. As human beings, they should treated with dignity and justice, and indefinite detainments provide neither.

There are many mitigating circumstances, I know. And I know I don’t know all the ‘top secret’ info about how bad these guys are, and I know some Christians see these detainments as justified in the light of the greater evils they might prevent. But, my question is, do we, as Christians, really want to be in the business of justifying evils? Are these guys really bad enough that we, Americans, want to be bad guys too? Wouldn’t it be better if we Christians were in the business of crying out for justice?

Something needs to change at Guantanamo, and it is time for Christians to unite their voices in the pursuit of justice.

“I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you.”

Matthew 5:44

- Christian Pilet