Posted by John L. Rothra on January 31, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching, General | 
I ran across a movie preview that seems to be getting some attention online. The movie is called “Jesus Camp” and was released on DVD in 2006. I watched the preview and found myself growing concerned over the movie on various levels.
Watch: Jesus Camp Preview
Other Reviews:
“Brainwashed in the Blood?” – Rich Tatum
“Jesus Camp” – Reviews compiled by Jeffrey Overstreet of Christianity Today
My initial reaction to the preview was that it presents a negative image of Christianity, salvation, evangelism, and missions. Because of their nature, movie previews use snippets of the film, sometimes taken out of context, in order to compel people to watch the film. The clips used in the preview include:
- One of the leaders compares her camp for young children and pre-teens to terrorist training camps in “Palestine”
- One leader asks a group of campers if they want to “give up their lives for Jesus.”
- A voice of one of young male camper says, “We’re being trained to be God’s army” is dubbed over a scene of a rod being twirled
- The final scenes include a female leader repeatedly declaring, “This means war!”
These scenes, as presented in the preview, create the image of recruiting children to actual, physical war in the name of God. While most evangelicals believe that we fight in a spiritual army against the powers of darkness as taught throughout scripture, this preview creates the impression of more. As a minister, I cannot and do not condone terrorism in the name of God. This is not evangelism as taught and practiced by Christ and the apostles.
Beyond the initial reaction, I also found the clips depicted a camp full of hype and emotion and lacking in sound doctrine or theological teaching. Children were encouraged to shout popular phrases without understanding the deeper meaning behind their cries. One such scene reveals this problem. One young boy, after being asked how long he was saved, states, “At five I got saved because I just wanted more out of life.” Few, if any, five year old children want “more” out of life. The idea of “wanting more out of life” is a phrase that sounds great, but I have yet to encounter a five-year old that has such desires. Instead, as the father of a five year old, I can say that my five year old wants my attention, love, and more toys. She wants to spend time with her grandparents and wants cheese pizza for supper.
When I was saved at the age of nine, I didn’t want “more out of life,” but I did want to spend forever with Jesus. I find the testimony of the boy difficult to reconcile and hard to believe as presented.
Also, although Paul and Christ taught about dying to yourself and giving up your own life for Jesus, these ideas are full of theological significance that few children comprehend. Few adults comprehend them for that matter. Put simply, it means following Jesus first and foremost. It means giving up our own desires in order to submit to the desires of God. It does not mean suicide bombings or any other self-destructive language. However, young children seem to be taught to give up themselves amid calls for war at the camp portrayed in the movie.
Overall, I recommend against watching this movie. Instead, if you are seeking a good Christian film, there are many more that are safe for all viewers. Below is a list of some Christian movies safe for the family.
Facing the Giants, DVD
By Alex Kendrick / Provident Music Distribution
Created by a church in Georgia to evangelize non-believers and encourage believers, this inspiring story about a losing high school football coach with a new game plan will have your whole town talking about trusting God for the impossible! Over three hours of bonus footage includes behind-the-scenes features; “With You” music video; interviews; and Bible studies. (PG.) 111 minutes.
Love’s Abiding Joy, DVD
By Janette Oke / Word Entertainment, Inc.
After their treacherous journey west, Missie and her husband set up their homestead and begin raising a family. Now that the railroad connects the frontier states, Clark and Marty Davis can finally visit their daughter, Missie, and meet their adorable grandsons. But the joyful reunion is interrupted by tragedy. An unforgettable family drama, directed by Michael Landon, Jr. Rated PG (Mild Thematic Elements). Approx. 87 minutes.
Thou Shalt Laugh, DVD
By Word Entertainment, Inc.
Side-grasping, air-gasping, flat-out fun for the entire family! From the producer of A Walk to Remember and The Last of the Mohicans, this hilarious collection of Christian comedians was filmed in Hollywood before a live audience of 5,000 with Patricia Heaton, Thor Ramsey, Taylor Mason, Jeff Allen, and many others on stage. This special edition includes over 15 minutes of bonus footage of America’s funniest Christian comedians! Widescreen. Closed-captioned. Approx. 110 minutes.
The Perfect Stranger, DVD
By Christiano Film Group
Despite her successful career as an attorney, Nikki Cominsky’s life is far from perfect. When she receives a mysterious invitation to “dinner with Jesus of Nazareth,” she accepts, thinking it’s an intriguing prank. What ensues is a whirlwind evening of debate and revelation with a most unforgettable man! Will her life be changed forever? Approx. 105 minutes.
Posted by John L. Rothra on January 23, 2007 under General |
Congratulations to my brother-in-law and sister, Ryan and Michelle, on the birth of daughter, Erin Leigh.
Erin Leigh
6 lbs. 9 oz., 18 3/4 in. long
I offer to you the Aaronic blessing and ask God to fulfill it in your lives.
“The LORD bless you, and keep you; the LORD make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance on you, and give you peace.” (Num 6:24-26, NASB)
Posted by John L. Rothra on January 15, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching, Site Updates |
A recent article on FoxNews.com reports a skull found that is a mix of ‘modern’ human and Neanderthal species. The skull exhibits traits of both, though it is categorized as a ‘modern’ human. It is speculated–because no proof exists–that Neanderthals and ‘modern’ humans interbred to create this third version of human. However, the most interesting part of this article is a quote from the leading researcher.
“Such differences raise important questions about the evolutionary history of modern humans,” [João] Zilhão said. “They could be the result of evolutionary reversal or reflect incomplete paleontological sampling of Middle Paleolithic human diversity. They could also reflect admixture with Neanderthal populations as modern humans spread through western Eurasia. This mixture would have resulted in both archaic traits retained from the Neanderthals and unique combinations of traits resulting from the blending of previously divergent gene pools.” (emphasis added).
Some things worth noting in this quote are (1) the speculative words “could” and “would” are used three times and (2) three different causes are postulated. What makes this interesting is it shows that they have no real, factual, provable, or testable hypotheses to explain this skull. Instead, they offer speculation and conjecture based on a macro-evolutionary presupposition and evidence that seems to support, albeit very poorly, their evolutionary beliefs.
What’s interesting about evolution is that it does not fit its own designation. The so-called evolutionary theory is not a theory at all, but is, instead, a hypothesis. To understand this, one must understand the scientific method. This method is “an empirical, inductive approach to knowledge.” Empirical means that it is based primarily on sensory experience. This is the aspect in which measurability falls. Only empirical evidence is measurable. Inductive means that it depends on probability and not certainty. Scientists are willing to accept a measure of failure.1 If something is true 99 times out of 100, they say it is true all the time, although it is actually true 99 percent of the time. The scientific method seeks to obtain the greatest possible result in order to determine truth. Putting this simply, the scientific method uses measurable, sensory experience to determine the most probable answer in order to understand truth.
Within the method concept follows a certain hierarchy: hypothesis, theory, law. A hypothesis is the first stage and is an “unproved theory, proposition, or supposition.” A theory, the second stage, is “a hypothesis that has passed every objective test, thus yielding greater certainty that it is true.” A law, the final stage, is “a theory that passes every conceivable test, thus yielding the highest level of certainty that can be achieved.”2
Before something can be considered scientific, it must submit itself to the scientific method. The key to the scientific method, however, is testing. Despite its claims as a scientific theory, evolution is neither testable nor has it “passed every objective test.” Instead, as this news article proves, more and more holes arise that draws attention to the fact that something is wrong with the supposed ‘evolutionary theory.’ In other words, this theory fails test after test as new discoveries are made. Therefore, evolution remains a hypothesis and has not yet reached the level of a scientific theory.
Now that a basic understanding of the scientific method exists, it is worth mentioning the presupposition of those investigating the man’s origins. Many scientists investigating man’s origins accept evolution as a scientific fact, often elevating it to a law, although it never has reached that plateau following the scientific method outlined above. Nevertheless, any evidence is seen through the lens of evolution, which colors their investigation and causes them to be biased and unobjective. The result is a tainted investigation rather than an objective one. However, because all are human, we all can easily fall victim of this problem: approaching evidence with a presupposed bias.
However, some people have abandoned their belief in evolution in support of arguing against it, including Carl Baugh, curator of the Creation Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. Further, other scientists have investigated both the science of evolution and the evidence in order to reach the truth. Although we all have presuppositions, it is possible to remain fairly neutral and not seek to perceive all data regarding man’s origins through a biased lens, but to examine the evidence and ask what it wants to reveal. Put more simply, scientists and readers should not seek to prove or disprove a hypothesis or theory, but should simply examine the evidence and let the evidence tell the story.
I believe the evidence continues to negate the traditional evolutionary hypothesis of macro-evolution (evolution between species).3 However, I do believe in micro-evolution (evolution within the same species). Micro-evolution is often called adaptation. Because of the evidences that poke many holes in macro-evolution, I believe that this origin must be rejected. The only other concept proposed is creationism. I believe in creation, not because of scientific evidence, but because of my faith in God. While this does, admittedly result in a presupposition on my part, the evidence, when analyzed, will support the creation account recorded in the Scriptures.
Further resources for study:
Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design
By Thomas Woodward / Baker
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities
By William A. Dembski / Cambridge University Press
Paperback
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design
By William Dembski / InterVarsity Press
Paperback
Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
By Thomas Woodward / Baker
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
By William Dembski / InterVarsity Press
Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design
By William Dembski, ed. / InterVarsity Press
Reclaiming Science from Darwinism: A Clear Understanding of Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
By Kenneth Poppe / Harvest House Publishers
The Privileged Planet, DVD
By Randolf Productions Inc
Video
1Craig V. Mitchell,
Charts of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 17.
2Ibid., 17.
3Macro-evolution is commonly called the evolutionary theory, the theory of evolution, and Darwinian evolution (named after Charles Darwin).
Posted by John L. Rothra on January 12, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching, Site Updates |
The John Rothra Ministries blog has undergone a name change to better reflect the purpose of the ministry. The name was “From the Pastor’s Desk.” The new name is “Salvation’s Call” based on Romans 10:13.
For “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” – Rom 10:13, NASB
Jesus said he came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10) and that whoever believes on him will be saved (John 3:18). Do you know about your need?
Do you think you’re good enough for heaven? Find out here.
Do you want to know how to be forgiven and saved? Find out here.
Posted by John L. Rothra on January 1, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching |
The Longview News-Journal ran an article where they interviewed local religious leaders to get their views regarding the debate over time designations. The debate is whether the traditional B.C./A.D. designations should be replaced by the non-religious B.C.E./C.E. designations. For those unfamiliar with these terms, these are the meanings of these terms.
- B.C. – Before Christ
- A.D. – Anno Domino (Year of our Lord)
- B.C.E. – Before Common Era (in place of B.C.)
- C.E. – Common Era (in place of A.D.)
The News-Journal referenced two religious leaders: Dr. Keith Rothra, pastor of Judson Community Baptist Church and professor of Texas and United States government; and Anwar Khalifa, local Muslin leader and president of the East Texas Islamic Society. Their responses to this debate were quite intruguing and revealing.
Source Article: Religious leaders fight secular time designations
Their responses are quite revealing and I must say I agree with them. Below are some short quotes from the article.
“I think we have become a hypersensitive society,” the Rev. Keith Rothra of Judson Community Baptist Church said. “It has been B.C. and A.D., for Before Christ and Anno Domino (Latin, in the Year of Our Lord) for centuries, and now we have become so hypersensitive to make sure no one gets offended about anything.”
“Is that what it’s come to?” Anwar Khalifa asked. “Now we’re going to go and pick on something that’s been around forever? I mean, we’ve got bigger fish to fry than B.C. or B.C.E. We’ve got sharks that we need to fry.”
“How about we if we called it the year 2006?” Rothra asked, dropping both suffixes. “If you want to get accurate about it, Jesus was probably born in 4 B.C. That would make it 2010.”
He [Dr. Rothra] brings up another cogent point: Most Biblical scholars do place the first Christmas at 4 B.C. or 6 B.C. The religious tolerance site places some definitely non-Christian events in the year 1 A.D./C.E, citing the July edition of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. That was the year Buddhism was introduced in China and the year lions became extinct in Western Europe, according to the site.
I recommend reading the full article.
My response is this is a minor issue and can be used to detract the church from its primary mission of making disciples. While I prefer the traditional designations and I do believe the change is an part of an larger attempt to neuter the world of any Christian imagery, this debate can be a distraction. I recommend using the traditional designations and not being so uptight or so easily offended. It seems that people are very easily offended and want to ensure nobody becomes offended by what others say. However, many Christians are offended by the anti-religious movement. So, the lesson is that people are too sensitive and are looking for anything to start a fight. The church needs to not be sucked into this vacuum and must always remain faithful to Christ and working toward its mission.
