Theology of Twilight - Implications on Purity

So, while we're on the subject of Theology... let's talk about vampires. I'm referring to a recent collection of novels which center around the life of a high school aged girl who falls in love with a vampire: Twilight. I've read them. I'm admitting it to the world, "I'm a man in his twenties who has read and enjoyed the Twilight saga." While I realize the books have been most popular with teenage girls, the reason I started reading them is a theological one. Let me explain.

I started by going to watch the movie "Twilight" with my wife. I started to get nervous when we were in the ticket line with what looked like a sorority recruitment camp. Nevertheless, we took our seats and were thrilled to enjoy a great movie (and an additional soundtrack from the audience). As I mentioned above, the movie (and books) are about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. The girl is named Bella (which, itself, means "beautiful", and comes from Isabella, which means "My God is bountiful. God of plenty. Devoted to God", made popular by queens of Spain) and the vampire is named Edward (which means "wealthy guard", made popular by kings of England). The two fall in love, of course, but the nature of their relationship is ever determined by the facts of their natures. Bella is human, young, in many ways weak, and very clumsy. Edward is a vampire, and due to that nature is incredibly attractive: has fantastic bronze hair, bright amber eyes, and stone skin (which sparkles in sunlight). Also, as a vampire, he has nearly limitless strength and speed and thirsts for human blood. Of course this last attribute is the most critical source of tension in the entire series. If he were like every other vampire the book would have been very short. Bella would have taken her first steps into biology class and been met by brilliant white teeth... the story would have been over. What makes this love story possible is that Edward is not like all other vampires.

Edward is different from others of his kind because he is a follower of Carlisle Cullen, the first vampire who has denied his thirst for human blood, choosing, instead, to drink the blood of lesser creatures. Edward has decided to not give into his natural desire to drink the blood his body desires. Edward can also read minds, which is a gift unique to him, but I don't think that's why Bella (and every teenage girl) loves him.

Let me give away my main point: The real reason Edward is amazing is not the bronze hair, amber eyes, or stone skin, it is because he desires to be righteous. When Edward and Bella fall in love, he is hesitant to even kiss her for fear that he would lose control. Edward firmly states (in the book) that he will not have sex until marriage. Edward won't have sex with Bella for the same reason he won't drink her blood: to do either would kill her and reveal the monster that is his nature. He is incredible because he loves her and loves her righteously. The hair, eyes, skin are products of his vampiric nature... and those alone would leave Bella dead. He needed to also be upright.

What I saw in the movie, and saw again when I later read the books, was a metaphor for the life of a Christian. Edward had a nature which made him a monster. All mankind has a nature which makes them monsters: a sinful nature which is opposed to God and opposed to His law. Edward has been changed by his relationship to Carlisle, who, though a vampire himself, has never (ever!) given into his vampiric nature. Christians have been changed by our relationship to Jesus Christ, who, though a human himself, has never (ever!) sinned.

I also see a parallel for a specific scenario that I've dealt with in my own life and I'd imagine most teenagers themselves are or will soon deal with: purity. Take a situation where a girl and guy fall in love. They probably will have a desire to elevate the relationship physically. To elevate the physical intimacy to inappropriate levels is against God's law. God has a context for intimacy, and it is within a covenant relationship called marriage. To have sex before marriage is immoral. God calls it sin:

1 Corinthians 6:

18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

I bring this up because I see a parallel between the natural desires of unmarried couples and Edward's thirst. Consider with me for a moment that Edward thirsts for Bella. Part of his desire for her is good and right and true, but it is always stained to some degree by his inner urges. So it is with a young man who has met a young woman he loves. He longs for her, and this can be a good longing, yet part of him desires to take things beyond the appropriate boundaries. It is a constant struggle for a Christian.

Consider next that if Edward were to, even for a few moments, give in to his pressing thirst. It would literally kill Bella. If you've read Midnight Sun, you'll know that it would kill Edward, too. He would forever live with the monster that he had become. When unmarried people perform acts that were intended for marriage, it kills them. Please don't think I'm being over dramatic here. Consider what God tells us in the book of James:

James 1:

14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Please understand, I am not saying that sex is wrong. Sex is wonderful. It is a gift from God for mankind. It has a right context, though. The right context for sexual intimacy is marriage. Bella calls Edward "old fashioned" when he wants to wait until marriage (Eclipse). Sadly, it is seen as "old fashioned" by much of the world, today. The way God intended things, though, should not be considered "old fashioned" as if not relevant today, at least by those who are called by God to be His own. God holds marriage in such high regard that he wants us to protect it:

Hebrews 13:

4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Marriage in this life is not the final end, though. Marriage, like so many parts of this life, is intended to give us a picture of that which is to come. Marriage is the most intimate relationship for a human to have with another. What is amazing is that God has decreed that his people will one day be united to Jesus Christ. He describes this union as a marriage.

Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Revelation 21:
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Marriage is worth protecting, worth waiting for, because heaven is worth waiting for.

As I recall the teenage girls screaming when Edward first appeared on screen, I think to myself, why did they adore him? Why is Edward worth screaming for? I'll tell you that it is not because of the hair, the eyes, the skin... or even because he can read minds or is old-fashioned. Young women love Edward because he would protect their virtue in a society which wishes to exploit it. Edward is someone they can trust because he has shown himself to be trustworthy. As these young women look for someone love, I pray that they would find a man who is, in this sense, like Edward.

“That’s it, isn’t it?” The short laugh that escaped me was more shocked than amused. “You’re trying to protect your virtue!” I covered my mouth with my hand to muffle the giggle that followed. The words were so . . . old-fashioned.

“No, silly girl,” he muttered against my shoulder. “I’m trying to protect yours.”

-Eclipse (Book 3)

Faith Alone? ... yep.

I was recently in discussions with a friend of mine over what the gospel is. My friend is a Catholic and I am Evangelical. We disagreed. He directed me to a website from the "Bible Christian Society". I'm a fan of the bible and am a Christian, so I gladly checked out what was there. My friend asked me to download and listen to a lecture called "Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone?". I happily obliged.

The lecture was by a man named John Martignoni, and John began by introducing 3 false assumptions that Protestants make. As a Protestant, I was eager to understand what I had been assuming falsely. These false assumptions that I had apparently been making were:

1. You have to believe either the (Roman) Catholic Church or the bible.
2. The (Roman) Catholic Church teaches a salvation by works.
3. And a third one... Scripture teaches that we are saved by faith alone.

The third struck me as odd. I'll assure you that I didn't know then what the Roman Catholic Church's teaching was on these matters, so I didn't mind being accused of misunderstanding them. The third, however, was a shock to my system... as an Evangelical, the accusation was preposterous. The doctrine of Faith Alone is central to the gospel itself, how could someone assert that is wasn't in the bible? This is a very serious accusation, indeed, as the apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 1 verses 8 and 9 in no uncertain terms that anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed.

As I listened on, John Martignoni read verses from the bible that he felt Protestants misinterpreted. Each of these, he countered with verses which he felt proved his point. If you'd like to take a look, he's got them listed on his website. For each of the verse responses he gave, he remarked that the bible taught faith and works. He even accused Protestants of misunderstanding Ephesians 2:8-9 by not also reading Ephesians 2:10.

At the capstone of his argument, John Martignoni read from James chapter 2. Particularly, he said that the only verse in the bible which has "faith" and "alone" next to each other is James 2:24:

James 2:
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

John Martignoni claims that this verse teaches against the doctrine of faith alone. Is he right? Well, first it would be helpful to identify what the doctrine of faith alone is and also get some context for the verse in question.

What is Faith Alone?

Faith alone is the doctrine rediscovered at the Protestant Reformation. It basically identifies the instrument by which a person recieves salvation. The Reformers held that God justifies (accounts as righteous) a person based on the work of Christ applied to them through faith. Because Christ's works are perfect, the faithful person is immediately acceptable to God, and thus has eternal salvation. The question then comes up:

'what about good works?" If a person is saved by having faith in Jesus Christ, do they need to do anything else? Shouldn't they also be trying to be good people?'

I've mentioned this in another post, but I think it should be mentioned here: faith and good works are distinct, but not separate. The Reformers certainly held that "we are justified by faith alone" but also that "the faith by which a man is justified is never alone." In other words, a person who is justified is also being sanctified. When John Martignoni points to passages in the bible which call for good works in believers, I agree wholeheartedly with the passages, but can't help but feel that John Martignoni doesn't understand the entirety of the doctrine he opposes.

James's Argument.

So, concerning John Martignoni's argument clinching verse, James 2:24, is James correcting a false doctrine? The context will help us. James actually asks the question he intends to answer in verse 14:

James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

James asks the question: 'can someone have true, saving faith but lack good works?' The answer James goes on to give, and the answer with which that the Reformers wholeheartedly agree is "NO!". Saving faith is always accompanied by works. These are distinct but never separate. Does a person exist who is justified but not being sanctified? NO.

From the context, we see that the verse which John Martignoni claims argues against the doctrine of faith alone is actually an argument against a wrong understanding of faith itself. We should understand verse 24 in light of verse 14.

The faith which James speaks against in James chapter 2 is so inherently different than the faith which Reformed Theology holds to, that to say that James is speaking against the doctrine of "faith alone" is either a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine itself, of what James is saying, or of both.

I disagree with you, John Martignoni. When I read Ephesians 2:8-10, I see the doctrine of faith alone...

Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

...and yes, that includes verse 10.

A Word of Warning

In my Sabbath morning study through the book of James (and the commentary, 24/7 Christian, by Anthony Selvaggio), we covered James 3:1-12. There are words of warning... and as I've recently started this blog, I especially feel their significance.

James 3:

3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, [1] and set on fire by hell. [2]

First, James charges that those who teach will be judged with a more strict judgment. Wow. It is not lightly that I started this blog, yet the magnitude of this is hitting home hard. These are words of warning to me. It is no small thing that God holds those who speak accountable. Consider Jesus' words:

Matthew 12:
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

As I write blog posts (especially considering anyone in the world can read them) I need to be sure that I am speaking the truth. Concerning my readers, if I have any, do you consider my words in light of James 3:1-6? Do I steer the ship or control the horse? Both of these are positive in that they bring a large body under control. The last words are those that I want my readers to take as a warning: I may be the one who sets a forest ablaze.

How do I know if what I am saying is true? How would someone who reads my words know the same? I consider Jesus again:

John 5:

30 I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. 31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true. 32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. ... 36 .... For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. ... 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

Jesus himself recognizes that his words aren't to be taken on only his own authority. He draws his audience to consider three witnesses: His Works, His Father, and The Scriptures. These three witnesses are connected. His works are those his Father has given Him to do. His Father has borne witness, and has sent the prophets and revealed in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah. The last line is a serious charge to Jesus' audience, the Pharisees: "If you do not believe Moses' writings, how will you believe my words?". We should take seriously that if we do not believe the scriptures, we cannot believe Jesus. If we do not believe Jesus, we should have no hope of eternal life.

This is where I stake my authority: I have none in myself. The only authority I have is the degree to which what I say agrees with scripture. Hold me accountable. Search the scriptures, for these have eternal life as they bear witness to Jesus Christ.

Why Dry?

Recently I gave a presentation to a broad audience at work. On the invitation, several questions I had answered were displayed, to familiarize those invited with me as a person. One of the questions was "What is your favorite book genre?". My response was "dry and boring theology". I like, and even love, theology. Not everyone shares my sentiment. I did a google search of "dry theology" and found from the context shown for the results that most people hold "dry theology" in contempt. In general there were two assessments of "dry theology".

The first was that "dry theology" which was only in one's head and did not lead to action in one's hands is a useless theology. I agree wholeheartedly with rejection of such "dry theology". James writes in his epistle of 'faith which does not result in works' (James 2:14-26). He assesses that such a faith is a dead faith. In the same way, "dry theology" which is a mere assent to some theological deductions or dogmas and does not lead to a changed life and a reaffirmed love for God is not useful. It profits none. It is worthless. I do not intend for readers of this blog to read and have all that they've read remain only in their head. If what I say is true to what God has revealed, it should result in fruit in my life.

The second assessment of "dry theology" is that it is useless all together. Indeed, many people hold a distain for all theology because they find it all useless. I was reminded of "dry bones" from Ezekiel 37 (Ezekiel 37:1-14). In the valley, there were dead bones. These bones were dead, cold, and dry. Bones in this state are useless. Nevertheless, anyone who considers the state of these bones has underneath their skin and flesh bones of their own. Bones give structure. Bones give support. Bones are rigid. They do require flesh to keep them moist. They do require muscle to make them move. No person has distain for the bones within themselves. In the same way, I feel that we must not have distain for theology. It gives structure, support, and rigidity to the flesh of our lives.

In a blog, I do not expect that I can bring "dry theology" to be anything other than words on a screen. I do not have the power to bring dry bones to life. But God does. Faith comes from hearing (Romans 10:14-17). God has the ability to make my fallible words useful for those whom He has chosen for himself. I intend to write of what I know of the God I serve. I pray that God will use it to serve Himself well.