How to Improve Christian Movies

I’ve already previously discussed my problem with Christian movies, and why I think the focus of the Christian filmmaking paradigm should shift from making Christian movies to making great movies.  For magnetic acting, brilliant direction, inspired scripts, engrossing storytelling, gorgeous cinematography, moving sound design, and exquisite production value can prove to be more impactful foretastes of the richness of the Gospel than a direct but diluted delivery of it, something most Christian movies are guilty of.  As a follow up on that, I intend to convey in this essay a thought, a suggestion, on how Christian movies can be bettered.

22 Bite-Sized Devotionals

Sometime in 2015, I posted a couple of mini-devotionals in Facebook everyday, for 22 consecutive days.  I recently found their drafts while cleaning up my files, and I decided to post all of them here…

A Musing on Christian Movies

I’m a Christian.  I’m proud of being so.  But I’m not proud of modern Christian movies.  Sure, there’s a few that I liked.  But even so, I’m generally frustrated because Christian filmmakers seem to be unable to make quality films.

You might say, “Hey, the important thing is that Christian movies may lead others to Christ.”  That may be true.  But we can’t give Christian movies a pass just because it has a “noble cause.”  It’s still a movie.  It should be subject to the same technical and creative standards that we hold for such form of art.  It’s not exempted from having its value as an art form evaluated and scrutinized just because it’s supposed to carry the Gospel.

Indeed, the Gospel is important.  And, yes, movies – like all forms of art – can definitely be used as a medium for its delivery.  But the Gospel is given more honor if it is delivered honestly, admirably, and beautifully. 

A Brief Reflection on Taking Risks, Spurring from Watching 'David Blaine: Beyond Magic'

Three years after his last one, David Blaine finally had another TV special, David Blaine: Beyond Magic, which aired earlier this month.  I found it not as fascinating and mindblowing as when I watched his earlier TV specials as a kid/teen, since, at this point, I already have familiarity with what his deal is.  The special was entertaining, but gone was the enchanting novelty.

If you don’t know who David Blaine is, he’s just one of the world’s most famous and groundbreaking magicians of all time.  Through his TV specials, he became well-known for doing shocking close-up street magic, which can only be explained by one of the following reasons: a.) the featured spectators had been part of the act all along; b.) he had sold his soul to Baphomet, and thus, he’s actually performing legit sorcery and telepathy; or c.) he’s simply a real-life amalgamation of every magician in Now You See Me – a master hypnotist, illusionist, and con man rolled into one.

In Beyond Magic, he does a new set of astonishing, seemingly impossible tricks (my favorite was when he does a card trick over a video call, with the one he’s calling the one actually doing the handling of the cards).  This time (like with the case with his 2013 special), the audience he performs his tricks for are celebrities.  Having famous people like Johnny Depp, Steph Curry, Margot Robbie, Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, and David Beckham (to name some) be stunned, frightened, and grossed out by Blaine do make the whole thing more enjoyable than having random, ordinary people.

If vs. Is

“If” is one of my favorite words.  Logical thought is hinged on “if.”  “If” sets the premise.  “If” sets condition.  “If” sets context.  “If” sets the tone.  “If” sets an assumption.  “If” incites the imagination to picture what could be.  “If” sparks thought experiments.  From the “if”, the “therefore” – a conclusion – is made.

“If” is a beautiful word, and serves a versatile function in explicating aspects of reality and truth.  But there’s one important thing that “if” can never do: invalidate an “is.”

The Sulu Problem

Yesterday, it was announced that Star Trek Beyond will reveal that the nu-Star Trek version of Hikaru Sulu (played by Jon Cho) is gay.  This was supposed to honor George Takei, the original actor of Sulu, who is gay and an outspoken LGBT activist.

Ironically, Takei said in a recent interview that he doesn’t want Sulu to be made gay.   He declares that this “twisted” Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s intention for the character.  He even appealed to the team behind Star Trek Beyond to not to do it, but instead create a new character who happens to be gay.  He urged them: “Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.”

A Final Reminder to Christians Before This Election

This election season, I find it both saddening and amusing that some of my Christian friends in Facebook are more passionate in promoting their candidates than they’ve ever done with Christ.  While they share dozens of posts endorsing their candidates (or discrediting his or her opponents) each day, they have rarely or not at all shared Scripture or posts glorifying Jesus Christ.  They actively engage in debate against others who support the opposing candidates, and yet, when it comes to urging others to believe in Christ, they shy away from it.  It’s as if having their candidates win the election is the most important thing for them.

There’s nothing wrong with desiring a better government and supporting a candidate.  But here’s a friendly reminder: we Christians shouldn’t lose perspective!  Our earthly citizenship and what comes with it – suffrage, politics, patriotism, etc. – is far secondary to our pursuit of the matters relating to our heavenly citizenship.

Who Do I Want to Be President? Abraham Lincoln

The Philippine presidential election is about two months away, and I’m still pretty much undecided who I will vote for.  When I was recently asked who I want to be president, I answered jokingly, “Abraham Lincoln.”  I further explained that Lincoln is my most favorite president in history and I will probably vote for the one that I feel is closest to his essence (though none of these five presidentiables are marginally in the same level of Lincoln).

There was a time during my childhood when I primarily enjoyed reading biographical and historical books – especially when it comes to wartimes (in fact, back then, I was more interested and familiar with world history than Philippine history, which was what was being taught at school); this was a time when I still had a naïve, romanticized perspective on war.  During these readings, I found myself drawn to the presidents of the United States of America – again, particularly to the presidents that served during times when the country was engaged in any form of war.  I have a volume of books on US presidents until Bush, Sr. which my parents bought from the “late” MV Doulos (a bookstore-ship that visited our city twice during my childhood; will write a tribute to it sometime in the future), and I read them thoroughly.  Among the US presidents, I became deeply fascinated with Abraham Lincoln, who served during one of my most “favorite” wars in history (again, I was a kid with a naïve, romanticized perspective on war), the American Civil War.

As I read more and more about Lincoln – in articles, books, passages, etc. – my fondness and admiration grew.  Thus, I’ve been an Abraham Lincoln fan since I was young (for the record, my second most favorite US president is Thomas Jefferson, for being an all-around genius).  In fact, a decade ago, 16-year-old me already wrote an essay (a sloppy one) on Abraham Lincoln, in which I called him “The Best President of America.”  In this new essay, I will not only be reiterating the details I had stated in that previous essay, but furthermore, I will also explain why the 16^th President of the United States is my benchmark for what a president of a country should basically be.

“Love the Lord with All Your Mind”: A Call to Pursue the Enrichment of Christian Intellect

One of the aspects of modern Christianity that I lament about is the seemingly lack of focus on developing intellect.  It’s as if there’s an unwritten, tacit paradigm that the intellect is irrelevant and irreconcilable with the spiritual.  Thus, many Christians tend to undermine or neglect or even reject the sharpening of the mind, which result to distressingly widespread gullibility, paranoia, and shallow – or, worse, false – theology.

Such Christians have no solid belief foundations, thus, they are easily swayed on what to believe in.  They easily embrace false doctrines (i.e. prosperity gospel, universalism) which they derive a feel-good feeling from, and eagerly adopt and switch to the current hot “Christian” fads – books, preachers, music, teachings – without thoroughly discerning if they are indeed supported by Scriptures.

Such Christians would rather waste time and effort on pursuing and promoting ridiculous conspiracy theories (e.g. “research” that “prove” that the world’s celebrities and elite are Illuminati) and sensationalized, unbiblical prophecies (e.g. the world will end at a particular date) instead of sharing the objective truths of the Gospel.  They burn Harry Potter books because they believe that these encourage children to practice witchcraft.  They share absurd “facts” or links on Facebook without verifying its authenticity (e.g. LOL means Lucifer is Lord).

A common practice among Christians these days is to take a minimalist stand when it comes to theology.  They say, “All that is necessary for me to know as a Christian is that Jesus loves me, I love him, and I want to tell others about him.  That should be enough.”  It sounds noble and humble, but in fact, it’s pretty dangerous.  Such approach eventually leads Christians to be exactly as what I’ve described in the past two paragraphs.  I also have to disagree that that “should be enough” for a Christian.  If we truly love Jesus, we want to represent him and his teachings with thorough Biblical accuracy – cautious and apprehensive that we might dishonor Him in painting our picture of Him to others.  Furthermore, according to the so-called “love chapter”, i.e. 1 Corinthians 13, an aspect of love is that it rejoices with the truth (v.6).  Hence, if we truly love Jesus, we should then sincerely pursue having a deeper understanding of His Truth and upholding it.

Furthermore, the Greatest Commandment (Matt. 22:37-38) says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”  It means that it’s essential for us Christians to love God with the utmost full extent of our being, and this includes utilizing the best of our minds.

Thus, I believe that the development of intellect is something important for Christians.  Now, I’m not saying it’s the most integral thing.  Of course, no matter how intelligent one is, without the Holy Spirit’s active revelation, discovering truth and obtaining wisdom are impossible.  But it’s nevertheless important for a Christian to make the effort of thinking with the best of his or her capability, and to be consistent and logical in his or her beliefs.

God's Sovereignty Extends Over Sin

Did God cause sin?  Hmmm.  “Cause” is a very tricky term.  It depends on what is the intent of using such term.  If “cause” would imply that God can be blamed for it, then God didn’t “cause” sin in that sense.  But if “cause” is simply used to mean ordaining it to be, then God “caused” sin.  God did not directly create sin, but He permitted it to be brought about.  Why?  For His glory, of course.

This might be a controversial assertion on my part.  But it’s what I believe in based on these presuppositions:

1.) The ultimate purpose of everything that God does is to bring glory to Himself (Exodus 14:4, 18; Isaiah 48:11; Romans 11:36; Habakkuk 2:14; John 7:18, 16:14, 17:24; etc.).  This is not because God is a narcissist.  It’s just that He’s the Supreme Being – nothing or no one is greater than Him.  If God would choose to value anything or anyone above his own worth, then He would be committing idolatry.  And, of course, that’s impossible for it would be contradictory to God’s holy nature.

2.) God has absolute supremacy in all things (Psalm 103:19, Isaiah 45:7).  He is in control always.  Everything that happens is in accordance to His will (Isaiah 14:24) – whether we perceive it as good or bad (Lamentations 3:38) – and nothing and no one will frustrate it (Job 42:2).  Moreover, God is not a passive God.  His omnipotence allows Him to hands-on direct every detail of His Creation to function in accordance to His will (Lamentations 3:37).  Even if there’s such a thing as human free will, such thing is limited, for it can’t go against God’s sovereign will (Proverbs 16:9, 21:1), and God would even proceed to manipulate someone’s will for His own purpose (Exodus 9:12, Romans 9:17, Deuteronomy 30:6).  Even the Devil is under God’s sovereignty, for he can’t make a move without God permitting it (Job 1-2).  And God sometimes allow evil to happen because His omniscient wisdom know that good will come out of it (Genesis 50:20).  Hence, whatever happens, it did happen because God ordained it to be so (either through permission or direct involvement).

3.) The second preposition is always actively working to bring the first preposition about (Psalm 115:3, 135:6).

Therefore, if these presuppositions are true – which I firmly believe to be so based on biblical axioms – I can conclude that since sin exists, then it’s only because God permitted it, so that this may become part of His overarching plan to ultimately bring glory to Himself.  How?  Consider this:

1.) God created Lucifer knowing fully that he would fall and become Satan.

2.) With Satan around, Adam and Even were tempted to sin.  God knew what would happen, but He allowed it, so that sin would exist.

3.) With sin existing, there’s now a need for a Savior.

4.) And by becoming the Savior, Jesus Christ is glorified (Hebrews 1:3, 2:9).

For God’s grace to be fully realized in our reality, sin has to exist.  According to Romans 5:20, “…where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.”  Of course, this doesn’t mean sin should be celebrated (Romans 6:1), but it tells us that there’s a correlation between sin and grace.  The greater the sin, the more glorious grace is for overwhelming it.  For us to appreciate Jesus as Savior, there must be first a terrible and desperate state to save us from.  For us to appreciate grace, we must first know sin and its consequence.  For us to appreciate being found, we must first have been lost.  For us to appreciate seeing, we must first have been blind.

In other words, sin per se does not glorify God, but the existence of sin provides an opportunity to display His glory.

Of course, no matter how well it is logically explained, through an inadequate and humanistic perspective, it’s difficult to accept that, though God ordained sin, He can’t be blamed to it.  For isn’t there fault in someone who allowed an evil to happen when he could have prevented it?

Let me use an illustration to explain how it can be.  Let’s say a certain novelist wrote a story wherein Jack murdered Bob.  We can say that both the novelist and Jack are responsible, at different planes of reality, of killing Bob.  However, only Jack committed the murder, not the novelist, for the novelist only wrote the murder into the story and it happened in the story’s world, not the novelist’s world.  Therefore, it would be tremendously unfair and stupid to try and convict the novelist for murder.  In fact, if the murder story turns out to be good, the novelist will receive acclaim by being a terrific storyteller.

Of course, we aren’t fictional characters.  But this analogy is to point out that the difference of levels between God’s Reality and our reality is so infinitely vast that ours is “fictional” in relation to God’s.  Thus, in this context, sin is serving as a “plot device” to the “best-selling novel” being written by God to bring a glorious ending to the epic story of His “protagonists” (i.e. His chosen people) and to Himself as “Novelist.”

Now, the Bible didn’t use an “author and his story” analogy.  But in Romans 9, the analogy of “potter and clay” is presented, which basically has the same main effect as “author and his story.” 

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”  But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”  Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.

 Amen!

Indeed, God is God.  He created us and this world we’re in, and He can do whatever He pleases.  And we don’t have the right to question Him in what He does, and He isn’t obligated to defend Himself (Job 38-42; Daniel 4:35).

For the depraved humanistic mind, this will prove impossible to accept.  Even Christian minds will have a hard time grasping this concept.  This definitely requires, in a sense, an advanced kind of intellectual capacity, as well as a complete appreciation and conviction in regards to God’s absolute sovereignty in all things and God’s passionate zeal to bring glory to Himself.

And, of course, it is also possible that I have erred in delivering an appropriate explanation about it and has undermined God (forgive me, Lord, if ever).  But, still, there’s no doubt in my heart that this is true – that God’s sovereignty is so gloriously absolute that it even extends over sin.

The Importance of Context in Bible Study: A Case Study of Hebrews 6

In reading the Bible, it’s important to have the humble and committed intent of understanding its contents by how the authors – as inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16) – had meant them to mean.  We can’t just take Scripture passages to support what we want to ideally believe in.  Rather, the Scriptures in its correct and complete context should shape our belief.  Otherwise, that would be dishonorable to God whose intent is to set the Bible as objective Truth.

Let’s take for example Hebrews 6:4-8:

“For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.”

Taking it out of context – If we don’t consider the verses prior (v. 1-3) and after (v. 9-20) – it seems a definite proof that it’s possible for a genuine believer in Christ to fall away and lose his salvation.  But this is, of course, a false conclusion; since throughout the Bible, the doctrine of eternal security for all genuine believers is emphatically affirmed.  To be read in isolation, verses 4 to 8 will really misdirect someone to a dangerous, heretical belief.  That’s why Hebrews 6 (or the book of Hebrews for that matter) should be read in its entirety:

"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
"Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
"For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, 'Surely I will bless you and multiply you.' And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

In verse 1, we see that the author of Hebrews calls for a deeper understanding of the Gospel – to move from the “elementary”-level of doctrinal knowledge towards “university”-level.  And what is that “elementary”-level knowledge?   It means foundational Old Testament beliefs and practices (v.1-2) that the Hebrew Christians are implied to be turning back to – as if Jesus isn’t enough for justification and that these works are still requirements for salvation.

But ironically, those who take verses 4 to 8 out of context are actually signifying the opposite.  The implication of their assertion that salvation can be lost by a genuinely professing Christian is that he needs to work to keep his salvation.  Now asserting that works are required to maintain salvation is basically equivalent to asserting works are required to obtain salvation.   Of course, works are essential in relation to salvation because the former is the evidence of the latter, but works are never required  to be saved.

In the context that the first verses of Hebrews 6 have set – believe that Jesus should be sufficient for salvation – then isn’t it more likely that verses 4 to 8 are actually just serving a rhetorical purpose for the  writer’s argument that Jesus is enough to sustain salvation till the end?  Because if it’s not, then it will contradict other passages that said that a genuine believer will persevere till the end and won’t lose his salvation.  It’s more probable that the writer intended this as a hypothetical scenario (v.4-6) to simply enforce the point that this would never be the case for someone with genuine faith in Christ, for if that ever happens (and it won’t), then he can’t ever be restored and it will be sacrilegious to Christ.

Furthermore, those who use verses 4 to 8 to insist that it’s possible for a regenerated Christian to fall away and lose his salvation always fail to consider the next verses.  With that said in verses 4 to 8, the writer of Hebrews found the Christians he is writing to aren’t like that described in verses 4 to 6 – further supporting the thesis that the scenario in that passage is hypothetical – for they are manifesting the evidence of genuine faith and are assured of salvation (v. 9-12).  And why are they assured of it?  Because God Himself promises and guarantees it (v. 13-18) and Jesus is actively interceding as High Priest (v.19-20; see also Heb. 4:14-16, and chapters 7 to 9)!

So, basically, Hebrews 6 was intended to be another affirmation that Jesus should be enough for salvation, that whenever God promises something – like the gift of salvation – then it’s guaranteed, and that Jesus is unfalteringly interceding for us as our High Priest, ensuring that we will keep the faith till the end.  But, ironically, by misquoting it out of context, some people can completely turn the message of Hebrews 6 around.

That’s why it’s really dangerous to quote Scripture out of context.  And besides, you know who loves quoting Scriptures out of context?  Satan (Matt. 4:1-11)!

Therefore, putting context on Scripture passages is really vital.  When we read a Scripture passage, we should not only focus on what it means by itself but also clearly understand its intended context.  We should consider the paragraphs prior it and the paragraphs after it.  We should consider how it fits with the overall theme and message of its chapter, and then its book, and then, ultimately, the Bible in general.

The Bible will never contradict itself.  Every Scripture passage will harmonize when taken in context.

Scripture Affirmed Calvinism for Me

Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, and R.C. Sproul. 

These are some of the notable names throughout history that have contributed to and/or have embraced Reformed Theology – or a “Calvinistic” view, as what it had been identified by many.  These faithful men of God have come to their doctrinal convictions, not because they have invented them out of thin air, but because they have turned to the Scriptures, thoroughly studied them, and made conclusions that they believed are firmly based on the Word of God and would glorify God the most.  As Charles Spurgeon once stated, “I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.”  Therefore, for them, “Calvinism” is just a labeling that got stuck, but essentially, it’s simply traditional Christianity.  They believe that Calvinistic doctrines are what the Bible has been saying all along.

To imply otherwise is a seriously unfair insult to them.

Likewise, to conclude that those who agree with Calvinistic doctrines, like me, deem Calvinist authors and their books to be above Christ and the Scripture is seriously unfair.  Isn’t it possible that we’ve come to agree with Calvinism, not because we think of it as superior to the Scriptures, but because – after personally reading and meditating on the Scriptures, not relying on our own intellect, but praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit – we found out that it vibrates with the truth of the Gospel?  Because, personally, that’s how I had come to agree with Five Points Calvinism.    

The Bible is the Word of God.  Thus, everything in it is the absolute truth.  So as Christians, we submit to its authority.  I actually don’t accept doctrines or beliefs that won’t Scripturally hold.         

So whenever I argue for Calvinism, I do not rely on passages from John Calvin’s books.  I site Scripture texts.  As what Spurgeon once stated, “Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion! Unchain it and it will defend itself.”  And the Bible affirms Calvinistic points easily. 

My call is not for division, but for my fellow Christians – especially my peers, the younger ones – to pursue a more in-depth, intellectual study of the Scriptures.   The Greatest Commandment goes, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”  With all your mind!   We can show love to God by making use of our mind at its most utmost ability.  And we can do this by thinking with all our might on what God means or intends with a certain Bible passage, corroborating it with other Bible passages, considering the context, and not by how we subjectively interpret it at face value.       

Christians love Truth, thus, if we profess to be Christians, we should always pursue the truth with the best we can, that we may glorify God properly.  As Christians, there’s the need to thoroughly study the Bible (Acts 17:11, Joshua 1:8, 2 Timothy 3:14-17) individually, and apply and celebrate its truths in our lives.  Furthermore, we are personally responsible for verifying doctrines and beliefs if they are indeed in accordance with the Scriptures.  If there’s the need for discussions among us in order to attain the truth (1 Peter 3:15-16), then let us do so – but in a gentle, humble, well-reasoned, Christ-exalting, and Bible-centered manner.  Most importantly, we should not obnoxiously rely on our own strength and mind during this process; on the contrary, we should humbly turn to the Holy Spirit and ask for wisdom and understanding.  And whatever He reveals to us – especially if we are proven wrong – we should submissively “Amen” on it.

God Assures Salvation

Will someone who believes in Jesus ever lose his faith and salvation?

No, he will not.

(In an attempt to be methodical with this thesis as much as I can, I will be delivering my analysis of it in a numbered point-by-point outline.)

1.) The Real Meaning of “Believe”

First and foremost, let’s make it clear that the term “believe” in this context doesn’t mean mere acknowledgment of the historical existence of Jesus.  Moreover, to “believe” is also NOT the mere utterance of the words “Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior” because one is “caught in the moment” (like, in an emotionally charged crusade); or because declaring it is something expected from him – a tradition,  a rite of passage – since he grew up in a Christian environment; or because of wrong expectations, to gain benefits – material blessings, problem-free life, etc. – that he thinks he will receive if he just “believes” in Jesus.

The word “believe” here should mean a genuine profession of faith in Jesus, as a result of a legitimate Spirit-convicted born-again moment.  It means that he believes in Jesus because of an actual, intimate encounter.

2.) Faith, Works, and Salvation

It is clear in the Bible that we aren’t saved by our works (Titus 3:5), but only by God’s grace through faith (Eph. 2:8).  However, the proof that faith is genuine is works (James 2:14-25).  Thus, the indicator that one is truly saved is the fact that he conforms to God's Word and pursues a holy life (Heb. 12:14, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.).

However, there is no verse in the Bible that would support an assertion that works are required to keep salvation.  In fact, asserting that works are required in keeping one’s salvation is as dangerously erroneous as asserting that works are required to acquire salvation!

True, it is said in Philippians 2:12, to “work out your salvation with fear in trembling.”  But it’s simply another affirmation that works are simply the evidence of genuine faith.  Take note that it says work out, NOT work for.  Hence, works are the application of salvation, and salvation is not an outcome of works.

3.) The Bible Affirms That God's Elect Won't Ever Lose Their Salvation… Because It Is God Himself Who Preserves It!

Furthermore, after Philippians 2:12, it is continued in verse 13 that it is God Himself who “works in you to will and to act”!  If it’s solely up to us to keep and work out our faith, then we will surely fail.  But it is God Himself who sees to it that we succeed.  Thus, salvation couldn’t possibly be lost if the sovereign God Himself guarantees it.

Jude 1:24 says that He will “keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy.”  He will keep us from stumbling, and will eventually perfect us (see also Philippians 1:6).

Hebrews 7:25 states, “Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”  Christ Himself is interceding on our behalf for us to be saved completely (see also John 17).

John 10:28-29 states, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.  My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” There is no one or nothing powerful enough to take us away from God and make us lose our salvation.  Romans 8:38-39 further collaborates, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Romans 8:30 clinches, by declaring God’s series of labors on a Christian’s life: “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”  There is no mention of absolute removal in that chain.  Right from the very beginning – from even before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) – God has guaranteed the salvation of His chosen.  Salvation can never be lost.

4.) It All Comes Down to Genuine Belief

Why then some “Christians” fall away from the faith?  Simple.  Their profession was counterfeit in the first place.  John 2:19 says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

Scripture has provided ample verses to serve as a checklist in evaluating the authenticity of one’s belief in Jesus (as 2 Cor. 13:5 asks us to do). 

1 John 3:9-10 says, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.”

The Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:5–15 also illustrates the different kinds of people that hear the Gospel, and one of these is “those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.”  So there are professing “Christians” whose faith appears to be authentic at first, but it has in fact never been so – “it has no root.”  Those who are sincere in their belief in Jesus are the good soil (v.15).  And those who fall away in the faith didn’t genuinely believe in Jesus in the first place.  For if they did, they would have heeded the Word of God (John 8:47).

Lastly, 2 Cor. 5:17 says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”  So if someone says he “believes in Jesus” but doesn’t live as a “new creation”, then the conclusion is simple: his profession is fake and he’s not in Christ in the first place.

5.) God Restores

Again, if a “Christian” falls away from the faith, then his initial profession was false.  However, if he’s actually one of God’s lost children, God’s elect, then it will not end with him not completely knowing Jesus.  God will work to restore him (James 5:20, Acts 3:19-21, Galatians 6:1), and on the next time he professes his belief on Jesus, it would be then genuine.

In short, there is hope for “backsliders.”  The avenue of repentance and restoration is always a possibility.

6.) Be Forever Thankful for God’s Salvation

We might not fully grasp or completely err in our understanding of how our salvation came to be, but we aren’t saved because of this.  It is Jesus who ultimately secures our faith and salvation – 100% His work.  Thus, we should be eternally grateful to Him by living out this salvation everyday with works that will glorify Him.  

Thoughts on Halloween

There are many Christians that see Halloween as a demonic holiday.   They probably mean well in their show of disdain and scorn for it.  However, I don’t completely agree with them.  I understand where they’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s fully right to brand Halloween as essentially evil and declare that those who enjoy it are sinning.  I don’t believe that it’s necessarily a time of glorifying darkness and evil.  On the contrary, I think it’s a capital opportunity in declaring the Light (but I’m getting ahead of myself; more on this later)!

In this article, I will be discussing my thoughts on Halloween.  As usual in discussing these matters, I will do my best in tackling this in accordance to God’s standards.  But, of course, it’s always a possibility that I’m wrong with my beliefs and arguments, and I always welcome instruction and correcting from wiser people.  Nevertheless, at this point, what I will be laying down below is something I believe to be acceptable, logical, and would exalt Christ in the matter at hand (i.e. Halloween).

Background of Halloween

It’s considered by several historical sources that Halloween originated in an ancient pagan Celt festival named Samhain, on which the Celts simultaneously celebrated their harvest time and new year (November 1).  The ancient Celts also believed that during the last day of their calendar year (October 31), the spirits of the dead haunted the world of the living, so they would wear masks to ward off ghosts.

When the ninth century rolled in, Medieval Christians started celebrating “All Saints’ Day” on November 1.  Some historians hypothesized that, like the case with other pagan holidays, this was done by Christians in order to neutralize Samhain.  Vigils were done a night before the feast, and it came to be known as All Hallows’ Eve (“hallow” means “saint”, so it’s basically “All Saints’ Day Eve”) or Halloween, as the Scots put it.

The practice of dressing up for fun started with young people in Britain in the 16^th century, which they called “guising.”  These merrymaking, costumed young people would go house to house asking for “treats” in exchange for jokes, poems, or songs.  And this tradition would be carried over by immigrants to America, and would evolve into the Halloween that we know of today.

There’s also an alternative, darker belief on the origin trick-or-treating.   Some say that it started with the Druids, wherein they would go house to house to collect virgins or children as human sacrifice for their pagan rituals.  But what is being done in the present is closer to that 16^th century fad than this ancient pagan practice.

Modern Halloween Does Not Necessarily Celebrate Evil

It’s inappropriate to use Halloween’s pagan origin against it.  The relation of modern Halloween to the pagan practices of Samhain is pretty insubstantial, if there’s still one at all.  If you would choose to condemn Halloween because of its pagan connections, then you should also condemn Christmas, Easter, worshiping on the day of Sunday, and birthdays because all of these also have links to ancient paganism.  It was only because early Christians Christianized these pagan celebrations and practices – redeeming them and redirecting their purposes and form into those that will glorify God instead – that we modern Christians deem them appropriate in the present.

You may counter, “Regardless of its pagan connections or lack thereof, doesn’t modern Halloween celebrate darkness and horror anyway, and thus, it’s a demonic holiday nevertheless?”  That may or not may be true.  Either way, it’s not the really the heart of issue.  I will elaborate later on, but let me give my personal opinion about it.  I don’t think Halloween celebrates darkness per se, but a fictionalized version of it; “horror” in this context is that of fantasy.  Witches, ghouls, vampires, and other monsters – as they are being depicted in Halloween – are make-believe.  They aren’t any different from any other fictional characters – whom, by the way, people are also dressing up as during Halloween.  If anything else, the merriness is rooted in the dressing up and the treats obtained from dressing up, and not from having a delight in darkness per se.

Also worth noting is the overlooked fact that the original purpose of the early Christians to  illustrate the Devil with horns, tail, red suit, and pitchfork is not to lionize him and depict him as terrifying, but to mock him!  Martin Luther once said that “the best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him for he cannot bear scorn.”  The popular visual representation of the Devil is for satire rather than for horror.  Thus, if one dresses up as the Devil in this appearance, it’s actually more apt that it’s to ridicule than to honor – as what early Christians had intended.

So the “darkness” of Halloween doesn’t necessarily pertain to its actual essence, but merely a make-believe caricature.

Maybe there are some – Satan worshipers – who deliberately celebrate evil during Halloween.  But, as mentioned above, that’s not how Halloween is being essentially considered by most people.  It only becomes “demonic” if one treats it as such.  Besides, how the world celebrates a tradition or holiday has no bearing at all on how Christians should approach it.

Halloween Is a “Man-Made Pleasure”, Thus, Permissible… to an Extent

I’ve already written a more in-depth essay about man-made pleasures as a whole in the past (I suggest you read that, too).  But the arguments there also apply for Halloween.

Halloween has elements of fun and thrill and delight and beauty.  I’m personally charmed of the impressive, intricate work on the costumes and props being made; the generosity for candies and other gifts; the creative pumpkin designs; the entertaining Halloween cartoons; and the jovial and excited atmosphere.  So, clearly, there’s something pleasurable about Halloween.  And Christian should treat Halloween like how he or she treats any other pleasures that he encounters in this world – be that a tradition, a work of art, or a celebration – that they are gifts from God (John 1:17) which he or she must be thankful for (1 Timothy 4:4), enjoy in accordance to His provided instruction (according to the parameters of His Word; e.g. sex is only for married couples, consume in moderation, etc.), and, most importantly, be able to project the delight he or she derives from them into his or her ultimate delight in God.

Of course, since this world is a fallen one, the pleasures that God had intended for good are warped and now tend to misplace our joy and satisfaction.  Good thing is we Christians can repurpose them for the glory of God.  While the world enjoys these pleasures wrongly and incompletely in its own way, we can however take what is beautiful, discard or cure what is corrupted, and then sanctify these pleasures to serve as things that can glorify God.  (Yes, I believe Halloween can be sanctified, too.  I will be discussing this a little bit later.)

In accordance to 1 Corinthians 6:12, we Christians – who are already free from the Law – are given the freedom to eat anything, drink anything, and do anything (as long as it’s not sinful).  However, 1 Corinthians 10:31 also stated that whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, we should do it for the glory of God.  Therefore, we are permitted and allowed to do anything as long as we don’t neglect glorifying God through it.  So how can we then glorify God through our enjoyment of a particular pleasure – in this matter, Halloween?  We should first ask these things:

1.) Will we get a lesson from it?  Will it help us in our pursuit of holy living?

2.) Will it make us contemplate of God’s goodness and other attributes?

3.) Will enjoying it sharpen our own ultimate joy in God?

4.) Will we able to use it to point others to God? 

If the answers are all affirmative, then why not?  Let’s go enjoy it.

On the other hand, if there are doubts that we’ll be able to achieve those things, then it might be preferable to abstain from it.  Besides, in the same verse that declared we are permitted to do anything (1 Corinthians 6:12), it’s also pointed out that not everything is beneficial.  Hence, we should also consider carefully if enjoying a particular pleasure will truly benefit us and others.  Even if we’re permitted to enjoy something, we should still ask ourselves further:

1.) While enjoying it, will there be a high risk of being tempted to sin?

2.) Will I offend or trouble others when I proceed to enjoy it?

3.) Will I cause someone to stumble in his or her faith when I proceed to enjoy it?

If these would be the case, then we probably would please God more if we choose to abstain from it, even if it’s permissible to be enjoyed.

Glorifying God and recognizing that God is our greatest joy.  That should be what’s paramount to us Christians.  In the end, everything eventually comes down to it whether we should proceed to enjoy something – be it Halloween or any other pleasure – or not.

Sanctifying Halloween

Sanctification doesn’t mean “being separated from the world” only, but more accurately, it means “being separated from the world to be used for God’s purpose.”  And God’s purpose for us in this world is to know Him and make Him known.  We might not be of the world, but still, we are sent into it to be its salt and light.

Halloween isn’t anything different.  It can be sanctified.  The world might be celebrating it in its own imperfect way, but we Christians can use it to declare God’s glory.

Again, Halloween has elements of fun.  And things that are fun and joyful are opportunities to draw an audience to witness to and point them toward the splendor of Christ.

Kids, especially, are the ones that have the most fun during this event, with the candies and treats and costumes and all that.  This fun occasion can be used to teach biblical lessons to them, and make them realize that the reason they can enjoy themselves is because they are under God’s grace, and lead them towards the supreme joy in Christ.

Examples of some practices being done by Halloween-observing Christians (that I’ve read about) are giving out Gospel tracks along with treats to those who go trick-or-tricking on their homes, and having fun “counter-Halloween” parties in their churches wherein kids dress up as biblical characters or famous Christian historical figures.

What is preferable during Halloween, having a fun time and doing some witnessing or being bitter and gloomy and critical about it? 

Halloween Reflects Men’s Fascination and Fear of Death

Though I don’t agree that Halloween celebrates evil, what can’t be denied is it’s the time of year wherein everyone is provoked to think about death.  For centuries – through the various forms that Halloween has taken through history – death is something that humans are both fascinated and fearful about, as they conduct various means – from the ancient Celts’ mask-wearing to Hollywood’s horror films (and moviegoers’ penchant of watching such films, even the terrible ones, making the genre very profitable) – to both distract themselves of its eventuality and reflect on it.

This state of contemplation on death during Halloween is a great opening to share to unbelievers about the truth of eternal death that awaits in Hell and the eternal life that is found in Christ.

I Have Nothing but Respect for Those Who Don’t Celebrate It and Reject It

Nevertheless, if you’re a Christian that isn’t convinced that Halloween is okay, that it’s too uncomfortably dark, and reject it, then good for you.  That’s absolutely fine, too.  As I’ve mentioned before, what’s important is the thought of glorifying God.  Therefore, if your own personal faith and convictions led you to the conclusion that Halloween isn’t pleasing to God, then I really respect that.

In the Christian pursuit of exalting God, we are given the freedom of making choices without fear of condemnation when we pick the wrong choice out of innocent ignorance.  That’s why my advice to anti-Halloween Christians is to be not too quick to harshly rebuke their brethren who celebrate Halloween.  Take into mind that their purpose is the same as yours – glorifying God – and if they are indeed wrong in their means of doing so, like celebrating Halloween, let the Holy Spirit convict them about it.  You can gently share your opinions – preferably, with supporting Scriptures – why you think Halloween doesn’t glorify God, but you don’t have the right to objectively declare it as evil and condemn those who do celebrate it.

Remember who our real enemy is – it’s the Devil, not the kid in the devil costume.  And remember what our life’s main purpose is – it’s declaring the magnificence of Jesus Christ to others, not convincing everyone that Halloween is evil.

Don’t be mean and reprimanding just because someone greets you a “Happy Halloween,” or be sullen and stingy to someone who knocks at your door for some “trick or treat.”

I Actually Don’t Celebrate Halloween

With all my defense of Halloween, I actually don’t celebrate it myself.  For three reasons:

1.) Halloween isn’t deeply ingrained in Filipino traditions.  With all the facets of Halloween that I find interesting, Halloween itself is not something that I believe to be culturally significant and sentimentally important to be celebrated as a Filipino. 

2.) I belong in a Christian community that frowns upon Halloween.  Though I personally believe there’s nothing wrong with celebrating Halloween, I abstain from it to avoid offending or confusing other Christians in my circle.     

3.) Reformation Day fascinates me more.

Reformation Day is a holiday that commemorates the Reformation.  It coincides with the date (October 31, 1517) wherein Martin Luther notably nailed his 95 theses on the church door of Wittenberg, considered by many to be the time the Reformation kicked off.  It’s a terrific supplement to those Christians who celebrates Halloween, and a terrific alternative to those Christians who don’t.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Reformation Day also falls on the date of Halloween.

All Hallows’ Day and All Hallows’ Eve are, after all, the commemoration of the lives of the saints throughout history.  Thus, it’s a perfect time to thank God for using saints like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers, who through their courageous and dedicated labors enabled Christianity to break itself free from the bondage of false doctrines.

Furthermore, “Post tenebras lux” is a Latin phrase that the Reformers had taken as one of their slogans.  It means “light after darkness.”  So, while Halloween has been associated with death and darkness, the Reformation has brought life and light to Christianity, which had been buried in false teachings and corruption for centuries.  It’s a wonderful analogy on what Christ has done for us.  From darkness to light.  From death to life.

Reformation Day dramatically changes the paradigm of Halloween.  So instead of Halloween serving as a reminder of darkness and death, we can now gratefully reflect on Jesus’ words in John 8:12:

“I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

‘Heneral Luna’ Is Meant to Condition Filipinos to Vote for Duterte as President

LOL.  Yeah.  Sorry, for the horrible “bait-and-switch” title.  This post isn’t really an analysis of such preposterous thesis.  This is simply my review of the movie Heneral Luna.

To be honest, I wasn’t really compelled of watching Heneral Luna at first.  I was somewhat impressed of the trailer, but I wasn’t set yet of actually watching it.  It was a 50/50 thing.  But then, my Facebook newsfeed exploded with dynamic approvals and high recommendations for the movie.  This made me finally put Heneral Luna on my mental list for movies to watch.  Thankfully, albeit late, the local theater showed it, and I went to watch it as soon as I got the time.

Indeed, Heneral Luna deserves all the hype it receives.  In a Filipino movie industry that has been dominated by garbage, this movie is a much welcome gem.  It’s an overall good movie, and a highlight of my 2015 movie watching.  But I’m not going to eagerly shower it with my praises.  It’s not exactly the homerun that I was hoping it to be.

As far as being a biopic of a Filipino hero is concerned, I still think that the 1998 José Rizal epic film starring Cesar Montano has proven to have a more polished, purposeful, and interesting narrative than Heneral Luna.  Heneral Luna has plenty of great moments, and succeeds in portraying its titular character in an exciting light through a well-crafted tale.  I, however, have some problems with its pacing and inability to sustain an overall sense of enthrallment.  Make no mistake though, this movie started strong and has provided plenty of riveting moments.  However, I’m a bit of more prejudiced against Filipino movies, which, in general, suffer from extreme cheesiness and scarcity of cleverness.  Hence, I find it harder to forgive details of cheesiness – mild they may be – which easily distract me.  There are some elements in the story that I felt are cheesy and gratuitous, which derailed my enjoyment of the movie a bit.

My biggest disappointment on the movie is the lack of focus on Luna’s reputation as a brilliant military tactician.  This is a commander that is historically known to be capable of earning victories against Spanish and American forces with just a militia of conscripted farmers under his command.  His genius has been mentioned several times in the movie, but it isn’t thoroughly shown.  I’m sure that the movie would have been twice better if Luna’s genius military mind has been explored more.  I read in the past about cool stuff like the “Luna Defense Line” (a three-tiered defense line that gave the Americans plenty of trouble) and his fondness for assembling elite squads like the “Luna Sharpshooters” (snipers, basically) and the “Black Guard”, a 25-men guerrilla unit led by a lieutenant named Garcia (the movie’s Garcia could be this guy), and I wish that these things were featured and expounded in the movie.

Also, if you expect some awesome action sequences from this movie, you’ll be disappointed.  Yes, it doesn’t shy away from showing gruesome violence to portray realism.  But the battle scenes aren’t remarkable at all.

Nevertheless, the intent is to be more of a drama movie anyway, rather than an actual action film.  And with the drama, the movie hits empathically.  The terrific acting fuels the intensity of the drama and kept me invested, even when my problems with the pacing start becoming apparent.  Kudos most of all to John Arcilla, whose captivating performance effectively portrayed the different facets of General Luna’s personality, both his admirable traits and flaws.

I wasn’t expecting that this movie will have its share of humor, but it indeed has the right dosage of hilarity.  This movie has made me laughed aloud on several instances.  Some of the funny moments actually happen in a violent context, which is kind of morbid, but it’s so well-executed that laughing can’t be helped.

But the best thing about this movie is that it provokes reflection.  That is something rare of mainstream Filipino movies to do.  And I absolutely welcome it.  True, it actually has a pretty cynical message.  The political climate of the past is just as messed up as of that in the present.  Hence, it can be said that this movie is a reflection of our current rotten status as a nation.  We put personal interests, egos, and conveniences above the benefit of the motherland.  We have an inability of being completely one as a nation.  We are an undisciplined people.  And having a sense of nationalism for this country is simply wasted, because those in power will just screw you.  But, who knows, maybe by realizing these things, Filipinos would now accept that, as what General Luna posits in the movie, in order to change this country, what’s required is something radical.

(Seriously, with all the sympathy generated by the movie for Gen. Antonio Luna, it feels like that the movie is conditioning the Filipinos to subscribe to Luna’s stern methods and philosophy.  Hence, it feels this movie is a conspiracy sponsored by a “Duterte for President” movement.  LOL.)

So all in all, Heneral Luna is a well-acted, excellently-made, eye-opening, must-watch movie.  The Filipino film industry desperately needs more thoughtful movies like this.

I’m happy that this movie is making money, after its first week’s poor gross receipts (lots of props to social media word-of-mouth).  This kind of movie needs to be rewarded.  And, since everything is driven by money, this would encourage other Filipino filmmakers and producers to pursue making more insightful, more intelligent mainstream movies.  Also, by this, a sequel, about Gregorio Del Pilar (fact: this young general is my favorite among Filipino national heroes while growing up), is ensured.  Can’t wait!

(Keeping my fingers crossed that this is the start of the Filipino Cinema Renaissance!)

A Spaghetti Analogy on Finding Falsehood in a Discussion

As I grow older, whenever people are giving discussions – in seminars, classes, lectures, symposiums, talks, sermons, etc. – I really do my best to just politely listen and simply take the helpful and thoughtful things from it, and just ignore the opposite.  This wasn’t always the case.  When I was younger, I immediately express displeasure whenever a discussant provides details which I happen to know are shallow, flawed, or simply pure bullcrap.  I try to be less obnoxious these days.  If nothing evidently good can come out of snapping out a sharp remark about it, I try to bite my tongue as much as I can (if I fail, the offense is likely to be so unforgivable that I can’t help myself).

Still, I find it frustrating when discussants fail to put more thought on the topic and verify information more keenly.  As much as I want to separate the positive from the negative aspects, it’s a struggle for me to get past the fact that a discussant would pass an erroneous or bogus detail as something genuine in order to conveniently deliver a point.  Whether this is due to the discussant’s own ignorance and failure to be more scrutinizing or an attempt to fool/manipulate the listeners whom the discussant assumes are ignorant, both reasons are unacceptable.  Even if an actual bigger truth can come out of the discussion, I’m going to find the whole thing unrewarding or, worse, appalling.

Picture a plate of spaghetti.  Everything about it is edible and harmless except for a strand of spaghetti noodle, which happens to be poisonous.  The plate of spaghetti isn’t totally poisonous.  But that doesn’t matter anymore.  Having just one poisonous noodle strand in it has made it impossible to still eat the plate of spaghetti.

Such is my problem with finding a piece of falsehood in one’s discussion.

What Makes ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ a Comedy and Anti-War Masterpiece

Making my “Top 10 TV Shows That Ran Before I Was Born” list, I became inspired to rewatch the Blackadder series (no. 2 in the list, btw) for the nth time.  It’s quite easy to binge-watch since, not only is it a very delightful watch, but it’s also relatively short.  Each series only have six episodes, around 30 minutes each.  That’s a total of 12 hours of viewing, more or less.  The whole thing reminded me why I loved it ever since, and affirmed my opinion that it really gets much better with each series. 

This means that Blackadder Goes Forth – the fourth and last – is the best of them, and I think everyone who have seen all four series will agree with me.  First of all, it is objectively the funniest and cleverest.  Secondly, its opening sequence is the catchiest, most amiable, and most entertaining – the characters are introduced while in a march along a medley of “The British Grenadiers” (the iconic marching anthem of the British military, dating back to the 17^th century) and the Blackadder theme (seriously, rewatching the title sequences over and over again provides much fun already). 

But what really makes Blackadder Goes Forth impressively stand out above the rest is the fact that it is able to convey a powerful anti-war message through its brilliant satirical insights on war without trivializing the sobering period of human history the series is set upon and without disrespecting the real-life people who took part in it.  And this facet personally had much impact on me.    

As a kid, I thought of war as a romantic, glorious thing.  I loved playing with my collection of toy soldiers and pellet guns.  My favorite Bible stories were those that featured epic battles.  I enjoyed the G.I. Joe cartoons and comics.  I was thrilled when reading about wars in history.  I devoured everything – documentaries, essays, books, movies, etc. – that featured anything relating to war, whether it’s historical or fictional.  I drew battle scenes during idle times in school.  When I saw Saving Private Ryan and other war movies, I unconsciously dismissed the war horrors it portrayed and instead reveled on the exciting violence and explosions of its action scenes.  Yes, I did have some understanding already that time that war is not all glory and thrills, but I didn’t really quite grasp yet the magnitude of the other side of the coin.  To me then, the deaths were mere numbers, the devastation mere black and white pictures, and the accounts and narratives mere objects to take fascination on.  

It was only with Blackadder Goes Forth that really made me deeply understand for the first time that war is indeed a terrible, terrible thing.  It was not Saving Private Ryan or any war/anti-war movies that made me reflect on this.  Not history books or photos.  Not even Life Is Beautiful (an Oscar-winning Italian film back in the 90’s, which I had enjoyed) – it almost did, but not entirely.  It was ironically the sitcom Blackadder Goes Forth that did.  Since then, I’ve seen this series many times already, but each time gives the same impact on me as the first time I saw it.

Set in the Western Front trenches of World War I, Blackadder Goes Forth focuses on Captain Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) as he attempts to be removed from his post in the trenches before another “big push” is ordered by his eccentric, buffoonish commander, General Melchett (Stephen Fry).   Blackadder isn’t necessarily a coward.  It’s just that he wants to avoid being sent over the top on the infamous “No Man’s Land” because it will result to certain death.  He doesn't want to die in such utterly meaningless manner.

So in the first five episodes, we see Blackadder jump at every opportunity and scheme that will allow him to leave the trenches, which ultimately fails in the end.  As to be expected, hilarity ensues during these misadventures.  But more than that, through its satirical gags and dialogue, subtle but provocative anti-war sentiments are delivered.  Though war logic is exaggerated so it can be lampooned, the lingering thought that it leaves would reveal in retrospect that the realistic version of it is actually as absurd and foolish.

For example, in the first episode, General Melchett heartens one of the soldiers, reminding him that if should he falter, he should just remind himself that the general is behind him.  To which Captain Blackadder bitterly comments, “About 35 miles behind you.”  Funny, but thought-provoking as well.

But the clincher is the final episode, “Goodbyeee” – which is definitely one of the most powerful finales in TV history (SPOILERS from this point on). With the order for the “big push” finally given, Blackadder makes another ploy to be sent away by pretending to be mad.  But this, like his previous schemes, doesn’t work.  As he muses later on, “Who would have noticed another madman round here?”

The episode plays out that is typical of the show: funny and smart.  But around its 17-minute mark, it starts giving indications that this episode is going to be different.  With the “big push” nearing, Blackadder and his men reminisce the past – realizing that many of their acquaintances are dead already.  Then Private Baldrick (Tony Robinson) remarks, “Why can't we just stop, sir? Why can't we just say, ‘No more killing; let's all go home’? Why would it be stupid just to pack it in, sir?  Why?”  I was taken aback.  The series has at least three moronic characters, and Baldrick is the stupidest of them.  This kind of insight coming out of Baldrick is something atypical.

The next scene, General Melchett informs Captain Kevin Darling (Tim McInnerny), who serves as his personal assistant, that he will be assigned to the frontlines immediately to join the “big push.”  Much to Darling’s horror, Melchett misguidedly believes that he is favoring Darling by letting him join the “fun and games.”  On the contrary, “folding the general’s pajamas”, as Darling puts it, is something he prefers over being sent to the trenches since, despite any discomfort and humiliation he might receive as the general’s aide, he’s at least safe away from the conflict.  Darling tries to protest, but the general – erroneously believing that Darling is simply having a hard time parting ways because of his loyalty and affection for him – “unselfishly” cuts him off and assures him that it’s okay.

Throughout the series, Darling has served as the primary antagonist of the story, being Blackadder’s rival and tormentor (and vice versa).  Thus, there are some justified laughs to be had from his misfortune.  But any satisfaction is restrained, and not really something cheer-worthy.  In fact, when Darling joins Blackadder in the dugout, he doesn’t mock him about it, but simply welcomes him, “Here to join us for the last waltz?”  (At this point, emotion was already welling inside me as I watched.)  Blackadder – as well as any decent audience – understands that, in this particular context, there is no pleasure in seeing a man – even as snobbish as Darling – being sent to certain death.

Finally, it’s the simple admission from the idealistic, enthusiastic, but dim-witted Lieutenant George (Hugh Laurie) that broke my heart: “I’m scared, sir.”  (Private Baldrick echoes the same sentiment.)  George adds, “I don’t want to die.  I’m not overkeen on dying at all, sir.”  

Up until that point, George has been depicted to be seemingly uncaring or ignorant of the perils of war – consistently thrilled of the opportunity to fight for “king and country.”  It probably finally dawned on him at that point that the thing he feels is “bloomin'ell worth it” (as he claimed earlier in the episode) isn’t really worth dying for.  Hence, the unexpected, innocent honesty makes the scene devastating.  

My eyes were misty, and a lump had formed in my throat.

As the call to assemble is given, the script makes a hilarious, dark joke in a likely attempt to ease tension…

Captain Blackadder: “Don't forget your stick, Lieutenant.”

Lt. George: “Oh no, sir -- wouldn't want to face a machine gun without this!”

(I’m not sure if George is being sarcastic, or has reverted to his usual personality.)

With the men lining up outside, I was still expecting – wishing – that something – preferably, a comedic something – would happen at the last second that would prevent them from participating in this “big push.”  For a second, it seemed that was going to be so…

Captain Darling: “Listen! Our guns have stopped.”

Lt. George: “You don't think...?”

Private Baldrick: “Maybe the war's over. Maybe it's peace!”

Lt. George: “Well, hurrah! The big knobs have gone round the table and yanked the iron out of the fire!”

But when Darling exclaims, “Thank God! We lived through it! The Great War: 1914-1917,” the small flicker of hope vanishes.  It reminded me that the year was still 1917 in that story.  I know my history.  World War I ended in 1918.

The more cautious and cynical Blackadder deflates the men’s wishful thinking by bitterly commenting, “I'm afraid not.  The guns have stopped because we're about to attack. Not even our generals are mad enough to shell their own men.  They think it's far more sporting to let the Germans do it.”

The men puts a foot forward, waits for the signal to go over the top.  Blackadder mutters a “Good luck, everyone” before the whistle to advance is blown.

With a yell, the men go over the top and charges.  They are met with German gunfire.  The scene plays in slow motion.  Explosions and smoke and dirt fill the shot.  Sad piano music plays in the background.  The scene shifts to the empty, devastating aftermath, which then gradually shifts to the peaceful, poppy fields as what it is now in present time.

The last episode has thoroughly made the characters shine.  They were revealed to be actually noble and courageous, despite the weaknesses they had shown throughout the series.  Even if they were already likable, the episode made the audience to care more deeply and affectionately for them.  And because the attachment has been established firmly, the tragic ending was emphatic.  It hurt.  Through this, the show is able to effectively make these characters represent the countless brave men that perished at the hands of the hellish madness of War, who equally deserves – if not twice as much – the respect, appreciation, and heartbreak that I felt for Blackadder and his men.

How the show built up and executed everything going into that finale – all that comedy unexpectedly turning towards that beautiful, heartbreaking ending – is just brilliant.  I was laughing all throughout the series, and then, just like that, the final minutes pulled the rug under me.  The impact of the 180^o turn in its tone effortlessly provoked reflection – becoming a forceful reminder of the dreadful reality that the show is based upon.

It’s one of the most powerful TV viewing moments I’ve ever had.  Thank you, Star World, for rerunning this awesome show for the tween me (was around 10 to 12 years old when I saw Blackadder Goes Forth for the first time).

Blackadder Goes Forth is a work of pure genius.  It pulls off making a comedy out of a sensitive topic without being offensive.  Compare that to the comedy philosophy of today that leans more on being intentionally crude and offensive to earn laughs.  So not only does Blackadder Goes Forth achieve first-rate comedy, but class and depth as well, thus, unhindered by pretentiousness in its delivery of an anti-war message that works.

War still fascinates me as a topic, I still enjoy it if it’s depicted in the context of fiction, and I still believe that war – or any dark, delicate themes, for that matter – always has room for humor, if it’s executed with thoughtfulness and respect.  Moreover, I’m not really a radical pacifist – I’m not ignorant of its unavoidable necessity in some cases in this depraved world.  However, war is something that I believe shouldn’t be treated trivially or celebrated by itself.  Blackadder Goes Forth taught me that.