 |
| Really? |
Do some people really visit heaven and come back? The short answer is I don't know/it depends. In some cases, I would say probably not, with others I might say maybe or even more than likely.
But lately some Christians have been sharing John MacArthur and David Platt's comments on the phenomena. And while I have a great deal of respect for both of these Christian leaders, I have to say I disagree with their analysis. (I should start off by saying that I did read the book, but I have not seen the movie.)
Platt
says that in Scripture they're often visions, not actual trips. But
Colton's book actually describes a vision because his dad admits that
Colton didn't actually die.
MacArthur says, "Readers not only get a twisted, unbiblical picture of heaven; they also imbibe a subjective, superstitious, shallow brand of spirituality."
This
may be true of some accounts but not Heaven is for Real. I read the
book and I found nothing that was unbiblical. Everything Colton claimed
to see is consistent with Scripture.
"They say comparatively little about God or His glory. "
This
kind of thing makes me think MacArthur and Platt didn't even read the
book. It actually does say a lot about God and His glory. Platt says
that Colton says he got a halo and wings but didn't like them because
they were too small. I've read the book and I don't remember ever
reading anything like that. If someone can quote this part from the
book, I'll gladly stand corrected. Otherwise, it seems Plat is either
making things up or going off pure hearsay.
The
rest of what he says is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The Bible
doesn't record lots of things, that doesn't mean they don't happen. Paul
didn't write his letter to talk about what he saw in heaven, but that
doesn't mean he never shared some of what he was allowed to speak of in
conversation. I've personally known several people who've had these
experiences (two of heaven, one of hell). They showed no desire to share
them publicly and were very hesitant to share even in a small intimate
group. That makes it hard to say that they were just making it up as
they'd have no reason to do so.
It's
true that we can never know for sure if someone's account of heaven is
real. We don't depend on that to know, we depend on the revelation of
Scripture and the person of Jesus. But we cannot automatically discount
someone else's experience either. So then what is the purpose of these trips if not to prove heaven? I'll direct you to this excellent article on Christianity Today.
We
can't just put a blanket statement on something like this and say it
can't ever happen. Like all things we should examine each scenario to
see if it lines up with Scripture. I've read Burpo's book and it was
consistent with Scripture. I've noticed a trend in Christians who bash
these books: they can never point out exactly where it contradicts
Scripture. If anyone can point out a contradiction, then please do
because obviously Scripture wins out over a four-year old in the end.
But until then, there's no reason to bash this book out of a desire to
appear pious in the eyes of men.
My Review of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug
I must start out by saying that though I am a pretty big Tolkien fan, the
book The Hobbit was never one of my favorites. I'm not gonna lie, I never cared
that much for it. The movie, to me, is far more
interesting because it incorporates the themes from LotR that made me
fall in love with it in the first place.
Though this movie had its flaws. It's kind of annoying that every time Jackson thinks he
needs a drive in the story: RANDOM ORC ATTACK! (It felt like Indiana
Jones at times, which are not some of my favorite movies, and are *not*
what I look for in a Tolkien movie.) And Orcs
traveling in the day? What's up with that? But overall, I actually find
the movie an improvement over the book. I never like the book that
much, especially compared to LotR. I'm reading it again now and it only
confirms it even more: if I can say this without getting stoned, the
movie is actually better than the book.
Yes,
there's a little loss of the idealized loyalty and bravery, etc. But
not much. In the book, the Dwarves had no personalities. Only Thorin.
The rest were just names with a few physical descriptions. In the movie,
each Dwarf has a distinct personality and Jackson even attempts to give
some their own story by splitting the company up in Desolation.
Critics, and so-called Tolkien purists point out that The Hobbit isn't about a grand plot to use the dragon to fight for
Sauron. But Tolkien *did* write that that was the reason Gandalf
started the quest: exactly like it's described in the movie: he's
concerned that Sauron will use Smaug. It would have been one thing if
they had made the Hobbit first. But because we've seen LotR already, we
need more. It would have been a far inferior movie to LotR if they had
only stuck with what's in the book, just as the book The Hobbit is
inferior compared to LotR. No one but a few Tolkien purists would have
liked it.
I
originally was just expecting a straight-forward adaption of the book,
and it did not excite me. LotR is my favorite movie ever. The thought of
seeing the Hobbit made into a movie was cool and all, but it just
seemed like too little, too late after seeing LotR. But when I saw the
movies I was pleasantly surprised by how much Tolkien they put in the
movies. Seeing the first one actually made me excited to see the rest,
something that I *really* was not expecting. (Haha, get it?)
It's
true that the swashbuckling detracted form potential character
development, but there was none in the book to begin with. There's far
more character development in the movie.
The Gospel According To...
If
someone asked me where the gospel is in The Hobbit: The Desolation of
Smaug, I'd say it's in the kingsfoil (athelas). A plant that was thought
useless, and even a nuisance, by most is the key to healing life.
1
Corinthians 1:20-29
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
"When the the black breath blows
and death's shadow grows
and all lights pass,
come athelas! come athelas!
Life to the dying
in the king's hand lying!"
- Return of the King
It's true that, really, only Aragorn is supposed to be able to use the kingsfoil, but it may be fair to say that he learned it from the elves.
The
book didn't have as many strong parallels to Christianity as LotR, but
the incorporation of a darker tone and more themes from LotR into the
movie makes for some great parallels. This is one reason I grew to like
Tauriel. She wasn't a feminist, like I thought she'd be. She retained a
very feminine charm, despite her arrow-throwing. And she spoke in a very
'high Tolkien' way, with her love of the stars and all. But, as a Tolkien nerd, the kingsfoil scene really won me over.
