The Vietnam War’s “Napalm Girl” Found Redemption and the Power to Forgive in Jesus

 

napalm-girl

It’s one of the most iconic images of the Vietnam War; a nine year-old Vietnamese girl running through the streets after her village was accidentally hit with a napalm attack by South Vietnamese troops, who incorrectly thought they were bombing a Viet Cong rebel hideout.

Napalm is a jelly-like substance that is highly flammable, and so the girl’s clothes were on fire, and she ripped them off as she ran down the street in pain and terror.

That photo won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972. The girl’s name is Kim Phuc.

But what happened after that photo was taken is actually much more interesting. Kim was able to emigrate to Canada. Although she had grown up following the local religion of her parents and ancestors, Kim became a Christian. She found redemption and the power to forgive in Jesus.

Take a minute to listen to her incredible story of how she became a Christian and how God has and is using her to spread the gospel:

For e-mail subscribers, click here to listen.

If Jesus is the Son of God, Why Did He Call Himself the “Son of Man”?

Jesus’ favorite way of referring to himself was as the “Son of Man”. This term is used of Jesus 88 times in the New Testament, and Jesus refers to himself  as the “Son of Man” more often than as the “Son of God”.

I am often asked why this is, and why Jesus preferred this term over the term Son of God. Here are some thoughts on what that term means and why Jesus may have preferred it:

Son of Man is a Messianic title from the Old Testament

The title: “Son of Man” was a reference to a prophecy found in Daniel 7:13-14:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

This description of the “Son of Man” matches that descriptions of the Messiah found elsewhere in the Old Testament. What is particularly interesting is that the Son of Man is exalted, divine, and is sent from Heaven – and yet, is distinct from “the Ancient of Days”. This is in line with Trinitarian theology, which states that the Son and the Father are distinct persons within the Godhead.

The Son of Man according to this prophecy is both human and exalted. He does the work which only God can do, indicating that he is God, and yet he is distinct from the “Ancient of Days” who sends him. This tells us that the Messiah would be human, but he would also be God at the same time, while a distinct person from the “Ancient of Days”, AKA the Father.

As I discussed in a previous post – Why Did Jesus Tell Some People to Keep Quiet About His Miracles and Identity? – although Jesus was sometimes very explicit about his identity, other times Jesus was more subtle and implicit in how he revealed his identity. In that post I delve into some reasons why that was, but here it suffices to say that by using the term “Son of Man”, Jesus was using a term by which those who had ears to hear would pick up what he was putting down.

Son of Man speaks to Jesus’ humanity

The term Son of Man emphasizes the fact that Jesus was truly and fully human. Although he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, he is nevertheless fully human.

Why are you telling me this?

Remember that the Gospels were written by humans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What that means is that there is a particular telos or objective inherent to what they have written and how they have written it. This is true of any historical account: any time anyone tells a story, they include certain details and leave out other details depending on what they want to emphasize for their audience. This is true of the Gospels as well. So what is the telos or objective of the Gospel writers in making sure we know that Jesus often used the title “Son of Man” in referring to himself (other than the fact that he actually did)? Probably it is to emphasize that Jesus was truly and fully human.

Trinitarian theology

We know from early church history, that there was a tendency amongst some Christians to emphasize the deity of Christ to the negation of His humanity. The converse was also true, and these discussions and debates culminated with the codifying of the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and in the Athanasian Creed. Even to this day, there are some Christians, e.g. Coptic Christians, who are “monophysites”, which means that they believe that Jesus only had one nature: a divine one, and that he was not fully human. The use of the term “Son of Man” emphasized Jesus’ true humanity.

Son of Man actually had more significance in that context than Son of God

To the Jewish mind, the term Son of God might be used to refer to any person without too much controversy, because they would agree that we are all created by God, and therefore could be called “sons” of God. For example, Psalm 82:6 says, “You are all sons of the Most High.”

The same could be said of “Son of Man” for that matter, in the sense that all humans are sons or daughters of men. The difference is that in the Jewish context, the term “Son of Man” actually carried more significance because of Daniel’s prophecy.

Remember that Jesus actually did call himself the Son of God on several occasions, as John’s gospel in particular records. Again, this gets to the point of the telos of John’s gospel, which is to emphasize Jesus’ deity – whereas other gospels aim to emphasize his humanity.

But it is not only in John’s gospel that we see Jesus being called “Son of God”, which reminds us of the importance of his two-fold nature as both fully God and fully man, a nature that was necessary in order for him to be the perfect Savior that we need.

A case study

I will leave you with these words from Mark’s gospel:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Living God?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. (Mark 14:61-64)

Notice in this text:

  • Jesus said he is the Son of God
  • Jesus called himself the Son of Man – and connected that term with the imagery directly from Daniel 7:13-14
  • This was understood by the Jewish people to be a claim of deity, which is why they accused him of blasphemy and condemned him to death.

The Prodigal Mom: What Eunice and Lois Teach Us About Motherhood

remembering_mothers_shutterstock_1600x500

In his second letter to his protégé, Timothy, Paul mentions Timothy’s mother and grandmother, who played a formative role in his life and his faith:

I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. (2 Timothy 1:5)

Timothy’s mother and grandmother are also alluded to in the third chapter of that same letter:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

Here’s what we know about Timothy’s mother and grandmother:

Eunice Wasn’t Always a Woman of Faith

Timothy’s mother was Jewish, but Timothy’s father was a Greek pagan, and as a result, Timothy was not circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). This tells us two things: that at the time of their marriage, and during Timothy’s early years, his Jewish mother was not practicing her faith. Married to a Greek, she would have been “unequally yoked”, and going against Jewish custom and God’s instructions in the Old Testament that Jewish people should not marry people of other faiths.

Perhaps more interesting, is that “Jewishness” is passed down through the mother, and yet the fact that Eunice never had Timothy circumcised indicates that she was not actively practicing her faith during his childhood.

However, what we know is that Eunice at some point became a Christian and joined the church in Lystra. Paul met Timothy on his second missionary journey when he visited the church there. Timothy was likely in his teens at the time, and Timothy then left home to join Paul in his missionary work.

Eunice: A Single Mom?

The fact that we don’t know much about Timothy’s father, and the fact that his grandmother played an active role in his upbringing could indicate that Timothy’s father died or left at some point, leaving Eunice a single-mom raising her son. At very least, it seems that Timothy’s father was not involved in his spiritual upbringing since only his mother and grandmother are mentioned as contributing to his faith by acquainting him with the Holy Scriptures.

Lois as the Mom of a Wayward Daughter

We can only imagine what must have gone on in Lois’s (Timothy’s grandmother’s) life in regard to her daughter Eunice marrying an unbelieving Greek pagan. Perhaps she grieved to see her daughter not living out the faith that she had raised her to have in the God of Israel, or perhaps Lois herself had been a nominal or non-practicing Jew and had raised her daughter in that same way.

Either way, we know that Lois also came to put her faith in Jesus, and then together Lois and Eunice poured into young Timothy, introducing him to the Scriptures, taking him to church, and sharing their faith with him.

The Best Gift Mothers and Grandmothers Can Give Their Kids

We don’t know what kinds of birthday presents Lois and Eunice gave young Timothy, or if they ever took any family vacations, or if they ever bought Tim a pony or an iPhone. The one thing we know is that they gave him the most important gift a mother and grandmother can give to their children and grandchildren: a knowledge of the Word of God, and a heritage of modeling what it looks like to love him, obey him and seek him. This is what changed the trajectory of Timothy’s life.

On this Mother’s Day, may I encourage you mothers and grandmothers that whatever good gifts you give your children and grandchildren, the very best gift you can give them is to point them to Jesus.

Teach them the Word of God. Present Jesus to them in all of his goodness and beauty. Explain to them how you came to surrender your life to him, and why you love him. Help them to see Jesus and his gospel as the most desirable, wonderful, source of joy and hope – as he indeed is!

Video: Christianity and Politics

“The Gospel is an inherently political message.”

See what we mean by that in this episode in which Mike and I have a discussion about Christianity and politics, and we consider some guiding principles for how Christians should view and engage with this often polarizing and divisive topic.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this subject, so please leave a comment below.

You can also listen on Soundcloud, and don’t forget to subscribe to our channel on YouTube and Soundcloud so you’ll be able to get new content when it comes out.

 

Is There a Moral Argument for the Existence of God?

Many people ask the question: Can you prove there is a God?

The answer to that question is: there are many proofs of God’s existence. Taken together, these arguments from cosmology, morality, design, etc. come together to form a very strong case for the fact that God exists.

Check out this video, in which Mike and I discuss the moral argument for God.

For more on this topic, check out yesterday’s post: David Silverman, American Atheists and the Attempt to be Good Without God

David Silverman, American Atheists and the Attempt to be Good Without God

Last week American Atheists issued a statement that they had fired their firebrand president of many years, David Silverman, as a result of moral failure.

In an interview, a spokesperson for American Atheists stated that Silverman was dismissed because of an issue regarding promotion of a recent book, as well as for a conflict of interest issue where he promoted a girlfriend to a high level position. It then came out that there were accusations of sexual misconduct with two other women who had come out to the media. Right before that story broke, American Atheists’ board quickly met to dismiss David Silverman.

The thing which is most intriguing about the statement from American Atheists is the closing sentence:

We have zero tolerance for the type of behavior alleged in these accounts. We will continue to demand the highest standards and accountability from our leaders, staff, and volunteers.

This brings up several very important issues:

If morality has no basis, then it is only opinion.

In the above statement, they mention demanding “the highest standards”. What are those standards, and how do they determine them?

The idea that people can be good without God is a major tenant of modern popular humanism and atheism. Many atheists would suggest that their ability to be good without God shows that they have more inner fortitude than “religious” folks, because they don’t need to have a threat of punishment over them in order to coerce them into good behavior.

Christians who understand the gospel are actually willing to agree with this in one sense. Belief in God does not automatically mean that a person will be morally superior to those who do not believe in God. It should not surprise Christians to find atheists or people who follow other religions who are honest, hard-working, kind people. After all, people do not become Christians by their moral effort but by their trust in God’s gracious work on their behalf.

The question is: is morality an innate thing, which people intuitively know, or is it a social construct?

Most prominent atheist thinkers argue that it is a social construct. As I have written about before – see “Why Ethics Depends on Origin” – prominent atheist writers say that ethics are not based in reality, they are social constructs which help our society to function better.

But what about when they don’t?

For example, eugenics (the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics) might actually help our society function better. If we were to abort all babies who were seen to have disabilities, if we were to forcibly end the lives of those who are a drain on society, then wouldn’t that be a benefit to society? That’s what the Nazis and others in the 19th and 20th Centuries suggested… And yet people push back against that and say it is wrong. Why? If morals are not actually based in reality but only exist to help society, then why not take that thought to its logical conclusion?

The reason is because:

Nobody believes that morality is only a matter of opinion.

The idea that morality is a social construct brings up other big questions, such as: what if my morality is different than your morality?

For example, David Silverman has denied any wrongdoing in regard to the above mentioned allegations. Essentially, he is saying that he thinks the things he did were just fine. In other words, the idea that he did something wrong is just the company’s opinion.

It could be argued that male-initiated, non-consensual sex is practiced regularly in some cultures of the world. So, they can’t really say that what he did was wrong, only that they didn’t like it.

The problem is: nobody actually believes that. We all believe that rape, murder and the like are wrong. Even with people, like David Silverman, who claim that nothing is wrong with what he did, others look at it and say: That’s wrong – and it’s not just our opinion, it’s just flat out wrong.

Mark Clark puts it this way:

We do believe in right and wrong. We believe hurting a child is wrong. We believe raping and pillaging the environment is wrong. We believe all races should be equal. That there is such a thing called justice that tells us mercy is better than hate. That loyalty is a virtue, and that there is evil in the world. All of these convictions give meaning to our lives, but if there is no absolute right and wrong, all of them go away; they are but a mirage. Meaningless. Weightless. Worth abandoning with every other construct of modernity.

Case Study: The Sexual Revolution vs. the Vietnam War

Take the 1960’s and 1970’s for example: On the one hand, there was a “sexual revolution” in which people were saying “No one can tell me what to do with my body, don’t try to impose your moral standards on me.” And yet, those same people protested the Vietnam War by saying that it was unjust and immoral because of the use of bombs and napalm.

They didn’t want anyone to impose a moral standard (regarding sex) on them, but they didn’t think twice about trying to assert their moral standard (regarding war and napalm) on others. They said on the one hand that morality is subjective, and in the next breath they said that there is a morality which everyone should accept as normative.

Case Study: Arguments

CS Lewis begins Mere Christianity by talking about the topic of: arguments.

“That’s my seat, I was there first”—“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”—“Why should you shove in first?”—“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”—“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior, which he expects the other man to know about. . . . It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.

So, then – if morality is not merely a social construct, but is actually something we intuitively or innately know, then:

Morality points us to the existence of God.

The idea that there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong points us to the fact that there is a design. If there is a design, there must be a designer.

If there is a moral rule or standard, then there must be something or someone which determines this standard.

The Bible explains this point in this way:

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires . . . they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Romans 2:14–15).

The fact that we are repelled by things such as sexual misconduct, lying and cheating, and that we advocate for equal treatment of all people regardless of their race, economic level, gender or physical ability – all those things things point to something beyond what is simply natural. They are proof of the fact that the heart of God is stitched into our very being.

Easter Math: How Does it Add Up?

Have you ever wondered why the date of Easter changes every year?

Have you ever wondered how it can be that Jesus was in the grave for three days and three nights if he was crucified on a Friday and rose on a Sunday?

How does the Jewish Passover Week correspond with Jesus’ final week leading up to his crucifixion?

Check out this video in which Mike and I discuss these questions!  (Hint: Good Friday is indeed good, but it wasn’t a Friday…)

 

Is Good Friday Actually “Good”?

thebible-crucifixion-630-jpg_225818

This is the day on which we celebrate the death of an innocent man – and not just any man: the greatest man who ever lived. It is the day when we remember that the Light of the World was overcome by darkness; that the Savior of the World was murdered by those He came to save.

Why in the world would we call this day “Good Friday”?

John Stott put it this way:

“The essence of sin is that we substitute ourselves for God; we put ourselves where only God deserves to be … that’s the essence of sin. But the essence of salvation is that God substitutes himself for us; God puts himself where we deserve to be … that’s the essence of salvation.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 says: “For our sake he (God) made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

In this verse we see what it is that makes Good Friday so incredibly “good”. It is something we call “imputation”, and it has two sides: On the cross, God imputed your flawed record to Jesus, so that He could impute Jesus’ perfect record to you. On the cross, God treated Jesus as if he had lived your life, so he could treat you as if you had lived his life.

Jesus’ act of substitution, God’s act of imputation – lead to our reconciliation with God.

And the way to receive this gift of God’s grace, the Bible tells us, is to “receive him, who believe in his name.” (John 1:12) This kind of belief isn’t merely to believe that it happened, but to believe it personally, in the sense of trusting in it, relying on it, and clinging to it.

If you do that, then today will indeed by a Good Friday for you!

Longmont Pastor Video Blog – Episode 4: The Trouble with Christianity Is…

In last week’s episode we discussed common hurdles that people in our society face when it comes to believing and embracing Christianity.

Check out the video and then help us spread the word by giving the video a like and sharing it on your social media or sending it directly to some friends. Follow us on YouTube or Vimeo and Soundcloud.

Longmont Pastor Video Blog – Episode 3: Is Christianity in Decline?

Every week we are releasing new episodes of the Longmont Pastor Video series. Last week we discussed the topic of whether or not Christianity is in decline in our society and around the world.

You can help us spread the word by giving the video a like and sharing it on your social media or sending it directly to some friends. Follow us on YouTube or Vimeo and Soundcloud.

For email and WordPress subscribers, click here to see the video.