MENU

Culture
Category

On February 6, 2015 By In Culture

The Swimsuit Issue and the Failure of Egalitarianism

I read SI.com (Sports Illustrated for the uninitiated) most of the year. During the NFL season Peter King’s Monday Morning Quarterback is one of my favorite reads. However, every February I have to avoid the site for a few days. When they roll out their annual swimsuit issue, scantily clad women are everywhere.  Here are some facts about the SI Swimsuit Issue.

-In 2005, the latest date I could find figures for, this issue generated 35 million dollars in ad revenue. Secondary products, such as calendars, generate another 10 million dollars in revenue.

-This single issue makes up 7% of the SI’s total annual revenue.

-All advertisers, including those who make the swimsuits and jewelry that the women wear, see substantial increase in sales.

-Tourism spikes in the locations where the models get photographed .

-The Swimsuit Issue sells over 1 million copies on newsstands, which is 10 to 15 times the average sales of an SI issue. There are also over 3 million SI subscribers. Last year they launched a Swimsuit Issue website where millions more folks read it.

-It is the single best selling issue in Time Inc.’s magazine franchise, which includes well known magazines, such Time, People, Entertainment Weekly, and lesser known gems like Rugby World.

-Cover models and many of those within the magazine become famous, go on to promote numerous other products, and become rich.

The Swimsuit Issue is a cultural phenomenon and financial goldmine.

SI

The SI Swimsuit Issue  is a good case study into how well egalitarianism works. Egalitarianism is the flattening out of differences. It tries to destroy hierarchy in the name of “all men being equal.” In reality it is a fight against gravity, against the way God made the world.  One would assume in world devoted to the “advancement of women” that the Swimsuit Issue would slowly fade away and become a relic of a bygone era of male domination. Yet despite all the protests of the cultural elite, despite years of egalitarian indoctrination, despite egalitarianism being the default worldview of most Americans, the Swimsuit Issues not only goes on, but becomes more powerful.  The Swimsuit Issues shows that gravity wins in the end. Egalitarianism has failed in its stated agenda; to make things better for women. There are exceptions to what I am about to say and this is but one slice of our cultural pie. However, we see egalitarianism’s failure in the Swimsuit issue.

First, despite egalitarianism’s contrary claim, women are different from men. Women have things men don’t.  Men want to look at those things. Put a half (mostly?) naked man on the cover and do you get the same sales? Of course not! Why? Because men and women are different both in body and in personal make up. But, of course the scholars contest this. “Men and women are really the same,” they opine. “What is in our pants doesn’t make us who we are.”  Just because women have wombs and breasts doesn’t mean they were made to have babies. I am not saying SI agrees with my assessment about why women are different. And I know they are using those differences between men and women in a twisted way. But they and their readers know that women and men are not interchangeable. The auto mechanic who reads the Swimsuit Issue knows more about how God made the world than the Ph.D. who has spent years and millions of dollars  in grants trying to prove men and women are really the same.

Second, some women are more beautiful than others. Egalitarianism denies any hierarchy, including a hierarchy of beauty. Christians tend to deny this as well. We think we are being nice by denying that some women are more beautiful than others. But in reality we are just lying. Of course, all women are beautiful in certain ways. I think my wife is beautiful. And you should think the same about your wife.  The definition of beauty can shift from time to time and place to place. Yet in every culture there are women who are more beautiful than other women. Again the Swimsuit Issue proves this. Why not just put your average woman on the cover in a bikini? Because your average woman, while probably a wonderful woman, is not as beautiful as Kate Upton. Despite egalitarianism’s claim, all women are not created with equal beauty.

Third, egalitarianism has not caused men to stop treating women like sex objects. Men buy 1 million copies of the Swimsuit Issue because they want to look at half-naked women. There is a reason for this. Women were made for sex and so were men.  SI has taken that and perverted it, but there is a truth in their perversion. I find it odd that many egalitarians fight against men who they think are too patriarchal, but refuse to protest things like the Swimsuit Issue, pornography, and Fifty Shades of Grey. You can’t on the one hand claim that women are more than sex objects, but then encourage women to parade their breasts to the watching world as a sign of their freedom from being a sex object. This goes for many of pop music’s female stars as well. They dress provocatively, dance provocatively, sing provocatively, but then they don’t want women to be treated like objects. By the way, I am not saying men who treat women like objects are justified. It is wrong to do so. My point is that egalitarians speak out of both sides of their mouths. You can’t say, “Don’t treat us like objects” and then go make yourself an object to be stared at. A vast majority of the women in this world were made for  a sexual relationship. Either they become sex objects for leering men, are rejected because they are not sexy enough, or they become objects of affection and protection for loving husbands. Egalitarianism only provides us with the first two.

So how should Christians respond to SI’s perversions and egalitarianism’s siren songs?

First, we should rejoice in the differences between men and women, including the physical differences. God made us with certain parts. He likes it that way. Solomon encouraged husbands to be intoxicated with their wife’s breasts (Proverbs 5:19).  All attempts to flatten out the differences between men and women should be rejected. Instead these differences should be properly celebrated.

Second, we should acknowledge that God has given certain people gifts that are to be used to his glory. Strength, intelligence, riches, and power are all gifts from God. Beauty is a gift from God as well though we don’t often think about it that way. Women who are beautiful should not trust in their beauty, but neither should they deny their beauty. They should use it in a way that honors God. Often beautiful women get a platform that other women do not just as men who are strong will be called on to do things that other men are not.

Third, Christians should acknowledge that a vast majority of the people in this world were created for a sexual relationship. Single men should look forward to the day when sex is a regular part of their life. Single women should know that God made them to have regular sex with a man and bear children with him. I am not saying all people get this. Nor am I saying you are less of a Christian if God does not provide this for you. But this is the norm and should be treated as such. Sex is good when the boundaries in Scriptures are maintained. Christians should teach this basic concept without giving mini-sessions on how to have a good sex life.

Finally, Christians must remember that egalitarianism destroys women. Egalitarianism is one of the foundation stones of modern thinking.  It claims to improve the status of woman and to empower them. However, it has helped create an environment where in February 2015 we will get the best selling issue of any English magazine in the world and it is completely devoted to women being willing objects of lust. Later we will get a movie based on a book, written by a woman, that has sold over 100 million copies where women again are treated like sex objects, this time in bondage fantasies.  We could go on about TV shows by women that treat women as sex objects to pop songs sung by women where they act like sex objects.  Of course, there is more rotten fruit from egalitarianism, such as women going to war. But even looking at this one sliver, how women are treated sexually, egalitarianism has not improved the plight of women.  In fact it has lead down the opposite path; the degradation of women. A church that compromises with egalitarianism will wake up to find that some of the people she loves and needs the most, grandmothers, mothers, wives, and daughters are broken not  by wicked, harsh tyrants, but rather by those who speak the soft, soothing sounds of equality.<>siteразработка ов яндекс

Read more

On January 26, 2015 By In Culture, Interviews, Theology

Church Unity and Mission: An Interview with Samuel T. Logan Jr.

 

 

wrf2

Made up of 67 denominations, the World Reformed Fellowship was founded to “encourage understanding and cooperation among evangelical Presbyterian and Reformed denominations and institutions, and to link those institutions having ministry resources with those possessing vision but few resources. The fellowship promotes Reformed thinking, a Reformed world and life view, fosters evangelism and strategies on missions, church planting and theological education, and promotes international communication for the further advancement of the Gospel.” (more…)

Read more

On January 26, 2015 By In Culture, Theology, Wisdom

Angel, Absurdism, and Faith (not the girl)

Angel absurdism (i.e. pushing absurdism on the TV show) relies on you missing the real absurdity.

Atheism tries to make sense by pretending that not making sense is a special virtue. You can see it especially clearly in the brief exchange below in which Joss Whedon mentions the story in Season 2, episode 16 of the TV show Angel, “Epiphany“:

YouTube – Joss Whedon: Atheist & Absurdist.

I used to love Whedon, who has now moved on to the Marvel Avenger franchise. His browncoat-betraying anti-Romney propaganda, in which he pretended all sorts of central-planet death myths like overpopulation were true, pretty much ended my positive feeling toward him. I confess I harbor a fantasy that he was offered the work with the Marvel movies by a mysterious figure who made him sign in blood.

angel kate

But I still think the exchange above is profitable to think about.

I have extreme skepticism about what Whedon claims he has suffered for his atheism. I also hate the hearing the word “faith” used for an opinion on God’s existence. Whether or not God is trustworthy is a matter of faith. Whether or not he exists has nothing to do with faith (and Hebrews doesn’t say otherwise).

But I’m posting this because I remember actually liking Angel’s slogan: “If what we do doesn’t matter; then all that matters is what we do.” And I feel really stupid for not seeing the irrationality of it immediately. Sometimes I think paradoxes give off the glint of hidden wisdom when they are just plain nonsense.

Angel’s conclusion at the end of Season 2 (or near the end) was that (to repeat) “If what we do doesn’t matter then all that matters is what we do.”

If what we do doesn’t matter, then anything might matter except what we do. You can’t draw the contradiction of a premise from that premise as if it followed as a conclusion from it.

Now that I’ve gotten that issue out of the way (in my own mind, at least), let me say why I think Whedon’s view appeals to people, especially to Christians.

Being able to evaluate and value one’s decisions and commitments without having knowledge of the eternal plan for them is a requirement for the human condition. It is set forth most starkly in the Bible in the book called Ecclesiastes.

So, I think the appeal is precisely because Whedon’s view is a close replica of the truth.

But I don’t think it works if there is no plan at all. (And claiming there is no plan seems to actually assert endless knowledge rather than humbly deny it. But that argument would be endless, so I’ll let it go.) It is one thing to make decisions and do your best without understanding why your circumstances exist or how you fit into a larger picture. But it is another to say that there is no picture.

To really act as Angel does actually requires faith. And that, in my opinion, is why Whedon had to include a miracle in his story. Viewers would have felt like there was no point without it.<>создание тур а

Read more

On January 23, 2015 By In Culture, Politics

Federal Liberty: The Importance of the Dutch Example

 

Dutch Pic

By guest contributor Bruce P. Frohnen[1]

Conservatives to a significant degree are defined by their respect for historical origins. In the American context this has meant recognizing the importance of a tradition with its roots in England, but also further back, and further East. To put it in terms reminiscent of Russell Kirk, the religion of Jerusalem, the philosophy of Athens, the law of Rome, and the common law culture of London all were critical to the development of the American political tradition, of our constitution of government, and of our way of life.

There is one source of our tradition, however, which too often is overlooked, or at any rate minimized. If one were to place it in a particular city, it probably would be The Hague. Capital of the Netherlands, this unusual little city is, and was, the capital of a highly unusual little country which for a century or two had an outsized impact on the world, and on American settlers in particular.

Of course, any college or even high school course in American history should (though probably no longer does) mention the fact that many of the Puritans who would settle New England first fled English suppression of their Calvinist religion by going to Holland. They did not like what they found there (lax public laws and lax morals). But they continued to be influenced by the political and religious thinking and lived examples that had been shaping English Calvinism and Calvinist politics for some time.

Of course, Calvinism generally is identified with the Swiss city-state of Geneva. But that city existed, politically, as a kind of hothouse flower, protected for years by the presence of Calvin himself (though that did not prevent significant problems) and, more important, the strength and isolation of the Swiss confederation. The Netherlands, on the other hand, was a nation born in the crucible of sustained conflict. The Dutch people over generations developed a pluralist society and a kind of federal government sufficient to win independence from the Spanish monarch while retaining local freedoms and significantly divergent, traditional ways of life.

The Dutch republic had only a relatively short time as a major power and example of good government, before descending for some time into a rather petty empire seemingly motivated only by greed. But beginning in the 16th and going into the early 18th century, the Netherlands provided examples of ordered liberty, as well as practically grounded theories underlying good government. Here a people numerous and organized enough to constitute a nation gave perhaps the first viable alternative to the centralizing monarchies then solidifying power throughout Europe. Here an early modern people came to grips with the intrinsically plural structure of society in such a way as to win their independence as a nation without losing their religious identities or local rights of self-government.

The great theorist of this time and place was Johannes Althusius. Born in what is now Germany, Althusius identified closely with his fellow Calvinists in the Netherlands. He understood, in part from simple observation of lived examples all around him that people do not exist as individuals. We all are, in our essence, members of various communities. Where in most early modern states monarchs had set about destroying most of the communities in which people become fully human and live out their lives, the Dutch never fully succumbed to the power of any single monarch. Their “petty” republics and principalities hung on tenaciously to their particular liberties and ways of life. Split by religious differences, the Dutch developed somewhat (note the lack of emphasis, here) more toleration of religious dissent than most other countries. But where they truly showed their strength was in their recognition and practice of what Calvinists in the New World would term “federal liberty.”

Federal liberty is the freedom to live according to one’s covenants. Daniel J. Elazar explained federal liberty as a kind of correction to modern rights theory. We must recognize for every person, he argued,

“the right and obligation to covenant, which is simultaneously both right and obligation. The exercise of all rights is through the covenants freely entered into by humans. Every individual human and every human community and polity lives within this network of covenants and only can find expression for rights within a network of covenants. Humanity is the sum of its obligations and rights, not to the state but to a transcendent and mutually accepted morality. Humans are free because only the free can be obligated to be moral and just and only by being obligated to strive to be moral and just do they find expression of their inalienable rights.”

When the Calvinists of the seventeenth century formed their conception of federal liberty they were not concerned primarily with discussions of individual rights. But they were concerned to establish the limits of legitimate power in the face of monarchs hostile to their religion, traditions, and ways of life. Those powers were limited, they claimed, by the duty of rulers to respect the variety of covenants into which their people had entered. These binding agreements, including God as a guaranteeing witness, bound individual persons to local communities rooted in family, in religion, in geography, and in public connections (e.g. rights to vote for local leaders) that we today can only understand as political. A monarch seeking to stamp out these communities broke his own covenant with God and, if he persisted over time, forfeited his right to the loyalty and support of his people.

King Philip of Spain reached this point with his Dutch subjects. The Dutch people organized themselves into an alliance of communities under the leadership of “William the Silent,” whose constitutional role and power over the whole nation was distinctly limited.

The result in the Netherlands was one of the very few victories against the drive to royal absolutism. The formation of their country was the result of a willingness to build from the bottom up—that is, from the great variety of small republics and principalities, with roots going back centuries, to which the people had developed strong attachments—up to the provincial and only from there any national level.

The Calvinists of New England would develop their own communities in the covenantal fashion practiced in the Netherlands. Their habit of forming church covenants was rooted in Calvinism and in the political circumstances of their own time and place—including the circumstances presented by English hostility toward Calvinist communities. But the example of the Netherlands would show how these covenants might be built upon to forge further, higher covenants—such as that joining several smaller communities into the “federation” of what would become Connecticut—or that joining the larger, provincial communities of the various states into the decidedly limited federal government.

Bruce P. Frohnen is Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University College of Law and the author of Virtue and the Promise of Conservatism: The Legacy of Burke and Tocqueville, The New Communitarians and The Crisis of Modern Liberalism and editor (with George Carey) of Community and Tradition: Conservative Perspectives on the American Experience.

 

[1] This article originally appeared at The Imaginative Conservative and is re-posted here with permission

 <>копирайтинг стоимость 1000 знаковкак проверить популярность а

Read more

On January 14, 2015 By In Culture, Theology, Wisdom

How to be an Intellectually Faithful Freshman

class room

This week and next, colleges across the country will commence their Spring semester. Many students who grew up in Christian homes will consciously trade in their faith for a philosophical system antithetical to the one of their upbringing. Even more students, however, while not outright denying their Christian faith, will unconsciously adopt a philosophical system that is inherently idolatrous. It’s not that this second group wants to be idolaters; they simply lack the tools to discern the nature of the bill of goods their professor is selling them. So, how can one know if a given philosophical system (Kantianism, Marxism, Platonism, etc.) is idolatrous? One can begin by asking two questions. First, “is this logical?” Second, “is this sinful?” If the answer is “yes” to the first question, the answer will be “no” to the second question. If the answer is “no” to the first question, the answer will be “yes” to the second question. Here’s a story to illustrate the point:

On her twenty first birthday, Cindy was promised a night on the town with her girlfriends. After dinner, her friends came to her house in a limo, blindfolded her, and took her to Crazy Dave’s Casino (obviously, she had some pretty lame friends…). As they were getting into the limo, they shoved some bills in her purse and said “tonight’s on us!” Once inside, Cindy took off her blindfold. Because there was no signage on the inside of the building, Cindy still wasn’t sure where she was. Eventually, she saw a waitress and asked if she could get something to drink. As she pulled out her wallet to pay, she saw four hundred Crazy Dave’s Casino-Bucks in her purse.

Now, there are only two ways that Cindy could have deduced her location. First, she could have spotted a logo. While it’s true the big Crazy Dave’s sign was outside, there were actually logo’s on the slot machines, napkins, etc. Secondly, of course, she could’ve known by looking at the Crazy Dave’s Casino-Bucks. Her currency could’ve revealed to her the location. Likewise, her location could have told her what sort of currency her friends slipped into her purse. For Cindy to answer the question “am I at Casino Dave’s?” she’d have to look at her currency. For her to answer the question “what sort of currency do I have in my purse?” she’d have to look at the signage.

Back to our original question: how can one know if a given philosophical system is idolatrous? There are at least two ways: Firstly, you can look for signage. Here, you’re trying to determine if the system outrightly advertises itself as sinful. Put simply, this means asking a couple questions of the philosophical system. One question is, “does it enable me to do something God forbids?” Nihilism, for instance, enables one to tear down systems for “tearing’s” sake. Well, some systems need to be torn down, but we’re commanded to obey God’s rule. Any tearing, then, must not be for its own sake, but because we’re seeking a system patterned after the rule of God. Thus, we know Nihilism is idolatrous because it enables us to do something God forbids.  Another question to ask is, “does the system forbid me from doing something God commands?”  Animism, for instance, is idolatrous because it teaches that everything on the earth, indeed the earth itself, has a soul. Thus, I’m forbidden from, among other things, giving thanks to God. If “Mother Nature” is giving me food, my thanksgiving is directed to the object I’m eating rather than the One who gave me the object to eat. Like Cindy, you’re in a building (the Casino of Idolatry, if you will), and you’re looking for clues as to the nature of the structure.

Secondly, you can look at the currency in which the philosophical system deals. This is crucial because not all philosophical systems are easily detected as “sinful.” Like Cindy in the casino, there isn’t a big Crazy Dave’s sign, and the logos are quite small and inconspicuous. Thus, it won’t do to simply ask “am I in the Casino of Idolatry?” Rather, you’ll have to ask “am I using the currency of the Casino of Idolatry?” Well, what is the currency of idolatry? In a word, it’s illogicality. If the system is illogical, it is idolatrous. Idolatry is always making a deal in which you trade life for death; the family blessing for some soup. An idolatrous philosophical system never uses the currency of “logic.” Thus, one can ask the question, “Are the propositions which this philosophy proposes logical?” If the answer is “no!” then you can know the system is itself idolatrous.[1]

With a little deductive reasoning, one can find idolatry in any illogical statement. Likewise, one can find incoherence in any given expression of idolatry. In his long career, Vern Poythress has become an exemplar for how to do such deductive reasoning. In the quote below, Poythress does a wonderful job showing the inherent idolatry and incoherence of Kantian philosophy. While his remarks are limited to Kantianism, his deductive method can be applied to any philosophical system. Specifically, notice two things. First, he shows how Kantianism is illogical; it’s self-defeating. Its currency can only be spent “in-house,” as it were. In this way, Poythress is saying “look at your currency, it’ll tell you that you’re in the Casino of Idolatry.” Secondly, Poythress draws attention to the sinful signage of Kantianism. The system enables you to claim complete autonomy; rejecting any Creator-creature distinction. In this way, Poythress is saying “look at the sign, it’ll tell you that your currency can’t be logical!” Poythress is modeling for us the ways in which we can both analyze a given philosophical system, and consciously embrace our biblical faith. Says Poythress:

“…Kantian philosophy discusses everything under the sun, including God, including morality, including the nominal realm, and proceeds to tell us what we can and cannot expect to know about the noumenal realm, and why. An impressive scope, would you not say? A scope far larger than the scope that Kantian philosophy assigns as the limits of reason. Kantianism uses reason to build a system that sets the limits of reason. To do so, it has to survey the field. It has to transcend the phenomenal and look at the noumenal realm as well. It has to take a God’s-eye view. This view, once achieved, afterwards allows it to tell you and me the narrower limits in which our reason can safely operate.

The God’s-eye view is Kantianism’s secret, and simultaneously its weakest point. Kantianism is self-destructive. In its results, it tells us what are the limitations of reason. If we take those results seriously, we have to apply them to Kantianism’s own reasonings about philosophy. Those reasonings go beyond the limits, and so we conclude that they are not sound. And so the whole philosophy is unsound. And so the limits have not been established. And so we are back to the beginning. We have gotten nowhere. Except now we know not to follow Kantianism.

In addition, Kantian philosophy testifies unwittingly to the reality of human ability to transcend the immediate. We can stand back from the immediacy of experience and survey what we have been doing. And then we can stand back from that and survey the meaning of our more abstract mediations. We have the capacity… for a miniature transcendence, because our minds imitate the mind of God. We can imagine what it would be like to look at everything from God’s point of view.

But Kantian philosophy engages in this whole process of transcendence autonomously. By its act of attempting transcendence, it testifies to God who made the human mind. By its autonomy, it defies God’s instruction in Scripture and refuses to give him thanks (Rom. 1:21). Not only that, but in effect it tries to be God. Having achieved what it hopes is a godlike transcendence, it can then dictate as a god what limits we poor mortals must have for our reasoning.

In a sense, the Kantian philosophers are the godlike beings, because they can dictate to poor mortals the limits of their experience and their reason. But in another sense Kantianism allows all human beings to be godlike. Each of us becomes in his own person a kind of godlike creator of the world. We ‘create’ the whole world of phenomena, including all the structures of time and space and causality and logic and reason, by imposing structure through our mental categories. We become gods. Can you see how such a conception has a covert religious appeal for people—really all of us in our sinfulness—who desire autonomy?”[2]


[1] One may ask, “but if a system is illogical, why would anyone believe it?” After all, the professors don’t seem to be play-acting; they really believe in Marxism, etc. The short answer is that they grew up in the Casino of Idolatry. They’ve never been outside, to the real world, and thus they dismiss a dollar bill as “fake,” but hold on to the Casino-Bucks for dear life! Their logic, in other words, is self-referential. It only works in their personal Casino of Idolatry. To know what logic *is* one must venture outside of the casino, to the great (real!) world God has designed.  

[2] Poythress, Vern S. Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2013; 637-638

<>games rpgраскрутка а магазина

Read more

On January 9, 2015 By In Culture, Family and Children, Politics

Same Love, Different God: A Gay Anthem

Since I first heard Macklemore’s Same Love in 2012, I’ve had a strange resonance with its message. This is odd because I’m a Conservative-Christian. That is, I not only adhere to the historic creeds of the church, but I’m seeking ordination in a denomination which adds even more confessional standards to the bunch! Perhaps more to the point, I’m a Christian-Conservative. By my early twenties, I’d devoured the works of Christopher Dawson, William F. Buckley, and Russell Kirk. If I thought they’d come, I’d invite Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks to my birthday party.

With such an Alex P. Keaton-pedigree, how could I be drawn to the lyrics of a song which gives voice to the liberal cry for LGBTQ rights? Was I falling victim to the ol’ snappy rhythm-stupid lyric trap? Well, after hearing the song almost weekly for two years now, I’ve come to realize that my affinity for the message is not in spite of the lyrics, but because of the lyrics. In fact, I think the song can work as a sort of tract for explaining the position of Christian-Conservatives and Conservative-Christians. At its heart, Same Love argues: (1) Our view of sexuality is influenced by the culture. (2) Our personal sexuality is influenced by our “innate” selves. (3) Our sexuality is accountable to the one, true God.

First, our view of sexuality is influenced by the culture. At the beginning of the song, we’re given a story.

When I was in the 3rd grade I thought that I was gay ’cause I could draw,

My uncle was and I kept my room straight

I told my mom, tears rushing down my face, she’s like,

“Ben you’ve loved girls since before pre-K”

Trippin’, yeah, I guess she had a point, didn’t she?

A bunch of stereotypes all in my head

I remember doing the math like “Yeah, I’m good a little league”

A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant

For those who like the same sex had the characteristics

Macklemore thought he was gay because he had certain characteristics generally thought of as “feminine.” Thankfully, he had a thoughtful mother who told him that his sexuality is deeper than just his interests and sensibilities. In this regard, the church could learn a lot from Macklemore’s mom. Let me tell you a story not dissimilar to the one Macklemore recounts. This one, an amalgamation of the stories of a number of my gay friends who were raised in conservative, evangelical churches, only to leave the faith for a gay lifestyle: 

“With my friends from school, I was reading Dostoevsky, playing Mozart, and reciting Shakespeare. At youth group, I was playing ultimate cow-tongue Frisbee, Call of Duty, and sitting through services which reminded me of a pep rally. Because of my “weird” sensibilities, I was called gay by my church before I was ever accepted as a gay man by the community with which I now identify.  At first, I didn’t think of myself as a homosexual; I just knew I wasn’t straight by my church’s standards. Two communities–two options–were before me; church community or gay community. Both groups told me that I had the sensibilities of the second group. So, eventually, I believed them both. Subsequently, I was embraced, nurtured, and freed by a loving community of gay friends at school.”

Perhaps our sharpest, most gifted church members left the faith because their church didn’t have the theological or liturgical tools to show them how the creation and preservation of art fits into the redemptive schema of God. Sure, as Christians, there are certain character-qualities that should typify the life of a man or woman. These qualities complement the qualities of the opposite sex. However, there are numerous sensibilities and personality traits which must not be viewed as statically masculine or feminine.

One of the reasons it’s so easy to create theories in which a figure from the past (like Abraham Lincoln) is gay, is because the traits typical of masculinity and femininity are constantly in flux. In Lincoln’s day, to have a public display of emotion was more acceptable of a man than a woman. Obviously, in Ronald Reagan’s day, that had changed. Thus, a modern reader can anachronistically infer something about a 18th or 19th century man’s sexual orientation from his “feminine” traits. Like Macklemore’s mom, the church needs to recover a healthy, biblical doctrine of masculinity and femininity-a doctrine which avoids stereotypes and accounts for the artist and the athlete.

Second, our personal sexuality is influenced by our “innate” selves. Now, we’ve seen that cultural views of masculinity and femininity have something to do with how we view “gay” and “straight,” and thus influence how we judge our own sexuality. However, that is not the whole story. The song goes on to say that we can’t allow these cultural stereotypes to influence our personal sexuality.

You [can’t] be cured with some treatment and religion

Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition

Playing God

To change your sexual identity is like playing God. You can’t just go through a procedure to “fix” your orientation. It is innate to you. Now, a tension is set up in the song. On the one hand, we’re born with physicality, with bodies. On the other hand, the song suggests, just because one is born with female genitalia, does not mean that one *is* female. One may be born female, but, in fact, be male. Here, the song prioritizes the metaphysical over the physical. What you feel is innate and right. What you are physically is subjective and possibly wrong. 

Here is the tension: that which is “innate” is sometimes physical and other times metaphysical. When it is the feeling of hate (which the song mentions), it is wrong and should be changed. When it is the feeling of attraction toward someone of the same sex, it should be embraced. When the physicality is your gender, it can be amended. When the physicality is your race (which the song mentions), it must be embraced and accepted. The song is right, you can’t play God; you have to submit to your innate self. The question, however, is how do we know what is innate? Asked differently: “should I ‘play god’ and deny my feeling of same sex attraction?” or “Should I ‘play god’ and have a sex change?” You see, the decision isn’t as easy as “to be myself or not?” No, the issue is “what part of myself will I ‘not be?’”

This brings us to our third area of agreement with the song; our sexuality is accountable to the one, true God.

Whatever God you believe in

We come from the same one

Strip away the fear

Underneath it’s all the same love

The song is not promoting a squishy relativism. It doesn’t say “whatever god you believe in, it doesn’t matter.” Nor does it say, “Whatever god you believe in is true.” No, you may (subjectively) believe in the Muslim god, or the Wiccan god, or the Buddhist god, but actually there is only one (objective) god.

Of course, having a god speak to us is the only way to resolve the tension of what is “innate” and “non-innate” to our humanity. To say something is innate is to say it can exist apart from brokenness and sin. The metal of a ship is innate, the rust is not. Our age is made up of only broken things, so the only way to know what is innate is to know what existed before there was brokenness, and what will exist when the brokenness is taken away. Someone who knows the Alpha and the Omega has to tell us what is innate. Given our “situatedness” in history, we can’t know such things on our own.  Our sexuality can’t be “discovered,” it has to be given to us by our Creator.

Well, who is this one, true God? Macklemore claims to know him; indeed, he speaks for him. He lets us know that this god deems race (physical) and sexual preference (metaphysical) as innate; but judges hate (metaphysical) and gender (physical) as non-innate. Macklemore doesn’t think you should put your trust in a book “written 3,000 years ago.” I get that. However, what’s the alternative? Macklemore’s told us that there is only one god, but what’s this god’s name? How did he and Macklemore meet? Macklemore is telling us what is innate and what is extraneous, what is good and what is bad, what is clean and what is unclean, what is holy and what is profane. Are we supposed to take his word for it that this is god’s opinion?

While I agree that there is only one, true God, I think He is Yahweh; the one in whom Abraham put his trust, the one who Moses encountered in a cloud, the one who Paul knew, the one from whom Jesus claimed to be. Not only are other “gods” subject to Him (including Macklemore’s god), but I am subject to him. My sexual orientation, gender, and proclivities are subject to him. You see, we can’t base our sexual identity on the culture’s view of masculinity and femininity, it’s relative and ever fluctuating. We can’t base our sexual identity on our own impulses. How would we know which are innate and which are bad? How would we know which to neglect and which to embrace? No, we have to base our sexual identity and practices on the one, true God. He created our gendered-bodies, and he has a plan for them stretching beyond this short life.

As a straight man, I resonate with Same Love because, in a sexually “open” and “evolving” world, I need a sure and steady word from God just as much as my gay friends do. Macklemore claims to have such a word. In fact, Jesus and Macklemore are making the exact same claim; both claim they know the will of the one, true God. Here is your choice: put your faith in the one who rose from the dead, or put your faith in the one who wrote Thrift Shop.<> оптимизация а ов рекламное агентство

Read more

On December 30, 2014 By In Culture

Unbroken: Broken Storytelling. Read the Book. See the Movie To End All Wars.

Guest post by Brian Godawa

The true story of Louis Zamperini, a steel-willed Italian American who survived atrocities of WWII, including a plane crash, being adrift at sea for 45 days, and unspeakable brutality at the hands of Japanese captors in a POW camp.

Read the book. I will start with my punchline. I will give away my conclusion. I cannot be more emphatic. Read the book.

This is not to say that the movie, Unbroken is a bad movie. It is not. It is only half a movie. It is a set up without a pay off. It is a well-written, well-directed and well-acted half-story that views like an exciting build up to a powerful third act, and like a tease, is cut off before it can end, leaving you unsatisfied. It is a story about survival and the triumph of the human will without any real soul to it.

The story begins with a young Louis in his bombardier position on a WWII plane running missions. Act One flashes back to his youth, where we see Louis comes from a religious Italian family. He is a troublemaker, whose brother finds an outlet for Louis’ restlessness in running. This running ultimately takes him to the 1932 Olympics in Berlin, where Louis runs an impressive, though not winning race.

The War however, stops Louis’ dreams, and he finds himself on a bombing squad that crash lands in the ocean and sets him and two other survivors adrift for a record setting 45 days before capture by the Japanese.

The last half of the movie is then about his will to survive the brutality of a particular Japanese POW guard nicknamed, “The Bird.” We see Louis’ will standing strong against a truly barbaric and evil Bird, who seeks to break him by beating him into the ground.

The theme of the movie is about the unbeatable human will to survive the evil men do to one another. Early on, Louis’ brother gives him a slogan that is reiterated later, “If you can take it, you can make it.” Another phrase shows up, “A moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory.” And of course there are some amazing moments of pain indeed in this festival of suffering, that will bring you to tears, as Louis defies his captors in will if not in actual behavior.

The problem with it is that survival is as deep as it keeps. Mere survival and the power of the will. This is a shallow and unsatisfying story that lacks real transcendence of meaning. Which is such a shame because it sets up for a powerful redemption of the hero, and it even points in that direction, but we are left starving for that redemption, because it is “off-screen” and after the movie is over in a mere title card.

Jolie sets us up for the redemption that Louis is to have when in his life as a young child, we hear a sermon of a pastor preaching that “God sent his son, Jesus Christ not to wage war, but to forgive. To love thine enemy.” The midpoint transformation of the hero even occurs, when on the open sea, about to die, Louis says a prayer to God, “If you see me through this, I swear I’ll dedicate my whole life to you.”

Jolie does a fantastic job of setting up the feel of the first half of the story of Unbroken the book. But the absolute POWER of Unbroken is not in the will to survive, but in the will to forgive. That is the second half of the story she cut out. Zamperini went home to America and began to plot how to go back to Japan and kill The Bird. But when he became a Christian at a Billy Graham Crusade, he transformed and went back to forgive the Bird and the others. It was not until Zamperini was broken by God that he found his redemption. Jolie puts this on a title card at the end, “Louis did make good on his promise to serve God. He found that the way forward was not revenge, but forgiveness.” And it tells us he went back to forgive his captors.

Sadly, the very heart of what makes Unbroken so powerful a story of redemption is to Jolie, a mere postscript.

There is even a scene in the film where Louis takes on himself a beating in order to protect a fellow prisoner from being beaten. And this is a beautiful moving example of self sacrifice. But in the end, the only spirituality that is understood comes from the mouth of the praying religious pilot who, when asked by Louis whether there is some kind of grand plan by God, replies, “You just go on living, the best you can, have some fun along the way. And when you die, you meet an angel who tells you all the answers to your questions about life.” This seems more like the uneducated lack of understanding spirituality by the writers and director than anything an actual Christian would say or believe.

Look, I know how impossible it is to make a movie of a whole book. You have to cut a lot out and you can’t get it all on the screen. And I know that Zamperini, before his death, gave his blessing on the movie because he wanted it to reach a wider audience. But from a strictly professional storytelling perspective, Jolie and her writers (otherwise very competent screenwriters) set up a spiritual story that they didn’t pay off with redemption. They left it at mere survival and the will, a rather shallow and empty story without transcendence. And in that sense, I don’t expect secular screenwriters to care about transcendence. They don’t believe in true transcendence. They believe that survival is the strongest human urge, because they themselves do not understand the power and beauty of spiritual redemption and sin atonement. They are like Louis before his redemption. They are unbroken – and unforgiven.

TEAWposterDirectorCut

I wrote about this sad phenomenon of secular storytellers eviscerating the faith and spiritual element of movies about Christians. In my book, Word Pictures, I list off nine popular movies made by secular filmmakers, who either ignored, or cut out the faith of the heroes whose stories were intimately driven by their spiritual faith. Hotel Rwanda, The Pursuit of Happyness, Becoming Jane, Anna and the King, Pocahontas, The New World, Walk the Line, Hardball, and Valkerie. Some of them, like Unbroken, may have at best hinted at the faith.

I won’t attack or accuse these filmmakers of malicious motives. They may have had them, they may have not. But I certainly understand why they would subvert those stories and spin them to communicate their own humanistic worldview of self-salvation through good works or other. Secular storytellers do not believe in transcendence, so when they see the faith of these people, they simply are blind to its power. They must of necessity reinterpret that spiritual transcendence through their own paradigm of humanistic immanence.

They have no transcendence in their lives, so their stories communicate no transcendence.

Unbroken, the movie? Good, but falling way short of great storytelling. I would rather you read the book Unbroken. It will change your life.

And if you want to watch a true story about spiritual transcendence, and the power of forgiveness in a Japanese POW camp, watch To End All Wars, starring Kiefer Sutherland, on Amazon Movies On Demand. It’s got everything the movie Unbroken has about survival in suffering injustice. But it also has on-screen what Unbroken doesn’t: redemption, atonement, transcendence.

Brian Godawa is an American screenwriter and author. He wrote the screenplay for To End All Wars and The Visitation, and co-wrote Change Your Life! with Adam Christing.

Originally appeared at Godawa.com<>поисковое продвижение а компании

Read more

On December 27, 2014 By In Culture, Film

On Making Movies and Being Christian

Recently my son spent some time with another young man who was visiting our church with his family. Both of these boys are eleven. They talked about movies. But they did not talk watching them. They talked about making them. How many young men are out there who want to make movies or act in them? Humans love stories. We love to hear them and we love to tell them. As our children grow we should expect them to write great stories. But we should also expect them to direct great stories. Here are some thoughts on the present state and suggestions for the future growth of Christian movie makers.

First, Christian movie making is in its infancy. Hopefully, in time, the industry will gain maturity and wisdom in how movies are made. We need to give these men time to grow up. We can’t expect a six year old to act forty-five. By the way, this also means we need older Christians involved in the movie making business. Maturity often comes with age. Unfortunately, too many Christian film makers are young.

Second, I am grateful for the men who are making these movies. I do not agree with everything they do, but they are paving the way for the next generation. Critics should be more humble. It is hard to make a good movie, just take a peek at all the trash on Netflix that somehow still got made.

Third, Christian movie makers need to be open to criticism. Many Christians, especially in the arts, insulate themselves from criticism. Just because you are doing it for Jesus doesn’t mean you get a pass. And this doesn’t just mean criticism from other Christians.

Fourth, if we want the next generation of movie makers to make better movies, we need to give them better stories. Our educational system, public and Christian, has gotten rid of many great stories.  Here is where the older practice of a classical education can help us with a very modern issue; how to make good movies. Shakespeare, Dante, Beowulf, Steinbeck, Dickens, and of course, the Bible fill our minds with great stories. If we absorb these stories it will go a long way towards making better movies.

shakespeare

Fifth, a good story on paper does not magically become a good movie. We need Christians who understand what a visual medium is for. A movie is not a lecture, novel, or short story. Words on a page are not the same as dialogue plus images. Christians need to examine how this medium can be used to help people to see the world as God made it. Studying great directors can be a help here. You may not agree with Scorsese or Spielberg or Fincher, but they should be studied none the less, much as one studies Hemingway or Twain when it comes to literature.

Sixth, movies are not preaching or evangelism. A movie cannot do the work of a minister or an evangelist. This is one of the most helpful things a Christian movie maker can remember. Your movie cannot do what the preaching of God’s Word does. Don’t shove it into that hole. Let movies do what they are supposed to: tell a story using words and pictures. They can pave the way for the preaching of the good news, but they cannot be a substitute for it.

Seventh, Christians need to find ways to show sin in a way that does not cause a sailor to blush but is realistic. This is a difficult balance, but not impossible. Older horror movies can give some guidance here. What is implied, but not shown, is often most effective. We are used to seeing everything so we forget the impact of not seeing, but still knowing. One example of this is in the Coen Brothers’ film, No Country for Old Men. The villain meets the main character’s wife. We know he is going to kill her. They talk inside the house. Then we see the bad guy on the front porch wiping blood off his boot. Nothing is seen. But everything is understood. Great directors, such as Alfred Hitchcock, are masters of the unseen. Evils, such as rape, adultery, dismemberment, etc. can all be a part of a Christian movie when we understand this. These scenes should not be pornographic, exploitative, nor simplistic, but they should sufficient impact. The one dimensional nature of sin is a great deficiency in Christian movies. The Devil with horns, the wicked man who is always converted, or the happy ending for all is not true to Scripture or experience.  

Eighth, piggybacking on my last point, Christian movies do not have to end with an altar call, be explicitly about God, be sappy, void of sex, violence, and language, or end with the couple sitting contentedly watching the sun set. Saul committed suicide and his body was cut into pieces.  David’s son killed his incestuous half-brother. Jehu piled up heads. Judas hung himself and his guts spilled out. Paul was stoned and then walked back into the city. The structure and content of Christian movies should reflect God, his ways, and the fallen world we live in. But all genres, horror, action, animation, drama, science -fiction, comedy, period epics, and even romantic comedies and almost any topic can be used to do this. Too many Christians view Hallmark films as the paradigm for making their movies instead of the Scriptures.

Ninth, on the flip side, Christians should not be afraid of putting a hero on the screen. Antiheroes are all the rage these days. But, in many ways, having a true hero, who is good, but not perfect is more difficult than putting a wicked man on screen. Often the good guy in a movie comes across as one dimensional.  But we have a real hero in Jesus Christ. Somehow that idea needs to be translated to the screen without us having to make a movie about Jesus. Along with this, we should not be afraid of happy endings either. The world really does end with overwhelming joy for those in Christ. Some of our movies should as well. Just as Hallmark films should not be our paradigm, neither should the nihilistic darkness that represents so much of modern movies and TV shows.  Just as there is Saul there is also David. Just as there is Judas, there are the faithful disciples who see the risen Christ. Just as there is Jezebel there is also Ruth and Esther.

Tenth, we need rich Christians to finance the movie making endeavors of other Christians. A good product does not always require money, but it usually does. Money does matter.

Eleventh, it is okay for Christians to make movies for a narrow audience. Secular people do that all the time. Many movies that play at places like Cannes are narrow in their audience appeal. If Christians want to make movies that are primarily apologetic, just for church goers, or a documentary about the evils of public education that is fine. The problem is that we have not yet effectively branched out into “mainstream” movie making.

Twelfth, we need Christians who see movie making as a vocation, not a hipster fad.  Movie stars and directors are the gods of America. They are rich, pampered, and most of all cool. It is easy for a Christian to think he is getting into movie making for God when his ego is the real motivation. He chooses to make movies to fill a need in himself instead of as a way to serve. Movie making is like being an architect, auto mechanic, or business manager. It is a job that needs to be done well, to the glory of God, and as way to love our neighbor. We don’t need more Christians who want to be hip and reach out to the hip people of the world through movies.  We need Christians who view movie making and all its side jobs, lighting, costumes, etc as a calling that requires skill, training, and diligence. We need normal, grounded, men in the movie business who have wives, children, go to worship each Sunday, and have done something besides make short films with their phone.

Thirteenth, there is nothing wrong with Christians making movies for fun and entertainment. It is odd that many Christian movie makers and those who love the secular, small budget, indie movies both believe movies must be profound to be worth making. They disdain movies that are just for entertainment. But there is nothing wrong with Guardians of the Galaxy or Jason Bourne. They are McDonalds, instead of the local steak house. They are the Saturday morning t-shirt instead of a three piece suit. They usually won’t change your life. But they are  fun, exciting, and well-made. There is nothing wrong with Christians making these types of movies.

There is more that needs to be said, especially about how Christians interact with the Hollywood complex and all her wickedness. But in the end, God, His world, and the people who live in it are amazing. There are millions of stories out there, some true, some not so true, and some pure myth that can be told. There are tragedies, comedies, horror stories, and love stories. Christians can and should be telling all these types of stories. The glowing screen presents many dangers for God’s people, but like any tool it also presents an opportunity to tell the world Who we worship and what the world He made is like.<>odnobotсоздание и продвижение бренда

Read more

On December 19, 2014 By In Culture, Wisdom

Decorating The Body

As we approach the Christmas season, people all over the world are decking halls with holly branches and donning gay apparel. Trees, lights, nativity sets, snowmen, St. Nicks, and reindeer are symbols that tell the story of Christ’s birth. It is truly good, right, and beneficial to decorate our property in this way. The very nature of humanity is symbolic, as we are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Everything we think, say, or do is symbolic in some sense. It shouldn’t be a surprise that we are decorative people. Christians have a rich tradition of symbolism tracing back to our Israelite fathers, the flood, the garden of Eden, and even to the six days of creation. Symbols beget symbols. We create images and make associations with them. This is what God does, and we mimic him.

When it comes to body art, however, controversy arises. Tattoos and piercings are common in the broader culture and have become quite acceptable within the church, too. But you still hear claims that they are sinful, childish, and narcissistic. Most of the arguments are genetic fallacies, guilt-by-associations, hasty generalizations, and appeals to fear or consequence. These arguments may express valid concerns but they fail to prove anything objective. Neither do they address the biblical data. Similarly, arguments in defense of body art often lack biblical scholarship. How then should we approach this topic? (more…)

Read more

On December 12, 2014 By In Culture

I Saw Mommybloggers Dissing Santa Claus

A recent article at The Gospel-Centered Mom (GCM) entitled, “What To Do About Santa” has proposed that if we allow jolly, old St. Nicholas to remain a part of our Christmas celebrations, he has to stay in the stocks. He is enough of a threat to all that is good and true and beautiful to warrant placing a Parental Advisory label on his forehead warning: “Santa Claus is a false god; he presents a grave threat to humanity’s understanding of the one, true, and living God; he confuses children so that they will not be able to recognize reality; and he is vying for your children’s allegiance.”

My rephrasing of her issues may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. And although my summaries of her reasons are intentionally pejorative, I actually agree with the introduction to her article. GCM opens,

First let me say I’m a huge proponent of fostering imagination in kids. My kids’ all time favorite activity is pretending. All day long I have pirates, super heroes, and exotic animals flying through my house. I love it.

I also want to point out that when I talk about Santa in this post I am specifically referring to believing in Santa, not whether or not he should be banished altogether. My husband wears a Santa hat while we bake cookies. My kids sing along to Christmas songs on the radio and they don’t skip over Santa’s name like a cuss word.

However, following this amicable opening remark, GCM demonizes the Santa legend in general, specifically attacking the character of Santa Claus in order to convince her audience that he should not be believed in. She simply makes him sound dangerous. If the threat is as large as she leads us to believe, then Santa hats and “Here comes Santa Claus” should be taken outside the city and burned. The smoke from the fire might even be toxic.

I assert that the Santa myth is not toxic. It should not be demoted to a level below “pirates, super heroes, or exotic flying animals.” He is to be enjoyed for all that he is, as or more beneficial than GCM’s allowable imaginations. In fact, the Santa legend is historical fiction. There was a person on whom the specifics of the Santa legend are built, and he was not a villain. St. Nicholas was not canonized for being the person GCM makes him out to be.

The ancient St. Nicholas certainly existed and in the modern myth He still exists, even if only in fiction. And to say “only” is not to denigrate him to one that is any less respectable than one who can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, or heard. Santa is myth, and we ought to let him serve as such to the best of his ability.

Concerning my house, do we promote the idea that a jolly, fat, beneficent, ethically scrupulous, giant elf lives at the tip-top of the world distributing an annual dose of weal to the nice and woe to the naughty? No. Of course not. I make it a point not to lie to my children, but stories can be understood as stories, even by the youngest of children, and my children have heard the story of Santa Claus. It is not the only one they’ve heard, and it is nowhere near the best story that they’ve heard, but they have heard it. It is the story of a good man with a happy ending–a happy ending that occurs annually (according to the story).

In the order that they were presented, here are some responses to the GCM’s reasons for eschewing Santa Claus:

1.) Santa promotes works righteousness. To believe this to be the case would be to preclude any notion of one “reaping what one sows.” Do we reward our children for being good? Do we discipline them for being naughty? If we do, then according to GCM, we are promoting works righteousness.

But an even bigger question than how we parent is to ask how God parents. Does God distribute weal and woe, blessings and curses according to how we behave? Does he? This is a theological question and, therefore, must be answered in finely nuanced language, but asking these questions may help:

Can we place God in our debt and merit anything from him based on how we act? Can we force him to save us by making it onto his “Nice” list? In short, the biblical answer to this question is “No.” (Ephesians 2)

But has God said that he will reward his children when they do well and discipline them when they do ill? Yes, he has. (Hebrews 12) Is he pleased when they obey and grieved when they rebel? Yes, he is. (Ephesians 4:30)

We can’t place God in our debt, but that is not to say that he does not reward obedience.

Concerning Santa Claus, I do not catechize my children in the St. Nicholan Confession of Faith. I do not even tell them that Santa brings them presents. But at the same time, there is no need to fear the fiction. The question at hand is whether the legend of Santa Claus teaches our children something inherently unbiblical. I say, “no.”

(In the modern version of the myth, the real problem may be that if Santa Claus is a judge of niceness and naughtiness, he is not a very shrewd one. For example, have you ever met anyone who actually made the naughty list? Me either.)

2.) Santa blurs the lines between fact and fantasy. Overall, I agree with what GCM says in her second point, but she proves too much. Once our children have been told that Santa is myth, then we can move on to enjoy him as such. Do we constantly remind our children that Aslan is only a myth; that Superman can’t really fly; that Spidey can’t really stick to walls; that Bilbo doesn’t really exist, etc. Such never-ending caveats would ruin any story.

If myth “blurs the lines between fact and fantasy” to such a dangerous extent, why do we read stories to our children at all? And if we’ve decided to read them stories, then we would crush their imaginations by perpetually reminding them that this is not real. In fact, we read them stories because fiction is more real than not. Fiction is vicarious living, whether or not the protagonist has magical powers. Stories by humans will always teach us about what it means to be a human, and there are no stories that are not written by humans. Parental discretion comes into play concerning which stories are worth reading, but not because myth necessarily “blurs the lines between fact and fantasy.”

3.) Santa is a type of god. GCM asserts that Santa is so much like God that our children might end up asking us if God is like Santa. This is a real possibility for her because,

[Santa] is omnipotent (all powerful – makes toys, rides a magical sleigh, goes up and down chimneys). He is omnipresent (everywhere at once – how else could he deliver the presents?). He is omniscient (all knowing – he knows who is bad and who is good). He is eternal. He is perfect.

I am sure that I don’t know all the derivations of the Santa myth, but in general her summaries of Santa’s superpowers do not fit the bill as I understand it:

Is Santa Claus omnipotent? He has the power to make a bunch of toys (actually the elves do that), fly in a sledge powered by earthbound creatures, and fit into unreasonably small spaces. How is that anything like spoofing the biblical presentation of God Almighty? I have never heard anyone seriously call him, “Santa Almighty.”

Is Santa Claus omnipresent? He can deliver gifts to all the households on earth in one night, but nobody ever says he does them all at once. Calling him omnipresent does not accurately represent the myth. In fact, that takes Santa’s particular magic out of it.

Is Santa Claus omniscient? He knows your sleeping habits. He knows who is good or bad. Who has ever said he knows everything?

She also asserts that he is eternal. He might be immortal, but who said anything about eternal? I have not personally heard that version of the story.

4.) It is hard to compete with Santa. She closes her reasoning with “All the time and energy we put into keeping up the Santa myth could be spent focusing on Christ’s birth.”

I appreciate what she is saying, and perhaps some ought to heed her advice by radically reducing the emphasis on jolly, old St. Nick and returning to issues of central importance like the birth of Jesus Christ. This may be a “meat offered to idols” type of situation for some, but we need not necessarily fear losing our children to Santa Claus any more than to any other legendary character, fictive or historical. All fiction, yea, all of reality, must be understood in the light of the Word of God. Every aspect of the holidays must be understood in the light of God’s revelation. Santa is no different.

The problem in all of this is not Santa Claus or the retelling of the story, whether the modern one or the historical one. The problem that ought to be addressed is one of lying to your children. If we are going to address that problem, then let’s address it, but let’s do it by decrying the results of lying, not by attacking the character of Santa Claus. Santa is no villain. In reality, he’s a Saint.

The featured image for this article by Gaye Francis Willard is available for purchase here.<>google реклама аопределение позиций в поисковике

Read more