World Magazine reports this week that Antony Flew, perhaps "the most influential atheist philosopher in the world" has embraced a cautious theism, a story confirmed by an ABC News story. It appears that intelligent design, argued for in debates Flew participated in with Gary Habermas, was the deciding factor. A transcript of an interview is available on the website of Biola University.
Interesting that Flew was once part of C.S. Lewis' Socratic club, but was not convinced by Lewis' moral argument. Recent ID advancements and Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box proved compelling enough for Flew to become what he describes as something of a deist. Flew apparently is now open to a revelatory God. That this can happen to a lifelong atheist at the age of 81 is compelling.
I wonder if opponents of ID in public settings will soften at all. I suspect not.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Voices from the Military
Frank Schaeffer, son of Evangelical theologian/philosopher Francis Schaeffer, was on BookTV over the weekend, reading excerpts from and discussing his latest book on the real lives of military families. The book is called Voices From the Front. I did not see the entire broadcast but found some comments interesting. Schaeffer's son John joined the Marines prior to 9-11 and the result for Frank was a realization that many Americans want a strong defense in theory but are a bit squishy about the idea of their own children serving in the military. On BookTV, he noted that in earlier generations, the sons of politicians and pundits were much more likely to actually serve than in recent years, probably since Vietnam. This, he rightly finds hypocritical.
He did make a point of separating support for any particular war from the principle that defending freedom is a task all should share regardless of who is in office. He also noted, as have others that support for entering World War II was very weak prior to Pearl Harbor.
His comments are interesting and worth noting and the book, comprised of letter from actual personnel in the military serving in wartime is certainly the best way to form opinions about the military. Schaeffer believes much of America does truly respect the military, but those who don't simply don't know military people. And often it is the sons and daughters of poor families who do the dirty work.
This, together with a Military Times Poll is far better information than most media reporting or analysis. The poll shows, among other things, that most in the military are satisfied with their jobs, oppose a draft, approve of Bush's handling of the war, and expect the U.S. to be in Iraq for more than five years. This is not the picture one would get from most media outlets which tend to focus "human interest" stories on those who are negative toward the war.
The younger Schaeffer, once a fiery and sometimes belligerent evangelical on the front lines of protesting bias in the media and battling the culture of death, is now known for his equally biting rejection of evangelical excesses and sometimes controversial defense of Eastern Orthodoxy. As usual, watching his performance on BookTV, I found that his angry young man personna (he is now a grandfather) tended to blunt the force of otherwise good reasoning. And his sales pitch for his novels "Portofino", "Zermatt" and "Saving Grandma" betrayed an unfortunate bitterness toward all things Protestant. While good debate and discussion about different branches of Christianity is needed, it cannot help the cause of Christ for advocates of one branch to be openly spiteful of others.
Update: As I thought about Franky Schaeffer's challenge, I had to examine myself a bit. I had already decided I would support my sons if they chose a military career, but I had never considered if I would ever encourage them to volunteer. I guess I have not felt we have reached that stage where one must say "all hands on deck". And though I have never been in the military, I would still wish I could go instead of them.
He did make a point of separating support for any particular war from the principle that defending freedom is a task all should share regardless of who is in office. He also noted, as have others that support for entering World War II was very weak prior to Pearl Harbor.
His comments are interesting and worth noting and the book, comprised of letter from actual personnel in the military serving in wartime is certainly the best way to form opinions about the military. Schaeffer believes much of America does truly respect the military, but those who don't simply don't know military people. And often it is the sons and daughters of poor families who do the dirty work.
This, together with a Military Times Poll is far better information than most media reporting or analysis. The poll shows, among other things, that most in the military are satisfied with their jobs, oppose a draft, approve of Bush's handling of the war, and expect the U.S. to be in Iraq for more than five years. This is not the picture one would get from most media outlets which tend to focus "human interest" stories on those who are negative toward the war.
The younger Schaeffer, once a fiery and sometimes belligerent evangelical on the front lines of protesting bias in the media and battling the culture of death, is now known for his equally biting rejection of evangelical excesses and sometimes controversial defense of Eastern Orthodoxy. As usual, watching his performance on BookTV, I found that his angry young man personna (he is now a grandfather) tended to blunt the force of otherwise good reasoning. And his sales pitch for his novels "Portofino", "Zermatt" and "Saving Grandma" betrayed an unfortunate bitterness toward all things Protestant. While good debate and discussion about different branches of Christianity is needed, it cannot help the cause of Christ for advocates of one branch to be openly spiteful of others.
Update: As I thought about Franky Schaeffer's challenge, I had to examine myself a bit. I had already decided I would support my sons if they chose a military career, but I had never considered if I would ever encourage them to volunteer. I guess I have not felt we have reached that stage where one must say "all hands on deck". And though I have never been in the military, I would still wish I could go instead of them.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
And the Blogs rolled their eyes
There has been a fair amount of discussion in the blogospher regarding a post by Jeff Jarvis, And God Rolled his eyes. His premise is that it is wrong to think Christianity is under attack in the U.S., citing worse examples in places like China, but also thinks it ridiculous that some think Christians are attempting to establish some sort of theocratic state. In his view, both notions are just overblown rhetoric. A key quote:
"... there are those in the so-called Parents Television Council who argue that any joke that mentions God is an attack on religion. That's just crap. Freedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with freedom of religion -- that's why they are both protected in the First Amendment -- and there's nothing with a joke about God. It's not a sign of a war on God.
And then there are those who say that America has been taken over by a red-state religious jihad because the other side won the election and because a bogus made the insulting presumption that some of us don't have moral values and because the afore-dismissed PTC manufactured complaints about pop culture the way Tootsie makes Rolls. The truth, as I proved, it that it is a phantom army of the few on the fringe. "
Problem, we heard this kind of reassurance regarding the abortion issue, that it was silly to think that Roe would lead to slippery slope. Christians argued thirty years ago that Roe would lead to widespread late term abortions, infanticide and euthanasia. The pro-life movement was told such notions were reactionary and overblown. But what was unthinkable became reality and now we see the results in the work of Dr. Kevorkian, the case of Terri Schiavo, the Groningen Protocol, the cloning and stem cell research debates, the harvest of fetal tissue and organs.
Sounding the alarm is not the same thing as being alarmist. There has been a steady drumbeat of marginalizing, dismissing and demonizing conservative Christians. As I pointed out in an earlier post, most of us do not want to eliminate all criticism or even jokes about faith. We simply want the same level of respect that is accorded to any other group. And that means that when the history of this country clearly and unmistakably shows a foundation of Christian morality and piety, history should not be rewritten. Freedom of religion should not be freedom from religion. The state should make no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Most conservatives want that balance, to NOT establish a state church, but not exclude faith from public life and the political process. So Jarvis' second point should be acknowledged. We should make it clear we don't want a state church. Especially one founded on the secular religion of humanism. There should be no compulsion to a particular religion or lack thereof. Currently, the public schools are leaning toward a compulsion to a secular faith. It is not yet totalitarian. Not yet. Diligence.
Interestingly a couple of minor news items might be related. In spite of his personal faith, the president has been pretty cautious this Christmas on the "official" level. There seems to be a fairly PC Christmas at White House Perhaps this is a minor item, but it shows the hypersensitivity that exists today and should not.
A second article notes how Arnold the Governator has been chided for urging the GOP to move left. This is significant because apparently that leftward move he urges is related in part to moral issues conservative Christians are most concerned about. It asserts that Arnold is just plain ignorant for suggesting that the GOP wink at gay marriage after an election which may have been turned toward the GOP precisely because of opposition to gay marriage. It reveals a cluelessness to the sensibilities and faith of millions.
Last, I'm no expert on the war, but I do believe there is a lack of balance in the media. So I am including this link to some good news from Iraq
"... there are those in the so-called Parents Television Council who argue that any joke that mentions God is an attack on religion. That's just crap. Freedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with freedom of religion -- that's why they are both protected in the First Amendment -- and there's nothing with a joke about God. It's not a sign of a war on God.
And then there are those who say that America has been taken over by a red-state religious jihad because the other side won the election and because a bogus made the insulting presumption that some of us don't have moral values and because the afore-dismissed PTC manufactured complaints about pop culture the way Tootsie makes Rolls. The truth, as I proved, it that it is a phantom army of the few on the fringe. "
Problem, we heard this kind of reassurance regarding the abortion issue, that it was silly to think that Roe would lead to slippery slope. Christians argued thirty years ago that Roe would lead to widespread late term abortions, infanticide and euthanasia. The pro-life movement was told such notions were reactionary and overblown. But what was unthinkable became reality and now we see the results in the work of Dr. Kevorkian, the case of Terri Schiavo, the Groningen Protocol, the cloning and stem cell research debates, the harvest of fetal tissue and organs.
Sounding the alarm is not the same thing as being alarmist. There has been a steady drumbeat of marginalizing, dismissing and demonizing conservative Christians. As I pointed out in an earlier post, most of us do not want to eliminate all criticism or even jokes about faith. We simply want the same level of respect that is accorded to any other group. And that means that when the history of this country clearly and unmistakably shows a foundation of Christian morality and piety, history should not be rewritten. Freedom of religion should not be freedom from religion. The state should make no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Most conservatives want that balance, to NOT establish a state church, but not exclude faith from public life and the political process. So Jarvis' second point should be acknowledged. We should make it clear we don't want a state church. Especially one founded on the secular religion of humanism. There should be no compulsion to a particular religion or lack thereof. Currently, the public schools are leaning toward a compulsion to a secular faith. It is not yet totalitarian. Not yet. Diligence.
Interestingly a couple of minor news items might be related. In spite of his personal faith, the president has been pretty cautious this Christmas on the "official" level. There seems to be a fairly PC Christmas at White House Perhaps this is a minor item, but it shows the hypersensitivity that exists today and should not.
A second article notes how Arnold the Governator has been chided for urging the GOP to move left. This is significant because apparently that leftward move he urges is related in part to moral issues conservative Christians are most concerned about. It asserts that Arnold is just plain ignorant for suggesting that the GOP wink at gay marriage after an election which may have been turned toward the GOP precisely because of opposition to gay marriage. It reveals a cluelessness to the sensibilities and faith of millions.
Last, I'm no expert on the war, but I do believe there is a lack of balance in the media. So I am including this link to some good news from Iraq
Friday, December 17, 2004
Does Free Speech Count for Christians?
The Newsweek article mentioned below is perhaps old hat. We've seen this sort of thing before. Since the advent of Form Criticism, theological orthodoxy has been out of fashion in many intellectual circles. Yet it is troubling for other reasons. One senses a growing hostility, not toward religion, but toward Christianity in general, and specifically Christianity that is theologically and morally conservative. When coupled with the militancy of groups which have a stake in opposing conservative faith and values, this cloud of hostility gets increasingly ominous.
The Washington Times today published a piece on the mistreating of religion in Network TV. Neither new nor surprising, except for some of the quotes, such as this one
"Several incidents were cited, such as a Dec. 17 episode of Fox's "That '70s Show" that referred to a couple having sex next to a manger scene; an Aug. 5 episode of NBC's "Last Comic Standing" that referred to Catholicism as a religion that awards a "get-out-of-hell-free card" to anyone but pedophile priests; and a dialogue in a Feb. 10 episode of NBC's "Will and Grace" in which sidekick Karen tells lead character Grace, "Let's go buy that historic church and turn it into a gay bar."
One can only imagine the outcry if an episode of "Seventh Heaven" suggested shutting down a gay bar and turning it into a church. What strikes me recently is the tone of the opposition to both Catholic and Evangelical Christianity. One doesn't have to listen long to Bill Maher to sense a seething disdain that perhaps crosses the border into the realm of irrational hatred. The quotes above reveal a growing lack of civility in general, but a particular boldness in the disrespect for things once sacred.
Add to this the increasing strategic boldness of groups in using "hate speech" as a barricade against all critical discussion of their teachings. CNS News cites a case in which two pastors in Australia were found guilty of vilifying Islam in large part for simply quoting portions of the Koran. The article correctly notes that the ruling could have the effect of making all discussion of differences in religious beliefs potential hate speech.
But note the difference in tones. On the one hand, conservative Christians are asking for balance from creative programming on Network television, specifically stating they do not believe that the misteps of the faithful should be off limits and do not believe that only positive statements be discussed. They simply want a balance, the same balance that exists in the culture at large where 90% of the population believes in God and significant percentage have beliefs that are at least loosely "Christian".
On the other hand, direct quotations from the Koran cannot be discussed critically as it may be legally in violation of "hate speech" legislation and may carry penalties enforced by the state. Other groups, particulary gay rights advocacy organizations, will use "hate speech" legislation in similar ways, often to silence Christians.
WorldNetDaily reports today of parents being ejected from their children's school school for attempting to report on the goings on of a gay awareness event.
I have always been drawn to Christianity because of its self-critical nature. C.S. Lewis once said that pride is the one sin he had seen no one but Christians admit to. It is in the nature of true Christian faith to recognize fallibility, falleness, sin, and the darkness in ourselves and our institutions. It is also in the nature of Christianity to see goodness and beauty in humanity, the image of God even in those with whom we disagree. There is a balance. We have hope and aspirations, tempered with humility.
Utopianism, in its many manifestations, which seeks a perfect society, always fails to find this balance. I tend to think the many of the initiatives behind politically correct ideologies are a result of this lack of balance. It leads to the tendency to on the one hand ignore the sins of a particular group or movement and to seek to silence all dissent on the other. And yes, even Christians can be guilty of this tendency. Where Christianity deserves a bit of honest critical evaluation, societies should not only allow but welcome it, as long as it is intelligent, truthful and, yes, balanced. But can we not apply such sensible self-examination fairly and critically dissect the weaknesses and blind spots of others? In other words, why has free speech in recent years been increasingly understood to not include the religious speech of conservative Christians?
I find it amazing to watch whole societies embracing the notion that only Christianity is fair game for criticism, ridicule and eventually persecution. Hopefully this is not a trend that will reach its ultimate conclusion in this country.
The Washington Times today published a piece on the mistreating of religion in Network TV. Neither new nor surprising, except for some of the quotes, such as this one
"Several incidents were cited, such as a Dec. 17 episode of Fox's "That '70s Show" that referred to a couple having sex next to a manger scene; an Aug. 5 episode of NBC's "Last Comic Standing" that referred to Catholicism as a religion that awards a "get-out-of-hell-free card" to anyone but pedophile priests; and a dialogue in a Feb. 10 episode of NBC's "Will and Grace" in which sidekick Karen tells lead character Grace, "Let's go buy that historic church and turn it into a gay bar."
One can only imagine the outcry if an episode of "Seventh Heaven" suggested shutting down a gay bar and turning it into a church. What strikes me recently is the tone of the opposition to both Catholic and Evangelical Christianity. One doesn't have to listen long to Bill Maher to sense a seething disdain that perhaps crosses the border into the realm of irrational hatred. The quotes above reveal a growing lack of civility in general, but a particular boldness in the disrespect for things once sacred.
Add to this the increasing strategic boldness of groups in using "hate speech" as a barricade against all critical discussion of their teachings. CNS News cites a case in which two pastors in Australia were found guilty of vilifying Islam in large part for simply quoting portions of the Koran. The article correctly notes that the ruling could have the effect of making all discussion of differences in religious beliefs potential hate speech.
But note the difference in tones. On the one hand, conservative Christians are asking for balance from creative programming on Network television, specifically stating they do not believe that the misteps of the faithful should be off limits and do not believe that only positive statements be discussed. They simply want a balance, the same balance that exists in the culture at large where 90% of the population believes in God and significant percentage have beliefs that are at least loosely "Christian".
On the other hand, direct quotations from the Koran cannot be discussed critically as it may be legally in violation of "hate speech" legislation and may carry penalties enforced by the state. Other groups, particulary gay rights advocacy organizations, will use "hate speech" legislation in similar ways, often to silence Christians.
WorldNetDaily reports today of parents being ejected from their children's school school for attempting to report on the goings on of a gay awareness event.
I have always been drawn to Christianity because of its self-critical nature. C.S. Lewis once said that pride is the one sin he had seen no one but Christians admit to. It is in the nature of true Christian faith to recognize fallibility, falleness, sin, and the darkness in ourselves and our institutions. It is also in the nature of Christianity to see goodness and beauty in humanity, the image of God even in those with whom we disagree. There is a balance. We have hope and aspirations, tempered with humility.
Utopianism, in its many manifestations, which seeks a perfect society, always fails to find this balance. I tend to think the many of the initiatives behind politically correct ideologies are a result of this lack of balance. It leads to the tendency to on the one hand ignore the sins of a particular group or movement and to seek to silence all dissent on the other. And yes, even Christians can be guilty of this tendency. Where Christianity deserves a bit of honest critical evaluation, societies should not only allow but welcome it, as long as it is intelligent, truthful and, yes, balanced. But can we not apply such sensible self-examination fairly and critically dissect the weaknesses and blind spots of others? In other words, why has free speech in recent years been increasingly understood to not include the religious speech of conservative Christians?
I find it amazing to watch whole societies embracing the notion that only Christianity is fair game for criticism, ridicule and eventually persecution. Hopefully this is not a trend that will reach its ultimate conclusion in this country.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
A Few Notes on the State of the World
Just a few notes on the state of the world. In a follow up to Hugh Hewitt's Vox Blogoli on the MSM and Christmas, a story of interest appears in World Net Daily about a School in Texas in banning Christmas colors specifically linked here.
Hugh was at the forefront of alerting us to horrors of the Groningen Protocol, and a couple of articles related are found at Newsmax, including one describing widespread euthanasia of children and rampant Infanticide in China
On a more positive note, The Washington Times tells that married adults are healthier.
These are not new issues. Francis Schaeffer, C. Everett Koop warned us of the abortion, infanticide, euthanasia slippery slope thirty years ago, which led to alliances between Protestants and Catholics on this issue. Jim Dobson has been battling the family issues for about that length of time as well. Franky Schaeffer, aka Frank, was outspoken about the myth of neutrality in the media back in the 80s.
What is encouraging is that for the moment, anyway, the blogosphere opens up an unlimited avenue of protest. If the pen is mightier than the sword, the blog may be mightier still.
Hugh was at the forefront of alerting us to horrors of the Groningen Protocol, and a couple of articles related are found at Newsmax, including one describing widespread euthanasia of children and rampant Infanticide in China
On a more positive note, The Washington Times tells that married adults are healthier.
These are not new issues. Francis Schaeffer, C. Everett Koop warned us of the abortion, infanticide, euthanasia slippery slope thirty years ago, which led to alliances between Protestants and Catholics on this issue. Jim Dobson has been battling the family issues for about that length of time as well. Franky Schaeffer, aka Frank, was outspoken about the myth of neutrality in the media back in the 80s.
What is encouraging is that for the moment, anyway, the blogosphere opens up an unlimited avenue of protest. If the pen is mightier than the sword, the blog may be mightier still.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Newsweek and Christmas
Newsweek has published a cover article on Christmas which is fairly obvious in its disrespect for historical Christian beliefs. Hugh Hewitt asks what such an article means for the mainstream media.
I guess my answer begins with the question, "Is anyone really surprised?" What the Christmas article in Newsweek in particular shows is an increasingly irrational aversion to all things specifically Christian. And I would submit that it is precisely the historicity of Christianity that is the "problem" such articles wish to eliminate.
Modern and postmodern intellectuals have a rigid view that faith and rationality cannot in any way co-exist. One may believe whatever one wishes about the supernatural as long as that belief is neatly compartmentalized into the realm of subjective feeling or opinion.
But if one believes that Christianity is "true", that is, not just "personally" true or "religiously" true, but actually corresponds to reality, then that individual simply must be "eliminated", not literally, but marginalized, demonized, effectively removed from public discourse. And the best way to do this is to portray faith as separated from reality and deep faith as mentally delusional. Of course subtlety is the best method for doing so, rather than all out assault, but the goal is the same.
It would be a mistake to assume that all those who take this view are intentionally dishonest or malicious in intent. Many really believe what they are doing is right. But it is clear that the agenda of mainstream media is to keep religion in its place and not allow the realms of faith to influence the "real world". The obvious implications are that faith and public policy cannot mix, faith and public education cannot mix, faith and anything that might influence real world decisions must have a "wall of separation" between them. Hence it is necessary to paint the historical accounts of Christianity in the worst possible light.
Thus George Bush's faith becomes a target of ridicule. Mel Gibson's attempt to film a portion of the Gospels becomes a hate crime. Attempts to simply ask for equal time for "intelligent design" in public schools is a selling out of true science. Any discussion of the facts of prenatal development in relation to abortion is marginalized as a "religious" argument and thus irrelevant. And, directly to the point, belief in the virgin birth of Christ, celebrated for century after century at Christmas, needs to be scrutinized and corrected. It is assumed we just don't have enough "evidence" to support this account of "faith".
Oddly, I had always understood that historians crave manuscript evidence, of which there is an overwhelming abundance. Since when are four independent written documents by those reasonably close to the facts not evidence? Since when are records of eyewitness accounts not evidence? Shall we assume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were incapable of asking Mary whether or not she went to Egypt or searching Roman records to determine whether there was a census? Shall we assume that the thousands upon thousands of converts to Christianity in the first century were incapable of checking the facts? Shall we assume that the early fathers of the church were involved in a massive conspiracy? Sales of "The da Vinci Code" provide the answer, I fear.
But if it is possible to marginalize people of faith by keeping that faith separated from history, fact, reality, then that is what will be done, and the MSM is a perfect medium for doing it.
One last point. The "Newsleak" article makes a point of emphasizing the many theological disagreements among Christians. Very well. There are many and always have been. But the Christmas story is simply not one of them. Though a few oddballs can be found in any era on almost any issue, not until the 20th century has there been any significant controversy within Christianity regarding the virgin birth of Christ. And no matter how the MSM may try to portray "scholarly" skeptics as mainstream Christianity, they simply aren't. It is remarkable the amount of unity Christianity has had on the question of who Jesus is over 2000 years of church history. "Born of the virgin" has been clearly stated in the almost universally accepted Nicene Creed since the fourth century and the phrase existed in creedal forms and hymns long before that, in fact, in the Gospels since the first century.
In questioning the nativity event, particularly during the Christmas season, Newsweek has engaged in the highest form of contempt for millions of Christians who have believed and lived across the entire globe for 20 centuries.
I guess my answer begins with the question, "Is anyone really surprised?" What the Christmas article in Newsweek in particular shows is an increasingly irrational aversion to all things specifically Christian. And I would submit that it is precisely the historicity of Christianity that is the "problem" such articles wish to eliminate.
Modern and postmodern intellectuals have a rigid view that faith and rationality cannot in any way co-exist. One may believe whatever one wishes about the supernatural as long as that belief is neatly compartmentalized into the realm of subjective feeling or opinion.
But if one believes that Christianity is "true", that is, not just "personally" true or "religiously" true, but actually corresponds to reality, then that individual simply must be "eliminated", not literally, but marginalized, demonized, effectively removed from public discourse. And the best way to do this is to portray faith as separated from reality and deep faith as mentally delusional. Of course subtlety is the best method for doing so, rather than all out assault, but the goal is the same.
It would be a mistake to assume that all those who take this view are intentionally dishonest or malicious in intent. Many really believe what they are doing is right. But it is clear that the agenda of mainstream media is to keep religion in its place and not allow the realms of faith to influence the "real world". The obvious implications are that faith and public policy cannot mix, faith and public education cannot mix, faith and anything that might influence real world decisions must have a "wall of separation" between them. Hence it is necessary to paint the historical accounts of Christianity in the worst possible light.
Thus George Bush's faith becomes a target of ridicule. Mel Gibson's attempt to film a portion of the Gospels becomes a hate crime. Attempts to simply ask for equal time for "intelligent design" in public schools is a selling out of true science. Any discussion of the facts of prenatal development in relation to abortion is marginalized as a "religious" argument and thus irrelevant. And, directly to the point, belief in the virgin birth of Christ, celebrated for century after century at Christmas, needs to be scrutinized and corrected. It is assumed we just don't have enough "evidence" to support this account of "faith".
Oddly, I had always understood that historians crave manuscript evidence, of which there is an overwhelming abundance. Since when are four independent written documents by those reasonably close to the facts not evidence? Since when are records of eyewitness accounts not evidence? Shall we assume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were incapable of asking Mary whether or not she went to Egypt or searching Roman records to determine whether there was a census? Shall we assume that the thousands upon thousands of converts to Christianity in the first century were incapable of checking the facts? Shall we assume that the early fathers of the church were involved in a massive conspiracy? Sales of "The da Vinci Code" provide the answer, I fear.
But if it is possible to marginalize people of faith by keeping that faith separated from history, fact, reality, then that is what will be done, and the MSM is a perfect medium for doing it.
One last point. The "Newsleak" article makes a point of emphasizing the many theological disagreements among Christians. Very well. There are many and always have been. But the Christmas story is simply not one of them. Though a few oddballs can be found in any era on almost any issue, not until the 20th century has there been any significant controversy within Christianity regarding the virgin birth of Christ. And no matter how the MSM may try to portray "scholarly" skeptics as mainstream Christianity, they simply aren't. It is remarkable the amount of unity Christianity has had on the question of who Jesus is over 2000 years of church history. "Born of the virgin" has been clearly stated in the almost universally accepted Nicene Creed since the fourth century and the phrase existed in creedal forms and hymns long before that, in fact, in the Gospels since the first century.
In questioning the nativity event, particularly during the Christmas season, Newsweek has engaged in the highest form of contempt for millions of Christians who have believed and lived across the entire globe for 20 centuries.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Christmas Music
A few thoughts on Christmas music. It just seems the thing to do in the overcommercialized American Christmas season for everybody who is anybody in the music industry to release a Christmas album. The unfortunate glut of rehashed renditions of everything from "Silent Night" to "Grandma Got Runover by a Reindeer" is almost too much to take. Do we really need to hear the latest teenage pop diva or some mainstream crooner whose career is being overtaken by the next big (read young) act trying to squeeze a few more sales out of his or her version of "Silver Bells".
My favorite exceptions, Kathy Mattea's "Good News" (several years old now) and "Joy For Christmas Day" (New). I don't know Kathy Mattea's specific beliefs, but there is some sort of genuine Christian faith here that goes very very deep. Tasteful, lyrically rich and focused completely on the birth of Christ. And Phil Keaggy's "Majesty and Wonder", though a few years old as well, has a couple of cuts that are less than stellar, but most combine Phils mastery of guitar with some lush orchestral arrangements that are fresh and dignified.
It is hard enough these days to keep our priorities straight. Nice to have a few tunes that help rather than hinder.
My favorite exceptions, Kathy Mattea's "Good News" (several years old now) and "Joy For Christmas Day" (New). I don't know Kathy Mattea's specific beliefs, but there is some sort of genuine Christian faith here that goes very very deep. Tasteful, lyrically rich and focused completely on the birth of Christ. And Phil Keaggy's "Majesty and Wonder", though a few years old as well, has a couple of cuts that are less than stellar, but most combine Phils mastery of guitar with some lush orchestral arrangements that are fresh and dignified.
It is hard enough these days to keep our priorities straight. Nice to have a few tunes that help rather than hinder.
Return of the King
The extended edition of Return of the King is released in a few days. Aside from being an Academy Award winning blockbuster, it strikes me how much the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy has become something of a bridge builder between Christians of various backgrounds. Tolkien's Catholicism, though never overtly expressed, seems to brood beneath the surface. Yet evangelicals, Catholics, agnostics, mystics and atheists seem drawn to this epic.
Tolkien, as I understand it, did not care for allegory, so direct parallels between particular LOTR characters and Biblical persons should not be looked for, yet themes of loyalty, faithfulness, honor are deeply and richly portrayed. It is hard to find more vivid examples of biblical imagery, such as the goodness portrayed as light and evil as darkness, the marvelous linkage of truth and beauty. Who could not want to live in Rivendell among the immortal elves and their artistry, craftsmanship and wisdom? I dare say even morally cautious evangelicals find themselves secretly longing to spend a week among the hobbits enjoying simple living, ordinary labor and a good pint of ale at the end of the day. The goodness of creation alongside the weakness is vivid and appealing.
Tolkien, as I understand it, did not care for allegory, so direct parallels between particular LOTR characters and Biblical persons should not be looked for, yet themes of loyalty, faithfulness, honor are deeply and richly portrayed. It is hard to find more vivid examples of biblical imagery, such as the goodness portrayed as light and evil as darkness, the marvelous linkage of truth and beauty. Who could not want to live in Rivendell among the immortal elves and their artistry, craftsmanship and wisdom? I dare say even morally cautious evangelicals find themselves secretly longing to spend a week among the hobbits enjoying simple living, ordinary labor and a good pint of ale at the end of the day. The goodness of creation alongside the weakness is vivid and appealing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)