I’m sure that the title alone has sparked some questions, raised eyebrows or maybe even some scathing criticism.  But before you judge a book by its cover, please read what I think is a fascinating way that Jared Moore has constructed a guide  in which Christians can learn about God and His world through an intentional interaction with pop culture and specifically it’s media products.   His goal is simple;

My goal is for readers to gain enough understanding of how to exercise a Christian view of the world in their daily lives…to teach Christians how to participate in media unto the Glory of God.  In order to enjoy God through media, Christians must submit to God’s revealed Word in light of Christ’s finished work and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5).  In other words, I hope to show Christians how to be on their knees in their cultures worshipping God through recognizing His fingerprints in the media produced by God’s fallen image bearers. (pg 9)

With this goal in mind, I think the title can be a bit misleading since it suggests that we understand scripture by watching Harry Potter movies.  Rather, the goal of Moore’s exercise is to engage Christians in a deeper understanding of how pop culture reflects general revelation and how cultural products speak to God’s invisible attributes and eternal power, which he has made evident (Romans 1:19-20).   It makes sense that image bearers would reflect themes of redemption and hope, even though truth within them is suppressed, as I wrote about here as well.   It is no different with the Harry Potter series or with any other cultural products that contain both elements of truth and lies.    When we sift media through the lens of special revelation and God’s redemptive plan for his creation, we can take even something as unlikely as Harry Potter movies to experience how much God has interacted in the world He created.

Moore aims to  participate in media as an act of worship.  He proposes utilizing this study to not engage Christians in critical evaluation of media, but also to use it as a tool for outreach that will ultimately shine light on the gospel.  And why not, given the popularity of the Harry Potter series?   It is here that I think he makes a very compelling case for parents to teach kids how to navigate through the world.  he states, “Parents may profess their children are sinners, but they seek to protect them from a sinful world as if the world is the problem.  The problem is not outside influences but is instead their inside influences.” (pp 6-7).  By utilizing media to teach kids 1) who they are as sinners; 2) their need for Christ and 3) how to navigate media, Moore illustrates that media can and should be used for this training in how to think Christianly, not just for kids but for all Christians.

He uses it to show humanity’s fallenness and quest for truth and how to evaluate what is consistent with divine revelation is what is false.  Since all truth is God’s truth, media is a way that Christians can and should engage with it, identifying where it exists and rejecting what contradicts it.  I concur with Moore that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water simply because it contains some unpalatable elements.

Therefore, one should not get the impression with this study that Moore is glorifying Harry Potter or sorcery.  He is not.  In fact, Moore is pretty emphatic about pointing out the elements in the Harry Potter movies the book guides the reader through that are contradictory to Christianity.   And some will undoubtedly still be troubled by the fact that these elements in Harry Potter.    But I think Moore makes a compelling case for why this should not be a concern.  First, he emphasizes that the world of Harry Potter is a created, fantasy world that demonstrates creativity of its authors.  Second,  the engagement with the Harry Potter movies are not to emphasize the evil elements but to examine where there is a reflection of God’s revelation and his truth and engage with the philosophical underpinnings of contradictory worldviews.   He demonstrates that Harry Potter like all cultural products, contain elements of evil but also elements of truth.   This is the reality of our fallen world.  The problem is not Harry Potter, the problem is sin and a fallen world.

Moore takes the last four Harry Potter movies and provides a step by step guide of how to analyze the themes present in each film.   He extracts themes of good, evil, providence, love, forgiveness, creation, fall and redemption that are present in the movies that are analyzed in this study.  Since I don’t want to present a spoiler nor counteract Moore’s prescription of viewing the movie first, then reading the guide, suffice it to say that I think he does a wonderful job of drawing out themes for analysis, discussion and reconciliation with the biblical text.

Overall, I think that Moore’s study is worth the time and is no more detrimental to the Christian than watching the 11:00 news.  In fact, by engaging with the discussion guide and the movie, I can’t help but see how it would but sharpen our Christian worldview lens and provide a greater ability to interact with heightened Christian thinking in the world we live in.  Moreover, the questions can serve as a guide to evaluate other media products as well and should give the reader a better sense of discernment.

But most importantly, Moore uses this study as an opportunity to demonstrate that the only real remedy is found in Christ.   The gospel is the very foundation and overarching theme which Moore wishes to highlight, as he states here,

To summarize, this Bible study is based on the foundation that Christians should engage their cultures, find the common examples of God’s image therein, extract these common truths, and add God’s truth to them: 1) man is sinful (Romans 3:23; 2) God’s answer for the sin problem is Christ’s redeeming work in reconciling sinners and creation to His Father (John 14:6). (pg 23)

The link to Amazon is here.

Jared Moore’s web-site is here.

 Similar Posts:

• What Movies Will I Let My Kids Watch?
• If God So Loved the World, Then Why Do We Hate It?
• Seven Possible Reasons We Find the Bible Boring
• Theology is More Than Head Knowledge
• Truth in Advertising: A Case for Christianity’s Unique Claim

In my earlier Christian years, I was taught to hate the world and to avoid participation in it, especially as it related to culture.  That means it’s products – music, books, movies, etc.   I recall at times being torn because in the early eighties, music video was really taking off and I did like movies.  Well, some movies were ok as long as there was no sex, drugs, violence or bad language (God forbid there would be a curse word!).  The proof-text that was always used was 1 John 2:15 – “Do not love the world nor the things in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”  That seemed pretty simple.  That meant Christian movies with distinct Christian themes, Christian music, and Christian literature was acceptable. This is sacred and worldly things are secular. And Christians did not participate in worldy things, lest they love the world.

Over the years, I have come to a different understanding of what it means to hate the world and to love the world.  As Christians, we must love the world since God does and seeks to reconcile it to himself.  Yes, for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (John 3:16).   So why does John say don’t love the world?  I’m no Johnnine scholar but W. Hall Harris III is.  He identifies here that world in John’s gospel (3:16) refers to humanity and particularly broken humanity, while 1 John references the philosophy and values that are separate from God.  Examining 1 John 2:15 in light of the next verse,  he says

We are dealing with people who operate purely on a human level and have no spiritual dimension to their existence. This is the person who loves the world, whose affections are all centered on the world, who has no love for God or spiritual things… It is not a reference to culture.

Nothing solidified this more than a recent class I took with Glenn Kreider on Theological Method with a particular focus on theology and culture and the fact that God not only operates through his word but through His world.  That means that Christians must interact in the world, which means interacting with the world, i.e. culture

Steve Turner agrees.  In his book Imagine: A Vision for Christians in the Arts, he identifies the problem of hiding from the world in the name of Christianity when we ought to be contributing to it through the various cultural mediums to a reflection of the glory of God.   I concur with Turner that creating Christian sub-cultures to avoid the world only end up 1) alienating the world and 2) prohibiting meaningful interaction from our unique point of view.  We do this to the detriment of loving the world, particularly when we treat it with hostility.  He says of using the 1 John 2:15 passage,

Confusing these two usages can lead to disaster.  Some strict fundamentalist sects show disdain toward creation and culture, and yet in doing so become proud, arrogant and uncaring.  They therefore become worldly in the very way the Bible condemns and yet are not worldly enough in the way the Bible commands.  We are told to be in the world but not of it.  People like this are often of the world but not in it. (pg 43)

He then goes on to say

Positively, the world is all that God made and Christ came to redeem.  This includes culture because humans have never lived in isolation from each other, and when they get together, they automatically create culture.  It would be impossible to think of loving humans and yet hating human culture, of loving individuals and yet hating their music, songs, stories, paintings, games, rituals, decorations, clothes, languages and hairstyles.  God made us cultural beings.

Therefore, Christians should be worldly in this positive sense.  They should be lovers of life because God is the giver of life.  No one is more worldly than God – He made the world, He upholds the world and sent His Son to die for the world.  Christianity doesn’t teach that the world is an illusion that will trap us or a hell that prevents us from attaining our true purpose. (pg 44)

Right about now, I can hear the protests regarding sin and depravity.  How can we appreciate products that come from sinful creatures? (of course not recognizing that describes us to only that our eyes have been opened to it and our need for a Savior).  Turner concurs that there is some art that reflects nothing of God or goodness and such should be avoided.  But overwhelmingly, the products of culture are but a reflection from those who bear the image of God though may not honor him as God.  Yet, the glimmers of God and his story is embedded in culture.  Consider this passage.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men and women are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

The problem with the group that Paul is describing is not that they don’t reflect the nature of God but that they don’t recognize it or honor him as God.  The problem is not the products that are created by people.  But God sent His Son to die for them too.  And it seems if we are to be ambassadors of Christ, who loved the world, including the people in it so much he died for it, so we too should be compelled to stop hiding and start living – for the glory of God.

 Similar Posts:

• Book Review: The Harry Potter Bible Study
• Let me divert attention to Bob
• What Movies Will I Let My Kids Watch?
• Engaging Postmodernism (4): Changing the Rope
• Judge not! What does that mean?

Well, it’s that time of year, the most celebrated and revered day in Christianity.  The death, burial and resurrection of Christ commemorates the crucial event of Christianity, without which Christianity would not exist.  So it’s the time when Christians gather to reflect, resound and renew their commitment to Christ.

It’s also the time when many Christians refute the traditional symbols of Easter or even call it ‘Easter’.  For those who engage in this refutation, the rejection of identifying it as ‘Easter’ is rooted in the fact that the term ‘Easter’ was adopted from a pagan holiday.  This seems to taint the holiness and significance of the resurrection with paganism, right?  Consider what Mel Lawrenz says in this article from the Biblegateway blog in response to the question ‘Why do most Christians use the word ‘Easter’ in reference to the Resurrection day of Jesus, when that word comes from a pagan goddess?’:

First, there never has been a direct association of the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus with the pagan deity. The celebration of the day of resurrection fell on the month of Eastre (West Saxon) or Eostre (Northumbrian). So it was a time of year that was the association, the name of a month. Now that month’s name was probably (not certainly) derived from a goddess of spring. But this association is remote and that is why if you use the word “Easter” in normal speech today, people make no association with ancient pagan religion. Hundreds of millions of Christians use “Easter,” and have done so for centuries, with the meaning of “the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.”

Second, there are many words we use that have long-passed connections in pagan culture or religion, but their meaning has been changed. When we talk about going to church on ‘Sunday’ we don’t have much heartburn about the fact that this day in the Roman calendar was for the worship of the sun. The examples are everywhere. And when we pass into January we mark a new beginning with little concern that the word “January” comes from the Roman god Janus, the god of doorways. Many of the words we use have some peculiar etymology. What matters is what the words mean to us today in normal spoken language.

I agree with Lawrenz’s assessment.  There is no good reason to disassociate with the term ‘Easter’ simply because it was once associated with a pagan religion.  If we can use the term ‘Sunday’ as part of our Christian fabric, then why not Easter?  Moreover, what attachment does Easter to pagan religion in today’s terminology?

I find a similar attitude with the traditional relics of Easter, which is bunnies and eggs.  The outcry is that it undermines the significance of the resurrection.  But I find this argument misplaced as well.   For I see in scripture that God reveals himself to humanity by intersecting humanity according to their culture.  This is the essence of the incarnation – God the Son took on flesh and intervened in a point of time in history to bring eternal life through faith in Him.  He did not disassociate from relics of the culture but used them to display his glory.   He used the very ideas that people had about God, even if misplaced, to point to himself. Why?

Consider his dialogue with the woman at the well in John 4:7-26.  The Samaritan woman had an idea about God and what worship of God meant.  It meant a particular place and a particular time.  What does that have to do with bunnies and eggs, you might ask.  Because they are symbolic of a time when Christianity is celebrated.  For many, it points to the events of the Christianity though the Christ of Christianity might not be embraced.   So getting back to Jesus and the Samaritan woman, he did not rebuke her for her identification of worship but used that to point to where real worship occurred.  It seems to me, there is a connection to what can be done with bunnies and eggs.  Instead of spurning them and rebuking those who would conflate the idea of harmless artifacts with the significance of the resurrection, why not use them to highlight the resurrection?  I personally think we can do more harm by chastising the use of these artifacts than by using them to point to Christ.   It is not like the ones who incorporate bunnies and eggs into the holiday are worshiping a pagan deity, but it is a meaningless symbol that produces a lot of fun.  Why not turn it into something meaningful for the cause of Christ?

I also see that Paul does this on Mars Hill in Acts 17:16-32.  Paul did not approach the Athenian court, slashing and burning their idols for Jesus.  No, he used the very vestige of pagan thought and symbolism to point to Christ, even citing their own poetry to identify who this God is that they consider ‘unknown’. This also shows that we are willing to identify with people.  Isn’t that what Jesus did with the incarnation?

So this Easter, instead of ditching the traditional symbolism of the time, why not use it in a way that connects people to the real meaning of Easter – Jesus Christ, Him crucified buried and resurrected.  He is risen!

Edit: Here is an interesting article on the subject, Was Easter Borrowed from a Pagan Holiday.

 Similar Posts:

• Yes, Christianity is a Religion
• A Theology of More III: Worship
• Do We Still Need Miracles Today To Believe?
• God’s Hiddenness
• A Critique of Worship Music Criticism

2. “No its not, where is the snow?”: Elf

Could not embed this so here is the link.

The best is his face after he says “Where is the snow.” It is that look like, “I got ya!”

3. Its too late to apologize: “Gone with the Wind”

Again, no embedding available for this, but here it is.

4. “Don’t rob me of my hate; its all I have”: Count of Monte Cristo

What a great scene illustrating the letting go of bitterness. “Don’t rob me of my hate. Its all I have.” For some of us, our hate is all we have. What a terrible life to live.

5. “Now let’s grab a bite to eat”: Naked Gun

The whole first 3min here is great, but the mains scene comes at 2:55 when Franks says, “now let’s get a bite to eat.”

6. “I don’t want to get married”: Its a Wonderful Life

7. “A Red Day” Theoden’s speech: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

No embedding here either. Here is the link. It comes at 2:15 into this clip. What a great call for death. Inspirational. “Ride for ruin and the worlds end! Death! Death! Death!”

8. “You Like me because I’m a scoundrel”: Empire Strikes Back

9. “They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom”: Braveheart

10. “I’m a miracle man”: Signs

NOTE: This comes just after Mel Gibson asks whether his brother (Joaquin Phoenix) believes that the worlds events are representative of miracles of God or random meaningless consequences.

Great philosophical scene with a classic illustration.

What do you think? Did I get it right? What did I leave out?Similar Posts:

• Why are People Leaving the Church?
• Let me divert attention to Bob
• It is Foolish to Continue to Have Evangelistic Crusades in our Postmodern World
• Health-Wealth Gospel of Suicide
• Eight Things I Hate About Christianity

The remarks come from James L. Garlow in a guest column at One News Now, an evangelical Internet news outlet. Garlow, a Methodist pastor, author, and activist who sees himself as an advocate for the healing theology of the late John Wimber, came to national prominence earlier this year when Newt Gingrich named him to chair the nonprofit Renewing American Leadership. In his column defending his association with Beck and his “Restoring Honor” rally, Garlow offered the following argument:

Let me ask you a question.  Is your theology “off” at all?  Even one percent?  Only the most arrogant would say, “Oh, my theological understanding is 100% perfect.”  No, we all keep growing.  God’s Word does not change.  God’s truth does not change.  But we grow in our understanding of spiritual, biblical truths.
I suspect my theology is off by 1% or 4% or 7%.  And, I have news for you: yours is too.
Here is my question:  if your theology is off slightly, but you still trust exclusively in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for your salvation, and in his resurrection, are you still saved?  Going to heaven?  Yes.
How far off might your theology be – and yet still trust exclusively in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for your salvation, and believe in his resurrection – and still be saved?  Is it 10% or 15% or 20%?  Or what?
My point is this:  all of us are missing part of God’s full truth.  He knows all truth.  I don’t.  I am striving to understand all truth, but it is a journey of maturing in the understanding of God’s Word.
Someone might truly trust in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for one’s salvation and believe in Jesus as Lord as demonstrated by the resurrection, yet be lacking in many points of doctrine.

This sounds like a plausible objection to thinking that if someone adheres to a heretical theology, such as Mormonism, that theology would not impede a saving faith relationship with Christ. Unfortunately, the argument is quite fallacious. The specific fallacy on exhibit here is popularly known as the fallacy of the beard. It gets its name from the conundrum that it is impossible to specify how many hairs must be on a man’s face before one may conclude definitively that he has a beard. How unshaven may a man’s face be and still not have a beard? Is it 10% or 15% or 20%? How long must the facial hair be before it’s a beard: 1/32 of an inch? 1/16? 1/4? No one can say. Does this mean, then, that we can never assert truthfully that a particular man has a beard? Of course not. When A. J. Jacobs grew his beard as part of his experiment recounted in The Year of Living Biblically, there was not some arbitrary point of time before which he did not have a beard and after which he did have a beard. Yet eventually there was no denying that he had a beard!

Likewise, we may admit that it is impossible to specify some mathematical measure of false doctrine, such that anyone accepting a greater degree of false doctrine cannot be saved. This admission, however, in no way entails the conclusion that a person can believe practically anything and still be saved. Such an argument is an instance of the fallacy of the beard. Underlying the fallacy is the assumption that what marks a person as spiritually lost is a certain amount of false doctrine. That isn’t the case. Heresy, like beardedness, is a qualitative matter, not a quantitative matter. It isn’t the number of erroneous doctrinal assertions to which one holds that constitutes heresy; it’s the nature of those erroneous doctrinal beliefs and of the whole belief system of which they are parts that results in heresy.

The relevance of understanding this particular fallacy for thinking about a contemporary controversial issue like the faith of Glenn Beck illustrates the great need of the church today for critical thinking skills and a deep, sound understanding of the principles of logic. I am very pleased and privileged to have the opportunity, starting tomorrow night, to teach an eight-week online elective course for the fall 2010 semester of The Theology Program on the subject of Critical Thinking. The course will not be a formal academic course on logic per se, although it will cover some fundamentals of logic. Rather, it will be an orientation to the subject of critical thinking that will include introductory (but not superficial) material regarding logic and the major methods of reasoning. Here are just some of the things we will be discussing in this course:

• Does the Bible discourage critical thinking or the use of logic? What about such texts as Proverbs 3:5-6 or Colossians 2:8?
• What exactly is critical thinking? Is it a covert form of relativism, always questioning everything and never arriving at settled conclusions?
• How do we identify and analyze real arguments “in the wild” of books, articles, and other media, as distinguished from simplistic textbook examples of arguments?
• What are legitimate, reasonable ways to challenge someone’s argument? How can we tell if a criticism of an argument is relevant or not?
• What are the values and limitations of deductive and inductive kinds of reasoning?
• What is “inference to the best explanation” and why is it so popular in evangelical apologetics?
• Logicians have identified a plethora of fallacies; how can we get a handle on this subject so we don’t get lost in a maze of technical terms (in Latin!) for all those fallacies?
• Are fallacies always poor reasoning, or can some fallacies be legitimate ways of reasoning in some contexts?
• How can we develop our Christian minds to be skilled in critical thinking without becoming hypercritical, fault-finding nitpickers?

Those who take this course will have access to some excellent Christian writing on subjects relating to critical thinking as well as the opportunity to work through some exercises to hone their skills in this area. The principles and methods studied in the course will be illustrated using examples from apologetics, theology, biblical studies, and ethics. I hope you’ll join me!Similar Posts:

• ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS 19: Glenn Beck and that Question Again
• Can the Christian faith violate reason?
• Seven Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
• Will Your Faith Grow this Fall?
• Entire APOLOGETICS Program Just $249.99 – For 3 Days

I remember when I was a pastor at Stonebair Community Church. There was this lady that was trying to get her foot in the door of the church to hold a seminar on the dangers of Harry Potter. This is when the movie was first coming out and everyone was already reading the books. She attempted to tell us about the sorcery and witchcraft that was in it and how it was not a good movie for kids. We sent her on her way (to the church down the street!). There were simply bigger fish to fry. (Besides, I think we were all going to watch Harry Potter that night.)

One of the things that I believe is that culture is “amoral.” What I mean by that is that we need to be careful when we talk about the Christianity and the culture. Often the way we talk about it is in terms of Christianity vs. the culture or Christianity vs. the world. Culture is amoral in that in-and-of itself, it is not good or evil. It can exhibit traits of either. The world is not evil. The world without God (which is what we often mean) is evil because it is in rebellion toward God. But culture can be, and often is, a very good thing. Entertainment, arts, music, technology, government, and the like can be used for good or evil.

Take movies for instance. In so many ways, Hollywood can be a gift from God. The expression of creativity, instigation of laughter, and the opening of the imagination is a God glorifying venture. However, very often it can be a tool for evil, transforming worldviews by the powers of entertainment. An ancient Greek philosopher once said (and I paraphrase), “You can have the government, military, and schools, but give me the music and I control the people.” I have a feeling that today the this same philosopher would say the same thing about Hollywood. There is so much power there.

I love movies. Probably too much. Definitely too much. I always think about whether something is beneficial or not. I am continually asking if such and such movie is promoting good or evil. I often don’t know. However, I have come up with three rules of thumb that I use in evaluation. This is especially helpful when it comes to what I will let my kids watch.

Forgive my acronym, but it fits: CAN. You know…as in “Can I watch this daddy?”

Before I list them, understand that these three are in relation to sinful behavior in entertainment. The question is not simply does the movie contain sinful behavior (which is often where we stop), but does it have sinful behavior in relation to these three.

Celebrated
Accessible
Normalized

Celebrated

Is the sinful behavior celebrated? In other words, does the movie glorify the bad behavior.

Accessible

Is the sinful behavior accessible? This speaks to the practical nature of the behavior. Is it something that we can expect people to actually do?

Normalized

Is the sinful behavior normalized? This speaks to the cultural acceptance of the behavior. Is it something that says “Everyone is doing it, you should not be afraid to do the same?”

Now let’s flesh this out some. I am not saying that all of these things have to be present. Nor am I saying that only one will have to be present.

For example, take Harry Potter. Here we are almost a decade later. They are still making Harry Potter movies which gross a few hundred million each. Kids are still seeing them and they are still reading the books. Witchcraft is still evil. But you know what? I have never once in my life seen a warlock. We are not having a witch epidemic in this country. Even if you saw every one of the movies and read every one of the books there is virtually no chance you will be involved in more witchcraft than if you had not seen it. Millions of dollars and tons of time has been wasted by the church on all these Harry Potter warning campaigns. Why? Because the fantasy of Harry Potter is not accessible. It is just not the issue here in America. A young boy has no more likelihood to become a warlock by watching Harry Potter than does the same kid have a likelihood of becoming a superhero by watching Superman. The same is true with the Twilight trilogy. I have yet to see any vampires produced. Remember Star Wars and its relation to pantheism? One of the most watched movies of all time and you probably do not know any pantheists. While one might be able to argue that the “bad behavior” in these movies is celebrated, we have to realize that, for the most part, the accessibility is just not there. It is fantasy. 

Now take celebration. Often I find that movies contain bad behavior that are both accessible and normalized, but not celebrated. This is often a very good quality. A good illustration is country music. I live in Oklahoma where we love country songs. Its all about divorce, drinking, and bars. Bad stuff right? However, this does not mean that it always has an negative influence. You know what happens when you play a country song backward don’t you? You sober up, get your truck back, your girl back, and your dog back. The point is that in many (not all) country songs, they have so much bad behavior, but the consequences are depressing and sad. The behavior has serious consequences. It is not celebrated or glorified at all.

The Bible does the same. There is so much bad behavior that is accounted for in the Bible. Think about it. If Hollywood were to turn the Bible into film, it would most definitely be rated “R”. However, the evil actions are not celebrated.

I remember Denzel Washington, who is a Christian (from what I hear), would not play in the movie Training Day unless his character was killed at the end. He said that his character was so evil that he must suffer the consequences of his bad behavior. The question here is not whether or not the evil is present, but is it celebrated?

An opposite example is the 80′s sit-com Cheers. Some of you can hang with me here. It was my absolute favorite show on TV. I never missed an episode. What a cast. However, Sam Malone, the show’s central character, could not be accused of being a Christian moral example. He was a womanizer. Not only this, but he was a heroic womanizer, celebrated by every passer-by in every episode. The celebration of womanizing was a problem. It could create a sense in the viewer (especially males) that in order to be “successful” and liked by everyone, you have to be as much like Sam Malone as possible. Not only is womanizing celebrated, but it is accessible. People actually can and do become sexually promiscuous. It actually is a temptation.

Finally, another characteristic I look for is the normalization of the behavior. Sometimes the behavior, while it may not necessarily be celebrated, is accessible and normalized. A normalized behavior is one that everyone is doing. If there are no consequences, and the people who are participating are the “heroes” of the story, then this can have a negative influence. For example, premarital sex is normalized in most entertainment today to the point that if one does not participate, they are the odd fanatics. In the end, people want to be ”normal.” I want to be “normal.” This is not the issue. The issue is who do we let define normal? When bad behavior is normalized, whether it be premarital sex, homosexual behavior, drunkenness, or otherwise, this can be a sign that the entertainment will have a negative influence.

There are other issues involved, I know. Is this or that evil behavior gratuitous? Is the entertainment meant to be historical? These are all issues to think about. But what I have found is that these three questions cover most issues, whether it be movies, songs, or any other way we engage in entertainment.Similar Posts:

• What Movies CAN a Christian Watch?
• Book Review: The Harry Potter Bible Study
• Jesus with His Lights Out on Halloween
• Jesus with His Lights Turned off on Halloween
• Screwtape Letters Movie!!

Unfortunately, the question represents the broader discontentment of a long history of mistreatment of Blacks.   There is a sensitivity to the topic that is often met with emotional disdain at the prospect of historical injustices and contemporary misgivings.  This is something that only the impacted feel, most don’t understand and only a few handle with objective care.  For those who have evaded the genetic and/or cultural entrapment that sifts issues of race through a highly evaluative colandar, there might be a sense of irritation that an endless recalling of the issue to the forefront brings.   For those whom race has been a most central concern due to their ethnic heritage, the continual demand for justice, respect and value can cloud even the most innocent of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.  The extreme version of this demand can, and often does result in a myopic insistence that justice prevails even in situations where there have been no miscarriages of it.

Yes, the issue of race and how it has been historically treated remains a highly volatile topic for some, and particularly as it relates to Christianity.  The reality is that for centuries, there has been an anglo, eurocentric dominance on the representation of Christianity that is not only reflected in the symbolic artifacts and artifices, but resulted in demoralizing perceptions and practices where Blacks are concerned.  The ensuing institutional and political infractions that created a system of inequality and wholesale denigration were supported and promoted by Biblical interpretations and a biased brand of Christianity.  That is an inescapable reality that would have a lasting impact, even after lines of demarcation were legally erased.   The anglo-orientation of Christianity would cause some to reject it as a by-product of that orientation, failing to see the beauty of Christ that transcends it.

For the Christian with the mandate to see through a Christo-centric lens, this indeed becomes a tricky balance.  The idea that race should not matter to one committed to Christ has worked wonderful in theory but not so great practically.   While this country has witnessed great strides in race relations, there seems to remain a subtle hum of separatism based on cultural preferences, misunderstandings and in extreme cases, outright prejudices.  Some things are hard to forget and even harder to let go of.  This is most demonstrated in the composition of the local Christian assembly.  How many Christian churches across America have isolated on the basis of race illustrative in separatist nomenclature of black churches, white churches, hispanic churches, etc.?  I recall a former pastor frequently citing the phrase ‘Sunday mornings are the most segregated hour in America’.  I dare say it is the lingering impact of historic inequality and cultural biases.

Yet Christ effectively dealt with ethnic prejudices long before euro-centric dominance and he established the foundation by which equality must be considered.  Jesus Christ stepped into time and space when prejudicial sentiments ran high.  Jews were considered superior as God’s chosen people.  Gentiles, as a class of people, were considered inferior and unworthy of any divinely favored activity.  In fact, they were classified as dogs, which in that time was a derogatory term likening them to unclean animals.

Since Jesus revealed God to humanity, his actions towards the Gentiles demonstrated not only an unprecedented level of care and consideration for them, but what he came to implement would transcend ethnic prejudices and transform discriminatory practices.  His death on the cross created a new entity, called the Church, whereby those former lines of demarcation were erased and all who were apart of the this entity would have equal access, equal promises and equal consideration. Ephesians 2:13-16 aptly captures this

But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees.  He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed. (Ephesians 2:13-16 NET)

From a first century perspective, no longer would one group (Jews) have the privileged upper hand that denied the other group (Gentiles) equal access and consideration.   Now, the privilege would be granted exclusively through Christ and the new entity that he established, access through faith in him.  The hostility presented here refers to the Mosaic covenant that created the ability for one group to discriminate against the other group but now has been rendered ineffective through Christ’s death on the cross.

From a contemporary perspective, this ought to impale any notion that one group of people is in anyway superior to another and deserving of a superior status.  It is unfortunate that for so many centuries this was not the case, that the beauty of cross was marred by biased applications of unbiased Biblical truths.  It is egregious that such interpretations resulted in the denigration of a whole class of people that would have such a forceful and continuing impact.

Nonetheless, misapplications cannot and should not be confused with the intentional actions of a loving God who deemed all creation equally worthy of reconciliation appropriated through the gift of his Son and faith in him.  Nor should it be of consequence that culturally biased representations of him would skew his affiliation with one race or the other.  He died so individuals from all  races, creeds, tongues, nations would have equal opportunity to the gift of eternal life.  This transcends race, it transcends historical mis-actions, it transcends cultural biases.

So the quest for the colorless Christ considers his work and person over what has been done with it by lost and misguided people.  Colorless is actually a misnomer for it suggests an erasure of ethnic heritage.  Rather colorless considers all races and ethnicities as equally valuable.  For the Christ-follower, this means moving beyond the past transgressions and embracing the model of integration that Christ came to establish.  It recognizes the historic mishandling of evidence and resulting prejudices are nothing more than a product of the same sin that Christ came to expunge in order to create an unprecedented unity that defies ethnic and cultural prejudices.  It means stepping outside of the biases and considering the brother as a brother rather than a member of a different race.  Paul’s prescription in Philippians 3:13-14 to forget those things which are behind is equally applicable to the sensitivities of historic mistreatment.

As long as sin exists in a broken and fallen world, there will always be racism in one form or the other or milder versions of ignorance and cultural superiority.   But let those who look to Christ demonstrate his transcendence of these issues, abolition of biased attitudes and composition of equal consideration and sensitivity to those impacted.Similar Posts:

• When Theology Becomes a Stumbling Block
• A great place to start your cultural prolegomena
• If God So Loved the World, Then Why Do We Hate It?
• Things I Used to Believe, but Now I’m Not So Sure
• Doing missions in your own backyard (Cultural Prolegomena)

(Oh, and since we have thousands of first-time visitors here everyday, let me be clear…I am a very committed Evangelical Christian.)

8. Unanswered prayer = God’s “no”. Prayer in general is hard. It is hard to keep up with someone whose relationship techniques do not mirror anything we practice on earth. The though-you-do-not-see-him-now-but-believe-in-him” (1 Pet. 1:8) thing is really bizarre. And when it comes to prayer (i.e. talking to God) it culminates in some frustrations. When I pray for something that does not get answered (i.e. my request does not happen), people often say, “that is God’s ways of saying “no” or “not now.” So, in Christianity, God’s ignoring is another way of rejecting a request? I don’t like that. I am not saying it is not true, its just I would prefer something else.

7. Testimonies, BC and AD. No, it is not the testimonies themselves, but the burden of what a testimony must bear. There has to be a former way of life before Christ (BC) and what you have become after Christ (AD). The burden is that in order to have a “great” testimony, pressure is placed upon you to present yourself in a nice and polished way that says, “Look what God has done with me: Can you believe it? You can be like me too.” Testimonies are more valid (not to mention more believable and inspiring) when the “finished product” (the AD) is never really finished at all, but still broken. I don’t like the shallow “now and then” of the Christian testimony format.

6. Watchdog ministries. Watchdog ministries. Lighthouse ministries. Appraisal ministries. They go by many names. They are full-time Christian snipers. Let me back up. There are certain ministries that exist to find and expose false teaching. I have no problem with exposing false teaching. Indeed, it is part of what we are to do as teachers…correct false doctrine. However, it is very rare to find a ministry or a person who does this well. Most of the ministries and people who do this are arrogant, ungracious, and counter-productive and themselves need to be exposed. I have worked for one of these ministries (a long time ago). After a while, the ministry becomes obsessed, concerning itself with nothing else other than beating someone up in the name of the Lord. When there is no controversy, like a drug addict in withdrawals, they begin to create controversy ex nihilo or go back to dead horses and kick them. Their goal soon loses the priority of truth, learning, and understanding. I think that many people would have nothing to talk about if there was not someone to kick.

5. Seeker-driven Churchianity. (“Churchianity: a term a took from my friend Michael Spencer). That’s not really the best way to put it. A better way might be “compromised Christianity.” The reason why it is often called “seeker churchianity” is based on its primary desire to fulfill the “Great Commission” through reaching the lost. But there is a line crossed. I cannot always tell you where it is, but I will go out on a limb here and say that the majority of Evangelical Churches today have crossed that line a long time ago. I carry I poker chip in my pocket. Written on it are the words “Leaving Lust Vegas.” It was taken from a church that was doing a sermon series about lust and decided to use a modern Hollywood and Las Vegas theme to communicate their message. I can’t imagine how much it cost to have these chips made (not to mention how little practical effect they really have). I also have a flier from a sermon series called, “Girls Gone Wild, Bible Style.” This was from a different church who was attempting to reach its audience in a relevant way. I understand why they do this and even admire their intentions. However, I hate it when the Church so much wants to reach the world that one can hardly tell the difference between the culture of the Church and the culture of Hollywood. The church is different and we should do things a particular way. Wal-Mart is different. Disney World is different. The movie theater is different. Fraternities at the University of Oklahoma are different. Congress is different. Just because one is different does not mean they cannot be relevant in accomplishing that which their purpose demands. Why is the church so scared of being different?

4.  Christian subculture. I understand that in every discipline, career, or fellowship, there is going to be a unique vocabulary and way to communicate. I make a living teaching theology, a discipline in which people have to learn a new technical language if they expect engage in an effective way. Therefore, I have no problem with communication barriers that need to be overcome. As well, I understand that each culture has its own unique ways of life including family matters, music, education, entertainment, and the like. Therefore, I don’t have any problem with cultural barriers. However, in Christianity, I find that most Christians (especially Evangelical Christians) feel pressured to enter and live within a subculture which, in-and-of-itself, does not necessarily represent Christianity, but becomes the primary avenue through which those on the outside view the Church. The problem is that Christianity is not a culture or a sub-culture (a culture within a culture). Christianity is a belief and a relationship with God that expresses itself in very adaptive ways, with the ability to see the image of God in may cultural expressions that are not unique only to Christians. “Christian” music, education, fiction novels, language, sports, bumper stickers, t-shirts and the like often serve a purpose to distance Christianity from those whom we are ambassadors to and obscures our message. That is why I hate the Christian subculture.

3. Legalism. All religions breed legalism, but Christianity is a religion founded on grace. Legalism cancels out grace. Therefore, legalism cancels out Christianity. Ironically, Christianity has so many legalists. Legalism is essentially an attitude shared by many Christians (especially the immature) that exists to make people feel more in control and comfortable. It is a list of dos and don’ts that one has to follow to be accepted. However, Christianity only exists because God was not legalistic with us. We broke all his rules and he stooped to forgive us. He continues to stoop to forgive us. Legalists, ironically, will not stoop. I hate legalistic Christianity, especially since I can be the primary representative of this legalistic mutation.

2. Anti-intellectual mentality. I was reading a Christian author earlier today who said that the number one thing he hates about Christianity is that “there is no evidence for what we believe.” He goes on to define this as “faith.” I hate that a Christian could ever make such a statement with a straight face. If what he said is true, it is tragic. If there is no evidence for Christianity, I am leaving (quietly, out the back door). I hate that our current Christian culture has so far distanced the intellect from faith that a belief that there is no evidence for Christianity is assumed. I don’t hate it simply because I am embarrassed by it (which I am), but because it is not true and gives so much ammunition to those who reject Christianity. I hate the lack of the mind in the Christian church today.

1. Hell. This is hands down the most difficult doctrine in the Christian faith. We believe in a loving God who sees fit to allow his creation (his children) to suffer in a place we call hell—a place, by the way, that affords more suffering than anything imaginable. A place, by the way, that is never-ending. It is not as though I don’t believe it. I do. It is not as though I look at God in judgment. I don’t. It is simply something that confuses me. While I completely disagree with any form of “Christian” universalism (i.e. all people are going to make it to heaven), second-chance theories (i.e. unbelievers will experience a second chance to escape hell in the after life), or the idea of annihilationalism (i.e. the belief that hell, along with all its inhabitants, will eventually be annihilated forever), I understand and sympathize with the reason why they go in this direction. If I could find some sort of loop-hole to get out of believing in the doctrine of an eternal hell, I would. If there was such a thing as a Christianity that did not necessitate a belief in hell, I would submit my resume. (And believe me, I have tried). Oh, closely connected to this are the cliché answers Christians give about hell. Many Christians I have encountered act as if hell does not bother them in the least. Of all the things you can be cliché about, don’t be so here.

What about you?Similar Posts:

• If God So Loved the World, Then Why Do We Hate It?
• Does Christian Activism Actually Encourage Immorality?
• The Premature Funeral of the “L” Word
• Doing missions in your own backyard (Cultural Prolegomena)
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water

I would love to hear your thoughtsSimilar Posts:

• The Sex Talk
• Let me divert attention to Bob
• If You Are an Atheist, Don't Talk to Me!
• Things that Christians do that annoys me
• Hidden Dismissals and Thoughts on Fostering More Honest Theological Dialogue

So often in Scripture, we are told not to fear.  Jesus tells His disciples on many occasions not to fear since He is there.  After His earthly departure, He would send a comforter to allay fears.  Paul tells Timothy, that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but love, power and a sound mind.  John writes in his epistle, that there is no fear in love, for perfect love (meaning Christ) casts out fear because fear involves torment.  Yet, the believer can allow fear to seep in and distract from the peace that Christ brings and even justify fear in the face of alarming circumstances that stand counter-opposed to the Christian values we are striving to uphold.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, there seems to be a vapor of fear circulating among evangelical circles these days.  I believe that several factors are motivating this fear but the chief instigator seems to be the current political administration.  Let’s face it, there are policies and practices being proposed that undercut and undermine a politically conservative platform, the same platform that most evangelicals share due to closest alignment of values based on a Biblical worldview.

Whether it be universal health care, internet policies, taxation of business or a presidential speech made to school children, the actions of the current administration are alarming many.  Not to mention, the administration’s pro-abortion stance.  So much so, I believe that there is a perception of detriment that I wonder is not being amplified because of fear.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is no cause for concern, especially if you are a politically conservative evangelical.  But I do get the sense that we are allowing that fear to draw unmitigated and slightly irrational conclusions about things that on face value, do not warrant the kind of response that some actions have drawn, such as delivering a motivational speech to school age children.  Al Mohler has written a very insightful piece concerning this (here).

I agree with Dr. Mohler concerning what the Christian response should be according to Scripture.  For I find the average evangelical response interesting in contrast to Biblical prescription and practices in the early church.  Paul encourages a response to government that I think is most intriguing considering the atheist, plurastic and hedonistic Roman government ruled during that time.  If we think our’s is immoral, it is saintly in comparison.  He writes in Romans 13:1-3,to submit to governing authorities for by doing so you are subjecting to God.  Moreover, he indicates that the authorities are not a cause for fear.  Even then, with what Christians faced the rule was to pray for government and submit to it.  Why?  Because God is the ultimate authority and it is God who is ultimately in control.

I further get the sense that  fear is causing us to want a government response to our concerns because American Christians Evangelicals have developed an expectation that government should align with a Biblical worldview and we should have no participation with one that doesn’t.  I suspect this is why there has been so much evangelical entwinement with the political process in order to control outcomes.  Perhaps it was the foundation of religious freedom that the country was founded on or maybe the fundamentalist movement in the early 20th century that sought to impose a Christian standard on society.  I think fear played a significant factor in these efforts since a “godless” society would inevitably be much more difficult to live in than one displaying the same moralistic values that should so distinguish the proper Christian.

I do find the contrast of political affiliation during the early church in contrast to today interesting.  There were no protests from Christians for the government to align with their values.  Even Paul, a Roman citizen, did not seek to gain political clout for the sake of Christianity.  In fact, it were the Jewish rulers who sought political good will in order to enhance their agenda.

Fear of any type of government misalignment with Christian values should not be a cause for concern for the believer.  It is not that we are not concerned about the current political direction of this country but a non-conformity to this world (Romans 12:2) means we don’t put our trust in the system.  A believer’s trust is in God because He is the one ultimately in control.  A believer  can submit to government because our trust is not in government but in God.  We don’t have to overreact to every move the current administration makes.  We can allow our children to be encouraged to take responsibility for their education by a government official opposed to a Biblical worldview because hopefully at home, we are instructing our children what one is.  I also think we can dispense from comparing our commander in chief to Hitler or Stalin because that does much to instigate fear that stands in opposition to position we should be taking according to Scripture.

If we belong to Christ, we are His and that should comfort us in spite of present and perceptions of pending circumstances.Similar Posts:

• Will the real evangelical please stand up?
• New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
• Green Evangelicals
• Politics According to the Bible (Dan Wallace)
• When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?