Human Race Nearly Went Extinct--News Story

Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Society has discovered that the human race nearly went extinct sometime in the past. The few people remaining were able to repopulate the earth. See story at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html But--we already knew that. The account is in Genesis ch. 6-9. Oh, and it was a flood, not a drought--sorry Mr. Wells.

Many Christians seem at times, to want to equate western civilization or America with Christianity. If we read the "Christian" press, we often find those who sound the alarm that Islam is growing in America, and that "Christians need to be aware. . ." etc. It is as if everyone who becomes Muslim in America somehow means one less Christian--as if that person converted from robust faith in Jesus Christ to Islam. It is, however, an error on our part to lament the growth of Islam in the west, on the basis that it somehow takes away from Christianity. Most Americans are not Christians, and in fact, throughout the history of this nation there have only been rare and short lived occasions when Christians were in the majority (it may have happened in the 1740s/50s, and again in the 1820s/30s. Christianity has always been a minority religion in the US. Throughout much of its history here, it has been co-opted by the respectable majority and “tamed” to the point of having almost no influence whatever on American life. This is especially true today, when Christian faith has been “suburbanized,” immersed in a culture that is largely indifferent to it, and which has trained Christians to see themselves as part of the mainstream of that very culture. It is like watering down orange juice to the point where a sip of it tastes more like water than juice, and then insisting that the water is really orange juice. Under these circumstances, how can we lament that Islam might steal “our” civilization. Secular humanism, pluralism, liberalism and postmodernism already stole “our” civilization decades, even centuries ago. Christians do not have a "civilization" in America, and the sooner we realize this the better. (We OUGHT to have a civilization here, for we have enough numbers, even as a minority, to have a real influence, but we are too busy being Americans to make any real effort to change America.) One area where there might be some point to concern over Islam growing in America is that it could some day institute restrictions on religious freedom here, in a couple of centuries, if it continues to grow here. This would restrict the Christian minority in this country in ways we arhave not been in the past. However, considering that Christianity is on the wane in the US—while it is growing around the world, by the time that Islam would become a majority religion here, if ever, Christianity would be almost unknown. One should hope that Christians in those places where it is growing, will eventually send large numbers of missionaries to the US to start new churches here. (Korean and African Christians are already sending a few missionaries to the US for which Christians here should be grateful. Let us hope their numbers grow.) Let us be aware of something else: Muslims have a zeal for righteousness, one that gets warped often, that turns into legalism, certainly. However it is a zeal that, in itself, puts western Christians to shame. Muslims are zealous for sexual purity. Most Christians in the US simply shrug when a single young lady in the church becomes pregnant. Muslims are opposed to porn. American Christians will simply change the channel and go on watching TV. Muslims believe gambling is a sin. Many American Christians, upon hearing that the Sunday School director at church won 100 dollars on the nickel slots, while in Las Vegas, will most likely say, “be sure you tithe on that now!” and envy him his winnings! I am not saying that we should attempt to restrict the media and public morals in ways that Muslims have (we are a minority here, for one thing), but the utter silence of American Christians in the face of moral decay around them and among them, is nothing short of disgusting. We should certainly be more vocal than we are in advocating moral purity in the media, in our lives together, and in society generally. If we do not, we have nothing to say if Muslims engage in anti-American diatribes due to the rampant sin in this country. They, at least, have the moral courage to say something about it. (And they have the moral turpitude to attack this country as well, but we Christians ought not to put ourselves in the place of defending “western civilization” or “our culture” with all of its ungodliness, secularism, pornography, gambling, cheating, stealing, drug abuse, lying, and crime. Yes, “our culture” is threatened by the rise and the zeal of Islam—but—“our culture” OUGHT to be threatened by the rise and the zeal of Christians who insist on respect for truth, purity, self control, and godliness. Too often we Christians have either been silent--and a little embarrassed by those who aren't--except when defending "our culture." Let's get over it, and be about the business of opposing "our culture" and calling "our culture" to genuine repentance--and a good place to start might well be by repenting of our own failure to confront "our culture" in the past.)

Presidential Politics 2008

• Let's face it: none of the remaining candidates are particularly appealing this year. Hillary is perhaps the worst of the lot, but the others do not fare greatly. There is not a statesman in the lot. Nor is there someone who will put principle above politics or who really deeply understands what government is for and how it ought to work. However, a nation in decline will produce poor leaders,. We should not be surprised that America, in its decline, cannot come up with a great presidential candidate. Poor leadership happens in every field—business, politics, religion, families, and everywhere else. Look at the current situation:
• Business—Ken Lay, Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, et al.
• Politics—Hillary, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, et al.
• Religion—Joel Osteen, T D Jakes, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Rick Warren.
• Families—most families are fragmented due to divorce, or because there never was much of a family there at all. All of these things are bound up together in a web. If the nation were healthy in one area, it would be healthy in all of these areas. The nation is spiritually, morally, emotionally, and economically sick. It is the whole body, not just one part, that has problems. As such, we cannot fix one area without fixing others. We need to start at the root causes to do this.

Electing the right president This is part of why I don’t share the Christian Right’s faith that electing “the right president” can really fix anything. We had “the right president” in Ronald Reagan, and his party behind him, and the country continued to deteriorate—in fact the deterioration accelerated during those years, not due to Reagan, certainly, but accelerate it did.

What is needed We need to start at the family/religion level if we are ever to fix the nation. We too easily accept dysfunctional families as “OK.” We too easily accept dysfunctional religion as “what ought to be.” Someone needs to stand up to both and say “enough!” Someone needs to take action to end the cycle of abuse, neglect, and divorce in our families. Those behaviors ought not to be normal! They ought not to be commended or accepted in our churches! We need to admit, OUT LOUD, that dysfunctional families are not acceptable and take steps to ensure, at lest in our churches, that every family is healthy and fucntioning properly. The same is true with religion. We all smile and nod our heads when people in church talk about how much they “just love to hear Joel Osteen" or "T. D. Jakes.” Some smile and nod because they agree! We need to do a better job of teaching these people the truth. Others just don’t want to make waves. (When you don’t make waves, you get stagnant water!) People who know what is morally right, and what is spiritually true, all too often stand by while spiritual sickness infests the churches. We want to be nice, we want to be peacemakers, we want to acknowledge that different people see things differently. We become practical relativists, while saying we believe in absolute truth. A sick religion and dysfunctional families can do little to turn around declining morals, declining leadership, and declining civilization.

Conclusion Before we get too upset over who is being elected President, perhaps we need to look at our churches and families, and get busy fixing the problems there.

The World According to Tweety-Bird

• The World According to Tweety Bird
• Who is Tweety?
• Tweety is the little guy. Tweety does not count for much in the scheme of things. This, for Tweety, is not a problem as he is content to be the little guy, so long as he is supplied with bird seed, water, and a swing to swing on. However, Tweety is a victim of forces much larger than he is (“Dat bad ol’ puddy tat!”). Tweety is the one who is oppressed, a victim of Sylvester, who seeks to over power him utterly. At the same time, Tweety always wins. Tweety is never caught and eaten by Sylvester, and this makes Tweety self assured to the max.
• Where is Tweety?
• Tweety lives in a cage. This is not a bad place to be as his cage offers safety from the “bad ol’ puddy tat.” His cage is home, and is the place of food, safety, and rest. Whenever he chooses, or needs to, Tweety is free to leave the cage in order to torment his nemesis, Sylvester the cat. Tweety’s world is a dangerous place for those who are small, who might find themselves becoming breakfast for those who are large. Tweety must be always on the alert for Sylvester, who is diligent in his efforts to bring Tweety to harm. Tweety’s world is also one where justice prevails always, in the end, or Tweety would have been long gone ages ago.
• What is Wrong?
• Tweety actually looks like "breakfast" to Sylvester. Tweety is the victim. Tweety cannot ever get fully away from Sylvester. Tweety is the one who has no power. Tweety is small and Sylvester is large. Tweety is weak and Sylvester is strong. Tweety is innocent and pure, and Sylvester is evil.
• What is the Answer?
• The answer lies in Tweety’s own perseverance and cleverness, along with a streak of luck, which includes some impossible “cartoon” type feats of strength, and daring. Tweety is also fortunate in that while Sylvester is big and evil, he is also very foolish. Sylvester is often a victim of his own schemes to capture Tweety. When all else fails, there is “Gwanny” who comes in at opportune moments and gives Sylvester a royal “lickin” with her umbrella.
• Commentary:
• Tweety shares much in common with other Warner Brothers Cartoon characters. In many of them the weak are oppressed by the strong and yet win out in the end. Bugs Bunny is a classic case, facing several enemies: Yosemite Sam, Elmer Fudd, and the Tasmanian Devil. The Road Runner is another, who always wins over Wile E. Coyote, even though the coyote is more powerful. These cartoons appeal to Americans because it is an American story. We love to see the underdog win. Americans have always championed the little guy in any conflict. When Tweety outsmarts Sylvester, it is the same as the Horatio Alger, rags to riches story, where the little guy fights against overpowering odds and wins. It is the story of Rocky and of The Lord of the Rings. It is the Alamo and D-Day. We love to see the underdog win. Truman over Dewey in 1948 is one example. Andrew Carnegie, who came to America as a poor immigrant child, and went to work as a telegraph boy, but grew up to be a multi-millionaire is seen as the American success story. In some ways it is America’s own story—a little band of Colonists come to Jamestown in 1604 and overcome impossible odds to survive and build Virginia and then all the colonies declaring their independence from England, all these farmer-militiamen, winning out over well trained and equipped British troops. We were the Tweety Birds and the Redcoats were Sylvester. The Warner Brothers cartoons may be seen in light of the Bible as well. Tweety wins, but unlike in the Bible, it is not by faith, but by cleverness and cartoonish jokes. The “savior” in the Sylvester and Tweety cartoons is always “Gwanny” who is good at fighting evil and injustice, but who offers no permanent solution. In the Bible it is different. The little guy wins in the Bible, only because of faith in God. Scripture tells us that “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Corinthians 1:27). This runs all through scripture. The little guy wins over and over, not by cleverness but by faith. The Bible tells us the story of God choosing Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau. Even more so, it is Moses, God’s Tweety, standing up to the ungodly Pharaoh (Sylvester), and winning, not because Moses’ “Gwanny” gives Pharoah a whack, but because God has chosen to bless his people at that time. It is the story of David and Goliath, of David and Saul, especially. Saul must have felt like Sylvester sometimes, always after David and always failing to get him. Let’s remember, however, that God is not always on the side of the underdog. God is on the side of the underdog who has faith in God, and who lives according to God’s purposes. Tweety always wins, and for that matter so does Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner. They win because they are clever. God’s people win because they give themselves in faith to Jesus Christ and have their lives in line with the purposes of God. Let Tweety be an encouragement to all of us—sometimes the little guy wins. But even more than that, let Tweety remind us that the clever are guaranteed a win, only in the stories. The real winners in the end are those who belong, in faith, to Jesus Christ.

A Manifesto for Christian Living Today

HERE IS A BIG AGENDA FOR THE CHRISTIAN MINORITY IN AMERICA

• 1) We must insist on equal and fair treatment with other minorities in such matters as jobs, right to live free of harassment, free speech etc.
• 2) We must insist that we be treated fairly and accurately by the news media, and entertainment venues. Christians have kept quiet for too long while we are satirized, or described in woefully inaccurate ways to the majority by the media.
• 3) We must insist that schools and textbooks treat Christianity accurately and fairly, that we not be mischaracterized. Today Christians are treated much as blacks, Jews and others were treated a century ago.

• 4) We must insist on our right to proclaim our message and to have it heard alongside other messages in the public square.
• While insisting on these things, we must also
• 1) Model and live out a way of life that is completely biblical.
• a) This means living out values that are very different from our neighbors—noticeably different.
• b) This means showing the world a habit of giving, service, and self sacrifice that they don’t see elsewhere.
• c) This means going to bed earlier than most people, getting up earlier (to read the Word), and spending our “leisure hours” in ways that most Americans don’t (visiting those who are lonely or in need of help, interacting with our children and neighbors, engaging in SERIOUS Bible Study and prayer).
• d) This means changing the way we handle money and possessions, seeing them as a trust from God, to be used in ways that affirm life and community—in other words, I will buy things, not just to make me happy, but in order to have quality time with family, to make more time for neighbors and the needy, to enhance opportunities to be a vital part of the community.
• e) We must begin to practice, and teach our children, a completely different understanding of priorities in life:
• i. We must honor the elderly and teach our children to do so—-we must confront the “culture of youth” in America with a better alternative and show why it is better! And lead our children and grandchildren to do the same!
• ii. We must live out and teach a lifestyle that values the past, that values tradition, that values continuity—Americans always look for something “new and improved.” We must stand against this with a better alternative, and again we must teach our children the same.
• iii. We must learn to honor the creation—as God intended it to be. This includes not only ecological responsibility, but also recognizing God’s sovereignty in the world and looking for it. Let us teach our children to see God’s hand in all things—and live like we believe it too!
• 2) Advocate a biblical view of the world in all areas of public life. The Gay and Lesbian lobby has won the day over the past 20 years, and they are a smaller minority than we are. But they have been willing to confront the larger culture and make a difference. We have just sat by and groused about it. There are more of us than there are of them! We should be able to make a bigger impact! We need to discover what the Bible says about many things, and then get organized to advocate it across the board.
• I know this is a tall order, and challenges many things that we as Christians assume is true about the way things are. But until we face realities, we cannot change them. I know this reads as something of a manifesto, but I intend for it to.

Should Christians Go To Movies?

• Many Christians wonder if it is right or wrong to even attend movies. Different decisions are made by different Christians based on such factors as their knowledge of the Bible, level of committment to Jesus Christ, personal background/upbringing, etc. Here, I describe the range of choices under six headings. Most Christians fall into one or another of these headings. (For the record I tend to favor numbers 4 and 5, but other Christians may differ.)
• 1) Don’t go to movies at all. This approach is followed by many who want to be serious about never exposing themselves to anything that is morally impure. Also, they believe that by going to see even a “clean,” movie, they are supporting a morally decadent enterprise, and the money they spend on this movie may be used to make a bad movie later on. (Other Christians disagree on this last point and believe that if enough people will go to see “clean” movies, Hollywood will be motivated to make more of them, since it is money that drives the system.) This plan has the virtue of being simple, and it really does prevent one from being corrupted by an indecent movie. Besides, there is no biblical command to go to movies. However, such people need to be careful of spiritual pride.
• 2) Use the movie ratings system as a guide to which movies to see. These Christians believe that the rating system offers a way to determine which movies are “proper” and which ones are not. Such people will set a standard expressed in terms like “I will only go see G or PG movies.” Or, “I won’t go see any R-rated movies!” Many Christians follow this method, and it is probably the most popular. This plan is simple and easy, but can be inflexible. What if a movie you really want to see is rated above (or below?) your standard? Do you go and feel guilty? Also such standards are arbitrary, and may not be biblical.
• 3) Set a specific standard that you will not violate. These Christians believe that the movie rating system is at best only a rough guide. They add an additional standard, such as, “I will not go to any movie with a nude scene in it.” Or, “Killings are OK, but if they are too graphic, I won’t stay.” Or, “Such things are OK if they are integral to the story itself, but if they are not, I won’t go see the movie.” All of these require that one read movie reviews and depend on the testimony of friends, so it is a little more work than the first two approaches. This is a more thoughtful approach, which is a good thing. However, it is rather subjective. One danger is that you may wind up setting yourself up as the standard: “I will not go see what offends me” becomes, “What does or doesn’t offend me personally, is actually God’s standard for movies.” Remember, the Bible is the authority, not us.
• 4) Base the decision on the theme of the movie, its worldview and moral vision. These Christians also spend a lot of time looking at movie reviews and pondering the overall meaning of a movie. Under this approach, a nude scene, or violent action is not seen as a hindrance to going to the movie itself, as long as the overall theme of the movie is morally or philosophically biblical. This requires a bit of work, researching reviews and such. It has the strength of being thoughtful and mature. However, one must be sure one’s motive is pure: “Am I going to this movie because of the nude scene, and just making an excuse with all this talk of themes and worldviews, or am I really putting my priorities straight. Remember, “The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.”
• 5) Judge the movie on artistic merit alone, while taking into account the theme and worldview. This approach requires much time examining movie reviews (the internet really helps here). This approach is similar to four, but Christians who take this approach will go see a movie that presents a false picture of reality, if the movie is well made. They are able to look at the movie’s understanding of reality with a critical eye, and do not believe that it will affect them unduly. Like those who follow number four, such matters as “body count,” four letter words, or nude scenes are not so important in themselves as the overall quality of the movie. This is the most thoughtful approach, but one must be careful about motive, just as in four above. Also one must be careful to avoid spiritual pride, as in number one above. There is nothing wrong with appreciating well done moviemaking, but one should not be proud that one can do so. As those who choose number one must avoid a “holier than thou” attitude, similarly those who choose number five must avoid a “more worldly wise and aware than thou” attitude.
• 6) Don’t worry about it, just go to any movie that is showing, if it appeals to you at all, even superficially. These Christians believe that entertainment has no connection to the rest of life (they are wrong: it does), and they go to movies without giving the whole matter any real thought. If a title appeals to them, or they like the actors, or the trailer looks exciting (but don’t all trailers look exciting?), they will go see the movie. This is the least biblical approach. The Bible teaches us that all of life is interconnected. We are affected by what we do, see, and hear. Entertainment is serious business. Also, we should not be led around by advertising and promotion. Biblical wisdom requires that we make careful decisions about everything we do.
• You should prayerfully consider these options. Ask yourself the following questions:
• Which of these have I followed in the past?
• Which of these seems to appeal to me most? Why?
• Should I continue to do what I have done before or should I make a change?
• Is my motive right?
• Is there any spiritual pride in me about how I make this decision?

Some Criteria for a Good Movie

I have always said that the definition of a good movie is “a good story, well told.” I see this as comprehensive, but vague. Let me try to "put some meat on those bones." By “a good story” I mean one that is worth telling. The story needs to be worth the viewer’s time, in terms of what it gives back. The story should inform the viewer of important realities and offer uplifiting themes. Lord of the Rings certainly does that. While it is pure fantasy, it says real and important things about good and evil, about love, about loyalty, about a host of virtues. A story that gives only the visceral (most “action” films), or only some cheap laughs, is not worth telling. Examples of this kind of movie include Rush Hour, Rush Hour 2, Meet the Fokkers, most action films, and most films starring Whoopi Goldberg or Steve Martin. However, simply being "a good story is not enough. It must also be "well told." “Well Told” covers everything related to the technical side—good directing, acting, cinematography, etc. There are many “bad stories well told” out there. An example might be Meet the Fokkers, which is well acted, and well directed, but the story offers nothing worth keeping. All of this is way too broad. I am hoping that I or others can fill in the details. What are some additional elements of a “good story”? Here are a few tentative suggestions: A good story Has an uplifiting theme. Appeals to the head and perhaps the heart, but to the "belly" hardly at all. Has unity Is a story where characters learn and grow. Has characters who are realistic (Akeelah and the Bee was merely good, not great, partly because some characters were not realistic at all—I mean the local gang leaders who were supporting Akeelah?—Hmmph, let’s get real!) Other merely good--not great--movies might include Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, Beethoven, and The Incredibles. A good story further Offers insight in to real life—(and I don’t mean sex and violence—I mean insight into how people think, what motivates them, their best aspirations). Braveheart, for example pits William Wallace against Longshanks in a conflict in which Wallace is seen as a man who loves goodness, loves his wife, and loves his country. If the movie has a weakness, it is that Longshanks is never shown as anything but evil. Surely the man had some good motivations. I don’t trust the above list completely, because I sometimes think of exceptions. Does my list leave out comedy all together? Can a cartoon ever make it into the great category? What about a movie story told in a shallow, cartoon/fairy tale like manner? That may be appropriate for some stories. What are we to make of Evan Almighty? Most likely it is a good movie, though it is well made. It isn't a great movie, but I would certainly recommend it to anyone.

AFI and the idea of a "Great Movie"

I have a bone to pick with the American Film Institute over their movie selection process. AFI occasionally posts lists of "100 Greatest" in various categories of film. Recently they announced that they plan to do the survey again every decade or so due to “changing tastes.” What that says to me is that their list is not based on any objective criteria—it is merely what some people like. The AFI needs to establish some kind of criteria for a good movie—completely objective and not subject to whim and fancy. They need to base their lists on these criteria, and then each decade reconsider the list in light of movies that have been made since. Greatness should not be a matter of "Changing Tastes" but of unchanging values. The problem here is postmodernism. AFI has bought into the idea that there is no truth, only perspectives, and that we cannot set up external standards. In other words, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and we cannot say that any movie is really “better” since it is just a matter of whatever tastes and standards prevail. That is poppycock! It is postmodernism, pure and simple! AFI has lost quite a bit of credibility with me over this. Can't we set up an objective set of standards for a “great movie”? Perhaps we need different criteria for different movie genres. However, perhaps there is a core set of standards, and then certain genre specific standards that should be added in. I am not sure of the specifics, but I suspect that the whole idea that "changing tastes" should determine "greatness" is a serious error. "Greatness" should be a factor that helps refine and improve "taste" in movies as in music, art, theater, and literature.