An Early Look At Halloween
Anymore, it seems to be an annual rite where October 31 rolls around and news stations, due to the slow-news nature of Octobers, begin looking for “human interest” stories. The typical ones are those in which some Christian group is protesting Halloween, or staging ‘Hell-houses’, or doing something else rather public to call attention to its ‘bone to pick’ with this rather odd ‘Holiday’.
This year, as in several years past, these same groups get an ‘early Halloween gift’ in the form of a book - this year being the last (?) installment of the Harry Potter series. While I can’t say I have ever seen the need to boycott Halloween (my kids basically circle the small neighborhood dressed as doctors, pirates, princesses or various flora/fauna - we do avoid ghosts, vampires and monsters - and all of the families end up exchanging candy and chatting with their neighbors), I have been on both sides of the Harry Potter debate.
Early on (somewhere around Book 3), I was rather concerned when one of my kids received the books as a gift, when I had heard a great deal of negative press (via email chain-letters and a couple Christian newsletters screaming about the ‘evil’ inherent in Harry Potter).  Since they were a Christmas gift, I was able to temporarily ’lose’ them in the hustle and bustle to give myself time to decide whether or not to allow them to be read. In fact, both my wife and I were a little peeved that they were given in the first place, with all the furor over them (though, to be fair, the givers were of good intention and considered them to just be popular kids books, and hadn’t heard any of the fuss).
July 16th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Chris L,
I was on the other side also, until someone who had read the books pointed out that the true power of HP was love… that he was so touched by love of his mother that from that love came the great power and protection HP has.
the movies did not bring that out at all, but then again the movies left us a LoTRs that was just about a great battle between good and evil without the crucial points in the books that help the characters come to the conclusions.
I do agree with the “forbidden fruit†syndrome and that if one takes time to be the gatekeeper, and use wisdom they can open avenues to great discussions with you children.
I think it to be a bit reactionary at times that we just write off some things as “evil†but miss that there may be more going on… funny as some of the most perverted and violent stories I have read, are in the bible… Yet I doubt we will condemn it. Some try to tell me the Bible is ok for children, but truly I do not want to get into a discussion over Lots daughters, or the two sisters in Ezekiel, or what a circumcism is.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I don’t understand how the same Christians that protest Harry Potter also support Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. White Witches that have demons and ghouls as her sidekick are not that far off from a kid with a wand and some magic.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
as for the forbidden fruit… when I was a youth pastor, I dealt with SO many kids who were involved in the very things their parents worked so hard to forbid. One kid was not allowed to talk to girls until 17. Anytime he was even seen at youth group talking with a girl by his parents, he was grounded for a week.
What his parents didn’t know was that he was having sex by 16 and heavily involved with the opposite and same sex by 17.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I think the Harry Potter thing was way overblown and a great punching bag when there are so many more serious issues to be addressed. The Wizard of Oz and others could also be included in the x list, but I truly believe it is the lack of the positive things in our lives that leaves the door open. How many teens really pray? How many teens really walk with Christ? I don’t mean are just chaste and comparatively good, but have an intimate relationship with Christ?
By the way, go back to the last couple of sentences and replace teens with adults. Halloween? I never once caught my kids worshiping the devil, they were just restocking their candy supply.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
John Fischer wrote an article a few years back that was very good, regarding Christians and how they tend to pull back to safe zones on the holiday. I sure wish I could find the article. Alas, I can’t.
However, regarding the Harry Potter — I enjoyed the stories, and since I read them, I could talk to my nephew about them. I am always very careful to slam any creative work, whether it is art or writing or fiction or music. I am a person who makes a living off of creativity, and I have seen how those who are not terribly creative or not filled with such leanings find it easy to dismiss the work of writers and artists. I can’t do that. It is true that some value story while others view such things as suspicious.
About the only thing I could think of that would make for terrible, non-recommended reading are the really cheesy “Christian” romance stories, which, though they seem to have a Bible verse quota, still contain all the destructive fantasy builders in the minds of those wanting romance like a non-Christian novel, except for the naughty bits. I confess to having read them when younger and always thought it was the biggest waste of my time. Yet, like a soap opera (except safe! because there were Bible verses!) I kept reading them.
Now that’s destructive. It is. Bible verse or no.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:01 am
If you let your kids read Harry Potter, send them to VBS or Awana, or let them listen to contemporary “Christian” music (arranged to entice fanny shaking), YOU ARE SACRIFICING THEM TO MOLECH!!!!!
July 17th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Ray,
I certainly hope you’re pulling my leg there
July 17th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Chris,
Yes.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Ray - CXhris is sometimes a little dense. Next time make your humor in Hebrew, he gets that better!
July 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
For what it’s worth, here are a couple of better articles that rationally examine the Potter and Lord of the Rings phenom:
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/phoenix-movie.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm
July 17th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Timothy,
While I hadn’t thought of it that way, apparently the danger of blurring of fantasy and reality isn’t limited to the view of leniency, but also applies to the view of prohibition, as well.
While myth and epic tales existed in the first century, we don’t see them addressed within the Bible apart from their use in worship of other gods. Outside of theatre, fiction as an art form, the way we know it today, did not really exist. It was not until the advent of the printing press that fiction as art existed. So, we are faced with a choice in interpreting it and determining its usefulness.
On one hand, we can treat it as we would factual charicterization, in which case all characters must be weighed as if they are living, breathing beings and the world in which they live as if it were our own. If the characters and/or worlds do not match our scientific and experiential ones, we are forced to condemn them out of hand.
On the other hand, we can view fiction as art and examine the allegorical content, while viewing the scientific physics and mechanics as plot devices. In doing so, we may be able to extract meaning/lessons in concert with or in contradiction to the characters and themes contained within. The meanings/lessons drawn, and their application in this, the real world, in this case, are then what we judge.
Neither view is explicitly covered in scripture, so it is up to us to choose how to view fictional art forms and how to properly use/avoid them, and to extend charity to those who choose to lead their families in a different manner.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:19 am
TB,
I’m sorry, but those articles are pure hogwash. If we believed the premise of guilt by association or even guilt by the slightest of association that they promote, it seems that there would be a lot more Satanists walking around then there are. I mean can you even point to one kid who entered the occult through Harry Potter or LOTR?
These are the same types of arguments that people were using against rock music when I was growing up. They didn’t work then, and won’t work now.
I’m not saying we should just blindly accept anything and everything as entertainment, but I don’t think God wants us to be live in fear of everything either.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Julie,
I don’t know which John Fischer article you’re referring to, but he also mentioned Halloween in one of his books a few years ago, and I blogged about it.
For what it’s worth.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I don’t know - John Fischer looks pretty compromised and ecumenical to me. Writing for Relevant (an emergent publication) AND Chuck Colson (anti-emergent) AND purposedrivenlife.com (Rick Warren - gasp!)…
Is there anyone who can’t GBA him? I’m so conflicted…
July 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Chris L, while fiction, in and of itself, is not covered by the Bible per se, it does give guidance as to how to live life. One of them is “abstaining from the appearance of evil.” One look at either the Potter or LOTR movies can convince a Christian that neither of them is worthwhile to watch. I know that is an politically incorrect thing to say but I just said it.
As far as evaluating fiction as art and looking for “meaning” in them, my experience in college and afterward leaves an impression on me that it is more of an academic exercise without merit. The more you look for “meaning,” the more meaningless it becomes.
Phil, I’m not sure what you mean that the article is using “guilt by association?” Is it because the movie’s characters uses spells, incantations, magic, etc. that we shouldn’t judge the movie as using spells, incantations, and magic in defiance of God’s commands? Should we wait until kids become occultists through HP or LOTR before we speak up about the movies? To live in fear is to acquiesce to Satan.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Timothy,
I find it ironic that you finished with
because living in fear is exactly what you’ve just espoused.
Suggesting that kids will become occultists by reading/watching HP or LotR is like saying that I’m in danger of becoming a Mormon because I drove through Utah. While personal preference and conviction in a spiritually gray area is one thing, foisting it as the only logical conclusion is another.
For instance, you wrote:
I could re-word this to:
One look at either the Grace to You or John MacArthur’s books can convince a Christian that neither of them is worthwhile to watch/read/listen to.
in order to try to make a point that too much exposure to Johnnie Mac will make you into a lazy legalist - which would be just as intellectually dishonest as your statement and conclusion.
Your statement wasn’t politically incorrect, it was just incorrect.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I think what Phil means is that because rock and roll has been associated with the occult, sex, and drugs. Certain Christians said that since rock music has this association, then for Christians to participate or perform rock is giving off the appearance of evil.
Hence the guilt by association.
I love how the writer of those articles you suggested questioned Lewis’s salvation. While I have issues with some of Lewis’s theology, I think only God is the one to judge whether Lewis had saving faith or not.
That assertion ruined the articles for me. It lost all credibility.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
TB,
I mean “guilt by association” in the sense that both articles seem to take the stance that since these works of fiction mention items that may have some connection to the occult, than they too in turn promote the occult.
I honestly haven’t read Harry Potter or seen the movies, just because I have no interest. I have friends that are strong that thought they were awesome stories. They saw them as nothing more than that. I mean, once we draw a line in the sand about these fictional items, it seems we end up shutting ourselves from a lot. Star Wars, Spiderman, Batman, etc - they all had items that were “magic” based in them to some degree. On the other side, they were all stories about characters. That is what makes them appealing to people I believe, not the ties to the occult. That is why the movies that have these elements in but have poor plots don’t do well.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
BTW, when I said “friends that are strong” above, I meant to say “friends that are strong Christians“.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Tim Bell,
Do you believe that is an accurate interpretation of I Thessalonians?
July 17th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
In T. Bell’s comments, I find exactly what I tried to touch on in my comment.
There are people who do not find literature, art, or (fill in the blank creative) usefull or worthwhile, and so this is so easy to fling off as evil. I am curious, not out of an adversarial nature, but just curious, as to if T. Bell is a creative person (artist, musician, etc.). If trying to find meaning in art and fiction is meaningless… just think about that. Think about that. It must have absolutely no purpose because if there is anything that God isn’t or isn’t about, it’s meaninglessness. The first verse in the Bible is telling us that God is a Creator. Creativity, and people who create, are of value. This means that what they create are not meaningless, but also valued. This, then, also means that if the creator is valued and what they create is valued, then it most certainly isn’t without meaning. The very thing we should do is look for meaning in it.
I’m sure some of you were wondering about why I threw that “Christian romance” thing in my earlier comment. I was rushed and couldn’t flesh it out. However, it has to do with this very concept, of what is worthwhile to partake in. I think we can all agree that just because something is labeled “Christian” or “family friendly” or whatever doesn’t mean it is worthwhile. It only means it probably won’t offend. It can still be a waste of time, and it can still cloud the mind and distract from things of God. I often find the things that are obviously NOT Christian (i.e. Harry Potter) are the least distracting because I am more on my toes as to reading and interpreting and thinking. I can’t be lazy thinking “Well, if Dobson says it’s alright, it must be OK.”
July 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Halloween. A personal decision.
Hey Chris L., is that a mask you’re wearing?
July 17th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Julie,
Your quote (and Tim Reed’s post above this) reminded me of this quote from Rich Mullins:
“The thing that’s cool about music is how unnecessary it is. Of all things, music is the most frivolous and the most useless. You can’t eat it, you can’t drive it, you can’t live in it, you can’t wear it. But your life wouldn’t be worth much without it.”
I think people have the urge to create for a reason. I’ve always thought it was so insightful of C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters to show demons having no capacity at all to understand music. It makes sense, though. Satan can only destroy, not create.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
The Harry Potter books never appealed to me (and we have the first three…gifts to my oldest daughter - a nearly rabid reader). Lord of the Rings, however….I have read and continue to read the books and have the DVDs. Tolkien was a master of the written word and Jackson a master of the visual (IMO).
Halloween we’ve bounced around on - the kids (like Chris L’s) dress as princesses or firefighters or Bob the Builder or something like that to go around the block. I do very much dislike the TV programming the last half of October, however.
It makes for interesting conversations with the kids. We try to explain why Mom and Dad have made the decision they should really not watch a certain movie or TV show — I also try to find a balance between outright, dogmatic refusal and showing/teaching how the movie/TV show introduces ideas that just aren’t good for young minds to dwell on. But I also don’t want them living in fear — for greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world. So, we encourage the kids to remember this as people try to scare them or movies and such emphasize the darker side of things.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Phil - love the quote.
As a wannabee-creative, I find movies, music, books, sermons, illustrations, paintings moving me for a variety of reasons.
I believe we (being made in the image of God) are to create — and each through the gifts, talents, and (legitimate) desires our Creator has given to us.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I am an unabashed fan of halloween, my (somewhat) newly born son will have his first halloween this October where he will be dressed as Batman (if I have my way). I like the movies, the cider, the hayrides, the giving out of candy, the atmosphere, the haunted houses, and all the other traditions. I like the way people come out of their houses and mix together with the rest of the neighborhood.
Oh yeah, I also love Jesus and rely on him alone for my salvation.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Chris L,
Phil said “I don’t think God wants us to be live in fear of everything either.” So I said “To live in fear is to acquiesce to Satan.” I was meaning that fear of Satan isn’t playing into this at all but rather the fear of God. The movies’ extensive use of magic, spells, etc. by children is a deceptive portrayal to children that no harm comes from this. This is a lie. Do you remember the song sung in Sunday School, “Be careful little eyes of what you see”, “Be careful little ears of what you hear?”
Your re-wording of my phrase from “One look at either the Potter or LOTR movies can convince a Christian that neither of them is worthwhile to watch” to “One look at either the Grace to You or John MacArthur’s books can convince a Christian that neither of them is worthwhile to watch/read/listen to” is not the same thing. The standard to judge whether a movie or book is worthwhile is the Bible. The movies HP and LOTR have many aspects that is clearly condemned by the Bible. Grace to You and John MacArthur’s books do not have spell-casting, magic, etc. so the re-worded statement doesn’t apply or make sense.
Joe, I take 1Thess in the same light as Roman 12:9…we are to abstain from the appearance of evil so that we may be blameless, and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse society, among whom we will shine as lights in this world. We must abhor that which is evil and cleave to that which is good.
Julie, I consider myself an artistic person but I no longer “ponder the meaning” of abstract art or interpretive dance or whathaveyou. It’s a rabbit hole of opinions and equally abstract philosophies. I have abstract art because I liked the pattern and colors used in it but I could care less about the “meaning” of it. About as meaningless as getting an office “Class Act” award.
But when a movie has as it’s basis a theme that is clearly occultic, what’s the point of finding the allegorical “meaning” behind it? About as meaningful as the Beckham’s move to US. Life is too short and the fear of God drives me to find more suitable pursuits in my life.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Tim B.: So, were you referencing abstract art, or all art in general?
I took it to mean all art in general, but your use of abstract art as the art you no longer care to find meaning in (as per your most recent comment) seems to a) both clarify your intent as well as b) make your original use of the statement even more confusing.
Abstract anything is abstract. How does that apply to this discussion on fairly traditional fiction, and more specificially, Harry Potter?
The general way a Christian closes a topic of discussion is to say “well, this is how God want’s me to live me life” which may or may not be true. That being the case for you (i.e. God wanting you to find more suitable pursuits in your life), I wonder about your making grand pronouncements on any/all Christians who do not find Harry Potter to be outside of our pursuits?
Not to be the devil’s advocate, but my take on that is as follows: you like some art not based on it’s meaning, but because of the pattern and color. Perhaps some might like certain works of fiction not based on the author’s intended meaning, but because they like the story, the fun of reading, etc. This, of course, raises the question on who defines the meaning (the author or the reader) and how important is it to the enjoyment/shunning of a work?
July 18th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Tim,
Perhaps I had better stop reading the Bible, as well, since we’ve got witchcraft and divination going on in I Samuel 28, Simon the Magus in Acts 8, and disussions of magic and the occult elsewhere, as well.
[removing tongue from cheek]
Neither LotR nor HP are ‘how to’ manuals for the occult, nor do they encourage occultic practices. The fantasy elements contained within are simply plot devices which are part of a system of physics and nature that is not present in the real world. (Thus, ‘fantasy’)
As noted above, fiction as form was not in wide use in Jesus’ day. Even theatre was primarily based on either real historical events (ex. ‘The Trojan Women’) or epic stories involving gods that were believed to be real (’Iliad’).
This is not a moral issue with clearly deliniated lines that we should be laying down absolutes about.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Actually, Tim, it still makes sense. Some Christians see Johnnie Mac’s works decidedly lacking in grace and Christ-like orthopraxy, therefore being just as ‘anti-Biblical’ as some might see a fictional work which uses an alternate physical universe in which the alternate physics is just a plot device - not an advocation of the use of such physics (which do not exist here).
The flaw in your argument of “clarity” is that you have confused basic elements of fiction as advocation and theme.
In the case of both LotR and HP, ‘magic’ and/or ‘occult’ is not the basis of theme. It is a plot device. The basis/theme of both of these books is actually the same classic motif of the monomyth (or “hero’s journey”). In both cases, the setting of the book is in a world in which the physics of nature are not the same as in the real world, and the differences between this ‘fantasy’ nature and ‘factual’ nature are used as plot devices which serve to progress the plot, not become the plot/basis themselves.
Reading Lord of the Rings has as much to do with engaging the occult as does taking your dog for a walk past your local Masonic lodge. You passed it by, but it wasn’t your destination, nor the subject of your journey.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:04 am
I know many of my Christian friends who grew up with LOTR and Narnia. I also know many Christian friends who grew up celebrating Halloween. None of them have turned to witchcraft or paganism.
Often the “appearance of evil” is an excuse for those who want to enforce their own spiritual righteousness on everyone else.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Julie, all art in general. Note that in my earlier post that you mentioned, I said “The more you look for “meaning,†the more meaningless it becomes.” Sliding scale, the more abstract the art, the less meaning it really has (despite the artist/author’s intention.) As applied to fiction as art, the more you examine it on an allegorical basis (moving more into abstract analysis), the less meaning you realistically derive from it. You can “read too much into it.” You can go around and around in discussion groups discussing “literature” and find you’re just wasting your’s and God’s time fooling with this.
As for people who find HP and LOTR as worthy of their pursuit, I’ll let them know of my opinion (unsolicted or not, depending on circumstances) and let God judge them thereafter. Of course, if they laud those movies, I wonder where their head and heart is but again God will be the final judge of how they spend/spent their time on earth.
Yes, I do enjoy some abstract art because of the “looks” of it rather than the “meaning” of it. However, if I learn that the artist painted it a certain way to honor Satan, I trash it. I like Cocteau Twins music, some of which the singer isn’t really singing words but rather using “voice as an instrument unto itself.” Ok, I can give her the benefit of a doubt there. However, if I learn later that the singing of non-words where really spell-casting or whathaveyou, I wouldn’t listen to them anymore. Here’s an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFN6BaulEX8
July 18th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Chris L, those “Christians” who think Grace To You and “Johnnie Mac” are “anti-Biblical” as witches and murders are a sorry bunch of confused people. I gotta say, they’re wrong. Now we are all sinners so I’m not saying John is God or anything but to go so extreme like they are saying about him is wrong. Period.
“The setting of the book is in a world in which the physics of nature are not the same as in the real world.” Sounds like an obfuscation of the word “supernatural.” Give the movies the boot.
Matt, what Christian “celebrates” Halloween? Are you meaning going around door to door getting candy? Or a more serious celebration in the way Pagans celebrate it?
July 18th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Just to clarify a little - personally, I have no problem if people don’t want to watch or don’t let their kids watch certain movies. That’s their preogative (just like Bobby Brown). I have a problem when those people start making blanket pronouncements for everyone based on their personal convictions. It seems like the very issue Paul was dealing with in Corinth.
Also, “weaker brother” arguments don’t seem to hold much water concerning this specific issue because it seems that the people who are being offended are people who are or should be mature Christians. They should not be tempted to enter into occult practices because other Christians are watching Harry Potter or LOTR. Now if I had a friend who was a new Christian that came out of the occult or something and felt he couldn’t watch those movies, then I wouldn’t do it around him. It’s really not that complicated.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Yes, I meant going around door to door, getting candy. Not in the way Pagans celebrate it.
I grew up with both teachings. At first my mom didn’t care but later she got worried about Halloween and we stopped celebrating it.
LOTR did give me a love for hiking/backpacking. I love going up in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. It takes me back to my childhood and I feel like Frodo.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Tim,
First off, I would not deem to write “Christians” about anyone, as their heart is not mine to judge, but God’s alone.
Secondly, all sin is sin. Personally, declaring entire segments of Christianity apostate (such as Charismatic Christians, Emergent/Emerging Christians) based on shoddy “research” seems far more dangerous than reading a fictional story about talking Lions, hobbits and wizards. There’s no confusion there.. The first one definitely fits a pharisaical pattern, while the second one is of personal conviction in a decidedly gray area.
No, Tim, please don’t try to redefine my words for me. Supernatural means something that is apart from or opposed to the natural order of the world.
In a fictional setting, such as Lord of the Rings, Narnia or Harry Potter, the ‘world’ is not the same as our world. Within the natural order of the fictional world, there is an allowance for certain characters to have abilities which are NOT apart from or opposed to the natural order of that world.
While you may be convicted that you cannot separate fact from fiction, and that whatever happens in a fictional world must be translated as if it were in our own, there is no Biblical basis for making a blanket pronouncement about such interpretation.
Sorry Tim, but this really isn’t any of your business apart from your family, and there’s no need to exercise Christian facist tendencies in making your preferences into God’s preferences.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Tim, your statement
is inaccurate in that if you look at history. Halloween as we “celebrate it” is actually the Christians counter to the pagan rituals.
Also, you talk a lot about how much of the “emergent” movement is using pagan occultic rituals. I would submit to you that much of the pagan occultic rituals was taken from the church to begin with so we’re just taking it back.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Chris L, they are “Christians†because they consider people like John MacArthur as “evil” as say, Charles Manson. They are suspect that they have not received the Holy Spirit. While I wrote that, I know that God is the final judge of their hearts. But for now, on earth, from what I see written by you and only having that to go by, then yes they are “Christians” in quotes.
What you consider “shoddy” research is basically doing what the Bereans do, go to the Bible and examine the claims and beliefs of the Charismatics, Emergent, SS. I don’t base it on my opinion but rather the Bible. They claim they based their beliefs on the Bible but when I examine their claims, I wonder about their honesty to themselves and to God. I’m not saying their are not Christians, just misguided. But some don’t listen to right teaching and so we part our ways. Indeed, God is still the final judge of their hearts.
“Supernatural means something that is apart from or opposed to the natural order of the world.” Right…exactly. Fictional or not.
“While you may be convicted that you cannot separate fact from fiction, and that whatever happens in a fictional world must be translated as if it were in our own, there is no Biblical basis for making a blanket pronouncement about such interpretation.” Like the GEICO caveman says, “Um, WHAT?”
“…No need to exercise Christian facist tendencies.” Oh, yeah, right….I was going to go door to door with guns taking people’s HP and LOTR away from their prying hands. That wasn’t a command, man, that was a suggestion. Ur a-readin’ too much into it, man!
July 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
No one on this blog questions MacArthur’s salvation. That’s between God and MacArthur. Just as you question Christians who read LOTR, we can be Bereans and question MacArthur. I find his teachings too Manichean when compared to the Bible.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Joe,
“Tim, your statement is inaccurate in that if you look at history. Halloween as we “celebrate it†is actually the Christians counter to the pagan rituals.” I was talking to Matt there and seeing what HE meant by his statement. I wasn’t going into a history lesson.
“Also, you talk a lot about how much of the “emergent†movement is using pagan occultic rituals.” Uhhhh, I really wasn’t talking about the “emergent” church per se but discussing the HP and LOTR movies and art.
“I would submit to you that much of the pagan occultic rituals was taken from the church to begin with so we’re just taking it back.” Well, I guess the Roman Catholic Church can have it back. Me dunno want it.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I am not trying to bait you. I really don’t understand — perhaps the better word is identify with — what you’re saying here. My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time to enjoy (i.e. look at, read, see how it speaks to me, find meaning) art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and of God’s? The entire book of Leviticus is one giant manifesto on God’s love of physical beauty and the way the colors, imagery, and symbols are to have additional meanings. Just imagine the cloth and golden sculpture. It wasn’t functional nor necessary, but is evidence of God’s love of beauty.
Francis Schaeffer has written some great things about Christians and the arts, which includes fiction, visual, music, etc. I feel like I’m doing some kind of rehash here, but I really am perplexed at how you think enjoying and finding meaning in art is a waste of time and, if taken to higher levels, even meaningless.
Am I understanding you wrong? Could you word your point concisely and briefly, if I am, so that I understand you correctly?
July 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Julie, I went “huh?” when you wrote about God sitting around reading, pondering meanings and stuff like that. I don’t get from the Bible that God does that. Now, yes, God is Creator of beauty and He defines beauty and meaning. Therefore, we examine art and literature with God in mind. However, the more you move away from beauty and realism toward the abstract (a move away from reality) and allegorism (a move toward abstract analysis), the more we delve into speculative meanings and long pointless discussions, in other words, a waste of time. It seems the more abstract the art, the longer the discussions and ponderings of meaning become.
Ok, an example. The movie “A Clockwork Orange.” When this movie was sprung (yes, sprung) upon my college English class, it was very shocking to my being to view this film. It was pornographic, extreme, violent, and had thoughts on sexuality that never entered my mind before then. On the outset, without having “discussions” about it or examining it’s “meaning,” this film is worse than HP or LOTR. Of course, being that this was shown in a college class, we had discussions about the meaning of this film. Yeah, a film about showiing the failure of modern psychiatry was discussed for nearly three days pondering all kinds of meanings seen in the film, especially the nude statues in the milk bar. So a film that uses various “plot devices” in a perverse way to “move” the film, should be avoided by Christians without further ado. But if we examine the film “allegorically,” we can find all kinds of “meaning(s)” here to discuss to the point we think this film is alright for Christians to view because there is so much meaning to it despite the perversity in it. I don’t know if I can further ’spain my viewpoint.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I’m not sure exactly who ‘they’ is anymore, as you’ve seemed to moved into fantasy, yourself. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Manson and MacArthur are equal in their lives as sinners. Personally, I don’t put much stock in what either one of them says, though I suspect Chuck’s parole hearings are much more entertaining than John’s radio show.
Really? And you know this how? Personally, I take Jesus rather seriously that I’ll be judged by the same measure I use to judge others, so I’ll let him decide who’s not his follower. Putting Christian in quotes rather flies in the face of that particular teaching, as Brendt frequently likes to hammer home.
Wow. I almost spit my lunch all over the monitor laughing at that one.
I have a WHOLE LOT more respect for the Bereans than I do for books like ‘The Truth War’. Why? Because the “research” involved typically takes something along the lines of:
1) Brian McLaren is emergent
2) Therefore, if we refute Brian McLaren, we refute all emergents
3) The emergent church (and some emerging churches) exists in a postmodern culture, rather than combating postmodernity
4) The simplistic interpretation of the postmodern view is that truth does not exist
5) Therefore, if we prove truth exists, we discredit postmodernity, therefore discrediting emergents, as well
And the truly shoddy “research” goes on from there. Using Johnnie Mac’s hit-pieces on Emergent Christians and Charismatic Christians as examples, what we have are books that, when examined by people who actually know and talk to Emergent Christians and Charismatic Christians, are simply armchair research into what Johnnie Mac believes EC’s and CC’s must be like - without ever really finding out - and then exercises in tearing down the straw men he just created.
I do not wonder about their beliefs in the Bible (because the ones I know believe it to be God’s Word, authoritative, and the written source of our belief). It’s not my place to, either. I don’t wonder about their honesty to themselves and God. I see the fruit in their lives - since I actually know them - and see how their belief carries through to action, and I see how seriously they take the claims, instructions and beliefs of Jesus - incredibly seriously.
As far as misguided goes, I see them far more interested in pursuing pure religion, as defined by James, than the nasty-penned busy-bodies who spend more time shooting the wounded than serving the lost. If you want misguided, it’s Christians who spend their time worrying about what movies other Christians watch, what books they read, and whether they pass out candy or Chick tracts to the neighborhood kids on October 31st - or judge them based on these criteria.
Wrong - exactly. World (as used in “of this world”) - cosmos, in the Greek - is a system of being, as opposed to a literal place. Nature is defined by the rules of the world (system) in which it operates. In fiction, one of the key ingredients is often suspended reality - accepting that, for the story, a system apart our own exists - only within the story.
That you cannot discern between a factual world/system and a fictional one says far more about you than about those who can do so without having to consciously consider what is fact and what is fiction - it is obvious.
If I tell a story about in a world in which people have wings and fly, am I talking about the supernatural, or the natural? If I watch a commercial about an insurance-selling caveman, am I engaging in the supernatural or the natural? If I accept that the reality in the commercial/book/movie/story is NOT my own, then I also accept that the laws of science in my own reality do not have to be those in the work I am watching/reading/hearing.
This is not occultic or supernatural.
However, if a Christian is concerned about whether listening/watching/reading a story is beneficial or sinful, then he should let his/her conscience be his/her guide - because that is what convicts us in areas of gray.
There you go, quoting supernatural cavemen… (but wait, cavemen supposedly existed more than 6,000 years ago, so are you taking a Theistic Evolutionary stance by quoting him as well???)
To rephrase my quote:
1) You have demonstrated a belief that a fictional world must adhere to the natural laws of the real world.
2) If the natural laws in the fictional world allow actions/abilities within that world that are not available in our own, you believe that it is immaterial, because such actions/abilities within our own world would be supernatural
3) You have no Biblical basis from making the leaps of logic required in #1 and #2 as interpretations that should apply to all Christians.
4) Your tone appears tio suggest that, somehow, Christians who do not arrive at your a-biblical conclusion, must therefore be “Christians”.
Is that more clear?
As for facist tendencies - it is the judgement of the hearts of those who do not come to your same conclusions and the underlying tone of one’s belief equating with God’s belief which speak to the facism, not the physical coersion of the individuals…
July 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
In my second to last sentence in my last post, the “we” is not referring to me. I was making a point of how some people justify seeing perverse films.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Chris L,
You wrote at 1:27pm: “I’m not sure exactly who ‘they’ is anymore, as you’ve seemed to moved into fantasy, yourself.”
The “they” I was referring to were the “some Christians” remark you made in your 8:55am post: “Some Christians see Johnnie Mac’s works decidedly lacking in grace and Christ-like orthopraxy, therefore being just as ‘anti-Biblical’ as some might see a fictional work….” So it wasn’t fantasy on my part.
———————
I wrote: “They are suspect that they have not received the Holy Spirit.”
You replied: “Really? And you know this how?”
The “fantasy Christians” I was talking about above, if I had only one thing to know about them, based only on calling Grace to You and John MacArthur anti-Biblical, I would call them “Christians” in quotes. It is applying the “you will know them by their fruit” verse if I was to judge them just by their statement. As I repeatedly already said, the final judge is God Himself.
—————————–
You wrote: “Personally, I take Jesus rather seriously that I’ll be judged by the same measure I use to judge others, so I’ll let him decide who’s not his follower.”
Agreed.
————————–
You wrote: “Putting Christian in quotes rather flies in the face of that particular teaching, as Brendt frequently likes to hammer home.”
A lot of people call themselves “Christian” who are not so.
————————–
I wrote: “What you consider “shoddy†research is basically doing what the Bereans do, go to the Bible and examine the claims and beliefs of the Charismatics, Emergent, SS. I don’t base it on my opinion but rather the Bible.”
You wrote: “Wow. I almost spit my lunch all over the monitor laughing at that one.” You’re welcome. Please send picture of the milk coming out of your nose. : )
————————–
You wrote: “I have a WHOLE LOT more respect for the Bereans than I do for books like ‘The Truth War’.”
I haven’t read “The Truth War” so whether it follows the logic you posted I don’t know.
I used to be a charismatic. I was fool to believe in it. God rescued me from that. Johnnie Mac was right on.
—————————
You wrote: “I do not wonder about their beliefs in the Bible…..I see the fruit in their lives - since I actually know them - and see how their belief carries through to action, and I see how seriously they take the claims, instructions and beliefs of Jesus - incredibly seriously.”
But some “Christians” see evil-ness them on par with Charles Manson?
———————
You wrote: “That you cannot discern between a factual world/system and a fictional one says far more about you than about those who can do so without having to consciously consider what is fact and what is fiction - it is obvious.”
You are over-reaching in logic to say I can’t tell “make believe” world from factual. But is the moral code somehow “suspended” the fictional world but not in the factual world? If a rape occurs in the fictional world, is that not as wrong as in the factual world? Are occultic items such as the magic wand or other “plot devices” somehow not so occultic in the fictional world?
—————-
You wrote: “1) You have demonstrated a belief that a fictional world must adhere to the natural laws of the real world.”
Though I never said that, that would be nice…..as in “This is based on a true story.”
You wrote: “2) If the natural laws in the fictional world allow actions/abilities within that world that are not available in our own, you believe that it is immaterial, because such actions/abilities within our own world would be supernatural.”
I really don’t see how you are deriving this from my postings at all. Ummmmm….WHAT?
You wrote: “3) You have no Biblical basis from making the leaps of logic required in #1 and #2 as interpretations that should apply to all Christians.”
Ummmmm…..WHAT? All I’m sayin’ is HP and LOTR sucks evil stuff!
You wrote: “4) Your tone appears tio suggest that, somehow, Christians who do not arrive at your a-biblical conclusion, must therefore be “Christiansâ€.”
Uhhhh…probably about 85-90 percentish of the time. I still can get it wrong sometimes.
You wrote: “Is that more clear?”
What do you think?
—————————
You wrote: “As for facist tendencies - it is the judgement of the hearts of those who do not come to your same conclusions and the underlying tone of one’s belief equating with God’s belief which speak to the facism, not the physical coersion of the individuals… ”
I only judge in accordance to the same standard I judge myself, against the Bible.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Tim,
Not a lot of time here, but:
A moral code is different than natural laws. So, if rape occurs in a fictional world, it IS just as wrong in a fictional world. (specifically noted in “The Wounded Land” by Stephen R. Donaldson, Wooster graduate).
However, one of the plot devices inherently present in science fiction and fantasy is that the underlying cosmos (world/system) operates in a manner different than our own - its natural laws are different.
Things like telekenesis, pyrokenesis, telepathy, levitation and a host of other physically/metaphysically impossible things in the real world exist in the fictional world. So, in the fictional world the physical laws of the universe allow such things to occur, and they are, therefore natural actions/laws/abilities. However, in the real world, telekenesis would be a ’supernatural’ action/ability.
Your previous statements blur this difference.
To try again:
You said:
This implies that you wish to classify actions within a fictional cosmos that do not exist in our cosmos as “supernatural” (as you said - “Fictional or not”).
This is decidedly NOT the case though, unless you wish to build a case that the only acceptable fiction for Christians to read is that which is “based on a true story” (which generally makes it, to some degree, not fiction), or, at the very least, is completely grounded in the reality of this world (which generally rules out most children’s and young adult’s fiction, along with 99% of cartoons and children’s movies).
HOWEVER
Now, as I read the pronouncements against divination, sorcery, etc. within the context of the Bible, these things are forbidden because they attempt to do what humans did in the Tower of Babel - to try to ursurp God by superceding the physical laws put in place by Him - to try to somehow be gods unto ourselves.
In the books by Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling and others, no such pretense is made - that the protagonists are attempting to ursurp God’s authority or nature. In fact, all three of these authors (and more) work within the natural laws of the fictional cosmos in which the story is set.
There is nothing ’supernatural’ here…
The leap of logic you have made, to try to me more explicit, is to say that a story set in a fictional cosmos is evil if the natural laws of that cosmos are different from that of our own, real cosmos - particularly if such differences would appear “magical” were they present in our own.
You explicitly stated:
Thus, at this point, you have moved beyond personal conviction (which is fine) into declaring that Christians (no quotes, EVER) who do read HP and LotR are engaging in evil (which is not fine). Additionally, the articles you linked (if you agree with them), give the ludicrous conclusion that these books are somehow ‘gateway drugs’ into the occult…
_____
As for Johnnie Mac, I would include myself in the specific statement: Some Christians see Johnnie Mac’s works decidedly lacking in grace and Christ-like orthopraxy, therefore being just as ‘anti-Biblical’ as some might see a fictional work…, yet I would not (nor have I read others) compare him to Manson. Such disagreements do not make me, you or John “Christians” - and it is highly arrogant to attempt to make distinctions on who real “Christians” are…
July 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Tim, if my writing has led you to believe the correct interpretation of what I said is that God sits around and reads, I absolutely can’t have a discussion with you. I have no idea what you are saying. I have no idea how you got that.
We are speaking two different languages, and I simply can’t figure out what you are trying to say and how you are interpreting things.
Which, oddly enough, is ironic, considering the discussion on the importance of meaning.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Speaking of pointless discussions that waste time, it is very difficult to have a discussion when one part is choosing the extreme as an example: Manson, A Clockwork Orange, abstract art — these are at the far end of the spectrum. If the point is that because there is a far end of the specturm, the entire spectrum must be avoided at all costs…I am sorry for you.
Tim, do you have a web site or some such thing which offers up your views on art or writing in depth? I still think there must be more to it than what’s here.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Julie, you wrote: “if my writing has led you to believe the correct interpretation of what I said is that God sits around and reads, I absolutely can’t have a discussion with you. I have no idea what you are saying. I have no idea how you got that.”
I got it from what you wrote at 12:35pm: “My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time to enjoy (i.e. look at, read, see how it speaks to me, find meaning) art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and of God’s?” Who can’t help but interpret the phrase “God’s time to enjoy etc.” to mean that you believe God does the same thing that you do when you are enjoying stuff?
You wrote: “If the point is that because there is a far end of the specturm, the entire spectrum must be avoided at all costs…I am sorry for you.”
No, that is not the point. I’m tired of discussing this. Fine, feel sorry for me. Doesn’t matter at my end.
No, there is no web site. Adios.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
My clunky writing has led you to believe, apparently, that God reads books and wastes his time. Or something to that effect. I apologize. I was trying to say this: “My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time for me to enjoy art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and therefore, God’s?”
Instead of:
“My interpretation here is that it is both a waste of my time and God’s time to enjoy (i.e. look at, read, see how it speaks to me, find meaning) art/fiction? How can that be a waste of my time, and of God’s?”
It looks like I need to refine my comments a bit more before hitting submit. Sometimes I am pressed for time and don’t always go back and proof.
Regarding the end of the discussion, well, Tim B., whatever. I can’t dechiper your points and you can’t mine. And so it goes.