I imagine by now THE debate (with Ken Ham and Bill Nye, if any explanation is needed) is getting to be old news and anyway, this post will barely be a drop in the bucket of all that has been said about it already. My thoughts on the topic have been weighing on my mind, however, so I need to write them out to make room for all the other things to which I need to attend. I'm far too busy for philosophical musings!
At any rate, our family watched the debate and found it interesting. Much has been said about it, as I've mentioned, and I'm far from qualified to offer much opinion on the science discussed or the logic (or, at times, lack thereof) with which it was discussed, so I don't intend to do that here. But after watching it, and then reading the articles and Facebook discussions afterward, I will say that I felt a bit overwhelmed and discouraged by pondering the heavy artillery with which my children's very belief systems will be assailed when they reach adulthood and leave home. It's not that they will encounter ideas with which they are not familiar - they are fairly well educated about various theories and beliefs, and they know that they are in the minority when it comes to...well, a lot of things - but the vitriol against our worldview (and not just on the creation/evolution aspect) is increasing, and not only from unbelievers, but from fellow believers! That, I think, is the most distressing thing about all of this. I expect that my children will have thoughts and opinions different than mine - they already do, of course - and I expect that when they are adults, we will disagree on some issues. Perhaps we will disagree on big issues. I don't teach them and train them to believe a list of things, contrary perhaps to what detractors of our faith and life choices think - I do raise them within the worldview I believe, but I try to teach them to think critically, to evaluate all the evidence, and to weigh and measure all things with to the senses and intelligence God has given them and according to the leading of the Spirit within them. I mean, ideally, anyway. So it might be hard to find they've rejected a particular notion of mine, or that they embrace an idea I find ridiculous, but I don't think I'll be disappointed in them.
I will, however, be disappointed in them if I hear of them mocking or belittling anyone who holds a different viewpoint, just as I am always disappointed in Christians who behave in such a way toward their brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course heresy should be exposed, along with genuinely sinful behavior. And obviously I understand that public figures and leaders open themselves up to more criticism than would be appropriate toward the average person. But it saddens me to see Christians calling Ken Ham an idiot or a fool, or even just mocking young-Earth Creationists in general for being stupid. I expect that from non-Christians, but it's dreadful to hear it from fellow believers. It's even worse, I think, when such a thing is accompanied by some sort of apology to unbelievers for the ignorance of backwards Christians, along with an attempt to explain how "real" Christianity is much more relevant, nice, smart, plausible, in step with real life, etc, etc, etc. It may be that there are some foolish and ignorant Christians who don't do the faith any favors by speaking up. But I think about the army of faithful servants who pray, work, serve, and love in their following of Jesus and advancing of the kingdom - people who also hold to those clunky, old-fashioned, out-of step beliefs - and it's shameful that their "hipper" (is that a word?) counterparts should mock them so that Christianity can appear less stupid to the "outside world," as Bill Nye kept referring to it.
It's not that Christians can't disagree and debate the facts, of course. Hopefully, we can defend our beliefs and opinions with facts and evidence. It's almost certain that one side (of any given issue, really) IS, in fact, right, and one side is wrong (although I imagine we'll all discover in the end that God is much, much bigger than anything we could have ever possibly comprehended, and that our idea of "right" is embarrassingly puny. And it's not that we can't discuss and debate those facts with the "those on the outside." (Bill Nye made a point to use that term repeatedly. I kept imagining a giant compound for all Creationists. Well, not that giant - he made it clear that Creationists are in a tiny, tiny minority - which makes me wonder, incidentally, what in the world he's worried about.)
But I think we should remember a couple of things: 1.) that no matter how intelligent, well-read, and logical we become, for Christians, "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." and 2.) we can align ourselves with facts, and offer evidence and proof to back up our beliefs, but there just will be times when Christianity, and Christians by extension, will appear foolish and incomprehensibly stupid. If we try to avoid that at all costs, we will back ourselves right out of the faith. I understand there are many opinions among Christians about the details of the creation of the world, and there may be legitimate evidence to back up each one. There are some Christians, though, who go so far as to beg other Christians to stop pitting themselves against what is obviously science, because we are alienating people when we do that. But we don't have to go very far before we do have to make a choice - do we believe in the virgin birth or not? Do we believe in Jesus' resurrection from the dead or not? Just those two events are a bit of a problem with science. So argue all you want about how your side is more intelligent and plausible and in line with "real" science than another side, but all sides have to come to a point at which they must choose whether to embrace something that is definitely stupid and implausible as far as the world is concerned. And if they don't...well, that's quite a big problem.
And that's just the beginning. I certainly don't think that Christians should go out their way to be illogical idiots, but there will be plenty of times when we will be considered foolish. And while we are commanded to give an answer to what we are asked "with gentleness and respect," there's no command to make sure we are relevant, hip, or in line with the current scientific or philosophical thinking of the day. There's also no admonition toward technological advancement, and on that point of the debate I will give my opinion. Bill Nye is apparently very worried that those who embrace Creationism (and all kinds, by the way, so it doesn't matter what kind of creation you believe in - if you believe that God was in any way behind it, you're a moron, and a dangerous one at that) will hinder the advancement of technology, which is, for him, the altar on which everything must be offered. I will venture to say that Ken Ham did a good job in presenting examples of scientists who believe in a six-day Creation, and yet have contributed and still do contribute to the advancement of modern technology. That's great, of course. I think there are plenty of Creationists who are curious about discovery and can and do make important contributions to our culture. I think many times they can do it in logical ways that do appear intelligent to the world. But I also think it's also okay to say that it's not really our primary concern, so I guess Bill Nye is right about that in one sense. Our job is advancing the kingdom, NOT technology.
At which point I'm sure at least someone read, "Creationists ARE against science."
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
Adding Up the Cost
As I've posted on Facebook recently, we went to Pittsburgh this past weekend for a Bible quizzing tournament. As we unloaded, we discovered that one of the Kindles, my old one, had been damaged beyond repair when the driver's seat had been moved back on it. I reflected with grim amusement that it was a rather costly addition to the total cost of our trip, which, while not outrageous, was nothing to sneeze at. And then - because I do this when it comes to money - I started to ponder the total cost for our whole team.
Four cars made the four hour trip from the Dayton area to Pittsburgh.
One car made an eight hour trip from South Carolina!
Nine or ten hotel rooms were secured.
Our church paid the cost of registration for three teams.
23 Chick-fil-A catered lunches were purchased, plus numerous snacks and drinks for quizzers throughout the weekend.
Twenty-two of us splurged on dinner at Buca di Beppo following the tournament.
And, of course, the smashed up Kindle.
Adding up the actual dollars would make me anxious, so I'm not going to do that. And I haven't even begun to talk about the hours that went into planning, preparing, driving, herding kids, encouraging and exhorting kids, comforting kids, celebrating with kids, going back and forth between buildings - and up and down three flights of stairs - where quizzes were held. so we could check in on all three teams...
Was it worth it?
I mean, really, it's not like there are career opportunities in quizzing (if there were, I know I'm not the only former quizzer who would have been ALL over that!). There aren't even big scholarships to be had for these kids. Even in the most immediate sense of reward, everyone has a good time, but, truthfully, it's not a high-energy funfest. It involves mostly work - studying in the weeks and months beforehand, and participating in quiz after quiz after quiz during the tournament. A few of them get ribbons or trophies in the end - most go home just with memories. Almost all of them want to go back, and almost all the parents and grandparents are willing to pour all that money and all those man-hours in again the next year.
Why?
Because, as I've said before and will say again and again, there's nothing like quizzing for filling kids with pure, unfiltered, and uncensored Scripture. Nothing. I repeat - nothing. That's not to say all this expense is necessary for getting kids to memorize large portions of Scripture. But...are they actually doing it it elsewhere? And I'm not being insulting, I promise. I put a high value on memorization, but it's hard to do and to get kids to do, I know. But quizzing provides a means to that end, and in no other program that I know of do kids get the amount of Scripture that they do in quizzing - and in a form that gives them the whole picture. I think that is vital, by the way. The danger in memory verses, in my humble opinion, is that they can give people incomplete and ineffective information. How many people have heard, "All things work together for good?" And how many of those people are bewildered and assailed with doubt when circumstances don't really come together for any kind of good whatsoever? It's not the whole picture, people - read the the whole book. And here, this very year, we have 3rd through 12th graders doing just that, reading, listening to, and memorizing the entire book of Romans -and not just once, but over and over. Then they come together with kids from other towns and other churches, and they share that knowledge.
In one of the quizzes, our team of 3rd grade boys was competing, and they were having some trouble keeping still enough to keep their lights off. (Junior quizzers are generally smaller than who the lights and benches were designed for). So on one question, the quizmaster began, "Put..." and Ryan's light went off by mistake. But at that point, mistake or no, quizzers have to try to answer. So he got up, thought about it for a few seconds, then shrugged and guessed, "Put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness?" The quizmaster said, "Correct," and the room erupted in cheers. What a fun moment! And how wonderful. I rather doubt this would be passed out as a memory verse anywhere else - it's not very pretty. But the rest of it is "...and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."
The Word is truly being planted in their hearts - and in a way that will empower them to choose, to defend, and to grow. It's the Word that is able to save their souls. So yes, that's worth it.
Four cars made the four hour trip from the Dayton area to Pittsburgh.
One car made an eight hour trip from South Carolina!
Nine or ten hotel rooms were secured.
Our church paid the cost of registration for three teams.
23 Chick-fil-A catered lunches were purchased, plus numerous snacks and drinks for quizzers throughout the weekend.
Twenty-two of us splurged on dinner at Buca di Beppo following the tournament.
And, of course, the smashed up Kindle.
Adding up the actual dollars would make me anxious, so I'm not going to do that. And I haven't even begun to talk about the hours that went into planning, preparing, driving, herding kids, encouraging and exhorting kids, comforting kids, celebrating with kids, going back and forth between buildings - and up and down three flights of stairs - where quizzes were held. so we could check in on all three teams...
Was it worth it?
I mean, really, it's not like there are career opportunities in quizzing (if there were, I know I'm not the only former quizzer who would have been ALL over that!). There aren't even big scholarships to be had for these kids. Even in the most immediate sense of reward, everyone has a good time, but, truthfully, it's not a high-energy funfest. It involves mostly work - studying in the weeks and months beforehand, and participating in quiz after quiz after quiz during the tournament. A few of them get ribbons or trophies in the end - most go home just with memories. Almost all of them want to go back, and almost all the parents and grandparents are willing to pour all that money and all those man-hours in again the next year.
Why?
Because, as I've said before and will say again and again, there's nothing like quizzing for filling kids with pure, unfiltered, and uncensored Scripture. Nothing. I repeat - nothing. That's not to say all this expense is necessary for getting kids to memorize large portions of Scripture. But...are they actually doing it it elsewhere? And I'm not being insulting, I promise. I put a high value on memorization, but it's hard to do and to get kids to do, I know. But quizzing provides a means to that end, and in no other program that I know of do kids get the amount of Scripture that they do in quizzing - and in a form that gives them the whole picture. I think that is vital, by the way. The danger in memory verses, in my humble opinion, is that they can give people incomplete and ineffective information. How many people have heard, "All things work together for good?" And how many of those people are bewildered and assailed with doubt when circumstances don't really come together for any kind of good whatsoever? It's not the whole picture, people - read the the whole book. And here, this very year, we have 3rd through 12th graders doing just that, reading, listening to, and memorizing the entire book of Romans -and not just once, but over and over. Then they come together with kids from other towns and other churches, and they share that knowledge.
In one of the quizzes, our team of 3rd grade boys was competing, and they were having some trouble keeping still enough to keep their lights off. (Junior quizzers are generally smaller than who the lights and benches were designed for). So on one question, the quizmaster began, "Put..." and Ryan's light went off by mistake. But at that point, mistake or no, quizzers have to try to answer. So he got up, thought about it for a few seconds, then shrugged and guessed, "Put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness?" The quizmaster said, "Correct," and the room erupted in cheers. What a fun moment! And how wonderful. I rather doubt this would be passed out as a memory verse anywhere else - it's not very pretty. But the rest of it is "...and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."
The Word is truly being planted in their hearts - and in a way that will empower them to choose, to defend, and to grow. It's the Word that is able to save their souls. So yes, that's worth it.
Friday, January 3, 2014
In Which I Dissect a Perfectly Good Children's Movie
We went down South this past weekend to visit my family. Dave couldn't come with us, so I took five kids and a dog on the longest trip I've ever attempted by myself, much less with all that crew. We had our difficult moments along the way, but I kept telling the kids (and myself), "I know it's hard, but just keep thinking about how it's going to be totally worth it!" And it was. Lots of family, lots of food, lots of noise, lots of fun... All my parents' grandchildren were there, and the ten of them had more fun together than sometimes the adults could stand - like when they made a fort out of the hall closet doors that had somehow detached, or when they tried to see how high they could stack bean bags against the pool table. There was also gleeful running, for no apparent reason, in circles, round and round and round and round and round my parents' house, accompanied by squeals of delight. But it was delight, so that made it just fine. We also saw my youngest sister and her very soon husband-to-be, and that was truly wonderful, as we hadn't seen them in two years.
So a good visit all the way around. One day we took all the kids to the theater to see Frozen, and that was fun, too. My three-year old niece's running commentary throughout the movie was truly the best thing ever, incidentally. It was even more enjoyable than the movie itself, which I did enjoy, but Aimee and I talked it over afterwards and worked out all the ways it could have been even better. Because of course it was very Disney - fairly predictable characters, slapstick comic relief, and a tidy, happy ending, which wasn't bad at all (the snowman really was quite funny), but as a supposed retelling of the Snow Queen, it could have been so much better.
I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so I won't rehash the whole movie. But I think Aimee and I agreed that the divide between the characters should have been sharper, and Elsa, the older sister, should have been made to descend even deeper into the dark side (or the cold side, if you rather). Instead, one thing I saw in the story - in the characters and even in the visuals - was that warm, sunny and extroverted equals good; while cold, reserved, and introverted equals, while not "bad" exactly, certainly not-as-good. Granted, Elsa had to be reserved and restrained, so perhaps hers was not a completely natural introversion, but even so, sometimes there are instances in which a person must stay reserved to stay on top of personal struggles.
So I rolled my eyes once or twice during the song in which the girls are both anticipating the same event, and yet Anna sings warmly and freely about opening doors, and Elsa anxiously sings about closing them. The idea of people and events swarming into an environment certainly does seem wonderful to some people, and it would be hard to be cut off from that. But that Elsa didn't want that, that she found it stressful and a strain on her careful protection of her unwanted ice skills, wasn't, to me, as sad as the movie wanted it to be. As an introvert, often that's precisely how I feel, so I certainly sympathized with her character. Now, some may point out that she didn't want to feel that way, because she was desperately trying to hide her skills/curse. As I said, though, sometimes it IS necessary to exercise restraint, and that means you can't just open up to everyone and be happy. I have OCD, and I think I have mentioned this before, but it is not at all what is commonly portrayed. It isn't simply the desire to have things in order, to be meticulous, or to have an aversion to germs. In fact, in more than half the cases of OCD, the compulsions aren't obvious to outsiders. Look up "Pure O," and you'll have a pretty good view of my struggle since childhood. It's one I've had a great deal of victory in, and I am not at all trying to get a pity party together for myself. But it takes work, it drains energy, and it is something that prevents me from being able to "just relax," or "just let things go." If I didn't direct effort toward staying on top of things, in fact, it would overwhelm me. Often, it hinders my ability to be spontaneous and to seem relaxed and free. So I could completely identify with Elsa in the scene in which her sister is trying to talk to her, to share with her, and Elsa is sitting on the other side of the wall, in her room, surrounded by the ice she was trying to desperately to control and hide - but which she couldn't.
Obviously, the fact that Elsa was unhappy and unable to interact with her sister at all wasn't a desirable state. But I thought the eventual treatment her character received robbed her of her essence. I would have preferred a true Snow Queen - whose colder, more reserved qualities were actually validated, even if it mean that it set her apart from others. I think she could have had a story in which she found a level of freedom, but that also acknowledged that she could never have been as carefree as her sister, just as many of us in the real world are never, for various reasons, going to be as warm, cheerful , and carefree as some others. And it's okay.
But it IS a children's movie, of course, and as such, it was cute.
So a good visit all the way around. One day we took all the kids to the theater to see Frozen, and that was fun, too. My three-year old niece's running commentary throughout the movie was truly the best thing ever, incidentally. It was even more enjoyable than the movie itself, which I did enjoy, but Aimee and I talked it over afterwards and worked out all the ways it could have been even better. Because of course it was very Disney - fairly predictable characters, slapstick comic relief, and a tidy, happy ending, which wasn't bad at all (the snowman really was quite funny), but as a supposed retelling of the Snow Queen, it could have been so much better.
I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so I won't rehash the whole movie. But I think Aimee and I agreed that the divide between the characters should have been sharper, and Elsa, the older sister, should have been made to descend even deeper into the dark side (or the cold side, if you rather). Instead, one thing I saw in the story - in the characters and even in the visuals - was that warm, sunny and extroverted equals good; while cold, reserved, and introverted equals, while not "bad" exactly, certainly not-as-good. Granted, Elsa had to be reserved and restrained, so perhaps hers was not a completely natural introversion, but even so, sometimes there are instances in which a person must stay reserved to stay on top of personal struggles.
So I rolled my eyes once or twice during the song in which the girls are both anticipating the same event, and yet Anna sings warmly and freely about opening doors, and Elsa anxiously sings about closing them. The idea of people and events swarming into an environment certainly does seem wonderful to some people, and it would be hard to be cut off from that. But that Elsa didn't want that, that she found it stressful and a strain on her careful protection of her unwanted ice skills, wasn't, to me, as sad as the movie wanted it to be. As an introvert, often that's precisely how I feel, so I certainly sympathized with her character. Now, some may point out that she didn't want to feel that way, because she was desperately trying to hide her skills/curse. As I said, though, sometimes it IS necessary to exercise restraint, and that means you can't just open up to everyone and be happy. I have OCD, and I think I have mentioned this before, but it is not at all what is commonly portrayed. It isn't simply the desire to have things in order, to be meticulous, or to have an aversion to germs. In fact, in more than half the cases of OCD, the compulsions aren't obvious to outsiders. Look up "Pure O," and you'll have a pretty good view of my struggle since childhood. It's one I've had a great deal of victory in, and I am not at all trying to get a pity party together for myself. But it takes work, it drains energy, and it is something that prevents me from being able to "just relax," or "just let things go." If I didn't direct effort toward staying on top of things, in fact, it would overwhelm me. Often, it hinders my ability to be spontaneous and to seem relaxed and free. So I could completely identify with Elsa in the scene in which her sister is trying to talk to her, to share with her, and Elsa is sitting on the other side of the wall, in her room, surrounded by the ice she was trying to desperately to control and hide - but which she couldn't.
Obviously, the fact that Elsa was unhappy and unable to interact with her sister at all wasn't a desirable state. But I thought the eventual treatment her character received robbed her of her essence. I would have preferred a true Snow Queen - whose colder, more reserved qualities were actually validated, even if it mean that it set her apart from others. I think she could have had a story in which she found a level of freedom, but that also acknowledged that she could never have been as carefree as her sister, just as many of us in the real world are never, for various reasons, going to be as warm, cheerful , and carefree as some others. And it's okay.
But it IS a children's movie, of course, and as such, it was cute.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Harry Potter, Part Two
Okay, so here's what we think about the Harry Potter books.
First, that there is a good deal of magic that specifically references witches and wizards, although it is highly fantastical and not, in my opinion, likely to be confused with the real thing. A more insidious danger is that because of the fantastical and sometimes comical nature of it, less discerning readers may be lulled into forgetting the seriousness of the real thing. It's not a handbook for witchcraft, so there's no danger that children will accidentally find themselves practicing it, and there is an attempt to differentiate between magic for good and the "Dark Arts" (but yes, of course I know that Christians know that even witchcraft for "good" is still a sin). So on the one hand, I don't consider this "witchcraft" in the truest sense. But on the other, I would still be uncomfortable with children spending time imagining and acting out the Harry Potter world, which is why those of my children who still like to immerse themselves in fantasy worlds won't be reading it, but why I felt comfortable with my decision to let an older, more mature child do so.
Second, the best thing I got out of reading Harry Potter was that it did make me think about what's really in a name. As I read, I thought, "It really is good storytelling - I wonder what it would be like if the wizardry was removed and replaced with something else less obvious. It would still be a good story. It would something like...I don't know, the Percy Jackson series. Fantasy, beyond-human powers...the magic is just not so overt. I guess." Except is it really all that different, when fantastical powers are called magic, and in another case are pretty much the same thing, just not called the same thing? And what if a thing is called the same thing - a wizard in Harry Potter, versus the wizards in Lord of the Rings? Do different qualities change the meaning enough so that the form is more acceptable in one case but not in the other. And the answer, for me, is...yes and no. One the one hand, it really doesn't matter what something is called. If it is a practice to be avoided, it doesn't matter what it's called and whether it's named or not. So it is highly inconsistent for believers to shun Harry Potter with vehemence, but thoughtlessly allow or even embrace books, movies, and events (sorry, but Halloween? with roots in actual witchcraft and pagan practices?) that contain very similar themes that just don't have the same labels. On the other hand, how a subject matter is treated and presented does make a difference. In the Percy Jackson series, for instance, the worship of false gods isn't being promoted, the "gods" themselves are highly caricatured, and the whole idea of gods and demigods really just serves as a backdrop for a larger story, in which fairly noble character traits are explored and achieved. (Please note - I'm not suggestion that the Percy Jackson books are examples and great literature with only noble themes. It is mostly just a fun fantasy series.)
Now, I'm not a fan of making every story and every character a morality lesson, but the nature of characters in a story does matter to me in evaluating the whole of book or a series of books. And I will say that character is something that bothers me more than the use of the words "witchcraft" and "spells" in the Harry Potter series. There's not much integrity among the main characters. They regularly lie and cheat, usually in "little" ways, but there's hardly any internal struggle to do that which is right and good simply for the sake of goodness itself. There is a stark difference between characters who are "mean" versus ones who are "nice" - eg Draco Malfoy versus pretty much anyone else. Bullying and name-calling is clearly represented as "bad," but even the "good" characters react to this meanness with bitterness and vengefulness, rather than in attempts to combat it with actual truth and goodness. And if they lose tempers and strike out at the bullies, they don't regret their own actions, but rather the fact that ends proved not worth the means. And nearly every adult is virtually useless in this rather ruthless schoolyard atmosphere. Hardly any of them champion or mete out justice. And in most, if not all, of the situations, the internal struggle in the characters between what it is right and wrong is related to how it affects the success of a particular adventure or quest. That, to me, is the biggest strike against the Harry Potter books.
Is it a collection of well-crafted stories? Yes, I think so. It's intriguing, the characters are interesting and have some depth, and while the first book seems most heavily concentrated with terms of magic and the world of training wizards, subsequent books are more about the journey of the characters through adventure and mystery. Is it worth all the controversy that has surrounded it since its beginning? I don't know. It's important to make good decisions in faith on anything and everything we do, read, watch, and enjoy. Just because something has a particular label doesn't automatically make it worse than other things that may be just slightly watered-down versions of the same thing. On that note, just because "it gets kids to read," or is fun, or is something "everyone" else is reading - or NOT reading, on the flip side - isn't a reason to read, or not read, it. Read it. Don't read it. But use discernment in your choice, as you should in every situation, and then let it be.
PS As to the question of whether it is just the same thing as reading about wizards in books like Lord of the Rings...well, that's just rubbish. It's not even in the same category. The subject of wizards in books like that could fill volumes, of course (and has), but the fact is that books like that are in an entirely different league, in the first place. In the second place, personally, I think wizards like Gandalf are types that represent far more than the label placed on them. And third, it is quite true that magic in Lord of the Rings and others like it, is highly downplayed, and far more attention placed on "ordinary" characters who must act in noble and extraordinary ways. But again, whether one can read and enjoy them as a Christian should still be subject to discernment and decisions that came from faith, not simply from what one is told.
First, that there is a good deal of magic that specifically references witches and wizards, although it is highly fantastical and not, in my opinion, likely to be confused with the real thing. A more insidious danger is that because of the fantastical and sometimes comical nature of it, less discerning readers may be lulled into forgetting the seriousness of the real thing. It's not a handbook for witchcraft, so there's no danger that children will accidentally find themselves practicing it, and there is an attempt to differentiate between magic for good and the "Dark Arts" (but yes, of course I know that Christians know that even witchcraft for "good" is still a sin). So on the one hand, I don't consider this "witchcraft" in the truest sense. But on the other, I would still be uncomfortable with children spending time imagining and acting out the Harry Potter world, which is why those of my children who still like to immerse themselves in fantasy worlds won't be reading it, but why I felt comfortable with my decision to let an older, more mature child do so.
Second, the best thing I got out of reading Harry Potter was that it did make me think about what's really in a name. As I read, I thought, "It really is good storytelling - I wonder what it would be like if the wizardry was removed and replaced with something else less obvious. It would still be a good story. It would something like...I don't know, the Percy Jackson series. Fantasy, beyond-human powers...the magic is just not so overt. I guess." Except is it really all that different, when fantastical powers are called magic, and in another case are pretty much the same thing, just not called the same thing? And what if a thing is called the same thing - a wizard in Harry Potter, versus the wizards in Lord of the Rings? Do different qualities change the meaning enough so that the form is more acceptable in one case but not in the other. And the answer, for me, is...yes and no. One the one hand, it really doesn't matter what something is called. If it is a practice to be avoided, it doesn't matter what it's called and whether it's named or not. So it is highly inconsistent for believers to shun Harry Potter with vehemence, but thoughtlessly allow or even embrace books, movies, and events (sorry, but Halloween? with roots in actual witchcraft and pagan practices?) that contain very similar themes that just don't have the same labels. On the other hand, how a subject matter is treated and presented does make a difference. In the Percy Jackson series, for instance, the worship of false gods isn't being promoted, the "gods" themselves are highly caricatured, and the whole idea of gods and demigods really just serves as a backdrop for a larger story, in which fairly noble character traits are explored and achieved. (Please note - I'm not suggestion that the Percy Jackson books are examples and great literature with only noble themes. It is mostly just a fun fantasy series.)
Now, I'm not a fan of making every story and every character a morality lesson, but the nature of characters in a story does matter to me in evaluating the whole of book or a series of books. And I will say that character is something that bothers me more than the use of the words "witchcraft" and "spells" in the Harry Potter series. There's not much integrity among the main characters. They regularly lie and cheat, usually in "little" ways, but there's hardly any internal struggle to do that which is right and good simply for the sake of goodness itself. There is a stark difference between characters who are "mean" versus ones who are "nice" - eg Draco Malfoy versus pretty much anyone else. Bullying and name-calling is clearly represented as "bad," but even the "good" characters react to this meanness with bitterness and vengefulness, rather than in attempts to combat it with actual truth and goodness. And if they lose tempers and strike out at the bullies, they don't regret their own actions, but rather the fact that ends proved not worth the means. And nearly every adult is virtually useless in this rather ruthless schoolyard atmosphere. Hardly any of them champion or mete out justice. And in most, if not all, of the situations, the internal struggle in the characters between what it is right and wrong is related to how it affects the success of a particular adventure or quest. That, to me, is the biggest strike against the Harry Potter books.
Is it a collection of well-crafted stories? Yes, I think so. It's intriguing, the characters are interesting and have some depth, and while the first book seems most heavily concentrated with terms of magic and the world of training wizards, subsequent books are more about the journey of the characters through adventure and mystery. Is it worth all the controversy that has surrounded it since its beginning? I don't know. It's important to make good decisions in faith on anything and everything we do, read, watch, and enjoy. Just because something has a particular label doesn't automatically make it worse than other things that may be just slightly watered-down versions of the same thing. On that note, just because "it gets kids to read," or is fun, or is something "everyone" else is reading - or NOT reading, on the flip side - isn't a reason to read, or not read, it. Read it. Don't read it. But use discernment in your choice, as you should in every situation, and then let it be.
PS As to the question of whether it is just the same thing as reading about wizards in books like Lord of the Rings...well, that's just rubbish. It's not even in the same category. The subject of wizards in books like that could fill volumes, of course (and has), but the fact is that books like that are in an entirely different league, in the first place. In the second place, personally, I think wizards like Gandalf are types that represent far more than the label placed on them. And third, it is quite true that magic in Lord of the Rings and others like it, is highly downplayed, and far more attention placed on "ordinary" characters who must act in noble and extraordinary ways. But again, whether one can read and enjoy them as a Christian should still be subject to discernment and decisions that came from faith, not simply from what one is told.
Harry Potter, Part One
Well, we did it. We read Harry Potter.
Some of you are wondering what in the world took so long. Others of you are frowning in disapproval. Yes, I know you are. I know exactly what you're thinking. And it's okay. I wonder if it would appease you just a bit if I assured you that only some of us actually took the plunge and read the series. Others are still not allowed, and won't be for some time yet.
But why would we even break the "No Harry Potter" barrier and bring it into the house at all? Have we started down a slippery slope of compromise? Actually, Aimee and I have just been discussing how we generally have never banned most things outright in our family. Of course, there are obvious rules, and things we wouldn't go anywhere near, but I hope you understand that I'm not talking about those things - more about things that would fall into the "gray" areas. In those areas, we have always adopted the "everything is permissible, but not every everything is beneficial" attitude. In this case, the actual practice of witchcraft is, of course, specifically forbidden, but reading a book series in which witchcraft takes place is a less certain practice. After all, unless Christians restrict themselves to purely Christian books with carefully sanitized stories, they will encounter stories and characters who aren't Christian and who practice things which Christians don't do. There's much that could be said, and which has been said, on that topic, so I don't really need to delve into all that. Suffice it say that we all understand that we consider a number of factors in deciding what we can read, watch, and enjoy, without compromising our values. And we find that there are stories we can appreciate and enjoy, if we are able to pass everything through a mature biblical worldview.
I hardly need to emphasize that Harry Potter, however, has been a particularly controversial book series among Christians, and many have determined that it most certainly crosses a line of appropriate reading for believers. It is, after all, about witches and wizards. "Ah", said others, "but you read the Chronicles and Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, don't you? What's the difference? Ha! Got you there!" And then the first crowd posted blogs and articles about how Harry Potter glorifies witchcraft, and among children at that, and how the wizards or other practitioners in the other series serve a different purpose in those stories, and that any magic displayed is downplayed rather than glorified.
And while we chose to steer clear of Harry Potter (until now), we tried (I hope) to reserve final judgement either way, as we hadn't read it, so couldn't really compare. But of course every time Aimee(in particular asked a friend or librarian for a new fantasy series to read, she heard, "What about Harry Potter?", and she found it exasperating that it seemed to be the only option. As I've mentioned, we've never had a blanket ban on the series, but we've steered clear in general, and the kids have never really expressed a desire to read it. She just wasn't interested in getting into something she knew we had reasons for avoiding. But recently she's heard more about it, and so she asked politely about the possibility of reading the first book. I pondered her request, but didn't have to think too long on it, because she's always had a strong moral compass, and, at thirteen, is gaining more maturity and logical thinking to bolster that compass. I know I can trust her to spot things that oppose a biblical worldview, and to follow the Spirit's leading in how to approach, process, or, if necessary, put aside those things. And she has done just that before, as she's explained that she just didn't feel comfortable watching or reading particular things. And others, she has discussed with me freely. So I trust her judgement in a number of areas already, and I knew that if I gave her permission to read it, but requested that she stop if she just felt it was too much, she would do just that.
So she got it and read it. And then I read it, to see how our thoughts and opinions lined up. We're actually working on the series. We haven't been struck by lightning or tempted to abandon convictions. We haven't felt a book burning has been in order, but neither have we jumped with both feet on the Harry Potter train. For what we have discovered....see Part Two, coming your way shortly. :-)
Some of you are wondering what in the world took so long. Others of you are frowning in disapproval. Yes, I know you are. I know exactly what you're thinking. And it's okay. I wonder if it would appease you just a bit if I assured you that only some of us actually took the plunge and read the series. Others are still not allowed, and won't be for some time yet.
But why would we even break the "No Harry Potter" barrier and bring it into the house at all? Have we started down a slippery slope of compromise? Actually, Aimee and I have just been discussing how we generally have never banned most things outright in our family. Of course, there are obvious rules, and things we wouldn't go anywhere near, but I hope you understand that I'm not talking about those things - more about things that would fall into the "gray" areas. In those areas, we have always adopted the "everything is permissible, but not every everything is beneficial" attitude. In this case, the actual practice of witchcraft is, of course, specifically forbidden, but reading a book series in which witchcraft takes place is a less certain practice. After all, unless Christians restrict themselves to purely Christian books with carefully sanitized stories, they will encounter stories and characters who aren't Christian and who practice things which Christians don't do. There's much that could be said, and which has been said, on that topic, so I don't really need to delve into all that. Suffice it say that we all understand that we consider a number of factors in deciding what we can read, watch, and enjoy, without compromising our values. And we find that there are stories we can appreciate and enjoy, if we are able to pass everything through a mature biblical worldview.
I hardly need to emphasize that Harry Potter, however, has been a particularly controversial book series among Christians, and many have determined that it most certainly crosses a line of appropriate reading for believers. It is, after all, about witches and wizards. "Ah", said others, "but you read the Chronicles and Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, don't you? What's the difference? Ha! Got you there!" And then the first crowd posted blogs and articles about how Harry Potter glorifies witchcraft, and among children at that, and how the wizards or other practitioners in the other series serve a different purpose in those stories, and that any magic displayed is downplayed rather than glorified.
And while we chose to steer clear of Harry Potter (until now), we tried (I hope) to reserve final judgement either way, as we hadn't read it, so couldn't really compare. But of course every time Aimee(in particular asked a friend or librarian for a new fantasy series to read, she heard, "What about Harry Potter?", and she found it exasperating that it seemed to be the only option. As I've mentioned, we've never had a blanket ban on the series, but we've steered clear in general, and the kids have never really expressed a desire to read it. She just wasn't interested in getting into something she knew we had reasons for avoiding. But recently she's heard more about it, and so she asked politely about the possibility of reading the first book. I pondered her request, but didn't have to think too long on it, because she's always had a strong moral compass, and, at thirteen, is gaining more maturity and logical thinking to bolster that compass. I know I can trust her to spot things that oppose a biblical worldview, and to follow the Spirit's leading in how to approach, process, or, if necessary, put aside those things. And she has done just that before, as she's explained that she just didn't feel comfortable watching or reading particular things. And others, she has discussed with me freely. So I trust her judgement in a number of areas already, and I knew that if I gave her permission to read it, but requested that she stop if she just felt it was too much, she would do just that.
So she got it and read it. And then I read it, to see how our thoughts and opinions lined up. We're actually working on the series. We haven't been struck by lightning or tempted to abandon convictions. We haven't felt a book burning has been in order, but neither have we jumped with both feet on the Harry Potter train. For what we have discovered....see Part Two, coming your way shortly. :-)
Monday, November 25, 2013
Here We Go Again...
I wrote my last post on the first of November about one holiday. Now it's the end of November, and I write this evening about another holiday. I know - I do it every year. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, except that it's far from a dead one. My kids are confronted with this horse repeatedly this time of year, year after year.
Anyway, Scarlett and I were at Kroger Saturday, and there was a man dressed in a Santa costume near the check-out lines. Interesting random note - Scarlett was delighted to see him, just as she was excited by the person in a turkey costume last week. It's just funny, as she seems to be a reserved little person in general, but greets these characters with great gusto, rather than any kind of reservation, and in fact chased the turkey around the very busy store last week. Likewise, she hailed the Santa person loudly, and was going to go after him, but he made his way over to her. And of course, he opened with the typical question, before doling out a candy cane - "Have you been good?'
I've never launched into a tirade against well-meaning people who ask that question around Christmas (or before - since for heaven's sake, I'm just looking forward to Thanksgiving at this point), but I did say, as I always do, "Of course she's been good," because yes, on one level, she's been quite good. Her existence is good thing. I give her good gifts because she's mine, and I love her, not because she behaves in convenient ways. So I wanted to say, "Do you intend to give her a candy cane or not? Let's just don't do the 'have you been good' dance." But, as I mentioned, I didn't. I did, however, start thinking about the "good" concept as we drove home a few minutes later. I was reminded of the passages in Romans that the kids are studying this year, particularly the memory verses on which Ryan worked very hard (and got a question on in the quiz meet last week!). "As it is written, none is righteous, no not one. No one understands; no one seeks for God." (Romans 3:10-11).
Here we are in the holiday in which many kids are led along by the "have you been good enough?" notion, and my kids are reading, hearing, learning, memorizing passage after passage that tells them in no uncertain terms, "It doesn't matter who you are, or what you do, you are, in fact, NOT good enough." And that's what I love about Bible quizzing. I know I've said it before, but it's one of my favorite things - quizzing gives kids God's Word straight up, no frills, no niceties. And at this particular time of year, it puts in bold terms what is the real and true wonder of Christmas. Because Paul doesn't leave it at that, of course, but spells out over and over again, that we aren't good enough - or too bad - for the the free gift. There's no "magic" here, people, because magic is unreliable. And there's no dancing around all year to see if you can land on the spirit of Christmas. Did you get it right? Gifts. Did you throw a tantrum in the store in October? You skirted on the edge of losing it all - whew. Well, actually, maybe you did! How could you possibly know? Well, there were gifts, so it must have been okay - do the dance again next year and hope it turns out again!
No, here, the gift is completely free and completely available - it comes through one man, Jesus, and it makes all completely set right. Completely. It's done. No questions, no doubts,, no manipulation, no guilt, no condemnation, That's what makes the difference between Jesus and Santa Claus so sharp, and that's why those of us who choose to steer clear of the Santa routine do what we do. Can you enjoy some aspects of the Santa thing and still keep the message of this free gift in Jesus pure? Fine! Have fun! (And you know what? We watch movies like Elf, and sometimes sing Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer.) But when Santa (or any other Christmas tradition) starts overshadowing the truth that Christmas is all about NOT being good enough - and about the free gift that was offered at great cost for no other reason that that God loves us - then I don't have a problem saying that it's not a good thing.
Also, when you're threatening your child in Target to stop throwing a fit or "Santa won't come!"...well, that gets a bit of a rise out of me, too.
Here we are in the holiday in which many kids are led along by the "have you been good enough?" notion, and my kids are reading, hearing, learning, memorizing passage after passage that tells them in no uncertain terms, "It doesn't matter who you are, or what you do, you are, in fact, NOT good enough." And that's what I love about Bible quizzing. I know I've said it before, but it's one of my favorite things - quizzing gives kids God's Word straight up, no frills, no niceties. And at this particular time of year, it puts in bold terms what is the real and true wonder of Christmas. Because Paul doesn't leave it at that, of course, but spells out over and over again, that we aren't good enough - or too bad - for the the free gift. There's no "magic" here, people, because magic is unreliable. And there's no dancing around all year to see if you can land on the spirit of Christmas. Did you get it right? Gifts. Did you throw a tantrum in the store in October? You skirted on the edge of losing it all - whew. Well, actually, maybe you did! How could you possibly know? Well, there were gifts, so it must have been okay - do the dance again next year and hope it turns out again!
No, here, the gift is completely free and completely available - it comes through one man, Jesus, and it makes all completely set right. Completely. It's done. No questions, no doubts,, no manipulation, no guilt, no condemnation, That's what makes the difference between Jesus and Santa Claus so sharp, and that's why those of us who choose to steer clear of the Santa routine do what we do. Can you enjoy some aspects of the Santa thing and still keep the message of this free gift in Jesus pure? Fine! Have fun! (And you know what? We watch movies like Elf, and sometimes sing Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer.) But when Santa (or any other Christmas tradition) starts overshadowing the truth that Christmas is all about NOT being good enough - and about the free gift that was offered at great cost for no other reason that that God loves us - then I don't have a problem saying that it's not a good thing.
Also, when you're threatening your child in Target to stop throwing a fit or "Santa won't come!"...well, that gets a bit of a rise out of me, too.
Friday, November 1, 2013
A Note from the Fringe Minority
We didn't do any trick or treating last night. In fact, no one in our neighborhood did, as it was postponed until tonight because of the weather. But we won't be trick-or-treating tonight, either, and while I wasn't going to post about Halloween this year, as I have in years past, I've read a couple of blogs and articles this year that have raised a rather irksome issue concerning Christians and Halloween. They share a theme that takes the issue from merely discussing the question of whether Christians can or can't participate in Halloween activities to insinuating - and in one case, more overtly declaring - that it's actually unChristian to abstain completely from such activities. And that, to me, is both disturbing and incredibly frustrating.
Now, if you are a friend of mine who has shared an article or blog that you think probably broached this topic, please know that I never for a second thought that you were judging me. I assumed that what you shared was something that touched on an aspect of how your Christian family approaches Halloween, and I didn't assume that you embraced everything in the article, or that, if you did, you were making a pointed attack at my family. Goodness, I've shared plenty of "controversial" articles as food for thought, and I've had to respond to people who were offended by one isolated point the author made, or who were offended by the whole thing and wanted to know why I ascribed to such ideas - and I never intended for anyone to think I took the author's word as gospel. So I wouldn't and didn't assume the same of you, I promise.
That said, I did find this theme disturbing, as I've mentioned. Our family doesn't celebrate Halloween at all. Some people know this about us, and other don't, because we don't make a big deal about it (I don't think). Each year, we have to explain our reasons to the kids, and emphasize that we have good friends who do celebrate, to varying degrees, and that's not our business. If they can do so in faith, then it's perfectly fine. But we can't, and so we won't. We respect the rights of others to do what they are permitted to do within their faith (we're talking about issues not directly addressed in Scripture, of course), and others surely respect our right simply to abstain from something we can't do with a clear conscience, right?
Wrong.
Many of our close friends and family do respect our choices, of course, but a good number of people, including fellow believers, have expressed everything from incredulity to contempt over those choices. We're accustomed to the usual objections that we're robbing the kids of a fun childhood experience. One would hope that at least other believers, given enough time to think through it, would acknowledge that the "fun" factor of any activity is far from a good enough reason to do it. That we're putting the kids in a very small minority of Western children, by keeping them from participating in a popular holiday, is also not even worth defending. And we've heard that Christians don't have to participate in the scary stuff, but that there's no harm in dressing up and collecting candy. Fine. If there's "no harm" in it, then there's no harm in us not participating. It shouldn't really be an issue. But now apparently there's a new argument - although perhaps it isn't new, and I'm only just hearing it. Now, we're hiding our light if we don't trick-or-treat, or at least hand out candy.
What? We don't say a word about the involvement of anyone else, Christian or not. We don't shun our neighbors or friends during the month of October, go door-to-door decrying the evils of the holiday, or even respond at all when people decorate or talk about it. We go out of our way not to make an issue of it. If we did talk about our position, with gentleness and respect, it would just be to explain what we believe, not to condemn anyone else. But we don't do that unless asked. That doesn't seem to be enough, however. It's really too much for us to be "weird" about things and just not do them, and in fact, we're missing an opportunity to be missional.
Dear friends, I don't know if any of you actually believe this, but if you do, I implore you to reconsider. This is a matter of personal conscience, of a desire not to quench the Holy Spirit in our own hearts, about one particular day in the year. It isn't about YOU. If you feel threatened or defensive, then that's something you need to take up with the Lord personally. If you feel Halloween is an opportunity for YOU to "shine your light" in ways you can't at any other time, then great. But condemning (oh, the irony!) those of us in the teeny tiny minority of people who simply stay home and keep their lights off - who simply don't participate in something - is unnecessary and - dare I say it? - wrong. You are insisting that we sin by doing something that we can't do in faith. It might be harmless to you, but unless we can say that we are doing it from a place of faith, from a place of believing that it is truly a good thing that would please God, then it would be sin for us to do it.
We'll remain in that teeny tiny minority, as usual. That's fine. We're in it in almost every other area in life, too, so we're used to it by now! It's usually fine. But this rubbed me just a bit the wrong way.
Now, if you are a friend of mine who has shared an article or blog that you think probably broached this topic, please know that I never for a second thought that you were judging me. I assumed that what you shared was something that touched on an aspect of how your Christian family approaches Halloween, and I didn't assume that you embraced everything in the article, or that, if you did, you were making a pointed attack at my family. Goodness, I've shared plenty of "controversial" articles as food for thought, and I've had to respond to people who were offended by one isolated point the author made, or who were offended by the whole thing and wanted to know why I ascribed to such ideas - and I never intended for anyone to think I took the author's word as gospel. So I wouldn't and didn't assume the same of you, I promise.
That said, I did find this theme disturbing, as I've mentioned. Our family doesn't celebrate Halloween at all. Some people know this about us, and other don't, because we don't make a big deal about it (I don't think). Each year, we have to explain our reasons to the kids, and emphasize that we have good friends who do celebrate, to varying degrees, and that's not our business. If they can do so in faith, then it's perfectly fine. But we can't, and so we won't. We respect the rights of others to do what they are permitted to do within their faith (we're talking about issues not directly addressed in Scripture, of course), and others surely respect our right simply to abstain from something we can't do with a clear conscience, right?
Wrong.
Many of our close friends and family do respect our choices, of course, but a good number of people, including fellow believers, have expressed everything from incredulity to contempt over those choices. We're accustomed to the usual objections that we're robbing the kids of a fun childhood experience. One would hope that at least other believers, given enough time to think through it, would acknowledge that the "fun" factor of any activity is far from a good enough reason to do it. That we're putting the kids in a very small minority of Western children, by keeping them from participating in a popular holiday, is also not even worth defending. And we've heard that Christians don't have to participate in the scary stuff, but that there's no harm in dressing up and collecting candy. Fine. If there's "no harm" in it, then there's no harm in us not participating. It shouldn't really be an issue. But now apparently there's a new argument - although perhaps it isn't new, and I'm only just hearing it. Now, we're hiding our light if we don't trick-or-treat, or at least hand out candy.
What? We don't say a word about the involvement of anyone else, Christian or not. We don't shun our neighbors or friends during the month of October, go door-to-door decrying the evils of the holiday, or even respond at all when people decorate or talk about it. We go out of our way not to make an issue of it. If we did talk about our position, with gentleness and respect, it would just be to explain what we believe, not to condemn anyone else. But we don't do that unless asked. That doesn't seem to be enough, however. It's really too much for us to be "weird" about things and just not do them, and in fact, we're missing an opportunity to be missional.
Dear friends, I don't know if any of you actually believe this, but if you do, I implore you to reconsider. This is a matter of personal conscience, of a desire not to quench the Holy Spirit in our own hearts, about one particular day in the year. It isn't about YOU. If you feel threatened or defensive, then that's something you need to take up with the Lord personally. If you feel Halloween is an opportunity for YOU to "shine your light" in ways you can't at any other time, then great. But condemning (oh, the irony!) those of us in the teeny tiny minority of people who simply stay home and keep their lights off - who simply don't participate in something - is unnecessary and - dare I say it? - wrong. You are insisting that we sin by doing something that we can't do in faith. It might be harmless to you, but unless we can say that we are doing it from a place of faith, from a place of believing that it is truly a good thing that would please God, then it would be sin for us to do it.
We'll remain in that teeny tiny minority, as usual. That's fine. We're in it in almost every other area in life, too, so we're used to it by now! It's usually fine. But this rubbed me just a bit the wrong way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)