Illustrating the types of cultural response available to Christians with the Barbie movie as the example

 

Full disclosure: I haven't seen the Barbie movie.  If my 8 year old daughter hadn't been out of town with my wife Nicole since it came out, no doubt we would have taken her to see it (although with respect to Oppenheimer, I'm on my own).

When it comes to the culture that we live in, whatever nation or era that might be, Christians have four primary options when it comes to how they will interact with it: Promotion, Animosity, Withdrawal, and Engagement.  Let me illustrate what these might look like with respect to the summer blockbuster that is The Barbie Movie.

1. Promotion

"The Barbie movie illustrates what God intended gender roles to be."  Admittedly, I haven't seen anything like this in the many online commentaries and comments swirling around.  Aside from a TV show like The Chosen, you don't often see commentary written from a Christian perspective that explicitly endorses cultural artistic expressions, but on the somewhat rare occasion that a particular song, play, show, movie, etc. does indeed reflect the Judeo-Christian worldview, it would be appropriate to point that out.  {FYI, just because the content in question is produced by a "Christian" studio/writer/director, etc. doesn't mean it will properly reflect a Biblical mindset, such creations ought to still be held up to God's Word for evaluation on their own merits.}

2. Animosity

"Demonic plot of Barbie movie revealed!" "Liberals are trying to indoctrinate your kids through the Barbie Movie!" "Feminist Crap!"  I have actually seen each of those headlines in recent weeks, in all cases the message is clear, "Don't watch this movie because it is liberal/feminist/demonic."  An entire cottage industry has evolved, and is making a lot of money, creating just this sort of antagonistic response to most everything produced by the entertainment industry today.

A brief note on the problem with the "all animosity all the time" approach: (1) It has the tendency to convince both fellow Christians and non-believers that we have nothing to offer each other, that in fact we are enemies and should treat each other as such. (2) It quickly becomes a "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon.  When everything produced by Disney, for example, is labeled as demonic by online pundits and cable news talking heads, whatever values such warnings may have ever had becomes diluted (and non-believers look even more skeptically at Christianity wondering what on earth we're thinking). (3) The end result of this type of response is that it becomes an exercise in preaching to the choir, those who shout "amen" are with you, but everyone else decides to keep their distance.

3. Withdrawal

"Haven't seen it, don't really care."  Now, the Barbie movie is the example, and that won't be on everyone's must-see list no matter how much money it makes (after two weeks the answer is a whole lot of money), and certainly not every Christian thinker needs to weigh in on every cultural moment of import.  The withdrawal impulse is reflected in the "moat mentality," as I like to call it.  By that I mean the tendency of many Christians to view their neighbors and country as a lost cause and respond by digging a proverbial moat around themselves and ceasing to engage altogether. 

This is, in the end, a self-defeating option, retreating to the modern equivalent of monasteries is not a viable option.  No need to have an informed opinion on everything, but walking away entirely is not going to help anyone.

4. Engagement

"Our culture is struggling with questions about power, gender, purpose, and death. Barbie raises these questions brilliantly, but believers can point to the One who ultimately answers them: the Triune God who created all humans with purpose and for partnership."  You probably noticed that the engagement option wasn't very headline worthy, that's part of the point.  Rather than click-bait, true engagement seeks to look at something produced by human beings, flawed as we all are, and evaluate it through the lens of the Judeo-Christian worldview.  In doing so, we hope to highlight that which is in keeping with the Word of God, point out that which is contradictory to it, and offer insight that illustrates how the Gospel would fill in the gaps or correct the shortcomings of the what is being evaluated. 

The above quote was taken from the review of the Barbie movie by Professor Amy Peeler, professor of New Testament studies at Wheaton College.  Having already written a book entitled, Women and the Gender of God, she was well positioned to offer insight into the issues about gender roles raised in the movie.

Neither Barbie Nor Ken - A Barbie Movie Review - by Professor Amy Peeler

Note: I have seen numerous people respond with animosity toward the director of the Barbie movie, and/or the movie itself, by attacking Professor Peeler as if writing a review of a movie (or book, song, show, etc.) automatically means that you somehow endorse everything in it.  That is nonsense and immoral, but far too commonplace in the social media realm.  For example, I mentioned the death of Jon Snow from Game of Thrones in my sermon on Sunday as an example of how characters with a moral code suffer when those around them live by a survival of the fittest mentality.  It would be unfair to then smear me (so please don't) by pointing out non-Christian ideas that exist in Game of Thrones (of which there are plenty to choose from) simply because I used that as an example.  To engage with the culture thoughtfully does not make you responsible for the entirety of that cultural expression.

That's the danger of participating in engagement.  When one puts commentary out there, slings and arrows are often the primary response you see, often times from both the right and left of what you've written/spoken, no matter how far to the right or left your position actually may be {online there is always someone more to the margins willing to shoot at you}.  Nevertheless, engagement is what true Christian apologetics consists of, it sometimes will be a positive review and interaction with the material created by others, sometimes it will be a negative review, the important connector will be honest and thoughtful responses.  

Be honest, you'd rather see more kind dialogue than the endless stream of click-bait anger, wouldn't you?  

Call me an optimist, I have to hope you're as sick of the endless invective as I am.

When cooperation becomes capitulation: The Koran in Church

Those who have followed this blog for any length of time, or who know me personally, are well aware that I am an advocate for intra-Christian ecumenism.  I believe, on the basis of the teaching of Scripture, that all those who are truly disciples of Jesus Christ ought to be working together for the sake of the kingdom of God, as partners not rivals.  There will always be debate and discussion, a healthy thing, regarding our definition of who is and who is not a Christian, with some drawing the circle smaller, and some larger, than others.  I wrote a good deal about that particular question with respect to the teaching of I John some years ago, a booklet you can read by clicking on this link: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John.

The subject of this post is not intra-Christian ecumenism, however, but inter-faith cooperation.  If we're talking about something like disaster relief, peace initiatives for war torn regions, or a campaign for civil rights of a persecuted minority, it is not unreasonable for Christians to work with non-Christians on these issues, including those of other faiths, Muslims for example.  These are not issues that are particular to Christians, and are areas in which we can work with anyone who is willing to truly help those in need.  There are ways in which these things can be done that do not require a Christian to compromise his/her faith.

The waters get murky when we begin to talk about inter-faith worship.  The elephant in the room is of course the obvious observation that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (to pick the most common groups that might consider such things) cannot all be right in their declarations of what is true, in particular regarding the person of Jesus Christ.  If one proclaims him to be a false Messiah, one a respected prophet, but the third the very Son of God, God in the flesh, these three groups can hardly pray to God or praise God in any meaningful way without one or more of the groups being compromised.  In the end, it is demeaning to all involved if we try to call on the greatest common denominator (to use a math term) that we are supposedly worshiping the same God, when we have such radical departures on what God has done, and is doing, in our world.

The latest episode to illustrate the pitfall of intra-faith worship happened during an Epiphany celebration in Glasgow, Scotland.  The Anglican Cathedral there, St. Mary's, invited a local Muslim teen to read from the Koran about Jesus during the worship service which is supposed to be celebrating the arrival of the Magi to worship Jesus.  The biggest problem with this reading, other than the question of why someone would allow the Koran to be read in Christian worship, is that the passage in question directly contradicts the Gospel accounts by denying the deity of Christ.  Much has been written about this episode, and the backlash it has spawned in England and around the world, for a good article on it, click on the following: Cathedral Marks Epiphany with Koran reading

The most important question now is this: What went wrong in the theological understanding of the leadership of St. Mary's that they didn't see the utter foolishness of allowing the Koran to be read during a service of Christian worship?  There was a failure here to understand the implications of this gesture of cooperation, which was in fact far closer to an act of blasphemy toward Jesus than it was an act of Christian bridge building with a minority.  This is not what ecumenism is, this is not an example of fostering peace and brotherhood, it is instead an act of capitulation that will only confuse those who don't understand the differences between the Bible and the Koran, between Christianity and Islam, and at the same time it will be used by those who oppose legitimate intra-Christian ecumenism to build up the wall and moat around their church even more.

I'm all for intra-Christian ecumenism, and happy to have the necessary discussion of how we define those who are Christian and those who are not.  What happened in Glasgow is a whole different topic, and one that rightly will cause significant ripples throughout the UK and beyond.  The Koran being read in a Christian church is not only a bridge too far, it is an abandonment of the exclusive claims of the gospel about Jesus Christ.

Note: I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't learn about Islam, every Christian should know the Five Pillars of Islam, and the basics of what the Koran teaches, just as they should know about the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.  One can teach and learn about another religion while showing respect to those who follow it, without including those teachings in Christian acts of prayer and worship.

Sermon Video: We preach Christ crucified - 1 Corinthians 1:21-25

The field of Christian apologetics is concerned with spreading the Gospel message and defending the faith from critique and attack.  This is an important field, oft used by God, but as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians, it operates under an important caveat: We preach Christ crucified.  The message of the Gospel was offensive to some and difficult to accept for others in the 1st Century, and it remains offensive and difficult for the Lost to accept today as well.  Paul was willing to try different approaches to his preaching in order to make it possible for the audience to hear the message, but he was completely unwilling to adjust the message to fit the audience.  Why?  Because "Christ crucified" is the wisdom and power of God.  Should anyone attempt to change the message to make it more palatable, they will only exchange the power of the Gospel for popularity, a poor choice indeed.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Foolishness of the Cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-20

The Message of the Cross, that is the Gospel message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, has always been foolishness to those who don't believe it.  In the first century, it was the shame of dying upon a cross that Paul had to overcome, and while that connotation has been replaced by the much more positive symbolism of the cross following the triumph of Christianity within the Roman Empire, the message itself still remains hard to accept.  Why is that?  It isn't the message, per se, but what the message requires of us.  To accept the Gospel, we must first admit our own failure and allow God to save us from our sins.  The problem with this step is of course human pride.  It is an act of humility and submission to bow before Jesus Christ, and plenty of the Lost are unwilling to countenance that step.
The difficulty of the Gospel message raises an important question about the relationship between faith and reason.  Do we arrive at faith through reason or do we abandon reason in order to have faith?  While there have been famous Christian philosophers who embrace their God given reasoning ability in service to their faith, there have also been Christian theologians who reject the use of philosophy in connection with theology.  In modern American Christianity, those rejecting the role of reason in faith evidence an anti-intellectualism that in particular tends to despise science.  It is not, however, all wisdom that God thwarts, only that of the world that in opposition to God, his people ought to be using their God given reason to serve his kingdom.  It is true that we do not arrive at faith by reason alone, nor is it true that faith ought to be devoid of reason, when we understand our faith properly it has reason as a partner.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Pastoral ministry, Apologetics, and Optimism for the Church

One of the things that I sometimes do while working at my desk during the week is listen to Dr. James White's online program The Diving Line from Alpha and Omega Ministries.  These Youtube videos often deal with topics that interest me, in particular Biblical textual issues.  One of the things that I have noticed of late, is that Dr. White's perspective, as an apologist who spends a lot of his time debating, is as a result at times negative about the state of the Church today.  When you spend all of your time and effort combating error and heresy within the Church, and fending off assault from those who are supposed to be on your side, as well as those who are not, it is no wonder that Dr. White doesn't get the chance to see the positive things that are happening in the Church that I have the good fortune of witnesses on a regular basis as I go about pastoral ministry here in my little corner of the world.
It may be that there is theological rot in many of the seminaries, some of which have wandered away from Orthodoxy, but here on the local level, at least in my own experience working with the 50+ churches that we've come into contact with through Mustard Seed Missions, I've only worked with men and women who are preaching, teaching, and living the same Gospel message as our ancestors in the faith.  If certain denominations are heading into danger, and that's something an apologist like Dr. White should be focusing on, that same trend is not evident here on the local level.  Working here in Venango County these past four and a half years, has given me a tremendous optimism about the work that God is doing, an optimism that stems from our ecumenical work for the poor through Mustard Seed Missions, as well as the food pantries, the cross walk, the 40 Days of Prayer, and all the other ways in which God's people here in this place have been working hard for the kingdom of God.
Just today as I listened to yesterday's program while working on my PowerPoint for Sunday, James expressed some of his own frustration after spending the first 45 minutes talking about some of the struggles the Church is facing by those who are wandering from orthodoxy, he said, "And I know in my  mind, God is still on is throne, I'm only seeing a small portion of it.  We've seen all sorts of people brought out of error...I know all that, sometimes you just start getting tired."  After that, Dr. White commented that he takes a long ride on his bike to help clear his mind of the weight he feels on his shoulders when fighting day after day on these issues, a sentiment that I can wholeheartedly agree with (for me, it is running on our awesome running trails in the woods at Two Mile or Oil Creek State Park).
I know that a lot of you are worried about the future, about the future of our nation, and the future of God's Church here.  There are things worth worrying about, trends that need to be countered, battles that must be won.  When that fight ways heavy on your mind, the antidote that I have found may offer you solace.  Find your fellow Christians who have a passion for those in need, and get busy doing something to help in the name of Christ, and get together with your neighboring churches to worship together.  You're not in this alone, and neither is your church.  God has brought revival to this nation through his Church before, he can do it again.  Instead of waiting around for that to happen, get started on kingdom work today, who knows, you may end up being a part of how God turns that blessing of revival into a reality.

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

Sermon Video: The Limits of Apologetics, Luke 7:24-35

The term apologetics comes from the Greek word, apologia, which means “speaking in defense”.  The most famous Greek apologia was that of Plato who wrote in defense of his mentor Socrates in the famous, Apology.  Socrates was innocent, and if Plato’s retelling of the tale is accurate, his defense was brilliant, but the mob sentenced him to death by Hemlock anyway.  A well reasoned and delivered argument can work wonders, but it has limits.  Humanity cannot always be persuaded by the truth, even when it is well presented.

            Jesus explains this same truth in reference to the people who were willing to accept both John the Baptist’s message as well as his own, and those who had rejected John’s message and subsequently rejected Jesus as well.  The significance of this double acceptance and double rejection is made clear by Jesus when he recounts the objections that were made by those who rejected both messengers: They rejected John as being too fanatical, too serious, and at the same time rejected Jesus for being too friendly and open to the needs of the ‘sinners’.  The approaches of John and Jesus were nearly opposite in their style, yet they were both rejected by the same group of people with the excuse that style was the problem and not the substance.  Jesus is making it clear that it is the substance of the message that is being objected to, not the form.  The actual content of John’s message of repentance, and Jesus’ message of repentance, is the same.  It is not the messenger that is being rejected, but the message, and because both of these men were sent by God, it is ultimately God who is being rejected.

            Does form and style matter in evangelism, outreach, and worship?  Of course it does, we should always strive to be the best version of the Church and individual Christians that we can be in order to showcase the Truth of the Gospel, but we must also realize that these things have limits.  To those willing to listen to God, the Truth will speak in a variety of settings and styles, but to those whose hearts and minds are close to God, it won’t matter how many different church styles they try, the substance is being rejected behind all of them.  In the end, it is the grace of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that is necessary to break through the barrier of a hard heart and melt away the resistance to the Gospel.  We must do our part, God will do his.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video