Cheesy Christian cinema: Nostalgia for a bygone era

Andrew Barber takes a dim view of the phenomenon of "Christian film." The recent glut of evangelical cinematic efforts is not helpful to Christianity's public image.

I know it can seem petty to pick on Christian films, but they have become a noteworthy representation of Christianity. Every conversation I have with a non-Christian requires dealing with their perceptions of me as a Christian, which more often than not means dealing with the Republican Party, televangelists, and Christian media. The issue of representation aside, the problems in Christian films must be addressed, because they are not just issues of technique or stylistic preferences. They are issues of integrity.

There are currently two primary problems with Christian films: (1) they are either inherently dishonest and/or (2) they are primarily concerned with what C. S. Lewis called “egoistic castle-building.” Note: discussing both issues will require me to generalize about Christian films at large, so there will be (I hope) some exceptions. But I believe the trends discussed here are self-evidently true for a great majority of the Christian film genre.

Barber is pretty much on target with his critique. With rare exceptions, Christian movies have always been cheap, cheesy, and contrived. But what I find most interesting about Barber's article is that it could easily have been written 20 years ago, or even 40 years ago.

The perception of evangelical Christianity as being dominated by "the Republican party, televangelists, and Christian media" has not changed in over a generation, despite the fact that the landscape of evangelicalism has changed drastically, for better or worse, since the heyday of the Religious Right in the 1980's. The fact that Christian films continue to perpetuate the image of an evangelicalism joined at the hip to Republican politics and the idealistic crusades of televangelists is a particularly stinging indictment against a Christian media paralyzed by a nostalgia for a bygone era.

File under: Well, duh. . .

Nick Squires of The Telegraph thinks the pope has made news with a claim he makes in his new book about the date of Jesus's birth.

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.

"The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."

The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.

But the fact that doubts over one of the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the world's one billion Catholics is striking.

Um, no. The "miscalculation" made by Dionysius has been well documented and it has been "commonly believed" for years that Jesus was, in fact, born precisely within the time frame offered by the pontiff. He is not raising any doubts about "one of the keystones of Christian tradition." As the article goes on to point out, most scholars agree with the pope, not only on the date of Jesus's birth but also on the fact that there were likely no oxen or donkeys present to witness the blessed event. Again, no threat to any "Christian tradition" except, perhaps, the always popular children's Christmas pageant.

UPDATE: Read George Conger's eviscerating analysis of the whole article at Get Religion.

The "sorry people," then and now

Recently, while watching an episode of the classic western Bonanza, I was reminded of just how far our society has not come since the innocent days of early television. For both its genre and its era, Bonanza was about as socially progressive as a program could be. That does not mean, however, that it would get high marks from today's political and cultural elites. This particular episode was a case in point. Hoss, the physically imposing but bighearted middle brother of the Carwright clan, helps a diminutive ne'er-do-well named Jock get a job as an assistant tax assessor. Thrilled at the prospect of making a decent living for the first time in his life, Jock dives into his new job with gusto, wildly over-assessing local properties, beginning with the Cartwrights' beloved Pondersosa ranch. 

As might be expected, the over-zealous taxman's activities send the townsfolk into a rage. Things come to a head when the women of Virginia City chase Jock back to his run-down home and are dissuaded from lynching him only out of sympathy for his pregnant wife.

Seeking to prevent any further damage, the Cartwrights hold a family conference. Since he feels the whole situation is his fault, Hoss offers to handle it himself. Ben, the wise patriarch, discourages this and says the family should work things out together. "The trouble with Jock is, he's one of the sorry people," Ben observes. That, of course, is a line which could never pass muster in today's hyper-sensitive media culture. 

The "sorry people," as Ben explains, are people who are content to be shiftless and idle. "The main trouble with the sorry people, though," Ben continues, "is if someone throws a little prosperity their way or a little authority . . . they become obnoxious."

Ultimately, the Cartwrights outsmart this pitiful soul by exploiting his weakness for gambling. They trick him into betting "two years' salary" on a horse they know will lose but Jock is convinced will win. After the inevitable happens, Ben tells Jock that since "two years' salary" was a non-specific amount, Jock will owe him nothing if he quits his job and returns home to his wife and newborn baby.

The problem this episode would pose for today's political and cultural elites, most notably the current occupant of the White House, is that it would hit too close to home. Who are today's "sorry people" if not those who have accomplished next to nothing but believe they are entitled to everything? It is not altogether cynical to say that these are sorry times for our nation because the "sorry people" have been given authority and have, characteristically, become quite obnoxious.

Non-Anglican news from across the pond: Soccer wannabe sues Baptists

The London Evening Standard reports on a legal battle brewing between a church and a soccer superstar who might have been.

A retired semi-professional footballer who claims his faith ruined his chances of playing for Manchester United is suing the Baptist Church for £10 million.

In a case reminiscent of the 2001 Billy Connolly film The Man Who Sued God, Arquimedes Nganga accused religious leaders of deceiving him "into following false beliefs".

Mr Nganga, 46, from Forest Hill, said he could have earned £20,000 a week, despite never making more than £200 a month in his home country Portugal's Third Division. He quit the sport aged 25 when he converted to the Baptist faith.

He said: "I could definitely have had a long career in the Premiership. I see many players playing today who I am not inferior to - and perhaps even better than. Most midfielders are either defensive or attacking but I was both. I had something new."

After converting in 1989, Mr Nganga spent 19 years as a "fervent evangelist", devoting his life to the Bible and abstaining from sex. Now he is suing the leaders of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, who, he says, "conspired to defraud me of my finances, time and my life".

In papers filed in the High Court, he accuses the church of destroying his social life, causing him "psychological harm" and defrauding him of money through compulsory donations.

The writ blames church leaders for physical assaults Mr Nganga suffered at the hands of people he was trying to convert. It states: "They got upset and reacted violently after being told that they were sinners. I was slapped and punched, and kicked in my left knee, breaking its cartilage."

The church said today that it would vigorously contest the claim. As well as suing the British arm, Mr Nganga has begun a legal battle with the US-based Baptist World Alliance and has written a book, The Millenary Fraud.

It would have been helpful if the reporter had elaborated on the alleged "false beliefs" which this Nganga fellow alleges deceived him and cost him a career as a soccer star. Alas, no such elaboration. We can only infer from the plaintiff's 19-year career as a "fervent evangelist," his accompanying sexual abstinence, and apparent in-your-face style of personal evangelism that he was a convert to a particularly sectarian strain of "the Baptist faith." The title of his book, The Millenary Fraud, (the title is not italicized in the original article) would imply at least some of the "false beliefs" involved a peculiar form of eschatology.

A cursory examination of pertinent web sites, however, suggests that the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the Falls Church, Virginia-based Baptist World Alliance are remarkably ecumenical. The Baptist Union's "Five Core Values," developed in 1996, are quite holistic:

A Prophetic Community
Following Jesus in confronting evil, injustice and hypocrisy. Challenging worldly concepts of power, wealth, status and security.

An Inclusive Community
Following Jesus in transcending barriers of gender, language, race, class, age and culture. Identifying with those who are rejected, deprived and powerless.

A Sacrificial Community
Following Jesus in accepting vulnerability and the necessity of sacrifice. Seeking to reflect the generous, life-giving nature of God.

A Missionary Community
Following Jesus in demonstrating in word and action God's forgiving and healing love. Calling & enabling people to experience the love of God for themselves.

A Worshipping Community
Following Jesus in engaging in worship and prayer which inspire and undergird all we are and do. Exploring and expressing what it means to live together as the people of God, obeying his Word and following Christ in the whole of daily life.

Moreover, the "Theological Papers" section of the Baptist World Alliance web site includes the following eye-catching tidbits:

Theological Conversations 

Current Conversations

The third round in the second series of conversations between the Baptist World Alliance and the Vatican took place December 14-20, 2008, at Duke Divinity School on the campus of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The first round in this series was held at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, in the city of Birmingham in the United States, from December 10-15, 2006. The second round was held in Rome, Italy, December 2-8, 2007.

The Baptist team is being led by Baptist World Alliance (BWA) General Secretary Neville Callam and Paul Fiddes, Principal of Regents Park College of Oxford University who also chairs the BWA Commission on Doctrine and Inter-Church Cooperation.

The conversations are a continuation of previous talks with the Vatican Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1990.

What are Theological Conversations?

One important BWA ministry involves theological conversations with other world Christian bodies. It is important to meet and talk with Christian communities to better understand the similarities and differences and to explore areas where Christians can agree to be in fellowship and to cooperate together. Such meetings have the added value of helping to strengthen the situation of small, minority Baptist communities in certain parts of the world as the theology and history of the Baptist movement is explained.

Past Conversations

Over the last 20 years the BWA has had conversations with the Reformed Churches, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the World Mennonite Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Pontifical Council for promoting Christian unity. Preliminary discussions have been held with the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul.

Needless to say, that is a pretty well-rounded interaction with the wider Christian community. This particular expression of "the Baptist Church" does not appear to be overrun with screaming fundamentalist fanatics, although it might be easy to get that impression from the scant details offered in the Standard article.

Who you gonna believe -- the leftist media or your own lying eyes?

Despite what logic may be lead you to conclude by mere appearances, Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, who recently testified at the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on religious liberty, is obviously not a woman.

The audacious offensive of love

Conventional wisdom, fueled by pompous comedians and other uninformed sources, holds that audience members at Monday night's Republican debate in South Carolina "booed the golden rule." Candidate Ron Paul bore the brunt of audience displeasure by suggesting a "golden rule of foreign policy," not doing to other countries what we don't want them to do to us.

Like so many politicians who attempt to invoke biblical metaphors, Congressman Paul did not do his homework here. Likewise, media personalities who have made hay over South Carolina voters "booing the golden rule" have failed in their responsibility to do adequate biblical fact-checking. The "golden rule," stated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12 is traditionally rendered (in King James language), "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "Don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you." The difference is subtle, but profound.

Any number of ancient philosophers taught a negative ethic of refraining from doing evil to others in the hope that others would reciprocate. Jesus, however, taught something wholly different, and quite revolutionary. The ethic of the kingdom of God is not passively refraining from doing evil in hope of reciprocation, but actively seeking to do good without regard for what others might do in return. The former is rooted in a desire for self-preservation; the latter in a devotion to giving oneself in selfless service to others.

E. Stanley Jones, the great missionary to India, was well acquainted with the passive resistance ethic of Ghandi. He was convinced, however, that Jesus taught a higher ethic. In his classic exposition, The Christ of the Mount, he makes the case for active resistance as the true ethic of Jesus and the kingdom of God.

Jesus is not teaching passive resistance, but an active resistance on a higher level. The account does not say, "If a man smite you on one cheek, let him smite the other also," but it does say, "Turn to him the other also." It is this audacious offensive of love that forces the man to go further and thus break down. He tries to break your head, and you, as Christian, try to break his heart. In turning the other cheek you wrest the offensive from him and assume moral charge of the situation. You choose your own battleground, and your own weapons, you refuse his and compel him to stand on ground with which he is not familiar and to face weapons he does not know how to face. If a man compels you to go with him one mile, you are his slave; but if you voluntarily go with him two, then you rise from your slavery, confer a bounty on him and thus become his master. If he sues you at law and takes away your coat, you are his servant, but if you confer on him your cloak also, you assume the mastery by your own moral daring.

Allowing a man to smite you on one cheek, and letting him have the coat, and submitting to him when he compels you to go one mile does little or no good. The fact is that it does harm to the man who does it and to the man who submits to it. It is the other cheek, the cloak also and the second mile that do the trick. It is this plus that turns the scale. The one cheek, the coat and the one mile--this is passive resistance; but turning the other cheek, giving the cloak also and going the second mile--this is active resistance on the plane of unquenchable good will. Passive resistance may reveal nothing but weakness; this active resistance of love reveals nothing but strength.

AP and NYT break major story on biblical authorship

Mollie Hemingway, via Eric Metaxas, offers yet another example of the media's ignorance of all things religious.

Well this is exciting news. The Epistle to the Hebrews, long a highly regarded part of the Christian canon, has also long been shrouded in mystery.

Hebrews is basically a sermon with a brief letter attached. It describes temple sacrifices and persecution, possibly at the hands of Nero. The sermon writer’s name was not included and neither was it given by early Christian historians. Over the years, many different authors have been proposed, from Paul to Luke to Barnabas to Apollos. But none of those have been fully convincing. Some feminist scholars even wondered whether the author was Priscilla, a learned woman described in other books. But since the author clearly refers to himself as a man in parts, the authorship had remained a mystery.

Until now, that is.

The news broke in both today’s New York Times and in a widely circulating Associated Press piece. The news is buried in their articles about George Whitman, the Paris bookseller and cultural beacon.

Here’s the Times:

He welcomed visitors with large-print messages on the walls. “Be not inhospitable to strangers, lest they be angels in disguise,” was one, quoting Yeats. Next to a wishing well at the center of the store, a sign said: “Give what you can, take what you need. George.” By his own estimate, he lodged some 40,000 people.

Here’s the Associated Press as published by NPR.com:

Shakespeare and Company was also a haven for every author or would-be writer passing through the City of Light.

For them, Whitman reserved a welcome that turned Yeats’ famous verse — “Be not inhospitable to strangers / Lest they be angels in disguise” — into deed: He took in aspiring writers as boarders in exchange for a helping hand in the store.

There you have it. William Butler Yeats wrote Hebrews! I’ll admit it. I’m a bit surprised by this news.

Hebrews 13:2 (KJV):

2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

And I had high regard for Yeats before this news!

The piece includes a rather unflattering photo of the newly discovered biblical author:

Not to re-open the authorship controversy, but the gentleman bears a remarkable resemblance to a fellow associated with popcorn.

Once again, media wolves over-hype an underwhelming Vatican document

Whenever Pope Benedict speaks, the ravening wolves of the secular media rush to misquote him and/or deliberately misinterpret his words. Whenever he does not speak but some nebulous band of Vatican bureaucrats put out a document filled with vague nuances, those same wolves leap to attribute it to the pontiff with the full authority of ex cathedra.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that a relatively benign and unremarkable document on global economics originating from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has been morphed into the apocalyptic headline, "Vatican calls for Central World Bank." The truth, however, is much more boring than the fiction created by the media hype. Elizabeth Scalia reminds us of the subtle differences between pope and pronouncement.

A fundamental lesson in church-related stories: Pope is not “the Vatican” and “the Vatican” is not the pope; the Curia is not the Bishop of Rome and while they are usually in sync, their pronouncements are separate and distinct; it may seem like a small point, but — for the sake of accuracy and understanding — provenance should always be clear; when one sounds a tone-deaf notes the other should not bear the burden, and when one plays a thing sweetly, the other should not get the credit. Today’s paper on financial reform was released not by Benedict but by The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. This is an outreach and communications entity — just like the Pontifical Council for Social Communications or the Pontifical Council for Culture.

The document itself, entitled, "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority," is typically underwhelming and open to thoughtful critique. Samuel Gregg finds it wanting in several areas.

Despite the Catholic Left’s excited hyperventilating that the document released today by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP) would put the Church “to the left of Nancy Pelosi” on economic issues, more careful reading of “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority” soon indicates that it reflects rather conventional contemporary economic thinking. Unfortunately, given the uselessness of much present-day economics, that’s not likely to make it especially helpful in thinking through some of our present financial challenges.

Doctrinally speaking, there’s nothing new to be found in this text. As PCJP officials will themselves tell you, it’s not within this curial body’s competence to make doctrinal statements that bind Catholic consciences. Moreover, the notion that an increasingly integrated world economy requires some type of authority able to make decisions about what the Church calls “the universal common good” has long been a staple of Catholic social teaching. Such references to a global world authority have always been accompanied by an emphasis on the idea of subsidiarity, and the present document is no exception to that rule. This principle maintains that any higher level of government should assist lower forms of political authority and civil-society associations “only when” (as this PCJP text states) “individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.”

But putting aside doctrinal questions, this text also makes claims of a more strictly economic nature. Given that these generally fall squarely into the area of prudential judgment for Catholics, it’s quite legitimate for Catholics to discuss and debate some of this document’s claims. So here are just a few questions worth asking.

First, the text makes a legitimate point about the effects of a disjunction between the financial sector and the rest of the economy. It fails, however, to note that one major reason for this disjunction has been the dissolution of any tie between money and an external object of value that regulates the quantity of money and credit in circulation in the “real” economy.

Between the late 1870s and 1914, such a linkage existed in the form of the classic gold standard. This gave the world remarkable monetary stability and low inflation without any centralized authority. You needn’t be a Ron Paul disciple to recognize that fiat money’s rise is at least partly responsible for the monetary crises this document correctly laments.

Second, this document displays no recognition of the role played by moral hazard in generating the 2008 crisis or the need to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. Moral hazard describes those situations when people are effectively insulated from the possible negative consequences of their choices. This makes them more likely to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise take — especially with other people’s money. The higher the extent of the guarantee, the greater is the risk of moral hazard. It creates, as the financial journalist Martin Wolf writes, “an overwhelming incentive to privatize gains and socialize losses.”

If PCJP were cognizant of this fact, it might have hesitated before recommending we consider “forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds, making the support conditional on ‘virtuous’ behaviours aimed at developing the ‘real economy.’” Such a recapitalization would simply reinforce the message that Wall Street can always turn to taxpayers to bail them out when their latest impossible-to-understand financial scheme goes south. In terms of orthodox Catholic theology, it’s worth reminding ourselves that the one who creates an occasion of sin bears some indirect responsibility for the choices of the person tempted by this situation to do something very imprudent or simply wrong.

Third, given this text’s subject matter, it reflects one very strange omission. Nowhere does it contain a detailed discussion of the high levels of public debt and deficits in many developed economies, the clear-and-present danger they represent to the global financial system, and their negative impact upon the prospects for economic growth (i.e., what gets people out of poverty).

Given these facts, how could governments provide the aforementioned public funds when they are already so heavily in debt and already tottering under the weight of existing fiscal obligations? By raising taxes? Even Bill Clinton thinks that’s not a great idea in an economic slowdown. Indeed, the basic demands of commutative justice indicate that governments need to meet their current obligations to existing creditors before they can even consider contributing to further bailouts.

Fourth, the document calls for the creation of some type of world central bank. Yet its authors seem unaware that much of the blame for our present economic mess is squarely attributable to central banks. Here one need only note that the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies from 2000 onwards played an indispensible role in creating America’s housing-market bubble, the development of questionable securities products, and the subsequent 2008 meltdown.

Calls for a global central bank aren’t new. Keynes argued for such an organization 75 years ago. But why, given national central banks’ evident failures, should anyone suppose that a global central bank wouldn’t fall prey to the same errors? The folly of a centralized supranational body like the European Central Bank setting a one-size-fits-all interest-rate for economies as different as Greece and Germany should now be evident to everyone who doesn’t live in the fantasy world inhabited by EU bureaucrats. Indeed, it is simply impossible for any one individual or organization to know what is the optimal interest-rate for every country in the EU, let alone the world.

Plenty of other critiques could — and no doubt will — be made of some of the economic claims advanced in this PCJP document. As if in anticipation of this criticism, the document states, “We should not be afraid to propose new ideas.” That is most certainly true. Unfortunately, many of its authors’ ideas reflect an uncritical assimilation of the views of many of the very same individuals and institutions that helped generate the world’s most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. For a church with a long tradition of thinking seriously about finance centuries before anyone had ever heard of John Maynard Keynes or Friedrich Hayek, we can surely do better.

The media have no such "long tradition of thinking seriously about finance" or any other subject, but they, too, can surely do better.

Then again, maybe they can't.

C. Peter Wagner: Pat Robertson on steroids

H/T to my friend Ben Sharpe for linking to this interview with C. Peter Wagner. This fellow is everything the liberal media want you to think all Christians are: fanatical, weird, and bent on establishing some kind of theocratic society.

A new charismatic Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and Jesus' return is becoming more of a presence in American politics. The leaders are considered apostles and prophets, gifted by God for this role. Several apostles affiliated with the movement helped organize or spoke at Rick Perry's August prayer rally, The Response.

The international "apostolic and prophetic" movement has been dubbed the New Apostolic Reformation by C. Peter Wagner, who has become one of its leaders. He describes himself as the first person who noticed the movement, gave a name to it and started writing books about it. He was, until recently retiring, the president of Global Harvest Ministries. For 30 years, he was a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Missions.

Secular media, please note, there is nothing "new" about the "movement" Wagner supposedly leads. Such groups have been around since the days of Simon the Magician (Acts 8:9-24). They have no more influence now than they did then, no matter how many politicians seek their blessing. Wagner's goofy theology, however, provides the media with plenty of ammunition to perpetuate false Christian stereotypes. Personally, Wagner lost me when he identified "himself as the first person who noticed the movement, gave a name to it and started writing books about it." Apparently, he didn't get the memo about humility being an essential characteristic of Christian leadership.

The interview itself is more than a little amusing. Wagner is Pat Robertson on steroids.

On the tsunami and nuclear meltdown in Japan being connected to the emperor of Japan having sex with the sun goddess

"That happened many, many years ago, and that created a spiritual atmosphere over Japan which was an atmosphere ruled by the powers of darkness. The sun goddess is not a very nice lady. The sun goddess is a power of darkness, which is headed up by the kingdom of Satan. And so the sun goddess wants natural disasters to come to Japan. Sometimes the hand of God, which is more powerful, will prevent them. And when he decides to prevent them and when he doesn't is far beyond anything that we can predict."

"But in this case, God could have prevented that tsunami and the destruction, but he didn't. He just took his hand off and allowed these natural forces to work. And one of the background pieces of information is Japan is under control of the sun goddess."

Uh, yeah. That sun goddess is really a nasty old wench. I guess Japan's woes are similar to those of Haiti.

Back in the 1980's and 1990's, Wagner was at the forefront of the "church growth" movement which didn't really accomplish much. Is he now, or has he ever been, representative of a significant movement within Christianity? I don't think so.

Redemptive history under the media radar

Asbury Seminary President Timothy Tennant reports on an earthshaking event which no one in the media seems to have noticed.

I have always been intrigued by the disconnect between the redemptive and the ordinary perspective on time and events. If you open the paper today you will find endless discussions about Weinergate (Anthony Weiner, that is), the 62 trillion dollar US deficit, the NFL lockout, musings about whether Sarah Palin will throw her hat in the ring, the excitement around Apple’s iCloud, and the list goes on. However, most of this will be quickly forgotten and very little of it, if any, resonates with the great unfolding story of God’s redemption of the world – the missio dei.

Today, for example, an amazing event is taking place in the middle of Tanzania among the Wasi people. The gospel is being preached in the Chasi language for the first time. My daughter is a part of a team of ten people who are serving in the middle of rural Tanzania. They have spent most of the last year doing language learning and, after many months, finally had their first Christian worship service. However, the sermons were always in English or Swahili because no one had the facility in the language to preach a full sermon in the Chasi language. That important line has now been crossed. I am particularly proud because our daughter Bethany was chosen to bring that first sermon in the Chasi language. So, today, in the middle of rural Tanzania, in a village with no running water or electricity and, certainly no CNN reporters, something happened which won’t make the news. It seems so “unimportant” in light of the latest Lindsay Lohan scandal or the public humiliation of Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, from the perspective of redemptive history, something really amazing happened today. It will be remembered even into eternity. Today, on June 12, 2011 the gospel was publically announced among the Wasi for the first time.

How much of our lives, deeds, reading and reflection are really oriented towards the great redemptive events which are unfolding in the world? I am praying that I might be more discerning and, by God’s grace, begin to notice the great redemptive events which are unfolding all around us – and they won’t be picked up on by CNN.

It is also worth noting that June 12, 2011 was, on the church caledar, the Day of Pentecost. “We hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11).

Reuters and divine inspiration

GetReligion's Mollie Ziegler Hemingway ponders the media's use of titles and honorifics for religious leaders, noting a concern recently expressed by a reader regarding Reuters' use of the term "the Prophet Mohammad."

I’ve just noticed recently that Reuters is following in the footsteps of AP and AFP in designating the Islamic prophet Mohammad as “The Prophet Mohammad”. I as a Christian don’t consider him my prophet, and neither do, I’m sure, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Why then have all the mainstream news outlets decided to treat us all as if we are Muslims? Rightly, he should be described as “the Islamic prophet Muhammad” rather than “The Prophet Muhammad”.

The response by Religion Editor Tom Heneghan is pretty much what any careful reader of religious news copy would expect.

In the religious sphere, we use official titles and honorifics that are common in the faith concerned and widely understood across religious boundaries. We refer to Jesus Christ, even though non-Christians would dispute his honorific “the Annointed One.” The same goes for Buddha, a title (“the Enlightened One”) for Siddhartha Gautama that non-Buddhists could also contest.

The explanation sounds reasonable on the surface. But drawing an equivalency between the titles and honorifics used by various religions for their particular leaders is a somewhat perilous task. Absolute consistency would oblige Mr. Heneghan and his reporters to refer to the leader of the Christian faith as "the Lord Jesus Christ." But, of course, such a lofty title can only be conferred upon Jesus by persons writing or speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"Compassion and Choices?" You might try "Callousness and Cruelty"

Yesterday, I pointed out an article about the despicable efforts of the assisted suicide advocacy group now known as "Compassion and Choices," but formerly known as the "Hemlock Society," to force its agenda on palliative care providers. If you need any further evidence to convince you of the callousness and cruelty of this misnamed organization (and the bias of a media saturated in the culture of death), this post by Wesley J. Smith at Secondhand Smoke ought to be sufficient.

The pro assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices, along with a compliant media, continues to romanticize self destruction as an answer to the problem of human suffering. Latest example: In Montana, a man murdered his wife, who had cerebral palsy, set his house on fire, and then, shot himself. How is the tragedy treated? As an advertisement for assisted suicide. From the story, byline Michael Jamison:

It was an act of love, Darryl Anderson said, an act of compassion and caring and bullets and arson and it didn’t have to be that way. “Basically,” Anderson said, “it was a mercy killing, to end the pain. They were good people, but there was terrible pain.” William “Ted” Hardgrove used to visit Anderson – Lincoln County’s sheriff – at work, showing off his inventions or detailing his own detective work on the latest unsolved case. He’d stay and chat and sometimes harangue, Anderson said, “and I thought he was just a super old guy.”

Hardgrove was 81, just like his wife Swanie. She was known for her baking, and her gardening and her lace-making, and for the fact that she had cerebral palsy as well as other crippling medical problems. In recent weeks, the increasing pain had completely overwhelmed her medication. On the last Saturday in August, Ted Hardgrove stopped the pain. He moved their valuables out of the Libby-area house and into the garage, then left a note explaining this final, desperate act of love. He took the household chemicals from the home, took the hunting ammunition and anything else that might explode or burn too hot. Anderson figures Hardgrove was protecting the firemen he knew would come. Then Hardgrove went back inside, shot his wife, set their home afire and shot himself. “It was a very carefully planned thing,” Anderson said. “He left that note, said he was tired of seeing her suffer so badly, and there was a better place.”

“An act of love”, “He stopped the pain:” In any other context, this would be looked at as a possible abuse scenario.

That point aside, rather than report on how this tragedy could have been avoided without death, the reporter goes to the Compassion and Choices representative–who despicably seizes upon the story to push the assisted suicide agenda:

But there was also, perhaps, a better way. “What we want people to know,” said Steve Hopcraft, “is there is help and information out there.” Hopcraft works with a nonprofit called Compassion and Choices, a group that offers free end-of-life planning, counseling and options. “We believe that these tragic and violent deaths are 100 percent preventable,” Hopcraft said. “It’s a matter, really, of getting the information out.” Information such as the fact that Montana is among three states – Oregon and Washington are the other two – where doctors are allowed to provide what’s known as “aid in dying.” They can prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients, who can then choose whether and when to use the pills.

Talk about a clueless reporter. First, notice he buys the euphemistic “aid in dying.” Second, there is no indication that Mrs. Hardgrove was terminally ill, she was elderly and disabled, nor indeed, that she even wanted to be killed. Third, when pain control fails, the answer isn’t murder, it isn’t a lethal prescription, it is to have a doctor improve the pain control. Fourth, what could Mr. Hardgrove have done to get further help–without resorting to ending his wife’s life? Was he overwhelmed with caregiving? What services could he have sought? Good grief, at least print the local suicide prevention phone number!

But not to worry, the reporter quotes a physician:

“No one, no matter what their condition, should feel they have to resort to violence when confronting advanced illness,” said Stephen Speckart, retired Missoula oncologist. “Patients need to feel safe talking with their doctors about unbearable symptoms and their feelings of desperation and desire for a peaceful death.”

Guess what? Dr. Stephen Speckart was a plaintiff in the case that brought legalized assisted suicide to Montana–and the reporter doesn’t so identify him! That is really journalistic malpractice.

This is really disgraceful: We have a story of a murder suicide, turned into a commercial for assisted suicide, in which most of the sources are assisted suicide activists, written by a reporter who treats Mrs. H’s death as a necessity, and doesn’t explore how people in such difficult circumstances can be helped. Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?

The Friday Funnies: Reading, writing, and barbecue

Bible Belt Blogger Frank Lockwood takes exception to Atlantic writer Nicole Allan's condescending statement about Mike Huckabee's "intellectual competence."

People are sometimes caught off guard by Huckabee’s intellectual competence because of his rural Arkansas habits (he and his wife lived in a trailer while the governor’s mansion was being renovated) and his outspoken evangelical views.

Allan's alma mater, the institution Lockwood poignantly refers to as "rural Yale," must be proud.

GetReligion has additional analysis by Sarah Pulliam Bailey and Mollie Hemingway.

The Friday Funnies: Chicago is Out?

The poor Obamabot anchor is literally dumbfounded.

The final outcome should have been a foregone conclusion. After all, Rio had a little help from the real Messiah.

Think of what a powerful image this will be on the opening fanfare every night on television!

Quote of the Week: Robert Munday Sums Up the Michael Jackson Media Overkill

This pretty much says it all.

I got on a plane on Thursday just as the news of Farah Fawcett's death was blaring over the airport television screens and got off that same plane greeted by the news that Michael Jackson had died. "How sad!" I thought. "A brave and compassionate woman's heroic fight against cancer (from which we all could learn something) has ended. But that news is going to be quickly eclipsed by the death of a self-destructive freak and child molester."

Anchoress: Jackson Was and Idol, Not an Icon

If you can pull yourself away from your television and the endless Michael Jackson coverage long enough, please read this pearl of wisdom from The Anchoress.

If we remember our Moses and our Golden Calf, we know that human beings have always created idols. Once upon a time, though, we at least understood that these godlings were wholly created from our own need to adore something and endow it with qualities of transcendence, and we were smart enough to be a little embarrassed about fainting for Sinatra, or screaming for John, Paul, George and Ringo. We understood that such cultural moments were mostly silliness, and considered that idol-making was a rare and harmless pastime.

It’s not so rare, anymore, or harmless. As our post-modern society becomes increasingly post-faith, we watch our instincts to raise up idols more frequently indulged. Is there a nation that does not have one (or more) “Idol-creating” type television show at the top of the ratings pile? We narcissists live vicarious dreams as we construct these godlings, carry them about on chairs of never-ending affirmation (when was the last time you expect Michael Jackson (or President Obama) heard the word “no”?) then we watch them crumble under the weight of material excess and broken illusions.

And we resurrect them when they die, and place them in our tin-ceilinged firmaments. And we forget that they were ever idols. We call them Icons.

Let me supply a quick primer – for the press and the general public – about the difference between an idol and an Icon.

An Icon looks out from an Intrinsic light and points to its Source; there are no shadows in which to hide.

An idol looks out from man-created light, and points to no one but himself; then walks into the shadows.

An Icon looks you straight in the eyes and dares you to pursue truth.

An idol wears shades and has his spokesperson tell you what you want to hear.

An Icon teaches you how to focus, how to quiet down, focus, collect oneself and hear the small, still voice.

An idol throws noise, images and issues at you, non-stop, scatters your thinking and deafens you to any voice but his.

An Icon whispers wisdom.

An idol shouts sound-bites and mindless trendspeak.

An Icon inspires you to chant to the Most High.

An idol inspires you to chant to him.

David Goldman on Michael Jackson, the "Anti-Priest"

With three "icons" of the entertainment industry--Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson--all dying in the same week, I find it interesting that only the demise of the latter is deemed worthy of wall to wall, 24/7 coverage on all the cable channels (and even a few network stations). But, then again, there were no spontaneous outpourings of public mourning in the streets for McMahon and Fawcett, thus nothing for the news cameras to plaster across our screens. Still, the disproportionate amount of coverage for Jackson is an illustration of the depravity of our culture. David Goldman boldly swims against the tide to make this point without mincing any words.

Full disclosure: I never watched a Michael Jackson video all the way through until today, after reading in The New York Times that “in the Philippines, a dance tribute was planned for a prison in Cebu, where Byron Garcia, a security consultant, had 1,500 inmates join in a synchronized dance to the ‘Thriller” video.” Jackson always seemed to me unspeakably silly when he wasn’t genuinely creepy, but the mass outpouring of grief at his death made me curiously enough to view the cited item on YouTube.

All music in some way is sacramental and all public performance has some religious character, but Jackson cultivated his image as a lay practitioner of pop spirituality more than any performer in his market segment, through the soppy universalism of “We are the World” as well as through his identification with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and, according to recent rumor, with Islam. The feel-good guru Deepak Chopra claims that Jackson was writing a song about the environment and wanted Chopra’s help with lyrics.

Just what sort of priest was Jackson, and what was his congregation? In the Judeo-Christian world, music enhances individuality within the congregation. That is clearest in the singing of four-part hymns, something that Protestant congregations learned as a matter of routine (the standard teachers’ manual used in Saxony in Bach’s childhood had sections on reading, arithmetic, and four-part singing). The harmonious combination of different voices recreates the unity-in-individuality of a Judeo-Christian congregation.

There is very little harmony in Jackson’s songs; they depend on a few simple, phrases and a great deal of rhythmic repetition. Rather than find himself in the congregation, the individual loses himself in the crowd. The audience of a rock concert is an anti-congregation, in that the intent of the exercise is to destroy individuality, and its lead singer is an anti-priest. If the music that accompanied the Christian liturgy from the dawn of Western counterpoint emulates creation—out of the fundamental tone comes a multiplicity of tones that act harmoniously in time—the repetitive, static and sterile drone of Jackson’s music is a species of anti-creation.

If creation is life, anti-creation is anti-life. It does not surprise me that the personal lives of our anti-priests consist of flight from life, into drugs (which seem to have killed Jackson), or psychosis (e.g., pedophilia and dysmorphia). The anti-priest of an anti-congregation has encountered anti-life.

Goldberg: Perspective on the Media Sanctification of Michael Jackson

Jonah Goldberg writes what I've been thinking all day long.

Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the rule that we should not speak ill of the dead. Or at least we should wait a decent interval before doing so (if we never spoke ill of the dead, history would be meaningless). But, I must say I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.

Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.

But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).

Sure, I liked the Jackson Five. I liked “Thriller,” too, when I was a teenager. Michael Jackson was an “icon” for me too.

But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’”

Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.

I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.

Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous.

Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.

I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.

I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).

And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.

And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.

Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.

If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.

Every year at the Oscars they show a montage of people who died over the previous year. Invariably, the audience only applauds for the really famous people. This has always offended me. Not necessarily because the famous people don’t deserve praise but because it’s so clear that the audience is clapping for the fame. Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good. So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good.

I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.

Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons.

The Decline and Fall of Newsweek in America

You won't read about this dramatic decline in the pages of Newsweek.

Newsweek said Monday that it will lower its rate base by a million copies early next year. The magazine plans to move its guaranteed circulation from 2.6 million to 1.9 million in July, and to 1.5 million in January 2010.

“Mass for us is a business that doesn’t work,” Tom Ascheim, Newsweek’s chief executive, told the New York Times. “Wish it did, but it doesn’t. We did it for a long time, successfully, but we can’t anymore.”

“A million [rate base] was the extreme,” a source told FOLIO: of Newsweek's thinking last year. But, as the year wore on, and the economic crisis worsened, “[they] didn’t see a recovery.”

The magazine is also transitioning away from covering the week’s news events to more of a “thought leader” publication akin to the Economist and the Atlantic.

“There’s a phrase in the culture, ‘we need to take note of,’ ‘we need to weigh in on,’” editor Jon Meacham told the Times. “That’s going away. If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”

Newsweek said as part of its redesign, it will move to a heavier paper stock and “put more emphasis on photography.”

During the second half of 2008, Newsweek’s total paid and verified circulation fell 13.1 percent as paid subscriptions stumbled some 18 percent, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations’ latest Fas-Fax. Newsweek’s ad pages, meanwhile, plummeted 19 percent last year.

Jesus might say, "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Messianic Madness from the Moron Media

Proving once again that members of the media are morons when it comes to all things religious, Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic takes John McCain to task for inadvertently offending an "evangelical group" which does not even exist.

SPRINGFIELD, MO — The RNC has modified a page from their “Barack Book” mock social networking site because the church they associated Obama with — the Messiah Lutheran Church — turned out to be a real denomination affiliated with the Missouri Synod.

The site, styled after Facebook, included a link to a real Facebook page, and next to an entry for “employer,” the RNC wrote in “Messiah Lutheran Church.”

No subtlety there.

But there really are Messianic Lutherans. Most of them live in Missouri. The church has branches in California and Nebraska.

Since disaffiliating from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, McCain Obama has not formally affiliated with any other denomination.

This is a small point and a small mistake, but it’s something that will make some McCain allies cringe. Here in Missouri, the political climate is poor for Republicans and McCain can’t afford to alienate any evangelical group. His campaign can’t afford the perception that they use evangelicals to mock Obama.

Messianic Lutherans? Mollie Ziegler Hemingway at Get Religion explains why this is such a major media faux pas.

Being a member of a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation, I was surprised to find out we were in fellowship with a group I’d never heard of — Messianic Lutherans. So I went to that link that Ambinder provides for Messianic Lutherans and realized he’d done a Google link to congregations named Messiah Lutheran Church. One of my good friends is a pastor of a Messiah Lutheran Church in Wisconsin.

Naming your church Messiah Lutheran, or Immanuel Lutheran, or St. John’s Lutheran, or Martini Lutheran doesn’t make you part of a denomination called Messianic Lutherans, Immanuelite Lutherans, Juanite Lutherans or Martini Lutherans! It just means you’ve named your congregation. All of these congregations are Missouri Synod Lutheran congregations. Just like every other Christian church in the world, they have their own name.

Oy vey!

So just to recap, there is no “real denomination” of Messianic Lutherans associated with the Missouri Synod. It doesn’t have branches in California and Nebraska. Most of them aren’t in Missouri. And we tend to self-identify as confessional Lutherans rather than as evangelical Christians.

Meanwhile, the faux messiah himself is coming dangerously close to crossing that thin line between arrogant elitism and megalomania. Jake Tapper reports:

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," Obama said, a witness told the Post.

Republicans and others are jumping on the quote as evidence of Obama's more egoistic impulses, but other Democrats in the room today suggest that the quote is out of context and twists Obama's meaning to mean the complete opposite of what he was saying.

"His entire point of that riff was that the campaign is NOT about him," says a House Democratic staffer. The Post "left out the important first half of the sentence which was something along the lines of 'it has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. Its about America. I have just become a symbol.'"

Like all faux messiahs before him, Barack Obama would have his followers bow at his feet, but he would never dream of washing theirs.