March 2009

OK, I’ll admit it. I have not read any of the books in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga, nor have I seen the popular film. As a general rule, I do not comment on works I have not read or seen.

Yet I am aware of countless teens (and even grown, Christian women) who are swooning over the works, therefore I felt compelled to research whether its runaway popularity is a positive development.

A paraphrase summary I found of the film goes something like this: Seventeen-year-old Bella falls for Edward, who is charming, mysterious, powerful, and dangerous but wise beyond his years and, ultimately, a gentleman. The paragon of self-control Edward will not allow them to have premarital sex. The catch is Edward is a vampire.

The abstinence seems to be why many Christian reviewers have heaped praise on the books and movie. I have found two reviews, however, from sources I trust, The Christian Research Journal and WORLD magazine, who think differently.

In CRJ’s review [not available online] entitled, “The Twilight Saga: A Classic Romance Too Mature for Teens,” Stephen Ross takes a fair and balanced look at the series. His review crescendos with this stinging statement: “The Twilight love saga, then, may be the ultimate female coming-of-age fantasy that our biblically illiterate culture can offer, and, as such, this captivating story evokes dangerlously false expectations in young women that no man could ever satisfy. In fact, given that female sexuality is quite naturally rational, far more so than young male sexuality, the comparison that comes to mind is that Twilight is to female sexuality what pornography is to male sexuality.”

WORLD’s review, written from a woman’s perspective, is no kinder. Read the rest of this entry »

“Be not deceived, Wormwood, our cause is never more in jeopardy than when a human, no longer desiring but still intending to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe in which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

-”Screwtape,” a senior demon speaking to his understudy, ”Wormwood,” in C.S. Lewis‘ masterpiece, The Screwtape Letters. (The aforementioned “Enemy” in “Screwtape’s” eyes is, of course, God Himself.)

“In answer to the historical query of why [Christian faith] was accepted and is accepted, I answer for millions of others in my reply; because it fits the lock, because it is like life. It is one among many stories; only it happens to be a true story… We accept it; and the ground is solid under our feet and the road is open before us…. It opens to us not only incredible heavens but what seems to some an equally incredible earth, and makes it credible.

“This is the sort of truth that is hard to explain because it is a fact; but it is a fact to which we can call witnesses. We are Christians… not because we worship a key, but becasue we have passed a door; and felt the wind that is the trumpet of liberty blow over the land of the living.”

-G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

I have much admiration for conservative columnist Cal Thomas. He recently posted an article titled “Apologies Just Tell Our Enemies We’re Weak.”

He makes some excellent points in regards to Secretary Hillary Clinton apologizing to Mexico for the demand of drugs in America. This apology is not constructive. Some could say she was grandstanding and just continuing the “company line” of blaming the former administration for everything that is wrong.

And Cal is right when he says “what good does it do? Unless she has a suggested policy to accompany her confession or apology, I fail to see how it lowers the level of violence in Mexico or reduces the demand for illegal drugs in the U.S.”

However, I will not agree with him when he says apologizing shows weakness. When someone is wrong, admit it. When there isn’t admittance, there is pride.

The Bible says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” This will cause more weakness than confession ever will.

In a recent speech on the floor of the US Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC) made a great, principle speech on why the GIVE Act (HR 1388). While there are many great, political reasons to oppose this boondoggle, one of the provisions of the bill that bothers me the most is this:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
[SNIP!]
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

The way I understand that is this: If, say, your son gets a federally subsidized student loan, he will be compelled to enter a period of public service. However (above and beyond Senator DeMint’s excellent case against government-mandated volunteerism), your son will not be able to choose as his service anything that might spring from his personal faith. Want to help out at your local denomination-sponsored boys’ home? Too bad. If the name of Jesus (or Jehovah, Allah, etc, to be fair) happens to be mentioned by the group you’d like to serve, they are enjoined from receiving any GIVE help. The message, then, is that you can help, but only if you’re humanistic or atheistic in whom you want to help. To force someone to “volunteer” is bad enough¹, but then to deny them their rights of free speech and exercise of religion is beyond the pale.

The government intrusion into private life and the erosion of personal rights continues apace, and the band plays on.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

¹ The “volunteering” here is, indeed, forced. I can think of no other instance where one gets a loan and is forced to perform some sort of service. I certainly don’t pull weeds for my mortgage company.

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

-George Orwell, written in 1939

William P. Young, author of the runaway best-selling fiction book, The Shack, is coming to Oklahoma next month. Read more about it here, and pay special notice to the backlash.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.”

-Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Me: Though Dickens referred to the French Revolution, could this describe today’s cultural statement?

Happy St. Patrick’s Day to one and all. Growing up, I always enjoyed this holiday, though until recently this Evangelical did not fully appreciate the saint behind it.

Of the many feats (some likely legendary but many true) of Patrick’s, I like that he explained the Holy Trinity by use of the three-leaf clover. My five year old daughter learned a powerful lesson from that, and I suspect the author of The Shack could use a similar lesson.

Read more about St. Patrick’s love for Christ and the people of Ireland here.

This comes from National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru:

The other day when I turned on the tv, the channel was set, as it often is, to Noggin, the toddler network. There was a cartoon image of our president with an announcer saying something like, “Noggin congratulates President Obama. And now here are some things that he likes.” I flipped the channel before finding out whether abortion and taxes made the list.

Priests for Life have a short, yet pretty compelling video up on their site. Before watching it, though, you should be warned that some may considered it a bit gruesome.

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s ban on federal funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. Adam Keiper, in a post on The Corner, made some really interesting points regarding the policy shift. One of the most interesting parts of the analysis was this question that Keiper asks of the President:

What counts as a purely “scientific decision”? What issues can we possibly decide on scientific grounds alone — that is, without also inquiring after the kinds of important ethical, political, and economic concerns that President Obama denigrates as mere “ideology”? On what future issues will the president claim that science dictates a policy and trumps all other concerns?

If we’re not going to let ideology play a role in determining what happens in the name of science, why not allow unrestrained animal — or even human — testing? Is vivisection on the table then (no pun intended)? History has clearly shown that restraints must be put in place, or some very cruel, and, yes, evil people will push that laissez faire attitude as far as they can. If Obama envisions a scientific world untethered by any sort of ideology, whence comes morality in some respects, then he’s opening a Pandora’s Box that we will rue for decades.

Stem cells can cure a lot of things, just not the stem cells the President is pushing. Given the success of adult stem cells and the resounding lack of success of embryonic stem cells, the President’s decision is anything but non-ideological. It’s misguided, deluded, and infanticidal.

Peter Jones recently attended the National Pastors’ Conference, sponsored by Zondervan and Intervarsity Press. In a brief report filed at truthXchange, he describes what Michael Horton (whom he mentions in post) so aptly dubs “Christless Christianity¹.” The report is not a good one.

(Hat tip to Brandon Dutcher)

¹ Dr. Horton uses the term “Christless Christianity” to describe that “flavor” of Christianity that likes to talk about being nice to people, etc., but avoids discussion of Christ, who he was, why he came, why we need him, etc. It’s a nice, catchy phrase that embodies the rebirth of the Social Gospel, in which salvation through Christ has been all but completely removed (and in some cases, no longer “all but”) from any teachings and we focus on making people like us. Dr. Horton probably has a better description of his term, but that’s my take on it from what I’ve heard him say. Dr. Horton podcasts regularly at the White Horse Inn if you’d like to hear more.

“At the White House a few moments ago, President Obama nominated Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be his secretary of Health and Human Services.”

This is his worst, most-devastating pick yet–and that is saying something.

There were many mornings in the 1980s when my mother would drive my brother and me to school. There were times when some sort of typical family bickering would break out, if for no other reason but that it was early in the morning, and all three of us preferred to be back in bed.

This also was the time when Lake Hefner Parkway was being developed. Traveling at least 20 miles to our private Christian school was an adventure at times, dealing with a constant changing route due to construction.

But no matter how much bickering or aggravation we experienced on those early mornings, when it became 7:30, the radio was turned on to KTOK, and the familiar voice would appear that seemed to calm us for the remainder of the trip. Read the rest of this entry »