Author: Dave Burchett

I did a rare thing for me. With the charming Mrs. Burchett at my side we braved opening day crowds to see the “Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”. I am a fan of the writing of C.S.Lewis and the Narnia series. My fear was that the producers would stray from the story and the message. They did not. The movie is beautifully shot, the human characters well cast, and the magical figures of Narnia imaginatively portrayed. I loved the movie. I recommend it highly to anyone and especially to fans of the Narnia tales.

On Sunday I browsed online to see how the movie was faring at the box office. The opening projections were very strong and at the site I noticed a link for an online review. I am always curious to compare my reactions to the critics. I have generally found that they genuinely deserve the title of “critic”. Frankly I would not want to party with some of these people. But I clicked on a review by a writer named Scott Holleran. The title for his review was “Literary Fantasy Adaptation is Christian Tract”. I suspected the review would not be glowing. Here are some of Holleran’s descriptions of the plot. My comments are italicized.

“fanciful Christian propaganda…” (it is simply the book on screen…if a film portrayal of a book is propaganda then I guess they are guilty)

“Up until not, Lucy is a nice kid, but, like the movie, she grows less benign as she personifies the self-abnegation theme.” (uhhh…self-abnegation was not something I regularly discuss…primarily because I have no idea what it means. I realize the rest of you know that self-abnegation means renunciation of your own interests in favor of the interests of others. Many English speaking people would simply say self-denial)

“The story remains intact, such as it is, with Narnians prattling on about a prophecy and someone named Aslan…” (they were prattling about the most important character in the book…)

“all Aslan seems to do is negotiate with the enemy and sacrifice himself.” (some would call his act heroic and selfless)

“Narnia stands for death, destruction, and renunciation of self in a poorly disguised Christian fairy tale.” (My take…Narnia stands for good ultimately triumphing over evil, the consequences of sin, and the incomparable love that would give up your life for another in a clearly enunciated Christian allegory).

At this point I really wasn’t sure if we saw the same movie. The movie faithfully reflects the book. It is not a Christian “tract” or “fanciful Christian propaganda”. The movie tells the story of four children in the land of Narnia. It is exactly what fans of the book series expect. This production is no different than what the fans of Harry Potter expect when those books are made into films. I decided to see if Mr.Holleran had addressed faith at other times.

In February of 2004 he wrote about Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and he flippantly entitled the piece “Jesus Christ Superscar.”  Without having seen the movie (by his own admission) Holleran deduced that the movie’s theme is that suffering, not joy, is man’s proper fate. Again, I apparently saw an entirely different movie. Gibson’s message (and the Gospel message) is that man’s proper fate was mitigated by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I saw the movie as a movie of hope although, admittedly,  the suffering of Jesus was difficult to watch. Later Holleran describes the movie as being “religion for what it is – – abject misery here on earth.” Actually on this point Holleran and I agree. That is a consequence of religion. But, at the considerable risk of intellectual scorn, I am convinced that is why the message of Jesus is different. Jesus talked about relationship and not religion. Love and not law. Grace and not condemnation. Perhaps Scott Holleran has never witnessed that type of follower of Christ. Maybe his contempt of all people of faith would blind him to the possiblity of such a relationship. I wish he could get to know some Christians I have been privileged to know. Holleran would likely not change his worldview but I think he would realize his bitterness toward all Christians is unfair and even bigoted.

Holleran’s final quote is honest and I respect him for that. “Whether the besieged culture is ready to renounce reason, yield to faith, and submit to suffering does not depend on Mel Gibson’s fundamentally religious movie.But his box office success, especially for those of us who are infidels, may offer an ominous sneak preview.” 

I am saddened by the presumptions that Holleran makes about my faith. I would not call him an infidel for not believing as I do. I don’t feel a need to “convert” him or “argue” with him about my faith. I don’t believe you have to renounce reason to embrace Christianity. I did not enter into my faith relationship with some deep seated need or desire to suffer. And I don’t think that my worldview is ominous to self-described infidels. I wish that I could sit down with people like Scott Holleran and talk. Maybe he would realize I am not such an idiot. And maybe I would understand his disdain for religion. I doubt we could get any further apart and maybe, just maybe, we could find some common ground of intellectual respect. Hey, it is the season of miracles.

I love Christmas. It is my favorite time of the year for sentimental and spiritual reasons. I love the lights and the stories and the music. Especially the music. I love everything from “O Holy Night” to “Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer.”  

I know…I need help.

There has always been something special to me about Christmas music. So it was with a bit of bemused sadness that I read about the rewriting of “Silent Night” to make it acceptable for an elementary school program. A Wisconsin school altered the song to become “Cold in the Night” for it’s winter program. The lyrics were changed to the following:

Cold in the night,

 no one in sight,

winter winds whirl and bite,

how I wish I were happy and warm,

safe with my family out of the storm.

 

When I was a kid there were Santas all over town. Now there are lawyers on every corner. Maybe I could adapt my own song for the current battle over Christmas to be sung to the tune of “Silver Bells.”

 

City lobbies…
Busy bodies…
Dressed in holiday style
In the air there’s a flurry of lawsuits.

 

People griping
Talk shows sniping
Who’s offended today?
And on every street corner you hear

 

Lawyer’s Bells, Lawyer’s Bells,
It’s “Winter” time in the city
Ring-a-ling, skeptics sing
This must be called “Holidays”.

 

No Baby Jesus
You must please us
Cause we might take offense
If the name of the season is spoken.

 

We’re in danger
Lose that manger
You’ve infringed on our rights
And above all this bustle you hear

 

Lawyer’s Bells, Lawyer’s Bells,
It’s “Winter” time in the city
Ring-a-ling, PC is king
You must all say “Holidays”.

 

Okay, I will stay with my day job. Back to our “Silent Night” rewrite, Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel president and general counsel said in a statement. “When a public school intentionally mocks Christian Christmas songs by secularizing their content, they cross the line from a neutral position, which the Constitution requires, to a hostile position, which the Constitution forbids.”

 

I am not sure that I would go so far as Mr. Staver. I don’t believe that the intent was to intentionally “mock” Christian Christmas songs and I doubt the purpose was overtly hostile. I suspect it was simply fear of lawsuits run amuck. It only takes one “offendee” to make life miserable for a school district. My conversations with most educators seems to indicate that fear more than conviction drives these decisions to make the programs formerly known as Christmas into generic winter don’t offend anyone events. 

 

When these stories become public many secularists hope that Christians will get hysterical. That reinforces the stereotype of people of faith. I hope that Christians will be gentle, informed, and intelligent in our defense. What I am looking for in the public arena is a level playing field. What is good for the Christian goose should be applied to the other ganders. Uneven treatment of Christians over other faiths is what raises my blood pressure. But I have determined that none of this is going to steal my Christmas joy. Because I believe that it was a bit more than just a “Cold Night” in Bethlehem. It was a holy night and the original lyrics sum it up quite well.

 

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love’s pure light
Radiant beams from thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus Lord, at thy birth
Jesus Lord, at thy birth

 

Redeeming grace. What a gift I was given on Christmas day! Keeping with our lyrical theme I finish with a little line from Gershwin that I am relating here to the miracle of that birth on Christmas and the battle over that message.

 

The way You change my life
No, no they can’t take that away from me.

 

 

The Catalogue for Philanthropy just released their 2005 Charitable Giving Index. Some of the data is intriquing. Their methodology is outlined at their website. (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/faq.html)

Using published data of individual tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service, we compare the rank of each state’s average adjusted gross income (AAGI) to the rank of each state’s average itemized charitable deductions (AICD). The arithmetical differences between these two rankings are then themselves ranked, resulting in the Generosity Index rank.

The top three states in adjusted gross income were Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. How do they fare in the Generosity Index? Connecticut ranked 45th, New Jersey 48th, and Massachusetts ranked 49th when the study compared per capita giving versus income.

According to this index you might want to set up your charitable outreach somewhere other than New Hampshire. The Granite State’s ranks of 8th wealthiest and 48th in giving combined to land them at number 50 on the list.

Conversely, the most generous states were not the ones with the most income or national prestige. Mississippi ranks dead last in average adjusted gross income in the United States. But the giving rank (a ranking of the average donations) for Mississippians was 6th in the country! That level of generosity put Mississippi at the top of the list. The top ten states in generosity after Mississippi were Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

The top 25 most generous states are part of the political red sea that is the butt of national jokes. After you sort through the red neck jokes and wisecracks about the plains and tasteless humor about the South you will find the most generous people in the nation. I knew that before I read this index. My state of Texas fared quite well by finishing as the 12th most generous state but with the 4th highest giving rank.  

The first of the “Blue” states to show up was New York at number 26 in the Generosity Index. I don’t want to make this another Red/Blue harangue but the take away for me is that stereotypes don’t work. The idea that the blue states are generally more socially conscious and caring because of their ideology simply doesn’t play out in reality. Many of the most giving people are the ones ridiculed and demeaned by the media and cultural elite.

Not much has changed in the past couple of millenia as Jesus observed in the Gospel of Mark.

   He continued teaching. “Watch out for the religion scholars. They love to walk around in academic gowns, preening in the radiance of public flattery, basking in prominent positions, sitting at the head table at every church function. And all the time they are exploiting the weak and helpless. The longer their prayers, the worse they get. But they’ll pay for it in the end.”

    Sitting across from the offering box, he was observing how the crowd tossed money in for the collection. Many of the rich were making large contributions. One poor widow came up and put in two small coins–a measly two cents. Jesus called his disciples over and said, “The truth is that this poor widow gave more to the collection than all the others put together. All the others gave what they’ll never miss; she gave extravagantly what she couldn’t afford–she gave her all.”   Mark 12  The Message

The average church attendee gives a paltry 2.6% of total income according to the Christian research group empty tomb, inc. So before we get too carried away by state pride or red state power we might meditate a bit on the Gospel of Mark. If evangelical Christians alone would simply tithe we could generate another 80 billion per year. Can you imagine what could be done with that kind of money? Many of us are generous at Christmas. But the truth of God’s Word is sobering.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.  Luke 12  NIV

Followers of Jesus need to step it up year round. I have been given much. I can do more. I suspect you can as well.

 

 

Today’s blog is opening the electronic mailbag to answer some questions and respond to comments.

• Question from Scott and many others. “What is a blog?” Blog is short for weblog. A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author or the Web site. Authoring a blog, maintaining a blog or adding an article to an existing blog is called “blogging”. Individual articles on a blog are called “blog posts”, “posts”, or “entries”. The person who posts these entries is called a “blogger”.
  
• During my post about Peter Singer on Thursday, December 1st I offered membership in an organization to be called “The Rumps of the Know-Nothings”. That was a response to the description that Mr. Singer used to categorize religious people who hold onto outdated views of the sanctity of life. The bad news…only courageous reader Steve has joined my new organization. The good news…it will be easy to find a venue large enough for our meetings.
  
• Continuing with Mr.Singer I appreciate the clarification by reader Jonathon about Singer’s views on infanticide. Jonathon points out that Singer does not advocate infanticide in his book Practical Ethics if the parents want the baby. Jonathon did not seem to understand that the baby described in the post was my daughter. It is hard to imagine how conflicted your emotions are unless you have been there. I still believe that Singer’s philosophy would have leaned toward euthanizing my daughter because she took money and resources better used on children with a chance for personhood. I would argue that he has adopted the escape clause as a stepping stone to his overall vision that the sanctity of life is related to potential to contribute to society. I appreciate the clarity but remain terrified of the implications of his thinking.
  
• Reader Bridgette wondered about the reaction to the article in the Dallas Morning News entitled 10 ideas on the way out. The articles was the subject of posts on December 1st and 2nd. She was curious how such such controversial predictions would play in our little old Bible belt red state. The reaction was predictable. Many were outraged by the content but others were more perplexed by the people chosen to address those views. I suppose the purpose was to stir debate and controversy. Perhaps someday a blogger will dig out these predictions and see how they fared. I pray they were dreadfully wrong.
  
• Bridgette also pointed out an interesting website (www.jews4fairness.org) that defends Christians in the culture war. Check it out.
  
• The war over Christmas is giving me tired head.

 

 

There has been a politically correct Christmas greeting that has circulated the internet for the past couple of years.

Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most joyous traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, but with respect for the religious persuasion of others who choose to practice their own religion as well as those who choose not to practice a religion at all.

Perhaps that should be adopted as official “safe“ greeting for retailers this Christmas season. Target has been widely vilified for allegedly forbidding their employees from saying Merry Christmas. It turns out that was not exactly true. The story is now widely circulated and it has become another example of how too many Christians leap before we look in response to cultural issues. Please, please, please verify every email and petition for validity before you hit send.

What Target has done is cleansed their website of every Christmas reference. They even list shipping deadlines to get gifts to their destination by the 25th. Target can’t even bring themselves to identify that day as Christmas. I find it all an odd mix of amusing and confusing and maddening.

I suppose you can make an argument for the separation of church and state although in practice the goal seems to be the amputation of church and state. But for retailers to wrap Christmas in a brown paper wrapper like it is offensive material makes no sense to me.

When I move into a culture I don’t expect the entire populace to change for me. Perhaps I should and this will be my test case. I grew up in Ohio as an avid Cleveland Browns fan. Being a Browns fan is a chronic disease for which there is no known cure. When I moved to Dallas I was immediately offended by the aggressive Dallas Cowboy fans. Cowboy stuff was everywhere including in the public square. Politicians endorsed the Cowboys. Cowboy zealots tried to proselytize me to become a Cowboy fan. They inferred that having faith in the Browns made me a second class citizen. The Cowboys were clearly the football religion of the state and the iconography was everywhere. I was offended.

Now I believe that my rights as a Browns fan are being violated. I fear my kids exposure to the Cowboys star will cause them to be Cowboys fans. I am greatly offended when I go to the mall and somebody says, “How ‘bout dem Boys”! I want all stores to simply display “Go NFL Teams” signs and greet me with a “Happy Football” greeting…no more exclusionary “Go Cowboys” language. 

Silly isn’t it? But is the Christmas argument any different? I am all for being inclusive. Have a Hannukah display. Put up a Kwanza sign. Throw in Happy Holidays for the atheists and agnostics and people of other faiths. But mix in a Merry Christmas. The holiday is called Christmas.

For the most part Christmas has become an economic and not a religious holiday. There are so many icons like Santa Claus and Rudolph and the Grinch that are not at all related to the religious aspect of the Holiday. I just find it hard to comprehend the argument that a nativity scene or a Merry Christmas sign is oppressive in this vast landscape of Holiday icons.

Oddly one of the most powerful reminders of the Christian importance of Christmas comes from the genius of the late Charles Schultz. His classic show A Charlie Brown Christmas has a simple, elegant, and classic message. Charlie Brown has failed miserably in his attempt to find the true meaning of Christmas. But then Linus reads the following passage from the King James version of the Bible.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And then Linus says to Charlie Brown, “That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

Amen. And by the way….Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas.

Celebrity atheist Michael Newdow had apparently been out of the spotlight far too long so he recently filed a lawsuit to have “In God We Trust” removed from coins. He believes the phrase violates the rights of atheists and he uses logic that is so tortured it is painful. Mr. Newdow is a physician with some training as a lawyer. I am hoping his skills as a doctor are better than his logic as an attorney. If the following is a sample of his closing argument skills then God…uhh…somebody help his clients. A bit of background is in order. Newdow is a minister ordained by the Universal Life Church. The ULC offers free ordination to anyone and includes (no kidding) the Reverend Courtney Love and the Reverend Tony Danza among it’s ordainees (their church conventions must be interesting). It seems that the Rev.Newdow started a church that wishes to raise money for it’s cause by selling pens for a buck. But here comes Newdow’s agonizing dilemma.

“I’m a minister of the First Amendmist Church of True Science and I can’t raise funds or anything else because all the coins say that we believe in God, and that’s completely against our principles,” Newdow said.

Rev. Newdow takes only cash and and he must (as a matter of principle) refuse to take any currency that says “God” on it. So, the Reverend/Doctor reasons, his religious rights are being violated because all U.S. coins have the words “in God we trust” on them. Since Newdow doesn’t trust in God he can’t take the money for his church. Can’t you feel his pain?

Newdow explained how he was inspired to challenge the offending inscription.

“One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw ‘In God We Trust’ on my coins. I said, ‘I don’t trust in God,’ what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you’re not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It’s a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.”

Well Mr. Newdow it often seems like everybody is trying “it” (a lawsuit) for every real and perceived offense.

Further exploring of Newdow’s website revealed he is also a song writer and singer. He has a CD of his eleven best church-separation hits available on his site (seriously). They are written and performed by Newdow himself and one of them (I am not making this up) is a rap. The idea of a 52 year old white lawyer rapping must surely violate some constitutional right of mine.

“One day I was listening to a CD and I heard this middle-aged guy rapping and I said what is this? So I did some research on noise pollution and the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It’s a cool thing to do.” Whether I have a case or not…Newdow’s hip hop lyrics are worth a look…

It’s clear that it cannot be constitutional behavior

For government to claim that Jesus Christ is some big saviour

But that’s what we were told, and you know we were told it twice

For Muslims, Jews and Atheists, you know that isn’t nice 

But we all will pay the price. It is really quite concise.

A slice of vice that does suffice. An imprecise way to entice. 

You know that it’s illegal from a governmental perch

If you need your religion get your booty into church

I can’t justify giving the guy any money to buy this CD but I am dying to hear this performed. I do have a couple of questions for my main man who could adopt the hip hop name “No God on my 50 Cent”.

First…where does the government claim that Jesus Christ is some big savior on a coin or pledge or building or anywhere else? The reference is always to God which would seem to not give you street cred with the Muslims and Jews.

Second…how does a man with multiple degrees think that he can use the word “booty” in a song? 

A couple of serious thoughts on Michael Newdow and the this whole movement to remove all vestiges of “religion” from the public square.

As Christians we need to be very careful to not let emotion rule. I see posts calling Newdow names and saying really ugly things about him. We need to follow the example of Paul who engaged those who opposed the faith with well reasoned and thoughtful discussions.

The longer Paul waited in Athens for Silas and Timothy, the angrier he got–all those idols! The city was a junkyard of idols.

He discussed it with the Jews and other like-minded people at their meeting place. And every day he went out on the streets and talked with anyone who happened along. He got to know some of the Epicurean and Stoic intellectuals pretty well through these conversations. Some of them dismissed him with sarcasm: “What an airhead!” But others, listening to him go on about Jesus and the resurrection, were intrigued: “That’s a new slant on the gods. Tell us more.”   Acts 17  The Message

Research the issue. Have a point. Make your point with grace. Demonstrate the hope that lives within you.

Next, there is an inherent by product of living in a nation with free speech. That by product is that we will all be offended to some degree by others. You can’t have the right not to be offended and free speech Those two ideals are mutually exclusive. 

I don’t have a huge emotional stake in this debate about “In God We Trust” on our coins. I would prefer that the inscription stay on our currency. But my real preference would be that those of us who claim to be followers of Christ would truly live a life that demonstrates trust in God. For that Michael Newdow has no legal recourse.

The Dallas Morning News ran a recent article called ‘10 ideas on the way out’. Yesterday we discussed Peter Singer’s ideas about the sanctity of life. Today we tee up the topic of monogamy. Our “expert” on the subject is a gentleman named Jacques Attalli. Here is his opening salvo…

“Monogamy, which is really no more than a useful social convention, will not survive. It has rarely been honored in practice; soon, it will vanish even as an ideal.”

Okay…it has officially happened. I have now become that grumpy old man that I used to ridicule. Mr.Attalli had my blood boiling after his first 29 words. Not bad. First of all, marriage is much more than a “useful social convention”. Marriage is the God ordained structure for family and societal health. And in my primitive circles monogamy is not rarely practiced. There are couples all over the world that have the maturity and the emotional health to remain in a monogamous and loving relationship.

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,  and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”  Mark 10:6-9 (NIV)

I believe there is a spiritual dimension involved in the sexual union that makes it more than an episode on Animal Planet.

Mr.Attalli would disagree.

“Just as most societies now accept successive love relationships (they do?), soon we will acknowledge the legality and acceptability of simultaneous love.”

Somebody help me here. What in the wide, wide world of sports are successive love relationships? Perhaps another word to describe a man involved in “successive love relationships” would be…oh let’s see…jerk. And the day that we acknowledge “simultaneous love” as the standard is the day that we have lost the battle. I will celebrate (and that is the right word) my 30th wedding anniversary next July. It has not always been easy. We had some really rough times. But I am so grateful that we persevered. Something happens when a couple grows toward each other. When both parties give up the selfish expectation that the other person is responsible for their happiness then the biblical concept can begin to happen. My wife and I are experiencing that mystical journey of the two becoming one and I am more in love with her today than I was 30 years ago. There is a richness and depth to our relationship that could never be found in “simultaneous love”.

Attalli has anticipated the battle with dinosaurs like me.

“The demise of monogamy will not come without a struggle (#$%& right!). All the churches will seek to forbid it, especially for women. (How about letting the women speak for themselves Jacque? Perhaps they would have a different take on your simultaneous love idea. I know that my bride would beg to differ).

Attalli sees that ultimately the “battle” will be won.

“For a while, they (those backward church people) will hold the line. But individual freedom (aka selfishness), once again, will triumph. The revolution will begin in Europe (surprise), America will follow (sadly likely), and the rest of the world will eventually come around.”

Here is the truly heartbreaking part of Mr.Attalli’s vision.

“Relationships with children will be radically different, (No kidding. Son, meet my friend Poopsie. She is my current successive love relationship) financial relationships will be disrupted and how and where we live will change. To be sure, it will take decades for the change to be complete, and yet, if we look around, it is already here. Beneath our hypocrisies – in movies, novels, and music – the shape of our future is visible.”

If Hollywood and the music industry defines our future we have truly hit cultural rock bottom and with a sickening thud. Do any of these elite thinkers ever visit a real community in a far away place like Iowa? I believe the results of a culture defined by movies, novels, and music would be devastating. (Told you I have achieved grumpy old man status). May we call a spade a spade? A large percentage of our narcissistic culture is no longer willing to sacrifice in marriage or as parents. The trail of wounded men, women, and children left behind by philosophies like Mr.Attalli’s is epidemic. And yes, the Christian church has not consistently modeled God’s ideal. But circumventing the truth does not change the truth. We are wired for a relationship with God and for intimate relationship with our mates. Tsunamis of testosterone does not change that truth. As King Solomon noted there is nothing new under the sun. In the book of Judges the people rejected the standards of God.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.  Judges 21:25 (NASB77)

Doing what is right in your own eyes does not make it right. I love my wife. I intend to remain monogamous until death do us part. Monogamy is not on life support. But I cannot say the same about the values of our culture.