This Blog -
Moved To:
http://professor-howdy.blogspot.com/
Blog Newspaper...
...By Dr. Howdy
Sign-up for E.Mail Updates
Friday
Though he's no Man of Sorrows,
Superman does convey a powerful
& distinct message about our need
for a savior...
Comments:
<< Home
Superman Returns
by Drew Dyck
"One ..."
I'm standing on the arm of the living room sofa, getting ready to jump. At 9 years old I'm not much of a Superman, but it isn't for lack of trying. I have my hair (which is inconveniently blond) slicked back in the best Superhero do I can manage.
"Two ..."
The bed sheet draped across my narrow shoulders serves as an impromptu cape. With my scrawny chest puffed out in proud defiance, all I need is a little superpower to hold me up once I leap into midair. I'm not just any Superman mind you — I'm Christian Superman, fresh from a Sunday school lesson on faith.
"Three ..."
"You can move mountains," my teacher told me, "if only you have faith like a mustard seed." If faith can move mountains, I reason, sending my 80-pound body soaring should be a cinch.
Thump!
You guessed it. My flight from the couch (and reality) ended in a heap on the living room floor. Over time the bruises healed. Eventually my faith matured. And since that day I hadn't given Superman much thought, until recently, when I was asked to attend a press screening of Superman Returns.
In one way the movie was very much what you'd expect from a summer blockbuster: crazy effects (in one slow-mo scene a bullet bounces off Superman's eyeball!), nail-biting rescues, a romantic subplot and enough cheese to make a pizza. All the same, there was something nostalgic and oddly warming about watching the Man of Steel sweep across the big screen again, this time embodied by 26-year-old Brandon Routh. Routh bears uncanny resemblance to the late actor Christopher Reeve, which made Superman's reentry into my imagination feel effortless.
But, as I sat basking in the glow of Superman's rebirth, I realized there was something quite different about this latest rendering. Like my childhood fantasy, this Superman story came with some Christian ideas thrown in. A lot of them. So many it made me wonder whether I was sitting in a theater or a church.
The film's opening lines sound like a bad translation of the Gospel of John. Superman's father delivers a posthumous message to his son:
"Even though you've been raised as a human being, you're not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all — their capacity for good — I have sent them you, my only son."
Scriptural echoes don't stop there. Superman's relationship to his father remains a focal point. "The son is in the father, and the father is in the son," is a recurrent line. Then there's the suffering servant motif. In one scene Superman suffers at the hands of his enemies in a manner reminiscent of Golgotha, right down to receiving a wound in his side. In another scene, after making a dramatic rescue, Superman "dies," falling from the sky with arms outstretched in the unmistakable shape of the cross. So explicit are the parallels that CNN dubbed the movie "another gospel" for Christian movie fans.
So what are we to make of this?
Well, CNN may be overstating things a bit. This movie is no fifth gospel. In fact it's not even perfect allegory; it's echo and allusion. The Man of Steel is no Man of Sorrows, no matter how much you play up the similarities. With his sculpted body and flashy powers Superman calls to mind the gods of ancient Greece — not the Jesus of the Bible. Still it is intriguing to see a Hollywood movie addressing Messianic themes, however imperfectly. Perhaps most interesting, though, is what the movie says about us. Superman Returns has a powerful and distinctly Christian message about our need for a savior. For this reason I think the film could serve as an excellent starting point for fruitful discussions between Christians and unbelieving friends.
The strongest commentary on this topic comes in the interactions between Superman and Lois Lane. Lois, the hard-nosed reporter, has won the Pulitzer Prize for writing an article entitled, "Why the world doesn't need Superman." In one especially poignant scene series, she lashes out at Superman, "The world doesn't need a Savior and neither do I!" Superman doesn't respond immediately. Instead he takes her up for a flight into the silence of the stratosphere.
"What do you hear?" he asks her.
"Nothing," she replies.
For a moment we hear through Superman's ears: A chorus of a thousand desperate voices rings in his head.
"I hear everything," he tells her.
Back on the ground he makes his point. "In your article you wrote that people don't need a Savior, yet everyday I hear people crying for one."
This struck me as a powerful exchange. It may sound like a simple idea: that people need a savior. But to see this idea developed in the context of a big budget movie is rather remarkable. Hollywood films tend to preach a gospel of self-sufficiency. In movies the moment of salvation usually comes when the character stops looking for help from others and starts seeking strength from within. That's when triumph is at hand — when the character musters the self-confidence or courage to prevail.
Even biblical stories can get shoe-horned into this familiar mold in tinsel town. Recently I watched a television series on Moses that had the great leader of Israel spouting straight pop psychology at his beleaguered soldiers on the eve of battle. "God is not going to save you this time," he thundered. "God wants you to save yourself!"
Huh? "Save yourself?" Don't remember that line in the Bible.
Superman Returns is different. It entertains no such illusions about our abilities. In this way it echoes important biblical teaching. In Scripture, supreme self-confidence isn't lauded as heroic, it's denounced as sin. Righteousness is described as total dependence on God. It's realizing that we're sinful and fallen. Only once we turn to the Savior with humility and gratitude are we saved.
We're not much for saviors these days. We prefer to think that we have all the necessary resources to save ourselves. Relying on a savior makes us feel weak, needy and desperate. But the truth is that we are weak, needy and desperate. And really, that's the first tenet of the gospel: Spiritually, we all need a Savior.
Of course Superman Returns highlights this theme only by way of metaphor. The Superhero saves bodies, not souls. Yet the story seems to argue for the necessity of a savior, which is a refreshing theme to encounter in a secular film.
This week millions of moviegoers will settle into theater seats looking for entertainment. Hopefully, they will find much more. Just maybe they will leave the movie thinking about their own need for a Savior. And we as Christians must be prepared to tell them His name.
And in case you're wondering, it's not Superman.
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
by Drew Dyck
"One ..."
I'm standing on the arm of the living room sofa, getting ready to jump. At 9 years old I'm not much of a Superman, but it isn't for lack of trying. I have my hair (which is inconveniently blond) slicked back in the best Superhero do I can manage.
"Two ..."
The bed sheet draped across my narrow shoulders serves as an impromptu cape. With my scrawny chest puffed out in proud defiance, all I need is a little superpower to hold me up once I leap into midair. I'm not just any Superman mind you — I'm Christian Superman, fresh from a Sunday school lesson on faith.
"Three ..."
"You can move mountains," my teacher told me, "if only you have faith like a mustard seed." If faith can move mountains, I reason, sending my 80-pound body soaring should be a cinch.
Thump!
You guessed it. My flight from the couch (and reality) ended in a heap on the living room floor. Over time the bruises healed. Eventually my faith matured. And since that day I hadn't given Superman much thought, until recently, when I was asked to attend a press screening of Superman Returns.
In one way the movie was very much what you'd expect from a summer blockbuster: crazy effects (in one slow-mo scene a bullet bounces off Superman's eyeball!), nail-biting rescues, a romantic subplot and enough cheese to make a pizza. All the same, there was something nostalgic and oddly warming about watching the Man of Steel sweep across the big screen again, this time embodied by 26-year-old Brandon Routh. Routh bears uncanny resemblance to the late actor Christopher Reeve, which made Superman's reentry into my imagination feel effortless.
But, as I sat basking in the glow of Superman's rebirth, I realized there was something quite different about this latest rendering. Like my childhood fantasy, this Superman story came with some Christian ideas thrown in. A lot of them. So many it made me wonder whether I was sitting in a theater or a church.
The film's opening lines sound like a bad translation of the Gospel of John. Superman's father delivers a posthumous message to his son:
"Even though you've been raised as a human being, you're not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all — their capacity for good — I have sent them you, my only son."
Scriptural echoes don't stop there. Superman's relationship to his father remains a focal point. "The son is in the father, and the father is in the son," is a recurrent line. Then there's the suffering servant motif. In one scene Superman suffers at the hands of his enemies in a manner reminiscent of Golgotha, right down to receiving a wound in his side. In another scene, after making a dramatic rescue, Superman "dies," falling from the sky with arms outstretched in the unmistakable shape of the cross. So explicit are the parallels that CNN dubbed the movie "another gospel" for Christian movie fans.
So what are we to make of this?
Well, CNN may be overstating things a bit. This movie is no fifth gospel. In fact it's not even perfect allegory; it's echo and allusion. The Man of Steel is no Man of Sorrows, no matter how much you play up the similarities. With his sculpted body and flashy powers Superman calls to mind the gods of ancient Greece — not the Jesus of the Bible. Still it is intriguing to see a Hollywood movie addressing Messianic themes, however imperfectly. Perhaps most interesting, though, is what the movie says about us. Superman Returns has a powerful and distinctly Christian message about our need for a savior. For this reason I think the film could serve as an excellent starting point for fruitful discussions between Christians and unbelieving friends.
The strongest commentary on this topic comes in the interactions between Superman and Lois Lane. Lois, the hard-nosed reporter, has won the Pulitzer Prize for writing an article entitled, "Why the world doesn't need Superman." In one especially poignant scene series, she lashes out at Superman, "The world doesn't need a Savior and neither do I!" Superman doesn't respond immediately. Instead he takes her up for a flight into the silence of the stratosphere.
"What do you hear?" he asks her.
"Nothing," she replies.
For a moment we hear through Superman's ears: A chorus of a thousand desperate voices rings in his head.
"I hear everything," he tells her.
Back on the ground he makes his point. "In your article you wrote that people don't need a Savior, yet everyday I hear people crying for one."
This struck me as a powerful exchange. It may sound like a simple idea: that people need a savior. But to see this idea developed in the context of a big budget movie is rather remarkable. Hollywood films tend to preach a gospel of self-sufficiency. In movies the moment of salvation usually comes when the character stops looking for help from others and starts seeking strength from within. That's when triumph is at hand — when the character musters the self-confidence or courage to prevail.
Even biblical stories can get shoe-horned into this familiar mold in tinsel town. Recently I watched a television series on Moses that had the great leader of Israel spouting straight pop psychology at his beleaguered soldiers on the eve of battle. "God is not going to save you this time," he thundered. "God wants you to save yourself!"
Huh? "Save yourself?" Don't remember that line in the Bible.
Superman Returns is different. It entertains no such illusions about our abilities. In this way it echoes important biblical teaching. In Scripture, supreme self-confidence isn't lauded as heroic, it's denounced as sin. Righteousness is described as total dependence on God. It's realizing that we're sinful and fallen. Only once we turn to the Savior with humility and gratitude are we saved.
We're not much for saviors these days. We prefer to think that we have all the necessary resources to save ourselves. Relying on a savior makes us feel weak, needy and desperate. But the truth is that we are weak, needy and desperate. And really, that's the first tenet of the gospel: Spiritually, we all need a Savior.
Of course Superman Returns highlights this theme only by way of metaphor. The Superhero saves bodies, not souls. Yet the story seems to argue for the necessity of a savior, which is a refreshing theme to encounter in a secular film.
This week millions of moviegoers will settle into theater seats looking for entertainment. Hopefully, they will find much more. Just maybe they will leave the movie thinking about their own need for a Savior. And we as Christians must be prepared to tell them His name.
And in case you're wondering, it's not Superman.
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
It's Never 'Just a Movie'
by Chris M. Leland, Ph.D.
When I fly, God puts me next to people who want to talk. The conversation usually stays on small talk until they ask the inevitable question; "So, what do you do for a living?"
I know that my answer is going to elicit one of two responses; either a pronounced look of disapproval and disagreement or (more often) a glazed and confused face. When I say that I teach Christian Worldview Studies for the Focus on the Family Institute, they either bristle at their "luck" of being placed next to a religious fanatic, or they have no earthly idea what I do.
On a flight last year, the latter was the case. A woman in her mid 50s who had been visiting her new grandbaby asked what I did. There it was: the glazed, empty and perplexed look. Then something caught her attention and she shared that she was a Christian, but she said it under her breath, leaning in toward me, like it was some secret password and that at any moment we would be discovered and thrown out of the plane at 30,000 feet.
A fellow believer — hey, this flight wouldn't be too bad. At least I wasn't going to play Paul to an "Athenian" this trip.
She wasn't done though. She wanted to know more about this idea called "worldview." Ah, here comes the flight-long discussion. I briefly talked about how our lives as Christians must be lived with every part of who we are being directed by our Christian perspective. There it was again; that glazed look that shouted "Huh?"
So I tried a new approach. "What's that book you're reading?" She gave me the name of one of the latest best sellers. "Who's the author?" She flipped to the inside of the back book jacket and showed me his handsome picture and the brief description of who he was and his accomplishments. "Do you like his writing?" Yes, very much.
"Why do you like his writing?"
Silence.
It didn't last forever, of course. She finally let me know that his stories were not only entertaining and easy to read, but they spoke to her and her life's circumstance. Now, here comes the clincher: "Do the author and story have a perspective or lesson we are supposed to learn about life?" Oh, yes. We're supposed to love one another and our families must be cared for, even when it was hard.
Good. But then I continued probing: "Where does the author come from on these issues? What's his perspective on life?" More silence. Then she said the words I hear so often. "It's just a book!"
No it's not. When it comes to the things we read or see or use to entertain us, it's never "just a book" — or "just a song" or "just a TV show" or "just a movie." It's always got something to say about how we think and feel, good or bad. And if we keep reading or watching or listening, it's liable to affect how we think and feel, good or bad.
For years, I've taught communication students; now that I teach worldview issues, I see the significance of entertainment more than ever. What has concerned me more and more in recent years is that I am hearing this from otherwise discerning Christians. They're people of faith who struggle over most decisions in their lives as it relates to their Christianity and wanting to make wise choices, but when it comes to the media, they look just like everyone else on the planet.
This isn't an accident. Many of us make our media choices precisely because we want to be like everyone else — or at least like a certain group of people we know.
For example, I have a Christian friend who will whisper to me that he is a "closet" Sex and the City watcher. He's in the "closet" around fellow Christians, that is. When pushed on why he watches it, he admits that it's the main conversation piece on certain days of the week at his office and he doesn't want to be excluded from the conversation.
Even when we're not trying to join the crowd, we may end up becoming like them simply by default. Frequently we use media simply for a diversion. How often do you sit down in front of the tube and say, "You know, I want to find something on that is mindless and I can just veg out to"? We think it's harmless enough. Yet research shows that this is the state of mind that makes us the most vulnerable to ideas we don't usually agree with. Why do you think advertisers have so much impact on our culture? They hit you when you think you're not paying attention and aren't impacted by their message.
As C.S. Lewis sarcastically wrote:
Avoid silence, avoid solitude, avoid any train of thought that leads off the beaten track. Concentrate on money, sex, status, health and (above all) on your own grievances. Keep the radio on. Live in a crowd. Use plenty of sedation. If you must read books, select them very carefully. But you'd be safer to stick to the papers. You'll find the advertisements helpful; especially those with a sexy or a snobbish appeal. (Christian Reflections, pp. 168-169)
The Christian community must do a better job of showing people how to ask the questions that make a person media literate. If we are indeed the "royal priesthood" that we are described as, then our job description includes the command of Ezekiel 44:23, "They are to teach my people the difference between the holy and the common and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean."
We must live not as passive sponges but as mindful agents. As Bill Romanowski (author and Calvin College professor) says, "There's some good stuff out there and lots of bad stuff and, if people are going to live as mature Christians, they're going to have to learn to tell the difference."
Every book has a perspective. Every TV show was written, directed and produced by people with perspectives and worldviews. Every article of every magazine that sits on the shelves of our local bookstore or airport gift shop has a perspective. And yes, every movie that hits the silver screen has a worldview driving it.
Our call is not to abandon the media, but to make ourselves "priests" of the culture and help our brothers and sisters in Christ understand that "it's never just a movie."
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
by Chris M. Leland, Ph.D.
When I fly, God puts me next to people who want to talk. The conversation usually stays on small talk until they ask the inevitable question; "So, what do you do for a living?"
I know that my answer is going to elicit one of two responses; either a pronounced look of disapproval and disagreement or (more often) a glazed and confused face. When I say that I teach Christian Worldview Studies for the Focus on the Family Institute, they either bristle at their "luck" of being placed next to a religious fanatic, or they have no earthly idea what I do.
On a flight last year, the latter was the case. A woman in her mid 50s who had been visiting her new grandbaby asked what I did. There it was: the glazed, empty and perplexed look. Then something caught her attention and she shared that she was a Christian, but she said it under her breath, leaning in toward me, like it was some secret password and that at any moment we would be discovered and thrown out of the plane at 30,000 feet.
A fellow believer — hey, this flight wouldn't be too bad. At least I wasn't going to play Paul to an "Athenian" this trip.
She wasn't done though. She wanted to know more about this idea called "worldview." Ah, here comes the flight-long discussion. I briefly talked about how our lives as Christians must be lived with every part of who we are being directed by our Christian perspective. There it was again; that glazed look that shouted "Huh?"
So I tried a new approach. "What's that book you're reading?" She gave me the name of one of the latest best sellers. "Who's the author?" She flipped to the inside of the back book jacket and showed me his handsome picture and the brief description of who he was and his accomplishments. "Do you like his writing?" Yes, very much.
"Why do you like his writing?"
Silence.
It didn't last forever, of course. She finally let me know that his stories were not only entertaining and easy to read, but they spoke to her and her life's circumstance. Now, here comes the clincher: "Do the author and story have a perspective or lesson we are supposed to learn about life?" Oh, yes. We're supposed to love one another and our families must be cared for, even when it was hard.
Good. But then I continued probing: "Where does the author come from on these issues? What's his perspective on life?" More silence. Then she said the words I hear so often. "It's just a book!"
No it's not. When it comes to the things we read or see or use to entertain us, it's never "just a book" — or "just a song" or "just a TV show" or "just a movie." It's always got something to say about how we think and feel, good or bad. And if we keep reading or watching or listening, it's liable to affect how we think and feel, good or bad.
For years, I've taught communication students; now that I teach worldview issues, I see the significance of entertainment more than ever. What has concerned me more and more in recent years is that I am hearing this from otherwise discerning Christians. They're people of faith who struggle over most decisions in their lives as it relates to their Christianity and wanting to make wise choices, but when it comes to the media, they look just like everyone else on the planet.
This isn't an accident. Many of us make our media choices precisely because we want to be like everyone else — or at least like a certain group of people we know.
For example, I have a Christian friend who will whisper to me that he is a "closet" Sex and the City watcher. He's in the "closet" around fellow Christians, that is. When pushed on why he watches it, he admits that it's the main conversation piece on certain days of the week at his office and he doesn't want to be excluded from the conversation.
Even when we're not trying to join the crowd, we may end up becoming like them simply by default. Frequently we use media simply for a diversion. How often do you sit down in front of the tube and say, "You know, I want to find something on that is mindless and I can just veg out to"? We think it's harmless enough. Yet research shows that this is the state of mind that makes us the most vulnerable to ideas we don't usually agree with. Why do you think advertisers have so much impact on our culture? They hit you when you think you're not paying attention and aren't impacted by their message.
As C.S. Lewis sarcastically wrote:
Avoid silence, avoid solitude, avoid any train of thought that leads off the beaten track. Concentrate on money, sex, status, health and (above all) on your own grievances. Keep the radio on. Live in a crowd. Use plenty of sedation. If you must read books, select them very carefully. But you'd be safer to stick to the papers. You'll find the advertisements helpful; especially those with a sexy or a snobbish appeal. (Christian Reflections, pp. 168-169)
The Christian community must do a better job of showing people how to ask the questions that make a person media literate. If we are indeed the "royal priesthood" that we are described as, then our job description includes the command of Ezekiel 44:23, "They are to teach my people the difference between the holy and the common and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean."
We must live not as passive sponges but as mindful agents. As Bill Romanowski (author and Calvin College professor) says, "There's some good stuff out there and lots of bad stuff and, if people are going to live as mature Christians, they're going to have to learn to tell the difference."
Every book has a perspective. Every TV show was written, directed and produced by people with perspectives and worldviews. Every article of every magazine that sits on the shelves of our local bookstore or airport gift shop has a perspective. And yes, every movie that hits the silver screen has a worldview driving it.
Our call is not to abandon the media, but to make ourselves "priests" of the culture and help our brothers and sisters in Christ understand that "it's never just a movie."
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Like to Watch
by Joshua Harris
When the Apostle John wrote "Do not love the world," he clearly wasn't anticipating satellite TV, the internet, magazines, computer games -- all the things we lump together today as "media." But he knew this: the human heart does not change. Sin is a timeless, universal constant. Whatever new vehicle of communication man dreams up, sin just hops on board.
The results are obvious. Wherever we look, technology blasts us with the world's values, attitudes, and false definitions of reality. The popular media lie to us about the nature of goodness, truth, and beauty. They offer counterfeit versions of what a family is supposed to look like, what romance is, what success is all about, and where we should spend our money.
The media never try to reason with us. Instead, they seek a hard-wire connection straight into the emotions. Why offer some lame, tortured argument in favor of immorality when you can simply show slow-motion close-ups of beautiful people bathed in soft lighting and romantic music? Painful consequences of sin? Where?!
The power of today's all-pervasive media lie in their ability to make evil seem appealing. If anything, John's warning is even more vital for us than it was for his original readers.
Half a Poison Pill Won't Kill You
Most of us recognize the danger of exposing ourselves to sinful content, so we tend to set arbitrary limits based on how much we think we can "handle." When a movie or TV show presents us with mild or infrequent profanity, an occasional adulterous affair, or a limited amount of gratuitous violence, we sort of weigh the danger level. We act as if we each have a "sin threshold" beyond which we dare not go. We might as well ask how much of a poison pill we can swallow before it kills us.
But the greatest danger of the popular media is not a one-time exposure to a particular instance of sin (as serious as that can be). It's how long-term exposure to worldliness -- little chunks of poison pill, day after day, week after week -- can deaden our hearts to the ugliness of sin. What God calls the lust of the eyes and the sinful cravings of the heart are typically portrayed by the popular media as natural and harmless. The eventual effect of all those bits of poison pill is to deaden the conscience by trivializing the very things that God's Word calls the enemies of our souls.
If You Don't Enjoy the Calorie ...
Does anyone really believe that if I disapprove of the sin I'm watching, or roll my eyes and mutter about Hollywood's wickedness, or fast-forward through the really bad parts, my soul is not affected? Yeah, sure -- and if you don't actually like chocolate cake, eating it won't add to your waistline.
Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction. But the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal 6:7-8)
I've looked, and there just don't seem to be any loopholes in this verse.
Too many of us sow to the flesh every day -- watching hours of TV but spending 15 minutes in devotions -- and wonder why we don't reap a harvest of holiness. Let's look at three ways to make practical changes to our consumption of popular media.
Increasing Our Discernment
To discern is to perceive the true nature of something. Because the popular media so often speak to us through our emotions, we must grow in discernment. Otherwise, when violence comes disguised as justice, when lust masquerades as romance, or when greed and selfishness pose as success, we're likely to be deceived. Here are some biblical ways to help you discern whether a certain activity glorifies God.
1. Does it present a temptation to sin? (Rom. 13:14, 2 Tim. 2:22)
2. Is it beneficial? (1 Cor. 6:12a, 1 Cor. 10:23)
3. Is it enslaving? (1 Cor. 6:12b)
(Regarding the preceding two items, please note that when Paul writes in First Corinthians, "All things are lawful for me," he is not establishing a divine mandate for a free-for-all of entertainment indulgence. He is, instead, quoting a false proverb then common among the Corinthians so that he might refute it.)
4. Does it honor and glorify God? (1 Cor. 10:31)
5. Does it promote the good of others? (1 Cor. 10:33)
6. Does it cause anyone to stumble? (1 Cor. 10:32)
7. Does it arise from a pure motive? (Jer. 17:9)
I'd also recommend you regularly apply the "Susanna Wesley Test." While away at college, John Wesley wrote to his mother, Susanna, asking for a list of sins he should avoid. Her response is a model of biblical wisdom applied:
Whatever weakens your reason, whatever impairs the tenderness of your conscience, whatever obscures your sense of God, whatever increases the authority of your body over your mind, whatever takes away from your relish for spiritual things, that to you is sin, no matter how innocent it is in itself.
After it perceives, discernment acts. Winnowing good from evil, it rejects that which is worthless. "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Thess. 5:21-22).
So, even after you have made your best biblical judgment about a book, movie, TV show, or something else, don't revert to the passive mode. If something offends, be willing to turn off the set, stop reading, or leave the theater. Always be ready to refute the false ideas or unbiblical thinking that will nearly always be present to one degree or another. Let's be people who write in book margins, talk to our televisions, and discuss movies and concerts with one another afterwards to help sharpen our discernment and to increase our ability to critique unbiblical values.
Raising Our Standards
Wherever our standards fall short of Scripture, let's raise them -- but humbly, without flaunting them or holding others to the standard we've adopted. At the same time, let's invite others into this area of our lives, welcoming observations about our media habits, and being willing to discuss and hold each other accountable to standards we have prayerfully set. Let's focus on our own convictions before God, but let us also love each other enough to challenge and question our choices in this area.
We should always be asking if our standards are high enough. Let's never assume we have "arrived."
Changing Our Habits
Many Christians, perhaps most, can imagine making heroic sacrifices for God, yet we resist the small adjustments. "Jesus, I will forsake my home, family, and future, but don't ask me to give up my favorite TV show!"
Let's not forget that following Christ carries radical implications for the believer's lifestyle. If we would honor God in this area, we need to regularly re-evaluate our media habits. Should we watch less television? Go to fewer movies? Spend less time online? It's easy to relate to TV and movie viewing as if a certain amount of it is some kind of right or necessity. But as believers, our only non-negotiable ought to be obeying and glorifying God -- even if that means not seeing the blockbuster movie everyone is talking about, or keeping the TV off on weeknights. As Wayne Wilson has noted,
Theatergoing should not be something we do instead of playing miniature golf. Unlike putting, movies must be approached with extreme caution, as though one were treading into the domain of a deceitful and powerful enemy, for that is the truth of it. Critical faculties must be in full alert. Christians must never randomly patronize the theater. A film's popularity should make no difference. You should be willing to remain ignorant of the "movie event of the year" if it violates God's standard. Believe me, he is not impressed by the Academy Awards.1
If necessary, let me urge you to consider changing the setup of your home so that entertainment technology, particularly television, is neither omni-present nor central. Let's not allow movie and television watching to become our default free-time activities. You may also wish to abstain periodically from different forms of media in order to test their influence on your life and increase your focus on God.
Be very clear on this: the world wants your attention, allegiance, and love. Whether subtly or blatantly, it will never stop seeking to persuade you. It is therefore essential that we, as Christians, engage in the battle for our own hearts and souls. The Apostle John lived in a world without the temptations of modern media, but this issue of the heart remains the same: who or what will you love?
* * *
NOTES
1. Wayne Wilson, Worldly Amusements: Restoring the Lordship of Christ to Our Entertainment Choices (Enumclaw, WA: Winepress Publishing, 1999)
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
by Joshua Harris
When the Apostle John wrote "Do not love the world," he clearly wasn't anticipating satellite TV, the internet, magazines, computer games -- all the things we lump together today as "media." But he knew this: the human heart does not change. Sin is a timeless, universal constant. Whatever new vehicle of communication man dreams up, sin just hops on board.
The results are obvious. Wherever we look, technology blasts us with the world's values, attitudes, and false definitions of reality. The popular media lie to us about the nature of goodness, truth, and beauty. They offer counterfeit versions of what a family is supposed to look like, what romance is, what success is all about, and where we should spend our money.
The media never try to reason with us. Instead, they seek a hard-wire connection straight into the emotions. Why offer some lame, tortured argument in favor of immorality when you can simply show slow-motion close-ups of beautiful people bathed in soft lighting and romantic music? Painful consequences of sin? Where?!
The power of today's all-pervasive media lie in their ability to make evil seem appealing. If anything, John's warning is even more vital for us than it was for his original readers.
Half a Poison Pill Won't Kill You
Most of us recognize the danger of exposing ourselves to sinful content, so we tend to set arbitrary limits based on how much we think we can "handle." When a movie or TV show presents us with mild or infrequent profanity, an occasional adulterous affair, or a limited amount of gratuitous violence, we sort of weigh the danger level. We act as if we each have a "sin threshold" beyond which we dare not go. We might as well ask how much of a poison pill we can swallow before it kills us.
But the greatest danger of the popular media is not a one-time exposure to a particular instance of sin (as serious as that can be). It's how long-term exposure to worldliness -- little chunks of poison pill, day after day, week after week -- can deaden our hearts to the ugliness of sin. What God calls the lust of the eyes and the sinful cravings of the heart are typically portrayed by the popular media as natural and harmless. The eventual effect of all those bits of poison pill is to deaden the conscience by trivializing the very things that God's Word calls the enemies of our souls.
If You Don't Enjoy the Calorie ...
Does anyone really believe that if I disapprove of the sin I'm watching, or roll my eyes and mutter about Hollywood's wickedness, or fast-forward through the really bad parts, my soul is not affected? Yeah, sure -- and if you don't actually like chocolate cake, eating it won't add to your waistline.
Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction. But the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal 6:7-8)
I've looked, and there just don't seem to be any loopholes in this verse.
Too many of us sow to the flesh every day -- watching hours of TV but spending 15 minutes in devotions -- and wonder why we don't reap a harvest of holiness. Let's look at three ways to make practical changes to our consumption of popular media.
Increasing Our Discernment
To discern is to perceive the true nature of something. Because the popular media so often speak to us through our emotions, we must grow in discernment. Otherwise, when violence comes disguised as justice, when lust masquerades as romance, or when greed and selfishness pose as success, we're likely to be deceived. Here are some biblical ways to help you discern whether a certain activity glorifies God.
1. Does it present a temptation to sin? (Rom. 13:14, 2 Tim. 2:22)
2. Is it beneficial? (1 Cor. 6:12a, 1 Cor. 10:23)
3. Is it enslaving? (1 Cor. 6:12b)
(Regarding the preceding two items, please note that when Paul writes in First Corinthians, "All things are lawful for me," he is not establishing a divine mandate for a free-for-all of entertainment indulgence. He is, instead, quoting a false proverb then common among the Corinthians so that he might refute it.)
4. Does it honor and glorify God? (1 Cor. 10:31)
5. Does it promote the good of others? (1 Cor. 10:33)
6. Does it cause anyone to stumble? (1 Cor. 10:32)
7. Does it arise from a pure motive? (Jer. 17:9)
I'd also recommend you regularly apply the "Susanna Wesley Test." While away at college, John Wesley wrote to his mother, Susanna, asking for a list of sins he should avoid. Her response is a model of biblical wisdom applied:
Whatever weakens your reason, whatever impairs the tenderness of your conscience, whatever obscures your sense of God, whatever increases the authority of your body over your mind, whatever takes away from your relish for spiritual things, that to you is sin, no matter how innocent it is in itself.
After it perceives, discernment acts. Winnowing good from evil, it rejects that which is worthless. "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Thess. 5:21-22).
So, even after you have made your best biblical judgment about a book, movie, TV show, or something else, don't revert to the passive mode. If something offends, be willing to turn off the set, stop reading, or leave the theater. Always be ready to refute the false ideas or unbiblical thinking that will nearly always be present to one degree or another. Let's be people who write in book margins, talk to our televisions, and discuss movies and concerts with one another afterwards to help sharpen our discernment and to increase our ability to critique unbiblical values.
Raising Our Standards
Wherever our standards fall short of Scripture, let's raise them -- but humbly, without flaunting them or holding others to the standard we've adopted. At the same time, let's invite others into this area of our lives, welcoming observations about our media habits, and being willing to discuss and hold each other accountable to standards we have prayerfully set. Let's focus on our own convictions before God, but let us also love each other enough to challenge and question our choices in this area.
We should always be asking if our standards are high enough. Let's never assume we have "arrived."
Changing Our Habits
Many Christians, perhaps most, can imagine making heroic sacrifices for God, yet we resist the small adjustments. "Jesus, I will forsake my home, family, and future, but don't ask me to give up my favorite TV show!"
Let's not forget that following Christ carries radical implications for the believer's lifestyle. If we would honor God in this area, we need to regularly re-evaluate our media habits. Should we watch less television? Go to fewer movies? Spend less time online? It's easy to relate to TV and movie viewing as if a certain amount of it is some kind of right or necessity. But as believers, our only non-negotiable ought to be obeying and glorifying God -- even if that means not seeing the blockbuster movie everyone is talking about, or keeping the TV off on weeknights. As Wayne Wilson has noted,
Theatergoing should not be something we do instead of playing miniature golf. Unlike putting, movies must be approached with extreme caution, as though one were treading into the domain of a deceitful and powerful enemy, for that is the truth of it. Critical faculties must be in full alert. Christians must never randomly patronize the theater. A film's popularity should make no difference. You should be willing to remain ignorant of the "movie event of the year" if it violates God's standard. Believe me, he is not impressed by the Academy Awards.1
If necessary, let me urge you to consider changing the setup of your home so that entertainment technology, particularly television, is neither omni-present nor central. Let's not allow movie and television watching to become our default free-time activities. You may also wish to abstain periodically from different forms of media in order to test their influence on your life and increase your focus on God.
Be very clear on this: the world wants your attention, allegiance, and love. Whether subtly or blatantly, it will never stop seeking to persuade you. It is therefore essential that we, as Christians, engage in the battle for our own hearts and souls. The Apostle John lived in a world without the temptations of modern media, but this issue of the heart remains the same: who or what will you love?
* * *
NOTES
1. Wayne Wilson, Worldly Amusements: Restoring the Lordship of Christ to Our Entertainment Choices (Enumclaw, WA: Winepress Publishing, 1999)
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
by Clare Cook
"I don’t know why I liked it, it had a good plot, it made me think." I took a sip of orange juice. "I’d give it a seven." Dad shook his head. "Not my kind of movie. It was clean, but I fell asleep twice. I’d say it was a three — maybe a four."
Such is often the conversation at my family’s breakfast table the morning after we watch a movie. My siblings and I aren’t always crazy to participate in these discussions, but my dad does his best to draw us out. What makes a movie good or bad? What did we like? Would we watch it again? And we always have to give it a rating on a ten-point scale. The worst of the worst rate a one, with tens reserved for great classics.
It wasn’t until recently, after I’d been in college for a while, that I realized not every Christian has grown up as I have, and I began to appreciate those review sessions and to understand how important the practice can be. Sure, I’d heard the statistics about the average American child watching four to eight hours of TV every day, and sneaking into R-rated movies at night. But those weren’t Christians! When I moved away from home, however, I realized my naiveté. I would sit at the table while my friends — mostly committed Christians — would talk for an hour at a time about their favorite movies. With no objective standards by which they judged each film, personal tastes ruled the day. If it grossed them out, then it was bad; if it gave them nightmares or they thought it was stupid, then it wasn’t worth watching, but no one’s decisions were based on any system of morality.
One of the biggest parts of America’s entertainment culture is the multi-billion dollar movie business. Every year Hollywood creates scores of films, most aimed at high school and college students. Take a look at collections from the past few years, and you’ll see that filmmakers believe either that our generation is willing to support any movie, no matter its depravity, or else that they must coerce/persuade us to accept them. It can be very difficult to discern which movies are worth watching; to pick out the subtle lies woven into a riveting story, to set a standard of purity we will not violate. Movies are, by their very nature, powerful messengers. They can be excellent vehicles for teaching truth, or incredibly dangerous
Recently, I read a review for the popular summertime horror flick, The Blair Witch Project. The reviewer argued that several of the plot nuances were indirectly influenced by Christian thought, and that this film might provide people with an opportunity to open a discussion about Christianity with a non-Christian viewer. Similarly, I have seen the movie Contact several times, and still enjoy the thought-provoking plot. But I have heard people say they believe this movie affirms Christianity, when in reality the theology is quite twisted. Obviously a grounded Christian should be able to discern the truth. But if such films are a non-Christian’s only exposure to Christianity, what are the chances that he is going to believe some very false things about our faith in Christ? As for The Blair Witch Project, one (secular) reviewer counted "at least 134 ‘f’ words [and] 62 ‘s’ words," various other profanities, and a dozen misuses of Christ’s name — in a movie less than 90 minutes long. Well, there may be some "subtle Christian influences," but what about the explicit material that absolutely defies God?
It doesn’t surprise me that Hollywood’s fare is coarsening. Few producers, directors or actors claim to be Christians. It’s no excuse, yet they make no pretense of following a moral standard. Why would they behave any other way? As Christians, however, we have pledged our allegiance to a set moral code and are responsible for our actions.
Don’t think I haven’t messed up. Many times I have started a movie and noticed part way through that it contains offensive scenes, words and attitudes. Since I rarely watch movies alone, there is then The Quandary. Do I say something about how uncomfortable I am, and risk offending my friends — risking being labeled Judgmental — or do I simply stuff it, let the objectionable material roll off my back and forget about it? Sometimes it’s even harder than that: I get so caught up in the drama, wondering what is going to happen to the characters, that I don’t even think about things I might normally avoid . And afterwards I forget about the profanities, the innuendoes and simply remember the story.
To watch a video is primarily a passive activity. We don’t participate in the action, at least physically. But that doesn’t mean we’re not affected by the things we see. Vivid scenes linger in my memory for weeks. Catchy melodies flit through my mind days later, while I try in vain to remember where they came from. Funny phrases get used and reused. That’s harmless, but it causes me to wonder just what else my brain might be unconsciously storing. After watching several movies with a fair amount of profanity, I find that an inappropriate word comes more readily to mind when I am upset. Sometimes after watching a heroine find her perfect match and get married, I get mopey about my own unfulfilled dreams. Obviously we cannot remain separated and unaffected by our intake of popular culture.
Many Christians I know don’t seem bothered by this. They have apparently become so used to the swearing, the sex, the violence, the subtle (or not) anti-Christian messages found in many movies, that it no longer bothers them. They say — reasonably — that they want to be aware of the culture around them; but when does the argument for cultural literacy become a mere excuse for taking in the latest show? Is there a demarcation between being in the world but not of it? If so, what is it? What kind of standards should we follow to keep our thoughts pure, noble and lovely?
On the other hand, some Christians close themselves off to all popular culture. They refuse to watch movies or television, to expose themselves or their families to what they — often aptly — refer to as garbage. Is this what is required of us?
I believe there is a third way, something similar to what my dad instituted at our house. It is more demanding than uncritically emptying two hours of film into my brain, but Jesus instructs us to be wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. To be wise means knowing what is going on around us. Hollywood’s influence is felt in many areas of our lives, and it is good to be aware. Developing wisdom also means that we evaluate what we have seen. Be critical. What would you say to Jesus if He asked you to review a movie? How would you rate it — honestly — on the ten-point scale, and why? After seeing a movie, take a few minutes to analyze it.
But not all movies warrant analysis. To be innocent requires setting limits. Psalm 101:3 says "I will set before my eyes no vile thing." What does this verse means to you personally? There are other ways to be aware of a film short of seeing it — try reading a review, or talking to your friends who have seen it.
Entertainment is one of those areas that is covered only indirectly in the Bible. There are no rules dictating which videos we shall or shall not watch on a Friday night, no black and white guide for what is acceptable and what is taboo. It will vary from person to person and also from time to time in an individual’s life. But I don’t believe God wants us to watch whatever we please. Spend some time in serious prayer about it; ask God for His wisdom, and be willing to obey Him in whatever He asks, even if it means sacrificing a few movies you would like to see. Sometimes it helps to back off for a while and get a new perspective. A friend of mine told me that he once abstained from all movies for several months, just to see what would happen. The longer he went without movies, the more aware he became of objectionable material. At the end of his "movie fast," he didn’t want to watch most videos. Now, that he is back to watching movies on a more regular basis, he tells me he has again lost his sensitivity. Would you be willing to give up what you want in exchange for sensitivity, purity and the knowledge that you are obeying God?
The four areas that affect my decision to watch a movie are: violence, profanity, sex and content (is it an advertisement for witchcraft or thinly veiled propaganda for a sociopolitical movement?). Violence is probably the grayest area. Certain subjects must portray violence in order to be accurate — the holocaust in Schindler’s List or the utter destruction of life in Saving Private Ryan. I haven’t seen either of these movies, but not because I think they’re beyond the pale. It’s only because I know I can’t handle such graphic depictions of violence. I’d have nightmares for days. Many people have a higher tolerance for violence, especially by the time they are adults. (Although it is sad that the majority of adults are so hardened to television violence that it no longer bothers them at all.) Some people need visual images to understand the reality of the story. Personally, my imagination provides more than enough detail to pound a lesson into my memory.
Profanity and content are harder to deal with; especially the abuse of Christ’s name. Such blasphemy is frightening. Other words — well, it depends on the movie. So often it isn’t necessary. The strong language is added more for shock value or to get a higher rating than to enhance the story line. And while I rarely hear anything different in an average day on my college campus, what sense does it make to subject myself to even more off-color jokes or swearing?
The most dangerous content is often that which is 80 percent truth and 20 percent perversion of truth. The lies are subtle; hidden in the tapestry of the story. I for one don't enjoy having my theology messed with in such an underhanded manner.
The fourth and most volatile issue is sex. Each year new boundaries are broken in portraying sexual relationships. We wouldn’t think of watching our friends sleep together, but somehow it's okay when it's done for the camera. Why? It's especially uncomfortable for me to watch suggestive scenes when I’m in the presence of my father, brothers or male friends. What does that say? Sex is sacred and beautiful; private; between God, a man and his wife; it is not something for us to laugh at or fantasize about.
People argue that sex doesn't affect them, they don’t even hear the cursing, and the violence neither turns their stomach nor haunts their dreams. That should signal danger. We quickly become bored with the familiar and yearn for more violence, more sex, more shock. We want to be taken farther then we have been, to be given something new. What we need is to soften our hearts. And no matter how much we protest, Jesus’ words remain: "Out of the overflow of a man’s heart does he speak; by your words you will be condemned."
The challenge is this: Can we serve as witnesses by the words we say and the acts we commit — and, perhaps more importantly, by the things we omit from our lives? The testimony we give by refusing to laugh at others and putting limits on ourselves can be invaluable. "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial," Paul wrote. We are free in Christ to do all things; we are not bound by a law that says "You shall not watch R-rated movies," but God says that we are not to "use our freedom to indulge the sinful nature, but to serve one another in love." How much more effective might we be if we followed this command?
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
"I don’t know why I liked it, it had a good plot, it made me think." I took a sip of orange juice. "I’d give it a seven." Dad shook his head. "Not my kind of movie. It was clean, but I fell asleep twice. I’d say it was a three — maybe a four."
Such is often the conversation at my family’s breakfast table the morning after we watch a movie. My siblings and I aren’t always crazy to participate in these discussions, but my dad does his best to draw us out. What makes a movie good or bad? What did we like? Would we watch it again? And we always have to give it a rating on a ten-point scale. The worst of the worst rate a one, with tens reserved for great classics.
It wasn’t until recently, after I’d been in college for a while, that I realized not every Christian has grown up as I have, and I began to appreciate those review sessions and to understand how important the practice can be. Sure, I’d heard the statistics about the average American child watching four to eight hours of TV every day, and sneaking into R-rated movies at night. But those weren’t Christians! When I moved away from home, however, I realized my naiveté. I would sit at the table while my friends — mostly committed Christians — would talk for an hour at a time about their favorite movies. With no objective standards by which they judged each film, personal tastes ruled the day. If it grossed them out, then it was bad; if it gave them nightmares or they thought it was stupid, then it wasn’t worth watching, but no one’s decisions were based on any system of morality.
One of the biggest parts of America’s entertainment culture is the multi-billion dollar movie business. Every year Hollywood creates scores of films, most aimed at high school and college students. Take a look at collections from the past few years, and you’ll see that filmmakers believe either that our generation is willing to support any movie, no matter its depravity, or else that they must coerce/persuade us to accept them. It can be very difficult to discern which movies are worth watching; to pick out the subtle lies woven into a riveting story, to set a standard of purity we will not violate. Movies are, by their very nature, powerful messengers. They can be excellent vehicles for teaching truth, or incredibly dangerous
Recently, I read a review for the popular summertime horror flick, The Blair Witch Project. The reviewer argued that several of the plot nuances were indirectly influenced by Christian thought, and that this film might provide people with an opportunity to open a discussion about Christianity with a non-Christian viewer. Similarly, I have seen the movie Contact several times, and still enjoy the thought-provoking plot. But I have heard people say they believe this movie affirms Christianity, when in reality the theology is quite twisted. Obviously a grounded Christian should be able to discern the truth. But if such films are a non-Christian’s only exposure to Christianity, what are the chances that he is going to believe some very false things about our faith in Christ? As for The Blair Witch Project, one (secular) reviewer counted "at least 134 ‘f’ words [and] 62 ‘s’ words," various other profanities, and a dozen misuses of Christ’s name — in a movie less than 90 minutes long. Well, there may be some "subtle Christian influences," but what about the explicit material that absolutely defies God?
It doesn’t surprise me that Hollywood’s fare is coarsening. Few producers, directors or actors claim to be Christians. It’s no excuse, yet they make no pretense of following a moral standard. Why would they behave any other way? As Christians, however, we have pledged our allegiance to a set moral code and are responsible for our actions.
Don’t think I haven’t messed up. Many times I have started a movie and noticed part way through that it contains offensive scenes, words and attitudes. Since I rarely watch movies alone, there is then The Quandary. Do I say something about how uncomfortable I am, and risk offending my friends — risking being labeled Judgmental — or do I simply stuff it, let the objectionable material roll off my back and forget about it? Sometimes it’s even harder than that: I get so caught up in the drama, wondering what is going to happen to the characters, that I don’t even think about things I might normally avoid . And afterwards I forget about the profanities, the innuendoes and simply remember the story.
To watch a video is primarily a passive activity. We don’t participate in the action, at least physically. But that doesn’t mean we’re not affected by the things we see. Vivid scenes linger in my memory for weeks. Catchy melodies flit through my mind days later, while I try in vain to remember where they came from. Funny phrases get used and reused. That’s harmless, but it causes me to wonder just what else my brain might be unconsciously storing. After watching several movies with a fair amount of profanity, I find that an inappropriate word comes more readily to mind when I am upset. Sometimes after watching a heroine find her perfect match and get married, I get mopey about my own unfulfilled dreams. Obviously we cannot remain separated and unaffected by our intake of popular culture.
Many Christians I know don’t seem bothered by this. They have apparently become so used to the swearing, the sex, the violence, the subtle (or not) anti-Christian messages found in many movies, that it no longer bothers them. They say — reasonably — that they want to be aware of the culture around them; but when does the argument for cultural literacy become a mere excuse for taking in the latest show? Is there a demarcation between being in the world but not of it? If so, what is it? What kind of standards should we follow to keep our thoughts pure, noble and lovely?
On the other hand, some Christians close themselves off to all popular culture. They refuse to watch movies or television, to expose themselves or their families to what they — often aptly — refer to as garbage. Is this what is required of us?
I believe there is a third way, something similar to what my dad instituted at our house. It is more demanding than uncritically emptying two hours of film into my brain, but Jesus instructs us to be wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. To be wise means knowing what is going on around us. Hollywood’s influence is felt in many areas of our lives, and it is good to be aware. Developing wisdom also means that we evaluate what we have seen. Be critical. What would you say to Jesus if He asked you to review a movie? How would you rate it — honestly — on the ten-point scale, and why? After seeing a movie, take a few minutes to analyze it.
But not all movies warrant analysis. To be innocent requires setting limits. Psalm 101:3 says "I will set before my eyes no vile thing." What does this verse means to you personally? There are other ways to be aware of a film short of seeing it — try reading a review, or talking to your friends who have seen it.
Entertainment is one of those areas that is covered only indirectly in the Bible. There are no rules dictating which videos we shall or shall not watch on a Friday night, no black and white guide for what is acceptable and what is taboo. It will vary from person to person and also from time to time in an individual’s life. But I don’t believe God wants us to watch whatever we please. Spend some time in serious prayer about it; ask God for His wisdom, and be willing to obey Him in whatever He asks, even if it means sacrificing a few movies you would like to see. Sometimes it helps to back off for a while and get a new perspective. A friend of mine told me that he once abstained from all movies for several months, just to see what would happen. The longer he went without movies, the more aware he became of objectionable material. At the end of his "movie fast," he didn’t want to watch most videos. Now, that he is back to watching movies on a more regular basis, he tells me he has again lost his sensitivity. Would you be willing to give up what you want in exchange for sensitivity, purity and the knowledge that you are obeying God?
The four areas that affect my decision to watch a movie are: violence, profanity, sex and content (is it an advertisement for witchcraft or thinly veiled propaganda for a sociopolitical movement?). Violence is probably the grayest area. Certain subjects must portray violence in order to be accurate — the holocaust in Schindler’s List or the utter destruction of life in Saving Private Ryan. I haven’t seen either of these movies, but not because I think they’re beyond the pale. It’s only because I know I can’t handle such graphic depictions of violence. I’d have nightmares for days. Many people have a higher tolerance for violence, especially by the time they are adults. (Although it is sad that the majority of adults are so hardened to television violence that it no longer bothers them at all.) Some people need visual images to understand the reality of the story. Personally, my imagination provides more than enough detail to pound a lesson into my memory.
Profanity and content are harder to deal with; especially the abuse of Christ’s name. Such blasphemy is frightening. Other words — well, it depends on the movie. So often it isn’t necessary. The strong language is added more for shock value or to get a higher rating than to enhance the story line. And while I rarely hear anything different in an average day on my college campus, what sense does it make to subject myself to even more off-color jokes or swearing?
The most dangerous content is often that which is 80 percent truth and 20 percent perversion of truth. The lies are subtle; hidden in the tapestry of the story. I for one don't enjoy having my theology messed with in such an underhanded manner.
The fourth and most volatile issue is sex. Each year new boundaries are broken in portraying sexual relationships. We wouldn’t think of watching our friends sleep together, but somehow it's okay when it's done for the camera. Why? It's especially uncomfortable for me to watch suggestive scenes when I’m in the presence of my father, brothers or male friends. What does that say? Sex is sacred and beautiful; private; between God, a man and his wife; it is not something for us to laugh at or fantasize about.
People argue that sex doesn't affect them, they don’t even hear the cursing, and the violence neither turns their stomach nor haunts their dreams. That should signal danger. We quickly become bored with the familiar and yearn for more violence, more sex, more shock. We want to be taken farther then we have been, to be given something new. What we need is to soften our hearts. And no matter how much we protest, Jesus’ words remain: "Out of the overflow of a man’s heart does he speak; by your words you will be condemned."
The challenge is this: Can we serve as witnesses by the words we say and the acts we commit — and, perhaps more importantly, by the things we omit from our lives? The testimony we give by refusing to laugh at others and putting limits on ourselves can be invaluable. "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial," Paul wrote. We are free in Christ to do all things; we are not bound by a law that says "You shall not watch R-rated movies," but God says that we are not to "use our freedom to indulge the sinful nature, but to serve one another in love." How much more effective might we be if we followed this command?
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Listening to the Transhumanists
Albert Mohler
Frustration with the human condition has led many mortals astray. Indeed, the primal temptation that came to Adam and Eve in the garden was, in essence, to escape their own creaturely finitude and grasp after knowledge that had been forbidden them. Thus, by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve effectively redefined humanity, now "knowing the difference between good and evil."
Efforts to transcend the natural limits of human life and experience are regular features of ancient mythologies and modern literature. Strangely enough, ideas and proposals once limited to the world of science fiction are now taken seriously in some scientific circles.
If you demand evidence for that assertion, just consider the "Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights" conference, held May 26-28 at the Stanford Law School.
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and Special Consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture, attended the sessions and has offered this summary analysis: "If you want to know what it feels like to wander into a Salvador Dali painting, try attending a conference of transhumanists."
Smith offers a rather comprehensive report on the conference in "The Catman Cometh – Among the Transhumanists," published in the June 26, 2006 edition of The Weekly Standard. As he explains, "Transhumanism is a radical movement emanating from the universities that seeks to enhance human capacities via technology. The ultimate goal is a utopian world of 'post-humans,' such as human/robot hybrids and human consciousness downloaded into computers that will live for thousands of years."
Consider some of the ideas that were floating around at the conference. Smith cites James Hughes, a professor of health policy at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, who argues that human beings must eradicate "human racism," defined as the belief that humans should be accorded a special moral status just because they are human. Hughes is the author of Citizen Cyborg, a book that offers his vision of a transhumanist future. He argues that we must replace the notion of humanity with the concept of "personhood." As Smith explains, "Under personhood theory, some humans would be excluded, but all self-aware entities – whether human, post-human, machine, chimera, or robot – would qualify for the rights, privileges, and protections of citizenship."
Smith also reports that Nick Bostrom, cofounder of the World Transhumanists Association, is seeking to maintain some sense of "post-human dignity," but he also denies that this dignity can be "based on substrata." In other words, it should not matter whether a "being" is biological, or merely mechanical.
The conference also featured an ideological array including feminists like Annalee Newitz, who called for a transhumanist future in which female biology would be fixed, allowing women "better control over female evolution." Women should not have to rely upon males for "genetic material" in the making of babies. Newitz, a contributing editor at Wired magazine, also argues that men should be surgically altered so that they can become biological mothers.
As Newitz states in the conference brochure, "For thousands of years, women have been subjected to a genetic engineering program known as patriarchy – from an evolutionary perspective, patriarchy is a system in which men choose mates for women, and it has affected the culture and genetic make up of countless generations. Today many of us live in post-patriarchal societies with fairly advanced reproductive technology. Can we use this technology in the service of a feminist genetic engineering project? I argue that we can."
Human enhancement is the goal of many, if not all, of the participants. At times, the notion of "enhancement" takes on twisted forms. Susan Stryker, identified as "an internationally recognized independent scholar and filmmaker whose historical research and theoretical writings have helped shape the field of transgender studies," joined with Nikki Sullivan of Macquarie University in Australia to present a paper entitled "King's Body, Queen's Member: State Sovereignty, Transsexual Surgery, and Self-Demand Amputation."
As the conference program summarized their session: "we demonstrate how a discourse of bodily integrity has been deployed both for and against transsexual surgery and self-demand amputation at various historical moments and in differing social contexts. Drawing on Hobbes' theory of sovereignty in Leviathan, as well as Foucault's critique of centralized state authority, we argue that 'integrity' is not predicated on notions of natural, biologic, organic unity, but rather on the availability of the body as a source of biopower into the State's projects. We thus arrive at a radically antihumanist understanding of political struggles that structure the occupation of one's own embodied space, and which ultimately determine whether the body is available as a resource for subjective needs as well as state functions."
Now you are a brave reader if you have attempted to unpack those last few sentences. Suffice it to say that Stryker and Sullivan are arguing that society treats human bodies as mere sources of "biopower" for the state's purposes. Using a radical cultural analysis, they then argue that persons ought to be able to demand radical surgery on their bodies, even to the point of amputating healthy limbs, so they can meet their own subjective needs and no longer serve as "biopower" for the state. Got it?
Aubrey De Grey, biogerontologist at the University of Cambridge sought to redefine the right to life. "Humanity has long demonstrated a paradoxical ambivalence concerning the extension of healthy human lifespan," he said in his catalog statement. "Modest health extension has been universally sought, whereas extreme (even indefinite) health extension has been regarded as a snare and delusion--a dream beyond all others at first blush, but actually something we are better off without." Aubrey De Grey is not satisfied with that conclusion. Indeed, he calls for "curing aging" in order to expand the human lifespan without limit. He argues that humans "have a right to live as long as they wish to." Thus, "Once we realize this, our determination to consign human aging to history will be second only to our shame that we took so long to break out of our collective trance."
In other words, death is an evolutionary accident that should be eradicated by intentional intervention and biomedical advances. But, at least Aubrey De Grey was talking about humans. George Devorsky, on the other hand, argues that human beings must now biologically "uplift" non-human animals. As he explains, "As the potential for enhancement technologies migrates from the theoretical to the practical, a difficult and important decision will be imposed upon human civilization, namely the issue as to whether or not we are morally obligated to biologically enhance non-human animals and bring them along with us into advanced postbiological existence. There will be no middle road that we can take; humanity will either have to leave animals in their current state of nature or bring as many sentient creatures along into a posthuman future. A strong case can be made that life and civilizations on Earth have already been following this general tendency and that animal uplift will be a logical and reasonable developmental stage along this continuum of progress."
So, even as the transhumanists want to transcend the limits of human existence, some also demand that the same "uplift" be extended to the animal kingdom as well. Why limit transhumanism to humans? Indeed, the other "beings" of concern at the conference were mechanical beings like robots. As Nick Bostram, a philosopher at Oxford University, argued, "we need to expand our concept of dignity to encompass posthuman dignity as well as human dignity. If human dignity is the grounding for human rights, this move directly leads us to consider the question of posthuman rights. I will address the issue of such rights in the context of the creation of artificial minds . . . and discuss some tentative ethical principles for defining our rights and responsibilities relative to our hypothetical future machine progeny, and their rights and responsibilities relative to their creators."
No kidding. These scientists, theorists, and philosophers, teaching at some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, were seriously considering granting recognition of human dignity to machines and robots. Even the language in the making of such proposals appears ludicrous on its face. What does it mean to speak of "hypothetical future machine progeny?" Beyond that, how can we speak of robots having "rights and responsibilities relative to their creators?" Once again, science fiction is treated as the coming reality. Is it?
As Wesley J. Smith argues, "We shouldn't take all this too seriously, of course. Transhumanism is mostly an intellectual game, a fantasy. The technological breakthroughs necessary to create a true post-humanity will almost surely never come." So, should we worry?
"But this doesn't mean that transhumanism is benign – far from it," Smith advises. "Dismissing the intrinsic value of human life is always dangerous, and presuming to determine which human traits are desirable and which not leads to very dark places."
As Smith rightly reminds, a "new eugenics" has already arrived, with the abortion of the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and with the genetic screening of human embryos now urged upon us.
Furthermore, Smith notes that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Commerce have called for spending billions of dollars pursuing the very technologies that the transhumanists envision. The National Institutes of Health granted $773,000 to Case Law School in order to determine the advisability of "ethically acceptable rules" concerning the use of genetic technologies for human enhancement.
The rise of the transhumanist movement is just one symptom of a primal sin that has affected humanity from Adam onward. Dissatisfied with the limits of our human condition, there is the natural impulse to exceed those limitations. Thus, entire industries have been developed, intended to offer the promise of a longer life, a better life, a different life, and the eclipse of human boundaries.
Yet human dignity rests upon a clear and unambiguous affirmation that we are, after all, creatures uniquely made in God's image. The very fact that we are creatures reminds us of the fact that our Creator has the right to define and to determine what it means to be human. The problem with transhumanism is not merely in the details, or even in the likelihood that many of these technologies will never see the light of day. Indeed, the real problem is that the very urge and desire to eclipse human limitations is an act of defiance grounded in profound ingratitude. At the core of transhumanism is a basic hatred of humanity. The true humanists are those who accept with gratitude the gift of true humanity.
___________________________________________________
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Albert Mohler
Frustration with the human condition has led many mortals astray. Indeed, the primal temptation that came to Adam and Eve in the garden was, in essence, to escape their own creaturely finitude and grasp after knowledge that had been forbidden them. Thus, by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve effectively redefined humanity, now "knowing the difference between good and evil."
Efforts to transcend the natural limits of human life and experience are regular features of ancient mythologies and modern literature. Strangely enough, ideas and proposals once limited to the world of science fiction are now taken seriously in some scientific circles.
If you demand evidence for that assertion, just consider the "Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights" conference, held May 26-28 at the Stanford Law School.
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and Special Consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture, attended the sessions and has offered this summary analysis: "If you want to know what it feels like to wander into a Salvador Dali painting, try attending a conference of transhumanists."
Smith offers a rather comprehensive report on the conference in "The Catman Cometh – Among the Transhumanists," published in the June 26, 2006 edition of The Weekly Standard. As he explains, "Transhumanism is a radical movement emanating from the universities that seeks to enhance human capacities via technology. The ultimate goal is a utopian world of 'post-humans,' such as human/robot hybrids and human consciousness downloaded into computers that will live for thousands of years."
Consider some of the ideas that were floating around at the conference. Smith cites James Hughes, a professor of health policy at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, who argues that human beings must eradicate "human racism," defined as the belief that humans should be accorded a special moral status just because they are human. Hughes is the author of Citizen Cyborg, a book that offers his vision of a transhumanist future. He argues that we must replace the notion of humanity with the concept of "personhood." As Smith explains, "Under personhood theory, some humans would be excluded, but all self-aware entities – whether human, post-human, machine, chimera, or robot – would qualify for the rights, privileges, and protections of citizenship."
Smith also reports that Nick Bostrom, cofounder of the World Transhumanists Association, is seeking to maintain some sense of "post-human dignity," but he also denies that this dignity can be "based on substrata." In other words, it should not matter whether a "being" is biological, or merely mechanical.
The conference also featured an ideological array including feminists like Annalee Newitz, who called for a transhumanist future in which female biology would be fixed, allowing women "better control over female evolution." Women should not have to rely upon males for "genetic material" in the making of babies. Newitz, a contributing editor at Wired magazine, also argues that men should be surgically altered so that they can become biological mothers.
As Newitz states in the conference brochure, "For thousands of years, women have been subjected to a genetic engineering program known as patriarchy – from an evolutionary perspective, patriarchy is a system in which men choose mates for women, and it has affected the culture and genetic make up of countless generations. Today many of us live in post-patriarchal societies with fairly advanced reproductive technology. Can we use this technology in the service of a feminist genetic engineering project? I argue that we can."
Human enhancement is the goal of many, if not all, of the participants. At times, the notion of "enhancement" takes on twisted forms. Susan Stryker, identified as "an internationally recognized independent scholar and filmmaker whose historical research and theoretical writings have helped shape the field of transgender studies," joined with Nikki Sullivan of Macquarie University in Australia to present a paper entitled "King's Body, Queen's Member: State Sovereignty, Transsexual Surgery, and Self-Demand Amputation."
As the conference program summarized their session: "we demonstrate how a discourse of bodily integrity has been deployed both for and against transsexual surgery and self-demand amputation at various historical moments and in differing social contexts. Drawing on Hobbes' theory of sovereignty in Leviathan, as well as Foucault's critique of centralized state authority, we argue that 'integrity' is not predicated on notions of natural, biologic, organic unity, but rather on the availability of the body as a source of biopower into the State's projects. We thus arrive at a radically antihumanist understanding of political struggles that structure the occupation of one's own embodied space, and which ultimately determine whether the body is available as a resource for subjective needs as well as state functions."
Now you are a brave reader if you have attempted to unpack those last few sentences. Suffice it to say that Stryker and Sullivan are arguing that society treats human bodies as mere sources of "biopower" for the state's purposes. Using a radical cultural analysis, they then argue that persons ought to be able to demand radical surgery on their bodies, even to the point of amputating healthy limbs, so they can meet their own subjective needs and no longer serve as "biopower" for the state. Got it?
Aubrey De Grey, biogerontologist at the University of Cambridge sought to redefine the right to life. "Humanity has long demonstrated a paradoxical ambivalence concerning the extension of healthy human lifespan," he said in his catalog statement. "Modest health extension has been universally sought, whereas extreme (even indefinite) health extension has been regarded as a snare and delusion--a dream beyond all others at first blush, but actually something we are better off without." Aubrey De Grey is not satisfied with that conclusion. Indeed, he calls for "curing aging" in order to expand the human lifespan without limit. He argues that humans "have a right to live as long as they wish to." Thus, "Once we realize this, our determination to consign human aging to history will be second only to our shame that we took so long to break out of our collective trance."
In other words, death is an evolutionary accident that should be eradicated by intentional intervention and biomedical advances. But, at least Aubrey De Grey was talking about humans. George Devorsky, on the other hand, argues that human beings must now biologically "uplift" non-human animals. As he explains, "As the potential for enhancement technologies migrates from the theoretical to the practical, a difficult and important decision will be imposed upon human civilization, namely the issue as to whether or not we are morally obligated to biologically enhance non-human animals and bring them along with us into advanced postbiological existence. There will be no middle road that we can take; humanity will either have to leave animals in their current state of nature or bring as many sentient creatures along into a posthuman future. A strong case can be made that life and civilizations on Earth have already been following this general tendency and that animal uplift will be a logical and reasonable developmental stage along this continuum of progress."
So, even as the transhumanists want to transcend the limits of human existence, some also demand that the same "uplift" be extended to the animal kingdom as well. Why limit transhumanism to humans? Indeed, the other "beings" of concern at the conference were mechanical beings like robots. As Nick Bostram, a philosopher at Oxford University, argued, "we need to expand our concept of dignity to encompass posthuman dignity as well as human dignity. If human dignity is the grounding for human rights, this move directly leads us to consider the question of posthuman rights. I will address the issue of such rights in the context of the creation of artificial minds . . . and discuss some tentative ethical principles for defining our rights and responsibilities relative to our hypothetical future machine progeny, and their rights and responsibilities relative to their creators."
No kidding. These scientists, theorists, and philosophers, teaching at some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, were seriously considering granting recognition of human dignity to machines and robots. Even the language in the making of such proposals appears ludicrous on its face. What does it mean to speak of "hypothetical future machine progeny?" Beyond that, how can we speak of robots having "rights and responsibilities relative to their creators?" Once again, science fiction is treated as the coming reality. Is it?
As Wesley J. Smith argues, "We shouldn't take all this too seriously, of course. Transhumanism is mostly an intellectual game, a fantasy. The technological breakthroughs necessary to create a true post-humanity will almost surely never come." So, should we worry?
"But this doesn't mean that transhumanism is benign – far from it," Smith advises. "Dismissing the intrinsic value of human life is always dangerous, and presuming to determine which human traits are desirable and which not leads to very dark places."
As Smith rightly reminds, a "new eugenics" has already arrived, with the abortion of the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and with the genetic screening of human embryos now urged upon us.
Furthermore, Smith notes that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Commerce have called for spending billions of dollars pursuing the very technologies that the transhumanists envision. The National Institutes of Health granted $773,000 to Case Law School in order to determine the advisability of "ethically acceptable rules" concerning the use of genetic technologies for human enhancement.
The rise of the transhumanist movement is just one symptom of a primal sin that has affected humanity from Adam onward. Dissatisfied with the limits of our human condition, there is the natural impulse to exceed those limitations. Thus, entire industries have been developed, intended to offer the promise of a longer life, a better life, a different life, and the eclipse of human boundaries.
Yet human dignity rests upon a clear and unambiguous affirmation that we are, after all, creatures uniquely made in God's image. The very fact that we are creatures reminds us of the fact that our Creator has the right to define and to determine what it means to be human. The problem with transhumanism is not merely in the details, or even in the likelihood that many of these technologies will never see the light of day. Indeed, the real problem is that the very urge and desire to eclipse human limitations is an act of defiance grounded in profound ingratitude. At the core of transhumanism is a basic hatred of humanity. The true humanists are those who accept with gratitude the gift of true humanity.
___________________________________________________
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
ASK THE PLANET - VIA YAHOO
The new Yahoo Answers site has characteristics of both chat rooms and
bulletin boards. It allows anyone to post a question about anything, so
that others can answer it. It is very easy to use you just need a Yahoo ID
and then sign up for the Answers system. There are many questions in the
religious section which give you the opportunity to provide a sensitive,
relevant, biblical answer. But you will also see questions in many other
subject areas which allow you to sensitively share a Christian worldview in
a non-preachy way. For instance, there are frequent questions about movies
which enable us to draw out Christian parallels, in the way that
HollywoodJesus.com and MovieGlimpe.com do. And personal needs and worries
are often posted in various subject areas. Answers posted at Yahoo Answers
do not necessarily develop into discussion and feedback - though this is
possible and those who posted the question can contact you privately.
Because of the popularity of the site, your answers are likely to be viewed
by large numbers of people.
You can even make Yahoo Answers your browser homepage (or desktop
shortcut) then you can skim through current questions any time you have a
few spare minutes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The new Yahoo Answers site has characteristics of both chat rooms and
bulletin boards. It allows anyone to post a question about anything, so
that others can answer it. It is very easy to use you just need a Yahoo ID
and then sign up for the Answers system. There are many questions in the
religious section which give you the opportunity to provide a sensitive,
relevant, biblical answer. But you will also see questions in many other
subject areas which allow you to sensitively share a Christian worldview in
a non-preachy way. For instance, there are frequent questions about movies
which enable us to draw out Christian parallels, in the way that
HollywoodJesus.com and MovieGlimpe.com do. And personal needs and worries
are often posted in various subject areas. Answers posted at Yahoo Answers
do not necessarily develop into discussion and feedback - though this is
possible and those who posted the question can contact you privately.
Because of the popularity of the site, your answers are likely to be viewed
by large numbers of people.
You can even make Yahoo Answers your browser homepage (or desktop
shortcut) then you can skim through current questions any time you have a
few spare minutes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EasyChinese Bible Stories - site being developed:
http://www.gng.org.cn/
http://www.gng.org.cn/
# posted by 
:
02 July, 2006 16:36
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
:
02 July, 2006 16:36
Previous issues are online:
http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/bulletin.php with two options to
translate single words into other languages. Feedback, discussion on issues
raised, and new material is welcomed - just hit 'reply'. W-E-B prints up to
6 pages (in font 10) - often the best way to read a long newsletter!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDITORS and BLOGGERS: It's f.r.e.e ! Please use any item from the Bulletin
(or Guide) with a short attribution:
http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/conditions.php
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/bulletin.php with two options to
translate single words into other languages. Feedback, discussion on issues
raised, and new material is welcomed - just hit 'reply'. W-E-B prints up to
6 pages (in font 10) - often the best way to read a long newsletter!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDITORS and BLOGGERS: It's f.r.e.e ! Please use any item from the Bulletin
(or Guide) with a short attribution:
http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/conditions.php
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
(for the whole story...go here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html)
Thursday , June 22, 2006 FOX NEWSWASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.
Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.
"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.
At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.
Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.
"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.
FOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report
Post a Comment
(for the whole story...go here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html)
Thursday , June 22, 2006 FOX NEWSWASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.
Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.
"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.
At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.
Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.
"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.
FOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report
# posted by :
03 July, 2006 19:52
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
:
03 July, 2006 19:52<< Home
Powered by FeedBlitz
* * * Great Archives Here - - - - "Music That Howdy Enjoys" Below * * *
February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 December 2007