The Decline of the West

2 07 2009

 

In 1919, just after the gut-wrenching trauma of the First World War, Oswald Spangler published the first volume of his monumental work, The Decline of the West.  In this work Spangler presented his theory of the rise and fall of nations.   It was a pessimistic work in which he theorized that Western Civilization was on the decline.   Several years later, in 1934, he published a second book, The Hour of Decision.  In this book he foresaw the Second World War and warned that it might well lead to the destruction of Western Civilization.

Years have passed and Spangler’s pessimistic book has been all but forgotten.  After all, the Second World War did come but it did not signal the end of Western Civilization.   But what is not appreciated by most is just how close Spangler’s prediction came to be fulfilled to the letter.  In fact had it not been for one aging English politician who foresaw the same thing Spangler did the West might well have fallen and the world could have slipped into a new dark age.   The politician I am referring to is Winston Churchill.  

Churchill was far from a perfect man.  In fact, one would not have to look too far to find things to dislike about the man.  But there was a moment when this flawed old Lion saved the West from the fate forecast by Spangler.  In his book, Five Days in London, John Lukas explains:[i] 

“The setting is London, and the five days are Friday through Tuesday, 24 to 28 May 1940.  Then and there Adolf Hitler came closest to winning the Second World War, his war.

One man knew how close Hitler had come to his ultimate victory, Winston Churchill.  In the years after the war he gave the title The Hinge of Fate to the fourth volume of his War Memoirs.  That volume dealt with the year 1942, near the end of which the Germans were turned back on many fronts.  In November 1942 he said to the British people that this was not yet the beginning of the end but perhaps the end of the beginning.  November 1942 was the military hinge of fate on the battlefields of Egypt, North Africa, and Russia: the military turning points.  Even then Britain could not win the war.  In the end America and Russia did.  But in May 1940 Churchill was the one who did not lose it. Then and there he saved Britain, and Europe and Western Civilization.”

As I read Lukas’ book I was stuck with just how close Spangler’s prophecy came to being fulfilled.  It really came down to that one stubborn man.  How different history would have been had Churchill not been there!  Simply stated, Britain would have capitulated and Hitler would have won the war. 

Of course, Hitler would have attacked Russia and who knows whether he or Stalin would have prevailed; but either way Europe would have entered a dark age.  Nazi or Communist.   Hitler or Stalin.  Take your pick. 

But as Lukas points out, defeating the one dark power required more than the grit of Churchill, it still took the United States, and perhaps even more importantly, that other dark power, the Soviet Union, to defeat the Nazis.  After that, had it not been for the United States’ willingness to fight the Cold War that other dark power would have prevailed and Spangler’s prophecy might still have been fulfilled.  So looking back it can be said that had it not been for Winston Churchill’s determination not to lose the war and the United States willingness to fight the Cold War Western Civilization would have fallen and the world would be in a dark age. 

In retrospect, Spangler was right.   The West, except for one old Englishman and the still vigorous United States, had run out of steam.  Spiritually and morally drained, Europe required the United States first to save them from the Nazis, to rebuild it after the war, and finally to save it from Communism. 

But has the danger past?   Alarmingly, the trends that signaled Spangler of a civilization in its twilight in 1919 are still there and they have spread, but this time there is no Churchill and the United States is running out of steam.  Ronald Regan said, “It’s morning in America.”  Perhaps it was, but the day seems to be passing quickly and there is a feel of twilight in the air.

 


[i] John Lukas,: May 1940, p. 1-2





Moving On

9 06 2009

After 22 years in Ogallala, Nebraska, my wife and I are in the process of moving to Kansas.  Because of this the computer that has my book, From This Twisted Root, on it is packed away.  So I will not be able to publish the next two chapters in this series until we get settled sometime next week.  Sorry about that.





The Media’s Slobbering Love Affair with Obama Continues

7 06 2009

Evan Thomas, the editor of Newsweek, in  comparing Barack Obama’s Normandy address with Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 speech has demonstrated that Bernie Goldberg was not overstating the case when he accused the mainstream media of having a slobbering love affair with  Obama:  “Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn’t felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We’re seen too often as the bad guys. And he, he has a very different job from … Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is – we are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something, I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above above the world, he’s sort of God.”

This is not journalism, it’s idolatry.





Some Thoughts on the Murder of George Tiller

1 06 2009

As you no doubt have heard, late-term abortion specialist, George Tiller, will not be able to keep his appointments at his clinic this week.   

As you may have guessed from my first sentence, I feel some ambivalence about the death of Dr. Tiller.  On the one hand it is hard to feel bad about the death of a man who is responsible for the brutal killing thousands.  On the other hand, George Tiller was a human being, created in the image of God and entitled to the same right to life he denied others.  Also, he leaves behind a loving family and my heart goes out to them in this their time of mourning.  

However, I have no ambivalence toward the coward who took George Tiller’s life, Scott Roeder.  His cold-blooded murder of another human being is indefensible and will only hurt the cause he hoped to serve.  Ironically, in committing this act Roeder became guilty of the very crime he hated Dr. Tiller for; playing God.

For a few more thoughts from another pastor on the same subject: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99830

This is good too: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99888





Is America Descending into Marxism?

29 05 2009

marxI think so, and an editorial appearing in Pravda — a publication that should know something about the subject — agrees.  

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

The leader of the Communist Party U.S.A. agrees, and loves it: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99104

And so does Hugo Chavez: http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441





From this Twisted Root: New Chapters

26 05 2009

These are chapters 10 and 11 of my previously unpublished book on the birth of the American popular culture; From This Twisted Root: The Silent Movie Era and the Birth of the American Popular Culture.

 
  CHAPTER 10 – A TILT TOWARD TITILLATION

The proposition that the movies produced by Hollywood during the silent era may have been a harmful influence on American society, is usually met with an incredulous smile. Looking back on the innocent looking films of the silent era, it is easy to laugh at those rabid ministers of yesteryear who used to cry out against these films and urge their congregations to boycott them. At the sunset of the century these movies, many of them artistic masterpieces, seem so innocuous that the very notion that such charming and harmless features could have played any role in undermining the morals of the nation seems absurd. But they did. 

The way in which even the most innocent seeming silent films played a role in undermining the moral foundations of the nation was wonderfully (though unintentionally) illustrated in the film, The Gods Must Be Crazy.

In the first part of this film an empty Coca-Cola bottle is inadvertently dropped from an airplane into a small pygmy village. Now, it is hard to imagine anything more harmless than a Coca-Cola bottle. However, to the natives, who had never seen such a thing before, its arrival had a profound impact. They quickly concluded that this object, the “strangest, most beautiful thing they had ever seen,” had been given to them by the gods, and they began to speculate as to their reasons for sending it.

Soon they found that it was a wonderfully practical item, and they were able to adapt it to many useful purposes. Before they knew it, this object, which had been unknown to them just a short time before, had become a necessity. Everyone “needed” it.  But, alas, the gods had made a cruel mistake, they had only sent one. This led to outbreaks of anger jealousy, hate and finally violence. Even the children of the “family” (i.e. tribe) fought over the bottle.

All of this trouble eventually prompted “Xi,” the leader of the family, to conclude that the bottle was an “evil thing,” and that if the family was to be saved from the corruption unleased by the bottle, it must be removed and thrown off the edge of the world. Having made this determination, he began an odyssey to the edge of the world to see to it that the “evil thing” was properly eliminated.

Of course, we know the Coca-Cola bottle was not really the problem. Its presence merely released aspects of the natives’ human nature that had remained dormant in its absence. In the same way the old silent films helped to awaken aspects of human nature that had lain largely inactive in America during the Victorian Age.

In his autobiography the great movie director, Cecil B. De Mille, acknowledges that something malignant began to infect the culture in post World War I America. He refers to this cultural sickness as “a crumbling of standards,” and he rightly puts his finger on the ultimate cause of it, “original sin.” But what he, and so many others since, have refused to recognize was that one of major reasons for this sudden outbreak of original sin was “the Coca-Cola bottle” that the gods of Hollywood had dropped into the civilization through their innocent looking movies. The process was gradual and all so very subtle that at the time most people did not even realize it was happening.

Griffith and Mayer write:  “As parents watched their young cultivate sideburns and spit curls, the more reflective among them came to a startled realization that the old molding influences – home, church, school – had been superseded by the silver screen. The rest wished they were young enough to be Sheiks and Shebas themselves.”

The Hollywood crowd — equal in influence with the home, church and school!? A more foreboding development can hardly be imagined. Sadly, the Hollywood crowd’s influence has grown into an even more potent force in recent years. But keep in mind, all of this enormous influence is not a new development, it was first noticed and felt way back during the “Silent Era.”

The legendary film director, Cecil B. De Mille, like many other Americans, could clearly discern that something significant was happening in America during the 1920s. He referred to it as a “cultural sickness” and argued that that it was being “aggravated in America” by something (he theorized the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act). But he did not recognize, at least early on, that his own films were one of the major factors in inflaming and spreading the cancer.

Richard Griffith and Arthur Mayer, in their very sympathetic history of the movies, write of De Mille’s contribution to the malaise, (though they do not acknowledge it as a sickness):  “It was De Mille’s peculiar insight that the strait laced Puritanism of prewar (W.W. I) was weakening and needed only to be given lip service to be placated. He dedicated his pictures to showing people, at length and in intimate detail what they ought NOT (emphasis in original) to do. His titles left do doubt at all of where his sympathies lay – `Don’t Change Your Husband’, `Why Change Your Wife?’, `Forbidden Fruit’…..but of course they had to be shown in order to be deplored.”

You may recall that in the wake of the controversy surrounding The Birth of a Nation D.W. Griffith had insisted that the movie industry had “no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue.” De Mille was, arguably, just trying to do this, to illuminate virtue by showing the dark side of wrong, unfortunately he failed to anticipate the attractive power the “dark side of wrong” would have on human beings who still suffered under the corrupting effects of “Original Sin” and who were just emerging from an era of “strait- laced Puritanism.

Griffith and Mayer write of De Mille’s films: “To a generation brought up never to mention personal sanitation, he introduced bathing as an art and disrobing as a prolonged rapture. In the shrine of cleanliness, dishabille and ever partial nudity were so obvious as necessity that the most godly could not object to their display on the screen….after generations of Puritanism, it was thrilling (emphasis added) to be told that bodily beauties were not a shame and a weakness.”   Historian Paul Sanns adds: “De Mille wielded the first megaphone on many of the scenes that made the movie bedroom what it is to-day.” Sann also quotes from Loyd Morris’ Not So Long Ago: “The De Mille boudoir became a chapel for the celebration of rites authorized by custom, but still accounted irregular by the law and the church.” This was one of the first ways in which the movies tended to undermine the moral foundations of the nation.

While Griffith and Mayer are correct in pointing out that the “godly” could not object to “dishabille” and “partial nudity” when connected with bathing, it is also true that it was not the sort of thing that America had been used to watching. Until the movies allowed the rest of the nation to join them, scenes like those featured in De Mille’s films had been reserved for “Peeping Toms.” By titillating the audience with the risque his movies were producing an appetite for it. The public was going to the theater anticipating a sexy scene or two and the films of De Mille and those who followed him were whetting a public appetite for voyeurism .

In another insightful passage form their history of the movies Griffith and Mayer discern a second way in which De Mille’s films served to undermine the values of society: “De Mille began his pictures where his predecessors left off, with the honeymoon over and the man and woman sitting down to dinner together night after night, pondering their bargain. Presently appeared the serpents in their shaky Eden. Villains or vamps they would have been earlier, on calculated malice bent, but De Mille showed them as unable to control their a actions, sincerely and fatally attracted to the married hero or heroine. Who, then was to blame for what followed?”

“As always, De Mille’s titles rebuked his plots. We Can’t Have Everything (1918), and the like upheld the sanctity of marriage and insured a last-reel return to the fold. But a territory had been explored [emphasis added] in the meantime. And the explorers seemed to be saying marriage had better turn out as advertised because there are, after all, second and third and even fourth choices.”

To a culture raised to believe that a person could, should and must control his actions, and that marriage vows meant what they said and were sacred, the propositions presented in these films, even though condemned, presented a different and seductively appealing viewpoint.  It was much like putting a wet paint sign on a park bench – which, for some mysterious reason seems to cause everyone who passes by to touch it – so the movies begin to affect the way the audience viewed sex and marriage.

Before long, and in ever increasing numbers, the public began to long for, and then to sample the “Forbidden Fruit” for themselves. Perhaps they thought that they could do what De Mille’s characters were never allowed to do, enjoy the fruit and avoid the consequences. These sorts of films were, indeed, a “Coca-Cola” bottle suddenly dropped into a society which had never considered, and certainly never watched, things like this before.

By 1922 De Mille had finally figured out that the “pleasure, freedom and excitements which his film has so relentlessly celebrated might constitute a decadence that would bring upon the republic the fate of Rome.” From that time on, Griffith and Mayer write, he set out to “reform the nation his critics said he had corrupted.”

It is to De Mille’s credit that he finally saw the effect that his films were having and tried to do something about it. However, his would prove to be a futile crusade. Ironically, this intensely moral man had shown the industry that America would pay to be titillated. The movie genre he helped create was steadily capturing the public’s imagination, and there seemed to be nothing that could stop it.

 

CHAPTER 11 – WINDS FROM THE OLD WORLD

So far we have focused primarily on the growth of the motion picture industry in the United States of America, but it should be remembered that all the while a motion picture industry was developing in the Untied States, motion picture industries were evolving in the various kingdoms of Europe as well. 

The evolution of film making in the old world, particularly western Europe, proceeded much differently than it did in America, but since European filmakers and films would ultimately have a significant influence on the American motion picture industry, the similarities and contrasts between the two are worth noting.

The first thing an American moviegoer who had only seen American films in American movie houses would have noticed, if he were to attend a movie on the Continent, would have been the difference in the place where the films were shown and in the audience that came to see them.

We have already seen that dreary nickelodeons were the first movie houses in America. Their intended audience was the urban poor. In contrast, European movie houses during this same era, “were usually located in fashionable districts and catered to the cultivated classes – the same patrons who attended the legitimate theater and the opera.”

Another significant difference that the man in the theater seat may have felt but probably would not have known had to do with the control of the medium.  In the United States the  independent producers who had wrestled control of the media away from the tycoons of the old M.P.P.C., had founded and became the heads of, powerful motion picture studios. But, like the men whom they had replaced, they were men of business. They were not artists, nor did they look upon motion pictures primarily as an art form. They looked upon the movies as entertainment and the folks who made them as entertainers, not artists.

The moguls of Hollywood did have a much greater respect for their enterprise and their audience than did their predecessors. But, like the men they had replaced, their primary concern was still making money, lots and lots of money. Thus, as long as they were in control, profits, rather than the making of artistic statements, would continue to be the principle reason for making movies.

The fact that the goal of every motion picture was to make money for the studio served as a check, a form of economic self-censorship which restricted American filmakers and prevented them from becoming too outrageous in their productions. It was all right to be slightly ahead of the pack, but if a film maker went too far, too fast, the public might quit coming and profits would suffer. If this happened often enough, a filmaker would find himself out of work. This was especially important at a time when the Jewish immigrants who ruled the studios were consciously trying to lift themselves and their industry to respectability. So as long, then, as the industry was ruled by this particular group of businessmen rather than by the creative community, the avant garde tendencies of the artists who worked in Hollywood would be held somewhat in check

The situation was far different in Europe. Motion picture historians Louis Gianneti and Scott Eyman write that “in most European countries, the cinema in its early stages of development fell into the hands of artists who shared most of the values and tastes of the educated elite.” Appealing to the masses or showing respect for the values of the middle class were the least of their worries. The primary goal of a European filmaker was to produce films that would make artistic and philosophical statements and films that would please their patrons, the intellectual and cultural elite of their various countries.

One of the results of this was that from the beginning, European filmakers have viewed themselves and were hailed by the cultural elite on both sides of the Atlantic as artists. In contrast, most of the pioneers of the American motion picture industry viewed themselves as did their bosses, entertainers. They considered the movies they made as a form of popular entertainment, not artistic statements. And the cultural aristocracy, who hailed their European counterparts, shared their opinion.

It was not that American filmakers were not artists in their own right. Giannetti and Eyman point out that “[D.W.] Griffith and his contemporaries had no great respect for the medium they were working in, but their temperaments compelled them to treat it as if it was an art. The result was that they made it one.” But they did not yet realize it, and the gentry did not want to acknowledge it. It would be years before their artistry was acknowledged and the intellectual community would come to celebrate the artistic merit of their films with anything approaching the enthusiasm they reserved for their European competition. But it would not take the filmakers in Hollywood very long to covet that recognition and status.

The acknowledging of the artistry of Hollywood was further hampered by the fact that most European filmakers, like the cultural elite they served, tended to look down on their American counterparts. To them, these Americans, who made movies primary to make money and to entertain the masses, were not being driven by true artistic motives and therefore were not worthy of the lofty designation, artists. As far as most European film makers were concerned, the American commercially-driven productions were “sell outs,” and, from an artistic standpoint, clearly inferior to their own endeavors. Giannetti and Eyman point out that “Whatever their individual merits or failings, American pictures were automatically suspect because even the most serious artists were required to work within commercially viable formats.”

Since the European film industry was controlled by artists who made their films to satisfy the sophisticated tastes of the cultural elite or just to please themselves, there were, of course, major differences in the content of European films when compared with American films of the same period.

European filmakers were living in a society that had been much more deeply impacted by the philosophers of the nineteenth century than had the United States, and their movies reflected this influence. They consciously set out to make films that celebrated the nihilism and pessimism that their philosophically informed world views invariably produced.

In contrast, the American filmaker might have been able to produce powerful films; but, once again, he was held back by the “bottom line” of the businessmen who controlled the studios and by the moral values of a society that was still predominantly Christian.  Because the great American middle class was still very much committed to a Biblically based set of values, American movie makers were forced, by necessity, to make films that, at least acknowledged the moral values of the Judeo/Christian culture in which they lived.

The contrast in the content of the European and the American products can be dramatically illustrated just by comparing “what was showing” in the theaters on the two continents, in any given year. For example, take the year 1928. In America moviegoers were flocking to the theaters to see the 1927 Academy Award winning film Wings starring Clara Bow and Buddy Rogers, or Al Jolson’s The Jazz Singer, (the first “talkie”). The same year European movie goers were being treated to the provocative work of two notable artists, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali.

Bunuel and Dali teamed up in 1928 to create a surrealist masterpiece entitled, Un Chien Analuo. It was a daring and shocking film that blatantly emphasized sex and violence. Perhaps the most shocking scene of all is a sequence in which Bunuel himself slashes a woman’s eyeball in two. The film was full of images like this, images which defied logic and left the viewer to wonder what “deep truth” the film was trying to illustrate. The directors proudly boasted that it had no meaning at all.  It would be decades before an American filmaker attempted a work as bold or offensive as Un Chien Anuluo.

But when all was said and done, the more entertaining American movies would prove to be a much more powerful vehicle for impacting society with their messages, and in producing societal change, than were the self-consciously artistic European films such as Bunel and Dali’s masterpiece.

European films were basically “preaching to the choir,” and thus were not well-suited for making converts. American films, on the other hand, were designed to appeal to, to entertain, and finally to win over a mass audience. American films possessed that special ability to pull in individuals who, if they had known the philosophy that the filmaker was going to try to persuade them to accept, never would have gone the theater in the first place. Therein lay their power.

Whether the Europeans wanted to admit it or not, they were in competition with these popular and entertaining American imports. And, they were not winning the competition. In spite of the critical acclaim they consistently received, the artistic triumphs of the Europeans were to have very little impact on the culture. This was, no doubt, due to the fact that so very few people were bothered to go and see them.

European filmakers, who had been chiefly concerned with gaining the approval of their peers in the cultural elite, had made a mistake in not caring whether the mass audience enjoyed their films or not. And they paid for it. Erudite critics may have preferred the “arty” cinema of Europe, but the common man, and there were many more of them, embraced the light and optimistic American offerings. Given a choice of going to see Un Chien Analuo or Wings, it seemed that most people, regardless of nationality, preferred Wings.

So successful was the American motion picture industry that, even before war broke out in Europe in 1914, American films had moved into a dominate position in the industry. By the end of the First World War, Hollywood (assisted in large part by the devastating effects of the carnage in Europe), rather than Paris, Berlin or Rome, had become the movie capital of the world. America’s dominance of the media continued in the post war years. Within twenty years of the end of the war, American movies were showing on “over 80 percent of the world’s screens, and were more popular with foreign mass audiences than all but a few natively produced movies — even in Europe. In addition, as high as 40% of the money grossed by American pictures was earned in foreign showings. Whether the cultural elite applauded their efforts or not, the commercially-driven movie makers of Hollywood easily eclipsed their European rivals in popularity, impact, receipts, and eventually, in artistry.

The Europeans spoke with snobbish disdain of the commercially driven efforts of the Americans, but they could not help but notice the fame and the huge profits that were being raked in by their contemporaries in Hollywood. Once they began to notice, they could not help but covet the financial windfall that was being gathered by those they considered their inferiors. This soon resulted an exodus of talent from Europe to Hollywood as several noted European directors came to Hollywood seeking fame and fortune to go with their critical acclaim. They brought their artistic talents and their avant-garde philosophies with them. Both would have a significant impact on the American motion picture industry.

Meanwhile, in spite of their great financial success, their “star” status, and all that came with it, American filmakers were beginning to covet the critical acclaim being heaped upon the more eclectic films of Europe. They began to chaff under their designation as “entertainers” and covet recognition as “serious artists.” Increasingly, American filmakers began to feel stifled by the strictures placed upon them by the profit motivation of the studio chiefs who employed them, and by the conventions of American society. They began to yearn for the artistic freedom enjoyed by their counterparts in Europe. In time their yearning for critical acclaim and artistic freedom would lead to another battle for control of the cinema. This power struggle would be much more protracted and not nearly as obvious, or as nasty, as the battle between the MCCP and the independents, but it would be just as real.

The first serious skirmish in the battle by artists to assert their independence came as early as 1919 when director D.W. Griffith, actress Mary Pickford, and actors Douglas Fairbanks and Charles Chaplin, formed “United Artists.” Giannetti and Eyman point out that “this was not the fist attempt by actors to produce their own pictures and control their own professional lives, but by virtue of the stature of the people involved, it was certainly the most formidable.” Despite the modest success of “UA,” and similar efforts, it would be several decades before the artistic community would be able to gain control of the motion picture industry. It would not be until the 1967 that they were able to remove the last strictures on their creative freedom. With the removal of these restraints, Hollywood’s creative community finally gained the complete control and the freedom that their European counterparts had enjoyed from the beginning. The fine arts community, whether in America or on the continent, has generally tended to be avant-garde in its thinking and behavior, and it has always had some measure of influence in society. But motion pictures offered them the awesome ability to speak to and to sway the entire culture. Eventually the movies would be theirs to do with as they wanted. But in the early days of the motion picture industry, the strictures of capitalism and convention were still very much in place, and control of their medium and their goal of absolute artistic freedom lay far in the future. But artists are very clever people.

It has been said that if and artist can not afford canvas, he will paint on anything. If forced to work within strictures, an artist will quickly adapt and produce his art within the boundaries set for him. Often the product produced within these restrictions will prove to be the best and the greatest tribute to the artist’s genius. This would prove to be the case with the American motion picture industry.

The creative community in Hollywood hated the strictures placed on them by the commercial concerns of the studio chiefs and by the conventions of American society, but, in the final analysis, these restrictions proved to be a blessing in disguise. They had the unintended result of forcing American filmakers to learn how to be entertaining as well as artistic. This would ultimately give then an advantage, not just an over their European competitors, but a power over their audience and their critics as well. It is unlikely that they would have ever gained this edge had they not been under the control of businessmen and held in check by very exacting societal boundaries. It should always be kept in mind that it was when the motion picture industry labored under the constraints of free market capitalism AND an incredibly exacting moral standard that Hollywood enjoyed its golden age.





Carrie PreJean Revisited

19 05 2009

prejeanWhen Carrie Prejean first came under fire for stating her defense for traditional marriage I was one of the first to defend her.  I believed, and still believe, that she was being persecuted for righteousness sake.  I continued to defend her when the first provocative pictures were released.  After all, she was just 17 and 17 year olds make stupid mistakes.  Then additional pictures turned up.  Still, I gave her the benefit of the doubt.  But then I heard Carrie’s own explanation of the pictures and I decided that I needed to revisit my initial response.  Understand I still applaud the fact that she has the courage of her convictions, but I must confess I am troubled at her lack of conviction.

Early on in the controversy, the Executive Director of the U.S. Pastor’s council, Dave Welsh wrote a column critical of Miss Prejean. 

 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96305

In it he cited another pastor, Larry DeBruyn of Franklin Road Baptist Church in Indianapolis, who questioned “just how much we should be elevating this beautiful and talented young lady…”  He wrote:

The irony of this whole business is that here was a scantily clad woman…who was asked about marriage by a judge who supposedly isn’t even attracted to women. She gives the politically incorrect answer and in doing so alienated the politically correct judges and forfeited possible victory in the beauty pageant. By giving a correct answer to a loaded question about marriage, and by doing so without hardly any clothes on, Miss Prejean has now become the cause célèbre amongst conservatives and evangelicals for her affirmation of biblically correct marriage.

Welsh went on to say this:

We are blessed with three beautiful daughters and we have done our best to instill in them a standard of modesty which first of all glorifies the God we serve, also shows the respect they have for themselves, avoids defrauding the men of all ages around them and protects them from lustful predators. I am very proud of them because they have adopted that standard in their daily attire as well as their bathing attire.

Why is that important? As always, we should first turn to the standard our Creator has given us: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness” (1 Timothy 2:10).

I thought both pastors made good points, but I felt they were trumped a few days later when another pastor refuted them with a single word, “Esther.”  But then I heard Carrie defending the Photos in an interview with Sean Hannity and I have come to agree with Pastors Welsh and DeBruyn.  They were right.  When it comes to modesty Miss California hasn’t got a clue.

 Defending the pictures – which were taken by a girl friend when she just 17 — Carrie explained: “I was pursuing a modeling carrier.  I was completely naive and very young.”  But instead of saying she did something wrong or stupid, she said, “They were for application, not publication.”  What?  So it’s alright to have semi-nude photos taken of you as long as you are applying for a job in modeling?

The very supportive Sean Hannity quickly added, “Being a model is not a job for someone that’s concerned with modesty,” and went on to explain that the pageant has as swimming suit competition.

But that is the point, isn’t it?  And how can any Christian woman or girl not be interested in modesty given Paul’s admonition that women adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly?   If Hannity is correct and a model cannot be concerned with modesty, then does it not follow that a Christian woman should not be a model, and perhaps even a beauty show contestant?

Carrie’s explanation for the even more explicit photos that turned up was that a photographer took pictures of her when she wasn’t looking.  He subsequently violated her trust by releasing them.  I have no reason to doubt this explanation.  However, she was exposed before a male photographer, was she not?  And even the photos she authorized him to release  were intended to appeal to the prurient interests of those who viewed them.  But this was the most troubling thing of all, when asked what advice she would give to other young women pursuing a modeling career it was, basically; be sure to contract with photographers you can trust.

Until I heard Carrie Prejean defend herself I was completely supportive of her.  I still am.  I believe she is a sister in Christ and that she took a courageous stand which resulted in her being persecuted for righteousness sake.  But my advice to any young woman who would contemplate taking such a stand in the future is: Little sister, keep your shirt on.





Christians and Politics

19 05 2009

I belong to a group started by a fellowsh wordpress blogger, Michael Wolfle, called pray for Obama.  Michael sends out regular reminders to prayer for the president and some thoughtful posts as well.  He recently posted this one on his blog, http://americana83.com   I liked it and asked for permission to publish it here.  I hope you find it thought provoking too.

I have contemplated at various times the virtues and demerits of Christians being involved in politics. Politics is messy, and what reason do Christians have to be involved in it?

One verse that I’ve considered is rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s(Matthew 22:21) . In America, it is the civic duty to vote, not only that, but to make an informed vote. If one avoids baseless personal attacks, and uses the Bible as his compass for all things moral/social/political/spiritual, then he can render service to his voting age fellow believers and further the cause of wisdom and knowledge. Ignorance is not bliss.

Some active believers included King David, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (not to mention whole groups of prophets (like Moses) decrying spiritual/moral wickedness on throne, and calling out for repentance. Many people would place these men above us all saying that they were inspired by God. We have in our possession the word, deeds and actions of both sides. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then those things which resulted in judgment of kingdoms and nations then, will they still not result in condemnation today? Does the moral positioning and laws of a country matter?

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Proverbs 14:34)

God himself says that it is righteousness that exalts a nation, and that its sinful actions will bring it down. But, you say, God is in control, things will happen whether or not we do or say anything. Using that logic, one could refuse to witness, merely saying that, “God will save them whether I do anything or not.” The same could be said of any number of things:

working “God will get it done”

eating “God will feed me”

taking care of your children “God will feed them”

Just as there is a time and a place for us to engage in witnessing, working, eating, and taking care of children (those of us who have them), then surely there is a time and a place to stand up for righteousness in the public square.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:10)

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 5:13-16)

Silence is acceptance, a quiet admission that everything is ok. It is this that permitted slavery to so long stay in America, because godly men said nothing. It was silence that permitted the rise of evil men in Germany and the slaughter of many innocent Jewish people.

God created the principle of reaping and sewing. That which you sew sparingly shall be reaped in abundance. God has set up these laws, He does not always step in to bail us out of the consequences of our own action or inaction. It is not God that will be called to answer for the atrocities of man, but rather 2 groups: those who committed the national sins, and those who knew better, who felt the pressing of the Lord to stand up, who instead dead bolted their jaws shut and sat down.

Apathy is never a Christian virtue. We can be quiet, as sin is forged into the Law of the Land. We can do nothing as the freedoms recognized by the founding fathers as flowing from God are dammed up and their exercise forbidden by decree. Such inaction, compromise and “tolerance” will be commended by the powers that be, but the works of wood, hay and stubble that are based on it will be consumed by the fire at the judgment seat of Christ.

Every action a Christian takes in in love of God and people, messages delivered by the seemingly harsh prophets of old, were designed to bring repentance in the hearts of their recipients, to let them know “thus saith the Lord.”

In fact, Jonah, out of the hardness of his heart, wanted to withhold a harsh, condemning message from the people of Nineveh, because he knew God was a gracious God, and that if the people repented, then God would halt the judgment he intended to bring upon them! Hard messages must always be given for the right reasons, and they must be delivered in a way becoming a servant of God.

And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey. And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
(Jonah 3:1-10)

Now see Jonah’s response. He did not want to give the message to the people. And here’s why:

But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live. Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry? So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city. And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered. And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live. And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death. Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
(Jonah 4:1-11)

Is there not a cause? Forsake apathy and rise up in Christian love and truth, and actively seek to restore God’s blessing on this country.





Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh & Mary of Bethany

18 05 2009

Last week I did quite a bit of traveling.  Along the way I gave into an old vice; PH2008033100939I listened to hours of talk radio.  By far the most interesting part of my trip was listening to Rush Limbaugh’s analysis of President Obama’s commencement address at Arizona State University.  Limbaugh pretty much dissed the entire speech.  I understand this.  And yet there were parts of it that I found myself agreeing with.  For example, the president used the bully pulpit to attack materialism: “You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That’s the message that’s sent each and every day, or has been in our culture for far too long — that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf — that’s how you will measure success.”

Limbaugh, however, sounding much more like Ayn Rand than Jesus, disagreed:  limbaugh“Let me sum this sound bite up. Obama’s final message to ayn-rand-wtl_bigthem, the big finale, is anti-individual. Don’t live for yourself. Live for others. What Obama doesn’t understand is that individuals working in their own self-interests are doing exactly what he prescribes. Working in their own self-interest is working for others. It is trying to improve others…Here’s Obama. He’s talking to graduates. He is basically telling them to forget themselves. ‘Don’t invest in your self-interest. Don’t want a nice car. Don’t want a big house. Don’t want wealth. You must define your success by what you do for others.” Which, oh, it sounds so wonderful! But you see…I have a firm belief here. I believe that self-interest, coupled with their freedoms that are enshrined in our founding documents: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think people pursuing self-interest…self interest is not selfishness. Sometimes I don’t even thing there’s anything wrong with selfishness.” 

As as Christian, I cannot agree with Limbaugh. street preacherHowever, I cannot agree with the president either. Viewed as a whole Obama’s speech was a typical Marxist sermon, the same sort of thing one might have heard from a Bolshevik street orator in the early 1900s.  It has been observed that Marxism is really a Christian heresy. I agree. But in saying this I acknowledge that there is just enough truth in the Marxist message to make a powerful impact on those who hear it, and we make a mistake if we underestimate its appeal. I can find few better examples of this than the President’s address.

I applaud the Presidents powerful denunciation of a life lived in the pursuit of self-interest. He was basically asking the same question Jesus asked; “What does it profit a man if he gains the world?” His problem was that he did not finish the question: “and forfeits his soul,” and the fact that he gave the wrong answer to the question; “How shall we then live?”

The President told the graduates Arizona State University that they should live for others. While this answer sounds good it is actually a serious error. I call it, The Error of the Son of Perdition because it was first purposed by Judas Iscariot.

Judas-Apostle-eYou may recall that shortly before Jesus was crucified, Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazareth whom Jesus raised from the dead, anointed Jesus’ head with a very expensive ointment.  When Judas saw this act of devotion he vigorously objected: “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to poor people?”  Others, following Judas’ lead, called it “a waste.” 

Mary was indeed quite extravagant in her display of devotion.  300 denarii is the equivalent of 11 months wages.  But interestingly, Jesus rebuked Judas, not Mary.  By the way, John tells us that Judas was really not as interested in the poor as his rhetoric might suggest.  Rather, he was a thief looking for opportunities to steal other people’s hard earned money.  Like many other thieves, Judas wore a mask.  His was a mask of compassion for the poor.  We should remember this whenever we hear someone using this sort of rhetoric.  Not everyone who present himself as a champion of the poor really cares about them.  Then as now, men and women like Judas use the poor for their own ends.  But now as then, Jesus can see the face behind the mask.  

The Error of the Son of Perdition was Judas’ attempt to define Christianity as giving to the poor. Certainly, Jesus had encouraged his disciples to give to the poor, but Judas’ error can be seen in Jesus’ rebuke: “The poor you have with you always, but you do not always have me.”

Some refer to this statement as one of the “hard sayings of Jesus.” They find it difficult because the Error of the Son of Perdition has come to be very popular in our time. The mainline denominations bought into it years ago. They called it, the social gospel. Many evangelicals — striving to win the affection of the world — are buying into it today.

The Error of the Son of Perdition is the heresy that has been proclaimed by Marxism from the beginning. It is the message which was proclaimed by Jeremiah Wright during all those years the Obama’s attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; and it is a message that has found a powerful new voice in the present occupant of the bully pulpit. But Jesus rejected and rebuked this message, endorsing the piety of Mary instead. And for those who have bought into the Error of the Son of Perdition, this is troubling.

Mary’s act of devotion represents a different understanding of the messageMartha1 of Christ.  Mary’s act of devotion suggests that we should live neither for self or the poor, but for Christ. Paul was speaking of this kind of Christianity when he gave his answer the question, how shall be then live: “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all that they who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose on their behalf.”

Certainly Rush is wrong is suggesting that we should live for ourselves, but the President was wrong in suggesting that we should live for others. Both err in leaving God out of the equation. Mary was right. We should live for neither self or others, but for Christ.





Big Changes Ahead

16 05 2009

You may have noticed that I have not been posting much lately.  That is because my wife and I are in the process of moving.  We have accepted the call to pastor The Berean Church in Colby, Kansas.  We are very excited about this change but, of course, we are very sorry to be leaving so many dear friends and a community that has been our home for almost 22 years. 

I anticipate that I will have far less time for the internet in days to come; but I will try to post something here on a weekly basis and will continue to publish chapters from my book, From this Twisted Root.

During all of the years of our journey Pam and I have trusted God, and we have found Him faithful and worthy of our trust.  As we make this move we will continuing to trust him to guide, direct and provide.   Great is Thy Faithfulness  is the song of my heart today.