I do realize that no 1 issue should decide who you vote for in an election, but this is definitely something to think about. I had heard about Senator Obama's stance before, but never so well put until now. It amazes me that this isn't more well known.
Anyway, here is the article entitled "The Audacity of Death":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121261107480446197.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
And just in case you wanted a U.K. perspective:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024297/Mothers-anger-turns-delight-baby-survives-abortion.html
I have been pro-life my entire life, but I definitely have an even greater passion about this issue since finding out I will be a father. Everyone has heard the arguments on both sides, so I won't make a big long speech, but the moment my son kicked my hand through my wife's belly... I just don't know how you can say that baby isn't real "yet".
Friday, June 6, 2008
McCain & Abortion
Now that Rudy is out of the race, I am forced to look elsewhere for a candidate to back this election year. Thankfully, I have found my choice, and it is in John McCain.
The biggest issue I had with Rudy (and it is also the reason I think he didn't get the nomination) is that he was a pro-choice candidate. It bothered me that he would state that, but I realized he didn't want to flip-flop on the issue that helped get him elected Mayor of NYC. He stated he would appoint judges that would be against abortion, and that really is the only way it can be overturned. John McCain, however, is and has always been Pro-Life. In fact, Planned Parenthood hates him so much, they have spent money to do a radio ad attacking him. (here is a link to it: http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/20080210_real_talk_ad.html). A little side note, the announcer in the ad claims, "McCain's plan to outlaw abortion threatens the lives and health of women." Did I just read that right? We should allow women to murder their unborn children, otherwise it is a threat to health and safety? How does that make any sense?!? I FEEL LIKE I AM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!
I think John McCain is the best choice for President for many reasons, but I have decided that the most important reason is his view on abortion. Now that I have a child on the way, and I have seen my baby's heartbeat on an ultrasound, I can't even begin to understand how anyone could terminate a baby's life in the womb. Each child is a blessing from God, no matter what circumstances it was conceived under. Additionally, I will never understand how liberals will fight tooth and nail to keep abortion legal, but will do everything in their power to bring attention to the tragedy of places like Darfur.
There is also the argument that cases of rape and incest are why abortions need to stay legal. The other argument is that women who need abortions are scared teenagers who can't handle a child. The truth, however, is that is simply not the case. For instance, 50% of abortions are given to women 25 and older. 59% of abortions go to women who already have a child. The most shocking statistic, however, is that 17% of abortions go to MARRIED women. The reason to abort the child that is given: an unintended pregnancy can create an economic strain. Apparently a vacation to the Bahamas is more important than the child growing within you.
For some interesting statistics on abortion and who is having them, here is the article at msn.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/
Whether you think abortion should be legal or not, the fact that 50 million unborn children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade has to make you think twice about it. You could cut abortion in half by simply having every woman who is 25 and older that doesn't want to have children to be on the pill and have her partner use a condom. It is mind-boggling to me that abortion is still such a huge business in America. 1.2 million abortions each year in America.
In conclusion, I have decided that I can never cast my vote for a politician who states they are pro-choice. I realize that they may not have the power to change the way our country views this horrific act, but I cannot find an integrity within them if they feel that protecting the life of our countries most innocent is not a responsibility. Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."- Matt. 25:40
The biggest issue I had with Rudy (and it is also the reason I think he didn't get the nomination) is that he was a pro-choice candidate. It bothered me that he would state that, but I realized he didn't want to flip-flop on the issue that helped get him elected Mayor of NYC. He stated he would appoint judges that would be against abortion, and that really is the only way it can be overturned. John McCain, however, is and has always been Pro-Life. In fact, Planned Parenthood hates him so much, they have spent money to do a radio ad attacking him. (here is a link to it: http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/20080210_real_talk_ad.html). A little side note, the announcer in the ad claims, "McCain's plan to outlaw abortion threatens the lives and health of women." Did I just read that right? We should allow women to murder their unborn children, otherwise it is a threat to health and safety? How does that make any sense?!? I FEEL LIKE I AM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!
I think John McCain is the best choice for President for many reasons, but I have decided that the most important reason is his view on abortion. Now that I have a child on the way, and I have seen my baby's heartbeat on an ultrasound, I can't even begin to understand how anyone could terminate a baby's life in the womb. Each child is a blessing from God, no matter what circumstances it was conceived under. Additionally, I will never understand how liberals will fight tooth and nail to keep abortion legal, but will do everything in their power to bring attention to the tragedy of places like Darfur.
There is also the argument that cases of rape and incest are why abortions need to stay legal. The other argument is that women who need abortions are scared teenagers who can't handle a child. The truth, however, is that is simply not the case. For instance, 50% of abortions are given to women 25 and older. 59% of abortions go to women who already have a child. The most shocking statistic, however, is that 17% of abortions go to MARRIED women. The reason to abort the child that is given: an unintended pregnancy can create an economic strain. Apparently a vacation to the Bahamas is more important than the child growing within you.
For some interesting statistics on abortion and who is having them, here is the article at msn.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/
Whether you think abortion should be legal or not, the fact that 50 million unborn children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade has to make you think twice about it. You could cut abortion in half by simply having every woman who is 25 and older that doesn't want to have children to be on the pill and have her partner use a condom. It is mind-boggling to me that abortion is still such a huge business in America. 1.2 million abortions each year in America.
In conclusion, I have decided that I can never cast my vote for a politician who states they are pro-choice. I realize that they may not have the power to change the way our country views this horrific act, but I cannot find an integrity within them if they feel that protecting the life of our countries most innocent is not a responsibility. Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."- Matt. 25:40
Daystar Television and it’s false teachings.
For the last couple of days, the Christian television channel "Daystar" has been running a 24 hours-a-day telethon to raise money for their station. Out of curiosity, I have found myself turning to it every once in a while to see what kind of unbiblical statements they were declaring this time. I should admit now, before I go any further, that twice in the past when I have seen these telethons on, I have called the number to speak with a "prayer partner" and told them I didn’t have the money they were asking for, but that I needed a miracle from God…just to see what kind of response I would get. They usually told me that God could still help me in my need and that I didn’t have to give the exact number they wanted, but rather could give what I could.
So, here I am, watching this telethon. From the few times I have flipped over to the channel while waiting for The Simpsons or The O’Reilly Factor (I love that guy!) to come back from commercial break, here are a few of the statements I have heard from the people on Daystar:
If you give $77 a month for a year, you will receive "1 of 300 MIRACLES!"
"Prophetess" Juanita Bynum is on Daystar pushing her false theology because "God knew that Daystar need a big-time prophet and not a minor prophet."
You can give a one-time gift of $77 if you only want a "band-aid blessing" or a "spare tire with a hole in it blessing", but those who promise to give $77 a month for a full year will receive an "open heaven blessing" that will last all 12 months.
If you pledge to give $37.45 every month for 12 months to Daystar, God will have your husband accept Christ, your son or daughter come back to God, your business will prosper, and other promises that were made along these lines.
The "Prosperity Gospel" or "Health and Wealth Gospel" has been becoming quite popular lately, especially among the more poor communities in America. The idea that if you give your money to the church, God will make you financially wealthy. The most common verses taken out of context to support this false gospel are Mark 10:30, Matthew 13:18-23, and Galatians 6:7. A quick read of the entire chapters will easily disprove any beliefs that these are guarantees of riches if you give to a ministry, so I won’t even bother with explaining it away. I will, however, point out what the preachers of this false gospel are doing. The preachers who teach and preach the "sow a seed" "health and wealth" gospel are preying on man’s biggest sins- greed, love of money, and lack of trust in God to provide for your needs each day.
The hope behind the "sow a seed" gospel is that of a sure-thing casino. If I give this church $300, then God will give me back $3,000! The heart behind the giving isn’t charity or a desire to help spread the gospel, it is about getting money out of it. Now, I realize that for some, it is out of a desire to give back to God what He has given to you, and to me that is the heart God wants us to have, but for too many it is a selfish desire to receive more money simply out of giving up a little bit. The Bible says, "for where your treasure is, there your heart will also be." This comes out of Matthew 6, which is a great chapter on giving and the heart behind it. Some could misinterpret this passage and think that it proves giving to Daystar will get you treasures in heaven, and maybe so, I am certainly not God. I will say, however, that my big concern is that the Preachers on Daystar don’t phrase it that way. They tell you that if you give to their ministry, God will give back your money to you multiplied so you may be rich and have a big house, fancy car, designer clothing, etc. Therefore, most people giving to Daystar are doing so in hopes that contractually God will have to give them wealth here on earth. It is a sad, selfish, greedy sin that they are committing and I do not believe God blesses those giving in that way.
Additionally, the Preachers on Daystar promise health. They say that sickness is either a case of not giving enough to a ministry, a lack of faith, or an attack from Satan. Paul was afflicted with physical pain and God told him it was placed there and was staying there to keep him humble. So that God’s power would be made perfect in Paul’s weakness (2 Cor. 12). If Paul was not blessed with perfect health, the SUPERMAN of the New Testament, why do we think perfect health for us is just a donation away? I firmly believe God does heal people, I have seen it with my own eyes, but He also doesn’t heal others. He is Sovereign and I am not, nor are the preachers who promise health for a portion of money.
This blog could go on forever, as nothing gets under my skin more than the con-artists who use the name of Jesus to further their own bank account, but I will simply leave you with this question: Why do the same preachers who denounce the actions of the Catholic Church selling "indulgences" right before the Reformation, go on television and promise health and wealth and happiness through the giving of money? I would not like to be these people on Judgement Day.
So, here I am, watching this telethon. From the few times I have flipped over to the channel while waiting for The Simpsons or The O’Reilly Factor (I love that guy!) to come back from commercial break, here are a few of the statements I have heard from the people on Daystar:
If you give $77 a month for a year, you will receive "1 of 300 MIRACLES!"
"Prophetess" Juanita Bynum is on Daystar pushing her false theology because "God knew that Daystar need a big-time prophet and not a minor prophet."
You can give a one-time gift of $77 if you only want a "band-aid blessing" or a "spare tire with a hole in it blessing", but those who promise to give $77 a month for a full year will receive an "open heaven blessing" that will last all 12 months.
If you pledge to give $37.45 every month for 12 months to Daystar, God will have your husband accept Christ, your son or daughter come back to God, your business will prosper, and other promises that were made along these lines.
The "Prosperity Gospel" or "Health and Wealth Gospel" has been becoming quite popular lately, especially among the more poor communities in America. The idea that if you give your money to the church, God will make you financially wealthy. The most common verses taken out of context to support this false gospel are Mark 10:30, Matthew 13:18-23, and Galatians 6:7. A quick read of the entire chapters will easily disprove any beliefs that these are guarantees of riches if you give to a ministry, so I won’t even bother with explaining it away. I will, however, point out what the preachers of this false gospel are doing. The preachers who teach and preach the "sow a seed" "health and wealth" gospel are preying on man’s biggest sins- greed, love of money, and lack of trust in God to provide for your needs each day.
The hope behind the "sow a seed" gospel is that of a sure-thing casino. If I give this church $300, then God will give me back $3,000! The heart behind the giving isn’t charity or a desire to help spread the gospel, it is about getting money out of it. Now, I realize that for some, it is out of a desire to give back to God what He has given to you, and to me that is the heart God wants us to have, but for too many it is a selfish desire to receive more money simply out of giving up a little bit. The Bible says, "for where your treasure is, there your heart will also be." This comes out of Matthew 6, which is a great chapter on giving and the heart behind it. Some could misinterpret this passage and think that it proves giving to Daystar will get you treasures in heaven, and maybe so, I am certainly not God. I will say, however, that my big concern is that the Preachers on Daystar don’t phrase it that way. They tell you that if you give to their ministry, God will give back your money to you multiplied so you may be rich and have a big house, fancy car, designer clothing, etc. Therefore, most people giving to Daystar are doing so in hopes that contractually God will have to give them wealth here on earth. It is a sad, selfish, greedy sin that they are committing and I do not believe God blesses those giving in that way.
Additionally, the Preachers on Daystar promise health. They say that sickness is either a case of not giving enough to a ministry, a lack of faith, or an attack from Satan. Paul was afflicted with physical pain and God told him it was placed there and was staying there to keep him humble. So that God’s power would be made perfect in Paul’s weakness (2 Cor. 12). If Paul was not blessed with perfect health, the SUPERMAN of the New Testament, why do we think perfect health for us is just a donation away? I firmly believe God does heal people, I have seen it with my own eyes, but He also doesn’t heal others. He is Sovereign and I am not, nor are the preachers who promise health for a portion of money.
This blog could go on forever, as nothing gets under my skin more than the con-artists who use the name of Jesus to further their own bank account, but I will simply leave you with this question: Why do the same preachers who denounce the actions of the Catholic Church selling "indulgences" right before the Reformation, go on television and promise health and wealth and happiness through the giving of money? I would not like to be these people on Judgement Day.
Down Syndrome Children Don't Deserve Life?
According to a recent New York Times report, 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are being aborted by their mothers. When dealing with a story like this, I really don't know what to say. I am actually shocked by the selfish and narcissistic attitude of our country, which is something that has not occurred in quite some time. It is not easy to be surprised by narcissism in America these days. Having grown up in this society, however, that constantly preaches equality and diversity; I am amazed at how many women decide a child that would be born with Down syndrome does not have enough value to live. My first question has to be, why? Why are 90% of women deciding that these children should not have the chance to be born? Do they feel that the child would never be able to experience love, joy, or relationship and therefore are better off never being given life? This is the same country that donated millions of dollars to American Idol Gives Back to help those less fortunate in the world, right? We do have a sense of caring for the weak and less fortunate. Or is it only the ones that require a $20 check and a picture on our fridge that deserve assistance and aid? Perhaps having a child with Down syndrome would just be too much of a hassle to these women. I mean, giving money is one thing, but actually caring for a child with special needs… That would mean putting others before yourself. In an age where children seem to be more of an accessory in life and less of a gift from God, it actually starts to make sense now. Are these women simply deciding that having a child with Down Syndrome would be too hard on their career and consume too much of their time? It is a story like this that really shows the true colors of our advanced society. We are appalled by the horrors once done in Sparta to newborns that were deemed physically deformed, yet we commit the same atrocities today; we simply have the audacity to rationalize our sins as a merciful act done for the child. Perhaps the best thing that can be done about this is to have Angelina Jolie or Madonna adopt a child with Down syndrome, because we all know that in this wonderful country we live in, it isn't a noble thing until an A-list celebrity does it.
Here is the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Here is the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
When is Movie Violence too much? (A Look at "300")
Ever since Clark Gable said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" (Gone with the Wind-1939) it seems as though Hollywood has slowly but surely pushed language, sex, and violence further and further with each new generation. When you compare the most controversial film of the 1967 (Bonny and Clyde) to what is produced in Hollywood today, you find yourself amazed at how different it has become in just forty years. With the continual allowance of more "realism" in our cinemas, many ask the question, "How much is too much?" When you compare the difference between the 1940 Best Picture winner's one use of damn (Gone with the Wind) to this years winner The Departed and it's 237 uses of the f-word, one is left to wonder if Hollywood is just being more honest with its depictions of our societies, evolving along with the culture, simply feeding the evil inside us, or leading the march into America's downward spiral toward utter depravity. The general evangelical answer to this question would be the notion that Hollywood is corrupting our society and destroying the fabric of this great nation.
When reading the review of "300" on www.pluggeinonline.com, one of the few Christian movie review sites that I actually respect, I came across this statement in regards to the violent nature of the film: "I can't remember the last time I went to a movie so violent and tragic. But that's only the first half of the sentence. Because afterwards, I watched as scores of moviegoers (mostly men) walked to their cars laughing and pounding each other on the back. You'd have thought we'd all just seen Top Gun for the first time. Such is the influence of the latest big-screen Frank Miller adaptation, a hyper-violent, hyper-masculine ode to honor and duty by way of blood, blood and more blood. Did I mention the blood?" Out of curiosity, I decided to go through their archives to see what was stated concerning the violent content of "The Passion of the Christ."
Here is a quote from the review: "Mr. Gibson's earnest desire to accurately portray Christ's suffering for humankind—and to share that pivotal moment in history with a mass audience—is tremendously refreshing to me," concludes Dr. Dobson. "He has gone to great lengths to ensure that the movie will encourage, rather than offend the millions of Christians around the world for whom the death and resurrection of Jesus hold such profound meaning."
"The Passion of the Christ" was revered by the Christian community as a whole because it didn't turn the camera away from the violence, but instead showed at least a fraction of the pain and torment Jesus suffered for our sins. Because of this, there was something that struck a cord with Christians and unbelievers alike with Mel Gibson's movie that did not occur in previous Jesus portrayals. The violence was applauded for forcing people to think about Christ's true sacrifice on the cross. It was not just another movie with red paint on hands and forehead to show the suffering."300" made $70 million dollars its opening weekend and set the record for largest opening weekend in history for the month of March. Would this have occurred had "300" been rated PG and not shown any fatalities? Was it the "realistic" violence what drew men in droves to see the film? (I place "realistic" in parenthesis because I do not want anyone to be confused by my meaning of the statement. By realistic I am describing the blood and NOT the instances of superhuman capabilities that occur at times.) One of the major draws to movies about war for men is their appeal to our masculine ideals of honor, glory, sacrifice, protector, and strength. All men want to love what they have so much that they would give their last breath to defend it. "300" shows such men who knowingly go to their death in battle in order to protect their freedom and families. Not only do we as men have respect for men like King Leonidis and his 300 Spartans, but we long for the same strength of convictions that they die for.
In conclusion, there may be many people who feel the violence of a movie like "300" is gratuitous and unnecessary. There may be even more who feel the same about "The Passion of the Christ." I say, what is the difference? Aren't they both trying to portray realism? Aren't they both using blood to invoke certain emotions?
When reading the review of "300" on www.pluggeinonline.com, one of the few Christian movie review sites that I actually respect, I came across this statement in regards to the violent nature of the film: "I can't remember the last time I went to a movie so violent and tragic. But that's only the first half of the sentence. Because afterwards, I watched as scores of moviegoers (mostly men) walked to their cars laughing and pounding each other on the back. You'd have thought we'd all just seen Top Gun for the first time. Such is the influence of the latest big-screen Frank Miller adaptation, a hyper-violent, hyper-masculine ode to honor and duty by way of blood, blood and more blood. Did I mention the blood?" Out of curiosity, I decided to go through their archives to see what was stated concerning the violent content of "The Passion of the Christ."
Here is a quote from the review: "Mr. Gibson's earnest desire to accurately portray Christ's suffering for humankind—and to share that pivotal moment in history with a mass audience—is tremendously refreshing to me," concludes Dr. Dobson. "He has gone to great lengths to ensure that the movie will encourage, rather than offend the millions of Christians around the world for whom the death and resurrection of Jesus hold such profound meaning."
"The Passion of the Christ" was revered by the Christian community as a whole because it didn't turn the camera away from the violence, but instead showed at least a fraction of the pain and torment Jesus suffered for our sins. Because of this, there was something that struck a cord with Christians and unbelievers alike with Mel Gibson's movie that did not occur in previous Jesus portrayals. The violence was applauded for forcing people to think about Christ's true sacrifice on the cross. It was not just another movie with red paint on hands and forehead to show the suffering."300" made $70 million dollars its opening weekend and set the record for largest opening weekend in history for the month of March. Would this have occurred had "300" been rated PG and not shown any fatalities? Was it the "realistic" violence what drew men in droves to see the film? (I place "realistic" in parenthesis because I do not want anyone to be confused by my meaning of the statement. By realistic I am describing the blood and NOT the instances of superhuman capabilities that occur at times.) One of the major draws to movies about war for men is their appeal to our masculine ideals of honor, glory, sacrifice, protector, and strength. All men want to love what they have so much that they would give their last breath to defend it. "300" shows such men who knowingly go to their death in battle in order to protect their freedom and families. Not only do we as men have respect for men like King Leonidis and his 300 Spartans, but we long for the same strength of convictions that they die for.
In conclusion, there may be many people who feel the violence of a movie like "300" is gratuitous and unnecessary. There may be even more who feel the same about "The Passion of the Christ." I say, what is the difference? Aren't they both trying to portray realism? Aren't they both using blood to invoke certain emotions?
My Review of "Jesus Camp"
I recently viewed the documentary Jesus Camp and I have a few thoughts on the film. First of all, for those who aren't aware, Jesus Camp is a non-religious documentary that focuses on the influence that Christianity has on the political climate of the United States. Most of the film zooms in on a woman named Becky Fischer and her ministry, "Kids in Ministry International." Other aspects of the film include interludes of short clips from the radio show of Mike Papantonio, an extreme liberal on Air America Radio, and some footage of the now disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard taken before his recent exposure. After watching the entire documentary, I have a few thoughts about the film.
First, I found the summer camp that Becky runs to be very familiar to the years spent at Christian summer camp growing up. There was a sense that what was going on in this film was weird and unnerving, but I couldn't help but recognize it was nothing out of the ordinary from what usually went on in camps I grew up going to. It was obvious, however, that the point of this footage was to shock those watching it, and I must admit that if not having grown up in that environment, it would most likely have had a much bigger affect on me.
Secondly, you could tell that whether you agree or disagree with either Becky's beliefs or just her methods, one thing was clear to me- she was sincere. That was something obvious to me while watching the film. Although I personally was not in favor of some of her tactics, which I will speak of later, I could tell she was genuine and sincere. After the Ted Haggard scandal, it is always reassuring to see someone who you can tell is truly genuine in their mission to preach the gospel. One thing, however, that truly bothered me was a comment one of the cute 12 year old girls made during an interview that obviously was something taught to her. She explained how there are "dead churches" and that God only goes into churches that jump up and down and yell. If a church sings quietly or just stands during worship, God doesn't live there.
My third impression was that Mike Papantonio was simply put in this film to stress the beliefs of the documentary's filmmakers. It wasn't a portion of the film to let you see the opposite side of what was going on in the Christian world, but rather a good 20 minutes altogether devoted to slamming the Christian community and their beliefs. He paints a picture of Christians as a cult that seeks to enslave the world and destroy democracy. He even spends the majority of the phone interview with Becky Fischer accusing her of wanting democracy in America destroyed.
My overall impression of the film? Simply put- it was okay. I wasn't shocked by anything shown in the meetings, most likely because I grew up in a Pentecostal environment. It did, however, bolster my beliefs that children should be treated like children. My point being that I did not agree with the things portrayed at the summer camp or back at the church. In the film, we witness children as young as 7 being infused with the belief that it was their duty to change the moral climate of America. There are interviews with 10 and 12 year olds simply spouting off everything they have been taught, things I would question they truly understand. It reminded me of someone who engages in an argument on Politics using talking points from The Daily Show as his whole line of reasoning. We see the children with tears crying to God for abortion to be overturned in America. We see 9 year olds crying as they confess that sometimes they find reading the Bible to be boring and hard. They are made to feel horrible for their actions. The children engage in spiritual warfare and pray against Satan to let go of his power over the government. These are all things that adults can be doing, but to target little children who go to church and are not even teenagers yet, I believe to be a bit much.
I believe that at such a young age, children should be encouraged to love Jesus and to follow the rules of the Bible and their parents. They should be told of how Jesus loves them and how they were created for a special purpose. The film reminded me of an incident that happened this past year with my younger brother who is 12. His teacher was explaining Revelation to his class at school. I don't know what exactly was said, but whatever it was, it scared my brother to the point where he couldn't sleep at night for a while. We must use wisdom when dealing with children. There is a reason that the story of Lot sleeping with his daughters in Genesis is not taught during Sunday school. For the same reason, I believe that it is too much for our children to shoulder the responsibility of overturning abortion, taking on demonic powers, and understanding deep theological mysteries. If the generation in charge right now truly feels like they messed things up, it should be up to them to turn the tide, and not their 8 year old children.
First, I found the summer camp that Becky runs to be very familiar to the years spent at Christian summer camp growing up. There was a sense that what was going on in this film was weird and unnerving, but I couldn't help but recognize it was nothing out of the ordinary from what usually went on in camps I grew up going to. It was obvious, however, that the point of this footage was to shock those watching it, and I must admit that if not having grown up in that environment, it would most likely have had a much bigger affect on me.
Secondly, you could tell that whether you agree or disagree with either Becky's beliefs or just her methods, one thing was clear to me- she was sincere. That was something obvious to me while watching the film. Although I personally was not in favor of some of her tactics, which I will speak of later, I could tell she was genuine and sincere. After the Ted Haggard scandal, it is always reassuring to see someone who you can tell is truly genuine in their mission to preach the gospel. One thing, however, that truly bothered me was a comment one of the cute 12 year old girls made during an interview that obviously was something taught to her. She explained how there are "dead churches" and that God only goes into churches that jump up and down and yell. If a church sings quietly or just stands during worship, God doesn't live there.
My third impression was that Mike Papantonio was simply put in this film to stress the beliefs of the documentary's filmmakers. It wasn't a portion of the film to let you see the opposite side of what was going on in the Christian world, but rather a good 20 minutes altogether devoted to slamming the Christian community and their beliefs. He paints a picture of Christians as a cult that seeks to enslave the world and destroy democracy. He even spends the majority of the phone interview with Becky Fischer accusing her of wanting democracy in America destroyed.
My overall impression of the film? Simply put- it was okay. I wasn't shocked by anything shown in the meetings, most likely because I grew up in a Pentecostal environment. It did, however, bolster my beliefs that children should be treated like children. My point being that I did not agree with the things portrayed at the summer camp or back at the church. In the film, we witness children as young as 7 being infused with the belief that it was their duty to change the moral climate of America. There are interviews with 10 and 12 year olds simply spouting off everything they have been taught, things I would question they truly understand. It reminded me of someone who engages in an argument on Politics using talking points from The Daily Show as his whole line of reasoning. We see the children with tears crying to God for abortion to be overturned in America. We see 9 year olds crying as they confess that sometimes they find reading the Bible to be boring and hard. They are made to feel horrible for their actions. The children engage in spiritual warfare and pray against Satan to let go of his power over the government. These are all things that adults can be doing, but to target little children who go to church and are not even teenagers yet, I believe to be a bit much.
I believe that at such a young age, children should be encouraged to love Jesus and to follow the rules of the Bible and their parents. They should be told of how Jesus loves them and how they were created for a special purpose. The film reminded me of an incident that happened this past year with my younger brother who is 12. His teacher was explaining Revelation to his class at school. I don't know what exactly was said, but whatever it was, it scared my brother to the point where he couldn't sleep at night for a while. We must use wisdom when dealing with children. There is a reason that the story of Lot sleeping with his daughters in Genesis is not taught during Sunday school. For the same reason, I believe that it is too much for our children to shoulder the responsibility of overturning abortion, taking on demonic powers, and understanding deep theological mysteries. If the generation in charge right now truly feels like they messed things up, it should be up to them to turn the tide, and not their 8 year old children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)