(Simulposted to the Speculative Faith blog as of today. ...)

Last week’s column (my first in a long time on Speculative Faith) focused on not-so-hidden intellectual invasions inherent in Doctor Who, courtesy of the British sci-fi programme’s head writer/producer, Russell T. Davies.

His goals were made more explicit in a British newspaper’s article early last month, as the series’ fourth season was underway: Davies gushes, for example, over a guest appearance by angry Atheist Richard Dawkins in a forthcoming episode, and claims directly that he hopes young boys will imitate one series character’s example and declare their own homosexuality.

However, I’m actually not going to undertake another one of those anti-culture Christian rants, like the kind you read about in email forwards. To be sure, Christendom often needs those sorts of rants (even in email forwards), to oppose truly harmful movies, television programs or other art forms, politicians, organizations or whatever. This column, continued from last week, just isn’t going to be one of them.

Instead, the Doctor practices such heroism and wages true battle against evil influences, resembling Christ like other famous fictitious Christlike-figures, that it’s well worth seeing.
This meat may have indeed been sacrificed to idols by its makers (a la : 23-33), in the hope of furthering anti-Christian agendas. But Biblical truths are there in these epic stories anyway — like the time-traveling TARDIS ship itself, surrounded by a perception filter, it seems the writers may just not be able to see such “” elements.

The following was originally written by me as part of an essay contest for the American Chesterton Society and has been expanded for Faithfusion:

In today’s world a revolutionary is not one who espouses a new idea, but one who would dare to bring back an old one. The reason is that the new ideas are generally boring and mundane while old ones are fresh and exciting because they have been packed away for so long. In today’s world, a boorish man is generally accepted because it is new and respectable to be rude; being chivalrous, on the other hand, is decried as sexist and offensive because it is an old idea. Thus, those who call themselves “liberal” and embrace the new ideas tend to be the critics rather than the idealists. It was with something of this in mind that G. K. Chesterton wrote in Varied Types, “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”

One issue in which this can be clearly seen in modern American politics is the issue of abortion. Probably no issue has been so polarizing as whether or not a woman ought to have a legal right to, in the language of the “pro-choice” party, “terminate an unwanted pregnancy,” or in the language of “pro-life” advocates, “kill a baby.” However, because the idea of abortion is so relatively recent, that it is politically and socially acceptable while pro-life advocates are condemned because they dare to argue for a traditional understanding of life as beginning at conception.

The Humanity Question

Scientifically, of course, this has been proven. The “blob of tissue” does, in fact, have a different genetic structure from that of the woman. It is, in fact, a human forming inside a woman: a human being like us with all the feelings and emotions that come with being human. Even the term used, “fetus,” is the Latin word for baby. The ancient Roman who heard the word would have thought of a wonderful laughing little human being in the arms of its mother. What he did not think of was a developing blob of tissue. The being inside of a woman is a human being.

Of course, philosophically there is no question that the being inside a woman is human. The only differences between a baby outside the womb and the “fetus” inside are in development, location, and level of dependency, none of which are critical to our humanity. Take level of development: is an adult more human than a child? Of course not. Yet we say that because a “fetus” is more developed than a baby that somehow it is not yet human. It's really a preposterous idea. The other two categories are just common sense: your location does not determine your humanity and neither does dependency (anyone who has done long-term caregiving can attest to that).

(My first column in literally four months to the Speculative Faith co-op blog went live just now. ...)

More hideously scary monsters are coming to the new season 4 of the smashing British sci-fi series Doctor Who. Like the Cybermen, a race of metallic soulless humanoids who want to “upgrade” all humans to be like them, this threat arises from a surprising source and threatens the existence of planet Earth, by compelling people to be subject to certain extraterrestrial modes of thought.

And it’s courtesy of none other than Doctor Who’s very executive producer and head writer, Russell T. Davies.

“Wait wait wait wait!”

While I say that, please imagine me holding up my hands in a faux-panicked manner, reminiscent of the Tenth Doctor, right before I whip out a clever solution to avoid being killed. This is because, unlike some Christian writers and culture pundits, I seem to find myself unafraid of Davies’ own ideological invasions.

After some recent reading and thinking on the subject I thought I'd talk a little bit about passion and its importance in the church.

A little background here: I'm a Presbyterian. I have grown up in two conservative PCA churches, one of which educated me very well in doctrine and biblical history. I still sometimes trade biblical trivia with a good friend of mine and love it. The great strength of this, of course, is that I know my way around a Bible and can tell you where to find stuff on a lot of subjects. I also know my Church History and can tell you which theologians come where, what the major movements were, and what happened in the crusades (and I seriously had trouble with coveting when I saw a t-shirt with “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” on it).

The problem is that often I have all this head knowledge and no heart knowledge. I can quote chapter and verse on the great theologians from the Apostle Paul to R. C. Sproul, but if I don't have any heart, it's nothing. It doesn't do me any good because I'm not living it.

I was convicted several weeks ago when I was listening to R. C. Sproul talk about the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. On a side note, Kierkegaard was a Christian, albeit a controversial one and one who has (unfortunately) had a legacy that he didn't intend in the form of existentialism. As I was saying, Sproul was explaining that Kierkegaard's concern was that the church of his day had no passion for God. They had theology, oh yes they had it, and they had good liturgy, but they had no passion: they were a dead church. Kierkegaard's philosophy was meant to reawaken a flame of passion for God in the church of his day.

So in honor of Kierkegaard, here are some places where the church needs passion.

In Courtships and mandates in Scripture, part I: Undoing ‘umbrella’ understandings, I tried to sort through many legalistic, System-based constructs erected by people like Bill Gothard and others, who place human- and principle-centered moralistic methods between God and individuals. As a result, they glorify — though perhaps incidentally — principles, rather than God Himself, and very often not even Biblical principles but instead a “Talmud” of ideas they’ve derived from culture or merely Biblical descriptions, not commands.

The second column, Courtships and mandates in Scripture, part II: Dichotomies, decisions and dating, explored further, tracing back to the original courtship-and-dating discussion that brought it about. No Christian can truly claim to have found “God’s will” for how to find a spouse in Scripture — we receive no clear commandments for a System there, only general guidance for how to honor others and their hearts, and moreover, God Himself.

This third and last installment of the series explores more the ideas of discerning God’s will through some sorts of “signs,” or trying to base our wisdom on anecdotes — either those found in Scripture or those we find in our own lives or the lives of others.

Interestingly enough, while I was writing this — originally a response to questions from a NarniaWeb forum participant — I was reading further from the book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. In it, authors Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart directly delve into the dangers of finding “commandments” for our own lives in only Biblical narrative, which could very likely only be describing what happened to others, not ordering our emulations of their actions.

Moreover, just as with Gothard’s “basic principles” system, which can so easily bring about worship of human character instead of the Creator, such an approach to the Bible sidetracks readers far and away from the Word’s original intent: to tell God’s story, not our own.

In a series of unsourced quotes found in a Tabletalk magazine column, from Ligonier Ministries, C.S. Lewis reminds his readers, or any readers, that with Art, is better to receive than to give — that is, to give one's own meanings. And somehow, while reading Lewis' thoughts and Ryken's paraphrasings, I began to apply the truths not only to Lewis's own fantasy stories, but the greatest true “myth” of them all: the Bible itself.

One of the most important pieces of advice Lewis gave to readers of literature is that they must receive a work of literature instead of using it. Lewis wrote, “A work of…art can be either ‘received’ or ‘used’. When we ‘receive’ it we exert our senses and imagination and various other powers according to a pattern invented by the artist. When we ‘use’ it we treat it as assistance for our own activities” (emphasis added). According to this line of thought, “The first demand any work of art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way.”

This is not to deny that we should make sense of what we read. It is instead a caution to let stories set their own agenda of concerns according to the order created by the author, not to impose our own agenda on them according to our own timetable as we progress through a story. Lewis’ rule of thumb was to let stories “tell you their own moral” and not “put one in.” The relevance of this to the Narnian stories is that the religious aspects of the stories usually do not appear until approximately halfway through the books. Many Christian readers are impatient with that and force the opening chapters into something that Lewis did not intend.

The second warning that Lewis gave is not to reduce works of literature to a set of ideas. He claimed that “one of the prime achievements in every good fiction has nothing to do with truth or philosophy…at all.” To regard a story as “primarily a vehicle for…philosophy is an outrage to the thing the poet has made for us.” Works of literature “are complex and carefully made objects. Attention to the very objects they are is our first step.” This, too, should steer us away from how many Christian readers deal with The Chronicles of Narnia.

— from The Chronicles of Narnia: The Imagination of C.S. Lewis by Leland Ryken, Tabletalk Magazine, January 2008

Last week’s Courtships and mandates in Scripture, part I: Undoing ‘umbrella’ understandings column began a three-part series touching on several interconnected issues, prompted by a private message I received that was itself prompted within a NarniaWeb forum discussion on “Wuv, Twue Wuv and Mawwiage.”

In the first installment here, I introduced what I contend are the wrong understandings of “courtship” if it’s defined as veritable arranged marriage, based in a worldview that places human authorities on too high a determining pedestal and between individuals and God. Teachers such as Bill Gothard and his imitators manage to find in Scripture “evidence” for Systems of mechanistic man-centered obedience and “patriarchalism.” These result in first, shocking ignorance of God’s past and future Grace, and second, reliance on rules and principles instead of God Himself, between Whom we have no other mediator but Christ!

The following material, which is excerpted from a lengthy message I sent to an interested forum discussion participant, continues those thoughts. It concentrates on how the Graceless, if/then System-based mindset is not directly commanded in actual Scripture and can lead to disastrous results in life, relationships, and everything, just as easily as can cheap, worldly, selfish and serial “dating.”

Readable A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life Don Veinot

My participation in the NarniaWeb forum continues, especially one or two of my favorite topics involving healthful, civil debate and discussion on a variety of faith-and-theology issues. Recently I had the opportunity to address a slew of subtopics, including how to find God’s will, whether to apply Scripture descriptions as examples to emulate, and perhaps most interestingly, dating “versus” courtship “versus” what the Bible says — or doesn’t say.

In response to one NarniaWebber’s comment that she “always thought that dating was one on one[,] and courting was with your/their family,” I had on Feb. 29 replied with moderate length:

The differences can be confusing, particularly because so many extreme ideas are about, attaching themselves to either term. Many people, for example, think of Josh Harris as being that no-dating-ever-at-all guy — I was one of them! — but near the very beginning [o]f Boy Meets Girl and all throughout he specifies (though perhaps not enough?) that of course one-on-one time with a significant other is important, dates included.

Rather, depth-minded dating — that is, time spent doing activities pretty much together, dinner, movies, walks, et cetera — is a subset of courtship, which can also include family time and that sort of thing, and optimally takes place when either participant is ready to consider what any romantic relationship should keep in mind: Mawwiage.

Dating without being ready for Mawwiage is silly at best, dangerous at most. You’re playing with emotions that aren't ready to be experienced, and hearts that aren’t ready to be given.

But unhealthful “courtship” that basically amounts to the parents and family, church, whatever, running the show, is equally dangerous. This kind of “courtship” disallows either half of the “couple” — if it could even be called that, because they’re still part of the family Collective! — from making his/her own decisions and drawing upon their own connections with God's Spirit and Christian freedom to decide where to go.

Instead, the unhealthful dynamic of others standing between the now-more-mature person and God is enacted, resulting in frustration, lack of growth and relationship issues both at present and in the future.

Unfortunately, though, many sometimes-well-meaning Christian teachers, freaked out over the possibility of either sexual sin or just making any relationship mistake at all, advocate stringent policies, supposedly based in Scripture, for what to do and how to do it and above all don’t do this or that without clear parental permission and et cetera.

I'll go ahead and name names: Bill Gothard. Doug Phillips. And a bunch of their wannabes, such as this guy, particularly in the Christian homeschooling circuit. All of them, dismissing Biblical concepts of personal freedom in Christ and relying upon Him without required mediation of human “authorities” in between, have set up un-Biblical Systems of “courtship” that amount to legalistic, emotion-denying androidal “arranged marriage” methods. They’re wrong and they should be opposed — quite strenuously, too. Not only is correct doctrine and Christian freedom at stake, but the very future of Christian marriages and families and how they are formed, and whether they will even survive. …

In response to this, I received a great PM from one of the forum’s — and this discussion’s in particular — most active participants, challenging much of what I’d said.

The following three-part series consists of my response to her in which I tried to cover three main topics: first, those of legalistic authoritarian views and their ignorance of Grace; second, the resultant System-based construct of anti-individualistic Graceless “courtship”; third, the fallacies of using anecdotes or “signs,” either in Scripture or in our own lives, to find God’s will or prove a System.

Greetings, salutations, and howdy!

So you may be wondering, “who is this fellow and why is he posting on Dr. Ransom's site?” Well, that's somewhat easy. I'm Roccondil and Dr. Ransom invited me to join Faithfusion as the second blogger.

So a bit of background on me: I'm a normal homeschooled high school senior who is preparing to enter college and has a keen interest in philosophy, theology, literature, politics, history, and a lot of related stuff. In addition, I have a blog that I update pretty regularly at Faith and Philosophy.

So, a few things about what I believe and what I bring to the site. My theology is Reformed (like Dr. Ransom's), I attend a PCA church, and I have begun to describe myself as an “Apostolic Catholic” meaning one who has a vision of the Church as the body of Christ which transcends denominational and cultural lines. Politically, well . . . ok let's face it, I'm weird. I'm mostly conservative, but have enough maverick in me that I avoid the term. Maybe I just prove what G. K. Chesterton meant when he said: He is a shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.

Like Dr. Ransom, I have a deep love of speculative fiction and a keen interest in the works of C. S. Lewis as well as G. K. Chesterton, to whom Lewis gave partial credit for his own conversion.

In short, my positions and personality will become clear in time.

I will leave you (for now) with this word from the Apostle Paul, which has become my life's verse: Romans 12:2 (English Standard Version) Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

~Roccondil

(The following is excerpted from yet another lengthy NarniaWeb contribution of mine, this time in a topic focusing on Susan’s “falling away” from belief in Narnia, as described at the end of C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle.)

Here are my relatively brief thoughts on the theological issue — for now — actually consisting mostly of quotes, because this issue has arisen before on NarniaWeb, mostly in the Christianity, Religion and Philosophy III discussion.

A lot of the Scripture citations above are not from the New Testament and the New Covenant, about how for example we could be truly redeemed in Christ and then by some reason or other “fall away” from Him, based on the idea that because we had the free will to choose Him, we also always have the free will to change our minds. As I expected, I read here the oft-unspoken if/then assumption: that if Christians believe something akin to “eternal security,” then they are on dangerous doctrinal ground, and will almost certainly use that idea to justify sinful lifestyles instead of hanging onto their salvations for dear life, lest they backslide or lose it.

At the core of this, it seems, is a paradoxical “optimistic pessimism” — first, that as decarus said, “people who have prayed that prayer, who seem to be in all sincerity, who even seem to do the work of God” are truly saved by these actions, but second, that God is not nearly powerful enough to keep a truly saved person truly saved.

To this I would briefly ask, Who’s the star of the salvation “show,” then: man or God?

Some readers here know who I am and we're good friends. And some may have happened across the blog by chance and may not know my exact identity. If a Kentucky state representative has his way, if the latter case happens, I would have violated state law.

My summary thought: Don't even think about it.

And I'm guessing very few other state representatives actually will, regardless of their political leanings.

According to a local ABC-affiliate television network's website:

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch [R] filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their [sic] full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

All populist-seeming inclinations aside, “bullying” is a byproduct of any kind of free speech. Surely the lawmaker knows this? Will he also, then, “require” that people writing anything for print media, too, provide their email and physical home addresses? Imagine the rightful Hell print media would raise over that, even aside from “right to privacy”-based arguments.

The writer of this story, for example, has posted it online without any accompanying contact information beyond a work email address. Why should internet comment-posters or bloggers hold to a stricter standard? (This article, anyway, gives no indication that Couch requires a blog's original author to post his/her name and contact information — only comments are mentioned.)

Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.

Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.

Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.

Enforcing the bill if it becomes law is the same as policing free speech — which like any restrictions on expressions of thought, not only doesn't work, but only tends to encourage those very thoughts.

Because the Drudge Report today posted the story, and as of now it's the third-to-top Google search result for the terms Rep. Tim Couch, kentucky (not to be confused with a well-known quarterback of the same name), I'm guessing Couch will soon withdraw the preposterous bill, despite whatever “online bullying” problems are supposedly overly prevalent in his district.

By the way, other writers may make the joke about whether Eastern Kentucky even has “online” anything. This blog will not be so impolite.

Methinks it's time for the first politically oriented blog post here on FaithFusion for the first time in months.

(Actually, it's time for the first blog post period on FaithFusion for the first time in weeks!)

This was inspired by a cell-phone advertisement apparently (and perhaps more safely) running in Canada, and currently found at the Politico online newspaper. Here it's also now presented, along with the challenge:

How many puns and double entendres can you find in this hilarious advertisement scheme and its accompanying text?



(Pay attention to the fine print, directly above. And, for those with vision difficulties, it is as follows: “You probably already guessed this, but no celebrity endorsement is intended or implied.”)

(Here, after a too-long absence of FaithFusion contributions, is my elsewhere-posted rebuttal to an old acquaintance who has recently resurfaced on the NarniaWeb forum, claiming among other things that we can find alternate “gospels” in other places and that Christians’ presentations of the guilt-and-sin-and-God’s-wrath message are inherently self-righteous.)

Welcome back, BenAdam — I haven’t seen you on the forums for a while. In fact, most haven’t seen me on the forums for a while, either.

Hereby I heartily express my gratitude for your inspiring at least this return of mine, then. As WiseWoman said, we haven’t had a more-intense discussion in Narnia and Christianity for a while.

You may not recall, but you and I have “tangled” before in late 2005. That exchange, particularly about the true natures and definitions of sin, rebellion and God’s love, ranks among the most interesting in which I’ve been involved.

It seems, though, that you not only got busy after that, but also that your mind was not changed any. Since then, though, at least one thing has changed with me: I have found time to read all seven Harry Potter novels and have enjoyed them immensely — though I cannot find all that supposed Christian symbolism in there, save perhaps for the battle-between-good-and-evil generality which always reflects the true Battle. But, that doesn’t mean I cannot enjoy terrific writing and plot formation: a story certainly does not have to be a direct Christian allegory to be appreciated (unlike some Christians will, perhaps unknowingly, contend).

Now, to your great surprise I’m sure, I have a few objections to what you’ve submitted above.

Readable Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views Dave Hunt, James White

The following is what turned out to be a pushing-2,500-words post for yet another continuing NarniaWeb Deep Theological Magic-related discussion, this one called Christianity, Religion and Philosophy III.

After an incidental long hiatus, the subtopic of Reformed-versus-“Free Willie” beliefs has arisen again, which I sort-of enjoy and sort-of don’t: partly because I’ve no wish even to seem like I’m advocating these doctrines purely from academic motivations and because I’m snooty about them and frozen-chosen-acting (I detest such practices, because I’ve been on the other side of them myself), and partly because of the time involved.

Nevertheless, I started another response earlier this morning and ended up with more than the equivalent of three 800-word columns. Drat and botheration. For this, though, the background and previous posts are much lengthier, but I think, for those who haven’t read through all that, all that’s below should be evident and explained here nonetheless.