 |
 |
|
home | archives: July 2007 |
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
On Speculative Faith: 'Fantasy fiction: Christ-followers had it first' |
|||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:29 PM ET
,
Wednesday, Jul 25, 2007
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: Left-Handed News, Books, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Subculture Shop | |||
 Mere moments ago I posted today's column at Speculative Faith, titled Fantasy fiction: Christ-followers had it first. Following some minor issues raised about the front-page Washington Post article of July 18, Christian Fantasy Genre Builds Niche Without Hogwarts, Muggles or Spells, I hope to take on the whole notion, subconscious or otherwise, that Harry Potter is merely magically spawning crowds of Christian imitators. It’s been quite fun to observe the reactions throughout our solar system of the blog-universe, following the Washington Post’s article last week that dealt with Christ-honoring fantasy — which, of course, had a quote from our very own blogger, author Wayne Thomas Batson, right there on the very front page. The article, though, only somewhat focused on Christian fantasy authors and books like Wayne’s Door Within series. As Wayne himself later expressed, other prolific fantasy authors such as Bryan Davis, Christopher Hopper and Sharon Hinck received nil mention, despite being with Wayne on the recent Fantasy Four Tour. Also lacking essential inclusion, I would add, was the name of one Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien, Patron Saint No. 1 of Christian fantasy; though one Prof. C.S. Lewis, the other Patron Saint No. 1, received a brief reference, it wasn’t nearly enough to match his influence on the fantasy genre. That’s a substantive oversight, I would suggest. Surely any story remotely pertaining to Christian fantasy would have to include Tolkien and Lewis. Meanwhile, though, two errors of pure fact crept into writer Jacqueline Salmon’s article: first, a reference to Dr. James Dobson praising the Potter books — the Focus on the Family founder quickly cried foul and said they weren’t at all good and the Post corrected; secondly, a Mormon writer’s erroneous attribution as a “Christian,” a somewhat-understandable, common mistake committed by non-Christians. (In fact, I’ve always thought that Mormonism itself, with its hierarchies of universes, with sets and subsets of Gods and Mrs. Gods, Jesuses and Satans and Adams and Eves, would make a great controversial fantasy series — far more heretical than anything Harry Potter ever conjured up.) More perplexing, though, was the article’s strange swerve into the subtopic of Christian fiction in general. That I didn’t get at all — especially the text’s strong implication that Christian Romance Genres were somehow the latest and greatest thing right alongside fantasy. As Rebecca LuElla Miller noted last week, “Uh, no. Chick lit is entering the been-there-done-that phase.” And that seeming misunderstanding by the author about a basic facet of the Christian literature field unfortunately leads me to conclude that maybe Salmon had also failed to grasp the existence of continuing opposition within the Christian community to fantasy-related fiction. I can certainly hope I’m wrong, though. But my strongest stylistic, even philosophical, objection to the article’s substance regards its implication that Harry Potter — who of course Apparated into the article from the very first paragraph — is the Big Original Fantasy Cheese right now, and all the Christian fantasy authors are coming after. That’s just not the case. Christian epic fantasy authors were there first. And I’m not just talking about Lewis and Tolkien. Read the column's remainder at Speculative Faith ... And read here my original thoughts on the Post article, and Wayne Thomas Batson's Fox News interview, from July 20 |
|||
Community journalism: police reports redux |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
04:38 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jul 24, 2007
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Local News | |||
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, I used to copy down excerpts from local police reports for blog installments. These, of course, yielded very little substantive contribution to the Blogosphere except the often-amusing way police officers have of phrasing the most weird, or disgusting, actions of criminals. Take this little anecdote, from Sept. 28, 2005 — all typos in original: Subject began coming at me with a black leather-type belt in a fight-Ready stance. I commanded him to stop and put his hands up. He continued at me, so, I feared physical Harm was possible. I pepper sprayed him. He was strongly smelling of Alcoholic Beverages (and pepper spray). Now I submit two more of the same styles of local-police anecdotes, though the time, department size, and community newspaper venue has certainly changed. I have only truncated them here and there to edit out either subjects' names (though they are public record) and occasionally Bad Words. The devil’s drink After arriving in the area II observed a black S-10 operated by a white male pulling into a parking space at the above location. I approached the vehicle and found [name of suspect] behind the wheel of the vehicle throwing –up on him self. I asked [name of suspect] why he was sick? And his response was he had to much to drink. When asked what he had been drinking? he stated he had been drinking Smirnoff vodka and he couldn’t believe his wife had let him leave the house in his condition. He said he was glad we got him before he when into work in the condition he was in. I stood by while [he] continued to throw-up and when he was finished I asked him to step out of the vehicle and he was unsure if he could stand up because everything was spinning. Sage 'advice' Upon arrival at the detention center, subject became extremely belligerent with the deputies. He repeatedly told them to [blah blah blah], called them [et ceteras] and advised them to watch their backs. |
|||
Christian fantasy — 'competing' with You Know Who? |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
11:43 AM ET
,
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Media: Books, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Christian Novels, Subculture Shop | |||
This Wednesday, author Wayne Thomas Batson, a co-blogger of mine at Speculative Faith, posted an update regarding the end of his tour with fellow fantasy authors Bryan Davis, Sharon Hinck and Christopher Hopper. Batson actually saved his most interesting news for last: You might be looking at the calendar and thinking, “Oh, the Fantasy Fiction Tour Wayne is on is over.” Well, that's what I thought. God {who is in the habit of doing so} had other ideas. The interview time was later changed to 8:45 am EDT, more convenient for Americans with cable all across the fruited plain. Of course, I ensured to catch the show myself this morning. About half an hour later, I added this to Wayne’s Speculative Faith post: Now the interview is complete, as of about half an hour ago. Much of it was spent with Wayne off to the left in his little Brady Bunch box whilst clips from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix played in the larger box to the right
I half-expected the “Fox and Friends” gang merely to ask him about whether he thought Ginny, Hagrid, Prof. McGonagall, et. al., would die in book seven, and whether Snape was good or bad or if Harry himself could be a Horcrux. And indeed much of the conversation did revolve around You Know Who (and I don't mean Voldemort). However, Wayne gave a great answer regarding the Potter series, and expertly brought the focus back to his own work and the genre of Christ-honoring fantasy. What I wish more people would realize — including the bulk of commentors at the Washington Post website — is that we're not all about “competition” for Harry Potter. This is patent nonsense; again, one would think with this constant comparison that Harry Potter emerged from a literary vacuum and set Christians a-scrambling to provide a Safe Alternative. Of course, while some Christians have indeed reacted in the tried-and-true anything-They-can-do,-we-can-do-too,-only-more-Spiritual! subculture approach, Wayne had the opportunity in his interview to make clear that his own series was started before Harry was a gleam in J.“K.” Rowling's eye; so was, for example, Dragons in Our Midst. And why are these articles — including, I must reluctantly note, the otherwise-nice-enough Washington Post piece — not mentioned that Christian fantasy authors are merely following in the footsteps of the guys who started this genre in the middle of last century? One might as well say, then, that Rowling is “ripping off” Lewis's and Tolkien's ideas, or attempting to “compete” with Narnia and Lord of the Rings. Well I say there's plenty of room on the bookshelf for all of them, though I definitely prefer specifically Christ-honoring and Christian worldview-containing fiction to secular stuff like Harry Potter. Also, regarding all those Washington Post commentators who sneer out the canard, “The Bible itself is fairy tales! haw haw haw” — cackling to themselves at such cleverness — I must grin knowingly and nod assent. Yes, indeed, the Bible is full of “myths” — true myths, as the patron saints of modern fantasy literature, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, so wisely maintained. And it is in their path they laid down that much of today's Christ-honoring fantasy/sci-fi authors follow — not that of Rowling. I can certainly hope that if/when media attention to Christian speculative literature increases, more writers and pundits will make note of the fact that Bible-Believing Christ-Followers Were Fantasy Authors First. (Methinks I have a topic for my column next week. ...) |
|||
Harry Potter and the Dearth of the Divine |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
10:22 AM ET
,
Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Columns, Media: Books | |||||
(The following column can be found in its entirety at Speculative Faith.) Every once in a while in some publication, somewhere, comes a great little column like this one, in the Thursday, July 12 issue of Time magazine, that I just wish I had somehow written myself. The piece, by writer Lev Grossman, examines the role of God in the Harry Potter series — or rather, His nonexistence within the stories — as compared to His place in the works of J.K. Rowling’s “literary forebears,” particularly Tolkien and Lewis. The 381-word selection is well worth quoting in its entirety: Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book. Starting with that first letter, she has orchestrated a sustained dramatic crescendo unlike anything literature has ever seen. By selling 325 million books in 66 languages, she has almost single-handedly made the case that the novel can still be a global mass medium. With the fifth Harry Potter movie opening on July 11 and the seventh and last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, coming at midnight on July 21, the crescendo has reached a grand climax. Read the column's remainder at Speculative Faith ... |
|||||
Leaving Modesty to the Christian imagination |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:00 PM ET
,
Monday, Jul 09, 2007
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||
Over at the always-engaging (pun unintended) Boundless webzine blog, comments are moderated — and apparently less quickly so during the weekends. So it has taken a while for my pending remark, in response to the Cover Up, Please topic, to be approved and published. Responding to a few previous comments, I had previously suggested a few short, somewhat-directly worded qualifications for what constitutes Modesty (for women, of course): The rationale that “modesty is subjective” doesn't necessarily automatically mean the subject is impossible to discuss. Most [Christ-honoring] males, I might presume, would agree that merely the following three elements of modesty are quite helpful? 1) No cleavage. 2) Skirt/pants just above kneecaps or lower. 3) Not ultra-body-hugging. Not much seems to be subjective about that. ... To that remark, and a few others in agreement, came a few objections — most of them concurring with the ideal that Modesty is Subjective, So Why Bother, and claiming that to discuss possible God-glorifying and female-respecting standards is automatically annoying and Legalistic: On a general note it strikes me as very pious to be declaring standards of modesty people ought to follow. Let them make up their own minds I say. If they are comfortable then more power to them! For these and any other commentators, either public or silent, who think similarly, I wrote my most recent response, which as of Monday at noon EDT remains pending on the site: I am noting — this will seem odd in a moment, but I will explain — a profound lack of imagination for first the wondrous design God has given to the way men and women interact with another, and secondly the dignity of a woman’s body, in a few of the preceding posts.
What do I mean by this? In summary: this issue isn't really about rules and trying to impose garment restrictions on 20 and 30 year-olds (fallacy alert: young adults still have much to learn from other adults, particularly those older and wiser!). Instead, those article authors and blog-commentators, myself included, who have advocated female modesty and respect, are seeking to glorify God in all that we do — naturally so because of our love for the Creator Who became our Savior through His suffering, death and resurrection. That takes imagination and vision to process the at-first-seemingly-complex relationship between Salvation and clothing choices. But moreover, it takes spiritual awareness — something that, frankly, some commentators here may not yet understand (1 Corinthians 2:14). Let me now explain my point of view more personally and in-depth so that others of opposite views may (I would hope) seek to overcome their own prejudices and understand the rationale of my sector of Christendom. Here's the deal. Men were created to enjoy the sight, and touch and such, of a female body. Nothing is wrong with that; all informed Christ-followers recognize this. Yet the Creator gives us a caveat, a very cool, sometimes-inconvenient, yet ultimately God-glorifying caveat: that same Creator's intention is for a man to enjoy this sort of thing only On Special Occasions — when committed to love, protect and cherish one woman for the rest of his life. Few here who advocate the Biblical balance of modesty are out to enforce Rules. They want to glorify God. They want to uphold the dignity, wonder, mystery and magic of a woman’s body whose exposure and all of that should only be reserved for Special Occasions with a single other person. They want to follow the Creator’s vision for marital bliss and intimacy as nearly to the way He prescribed it as possible, forsaking all the secular-world, unimaginative, wholly unmagical trash that says the more seen (and/or bedded) bodies, the merrier. Does that help explain our perspective a little bit? Can you not see that we are not about Churchian Dullness and Legalism, but Christian Hedonism? Let’s not take extreme situations, such as a legalistic Christian yelling at a woman who hasn’t even intended to dress “immodestly” (where or not she is) and then head full-speed toward the opposite extreme; savvy? ;) That is either quite naïve or disingenuous. A Biblical balance does exist, and Cross-centered Christ-followers can discover the Truth. Moreover, they can ally themselves more fully and wonderfully with the Creator’s design, an incredible, and yes magical, physical and symbolic representation of the mystical union between Christ and His own bride, the Church. |
|||
On Biblical 'complementarianism' — corrupt or Christian? |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
04:45 PM ET
,
Friday, Jul 06, 2007
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Life Applications | |||||
[The Devil] always sends errors into the world in pairs — pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them. Since Don Veinot’s web-article was published yesterday, following his initial effort (perhaps the first in an incidental series of articles) in the previous Midwest Christian Outreach Print Journal, I have been reading much about this homeschool-intensive “church leader” named Doug Phillips, and his extreme views of “patriarchy,” and frankly, hardline chauvinism. My view of him has sharply declined from perceiving him as perhaps a mere nuisance to indeed a great threat to the health of Christendom — especially those sectors that advocate home education for children. |
|||||
