No Vembers in November

No Nuance November

There was another post about the upcoming “No Holds November.” Just wanted to drop a quick note saying I’m looking forward to it. The upcoming month reminds of another thing you said, trying to explain why you thought people liked to read your blog: “I will state it simply first, and then expand on it. I believe that many people like to read what I write because I am clear, and because I fight.”

Jason

Jason, thanks. Not that I couldn’t be fighting more . . .

No quarter November: “If you can’t be grateful for Abraham Lincoln, you’re part of the problem.” I’m thinking of a certain kind of conservative Christian who is far better at hating Rousseau (and the-other-guy’s sin in general) than at hating the sin in his own heart or the hearts of his wife and kids. Like me. Warmly,

Keith

Keith, right. Always fight the invader first.

It seems when you have someone who disagree with you, they rarely will wrestle with your reasoning and instead will do something like this, “The careful, linear logic that I read daily at Blog & Mablog disintegrates into bluster, confusion and straw men.” So we know they disagree but they fail to tell us why you are wrong. Could it be that if they thought about it then it may look something like repentance? Looking forward to the heat in No Quarter November as it is starting to get a bit chilly out. Really enjoyed your Creed of a Happy Warrior. Keep yer powder dry.

Marcus

Marcus, either keep it dry or use it up.

No Quarter November. My father mentioned to me some years ago, during the Makah tribe whale hunt I believe (where there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but for all the wrong reasons) that what he thought we were seeing in that spectacle was displaced grief. That is, grief we should have for killing babies, say, appearing in odd places, like 78-year old former hippy women sobbing over dead whales. The grief has to go somewhere, it has to come out, we cannot, not, grieve all the dead babies. Your take on this might make a good November posting.

Ted

Ted, thanks.

Re: November Cometh | These are going to be the longest 5 days as I await November on the Blog & Mablog. I can’t wait to share all the unqualified, unvarnished biblical truth that all my friends are going to be triggered.

Trey

Trey, what if I write about people who have friends that could be triggered?

General: I’ve noticed a few prominent evangelicals have retweeted you lately and I’m glad we’re allowed to admit we read you now. I never was able to hide Mablog in the cover of something respectable and I can’t afford to ruin any more iPads figuring it out.

Zak

Zak, yes, a little retweeting action has started up again. But maybe November will fix that.

Thoughts on Horror

One thing that would be helpful to address is a valid desire by Christians to stare evil in the face and see it banished. I think that is a real desire for Christians who want to watch “horror.” Personally, I have only seen a few horror flicks do this— where good triumphs over evil. Yes. even then, there is usually an error embedded in the movie, namely that the light is impotent, the darkness oh-so-strong, and light only wins by accident. All that said, Scripture has something of a horror genre in it. Evil seems to be so strong and scary, and then God in his “weakness,” and through weak agents defeats the darkness. It’s dark, scary, and epic. There is even gore and strong language in places because that is our world in its fallenness. However, in the text, Christ triumphs. There is a kind of surprise to it. Not that God could ever be defeated, or that the light could lose, for “the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it,” but there is an adrenaline shock in Scripture. I think this qualifies as horror. However, the world isn’t producing the good stuff. I do occasionally watch a horror flick, and more often than not I have to stop it because of where its headed. The few stories that get at a little of the truth, that end with the defeat of darkness and the triumph of light have enough of the truth in it to energize me for the redemption of the genre.

Timothy

Timothy, what you are describing sounds more like suspense to me than horror.

A fascinating topic, and as with a lot of questions about the media we consume, fraught with poorly defined classifications. As a major consumer of fiction of most kinds, as well as someone with a keen interest in Christian living in the modern era, I think some clarifications are in order before getting to the meat of the issue. What do you mean when you refer to a horror movie? You can have a Zombie movie that isn’t a horror movie (Shaun of the Dead), and you can have a horror series where almost nothing negative happens in any way (There’s a current YouTube series by the name of Petscop which is unique in too many ways to explain here, suffice to say that 100% of the horror is in the atmosphere and nothing else). So when we’re talking about people lusting for death, what exactly do we mean? Some horror movies, like Halloween’s 20th anniversary film from the 90’s, almost turn the entire paradigm on its head and make the innocent protagonist the empowered one over the killer. Is that really a horror movie then? This is an example of a major sequel to one of the classic slasher horror series. If we can question whether or not it qualifies as horror, how do we come up with any kind of useful guideline for what qualifies? I enjoy some horror movies, though not most. What I enjoy about them generally has nothing to do with the horror premise, but a number of characteristics they tend have not present in other films. I’ll only cover the first one that comes to mind for brevity’s sake. The ending is in doubt. In most every film, you know precisely what characters are immune to death due to their importance. This is not true in horror movies. Probably the best example of this is Hitchcock’s Psycho, where our lead character is killed early on in the movie, turning the plot on its head, leaving you in genuine curiosity how it’s going to work out. Sometimes the killers win. Sometimes the heroes win. Contrasting it with say, the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, where you know perfectly well that no amount of orcs or stormtroopers could ever subdue our hero. So, my hypothesis using both these points is thus, that the definition of whether or not we’re dealing with a sinful lust of death has a great deal to do with the heart and mind the viewer brings to the table, rather than necessarily whether or not the movie fits into the “horror” genre. What’s the difference between looking at a famous renaissance painting of a naked woman and watching naked women on your computer?”, more likely than not, you aren’t looking at the centuries old painting with lustful eyes. Not all nudity in an image is equal, and not all portrayal’s of “horror” are equal. Watching Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window, arguably a horror film, is not exactly the same as watching the torture porn of the Saw movies. So while I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here, if read at face value I see it falling into the trap of using a broad label for a film, rather than its actual content, as the means of judging it. You use zombies as an example and I’m sure it was random but I don’t think it is very representative of your point. A lion’s share of the appeal of the genre has more to do with the fantasy of living in a world with lots of resources, but no people or government to constrain your actions. Probably the most popular zombie horror movie ever, Dawn of the Dead, spends most of its run time not paying much attention to the zombies and instead focusing on the lives of people getting to live outside the normal structures of society. All this is to say that I don’t think you’re wrong about a thing you’ve written. I’m just not particularly keen on the broad use of language.

Justin

Justin, thanks for the feedback. For any interested inpursuing this further, I would recommend Monstersfrom the Id by E. Michael Jones.

Immediately after reading your post on the Holy, Horror, and Halloween, I began reading the New Yorker’s review of Luca Guadagnino’s new horror film Suspiria. The reviewer, a sardonic Brit named Anthony Lane, is no believer, but his observation of what happens to the protagonist resonates deeply with your observations: “Dakota Johnson, so gentle of speech, leaps up and slams herself down into a feral crouch, as if to rebuke the false and unnatural ecstasies that were demanded of her by the ‘Fifty Shades’ trilogy.” The rest of the review contains similar insights that echo your own, without the gospel solution you hold out. You can read it here.

Caleb

Caleb, thanks.

Straight and Bent

The pagan religion of Sodom and Gomorrah engulfed ancient Israel as Ezekiel documented. Growing up in Silicon Valley I have seen my share of today’s raw paganism, ldolphin.org/seamy.html. But the straight culture here (especially in the church) is for the most part no better off, nor more righteous. Matthew 11:20-30: “Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.’”

Lambert

Lambert, yes. Straight America went crooked first.

Complicit

Visiting porn sites supports them . . . which supports the participants who (as one can suppose) at some point may have abortions. If you visit porn sites you may have blood on your hands?

Raymond

Raymond, the key thing is that consumers of porn don’tseem to care if they have blood on their hands. That’s not what’s on their mind.

Good Sam

“Your neighbor is the person God has placed in front of you today. Your neighbor is the guy lying by the road.” I don’t want to be unnecessarily angry here but how did you miss the teaching of the parable so bad? Read it again. The neighbor, says our Lord, is the Samaritan!

Matt

Matt, being a neighbor has a strong element of reciprocity in it (Luke 10:36). Yes, the Samaritan was that man’s neighbor—precisely because he treated the guy beat up by the side of the road as his neighbor.

My Smart Phone App

Jumping jiminy, is the wild scrolling of your smartphone app ever going to get fixed?

Heidi

Heidi, we have gotten periodic complaints about this kind of thing before, but it didn’t seem a general problem. But I just went and looked at it on my phone, and it was bouncing around like crazy. I will make suitable inquiries.

Real Refugees

You nailed it . . .Venezuela!! I don’t know how many people are still even in that country. They have been encouraged to leave because of starvation, lack of medications, unemployment . . . etc. . . . After reading a great book called The Revenge of Geography (Kaplan), I have to believe that it is possible that borders will move. All of that land we took from Mexico during our fight against Poncho Villa just might revert to the migrants. Perhaps, Venezuela will gain some vacated land??

Susan

Susan, thanks much.

Just Bravo: 

“Put another way, wisdom is required, not just compassion.”

You took the time and worked hard to think this through.  And then you followed up to put it into beautiful creative writing.

Can professing Christians be taught to take time to think and work hard?  To be discerning?  Is that expectation too high?

And if one is not willing to put in the time and effort to fully understand the times; perhaps one should remain wisely silent (Proverbs 17:28; 18:2).

Darin

Darin, thank you.

Susan Pevansie

In relation to this post (which I enjoyed!), you may be interested in Lewis’ letter to Martin Kilmer in which he discusses Susan’s fate. You have probably already seen it, but if not, the relevant quote is available here. All the best!

Tom

Tom, thanks for the link.

Climate Change

You write: “Any evangelical leader who—since we are specializing in trace elements these days—cares more than 1/1024th of a darn about climate change is a biblical sell-out. Extra points for being a toad-eating sell-out are awarded if they are in a doodah about climate change and also cite our responsibility to be good stewards on the basis of the cultural mandate of Genesis. The cultural mandate of Genesis entails many glorious things but establishing a statist tyranny because we suddenly got afraid of the weather is not one of them.” Here’s a question for you: are you opposed to Christians who advocate for private initiatives regarding climate change: e.g. encouraging people to acknowledging potential changes in water availability when designing farms? Droughts are bad. Very, very bad. I think this issue is worth at least 1 darn, more likely many, many darns. Even if one is skeptical of the role that anthropogenic greenhouse gases play, even if one is skeptical of state-run carbon taxes, this doesn’t provide a rationale for a dismissive Boomerist “Roll coal to trigger the libs” anti-environmentalism.

Al

Al, my enemy is the statism implicit in the “we have to do something about . . .” People who spend their own money to address the problems they see have nothing but my respect. They have skin in the game.

If care for the environment is a “good thing.” They why don’t you say it in a blog post? I’ve been reading you extensively since the mid-90s and have never seen anything along those lines. Your fall back is always against the gummint and the greenies, but I have never seen any development of how you would recommend the Christian community to act individually and collectively in creation care. And if it is a “good thing” how does mocking the creation mandate move that forward? I see nothing but disrespect for God the Creator when it comes to your enviro writing. It is so out-of-character with the rest of your work. I don’t get it.

DC

DC, I don’t mock the creation mandate—that mandate is given to us by God Himself. The creation mandate was given to Adam and Eve, renewed with Noah, and comes to us in another more powerful form in the Great Commission. Without it, we are rudderless. What I mock is the dragooning of the cultural mandate into the service of statist coercion.

As for how I write on this, I think my position has been clear and consistent over the years. Here is a little something from 2005.

‘In radical environmental circles, the current dogma is that man is the cancer of the planet. Undergirding many of the political controversies of the day is an unbiblical view of reality — i.e. inconsistent pantheism. This is what drives contemporary environmentalism.

But the problem is sin. We must take care not to react to contemporary kookery — environmental extremists, animal rights nuts, etc. Our position is to be the biblical one, and not a reactionary one. Consider, for example, ‘Woe to those who join house to house; they add field to field, till there is no place where they may dwell alone in the midst of the land!’ (Is. 5:8). ‘A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel’ (Prov. 12:10).

“Stewardship is a basic Christian duty, which is why so many people want to pretend they are doing it.”