A Look in the Cultural Mirror

It isn't often that the Evangelical community gets an opportunity to have secular culture hold the mirror up to the Church for us to see how they perceive our cultural engagement, but this morning's New York Times features an article doing exactly that, New Cultural Approaches for Christians: Reviews, Not Protests.

Is it coincidental that this issue arises only after I blogged on Worldview Movies earlier this month? Possibly...(grin)

In general, I thought this to be an extremely fair article, especially in light of the venue in which it is published. And I agree with the author that the trend he identifies is part of American evangelicalism's maturation. This maturity has only been brought about by the culture wars of the past twenty years. I would say that this is a good thing, if only that the knee-jerk reactionism that typifies most evangelical cultural engagement is subsiding ever so slightly.

Again, there's nothing in the article that's objectionable, except for the knuckleheaded comment by Fuller Seminary prof Robert Johnson who is quoted as saying that there was protest over Schindler's List ten years ago because of the nudity. That's certainly not the author's fault, but honestly, I don't remember a peep from Christians about the movie when it came out. I understand that this guy is from neo-liberal Fuller, which many evangelicals would claim to be on our side, but the comment hints at some latent anti-Semitism that I don't think really exists.

The cultural impact of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is now starting to be seen in the Christian community. The article itself mentions several "Christian" movie review pages that sprouted in the wake of The Passion, including one run by the culturally backward Focus on the Family. Another effort borne out of Gibson's work is the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival that began in 2004. (Disclaimer - I've not yet seen The Passion, not for any moral or religious reasons; it's just that when everybody tells me I HAVE to see something, I usually wait at least a decade.)

There are several positive aspects to this trend discussed in the article. Perhaps the most important is that the movie community is becoming increasingly aware of the power of the evangelical movie market. Anybody seen The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe recently? Remember Prince of Egypt? And dare I say, Veggietales? Hollywood sees that there is a huge market out there, and they want to tap into it, which means more friendly fare for Christians.

Secondly, I think the Christian community is starting to break out of their Left Behind existence. It's becoming clear that cultural retreatism and isolation doesn't work. Thirdly, it sends a message to the youth in the church that this is an area in which it is legitimate to work. Gone are the days of the 1970s D-grade movies, like A Thief in the Night. Christians laboring in the field of film and the visual arts ought to be applauded and supported. That means putting our money where our mouth is: there needs to be a concerted effort to fund college scholarships for Christians at USC and other top film schools . Period.

Now to the downside, though not all of it is negative. Let me make the observation that much of the culturally engaged work being done in evangelicalism is coming primarily from a small segment of the community. Much like worldview studies that is becoming all the rage, evangelical leaders like Dobson and Colson have to go out and hire Reformed evangelicals to do their heavy lifting because there has been no attention paid to these matters by the bulk of evanglicalism. That's all well and good because it keeps people like me employed, and I think that the tide is turning in rejecting the theological systems that have supported cultural retreatism, but there still is a long way to go.

I think that there is also a real danger here as well. Machen talked about the three approaches to culture: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, and Christ transforming culture. We're starting to move away from the first, but I think that there is a temptation to easily drift into the second category, where evangelicalism no longer witnesses to culture, but becomes identifiable with it. In this situation, the Church loses its prophetic voice. We must be about transforming culture to Christ: this is the message of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20).

I have to admit that I struggle with this temptation regularly, particularly when it comes to movies. I like to fancy myself a bit of an art-house film type. I go see, and I've dragged friends to see, films that don't ordinarily show up at your local theater. As an aside, let me point out that the indie art theater in Nashville is owned by a Christian family. I enjoy movies with subtitles (Tous Les Matins du Monde, Cyrano de Bergerac and Bergman's The Seventh Seal are movies that I own). But the lines are not very clear. While I lived in London I went to see a French movie, Baise Moi, that as soon as I came out of the theater, I knew I shouldn't have seen. I felt defiled, and for good reason.

There's a lot of gray in the world, but some shades are darker than others. That's why I wince slightly when I see comments like those in the NYT article about Brokeback Mountain that say, "I like to see Ang Lee movies, but the homosexual themes don't conform to my values." It sounds too postmodern for me. It's clear that there's a message in Brokeback Mountain, and I don't think it's a message that Christians should support with their $$$. The next thing you know, we'll see articles in Christianity Today or Books and Culture talking about "The Augustinian Themes of Sin in Jenna Jameson Videos". You might think I'm exagerating a bit, but I don't think that I am.

I also think we must realize that as a community, evangelicalism is still a redneck backwater. We have a very long way to go to recover from a century of cultural retreatism. In terms of the arts, the secular world is light-years ahead of us. We have to understand that we are playing catch-up. Time, attention, and resources (here I'm meaning $$$) needs to be committed to get us as a community back up to speed. A few weeks ago I mentioned on this blog the well-done Intelligent Design documentary, The Privileged Planet. But there is a sore lack of this kind of work. Over the weekend, I saw a series of shows on the National Geographic Channel that applied the higher-critical view of the Bible (complete with Jesus Seminar writer Marcus Borg) debunking the entire biblical Christmas story. If I wanted to see something with an alternative view, I know that there isn't anything out there like that. If we are to win the culture wars, we have to meet the world punch for punch and we're a long way from it.

Let me offer one additional smart-ass observation. At the time I read the article this morning, there still was nothing up at WorldMagBlog, which prides itself on being culturally hip and current. I quickly shot off an email to a reporter/friend at the magazine, so we'll see if they mention it later today. What does this mean? Possibly nothing more than the clowns at WORLD are late sleepers like I am. But how many Christians take the time to read the New York Times each day, undeniably the most important newspaper in the country? I'll pat myself on the back and say that I do, along with the Washington Post, L.A. Times and several other publications. Our cultural maturity can't be confined the to passive world of movie watching. We must be aggressive in all areas of culture to both be aware of what is happening in culture, and to be savvy enough to know how to respond.

Finally, (if you've come with me thus far) let me be sure to plug once again Hollywood screenwriter Brian Godawa's movie blog. And be sure to buy his book, Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment (InterVarsity Press).

A Chesterton Christmas Quote

For Christmas, here's a quote from one of my favorite passages in G.K. Chesterton's, The Everlasting Man:

Christmas for us in Christendom has become one thing, and in one sense even a simple thing. But like all the truths of that tradition, it is in another sense a very complex thing. Its unique not is the simultaneous striking of many notes; of humility, or gaiety, of gratitude, of mystical fear, but also of vigilance and drama. There is something defiant in it also; something that makes the abrupt bells at midnight sound like the great guns of a battle that has just been won. All this indescribable thing that we call the Christmas atmosphere only hangs in the air as something like a lingering fragrance or fading vapour from the exultant explosion of that one hour in the Judean hills nearly two thousand years ago. But the savour is still unmistakable, and it is something too subtle or too solitary to be covered by our use of the word peace. By the very nature of the story the rejoicings in the cavern were rejoicings in a fortress or an outlaw’s den; properly understood it is not unduly flippant to say they were rejoicings in a dug-out. It is not only true that such a subterranean chamber was a hiding-place from enemies; and that the enemies were already scouring the stony plain that lay above it like a sky.

There is in this buried divinity an idea of undermining the world; of shaking the towers and palaces from below; even as Herod the great king felt that earthquake under him and swayed with his swaying palace. This is perhaps the mightiest of the mysteries of the cave. Indeed the Church from its beginnings, and perhaps especially in its beginnings, was not so much a principality as a revolution against the prince of the world. It was in truth against a huge unconscious usurpation that it raised a revolt. Olympus still occupied the sky like a motionless cloud moulded into many mighty forms; philosophy still sat in the high places and even on the thrones of the kings, when Christ was born in the cave and Christianity in the catacombs.

In all the humility, gaiety, gratitude, fear, vigilance and drama of this Christmas and Advent season, remember the defiance and offense of the Christ child who was born in the cave to conquer the world. As Christians celebrating the Incarnation and coming of the cosmic King, we are God's outlaws.

Islamofascism Weekly Roundup

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE: I don't think that I've yet mentioned that my previous Islamofascism posts have their own directory on the sidebar. Check them out.

I've run across some interesting stories this week related to Islamofascism that I thought I would direct your attention to:

Egypt's Brotherhood Leader Calls Holocaust a Myth, Al-Reuters (12/22/05) HT: LGF

Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas Coordinates with "Brotherhood", Jerusalem Post (12/20/05) HT: Thomas Jocelyn

Anton La Guardia, Arrests Reveal Zarqawi Network in Europe, London Telegraph (12/22/05) HT: LGF

Iraq's Zarqawi Sets up Gaza Branch at Palestinian Base, Debka (12/19/05) HT: Thomas Jocelyn

Scott Peterson, Waiting for the Rapture in Iran, ABC News (12/22/05) HT: LGF

Ben Macintyre, Mullahs Versus the Bloggers, London Times (12/23/05) HT: LGF

Regarding the first two posts on the Muslim Brotherhood, remember that this is the outlawed political party in Egypt that just won a number of seats in the parliamentary elections there. I've posted previously on the Brotherhood's primary ideological thinker, Sayyid Qutb, and the influence of French Social Darwinist thinker Alexis Carrel on Qutb's thought. Two weeks ago I posted on a recently uncovered document prepared by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982 that outlines the plan to achieve worldwide Islamic domination. It is must reading.

The next two articles regarding the spread of the Zarqawi variety of Al-Qaeda are important for two reasons:

1) It demonstrates that Al-Qaeda is a developing organization, with Zarqawi, who is a much worse butcher than Osama bin Laden could ever imagine, as the "Executive Vice President of Development". The war against global terror doesn't end with the death or capture of bin Laden. What is driving Islamofascist terror is not organization, but ideology. We must understand this ideology in order to know how to attack it and wipe it from the face of the earth forever. Peace out.

2) The penetration of Al-Qaeda into Europe and Israel should put to rest any hopes that the worst of the war on terror is behind us. It will be worse, much worse, than any of us can imagine. As Lee Harris puts it in Civilization and Its Enemies, this is not a conflict between competing civilizations; it is the conflict between civilization and anti-civilization. Because Islamofascism as a doctrine is controlled more by Western nihilism than historic Islamic thought, we have even more to fear because destruction itself is the end. Only with the complete destruction of the West can Islamofascism build it's Islamic utopia.

Along those same lines, the ABC News article discusses the apocalyptic faith of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the place this ideology plays in his policy. The apocalyptic element of contemporary Islam is little discussed in the West. Think of an Islamic Left Behind. Islamofascism needs an apocalypse to make their system work, and they need a Mahdi (an Islamic/Neitzschean-type strong man) to make it happen. This is scary stuff, just like Left Behind.

Finally, there is some hope. The last article I link to discusses the proliferation of blogs as tools of rebellion and dissent for the youth of Iran. The reason this is an optimistic sign is that (as the article notes) 70 percent of Iran's population is under the age of 30. Think of that and how vastly different that culture will be in twenty years (if their current leadership doesn't lead us into a nuclear apocalypse). [rant on] Today, our society is weighted down by the retiring boomer generation which will prevent us from making much of a governmental change. The geezers and blue hairs have their hands in Uncle Sam's pockets, and they intend to take us down with the ship. [rant off]

Could it be that measures like those announced this week by the Iranian government prohibiting the playing of Western music will eventually cause a second Iranian Revolution? I think it will. And the soundtrack to the revolution will be Britney Spears. Lord have mercy. Then we will know there will be an apocalypse.

FISA, ECHELON, and Much Ado About Nothing

I'm still getting a flood of emails about the domestic surveillance "drama" that's still in the news from last week's NYT article and I've received several thousand hits to my 1998 paper on FISA, Inside America's Secret Court since then. In a blog post last Friday I expressed concern about the domestic surveillance authorized by President Bush. At that time, all the information I had (or anyone had for that matter) was the NYT article. Now that a week has passed and further information has come out, the picture is much clearer. Here are some further thoughts:

1) I think that having a national discussion about civil liberties and the limits of governmental surveillance is LONG overdue. But it is hard to have such a discussion in the overwrought political storm that has followed in the wake of the NYT article. Most of the comments by members of Congress have not been helpful, and it seems that the release of the article was deliberately timed to coincide with the requested reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the release of the article author's forthcoming book.

2) To clear up matters for those who have asked me whether ECHELON (which I've also written a paper on) is being used for this domestic surveillance, the simple answer is no. ECHELON is a system that tries to pick out keywords in the avalanche of global electronic communications. It's like trying to grab a particular drop of water out of a firehose. The domestic surveillance being discussed is target-directed. They know who they are tracking and listening in on. That is much simpler technology. Some of the same systems might be used for both, but this individual tracking is not part of the ECHELON program. My apologies to all of the conspiracy theorists out there.

3) Now that we have a fuller understanding of what kind of surveillance has been authorized by President Bush, we now know that it isn't any different than what every single president since FDR has authorized. In 1982, the Federal Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the government (NSA) can tap conversations where one party is not in the US. Even the NYT reported on the decision back then. The warrantless domestic surveillance authorized by Bush's presidential directives is exactly the same that has been authorized by the past two Democratic administrations - Carter and Clinton. Strangely, there was no call for impeachment back then.

4) The central question to the present problem is whether Congress through FISA limited the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct surveillance for national security purposes. Any 12th grade government student should be able to tell you that it can't. The only was that Congress can limit the President's constitutional authority is by amending the Constitution. What's particularly interesting is the FISA itself hasn't undergone Supreme Court scrutiny to see if it is in fact constitutional. Because of the nature of the surveillance the FISC authorizes, there isn't much in the way of criminal cases that result (though in a few cases there has been, see my paper), so there hasn't been much of an opportunity for federal courts to discuss the issue.

5) What Congress really needs to look at is the operations of the FISA Court itself. The Administration has complained that it can take days, weeks, and months sometimes to navigate the process even before presenting the information to the Court. This needs to be looked at.

6) What is particularly galling about the Democratic congressional leadership rending their clothes about this revelation is that they were informed of this authorization when it occured. We heard from Sen. Rockefeller and Rep. Pelosi that they dissented several years ago, but there has been nothing said since then. Yeah, that's some real concern. This is precisely the point I made in my 1998 paper on FISA - Congress has utterly failed in its oversight role.

Here are some articles on the topic that everyone ought to read before arriving at any judgments on the present discussion:

Judge Richard A. Posner, Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis, Washington Post, 12/21/05 (Judge Posner is one of America's most respected Federal judges, and says that FISA is too restrictive. This from a liberal judge.)

Andrew C. McCarthy, Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking! National Review 12/20/05 (lists 28 current exceptions to requiring a warrant before conducting surveillance)

John Schmidt, President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps, Chicago Tribune 12/21/05 (What makes Schmidt so important is that he was Asst. AG in the CLINTON Administration.)

New York Sun editorial, Hold the Line, New York Sun 12/19/05

Powerlineblog.com, A Word From Bill Otis 12/21/05 (Otis was the Asst. US Atty for E. VA that handled the first-ever FISA appeal)

Byron York, Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps, National Review 12/19/05 (Discusses the present problems with the operation of the FISC)

Byron York, Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches, National Review 12/20/05 (Quotes Clinton-era Dept. AG Jamie Gorelick before Senate Intelligence Committee hearing justifying warrantless searches on the same basis claimed by Bush)

Byron York, Clinton and Warrantless Searches, National Review 12/21/05

Evangelical Cultural Bankruptcy, Exhibit B

First, let me state that I believe that tatooing is a morally neutral act; an adiaphora. Some of my closest friends, such as Travis and Perry, have tattoos, and I don't think about it at all. I've just chosen not to do it. But I don't know if it is my age showing, or my inability to accept new, legitimate trends, but I find this Calvinist skin art to be yet another indicator of how Evangelicalism is being led by culture, not vice versa. I'm not even sure what this is meant to do. The only way he can see it is in a mirror. Talk about wearing your narcissism on your sleeve. Maybe a lesson on Machen's three Christian cultural approaches ("Christ against culture", "Christ is culture", "Christ transforming culture") is in order.

Let me ask would-be critics this: Is having "Jesus saves" tatooed on your penis being cultural relevant? If you agree with the Calvinist skin art, to be consistent, you have a hard time approving of one and not the other. Just think, you could commit adultery and/or fornication, and witness to your sexual partner at the same time. That cancels everything out, doesn't it? Or does your tatoo have to show in order for it to be part of your "witness"?

This is ignoring pragmatic considerations: what if this guy, just like my friend Jamey that had Luther's insignia tatooed on his wrist a few years ago and then converted to Anglo-Catholicism (though as a good postmodern he still thinks that Lutheranism and Anglo-Catholicism are compatible -- love ya' Jamey!), suddenly decides twenty years down the road that he's really an Arminian? Or what if he is still in his cage-Calvinist phase and is a horrible witness to the doctrines of grace (as George Grant describes it, all new Calvinists should be kept in cages for at least two years - a maxim I agree with and wish it had happened to me; though I admit some wish I had been confined permanently) ? It is for this very reason that I stopped putting Christian bumper-stickers on my car, because I drive so aggressively and served as a poor (or real time-sensitive) witness. Really.

Hat tip: Gideon Strauss

Cemetery Snow/Photo Essay links

Wesley Chapel Cemetery, Norwich Township, Ohio (circa 1994). This is an old shot in commemoration for my first real winter in 10 years. Having lived in the South and the Arizona desert since 1995, the snows we received in Ohio this past week were harsh greetings from familiar friends. I'm starting to recover my snow and ice driving. This small cemetery near my hometown is where my beloved grandparents are buried. The building is an old Methodist church that now serves as a community center for the relocated church that is now up the street. When I lived out of state, I would always pay a visit when I was in town. This picture was taken 10+ years ago and was scanned in, so the color is a little dark and not quite as sharp.

Also note that I've posted links on the right-hand column to the various photos and photo essays I've posted over the past few months. Enjoy!

Existential Space Wins Two WorldMagBlog Awards!!

Actually, I have TWO proud announcements to make. Both Rachel and I have won awards for our discussions this week on WORLD's selection for "Daniel of the Year".

In the category of Best WorldMagBlog comment ever on one of their blogs (under the UPDATE section), I WON with the following entry (comment #20; #4 and #26 are also mine):

"...I find that some grit-eating redneck looking down his nose at me from his isolated internet perch a tad bit ironic."

To his credit, my new friend, Neil, who I was addressing, re-read my comments and understood my point a little better (comment #34). We shook internet hands and called it quits. And just for the record, his email begins with "ilikegrits", so I didn't just pull that out of thin air. I don't share his culinary tastes, but I appreciate his spirit. Thanks, Neil!

And in the category of Best WorldMagBlog comment made on another site (found right here in the comment section on this site, Existential Space), Rachel won with the following entry:

"I've been reading WORLD lately too and have been disappointed over and over by its poor editorial taste and clumsy polemics. I'm sure your confusion over whether you were reading WORLD or the New York Times cleared when you remembered that NYT is generally very well-written."

For her efforts, the judges made the following award: "Rachel, you just won a years supply of élégant blogneuf unisex sweater vests, produced by our Blog9 Bangalore Ltd. subsidiary! Keep up the good work!"

I think I can speak for Rachel to say that we're both extremely proud for recognition of our hard work. Thanks to Enfant Terrible and all the judges at WORLD! Now what about my sweaters?

The Quranic Concept of War and Terror

UPDATE (01/19/07): In lieu of having hard copies of Gen. S.K. Malik's The Quranic Concept of War presently available, due to the present demand, we are making the book available online in PDF. Also, be sure to read LTC Joe Myers' excellent review article published in the Winter 2006-2007 edition of Parameters: The US Army War College Quarterly. We hope to have hard copies of this volume available for purchase in the near future.

I'm presently reading S.K. Malik's The Quranic Concept of War in my ongoing studies on Islamism and terrorism. This book, very difficult to find (I had to order it from Pakistan - perhaps now I'm on some watch list; yeah, like I wasn't on it before...), is perhaps the best analysis available on the Islamic philosophy of war. I had seen it referenced in several journal articles, and with my interest in military strategy and tactics, I ordered it.

What Malik is usually cited for is his frank discussion on the role of terror in the implementation of war in the Quran. And it isn't just confined to "combat" as we understand that term today. Here's the quote usually cited:

“In war our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts… Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.” (p. 59)

This is a stunning and telling statement. His war doctrine states that terror is not a means, but an end. But this is usually where the analysis of Malik's argument stops in the American military journal articles. Why impose terror on an enemy as a thing good in itself? On the very next page, he describes the role of terror:

"It (terror) can be instilled only if the opponent's faith is destroyed...To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith" (p.60)

Here we see in explict terms the religious dimension to terrorism. According to Malik, terror is designed to shake the faith of the enemy. Terror is a counter-religious attack. When Al Qaeda targeted the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol for the 9/11 attacks, these were not military targets. Even the Pentagon was a symbolic target. And what were they targeting? The core elements of the American civic religion: materialism (economy), military strength, and democratic values. The terrorists understood that bringing the Twin Towers down wasn't going to collapse the economy; destruction of the Pentagon wasn't going to make military decisions and strikes impossible; and attacking the Capitol wasn't going to end American democracy. These were strikes designed to shake our faith in our values.

Now I think their analysis of what makes America tick is slightly off, but not too much. I think they would do much better to instill terror by shooting up a bunch of shopping malls in fly-over country, but don't tell the FBI I said that. Such an attack would shake middle America's sense of security. I hate to say it, but the terrorists understand the nature of battle much better than we do these days. They knew when they dragged those two American soldiers' bodies through the streets of Somalia that President Clinton would cut and run. And it's a bipartisan problem. When terrorists killed hundreds in the Beirut attacks on the Marine barracks and the US Embassy, we communicated to the world what our threshhold level was for war pain when President Reagan withdrew the troops. In our secularist age, the transcendent and symbolic has been forgotten. But the capacity remains within us nonetheless. That's why propaganda works. And it is working for terrorists, with the help of the American mainstream media.

But something else I picked up thus far in Malik's book is actually in the preface:

"Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the … verses in the Qur’an to be able to contend that world of Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As to them it is sufficient answer to make, if one were to point out, that the defiance of God’s authority by one who is His slave exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be treated as a sort of that cancerous growth on that organism of humanity, which has been created "Kanafsin Wahidatin" that is, like one, single, indivisible self. It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means (if it would not respond to other treatment), in order to save the rest of Humanity…" Allah Buksh K. Brohi, "Preface", p. xix.

Here we see expressed Islam's view of the their doctrine of man and the question of the One and the Many. Unlike Christianity, which sees each individual human as bearing inherently the image of God, Islam sees God's image in man as a potentiality. It is possible for us to bear God's image (if we follow Islam), but isn't in us inherently. And Brohi's comment shows that the individual only has meaning and value within the whole. Their totalist/unitarian worldview demands the unity of humanity under the banner of Islam. No diversity is acceptable or tolerable. There is no basis for human rights, except for Muslims. As he makes clear, Humanity is "one, single, indivisible self." Now this is absurd on its face, but they are being entirely consistent in the application of their monist theology. All individuality must be absorbed into the one because individuality isn't real; it is an illusion. This belief undergirds ALL revolutionary thought, whether Islamic or Enlightenment. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely essential to defend and explicate for us as Christians. When we give up the Trinity, we give up Humanity and Individuality. With the Trinity, both the unit and the individual have meaning and purpose.

And Brohi is honest about the consequences. The cancerous (non-conforming parts of humanity) must be "cut off" surgically. I don't know if you've ever been in a hospital in a Muslim country, but they are far from surgical about anything (speaking from personal experience). They are talking about surgery with a sword, not a scalpel.

I wouldn't suggest buying Malik's book unless you've read Hart on Strategy or Clausewitz. You would probably waste your money. But I can recommend a few good articles. There is an excellent, brief overview of the Islamic doctrine of Jihad that has been prepared by the Naval Chaplain's Service. Lee Harris wrote an article in Policy Review after 9/11 to explain the role of symbolism, entitled "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology". He later expanded this thesis into a book, Civilization and Its Enemies. I would also recommend Paul Sperry's article in yesterday's FrontPageMag, where he discusses the shift in the Pentagon's message to begin to state that terrorism, as we're facing it today, is in fact a function of Islamic ideology. No more "religion of peace" nonsense. And you might want to take a look at a recent article in Parameters, the US War College quarterly, that talks about "Why the Strong Lose".

This last article reminded me of a quote I read several years ago by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (who is a regular on Fox News). He wrote an oped in the Washington Post in the aftermath of the Al Qaeda bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (which fortunately I kept, because I can't find it online), and commented on the nature of the war we were fighting. Here he is chiding the Clinton Administration for the weak military response to those attacks. Remember this was three years BEFORE 9/11:

"A serious attack would have involved risk to pilots and aircraft, and Washington wants to conduct military operations on teh cheap, at least politically. During a past interveiw, bin Laden pointed to our precipitate withdrawal from Somalia after we won a street battle and suffered a handful of casualties. He claimed Americans are cowards who retreat as soon as they are bloodied. He is wrong about our troops, but right about our government." Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, "We Don't Have the Stomach For This Kind of Fight," Washington Post (August 30, 1998)

As Iraqis vote today in their elections, take a moment to remember that freedom always comes at a price - a human price. Wars, by their very nature, are about killing; and despite American technology, when we assert ourselves militarily, we will lose good men and women. It is that simple. Our enemies understand this and have made that calculation themselves. If we can't finish this war in Iraq, we no longer deserve to consider ourselves a superpower. We ought to be like the French, and begin to discuss with terrorists the terms of our surrender with Al Qaeda. But if not, we must be aware of the strategy and the resolve of our enemy. I hope to write an extended paper on Malik's war doctrine after I finish the paid writing project I'm presently working on. I'll be sure to make it available here.

UPDATE: One article I forgot to mention is The New Arab Way of War, by Australian Royal Air Force Captain Peter Layton. He cites the first Malik quote above on terror; yet again, doesn't draw the religious connection. His short analysis on the tactics, as opposed to the strategy, of Islamic terrorists is particularly helpful. I don't agree with all his conclusions about what to do. I think he ignores the doctrinal issues related to Islamic society I noted above, and thinks too much within the outdated nation-state paradigm. We are engaged in a civilizational conflict that exhibits religious and cultural presuppositions. And just like Muslims, we are very mixed on what values we hope to defend. That's a great place to start the discussion.

Evangelical Cultural Bankruptcy, Exhibit A

I just posted the following comment on the WorldMagBlog site regarding their selection of NYC artist Makoto Fujimora as their "Daniel of the Year":

From the brief profile it sounds as though Mr. Fujimura is doing the Lord's work in a much needed area of cultural influence. And I'm glad to see that WORLD is promoting his work. But with that said, I have to ask:

HAS EVERYONE AT WORLD LOST THEIR MINDS????

If you had chosen the Indonesian Christian community, which has had to endure their daughters having their heads cut off and their churches destroyed, bombed, and raided by government-protected thugs and raging jihadists, I would have loudly applauded. Or if you had picked an arrested leader of the underground church in China, I would have concurred whole-heartedly. All of these stories, and many more like it, have been covered in WORLD's pages over the past year.

But to appoint Mr. Fujimora - who again I think is doing excellent work and WORLD is right to recognize - as the "Daniel of the Year" is just so over the top it is hard to put it into words. Oh, the horror of bad art reviews! And how does one survive the trevail of living in an art studio in Manhattan! Oh, the humanity!!!

Shame on you, WORLD. This is nothing more than Ivory Tower snobbery.

I could have said it better, but I have to admit that I'm still a little hot about it. Mr. Fujimora sounds like a man worthy of respect and praise -- but he is no Brother Andrew, and I doubt he pretends to be so. My beef is not with Mr. Fujimora, but with the evangelical clowns at WORLD who decided that this was the most courageous Christian individual of the year? Note that they are giving out the DANIEL award. Remember that Daniel was faithful in the face of certain (in human terms, at least) death.

For a moment I forgot if I was reading the New York Times or WORLD.

The S.S. Titanic of Evangelicalism

A few days ago I mentioned in very brief passing Francis Schaeffer's work, The Great Evangelical Disaster. It's a book every well-meaning Christian should read. In it, Schaeffer offers a diagnostic of some of the damaging trends in Evangelicalism. But remember, this was a book that was written some 25 years ago. Back then, the evangelical ship was heading toward the iceberg, and Schaeffer as one of the ship's spotters sounded the alarm.

Tragically, few listened to Schaeffer's warnings. Today, the S.S. Titanic of Evanglicalism is slipping beneath the waters and it is clearly time to abandon ship. This is not a call of warning, it is a call of rescue. But just like the Titanic, the problems are far from over once you're off the ship. Not only are the waters icy, but there are sharks circling the ship.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Any honest observer will admit that there are any number of problems in evangelicalism, as there are in any movement comprised of people. But some problems are worse than others. Here's a very sort list in no particular order of problems that frustrate me, and that I think are weighing down the ship.

1) Lack of cultural awareness. We (Christians in America) live in a society in which culture is shifting rapidly against us. Not only has evangelicalism failed to issue sufficient warnings about it, in many cases it has followed the worldly trends. Because we are so much like the world, we cannot in good faith offer any alternative. And those that have taken the "Christ against culture" approach are utterly irrelevant to those in our culture looking for escape.

2) Relativism. The war for objective truth within evangelicalism has been lost. The evangelical conversation is being dominated these days by people who gain attention by digging up the ancient stones laid by our ancient fathers in the faith. The collective memory of the noble accomplishements of evangelicalism since the Great Awakening have been lost.

3) Legalism/antinomianism. The great 19th Century Southern Presbyterian, James Henley Thornwell, wrote an excellent essay on Antinomianism, where he traces that lawlessness and legalism had a common spiritual root. Those who want to impose artificial rules on others are those who realize that the rules are artificial. And so they come to believe that ALL rules are artificial, like "don't covet your neighbors wife", etc. There are so many examples of this available to discuss, there really isn't any need to elaborate.

4) The Self-help gospel. In evangelicalism, the gospel today means little more than therapy. And usually the solution it offers is, "I'm OK, you're OK." There really is no grappling with the reality of sin in our lives. The self-help gospel is no more than stating the blatantly obvious, not providing the real solutions that the world is looking for. They are looking for more than the 12-step, self-actualized Jesus. They (and we) are in desperate need of redemption. And the gospel is about the grace and the work of God accomplished once and for all in the Person and Work of Christ, not about spiritually and emotionally masturbating our ego.

5) The problem of authority. Amongst Protestants there is a growing unease with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. Critics claim that sola Scriptura has led to the radical individualization and relativism of evangelicalism. But is this true? Has the Roman Catholic Church avoided these same problems with the magisterium and the Pope? Not hardly. The Church of Rome is just as fractured and divided as Protestantism. The Anglican option is an even worse prospect, with it about to shatter into a thousand pieces at any moment. I predict that the Anglican communion won't survive a generation, and the Church of Rome won't last another century. But evangelicalism doesn't even have prospects that rosy.

Maybe in the next few months I'll present some options for those who agree (and it might just be me) who want to get off the ship and back to safety.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamofascist Plan-of-Action

Update (05/11/06): Be sure to read my article on this topic published by FrontPageMag.com, The Muslim Brotherhood "Project": The Radical Islamist Plan to Conquer the West - and the World, as well as Scott Burgess' English translation of "The Project" that accompanies my article.

NOTE: This is one of the more important posts I've prepared since starting this blog. I've tried to keep it short, but please read the whole thing and follow the links at the bottom of the page for additional information on Islamofascism's strategy to impose worldwide Jihadist domination.

In light of the successes of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt's recent elections, I posted last month some comments on Sayyid Qutb, the MB propagandist that was executed by Nasser, and his role in developing the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. In October I posted on the role of French Social Darwinist Alexis Carrel in developing Qutb's Islamofascist ideology, and also provided some links to readings on Qutb and the contribution of Western Revolutionary ideology to jihadist thought. Qutb's brother, Muhammed Qutb, was one of Osama bin Laden's primary mentors in college, along with Abdullah Azzam, founder of Al-Qaeda, who also was also a disciple of Sayyid Qutb.

What makes this information so important is that Egypt is one of America's closest allies in the Middle East (receiving more U.S. financial aid than any other country, including Israel), and that the Muslim Brotherhood - a banned terrorist group that still calls for acts of violence against Israel and America - is now the leading opposition party in Egypt.

Even more important, over the past few months European journalists and bloggers have been writing on a document prepared in1982 by the Muslim Brotherhood that Swiss authorities recently recovered that outlines their plans for "establishing the reign of God everywhere in the world." This is the blueprint for Jihadist world domination. And as we saw on 9/11, they are deadly serious about their aims, and death and destruction are part of their playbook. Swiss journalist Sylvain Besson published an article in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, about this 14-page blueprint for worldwide Jihad back in October, and The Daily Ablution has done a fantastic job of covering this story since then. TDA provides a link to an English translation of Besson's story here.

Since the Daily Ablution began posting on this, it has regularly provided translated portions of the 14-page Muslim Brotherhood document entitled, The Project. They now have the complete translation of this document online. It is required reading for anyone interested in the strategies and methods of America's Islamofascist enemies.

Washington National Cathedral #3

In talking with Eric today, I mentioned that I used to take my lunch hours at the Washington National Cathedral when I lived and worked in DC. I've also taken a lot of pictures there, and I've posted two previous installments here and here.

The picture above was taken in February 2004 on a beautiful cloudless day, which resulted in some great light-and-stone shots. This is in the Wilson bay overlooking the tomb of President Woodrow Wilson (Jeopardy clue - he's the only president buried in DC) looking to the north side of the nave.

Otto Von Simson says this of the use of light in the Gothic style:

"To the medieval thinker beauty was not a value independent of others, but rather the radiance of truth, the splendor of ontological perfection, and that quality of things which reflects their origin in God. Light and luminous objects, no less than musical consonance, conveyed an insight into the perfection of the cosmos, and a divination of the Creator." (The Gothic Cathedral, p. 51)

Christmas Consumer Orgy, Part 2

Last week I posted some thoughts on the commercialization of the Christmas holiday and how Christians in particular are responsible for the secularization of the Christmas celebration. I mentioned that some churches had decided to cancel Sunday worship on Christmas Day to give congregants "more family time." I had one reader email me (why do folks email me instead of leaving comments?) challenging me to provide evidence: here it is. This article describes how some of America's largest evangelical churches, including the largest - Willow Creek Community Church - are cancelling their Christmas Day services. This is absolutely pathetic.

This is yet more evidence for my contention that our cultural problems are not driven by the culture at large; they are driven by the utter abandonment of cultural leadership by the Church. If we want to change the cultural debate in America, it is going to have to begin in the Church. That's where judgment starts.

Also, check out Gene Veith's current article in WORLD on the myth that Christians inherited Christmas from pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. It seems it was the other way around.

UPDATE: I just re-read the article I linked to about cancelling church services on Christmas Day. Here's one quote:

"The unchurched are more reachable on Dec. 24, said Schneiders, who leads a church with average weekend attendance of 1,900 people."

This quote betrays the problem of the modern evangelical mind. How does some schmuck on staff with some megachurch know how reachable people are on what particular days? Isn't that the work of God? May Charles Finney burn in Hell! And how is it that unchurched people are more reachable by limiting, rather than increasing, the number of Christmas services? Again proving my thesis about the church, we are being led by the world rather than witnessing to the world through our worship and work. We are more devoted to our ever-paganizing culture than to Christ.

I also noticed another problem in the Worldmagblog discussion on this same article. Read comment #24, which says:

"...the church is perhaps the only organization in the world which exists for those who are not currently members of it."

Is this what passes for "evangelical Christianity" these days? What a bunch of hooey. Jesus in the Great Commission does not call us to create converts, but disciples! Conversion is His work. What does he tell Peter? "Feed my sheep." Is there no room for the Christian life and the Body of Christ anymore? Is evangelicalism nothing more than giving people the warm Jesus fuzzies in some odd, non-defined way? Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy!

Worldview movies

Over the weekend, someone asked me about the "Worldview Movies" series I led at our church two summers ago and what movies we watched. I've been asked this question a couple of times recently, so I thought I might put together a short list of favs.

1) Seven - Starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, this movie is an interpretation of Dante's Inferno. As police investigators chasing a seriel killer in a modern-day city that kills his victims according to the seven deadly sins, Freeman is the proverbial Renaissance Man to Pitt's Postmodern Man. While Freeman spends his night hours combing through the city's libraries looking for clues, Pitt resorts to Cliff's Notes. Kevin Spacey does an incredible job as the killer. The most important scene in the movie is towards the end when all three are in a car together and the killer explains his crimes and his critique of society. The final scene in the "Wasteland" was masterful. You will never expect the ending, but once you've seen it, you would agree that it couldn't have ended any other way. Keep track of the weather and scenery. Watch the credits at the end and figure out what they're trying to say by the direction the text moves. I saw this in the theater when it first came out - by myself. It scared the hell out of me, and I missed most of what was being said. Years later I read a review by Jean Bethke Elshtain that convinced me to see the movie again and reevaluate its meaning. Warning: this one doesn't end happily ever after. Not one for the kids.

2) The Addiction - How many movies quote R.C. Sproul by name? Abel Ferrara (director) and Nicholas St. John (screenwriter) team up on this movie investigating the relation of evil and humanity. An anthropology grad student, Kathleen Conklin (Lili Taylor), is bitten by a vampire (Annabella Sciorra) and seeks to satisfy her new lust. The philosophic discussions throughout the movie are provocative and get to the root of the problem of man's addiction - to sin. The pivotal figure, Peina, is played by Christopher Walken, who appears in the middle of the movie to tell Kathleen about her true nature. Also stars Edie Falco (The Sopranos) and Kathryn Erbe (Law and Order: Criminal Intent). The last 25 minutes of the movie are absolutely the most powerful and meaningful statements on the Augustinian view of man I have ever seen on film. Ferrara and St. John teamed up on another excellent film, The Funeral, which I highly recommend.

3) Magnolia - I'm no fan of his work, but this is the movie that Tom Cruise should have won the Oscar for. He flat-out steals the show. A series of random scenes in L.A. finally comes together in a tapestry of nine broken lives grappling with regret and redemption. Note the references to Exodus 6:3 throughout the movie, which foreshadows the suprising, biblical ending. The theme repeated several times throughout the movie is: "We might be through with the past, but the past isn't through with us."

4) Unforgiven - This Clint Eastwood-directed/starred film won the Best Picture Oscar. Law, order, death and the nature of man set in the Wild West. Eastwood stars as a "reformed" killer and thief that had been "tamed" by his now-dead wife that travels with two friends to take vengeance on two cowboys who viciously slashed a prostitute, but had been released by the sheriff (Gene Hackman). The stripping of Eastwood's character back down to his true self results in a final violent confrontation between Eastwood and Hackman. Note the discussion the two have in the closing moments of the film.

5) Apocalypse Now Redux - I saw this when it first came out, but I was too young to understand it. The next time I saw it was three years ago on a rainy spring day in St. Andrews, Scotland at a theater that was showing the re-released Redux version. Based on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and starring Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando, this is a tale of disenchantment with "civilization". But what does Brando's Kurtz find when he "goes native", and what does he teach the man sent to kill him? Somewhere I have an essay examining the New England Calvinist ideas behind the movie, with a little bit of The Golden Bough thrown in at the end of the movie by Coppola. One of the best movies of all time. "The horror...the horror."

6) The Truman Show - Existentialism and Nihilism, starring Jim Carrey. When we showed this film on one of our movie nights, most everyone had seen the movie when it came out and thought it nothing more than a funny comedy. But no one had picked up on what they show was actually saying. I started off giving a quick 2 minute introduction to late 19th Century philosophy and epistemology (yes, it really did only take 2 minutes). Like those one paragraph summaries of Shakespeare that were featured last week on Worldmagblog.com. The movie is about a man who rejects God's governance of the world and opts to leave the world entirely.

7) Rollerball - I'm talking about the 1975 version starring James Caan, not the recent butchering of the movie. Directed by Norman Jewison, this is a story of man against the system. The year is 2018, and the nation-states of the world have collapsed, with the corporations taking over. The world is rid of crime, war, famine, etc. Rollerball is a violent game designed to thwart individual human achievement, and Jonathan E (Caan) is its greatest practitioner. And that's precisely the problem. Life in "corporate" society must advance the "common good" (think of the "general will" a la Jean Jacques Rousseau), and the visibility and success of Jonathan E threatens the whole system. The beginning and end of the soundtrack features Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor (think Phantom of the Opera). What is a bit anachronistic is the use of punchcard computers throughout the movie.

8) To End All Wars - Bushido versus Scotch Presbyterianism set in Bridge Over the River Kwai. A true story from World War Two, screenwritten by Brian Godawa and starring a pre-24 Kiefer Sutherland. Self-consciously Christian. Examines the nature of forgiveness and compassion. How do you respond to brutality? The running discussion of Plato's allegory of the Cave (The Republic, Book 6) is helpful. This DVD is usually available at Wal-Mart. Buy it and own it.

9) Crimes & Misdeameanors - This Woody Allen film examines the implications of a world without God, where murder goes unpunished and the righteous are forced to commit suicide. My friend Andrew Southwell showed this to our singles group at Southwood Pres (Huntsville, AL) many years ago, which was the first time that anyone had challenged me to think about what movies really mean.

10) Leaving Las Vegas - Intended for mature audiences only! This movie got Nicholas Cage an Oscar, and also stars Elizabeth Shue (all of Elizabeth Shue, if you get my meaning). Cage plays a character hell-bent on killing himself with alcohol after his addiction cost him his wife, his family, his home, and his job. He moves to Las Vegas to drink himself into the grave. Along the way he encounters Sara (Shue), a prostitute dealing with her own demons. The two quickly fall in love and try to establish a normal life together - except for the fact that he's on the sauce, and she is still turning tricks. But they still try to make love work. The light jazz songs on the soundtrack by Sting are fantastic. Warning: if you get squeemish about on-screen nudity (which there really isn't much of), or sexual situations, this movie is not for you. You've been duly warned.

Also rans:

11) My Dinner with Andre - This is a nod to my friend, Bill Heid. Two men have a dinner discussion about Andre's dropping out of New York society and traveling the world and what he's seen. A long dialogue movie, so be prepared.

12) Pleasantville - Toby McGuire and Reese Witherspoon are translated into a 1950s black-and-white TV show. A defense of relativism and cultural anarchy.

13) Gattaca - A futuristic thriller starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman in a Brave New World theme. Hawke tries to live as an "In-valid" in a society obsessed with genetic perfection.

14) Crimson Tide - Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman deal with authority and legitimacy on an American nuclear submarine as they decide whether to launch their weapons and start a nuclear war.

15) Dangerous Beauty - A little-noticed movie set in Renaissance-era Venice. Catherine McCormack (of Braveheart fame) plays a courtesan (based on a real-life character) shut out of the world power, politics, and love. She writes her own rules and sleeps her way to the top of society. But the plague and the Inquisition threaten to derail her plans. This movie glorifies the ideals of the Italian Renaissance, and in the end, the courageous stand against religious authority is the best that Renaissance Humanism can muster. Some nudity, but not much more than what you saw in Braveheart.

16) Grand Canyon - Friends in 1990s L.A. experience a series of events that force them to deal with the transcendent world. Note the use of helicopters as a vehicle to communicate God's constant presence in the world.

This would be a good point to direct everyone to Brian Godawa's movie blog, where he reviews current releases. If you have any additional suggestion, feel free to leave a comment.

St. Paul's and the Defiance of Christianity

G-squared has a post today commemorating the dedication of St. Paul's Cathedral (London) in 1697. During the couple of months I lived in London, St. Paul's was a weekly stop, where I would take in the lunch-time communion service in the choir. Evensong was an even better treat.

Perhaps the best image I've seen of St. Paul's in the one to the right. This photo, taken during the Blitz, for me stands for the defiance of the Church against the onslaught of the world. What is particularly striking for me is that this picture is taken looking at the Western front of the cathedral. Author Robert Barron in his book, Heaven in Stone and Glass, calls the Western front of cathedrals "the fighting face of Christianity." As is well-known, cathedrals point east to Jerusalem in expectation of the return of the Lord. But the west front was almost always dedicated to the Last Judgment (except in the case of Washington National Cathedral, which features Frederick Hart's magnificent sculpture's of the Creation; check out Thomas Wolfe's article on Hart), and worshipers would have to pass through the Last Judgment to enter into the visible representation of heaven within the cathedral. But for the unbelievers outside, all they could see was Christ sitting in judgment against them. In the case of Wells Cathedal, the doors to enter into the cathedral are tiny, reminding the worshipper of entering in through the narrow gate. And Wells is an excellent example of the symbolism I'm identifying; the whole West front was filled with more than 400 sculptures of kings, queens, warriors, priests and saints manning the battlements of the church - the fighting face of Christianity, indeed!

Of the great cathedrals in Europe, St. Paul's is a bit of a novelty due to its colossal dome. The dramatic documentary, Wren, the Man Who Built Britain, talks the symbolism that Wren intended the architecture to show. Rather than a steple pressing heaven-ward, like Old St. Paul's (burned down in the Great Fire), the dome of Wren's St. Paul's reflected the sentiments of the Restoration, with the dome symbolizing the Divine Right of Kings, with the King standing between heaven and earth, and giving society its order. Remember too that in England the King proclaimed himself head of the Church. The sentiments behind Wren's St. Paul's is profoundly different from the medieval/Augustinian revival that fueled the Gothic era of cathedral building. For the theology behind the Gothic era, read Otto von Simpson's The Gothic Catherdal. For the history of St. Paul's see the recent book (and expensive!) St. Paul's: The Cathedral Church of London, 604-2004 and Lisa Jardine's masterful biography of Wren, On a Grander Scale: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Sir Christoper Wren. One other interesting architectual note about St. Paul's is that the windows inside do not actually look outside. On both the north and south sides of the cathedral, the buttresses are concealed by a false wall - a feature that can only be seen by walking up to one of the dome's observatory levels (quite a steep walk, I can tell you).

Perhaps what I love the most about St. Paul's and the story of Wren can be found in the crypt. Wren is buried in an obscure back corner of the crypt with a simple black granite tomb cover and the epitaph to Wren found on the wall above his tomb, "Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice" (Reader, if it's a monument you seek, look around you). What better epitaph could one have in this life than to have the lasting memory of one's work constantly in view for dozens of generations.

Truly, St. Paul's is one of the great cathedrals of the world, and one of the architectural wonders of humanity. If you're in London, take a whole day to experience St. Paul's: from early morning matins to evensong. Check out the nooks and crannies where England's heroes are buried. Of particular interest to Americans will be the tombs of those officers killed fighting against American independence, such as the captain killed at the Battle of New Orleans who has a grand tomb in the south transcept (right near the crypt entrance). One of my favorites is the tomb of Gen. Charles "Chinese" Gordon, a Victorian hero and outspoken evangelical killed defending Khartoum against the forces of the Mahdi. His life was made into a major motion picture, Khartoum, with Charleton Heston playing Gordon. Of course, England's greatest heroes - Nelson and Wellington - are buried prominently in the cathedral.

Listening to: Yat Kha, Tuva Rock. Mix Asian Tuvan throat singers with some rock music, and you have some very interesting listening. I was turned on to Tuvan singers, who come from the central steppes of Asia, in college in my World Music class. It really is fascinating stuff. Watch the documentary, Genghis Blues, for an in-depth look at this ancient art form.

The Christmas Consumer Orgy

The past few days I've noted a number of commentators and bloggers rending their verbal garments about the removal of Christ from Christmas, accusing secularists of waging a cultural jihad against Christianity. Honestly, I don't buy it. Christians, as the guardians of interpretation of what Christmas really means, have had the upper hand in its reinterpretation and secularization. The American experience of Christmas is not about devotion to Christ and celebrating his Incarnation and Nativity. It is about consumerism, the American civic religion. And I want to make this as clear as I can: Christians are the chief practitioners of this cult.

First, a little history lesson. The modern experience of Christmas as a time of exchanging gifts is exactly that - modern. It dates from the late 19th Century in Britain. During the last half of the 20th Century, Americans, flush with cash from the post-war economic boom, turned Christmas into the consumer orgy that it is today. And not a peep was heard during that time from the Church, except for the fundamentalist kooks and cranks who complained that Christmas was too religious, i.e. a Papist conversion of an ancient pagan holiday.

What is most troubling to me about how Christians celebrate Christmas is how it is so centered around getting, rather than giving. A number of years ago I had a relative get upset at me because I didn't give gifts to the right people, and it severely damaged our relationship. It didn't matter that at the time (as is true at most times) I was flat broke. Tosh! The Christmas snub could not be ingnored and the established slighting protocal had to be enforced. Of course, that I had violated the Christmas code wasn't relayed to me by the offender, either. They told my parents, who told me months after the fact. After that experience, I asked my family to stop buying me gifts for Christmas, and I told them that my gift-giving was going to be dramatically reduced. My parents by-and-large ignored my repeated request, but that is their prerogative.

What also troubles me is that sound family financial practices go right out the window during this time. I know families that spend thousands of dollars on their children each Christmas, some of whom can't afford it. Let me make a moral judgment: if you go in to debt at all for Christmas, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You're crazy, on top of that. But I will readily admit that the social pressures to revel in the consumer orgy are immense.

And the Christmas consumer orgy is self-perpetuating. Those children this year getting their 40gig or Nano Ipods (as stocking-stuffers), the $400 Xbox 360, a $2000 digital video and computer editing system, a $1500 electric guitar, etc. in 25 years are going to have even higher giving standards for their children, because in good, old American fashion, they are compelled to outdo their parents. What are we teaching our children by how we celebrate Christmas? Will they be surprised as adults to learn that they just can't afford, let alone surpass, the Christmas spending expectations their parents established for them? Will their parents ever tell them that they really can't afford their Christmas giving right now? I have to say in all honesty that most evangelical Christian families I know personally are getting their children punch-drunk on the no-end-in-sight consumerism that drives the American economy and culture. The kids really don't stand a chance.

If you doubt my theory, I propose this challenge: without notice, give your children nothing more this holiday season than a personalized Christmas card filled with encouraging thoughts and heart-warming words. Tell them what you've not told them for a while. If that's too cold turkey for you, tell them that the money you were going to spend on buying them gifts, you've deposited into their college savings account. Or you donated to charity, so other underprivileged children around the world could enjoy Christmas. What response can you anticipate? Will they be filled with excitement, or disappointment? You know the answer. But it isn't their fault - it's your fault. That's how you trained them and those are the expectations that you've established.

Let me make a prediction: since Christmas falls on Sunday this year, I fully expect that worship services across this country on that day will be little more than an exhibition of all the toys, clothes, gadgets, jewelry, computers, cars and other miscellaneous crap that everyone got when they opened their gifts earlier that morning. Yes, that might be judgmental of me, but I don't think that I'm far from the mark. I've even heard of several cases of churches cancelling worship services on Christmas this year so that congregants can "be home with family."


I realize that I've gotten this far talking about Christmas, and you have followed right along with me, and Jesus really hasn't figured into the discussion at all. And that's precisely my point. It is strikingly easy for us as Christians to discuss Christmas without ever mentioning Christ. Should we really be surprised by public officials lighting "Holiday" trees? Children getting school off at the end of December for "Winter Break"? The "After Winter Solstice Sale"? Who is really to blame for taking Christ out of Christmas?

If you want to be truly revolutionary and counter-cultural - striking a blow against cultural secularism - reexamine over the next few weeks what the Advent season, Christmas, and Epiphany is all about. Take some time to understand what the Church has understood these holy days to mean in the life of the Christian and in the life of the Church. And in the personal searchings of your own heart, consider how you and your family can strip away all of the consumerist trappings that have obscured the true meaning of Christmas.

Here are some suggestions for breaking the power of Christmas consumerism: Invite a family (or two, or three, or four) from church over to spend the day feasting, fellowshipping, and making merry; have a single person join your family for the day; volunteer as a family to help organizations, like Justice Fellowship's Angel Tree ministry or the Marine's Toys for Tots program, distribute gifts to poor children, or serve food in the homeless shelter; ask your church officers if there is a family in the church that you can financially help anonymously; or as a family, visit a widow or widower from your the church. And be sure to invite your unchurched neighbors and friends to worship with you on Christmas morning.

Yes, Virginia, Jesus really is the reason for the season.