Hallowe’en. Apparently this is the worst day ever for Christians, the Anti-Holiday. Having grown up in the culture that makes hallowe’en what it is in Canada, before spending any time in the Christian Sub-Culture, I’m always interested in people’s views about it. Some are vehemently against it, while some don’t see the big deal.
I understand the fear behind Hallowe’en. It has pagan roots (from Samhain, a druidic holiday from thousands of years ago), it seems to glorify evil, and a whole slough of other problems. I understand that since the 80′s, with reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse (with all reports that have been put forth seriously being found fraudulent) and the evils of Dungeons and Dragons (seriously?), Evangelical Christians have put their foot down and decided that Harvest Festivals are the way to go. May I give an alternative solution?
Our current Hallowe’en consists of dressing up in costumes and adorning our houses with jack o’ lanterns and at times, attempting to scare each other a little. Ghouls, Zombies, Vampires, Werewolves and their ilk, as we know them, exist only within our imagination, as archetypes for monsters – the unknown. Monsters aren’t real – they help teach and give kids tools to imagine. While the kids may dress up as a vampire one night, every other day they imagine fighting the vampire instead. These archetypes hold no evil over us. Simple as that. And just because Jack O’Lanterns have their roots in Samhain, to ward off evil spirits, it doesn’t mean you can’t carve some wicked cool pumpkins.
Obviously, I don’t want to downplay the real evil in the world, nor will I say that witchcraft and demons don’t exist – but the reality of these is so far removed from Hallowe’en that there is a substantial disconnect between the two.
Obviously, it’s your choice in what you will do tonight – I’m going to party dressed as a classic, 1990′s Emo (real emo, not the goth-pop-punk rampant today – see Copeland, Get Up Kids, Jimmy Eat World, the Juliana Theory) – just make sure you do it because of what you believe and not what Christian Culture told you to do.
Have a Mad Monster Party.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on October 31, 2008 at 9:34 am, filed under Christianity, Life and tagged Christian, Hallowe'en, Holiday. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
Some time ago, Lauren Winner found herself on our campus, doing a series of lectures on Christian Spirituality. Those lectures were quite good, she also did a lecture on sex for our first years, since she wrote a book called Real Sex, that everyone just thinks is the bee knees. I haven’t read it, but it’s on the list.
Winner had 3 myths the Church promulgates that she wanted to dispel for the recently de-Youth Group’d (generally – some like me matriculated much later). They were:
1. If you have pre-marital sex, you will feel awful about it.
While I don’t have the personal experience of this, Winner says this is wrong. Some will feel this way, yes, but some will feel good, indifferent, hungry, tired, lazy, sublime, wanting more, etc. The truth of the matter is that it is wrong, and we need to find a better way to discourage young people from having sex. Instead of trying to scare them straight, we should lay a better theological foundation for these kids impressionable minds.
2. Men and Women are fundamentally different when it comes to sex.
Without getting too deeply into the apparent differences between men and women, Winner really wanted people to know that most of what you read in Christian Relationship books is that Men want sex all the time, and women want to cuddle. But lots of men want to cuddle too, and women definitely want sex. Winner implied subtlely that this is a form of masked Christian sexism, and I think I’m inclined to agree. I think that if one were to accept this, then further differing attributes can be made between the sexes that leads to things like “women shouldn’t lead over men because they are too emotional, blah blah blah, etc.” Catch the drift? Good. Everyone wants sex. Don’t forget.
3. It’s an unforgiveable sin.
People generally don’t say it in those terms, but there are many metaphors used to convey this point, like: You are a rose, and every sexual encounter you have is like plucking a petal, until you are a thorny stick; or Every pre-marital sexual event leaves scars, and scars don’t go away. If you are one who has been through sexual sin, then you can understand the metaphors, but they aren’t right, because they ignore the redemptive and healing work of Jesus in our lives. I’m not saying that things will totally be ok right away, but what hope do we have if we can’t be healed of poor decisions and broken relationships? Out of everything else, we need to offer hope of healing to those who’ve already stumbled in this area of life.
Certainly 3 myths to think over. Is she right? wrong? what do you think? What do we need to do in the area of sex to help out young Christians?
WK
This entry was written by , posted on October 28, 2008 at 1:02 am, filed under Christianity, Church and tagged Lauren Winner, Myth, Sex. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
I was doing a standard “Look yourself up on Google for kicks and inaccuracies” today and my #1 hit is my old blog on Blogger. This blog started back in June of 2005 and went around 90 posts a year (pretty good) for ’05 and ’06, but due to the business of life, ’07 saw 10 posts.
It’s great to go back in time and see what you wrote and how you wrote it, to see how you have changed over the years. People who journal seem to get this idea and they are really keen on it. Ironically enough, I just can’t commit to writing in a book – I blank every time – but the internet? pass the keyboard. In this most current look-through, I can see how I felt, how I came about answers, and how wrong I was about so many things (unlike now, where everything I write is clearly Holy Writ).
One thing I did notice, however, on the older blog, is that I used to write prayers for myself and others. I think I might start doing that again.
Moral of the Story: Keep your old writing – you’ll always get something out of it, even if it’s only humiliation.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on October 27, 2008 at 12:33 am, filed under Blog and tagged Blog, Life, Will Kinchlea. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
For awhile, I have been thinking about what exactly evangecalism is, and the other day I was directed to David Bebbington’s Quadrilateral definition:
Those are great ideals to strive for, and they make sense, at a macro-level, within Protestant Christianity (I say Protestant Christianity, because I just don’t know about Roman Catholicism or Orthodox Streams to speak into them.) Sadly, I think North-American Evangelicalism has narrowed these ideals into the following:
As our culture changes (and seriously, people, it is changing), Evangelicals need to re-assess the quadrilateral and expand it from being 4 points for person-centered judgement to 4 points for spirit-led love. To help people think about these, I think I’m going to break this up and talk about each one of these points in a pattern of origin, fall, and redemption. This means some research on my part, so they’ll show up eventually. Until then, think about the 4 points and what you think about my subversion of the definition.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on October 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm, filed under Christianity, Church and tagged Bebbington, Christianity, Culture, definition, Evangelical. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.
Among Evangelical Christians, King David is seen as a pillar of the Christian faith, one whose love for the Lord was unparalleled and whose actions were (almost) perfect. From his anointing as a young boy, to his defeat of Goliath, to his flight from Saul, to his dancing before the ark through to the end of his life, David is perceived to be a penitent man of forward-moving faith for the Lord, who is blessed with an eternal dynasty by God in return. This tends to lead to theologies that emphasize ‘faith’ as a quantitative factor within blessings from God.
This probably comes from within Evangelical circles through historically faulty readings of the books of Samuel, most notably 2 Samuel, that emphasize a need for Israelite kings (despite Samuel’s warnings in 1 Samuel 8 ) a need for a centralized temple within Israel (despite having a centralized Tabernacle), and a belief in the saving faith of the believer (Sinner’s Prayer anyone?).
What if, persay, the blessing bestowed onto David was not based on the faith of David, but on the faithfulness of the God of Israel?
We hear that David was a man after God’s own heart, and we infer that to mean that David was all about doing God’s work, with the exception of flubbing up with the whole Bathsheba debacle. What is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in the text however, is that David also had people murdered, lied, stole wives, had many wives, horses, silvers, and golds (breaking specific laws for kings in Deuteronomy). Basically the only thing David didn’t do was commit idolatry – good for him. So David was not a nice dude. So what do we do about this whole ‘man after God’s own heart’ stuff?
How about this: ‘man after God’s own heart’ doesn’t have to do with the man following God, but God following the man ‘after his own heart’?
This would mean that no matter what evil stuff David did, God was always with him, through thick and thin, and for his descendents too. David’s faith had nothing to do with his blessing by God.
I think this is an important thing to drive home, because prosperity doctrines and their ilk are running rampant in our churches and, I think, have seeped into our daily prayer lives, subliminally. God will do what he will, when he will, how he will – you can’t stop him. And God’s will is that none shall perish and creation will be made new. We serve a mighty God, and we have no need to pray, ‘with more faith.” Faith in a loving God is good enough.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on October 25, 2008 at 12:22 am, filed under Christianity, Church and tagged Bible, Christianity, David, Prayer. Leave a comment or view the discussion at the permalink.