Light Reading Gone Dark

So I’ve not yet seen The Da Vinci Code. I recently obtained the DVD, but have yet to watch it. Originally, I put off seeing it because I understood it to be a “work of art” that sought to slander the Church by reviving every heresy—Gnostic, Arian, what have you—and presenting them as the truth for the sake of an (admittedly) gripping story of conspiracy and intrigue. Based on documents and doctrines so irrational and inconsistent that they failed to fool even our most ancient forefathers, the novel and the movie had self-confessed “spiritualists” and secular free thinkers giving the time of day to garbage rightly rejected over 1,600 years ago. Not that anyone actually understood the scope of the heretical beliefs touched upon by author Dan Brown—he would have needed to use flow charts to convey all that, a little out of place in a novel—but they were nonetheless eager to believe that the beliefs held in common by Christians were not to be believed. Added to everything, Mr. Brown’s assertion that his fictional story contained wholly accurate historical and theological information undermined the line between fact and fiction and made clear his venom for the real world Christian faith.

Not to go on at too great length about The Da Vinci Code, there are other popular works of fiction that have made assaults on simple truths, some more indirectly than others. While I never read any of the Harry Potter series, not being a fan of the fantasy genre, I recall that in 2002 the Catholic Church disapproved it as being unsuitable for children. I don’t know how their argument ran, but I would agree that there is a danger here. It isn’t that the books promote satanic witchcraft. I give kids credit for recognizing these far-out elements as pure fantasy, and I don’t see the emergence of any subculture dabbling in the black arts. Rather, I find the danger to lie in devaluation. Today, America’s youth is having its wonder, its amazement funneled away to outlets with no profitable end. Children and teens, so intelligent and passionate, are squandering their faculties and energies on petty entertainments that do not glorify God or seek to apprehend divine realities.

A second danger—the constant danger—relates to the intrusion upon these novels of humanist thinking. This is presaged in Harry Potter by such post-publication announcements as a prominent character’s homosexuality, but more fully realized in the latest series of books-turned-big-screen, The Golden Compass series. Harry Potter is tame by comparison to this next attempt to discredit the Church. These books portray the Church as an organization given to brainwashing, and they define dogma, in the abstract, as necessarily evil. Rather than recognize in systematic theology the hard-won confession and oft assailed attestation that Christ is Lord, they adopt an ahistoric absurdity and suggest that any doctrine that seems too hard to understand must in fact be a fanciful invention of man designed to mislead and oppress.

The writers and producers of the cinematic version of the series have muted the anti-Christian overtones, but I haven’t a clue why. If Hollywood really isn’t interested in broadcasting atheistic tirades to young children, why make the movie at all? Why attempt to merely filter out the profane if the message of the source material is so unabashedly objectionable? Forget the film altogether and let these books rot on the shelves. Since any children’s film’s financial viability depends upon its perceived uprightness, I don’t see the point in to trying to scrub clean this petrified lump of dung.

--------------------------------------------------
Christianity in the Media Recap 2: What would they have us believe?

• Reintroducing condemned heresies and seeding impieties into popular children’s literature is fair game; all’s good so long as it’s entertaining.
• The doctrines of the Church, developed over millennia to safeguard simple truths from attacks (such as these), are actually elaborate attempts to brainwash us all.

2% With a Wide Margin of Error

From viewing the blurb on my Yahoo homepage today, I see that Will Smith's blockbuster I Am Legend is enjoying the largest December box office opening ever--until next December, I'm sure. In the run up to the premiere, Smith was the focus of several interviews, among them an especially memorable one conducted by Access Hollywood.

In it, Smith came off as a well-spoken, intelligent actor in no way reminiscent of his self-titled Fresh Prince character from his youth. Following the recap of his illustrious career, AH got around to asking him about his personal life, delving into such incidentals as his high school memories, his relationship with his father, and--of all things--his views on Tom Cruise's always-scandalous devotion to Scientology.

Smith defended Cruise, who is a good friend of Smith's and an overall "great spirit." How heartwarming. He went on to appeal to man's right to determine his own beliefs, which, according to him, are all the more valid for being the more insane. Here's the central quote:

"How can I condemn someone for what they believe and I believe that God was born from a pregnant virgin?"

According to Will Smith, then, the criterion for faith is not, say, the revealed word of God, but rather the sheer absurdity of the premises upon which beliefs are built. He attempts to demean the integrity of his own admitted Christian faith in order to buoy the outlandish assertions of a cult in direct opposition to that faith.

But then, what is the content of Smith's own "Christian" belief? He gives us a brief peek into his background:

"I was introduced [to Scientology] by Tom and I’m a student of world religion. I was raised in a Baptist household, I went to a Catholic school, but the ideas of the Bible are 98 percent the same ideas of Scientology, 98 percent the same ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism."

Why, he's some sort of religious cosmopolitan, isn't he? And so profound. Obviously, he must know what he's talking about. Just look at his credentials. Who else but a true humanitarian and champion of tolerance could possibly recite such beautiful platitudes?

I'm especially impressed by his specificity. He sheds quite a bit of insight onto those vast and obscure "ideas of the Bible", doesn't he? It can be so hard to keep track of them all, but let's see what we can pull up to forefront of our wearied minds. Here's an idea:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Matthew 11:27)

Actually, wait, no, that's the wrong one. That's too specific, and it puts a crimp on Will's point. I guess the part of Christianity that has to do with Christ must fall under that 2%, huh?

--------------------------------------------------
Christianity in the Media Recap 1: What would they have us believe?

• All religions are one.
• Men should believe whatever suits them them best.
• Christianity is not significantly different from Scientology, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
• To criticize a belief system in opposition to Christianity is ignorant.
• Strange doctrines are valid since Christian beliefs are equally bizarre; or, conversely
• Both the beliefs of cults and the beliefs are Christianity are unbelievable.

The Bitter Joke

During the summer months, while watching the latest underwhelming attempt to find the Last Comic Standing, I witnessed a noteworthy stand-up routine. It wasn’t that it was particularly funny. (That hasn’t been the case since the reality show’s first season.) What caught my attention was that it attacked the Catholic Church, in particular, as well as Christian beliefs in general. I don’t use the word “attack” to designate some personal offense to my own over-sensitive ego. The comedic profession has always harvested material from widely recognizable figures, mundane observations, and current events that can then be half-heartedly teased and mulled over for humorous effect. The jabs are not especially judgmental or, if they are, they are delivered while the performer is in character, the intention being to point out the absurdity of such judgments. Acts that “attack” racial groups, for instance, must be heard in light of the fact that they (often) serve the purpose of exposing the ridiculousness of certain stereotypes.

It is sobering to realize that those that attack Christian—not religious in general, but purely Christian—subjects, do so with an altogether different motive. This brings me back to Last Comic on NBC. As the comic presented his Christian material, the audience laughed, as would be expected. But there was something venomous in the laughter. If it was too subtle to be recognized at first, it was confirmed by the cheering that followed after it. The assembled audience was validating the caricatured depiction of Christians, taking it as profound (rather than profane), and agreeing with the harsh words delivered against the faith.

If it can be granted that these funnymen professionals concoct their material to cater to the modern worldview of their audience, then it follows from that audience’s reaction that this comic had correctly gauged that the average individual harbors deep-rooted anti-Christian animosity. This in itself should come as a shock. At a sold-out, HBO-sponsored theater performance by Bill Mahr, one might come to expect such God-directed hate mongering and the wildly approving reaction of the throng. What is far more telling is that a similar reaction could be elicited from a randomly selected, diverse group of people come to witness an unknown comedian with no foreknowledge of the nature or the flavor of his comedy.

Popular conceptions of Christianity as an intolerant religion that has been made obsolete by modern science, and its adherents as uptight and irrelevant members of a dwindling sub-culture, have given today’s comedians license to treat them intolerantly in turn and to forego the implicit niceties afforded to the targeted groups of other “offensive” humor.

It is not my intent to make whining complaints on behalf of Christians treated unfashionably, but to draw attention to how the faith has been so easily and so widely misrepresented, and how something life-giving can be construed to be so contemptible, and how ready and eager the unbelievers are to agree with one another and to consort with every false assertion. It appears as though, even when overhearing some new slander against God not previously considered by them, they lend to it an immediate plausibly, if only because it is opposed to the faith that they mutually despise. And to that faith itself, they give not a moment’s consideration.

I’ve been vague with regard to the substance of the comedy that I’ve referred to here; I know that I have been short on examples. Watching this broadcast via television has given me occasion to take careful notes on future instances of how the media is endorsing the misrepresentation and degradation of Christian beliefs (I am not now concerned with the bandied-about term “values”, but specifically beliefs).

Lastly, I recall that I earlier referenced this comedian as launching his assault against Catholicism. While the routine began this way, it then went on to mock beliefs held sacred by all of orthodox Christendom. I feel that it is important, for we that may not be Catholics, not to dismiss criticisms of Catholicism as being somehow more deserved, since, as I strongly suspect, the ordinary unbeliever in dismissing Christian beliefs does not make denominational distinctions or, if he is aware of some doctrine peculiar to one denomination, when making his case he is apt to apply it to all of Christianity indiscriminately.