Horror and the truth of God

From the CASE Vault - Justine Toh on Horror

CASE has lots of resources online, many of which are available via the side bar on this blog. I thought I might do a regular post that reminds readers of the resources that are available on our webisite.

In her short article for CASE Justine Toh reviews the 2006 version of the horror movie The Omen and reflects on the way Horror movies depict God, the devil and the supernatural. In short, she suggests that it typically does it badly, but even so, she suggests that:

"Horror is unique as a genre because it accepts the existence of a supernatural realm implicitly, as Christian filmmaker Scott Derickson has maintained. But the spiritual essence of The Omen is weighed down with material concerns and the occupations of this world, rather than the promise of the next, whether that is salvation or judgment. This hinders and, strangely enough, helps the film’s usefulness in communicating ideas about a Christian worldview."

She concludes her piece by pointing out the obvious; people won't necessarily flock from horror movies straight to a church, but by portraying such a dark and dismal picture of man separated from the Creator, the horror movie might just inadvertently offer a testament to the need for God, "...the image of man absent the guidance, love and mercy of his Creator is pitiable indeed. There’s no need to frighten people into obedience. The sorry state of humanity absent God is testament enough."

You can read the whole article HERE.

The Influence of Music on Hearts and Minds

Social and cultural movements often have associated music that contributes to identity and helps to define who the individuals and groups think they are. For example, in the 1970s Punk Rock burst onto the music scene with loud, simple and repetitive beats and at times 'dark' lyrics. The music often spoke of rebellion and a desire to reject mainstream thinking. With any musical movement we find associated cultural practices - the things people like, the experiences they share, the topics that become the focus of conversation, the rules of social engagement and so on. The Sex Pistols quickly developed a cult following as much for the anti establishment views as for the group's music. They often opposed mainstream cultural and social practices and beliefs. Their infamous song 'God Save the Queen' was no doubt intending to offend with lyrics like "God save the queen, She ain't no human being, And there's no future, In England's dreaming". When Johnny Rotten belted out the song in 1977 (in the Queen's Silver Jubilee year!) many were outraged at the attack on the Queen, not to mention the British people, whose conformity to the crown and respect for the monarchy was being belittled. There was widespread outrage, some radio stations stopped playing their songs, parents stopped letting their children go to their concerts etc. Of course, as is often the case, the group's infamy brought many new fans. 

Music is clearly an important way in which people express their views of the world, their own allegiances, hopes, desires, loves and so on. But is it also a way in which we are shaped and moulded to understand and share the ideas, truths and falsehoods of songs? Could the very lyrics of a song shape one's thinking and view of the world? While I might just sound like another old bloke lamenting the dangers of popular culture, stay with me. I want to ask the question: Does it matter what we sing? This is a much-debated topic in any church - do the words matter?

In an article to be published in the next issue of Case Magazine that focuses on music (due out late June), Dr Steven Guthrie writes about our reasons for singing. He bases much of his paper on a letter written in the 4th century by the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius  (c. 295-373) to a friend, Marcellinus. In it Athanasius spoke of the Book of Psalms and the importance of singing them. Surprisingly, the first reason Athanasius offered for singing is not expressing ourselves in words and sound, but taking words in, im-pression. The psalms for Athanasius were a way not just to express our emotions, but also to understand and express the emotions of others. Guthrie reminds us that singing is an act of imitation not just expression. Athanasius wrote:

"He who recites the psalms....sings them as if they were written concerning him, and he accepts them and recites them not as if another were speaking nor as if speaking about someone else. But he handles them as if he is speaking about himself. And the things spoken are such that he lifts them up to God as himself acting and speaking then from himself."

While the above thoughts of Athanasius to a friend have great relevance for those of us who want to consider the value of singing Christian songs, they also seem to raise other questions about the impact of music on those who sing it. If we accept what Athanasius says (and I am persuaded at least in part), then what implications might this have for all of us as we immerse ourselves in secular music? Parents also might well want to ask themselves, does it matter what music my children listen to and sing? I think it does. Rather than our singing being just an opportunity for us to articulate words that we express to music, might they also shape us?

These thoughts have positive and negative implications for music.  If you'd like to read all of Steven Guthrie's thoughts on singing the psalms as well as wonderful articles by Jeremy Begbie, Peter Dart, Rob Smith and Andy Judd look out for the next issue. Why not become an Associate of CASE so that you can receive Case Magazine quarterly.

Children's loss of play: The need of families for a God-centred ethic of work and rest?

In his excellent book 'The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness' Tim Chester challenges Christians to examine the way we live our lives and to unmask the many self-deceptions that drive us to lead lives that at times seem out of control.

The Bible teaches that work and rest are both good, but in western countries like Australia, there is a constant playing out of two competing ethics, a ‘work-centred’ ethic and a ‘leisure-centred’ ethic. How can we achieve balance between work and rest? Chester points out that even the way we 'play' is driven by purposes other than the ultimate purpose of this important human activity. He comments:

"Even our time off can be hard work. Our secular age tends to give material answers to spiritual problems. So leisure has become a thing you 'do' or 'buy'....we no longer 'stroll' or 'ramble'; now we 'hike' with walking poles...leisure is no longer rest; leisure is consumption."

With Chester's comments about adults and play and with my own struggles maintaining a right view of work and rest as a backdrop, I want to suggest that the problems adults have working out a right view of rest (and work) might have many unintended consequences for our children. Our children learn from us through the words we teach them, the lives we live before them and the relationship between both of these and our faith. Children can grow up to imitate us or at times reject that which we have taught and demonstrated. The latter might have positive consequences or simply lead them to other equally wrong and confused notions of work and rest.  New research on the loss of childhood play might be relevant in understanding the importance of play (as a form of rest) to our children. While I don't want to suggest that rest = play for the child (or the adult), changes in the nature of play and the amount of time that adults and their children devote to play is I think relevant to our understanding of rest.

The varied consequences of diminishing play time for children

Psychologists, educators and paediatricians see children’s play as so important to optimal child development that it has been recognized by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights as a right of every child   [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Rights of the Child].

But in a clinical report to the American Academy of Paediatrics, Kenneth R. Ginsburg concluded, "Many of these children are being raised in an increasingly hurried and pressured style that may limit the protective benefits they would gain from child-driven play."

Major child rearing agencies, early childhood associations, paediatric groups and government agencies with responsibility for children and families have been raising serious questions about declining spare time, and in particular unstructured playtime for young children. For example, a UK report from 300 teachers, psychologists and children's authors claimed that the erosion of "unstructured, loosely supervised" playtime is dangerously affecting young people's health.

Ginsburg concludes that:

• Play allows children to use their creativity while developing their imagination, dexterity, and physical, cognitive, and emotional strength.
• Play is important to healthy brain development.
• Through play children at a very early age engage and interact in the world around them.
• Play allows children to create and explore a world where they can achieve a sense of mastery.
• They can also conquer their fears while practising adult roles, sometimes in conjunction with other children or adult caregivers.
• As they master their world, play helps children develop new competencies that lead to enhanced confidence.
• Undirected play allows children to learn how to work and create with others, to share, to negotiate, and to resolve conflicts.
• When play is allowed to be child driven, children practice decision-making skills, move at their own pace and discover their own areas of interest.
• Play is essential for the building of active healthy bodies.


How might the limitation of play in childhood limit understanding of work & rest as adults?

None of the research on play gives any consideration to the possible consequences of the loss of play to the spiritual well being of the child and its impact on later adult life. Neither does the Bible offer too much direct advice about the importance of play for children's health, development and general well-being. But we do know that God ordained work and rest for our good, and in doing both we imitate him. We also know that in modelling the Christian life for our children, that they observe our actions as well as listening to the things we teach them. Could the way we structure our children's lives teach children things about work and rest that we never intended? Could the work ethic we hold and our attitudes towards activities like school, study, chores and part-time work (for older children), indirectly teach ethics of work and play that aren't biblical? What are we teaching them about work and rest in and through our lives and the way we shape their lives?

What should be our response?

The answer to the observed problem of children's reduced time for rest and play is not simply a new timetable at home.  The answer to lives that are too busy and lack time for rest, is not simply less work or more rest, but a right attitude to both based on a clear understanding of God's grace.  This will start with parents examining their own lives first, then their children's. There is nothing wrong with being busy, in fact Paul teaches us in Philippians that we are to 'pour out' our lives in the service of God (Philippians 2:17); and we are to honour God and give him first place in our lives, as we "present our bodies as a living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1).

As Tim Chester wrote in an article for Case magazine last year, the Bible presents us with a "liberating God-centred ethic in which we work for the glory of God and we rest for the glory of God". Granted, the desire for our children to know and ultimately live out this understanding is rarely in the front of our minds when we play leggo with our 2 year-old, help our 7 year-old with homework or 'waste' time with them at the weekend; but maybe it should be, at least to a greater extent than I assume that it is for most Christian parents.  

We need a right attitude to work and play driven by motivations, goals and aspirations centred on knowing Christ better ourselves and making him known to others. Tim Chester reminds us that "...we can find rest in our busyness and joy in our labour." As parents we need to demonstrate and teach our children that a life dedicated to Christ is one which has a yoke that is easy, and one that will bring ultimate 'rest'. Jesus' teaching ultimately points to the fact that our lives need to acknowledge the perfect rest that we find in our relationship with him:

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

Other reading and resources

Robert K. Johnston (1983), 'The Christian at Play'

Tim Chester (2006). 'The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness'

Robert Banks (1983). 'The Tyranny of Time'

Previous posts on 'Tyranny and Challenge of Time' and 'Time and the Family'

Tim Chester (2009). 'The Busy Christian's Introduction to Busyness' Case Magazine, No. 18. [Theme: City Life]

Kenneth R. Ginsburg (2007). 'The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds'. Pediatrics, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp 182-191.

A right view of indoctrination?

"... no true education can escape the responsibility of communicating a view of life - that is, of 'indoctrinating.' The cult of the open mind is a way of camouflaging the poverty of an education which has no view of life to communicate. Indoctrination is not an educational crime; it is an educational necessity, in religion as in table manners. The crime is to indoctrinate in such a way as to destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil. It is by no means impossible - and the world's greatest teachers from Socrates onwards have proved it to be the very heart of teaching - to present a strongly held faith in such a way as to challenge the beholder to come to terms with it on his own personal responsibility. That there is no necessary opposition between doctrine and freedom is clear when personal freedom is at the very heart of the doctrine."

The above is a quote from a book written by M.V.C. Jeffreys who wrote most of his publications in the first half of the 20th century. He was a Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham. The quote is from his book 'Glaucon' and was first published in 1950.

Richard Dawkins is a big critic of parents holding a faith position and teaching it to their children. He claims that it is indoctrination and that it is a form of child abuse. Is this fair? I think not! Surely it is the right of all parents to teach to or share with their children the things they believe, or simply the things that they think are important. How different is it for a parent to passionately teach their children about Climate Change, the killing of endangered species, the dangers of atomic energy or the unparalleled merits of the New York Yankees (or the Rabbitohs in Sydney) and a parent who teaches their children about their faith?

It's easy to be accused of indoctrination. In September last year President Obama was accused of indoctrination (here) due to his national address to the nation's school children.  Jim Greer the chair of Florida's Republican Party stated, "I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." In fact, there are accusations of this sort against the President all over the web. Personally, I think the claims are grossly unfair, but how do we make such judgements? How and why did Jim Greer reach his conclusion that it was indoctrination?

Is it just possible that some of the people who object to parents teaching their children about faith, labelling it as indoctrination, might 'indoctrinate' their own children, or even find it acceptable when others 'indoctrinate' children with ideas with which they agree? I read a blog recently in which the writer told how her 3 year old had chanted to her at dinner that night “Reduce! Reuse! Recycle!”. She suggested that the learning of this chant to encourage recycling is "good indoctrination". Who decides when indoctrination of children is good, or bad? Given that indoctrination simply means to instruct or teach someone a "doctrine" - which in turn means a body of knowledge, sets of principles, a collection of teachings - then it is nonsense to assume that it is always wrong.

M.V.C. Jeffreys' view was that indoctrination rather than being wrong or immoral is appropriate and unavoidable. What he saw as wrong was indoctrination that can "destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil". In defence of Christians who are accused of indoctrination regularly, it is relevant to remind people that the very basis of Christian faith is freedom. Christianity isn't about simple adherance to a set of rules or even moral principles; although the Bible does suggest ways that we should live. Those who present the Christian faith in this way are teaching a false gospel. While we can teach a child about faith in Christ, we cannot make them believe. It is wrong for a parent or teacher to seek to coerce children into believing that which they believe themselves. It is also a quest that is doomed to failure. As Joshua reminded the Israelites as they prepared to enter the Promised Land, ultimately all of us must choose who we will serve. Joshua challenged the Israelites to consider if they were going to serve the gods of the Amorites or the God of their ancestors, Yahweh (Joshua 24:14-15). Likewise, Jesus called his disciples to choose to follow and to believe in him. And as Jesus taught the stakes are high:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Why shouldn't parents teach their children the doctrines that will allow them to make a choice as to the reality of God as taught in the Bible? Especially when they believe that there are eternal consequences.

The Bible teaches that the Christian faith is not about being enslaved to the views of others, whether as a child or as an adult, it is about being set free to live as God had intended.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  (Romans 8:1-4)