The Weakness of Religion

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote that "Jesus calls men, not to a new religion, but to life." Bonhoeffer takes his cue from Jesus who said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly," as recorded in John 10:10 in the Bible. Religion is no stranger to battle, and this is a major blight on the image of faithful people everywhere. Many have rightfully argued against the need for a 'faith,' based on the adherents who claim the faith, but is this the logical conclusion to every bad encounter or negative perception of faith?

Many would say it is. After all, what else is needed? I would offer that the discussion begins at a deficit when the word, or idea, addressed is 'religion;' but if we speak instead of 'faith,' our dialogue not only continues but enables all parties to share and disagree and leave the conversation validated. I would hope that all reading this may discover, by the article's end, that none of these processes are mutually exclusive... unless we let them become so. I hope you will not fault me for, as a Christian, at times transitioning from talking about faith in general and the Christian faith in particular, as that is my major chosen frame of reference.

Query Quagmire
The search for the Divine is not new, nor is the multiplicity of places one can go to for another's opinions on the search. So reading the thoughts of those who claim the need for "a new way of being religious" strikes me as disingenuous or historically oblivious. Or who knows? It could just be a hook for another book. Eric Weiner, in an Op-Ed article for the New York Times called "Americans: Undecided About God?" (referenced throughout), brings a blithe and pop-referenced, but ultimately photo-copied, perspective on the human - not just American - quest for the Divine. Whether we search for the Divine, a divinity of our own selves, or the nature of the Divine, we all find ourselves somewhere along the path from this life to the next and wonder about it all.

In Weiner's book*, pictured here, the author is prompted on his quest by his own mortality. The Amazon product description states: "When a health scare puts him in the hospital, Eric Weiner - an agnostic by default - finds himself tangling with an unexpected question, posed to him by a well-meaning nurse. "Have you found your God yet?" The thought of it nags him, and prods him - and ultimately launches him on a far-flung journey to do just that." The resulting book, which I have not read, seems to be like numerous others I have read by the 'faithfully-unencumbered' - a personal journey put to pen that, regardless of its purpose, will likely serve to instruct others in the never-ending pursuit of questions.

Questions are good, being able to ask them yourself is better (a.k.a. humility doesn't claim to know all things), and groups of people searching through questions communally is best, but is it possible to get bogged down in the questions themselves? Many may, and certainly will, disagree, but I don't believe questions are to be the end in themselves. Does the one who asks the most questions win, in the soul-searching, theoretical sense? No, but neither does the one who asks no questions, or claims to already have all the answers. In the search for the Divine, it is not the process or the destination that really matters. Ultimately, what really matters, is the focus of the pursuit.

I have no desire to say that religion and faith, if they are true, will possess all the answers to every question you could possibly have. You don't need to ask God if you should eat eggs and bacon or whole bran cereal for breakfast - you've got choices and can stand on your own two feet. If you're about to run into something or someone and believe it prudent to first pray about the direction of your dodge, maybe you deserve 1) to hit the obstruction and 2) the corresponding doubt of the Divine that follows because you weren't spared the collision. I'd say that you have a brain to check Google Maps if you're looking for an unfamiliar location, but if you'd prefer to ask God for Divine guidance, maybe getting lost is God's way of instructing you in the delicate balance between reliance and common sense.

Some questions necessitate the re-asking and re-telling, and that creates growth and fellowship and a sense of belonging. But others must be answered definitively and the answers relied upon and referenced as needed. Ask, remind, repeat. Without this decision, what is to stop people from changing their minds for any and every different idea or, worse, believing any and all ideas whether they are in conflict or not? Is this possible? Is it even a new idea?

Yes to God, No To Organized Religion: Breaking New Ground?
Weiner coins the adjective the "Nones" for those of no particular belief system. "Nones are the undecided of the religious world. We drift spiritually and dabble in everything from Sufism to Kabbalah to, yes, Catholicism and Judaism." He says, with shoulder-hunched ambivalence ("Apparently..."), that the number of those rejecting organized religion is growing in the United States. Is it? Or are we seeing the theological chickens coming home to roost? I would offer that perhaps the numbers are the same they've always been, but now the parents' lax religious upbringing is undeniable in their children and the cultural climate for discussions about God has warmed. Talking about God, the Divine, the afterlife, etc. has become more popular, even as the stigma attached to those who speak without much knowledge about such things has been removed. It's okay to oscillate.

I don't think our being "terrible when it comes to talking about God" is anything new. Rather, it's become more acceptable for the currently living generations to know very little about what they espouse and elevate the garden-variety opinion to the platform of truth. The writer of Ecclesiastes in the Bible says repeatedly that there is nothing new under the sun. In much the same way, we cannot come upon a new meadow of personal thought - at least new to us - and just ignore the centuries-old ruins of previous discussions.

Weiner's article was written Dec. 10, 2011 and his book was published Dec. 5, 2011. What he may or may not know is that the 2001-2005 survey called the National Study of Youth and Religion recorded the sentiments of his 'Nones.' In book form the survey's frontrunner, Christian Smith, offers all interested a sneak peak into the "religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers." His 2005 book, "Soul Searching," and the survey it addresses, is given (Christian) ministerial legs by Kenda Creasy Dean's 2010 book "Almost Christian." Both of these books are excellent - I highly recommend to any interested in spiritual matters, especially those of youth - and deal with the ongoing nature of people passing down spiritual ambivalence to their children. However, I would assert that not even Smith and Dean have uncovered something new so much as something previously ignored.

In the amazing movie, "To Save A Life," the pain of modern teens intersects the faith discussion. When the interested-but-guarded Jake asks youth minister Chris why there are so many fakers in the youth group, Chris responds with words that describe every church - and, for that matter, every faith - that has ever existed: "I know there are fakers in there..." Just so, there have always been people who do not ascribe to any set standard of religious belief or faith practice, even though they coast along in the confines of a particular belief system. Youth have not started to drift from the secure moorings of their parents' faiths but have sadly mirrored back to their parents their own autopilot pursuits of religion. Asking 100 - even 10? - members of any faith system about even a single tenet of their faith will certainly yield at least two differing viewpoints. Varying degrees of knowledge or comprehension of the faith they profess, as well as pervasive doubts, are surely to blame for such differences. But can the differences be blamed on ignorance and doubt alone?

Shopping Cart Spirituality

What Weiner speaks of, and numerous pursuers of the Divine have articulated throughout the centuries, is the inevitable result of prizing the search without regard to the conclusions. The search for enlightenment or spiritual discovery is elevated without thought of consequences or repercussions, surely because we are taught from infancy to avoid what is uncomfortable or loathsome to us. By the time the consequences become clear, our minds are already entangled in the circular reasoning of our religious preference. If you are a Christian you have no doubt, at some point or another, heard something like this aimed at you or your faith. Christians are often caricatured as blind followers, ignorant, or back-woods illiterates in conversation and media outlets (I would hope this article does at least some work in dispelling these misconceptions!).

Rather, what I see as blind-leading-the-blind ignorance at work is what you might call shopping cart spirituality. When at the store, we choose items we need - for some reason or another - and place them in the basket. Sometimes we then remove one item to replace it with another we prefer. What we convey by even these shopping habits is who we are. What we buy, the food we eat, is a reflection of who we are - the beliefs we hold to. These beliefs are extensions of us, and so also something of a reflection of the real 'us.'

In much the same way, what Weiner proposes is much the same as what Smith and Dean refer to as 'moralistic therapeutic deism.' Now, the ideas were handled in depth in the two books referenced above and, again, I suggest you read them both. But if you'll allow me a run-on sentence, I'll try to summarize what this term means: Moralistic therapeutic deism is the religious belief that living a life of mostly good works and ways not only makes you feel better about yourself but will endear you to the heart of the god you believe in, whatever that might be. Or, the god you believe in wants you to do good, which is good for you too, and will accept you if you do good. Or, if I feel like I'm a good person then surely God will accept me.

Now, if you've had much experience in the Christian Church, this probably screams, "WORKS!!!" to you, and you want to run and hide in a corner, sucking your thumb and repeating a calming mantra. I wouldn't call this works-initiated religion, though, so much as selfishness with a thin, godly-flavored coating. Let's look at the pursuit of a relationship as an example: we could hunt for someone to fit every criteria in our minds for a mate, but even the most exhaustive search would fail to plot the future definitively. We could pick the perfect candidate and things could move along swimmingly, but what about when arguments or differences appear? Do we adopt the life philosophy of Dory, from Finding Nemo: "Just keep swimming, just keep swimming..."? Not likely! Not after all the hard work we put into finding this perfect person! We move on, because accepting that some parts of our lives are out of our control isn't preferred unless we've already exhausted other options. Depression and anxiety medications are a testimony to how frustrated we become when we feel like we're not in control.

"Let Us Make Them In Our Own Image"
So we took the control back. We established our non-negotiables for what God should be like, and then set about the business of finding the god that fit the list. And let's be honest - in many ways the North American Church has become a business, providing a product to a consumerist society that is ever in need of a new fix. And if the local church doesn't provide the right fix, then the consumer goes elsewhere and the church shuts down. This isn't the failure of Jesus Christ - we must understand this! - but the failure of the Church. The Church is the people, not the building. The building is the place for the Church to gather and fellowship together, but even that idea has been trounced on by an individualistic culture. Consider these examples - from Christian thought alone - that surround us with the illusion of singularity, if only as a means of directing us to a better way (all italics mine):

"If only my one heart was all You'd gain from all it cost. Well I know you would have still been there with the reason to willingly offer your life. I'm not just a man that's lost in this world - lost in a sea of faces."                           Kutless, Sea of Faces

"Life without my God is no life at all..."                                                                                    Aaron Keyes, Dwell

"I love my Master, I will not go free."                                                                                       Christy Nockels, Life Light Up

"In my own little world, Population: Me."                                                                                 Matthew West, The Story of Your Life

and now for the real hum-dinger, the nowhere-in-scripture-but-defended-to-the-death...

"... and I accept Him as my personal Lord and Savior."

But this isn't a Christian issue alone. Weiner's nurse asks him if he'd found his God yet. Not only does this convey the belief that truth is subjective, but the religious pluralism point of view that reinforces that subjective worldview. Now, before you flood the comments below, I understand the desire of these songs and statements and do not say that the artists mentioned above are advocating a possessive theology of God, much less religious pluralism. I'm not trying to make fun of these beloved rituals and practices, or suggesting that we dissect lyrics of Christian songs with a theological barrel and trigger itching to be pulled. I understand that the point of saying and singing these things is to acknowledge the deeply personal love God feels for each of us. That we are not insignificant or worthless but hold infinite worth to the God who created us. That we must personally place our allegiance somewhere and realize the story is not about us. My point is not to dismantle anyone's faith, but to reorient our spiritual eyes to the biblical perspectives of community.

We say we love Jesus, but we consider ourselves above rebuke or reproach when we do His name a disservice - and church discipline, a deeply scriptural tenet, is all but gone. We say we are followers of Jesus but we reject the Church Jesus died for. We say we don't need the community. We say we don't need, or can't stand, the fellowship of all those hypocrites, and we consider ourselves outside the label. It's a dangerous game to say that the worst and the ugliest in today's churches is a reflection of the whole Church, or even what allegiance to that Church produces, and then assert that our pursuit of God is a reflection of God's unadulterated goodness. It's dangerous to imbue all Church leadership with goat/wolf hair and horns in remembrance of those who have devoured the flock in the past, while at the same time supposing that you, however, are one who's example is worthy of being followed. Even in the most simplistic of definitions, that's a mantle of leadership, and it brings followers.

But many don't see it like that. For their limited perspectives, they set off on a quest of faith that was never meant to be made alone and fall into the religion trap even as they rail against it. You can find them on church website chat feeds during a streaming church service, practicing their pseudo-fellowship without the danger of personal connection. They troll the cyber-avenues for snack-sized friendships devoid of commitment, not as a temporary necessity but as a rule. There they can protect themselves from the hurts of real relationship. There they can control their religious world while uttering divisive and unfair invectives about the ones who risk the pain, risk the heartache, and risk the weaknesses of the faith they profess. Confronting them with the importance of face-to-face communication is hardly worth it, since they all but where the t-shirt that claims, "my faith is personal." But our beliefs are a reflection of us, even if we try to keep it locked away in the dark.

The Israelites were a community of people chosen by God to be God's own. The Church is a community of people chosen by God - consisting of Jews and non-Jews - to be God's own through Christ. And neither of these communities were purposed for their own benefit, but so that the entire world would come to know the living God through them and acknowledge God's glory and God's name and God's greatness. This isn't accomplished through one, but through many. This was, is, and will be God's design for humanity. But God saves us through the One - Himself in the flesh, Jesus - and last time I checked none of us fit the bill. God saves through One and testifies to the world through the many.

And so, Christianity is not a religion for lone rangers, but a faith for communities. Even still, many people who flock to churches all over the world have no concept of the part they play in God's design. They don't know their place in God's economy of grace. And they don't know that some questions have actual answers, much less where to go to find them. And their support of oscillating points of views keep them from knowing the true God.

The Itch of Eternity

Weiner wrote in his article that "a health scare and the onset of middle age created a crisis of faith," which I hardly find strange. God has set eternity in our hearts, according to Ecclesiastes 3:11, but more important is why God has set eternity in our hearts - so we will acknowledge God's existence even without being able to see the breadth and depth of all that God is. Thousands of years before Smith or Dean or Weiner, the smartest man to have ever lived comes to the end of all pursuits - even intellectual - and finds meaninglessness in everything but fearfully - with reverence and awe - keeping God's commandments (Eccl. 12:13). He acknowledges that our 60 to 100 years (sometimes less, sometimes more) are not enough to fully comprehend the vast reaches of God. We can't see or hear enough (Eccl. 1:8) to satisfy our deepest longings because eternity is forever without end toward the past and toward the future, and the only one to claim that knowledge is God (Isaiah 43:13, Micah 5:2, 2 Timothy 1:9) - all else is arrogance. What makes us think that we can know, in our short stay on earth (much less as the all-knowing teenagers we once were), the farthest reaches of the universe? When we yearly discover how little we know even of this universe, what arrogance propels us to box God into easily observable data?

I would think that even we rebel against another's attempts to box us in, to more narrowly define us than we think is necessary. I know I do. Still, we make the claims of greater knowledge than we possess by saying God doesn't exist; or God wouldn't do this or that; or that a God that lets certain things happen in this world isn't worth serving in the first place. These are easier things to say than more observable truths: like how our opinions are subjective; how God certainly owes us no explanations if we don't even expect to personally hear any from our own President; and how we draw our lines of acceptability somewhere far afield from where we are. We are not keen on thinking that perhaps this standard would also leave us on the outside.

Our culture's premium toward issues of individuality and self-esteem and tolerance/acceptance have done more to create God in our own image than they have to produce strong, competent individuals for the betterment of society. Contrary to what Weiner claims, we are actually excellent at talking about God and religion. Where we fail is in chasing after every new idea and ignoring the prodding of God's eternity. If we continue to do so, the constant call of God's truth - not to mention the abundance of new ideas - will quickly become insufferable.

The Weakness of Religion
Weiner closes his article with a dense, but hopeful, description of his desires for religion:

We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us. 

I know people may read that and resonate deeply with it. I'm sorry. I don't mean to insult you, and I don't mean to deny your right to agree with him. What I do mean to offer is that celebrating doubt can quickly become a never-ending cycle of regression. Encouraging experimentation without guidelines will lead us quickly to undeniable, unwanted, empirical evidence that answers, once and for all, the question of whether we are born basically good or not. And the phrase 'absolutely intuitive' seems an intellectual mockery and an impossibility, to know truth apart from reasoning. I don't question that a red ball is red, and I don't have to think about it at all anymore, not because I was hard-wired to know it intuitively but because I am not colorblind and I learned my colors at a young age. Now, identifying the primary colors is as natural as breathing - discerning salmon pink from autumn sunrise or forest green from sea-foam green is another matter entirely. My point is, maybe what is simple still requires work on our part; and what is easy still requires doing.

Why do people find Christianity complicated? Maybe because we have made it so, and maybe because our natural laziness has avoided the work that anything worth having entails. More likely it's a combination of both (and some other things thrown in for good measure).  But I believe that Christianity can "be straightforward (get to know God, with others, through the Bible) and unencumbered (read and discuss things, in grace, with others) and absolutely intuitive (you have to read or listen to it yourself!)." As I said above, absolutely intuitive doesn't work, because no 'thing' that's new to you is immediately possible without a time, no matter how short, of familiarizing. That last need might just single one out as lazy, but, at any rate...

It can be straightforward and unencumbered, but we currently don't have the technology to download the Bible into our minds like something from The Matrix or through skin-contact-transference. To my knowledge, no one has yet figured out how to fill a Tweet with the God-inspired fullness of God's word with a conveniently searchable hash tag. And Facebook status updates can only get a person so far. That means we have to read it for ourselves and discuss it with others. We have to learn from those who know more than us, teach others if we know more than them, and never take for granted that we are receiving from another what is actually true just because someone says it is. The weakness of religion exists in our streamlined lives and easy-makes-better lifestyles. So when some religion fails to meet our expectations, we've actually conditioned ourselves to believe that the problem is with the religion and not with ourselves.

Many have turned faith into religion, into something that we do instead of something that we are. We are a community of people living life together, and when we join a faith we are a new community doing life together. Faith has not ever been, is not, and never will be an individualistic pursuit, no matter its personal dimensions. We are seen properly as individuals only in the context of our community. Without each other, we cannot hope to understand the greatness of a God that is singularly majestic, known to us as three distinct-yet-combined Persons, and wrap our minds around the mystery and wonder of it all. This community - as imperfect and helpless as we always are - is the vehicle through which God has chosen to make Himself known. The comparison surely makes God's greatness all the more startling and worthy of awe and honor!

In the end, it's not about anyone "winning" the race to fully explain the Divine. It's not about being able to say you're right and others are wrong, either. It's not even about being open to the search as you look for the religion that best suits you. In the end, it's all about the truth, despite our earnest search or heartfelt intentions.

And that has been - and always will be - an uncomfortable thing to say, hear, and believe.

____________________________________

* For the record, I do not recommend Weiner's book to anyone, having not read it myself and for other reasons addressed in this article, and certainly not to anyone who is not secure in their belief. I have read books by non-Christians before and do not intend to stop, but hope that anyone who chooses to do so would read as I do: under a blanket of prayer, in the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with a firm grasp of the nature and work of Jesus Christ in human history. As a Christian, I believe it's my duty to behave as Christ in the world, see Christ in others, and point all to Christ through my words and deeds. For reasons further addressed in this article, it would be a tacit support, or celebration, of doubt to exclude this disclaimer. I am unashamed of this gospel of Jesus, for it is the very power of God to salvation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 1:16).

Status Pain

Actually a website: visit for an idea of my concern here.

This post has been a long-time coming, but something I think about at least every day. When I scan the Facebook wall to see what "friends" are up to, I see many statuses that are a little confusing to me. They seem to be the equivalent of e-mail spam, personal contact's version of fishing for compliments, and can be at least as damaging or manipulative as either. Very little of the words on this post will be from me, so let's get to the status updates in question and I'll have some closing thoughts/questions at the very end: 

1. I personally believe in Jesus Christ. One Facebooker has challenged all believers to put this on their wall. The bible says, if you deny Me in front of your peers, I will deny you in front of My Father. This is a simple test. If you are not afraid to show it, re-post this. I proudly did! (: 
2. Like this status if I've ever made you smile(: repost and see how many likes you get(:
3. What if I died tomorrow -- would you miss me here?  
4. Single or not put this as your status & see what you get Inbox only!!!..

1. ♥ = I want a relationship
2. :) = I kinda like you
3. :p = I'm shy.... but your cute
4. XD = I want your number
5. :D = you mean everything 
6. </3 = I regret leaving
5. Ugh, I feel so ugly today! (posted alongside new profile pic, looking good) 
6. Truth is...
7. Repost if you're ending 2011 single. If someone wants to change that they'll send you a ♥.

Disappointment Waiting To Happen

I'll stop here because it's getting depressing to wonder about the emotional health of so many people I know. What are the unintended consequences of posts like these, of turning to "social media" while losing the ability (skill?) to socially engage others in person and build up meaningful relationships? Have we been sold the illusion of cyber-friendship? What if you don't re-post the first (are you denying Jesus?); what if no one likes, responds, re-posts, or affirms your internet-appeal for affirmation? What does that do to your self-worth?

Born to Believe (or Pejorative Fantasy)

According to dictionary.com, pejoration is defined as 1) depreciation, a lessening in worth, quality, etc. or 2) semantic change in a word to a lower, less approved, or less respectable meaning. So my question is this: when did fantasy become a mode for disseminating personal agendas? Or when was fantasy not used for these agendas? OR, when was it decided that fantasy could be a carrier for these agendas?

Some might say that this is a recent development, but one would only need return to a modern-day watching of Bambi or Snow White to receive quite a lesson in the use of propaganda to tell a story. It's nothing new...


In light of the release of the upcoming Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 release in November, I wanted to offer my readers a (not too) brief but interesting refresher course on - well, no, you caught me. This is pretty much an article about those who would force agendas on the world while denying others the prerogative to do the same.

Twilight Brings A New Moon Later Eclipsed By The Breaking Dawn

When Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 hit the theaters, reviewers and pundits flocked to their cubicles, couches, or reserved seats at coffee shops around the country. Steno note pads, writing tablets, and laptops at the ready, poised fingers flit over the surface of their latest masterpiece - the review that will catch every eye and garner the attention of every editor they've dreamed of working for.

The hope? That lady Muse (or, to avoid the rampart sexism inherent here, Mr. Inspiration) would bless those nimble digits with a dexterity Stephen King himself would have to marvel at. Alas, what most find is the need to resort to gimmicks, name-calling, self-important jargon, or lackluster associations. And truly, in the absence of real insight, writers are reduced to monkeys typing into oblivion hoping to produce the next Hamlet. Word play alone won't earn a following, vitriolic invectives entertain only for so long, and, well... actually, I don't know that people ever get tired of conjuring up smoke and mirror associations to raise another's heartbeat and blood pressure. We do like a good car wreck, don't we?

The first time I saw BD Pt. 1 with the youth at my church. I really enjoyed it, despite the negative reviews from Facebook friends who had seen it before me, and decided I needed to read the books again - yes, again - before BD Pt. 2 comes out. The second time I saw it with my wife - both during opening weekend. I enjoyed watching for those little nuggets I'd missed before, largely having to do with the actor's performances and special effects. At home Rebeca happened upon this Wikipedia article that absolutely astonished us.

A Wikipedia article does not the truth make... but sometimes the documentation can lead us to some interesting tidbits. It seems that writers have aimed their verbal guns at this newest film in the Twilight Saga through the cross-hairs of personal ideology. No doubt we all are not so objective as we feel at times, and our own opinions and beliefs are often conveyed through our words and writings, but it's possible that a movie review might be a better place to... review a movie, without one's incensed or poetic attempts to garner a following. Well, I'm not entirely sure that doing otherwise is even possible. But I'm still willing to give it a shot here, give some snarky comment when I fail miserably, and simply enjoy the cathartic process of writing. Let's get to it, shall we?


Hackles & Shackles
Except for those precious grubs that have been living under a rock, knowledge about the Twilight Saga of books and movies from the imagination of Stephenie Meyer is hardly privileged, need-to-know information. You may not be Team Edward or Jacob, or have a poster of Bella on your ceiling above your bed (by the way, I'm not admitting anything there), but you likely have some kind of opinion about it all: the books, movies, characters, or even the people who like/dislike the books, movies, or characters. As I have already taken the liberty to do for many people in person, I encourage all who read this blog to read the books - Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn - and then, at least, you can make an educated critique of the movies and the surrounding phenomena. Some reviews seem to have subverted the teen drama of the books and movies and opted for the more cerebral route of imputing them with personal ideologies and agendas. More than any other, one agenda stands out as the crowned jewel for pompous discussion, post-viewing.

 One link asks if the movie is even appropriate for teens. In addition to arguments against the sex, teen pregnancy, rejection of Bella's parents, and bloody birth scene, Chen argues that the movie weighs in too heavily on the abortion debate. First off, Bella, in the books as well as the movie, is not a champion for the pro-life movement but a girl of marrying and procreation age that wants to have a baby. She is freaked out when she finds out but warms to the idea and decides to have the baby. There are no "I believe life begins at conception" or "God made this a baby, not a glob of tissue" arguments. She shows strength and resolve. But Chen says, "The bulk of the movie is one long pro-life debate. Sure, Bella says it's her body, her choice (terms usually used in the pro-choice movement), but her decision is pro-life to the extreme... Ultimately both mother and child survive, but there's so much "fetus" vs "baby," life begins at conception talk that it's bound to confuse some younger viewers."

I don't have to rewrite Chen's words to convey them in pro-choice drama - they ooze contempt for any woman's choice to bear a new life, especially if it means danger for the mother. I see here a pro-choice sentiment that would remove the choice from a mother if danger seemed eminent. Where then is the choice? Or, is the only acceptable choice one that makes abortion a legally acceptable, culturally encouraged option? The "fetus/baby" war Chen imagined happened once - once. As a matter of fact, the adjectives "fetus, it, and thing" were used more than the term "baby" because the shocked family of vampires questioned the nature of what a humavamp hybrid really was. We cannot remove the movie from it's "based on the novel by..." context, the fantasy genre, or its entertainment medium. And since the phrase, "life begins at conception" wasn't in the film, one has to wonder where she got such a phrase. Where... where did she get it?

Chen masks her agenda with a thinly veiled plea for younger viewers, the ones who may be confused by fetus, baby, conception talk. This is graduate school drivel - if youth are too young to get the political undertones Chen is worried about, they won't lose any sleep over it. If they are old enough to understand and ask questions, shouldn't we be open to sharing with them the nature of the debate?

I guess the 'confusion' comes in when youth are led to believe that it's okay to not be okay with abortion. It's certainly not culturally PC these days to say such things, but would pro-choice advocates truly want to remove another's right to have that opinion? If so, it sounds rather intolerant. But I know that, as a pro-life (not anti-abortion) advocate, I actually can't use the "intolerant" term - it's a one-way street, and I'm the one that's supposed to be staring into the headlights of progress, not the other side. But I digress with much ado about nothing.

What Chen missed, apparently, was the intense emotional struggle of people torn between their love for each other and a human's understanding of a decidedly human phenomenon that would not be possible once she is "changed." Rosalie is on Bella's side because she envies her the decision to choose, which she never had. It's in the books, and in the film Eclipse. Let's not reduce the troubled angst to a political statement, okay Chen?

Weighing in with similar positions, The Torontoist called it an "anti-abortion parable." Neumaier says in this article that Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is "as anti-sex, anti-thrills, anti-abortion, anti-drama and, well, anti-plot as any major recent film." I think he's very proud of that line especially. I almost expected to see a yellow smiley face at the end of the line, were it not for the elevated pomp his review must have been going for. I have to admit, though: when me and my youth emerged from the dark theater with our bowler caps and London Fog trench coats, we hastened to a city corner coffee shop and discussed the perfectly blasé attempt Condon (the director) made at finding a suitable genre platform. Yes, yes, we didst giggle over our biscotti and lightly sweetened coffees. For this is what youth do ever so love to do.

These articles were less movie review than ideological platforms and self-aggrandized statements to pad a career. One has to wonder how the term "anti-sex" gets attached to characters who were rarin' to go after their wedding (until Bella appeared harmed by the throes of passion) and Bella's continued desires to do "it" again juxtaposed with Edward's refusal to harm her again by "losing control." Anti-sex indeed.

Morris, in another article, says by not reading the books, he possesses "objectivity needed to grade the movies on their own merits." I applaud you, sir. Whenever I go to see a movie, my desire is to study the thing to death, to remove it from its creative, emotive surroundings, prick at it, and examine how it reacts to the blood-letting. I would humbly submit that you're missing a great deal of the movie-watching experience. And yet again, Morris joins the politically active in focusing on what he believes is a radically pro-life mantle surrounding the film. Objective. Nay, sir, but a continuation of the beliefs of many. You can put your trail-blazing persona to bed for the night.

But one article, from the feminist Ms. Magazine, perhaps argues more for women's rights than others combined, calling Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 "an anti-abortion message in a bruised-apple package" - imagery that hearkens back to the cover of the first book, and the textual references to the forbidden romance between a human and a vampire. This magazine gets its hackles raised with Bella's choice hotly against their opinion, and the agenda-laced perspective completely ignores the arguments of others who argue for terminating the pregnancy. The feminist shackles blind Wilson from seeing that a choice against the choice she would make is still that - a choice. It's not threatening unless you actually need others to agree with you to feel validated. There appears to be an unspoken belief that if a woman chooses to keep a baby - even if at great cost to her personally - she is being manipulated by others. This is ideological deck-stacking at its finest.

Another gentleman named Richard Lawson, clearly a high school student with his finger on the pulse of youth today, refers to the themes of love, lust, and loss. This daisy deserves his own paragraph, as he goes way off the res and we must follow him there to see how ludicrous he becomes (I haven't included the link because much of what he says is actually inappropriate).

I don't even know how to describe his opening paragraph but by warning parents to keep a keen eye open for such sex-crazed men. As a personal apology on behalf of Mrs. Meyer, I am sorry the movies didn't meet your sex-filled criteria for romance. Do you happen to be happily married, or just a cavorting, lecherous old man? In a jumping, twisting, flight of fancy Lawson says, "that Meyer chooses the terrible pains of becoming an undead bloodthirsty nightmare creature to be her metaphor for sex is more than a little telling of this story's curious and frustratingly retrograde sexual politics." Hmm, I'm a little concerned with how much sex is on this man's mind, and why he's imputing it into a teen romance. He would, no doubt, enjoy an afternoon with Freud over coffee.

But alas, the purpose of this article leads me to cut to the chase and mention Lawson's belief that the movie is an "anti-abortion sermon" - this is what "heroes do, girls," is a statement about the reproductive politics of those most involved in the film. If "there was no escaping the firmly anti-choice themes" of this movie, then what does one do with the choice each character shows to have their own choice? Okay wait, I thought we were actually talking about freedom to choose, not just freedom to choose abortion so the social - and timely - agenda out here in the real world can be advanced. All I have to say is thank goodness this reviewer could give me a little unbiased, political-free review material - I'd hate to be purposefully swayed by the subjective agenda!

Fiction & Fantasy
All people are born into a particular space, time, and continue on in the influences that affect them directly. We are affected by economic, social, religious, educational, and innate factors that comprise who we are. Even more disturbing than judging another's work against our personal framework, and discounting it according to how it measures up, is self-righteously assuming that another is subjectively indoctrinating the masses whereas we - the humble, the few, the untouched by bias - are more objective. There is a deep-seated root of arrogance and pride that under-girds such biases.

Beliefs are central - i.e. innate, not peripheral, not ancillary, not an afterthought or learned behavior - to who we are as human beings. We are born with them. We grow into them. We make them every day, some without any discernible thought. Our beliefs may change through time but we should not think ourselves immune to beliefs because we do not classify our own with the same negative stigma we do another's beliefs.

With regard to Meyer's books (and the movies based on them), we do well to return to her thoughts, her perspectives, and her reasons for writing them. Reviews that assume say more about our beliefs than hers, and assumptions... well, you know how that little saying goes.

According to the Wikipedia page for the book, Breaking Dawn, Meyers' influences were in fact from Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night's Dream to be precise. But the Twilight Wikipedia page is more thorough to this end and thus included here. What I wonder is how we are served as a society by re-contextualizing the art of an independent artist as our personal convictions and opinions hold. As a youth minister, I regularly use media (whether video or music, and it doesn't have to wear the "Christian" label to be used) to relate a scriptural perspective. I do not imbue the medium with scriptural significance if the artist lists no intent there, nor do I suggest that scripture proverbially lives on through a piece of modern art.

I think it's telling that not ONE review I read purported to quote Stephenie regarding her views, political or otherwise. I don't recall hearing of Meyer's "I just thought about the plight of the unborn and decided to write a book that would hopeful give them a chance at life" public statement being released for criticism. Some might say it's wrong to impose our agendas on another's words or work and judge them with these assumptions in mind. I would agree with them.

For my part, I appreciated the books and movies (thus far) for what they appear to be to me - a modern retelling of the star-crossed lovers, Romeo & Juliet. Well, that and a timely rebuke against the neoconservatism spreading out to engulf the young in its tidal sweep of ageism and its structurally protective move to deny young adults the rights and privileges of their more seasoned counterparts. But then again... maybe that's just me reading something into the story that wasn't there in the first place.