Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, February 25, 2008
Paul  Edwards :: Townhall.com Columnist
Seeing the Need for Gospel in "There Will Be Blood"
by Paul Edwards
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



After having seen “There Will Be Blood” three times in packed theatres there is no question it deserved its seven Oscar nominations—and perhaps should have received the Academy Award for best picture on Sunday night (“No Country for Old Men” triumphed while Daniel Day-Lewis of “Blood” received the best actor award). But many evangelical Christians might disagree.

Based on Upton Sinclair’s novel “Oil!,” “There Will Be Blood” chronicles the degeneration of the fictional 19th century oil man Daniel Plainview who (as my own 15-year-old son has accurately described) becomes “less and less human and more and more reclusive” as his story unfolds. Because the movie vividly depicts the violence, lust and greed which accompany Plainview’s descent, many Christians see in it no socially or spiritually redeeming value. I disagree.

Consider “The Passion of the Christ.” It exceeded all expectations at the box office and since it did, evangelical Christians have come to expect “socially redeeming” films to overtly, explicitly and clearly spell out the Christian gospel almost “verse by verse.”

While not offering a clear presentation of the gospel, the need for the gospel is present in “There Will Be Blood” more in the form of a photographic negative than as a detailed Technicolor print. Christians prefer their gospel discussions pretty and bright, not dark and foreboding. Furthermore, many evangelical Christians object to “There Will Be Blood” because they believe it displays needless violence.

However, “There Will Be Blood” contains less dark elements than does the gospel story itself. Salvation was, after all, secured for us through what can properly be characterized as a miscarriage of justice leading to the torturous, bloody and shameful public execution of the Son of God. The all-too-often sterile Sunday School version of events surrounding the death of Christ does not accurately reflect just how violent it was. If the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ were accurately depicted on the big screen today, it would probably earn an NC-17 rating and Christians would boycott the film for not reflecting “Christian” morality. Ironic indeed.

But the whole point of “There Will Be Blood” is violence; therefore the violence cannot be characterized as "needless." Nihilistic, perhaps, but not needless.

Jesus said, “An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil things” (Matthew 12:35). A critical element of the gospel (which is left out of many contemporary presentations) is the reality of the evil that abides within us, and the damning effect it produces through our words and deeds. This film exposes the evil heart of Daniel Plainview (and, and by extension, of every human being) as he recklessly pursues the satisfaction of his passions. Some people are psychologically abused in this pursuit, others are physically abused and some even die. Even family ties are no match for the unrestrained depravity that overtakes this man by the end of the film, resulting in his being abandoned by everyone, including his own conscience, which is the ultimate end of sin. Daniel Plainview’s closing line in the film is nothing more than a paraphrase of James 1:15: “Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.”

Many evangelical Christians have also concluded the film is openly hostile toward the Christian faith. Perhaps. But the burden for the Christian is to explain that the film doesn't depict the true Christian faith at all. It depicts a counterfeit religion masquerading as Christianity, accurately depicting the sin within the heart of those who profess to be ministers of the gospel but who are in reality committed only to their own profit and pleasure—at the expense of deceived followers.

The final scene brings this point home. The faith healing prophet/preacher Eli Sunday comes to Daniel Plainview with a proposition which unveils the depravity of his own heart.  Plainview unmasks the preacher, exposing his hypocrisy by demanding Sunday to repeat, "I am a false prophet and God is a superstition."

The philosophy expressed in those words rightly offends the sensibilities of Christians. But taken in the context in which they are spoken, these words are an honest confession of faith, revealing a heart far from God spoken through lips that have heretofore “honored” Him (cf. Matthew 15:18), thus exposing the evil heart. Unless we are confronted with the evil within our own hearts, we believe we have nothing to be saved from and therefore the Christian gospel has nothing of importance to say to us (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:20-25).

“There Will Be Blood” is not the positive, uplifting "Christian" film evangelicals prefer, but it doesn't have to be in order to proclaim Christian truth. Truth is present in the inability of its lead characters to achieve lasting peace through the unrestrained pursuit of their depraved passions, affirming the Christian’s conviction that only the gospel of Jesus Christ can cure the evil in the human heart.   

The absence of this gospel is the reason for the violence. In the end the film cries out for a resolution that only the gospel of Jesus Christ can offer. By leaving out an explicit presentation of the gospel the screenplay inadvertently, if not intentionally, leaves the need for the gospel in PLAIN VIEW.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Paul Edwards is the host of The Paul Edward Program and a pastor. His program is heard daily on WLQV in Detroit and on godandculture.com

Be the first to read Paul Edwards' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Suicidal Bombs of Hollywood
Jihad takes many forms, and not all of it is Islamic.

Hollywood has taken out a fatwa on American traditional culture, and in order to accomplish its ends it is using a bloodless kind of suicide attacks.

That is, the industry has been releasing a series of anti-American BOMBS in our nation's theaters, designed to destroy our military, our morality and our reputation around the world.

Because they know this agenda is unpopular with the largely patriotic American people, the Hollywood Leftist elite know that this is a suicide mission.

But the Left they fools. They believe that the nation will withstand the demise of the very culture that built it. And because they are fools, they are willing to risk not only destroying the nation that gives them the freedom to make their films, but the very film industry itself.

Conservatives, not understanding this Kamakazi commitment to destruction, laugh at the Left, saying: "they are losing ratings and ticket sales! Ha, ha! Pretty soon they will learn the error of their ways and start making movies we want to see."

But this is not likely to happen. The rabid activist Left who now have a stranglehold over Hollywood are perfectly willing to sink the ship, and if necessary go down with it rather than make the kinds of films that most Americans want to see.

It is therefore essential that conservatives start forming their own production companies and make the kinds of films that glorify our traditional institutions: Marriage and Family, the Military, the Boy Scouts, Religious Commitment, Patriotism, Integrity, Law and Order, and the Lives of Precious Innocent Babies, the Infirm and the Elderly.

There are many excellent conservative technicians in Hollywood, languishing without power, hoping for the chance to work on something they can be proud of.

Are you good at running a business? Raising money? Why not start your own production company!

What?
I have read this article and I have seen both "Passion" and "Blood." And, I'm a Christian.

That said, I have absolutely no idea what the author of this article is trying to say.


Doesn't this apply to any film rated R?
I suppose my only problem with your review is that every pornographic film ever made also reveals the "need for the gospel", as does every other film that portrays evil in any form. That doesn't make these films worth seeing, does it?

Mountain Rose?
Adjust tinfoil. Now.

"Jihad takes many forms, and not all of it is Islamic."

I had a bad sandwich yesterday, was that caused by Jihad?

"Hollywood has taken out a fatwa on American traditional culture, and in order to accomplish its ends it is using a bloodless kind of suicide attacks."

You should tell the extremists this. They probably don't know.

"That is, the industry has been releasing a series of anti-American BOMBS in our nation's theaters, designed to destroy our military"

Our military is vulnerable to media? Sounds like we need an immediate LARGE appropriation of money to some kind of anti-media weapon. Maybe a laser.

"They believe that the nation will withstand the demise of the very culture that built it."

Sounds like you have been withstanding the demise?

"It is therefore essential that conservatives start forming their own production companies and make the kinds of films that glorify our traditional institutions: Marriage and Family, the Military, the Boy Scouts, Religious Commitment, Patriotism, Integrity, Law and Order, and the Lives of Precious Innocent Babies, the Infirm and the Elderly."

A movie about Boy Scouts and the Elderly sounds great!!!

Interesting, but the REAL truth is...
God IS a superstition. That is what Sinclair meant when he wrote the novel the movie is loosely based on. That is the message in the movie.

And it is obviously true. Virgin birth? Resurrection of the dead? Come on! As Stossel says, "Give me a break." This is the stuff of fairy tales. It is no different than believing in Santa Clause!

And Sinclair was a socialist. He wanted everyone to read his novels, see how depraved unfettered capitalism was, and become socialists.

That did not happen. At least for most people. They enjoy the story, but we have decided as a nation to regulate capitalists to prevent the most egregious abuses of economic power. Nothings perfect (Enron and other scandals still happen). But its better than either the "anything goes" form of pure capitalism depicted in the movie or an alternative of "communal" ownership of property and "communal" control over the distribution of wealth that Sinclair was looking for.

In any case Sinclair was right about one thing. Religion is a hoax and god is a superstition.

I think I pulled something . . .
. . . trying to wrap my brain around this. What on earth did I just read? I have no idea.

I even read it twice, just to make sure I hadn't been deprived of my use of reason by a seizure, or been whisked away to Bizarro-Townhall, where Mike Adams runs The Brady Campaign and Thomas Sowell is a Keynesian.

But on my third reading, it was clear as a bell: You see, the absence of the Gospel in the movie is actually supportive of the Gospel, because it shows the need for the Gospel, which is not present in the movie except as a photo negative (which you can take to Wal-Mart for double prints), but if the Gospel were in it, then the movie would be different which means that in real life we need the Gospel.

So, you see, it's pro-Gospel by being anti-Gospel, because only by being anti-Gospel could it illustrate the necessity of the gospel.

(Are you thinking "Huh?" Yeah, me too.)

I'm a Christian, but that's not why this bothers me. It's just stultifyingly dense--utter gibberish.

Have to agree with Norm
Some things are best left unsaid.

Slacker
"In any case Sinclair was right about one thing. Religion is a hoax and god is a superstition."

Another claim of absolute knowledge. Interesting leap of "faith" there. Do you mind extending the courtesy towards those of us who place our faith on the opposite side of the fence?

As for a review of the movie, Norm said what needed to be said as far as im concerned.

'Evangelical" Christians?
Is 'Evangelical Christian' one word now? What is the difference between an Evangellical Christian and a regular Christian? The media uses terms such as "Born Again" "Evangelical", to make us appear to be backwoods, inbred snake handlers. "Christian" tells the whole story. No qualifiers are needed.

Slacker...
...it takes a lot more faith to believe that the world happened by cosmic accident than it does to believe that the world has an intelligent, logical, artistic Creator. How anyone can look at the wonders of the natural world or a photo of a fetus in the womb and not believe in a God is totally beyond my comprehension!

Blood
I agree that the Gospel is a lot grittier than the average Sunday School makes it; and know that the death of Jesus Christ was atonement for my sins.

However, I'm wary about anything based on the work of Upton Sinclair. I think that Sinclair was trying to tell us that it was being a capitalist that made Plainview such a despicable specimen of humanity, and that had he been a member of the proletariat, he would have been sterling and upright. But the Gospel addresses the fact that it is the birth sin we got from Adam the First that makes all of us so evil that the bloody sacrifice of the sinless Christ was necessary to purge it.

Mr. Edward's analysis
is probably too deep and complex for most people; as evidenced by the remark from The Pet Goat. If a professed Christian can't get Edwards' analysis, how can a non Christian?

Most people are much more simple minded than this, and Hollywood knows it. People are more likely to get the message that religion, Christianity specifically, simply corrupts the mind and makes people evil. To actually expect people to surmise that an evil heart means one is in need of Jesus and His Salvation is expecting way to much from the likes of people who call Desperate Housewives (and the other crap on television) entertainment.

The Oscars made themselves
irrelevant by nominating small, not very well attended movies, completely in the Fargo mold and completely anti-Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Ghandi.

Giving awards predominantly to non-Americans also makes the Oscars just another left-wing water carrier.

I see 40 movies a year and have done so since i was about 8, and no one loves film more than I do. But the drift away from big movies with big audiences and big artisitic impact has been continuous for the last decade.

For the first year, I didn't watch the Oscars or tape the show to go back and see highlights. The MSM may still fawn over the pomp but the circumstance has been lost.

Charterization, plot, and interaction
are average for this film, despite having excellent actors. It's message is sensual.

"Plainview" is a non-spiritual person. He is however, wicked. His beliefs are irrelevant, his words behavior condemns him. Frank Sinatra's famous song "I did it my way" would be a fitting selection for the soundtract to the last scenes.

The depiction of the congregation through their actions shows them to be hollow and ritualistic. It may be accurate in some sense, but is a poor depiction of what Jesus offers.

"There Will Be Blood"
I agree wholeheartedly with your article. I am a Christian, and I must admit at first I was taken aback by some of the scenes. But, as you said, it drove the point home about sin and the need for a savior. I loved the movie!

Marilyn

Gospel Is Jesus Christ
How many dark, depressing, hopeless tales of evil do you need to know you are a sinner? In churches today, we glorify that drug addict, the cancer patient, the alcoholic who turns his life over to God because we crave drama, suspense, and knowledge of evil. When the reality of evil is "left out" of the Gospel, there is no Gospel. The violence of the crucifixtion is pointless if the meaning isn't the victory of God through Jesus OVER sin, death, and the devil. It does not matter one wit what the motives of selfish ministers, preachers, and prophets, are but as Paul says (Phil l:18), "What does it matter? The important thing is that in every way whether from false motive or true, Christ is preached. That automatically means the desperate need for a Savior to save us from? SIN.

You sound confused and this movie has intensified you bewilderment. God help your son. We love what one person wrote that we don't have a clue as to what you wanted to say. Do you?

Shalom

I enjoyed "...will be blood"...
...but felt behind the plot, as in a mystery movie that has multiple viable suspects. In the end, the real suspect was revealed after the last scene when the credits for the plot was attributed to Upton Sinclair. Then it all made sense. (I had read "The Jungle" in high school, but I was ignorant of Sinclair;s, "Oil")

Upton Sinclair's raison d'être was to fail to realize the paradox of similarities between socialism and the socialists narrative of capitalists. What was wrong with Daniel Plainview was not the weakness his character, but his wealth. Plainview's sin was having money that Upton Sinclair (and all other socialists) wanted, rather than how Plainview got it. As for "Eli Sunday (Billy Sunday), his sin was not in exploiting Christianity, but in not volunteering his talents of persuasion to exploit the gullible for the socialist cause. Socialism is, after all, nothing but another religion. Eli Sunday's sin was not greed or hypocrisy, but apostasy.

In the end, "There will be Blood" (or "OIL") is more about the Upton Sinclair's of this world (Bill Clinton?), than it is about either capitalism or religion.

Evangelicals are presented as
cartoon freaks in "There Will Be Blood". They shout in ecstasy & cast out demons. They speak in tongues.

I think evangelicals are so hard up for ANY attention from Hollywood, ANY sort of cinematic depiction, that they're grateful for even this ridiculing look at the "faithful".

But, then again, I don't know many evangelicals. Maybe most of you DO speak in tongues & perform exorcisms & do faith healings.... Can I hear an AMEN?! HEAL ME, Jesus! Wash away my sin!

CC
Perhaps we are on the same page, perhaps not...I am not sure. We certainly agree on the main message of the gospels, that is, the need for Christ Jesus to save us from the cost of sin. That said, the violence of the crucifixion is significant in that this is how the Father decreed it would be. He certainly could have absolved us of the cost of sin in a less painful way had He so chosen.

It is significant that He chose this way, and in this way there are many valuable lessons that Christians must take to heart. For one, that we as Christians should not expect our path to be easy. If we are to truly "follow" Christ rather than lead Him to where we would prefer that He be, we must truly be prepared to pick up our cross (whatever) it may be and follow Him daily. We must follow His commandments to love the Lord above all else and to love our neighbor as we do ourselves. We must be prepared to sell what we have and give it to the poor. Following Christ is so deceptively simple in one sense, and so very difficult in another. I recently read Come Be My Light, the writings of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. I would recommend it. It is a portrait of unwavering faith that blossomed through a love of God and a fervent desire to bring Him souls. It is the personification of the love Christ speaks of in the gospels.

To J22745
Re the difference between "evangelical Christian" and just plain "Christian": Actually, my impression from astute study of townhall is that there IS a difference. We have a friend going back nearly sixty years who trained specifically as a missionary surgeon. Under church auspices, he served in Africa for 25 years. Built a hospital where there was none, put the equipment together himself, practiced medicine and surgery under very primitive conditions, and trained the Africans to take his place when they assumed independence, which was their choice, and then he came back to the States where he worked with the poor in Appalachia for another 25 years, and in retirement has temporarily replaced furloughed medical missionaries in many countries and in between has worked tirelessly for medical legislation that would benefit the people he served. He has done every bit of this in Christian witness. Now, him I would call "a Christian".

On the other hand, on townhall I routinely read the nastiest venom put forth by self-identified evangelical Christians. They typically show themselves to be intolerant, punitive, war-mongering, and chronically angry and resentful.

It was not Eli.
It was not Eli but his twin brother who came to Plainview with his proposal. Eli was a weak, greedy and manipulative little troll. The real "prophet" and sincere preacher was always his brother. At the end his falseness is brought up by Plainview in anger over Sunday's use of his pulpit to control him.

-Ray

Great Patriot
"Our military is vulnerable to media? Sounds like we need an immediate LARGE appropriation of money to some kind of anti-media weapon. Maybe a laser."
**********************************************

The proof that the military is vulnerable to the media is the Vietnam war, where we retreated, thereby losing the war, merely because of the misinformation campaign waged by the Left-wing media.

Now they are attempting to do the same thing with the war in Iraq. We are winning, yet they continue to want to turn tail and run.

The best defense against this kind of attack is a conservative media campaign designed to persuade the American that we are WINNING the war.

Because of the censorship of all positive messages about the American military in the MSM, it is our duty as patriots to find a way to circumvent them.

In the '40s, we needed a Radio Free Europe.

Nowdays, we need a Radio Free America.

Mountain Rose
"The best defense against this kind of attack is a conservative media campaign designed to persuade the American that we are WINNING the war."

Sounds a lot like propoganda. No wait, that is propoganda.

And what are a WINNING?

That's interesting that you bring up Vietnam. 58,000 wasn't enough? We can only PRAY that Iraq 30 years from now as in as good a shape as Vietnam is today. Looks like leaving was a great idea. Just as it is today.




Bombs Away in Hollywood
From a comment on my previous post, I thought I would mention that back "in the day," a bad movie or play was referred to as a bomb.

Nowdays, the popular culture uses the word "bomb" to signify something positive.

For example, a modern person may say "you da bomb," meaning: "you are simply outstanding."

In fact if actual singing was in style, someone might be tempted to redo the song "You're the Top" as "You da Bomb." This is how it might go:

You da Bomb,
You da Tower of Pisa
You da smile
On da Mona Lisa
I a worthless check, a total wreck, a flop,
But if, baby, I'm the bottom you da bomb!

It is likely that this change has come because the cultural taste has degraded so much that what was considered lousy in the past is now admired.

Therefore, when most elites would say "that movie was the bomb," I would be inclined to agree... though I would be using the traditional meaning of the word.

The Great "Patriot"
Yes, I stick by my statement that we are winning the War in Iraq.

There have been many indications of this for anyone who is not suffering from Bush Derrangement Syndrome.

For example, the Iraquis have had at least two free elections that I know of, where the vast majority of the population risked their lives to go to the polling place.

Next, there are signs that people who have been enemies for decades are learning instead how to be civil adversaries. I realize that this is not a value that Lefties hold, but we conservatives consider civility an important step forward.

We have killed or arrested many terrorist leaders, and the Iraqui population is starting to turn them in.

More and more of the policing has been taken over by the Iraqui military and police, with our guys now acting as support.

Al Queda is now becoming desperate. Obviously running out of fools to volunteer to blow themselves up, they have taken to strong arming the mentally handicapped into being booby-trapped. That is, unless you think that the women who were detonated last week were hoping for a passal of virgins in heaven.

One of the best developments is that the citizens are starting to go into the homes of deceased suicide bombers, beating the families and burning down the house. This is causing potential human bombs to think twice, knowing that their families will suffer if they do the dirty deed.

Of course, the Democrat(ick)s, who are commited to defeat, poo-poo all of these advancements, but they are nevertheless true.

A different Christian drummer
Finally, a committed Christian with a genuine understanding that film is not meant to be an "uplifting" sermon. The purpose of a movie is not to reinforce preexisting political or religious beliefs. Radical culture-war types who seek conservative propaganda in cinema should make their own movies -- and see if anyone attends.

Hip-hip-hooray for contemporary Hollywood (and other locales like NYC and Austin) for enabling audiences to think. I'll take Paul T. Anderson, the Coen Brothers or the Farrelly Brothers over some smarmy Chrsitian fundamentalist preacher or laymen who aches to censor.

Norman, Phil Shackleton, et al...
You remind me of an older lady who once told me that she was shocked that Christians would read William Shakespeare's plays, because there is so much obscenity in them.

When I read "MacBeth," to which "There Will Be Blood" may be compared, I did not feel like a voyeur at all. I felt deeply saddened by the protagonist's violent downward spiral. It also caused me to think deeply about good and evil and what abandoning the things of God really means. Good literature, plays, and movies do that. They are not pornography. "MacBeth" helped me to understand God's goodness better by providing a point of contrast.

I would never encourage you to watch any movie or play that would offend you. At the same time, I believe that you are cutting your nose off to spite your face when you don't open your mind to hear what people like Mr. Edwards have to say. You don't have to watch the movie to understand Mr. Edwards's point, which was very simple to understand if you had ears to hear.

Ya' know, Lilly,...
...I feel the same way about you socialists.

"On the other hand, on townhall I routinely read the nastiest venom put forth by self-identified evangelical Christians. They typically show themselves to be intolerant, punitive, war-mongering, and chronically angry and resentful." (by "Lilly" at February, 26, 2008 12:08 PM.)

I believe, as well, "Lilly"(?) that your own, "Parable of the True Christian Physician", of the same post to be a fabrication. As are all of your anecdotes. You are a "Seminar Poster" from the DNC. Any abuse you receive, you deserve in the line of duty.

Depravity & first principles of liberty…

Our culture has lost the meaning of depravity because it has lost the authority of the Bible.

The Bible was the textbook of Colonial Americans for theology as will as political science. They had a Biblical sense of the word depravity that shaped their understanding of Law and Gospel…


'But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers…, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine’ [1 Timothy 1:8-11].


Depravity is our nature. The natural law augmented by revealed law is behind the concept of the rule of law and the divine purpose of government to restrain the lawlessness of men. The Gospel is more powerful than depravity. It is able to make men slaves of righteousness rather than willing captives to their sins.

Liberty must start with self before it can be realized in the society of other men. Herein is the purpose of religious liberty and a free church governed by Jesus Christ through the New Covenant in His blood. Political liberty is dependent on both the Law and the Gospel.

If we believe the testimony of our forefathers, then these things are the foundational principles of the American system of Constitutional government.

It is free men appealing to Biblical authority to set the form and limits of their government that makes our Constitution unique in the history of men.

How is it that so many Americans now find socialism acceptable rather than reprehensible as against the natural law and the enemy of liberty? Even though we have a written Constitution, the first principles are dead to them; the ways of liberty they have not known.

Great Patriot...
...do you seriously think that our pulling out of Vietnam had anything to do with their current situation? The success of Vietnam has come IN SPITE of our leaving, not because of it. When we pulled out, Saigon fell to the Communists, and worse atrocities than ever were perpetrated on the Vietnamese people. We decided the war in Vietnam wasn't worth winning, so we hamstrung troops and generals until no one could see a way out. That's what Dems hope will happen in Iraq, if they can interfere, complain, and limit what troops and their leaders can do. I, for one, refuse to give in to that defeatist strategy. We're already light years ahead of where we ever got to in Vietnam -- we have established peace in the vast majority of the country, and the resistance is small and getting smaller. To pull out now, as in Vietnam, would make the deaths of all those soldiers meaningless. That's worse than defeat in my book.

The Real Purpose for li'l Oscar
To keep lonely aging actresses company as they watch their careers swirl the bowl after the age of 35.

Evangelicals and Hollywood
We really need to be more involved in producing pictures that are family friendly.

While it is nice to make films like The Passion, that have a direct Biblical message, it is more important that we make films that inspire a return to our traditional American/European cultures.

America and traditional Europe, and Britain in particular, had cultures that, over time led to the greatest civilization the world has known.

Because of the emotional abuse of the Left, we have become ashamed of the success that our nation has earned. We are like that abused spouse, who is lovely, but has been told she is worthless so often, she begins to have low self-esteem.

It is interesting to me that the Left, who are always trumpeting high self-esteem as the cure-all for all ills, have been doing their darnedest to batter down the self-esteem of Americans. The more successful a person, the more the Left assault their self-esteem. It is as if they believe they can raise their own flagging self-image by tearing down everyone who the perceive to be better than themselves.

We must rise above this ill-treatment, step around these vile abusers and start to rebuild the beautiful culture that the Left have been tearing asunder.

We can only do this if we muster our courage, because when you stick your head up, they are going to take pot shots at you, and the more you succeed, the more they will attack.

Evangelical Christian
It would be nice if we could use the word "Christian" as it was originally used at Antioch, because there was no need to add "evangelical" to it. If you were a Christian in the 1st Century, you were evangelical. The whole point of being a Christian was to EVANGELIZE -- to obey the Great Commission (Jesus' last spoken words to His apostles) by telling the whole world (one neighbor at a time)about Jesus and the salvation His death and resurrection had made possible.

Unfortunately, the word Christian has been misused. I don't know if Lilly's surgeon friend is a Christian or not. Sounds like a nice man who attends church and does a lot of good works, but the New Testament is clear that good works don't make you a Christian. You become a Christian when you accept Jesus Christ as Savior and confess publicly that you've done so. Good works will probably follow that, but any good works preceding that commitment are just futile attempts to bring yourself up to God's level rather than accepting what He has offered. It's not about what we do, it's about what Jesus did!

Thus, the need for the term "evangelical". If you haven't figured it out -- the whole purpose of Christianity is to spread the gospel. Sometimes we do that by doing good works, but we can't and won't do it if we don't know what it really means to be a Christian in the 1st Century meaning of the word.

The Need of Blood in the Gospel
Romans 3:21-26

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Mountain Rose
dittos and more dittos.
Will you are treading on shaky ground, be not deceived, God is not mocked.
And given the growing anarchy in our country have any of you scoffers any better ideas than
the American people returning to their Judeo/Christian roots. Secularists won't admit it, but our heritage is Christian as Valiant for Truth's post so eloquently put it.

I predict that in the near future, scoffers will be running to God, because they will have nothing left. The chaos swirling around our country now is, I believe, God trying to get our attention. But life is pretty good in the fast lane, money, toys, things, anything we want so who needs God, that's coming to an end. Right now everyone is doing that's what is right in their own eyes, as we are murdering millions of unborn innocent babies..Trust me, God is NOT pleased about human sacrifice especially His little ones. This country will pay a heavy price, just as we did with slavery.

To: Sword of Light
From: "Grandma Norman"

You are wandering in the woods of your own false assumptions. Try "thinking." It really helps.

You should also consider looking up the hermeneutic "Principle of Charity," as it applies to making assumptions about others' positions. (I can almost hear the wheels grinding: “Herm-a-what?”)

I can't speak for the other objects of your silly, smarmy, little broadside, but I wasn't bothered by the film at all. Edwards' article is simply nonsensical. That’s the only thing I minded. It reminded me of something from Dr. Seuss:

“I do not like the Gospel man. I do not like him, ‘Dan I Am. I do not like him on the screen. I do not like him in this scene! I do not LIKE the Gospel man. I do not like him, Dan I Am!”

The article wasn't "deep"; the quality of the presentation and exposition was simply terrible. The only person I'm mad at is myself, for actually reading the article three times before drawing the obvious conclusion that Mr. Edwards either is unable to string a coherent thought together, was having a dissociative episode when he wrote it, or just desperately needs an editor.

The issue is not the "gritty" nature of the movie, which offends me not at all. I know that Christ is Lord, and am not in the least threatened by those who deny the undeniable. I pity Sinclair and his ilk. My heart goes out to them, and I try to extend to them (those that are still with us, that is) the same love and compassion that God showed me when I was in rebellion against Him. Edwards can’t write. That’s the issue.

Aurorawatcher
Excellent post! The fact that "evangelical" has become an optional prefix to "Christian" is indeed indicative of the lack of evangelical focus in many Christian denominations. The Great Commission enjoins us to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with love and compassion. It's not optional, which means that all Christians are--or should be--evangelical (in the first century sense of the term, as you helpfully observe).

Your Brother in Christ,

Norman

Viet Nam and Iraq
I lived eight years in Malaysia, a prosperous country that might have gone under had we not subdued communism, however badly, in Viet Nam. Although we lost the battle, we ultimately won the war against communist oppression by causing the breakup of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

Unfortunately, Clinton and Obama seem to think that the right way to go here in America is toward communism via socialism, both of which just seek to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Movies and ideas that disparage free market capitalism leave the idea that it is wealth that is evil, rather than the heartless pursuit of wealth at the expense of those who get in the way of the depraved and greedy people. This gives a bad name to what is basically a freeing and creative economic system.

Lilly
I think that you're taking "Turn the other cheek" to an extreme. Many atheists do this. In other words, a Christian who responds to an attack with anything other than, "Gee, gosh goly, er, um, I'm sorry that I offended you. I'll just go to corner and curl up in a guilty little ball now," is chronically angry, bitter, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Being a Christian does not involve agreeing to be a combination pinata-punching bag in the culture wars.

The culture of the United States is still (miraculously!) predominantly Christian, when you look behind the Hollywood flash and trash. The atheist left has been trying to undermine our culture for decades, and has scored some real "victories."

But Christians are resisting change, so the left calls us hateful, bigoted, angry, bla, bla, bla. You guys have nothing, and this country belongs to the hard-working store owner, the truck driver, the Mom and the Dad who bend their knee before the Lord of Creation and His Son, Jesus Christ.

You people have nothing. No plan, no vision, no hope. All you can do it point fingers at those mean, nasty Christians and cry into your pillow.

It's our culture. If you want it, try to take it; but you won't win by whining, and you certainly won't beat us without a fight.

Deal with it.

(And best to your peeps at DNC Central, DailyKos, or MoveOn.Org--whoever it is that pays you to spy on the "enemy" here at Townhall.)

Christian Thought on Modern Literature
I will admit that I'm not a typical Christian when it comes to my literature choices. Alaskans has among the highest percentage of college graduates in the US, so that may be part of it. We have long winters and public libraries that are several times larger per population than libraries in other states. We also have one of the most secular library systems in the country, meaning you won't find a lot of religiously-oriented books on the shelves. (Thank goodness for Barnes&Noble and Amazon.com). If I wanted to restrict myself to "feel-good" sanitized reading, I'd quickly run out of reading materials. Not having been raised by Christians and perhaps not getting "proper" training from my evangelical elders when I accepted Christ, I still read pretty much anything that interests me, including Upton Sinclair. I haven't seen the movie (if it doesn't NEED to be on the big screen, I wait for the DVD), but I find it hard to believe a Sinclair novel could be adapted with a Christian message. I think Edwards was moved by the negative message and felt the need to point out that movies like this are proof that the world needs the gospel. Agreed!

There are a limited number of Christian authors writing today who are capable of producing complex characters in realistic plots. Oddly enough, most of them write fantasy or mystery/horror (yes, there is such a genre of Christian literature!) I believe Edwards may also be reacting to the derth of complex Christian novels. The Christian community is sort of at a Mexican standoff. Writers are loath to write what they fear won't sell, but readers are also nervous to read what they think will fill their heads with images they'd rather not entertain. Publishing like everything else relies on supply and demand, but Christian publishing houses aren't keen to develop books that Christians won't read. It's frustrating and I'm not wholly certain of the solution.

ModMark--Sex on the Brain???
I find it interesting how atheists almost invariably paint any cultural criticism from Christian circles as somehow based on the prurient interest.

I was responding to Lilly's bashing of evangelical Christians, and right away you're talking about sex. Who said anything about sex?

Actually, you did.

What I wrote had nothing to do with sex. I like sex. It’s loads of fun, and when practiced within the boundaries God has graciously provided for us, it’s absolutely guilt-free! It’s even better than chocolate ("hmmm . . . chocolate").

"Song of Solomon" (aka "Song of Songs") is downright (gulp!) "sexy," and I haven’t blushed even once on the several occasions I have had the privilege of standing before the glorious Venus de Milo! (In fact, she must have been smokin' hottie back in the day when, you know, she still had arms.)

A culture cannot embrace both the mechanistic worldliness that is the natural spawn of atheism, and the Judeo-Christian tradition that has been the source of The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, or the U.S. Constitution (which I regard as the apotheosis of human social and political achievement).

Atheists have not founded and nurtured to maturity even one great culture or nation. It is always parasitic on a dominant, religiously-informed culture. Always. There have been no successful cultures or nations that were not largely informed by religious belief (of whatever stripe, not necessarily Christian of course). Not a single one.

Atheism is intellectual vacuous, and morally dead.

I’m not trying to take anything away from you; I’m trying to stop you from destroying what’s left. You reject the premise of my worldview, as I reject yours. So, we’ll just have to duke it out in the culture wars, and see who wins.

ModMark--Good points.
I am no expert, but I have given this matter some study, since it is an area of great moment to me. What I have discovered thus far is either a common religious tradition or a homogenous culture with a shared cultural and ethical tradition will do. In China, both Confucianism and Buddhism have played a significant role. Even though neither Confucianism nor Buddhism has a central divine figure, they do have cultural icons (Confucius and Buddha), and also took root in very rich cultural soil. China's civil service also played a major role in holding the country together, despite ethic differences between the more traditional "Chinese" in the east and the Central Asian groups in the western portion of China.

Islam provided a firm foundation for quite a while and propelled the Muslim World far ahead of Christian Europe for a time.

The ancient Greek gods were obviously--in my view at least--false gods, but even false gods can do the trick--culturally speaking.

So, while I would love to be able to say that only Christianity will do, that obviously isn't true--from the standpoint of prerequisites for successful cultures.

What IS clear, however, is that--again, culturally speaking--atheism is a complete non-starter. Reasonable people can disagree about the reasons for that, but there's not arguing that central point. There has never been a successful, sustained culture founded and nurtured on atheistic "principles." Not one.

I should think that that should make any atheist step back and question his "faith" in the "death of God."

Mod Mark (1 of 2)
I also want to respond to your earlier post, which I appreciated and enjoyed (even though you're dead wrong, of course!) :-)

It was a nice riposte (really), and if we were ever to meet I'd be glad to buy you a beer, but you're missing something painfully obvious. There is already a culture war on, and you’re on the wrong side of it (even if you don’t think of yourself as involved at all).

I think that you are an honest man, so I am quite earnest when I tell you that you are already part of the culture war, whether you want to be or not. I'm going to venture a guess that you support gay "marriage," are pro-"choice," and support embryonic stem cell research (or did, at least until the recent revelation that adult stem cells can be made to mimic embryonic t-cells).

These are positions that are completely at odds with even the most "ecumenical" interpretation of Scripture. No one who accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God can simply shrug and accept these, without being a hypocrite.

God is the source of reason or "Logos." The word for "Word" in the Gospel of John is the Greek "Logos," which means--among other things--"reason." God is the Author of Creation, and thus also of reason itself. When well-informed Christians who know how to debate get into the arena of ideas with atheists, we clean their clocks. This is not because we are smarter than our opponents, but because we have an incomparable "client." Abortion, same sex "marriage," and embryonic stem cell research are not just immoral; they're irrational, and thus cannot be rationally defended.

(CONT.)

Mod Mark (2 of 2)
(CONT.)

The bottom line is that what you believe and what I believe cannot both be true. When the stakes are minimal, I agree that reasonable people should just live and let live. However, when the most helpless members of our society live under the threat of an arbitrary death sentence from their own mothers, when a sacred and God-blessed institution like marriage is subjected to equally arbitrary redefinition, or when human beings are “harvested,” there is no room for “live and let live.” That’s why the atheistic left has been taking shots at Biblical Christianity, and why they will never stop. They can’t. We’re the competition, and they have to take us out. I understand that, and actually don’t blame them. Based on their flawed and irrational worldview, they actually think they’re doing good. As a Christian, I can’t shrug and walk away from that. To do so would be immoral, hypocritical, and irrational. I have to fight it, and I will.

So, as your wife leaves for church and you and your kids sit on the couch watching cartoons on Sunday morning, you and your wife are in different camps in the culture wars—whether you know it or not.

Anyway, despite our obvious differences, I'm glad to "know" you. If I have to "fight" someone, I'd rather it be someone who will do so reasonably and honestly.

FIN

Me too, Mod . . .
. . . time to sleep. I'll check back tomorrow to see if you've left any comments.

One more thing, Mod. . .
I neglected to address the "boundaries" God sets on sex. I had in mind the basics--don't commit adultery, don't rape anyone, keep your hands off the sheep, etc.

The Bible says nothing about dates, frequency, etc. In fact Pastor Paul Wirth of Ybor City, FL recently challenged his married congregants to get busy (with each other) every day for a month. There's no Biblical charge to do so, of course, but there's certainly no prohibition against it, either. (Several jokes about a Sunday sanctuary filled with "saddle sore" middle-aged brides, and grooms with aching lower backs come to mind, but I'll refrain . . .)

There's a lot of room for disagreement on this point, even among Christians. I'm a Reform Presbyterian (the "no women pastors or drinking during the sermon" kind), but to an Orthodox Catholic, I (and Pastor Wirth) would probably look like oversexed heretics.

Funny, but I guess Dr. House is right: It's always about sex. :-)

(Last comment tonight. Time to sleep.)

Norman
Point taken--although you have a mighty large chip on your shoulder for a Christian. I sure didn't feel the love and compassion that you profess to have toward the Upton Sinclair. Fortunately, I'm married, so I've had practice at dodging bullets! I didn't whack you over the head with a club. I needled you. If my needling is mistaken, all you need to do is say, "You're mistaken. Here's why..."

Having said that, let's let bygones be bygones.

My apologies for reading too much into your original post. If you read your original comment again--the one that provoked my first post--you may understand why I reacted the way I did. It sounds very much like comments I have encountered from other Christians who would, indeed, have been offended by the "R-rated" violence in the movie and then closed their minds to the arguments of other Christians who think that the movie may have been worthwhile to watch, with the excuse that their arguments are incoherent.

(One time I read a letter to the editor of a Christian magazine in which the writer criticized a positive review of "Saving Private Ryan." The letter writer was shocked that any Christian would recommend a movie that contained four-letter words. Not once did the letter writer mention the four-letter violence. He was just concerned about the four-letter words. That is the type of small-minded Christianity to which I am referring.)

I immediately understood Mr. Edwards's train of thought on the first try. Maybe you and I think differently. At any rate, I hope you understand where I am coming from, now that you have clarified where you are coming from.

SofL--Of Chips and Gibberish (1 of 2)
Lots of people think they "understand" Barry Silvertongue when he's on the stump, too. If you can't tell bad writing from good, I can only extend my condolences. I'm not trying to crack wise with you. The original article was one of the clearest examples of bad writing I've seen in a while. Seriously.

If you'll read my original post as carefully as you must have read Edwards' article, you'll see my summary of the article. I think you'll find that you and I understood the article in more or less the same way. I just thought it was gibberish--or, perhaps more accurately--a decent point muddled by poor exposition.

About "chips" and "shoulders," you must be referring to followers of the "South Park" Jesus--you know, the one with the cable access show who's always painfully nice to everyone and whom everyone regards as a pleasant wimp.

That's not the Biblical Jesus. That Jesus (the real one) rebuked his closest followers harshly ("Get thee behind me, Satan!"), went on and on about hell and eternal punishment, and evicted the moneychangers from the temple with the help of a whip.

What a chip He had on His shoulder! Christ was so un-Christlike!!!

Of course, I do not presume to have anything like the wisdom or discernment that Jesus has. For that reason, I try to keep that "chip" to which you refer under wraps, and it is quite possible that from time to time my own level of discernment is lacking, and the the "cocky" part of the cocky atheist I used to be slouches forth.

I'll give that some thought, but in principle there is nothing at all wrong with Christians taking firm stands, and giving as good as they let.

SofL--Of Chips and Gibberish (2 of 2)
(CONT.)

So, yes--despite the alleged "chip," I do have compassion for those who, like Sinclair, have rejected Jesus as their Lord and Savior; that used to be me. I guess I just don't "emote" quite enough. Perhaps I'll start watching Oprah. That should do the trick.

At any rate, since you have been quite gracious, I should be no less so. Having made my points, as you made yours, I ask your pardon for any offense given. You are clearly a sharp fellow, and I enjoy a good tussle.

FIN

SofL--Of Chips and Gibberish (2 of 2)
(CONT.)

So, yes--despite the alleged "chip," I do have compassion for those who, like Sinclair, have rejected Jesus as their Lord and Savior; that used to be me. I guess I just don't "emote" quite enough. Perhaps I'll start watching Oprah. That should do the trick.

At any rate, since you have been quite gracious, I should be no less so. Having made my points, as you made yours, I ask your pardon for any offense given. You are clearly a sharp person, and I enjoy a good tussle.

FIN

Mod Mark--The Roots of Morality
You ask some very thoughtful and reasonable questions.

I'll do my best to give equally thoughtful answers, without (hopefully) being too gaseous. :-)

You ask: "Can atheist (sic) be just as moral as Christians?"

Absolutely. I have known some wonderful atheists, and some truly rotten Christians. Heck, some people think I'M a rotten Christian! :-)

As an only child in a basically secular household ("Sword of Light" is thinking "Aha, so THAT explains the 'chip'!"), I grew up surrounded by adults--some of the most decent atheists one could ever hope to meet. The key, though, is that they weren't "really" atheists, just as I suspect that you aren't "really" an atheist. (I intend no offense, and will explain my meaning.) Their conduct was guided by the standards and beliefs they internalized as children from their parents. This "moral osmosis" allowed them to lead often exemplary lives, and to be very decent people, without adopting their parents' religious worldview--or so they thought.

In fact, what they believed to be their own man-made, ethical code was essentially that of their religious parents--just without the religious part.

(I think I'm going to run well over the character limit, so I'm going to ask you to indulge my vanity and click on my name above to be taken to my brand-spanking-new blog, where I can provide the more detailed response that your thoughtful questions merit.).

POST CONTINUED ON BLOG, PLEASE CLICK "NORMAN" HYPERLINK, ABOVE.

ModMark--Natural Law
Your post was interesting, too, in its discussion of "natural law." Unfortunately, as an atheist you have no basis on which to claim a belief in natural law. I'm trying to 'll explain, of course.

All "law" has an author. I see only three possibilities, but feel free to enlighten me if I have missed something.

First, some believe that the ultimate source of law is God. This group includes serious adherents of all theistic faiths, as well as most Deists. As a Christian, this is what I believe.

(GONNA RUN OUT OF ROOM AGAIN. PLEASE CLICK ON "NORMAN," ABOVE, TO SEE FULL POST ON MY BLOG. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE, BUT THE 2,000 CHARACTER LIMIT HERE IS RATHER RESTRICTIVE.)

Hi Gene!
Or is it "hygiene"?

Anyway . . .

I've written this several times now. I guess it's not sinking in, so I'll try to be even clearer this time.

"IT . . . WAS . . . A . . . BADLY . . . WRITTEN . . . ARTICLE."

That's it. That's all. I did not address the (ahem!) "substance" of the article. Edwards cant' write. That was my only point. Geeesh!

If anything, I was disappointed that he so badly botched an article that I probably would have agreed with, had it been written in actual English.

Funny that you have to quote Mike Adams (who writes quite clearly) to un-muddy Edwards' point (and, ironically, to reinforce mine).

Make it especially dark, w/no light
I sense a truly logical argument in this article by Mr. Edwards,

but the aweful confession of this deceitful, and desperately wicked heart of mine,

is that I won't go see this Gospel according to Hollywood.

HiGene--More Projection than the Movie
(1 of 2)

You agreed with his point, so you were naturally more sympathetic to it and inclined to overlook any flaws. You saw a well-written article, because you agreed. Like the typical Barack devotee, you projected your understanding onto it.

Your original silly, condenscending comment was based on your having failed to understand my ONLY point, which was that the article was badly written.

Since you don't want to let it go, I'll up the ante and see if you really want to keep defending the indefensible.


1. Let's start with the first sentence:

a. Dangling modifier: "After having seen “There Will Be Blood” three times in packed theatres there is no question . . ." (If you don't see it, I can't help you. Blame your 9th Grade English teacher.)

b. Missing Punctuation: "Afer having seen "There Will Be Blood" three times in packed theatres there is no question . . ." (Again, if you don't see it, I can't help you. Actually, I can, if you really want an English lesson.)

c. Run-On Sentence Worthy of a German Philosopher: Introductory paragraphs are supposed to "introduce" the reader to the topic, not smother him in it. That is one long, ugly sentence. 52 words. It contains five distinct thoughts, three of which are only tangentially related to the main idea of this paragraph-length sentence.


HiGene--(2 of 2)
(CONT.)

That's three (or four, depending on how you count 'em) major problems with just the first sentence. Three or four errors is your idea of how the best written article on Townhall in a long, long time" should begin.

You put down the marker; let's see if you're good for it. I don't think so. I think you're a lot of talk; prove me wrong, if you can.

I'll make a deal with you. Show me one good, clear point for every grammatical and sytlistic faux pas in Edwards' article, and I'll take back all of the nasty things I said about it.

I've put three clear errors in grammar and style on the table. That's three chits in my corner for you to match.

If you want to "play," please go ahead. It's your turn. I'll respond, until you're forced to turn tail. Sounds like fun to me.

Call it "dueling grammarians."

Otherwise, if you're not willing to back up your smarmy and condescending remarks, keep them to yourself next time.

Your call. I'll be waiting.

ModMark
Glad to be having the "conversation" with you. We can "converse" further via posts at the Blog, if you like.

Cheers!

ModMark
The depiction of Christians in Acts is a pretty good definition of evangelical Christians. In those days, there was no need for the qualifier. All Christians were evangelical. The Antioch Christians (which is the first place the word Christian was used) are the epitome of evangelical. They sent out the first Christian missionary team to evangelize the Gentiles, but more than that, it was the way the church was clearly structured -- revolving around the teaching of the apostles (Paul and Barnabas, primarily), prayer, fellowship, etc.

If you're looking for what evangelicals are to believe and teach as they evangelize, you'd have to spend some times reading the epistles, especially Paul's letters. No one book of the New Testament will give you a complete picture, because different subjects were addressed depending on the situation of the particular congregation receiving the letter.

For more indepth discussion, check out the blog.

ModMark
I haven't spent much time on Aurorawatcher's blog, but what I saw there looked good, and she's made some excellent posts.

Seems like the two of us are fighting over you! :-)

I just really appreciate your obvious sincerity and willingness to entertain opposing points of view. Hope we can continue our "conversation."


Actually . . .
. . . it's "Norman," but that's okay, Steve. Everybody makes mistakes.

You keep going back to the substance of the article. What I was able to make of it, I really didn't have a problem with. My only complaint was that it was badly written. I have provided three examples of bad writing in one sentence--the FIRST sentence, and you keep talking about how brilliant Edwards is. He may well be, but that's not what I'm talking about.

You appear unable to separate presentation and substance. I've been talking about presentation. If egregiously bad grammar makes me a "pedant," I'll wear that label as a badge of honor. I'm a retired philosophy professor, if that helps you put my perspective in context. So, thanks for the compliment.

By the way, the article only really had one point: "That the consequences of an absent God (and hence an absent Gospel) in "There Will Be Blood" underscore the need to turn back to the Gospel, in order to avoid the inhumanity and sheer barbarism on such clear display in the movie."

Since you regard errors in grammar and style as "pedantry," and hence irrelevant, you have violated the terms of the "game." The deal was that you would illustrate one good point in the article for every error I found in grammar or style.

The "photographic negative" bit was pretty good, so that's one point.






(1 of 2) Actually . . .
. . . it's "Norman," but that's okay, Steve. Everybody makes mistakes.

Every time it looks like you're going to defend Edwards on his grammar and style, you instead return to the substance. That's fine for scoring points on your side, but it's completely irrelevant to my side. This is an asymmetrical "game." Didn't you get that?

It's like we're in a car, and I keep saying, "No, Disneyland is on the left!" and you reply, "That absurd! There's no such thing as Orange ICE CREAM; that's orange SHERBET, you dunce!"

I think that I have understood something. If you are indeed college educated, you must have gone in the '90's, when long-besieged academic standards finally fell the invading liberal Visigoths. Besides, your 9th Grade English teacher, Mrs. Bumblesnortz, was too busy thinking about the 17 cats back at her cramped studio apartment to teach you the importance of such niceties as grammar, spelling, and the 500-word essay. You really never had a chance. Poor little Henry!

So, as a former college professor, I'll do what I can to help, by clarifying the rules of the game.

My side: Provide examples of bad WRITING in the article.

Your side: Provide examples of good, substantive points.

(CONT.)

(2 of 2) Hi Jack, Norm again . . .
(OPENING COMMENT: I GUESS I NEED TO START WRITING MY COMMENTS IN WORD, THEN COPYING THEM TO THE FORM HERE. MY FIRST SUBMISSION WAS A DRAFT THAT I SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED--OR THOUGHT I HAD. DISREGARD. MY "1 OF 2" AND THE PRESENT "2 OF 2" ARE THE ONES I MEANT TO SEND.)

(CONT.)

Calling errors in style or grammar "pedantic" or any other such foolishness will cost you a point. (It's not sporting to mock the other team when it scores. Didn't Coach Runoff (you remember—the 50-year-old guy with acne scars who “almost made it to the pros”) ever teach you that in Jayvee Basketball? Tut, tut.)

If you want to stipulate any further rules, now's the time.

I have provided three examples of bad writing in one sentence--the FIRST sentence.

I recognize TWO points on your side.

The "photographic negative" bit was pretty good, so that's one point.

You've got to be kidding, though, about "Plain View" as a "play on words." Yes, it was "cute," as in "saccharine." No point there. You’re already reaching—doesn’t bode well.

The “family ties” observation also qualifies. Actually, I rather liked that one. So, that's two.

So, you're still down by one.

Your serve again, Bill.

Hey there, Bobby Joe . . .
. . . Norm here. Another stipulation to the rules of the game: Each player shall have one business day to reply to his opponent's latest posting. I'm up early already, and plan to do something else after work today other than engaging in this (admittedly quite amusing) p***ing contest. I'm spending Saturday and Sunday with my family, and won't be checking in. If you answer between now and Sunday, you'll hear back by Monday.

Cheers, and have a good weekend (really). This is a fun little "tussle."

Higene, My Apologies
After giving the matter a good deal of thought and prayer, I have decided that I owe you an apology. I have been a very poor ambassador for Christ throughout this exchange. I have allowed my prideful ego to combine with my naturally pugacious and playful spirit in a manner that brings no glory to my Lord.

Please forgive me, and accept my concession.

I am truly glad that you found Mr. Edwards' article of spiritual value. He did good, where my ego brought only strife. May God send you many good counselors and trustworthy guides.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.