credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (05/03/91)
I have just finished reading PIERCING THE DARKNESS by Frank Peretti, the sequel to his immensely popular novel THIS PRESENT DARKNESS. There was some discussion of the earlier novel on this newsgroup a few months ago, and one mention of it just this week; I would now like to make a comment or two about the sequel. I have to say that I enjoyed reading it, but that it distressed me in certain ways. It was entertaining; his drama of angels and demons, in particular, is as exciting as the Ninja Turtles, even though I take it as the work of an imagination, not an accurate description of how matters really are in the unseen realms. But let me list some things that bothered me about this book. (Note that I am not talking about its literary quality -- for example, how convincing the characters are. That's a subject for discussion in some other context.) -- The story centres on the members of a small, unaffiliated church in a small American town. It is connected to no denomination, and the entire novel contains only one (derogatory) reference to the existence of an organized national church. Peretti appears to be suggesting either that Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists do not exist, or that they are not Christian. -- The local church in question appears to conduct no charitable, service or missionary activity whatever. Its sole purpose is to provide a place where the local Christians commune with God and one another. It does operate a school, but apparently only to reinforce that local belief and activity. It does nothing to feed the hungry, bring peace and justice to the world, or otherwise advance God's kingdom. -- A number of institutions and activities that are either neutral or positively good (and often associated with Christians) are portrayed as satanic. Prominent in this category is the American Civil Liberties Union (thinly disguised in the book as the ACFA). Even more prominent, here as in the previous novel, is higher education. It is as if Peretti is not aware that the single largest force in creating American colleges and universities has been the Christian church, and that great good is done by Christians through those institutions. (I might add that in many details, he betrays his lack of knowledge of what colleges and universities are really like. Calculate, for example, how many students it would take to fill the lecture halls in the psychology building he describes in This Present Darkness, compared to the ostensible size of the college. It is hard to resist the conclusion that he is attacking out of utter ignorance.) In summary: I enjoyed PIERCING THE DARKNESS. I enjoy science fiction too, and in about the same way. But some people might think that this book is an accurate picture of (a) Christianity, or (b) the way Christians view the world. I am sure that /a/ is not true, and I certainly hope that /b/ is not true -- if it is, Christians are pretty paranoid people. Chris Redmond credmond@watmath
cc5h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles Robert Claydon) (05/11/91)
Hmmm, Sorry to be contrary in a first post to the bboard, but I really tend to disagree with some of what you say/interpet the book to say. 1) ABout the local church... I don't really see the implications you see. Just because he never mentions missions work doesn't mean they don't actively support it...this is a book, remember, and it may very well not have fit the story line to bring that in. I also didn't pick him up as being as derragatory about "national churches" as you seem to pick up. (After all, if memory serves me right, the small, "real" church in the first book was affiliated with a national denomination, albeit a ficticious one). I think what he was implying is that denomination is in no way really indicative of what really happens at each, individual church. Personal experince tends to back this up for me. I grew up in an un-named midwestern city, and went to a Methodist church for a long time before becoming a Christian, and it was DEAD with a capital "D". But, one of my friends (from college) went to an incredible Methodist chruch in high school in another city. Wouldn't say much about the Catholic Church in my home town, but I have been rather impressed with what they do here in Pittsburgh. Conversely, probably the most exciting, alive, sound doctrinly churhces in my area of my hometown is Lutheran; I went to a Lutheran church a couple times upon arriving in the Pittsburgh area, and was rather turned off.... etc, etc, etc. I really don't think the point he was making was all that controversal nor attacking in its intent. 2) About colleges. Again, I think you mis-interpet what he is saying here. There are an awful lot of professors at state and secular private institutions who use their position to pull students into their rather anti-Christian viewpoints. I'm not trying to say (and, I think, neither is Parretti) that colleges and universities are the "cause" of this--these people were either already running away from God, or didn't really have a firm foundation for their faith (ie: did they really have a relationship with Christ, or were they just along for the ride?). However, I don't think this dimishes the power that these professors have over students, and the extent to which Satan uses their position for his deceiving of people... for example, I just had a professor who rather nicely framed his class to use it as a platform to show a rather one-sided view of his political views on things such as birth control, abortion, drug-abuse, and society in general. My guess is that you are SKOE (some kind of engineer) or computer science or other technilogical type of person and haven't really run into much in the way of social sciences classes. I used to be (an engineer), and myself really never saw what people thought was so bad (gee, I mean like they never have done anything all that controversal in Calculus 121, you know?). But then I transferred to Psychology and Technical Writing (two majors--the second is an english one), which really doesn't matter to the argument except the fact that all of the sudden I found myself taking humanities classes that most definately discussed values, and gave rather one sided views on them... The thing is, it is all too easy for a professor to get his students to think like him. First of all, he, as professor, is raised up to a position where students are forced to ingest all that he says and sound like they not only understand, but agree, with what he has to say... (if you tell your professor his theory on how people decide things is BS, are you naive enough to think your grade won't suffer? If not, I have some rather attractive swampland property I'd like to show you... :-). On top of that, he can frame the whole courses to either only argue those points of view he agrees with or make the other sides' arguments look incredibly inane. To be honest and fair, social sciences is not the only "culprit"--I have experienced this to some extent in everything from literature courses (in discussin the theory of culture reflected in lit.--ie Marx and Freud seem to be really popular :-) to Cognitive Psych courses (what really _is_ the source of sentience? ie: how did, in both a personal (ie human developmental) and widespread (ie evolution vs creation) sense did people develop their thinking processes) to Philosophy courses. 3) about the ACLU... I actually tend to agree with Parretti, to an extent. The ALCU (I used to rather strongly subscribe to their philosophy before becoming a Christian, being an aspiring journalist/Bob Woodward :-), as I see it, is rather anti-Christian in their scope, in a manner of speaking. This primarily arises fromthe fact that they see freedom as the all-encompasing "thing" to which all things should not be compromised, even if that freedom produces something that is "amoral"/"wrong". This, in itself, is a rather anti Christian viewpoint to start with--Christ taught that freedom was of about the last consideration (ie: be His servants, follow Him first), and many things should not be compromised. Thus, as a Christian, I see myself in a very anit-ALCU position, in at least the sense of many things that they support. (eg: the right of NAZIS to spread hatred, the right of people to kill unborn children) because in supporting freedom, they support things which the Bible tells me I should not compromise in standing against. Now, as far as the ALCU actively working against Christians, as Parretti seems to suggest, hmmmmmm--this is a rather touchy subject. There is considerable evidence to support such a position, however. My above argument stated how the ALCU maintains they are unswervingly committed to upholding rights, and state they do their upmost to fight things such as police brutality abuses, freedom to demonstrate, etc, etc. _However_, as the October issue of US News & World Report (I believe, don't quote me on it--I am sure you can find the article if you do a periodical search, though) pointed out in an editorial rather slamming the ALCU, the ALCU sometimes lets personal convictions stand in the way of this.... namely, in the case of an abortion protest rally broken up in Conneticut (sp?) last year. This was a rather peaceful pro-life demonstration broken up rather brutally by police (many people had seious injuries they maintained were caused by police beetings, one woman even sufferring loss of sensation in her legs she was beaten so severely) The protesters went to the ALCU to ask for help. Now the ALCU generally tends to support police brutality cases (btw, especially ones where there is considerable evidence and many witnesses), but in this case, rather strangely :-), they upmostly refused any legal counsel or support, at any cost (ALCU generally represents such people free of charge...). Why is this? Well, the article tended to hint that it was because of a rather long standing anti-pro-life policy upheld by the ALCU. Thus, the article charged, the ALCU was falling from its prescribed position of defender of liberty, and moving into defending a moral position. What I think Parretti was hinting at was that the ALCU rather curiously (cough, cough, wink, wink :-) ends up on the opposite side as Christians on an awful lot of issues that involve morality/ethics more than they do Constituional freedoms. And, I think he used some creative liscence, as you said, to "show" the spiritual side of their rebellion from God on these issues. I really don't think he was out of line at all. If you consider that these people, in general, are not Christians (and thus rebelling from God and deceived by Satan and his cohorts) and in general seem to doing things Christians would rather not seen done, such as work for effectively atheistic schools (thus being used by satan to accomplish things...), and throw in a little creative liscence for the discription of the spiritual happenings (ie the demons "working" inthese folk) along with a little "hollywood" (eg cult sacrafice, fast cars, big business), you end up with Parretti's book's description of the ALCU :-) Rob
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (05/11/91)
It was good of you to take the time to write. Perhaps the most useful thing I can say in response is that we clearly disagree on many issues, possibly including the extent of what "being Christian" means. You say that you attended a Methodist church for a long time before you became a Christian -- the only way I can interpret that sentence is that by "Christian" you mean something much narrower than what I mean by it. I don't know about the ACLU/police-brutality case you mention; if it's true, I'm sorry to hear it. I expect the ACLU people are as human (therefore fallible) as anybody else, and don't always live up to their principles. Still I am glad they're there, preventing (for example) the Southern Baptists from imposing their religion on me (if I lived where there are Southern Baptists -- you know what I mean, I hope). Your characterization of me as some sort of engineer is interesting but not terribly accurate, as my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in English literature and my published books are in literature and history. It's a wonderful, diverse world, isn't it? Regards Chris
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (05/26/91)
In article <May.10.23.12.56.1991.27105@athos.rutgers.edu> credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) writes: >It was good of you to take the time to write. Perhaps the >most useful thing I can say in response is that we clearly >disagree on many issues, possibly including the extent of >what "being Christian" means. You say that you attended a >Methodist church for a long time before you became a Christian >-- the only way I can interpret that sentence is that by >"Christian" you mean something much narrower than what I >mean by it. Chris, it is a big mistake to assume that someone is a Christian merely because they've grown-up in a church or in a "Christian" nation. Being a Christian means having made a conscious decision to commit your life to following Jesus Christ -- and this has nothing to do with denomination. What is your definition of a Christian? >I don't know about the ACLU/police-brutality case you mention; >if it's true, I'm sorry to hear it. I expect the ACLU people >are as human (therefore fallible) as anybody else, and don't >always live up to their principles. Still I am glad they're >there, preventing (for example) the Southern Baptists from >imposing their religion on me (if I lived where there are >Southern Baptists -- you know what I mean, I hope). I'm sure that the ACLU is full of fallible humans, so is the Church. However, something that I want to explore further is your statement concerning the Southern Baptists. As a conservative (at times fundamentalist) evangelical, I hold that there are certain moral absolutes. Further, I believe that it is incumbent upon all Christians to stand up and speak out for the moral code that God gave to all humanity to follow. This is also the basis for those "rights" that everyone is so fond of talking about ("endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.."). Those inalienable rights are that way not because of humans, but because of the recognition of God the Creator endowing us with these rights. Thus, these rights cannot be abridged by the State. But what is often missed is that with these rights come certain moral obligations and responsibilities. In times past, this was clearly understood. Today, however, this view is seen as Christians, especially Fundamentalists, sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Well, I disagree. Christians need to be involved; more, they have an obligation to be involved in politics and the legislative process. That is, Christians must take a stand for the moral absolutes that God has set forth. Is there something wrong with saying that murder is wrong? Is there something wrong with saying that life is of great value? To suggest that Christians should stay out of anything that involves politics or the making of laws is ludicrous. Should the German Christians have refused to hide Jews? Should the Dutch Christians have refused to hide Jews? Should the Christians involved in the Abolitionist movement have refused to hide slaves? Should Christians refuse to speak out against injustices and immorality where ever it is found? So, what is it about Southern Baptists that gets your goat the most? Is it perhaps that they tend to be more outspoken than some others? Is it that they state with such absolute certainty that they believe certain things to be moral absolutes? Or is it that they refuse to compromise their morality to accommodate the rest of the world? This Moravian would like to know what it is that you find so hard to take about the Souther Baptists. And, BTW, I live in an area where there are a large number of Southern Baptists. En Agape tou Iesou, Gene