It Ain’t About The Wedding, Babe

Every so often, movie night at our house begins with moans, groans, and sighs. It usually happens when my husband or one of the boys opens the Netflix envelope only to discover a chick flick. This week was especially vocal. The movie wasn't just some sappy love story, but it was actually about weddings. I've had weddings on my mind a lot lately. We celebrated our wedding anniversary this week. I've been dreaming about my niece getting married in a pink camouflage dress. If that weren't enough, our 5 year old daughter picked out her own Cinderella wedding dress while we were shopping. So I suppose it was fitting to watch Bride Wars this weekend.

Bride Wars (PG) is a romantic comedy starring Kate Hudson as Olivia "Liv" Lerner and Anne Hathaway as Emma Allen. The two twenty-something women have been best friends since childhood. Since seeing a wedding at the Plaza Hotel in New York, the girls have fantasized into adulthood about their own perfect Plaza Hotel weddings. Their love and support for each other quickly turns into jealously and spite as they discover their upcoming weddings have been booked for the same day.

We have an unspoken movie rule at our house—any movie rated PG or higher has to be previewed before the younger children can watch it. I'm glad we have this rule. Although they would have laughed at Liv's blue hair and Emma's orange skin, I think our young children would have been confused by the subject matter and sexual innuendo. Also, the scene with Anne Hathaway dancing at the bachelorette party is a bit too risqué for young children. Since the plot is rather juvenile, I suspect older children and teens will catch on rather quickly. They might even find some of this stuff to be hilarious. In spite of a few funny moments, I find the entire concept of Bride Wars to be problematic from a Christian standpoint. Christian parents shouldn't have any trouble recognizing this movie's flaws.

After I watched this movie, I wasn't certain I was going to blog about it. After all, this is a parenting blog. So I contemplated for awhile. Then I saw this clip on television. The last thing I want is for either of our sons to face Bridezilla on his wedding day. I also don't want our sons or daughters to realize at the last minute, like Emma, that they do not love the person in whom they have invested so much time. I suspect that most Christian parents concur. Even though parents can't choose their children's future spouse, I believe Christian parents can and should offer some direction. I believe it starts early and it starts with understanding.

Dating is a relatively modern concept, which is mostly about having fun. Very few young people, including Christians, consider that dating has another purpose. Dating, or courtship, is designed to help young men and women find a suitable spouse. If a young person is not ready to think about marriage, then dating really serves no useful purpose. In fact, it can become emotional and difficult. Once two young people fall in love, it can be really difficult for them to step back if the relationship is moving faster than anticipated or if it begins to crumble. That's where I think this really small tidbit of wisdom can be quite helpful.

Keeping these things in mind, I believe that parents can help their teenagers navigate dating and courtship successfully. Christian parents can begin the conversation early on, especially when they see their children becoming interested in the opposite sex. They should instruct their teenagers that dating is the vehicle to selecting a spouse. Now, I'm not going to suggest that there is a "magic" age for teens to begin dating. Christian parents are more than capable of discerning when the time is appropriate. I will only say that dating is serious business. Dating helps young people identify those who share their values. It can be an exciting, emotional time for teenagers. So under these circumstances, I compiled a list of important notes and helpful hints for Christian parents to pass along to their children.

• There is no such person as a "soul mate." God did not predestine each person to have one true love. Instead, God gave men and women free will along with the desire to love and be loved. Love is a choice.
  


• Christians should date only Christians. Christians who fall in love and marry non-Christians often face difficulties and unhappiness. This is certainly not God's plan for marriage.
  


• Have as many first dates as possible. Christians can never be sure what God's plan is for them, so keep an open mind. It is possible to miss out on God's perfect plan while waiting for Mr. or Miss Right.
  


• Chastity is a Christian's personal responsibility. Young men and women should treat each other with respect. Lack of self control can leave both people emotionally and physically confused.
  


• Avoid becoming serious until marriage is possible. Long courtships can lead young people into sin. These couples eventually become involved sexually and often cohabitate. This can have devastating effects.
  

After I watched this movie, I really couldn't decide which bothered me more—brides fighting in the aisle or brides dancing in the aisle. I must admit, both make pretty good entertainment. Bride Wars did leave me with something, though. I've been having this crazy dream. Smurfette is getting married to an Oompa-Loompa while Bert Parks sings "There She Is, Miss America." Sounds like a wedding theme to me.

Nemo, Fish or Foe?

    Our 8 year old son is fascinated with giant animals. He especially likes giant animals that lurk underwater. One of his favorite television shows is River Monsters. So when our family movie arrived in the mail last week, I had high hopes. I was sure he'd love it, but I wasn't convinced the younger ones would be interested. I had, after all, committed the ultimate parenting faux pas; I ordered a Disney movie that wasn't animated. But it did have a great story question and a giant squid. To my surprise, that was actually enough to keep even our preschoolers occupied in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

    After we watched the movie, I told my husband I was going to review it. He scoffed. I, honestly, do not know why. Yea, I know the move is over 50 years old. I also know that the movie takes some liberties with Jules Vern's book. I will even admit the special effects and graphics are cheesy by today's standards. But 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a classic. I read the book and watched the movie when I was a kid. Frankly, I don't remember much about either one except that huge squid. There is a funny thing, though, about classic movies. Sometimes the whole premise is lost in the translation. But translating that into a Disney movie just makes the story messier. Our kids actually thought the entire plot revolved about a giant squid attacking boats. Any attempt I made to explain otherwise left them confused. I suspect that's what happened with me. That's probably why I never really considered there just might be more to the story.

    From a Christian perspective, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (G) is family friendly science fiction. The story follows three men, a professor, his assistant, and a master harpooner, as they search the seas investigating the rumors of a violent sea monster. Paul Lukas plays Professor Pierre Aronnax, the scientist who, along with his assistant Conseil (Peter Lorre), has been commissioned by the U.S Government to either prove or disprove the existence of such a monster. They embark on their expedition upon a Naval ship. Onboard, as part of the ship's crew, is Ned Land played by Kirk Douglas. Ned Land has been hired for his skill at harpooning dangerous sea creatures. After several months, the Naval Commander is ready to call off the mission when their ship is attacked. Prof. Arronax, Conceil, and Ned Land are all thrown overboard and seek refuge on a strange metal vessel. They soon realize this vessel, a "submerging boat", is the monster they have been looking for. Once inside the submarine, the trio are captured by Captain Nemo (James Mason), commander of the Nautilus. The tale progresses as Professor Aronnax attempts to understand Nemo and to uncover his secrets, while Ned remains suspicious and searches for ways to escape.

I enjoyed 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea precisely because the movie was filmed in 1954. I felt I could relax and not worry about foul language, drug references, or sexual innuendo. Since it is a Disney film, I was a bit surprised to see a drunken Ned Land singing to a seal. The scene is very cleverly done so I don't think children notice much accept the little seal clapping and doing tricks. Other than that, I don't think there is really anything offensive or frightening in the film at all. Kids of all ages can find something to like in this movie. There is music, humor, mystery, and adventure. Like most of these type movies, the idea of good vs. evil is easy to recognize. I think children can see that Captain Nemo is a creepy, wicked man, even without his playing of Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D minor. Other Christian concepts, though, aren't really obvious. Even if they were, I imagine children will still find the most exciting moments in the whole movie are the screaming cannibals and the giant, man-eating squid.

The movie, unlike the book, attempts to address an issue that is currently a hot topic—environmentalism. I'm not certain that it is true, but some have speculated that Walt Disney may have been an environmentalist. If so, that might explain the environmentalist theme running throughout the film. Captain Nemo has found a way to harness nuclear power. This power keeps his entire submarine travelling through the ocean. It is this secret that Captain Nemo feels he must keep hidden from the rest of the world. Even though this power could change the world, Captain Nemo believes that humans are too corrupt to use it properly. In fact, Captain Nemo believes that all of mankind is wicked and warlike. Escaping to the sea, he only finds solace in his natural environment. This idea is fundamental to environmentalism. Environmentalists believe that humans are a threat to the environment and, therefore, the earth and her resources must be protected. At first glance, this philosophy may seem complimentary to Christian theology. Environmentalism, however, runs the risk of placing a higher value on nature itself that on the needs of human beings. This is a perversion of God's plan for mankind. The Book of Genesis explains that God intended for humans to live on the Earth and use her resources, but God also trusted man with the care of His creation. Authentic Christianity teaches that nature is not merely at man's disposal but that man has the responsibility to use resources wisely, without neglecting his duty to the rest of mankind. Christian children are never too young to participate in the care of their environment, such as through recycling projects or neighborhood gardens. This is also a good opportunity for older children to consider more complex topics such as providing renewable energy resources throughout the world, especially to poorer nations.

When we watched 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I honestly didn't expect much. I really only remembered Captain Nemo and that darn squid. If nothing else, I thought the children would get a taste for the classics. I came away with something I never expected—a new perspective on Disney movies. I won't say I don't like them, but I will start paying closer attention. I recently read that Disney plans to do a remake of the movie. I can only imagine what magic will come out of their studio this time. We'll probably take our children to see it. Of course we'll tell them that we want to compare it to the movie of our youth. In reality, we'll just be looking for the giant squid.

 

iThink, therefore iAm

Everything is lawful, but not everything is beneficial. 1 Corinthians 10:23

When I was in 4^th grade, every Thursday night I used to beg my parents to let me watch "Kung Fu." My father, not an especially strong Christian, nonetheless sensed that there was something hypocritical and corrupting about David Carradine's character on the show. Whether or not his assessment was correct, we had one television in the family room and my father had the controls. For the most part, we watched the show with my father's running commentary. My Dad cracked jokes about how a pacifist could possibly fight as much as Kwai Chang Caine. He scoffed at his seemingly superhuman powers such as knocking away arrows with his forearms. Most of all, my Dad hated the flashbacks that referred to oversimplified Eastern philosophy that accompanied each episode. My father had an advantage that many of today's parents do not. Today's Christian parents only wish they could be as annoying as my Dad.

If contemporary kids want to view something of questionable value, many of them simply set the DVR, watch online, download onto X-box, or watch at a friend's. They are no longer tied down to school nights. Furthermore, for many of today's youth, passive viewing is not stimulating enough. They consume their entertainment via the internet, cell-phones, and gaming systems. In the face of all this technology, Christian parents can find monitoring their children's cultural influences to be a daunting task. In the face of this challenge, Christian parents seem to take one of two approaches as follows: either they greatly curtail their children's use of technology or they allow a free-flowing access.

The problem is not new. In the 19^th Century, America spawned numerous traditionalist communities that resisted modern technology. Most of them--such as the Shakers and the Harmonites--are now defunct, but a few of these societies--such as the Amish and Mennonites--have survived to this day. The Amish people have concluded that the only way to be close to God is to remain isolated from modern culture. Perhaps that is so. They have very strong families and values. Nonetheless, their isolationist approach to modern life is not for everyone. Indeed, if everyone on the planet suddenly adopted Amish standards of technology, the farmers would not be able to produce as much food and there would be world-wide famine.

The progressive approach to technology is not new, either. The 17^th and 18^th Century Enlightenment foretold a future in which all the world's problems would be solved by knowledge and technology. Most of today's descendants from the enlightenment school of thought are scientists and atheists, but a few are to be found in progressive churches. One example of this modern approach to religion is the Westwinds Community Church, where they suggest that their members follow them on Twitter. Certainly, their pews are full and the congregation receives a message that is relevant to contemporary society. Nonetheless, this modern approach to religious services comes across as very materialistic and distracting. With the congregation following along on twitter, one has to wonder if they are listening for the voice of the Holy Spirit or to the chatter of the congregation.

The deeper and more troubling aspect of technology is whether the technology itself changes the way people act or think. The best example of the influence of technology on human behavior is the automobile. Before the car, people walked a lot more than they do today. As a result, people then were on average much thinner and modern society is experiencing an epidemic of obesity. Prior to the automobile, people had a much different concept of space. A thirty mile trip took a whole day, while today 30 miles takes a half an hour. This problem becomes more pronounced as technology progresses. The airplane shortened the subjective distances even more. The internet often eliminates the necessity of travel at all.

As all this technology progresses, people become even more dependent on their technologies to the point where they don't know how to survive without them. Recently, a woman, on the advice of her GPS, got lost in Death Valley. She was so confident in her GPS device that she neglected to bring enough water, failed to acknowledge her own sense of direction or look at a map, and refused to ask for directions. The result of her overconfidence in technology was that, when search and rescue found her, her 11 year-old son was dead from dehydration and exposure. People can become so over-reliant on their technologies that they fail to exercise common sense.

Generally speaking, modern technology is an excellent thing. Christians, however, won't be able to find specific directions regarding technology in the Scripture. What they will find there, instead, are God's instructions regarding Christians' relationship with Him and with the rest of mankind. God never commanded, "Thou shalt not ride in a car." But He did charge man to love Him and also each other. Christians, then, can measure the benefits and pitfalls of technology in light of their relationships. In other words, how does technology affect one's relationship with God and with other people? The effect of technology on one's relationship with God is deeply individual, but the main concern is time. What happens when a person's use of technology is so time consuming that it leaves no space for an internal dialogue with the Creator? Does morning e-mail replace morning prayers? Because one's relationship with God is personal, Christian parents may have only indirect influence on their children in this area. Christian parents, though, do have an impact on their children's relations with others.

Each generation of young people is more technologically savvy than their parents. For example, I went to college around the time personal computers were beginning to make an impact. Though only a small percentage of college students at that time had their own PCs, I observed that those students who owned a PC had a marked advantage. Five years later, PCs were much cheaper and a college student without his or her own PC was unable to compete. In a similar fashion, many of today's parents are slipping out of touch with the changing times. It is vital for Christian parents to avoid this pitfall. Christian parents who fail to remain current with technological advances often leave their children vulnerable. Children who do not have modern options available to them often turn to their school or peers, essentially separating themselves from their parents' knowledge and direction. Sometimes Christian parents do not realize what their children are doing and, if they do, they are ill-equipped to fully understand it. How devastating would it be to discover a daughter sending nude photos of herself via her cell-phone? By contrast, there are those parents who strive to be technologically progressive. They may not realize that living through electronics can prevent them from having meaningful relationships with their children. Even though technology can be quite useful, there are many things that cannot be said in a text message or an e-mail. There is no substitute for the family dinner. No Christian parent wants to lose that human connection with his or her child.

One of the most confusing aspects of technology is whether a child is attracted to it for the cool factor or for the utility. Christian parents who want to have a proper and balanced use of technology must be able to separate the two. This distinction is often difficult because modern technology has social significance. Items that appear to be cool or trendy may actually have an underlying social usefulness. Is there any practical reason for an 8 year-old to have a cell-phone? Maybe an iPod is the perfect gift for a teenager. Perhaps there are good reasons not to have an X-Box Live account. Whatever the device, parents can ask similar questions. Regardless of their children's wish list, the most important consideration for parents may well be budgetary limits. No Christian parent should bankrupt themselves to provide their children with the latest gadgets. Nor should parents feel obligated to indulge their children simply because their finances allow. The consequences for both parents and children can be paramount. Lavish the children with too much and the children are prone to become spoiled and superficial. Withhold access to modern conveniences and the children may lag behind. Modern children will live in a future quite unlike the world of today. The appropriate exposure to modern technology can make or break how they thrive in that world.

--Steve Willmot

Love, American Style by Cindy Willmot

"For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church." Ephesians 5:23

This weekend it rained, a lot. Sometimes, when it rains, I catch up on chores or read. But this week I decided it would be a good time to watch some of the movies we had from Netflix. We had two that were beginning to collect dust and I wanted to update our queue. One movie was peculiar. When I ordered Smother, I thought the plot sounded very modern and, possibly, worth blogging about. The movie was bad, actually. I was planning on forgetting about it until we started watching the second movie. The Odd Couple was pretty familiar. I remember watching re-runs of the TV show when I was a kid. I'm certain I never really understood the concept, but I thought it was funny. I had never seen the play or movie version and imagined I might have a better appreciation for it now that I'm an adult. I suppose it was only coincidence that both movies address the issue of divorce. Perhaps it's also coincidental that one movie referenced 1968 frequently and the other was set in 1968. Considering that I was born in the 1960s and that, last week, I used several recipes from the 1960s, I thought I should just review both movies in context of an idea that erupted from the 1960s—no-fault divorce.

Smother (PG-13) is a contemporary comedy about Noah Cooper (Dax Shephard) who loses his job, only to face pressure from his wife to have a baby. If that weren't enough, his mother decides to leave her husband and move in with the couple. Diane Keaton plays Marilyn, Noah's neurotic, insecure mother. The story revolves around Noah's attempts to placate his wife Claire's (Liv Tyler) needs and his efforts to get his Mom out of his house. The Odd Couple (G) is a comedy movie based on Neil Simon's play by the same name. The movie revolves around two newly divorced men, Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) and Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon) as they attempt to share an apartment together. This situation proves difficult because they have very different ideas about their new lifestyle and housekeeping.

Before I go any further, I want to say that Smother and The Odd Couple are not kid's movies. Both of these movies deal with adult themes entirely. Smother has several scenes with a scantily clad Liv Tyler trying to convince her unemployed husband to have a baby. There are plenty of sexual references. Some of these are quite graphic. There is also a scene with Diane Keaton's character smoking marijuana. While teenagers will probably think this material is funny, I don't believe it's appropriate even at this age level. The Odd Couple is fairly mild. While it would be acceptable for older children to watch, I suspect they might find the movie dated and boring. Neither of these movies, in my opinion, is worth watching as a family. I mention them here because I believe they highlight society's changing attitudes about marriage and divorce. These two movies, filmed 40 years apart, illustrate how the feelings and emotions associated with divorce have changed as divorce has become commonplace. I believe this topic is worth discussing, especially since Christians have divorce rates similar to non-Christians. So to change things up a bit this week, I am only going to reference these movies briefly. If you do watch them, I encourage you to view them in light of this discussion.

Prior to 1970, obtaining a divorce was a difficult, complicated, and often expensive endeavor. A judge had to agree there was reason for the marriage to be dissolved. The reasons for divorce were fairly clear—cruelty, adultery, desertion, incarceration, or inability to consummate the marriage. Most married women at that time were homemakers. Those who did work outside their homes often worked part time in clerical, teaching, or retail positions. The movie Smother references this fact when Marilyn Cooper leaves her husband. When she is surprisingly hired at a carpet store, she mentions that she hasn't worked since before she was married. Only a very small percentage of married women were highly educated with professional careers. In fact, the sentiment at that time was that single women worked and married women stayed home. Under these circumstances, divorce was a last resort. Husbands and wives found ways to make their marriages work, if only for the sake of raising their children. Women did not want to suffer financially and men did not want to be losers. This thought is evident in both characters of The Odd Couple. Oscar expresses his personal disdain simply by being a slob. Felix is obviously emotionally dejected. In a brief dialogue in the movie, both men admit their failure and accept that they are unable or unworthy of being good husbands. However, as Americans embraced the feminism of the 1960s, attitudes about divorce slowly began to change.

In 1963, Betty Friedan published her book, The Feminine Mystique. As a highly educated woman, Mrs. Friedan found it difficult to reconcile her social status with her career aspirations. After interviewing many of her college classmates, she discovered they shared the same sentiment. Mrs. Friedan identified this anxiety as "the problem with no name." Rather than acknowledge that they had failed to adapt to their new roles, these suburban housewives accepted the notion that society had shortchanged them. Armed with their college degrees and the newly available birth control pill, married women began to postpone childbearing and join the work force. As eluded to in Smother, these women believed their accomplishments in the workforce would be more valuable than their responsibilities at home. Many women came to view home life as drudgery and a career as the ideal.

While young mothers were grabbing copies of Betty Friedan's book, another educated woman in California was working to change the laws that she felt were treating women unjustly. Herma Hill Kay, then a law professor at UC Berkeley, was advocating for women who, she felt, were trapped in marriages. She, along with other lawyers and judges, believed that women shouldn't be forced to remain in marriages where they were unhappy nor resort to perjuring themselves in court. Perhaps some felt men were being falsely accused of cruelty where none actually existed. In either case, by the end of 1969 no-fault divorce was introduced to the United States via California's Family Law Act of 1969, championed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. Other states soon followed suit, eventually eliminating the requirement of fault as grounds for divorce. By 1970, either spouse in a marriage could petition the court for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences, even if the other partner was opposed. For those seeking divorce, the stigma attached was now gone. As a result, divorce slowly became a viable alternative to men and women in unhappy marriages.

As September 4^th marks the 40^th anniversary of no-fault divorce, Christian parents might consider the connection between divorce and feminism. During the 1960s, feminists sought to free women from what they perceived as a male dominated society. They believed the prevailing attitude of the times was preventing women from reaching their full potential and causing unjust suffering. They concluded that, by reaching their career goals, working mothers were fulfilling their emotional needs, helping attain financial stability, and giving their children independence. Their commitment was the driving force behind the influx of mothers with young children joining and remaining in the workforce. These men and women worked diligently to ensure that married women could easily assimilate into the working community. They advocated for women to receive equal pay for equal work, access to leadership positions, full time day care, and better maternity benefits. These policies actually provided an avenue for wives to meet their financial needs independent of their husbands. With adequate income and no-fault divorce, women in unhappy marriages were able to move out on their own. Currently, many mothers cite fear of divorce as a reason for remaining in the work force. It would seem, then, that when women are able to care for themselves financially, they have less incentive to reconcile a marriage. It would also seem that when women fear their husbands can abandon them at will, they have a greater desire to work.

Both divorce and feminism are in complete opposition to Christian theology. The scripture is clear that God hates divorce. Divorce is rarely a viable option for Christians, especially if they are parents. The concepts of feminism are rather difficult to define and they do not always seem contradictory to Christianity. In fact many Christian men and women embrace egalitarianism—the idea that God created all men and women equal and all are free to use their God given talents in any capacity. This philosophy is very similar to equality feminism. Equality feminism holds that, even though men and women are biologically different, they should all have equal civil, social, and legal access. In other words, egalitarian Christians see no conflict with women in positions of power or authority. This type of feminism unavoidably leads to a new wave of feminism that purports the interchangeability of men and women. This modern form of feminism sees no conflict with mothers working full time careers and fathers caring full time for the children. Roles are purely a matter of choice and practicality. This idea, also, does not seemingly conflict with Christianity. Many Christians also believe that feminism is not problematic, as long as abortion is not part of the agenda. Feminism, however, in whatever form, most often leads in one of two directions—antagonism or denial. Both of these concepts invariably deny the dignity of the person and discredit God's complementary design for men and women.

God's design for men and women can be found in Genesis. The second part of the Creation story begins in Chapter 2. God created man and placed him in the Garden to work and tend to the animals. Not one of the animals was able to ease Adam's loneliness. As a result, God created a help mate, a partner, for him. God created male and female to exist for one another. In accordance with God's will, men and women were created with equal dignity, yet they were created physically, psychologically, and spiritually different. Human sexuality cannot, therefore, be reduced to a simple biological function. As the Scripture illustrates, men and women's relationship to one another was good from the beginning. Once sin entered into the world, God's original plan of equality, love, and respect was lost. Feminism seeks to exploit that deficit further. In a response to men's abuse of power, women respond by seeking power. Rather than complementing each other, men and women fight against each other, denying the dignity and value of the other person's unique qualities. In an effort to avoid being dominated, both men and women attempt to deny their sexual differences all together. They minimize sexual differences and place a greater emphasis on cultural norms. Once again, this attitude denies the dignity of the human person and elevates the rights of one person over another. Neither of these concepts is theologically sound.

I recently had a conversation with a friend who believes that it is not possible for men and women to have a traditional marriage. This is a sad reflection of our society. Christians should be able to reject this. Christian men should uphold the femininity of women. Christian women should respect the masculinity of men. Feminism does not offer a Christian any means to do that. Men and women are made for each other, to rely on each other, to help each other. This was God's design from the beginning. Modern society often has its own ideas about equality and justice. More often than not, these ideas are not compatible with Christianity. Many ideas that have become commonplace are often accepted by mainstream Christians as well. Feminism and divorce are fully embedded in contemporary culture. Now, they are slowly taking a stronghold on Christianity. It is my prayer that Christian parents begin to reject these modern concepts and return to the Christian example of marriage. Our future depends on it.