"One Night with the King" Out On DVD

In honor of the DVD release of One Night with the King, the major motion picture based on the story of Esther, I have decided to create a post linking to my review of the film, which I wrote October 23, 2006, right after having seen it the first time in theaters (I saw it twice). In the article, I talk about the Christian movie movement; I address some of the criticisms of the film; and I disclose some things viewers of the movie should be aware of, such as "interpretive liberties."

I highly recommend renting or even buying this film. Like a skunk calling itself a "perfume puppy," there is a lot of literal trash coming out of Hollywood calling itself "entertainment" and "art." One needs look no further than what the main and sole subject of this blog has been the past two weeks: the Dakota Fanning, Hounddog movie, which features a rape scene of 12-year-old Dakota's character, among other things. To learn more, simply view the recent archives of the blog. Stay tuned for more updates on the situation, which are almost certain to come in not too long.

However, even that movie--as wrong and deplorable as it is--doesn't appear to portray depravity in such an attractive, "fun," "exciting," and "harmless" way as countless Hollywood productions do.

Here, then, we find a movie in One Night with the King, as my article states, that is "Worthy of Our Hearts, Minds, and Money." Is this not something we should support, as part of our statement in the bigger entertainment industry picture? I realize, and point out in the article, that the movie has its flaws. However, I've come to the conclusion that those flaws are not nearly sufficient in making this a movie not worthy of our minds and money. I also recognize the qualms of portraying the Bible on the big screen, and filling in the gaps with man's imagination. But, the entertainment industry is becoming a more and more effective and popular medium to get the Word of God to unbelievers, and the gaps simply have to be filled to make the aforementioned medium usable. As long as you are not claiming that all of it is Scripture, or that it all holds the inerrancy of Scripture, I don't see too big of a problem.

Here is the link to the article:

Worthy of Our Hearts, Minds, and Money

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 6) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

I have a lot to tell you about, so let's not waste any time.

First of all, Hounddog is being trashed by early reviewers of the film. While most reviews that I've read have actually DEFENDED and MINIMIZED the rape scene as "done tastefully," they have torn to shreds the movie itself, on purely artistic and entertainment levels, criticizing the plot, the dialogue, the cliche characters, and the force-fed emotions.
This is extremely good news, and quite frankly, unexpected. You would naturally assume, when you realize that our battle is not against flesh and blood, that liberal critics, who even shun the seriousness of the rape scene (and ignore other parts in the movie), would celebrate this film. But, of what I've seen so far, that is not the case. I don't agree with everything they say, but they seem to be putting down the film--with no vendetta against the subject matter! (Click here for a review of the movie by Variety; Click here for a review on Fox News) God works in mysterious ways. Let's hope and pray this trend continues. Why? Three reasons:

1.) First of all, it looks like this film isn't going to collect very many Benjamins, Washingtons, or Lincolns (pennies), for that matter. I imagine that a relatively small amount of people were going to see this film anyway, and bad reviews are only going to shrink the population of Hounddog moviegoers. As Variety's review says:

Aside from Fanning and the controversy, the film has nothing going for it commercially; sales are likely due to the cast, but paying customers will be scarce.

The director of this film is trying to make herself out to be some type of hero, who's "giving a voice" to silent, suffering women, and "raising awareness" to this important issue. If this indeed were the case (which later I will point out it is not), then her next film would be about child rape, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next would ALL be about child rape. How likely do you think that is? Or, how likely do you think that is if this movie doesn't bring her any cash? Not likely at all.

2.) Secondly, I think you can cancel Dakota's mother's "Oscar party." Unless Hollywood decides to go totally against the grain, this movie isn't going to win anything. Obviously, this is NOT specifically because of the subject matter--Hollywood has shown us time and time again that you can't underestimate what they'll give an award to. However, compile that with bad reviews of the movie, and you should have a perfectly Oscar-less production. (Yay!)

3.) Thirdly, the movie has yet to be picked up for distribution, and it's looking less likely that it ever will be. That would be some kind of message sent from distribution companies. Fox News posted an article titled No Buyers for Dakota Fanning Rape Movie by Roger Friedman. Here's some snippets from the article:

Hounddog, the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning’s character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me...

Indeed, the people associated with The Weinstein Company, IFC Films and First Look were among those who instantly agreed that they had no interest in Hounddog.
At this rate, this exercise in bad taste may wind up being a DVD collector’s item.

With the above-mentioned distributors out, it’s unlikely now that any major buyer will take Hounddog. And that’s just as well, considering that its release is sure to spark more outrage, protests and calls for investigations.

An e-mail I received from Paul Petersen, former child actor, current child advocate, and creator of A Minor Consideration, a child advocacy organization, said this:

No Distributors, at least at Sundance, offered to put this film into general release.

This is great news. Note that it intertwines itself with point number one. Although it seems that some distributors are backing out simply because the movie is terrible--not because of the inappropriateness of the subject matter--one has to think that the righteous indignation towards this movie is playing a role in their business decisions. There just is not enough incentive for these distributors to put themselves on the line by picking up Hounddog. And, hey, maybe distributors have a sense of decency, too!

A small distributor might pick up this film eventually, but it should be noted that smaller distributors might not be able to afford the risk of going out on such a limb. (Paul Petersen and others are trying to "ensure that even a DVD release is liable to result in criminal prosecution.") And, of course, small distributors are better than big ones.

This is my official thank you to every and any distributor who rejects this film.

The second thing I have to tell you about is that, as if the rape scene was not enough, there is more stuff in this film to get your blood-boiling:

From Variety:

Opening interludes are drenched in swampy sweat and sex, as barely prepubescent kids Lewellen (Fanning) and Buddy (Cody Hanford) scamper through the woods to find a secluded place where Buddy can show Lewellen his privates in exchange for a kiss. Lewellen shortly explains that one day she's going to kill her daddy and cut off his privates in the bargain.

Lewellen continually bumps and grinds in Elvis fashion, to the distinct disapproval of Granny, and schemes with Buddy to get tickets to an upcoming local Elvis concert; the two kids play grown-up, dressing up and pretending to drink and smoke, with her kissing him a lot; a little rich girl nicknamed Grasshopper (Isabelle Fuhrman) arrives for the summer at the mansion nearby, giving Lewellen a rival for Buddy's attention...

...loads of vile behavior, beginning with the rape but scarcely confined to it, to scant point.

From Fox News:

...12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fanning’s boyfriend in the provocative and poorly written outing, may actually become more of the focus than even the star.
In the film, his character lures Fanning’s into a barn and then watches as she’s raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which they’re half-dressed.

From the Orlando Sentinel's Kathleen Parker:

The same taboo-busting impulse drives Hounddog, wherein we witness a real 12-year-old portray a girl waking up as her naked father climbs into bed with her; "dancing" in her underwear while lying in bed; and getting raped by a teenage boy.
We are, in other words, voyeurs to a young girl acting out a sexual predator's fantasies.

Also, there's reportedly a lot of "gyrating" and seductive dancing by Dakota, and more than one person has noted that there's a "lot of panties." And let's not forget about the mutual masturbation scene, that seems to have disappeared.
This movie just keeps getting better the more you know about it, doesn't it?

Also, don't allow the makers of this movie to trick you into thinking that it's "all about awareness" and a "message movie," or whatever. It's not. Roger Friedman, in his Fox News articles, said this:

Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape.
Once it happens, it’s never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. There’s no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone who’s watching the film. It’s simply there for shock value.
The fact that Kampmeier and the producers have somehow conned rape-assistance groups into using the movie as a public-service announcement is bizarre to me. But I guess it’s no more bizarre than using Dakota Fanning as the public defender of the indefensible.
.....................................
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.

Todd McCarthy, who wrote the Variety article I mentioned, wrote this:

From here [after the rape scene] , one wants to stick close to Lewellen to study her reactions and decisions. Instead, the Strange Lady returns to distracting effect, Daddy starts running naked through town, Granny totes her shotgun around, and a plane's worth of snakes begins materializing everywhere, a matter tended to by a wise black man (Afemo Omilami), a horse trainer who endeavors to restore a measure of physical and psychic health to both Strange Lady and Lewellen.

...there is much sound and fury here signifying very little, and loads of vile behavior, beginning with the rape but scarcely confined to it, to scant point.

In summarization, then, one of the only arguments defenders of the film have been able to come up with falls flat on its face. Paul Petersen, in the e-mail I received, dismantles another of the few arguments for the film: that a couple actresses have played similar roles in the past and "turned out fine." Petersen says:

They would prefer that we not remember that Jodi Foster was stalked by no less than John Hinckley (he eventually shot President Reagan) thanks to “Taxi Driver’s” imagery. Also affected was the other young performer always cited, Brooke Shields, who had to endure a terrifying stalker for fifteen years named Mark Ronald Bailey who was finally jailed in 2000. “Pretty Baby” and “Taxi Driver” were mainstream, big studio films.

Thirdly, and finally, Dakota Fanning is "mad" and she's letting people know about it. In other words, the film's makers, and Dakota's parents, are putting her out there to defend the movie and the choice to let Dakota act in it, because they can't. Roger Friedman in one of the previously mentioned Fox News articles articulated this well:

Meanwhile, the producers of Hounddog trotted out Fanning yesterday to defend the film in places like USA Today and at another press conference.
It’s come to that, apparently. The people who should be answering questions, however, are Fanning’s parents, and the parents of the other children in the film.

Now, I will address individually some of the things Dakota said:

When it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent ... my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad...
I can let other things go, but when people start to talk about my mother, like, that's really bad in my opinion ... that's an attack, and that's not fair.

It's both cute and sad to see Dakota defending her mother. Cute, because all children should do, and should be expected to do, the same thing. Sad, because, well, honestly, how much does Dakota's mother deserve to be defended? It's sad, because Dakota can't see that many of these people criticizing her mom are being more responsible, with better priorities, and more protective than her mom is being.
Now, I do not condone any movements calling for her mother to be arrested. I think that is overreaching and counter-productive. Overreaching, because it won't happen, and counter-productive, because Dakota needs a godly mother, not no mother at all. But, the facts speak for themselves: Dakota's mother wants an Oscar and wants Dakota to "be challenged" and "grow up" as an actress; people like myself care for Dakota and other children. I'm not saying that Dakota's mother doesn't care, just that her priorities may be effecting her judgment.

Fanning also said she would recommend seeing Hounddog to her friends, with their parents' approval, because of the issues supposedly presented in this film that her friends might face, or might have already faced. As well, she said she would want to go see the film, even if she wasn't in it, and that her mother would take her.

First of all, about recommending it to her friends. The "with their parents" approval is a gigantic disclaimer, but look: Dakota would have wanted to see it, even if she wasn't in it; her mother would have let her; and Dakota would recommend it to her friends.
But what about your little sister, Dakota? No? Who gets to make that judgment call? You?

Secondly, it's again cute and sad. Because, rightfully so, Dakota is making her mom the moral authority. Unfortunately, is she trustworthy with that power?

You know, I'm an actress. It's what I want to do, it's what I've been so lucky to have done for almost seven years now. And I am getting older.

Here's something Dakota doesn't understand. Your occupation doesn't give you license to do something wrong. That's like a military sharpshooter killing innocent civilians, saying, "I'm a sharpshooter. That's what I do." Also, your occupation doesn't insulate you from any negative emotional effect. Even Coast Guard rescue swimmers can have fearful flashbacks of missions gone awry. They are not insulated from the tragedy of occasional failure.

Fanning also said that she would want to see this movie, even if she wasn't it, because it's educational.

I'm going to be a freshman in high school in September, and I think it would be irresponsible of my parents not to let me know of things that happen and to try not to get yourself in uncomfortable situations. It's educational.

Wow! A freshman in high-school, Dakota? Slap a stamp on me and call me an envelope. Why didn't you say so? You're practically a member of AARP!
In all seriousness, though the director of the film called Dakota an "old soul" and someone else stated that she is "12 going on 45," she's twelve. Period. Secondly, since when do movies become our source for education? Kids shouldn't learn about the birds and the bees at the theater, and they shouldn't learn about the corruption of the "birds and the bees," either--as in, rape, child molestation, etc. It should be the parents doing the teaching on that topic, and maybe a little can be gotten from books.
Plus the fact, that again, this movie isn't that educational.

Phew...I know that was long. I hope you were able to read it all. I'm going to leave with you with another call to keep praying and keep spreading the word about this issue. In the words of Paul Petersen:

Now we have to worry about images of Dakota showing up on the Internet. We all need to pray for her safety.

Pray for her safety, and pray for all aspects of this situation. I encourage you to go to A Minor Consideration and thank Paul Petersen personally for the work he and his organization is doing. Also, this article aforementioned by Kathleen Parker is very good, and witty. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.


~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 5) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That is a disappointment, but we should not be too discouraged.

Jeanine Pirro, the Republican D.A. in New York, who personally saw the screening, was on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. She said that the outrage and analysis of the movie was completely overblown (by people like us). She said that there "was no touching," Dakota was only shown "from the shoulders up," and that the rape "was made in the editing room."

This is not a reason to be disappointed with ourselves, thinking that we overreacted. If, indeed, the movie is not as graphic as once thought, this is a victory, albeit a small one. Sean Hannity aptly pointed out that the movie went through 29 hours of re-editing. It is very likely that the film, if it in fact is "cleaner" than anticipated, was sanitized due to criticism. For instance, the Pirro on Fox News' made no mention of the mutual masturbation scene that was reportedly filmed involving Dakota. Hmm..... Where did that scene go, I wonder?

Not everyone shares the same opinion with Pirro, however. This is what Roger Friedman said on FoxNews.com:
Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
...
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.

And here's a correction, courtesy of this article: the rape in the movie isn't incest. My apologies for the mistake. It appears that, while being abused by her father, she is raped by "a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family's milk."

Although sanitation--once again, if it did occur--is a partial victory, it is not complete. There are still many problematic questions with this film.
It still has the potential to turn on pedophiles. What about that?

Whas was actually filmed, as in, what got left on the cutting room floor? It's not just what made it in the film that counts, but what was made FOR the film.

If the rape was "made in the editing room," why would Dakota's mom and agent expect an Oscar? Actresses, not editors, generally win Oscars for "Best Actress." Unless, of course, the rest of the acting in the movie was just that good.

If the rape was "made in the editing room," why was the role so reportedly "challenging" for Dakota?

What about coaching? Was she coached through the scene? What exactly did Dakota have to act out?

I believe that I heard that the filming of the scene took place over several days. The scene was that long? Or, there were that many camera angles and that much unused footage? They made Dakota dwell on the scene--the topic--for days?

Either the director or Fanning's agent (I can't remember) made a comment that Dakota was dancing around the set after filming the scene because she knew she had done such a good job. What had she done? Or, was this comment referring to a different scene?

Then, there's the ultimate question, which Sean Hannity raised: Can a rape scene with a 12-year-old girl ever be done tastefully? I don't think so. But, for the sake of discussion, if so, who gets to arbitrarily draw the line between a "tasteful" rape scene and an "untasteful" one?
Also, the questions still remain: what lessons did Dakota learn? What fame is worth? What did she find out that she shouldn't know about yet?
This is still, in all likelihood, child abuse. Child porn? That's more of a question now, although we don't know what's on the uncut reel.

So, ultimately, most--if not all--of the points in my original article continue to ring true now that the movie is out, even if what people like Pirro say is true.

We need to continue to pray for Dakota. Also, prayer needs to be made for Dakota's parents, who should be discouraged and/or hindered from her full-speed-ahead pursuit of fame for their daughter. They, and their daughter, need to find God. As well, this needs to be a springboard to talk about what's acceptable and what's not in the arena of entertainment. The efforts and outrage MUST continue. Legal action, if it is taken, will take a while to unfold, but that's still a possibility. The makers of the film need to be pressured to release all footage, not just what they decided to let the public see. They will do this if they are truly innocent. The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing.

Also, this should be a conversation-starter for the topic of child-rape and abuse. People like myself have been criticized as "trying to avoid the topic." Well, that's obviously off-base, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, not shoot a movie about it.

In conclusion, let's hope and pray that the movie is not as bad as feared and that it won't have the suspected results, but let's also work and pray that there are still consequences for the making of this movie, and that it will be severely discouraged from happening again. Having not seen it myself, that's all I can say for now.


~Kingdom Advancer

Keep praying...keep talking...

Updates (Round 4) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That's unfortunate and disappointing, but it is neither a reason to give up nor to be too discouraged.

I will try to post a complete update soon.

~Kingdom Advancer

The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing. And the battle over Hounddog is not over yet either.

Updates (Round 3) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

Although I thought I had covered all the bases, there are some jewels of points made by bloggers out there, and I wanted to share them with you.

First up: A person who listed his/herself simply as "Mad" commented with this profound point over at Revitalize Our Youth:

Don't they think about young girls who have been raped? How will this affect them? I don't think they understand what this will do to victims.

HCdl pointed this out in his article over at Faultline USA (Read article here) and in the same article at Wake Up America:

If Hollywood wants to make a movie demonizing child sexual abuse, that's fine. THIS AIN'T IT.

Third up: Also at Wake Up America, Debbie said this:

Remember, she has a younger sister, El Fanning I think is her name, just as talented. Is this what the little sister is going to see her bigger sister doing?


Fourth up: From right here at Kingdom Advancing, Austin commented with this:

Look at Lindsay Lohan. In The Parent Trap she was just a cute little kid. Now she's in rehab.

We should all note the astronomical difference between The Parent Trap and Hounddog.

Fifth up: Also right here at Kingdom Advancing, Solameanie made this astute inquiry:

...why is it that liberals always want to defend the indefensible?

Now, I'm not going to say that all liberals are defending this movie, but we know that some are.

Finally: I've been told twice that I shouldn't be "giving this movie free publicity," but rather should "just ignore it." These two comments are how I replied:

What you say is true, to a certain extent. But the fact is, the pedophiles are going to see this movie, whether I talk about it or not. Dakota Fanning was abused, and will have to live with this film, and the memories of making it, for the rest of her life, whether I talk about it or not. If this film goes by unscathed, more like it will be made, whether I talk about it or not. Some people are going to see it and "open doors" that shouldn't be opened, whether I talk about it or not. So, while I see your point, I think that the good of talking about it and trying to take action against it outweighs the bad. We have to stop films like these and protect the children abused in them, not just ignore them.

It's too late for that [not giving it publicity] now I guess, isn't it? In all seriousness though, I think you all are misled in your strategy. This movie is a violation of law: should we ignore that? This movie is child abuse, and possibly child porn: should we ignore that? This movie is fodder for pedophiles: should we ignore that? I do not think so. As Christians, we are to be preservatives in the culture--not escapists. Ignoring something, in this case, is neglect--neglect of a child, and neglect of our society as a whole. Also, you need to recognize a simple "risk-reward" ratio. If Christians remain quiet, the pedophiles will go see this movie, the makers will get off scotch-free, and Dakota Fanning will come up on the short end of the stick, as well as other child actors in the future, and our society as a whole--the entertainment industry in particular. If Christians do speak out, and pray, like I have been beseeching everyone to do, this movie could very well be blocked, depriving pedophiles of a film, punishing the makers of the movie, and protecting a young girl as much as can be done at this point. If Christians talk about this and pray, but it's not God's will to block the film from being first released, action could still be taken afterwards, and Dakota and her family will need our prayers nonetheless. And, even if all seems to fail, how many people, that I have alerted, do you think are going to see this movie, thereby giving it money? One? Maybe. Two? Probably not. I see your concern, because I considered it. But I was able to quickly dismiss it. I hope you will too, because I would love to have you praying about it.

Only one more for me to say right now: Keep praying...keep blogging...keep spreading the word.

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 2) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

Time for more updates.

First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.

Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.

Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:

...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...

World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.

...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."

Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.

On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:

We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.

The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.

That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates of Article "Wrong in So Many Ways"

Here are some updates on the situation:

First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.

Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:

It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!

He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.

Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.

Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranges from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a couple of words.

Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.

I'll try to update as I hear or see things.

Keep praying...

~Kingdom Advancer

Wrong in So Many Ways

Indecent. Inappropriate. Inexcusable. Irresponsible. Unacceptable. Unwise. Unlawful. Those are just a handful of the adjectives that come to mind when I think about the controversial film Hound Dog, starring Dakota Fanning. Yet to be released, being planned to come out during this week's Sundance Film Festival, this movie is causing an uproar because of its [insert preferred above adjective here] subject matter.

In the movie, 12-year-old rising actress Dakota Fanning plays a girl who is sexually promiscuous, and who is abused by her father throughout the movie, culminating in an intense and graphic rape scene. Apparently, Dakota's parents approved of the role.

Allow me to repeat myself in short, fragmented sentences for clarity. 12-year-old. Sexually promiscuous. Rape scene. Graphic. Intense. Parents approved. Yanking your hair out yet?

This is wrong and [insert preferred aforementioned adjective here] in so many ways, and something should be done about it. I'm doing my part right here. I'll tell you how to do yours a bit later.

First, let's look at some of the problems with the movie. Then, we'll look at some of the defenses being put forth for the film and how they are easily refuted.

1. Child Porn--Good For No One.
I don't want to rail on this point too much, because some are saying that this isn't porn, because young Fanning is filmed only from the chest up, "in the shadows," and in a full-body suit (like that makes a difference.) However, in case it is:
They say it only takes the first drink to become an alcoholic. Perhaps that first drink could come accidentally. It seems to me that the same could go for child porn and related issues. I'm not saying that people are out of control and that every viewer is going to become a pervert, but what I'm saying is that the negative effects will almost certainly outweigh the positive. No matter how the specific acts and scenes are portrayed, the images potentiallly will open doors that should remain forever shut. Whether it's an 11-year-old boy or a 40-year-old man, no one needs to see a 12-year-old girl naked, or appearing naked, on the big screen, especially when in a sexual sitiuation.

2. Against the Law.
Is that clear enough? Another abstract point at this time, but Ted Baehr and others think that this film could be a violation of federal and state child-porn and/or abuse laws. I tend to agree.

3. Feeding the Appetites of Pedophiles.
We can't always concern ourselves with how deranged minds will twist things that we say or do, but this film is absolutely asking for it. Again, regardless of portrayal, this film will likely arouse and spur on pedophiles. They probably won't care if the father in this film is portrayed as "bad" or "evil"--they are pedophiles for crying out loud!
And, worse yet, their new fantasies could very well be about little Dakota. Scary.

4. Parents, Priorities, and Perversion.
Allegedly, Fanning's parents approved of this role for their daughter because they wanted/want her to "be a star" and possibly "win an Oscar." If this is, in fact, the truth, it is a sad state of affairs. It's not only a sick testimony of Dakota's stardom-obsessed parents--and child star parents in general--but also of the Oscars themselves. Hopefully the Oscars will be a dignified awards ceremony and not give this film a second-glance.

5. Desensitization/ Slippery Slope.
If this movie is a success, it will only spawn clones, if not worse movies yet. America has already been desensitized to foul language; explicit and promiscuous sex; gruesome, graphic, and mindless violence; and death. Shall we allow our society to become desensitized to rape scenes, and child rape, at that? Let's hope and pray we will not. We must stand up for something some time in the entertainment industry. We cannot allow this corrosion of any sense of decency or moral values to continue.

6. Protecting Dakota and Other Young Actresses.

This is the biggest and most stressed point. Although Dakota Fanning has already been put through enough during filming, it needs to stop right here, and no other young actress should be subject to it. It is child-abuse most definitely--irresponsible behavior to put it lightly. Some might say that it is not abuse because Dakota consented, and is being paid. But, as former-child actor Paul Petersen noted on Fox News, a child like Dakota cannot give informed consent, and even her parents don't have that right. Abuse is abuse. Here are some points to ponder:

--Sean Hannity, of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, noted that many former child stars have had problems later in life. But, few, if any, have been filmed in rape scenes.

--A guest on Hannity & Colmes pointed out that, once this movie comes out--if it indeed does--it will never disappear...ever. Dakota will have to live with it for the rest of her life.

--Alan Colmes, of Hannity & Colmes, quoted Fanning as saying that she is able to separate herself from her role. However, it's a completely different thing to separate yourself from the story of Charlotte's Web, or even the monsters of War of the Worlds, than the subject matter of Hound Dog.

Also, the formerly mentioned Fox News guest pointed out that even if Dakota handles this seamlessly, this film has the ability to clear the path for other productions. What about other young actresses?

--Dakota is too young. Plain and simple. The ever-earlier loss of innocence nowadays is not a good thing. Getting a gun and learning how to shoot it can be a very good thing at the right time, but not sooner.

Dakota Fanning is near the threshold of learning about sex, but definitely not acting in a promiscuous role, or acting and learning about complex issues like rape and parental abuse .

The aforementioned Petersen made another good point, saying that directors talk children through emotional scenes. How un-imaginable is it to think of her being talked through this rape scene? The effects could be absolutely detrimental.

Another thing to recognize is the potential life-lessons Dakota could take from this: what is fame worth? Your body? Your morals? Your social and mental health?

One of the biggest defenses of the film is the question, "Well, should this issue never be addressed?" Well, it has been noted by others that such an issue can be addressed in a totally different way while still being effective. Also, it doesn't have to involve a 12-year-old. Some might say that these stories need to be told to have a positive effect. True. But, in this way, water needs to be drank, not shot in the face by a firehose.

Another defense of the movie is that "It's pretend. She wasn't really raped." Well, I should hope not! But that's beside the point! There are many other significant potential results. And, besides, you can "pretend" that a knife is a cavity-causing, sugary lollipop. Just because it's not really a lollipop that will cause cavities, doesn't mean that it won't do damage when stuck into the mouth! (or vice-versa)

Thirdly, I've heard that "It's drama. Drama is often ugly. Etc.." Very true. But that gives no license to break the law, exploit and endanger a child and her future, and abandon decency!

A similar defense to the last one is that it is "art," and the government shouldn't get involved. Cause that would be censorship, right? Yeah, right. That's simply utterly ridiculous. This is child-abuse, and it you can't hide from that behind the title of "art." As well, this type of argument would mean anyone could have simulated sex with a minor as long as they stuck a rolling camera in from of them.


Now, for a three-question survey:
Would you let your daughter, or some other young girl close to you, play in such a role?
Would you make such a movie?
Would you go see such a movie?

If you said "No" or even "Probably no" to those three questions, you've established the wrongness in your mind of this film.
Then, one more question: Can you see the potential causes and results that I postulated?

Answer "Yes" to that, and you should feel obligated and motivated to action. But, what should you do?

First off, don't see, buy, or rent this film. That's the foremost and easiest thing to do. The makers of this movie want money, fame, and exposure of themselves and their work. Don't give it to them. If this movie is a success, as I stated beforehand, it will only encourage the makers and other filmmakers to produce more of the same kind of flicks, if not even more "edgy." This movie needs to bomb, if it comes out at all. (Hopefully it will be cancelled from its release.) I didn't even want to mention it by name and thereby give it publicity, but I felt that it was a necessary evil.

This boycott is not an end in and of itself, however. The claim, "If you don't like what's in the movie, just don't see it," is not sufficient. It's like, if there were a serial killer who killed people in restrooms, rather than trying to catch and stop the killer, saying, "If you don't want to be murdered, just don't use the restroom."
So, secondly, we must pray. First off, pray that this film will be successfully blocked from coming out. Pray for those to be effective who have more legal and public clout than we do. Pray that the movie will be an extreme failure. But if that be not God's plan, pray that the movie won't open any doors that some will walk through. Pray for the children who may become targets as a result of this film--that God will protect them. Pray for Dakota Fanning. Pray for her parents, who need a wake-up call from God. Ultimately, pray that God's will be done.

Thirdly, take action. One way to do this is by blogging about the subject. I beseech you to link to this article in one of your own posts. Link to the site(s) [for further action] that I will try to list shortly. Raise awareness throughout the blogosphere by commenting and e-mailing others.
The other thing to do is to support efforts made against this film. I will try to post them in the near future.

Never Retreat. Always Advance. If God Be For Us, Why Should We Surrender?

Source: Fox News

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates:

January 19, 2007

Here are some updates on the situation:

First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.

Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:

It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!

He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.

Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.

Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranged from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a word.

Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.

I'll try to update as I hear or see things.

Keep praying...

More Updates:

January 19, 2007 (7:15 p.m.)


Time for more updates.

First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.

Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.

Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:

...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...

World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.

...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."

Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.

On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:

We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.

The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.

That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...

Updates (Round 3):
January 20, 2007 (7:30 p.m.)

Although I thought I had covered all the bases, there are some jewels of points made by bloggers out there, and I wanted to share them with you.

First up: A person who listed his/herself simply as "Mad" commented with this profound point over at Revitalize Our Youth:

Don't they think about young girls who have been raped? How will this affect them? I don't think they understand what this will do to victims.

HCdl pointed this out in his article over at Faultline USA (Read article here) and in the same article at Wake Up America:

If Hollywood wants to make a movie demonizing child sexual abuse, that's fine. THIS AIN'T IT.

Third up: Also at Wake Up America, Debbie said this:

Remember, she has a younger sister, El Fanning I think is her name, just as talented. Is this what the little sister is going to see her bigger sister doing?


Fourth up: From right here at Kingdom Advancing, Austin commented with this:

Look at Lindsay Lohan. In The Parent Trap she was just a cute little kid. Now she's in rehab.

We should all note the astronomical difference between The Parent Trap and Hounddog.

Fifth up: Also right here at Kingdom Advancing, Solameanie made this astute inquiry:

...why is it that liberals always want to defend the indefensible?

Now, I'm not going to say that all liberals are defending this movie, but we know that some are.

Finally: I've been told twice that I shouldn't be "giving this movie free publicity," but rather should "just ignore it." These two comments are how I replied:

What you say is true, to a certain extent. But the fact is, the pedophiles are going to see this movie, whether I talk about it or not. Dakota Fanning was abused, and will have to live with this film, and the memories of making it, for the rest of her life, whether I talk about it or not. If this film goes by unscathed, more like it will be made, whether I talk about it or not. Some people are going to see it and "open doors" that shouldn't be opened, whether I talk about it or not. So, while I see your point, I think that the good of talking about it and trying to take action against it outweighs the bad. We have to stop films like these and protect the children abused in them, not just ignore them.

It's too late for that [not giving it publicity] now I guess, isn't it? In all seriousness though, I think you all are misled in your strategy. This movie is a violation of law: should we ignore that? This movie is child abuse, and possibly child porn: should we ignore that? This movie is fodder for pedophiles: should we ignore that? I do not think so. As Christians, we are to be preservatives in the culture--not escapists. Ignoring something, in this case, is neglect--neglect of a child, and neglect of our society as a whole. Also, you need to recognize a simple "risk-reward" ratio. If Christians remain quiet, the pedophiles will go see this movie, the makers will get off scotch-free, and Dakota Fanning will come up on the short end of the stick, as well as other child actors in the future, and our society as a whole--the entertainment industry in particular. If Christians do speak out, and pray, like I have been beseeching everyone to do, this movie could very well be blocked, depriving pedophiles of a film, punishing the makers of the movie, and protecting a young girl as much as can be done at this point. If Christians talk about this and pray, but it's not God's will to block the film from being first released, action could still be taken afterwards, and Dakota and her family will need our prayers nonetheless. And, even if all seems to fail, how many people, that I have alerted, do you think are going to see this movie, thereby giving it money? One? Maybe. Two? Probably not. I see your concern, because I considered it. But I was able to quickly dismiss it. I hope you will too, because I would love to have you praying about it.

Only one more for me to say right now: Keep praying...keep blogging...keep spreading the word.

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 4)
January 22 (11:05 p.m.)


Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That's unfortunate and disappointing, but it is neither a reason to give up nor to be too discouraged.

I will try to post a complete update soon.

~Kingdom Advancer

The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing. And the battle over Hounddog is not over yet either.

Updates (Round 5)

January 23, 2007 (7:15 p.m.)

Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That is a disappointment, but we should not be too discouraged.

Jeanine Pirro, the Republican D.A. in New York, who personally saw the screening, was on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. She said that the outrage and analysis of the movie was completely overblown (by people like us). She said that there "was no touching," Dakota was only shown "from the shoulders up," and that the rape "was made in the editing room."

This is not a reason to be disappointed with ourselves, thinking that we overreacted. If, indeed, the movie is not as graphic as once thought, this is a victory, albeit a small one. Sean Hannity aptly pointed out that the movie went through 29 hours of re-editing. It is very likely that the film, if it in fact is "cleaner" than anticipated, was sanitized due to criticism. For instance, the Pirro on Fox News' made no mention of the mutual masturbation scene that was reportedly filmed involving Dakota. Hmm..... Where did that scene go, I wonder?

Not everyone shares the same opinion with Pirro, however. This is what Roger Friedman said on FoxNews.com:
Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
...
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.

And here's a correction, courtesy of this article: the rape in the movie isn't incest. My apologies for the mistake. It appears that, while being abused by her father, she is raped by "a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family's milk."

Although sanitation--once again, if it did occur--is a partial victory, it is not complete. There are still many problematic questions with this film.
It still has the potential to turn on pedophiles. What about that?

Whas was actually filmed, as in, what got left on the cutting room floor? It's not just what made it in the film that counts, but what was made FOR the film.

If the rape was "made in the editing room," why would Dakota's mom and agent expect an Oscar? Actresses, not editors, generally win Oscars for "Best Actress." Unless, of course, the rest of the acting in the movie was just that good.

If the rape was "made in the editing room," why was the role so reportedly "challenging" for Dakota?

What about coaching? Was she coached through the scene? What exactly did Dakota have to act out?

I believe that I heard that the filming of the scene took place over several days. The scene was that long? Or, there were that many camera angles and that much unused footage? They made Dakota dwell on the scene--the topic--for days?

Either the director or Fanning's agent (I can't remember) made a comment that Dakota was dancing around the set after filming the scene because she knew she had done such a good job. What had she done? Or, was this comment referring to a different scene?

Then, there's the ultimate question, which Sean Hannity raised: Can a rape scene with a 12-year-old girl ever be done tastefully? I don't think so. But, for the sake of discussion, if so, who gets to arbitrarily draw the line between a "tasteful" rape scene and an "untasteful" one?
Also, the questions still remain: what lessons did Dakota learn? What fame is worth? What did she find out that she shouldn't know about yet?
This is still, in all likelihood, child abuse. Child porn? That's more of a question now, although we don't know what's on the uncut reel.

So, ultimately, most--if not all--of the points in my original article continue to ring true now that the movie is out, even if what people like Pirro say is true.

We need to continue to pray for Dakota. Also, prayer needs to be made for Dakota's parents, who should be discouraged and/or hindered from her full-speed-ahead pursuit of fame for their daughter. They, and their daughter, need to find God. As well, this needs to be a springboard to talk about what's acceptable and what's not in the arena of entertainment. The efforts and outrage MUST continue. Legal action, if it is taken, will take a while to unfold, but that's still a possibility. The makers of the film need to be pressured to release all footage, not just what they decided to let the public see. They will do this if they are truly innocent. The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing.

Also, this should be a conversation-starter for the topic of child-rape and abuse. People like myself have been criticized as "trying to avoid the topic." Well, that's obviously off-base, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, not shoot a movie about it.

In conclusion, let's hope and pray that the movie is not as bad as feared and that it won't have the suspected results, but let's also work and pray that there are still consequences for the making of this movie, and that it will be severely discouraged from happening again. Having not seen it myself, that's all I can say for now.


~Kingdom Advancer

Keep praying...keep talking...

ALL FURTHER UPDATES CAN BE FOUND AS THEIR OWN POSTS ON KINGDOM ADVANCING.

Racism: Ill-Biblical

It’s been one of the few main stains that have blemished our great country. It’s been around, haunting us, since virtually the beginning of this young nation. It shows itself in slavery, in discrimination, in violence, and in groundless side-taking. It’s shameful, and truly a sign of the fallen nature of mankind. It’s racism. For Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, what better topic could I come up with?

Racism has actually been establishing itself ever since the Tower of Babel, when God scrambled the people’s languages and spread them over the face of the earth. (Genesis 11:7-8) Apparently, people started to think that their scrambled language, their lands which they were scattered to, and they themselves were better than those unlike them. Racism shows itself on a more personal level today—rather than countries going to war against each other—because of the integration of persons in communities. This way, it can be shown in both big ways and small. This is especially true when speaking of America—the melting pot of the world.

The truly grieving thing about racism is the way it seems to be prevalent even in heavily Christian societies and regions. We know that America, in its beginnings and even until now, has been a severely Christian nation--at least in comparison to others--built upon Christian principles by Christian people. The South has long been a center of Christianity in America—a symbol of traditional, faithful believing. Yet these two places—America as a whole and the South as a region—have been and still are—to a certain extent—hot stoves of racism, and the acts that ensue from such a sentiment. This is sad, for it is damaging to the Gospel by setting a bad example to unbelievers, and it is sad because it raises the question of how many of these “Christians” were and are actually in a proper relationship with God.

The thing that is so confounding about this hypocritical cohabitation of beliefs and feelings is that not only is the Bible sufficiently clear on the topic of racism, but racism is simply ILLOGICAL when you take an intelligent look at the Bible. Hence my title: Ill-Biblical. Then, there’s the fact that—even if racism wasn’t addressed in the Bible, and even if racism was not dealt with by implication in the Bible—the RESULTS of racism are ALSO addressed by God in His Word.

Allow me to demonstrate:

There is only one race. This is becoming scientifically recognized. The only race is the human race. We all came from two people: Adam and Eve. We all came from one God and Creator. We are all made in His image. (Genesis 1:26-27) God made humans complete. We are not evolving upwards and we have not been evolving upwards. We did not evolve upwards in order to gain “image of God” status. That was immediate, as we were created on the sixth day. (Genesis 1:23-28) Therefore, no sect of humans is “more human” or “less human” than others, despite what a Hitler may think about the Jews or the KKK about blacks.
The fact is that skin color is only skin deep. It has no deeper significance—in reality—than eye color or hair color, and yet few war or spit epithets about those two things. Is it only because skin is the largest organ of the body? Is it because it reminds man, subconsciously, that as he was building a tower to the sky, God showed him that he could do nothing without God’s allowance?
After the aforementioned Tower of Babel instance, when peoples were spread across the earth, their bodies naturally developed different skin tones, within their genetic potential set by God—either to absorb as much sun and Vitamin D as possible (pale tone), or to block out the harmful rays (dark tone). Other things are different about different peoples as well, such as eye shape. This can be a point of racial tension, as Orientals are made fun of sometimes for their elliptically shaped eyes. But such a small factor rarely exerts such a large reaction.
God makes it clear that He cares little for outward appearances. “…for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) If cultural nuances are what causes such racial divisions, the Lord makes it clear that he makes no distinction in this sense either. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.” (Romans 10:12) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) “…a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11) If past run-ins with a specific cultural group is what causes the disdain, we are reminded that, as Christians, we are to forgive as our Father forgives us. (Matthew 18:23-35)

So, if people physically and culturally different than you or me are equally human—we are all ultimately brothers and sisters biologically and hereditarily—and if all can be equally in Christ, then what then? Where does any prejudice like this belong in the Christian's life? Where do the acts that follow belong? Where does the hate belong? NOWHERE. After all, the Bible tells us not to hate.

On the contrary, we are to LOVE. Love our neighbors (Matthew 22:39)—as ourselves; love our enemies (Matthew 5:44)—and bless them; love our brothers and sisters in Christ—as Christ loves us. (John 15:12) We are to be at peace WITH ALL MEN, as far as it depends on us. (Romans 12:18)

The world is making progress on the front of racism and prejudice. But this is only temporary, and artificial. It can never be fully defeated by purely worldly, fallen attempts. Part of the world's seeming victory over the former division between cultures and "races" is because it is fading into the background to allow a much deeper division to come to the forefront--those who are Christians, and those who are not. "You will be hated by all because of My name." (Matthew 10:22)
Any worldly progress on the racism front is either--as I said--temporary and artificial, or it is another sign of the End Times, as the nations of the world move to a one-world, "one people" government system.

So, how do we truly fix the problem? How can we and the world be saved from this? There’s only one way: “I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13) While Christ says, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Ultimately, the only efficient answer is Christ.

~Kingdom Advancer

Should We Eat Meat?

I’m sure most parents would love if their children took to heart the lessons that I learned and wrote about from Charlotte’s Web. But, unfortunately, most children—and adults, really—probably won’t read that deep into things. Instead, they possibly will be left screaming at the dinner table, “I WON’T EAT WILBUR!!!” Just as children wanted to flush "their Nemos" down the toilet so they could "be free" after seeing Finding Nemo.

This brings to my mind the usually docile topic of herbivore versus omnivore, vegetarian versus meat-eater, etc.

Most Christians agree—for good reason—that eating meat is acceptable. Those who refrain from such a habit generally do so either because of preference or health. However, two more reasons can pervade the vegetarians mind: first, that eating animals is wrong BECAUSE of cruelty to animals as they are processed. In this way, it is an act of principle upon the meat industries. This, when taken to reasonable lengths and not to extremes, illustrates the Christian principles of stewardship, mercy, etc.. The other reason is that eating animals is just plain WRONG. This stereotypically comes from the belief that we are basically equal to animals. Although the Christian instinct immediately sounds off on this notion—and rightfully so—all of us are affected by it a little bit. Can you really see slicing your cat up and frying her in butter? Even if you are starving? I didn’t think so. Then there is the other thing we have to own up to: back when this world was flawless, animals were not eaten, and one day they will no longer be eaten. Do we not wish to “think on things above” (Colossians 3:2) and be “perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect” by fostering habits that can continue for all of eternity?

Although I doubt that these problems I just posed will stop you from picking up a hamburger today, the question must be addressed: how do we resolve this issue?

I believe that the answer is three-pronged: first, we must look at what the Bible says about eating meat; this we will do by taking a short-trip through the Bible. Secondly, we must look at animals’ place in the world—the proverbial “chain”—and how they should be viewed. Thirdly, and finally, we can look very briefly at the health factor.

To begin, let’s take a summarized trip through the Bible to see how God has addressed the topic of carnivorous humans over the millenniums.

1. BEFORE THE FALL.
Animals were not eaten, for there was no death at all (Romans 8:20-22) and man was in harmony with the animals, so much so that God brought forth all the animals to Adam before creating Eve, a “helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18-20) Adam and Eve had all the pleasure, and nutritional value needed (Genesis 2:9) through fruits—and probably vegetables, as well.

2. AFTER THE FLOOD
Death had entered into the world through the curse (Genesis 3:14 ; 3:17 ; 3:19 ; 3:21 ; Romans 8:20-22). God partially cleansed the wickedness of the world through the Flood, allowing only Noah, his family, and at least two of every kind of animal to survive. (Genesis 6-8) After the Flood, God gave humans permission to eat meat, although it appears that that might already have been occurring (Genesis 4:2 ; 4:10). He said they could eat any animal, as long as they did not eat its blood. (Genesis 9:3-4) [This was a temporary provision, as we will see.] The formerly close relationship with undomesticated (“wild”) animals was severed. (Genesis 9:2)

3. LEVITICAL AND DEUTERONOMICAL LAWS.
God later put in place precise definitions of “unclean” and “clean” animals. (Leviticus 11 ; Deuteronomy 14) That which were clean could be permissibly eaten; the unclean were not to be eaten. While the list contains animals we would likely never think of even taste-testing, such as “the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,” (Leviticus 11:13 ; Deuteronomy 14:12) an animal on this “banned” list that 21st century humans often enjoy is the pig. (Leviticus 11:7 ; Deuteronomy 14:8) Another animal that God prohibited Israel from utilizing for food that we might occasionally—but not frequently—enjoy today is the rabbit. (Leviticus 11:6 ; Deuteronomy 14:7) Also, the rules to be followed for sea creatures are not fully followed today. (Leviticus 11:10-12 ; Deuteronomy 14:9-10) Other than that, most animals on this "X"-list would only be eaten now-a-days in some type of extreme emergency.
It should be noted that these commandments from God, although commands and NOT suggestions, ultimately were for both the physical and spiritual health of His people.

4. DANIEL’S EXAMPLE.
Daniel and his men refused the ration of King Nebuchadnezzar’s choice food and wine, not wanting to defile themselves, opting instead to be fed only vegetables and water. (Daniel 1) After ten days, Daniel and his men were healthier and fatter than those who had eaten the choice food.
Here we notice that, by implication, the king’s choice food probably consisted of meat—since Daniel asked to be fed only vegetables. By not wanting to “defile” himself, Daniel suggests that the meat was of the unclean variety.
Although there may be significant health implications to this story, it should be recognized that the moral of the story is most closely tied to the results of loyalty to God and His commands rather than assimilation to the pagans.

5. NEW TESTAMENT CLEANSING.
In the New Testament, Jesus cleanses all foods by telling us that it is not what enters into a man through his mouth that defiles Him. (Mark 7:18-23) “Thus He declares all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19) This sentiment is repeated in Acts at least twice: “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15; 11:9) Paul makes it clear that all foods are clean, though some don’t believe so: “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Romans 14:14) Those who don’t believe are considered “weak in faith” (Romans 14:2), but they are not to be condemned, judged, or held with contempt (Romans 14:3,4, 13, 15). They are compelled to hold to their beliefs, because, “…he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
A good conclusion is Paul’s statement: “…the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17)

6. AFTER THE RESTORATION.
Life in the “new heavens and the new earth” will not contain meat-eating. As the earth is restored to its original—non-fallen—state, death will once again cease and nature will finally have peace. (Romans 8:20-22)

So, we see that, for the Christian, eating the meat of ANY animal is inherently acceptable on the spiritual level. But, that doesn’t jump the mental hurdle and the other aspect—that of health.

What I mean by the mental hurdle is that, despite the fact that the Bible gives us permission to eat of any animal, the thought of killing another creature for one’s own survival—or pleasure—is still quite grotesque. The Christian should not be bothered by this internal sentiment: it is sin that brought such a state of existence, and it will one day end. But, remember that “God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love the Lord.” Therefore, we see that God has made meat-eating pleasurable and nutritionally prosperous.

Still, though, to truly be at peace with the idea of devouring another life, we need to look more closely at animals, and there place on this earth.

1.) First of all, as Christians, we should be very careful not to equate animals with human beings. Mankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26); animals are not. Men and women are more important to God than animals, although God does care for animals. (Matthew 10:29-31)
On the other hand: just because other animals are not made in the image of God, does not mean that they cannot exhibit attributes of God. For instance, a peaceful animal pictures the Prince of Peace; a graceful animal pictures God's grace; a ruling/authoritative animal pictures God's power and authority, etc., etc.. God often uses animals or parts of animals to describe Himself or His actions in analogical form.
Romans 1:20 could be interpreted in this way.

2.) Secondly, we should recognize that all animals—in fact, no animals—are like Wilbur, Babe, Bambi, Rudolph, Nemo, ad infinitum. By definition, these fictitious characters have been PERSONIFIED. In other words, they have artificially and fictitiously been made to be more like humans. Remove their ability to talk, and suddenly our attachment to them lessens. Remove other attributes generally reserved for humans and unobserved in specific creatures, and it lessens all the more. This is not to say that some animals don’t have great intelligence, personalities, or beauty and grace, for they most certainly do. It is to say that many animals do not match-up to a level of which we would easily feel a connection, and that no animals--at least that we frequently eat--match-up to the levels which would seriously cause us to rethink our philosophies—like, let’s say, little Wilbur or Bambi might cause a child to do.

3.) Thirdly, in relation to the second point, it should be noted that we personally personify animals—especially our pets. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes about us actually MAKING THEM “MORE HUMAN.” By the way we treat them, whether it be hugs and kisses or an intimate conversation, we thereby make them more like us. To a certain extent, this may be literal. But, in a much more prevalent case, it is figurative and mental. It is more the relationship with the pet that is “personal” and “human,” and less the pet itself. (Atheists might say that this is the same case with a Christian’s “supposed” relationship with God, but that is a whole other bucket-load of shenanigans that I will not endeavor to dump out here.)
This is not to say that some animals aren’t more "LIKE" humans than others. Just as animals may demonstrate attributes of God--in their own finite ways--so they can show attributes of humans. And, certainly, relationships between humans and animals do exist, but these relationships most often and seriously exist involving dogs, cats, horses, or even creatures like dolphins. Rarely are these bonds formed between humans and…say, dung beetles. (Not that they are relevant to the discussion. Who eats them?) Also note that domesticated animals are, by definition, more like humans in many ways than wild animals that flee at the scent of human flesh, while, on the other hand, the dullness and dependence that frequently accompanies domesticated animals makes wild animals seem more human in that they illustrate mankind’s “wild-at-heart” nature and relative independence.
Looking at the previous points, we can come to a couple points of conclusion: first of all, eating a hamburger is not the same as eating your dog, although, if you live on a farm, you might fall in love with a baby calf. Cows mass-produced, fed, and transported suddenly become less personal and exert a less emphatic call for compassion. Similarly, eating chicken nuggets is not the same as eating your cat (or even your pet bird), although you heartstrings may be played like a harp when you hold a chick. Likewise, eating a salmon is not the same as eating a beluga whale. Eating a pig is not the same as eating a “Wilbur.” Compare the fictitious attributes of Wilbur and the relationship that Fern fostered with him to the competing pig in the County Fair. See what I mean?

This breakdown won’t end your or my qualms about slaughter-houses (merciful or not) or hunters, but it shouldn't. As I stated before, we should look forward to the day when Christ reigns, and death is no more. But it does put things into perspective.

That brings us to the last segment: health. Now, I am not a doctor or a health expert, so I am not going to pretend to be one here. But, eating meat clearly has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the most infamous disadvantages is cholesterol, while the classic advantage is red-blooded, American "strong bones and big muscles." Differentiations also must be made, though, between such things as coldwater fish with their greatly positive health effects, to bottom-feeding shellfish, catfish, farm-raised fish, etc., with their less than appealing nutritional contributions.

Considering they sell books on such things, I will not try to summarize one here. However, I will leave you with two passages that should motivate us to live healthfully.

"...do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

"Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)

~Kingdom Advancer

Lessons Learned from Charlotte's Web

Along the lines of a week ago, I went to see Charlotte's Web, the movie based off the classic children's novel by E.B. White. Let me tell you: this is a fantastic family film. Not only is it great entertainment for the whole family with wonderful production values, but it also is filled with Christian life lessons that can be carried from childhood through the grave into heaven. The voice acting is superb, with especially satisfying performances from the likes of Julia Roberts (as "Charlotte"), Robert Redford (as the horse--sorry, forgot his name), and Cedric the Entertainer (as "Golly"). Then, there's the always adorable Dakota Fanning as Fern. And added humor comes from two dimwitted crows.

The movie is spectacularly clean and inoffensive. You won't find so much as a distant euphamism in the language department; there doesn't appear to be even a subtle reference to anything evolutionary; and neither is there any underhanded, "to-entertain-the-adults" innuendo. Bathroom humor is the only thing in the movie which can be considered slightly "off-color," but in the end, you have to concede it: it's a kids' movie. What do you expect? And don't you really want to pick your battles better than that? But setting all those things aside, which in themselves make the movie a worthy entertainment pastime for the whole family, the story has many noble (and biblical) morals to teach, and it does so pretty well. In relatively random order, they are:

Sticking Up for Those Who Can't Stick Up for Themselves; Caring for Those Who Can't Care for Themselves: Fern rescued newborn Wilbur from the axe. He was going to be killed because he was a runt. Fern told her father, "It's unfair; he can't help being born small....Would you have killed me if I was born small?" That is perhaps one of the most powerful lines in the whole movie, when it is applied to the issue of abortion. Considering that Fern was just defending an innocent pig, how much more should we be motivated to defend an innocent child? (After all, “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father...So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows." --Matthew 10:29,31 ; and God hates "hands that shed innocent blood..." --Proverbs 6:17)
Fern takes care of the pig, making the commitment to raise it.

"'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry...etc....?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'" (Matthew 25:35-40)

"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress..." (James 1:27)


The Miracle of Creation: Talking about whether Charlotte's "wordy webs" are miracles, the doctor and Fern's mom have this conversation:

Doctor: The web itself is a miracle. Can you make a web?
Fern's mom: I can crochet a doylie.
Doctor: Yeah, because someone taught you to. Nobody taught a spider how to spin a web.

Creation itself is a miracle--an act of God--and that is why it is so amazing. Creation clearly displays the existence of the Creator.

"Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these." (Matthew 6:28)

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made..." (Romans 1:20)

Being Kind, Polite, Nice, Courteous, Complimentary, Warm, Friendly: After meeting someone and learning their names, Wilbur would always say, "Great name!" This is just one part of the congenial way in which he acted upon meeting someone new, and it illustrates the attributes which a Christian should show in relationships old and new. In the same train of thought, Charlotte compassionately befriended Wilbur, when it looked as if no one else would, though by doing so she was opening herself up for ridicule and humiliation.

"A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly." (Proverbs 18:24) [I know this is considered a mis-translation, but it rings true anyway.]

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23; bold added)

"So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience." (Colossians 3:12 ; bold added)


The True Meaning of Friendship: When Wilbur asks if all the barn animals are friends, Golly the gander replies, "Yeah, we've been here together all our lives." Wilbur then responds, "I'm not sure being in the same place is the same thing as being friends." This brings to light the topic of true friendship. The Bible says that "A friend loves at all times." (Proverbs 17:17) True friends shouldn't just like each other--they should LOVE each other. Therefore, the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 should be adequate to explain how a friendship should work:

"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek tis own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails..." (1 Corinthians 13:4-8)

Looking Past Stereotypes and Surface Details to See Inner Beauty: Wilbur was the first, but not the last, to look past Charlotte's creepy external appearance to see what's really important--her inner beauty. This is what God does, and this what we as Christians should do.

"Man looks at the outward appearance; but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7)

Be Like Children in Order to Inherit the Kingdom of God: Worried about whether Fern had a problem (by saying that the animals could talk and "tell the greatest stories"), Fern's mom went to the doctor. When asked if animals could possibly really talk, the doctor answers: "Maybe children just listen better." Perhaps we should pay closer attention to what God is trying to tell us through all things in life.

"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3-4)

A Promise Made Should Be a Promise Kept: Charlotte promised Wilbur that she would make sure he got to see the winter snow. When questioned how she could save him, she essentially said that, although she didn't know what she was going to do, she had made a promise, and she always kept her promises.

"It is better that you should not vow than vow and not pay." (Ecclesiastes 5:5)

Granted, we, as Christians, should not vow or swear at all in the traditional sense. However, it is arguable whether or not promising is the same thing, and I will also note a couple of other things: God, Who is perfect, always keeps His promises. Do a Bible word search for the word "promise," and you will see many such statements as "just as [God] had promised." Then, Jesus tells us, “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) In our pursuit to become more godly, we should keep the commitments we make, so help us God.

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’
“And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went.
“The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go.
“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes 1will get into the kingdom of God before you.
“For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him." (Matthew 21:28-32)


The Thought-Provoking "Natural Cycle of Life": When about to die, Charlotte states to Wilbur that it is the "natural cycle of life," saying, "We're born; we live; we die."
This should be a cause for great contemplation by every human being. Death will come; we cannot avoid it forever. But we can prepare, so that, although we are just "Flowers quickly fading," (Paraphrase of these passages, and more: Job 14:2 ; Isaiah 40:7 ; James 1:10-11 ; 1 Peter 1:24 ; etc.) and although "It is appointed men once to die and after this comes judgment," (Hebrews 9:27) we can say "O death, where is thy sting? O death, where is thy victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)

The Sacrificial Love of Friendship--Which Points to the Savior: Charlotte literally gave her life so that Wilbur could live, illustrating the sacrificial love of friendship. And, in this way, though a weak picture at best, it points to the Savior:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

God Can Use One or Two People to Change an Entire Community: Just like Wilbur and Charlotte changed their town for the better through what they did, so God can use one or two people to have a large impact. Think of Jonah and Esther--just for a couple examples.

God Can Use the Humblest, Lowest, and Most Despised of People or Circumstances to Change the World: I remember there being some comment in Charlotte's Web about the "humblest of creatures" having an impact. It reminded me of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, humbling Himself as a man, being born in the "humblest of places," as is often said, and humblest of circumstances, growing up in despised areas such as Galilee, and it reminded me of this passage:

"...but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are..." (1 Corinthians 1:27-28)



Charlotte's Web may not picture these life lessons impeccably or too blatantly, but the life lessons themselves are impeccable.

~Kingdom Advancer