Page 1803 – Christianity Today (2024)

Newt Gingrich won the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina with the strong support of evangelicals. According to exit polls, two-thirds of voters described themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians, 44 percent of which voted Gingrich. Their support turned the first Southern primary from a close race to a runaway victory for Gingrich.

Gingrich found support from evangelicals despite efforts by evangelical leaders in the social conservative movement to rally behind Rick Santorum. Fearing that social conservatives might split their voting power, a group of 150 met last weekend in an attempt to coalesce behind a single candidate. Evangelicals in South Carolina did come together—just for a different candidate. In fact, only 21 percent of evangelicals backed Santorum, the same percentage that voted for Mitt Romney.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who served as spokesman for the Texas gathering, said on MSNBC tonight that he did not expect those in the group to switch to Gingrich. While Perkins said there was a willingness to forgive Gingrich’s less-than-perfect personal life, Gingrich’s character was still an issue. “There is concern over whether or not he would be that consistent and stable leader,” Perkins said.

Gingrich won, in part, because he was able to win over both religious conservatives and those for whom religion is less important in the voting booth. Voters who said the religious beliefs of candidates mattered “a great deal” backed both Gingrich (45 percent) and Santorum (32 percent).

Among those for whom religion is only matters “somewhat,” Gingrich’s support remained high but Santorum’s dropped to only 15 percent. Gingrich also did well among those who said religion mattered little or not all. He received around a third of these less religiously minded voters, nearly equaling Romney’s share (39 percent).

Gingrich did well throughout the state. To win, he needed Romney to do poorly in along the coast and in the more populous counties in the state. He won counties with some of the major metropolitan areas like Columbia and Charleston by narrow margins. In the more conservative highlands, Gingrich was able to easily make up the difference and seal the victory.

Historically, South Carolina is the make or break contest for the Republican Party. Since 1980, the winner of the state’s primary has become the GOP nominee. With such high stakes, candidates went all in by spending heavily on ads and letting loose any and all attacks they can use on their opponents. The result has been surprise after surprise after surprise in the final days of the contest.

Thursday morning, Rick Perry dropped out of the race, shocking seasoned political observers by endorsing Newt Gingrich. Perry was not predicted to do well in South Carolina, but he was expected to stay in the race until the results came in Saturday.

Perry’s announcement came after last weekend’s gathering of 150 evangelical leaders who met to decide on a single candidate to back in the GOP contest, choosing to back Santorum. On Thursday, James Dobson, who was a key figure in the meeting, formally endorsed Santorum. In a statement, Dobson said that his key concern was state of families and marriage.

“Of all the Republican candidates who are vying for the presidency, former Sen. Santorum is the one who has spoken passionately in every debate about this concern. He has pleaded with the nation and its leaders to come to the aid of marriages, parents, and their children. What a refreshing message,” Dobson said. “While there are other GOP candidates who are worthy of our support, Sen. Santorum is the man of the hour.”

Dobson, who endorsed as a private individual, founded Focus on the Family but now leads his new ministry Family Talk.

According to those at the social conservative confab last weekend, one of the reasons for Dobson favoring Santorum over Gingrich was the marital history of the candidates.

On Thursday, Gingrich’s past was once again a news topic because ABC aired an interview with Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne Gingrich. During the interview, she said that Newt asked her for an “open marriage” when he was confronted about his affair with his now-wife Callista Gingrich. Gingrich quickly denied the charge but declined to elaborate on personal matters. In the past, he has spoken in general terms about his extramarital affairs and three marriages and about how he has sought God’s forgiveness.

Before the interview was aired, Gingrich and the other candidates participated in a debate on CNN where the first question went to Gingrich, who was asked if he would like to respond to the allegations.

“No, but I will,” said Gingrich, who then turned the question back as a criticism of the media.

“The destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office,” Gingrich said. “And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

Gingrich’s response was met by a standing ovation from the audience. “Every person in here knows personal pain. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.” he said.

Roger Simons, chief political columnist of Politico, noted that Gingrich asked his first wife for divorce while she was being treated for cancer and divorced his second after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. CNN’s John King asked each of them whether they thought Gingrich’s past behavior was an “issue.” “John, let’s get on to the real issues is all I’ve got to say,” Romney said. Rick Santorum hinted that it was an issue for him. “I am a Christian, too,” he said. “And I thank God for forgiveness. But, you know, these are issues of our lives and what we did in our lives. They are issues of character for people to consider.” And Ron Paul turned the spotlight on himself. “I think too often all of us are on the receiving ends of attacks from the media,” Paul said. “And I’m very proud that my wife of 54 years is with me tonight.”

While Gingrich was addressing his previous marraiges, Santorum continued his campaign to win over social conservatives. Whether or not he will win in South Carolina, Santorum can now claim at least one victory. In a reversal, the Iowa Republican Party announced that Santorum, not Romney, won the Iowa caucuses. When the results were originally announced, Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes. However, the final tally has Santorum as the winner by 34 votes. There are still eight precincts whose vote totals are not accounted for, but Santorum is the certified winner. Matt Strawn, chairman of the the Iowa Republican Party, congratulated both candidates “on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history.”

The primary in South Carolina is likely to be equally close. Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Ron Paul are each polling well going into the primary today.

China's communist government may be constricting freedom of worship in some places, such as Beijing's Shouwang house church, but Chinese consumers are gaining access like never before to legally published books by best-selling American evangelical authors.

Since early April, the 1,000-member-strong Shouwang church has held services outdoors rain or shine, and eight of its pastors are under house arrest. The government, citing the church's lack of registration, pressured the church's landlord to cancel Shouwang's lease.

At the same time, there has been a surge across China in the availability of popular Christian titles by authors Rick Warren, Gary Chapman, and Beth Moore, as well as classic titles by C. S. Lewis and others. Statistics on Christian book sales are unreliable in China. But figures on Bible publishing provide one reliable snapshot of the phenomenal growth. Amity, the official publisher of Bibles inside China, increased Bible printing each year from 1998 (2.8 million) to 2008 (10 million). Other than Bibles, top sellers are Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life, with more than 100,000 in print, and the Francine Rivers novel Redeeming Love.

A big reason for this growth is the 2008 debut of the online-only retailer Baojiayin (GoodNewsinChina.com). For decades, the government heavily limited the retail sales of Christian literature. But all that changed with Baojiayin.

For instance, Paul Douglas, an Australian medical doctor living in China, uses Baojiayin to send about $140 worth of books to local churches, creating an instant lending library. Douglas can donate sets of theological commentaries, marital advice books, and biographies of Christian leaders.

In addition, Douglas, ordering through another faith-and-values bookseller, ZDL Books, buys titles such as John Stott's The Message of Romans commentary and DVDS such as June Hunt's Hope for the Heart counseling series for individuals, especially graduating seminarians. "I choose the books, plug in the person's address, and they are typically sent out within a day," Douglas says.

Another new reality is driving sales: the government has given its official blessing to direct-to-consumer book sales. While book content is still under stringent review, communist leaders increasingly view religious literature as a positive influence on Chinese citizens.

Baojiayin is unique in selling exclusively Christian titles. Beyond books, Baojiayin sells everything from Cru's Jesus film to the Christian Broadcasting Network's Superbook DVDS. "We're seeing things approved that five years ago no one would have thought would ever be approved," says a Baojiayin employee.

In Beijing, a university professor (who asked not to be named) says he buys hundreds of books each year for students and friends. The professor's wife likewise gives away Sally Clarkson's books on motherhood, Josh McDowell's books on parenting, and Patricia St. John's children's books.

The professor, who moved to China six years ago, frequently gives The Good Life by Charles Colson and The Call by Os Guinness as gifts to those enrolled in his time-management course. "It's important for students to know why they are at university, beyond trying to become financially successful," the professor says.

Fenggang Yang, director of the Center on Religion and Chinese Society at Purdue University in Indiana, says interest in Christianity is a byproduct of economic reforms initiated by then-Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping in 1978. "There has been an increased interest in all religious publications, not just Christian, especially among college-educated, urban young professionals," Yang says.

Paul Peng works for Enoch Publishing, the oldest and one of the largest publishers of books with Christian values. Some 30 percent of Enoch's consumers aren't Christians. "We have several channels to sell books: bookstores opened by Christians, general bookstores, online bookstores, and directly to some churches."

ZDL retails both in brick-and-mortar outlets and online. "When our company started eight years ago, there was basically no distribution of legal Christian products," says David Wright, general manager of ZDL. "Demand has increased significantly year after year."

All books for sale must have a Chinese International Standard Book Number (ISBN). ZDL is engaged in this process, which involves negotiating with government censors. ZDL also employs a theologically trained Christian editorial team to ensure quality translations.

The government sometimes deems works worthy for their social rather than spiritual value, allowing publishers to avoid a more rigorous review process. For example, John Maxwell's books on leadership and James Dobson's volumes are not necessarily considered religious. Liu Dong, a Shanghai-based reporter for the English-language Global Times, notes that books by John Piper and Philip Yancey are available in secular bookstores because they are considered intellectual, not religious.

Paul Hattaway, founder of missions group Asia Harvest, says he has not smuggled anything into China for more than a decade. His organization's materials are printed inside the nation, he says. "China's great need is for God's Word and solid teaching. How it gets into their hands is not important," says Hattaway, author of Operation China. ZDL's Wright says that as persecution has become less of a reality, Christians in China are tempted toward materialism. Nevertheless, he says, a rising number of books are being written by native Chinese theologians and teachers who have persisted through difficult times. Other groups are starting new relationships inside China. David C. Cook, based in Colorado Springs, formed a partnership with the China State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA) and the China Christian Council (CCC). Following six years of effort, Cook signed a formal publishing agreement in 2009. The company expects to publish, among other works, a new children's Bible storybook and Warren Wiersbe's Bible commentary series.

Cris Doornbos, Cook's chief executive, says the company has influence over the editorial process and is hiring Chinese Christians on a work-for-hire basis in China to do the translation, which is then reviewed by a third party. The books are available to even low-income households because state-owned companies and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (China's official church system) are the distribution channels.

Doornbos says, "By working with SARA and CCC, all these resources will then be legal in China and have a much broader reach than they do today."

Even after Christian books are printed, much of the reading public is unaware exactly where they can obtain certain volumes. Some titles are available only through the Three-Self channels. A buyer seeking a particular book not sold in bookstores would have to know which Three-Self church carries it—and where that church is located.

Purdue's Yang says the number of legal titles available still only totals 1,300, and numerous publishing restrictions remain, especially on works that broach church-state relations or delve into exploring Christianity in China. Another drawback is that many valuable resources are no longer available because press runs are often under 10,000 copies.

While the number of Chinese storefront booksellers with a Christian worldview has mushroomed from 2 to 250 in the past decade, that total has remained stagnant the past four years. But Yang sees small Christian bookstores serving a niche that online companies cannot: being a physical connection point for new Christians to network with each other. However, bookstores do not exist in China's rural areas. Rural residents are for the most part literate, but they usually are poor and unable to afford materials.

Doornbos, who notes that the Chinese government has not rejected any titles proposed by Cook, says, "Now is our opportunity to make sure we give the church in China all the Christian resources that we can."

John W. Kennedy is a

Christianity Today

contributing editor.

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Previous Christianity Today articles about China include:

Interview: Chai Ling on Saving China's Daughters | Each day in China, 35,000 baby girls are aborted and 500 women commit suicide. One freedom fighter won't take it any longer. (October 4, 2011)

Shouwang Showdown, 15 Weeks In | Members of one of China's largest house churches continue to meet amid arrests. (July 20, 2011)

Official Chinese Newspaper Publishes Call to Change Religion Policy | Religious freedom experts are surprised and cautiously optimistic, but disagree on proposal. (December 8, 2009)

China's 'Conscience' Missing in Action | Top Christian lawyer Gao Zhisheng vanishes as government stifles dissent. (October 23, 2009)

Smuggling Debate | Ministries disagree on how best to provide Bibles to Chinese Christians. (January 27, 2009)

Heading into South Carolina’s primary tomorrow, social conservatives are looking to the hills for help–literally. While the entire state is considered conservative, the mountainous and piedmont regions in the northwest are strongholds for religious and social conservatives. If another candidate will beat out frontrunner Mitt Romney, he will likely need to first unite the hill country where evangelicals form the base of the GOP. But even if this region unites around a candidate, there may not be enough votes to defeat Romney.

In recent polls, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were even with around 20 percent of the vote. Another poll shows Gingrich is tied with Romney. Campaigns are spending millions of dollars in ads and both Santorum and Gingrich need a strong showing, if not a win, to continue their bids for the Republican presidential nomination. To win, one of the candidates will need to secure the northern, mountainous region known for its social conservatism.

The northwest counties bordering North Carolina are what Patchwork Nation labels “evangelical epicenters”–counties where there is a much higher proportion of evangelicals than in other parts of the country. They are consistently Republican strongholds who back candidates with conservative views on social issues.

Furman University political science professor James Guth said that while there are regional differences but that polls are showing smaller differences this election cycle.

“With economic expansion in the Upstate and in-migration, the region no long is quite as distinctive from the Midlands and Low Country as it once was,” Guth told CT. “You have a lot more cosmopolitan business and technical types who will vote Republican, even if they don’t get involved in party politics.”

2008 is turning out to be a close predictor of 2012. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney has done well in cities and affluent suburbs where he succeeded four years ago. Social conservatives, like Santorum, have done best in the rural counties and small towns that backed Mike Huckabee.

So far, Romney has not done well in small-town America. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney did poorly in the rural counties but better in the cities and suburbs whose numbers gave him the win.

Romney’s performance in cities and suburbs is likely to continue in South Carolina. Romney will likely do best in the more populous areas in the southern half of the state from state capital down to the coast. The suburbs of Columbia, Charleston, and Augusta (Georgia) are must-win areas for Romney. While still socially conservative, Republicans in this region have a history of being concerned about economics, national defense, and electability–all of which plays well for Romney.

Laura Olson, a professor of political science at Clemson University, said that Romney has the advantage of being able to focus on his strongholds while Gingrich and Santorum split the more conservative votes. Santorum may–or may not–receive more of these votes after receiving the support of some evangelical leaders over the past week.

“Evangelicals–even here in South Carolina–are diverse and more than able to think for themselves; so, we shouldn’t expect them all to flock to Santorum just because a group of pastors endorsed him,” Olson told CT. “There are enough votes that will go to Romney, Perry, and Gingrich that Santorum shouldn’t be banking on getting a large majority of evangelical votes.”

The wild card in the race is Ron Paul. The libertarian is polling worse in South Carolina than he did in either Iowa or New Hampshire. He is expected to receive only about 10 to 15 percent of the vote. But unlike the other candidates, it is much harder to predict from where he will draw his support. If he does well in the military communities or suburbs, it could draw votes away from Romney. But Paul has also done relatively well among evangelicals, which could hurt Santorum or Gingrich.

A talented young believer posted a video of himself delivering a poem last week about what’s wrong the Church today and the thing has gone crazy-viral. Nearly 15 million views at this point. Quite remarkable.

Obviously, the piece is connecting with people. I would guess that most are connecting positively because they’re interested in seeing a better angle on their Christian faith that’s different than what they’ve been seeing. That desire is always good.

My interest is not the thoughts or offering of the young man who posted it. (I do like that it’s an offering of discipleship through art, something that has a long and beautiful history in the church.) My interest is the wild response itself.

Why the huge reaction? One can only guess. So I will.

First, I think it is centered in the wonderful, hopeful and youthful idealism that Jesus is about more than what we get from the Christian establishment.

But this is not new. It is what the Reformation was about. It is what’s at the center of every new denominational founding. It was seen in the Jesus Movement, from which I came.

It is what Gandhi was saying when he said he would happily become a Christian if he ever met one.

Same with Bono: “Yeah, I’d break bread and wine. If there was a church I could receive in.”

It sounds good and aspirational, but it can also be horribly arrogant. It makes very clear who gets it and who doesn’t, elevating “us” over “you people.” And doing that has always given us a good feeling. In fact, it was exactly what the Pharisees were about.

You see, Jesus’ own circle would not satisfy either Gandhi or Bono because imperfection and short-coming are inherent in anything that involves humans. And the church is God’s bride made of exactly that: humans who live between the “already” of Christ’s saving work and the “not yet” of His full redemption. That’s the way it is. Settle in for it until the fullness of time comes.

Now, I know the young man who posted his video poetry is not arrogant. He has a refreshingly humble and teachable heart, as demonstrated in his reaction to and interaction with Kevin DeYoung surrounding Kevin’s thoughtful reaction to the post.

But I would surmise that many who have forwarded it to friends and shared it on Facebook have done so as a rage against the machine that happens to be a form of Christianity that they don’t care for. It’s rock throwing and all generations have done it to varying degrees. We must come to terms that if the question is “What do you think Christianity should be like?” your answer doesn’t really matter. Sorry. It’s SO not about you. The question for every Christian is rather: What does our Lord desire?

Yes, the young man in the video is right in spirit, but quite wrong in many of the facts. These shortcomings are expected and somewhat excusable due to his youth, both in age and time following Christ. But his viewers—those who have forwarded the video in the millions—have a larger duty toward discernment.

So let’s ask the big question. Does Jesus hate religion? Well, depends on what you’re talking about, which this poem never really clarifies.

Jesus’ biggest tussle was with the religious leaders of the day. The ones who thought they had God all figured out and confined snugly in their particular box. In fact, they are the ones that had Him killed. (Matt:26:62-66).

But that’s not all there is to the story. Jesus was a good Jewish boy. He went in for all the religious trappings of His faith. I like the way Kevin DeYoung puts it:

Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18;8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion.

His parents were good Jews and He honored his parents to the end. Look at the major parts of his young life explained in the Gospels. They are primarily stories about the various ceremonies faithful Jewish parents did with their children—circumcision and presentation in the Temple. Luke 2:39 says approvingly, “When Joseph and Mary did everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned” to their home town. Jesus and His family did the religious things. His followers have as well since the day He left us.

If you want Jesus, you have to take him for who He was. You can’t re-construct a stripped down, organic anti-corporate version of what you think He should be. Jesus’ gospel is a scandal to all of us, the hipsters and the geezers. It’s different than your fabulous pair of pre-worn skinny jeans.

James tells us about religion, that there is some religion that God is quite big on.

So it’s not a question of Jesus and religion or Jesus minus religion. It’s Jesus and what kind of religion. And this is a bit of the problem with the “Just give me Jesus” and the “Jesus Plus Nothing” approach to faith. We’d like to make it all that simple. Jesus never did. He just didn’t. He gives His church certain trappings for good reason.

Does the system of religion (of belief and practice) take you regularly to Christ, compelling you to cast yourselves before him in adoration and upon him in desperation? Or does it given you a false sense of your own self-sufficiency and superiority based on the system itself because it fits with your sense of right?

One is what each of us need. The other is rooted in the original and devastating sin of pride. So no, religion is not the problem. Our rewriting the script is.

Christ—and his Father—gave ALL for His beloved Bride, the Church. She is not beautiful. She is not refined. In fact, God’s word clearly describes her as a whor*. (Read Hosea 2, Jeremiah 2, Ezechiel 16.)

But this will not always be. For it is written (Revelation 19):

6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:

“Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
7 Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8 Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear.”

(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)

9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

This is the story of the Gospel. It is God’s story and the story of His Beloved. It is therefore, our story. And because of the promise, He will not give up on her. Therefore, neither can His followers. That is what we are called to as Christians.

So let’s put down the rocks and embrace Her.

Glenn T. Stanton is the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family and the author of several books, including The Ring Makes All the Difference.

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Laura Ortberg Turner also wrote on the ‘Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus’: To Adore or Abhor? for Her.meneutics.

Additional coverage of religion includes:

Good Religion, Bad Religion | A new study reveals we’re incurably religious. That’s a problem. (August 1, 2011)

How to Become a Successful Religion | A marketing consultant advises early church leaders. (August 19, 2010)

Taming Religion | Why we need to keep The Extremist in check. (May 13, 2010)

Beyond Believers | Religion is now the hottest topic for American historians. (March 11, 2010)

Jesus Is Not a Brand | Why it is dangerous to make evangelism another form of marketing. (January 2, 2009)

How do you tell the story of war? These real-life epic tales can span years and continents, involving grand conquests and tiny tragedies. They change the shape of entire societies, countries’ borders, and personal relationships. Any slice of the whole you choose will leave something out—and will inevitably say as much about the storyteller as it does about the war.

The Flowers of War takes us to the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 on the outskirts of Nanking. Director Yimou Zhang (Raise the Red Lantern, Hero, House of Flying Daggers) focuses our attention on a walled cathedral, where a handful of schoolgirls and a dozen prostitutes are hiding out from the invading Japanese troops, guided by a precocious 13-year-old orphan, George (Huang Tianyuan), and a drunkard American mortician, John (Christian Bale), who’s just arrived to bury the recently killed priest.

Schoolgirls and prostitutes. An orphan boy and an alcoholic man. Flowers and war. We’re clearly looking at the dichotomies of war—particularly the beauty amidst the unthinkable horror. And Flowers gives us plenty of both.

At the outset of the film, the Japanese have just taken over the area and both groups of females have narrowly escaped to the large, beautiful cathedral. For the girls—all around 12 or 13—this sanctuary is home, a familiar place of learning and safety. For several of the orphans in the group, including George, this is the only home they have. (One of these girls, Shu, played by Zhang Xinyi, offers us the recurring voiceovers.)

The first adult on the scene is John Miller (Christian Bale), the opportunistic American, who is soon searching the place for money and booze. We don’t really know how he’s gotten there in one piece or why he seems not to care one whit about this group of innocents trapped in the midst of a brutal war, but we do somehow know that he’ll transform into a hero.

When the group of prostitutes arrives at the gate, with their colorful dresses, dark red lipstick, and flamboyant ways, the girls feel offended and threatened. John, of course, is thrilled. The group is all cackling catty comments, save for one, Yu Mo (Ni Ni), their smart, sophisticated leader. She sees John as their ticket to safety.

These groups are circling each other, sizing up their threats and opportunities, when the first band of Japanese soldiers invades the church. The prostitutes are able to hide in the cellar, where they have set up their temporary barracks, and John, who has donned one of the father’s vestments on a drunken lark, poses as the priest. But the girls are savagely chased around the cathedral by soldiers hungry to take advantage of the “virgins! virgins!” It is a difficult wake-up call for all of them to the horrors of war.

In addition to these struggles for survival, we also meet a young, seriously injured soldier brought to the cathedral by one of the lone remaining Chinese soldiers in the area, a father of one of the school girls who is trying desperately to get his daughter to safety, and finally a new Japanese general who takes command of the cathedral and seems much more civilized and protective of its young inhabitants. And all this time John and Yu Mo are falling for each other.

The film, based on Yan Geling’s novel The Thirteen Flowers of War, is said to be one of the most extensive productions undertaken in China—and the most expensive, with an estimated budget of $94 million. Though most of the film takes place in the sprawling cathedral and the nearby village, there is an epic feel to the scenes. We sense the largeness of the war even as we’re viewing a tiny corner of it.

And the cinematography is stunning. Between the scuffles and arguments, we linger on a facial expression or a stained glass window. A battle scene takes place as a nearby textiles shop, where a grenade sets off a colorful explosion of grey stones and crimson, emerald, and electric blue fabrics.

Here we see the contrasts again—destruction and beauty. While at times this yin and yang is compelling, in many scenes it becomes jarring. A few scenes are outright brutal—a stabbing, a rape, the gurgling sounds of someone choking on her own blood. For a film that focuses so much on female innocence and beauty, these scenes feel especially savage. And most of the men are portrayed as such animals. We’re taken past interesting dichotomies to whiplash.

The dialogue is also problematic in many scenes. It feels stilted and forced. For example, when Yu Mo starts to tell John about the tragedies that led her to become a prostitute at age of 13, she says, “It’s just another story of misfortune that wouldn’t interest a passerby like yourself.” When John briefly runs into a fellow American in the village, their conversation is so awkward it’s almost comical.

But perhaps the most noticeable problem is Flowers‘ length. At two hours and twenty minutes, this war film doesn’t just feel epic, it is epic. While the action keeps the film from dragging, there’s just too much crammed in. This is especially sad considering that the film finally achieves an engaging tone and focus in the final 20-30 minutes. If they could have crunched the first two hours down to one and focused more on the themes and events of the final act, his could have been a beautiful, compelling film.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. List the many contrasts in the film. What do you think the filmmakers are trying to communicate through these dichotomies?
2. When does John step up to become protective and heroic? What compels him to change?
3. The film takes place mostly in a cathedral. What subtle role does faith play in the film?
4. Several characters make sacrifices for others. What’s their motivation? How do you think these selfless acts impact those on the receiving end?
5. Why do you think the filmmakers focus most of this war film on women? What are they communicating?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

The Flowers of War is rated R for strong violence including a sexual assault, disturbing images, and brief strong language. Take all of these warnings seriously – this is a tough movie to watch. And the violence would be especially disturbing for young viewers because some of the violence is done to young girls. This is not a movie for young viewers—or for sensitive, squeamish adults, for that matter.

Photos © Wrekin Hill Entertainment

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

In 1997, Mary Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule published an important book titled Women’s Ways of Knowing, in which they explored how women understand themselves, their minds, and their relationship to knowledge, and considered whether the cognitive process of knowing is different between the genders.

From their research, the authors discerned five relationships to knowledge, the most basic being “Silence.” “Silent women” were often stranded in an elementary stage of knowing, having no personal voice with which to reflect on knowledge. Without a voice to represent their own perspectives of the world, these women were virtually dependent on the opinions of others.

Studies like this one demonstrate the power of having a voice. Expressing one’s self and feeling heard are uniquely human activities that give us confidence to grow and create. We see this human need even in Scripture, including in the psalmist’s statement, “There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard” (19:3).

The power of voice also composes the premise of Jim Henderson’s new book, The Resignation of Eve: What if Adam’s Rib Is No Longer Willing to be the Church’s Backbone? (BarnaBooks). Picking up on Barna Group’s recent findings about women exiting the church, Henderson (pastor, author of Jim and Casper Go to Church) brings the statistics to life with flesh-and-blood stories of evangelical women.

The book is divided into three major parts. In the first, Henderson presents the problem. The evangelical tradition’s neglect of women, he says, has produced different types of resignation in women: those who are “resigned to,” “resigned from,” or “re-signed to” the current state of the church. In the second and largest part, Henderson interviews women who belong to one of the three categories of resignation, offering his own analysis of their stories. In the third part, Henderson ends by speculating why women suffer ill treatment in their church communities and by challenging evangelical churches to do better.

On a foundational level, the vision of Henderson’s book is important. As Henderson notes, the topic of gender and the church is rarely marked by genuine listening. Opposing parties tend to approach the debate with preformed conclusions and generalizations, which produces little in the way of progress. A book in which women’s stories are allowed to “speak for themselves” (xix) is a welcome change.

It should here be noted that the Barna study, which Henderson cites at the outset, has been contested. After its publication, The Wall Street Journal ran a response from Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson in which both scholars discredited the study’s findings. They concluded that “across 38 years, there have been only small variations in church attendance, and Barna’s reported 11 percentage-point decline in women’s church attendance (to 44% from 55%) simply didn’t happen.”

Whether or not Barna’s findings are legitimate, the church is still called to reach the millions of lost women in this world. It is therefore incumbent upon Christians to listen to the voices of women inside and outside the church if we are to make disciples and retain them.

And on this front, the stories gathered in The Resignation of Eve are invaluable. Readers will hear from complementarian women, egalitarian women, women who have been hurt by the church but continue to serve, and women who have left altogether. By reading these stories at face value, church leaders get a peek into the diverse lives of their female congregants. For leaders who love women and want to reach them, these stories will be a tremendous resource.

The book requires a caveat, however. Those who agree with Henderson’s unabashedly egalitarian views will love this book. Henderson’s belief in the value of women and their place in the church is palpable, so this book is likely to be cathartic for any woman who has ever felt limited by her gender.

Those who do not agree with Henderson will find this a tough read. Henderson’s treatment of complementarians is, in my opinion, the greatest weakness of this book. As mentioned, Henderson sets out to “let the stories speak for themselves, even when the women profiled arrived at different conclusions with which I personally disagreed.” But Henderson is not faithful to this promise. For example, when summarizing the stories of women who share his position, he expresses sentiments such as, “I have the utmost respect and admiration for her” (61), while commending another egalitarian woman as a “hero” (210).

The complementarian women in this book receive different treatment. Following each story, Henderson ends with a “My Take” in which he offers final reflections. Aside from the fact that this is a strange insertion in a book about the experiences of women, this section often psychologizes the stories of complementarians, speculating that they haven’t thought deeply enough about the topic (76) or that their position owes more to broken childhood experiences than honest theological reflection (35). Henderson even titled one complementarian woman’s story “Satisfied with the Status Quo.”

Although Henderson’s tone toward complementarian women carries an air of understanding, it wreaks more of paternalism than a genuine effort at respect. I suspect that Henderson did not intend this tone, but his generalizations about conservative evangelicals do little to carry us beyond the old trappings of this debate.

In this book, Henderson runs into the same problem that is facing feminists today: How does one advocate for women yet respectfully respond to those women who contest your very project? It’s a challenge that tests the mettle of one’s commitment to all women, and this book comes up short in that regard.

The church desperately needs to hear the voices of women. On that point, Henderson and I agree. I also love Henderson’s heart for women and the passion with which he advocates for them. Even so, this is a discussion we must continue to improve upon. The voices of women, all women, deserve an honest hearing.

They were known officially as the 332nd Fighter Group of the U.S. Army Air Corps, and more popularly known as the Tuskegee Airmen. Those lucky enough to fly with them called them the Red Tails for their brightly painted P-47s. They were the first African-American military aviators and they took flight during World War II when many of their stateside counterparts were unable to drink out of water fountains, use restrooms, or swim in pools that bore signs reading “whites only.”

“Whites only” was the attitude when it came to flying as well. Black men were considered constitutionally unfit for the rigors of flying and so had to fight WWII on two fronts—against the Axis alliance and against prejudicial brass in Washington D.C. who wanted to shutter the Tuskegee program that created a pool of pilots for the military to train. It’s these two fights that executive producer George Lucas has labored for more than 20 years to bring to the big screen—a labor that becomes reality today with Red Tails.

The aerial action is fast and furious from the opening credits, showing German and American pilots dogfighting in the European theater. But the heroes of our story are miles away, doing routine patrols of quiet stretches of countryside in their woefully outdated planes, unable to join the fighting because of the color of their skin. We’re introduced to two of our central characters—Marty “Easy” Julian (Nate Parker) and Joe “Lightning” Little (David Oyelowo)—and the tension of their relationship when they encounter a slow-moving train that they suspect of carrying German military equipment As the ranking officer, Easy directs his squadron to engage the train with caution. Lightning defies orders, makes a more dangerous approach to the train, manages to destroy the train in dramatic fashion, busts up his own plane a bit, and emerges emboldened, all to Easy’s chagrin.

To my chagrin, I found Easy and Lightning and the rest of the boys—Smokey, Joker, Bumps, Ray Gun, Coffee—a menagerie of clichéd archetypes of black men and stereotypes of African-American culture. Within the first few moments, we’re introduced to the oversexed black man, someone makes a crack about being as happy as a church lady, and another who, while assessing whether the German train’s cargo is cows or guns, quips, “You don’t want to shoot up cows unless you’re planning an barbeque.” I braced for the moment the camera would pan to a pilot cooking up some collard greens in his co*ckpit.

Archetypes in and of themselves make for a bad story. But in a movie about black men fighting against racism and stereotypes, these characterizations seem particularly pernicious. They are not helped by a ham-fisted script that features the dialogue equivalent of a hero shot every two to four minutes, some version of we will overcome! being the subtext (or text) of almost every conversation. Lobbying in D.C. for the ability of his men to see some real action, you could almost hear a fife start a lonely battle hymn every time Col. A.J. Bullard (Terrence Howard) opened his mouth.

As the military equivalent of middle management, Major Stance (Cuba Gooding Jr.) is a source of weary platitudes about fighting. The performance is strangely wan for the usually magnetic Gooding, who sometimes seems to be smoking his pipe and wondering what will happen next.

The Red Tails do get to see some action, assigned to escort bombers into enemy territory, and distinguish themselves by being disciplined enough to stay with their charges instead of peeling off to pursue glory in individual kills (much to Lightning’s chagrin). Regardless of the script, fans of aviation and small planes are likely to thrill at the scenes of dogfighting and aerial combat, produced by the people who brought you Star Wars. Bombardiers, white pilots who had cruelly shunned the black pilots, begin requesting the Red Tails protection. And the rest is history.

It is worth noting that everyone in this movie is painted with the cliché gloss—the pale, evil German with a menacing scar under his eye, the Italian beauty who captures Lightning’s heart without a word of English, the white military establishment that sneers and snarls its prejudice. In fact, I think if the filmmakers had pushed this just a little further, they could have made a Frank Miller-esque comic book adaptation of the story that would been more creative and also more interesting to the target audience.

During an appearance on The Daily Show, George Lucas said, “I wanted to make an inspirational for teenage boys. I wanted to show that they have heroes and, you know, it’s not Glory, where you have a lot of white officers running these guys into cannon fire. These were real heroes.” Indeed, the Red Tails were remarkable men and are worthy of a great American movie. This isn’t it. Lucas’s persistence in telling this story—pushing against studios that insisted a movie with a predominantly black cast wouldn’t be profitable enough overseas to make it worth their while and ultimately funding the movie and its distribution himself—is laudable. But if you’re not a teenage boy, you might find the story in Red Tails itself less than inspirational.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Have you ever been motivated to overcome someone’s negative attitude about you to achieve something great or important? What was the motivation?
2. The negative racial attitudes depicted in Red Tails are very real for their time, and haven’t completely disappeared today, despite significant improvements in the ways the law and society view minorities. In what places or contexts do you still observe racial prejudice today? What do you do or say when you see instances of racism or prejudice?
3. One of the pilots calls on “black Jesus” to provide protection while flying. Where do you put your hope and trust when you sense danger or difficulty? If God or Jesus, what aspect of his person gives you the greatest sense of connection to him and/or comfort?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Red Tails is rated PG-13 for some sequences of war violence. Aerial dogfighting leads to several explosions and a handful of injuries, a couple of them gruesome.

Photos © 20th Century Fox

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Haywire is a smart film, but it isn’t profound. It’s smart in the sense that it exemplifies intelligent, self-aware filmmaking and tells its story quickly and directly without condescending to the audience. But Haywire isn’t interested in probing the mysteries of human behavior or complexities of existence; rather, it’s interested in portraying the most stylish and fun-to-watch actions scenes possible.

From the first minutes to the final shot, Haywire is about one thing: Gina Carano kicking butt. Carano—a mixed martial arts superstar and former American Gladiator—plays a covert ops specialist named Mallory Kane who works contracted jobs for government agencies. As the film opens, she’s on the run—pursued by the very agency she’s been working for. Much of the film finds her in various states of fighting, escaping, or exacting revenge on her pursuers. We jump back and forth in time and across the world—San Diego, Barcelona, Dublin, New York, New Mexico, to name a few—as we unravel, alongside Mallory, the corruption and conspiracy within her special ops outfit.

Director Steven Soderbergh has a knack for stylishly reinventing or riffing on established Hollywood genres (Ocean’s Eleven did it with the heist genre; Contagion did it last fall with the disease disaster genre), and Haywire is very much an experiment in the Bond/Bourne spy thriller genre. Soderbergh’s main twist on the genre is that his protagonist—every bit as suave, smart and lethal as Bond/Bourne—is a woman. And yet this isn’t as novel or attention-grabbing as you might expect it to be; it’s simply a fact about the character. In every important way (including seducing her colleagues), Mallory Kane functions just like her Bond/Bourne-esque male counterparts.

The “female fighting machine” movie has become its own genre in recent years (Hanna, Sucker Punch, Kick Ass, Kill Bill, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), and Haywire is a worthy addition to the list. But Haywire is less interested in gender politics than the poetics of action choreography and spy movie tropes. Soderbergh aims to create memorable and stylish fight/chase scenes, and he succeeds. There are about six or seven big action sequences, each exceedingly well-choreographed and executed. A hotel room brawl between Carano and Michael Fassbender (as a British spy) is particularly memorable, as is a hostage rescue operation in Barcelona. Soderbergh shoots elegantly and smoothly, without the jittery handheld tendencies of many contemporary filmmakers; and it’s all very well edited, fast-paced, and classy.

But as good as the action sequences are, the film cannot stand on them alone. Unfortunately there isn’t much else for the film to stand on. It does have a great ensemble cast, a trademark of Soderbergh films. As male spies and bureaucrats who meet varying fates at the hands of the protagonist, Ewan McGregor, Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, and Antonio Banderas all have fun with the material and inject charisma into characters that are mostly just punching bags for our heroine. But the actors are nothing without their stunt doubles, who are the real attraction in this all-action, all-the-time film.

The film is unabashedly violent; but where other filmmakers gratuitously focus on the violence, blood, and gore (Nicholas Winding Refn’s Drive comes to mind), Soderbergh has a more restrained approach. There is fighting galore, plenty of broken bones, and a few bodies, but no spurting blood or exploding heads. The closest we get is when Mallory finishes off a victim by covering his face with a pillow and shooting at his head through the pillow. Why cover his face to kill him? It seems as much a mercy to the audience as it does a strategic move for Mallory to limit mess from the blood splatter.

For all the violence, it never feels quite as brutal or cringe-worthy as it might with another filmmaker. But it does sometimes feel intentionally fake. The bloodless gunfights, knife fights, and mixed martial arts takedowns come across as self-reflexive statements about Hollywoodized violence. Or maybe it’s just Soderbergh’s personal preference. None of his movies are particularly gory.

Whatever Soderbergh’s intentions are with Haywire, the result is decidedly mixed. On one hand it’s a more or less flawless attempt at a stylish contemporary spy film. It has its moments of excellent action sequences and funny one-liners; and down to the fonts, locations, costumes and production design, Haywire is the epitome of cool.

But on the other, what is its point? Does it have a soul? As a character, Mallory Kane is sadly one-dimensional, and though deeper things are hinted at—romantic attachments, her relationship with her father (Bill Paxton)—they are regrettably left unexplored. This leaves the audience less emotionally invested in the characters than they should be, and ultimately reduces the action sequences to low-stakes brawls in which we (mostly) don’t care who wins.

Still, Haywire has its merits. Soderbergh’s eclectic visual style is always fun to watch, and his clear love of moviemaking comes through in Haywire‘s celebratory “yeah cinema!” tone. It’s a fun, quick, sharp moviegoing experience—just one without much take-home value.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. What motivates Mallory? Who in the film does she actually have an emotional connection to?
2. Is the violence in this film in any way a commentary on how cinema has historically depicted violence?
3. Which characters in Haywire are interested in doing the right thing?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Haywire is rated R for violence, and while it is nearly constant it never seems excessively explicit or gratuitous. There is lots of hand-to-hand combat and some shooting, but not much blood. There is also some language, but not much more than your average PG-13 film. There are a few implied sex scenes but none are shown, and there is no nudity.

Photos © Relativity Media

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Reader, you’re likely here to find out if Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is worth your time. You’re looking for an assessment of its virtues and vices, its strengths and its failings. Maybe you read Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel on which it’s based and—like me—thought it was an unlikely candidate for adaptation to the big screen. You want to know what you’ll think when you see it.

I could start by telling you about the plot: Oskar (Thomas Horn) is an odd boy, living in Manhattan with his family, when the “Worst Day” happens—September 11, 2001. Oskar is certainly precocious, a wealth of information about the world (“Did you know humans are the only creatures who can cry?”) and might have Asperger syndrome (though, he tells us, the test results were inconclusive). His devoted father (Tom Hanks) has spent an enormous amount of time devising “reconnaissance missions” (scavenger hunts) that also help him break out of his shell and move past his fears. Oskar has lived his whole life in the happy knowledge that his father adores his mother (Sandra Bullock), and if he’s feeling lonely, he can just use his walkie-talkie to talk to his grandmother, who lives across the street.

But then the Worst Day happens, taking Oskar’s father away, and the boy’s slow discovery of the new shape of his life changes him forever.

A year later, in a moment of rare courage, Oskar ventures for the first time into his father’s closet and discovers a vase on the top shelf; when he accidentally breaks it, he discovers a key inside, tucked inside a tiny envelope with one word written on it: Black. His father’s last reconnaissance mission for him! This key must unlock something important, and since Oskar can feel his father’s presence receding from his life as time wears on, he reasons that he must find that thing in order to keep his father nearby. And so starts an adventure through New York City, where Oskar struggles to make sense of what has happened to him, to his father, and to the world.

I suppose that plot outline might help you decide whether to see the movie. But I could also tell you about the filmmaker’s skill in taking the novel—which is famously postmodern and, since it’s narrated by Oskar, somewhat unreliable—and turning it into a navigable, heartfelt narrative of loss and care. Director Stephen Daldry, whose previous films include The Hours and Billy Elliot, is no stranger to these intimate stories of loss and longing that stand in for larger themes, and this is an excellent match for his particular talents, especially when coupled with screenwriter Eric Roth (Forrest Gump, The Good Shepherd, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). And set against a backdrop of the “real” New York, outlying boroughs and all, the story captures the life-goes-on attitude of New Yorkers after the Worst Day.

Or I could reflect on the cast: there are some tried-and-true actors here, like Hanks and Bullock, but newcomer Thomas Horn (who, unsurprisingly, was cast after winning Kids Jeopardy!, something his character would absolutely do if he could overcome his terror of people) is simply excellent, whether he’s raging or curious or innocent or manic. He’s only overshadowed by Max Von Sydow, who plays the mysterious mute boarder at Oskar’s grandmother’s house who joins Oskar in his quest and expresses more with his eyebrows and gait than a skilled orator might in a grand speech.

I could also tell you about the strange affinity between this story and another strange story about a little boy: Where the Wild Things Are. (The parallels in some ways are so striking that I keep typing “Max” when I mean Oskar.) Where the Wild Things Are is a story about a young boy who has experienced loss in his family, who feels the senseless brokenness of his world, and solves it only by slipping into his imaginary world. Oskar is the slightly older Max, thrust painfully into reality and tragedy that is far beyond his years. In some ways, Oskar has lost an imaginary world to escape to. The world he lives in is too real. But Max and Oskar both have to find their way home.

But I can’t really tell you what you’ll think of the movie. All I can really tell you is this: I settled into the back row of the movie theater with my notebook and a soda, and a moment later a herd of seventh and eighth graders tromped in and sat, all in a row, to my left. They were excited to be there, spending their Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday seeing a movie together. The boy two seats down from me was especially excited, and kept chattering to his friend about the book. I inwardly sighed, knowing that there was no way this would be the quiet matinee I’d intended to attend. Pre-teens are never quiet moviegoers.

The trailers started and, as is customary in New York movie theaters, most of the audience was still buzzing, quietly making snide asides to one another. The girls down at the end of my row erupted in squeals when Zac Efron’s face appeared in a trailer for a Nicholas Sparks movie; they almost hyperventilated at the trailer for Titanic in 3-D.

Then the movie started. In a breathless ballet-like image, we saw a floating body—first a knee, then a shoe, then a hand, all against the backdrop of a clear azure sky. Instantly, all was silent. Eight pre-teens breathed out as one.

And as the film continued on, it became clear that this is a film for them, these children who, in 2001, were three years old and probably living not far away when the towers fell on their hometown. Four seats down, a girl quietly sobbed when Oskar lashed out at his mother. The pre-teen years are rough on parents and kids; being reminded at the movies that nothing is forever might be even harder.

And in the midst of an image of a man dropping through the sky, lifted directly from the novel (which in turn plucked it from the newspaper), the boy two seats down from me, the one who was so excited about the story, whispered to his friend, “That picture’s on the last page—I looked at it for a really long time.”

When the credits rolled, the kids clapped, and the rest of the audience followed their lead. “That was so sad, you guys,” one girl said, wiping her eyes with her tissue. “But it was really good,” one of the boys said. “Yeah,” the girl replied. “It was.”

Some will doubtless find the story a bit too sentimental, too precious or twee. Others are bound to criticize its repeated return to the all-too-memorable image of a man falling from the tower. Those who read the novel know how central that image is to the story, and even those who haven’t can tell how important it is to Oskar, how tightly he holds to security. But as he learns, everyone loses someone or something when they are young. Everyone has a Worst Day, even those whose worst days will never be remembered by a nation for their whole lives. Everyone loses, and everyone must find out how to move on. And Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close reminds us that we can only do that in the company of others—that time doesn’t really heal wounds, but love helps.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Oskar feels different—and is different—from those around him, and he must overcome his fears and differences in order to go on his quest. What fears do you have? Where do you go to face those fears?
2. Oskar’s father’s love drives his discovery and helps him mature, even after his father is gone. In what ways does his father show that love? What effects does that love have on the people around him? Do you know anyone like Oskar’s father?
3. This movie is ultimately about the losses that everyone experiences. What loss have you experienced in your life? What helps heal that loss? Where do you find comfort?
4. One character tells Oskar, after praying for him, that finding the answer to his quest would be a miracle. Do you feel like a miracle occurred in the film? Do you see God’s hand in what happened? Why or why not?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is rated PG-13 for emotional thematic material, some disturbing images, and language. The language is largely Oskar’s roundabout way of swearing (forbidden to swear, he makes up words that contain the profanity); he also says some very hurtful things to his mother as he grapples with his loss. But the larger story here is still raw for many, and could very well be too powerful for some, especially those who have experienced tragic loss or who were close to the events of September 11. The filmmakers’ depiction of the destruction stops at the falling bodies and the film is not graphic, but it could certainly be disturbing.

Photos © Warner Brothers

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.