Regarding The Avengers: The Age Of Ultron, radical homeschooler Kevin Swanson is profoundly offended that Captain America verbalized a swear word during the climactic conflict of the film.
Is Kevin Swanson going to maintain that nothing questionable would slip out of his mouth while battling a genocidal Artificial Intelligence on the cusp of perpetrating an extinction level disaster?
The radical homeschooler’s critique of the film went beyond questionable dialog selections on the part of the screenwriters.
Tony Stark in particular was condemned as an individualist and not being much of a team player.
But isn’t that the characteristic of Robert Downey’s interpretation that has made his performance endearing over the course of the interlocking Marvel films and one with which sarcastic loners with a tendency to dance to the beat of their own drum have been able to identify?
As the review progressed, Swanson finally revealed the nature of his ultimate disapproval with the film.
For you see, with the exception of the archer Hawkeye, the protagonists are to be condemned because the are SINGLE (as in unmarried) for a variety of reasons.
For the most part, shouldn’t these characters be applauded for that decision because of the particular vocations in which they find themselves?
Captain America was in suspended animation for over 70 years while the woman he loved, Agent Peggy Carer, aged at a normal rate and if developments in her own TV miniseries are any indication, eventually moved on to marry somebody else as she didn’t even know those many decades that he was even still alive.
So in the eyes of the radical homeschoolers, is Steve Rogers not supposed to work through that profound emotional trauma before wedding someone else that he might not really love?
As to the Incredible Hulk, despite the slight sparks there with Black Widow, perhaps Bruce Banner has character enough to realize that he is better off without a relationship in which the normal stresses of which could set off his condition to the point where he wouldn’t simply snap at his wife in a less than courteous tone but instead level his entire neighborhood.
Though it was amusing to discover that Hawkeye had a secret family that he had concealed from his colleagues in the espionage and costumed adventurer communities and that served as a reminder of what these heroes are fighting for, these are action adventure films (not chick flicks).
While passing romance and flirtations add flavor to the narrative, the primary purpose for these films is to see robots and aliens blown up.
I don’t really care to see Superman flying Lois Lane from store to store looking for new drapes for the Fortress of Solitude.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing said by Swanson in his analysis was that we must be careful not to limit the designation of witchcraft to those claiming to be witches.
Instead, anyone whose power comes from a source other than God is guilty of this grievous offense.
An argument can be made as to the technical accuracy of that claim.
However, it must be remembered that Swanson advocates a political philosophy known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism that calls for the implementation of Biblical law as the nation’s comprehensive social policy and statutory code.
Since that is the case, how ought and to whom should the Biblical injunction of “Suffer not a witch to live” be applied?
For if definable limits are not placed upon such a principle, it could certainly be manipulated as a clever way to justify executing your political and philosophical opponents.
Vigilance is required whether one is dealing with a maniacal artificial intelligence or a podcasting minister that hasn’t fully considered the implications of his theological pronouncements.
By Frederick Meekins
Pastor Jason Cooley at SermonAudio homilized that, if you are critical of the pastor in front of your children, your children might apostatize from the faith in the future.
Dependent upon what the pastor is accused of doing, if the deed is sufficiently egregious, doesn’t the pastor also bear some of the responsibility for this potential religious abandonment?
What this pastor was doing from the pulpit was attempting to frighten critics into silence.
Pastor Jason Cooley admonished in the sermon that one ought to largely remain silent regarding a pastor’s errors or mistakes.
He likened this form of criticism and analysis to a form of backbiting or secret whispering spoken of unfavorably in Scripture.
Often a pastor’s sermons consist in large part of what others have done wrong even if the names are changed.
Therefore, what is so wrong with the average Christian, as part of their own ministry, exposing errors on the part of pastors so that all throughout Christendom might be better protected against them when spiritually assaulted by similar doctrine and pastoral malfeasance elsewhere?
Scripture warns about spreading secrets and talking about that which one ought not or which there is no verifiable proof.
However, a sermon is a public oration.
As such a discourse, it is open to reflection by and cogitation upon by those that hear it. The role of the pastor is to protect the flock.
Then shouldn’t it be the role of studied voices from within the flock to protect the flock from the pastor even if that protection consists of little more than assurance that more than one mind is formulating these kinds of concerns?
By Frederick Meekins
A pastoral round table discussion posted at SermonAudio as part of the News & Focus program of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina snidely remarked that Mike Huckabee was only running for president to acquire additional name recognition and that he had no chance of winning.
The analysis is correct.
However, it elicits a number of additional observations.
I’m not really much of a Huckabee fan.
I just don’t really care for candidates that insist that the government should track the weight of your children for national security reasons when some of their own offspring from an official family photo look like they top the 300 pound mark.
However, according to these pastors, are we to take away the impression that whether or not we attempt something should be predicated upon the possibility of earthly success?
Secondly, which of the candidates isn’t running for name recognition in the form of the prestigious positions or lucrative book deals and speaking engagements that will accumulate at the end of the campaign trail?
What in life is not done for name recognition?
On an episode of Futurama, it was joked that all of civilization was just an attempt to impress the opposite sex.
When you come down to it, one of the primary reasons human beings procreate is so that your name will continue after you are dead.
Name recognition, in part, is why people get involved in ministry.
Sure, there is a deeply spiritual motivation to spread the Gospel.
However, if that is the only reason, why did the church posting this podcast attach its name to the file as well as those of the participating pastors?
By Frederick Meekins