Tangent: I do not know a lot about art, but if the artist was capable of better (it seems likely that this was not really pasted together by a child from colored tissue paper and magazine photos, or something), then I'm going to go with "well, yes, of course it is".
Offending God does not and cannot harm Him (in His divinity; in taking on our humanity, Jesus desired to be able to suffer but I'm not going to follow that interesting line of thought right now). Therefore the reason that God ought not to be mocked or made light of or given unwanted leftovers (i.e. putting oneself first) rather than our best is because this harms *us*. So then we should sit down for a moment and ponder: how is it that this harms *us* when we do these things? Or, how is it that it harms *me* when *I* do these things? In other words, I have concluded (by reasoning) that it *does* (because the things God forbids are those which harm us and the things God commands are those which are for our greatest good); but (to me) this then raises more questions, which I would probably have to take to prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to clue me in.
Thanks for this perspective. With the us vs. them mentality ravaging online discuss these days, I was thinking about what I might say on that distastefulness and maybe I would have easily tred that line if I hadn't read this. Thank you.
This is great, Myles. I’ve seen more indignant Facebook posts today than I needed in a lifetime, and I’m guessing that most of those folks didn’t even watch the Opening Ceremonies (full disclosure: I didn’t either).
As usual, you cut through the tomfoolery that wastes so much Christian time and energy.
Beautiful and sincere! Does God need defending? Does God take offense? If our answer is yes to these questions, I would argue that our theological is so simplistic and stiff that it needs to be shattered.
A Star Wars parody doesn't have a real background of culture wars that would trigger anyone. A parody done from a standpoint of indifference and not a vested interest can bring more people together.
If anything, the elites that produced and let this "parody" slip through actually admitted they are indeed religious and impotent the same time. They are indeed religious or ideological at best because the LGBT and the backing elites deploy all the features of a religion that is supposed to bind the post-nations together through "diversity and equity" (sprinkled over with warm'n'crunchy chunks of "love"). And they are impotent because a parody such as this reveals that the elites have a crisis of faith and sober reason, consequently of imagination. All they were able to do is to outsource the vision of the world to the LGBT community because the appeared to be most eager to become "the next step in Progress™.
So I find it really really ironic to mock a supposedly old, obsolete and bigoted religion that used to be embedded with kingdoms and empires, all this while the mocker is in the process of establishing a mockup religion, backed by states, international NGOs, and global corporations. Such a lack of imagination and intelligence can only happen in highly ideologically clean social networks.
> A parody, thus, can never be an offense, for it only works by reminding its audience of what it wants to obscure.
Isn't this approach mostly a cope though? Yes, it's indeed "reminding its audience of what it wants to obscure". But that doesn't preclude changing the audiences mind about the original work or concept or religion etc., turning e.g. their admiration or respect of it into ridicule and disregard.
It's a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" argument, but parodies have been made of things that were eventually killed too (and those parodies helped speed up their demise). In fact, when parodies start appearing, the things are often hanging on a thread. For obvious reasons few people parody something everybody still respects.
More and more I side with Proverbs when it says that a fool—ones which are already immersed in foolishness—cannot be instructed until they grow tired of the fruits of foolishness. What I mean is that engaging in cultural apologetics tit for tat on these kinds of issues is a waste of time and we are better served by celebrating the original and praying for this mocking it.
You’re right that the mockery only works because everyone knows the image and story, but you’ve confused the takeaway from that. Of course the enemies of God know he is real and hate Him. Of course they recognize his importance, which is why they seek to destroy faith in Him. Of course a pale imitation is the best they can do. Of course it’s ugly and lacking in originality. None of this is a secret sign of some sort of reverence; there is nothing good here. It just shows that God’s friends and enemies alike know he is real and matters.
I think you’ve missed my point: I’m not suggesting some secret reverence but the classic point that evil requires goodness to persist. It has to live off of goodness and thus, our efforts are misspent.
You make a good point. Sad we live in a fallen world but helpful to remind people of the original and give thanks. “The enemy of God comes to steal and destroy.” John 10:10
What I mean is that for the purposes of living a life of discipleship, we don’t live in the conditions of that world but as emissaries of it. Thus, why be surprised when the world we live in offers both beauty and disappointment, truthfulness and falsehoods? It is the world God has created but one in which sin is at work, so both will happen and we should anticipate that.
> Is the picture above an offense to God?
Tangent: I do not know a lot about art, but if the artist was capable of better (it seems likely that this was not really pasted together by a child from colored tissue paper and magazine photos, or something), then I'm going to go with "well, yes, of course it is".
Offending God does not and cannot harm Him (in His divinity; in taking on our humanity, Jesus desired to be able to suffer but I'm not going to follow that interesting line of thought right now). Therefore the reason that God ought not to be mocked or made light of or given unwanted leftovers (i.e. putting oneself first) rather than our best is because this harms *us*. So then we should sit down for a moment and ponder: how is it that this harms *us* when we do these things? Or, how is it that it harms *me* when *I* do these things? In other words, I have concluded (by reasoning) that it *does* (because the things God forbids are those which harm us and the things God commands are those which are for our greatest good); but (to me) this then raises more questions, which I would probably have to take to prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to clue me in.
Great frame for thinking about this: that sin damages us.
I think the refracted pastel image is beautiful! Who is the artist?
Thanks for this perspective. With the us vs. them mentality ravaging online discuss these days, I was thinking about what I might say on that distastefulness and maybe I would have easily tred that line if I hadn't read this. Thank you.
love this perspective. thank you for this.
This is great, Myles. I’ve seen more indignant Facebook posts today than I needed in a lifetime, and I’m guessing that most of those folks didn’t even watch the Opening Ceremonies (full disclosure: I didn’t either).
As usual, you cut through the tomfoolery that wastes so much Christian time and energy.
Beautiful and sincere! Does God need defending? Does God take offense? If our answer is yes to these questions, I would argue that our theological is so simplistic and stiff that it needs to be shattered.
I’m outraged for my 9 and 11 year old that culture is serving up to them such shiny filth
All the more reason for adults to act with moderation in response to provocation.
That true for adults. But what about our children?
Educate them on what it’s referring to!
A Star Wars parody doesn't have a real background of culture wars that would trigger anyone. A parody done from a standpoint of indifference and not a vested interest can bring more people together.
If anything, the elites that produced and let this "parody" slip through actually admitted they are indeed religious and impotent the same time. They are indeed religious or ideological at best because the LGBT and the backing elites deploy all the features of a religion that is supposed to bind the post-nations together through "diversity and equity" (sprinkled over with warm'n'crunchy chunks of "love"). And they are impotent because a parody such as this reveals that the elites have a crisis of faith and sober reason, consequently of imagination. All they were able to do is to outsource the vision of the world to the LGBT community because the appeared to be most eager to become "the next step in Progress™.
So I find it really really ironic to mock a supposedly old, obsolete and bigoted religion that used to be embedded with kingdoms and empires, all this while the mocker is in the process of establishing a mockup religion, backed by states, international NGOs, and global corporations. Such a lack of imagination and intelligence can only happen in highly ideologically clean social networks.
> A parody, thus, can never be an offense, for it only works by reminding its audience of what it wants to obscure.
Isn't this approach mostly a cope though? Yes, it's indeed "reminding its audience of what it wants to obscure". But that doesn't preclude changing the audiences mind about the original work or concept or religion etc., turning e.g. their admiration or respect of it into ridicule and disregard.
It's a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" argument, but parodies have been made of things that were eventually killed too (and those parodies helped speed up their demise). In fact, when parodies start appearing, the things are often hanging on a thread. For obvious reasons few people parody something everybody still respects.
More and more I side with Proverbs when it says that a fool—ones which are already immersed in foolishness—cannot be instructed until they grow tired of the fruits of foolishness. What I mean is that engaging in cultural apologetics tit for tat on these kinds of issues is a waste of time and we are better served by celebrating the original and praying for this mocking it.
Good point. My energy would be better spent in prayer than in online outrage!
You’re right that the mockery only works because everyone knows the image and story, but you’ve confused the takeaway from that. Of course the enemies of God know he is real and hate Him. Of course they recognize his importance, which is why they seek to destroy faith in Him. Of course a pale imitation is the best they can do. Of course it’s ugly and lacking in originality. None of this is a secret sign of some sort of reverence; there is nothing good here. It just shows that God’s friends and enemies alike know he is real and matters.
I think you’ve missed my point: I’m not suggesting some secret reverence but the classic point that evil requires goodness to persist. It has to live off of goodness and thus, our efforts are misspent.
You make a good point. Sad we live in a fallen world but helpful to remind people of the original and give thanks. “The enemy of God comes to steal and destroy.” John 10:10
It’s the only world there is!
“See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind”
Isiah 65:17
What I mean is that for the purposes of living a life of discipleship, we don’t live in the conditions of that world but as emissaries of it. Thus, why be surprised when the world we live in offers both beauty and disappointment, truthfulness and falsehoods? It is the world God has created but one in which sin is at work, so both will happen and we should anticipate that.
The line under that however is not to resent creation for being God’s graced and wounded creation that it is.
Agree. In it but not of it.