Old vs. New: How morality stays constant when freedom changes.

I read (read: saw and skimmed) an article on Facebook last week that made the basic argument "The old testament tells us it is wrong to eat cheeseburgers, pork, inhabit the same bed with our menstruating wives, and be homosexual. How can we now rightly pick and choose what is right and wrong from this list?" The question was posed in an article that was obviously arguing for the acceptance of homosexuality in Christian circles, but it raises a very valid question: How do we, new-testiment believers, know what new freedoms we have and what things, mentioned in the old testament, are still wrong? Is it still wrong to murder, cheat, and steal? If so, how do we know (other than "because Paul says so") that we are free to eat meat once sacrificed to idols, hug our uncomfortable sisters, and drive a car on Sunday?

The logical key to this question has to do with symbolism. We, as Christians, are free from the "oppression" of symbols. We no longer sacrifice lambs as a symbol of our need for blood-cleansing from our sin, so therefore we no longer avoid "unclean" things as a reminder of our uncleanliness in the eyes of God. We are free from constant reminders of our sin and are able to take advantage of the blessings that the cleansing blood of Christ has opened up for us.

Murder, theft, adultery, and homosexuality, however, are not within those new blessings. These list of sins, found in the old testament, are moral issues. This list represents things that are contrary to who God is and the order He established in creation. He created man, so therefore He is the one who decides if a man lives or dies. He created one man and one woman to be married, so He does not allow that union to be defiled by others. He gives physical blessings to His people, so he does not allow others to remove those blessings. He is the one who determined the specific gender He needed each of us to be and how reproduction works, so we disrespect that order when we undergo procedures to alter, or engage in relationships that are contrary to, that design.

I understand, however, that this logic still does not always leave us with a clear right/wrong scenario. This is why God, in His wisdom, repeated many of His moral commands in the new testament. Through Jesus' words in the Gospels, through the words of Paul in Romans and his letters, and throughout all books of the new testament, God shows us how to discern morality and exercise our newfound freedoms in God-honoring ways. He does not leave us alone to use our fallen minds to try to discern His logic, He repeats Himself loudly and clearly. He uses Paul to remind us that even though God's grace covers all of our sin, we are to avoid sin and not indulge in homosexuality or adultery. He also uses Paul to show us the freedoms we have to be "all things to all people." God uses the words of Jesus to remind us of the value of human life and being content with what we have. He also uses the words of Jesus to show us that we are free to eat with sinners and discuss intellectual subjects with non-believers.

And now we enter the spinoff zone...

I admire the person who wrote the aforementioned article for one reason--they were not afraid to ask critical questions. We need not be ashamed to ask critical questions about the bible, even if they are questions which we believe strongly have a clear answer, because the world sees the seemingly contradictory things written in the bible and asks critical questions. We need to be clear with the world-- the bible is a non-contradictory document but it is also complex and cannot be fully understood in parts. We must remind the world that the bible cannot be understood piece by piece but must be viewed as a cohesive whole, and we must do this reminding by practicing what we preach. We cannot ignore our call to love others when we seek to stomp out evils such as abortion, domestic violence, and homosexuality, or conveniently forget that we ourselves commit "respectable sins" every day while we stare accusingly at a single teen mom. We must be unashamed, willing to answer questions that are uncomfortable with bold truth, and we must coat that truth in love.

God has not chosen in a long time to use His children to wipe out entire sinful nations and I don't believe He will do anything like that until Jesus returns. What He does require us to do is engage the culture's need for a Savior at every possible opportunity. We must be careful not to shut down those opportunities before they even present themselves by being coarse, argumentative, and nit-picky. We must foster those opportunities by opening ourselves up to others, showing them that we do not understand it all either, and graciously leading them through the difficult truths the bible presents. Being slapped in the face with bible verses doesn't make anyone understand anything, but careful and gracious repetition of the truths of the bible does not return void.

Em

Hunger Games: A Critical Review

Disclaimer-- I have only read the first book and saw the movie at midnight, with about a trillion screaming teenage girls (including my little sister), where I sat 3 rows back from the largest movie screen I've seen outside of an IMAX theatre, so I might have missed some stuff. Disclaimer over.

I loved the Hunger Games. The discussion on the way home from the movie, at approximately 3am, between myself (the eternal optimist and lover of midnight premiers), my husband (the critic), my sister (overly excited 17 year old who's been waiting for this movie for "like 4 years"), and my sister's best friend (the sleepy one) was something like this.

"*High squeaky voice* OH MY GOSH that was SOOO good--PEETA!"

"Wow, that was a lot like the book"

"But they took out x, y, and z. Well, that's okay cuz that really wasn't essential."

"I liked what they added--it explained a lot."

And that's about what I've heard from everyone else. The movie, cinematography wise, was great. There were a few actors who could have been a little better but it was true to the books--if not in word and deed, in spirit. There were only a few parts straight quoted from the book and those were well chosen and employed; overusing straight quotes from the book makes the movie seem irrelevant. There were many small details removed from the book, but they were non-essential and didn't add or subtract from the feel of it. There were a few adjustments made to the situation surrounding the main story but they worked to help convey things that main characters thought or imagined during the secluded games and I thought these were very well employed. And lastly, there were things added that were essential in understanding the back story--the reason for the games, the reason for Kat's rebellion, and the reason for books 2 and 3. This has become my favorite part.

I have read many articles, Facebook and blog posts, and general musings from others criticizing the films for being violent. And violent they are. There are children killing children, animals killing children, children killing animals, soldiers "subduing" crowds, and a general air of hostility. And these things are serious. I was a little surprised to see some 9-11 year old children at the midnight premier (but based on how easy the book was to read, not shocked). To that point, there were probably some very shocked 14 year olds who realized "Seeing this is a lot different than reading this!" The movie is rated PG-13--parents, pay attention. There are serious topics discussed that a 10 year old needs to understand to process the violence portrayed. It is those topics I want to discuss in this review.

Topic one--Government. I've heard some argue that this book is some sort of argument for pacifism, but if that was the writers intention she did a very poor job of conveying it. This book is like so many books young children read-- A bad person is in leadership making everyone do terrible things to remember that he/she is in charge (i.e. Narnia and the White Witch, LOTR and Saruman, Little Princess and the terrible headmistress, James and [all the creepiness of] the Giant Peach, and to a lesser extent, Lord of the Flies). This topic is really the key that unlocks all the violence of the books. This is the "background" that the movie added that was so helpful for those 12 year olds, who mostly understood the violence, to really see: "This violence is not something to be emulated. This violence is something that is bad, something mournful. These evil people in the government don't see it but the heroine does." The heroine in the story is appalled by the violence, but is determined to win the games to go home and protect her family. When she gets to the games she sees the careers--those who have been trained by their districts for this day and volunteer to represent their district in the bloodbath--and is overcome. She befriends a little girl who needs her help to stay alive and (spoiler alert) openly mourns her death when it comes, to the point of defying the game makers by having a sort-of funeral for her. At that point (made more obvious in the books) she is determined to win so that she can change things. And in the end, when she and her friend are forced to decide between killing each other or some unknown consequence, they decide to do something to "show them that they don't own me." If the 10 year old that's read the books can explain this to you, maybe he/she is ready to see the movies. But if your 14 year old cannot, and just wants to see what they do with the cave scene, a discussion about the main premise of the books is in order.

Topic two--Authority. No, this is not the same as the last topic. This is a discussion that I think parents should have with their students any time they let them read a book. It is this topic that makes book seres such as Harry Potter redemptive tools and Twilight even worse than their writer's bad writing skills. In Twilight, children defy a good authority and nothing bad happens--well, sort of. In Harry Potter, children defy a good authority and bad things happen every time, and they being to learn from it. Hunger Games is different. Hunger games is like reading a history text book with a 7th grader and trying to get them to understand that maybe the Americans weren't 100% right in revolting against the English, only in Hunger Games it's more obvious that a revolt is warranted. In the Hunger Games, a girl has struggled to stay alive, beneath the radar of the authorities. Now, she is thrust in front of the eyes of the entire nation, and has to decide wether to keep on fighting for survival like she always has or confront the authorities with a situation they cannot ignore. She half-knowingly chooses the latter option and pays for it with the anonymity that allowed her freedom in the past. And this is what parents should discuss with their children-- What would you have done in Kat's situation? Would you just go along with things, mindlessly killing to stay alive, or would you risk your freedom and your life to change things? When is it okay to defy authority, and when is necessary to trust it? Both the first book and movie do a good job of showing the serious consequences in store for Kat, but they also do a good job of showing that the cause is worth the consequences.

Topic three--Violence. Again, this sort of repeats the themes of the last two. The main characters, Katniss and Peeta, are not mindless killing machines. Katniss is a hunter who is known in her district for skillfully providing quality game. Peeta is a baker's son who is strong but unacquainted with death. Both, however, are determined not to kill unless absolutely necessary. Peeta never kills anyone on purpose, and Kat kills on only three occasions, two of which are to save herself from the careers (the brutishly violent, well trained tributes who enjoy killing). Her first kills are not direct--she drops a (spoiler alert) hive of deadly bees on the career's camp (thanks to the help of her future friend Rue) and one of them dies. Her next kill is to save her friend Rue, and her last kill is to put a dying career out of the misery of being devoured alive. Yes, these books are very violent. But they are depicting a war that drives the heroes to change the world.

In contrast to the violence that Katniss and Peeta are forced to exert, we see careers who boast in their violent abilities, and the game makers who ultimately decide how much pain a tribute is going to experience in their death. This is where the movie does a slightly better job than the book at showing this contrast. In the book, Katniss only imagines that certain plights are created by the game makers. In the movie, we see a hoard of uniformed men and women starting fires, knocking down trees, and quite literally driving the tributes to their deaths. And they do not seem remorseful--they look like 15 year old boys do when they play video games. This is the contrast that makes these books redeemable. This is the contrast that makes the violence necessary--to show what happens when we allow ourselves to watch depictions of war or gang violence or rape and think "That's not real--they are only actors." These game makers are interested in a good show, but they are playing with the real lives of 24 children, and they show no remorse. One of them is (spoiler alert) even forced to commit suicide because he did not control them well enough and allowed Katniss her opportunity for defiance. And it is this part that made me wary watching 10 year olds exit the theatre--"Do they really understand what was going on? Do they see that the violence was crafted by evil men wanting control? Do they see that the books and movies are not about the thrill of the games but about an experience that drives the heroes to confront their government and oust evil?" Most 10 year olds do not. So, if you are going to let yours watch the movie, watch it with them and discuss it at length.

Overall, book 1 is good, and so was movie 1. They are culturally relevant, without being full of specific political agendas. They are morally relevant, worth a read for parents whose children are interested. They are well written for the target age group of "Young Adult." I like them, and I am eager to read "Catching Fire" and "Mockingjay."

If you are unsure about them, I would encourage you to read the books. In my opinion, the violence is only a small fraction of the true point of the books and is more than redeemed by the other parts. But, like I said, please see for yourself (book first, of course).

Em

PS: After I read book 2, I may change some of my opinions but I don't think that will happen. From what I know about "Catching Fire", it will only further show the consequences that one must endure when one chooses to do right when the whole world is rooting for you to do what is wrong.