Page 1335 – Christianity Today (2024)

Unless you're living under a rock or in a cave or in some sort of lean-to out in the Australian outback, you've probably heard an advertisem*nt for Anchorman 2: The Legend Returns. The character and eponymous legend Ron Burgundy (as played by Will Ferrell) has appeared in car commercials, radio advertisem*nts, and late-night talk shows. He has done stories on ESPN. His face is plastered on billboards all over every city in the country (well, perhaps "his face" is too general—it's really just his Mustache, capital-M, bushy and immaculately groomed). The ad campaign has raised Internet ire, with people complaining that the sheer market penetration of the ad campaign devalues the cult status of the first movie, which was released in 2004.

Gemma LaMana / Paramount Pictures Corporation

But one thing's for certain: the people want more of the misogynistic, easily confused, egotistical, racially insensitive, mustachioed man named Ron Burgundy. And now we have him, courtesy of director Andy McKay and lead writer Will Ferrell. We pick up Ron Burgundy almost right where we left him: not quite the galactic news anchor the first movie predicted, Ron is now co-anchor with his wife Veronica (Christina Applegate) for a new station based in New York. The coastal shift has seen Ron pursue his previously subdued love of turtlenecks, as well as father a child with Veronica, named Walter (Judah Nelson). However, when his boss (Harrison Ford) fires him from his job, but keeps Veronica, Ron abandons his family, getting a job instead with a heretofore unheard-of 24-hour news network called GNN.

GNN's purpose, as the first 24-hour news network (at least in this universe), is basically to lampoon the modern news industry. Ron is allegedly the inventor of not only special interest stories, but also the live news report (to fill a news gap with speculation on current events that Ron knows nothing about), hyper-emphatic patriotism ("Don't just have a good day," he says, "have an American day"), and the universal sense of corporate sponsorship (Ron pulls a real news story about planes losing parts just because the owner of the airlines also owns GNN). The shots Anchorman 2 takes at the likes of CNN and Fox News are well-deserved, but a little too "safe" and sanitary—in no way is Anchorman 2 a satire of the modern media.

And that's fine. It would be totally insane to fault Anchorman 2 for not being serious and barbed enough when the first movie featured things like digressional cartoon interludes, a scene of a (clearly fake) dog being punted off a bridged by an enraged biker, Ron's dog Baxter talking down an angry bear (I could clarify the syntax of that clause but it wouldn't make anything more clear), and more. Anchorman was both the funniest and the least straight-laced movie of 2004, and for Anchorman 2 to be anything else would be totally incongruous.

So, then, what kind of movie is this sequel?

Let's draw a totally arbitrary line between two kinds of comedy: character-based and situation-based. Of course every comedy has elements of both (barring some sort of Buster Keaton-esque silent film shenanigans) but what's important here is that some comedies lean more towards one and some towards the other. On the side of situational comedies, we've got stuff like Meet the Parents/Fockers, Wedding Crashers, and most terrible sitcoms (like the modern Dads and S**t My Dad Says and Mom and Two And a Half Men and so on).

And on the other side is humor that comes from knowing specific characters and their traits, rather than just "funny stuff happens" (physical comedy, unexpected miscommunications, etc.).

There, we've got movies and shows like Anchorman 2 producer Judd Apatow's breakout hit 40 Year Old Virgin; people forget, amidst all the crudeness, that Apatow's real strength as a creator is his ability to make you feel like you've known a character for years, even if you've only been watching for half an hour. And there's Arrested Development. And Modern Family—a show that's about half-and-half, but if we have to pick a side for it, it's the character-based one.

What was special/weird/whatever about the first Anchorman is that it's almost impossible to jam into this matrix—it's almost an exact 50/50 split between random situations, like the infamous battle scene at the movie's climax, and character-based humor (Ron's response to learning Veronica wants to be an anchor: "I thought you were joking! I wrote it down in my diary, Dear Diary, today Veronica told a very funny joke!"). The random situation-based humor was pretty hit-or-miss, following pretty much the same formula as the skits McKay would have written as the lead writer of SNL—but it was the strength of the characters of the Channel 5 news team (portrayed to perfection by Steve Carrell, Paul Rudd, and David Koechner) that made Anchorman a cult hit.

And that's the main problem Anchorman 2 faces: the Anchorman from nine years ago that fans remember is only half the story—the other half was devoted to a methodical randomness that hasn't been surpassed by either McKay or Ferrell's more recent efforts.

Gemma LaMana / Paramount Pictures Corporation

So Anchorman 2 can't help but be a little disappointing, as well as exhausting. Clocking in just a minute shy of two hours, Anchorman 2 adopts a staunch "more-is-more" position, with so many subplots, jokes, randomness, and cut-away gags that it becomes physically difficult to continue to laugh as the movie goes on. Much of the material is either a Hangover 2-like imitation of the first movie (Ron's scene of lovemaking, Rudd's character helping Ron pick out a seductive device, the tiring battle scene at the end of the movie), or just doesn't land—Ron's constant forced asides, none of which match the quotability of the first movie's "Great Odin's raven," as well as an excruciatingly long and unfunny scene in which Ron speaks in stereotypical "ghetto speak" to an educated black family.

Will Ferrell claims the filmmakers had so many jokes left on the editing room floor from Anchorman 2 that the special edition DVD will contain an entire other movie, functionally, with the same plot structure but different jokes swapped in. Which sounds amazing—but it makes me wonder if all the randomness and silliness doesn't hit a critical mass at some point. Have Ferrell & co. passed the point of not just diminishing but actually depleted returns on Anchorman's humor spectrum?

Add to that a plethora of inappropriate humor, sexual allusions, and its frankly tiring length, and Anchorman 2 becomes difficult to recommend for a trip to the theaters. McKay, Ferrell, and Apatow seem to see Anchorman 2 as a mad-lib of mindless jokes and wacky situations. So afford the movie the respect that kind of movie deserves: watch it at home, on DVD, with your finger hovering somewhere in between the pause and fast-forward buttons. And then, after watching, you'll remember ten to fifteen minutes of your favorite material, and forget the rest. Just like the first movie.

Caveat Spectator

Bras are exposed, and there's a lengthy discussion of what condom Brick should use during a sexual encounter. We see two characters have sex beneath the sheets—no nudity is shown, but Ron does keep slapping his own buns suggestively. Someone is mentioned to have had their genitalia cut off, John Wayne Bobbitt-style, but nothing is ever shown. The film ends with another climactic battle scene, but there's no graphic violence. One f-word, about 15 s-words, and perhaps a dozen other mild profanities, as well as virtually constant sexual entendres, many of which are exactly as inappropriate as they are uproariously funny.

Jackson Cuidon is a writer in New York City. You can follow him on his semi-annually updated Twitter account: @jxscott

Let ARK—the lovely new version of Ronald Johnson's long poem, edited by Peter O'Leary (who is himself a poet to reckon with) and published by Flood Editions—stand for the beginning of the year in books. Let The Complete Works of Zhuangzi—rendered into English and supplied with marginal glosses by the tireless translator and scholar Burton Watson in a handsome edition published by Columbia University Press, that great source of Asian texts—stand for the end of the year of the books. That both were published this fall (not at the beginning of January and the end of December) makes no difference.

In the notional space marked by these two, everything published in 2013 is encompassed. There is room here for glorious works of the imagination—like Walt Disney's Donald Duck Christmas on Bear Mountain, by Carl Barks (reviewed with great delight by Michael Robbins for the Chicago Tribune's weekly book journal, Printers Row)—and the unceasing flow of self-published projects, many of them so pitiful that even their cover-designs are depressingly incompetent, but a few of them memorable, immediately commanding the reader's attention. Whole shelves of new books on dementia and care-giving. The best I saw this year was a memoir by the poet Jeanne Murray Walker, writing about her mother: The Garden of Memory: A Pilgrimage Through Alzheimer's. Truckloads of books on the Civil War—including Allen Guelzo's brilliant Gettyburg: The Last Invasion—and middlebrow novels from the trade presses with twee titles that sound eerily similar to one another. Franchise writers as various as James Patterson and Alexander McCall Smith can be depended on for several new titles in any given year. They didn't disappoint in 2013, but we also got long-awaited books brought to completion, like Terry Teachout's Duke: A Life of Duke Ellington.

Much dreck appears every week, but there is also much to treasure, not only from the likes of Knopf and Norton and Farrar, Straus and Giroux (for which many thanks) and the indispensable university presses but also from small presses, coast to coast. Check out the list of Tavern Books, for instance—especially if, like me, you are always on the lookout for literature in translation. Their books are a pleasure to hold, too. If you enjoy the novella as a form—if you think not every work of fiction needs to be at least 400 pages long—you should look at the list of Black Hill Press, maybe starting with Alex Sargeant's Sci-Fidelity (which also has a great cover design). And earlier this year I celebrated the debut of Slant, the fiction imprint of Cascade Books presided over by Gregory Wolfe.

Then there are the reissues, starting with the NYRB Classics (including, among many goodies in 2013, Russell Hoban's Turtle Diary) but also ranging far and wide: from Text Publishing in Australia, for instance, imports of several novels by the crime novelist Peter Temple. And of course the splendid ongoing series of Radium Age Sci-Fi from HiLo Books.

Even as we look back at the year just past, we look ahead to the books of 2014: Hermione Lee's superb biography of Penelope Fitzgerald (published in the UK late this year, and coming out here in due course); a collection of essays by Muriel Spark; Michael Robbins' second book of poems, due in the fall; and much, much more. Astonishingly, so we believe and affirm, all this—however muddled or crystalline—calls out to be seen under the sign of a baby born in Bethlehem more than 2,000 years ago. Merry Christmas.

John Wilson is the editor of Books & Culture.

Copyright © 2013 Books & Culture. Click for reprint information.

Most of us have heard of the famous Christmas Truce of 1914. For roughly a week before Christmas, the shooting of the First World War ceased, and carols were sung from the trenches and even together across no man's land. Capt. Josef Sewald of Germany's 17th Bavarian Regiment remembered it this way:

"I shouted to our enemies that we didn't wish to shoot and that we make a Christmas truce. I said I would come from my side and we could speak with each other. First there was silence, then I shouted once more, invited them, and the British shouted "No shooting!" Then a man came out of the trenches and I on my side did the same and so we came together and we shook hands—a bit cautiously!"

Gifts were exchanged between the British and German troops, soccer games were played… and for one brief moment, in one of the bloodiest conflicts ever, the guns were silent as members of two opposing armies united to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace.This Christmas season, I'm wondering if we might see something of the same spirit that was displayed by those soldiers in the trenches almost a hundred years ago.

Christianity as a house divided is nothing new. We have long been a people of factions and fighting, taking delight when our tribe or small corner of the Church increased and someone else's decreased. We defend the leaders of our parties, making excuses for all manner of behavior and error while being quick to jump and judge when prominent figures in opposing movements show the slightest signs of human weakness, or make a verbal gaffe. We divide and divide again over the most miniscule doctrinal points, and rather than coming together to discuss and resolve the greater doctrinal points, we dig our trenches ever deeper.

Technology has been no help in all of this, either. If anything, we have taken what could be used as a tool to bring understanding, connection and dialogue across our lines of separation and used it instead to foster animus, controversy and division. The amount of ire and vitriol has only grown as we tweet, blog and post things we would surely never say in the presence of those whose lives and doctrines we are criticizing. We have grace enough for those who are in our own theological camps, but all too often nothing more than scorn or mockery for those who aren't.

Richard Baxter, the great Puritan pastor of the 1600's said:

"He who is not a son of peace is not a son of God. All other sins destroy the church consequentially, but division and separation demolish it directly. Building the church is but an orderly joining of the materials; and what then is disjoining, but pulling down? Many doctrinal differences must be tolerated in a church. And why, but for unity and peace? Therefore, disunion and separation are utterly intolerable."

I would never advocate that we ignore real issues, gloss over real sin, or otherwise pretend that doctrine is inconsequential. But the more critiques, pushbacks and gleeful schadenfreude-filled I-can't-believe-what-so-and-so-said's that I read, the more I'm convinced we're missing the point of following the One who prayed that we would be one, even as He and His Father are one.

As with all things, it's a heart issue. Do we want others to succeed or to fail, even others with whom we have profound disagreements? Do we mourn when leaders of other tribes within Christendom fail, or do we laugh? Do we search out the latest controversy, immersing ourselves in the details, parsing every statement in an effort to find disagreement or better yet, fault? Are we peacemakers or have we all become something else?

Even as I write this I know I'm writing to myself. I'm as guilty as anyone in all of this. I've written my share of hit pieces, pushback posts and tweets I probably shouldn't have. I've snickered at fallen leaders, shaken my head at those who do church differently and generally been frustrated at the growth of ministries I have real disagreements with. And I feel acute conviction over all this when I read Baxter's declaration: "How rare is it to meet with a man who smarts or bleeds with the Church's wounds, or sensibly takes them to heart as his own; or that ever had eager thoughts of a cure!"

So what say we call a truce? Even if it's just for a week or two, let's hold off on pushing back on someone else's pushback of yet someone else's critique. Let's forget, just for a moment that we are progressives, conservatives, emergent, Anabaptist, young-restless-and-reformed- that we are pro-gay marriage or pro-traditional families, that we are egalitarians or complimentarians, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox… and just be followers of Jesus. Can we just for the moment drop the us vs. them mentality and wish "them" well this Christmas? Let's ignore the controversies, give the other side the benefit of the doubt and focus a little less on our distinctives.

Because, let's be honest: if we can't "lay down our arms," and for once, just be Christians, united in our common love of a common Savior, we might as well pack it in. Because this war will not be won when everyone holds the same theological positions as we do, feels the same way about our issues (however important they may be), or when everyone does church the way we think it ought to be done. It will be won when everyone knows we are followers of Christ by our love for each other and are drawn by that love into the arms of a loving Savior.

So this Christmas, remember—just because you have a shot, doesn't mean you need to take it. Sometimes it's better to put the guns down, reach across the lines and shake the other guy's hand.

Bob Hyatt is a writer and pastor of the Evergreen Community in Portland, Oregon.

Megachurches may seem ubiquitous today, with more than 5 million people now worshiping at one of America's 1,650 megachurches on an average week. But research by Leadership Network's Warren Bird, who has tracked the megachurch phenomenon closely, indicates that four U.S. states still don't have a Protestant congregation with more than 2,000 weekly attenders.

In a year-end status update, Warren recently revealed that Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont still don't have a megachurch. Other stats of note:

• Even though megachurches only account for 0.5 percent of the 320,000 Protestant churches in America, nearly 10 percent of Protestant churchgoers attend one.

• Only 21 percent of megachurches were founded in the last 20 years (the median founding year: 1977), and only 22 percent were founded by their current lead pastor.

• The average (median) age of megachurch lead pastors is 55, while nearly 1 in 5 are under 45. Only five percent are under 40. (CT recently noted how one of America's youngest megachurch pastors drew scrutiny for how his building a "big house" was connected to his bestselling book.)

• Worldwide, at least 48 countries have a megachurch, according to Bird's research.

CT regularly reports on megachurches, including their financial health, whether their worship is addictive, how Las Vegas is the most megachurch-oriented city, and how megachurches united with Broadway and the NFL against a common threat.

Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, has noted the explosive growth of American megachurches and how megachurch myths are wrong.

The latest findings from a significant ongoing study of religion and race in America suggest that divergent perceptions on race among black and white Christians have continued to widen since 2006.

"The new findings … lay bare the dramatic and growing gap in racial attitudes and experiences in America," writes David Briggs in releasing the second wave of results from the Portraits of American Life Study (led by Michael Emerson of Rice University and David Sikkink of Notre Dame) via the Association of Religion Data Archives. "We do not live in a post-racial nation, the [new 2012 results] suggests, but in a land of two Americas divided by race, and less willing than ever to find a common ground of understanding."

Briggs's analysis of how the "vast gap in perspectives on race" increased from 2006 to 2012 is worth reading. Key findings reviewed by CT directly include:

1) More evangelicals and Catholics have come to believe that "one of the most effective ways to improve race relations is to stop talking about race." In 2012, 64 percent of evangelicals and 59 percent of Catholics agreed with this statement, up from 48 percent and 44 percent respectively in 2006.

The increases—driven by whites in both groups—were the only statistically significant changes among religious groups studied (apart from "other" Protestants: 56 percent agreed in 2012 vs. 41 percent in 2006). By comparison, 44 percent of black Protestants agreed in 2012 (vs. 37 percent in 2006), as did 52 percent of mainline Protestants (vs. 46 percent in 2006).

Among black evangelicals, 34 percent agreed in 2012, vs. 24 percent in 2006. Both findings were less than half the rate of white evangelicals (69 percent in 2012 vs. 51 percent in 2006).

2) More evangelicals now agree that "it is okay for the races to be separate, as long as they have equal opportunity." In 2012, 30 percent of all evangelicals agreed, up from 19 percent who said the same in 2006.

This increase was the only statistically significant change among religious groups studied, and occurred among white evangelicals (20 percent in 2006 vs. 34 percent in 2012), not black evangelicals (19 percent in 2006 vs. 16 percent in 2012).

By comparison, 30 percent of black Protestants agreed with the "separate but equal" idea in 2012, as did 24 percent of mainline Protestants, 20 percent of Catholics, and 24 percent of "other" Protestants.

3) On the question of whether the government "should do more to help minorities increase their standard of living," whites are no longer divided along religious lines the way they were six years earlier.

In 2006, more than 4 in 10 white non-evangelical Protestants agreed that the government should do more, versus only 3 in 10 white evangelicals and white Catholics. But in 2012, researchers found that "the religion effect disappeared" thanks to "substantial declining support" among white mainline Protestants (dropping from 42 percent to 21 percent) and white "other" Protestants (42 percent to 20 percent). Thus, "regardless of religious affiliation, whites were statistically identical to each other" by 2012.

In contrast, black Protestants saw a statistically significant increase in agreement that the government should do more: 68 percent agreed in 2006, while 84 percent agreed in 2012. (By comparison, 73 percent of black evangelicals said the same in 2006, declining to 69 percent in 2012.)

4) In 2012, 41 percent of black evangelicals said they think about their race daily, an increase from 36 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, 13 percent of white evangelicals said the same in 2012 (vs. 11 percent in 2006). By comparison, 48 percent of all blacks and 10 percent of all whites said the same in 2012 (vs. 42 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in 2006).

However, the only statistically significant change from 2006 to 2012 was a decrease among Hispanics: 54 percent said they thought about their race daily in 2006, but only 42 percent said the same in 2012.

5) More Americans now say they have been "treated unfairly" because of their race. And moreover, the increase from 2006 to 2012 was statistically significant for all groups: blacks (36% to 46%); Hispanics (17% to 36%); Asians (16% to 31%); whites (8% to 14%); as well as all Americans (13% to 21%).

Among religious groups, the only statistically significant change occurred among Catholics: 23 percent said they had experienced racial prejudice in 2012, up from 12 percent in 2006. By comparison, 43 percent of black evangelicals said the same in 2012 (up from 30 percent in 2006), as did 16 percent of white evangelicals (up from 11 percent in 2006).

CT regularly reports on diversity, racism, segregation, and reconciliation, including the efforts of Sanford pastors following the Trayvon Martin case, and how a Baptist church brought racial healing to a Georgia town.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty confronts that age-old question—does a movie get its drama through its plot or its characters? Its answer is to shrug indifferently, try to do both, and do neither.

It's the complete opposite of Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken": two potential movies diverged from a famous short story. Ben Stiller took the one most travelled by. Then he changed his mind and tried to go back and take the other one, but by then it was too late.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

The plot first. Walter works as a "negative asset manager" for Life magazine (product placement). He develops pictures taken by ace photographer Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn). When the magazine decides to become an Internet-only publication, his job is in jeopardy. Then he can't find a key photograph from Sean intended for the cover of the last print issue of the magazine. Meanwhile, his newly created eHarmony (product placement) account won't allow him to "wink" at his coworker, Cheryl (Kristen Wiig, looking and acting more like Jennifer Aniston than Kristen Wiig).

At this point Walter does what any middle-aged American worker facing a layoff from his job of 16 years would do: he jumps on a plane to Greenland in hopes of finding Sean and the missing film negative. This is where the movie proverbially and literally loses its way. Walter's fantasy sequences (from whence the story derives its title) disappear, replaced by a strangely unsatisfying mashup of The Amazing Race and Sherlock.

The film lost me for good in a sequence in which Walter skateboards from one Icelandic village to another just in time to see a volcano erupt and then hop in a car for the ride he rejected in the first place, narrowly outpacing the lethal ash. Walter calls Cheryl from Papa John's (product placement) in Iceland to check in. She reminds him that Iceland and Greenland are not the same place. Such romantic, witty repartee. Who needs Nick and Nora Charles when these two are around?

The plot, particularly in the latter half, is about transitioning from fantasy to reality. But the film can't seem to decide between two different script treatments. On the one hand, Walter is not a Jason Bourne type super-agent. His adventures—helicoptering, skateboarding, mountain climbing—come second to the emotional difficulty of asking the pretty girl on a date.

On the other hand, we get ridiculous flights from reality in service of cheap jokes, like when Walter manages to get past Afghani warlords by offering them his mom's cake, or appeases a suspicious customs/immigration team by having someone from eHarmony (product placement) vouch for him. The plot circles back on itself, with Walter heading off to the nether worlds, coming home, then heading out again, then coming home again. Where is he getting the money for all this? Has he saved a bundle by living a boring life? Is he putting it on Life's expense account? (No wonder print magazines are all going broke.)

Walter's situation changes, but does his character develop? The original short story by James Thurber is about a hen-pecked husband who retreats to a fantasy world as a defense against his own feelings of inadequacy. We've already had two films this season—Inside Llewyn Davis and Enough Said—in which women are brutally verbally abusive in their speech to and about men, so I was glad enough to see that plot point go by the boards.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

But the film wants to have it both ways. It celebrates Walter coming out of his shell, with the eHarmony (product placement) profile going from bland to exotic in order to show his character develop. At the same time, Sean, the film's swashbuckling adventurer, endorses as "the very quintessence of life" the normalcy that Walter is trying to leave behind. At the end of the movie, Walter is celebrated for the life he broke away from, not for breaking away from it.

Perhaps the strangest element of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is how beautifully it is filmed. The first half of the film could be a tourist commercial for Iceland, with the winter landscapes looking like they came straight out of Life (product placement) or National Geographic. Early scenes have some long shots of the urban environment, reinforcing how small a person is in society and in nature.

But the movie's form rarely merges with its content. Neither the playfulness of the opening credits and fantasy sequences in the first act, nor the grandeur of the landscapes in the second and third, are matched by any kind of visual spark or flair when Walter is in the real world—the world he, and we, are supposed to choose over Sean's jet-setting existence. Wiig is full of charm and energy, but the movie grinds to a halt every time Cheryl is on the screen. Maybe the script was reaching for something tender in Walter's tentativeness towards her, but visually and structurally, it ends up conveying just indifference. Scenes between Walter and Cheryl play like an afterthought, not a culmination.

2013 was a great year for quality films. But it also yielded few positive, encouraging, or heart-warming tales. Christmas usually brings at least one "fun for the whole family" kind of a film for those who want to go out to see something and not have to sit through three hours of The Wolf of Wall Street or one second of Anchorman 2. And The Secret Life of Walter Mitty could have been that something, but it ends up being a compromise film—the one nobody really wants to see but everyone can at least agree on when the other choices are sold out.

Or, of course, we could just all stay home and watch It's a Wonderful Life.

Caveat Spectator

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is rated PG for some mild action violence and language. Although the romance between Walter and Cheryl is chaste, there is some ambiguity as to whether she is actually divorced or just separated. Walter's new boss engages in some office bullying that could be traumatic for some kids who could relate. Walter drinks in a bar, and one gag is about him riding in a helicopter with a pilot who is obviously impaired by alcohol.

Kenneth R. Morefield is an Associate Professor of English at Campbell University. He is the editor of Faith and Spirituality in Masters of World Cinema, Volumes I & II, and the founder of 1More Film Blog.

In the twelfth century, the English abbot Aelred of Rievaulx wrote the foundational treatise On Spiritual Friendship. Aelred made the case that one of the great practices of the Christian life is being transformed by the presence of a spiritual friend.

He taught that through friendship we are sanctified, perfected into Christ. In one place he says, "The best medicine in life is a friend." And also, "… human beings are equal and as it were, collateral, and that there is in human affairs neither a superior nor an inferior, a characteristic of true friendship."

Tom is one such friend for me. He is a source of great spiritual encouragement. He is a defender of my soul. He nourishes my life and brings me both challenges and joy. Tom has helped me be a better minister of the gospel, and has advised me on my spiritual life.

Did I mention that Tom does not identify as a Christian? Not only does he not identify as a Christian, he most closely aligns with Unitarians and is unapologetically secular and progressive. Additionally, he is a promoter of liberal thought through his religious writings, primarily as a member of the board of contributors for USA Today.

You can find Tom Krattenmaker all over the Internet, if you want to.

Celebrating Advent values

We are in the liturgical season of Advent. In my household, this is one of the most beloved times of the year. My wife Aimee (who is the liturgical curator of our community) makes sure that our home reflects Advent values. Our family enjoys a small Advent ceremony every evening. We practice hope. We celebrate Christ's coming.

One of Aimee's practices is to construct a simple stable scene on our fireplace mantle out of rocks and driftwood. In the stable sits an empty manger with only the companionship of a lone donkey. Around the living room are placed the other characters of the nativity story. Throughout the Advent season these characters "journey" across the room to arrive at the stable in harmony with the Christmas story. Mary and Joseph arrive on Christmas Eve. Jesus appears on Christmas morning. And the Shepherds join the scene on Christmas mid-day.

Lastly, on the feast of Epiphany (January 6), the Magi (wise men) arrive. They are odd characters aren't they? On several levels, they are so incongruent with the rest of Christ's birth story that we can only assume that their appearance is not only historically accurate, but also theologically necessary.

Who were the Magi anyway? They appear to be spiritual scholars of some kind who—prompted by a strange star—went on a great quest to discover the divine story. They were not Christians (there were no Christians as such at this point in history). There is nothing in the text to suggest they were Jews either. They were stargazers from the East. Were they Zoroastrians? Astrologers? We do not know. But they are most assuredly spiritual "exotics" within the narrative of Jesus. They stand out.

You know what is most shocking to me about the Magi? How comfortable Matthew—the Jewish disciple of Jesus—was to include the Magi in his Gospel. And more importantly, how delighted Jesus, through the inspiring Holy Spirit, was to welcome these spiritual foreigners into their nativity story.

Maybe it's because the Magi were viewed as spiritual friends.

Spiritual foreigners, spiritual friends?

Some of my Christian friends flinch a bit when they learn that my friend Tom does not identify as a Christian. It's hard for some to accept the fact that a public purveyor of a secular-progressive message could be a true "spiritual friend" to a faithful Christian.

Tom would be the first to admit that he once lived on the other side of the cultural/theological gap which separates the stereotypically conservative Christian world from the world of secular progressives. He would also admit that he once had an agenda to reveal the foibles and follies of "fundamentalist" Christianity.

There was a time that, when Tom looked into the conservative Christian world, he saw mostly darkness. However, just as when one stares into the darkness of the night sky, the longer you look, the more you can't help but see the stars. Yes, Tom now sees the twinkling stars in the once dark world of evangelicalism. He's seen the side of us that many spiritual foreigners haven't—the signs of Christian life and light that shine God's life to the world.

He was so moved by what he saw, that he couldn't help but write a book about it. The purpose of his book, to declare to the rest of the world the examples of heavenly beauty that he had witnessed through evangelicals. His book is called, The Evangelicals You Don't Know, which is an examination of some of the most beautiful examples of faith-life in America. He does not necessarily have frankincense or myrrh to offer to us, but in seeing the stars, he has brought us (and the world, I think) a gift. Tom is my spiritual friend. I believe he is your friend as well. He may have come from afar, but he's here seeking light.

Who are the Magi-friends in your life? Who are the unexpected spiritual-exotics that God has brought into story? Do you see the gifts that they carry with them?

This Advent season, celebrate those Magi-gifts that God has given to you and your family.

Tony "The Beat Poet" Kriz is author in residence at Warner Pacific in Portland, Oregon. His most recent book is Neighbors and Wise Men: Sacred Encounters in a Portland Pub and Other Unexpected Places (Thomas Nelson, 2012). You can find Tony at tonykriz.com or on Twitter

.

Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

I was recently in Colorado Springs, speaking to some ministry leaders. As a friend and I drove past the complex of Ted Haggard's former megachurch, New Life, our conversation turned to various failings we've each witnessed in recent months at other large ministries.

As I young pastor, I believe it's healthy to reflect on such failures. I'd rather be a janitor in God's kingdom than rise to influence and disgrace his name.

The next day, when I returned home, I found myself deeply discouraged. Actually, depressed might be the better word. I was supposed to be preparing Christmas sermons about joy, peace, and glad tidings, but all I felt was grief, agony, despair—not only at those specific failures, but also at the gleaming Colorado Springs buildings I visited, the seeming gap between the wealthiest Church in world history (ours) and the New Testament church. Adding to my melancholy was my own seeming inability to lead myself or the ministries I serve as close to Christ's words as I'd like.

Godly grief

There is grief in serving Christ. Sometimes we grieve for persecuted believers or struggling ministries. Often, it's our own inadequacies, our unfulfilled desires to reach more souls, bear more fruit, or advance the Kingdom.

Every servant of the gospel will travel, eventually, through dark forests of grief, even despair. But judging by the popular books and "successful" ministries out there, you wouldn't know it. You get the impression that truly spiritual Christians are always well adjusted, smiling, high-energy successes. In some circles, grieving is proof positive you must not be trusting in God's providence and sovereignty.

But grief and faithfulness are not mutually exclusive. Didn't Christ trust the Father's sovereignty in Gethsemane, even as he groaned, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death" (Matt. 26:38)? Was Christ unspiritual when he fell to the ground in agony, begging God to let that bitter cup pass?

In America we rarely see models of ministry that discuss paralyzing sorrow, deep discouragement or lethargy. When we do, they're things to be conquered in a day of prayer, sure, but not embraced for a season.

However, if you've found yourself recently in a season of grief, you're in good company. Christ's example is enough. But God gives us many more. We know Jeremiah as "the weeping prophet" because of the agony he carried. Jeremiah did not bear this grief because he was running away from God's will and service. Quite the opposite. Jeremiah's weeping was the cost of doing precisely what God called him to do.

It's okay to mourn, to grieve, to sorrowfully long for redemption, to join the earth in "groaning" (Rom. 8:22) for Christ's return—even if your season of grief arrives during "the most wonderful time of the year."

How would Jesus feel about such spiritual agonizing during Christmas? Well, it may put us in the company of those few who saw Christ for Who He was in the Christmas story. Simeon and Anna held Christ the infant and praised God for Messiah when most people were looking for someone bigger, happier and stronger than a baby. Simeon and Anna touched Christ in the temple because they were "waiting for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25) and "looking forward to the redemption" (Luke 2:38). In the same way today, sorrow and grief can knock our gaze forward to our coming consolation and redemption.

Blessings of sorrow

The disciples could not pray one hour with the Man of Sorrows in Gethsemane. When you have the same opportunity, do not squander it as they did. When we experience sorrow we keep company with the Apostle Paul who spoke of this in Philippians 3:10. The abandoning of everything else life has to offer in order to "know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings."

Our acquaintance with Christ's sorrow is an unwelcome but sure confirmation that we are indeed about his work—and not simply about the building of some social group or human organization. The best way of knowing Christ, Paul discovered, is through this intimate "fellowship of sharing in his sufferings" (Phil. 3:10).

Like Peter in the upper room, most of us know little of this fellowship of suffering when we begin following Christ or ministering. But we all come to a moment, like Peter did, when we are asked, "Can you drink the cup I drink?" (Mark 10:38).

The bitter cup was not only the atoning drink of our punishment; it was also the cup of the Father's will. From the beginning, Jesus stated that his food was to do the will of him who sent him (John 4:34). Christ pursued daily—as food—the Father's will, whether that meant the multitudes praising him or shouting, "Crucify him!"

Jesus' insistence on eating the food of his Father's will culminated with that final meal, in which he ate and drank his own crucifixion. Moments later, in Gethsemane, Jesus asked, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will" (Matt. 26:39).

As we follow Christ, we faithfully but imperfectly pray, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me." As we pray this prayer of surrender (perhaps in other words), at times we will taste the fruit of success. But, even as we faithfully follow, we will also endure seasons when the cup is bitter. Will we give up in those times?

When grief surrounds you, go to Gethsemane. And, with a will emboldened by heaven's grace, drink the dredges of bitterness that heaven has measured out for you.

Let us resolve again to know the Man of Sorrows—no matter the cost. Let us choose again that our only ambition is "to do the will of him who sent" us, to eat that bread and drink that cup, no matter how sweet or bitter.

We eat and drink, knowing it is not our final meal. As Christ promised Peter and John, so he promises us. We will eat and drink again with him "in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:14-18). What a feast he will have for us at the wedding supper of the Lamb.

In that day Jeremiah will not be weeping.

In that day, Paul who knew Christ in all His suffering will "share in his glory" (Romans 8:17).

In that day no one will regret having walked through grief with the Man of Sorrows.

"But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed" (1 Pet. 4:13).

Fix your eyes on this. And drink.

John S. Dickerson is author of The Great Evangelical Recession. Follow him on Twitter @JohnSDickerson or Facebook.com/JohnSDickerson.

Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Update (Dec. 20): One of two class-action lawsuits filed against the HHS contraceptive mandate proved successful today, as the Becket Fund announced that an Oklahoma judge granted GuideStone Financial Resources a temporary injunction against the Affordable Care Act requirement.

GuideStone had sued on behalf of nearly 200 evangelical ministries affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Becket writes:

These evangelical organizations only object to four out of twenty FDA-approved contraceptives—those like the "morning after pill" and the "week after pill" that may cause early abortions. The court's order is an early Christmas gift that came just days before the January 1, 2014 deadline that would have forced the ministries to choose between following their religious beliefs about the sanctity of life and paying thousands of dollars a day in fines.

CT previously noted how the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to assess the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate, which now faces nearly 90 legal challenges.

—–

[Originally posted Oct. 16, 2013, at 11:49 a.m. under headline, "100 Christian Ministries Compose Class-Action Lawsuit over Contraceptives"]

The massive retirement and health benefits arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, GuideStone Financial Resources, has made good on its threat to pivot from advocacy to litigation in defending beleaguered church health plans.

In its first-ever federal lawsuit, GuideStone has partnered with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Locke Lord LLP to file a class-action lawsuit against what Becket described as "the federal government's mandate that [GuideStone clients] provide employees with free access to abortion-inducing drugs and devices."

According to Becket's press release:

The class, represented by Reaching Souls International and Truett-McConnell College, includes over 100 ministries that currently receive conscience-compliant health benefits through GuideStone. None of the ministries that comprise the class qualify for HHS' narrow "religious employer" exemption, and they all face enormous fines if they do not comply with the government's mandate by January 1, 2014.

…

"The very purpose of the GuideStone plan is to provide ministry organizations with employee health benefits according to Biblical principles," said O.S. Hawkins, GuideStone's President and Chief Executive Officer. "The government shouldn't prohibit us from continuing in that ministry."

The lawsuit is the second class-action suit to challenge the contraceptive mandate (the first, on behalf of a Catholic benefits provider, was also filed by Becket), and the 74th overall. CT recently noted the likelihood of this legal fight soon reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to Becket's scorecard, only 1 of the 35 non-profit lawsuits filed against the mandate has been "decided on the merits," with the rest only receiving "rulings on procedural issues such as timing." By contrast, 30 of the 39 for-profit lawsuits filed against the mandate have "secured injunctive relief," while only 5 have not.

The Alliance Defending Freedom offered its own scorecard earlier this month.

CT has regularly reported on the HHS contraceptive mandate.

Today a major Christian financial services organization temporarily suspended all pro-life and pro-choice groups from a member-driven charity program that has donated $120 million since 2010.

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans announced today that, in the wake of outcry over one of its 1,300 local chapters approving a Planned Parenthood affiliate for eligibility in its Thrivent Choice program, the 2.5-million-member ministry is "temporarily suspending all pro-choice and pro-life organizations [from the program], placing a temporary hold on the addition and removal of nonprofit organizations from the program, and conducting a comprehensive program review."

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) had protested the inclusion of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, stating:

[We are] deeply concerned by the news that Thrivent Financial has recognized [a] Planned Parenthood [affiliate] as a potential recipient of funding through its Thrivent Choice Dollars grant program. The LCMS always has been, and will continue to be, clear and faithful in its proclamation of the sanctity of all human life from conception until natural death. We are currently in conversation with Thrivent Financial and pray for a God-pleasing resolution to this matter so that the pro-life witness of individual Lutherans and the LCMS will not be compromised.

Thrivent noted that the nominating chapter had agreed to withdraw the Planned Parenthood affiliate from the charity program, which it said more than 270,000 members have used to direct some $47 million—"91% of it to Christian congregations, schools, camps/outdoor ministries, and social ministries."

On Twitter, Thrivent noted that members voted in 2012 to have the ability to add eligible groups to the donation program at the local not corporate level. Responding to pro-life critics regarding the Planned Parenthood affiliate, it also tweeted, "For what it's worth, to date, no funds have ever been directed to that organization."

"While our membership holds diverse points of view on faith and social issues," said Thrivent, "we share a common purpose to be wise with money and live generously."

In June, CT reported how Thrivent dropped its denominational boundaries for the first time in its 111-year history, expanding its financial services to all Christians.

Below is the full announcement from Thrivent:

Members, Thrivent Take Action on Thrivent Choice Issue

December 20, 2013

Background: This is Thrivent Financial's statement regarding a recent issue related to the addition of a Planned Parenthood affiliate to the catalog of eligible Thrivent Choice organizations. The statement outlines our position on this issue and describes the actions of our members and organization.

Thrivent Financial is a membership organization of Christians with more than two million members in more than 1,300 local chapters nationwide. While our membership holds diverse points of view on faith and social issues, we share a common purpose to be wise with money and live generously.

We listen to concerns from all of our members, and we are listening now.

As a grassroots organization, we are committed to honoring the desire of our members and local chapters to choose and support the non-profit organizations that are meaningful to them. We recognize that the eligibility of a Planned Parenthood affiliate, approved by one of our local chapters, has been controversial.

After input, discussion and a review of the concerns from Thrivent members, the leadership of this local chapter voted Thursday to remove it from the Thrivent Choice program effective immediately. Given the deeply held views on this issue across our membership, we also are taking action to address the concerns of our membership. These steps include temporarily suspending all pro-choice and pro-life organizations from the Thrivent Choice program, placing a temporary hold on the addition and removal of nonprofit organizations from the program, and conducting a comprehensive program review.

The Thrivent Choice program is highly valued by our members. More than 270,000 members have used it to direct some $47 million – 91% of it to Christian congregations, schools, camps/outdoor ministries, and social ministries. We will seek input from our members, chapter leaders and others in the communities we serve with the goal of designing and delivering a program that continues to support the priorities of our members and our common purpose.

Thrivent members, if you would like to share your feedback, you may reach the Thrivent Choice® team using the Contact Form on this page. You may also write to:

Thrivent Choice Program
4321 N Ballard Road
Appleton, WI 54919