« Do you talk to yourself? |
Main
| Modern Day Shawshank Redemption? »
The Church's One "Foundation"?
There once was a small publication
Equating theology with facial foundation
But 'tis not right to compare God with curling one's hair
For it cheapens our precious salvation.
There is now a New Testament in magazine format for teenage girls, complete with all the features you would expect to find in such a publication. Thomas Nelson Publishers, after interviewing teen girls, determined that God's Word needed to be slick, quick and filled with catchy sidebars:
"To meet discriminating adolescents' standards, Thomas Nelson brought in Thor 5 One, an Irish firm that designs the album covers for the rock band U2. The result: a glossy cover photo of three smiling teenage girls with glistening teeth and glowing skin, under florescent pink and blue headlines promising beauty secrets, quizzes and Q&As."
After all, Christ is called the Foundation in the Bible, right? So since these girls have spent so much time reading magazines that they can't read the Bible, the Revolve Team thought pointing out the similarities between Christ and their face makeup would, like, make Jesus, you know, relevant. Why hasn't anyone in the past thought of relating the Scriptures to such eternal spiritual questions as how best to clean one's pores?
"Looking nothing like the Good Book, Revolve was designed to spare teen girls Bible embarrassment should they want to bring scripture with them to school, to the mall or to their next basketball game. Aside from the words "The Complete New Testament" slicing across the cover, one might never suspect that the glossy magazine, teeming with photos of preternaturally happy, attractive gals, was anything more than a new entry into the already crowded teen 'zine market."
And that's what Revolve's creators want. "Teens were saying that they found the Bible to be too freaky, too big, too intimidating," says Laurie Whaley, Brand Manager for the New Century Version at Thomas Nelson, one of America's major Bible publishers and part of the Revolve team. "Revolve shows girls that reading the New Testament is just as easy as reading an issue of Seventeen or Vogue."
The scriptures are full of deep spiritual insights and theological doctrines that have stretched the minds of great thinkers for two millennia, but the Revolve Team has gotten past all that! They've brought it down to earth, and made it, like, so easy! Why didn't Gutenberg think of this, or King James? (Like, who's Gutenberg?)
And we know that God would never want anyone to be *embarassed* about their faith, wouldn't want them to stand out at all. If only the multitude of Christian martyrs had access to such a fun and lighthearted Gospel they might have been spared the embarassment of spilling their blood as a testimony to their faith. But today's arenas are not filled with hungry lions or stakes waiting to be made into human torches. Does this generation of young people know only high school football stadiums, so filled with others like themselves who have been so spoiled and coddled that the thought of having to bear witness and perhaps suffer embarassment for their faith is to be avoided at all costs? If so, methinks that they have been attending too many such frolics since their skill in reading has not risen above the magazine level, despite all the years of compulsory education.
This attempt to bring God's Word down to this level degrades the Lord. This is the King of the Universe we are talking about here, not some bud. Prayer is something deeper than talking to God when you're putting on your sunscreen. I am not saying at all that the Scriptures should ot be available in the vernacular, but the history of redemption and the gracious salvation provided by the Lord is not a triviality to be compared with cosmetics and beauty rituals.
In addition, filling the scriptures with sidebars full of "Beautiful People" and references to popular culture is a distraction from the Word of God, and could easily cause girls who are not attractive, or who have had sad or difficult lives, to equate beauty and happiness with godliness. The Bible speaks harshly against vanity, and this time of life is one in which the desire to preen and beautify oneself can become an obession. I'm sure the publishers of this thing would insist that they are speaking *against* such outward focus, but by presenting the Scriptures in this way they are in fact promoting these glamour values. It has been said that the medium is the message, and in this case that seems to be true.
Did you ever wonder why the BIble is called the *Holy* Scriptures? It is the holiness of God that will reveal all sin and silence every tongue on the day of judgement. We are doing no one any favors by minimizing this truth. No amount of makeup, no fashion, will be able to cover the sin of any of the readers of Revolve. Is this coming through loud and clear between all the eye candy and triviality? I understand that the text of Scripture is also here in this publication, and that God's Word is so powerful that it can cut through all this triviality and save, and yet I tremble to think that Christians accept shallowness of youth as inevitable, and pander to that, rather than seeking to inspire a deeper desire for the riches of the Gospel, and presenting it as something worth working to understand.
A few years back, I would have been horrified by this too. Putting God's Word in a format like this seems to make it teenage fluff.
But then I became a high school teacher (and now a middle school teacher), and I see kids all the time who would never think about picking up a Bible, but might be induced to read one of these, if given it by a friend or youth pastor. Part of it is the format- it's familiar and not something to 'study'- and part of it is the easy reading. It's really amazing how much many teens really hate reading.
I don't think this is a good choice for teens who have godly parents and a church to teach doctrine and take them deeper than this 'seeker-sensitive' publication (to use an overused phrase). But for those whose families are not believers, or who have never had a role model for taking Jesus seriously, this could actually be a great tool.
The focus on outward beauty is a legitimate concern, but I flipped through one of these at a Bible bookstore (thinking of getting one for a teenager I know who doesn't attend church and would never want to read anything without pictures), and the sidebars I saw are either about Christ-like character (like the page pictured) or about health stuff like making smoothies. I know, smoothies and Bible text on the same page is a stretch, but I would far rather see some of my lost and hurting students reading one of these than no Bible at all, or a typical teen magazine.
This was originally posted on my own blog a few years ago (I'm on vacation in California and not in teh best circumstances for writing), and I had people agree with your perspective, definitely, Margaret!
For those who think these Bibles are fine, or at least better than no Bible, is there a limit to what you would accept as being "acceptable"? There is a translation known as The Street Bible which says things like this (Psalm 23)
’You’re my guide and my guard, my minder, my mentor. What more do I need? What’s better at the centre? You sit me down, put my best CD on, And my dismembered soul remembers who I am again.’
So, what I really wonder is this: if this is the level we need to go to in order to "reach people" today, what level will we descend to for the next generation? I shudder to think that we might have the Dick and Jane Bible; "See Jesus Die. He died for you. Jesus is your Friend."; While these statements are "true", and not exactly a mistranslation, I venture to say that something is lost. I hope I am sooooo wrong and the problem is just my natural Chicken Little cynicism creeping out. Perhaps this next generation will produce great men and women of God and a new generation of Luthers. Time will tell.
Anyway, I will really look forward to all the comments on this.
I don't like this "Bible" and I really don't like the translation they use. If the reason that they think this format is needed is to keep our daughters from being embarrassed - yikes.
On the other hand, my daughter's first homeschool reading is "The Radical Reformission" which is saying that we are a small part of the larger culture and our first mission field is right outside our door.
If we look like the culture but preach the Truth (the real Gospel), the Gospel still works - although the New Century Version has problems beyond what I think are acceptable. My daughter wouldn't have one - but her unsaved friend might.
Derick Webb (I don't remember the name of the song or the album) sings of the Gospel - "we can dress her like the culture, but she shocks them just the same." If they get the "you sinned - Jesus died; repent" part, that's pretty shocking, no matter what the wrapper.
Again, I don't like this Bible, or the translation they use. But if it's used as a door - something the lost will pick up - it can be used by God.
When they are ready for answers, they will need the Word of God which has deep answers, sacred language and a quality of transcendance and historical solidarity that is lost when transfered to glossy pink stripes and bleached smiles.
My guess is that a girl who has been exposed to "Revolve" will get (hopefully) enough so that when she's looking for real answers will go to somebody that has them - who will lead them to the Somebody that has them.
It happened with a friend of mine (not with Revolve) - she was reading something that Christians shouldn't be reading (one of the "lost gospels) - but it left her with a taste for the real thing, and she knew where to get it.
So, do you also have a problem with the gospel put into silly forms of entertainment, like VeggieTales?
I've never seen Veggie Tales, but I would say that, yes, I am wary of presenting the gospel in a silly format.
I know that, for example, the Jews for Jesus tend to have humorous things that are *not* gospel-related on the front of their tracts to, I suppose, get people to pick them up when they might not if they were aware of their nature. While I know that this is said to "work", there is absolutely NO precedent in the Scriptures that tell the gospel is to be "marketed" in a way that is humorous or culturally "relevant" in the way these magazines are.
I am not saying that a tract cannot be visually interesting, or deal with real questions that naturally lead to the gospel, but I really do not think the seriousness of the death of God's own son for our salvation is something that should be dumbed down to equate it with beauty tips, or that should be presented to children through singing claymation vegetables. None of this was deemed necessary, or even given sanction, by God, and most likely would have been seen as irreverent by the Church in the not too distant past.
The ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18-19) might look differently in different settings. I guess I am more interested in being a reconciler however I can. Jesus went to the people. I want to go to the people. I will start where they are and the Holy Spirit is great to draw people to the Father. (No one can come to the Father except the Spirit draw him.) I just want to make Jesus "friendly" (that's a picture behind the word "reconcile") to the folks around me. Jesus is not the "big guy in the sky with a stick". He is a judge for sure. I can tell you that there are more people in my world who see Him as that than loving and caring. I think you have to "know your audience" and bring Him to their world. He is more than enough for any person. They just don't know it yet!
I often wonder if religious leaders and scholars were horrified by the transition from scroll to book...from Greek to English...from KJV to something less headache-inducing?
Maybe its because I have a 2 lb 14 and 3/4 ounce "InStyle" magazine sitting on my kitchen table right now (yes, I weighed it on our digital Salter scale) and I am such a girly girl, but I really appreciate how SOMEONE wants to reach out to girls who wouldn't normally pick up a Bible.
Don't we all start out on milk, move on to mashed bananas, and eventually meat (or the vegetarian equivalent of something that needs to be chewed and chewed and chewed)?
Spiritually, this may be the introduction *some* girls need. It may spawn more questions, poke at their hearts, stir them up a little and they will, with the help of the Spirit seek out more meaty things.
It would make me smile to see a girl sitting at a mall reading Revolve. I'd say a prayer that it would strike her right in the most tender part of her heart and open her eyes to Truth, and that the Spirit would pursue her relentlessly.
Oh, and my Bible far outweighs InStyle. In every way.
or even given sanction, by God,
Just out of curiousity, do you follow the regulative principle?
most likely would have been seen as irreverent by the Church in the not too distant past.
A lot of things would have been seen as irreverent - like men not wearing suits and ties on Sunday morning, or women wearing slacks and not dresses. I visited a friend's church a few years ago and never was able to accept the pastor wearing a polo shirt and slacks.
I'm not sure if this is how far the church has slipped, or if it is the culture in which we live (there are many parts of our culture that are not sinful - culture is the setting in which we live).
I remember many years ago, I had the life of Jesus (Book of John) done in "comic book style". I'm not so sure this vehicle is that much different (I still have a huge problem with the translation that they use).
I don't particularly like this Bible - especially for teens that are already established Christians.
But...is there that much of a difference between this and the "Life Application Bible", or all of the other "study Bibles" with the little sidebars with extra information? (I won't have one of those either.) Or the "Women of Faith Bible" that "Demonstrates that the Christian life is more about what God will do for women than what they can do for God."
I guess the point I'm making is not that "Revolve" is a good thing - it's that adults are not exempt from that mindset.
Well said, Mopsy. (Now I have the Wiggles, "mashed banana" song on my mind...sung w/an accent, of course.")
The role of the local church and what it looks like has been on my mind lately. How are we supposed to present the gospel? How did Jesus present it? What about Paul?
Jesus told a lot of stories, did a lot of talking, performed miracles and spent time building relationships with his friends.
Paul traveled from place to place telling people about Jesus and wrote letters to churches.
Was that unusual for their culture?
Would they have used the same means today? Would they use the other resources we have available today?
Would Jesus use a Power Point presentation for His parables? Would Paul send e-mails instead of handwritten letters?
Those examples are more about form than content, where as the "Revolve" magazine issue brings into question the content as well. I want to be wary of diluting the gospel with cultural influences. I also want to be wary of holding up "how they did it in the old days" as the standard, as if people of a certain century had a corner on how to be in but not of the world.
(That's not as complete a response as I would've liked, but that's the best I can do in the midst of the kiddos.)
Ellen, I'm so glad you mentioned the reguative principle, because after I went to bed last night I thought that the word sanctioned was probably the wrong word, since I would say that I probably *don't* follow the regulative principle, although I might lean towards it.
I don't know if things like this can rightly be compared from going from scroll to book, or to wearing a polo shirt to church. While you are right that at what we wear now might certainly be considered inapproprate (and not only to church) I think that is not the same as taking what is really the most serious thing there is, God Himself and His purposes and work in history, and hiding it within the fashion magazine format.
Someone also asked me whether I equate these with Study Bibles when I first wrote this a few year sago. Certainly not. There is nothing wrong with having a Bible with extra information in it, theological notes, etc. Of course, we could debate the theology of those notes ;-)
Theologically, I think Revolve leaves much to be desired:
Take, for example, the statement: "The fire of God's love burns out the sin the way hot steam routs the dirt out of your pores." Is that really what the Scriptures teach about how God removes our sin?
To simplify that question, I'll just discuss imputation. Where do our sins go? Are they just pulled out of us by some impersonal process like steam facials, to be wiped up with a wash cloth and then thrown in the washer? No. Christ's perfect righteousness was IMPUTED to us, while our sin was IMPUTED to Him in His suffering and death. God's love doesn't just burn away our sin. When something burns away, it just kind of disintegrates and the remains fly into the air. Our sin wasn't like that. It needed to be, not burned away, but punished. In order to show forth the justice of God, He needed to JUDGE and PASS SENTENCE. He did this by providing a substitute for us, as He provided a ram in order that Abraham did not have to kill Isaac. In His suffering on the cross, His foresakenness by the Father, and HIs days in the grave, Christ took our sin and its eternal punishment upon Himself. In His life on earth, as He perfectly kept every commandment of God, He provided for us the positive righteousness which we need to stand before the Father.
In my opinion, these theological words which are heavy with meaning are important. God chose to use certain words to illuminate to us salvation. Instead of trying to explain these terms in watered down ways which are "relevant" to the pampered lives of American girls, we should be encouraging them to look beyond their own limited experience to understand these words in their fullness. If they don't understand what "imputation" means, let them learn to use a theological dictionary. Let them learn to use Vines Expository Dictionary to see the greek and hebrew roots of words, their shades of meaning, etc.
If they don't understand what "imputation" means, let them learn to use a theological dictionary. Let them learn to use Vines Expository Dictionary to see the greek and hebrew roots of words, their shades of meaning, etc.
If you're looking at girls with a Christian history, that's a really good thought - but, say, take the one down the street who says she's a wiccan. Or the one dressed in black with 8 holes punched in her face. Or the one who is struggling with acceptance from her dad, who is about to run to the arms of the next boy that comes along.
"Revolve" is not aimed at the ones who have a Vine's or Strong's. It's not even aimed at the ones that have one foot in the world - it's aimed at the ones that have their entire lives firmly entrenched in the world.
God's love doesn't just burn away our sin.
Psalm 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
1 Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 11:27
And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Hebrews 1:3
...After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Hebrews 8:12
For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people;
Yes, these theological realities are important - but are they milk or meat?
To the one who wonders if God can forgive her because of what she did last night...forgiveness seems far away. Is the vehicle of imputation more important than the reassurance of forgiveness?
I know a woman that had an abortion. I could have done the imputation lecture - but instead I asked her if she was the same woman that she was then - did she repent? Is she changed? And I told her that God promised that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
There is time enough later for doctrinal meat - for today let's just get them out of abortion clinics, their boyfriends' beds,and worse.
(still not an endorsement of "Revolve", but an endorsement of milk for babes)
Ellen, I can really understand what you are saying. I know that God can and does "use" all kinds of things to reach people...I have to think more about whether this might just be an example of milk before meat. Perhaps I am being a reactionary. But from reading what Thomas Nelson said about this publication, it was *not* necessarily geared towards new Christians or non-Christians, but rather towards the Christian girls of today (who might be embarassed to carry their Bible, etc. or who find the Bible too hard to read...you see that in the excerpts I quoted above about why the Bible was made)
If this is the case, and I think it is, I am also concerned that in Revolve is the assumption that Christian girls naturally have all the same problems that non-Christian girls have. There is a sidebar in there about rape, and inside the front cover is a full page advertisement for a book about a girl who had anorexia nervosa...in the pic the girl doesn't look sickly thin, but gorgeously svelte, with her hair blowing in the wind.. I'm sure the book will credit God for rescuing her from it, which He certainly can do. But this is not evident from the ad. Also, why do Christian girls *have* anorexia nervosa? Why are they so concerned with their weight that they starve themselves? Where did they get the idea that they have to look like a famine victim to be attractive? Why are they even thinking so much about *being* attractive? (Not that they should seek to be ugly, but a practice like starving yourself or vomiting up all your food goes beyond simply wanting to look your best...even fat girls or homely girls can "look their best" in God's economy...by displaying the fruits of the spirit and the spiritual qualities which make for loveliness.)
I would not doubt if Christian girls are having these problems because they have been as exposed to these glamour images as much as non-Christian girls.
However, I am also very concerned about the excessive use of images in general, in a culture and generation that is already image-saturated. We know that today's young people have been immersed in images, moving pictures, video games, interactive websites, etc. With all the research that has been done on the effects of television, and what we know about the educational level of government schooled students, I think serious concern is in order about the lack of reading ability and the lack of desire to read among young people. Today's youth do not need more images to distract them from the written word in general. How much more must this apply to the Holy Word of God?
And don't forget, "For He is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap"!
I have some other thoughts, but they'll have to wait until I have a break at work.
Samantha, the church that my family is in has a large youth group - and many students that are in our church without their families.
(This whole conversation is kind of funny for me - when "Revolve" first came out I loudly advocated against it. Then I went to work in the public school. And some teenage girls came into my life.
A Christian girl in a family of unbelievers may very well have to deal with rape and/or incest. A new Christian may be dealing with anorexia - or may have sister who is dealing with it. Even Christians in Christian families may have a friend who is dealing with it.
Teens who can't read well - that's a problem. I'm not sure that giving them a Vine's is the answer.
embarassment - another issue, or maybe not. Our pastor's son went to a Christian school and even he was hassled by other students for bringing a Bible to school. He told me that he used a book cover - not because of embarassment, but just because he seldom had the time to deal with it.
In some families, the Bible is so offensive that it would be thrown out.
I have the same concerns that you do about images - and I wouldn't give "Revolve" to a teen with a solid history - but I can think of a few that have a lot of growing to do that might benefit.
Today's youth do not need more images to distract them from the written word in general. How much more must this apply to the Holy Word of God?
Buit we are in this world and we do have to deal with the attention that other things get.
I want to see teens hungry for the Word - I want to have deep studies - shoot, I want the same things in the adult world!
I don't know what the answer is - spoon feeding "Resolve" to established kids isn't it.
Maybe I'm just being a word snob about the facial business..good examples of washing verses!
You said: "If this is the case, and I think it is, I am also concerned that in Revolve is the assumption that Christian girls naturally have all the same problems that non-Christian girls have."
But Christian girls, unless they are sequestered at home, know girls who deal with problems like that.
I can't see any problem whatsoever with putting the text of the Bible into the hands of contemporary girls. Do you not think God is powerful enough to speak to girls through His words, even though those words are surrounded by beauty tips?
Yes, Mel, I do think God is powerful enough to speak, though His words are surrounded by beauty tips, and I said so in the original article. But that doesn't maen that because God can work though bad means, that we should necessarily accept those means and not strive to use better ones.
I have the same concerns that this packaging trivializes the Holy Scriptures. Does it draw young women into a deeper walk with God or does it teach them that it is as disposable as the facial cleansers they are using? Does it show them that the Word of God stands forever or that it is fluctuating like the trends they see in other teen magazines? I wish there could somehow be a sociological study of the young women who have purchased or used this Bible, because while I have a presumption of the effect it will have I really don't know. Maybe it could be a useful evangelistic tool for introducing teen girls to the Scriptures, but I think that I would favor other methods.
Marla, thank you. Great article. I especially love the last sentences.
Samantha.
I'm the father of a teenage daughter and keeping her eyes on what really matters in life is difficult enough already. The last thing we need is Christians giving validity to a problem that parents are fighting against. It's really sad to know that I've got to start warning my daughter about certain Christian Bibles and publications.
It seems to be getting more and more difficult to tell the difference between Christians and non-Christians.
TE
It is interesting to me that if you go to the Amazon website for this book, most of the people who criticize it say that the advice is too conservative. Ex. girls should not call boys, but wait for the boys to call them; to dress modestly, etc.
Obviously this is NOT the kind of advice given in Cosmo or other magazines the girls often read.
If this is the case, and I think it is, I am also concerned that in Revolve is the assumption that Christian girls naturally have all the same problems that non-Christian girls have. There is a sidebar in there about rape, and inside the front cover is a full page advertisement for a book about a girl who had anorexia nervosa...[snip]... Also, why do Christian girls *have* anorexia nervosa? Why are they so concerned with their weight that they starve themselves? Where did they get the idea that they have to look like a famine victim to be attractive? Why are they even thinking so much about *being* attractive? (Not that they should seek to be ugly, but a practice like starving yourself or vomiting up all your food goes beyond simply wanting to look your best...even fat girls or homely girls can "look their best" in God's economy...by displaying the fruits of the spirit and the spiritual qualities which make for loveliness.)
Many Christian girls do have those same problems, since they live in the same world. I've known Christian girls who were raped by their "Christian" relatives, for example. As Christians, we are not immune to being crime victims, whether the criminal is known to us or a complete stranger.
And where do Christian girls get concerned about their appearance? It is hard to separate oneself completely from all media images and messages. Plus, many Christian parents are the ones who are reminding their daughters of how important it is to be slim, to be attractive, to find a husband, etc., etc. How often do Christian women complain about their own weight in front of their daughters? How often do they decry their own lack of attractiveness? Why are we surprised when our daughters listen to us, or listen to their fathers complain about us?
However important it is to deal with these issues in a Christian manner, I don't think trying to turn the Bible into a teen mag is the answer.
