Demons, Driscoll and Discerning ‘Twilight’
6 comments
One of America’s most well-known megachurch pastors isn’t taking a shine to a certain teen-vampire megaseries.
That’s a ten-minute video, during which Driscoll mostly scrolls through slides showing teen clone fantasy/goth/horror titles, and mocks and slams each one of them. Most of the mocks are deserving. And many of his concerns are warranted, especially if these titles really are on Amazon’s recommended-reading list for teen girls.
But I wonder if Driscoll’s overdoing the whole demon thing.
- Should a Christian claim to know exactly whether a book series, or even a false religion like Mormonism, was started by demons?
- Doesn’t that fail to give “credit” to corrupt human beings, who are quite creative enough in writing bad stuff without demons’ help?
- What about the apostle Paul’s reminders, in Romans 14 and especially 1 Corinthians 8, that “an idol has no real existence” (1 Cor. 8:4)? Should Christian leaders act as though behind every cult, lie and bad book series is a real demon? And if we can know that for sure, why would Paul not say that? (As to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that the princes of the power of the air work through personification of idols. …) Instead, the apostle based his case about avoiding idols on the fact that they’re utterly useless.
Even if demons do originate or spread lies in a particular instance, God has not revealed that to us. I argue He likely would not, given the sufficiency of Scripture to make discerning choices.
So Christians who choose to avoid Twilight or its many teen-vamp clone books should do that to glorify God, not just to Avoid Demons.
Driscoll is a solid pastor, and has built a Biblically grounded church in one of the most secular regions of the country (Seattle, Washington). Yet in this case, methinks he’s not basing discernment on the right reasons.
What do you think?
*Disclaimer: I haven’t read the Twilight books or any other of the books shown in the video. I have recently seen the first two Twilight movies to try and stay informed.
Personally, while I have no doubt that there could be demonic influence in inspiring people, I wouldn’t feel comfortable stating such a thing as fact. I also think that taking that tact would immediately discount your opinion with far more people than it would influence.
I don’t think discerning the origin of a work is nearly as important as discerning what it is telling you.
I’d rather focus on what is faulty with the worldview being promoted and what flaws are involved. For instance, with twilight the very skewed and unhealthy portrayal of “true love” between Edward and Bella.
I do hope that as the sermon went on he turned toward things that can be discerned as good. Too many times I think we get all caught up in “avoid this at all costs!” without giving any alternatives. And I don’t mean presenting a “Christian Twilight” but “here are some good examples of being able to discern a positive message”.
I mean you need to be able to discern what is good as well as what is bad.
I felt that Driscoll certainly showed how he felt about those types of books, and offered a questionable source for them, but failed (at least in that ten minutes) to give a good, biblical foundation on “how to choose good books” or at the very least “how to read a book and discern it’s message”. I guess that’s pretty much saying what Stuart said.
I did think it was kinda funny. He really got worked up over it.
The problem with this belief is the presumptuousness of it all. It reminds me of a response of Cal Thomas to those like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who stated after 9/11 that it was God’s judgment on America for abortion and so forth. He said that his pastor admitted it could be true, but that he didn’t know enough to say so or not, because God doesn’t tell us these individual things or not.
I am not saying by the following comparison that Twilight and other vampire fiction is the same as Harry Potter or Star Wars, but this does remind me of the reactions of some Christians to both of those. I remember being told that the idea of the Force was anti-Christian, when it was actually steeped in a variety of religious ideas, including Christianity. With Harry Potter, I was told for years that they supported Wiccans, paganism, were Satanic, and the characters used ouje boards. None of this is true.
None of this is too say that the pastor isn’t right on some of his critiques, but that such over the top performances and accusations are not just tactless and will turn people against the Bible, but they also are quite frankly UNSCRIPTURAL. That level of presumptuousness assigns evil to some people that we can not know, and suggests that God gave this pastor special knowledge over the rest of us. I hate to break it to people, but there is no Scriptural basis to so-called “word of knowledge” stuff, and that is what this sounds like.
I understand disliking this stuff, but I get angry at the Scriptural problems and at the fact that if people trust these leaders, they will listen to them if they are wrong. I feel foolish for listening to my old pastors’ rantings on Harry Potter and not knowing the truth til I read it just a few years back, and that makes me furious!
What’s odd about this is that he seems to be saying that you should reject these books based solely on their cover pictures or titles. As anyone who reads books knows, cover illustrations often bear no resemblance to the content of the book.
And as for the titles: While this probably isn’t the case, for all we know ‘The Necromancer” could be about a necromancer who is defeated by an army of fluffy bunnies, and “The Sorceress” could be about a sorceress who repents and becomes a christian missionary…
Of course, we do all judge books by their covers & titles. And there’s no harm in that. But it doesn’t seem right to tell people they ought to automatically reject a book based on these things.
Timothy and Kirsty, very apt observations, and more mindful of the fact that different Christians have different struggles.
A commentator named “Simple Berean,” at Challies.com on Aug. 11 observed this about Driscoll’s seeming inconsistency:
Again, I’ve found much in Driscoll to compliment, including his robust emphasis on right doctrine applied rightly, and his refusal to cave in to postmodernism. But to some extent he seems unaware of some notions that have long been staples of the wrong kind of cultural (not Christian) fundamentalism, including media restrictions.
A newly converted Christian who perhaps came out of New-Age beliefs, or even a teenage girl, may be more sensitive to the sins portrayed in Twilight or other books about necromancers, sorcerers, werewolves or whatever. But that does not mean we would imply that all Christians should follow the same scruples. The Apostle Paul was very clear about this, especially in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10: don’t rub your freedom in someone’s face, but don’t let someone else micro-manage your freedom either. That doesn’t help anyone grow in maturity and unity.
An anecdote has gotten about in some very conservative (I believe it’s fair to call them that) Christian sectors, about a missionary who was doing work in some other nation. In the version I recall, a certain tribe’s witchdoctor had converted to Christ, and while spending time with the missionary was shocked at what he heard coming from the missionary’s children’s tape player. “Why are you listening to music with the same rhythms we once used to call spirits?” the new convert asked.
So in this anecdote, what did the missionary do? Did he take a very grace-based and sensitive approach, turning off the cassette so as not to offend his friend’s conscience, but nevertheless explain that the sin does not come from a sound, but from the human heart? Did he base his explanation in Scripture, or assurances of Christ’s righteousness?
No — instead in this anecdote, the missionary (who should have known better than this) took seriously the words of a new convert, and forsook an opportunity to share more of the Gospel with him. The one with the “weaker conscience” overruled the stronger.
(I might briefly note that the missionary encouraged this new convert’s assumption that his own culture’s “pagan” rhythms could not be redeemed and used for God’s glory; is only classical music God-honoring?)
‘Tis something to keep in mind about our reading and writing preferences. When can we explore opportunities to be sensitive to “weaker brothers,” but also encourage them not to persist in their conclusions that a Thing can be automatically evil or that any Christian who is okay with that Thing is therefore compromising and sinning?
(Steps out of the TARDIS)
I come back to you now, from the future, to say that this phrase aged poorly: