Reader of this series, if you’ve been following from the beginning I hope you are able to perceive the tensions that make this topic difficult. On the one hand, a certain set of critics have accused me of “whitewashing” events to deny actual racism. On the other hand, I’ve had other critics rip into me in the comments section of social media sites where this has been posted for “falsely” characterizing the US Constitution as having an almost-hidden racial element (in part four of this series) and have been accused of pandering to liberals and have been called “antinomian.” The path to truth does not include pandering to either the die-hard defenders of America or those who believe the term “structural white supremacy” is essentially fair and not exaggerated in any way. The task of explaining what I believe are the lingering effects of past legalized racism requires building the case carefully, step by step. Today is the moment to talk about what I’m calling “structural inequality.”

The use of the term is in fact my take on something Critical Race Theory says, but those of you who are socially conservative, please don’t roll your eyes and turn away from this article because I am admitting I examined the claims of CRT and while I find I disagree in many essential points, yet I do not find all things Critical Race Theorists say totally incorrect. Again, please don’t walk away because I said that. I am not a “libtard” and am not in general an apologist for the Left. Nor am I turning Left that I can see. Hear out the case I’m making here, please.

By the way, this post is on a site dedicated to speculative fiction and someone may rightly ask how I can justify being so off-topic for the site. To which I would say this topic can be thought of as an exercise in world-building. Perhaps, after reading about structual inequality, authors may be inspired to create fictional societies in which this type of inquality is highlighted. Or non-existent. Or presented with a unique twist based on aliens or fantasy races (more on this at the end).

“Structural Racism” Versus “Structural Inequality”

Critical Race Theory talks about “structural racism” or more recently “structural white supremacy” as a means to describe society is supposedly structured in a way to promote the success of white people. Derrick Bell, one of the founders of CRT, especially believed the legal system is structured in favor of white people. This is a point where I generally disagree, because to pick out just one example, while I can agree that black jurors have historically been treated with less respect that white jurors, which has been a genuine problem stemming from racism, that does not mean that the system of trial by jury itself is designed either deliberately or accidentally for the purpose of favoring white people.

While I disagree with the broad characterization that the entire American justice system is intertwined with racism, I do agree certain particular laws have had elements that wound up having an unequal racial element, whether deliberate or not. For example, cocaine started being sold in a new crystalized form in the 1980s known as “crack,” a form of consuming cocaine that was especially popular in poor areas in inner cities, often in black neighborhoods. Lawmakers passed hard laws reacting to the wave of rising crack addition and wound up punishing crack possession much more harshly than regular cocaine often favored by wealthy, mostly white addicts. But if we could get in a time machine and ask people passing such laws why they did so in that time period, they probably would say they were trying to protect black communities rather than trying to hypocritcally imprison blacks while giving white cocaine addicts the proverbial slap on the wrist.

But the intent doesn’t matter as much as the effect–the same substance, cocaine, was treated inequally in a manner with a racial element. In this particular case, the law was in fact unequal. However, I would say the vast majority of US laws are not unequal in ways that impact people according to race, as per the claims of “structural racism.”

Generally people seeking to prove the widespread existence of structural racism pull out statistics that show differing outcomes according to race. That the loosely-used term “persons of color” (or POCs) are more likely to live in povery, drop out of school, receive stiff penalties for crimes, be in federal lockup, etc.

It’s important that I say “loosely-used” term POC because there’s some “no true Scotsman” logic applied to who is considered a POC. Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group in America per person, significantly wealthier than white Americans on average, South Asians in particular. So when talking poverty, Asians are not included in the category of POC. However, when talking historic racism, they are included. Sometimes they are also included in the discussion of income inequality, which is the focus of a CNN article I’m linking here. But in short, the Critical Race Theorists are not honestly answering the question of why it is Asians can succeed so well if the United States is a nation with a structural bias in favor of white people and white people alone.

However, let’s not let the general success of Asian Americans get our eyes off my point here. Does the United States have what I am calling “structural inequality”? That is, are there laws and practices of our nation that we all can plainly observe which have the effect of making it difficult for people in poverty to get out of poverty? Yes, there are some.

“Structural Inequality”–Examples of Laws or Practices That Impact the Poor Differently than the Rich

Fines:

A general example of a law with unequal impact is any fine in a fixed dollar amount. For example, a fine of five hundred dollars for burning leaves without a permit (a fine I’ve received) can be devastating if you are poor. You might have to take out a loan to pay it–though if you are unwilling to take out a loan, you might try skipping your date in court and hope the system forgets about you. In fact, the legal system does have other priorities and you will be ignored for your fine–unless you are stopped by the police for something else, in which case your failure to show up in court will have been converted to a warrant for your arrest. You may be given an opportunity to pay your fine then, but if you can’t, you will be jailed until your fine is considered paid off.

Note I have not ever been jailed for deciding not to pay a fine. I was jailed for a ticket for expired license plates that I had actually paid off but a mistake in the system did not record my payment…

But I have received fines I had a hard time paying and I am aware of other people without much money who decided to take their chances. We realize right off that no wealthy person or even middle class person would ever be put in jail for not paying a fine (unless they were insane). Only poor people wind up going to jail for fines that for middle class people are a nuisance and for wealthy people are laughable.

Loans and the Credit System:

In my previous example, I mentioned getting a fine of $500. A person living in poverty in the United States is likely to live paycheck to paycheck. That is, when the needs or wants a person has exceeds the amount of money he or she makes, the tendency is strong to spend all you have the moment you get it. True, many poor people spend irresponsibly, a point I will talk about again in a bit. But that isn’t always the case. Let’s think in particular of someone who once had a higher-paying job and lost it. Who now is saddled with bills he or she once could pay, but now can’t. Even responsibly paying bills (as opposed to frivolous spending) can easily result in a person spending his or her entire paycheck, with nothing left over.

When you have an unexpected need for cash and don’t have it, what do you do? Wealthy people will have the money or property to sell–or if we are talking about the need for capital that wealthy people may have, they can even launch a corporation and sell stocks if they can persuade people to buy (getting money for business ventures is why the stock market was invented). Middle class people probably have some money in savings, but if they don’t, they have a credit card they can use or get a bank loan, making use of their good credit rating (which most will have).

But what if you don’t have good credit? Which is a situation that will describe most but not all people below the poverty line. Is there any way to get a loan with bad credit?

Why yes there is–pay day lenders, who will give a loan to cover you based on your regular paychecks. Or car title lenders, who will take the title of your car for a loan. Or other lenders along these lines, some of whom promise to help you improve your credit, will indeed loan money to people with bad credit. With a catch…a catch of as much as 300 percent interest.

Of course, taking out a shoddy loan is a great way to improve your credit…er, actually, not really. Chances are, you will struggle to make all your payments and your credit will either get worse or not change much at all.

By the way, are the people lending money to people with low credit scores turning a profit? Why yes they are–people familiar with the 2008 housing crisis may know that during a time of a booming economy a huge number of loans were given out on houses at high interest rates to people with low credit scores…and with a bit of economic downturn, people couldn’t make payments and the entire system collapsed. The lenders lost money. The US Federal government bailed out the banks…the wealthy executives who lent so much money in a risky way may have lost their jobs (though most did not), but were never fined or punished in any way that affected their personal wealth. As opposed to poor people trying to get a home via a high-interest “subprime” loan, who got nothing. And as opposed to middle class people, who suffered during the economic downturn.

But the subprime lenders never went away. Sure, they aren’t doing home loans anymore, but they do all kinds of other loans, all the time. An article from 2018 says subprime lenders lent out 345 billion dollars in 2017. The article’s focus is on how big banks are lending to the lenders making money off these loans, with the idea this might not be a smart move for the big banks, because if the economy crashes, they may lose their money. But don’t let that distract you from the truth that as of 2018, 345 billion dollars were loaned at high interest to people paying back the loans often enough to justify continuing to lend the money.

“But wait, the credit system is good, it encourages good behavior,” a reader may reply. I’m not saying it doesn’t, but why do so many places in the USA allow loans at such mind-bogglingly high interest rates? (Foreign readers: US states have the main control over lending laws.) Poor people will turn to the lenders in times of crisis, we know that, and pay enough to keep the high interest loan system going, we know that. But the entire system will extract more money from them than they can afford and will tend to keep them poor. I’m calling that “systemic inequality,” because laws could make subprime lending illegal, but do not.

Food:

How could food have “systemic inequality?” Well, in the past of farming, what people could eat was always limited by what the soil and climate would produce where they lived. And by what transportation could realistically bring from nearby areas. Most people ate locally because it was their only choice, not out of some early sense of environmentalism.

But there’s been a centuries-long change starting with the importation of spices, then sugar, then practically everything. Food has become an international market driven by profit. Profit isn’t bad per se, but the market produces most what people demand most. Demand for sugar has been high for centuries…meaning more sugar is produced…making sugar cheaper.

A number of historical developments made the high-sugar, high-fat snacks in your local grocery store (in most of the USA) cost far less than the same weight of healthy food. It’s not a conspiracy. However, who is more likely to buy high calorie, cheap food? A person with less money, right? Also a person with less money to spend on entertainment–and a chocolatey snack cake can be like a little party in your mouth…

But that cheap food, fine in moderation for most people, winds up costing in the long term, in health costs. In diabetes and other weight-related conditions. Which disproportionately impact those who are relatively poor in the United States.

Could laws do something about this, by maybe taxing junk food in the way cigarettes are taxed? Yes, this is possible, but not how things are now.

GMOs:

Let me bring up a separate food issue that some people will see as more important than I see it (but it’s worth mentioning anyway)–did you know that patent law favors farmers producing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) over people farming natural foods? To simplify a bit, that’s because if a GMO is found in the crops of someone who didn’t pay for it, the law assumes the person who didn’t pay stole it…yet the genes of a GMO can propagate themselves naturally, as can the genes of other living things. So having GMO DNA in a farmer’s crops can totally happen by accident. But US law will generally rule in favor of the copyright holder of the GMO.

This has the effect of promoting GMOs and making them cheaper (note European laws and the laws of some other countries are different in this regard). But if food derived from GMOs is cheaper, who is going to eat more of it? Poor people or wealthy people? Poor people, of course.

Note I don’t think all GMOs are bad, unlike some people. But there’s certainly a risk involved in genetic experimentation. And is there some inequality as to on whom the risks of GMOs fall? Do poor people eat more GMOs than wealthy people? Yes.

Again, this isn’t a conspiracy. But it is a part of our system in the United States and could be changed if we choose to change it. And it has unequal effects, impacting those who are relatively poor worse than those who are wealthier.

Parenting:

So some of the things I’m talking about amount to decisions people make. Just because you are poor doesn’t mean you have to eat GMOs, or you will run the risk of not getting caught on a fine you couldn’t pay, or you’ll take out a high-interest loan. But don’t people generally make good decisions when taught to make good decisions? And who is going to model moderation for a kid growing up in America? Who is going to say you can’t make a meal from the snack aisle, or you should be careful about GMOs? Or you better save some money for a “rainy day,” even if you’re broke? Or you’d better be super-careful not to break any laws if you can’t pay the fines?

Parents, right? That’s what parents do. In particular, fathers.

I don’t want to make any ardent supporters of mothers or single mothers angry here. Note my parents divorced when I was nine and my mom was a single mother for the second half of my growing up years. I love my mother–but she had difficulties raising us alone. Difficulties that impacted me growing up. And my two sisters.

Statistics show that what we can fairly call a “traditional marriage” is good for children. That coming from a two parent home is a big predictor of a child’s success in life (here’s one site that makes this case). That childen, even those born in relative poverty, do better in the future with a mother and father than just a mother…or father (though father-led households do better on average than mother-led ones according to stats).

But here’s the thing–people who grew up in families who modeled a good marriage are more likely to get married themselves and stay married. Or in mirror image, sons who grow up with a single mother don’t usually get married and if they do, they usually wind up divorced. That is, the cycle of single parenthood is self-perpetuating. One generation tends to produce the same results in the next. Not in all cases, but generally. Making poverty tend to be generational.

Felons:

Not only is poverty generational, criminality tends to be generational. If dad was a felon, the son is much more likely to be a felon, not because of genetics, but because of social contacts and upbringing. Liked is an Atlantic article from 2018 that makes this case–that specifically shows how breaking social contacts with friends and relatives who are felons can help felons.

And how does our society, the United States, help a person who has committed a felony to break the cycle of crime and get a regular job? Is it easy to find regular employment in the USA if you’ve been convicted of a felony? Does the law move a person into a new place and make getting a fresh start easy? In general, no.

Generational Wealth:

In contrast, how common is it for someone to gain advantage in life from someone in your family helping you? Pretty common. For Donald Trump, in his own telling of his personal story, that was a “small” 1 million dollar loan from his father. For me, it was my dad buying me an airplane ticket for me once. For some, it might be no more than 5 dollars.

Still, if your family could leave you something, an heirloom of some sort–a house or property–for many people, that’s the start of them building their own personal wealth. If you have something to pass on, then you can help the next generation do better than they otherwise would. But if you have nothing to pass on…then it’s more likely the next generation won’t have anything to pass on, either.

Why Does Generational Poverty Afflict Some People of Color More?

Space does not allow me to list all the things that tend to impact poor people more than middle class or wealthy people. Most of those things have nothing to do with race, but they do mean there’s a general tendency for poor people to have a hard time getting out of poverty. If you are raised in a family where all has gone wrong, it’s hard to get out.

I don’t think I need to dive deep into the pages of history, though I could in detail, to show how past racism affected black people and Native Americans in particular. When your ancestors came here in chains or had their entire way of life taken away at gunpoint, it’s a no-brainer that all your people started out in poverty. That the Europeans who immigrated to America usually had at least some property before they came. That their situation started out differently.

In contrast to other POCs, many Asians have come to the United States specifically for the purpose of working in businesses and universities. They may not have come with much in terms of wealth, but many came because of a high degree of talent and earned high levels of education and have wound up with great deal of wealth. Their success shows that the American system is not one of unremitting white supremacy–because we know for certain Asians have been impacted by historic and current racism. But that racism has not been enough to prevent them from finding success.

However, for people who entered the U.S. economic system mired in poverty from the beginning, a number of “structures” we can call them–yes, I’m borrowing the idea of “structures” from CRT, because they happen to have noticed something correctly–tend to keep people poor.

Dear readers, I submit to you that past racism that caused poverty among all members of some groups of “persons of color,” coupled with “structures” that tend to keep poor people poor, is the primary reason the outcomes for races are different from one another in the United States of America. Current racism is not the primary cause.

Not that current racism doesn’t rear its head in various ways–not that current racism doesn’t need to be dealt with–but it isn’t modern racism that has made such a split in outcomes in America. It’s past racism, historic racism–with overt discrimination–plus current structural inequality that tends to keep poor people poor. That’s the reason we see poverty rates higher in black America and among Native Americans than we do in white America and among Asian Americans. (Latinos are often lumped in with African Americans but in fact there are whole groups of both wealthy and poor Latinos–it depends in part on what country they came from, which is an interesting topic but too much for this post.)

Worldbuilding

So I’ve said a lot on this topic now, in a forum really dedicated to something else, to speculative fiction, especially fantasy and science fiction. For fans of speculative fiction, note how stories can reflect assumptions about how laws and rules can reinforce inequality.

But for creators of stories, you have the opportunity in worlds to you build to show the rules of a society, even if meant to be equal, can have an unequal impact. To use an obvious example, let’s say there was a tax on height–over a certain size the law may consider someone more likely to break a doorway or ceiling. But the law clearly would impact giants and tall humans more than dwarves or hobbits.

Or more subtly, let’s say a story involved loans with detailed warnings on high interest written out–in elvish, which naturally for the most part only elves can read. Or in binary code, which only the robots could easily read. Or other examples along these lines.

Hand drawing red dividing line separating groups of people. Credit: Getty Images/Ikon Images

Conclusion

There are many particular issues this post did not address. But I think structural inequality that is not specifically racial is much more significant than supposed systemic racism–which in fact may exist in some cases, but it does not dominate our whole society. Adopting such an understanding helps us see why Asians are the wealthiest ethnic group, even though discriminated against. And why, once mired in poverty and the criminal justice system, it isn’t easy for whole populations to suddenly leap to be statistically the same as the majority.

Note this post only hinted at ways I think laws could be different to help even out structural inequalities. That doesn’t mean Socialism–in fact, I am not in favor of Socialism. But wise laws should make it easier to get out of poverty, not harder. Which is not a Libertarian position to be sure, but again, not Socialism. A later post may talk more about how I think U.S. laws could do better to help people born into poverty find a way to earn a better living.

But what are your thoughts on this topic? Please make your thoughts known in the comments below.

When I was a child, Christian weaker brothers¹ had authority to boss you about all kinds of things.

By weaker brothers, I mean Christians who, by their own admission, were vulnerable to certain temptations.²

In one case, Christian leaders held up one specific weaker brother boss: a (possibly apocryphal) witch doctor, and/or former African tribal worshiper, who had converted to Christianity. One version of this anecdote was printed in a booklet from a (nastily legalistic) outfit called the “Institute in Basic Life Principles” (IBLP). The booklet’s title: “Ten Scriptural Reasons Why the ‘Rock Beat’ Is Evil in Any Form” (underline in original).

In April 1990, a Christian from Zimbabwe, Africa, arrived for his first visit to the United States. He is a native missionary under the Awana Youth Association. When he turned on a Christian radio station and listened to the music, he was shocked. Here is his report:

“I am very sensitive to the beat in music, because when I was a boy, I played the drums in our village worship rituals. The beat that I played on the drum was to get the demon spirits into the people.

“When I became a Christian, I rejected this kind of beat because I realized how damaging it was.

“When I turned on a Christian radio station in the United States, I was shocked. The same beat that I used to play to call up the evil spirits is in the music I heard on the Christian station.”

— Stephen Maphosah, Zimbabwe, Africa³⁴

It wasn’t long before I realized the absurdity of this story:

Hey. Who put the witch doctor in charge of Christian moral practice?

This goes double if you heard, as I did, that the (apocryphal?) witch doctor was actually a new convert to Christianity:

With all due respect, why should new converts be the boss of Christian moral practice?

Scripture, in fact, specifically warns against letting a new convert become a church overseer. Paul says that if we do that, “he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.”⁵

But what if the witch doctor wasn’t a new convert? What if the account is true?

Then it still makes little sense for Christians to let him become a music boss:

• By all versions of the account I heard, the witch doctor wasn’t even trying to boss. He only made the observation about the music similarity. And/or a concern that it sounded like rhythms he and his witch-doctor friends used to try to summon spirits. It was someone else who later “weaponized” his words, as if they marked universal concern for all Christians.
• By the account’s own terms, the witch doctor had his own personal history with similar music. In his past, he had used certain sounds or rhythms alongside sinful behavior. In the present, he couldn’t help making the association. His story doesn’t apply to everyone else.
• Even if his story did apply to others, this does not overrule the path that God can redeem pagan practices and things—starting with us.
• The person’s opinions are not the same as revealed Scripture.

Listen to our new Fantastical Truth podcast episode: Should Christians Enjoy Fantasy with Fictional Magic? Part 2

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

But Christians keep letting weaker brothers boss them about things.

Plenty of Christians keep going along with this weird tendency. They keep entrusting “weaker brothers” with unique authority over particular practices. Those relate to music, as we’ve seen. But they also related to things like food and popular culture:

What sorts of foods can we eat or avoid?

Let’s all listen to a person who has terrible food allergies, and/or terrible stories about what happened to her when she consumed a certain thing.

What kinds of fantasy stories can we enjoy or avoid?

Let’s all listen to a person who has a terrible backstory about being drawn into the occult and Satanism.

Are certain types of Christian music acceptable or too worldly?

Let’s all listen to a person who has a terrible backstory about being drawn into the occult and Satanism.

That last one is a particularly bizarre trend. Some Christians, historically, keep deciding to let Satan-worshipers be the best authority on the Devil’s powers and dangers. Sometimes it doesn’t even matter whether the Satan-worshiper has since received the gospel. I have heard Christians cite (apocryphal, anecdotal, or actual) current New Age or pagan teachers as authorities about spiritual warfare.

Shouldn’t we follow strong Christians instead?

The apostle Paul doesn’t venerate weaker brothers the way some Christians have.

He doesn’t say they’re strong. He says they’re weak. Weak means not strong. It means, “These are the people you should help.” It does not mean, “These are the people who have the inside view, so you should follow whatever standard they must follow.”

In fact, the very truth that Paul speaks openly about weaker brothers means he wants all the church, strong and weak alike, to adopt these categories.

Paul does not want stronger people to meet together and whisper about how legalistic the weaker brothers are. He doesn’t want weaker brothers to gather secretly and whisper about how the others keep compromising with the world. Instead, Paul wants the issues openly discussed. After reading his letters (probably publicly!) to the Roman or Corinthian church, everybody could meet together. They could figure out their strengths and weaknesses.

“Ah yes. I grew up in this particular Athenian cult. I can’t go near market so-and-so without feeling a compulsion to rejoin my old people.”

“Fascinating! I never have that issue. So I suppose if you need anything in that market, I could head out there for you.”

Stronger brothers and sisters have rarely if ever been tempted to sin by particular foods, holidays, popular culture, or more. Or they were once tempted to these sins, but through Scripture study, prayer, and hard holiness work, have achieved victory over those sinful temptations.

Weaker brothers, precisely because they’re weaker, don’t (yet?) have such victory. So they require special care.

By default, Christians should put the stronger believers in positions of authority. Because they’re, you know, stronger.

By default, Christians should not put the weaker brothers in positions of authority. Because they are weaker.⁶

We’re in between Wednesday writers at SpecFaith. Earlier this year, Mark Carver quietly stepped out to soft-reboot, in part because of pandemic. Earlier this month, Shannon McDermott also stepped back, at least for now, and likely for similar reasons.

So for today, you’ve got me. I thought I’d make a “filler episode” by responding to search-engine questions that led readers here.

Here are my micro-answers—at least, replying to the web queries I understood.

‘What does God think of scary stories?’

It depends on the story.

Does the story draw you closer to Christ, the embodiment and origin of all truth, beauty, and goodness?

Or does that story help push you away from Christ, perhaps into a quiet suspicion that darkness always wins and there is no hope?

Scary stories are found even in Scripture. The Fall itself (Genesis 3) is terrifying when you think of it. Before you even finish Genesis, you’ve also seen a global cataclysmic Flood, a man’s wife transmogrified into a salt pillar, and incestuous drunk-rape. Generations later, Judges 19 is a self-contained horror tale. All these true accounts can scare us, rightly, about the terrible consequences of rejecting our Creator.

‘Christian spells?’

These are not a great plan.

As we explore in this week’s podcast episode, God warns his people (then as now) against occultism. We must not try to act like “gods” in God’s world, pridefully worshiping idols and using “magical” means to control our own destinies.

That includes anti-Christian, occult practices: the usual stuff we imagine, like tarot cards, charms, crystals, and New Age whatnot.

Yet it also includes “Christian white magic“—the sorts of spiritual zone-defense Christians attempt, even as means to ward off paganism.

‘Ted Dekker controversy?’

Hmm. This could mean many things.

Dekker is a fascinating figure, and I’ve enjoyed much of his fiction. My favorite of his novels is actually Blink. His Thr3e likely ranks second.

We positively reviewed his novel The 49th Mystic at Lorehaven. Yet we did include more details in the Discern section:

Soft-gnostic themes and even heterodox preaching, not just shown subtly in the story but blatantly told in an introductory author’s note and concluding detailed Scripture interpretation; plus frequent attacks on portrayals of organized religion, and a Holy Spirit–like figure prefers feminine pronouns . . .

Perhaps this is the “controversy” the web-searcher was seeking: Dekker’s growing appreciation of “mysticism,” not just as some optional path for some monks somewhere, but as an essential choice to get some kind of higher, more-enlightened spiritual life.

Mike Duran also wrote more about Dekker in 2017’s “The Dangers of Christian Mysticism.”

Apart from the mysticism concerns, Dekker seems to struggle with The Church Back Home. (That’s my catch-all term for “that religious group, faction, denomination, or local gathering that gave you a lot of trouble in your childhood or career or professional ministry.”) I understand these struggles. But when someone tries to turn them into a leadership platform, and urge people to forsake the local church—and to challenge biblical gospel teaching—that goes too far. Young Christians who struggle with the pain of legalism need to hear more.

This doesn’t mean, “Don’t read Ted Dekker’s books.” Our reviews’ Discern section is about notification, not warning! Yet always, always compare any fantastical Christian-made fiction with the greater and truer narrative of the Bible.

‘Consequences of Deut. 18:10-12?’

Here’s another perfect setup for this week’s podcast episode, Should Christians Enjoy Fantasy with Fictional Magic? Part 1.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

From the Scripture text, Deuteronomy 18:10–12:

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you.

From the show notes:

Scripture warns against real occult practices that result from idolatry.

• For them: All these are false and blasphemous ways to seek God’s future.
• Divination: attempting to foretell the future. Fortune-telling: the same.
• Interpreting omens, sorcery, charming, summoning the dead: the same.
• If you want to know futures, you want to control reality on your own terms.
• The chief sin here seems to be a single sin: divination, fortune-telling, control.
• This is idolatry: you’re trying to be like God, stealing his authority from him.
• Even if we don’t do that stuff, we struggle with idolatry. (Cf. last session.)
• Especially in hard times, we want to know the future. We want to have power.

Notice what God doesn’t say in these passages (but do Christians say this?)

• God does not address the issue of anything else labeled “magic.”
• He does not answer if these pagan strategies actually work.
• He does not talk about whether whether they summon Satan or demons.
• Here, at least, God is not interested in these topics.
• He only gives one motive for people: their holiness in worship for his sake.

Return next week, when I just might share three-or-so more of these, with some quick responses and resources.

How would you answer any of these questions?

Back in 2014, a little miniseries called Over the Garden Wall premiered on Cartoon Network.

I don’t remember exactly when I finally watched the series. Several of my friends kept raving about it and quoting it, so finally I did. ¹

At first, I thought, “This is weird. I’m not sure how I feel about it.” But by the end of the tenth and final episode, I was convinced this was a new favorite. And it has been. I’ve watched it at least once every fall since then. This year (2020), we’re working on a fourth fun through since September started. (I watched it twice on my own, and my four-year-old has requested it twice.)

So, what is Over the Garden Wall?

It’s a story about two brothers, Wirt (voiced by Elijah Wood) and Greg (voiced by Collin Dean). They find themselves lost in a mysterious place called the Unknown. There they meet many characters who seem to have stepped straight out of folklore and history, from the grumpy bluebird Beatrice (voiced by Melanie Lynskey) to the strange Woodsman (voiced by Christopher Lloyd) to the fearsome Beast. As the boys try to get home, they discover many of the Unknown’s odd little communities. They learn the truth behind some of the stories they fall into.

The series takes much of its inspiration from older art and musical styles. It includes bluegrass and jazz, early animation, and vintage art.

Over the Garden Wall focuses on main themes of brotherhood, responsibility, and growth. In the first episode, the Woodsman chastises Wirt as the older brother to take responsibility for Greg’s safety. Later in the final arc, both Wirt and Greg place themselves in danger to save the other. All along, this story is focused on choosing to be responsible for those in your care and to take responsibility for your actions.

Before I go any further, I must give you a spoiler alert. I can’t talk about the themes and clever storytelling in this show without spoiling several episodes and some major characters arcs. You have been warned.

This theme also carries out in the arcs of Beatrice and the Woodsman. Beatrice spends most of the series serving as a cantankerous foil to Wirt. But midway through the series, she reveals herself to be a human cursed to take the form of a bluebird—along with her entire family. It is the restoration of her family, and the guilt of being responsible for the curse, that drives Beatrice. The Woodsman similarly is driven by his sense of guilt and penance in his work of grinding up Edelwood trees to keep lit the dark lantern, which contains his daughter’s soul.

Over the Garden Wall subverts old tropes

The series doesn’t rely on familiar beats and archetypes—or rather, it does, but only to turn them on their heads. Apart from an episode or two which are clearly modeled after old serial melodramas (like “Schoolhouse Follies”), the stories in this show tend to take familiar tropes and spin them in new directions.

Two episodes really bring this trope-spinning style of storytelling to the fore.

Episode 2, “Hard Times at the Huskin’ Bee”

In this story, a strange town of talking pumpkins seems to condemn Wirt and Greg for trespassing, only to have the sentence be community service. This work leads to them digging up a skeleton, which causes Wirt to believe they are digging their own graves, only to bring about the final twist: the town is populated by skeletons who dress themselves in pumpkins and scarecrow-like apparel.

Episode 7, “The Ringing of the Bell”

This story uses some religious and folk imagery to subvert viewers’ expectations.

In this episode, Wirt and Greg come to a cottage in the woods, where they discover a young woman named Lorna, who lives there under the care of the spooky Auntie Whispers. Using a magical bell, Auntie Whispers compels Lorna to work almost endlessly in order to prevent her from “becoming wicked.” From her bulking size to her otherworldly voice and appearance (she is voiced by Tim Curry) to her mention of people being devoured alive, Auntie Whispers is built up as an evil forest witch out of fairytale. Couple all of this with the fact that both Lorna and Auntie Whispers dress in an old-fashioned style reminiscent of Puritans, and we as an audience are apt to take Wirt’s initial view: that Auntie Whispers is evil, and her treatment of Lorna, supposedly for her own good, is wrong-minded and backward.

When Wirt and Greg are discovered by Auntie Whispers, they hide with Lorna in the pantry, locking Auntie Whispers out. Auntie Whispers warns them to open the door, or they will be doomed, for they have made Lorna wicked again.

You see, Lorna—sweet, innocent, sickly Lorna—was the monster all along. Tormented by an evil spirit, she has devoured all those who come near her after dark, save for Auntie Whispers, who knows how to use the bell to keep the spirit at bay.

Greg and Wirt flee the cottage, with Evil!Lorna in pursuit. When all seems lost, Greg shakes his frog to stop Lorna, revealing that the frog swallowed the magic bell while he and Greg were sneaking into Auntie Whispers’ room earlier. Before Greg can do more than begin his command, Wirt snatches the frog and commands the spirit to “Stop making Lorna do bad things! And also go away and never come back.”² The spirit is undone, seemingly destroyed by Wirt’s final admonition. Lorna is freed, and she and Auntie Whispers return to caring for one another out of love rather than duty.

As I said, the writers take our expectations and flip them. There is room for love that is unconventional in its forgiveness and for appearances to be deceiving.

Despite this victory, Wirt seems to take no joy from his defeat of the evil spirit, and we move from here into series’ last stories.

Over the Garden Wall‘s last three episodes

Over these three stories, Wirt and Greg face the Beast and their own past, risking their futures both in and out of the Unknown.

With Wirt becoming more despondent, Greg dreams of a city in the clouds (animated in an early twentieth century style) that is besieged by the North Wind. After defeating the North Wind, Greg receives an offer from the Queen of Cloud City: he can go home, but he has to leave Wirt behind, because Wirt has given up hope. Greg refuses, saying he’ll find another way. He wanders off into the woods, unknowingly having agreed to go with the Beast in order to save Wirt from becoming an Edelwood tree. When Wirt realizes Greg is missing, he rushes off in search of his younger brother. He falls into a frozen pond and we are treated to a flashback that establishes how Wirt and Greg came to be lost in the Unknown, as well as explaining a lot of Wirt’s offhand comments for most of the series.

When we return to the Unknown, Wirt and Beatrice reunite and find Greg. Greg hasn’t given up hope, despite many tasks set by the Beast designed to crush his hope. But because he has been out in the cold so long, Greg isn’t doing so well, and the Edelwood is beginning to take root in him. The Woodsman confronts the Beast, who has revealed that the Edelwood trees were all once lost souls who gave up hope in his woods. When the Beast overpowers the Woodsman, he offers Wirt a choice: take up the lantern and wander like the Woodsman, or watch Greg be lost forever. Wirt almost agrees, until he questions the Beast’s obsession with keeping the lantern lit. He deduces that it is not the Woodsman’s daughter whose soul resides in the lantern, but the Beast’s. His suspicion is confirmed when he prepares to douse the lantern’s light and the Beast responds in terror. Satisfied, Wirt leaves the lantern to the Woodsman and carries Greg out of the woods. The Woodsman, angry at the Beast’s deception, blows out the lantern’s light, and the Beast vanishes.

Content and other parental concerns

The series never directly touches on religion, despite its use of religious dress with Auntie Whispers and its frequent use of death, burial, and resurrection imagery. However, the series deals with themes which resonate with the Christian worldview: the battle of light and darkness, self-sacrificial love, the defeat of evil no matter its shape, and hope that does not die.

Some of the scenes dealing with the Beast and other denizens of the Unknown (Auntie Whispers and Evil!Lorna, the Highwayman, Enoch and the denizens of Pottsfield, and “the Beast” from the first episode) may be too frightening for younger viewers. Parents will want to give this a viewing beforehand to be sure their children are ready for it.

The first time my son asked to watch it, I sat next to him, prepared to switch it off if he showed signs of distress. Despite the fact that I love this show, I know he’s still learning about how the world works, and I want to guide him as he forms his ideas of how light and dark (and by extension, God and Satan) operate in this world.

There are also scenes in Over the Garden Wall (episode 2 in particular) that imply a sort of afterlife that’s neither heaven nor hell. Some have interpreted the Unknown as a sort of Limbo, between life and death, with Pottsfield as one of several final destinations travelers may take. Turning into the Beast’s Edelwood trees is another such fate. ³ I take the view that the Unknown is like Faerie. It’s an Otherworld that sometimes intersects with ours. That means Pottsfield may be a sort of allegory for death and resurrection. But I don’t think we can hand-wave away the story’s entirety in such a fashion. Again, this is something to discuss, not just with your kids, but with anyone you enjoy dissecting the themes of popular culture with.

In the end, Over the Garden Wall is an autumnal treat that warrants a return to the Unknown, complete with discussion about its strange and spooky denizens.

If you’ve seen Over the Garden Wall, what do you think of it? Is it a favorite in your house? What do you think about the idea the whole story takes place in Limbo? And is life really as sweet as potatoes and molasses?

Congratulations to our 2020 Spec Faith Fall Writing Challenge winner:

Ann Milo.

For details about your prize, Ann, please contact me via Facebook messaging, at my personal site, or through the Spec Faith page. I also have a public Yahoo account that you can find at my personal site.