My family and I watch the Charlie Brown Christmas show once a year as part of our holiday traditions. Every year that we watch it, I’m struck by how such a blatantly Christian message escapes the censors and the ACLU who wants to relegate everything to the bland blanket of “Happy Holidays” without ever specifying what any of those holidays are. I must say that I am tremendously grateful that the show does continue to air.

Originally airing on December 9, 1965, Charles Shulz’ A Charlie Brown Christmas won the Emmy that year for Best Animated Special and also won the Peabody award for excellence in programming. It has become one of the most watched holiday specials of all time. In fact, it has become the longest running animated special in history, airing every single year since its debut (though it has been altered slightly to remove the explicit references to the original sponsor, Coca Cola). While specials like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman also continue to air, neither are quite as controversial as Schulz’ masterpiece and to my knowledge, neither have aired every year since their original airing.

Apparently, getting the special aired in the first place was no easy task. Not only did the network officials think the show was “boring,” they were also uncomfortable with its explicitly “religious” overtones. Officials also complained that Schulz refused to allow a laugh track accompany the show. He wanted the audience to come to their own conclusions about when to laugh. Schulz insisted that the characters be played by actual children (one of whom was not even old enough to read!), most of whom were not professional actors, and Schulz’ choice of the Vince Guaraldi jazz soundtrack as opposed to more children’s oriented music was also a point of contention. However, to the surprise of everyone (most likely even including Schulz), the show was an immediate hit, scoring both critical and commercial success. According to Wikipedia, “A full 50% of the televisions in the United States were tuned to the broadcast.” It is estimated that the debut was viewed by approximately 15 million homes.

The show chronicles the struggles of the Peanuts gang to put together a Christmas pageant including a nativity scene (but also including a Christmas Queen). Overwhelmed with the business and commercialism that seems to have overtaken Christmas (It’s run by a big Eastern syndicate, you know notes Linus), Charlie Brown struggles to find the true meaning of Christmas.

When asked if anyone can provide the true meaning of Christmas, Linus serves the voice of reason and wisdom. Mounting the stage, blanket in hand, Linus quotes nearly (if not) verbatim from the King James Version of Luke 2:8-14, leaving no doubt that he is presenting Christ as the true meaning of Christmas. As Wikipedia notes:

Linus’ reading from Luke, which caused the network executives such worry, produced one of the most widely cherished moments in the special.

As if there is any doubt regarding Schulz’ intended meaning, the program closes with Charlie Brown, Linus and the rest of the gang singing Hark the Herald Angels Sing, with a subtle volume increase to emphasize the line “God and sinners reconciled!” The show draws heavily on the implications of Christ’s birth for inter-personal relations; that Christ brought with Him, Peace on Earth, Good-will towards men which applies to us all, even an outsider like Charlie Brown.

What’s so amazing is that it seems highly unlikely that any new program voicing such an explicitly Christian theme would be broadcast by any of the major media outlets. And yet, there it is, year after year. One has to wonder how long it will continue to air. It seems odd that organizations such as the ACLU reject nativity scenes while allowing a significant portion of Scripture detailing the birth of the Messiah as the true meaning of Christmas to be read repeatedly on national television, albeit, by a blanket-toting cartoon character (and remember, the show does include a nativity scene!). Do the men and women of the ACLU have a soft spot for Charlie Brown too or are they afraid of public backlash? Both?

The movie has become a holiday tradition in our home. My wife and I have watched it together every year of our married life. Now that we have children it takes on added significance to know that such a significant part of American popular culture also brings with it the “true meaning” of Christmas.

Watch Linus’ famous speech:

• Learn about A Charlie Brown Christmas at the Internet Movie Database.
• Buy A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Listen to A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Read A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Read the Wikipedia Charlie Brown Christmas entry.
• Read the story of the making of A Charlie Brown Christmas.

I happened to catch Good Morning America’s recent interview with Joel Osteen, whom they introduced as being “bigger than a rock star,” with one of North America’s “largest congregations” and “millions of followers.” While showing images of him autographing bibles, they stressed that it is his simple message that “God wants you to do good” that has drawn so many to him and his message. His last book spent nearly two years on the best seller list and it might not be an overstatement to say that he is close to becoming a household name.

Osteen appeared to promote his newest book: Become a Better You: 7 Keys to Becoming a Better You. The title alone should give Bible-saturated Christians reason to pause. The fact that his wife serves as “co-Pastor” will give many other Christians further reason to pause. But it is the message of the book that should not only give Christians reasons to pause but stop dead in their tracks.

Osteen says that he hopes to reach everybody with his book, including people that are not used to coming to church. This is fine and good, but we must be clear, Osteeen’s book is not about God, it is not about the Bible, it is not about Christ, it is not about sin, nor is it about salvation, it is about you. In fact, it is about becoming a better you as he blatantly lets you know in the title. SPOILER WARNING! Osteen’s “7 Keys” to becoming a “better you” are:

1. Keep Pressing Forward
2. Be Positive Towards Yourself
3. Develop Better Relationships
4. Develop Better Habits
5. Embrace the Place You Are
6. Develop Your Inner Life
7. Stay Passionate About Life

When asked what the one key was that he wanted people to take away from the interview, Osteen responded with one that isn’t in the seven: “Be grateful for what you have.” He then went on to say that “when we’re not grateful, when we’re not looking at the positive things in life, it just pulls us down. I believe it attracts more negativity to our lives.” Sounds a bit like the “law of attraction,” in “simple” terms, doesn’t it? Osteen went on to say “I always encourage people: look at what’s right rather than what’s wrong; it’ll change our outlook and you’ll do better that day.”

In response to the criticism that he preaches “Christianity Lite,” Osteen said: “It doesn’t seem lite to me because I’m teaching people how to live the Christian life.” What struck me was that, up until this point, Osteen had not himself used the words “God,” or “Christian,” much less “Christ” or “Cross.” There was certainly no mention of sin or even salvation. While it may not be helpful to engage in speculation, I wonder if he had not been pressed, would Osteeen have used the word “Christian” at all? He certainly did not initiate the introduction of “Christian” terms into the discussion, it was the reporter.

Let me be clear: I don’t know Osteen personally. I have never met him and I certainly don’t know the state of his soul. I am not making judgment on the state of his soul. However, he has made his message quite public and that certainly means that Christians have the duty to weigh it against Scripture. If the Bereans were commended for judging Paul’s message against Scripture (Acts 17:10-15), surely Osteen is not above Scriptural examination and we Christians would do well to measure his message against the Bible Osteen claims to preach. In reviewing the book, Tim Challies says:

I think the secret to Osteen’s success is this: he teaches self-help but wraps it in a thin guise of Christian terminology. Thus people believe they are being taught the Bible when the reality is that they are learning mere human wisdom rather than divine wisdom. Osteen cunningly blends the wisdom of this age with language that sounds biblical. He blends the most popular aspects of New Age and self-help teaching with Christianity. And his audience is eagerly drinking this in.

Paul is very clear in 2 Timothy 4:3 that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.” Who doesn’t want to be encouraged? Who doesn’t want to be told that they can, in fact, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that they can have a good day? The truth is that we all want to hear these things, but the truth is that this is not the Gospel message. While Osteen encourages us to look to ourselves, the Gospel demands that we look away from ourselves to Christ. Diotrephes was condemned for liking to put himself first (3 John 9), yet this is exactly what Osteen’s message is: you deserve to be first! Osteen’s message is nothing more than self-help and self-esteem loosely wearing “Christian” garb. It is not the message of the Gospel and we can do nothing more loving than point this out to the many who are having their ears tickled.

Joel Osteen’s newest book should not be sold in “Christian” bookstores, quite simply, because it is not a Christian book. It might be a book written by a Christian, but it’s message is not in line with the message of Christ. It is not enough, however, to critique the message, I firmly believe that we must pray for Joel Osteen. While some will find this a bit odd, Osteen has been given a tremendous platform and he will be held accountable for what he does with that platform. We must pray that God would bring Osteen’s message back in line with the Gospel.

While I understand that many think it’s arrogance to critique anyone else’s understanding of the Bible and God, the Bible speaks for itself and it should not take long to see how divergent Osteen’s message truly is from Scripture. John commands that we “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and the Bereans were commended for weighing the message of Paul himself against the Scriptures. Elsewhere, Paul warns that we are not to be blown about by “every wind of doctrine” and that part of growing in the Christian maturity is the ability to spot error (Ephesians 4:11-15).

It is not unloving to say that someone is wrong, though we can do it in an unloving manner. While some might argue that my critiques are driven by the fact that Osteen stands in front of a larger group of people every week than I do, the truth is that his message simply breaks my heart. Osteen has the chance to drive literally millions of people deeper into the Word and dependence on Christ and instead he pastes a fake smile on their faces, pats them on the back and tells them that they can do better because God wants them to be happy. Michael Spencer says of Osteen:

He could be called a heretic by some, even if he is a believer, and he communicates a purposefully false trivialization of the person and work of Jesus Christ in favor of a man-centered motivational message of self-improvement.

Osteen is part of a larger movement that has come to believe that doctrine is not practical or applicable. While there may be teachers who don’t apply well, Christians are expected to move beyond the “basic principles,” increasing in doctrinal knowledge (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:12, etc.) so that we will no longer be blown about by every wind of doctrine and the trickery of men (Ephesians 4:11-15). By reducing his message to what people want to hear, Osteen is setting millions of people up for failure. Even Rick Warren understands that it’s not about you. Osteen’s message is destruction with a smile and believers everywhere must sound the alarms.

• Read Become a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Every Day by Joel Osteen
• Read Tim Challies’ review of the book
• Read Michael Spencer’s thoughts on Osteen’s recent 60 Minutes appearance.
• Read Greg Gilbert’s review of Your Best Life Now for 9 Marks Ministries.

PLEASE NOTE: This is a repeate post, originally appearing here. While I to not typically re-rerun posts, this is one of the fe exceptions. My family and I watch this show once a year as part of our holiday traditions. We watched it last night which reminded me of this post. Please enjoy:

As Christians discuss the “war on Christmas,” and we send Christmas cards to the ACLU, one of the things that continues to amaze me every year is that one absolutely Christ-centered television special continues to air year after year (for which I am tremendously grateful).

Originally airing on December 9, 1965, Charles Shulz’ A Charlie Brown Christmas won the Emmy that year for Best Animated Special and also won the Peabody award for excellence in programming. It has become one of the most watched holiday specials of all time. In fact, it has become the longest running animated special in history, airing every single year since its debut (though it has been altered slightly to remove the explicit references to the original sponsor, Coca Cola). While specials like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman also continue to air, neither are quite as controversial as Schulz’ masterpiece.

Apparently, getting the special aired in the first place was no easy task. Not only did the network officials think the show was “boring,” they were also uncomfortable with its explicitly “religious” overtones. Officials also complained that Schulz refused to allow a laugh track accompany the show. He wanted the audience to come to their own conclusions about when to laugh. Schulz insisted that the characters be played by actual children (one of whom was not even old enough to read!), most of whom were not professional actors, and Schulz’ choice of the Vince Guaraldi jazz as opposed to children’s music was also a point of contention. However, to the surprise of everyone (most likely even including Schulz), the show was an immediate hit, scoring both critical and commercial success. According to Wikipedia, “A full 50% of the televisions in the United States were tuned to the broadcast.” It is estimated that the debut was viewed by approximately 15 million homes.

The special chronicles the struggles of the Peanuts gang to put together a Christmas pageant including a nativity scene. Overwhelmed with the business and commercialism that seems to have overtaken (It’s run by a big Eastern syndicate, you know notes Linus), Charlie Brown struggles to find the true meaning of Christmas.

As in many of the episodes, Linus becomes the voice of reason and wisdom. Mounting the stage, blanket in hand, Linus quotes nearly (if not) verbatim from the King James Version of Luke 2:8-14, leaving no doubt that he is presenting Christ as the true meaning of Christmas. As Wikipedia notes, “Linus’ reading from Luke, which caused the network executives such worry, produced one of the most widely cherished moments in the special.” As if there is any doubt regarding Schulz’ intention, the program closes with Charlie Brown, Linus and the rest of the gang singing Hark the Herald Angels Sing, with a subtle volume increase to emphasize the line “God and sinners reconciled!” The show draws heavily on the implications of Christ’s birth for inter-personal relations; that Christ brought with Him, Peace on Earth, Good-will towards men which applies to us all, even an outsider like Charlie Brown.

What’s so amazing about this is that it seems highly unlikely that any new program voicing such an explicitly Christian theme would be broadcast by any of the major media outlets. And yet, there it is, year after year. One has to wonder how long it will continue to air. It seems odd that organizations such as the ACLU reject nativity scenes while allowing a significant portion of Scripture detailing the birth of the Messiah to be read repeatedly on national television, albeit, by a blanket-toting cartoon character (and remember, the show does include a nativity scene!). Do the men and women of the ACLU have a soft spot for Charlie Brown too?

The movie has become a holiday tradition in our home. My wife and I have watched it together every year of our married life. Now that we have children it takes on added significance to know that such a significant part of American popular culture also brings with it the “true meaning” of Christmas.

• Learn about A Charlie Brown Christmas at the Internet Movie Database.
• Buy A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Listen to A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Read A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Read the Wikipedia Charlie Brown Christmas entry.
• Read the story of the making of A Charlie Brown Christmas.
• Take the Charlie Brown Christmas quiz.

Why should Friday be reserved for all the fun posts? Plus, I just had surgery and didn’t feel like writing anything. Instead, in true American fashion, I’d rather be entertained! Today I’ve posted a few links to some entertaining “religious” videos. Needless to say, most of these fall under the “mocku-mentary” heading. Whether they were done by believers or not, they do actually bring up some thought provoking issues.

First is “Me Church,” a provacative spin on the drastic individualism that we find invading our churches (ht: Denny Burk). At the “Me Church” page, click on the preview link to watch a segment from this video.

Watch the King of the Hill clip that’s been making the rounds in which Hank Hill discusses mega-churches and quips, “If I wanted to go that route, I would just walk around the mall and think about Jesus!”

As I’ve been living with Anathallo’s new “Floating World” CD, contemplating a review, I came across this fun video “A Soldier’s Tale” made by Clark Corwin using Anathallo’s music. Good stuff.

Watch it here.

Solidifying his position as one of the most influential professing Christians on the planet, Bono recently spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. Guests included the President and First Lady, King Abdullah and Ike and Trisha Thomas of Granbury, TX (I have to name-drop my church members because I certainly wasn’t there!).

Bono referenced the “Year of Jubilee” in his continued call to end poverty while quoting Leviticus 25:35, which reads: “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.”

Bono also quoted Luke 4:18: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” Bono had already directly alluded to or directly quoted more Scripture than many entire sermons.

While its easy to dismiss Bono’s continued grandstanding and publicity moves, it’s much more difficult to ignore his message, as much as we’d like to. It’s difficult to hear because, on many accounts, he’s right. When he says that “The church was slow” responding to AIDS, it’s hard to argue. While we must be wary of the message’s tendency towards religious pluralism (as Denny Burk rightly points out here), we must also remember that much of what he said truly needs to be heard.
It’s hard to take criticism from a rock star, but when the criticism is right, it matters not the source. For the most part, the modern church has not only been slow to respond to AIDS, but to many social plights. We have lost sight of the fact that the Gospel is for the whole person, the announcement of the reversal of the Fall to a hurting people.

Barring the exception of the “social gospel” movement, the evangelical church has largely failed in its outreach opportunities, whether the poor or the sick, or both. The result has largely been that these “ministries” have been taken over by the government, and the church has made little attempt to get them back where they belong.

If the Gospel is truly as big as Scripture claims, then why do we live it out so small? Christ’s love indwelling us ought to move us to love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19), to truly be His body, reaching out to those in need, if for no other reason, as Bono reminds, “History, like God, is watching what we do.”

• Read the President’s remarks at the recent National Prayer Breakfast.
• Read Bono’s remarks at the recent National Prayer Breakfast.
• Read The Maze of Bonoland by me.
• Read Overflow of the Heart? by me.

One of the things that I find myself repeatedly thinking about and therefore, repeatedly writing here about is a Christian view of popular culture. It is very difficult to know the difference between “being in the world” but not “of the world.” Christians have often openly struggled with where to set appropriate Scripture-saturated, God-glorifying boundaries for their interaction with the popular arts.

I’ve been wrestling with a thought that I’m sure I read somewhere, but I can’t remember where. So if this was originally your thought, please know that I wanted to give you credit! Anyway, it is a popular reaction among many Christians to withdraw and boycott. When presented with poor and even revolting movies, many simply boycott movies. When it comes to offensive lyrics, many put up Misplaced Boundaries and opt only for “explicitly Christian” content.

But I’m beginning to wonder if this is not the wrong approach entirely. Hollywood functions on a fairly basic principle: it makes movies that make money. Could it be that the traditional Christian boycott approach has actually contributed to the decrease of quality entertainment? If Christians see fewer movies then the movies that do make money are the very ones that Christians have boycotted. Therfefore, the next batch of movies will feed of the previous batch, resulting in a downward spiral.

Could the answer be that we need to encourage one another not to boycott, but to go see more movies? Hear me out, I am not suggesting for one second that we lower our standards, but that we force Hollywood to raise theirs. If we put our money behind the (now) few quality movies that are being made, then more will be made because, let’s face it, with the few exceptions who are actually pursuing art, most of Hollywood simply pursues money.

Christians have neglected the power of their pocketbooks in the positive sense. Boycott has been a common tool (and one discussed here), but rarely has the reverse angle: directing money as a positive influence. It would only seem natural that if we view withholding our money as a tool that we see its use as a tool as well. Could the answer be that we need to see more movies in order to more effectively influence the flow of Hollywood’s output?