Social Justice and the Gospel

I wanted to write a few comments on the the issue of social justice. Just recently, Albert Mohler and Jim Wallis engaged in a debate on the issue of social justice. I don’t know when or if the debate will be available, but I have seen several of my friends who have become interested in this issue. I even know people who were once solid evangelicals who have turned liberal largely over this issue.

The issue is generally framed in this way. The left will generally say something like, “You have all of these poor people who just keep getting poorer, and all of these rich people who just keep getting richer. The rich need to pay their fair share, and thus, we should tax them so that we can give government handouts to help the poor.” You also have many people on the right saying that the poor don’t want to work for their money, are lazy, and don’t want to work. They want the government to get out of politics so that the rich will be better able to create jobs both through purchases as well as through making and hiring businesses.

I would like to, first of all, say that I am concerned that the question is being framed in the wrong light. I think it is true that there are many poor people who are on food stamps, and yet have a big screen television, fancy clothing, and the latest I-pod technology. However, I am also certain that there are people who are dirt poor, even though they have done everything they can to find work. I also am sure that there are rich people who are likewise immoral, and think only about themselves and their money.

In fact, I was reading in this text from Jeremiah, and it clearly condemns a lack of justice:

Jeremiah 2:34-35 Also, in your hands is found the blood of poor and innocent souls. I have not found them in burglary. For concerning all these things you have said, “I am innocent; truly his anger is turned from me.” Behold, I am entering into judgment with you because of your words, “I have not sinned.”

The problem is that this is only part of the picture. For example, the passage goes on to say:

Jeremiah 2:36-37 Moreover, why do you so easily change your way? Will you be shamed by Egypt just as the shame from Assyria? Also, from this place you will go out and your hands will be upon your head; for the Lord has rejected those in whom you trust. You will not prosper under them.

What I find interesting is that Jeremiah immediately goes and condemns trusting in the governments such as Assyria and Egypt. They will not deliver them from God’s impending wrath. One might say, “Okay, but clearly God’s wrath is against them for not providing social justice; doesn’t that count for something?”

The difficulty is that Jeremiah’s diagnosis of the problem is not that simple. What follows in chapter 3 is a discourse about the idolatries of Judah in the form of the imagery of adultery and harlotry. This is made clear in 3:9 when it is said that Judah committed adultery with stone and trees. Jeremiah even says that the kingdom of Israel was far better then the treacherous Judah [3:11]. It is an interesting picture. In dealing with the nature of the problem, Jeremiah discusses the idolatry of his people. Also, this is clearly implicit in the solution given as well:

Jeremiah 3:22-25 Return, O apostate sons, and I will heal your apostasies. “Behold, we are coming to you, for you are the Lord our God. Surely hills, wildness, and mountains are deceptive; surely the salvation of Israel is with the Lord our God! Shame has eaten the toil of our fathers from our youth: their flocks, their cattle, their sons, and their daughters. Let us lie down in our shame, and let our reproach cover us; for we have sinned against the Lord our God as well as our fathers until this day, and we have not obeyed the Lord our God.

Very clearly, Jeremiah states that the Lord is the salvation of Israel. It is returning to the Lord that is clearly at issue in Jeremiah, both in terms of solving the problem of social justice as well as idolatry. However, the solution doesn’t stop here; it continues to Jeremiah 4:

Jeremiah 4:1-4 If you return, O Israel, then return to me, utters the Lord, and if you turn aside your detestable things from my presence, and do not wander, and swear as the Lord lives in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness, then the nations will be blessed in him, and in him will they glory. For thus says the Lord to each man of Judah and Jerusalem, “Till for yourselves fallow ground, and do not sew thorn-bushes. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove the foreskin of your heart, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my anger goes forth like fire and consumes, and there is nothing to extinguish it before the wickedness of your works.

It is also interesting that Jeremiah gives, as the solution to this problem returning to the Lord He also gives as a solution the circumcision of the heart, which the apostle Paul very clearly identifies as regeneration.

A couple of observations concerning what we have talked about so far. First, Jeremiah acknowledges that a lack of justice is clearly a problem. However, where Jeremiah goes with the solution is much different then where the left goes with it. Jeremiah notes that the problem is deeply rooted in the idolatry of the heart, the serving of other gods, and the trusting in foreign governments to keep them from wrath of God against their sin. Jeremiah gives to solutions to this problem. The first is that they return to God, and the second is that they circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, and are given a new heart.

The reason I believe this is relevant to the whole issue of social justice is because I believe that we are looking for the solution in all of the wrong places. As I said, there are problems of poor people not wanting to work, and rich people not helping those in need. However, these problems cannot be changed simply by high taxes on the rich. For one thing, just because someone isn’t using their money in a way you think is right does not give you the right to take it from them. I might have a hundred thousand rubies that are exactly the same, and yet, refuse to give it to someone who doesn’t have a ruby. Now, you can say that I wouldn’t miss one ruby because I already have a hundred thousand, but would it be right for you to take a ruby and give it to that person simply because I think I am being stingy with my rubies? No, it would be called “theft.” The first problem with taxing the rich to take their money simply because they are rich is that it violates the eighth commandment, “Thou shall not steal” [Exodus 20:15]. Whether we like what someone does with their money or not, we cannot steal it from them out of envy, and use it in the way we think it should be used.

For another thing, Jeremiah points us to a solution that is at the root of all forms of greed, whether it be the poor who don’t want to work, or the rich who don’t want to help those in need, and that is that it is a problem of the idolatry of the uncircumcised heart. The problem with having the government tax people is that this will not solve the problem, because the problem is an issue of the heart of man, something which no government taxes can change. You see, once the rich people get into office, the whole plan will be turned on its head. In a system like this, it is always who has the might has the right.

However, worse than and related to that, I think that going to government taxes is trading one idolatry for another idolatry. It is trading the idolatry of money for the idolatry of the state. That is why God declares to his people in Jeremiah 4:1 that if they are to return, they are to return to him. The problem is that the kind of social justice that is put forward by the left posits a return, but it is a return to another idol-the idol of the government and the state. We have already seen that there are many problems with this line of reasoning in that who has the right all depends on who has the might. However, it is worse than that. First of all, I have, indeed, seen poor people who live on food stamps, and yet have all of the finest televisions, computers, I-pods, clothes and jewelry money can buy. How can the government avoid allowing this to happen in its quest to rid the world of poverty? This is simply another kind of greed. Also, given the Biblical teaching of the fall and the sinfulness of humanity, what assurance do we have that the government will not abuse this power, and make it a sin to be rich? What will happen if someone works hard in order to build up money for his family only to have it taken away simply because he has more money than the poor person living next door who is simply living of the government?

I think that what is really going on here is that we have three different idols: the idols of personal peace, affluence, and the state. Many times it is a mixture of several. For example, people will be more than happy to trust in the government to steal from rich people all so they can continue to have their things, and be left alone in their self-centeredness. Also, yes, it can come from the fact that the rich only care about their personal peace and safety, and don’t care about the person sitting next to them. Also, simply seeing the problem of poverty, and trusting in the government to solve that problem all so you don’t have to deal with the hurt and the pain that comes from that situation. It is much easier to give the government the ability to play God and create “social justice.”

Francis Schaeffer did a series of television programs called How Shall We Then Live?, and it seems like these programs are incredibly prophetic. I would invite you to listen to these programs when you get a chance, as they relate directly to this topic:

One of the things that Schaeffer says in these videos is that poverty and inflation are actually pressures that are pressing against the idols of personal peace and affluence. The problem is, as we have seen, when you run to the government to deal with these problems, the government simply is not big enough to deal with these problems. For example, one can consider that, even if one were to tax the rich, many of them could still get out of it by tax evasion. Then, in order to avoid that, more authoritarianism and control would have to be applied by the government with stricter and stricter regulations. Very quickly, in order to preserve our personal peace and affluence, we find ourselves in a manipulative, authoritarian government, who is manipulative and authoritarian simply because it cannot deal with the issue of wickedness of the human heart. At that point, our idols of personal peace and affluence will crush under the weight of these problems. Humanism simply does not last long with these kinds of pressures piling upon it.

The only real solution to these problems is to return to the Christian base and foundation as found in the Bible. The Christian message offers, not a message of authoritarianism, but a message of transformation of the heart such that people will desire to obey what God has said. In the Christian life form, there is then a basis upon which to judge, not only the greedy rich person, not only the “poor” person with affluence simply given to them by the government, but also to judge the government when it steals, and when it abuses its God given authority. Thus, Christianity with its gospel which transforms the heart can withstand these pressures, while the idols of government, personal peace, and affluence cannot and will not.

New Information on the Alleged “Proof” of Multiple Torah Authors

A while back, I responded to an article claiming that computer science had demonstrated that the Pentateuch had two authors. This alleged “discovery” has, unfortunately, been making it around the news. I was concerned, since I believe that all of these news articles are heavily flawed in their linguistic reasoning, so I decided I would do an internet search to see if anyone else was concerned. During that process, I found an article from the man who conducted the study saying that this whole thing had been blown out of proportion. Not that the man is an evangelical, but it clearly was not his conclusion; in fact, that wasn’t even what his paper was about!

There are some things from the article I would like to comment on though. I do believe that this study has done nothing more than show that there are differences between legal jargon and narrative jargon. Koppel addresses that concern here:

Before you dismiss all this by saying that all we did was discover that stories don’t look like laws, let me point out there are plenty of narrative sections that the computerized analysis assigned to the P family (or, more precisely, to the nameless family that turns out to be very similar to what the critics call the P family). Two prominent examples are the story of Shimon and Levi in Shechem and the story of Pinchas and Zimri.

I want you to take a look at the last story, and tell me what you notice:

Numbers 25:10-15 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. 12 “Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give him My covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.'” 14 Now the name of the slain man of Israel who was slain with the Midianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, a leader of a father’s household among the Simeonites. 15 The name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, who was head of the people of a father’s household in Midian [NASB].

Do you notice all of the legal jargon; things like “covenant,” “peace,” “atonement.” Hence, we have very clear legal context to this passage. Also, note that the other text is in the context of the rape of Dinah, as well as the circumcision of the men of Shechem. You don’t think that this is something that is legally significant!!!!????? In other words, a narrative can address a legal topic; hence you would expect to find overlap when this happens.

Also, the mere fact that they produced similar results to the proponents of the Welhausen hypothesis only proves what I stated in my first article, namely, that they have the same presuppositions about language that the proponents of the Graf-Welhausen theory have. Authorship is not simply wrapped up in words and synonyms. It is not even simply wrapped up in style, as style will change depending on the topic and the participants in the discourse. One must consider the discourse context as well as the individual words that are used. The point is that, if you have the same linguistic presuppositions, you will come to very similar results. The question is whether language can be reduced down to synonyms groups or commonly used words like prepositions. Such is too simplistic. In fact, using this methodology, one could conceivably break the text down into any number of groups depending upon the ways in which discourse factors end up relating to one another.

I don’t agree with Koppel’s reasoning; still, his writing is far more careful than the sensationalistic stories you hear in the news media right now. He has laid out his methodology, and he has shown the conclusions to which it leads, and points out that the news media has gotten it all wrong. While I disagree with the methodology, at least Koppel has the honesty to admit that his research does not prove the sensationalistic claims of the media.

Tangled and the Christian Patriarchy Movement

A while back, I saw an interesting review of a new Disney movie Tangled from a radical Patriarchalist named Andrea Reins. After this review, I started hearing from others, including Karen Campbell, that this movie displays the nature of the radical Christian Patriarchy movement well. Now, of course, I, being a poor college student, was not able to go see it, and have had to wait for it, not only to come out on DVD, but also to decrease in price. Now I have had a chance to look at it, and I am wondering if I even watched the same movie that Reins did! However, I can understand why people have said what they have said about this movie and its relationship to the radical Christian Patriarchy movement. To a radical Christian Patriarchalist, this movie would be as offensive as a movie showing Christ as a villain would be to a Christian.

The plot is based upon the famous fairy tale Rapunzel; a king and a queen are about to have a baby, but the queen is very sick. The king sends his men out to find a special flower that came down from the sun, and has the power to heal. However, what they do not know is that an old woman has already found the flower, and has been using it to make herself young again. The woman accidentally uncovers the hiding place for her flower in her effort to hide from the king’s men, and thus, the king’s men find the flower, take it back to the queen, and make a medicine that does, indeed, heal the queen. However, it produces a child whose hair has all of the magical qualities of the flower itself. It can glow like the sun, heal any sickness or injury, and yes, even make the old young again. The old woman finds this out, and kidnaps the child for herself.

Eighteen years pass, and the child has been kept in a tall tower with no door, but has now grown up. Throughout that time every day on her birthday she sees lanterns that she thinks are stars which the king and queen send up into the sky. Although she has been forbidden by the old lady to go outside her whole life, for her eighteenth birthday, the kidnapped princess now named Rapunzel asks the old lady [who she thinks is her mom] if she can go see the stars for her birthday this year. She declines telling her how bad and how wicked the world is, and how she would never be able to fend for herself.

Meanwhile, a thief by the name of Flynn Rider [aka Eugene] and his bandits have just stolen a jewel crown. Eugine ditches the two other bandits with the crown, and the king’s men chase him off into the woods. Maximus, the horse, chases him down, and forces him to hide behind a drapery of verdant foliage. However, this drapery is hiding Rapunzel’s tower from view. In order to escape from Maximus, he climbs the tower. Rapunzel promptly knocks him out with a frying pan, and ends up hiding the bag with the crown. Rapunzel makes a deal with Eugene; if he takes her to see the lights, the she will give him the crown back.

However, on the way the old lady catches up to Rapunzel, and tells her that all Eugine is after is the crown; once he gets that, he will desert her. The old woman then bribes the two bandits, who are now interested in getting revenge against Eugine, to help her stage a scene wherein it appears that Eugine has ditched her with the crown, and left these two bandits to harm her. Of course, “mother” comes to her rescue. However, in reality, what has happened is that the two bandits have knocked Eugine unconscious, tied him in an upright position to the wheel of the boat, and pushed the boat right toward the castle of the royal guard. Hence, he couldn’t answer when Rapunzel called him. The two bandits then feigned being knocked out, in order for her mother to be proven “right.”

So, she returns to the tower with her mother. However, now she realizes that she is the long lost princess. She confronts the old woman on it, and she responds by locking her up in the tower. Eugine escapes from the king’s guards, and goes after Rapunzel back to the tower. He calls for Rapunzel to let down her hair; her hair promptly falls, and he climbs up. However, what he doesn’t know is that this is all a trap; when he gets to the top of the tower, the old woman stabs him in the lungs. Now, Rapunzel offers the old woman a deal; Rapunzel promises that she will go with her if the old woman will only let her heal Eugine. However, Eugine won’t have it; he wants to die, so that she will be free of the slavery of this woman.

As far as the ending goes, I will not tell you how it ends; I don’t want to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it. However, I do want to address Andrea Reins’ review, as I believe it has grossly dissembled and distorted the point of the film. For instance:

As this new-fashioned fairy tale unfolds, we’re treated to an interesting commentary on homemakers and why these captives to domesticity are setting themselves up for eventual disenchantment. In spite of the fact that Rapunzel has been locked away from the world and dominated by a sugary sweet despot, we find her a delightful, adorable girl, with a zest for learning and a creative flair. Eventually, though, she wearies of the monotony. Though it’s a mockery and misrepresentation of homemaking, it holds an interesting element of truth. When life is divorced from a larger dominion purpose, the eventual result will be frustration and misery.

What I don’t think Reins is seeing is that this is *not* divorced from its “dominion purpose.” You see, it is the dominion purpose of Mother Gothel that she stay in that tower. That is the problem. I think this movie accurately describes what happens when the purposes of God are confused with the purposes of men, as is done in the radical Christian Patriarchy movement. Also, I would point out that, as an aside, the radical Christian Patriarchy movement grossly abuses Genesis 1:28 in this regard. Not only is dominion given to both men and women [as I have argued elsewhere], but it ignores the affects of the fall on this dominion. Not only does it ignore the affects of the fall, but it ignores the fact that it is the through God-man Jesus Christ that dominion is restored, not the the vision of an earthly, biological father. When you are constantly trying to help your “father” attain his vision rather then seeking follow Christ and his will for your life, whether it is your father’s will or not, then you are, indeed, doing the very same thing that Rapunzel was doing in that film.

Rapunzel was disheartened because even her more useful skills had no point beyond filling her time and whiling away the hours.4 The real problem here is that, within the world of the film, we’re only given two options, two choices in life- both of which are unsuitable, but one of which is deemed acceptable by its creators. The first, obviously, is for Rapunzel to stay in the tower trapped forever in a life of childish meaninglessness. The second is presented shortly as Rapunzel, in turmoil over her choice to run away, is advised by Flynn,

“Does your mother deserve it? No. Would this break her heart and crush her soul? Of course, but you just got to do it…..This is part of growing up—a little rebellion and a little adventure. This is healthy.”

This is the first major sermon statement of the story, and from here things spring into action as we’re shown, for the remainder of the film, that chronic rebellion is innocent, healthy fun, and disobedience in pursuit of our heart’s wildest desires actually leads to enlightenment and maturity.

I would say that this is a misrepresentation of the film. If I wanted to say how the film should really be taken, I would write it out this way:

Does your mother “deserve” it? No. Would this “break her heart” and “crush her soul?” Of course, but you just got to do it…..This is part of growing up—a little “rebellion” and a little “adventure.” This is healthy.

Note how I have added the quotation marks. This statement follows a lengthy scene in which Rapunzel is fighting with herself over whether or not to leave to go see the lanterns. She has just set foot outside the tower for the first time since she was a baby. However, she has been so manipulated at this point, that she thinks it would be “hurting” her mom to leave. Eugine is using humor in order to mock the silly notions that her mother has been putting into her head. You see, this is why this movie so offends the radical Patriarchalists. The mother’s dominion purpose is being served by her daughter being in that tower, and she has had to manipulate Rapunzel into believing all kinds of absurdities in order for that purpose to be realized. However, according to the radical patriarchalists, she is the head of the home, and this girl has an obligation to obey her, and to bring about her “vision.” The point is that this whole movie points out, at a deeper and more fundamental level, the idolatry of the Christian Patriarchy movement.

Biblically speaking, maturity isn’t defined by the childish assertion of our autonomous wills, but rather by a life lived in terms of God’s Word.6 What Tangled doesn’t tell little boys and girls, is that there is a third option of dealing with the situation in Biblical maturity and wisdom, or that the Bible paints an entirely different picture of the home and its purposes. Instead, Tangled only teaches that behind door number two lies all the adventure we’ve been waiting for.

I had to chuckle at the first statement. Several times Reins mentions the Stay at Home Daughters movement [not merely daughters who want to stay at home, but people who argue that it is God’s given role for them to stay home]; to say that this movement has to engage in the most egregious misuse of scripture is an understatement. As I said, I don’t have any problem with daughters who want to become a wife and a mother; that is a good and noble way to serve God. However, the amount of exegetical gymnastics you have to engage in in order to say that this is something a woman *must* do is incredible.

Also, I don’t think that what this movie is teaching is that, behind door number 2 [“rebellion”] is where you find adventure. What it is saying, if anything, is that you should not live your life to always do what other people want you to do, and that includes your parents. That is why this strikes at the heart of the radical Christian Patriarchy movement. Karen Campbell is fond of calling this movement “patriocentrism.” That is a very good term; it is, in essence, idolatry of the father, raising there views equal to God’s view. The old woman in the film simply did not have God’s interest in mind; she had her own interests. Now, do I think that the movie, because it was made by a secular company, did not make clear that one needs to obey God rather than men in such circumstances? Absolutely. However, the point is very clear; parents are not God, and yes, they are capable of living for themselves, and seeking their own will rather than God’s will. However, the question is whether we are going to obey God rather than men. In fact, in the admonition that Paul gives for children to obey their parents, Paul adds that they should obey them “in the Lord.” He doesn’t say that they should obey their parents in their parents; he also doesn’t say that they should obey their parents in the father’s dominion purpose. He says that they should obey their parents “in the Lord” [Ephesians 6:1].

Of course, we could overlook this because, after all, Mother Gothel is really just a wicked captor bent on using Rapunzel for her own ends. But, the fact is that Rapunzel’s actions are carried out in the understanding that this is her mother and it’s really not until the last few minutes of the film that she finds out otherwise. Theirs is the relationship which is modeled throughout the film as mother/daughter. Parents are sinners, just like their children, but one person’s sin doesn’t excuse the sin of another.7If we’re prepared to say that Mother Gothel’s sins are inexcusable, we must be prepared to say the same of Rapunzel’s.

I would say that, because Mother Gothel was seeking her own ends, what Rapunzel did was not sin. Reins simply cannot understand that she is putting her parents in the position that only God has the right to hold, and that is a position of unquestioned authority. If, for even one second, the parent’s desires are placed above God’s desires, then it is idolatry. If, for one second, parents are given the same unquestioned authority that the Bible has, it is idolatry. Why? Because our goal is to not be slaves to the desires of other people; we are to be slaves of Christ, and him alone. Therefore, if we want to enjoy looking at God’s creation [remember, at this point in time Rapunzel thinks the lanterns are stars], and we are not breaking any of God’s commands in so doing, who is mere man in any position of authority to bind our conscience as if it came from scripture itself? Who is mere man to impose rules on us that defy all reason and logic, just for their own personal gain?

I think that what has happened is that we do see a lot of disobedience from children today, and, again, in evangelicalism, it seems like, when we seek to solve a problem, we always overreact. We forget about the fact that, in our obedience to our parents, we must obey “in the Lord,” not adding to his commandments, and certainly not contradicting them. When you allow mere men to do this, you are committing idolatry. This should be a wake up call for parents that, when you put restrictions on children, you need to be doing so in order to teach them the principles found in God’s word. When you place a restriction on your children that is based upon your own selfish motives, and not upon a desire to instruct your children in the commandments of God, you are exalting yourself to a position you have no business being in, and the child is not being “rebellious” to contradict you.

But the story marches on, and we find that rebellion has its rewards as romance fills the air. We also find out that children’s movies are a great way to ensure a break down of morality in the future. We see this in a number of ways- running away from home with a complete scoundrel, camping out in the woods with said scoundrel, an unbiblical view of love, emotional enticements (e.g. smolder), and also, within the dialogue.8 In the beginning, Flynn steals the tiara of the missing princess(Rapunzel) in order to fulfill a utopian, childhood dream. The tiara bounces around until it comes into Mother Gothel’s possession and as she confronts Rapunzel, the lines read like a teenage romance about losing one’s purity. Mother Gothel tells Rapunzel that the only thing Flynn is after is the tiara and as soon as he gets it, he’ll leave her. Then later, after they’ve ‘fallen in love’, Rapunzel tells Flynn that she has something to give him(the tiara)- she was scared to give it to him before, but she’s not scared anymore. Though we’re talking about a tiara now, we won’t be in a few years as similar lines are heard in teenybopper films. To a great extent, the things that we watch and listen to as children are the most influential in forming our character and worldview, in defining who we’ll become as adults. It’s those who control the education of children that will control the future of nations.9 But, education isn’t merely academics, all of culture is educating and it, in turn, flows from underlying religious beliefs. Tangled is schooling its viewers in the acceptance of immorality.

Completely left out of this whole incredibly ersatz discussion of what actually happened in the film is the fact that the two characters changed at the end of the film. Yes, at the beginning Eugine even admits that he was only seeking his own ends, but that his true dream was Rapunzel. Exactly what is meant by that is further explicated when he is willing to die so that she can be free of the tyranny of the old woman. That sounds an awful lot like the love of Christ to me. Did not Christ die so that we could be freed from the slavery of sin? In fact, I almost got the feeling that Eugine’s life of crime was his “tower” if you will, which kept him in slavery and bondage. It wasn’t until Rapunzel stopped thinking about always trying to please her mother, and Eugine stopped thinking about pleasing himself, and they started caring for one another that things really turned around. Now, I am not arguing that this is necessarily a Christian ending. They may have repented of the idolatry of parents and the idolatry of self respectively, but who knows of other idolatries may have creeped up. Still, the self-sacrifice that these two showed for each other at the end of the film is something that nicely mirrors the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It’s no surprise then, when we find that our hero is really nothing of the sort. Even among his fellow thieves, he commands no respect. Then again, Rapunzel doesn’t appear to be in much need of rescuing anyway. Their relationship is one of mutual, self-serving interest. He’s a helpless, sensitive, emotional male- an accessory to the capable, brilliant, amazing Rapunzel. And, because she’s an emancipated princess who knows how to get her man, in the spirit of Indiana Jones she wields her 70 foot hair, pulling off all kinds of daring feats and rescues. But, as the film climaxes, we’re assured that this is all okay.

This is simply absurd. They way in which Rapunzel cowered in that tavern is enough to tell you that she is not the “emancipated princess.” She still struggles with her manipulative mother all of the way through the film, and it is Eugine who helps her to break free of her manipulation. So, she helps him with her hair, and he helps her in breaking free from her abusive mother. Sounds like, again, we are using the Biblical terminology of “helper.” Also, to speak of Eugine as “helpless” is absurd in and of itself. Was he not someone who was constantly giving the king’s army the slip? In fact, is that not how he found Rapunzel’s tower in the first place?

As Rapunzel is offering to rescue Flynn one more time and give her life for his, he pulls a clever move- picking up a shard of broken glass, he cuts off her magical hair, sending the wicked Mother Gothel spiraling into old age and oblivion and assuring us that we modern women can have our feminism AND the heroism of men(of course, Rapunzel’s magical tears do have the last word since they’re required to bring the now deceased Flynn back to life.)

I think the point is that their love for one another brought him back to life. Also, notice the use of terms like “feminism.” Of course, to these folks, a girl simply going to college makes her a “feminist.” In other words, if you don’t commit the idolatry of parent worship, then you are a “feminist.” I would like to know, does she really think Rapunzel had this feministic attitude when she was cowering at the tavern, or when she was being manipulated by her mother? Also, is not the whole point that her mother was constantly telling her that she would never survive, and that everything out there is bad? Is not a part of the movie that she is overcoming the manipulation of her mother? How is this “feminism?” I don’t know.

In the end, Rapunzel is finally reunited with the king and queen and as the film closes, we discover some final lessons- that good governments reward sin and indulgent parents are real parents. Flynn is embraced, his thievery ignored, and welcomed, as Rapunzel’s new husband, a prince in their kingdom. His fellow thugs realize their dreams, too, and all of this was achieved, of course, without good character on anyone’s part; by the end of the film, we’re left without a single good role model in sight.

Of course, in the end, Eugine recognizes his own selfishness, and is willing to give his very life so that Rapunzel can live; however, all of that is conveniently ignored by Reins. I would like to suggest that, in this movie which is made by pagans, Rapunzel and Eugine are far closer to an example of the self-sacrifical love of Christ than what Andrea Reins presents in her review. I couldn’t help but think of this passage of scripture the whole time I was watching the movie, and thinking of Rein’s review:

Luke 15:7 “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Also, consider what else Jesus said:

Matthew 21:31 “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The latter.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you.

The point is that, even in a movie made by pagans there is still more repentance of idolatry than in the branch of the Christian Patriarchy movement that Reins is a part of. It is amazing to me to see pagans more capable of understanding repentance and true love than a Christian who has the very example of Christ! However, that is the blinding nature of idolatry, and we should all be wary of falling into that trap. Notice the following paragraph:

While the intellect may recognize danger, a film that appears as innocent and adorable as this delights the emotions. We exit the theater and, as our bodies go back to the real world, our minds are still in false one. In this make believe world, freedom is equated to license and duty to bondage. But, this so called freedom is nothing more than bondage to sin. The reality is that we live in a world governed by a sovereign Creator and only a life lived on his terms leads to blessing and freedom.11 Tangled is aptly called a fairy tale, because in the real world sins have their rewards and a life of unmitigated bliss is not one of them. Packaging all of this in a humorous, expertly crafted children’s film is ingenious, really. As such, it is heedlessly given the stamp of ‘wholesome entertainment’ and we, leaving our discernment at the door , imbibe the beliefs of a culture that is at war with God. Among children, though, one brilliant exhibition isn’t enough. They’ll consume it, again and again, until, through sheer repetition, their souls are imbued with depravity.

Notice the way in which she writes this. Notice how she uses the terms “duty,” “bondage to sin,” “a world governed by a sovereign Creator,” “a life lived on his terms” and “sin.” Notice what is missing? Yes, proof that her assessment of what is going on is correct from the scriptures. As I have said, the radical Christian Patriarchy movement is not real big on defending their interpretations of scripture. Most of their interpretations are just simply assumed. The way Reins is trying to get us to see the world is that the radical Christian Patriarchy movement is “God’s way,” ironically echoing the methods of the old lady in the tower. Of course, that would require exegetical proof, and, since none is given, I think it is only fair to conclude that it is simply rhetoric.

Also, another interesting parallel to this film is the phrase “imbibe the beliefs of a culture that is at war with God.” It is difficult to know how to interpret that, but, as I see it, the logical conclusion of radical Christian Patriarchy, especially with its dualism [the culture is bad, and you need our secret knowledge in order to be good], is something like the tower out in the middle of nowhere. Notice how, in the movie, even when Rapunzel got out of the tower, her mother was still manipulating her. Hence, any contact with the world must be filtered through the parents. That is why I would say that it would have been absolutely impossible to make this movie unless it hit the radical Christian Patriarchy movement right between the eyes.

As a Christian, I have a foundation to answer this problem. I can go back to the scriptures, and not only assert that God has said something, but actually defend *from the text* the fact that God has said something, because I believe that God has spoken in normal human language. As most of you can tell, I am not afraid of exegetical interaction. God has spoken freely in this world so that anyone can pick up a Bible and test whether or not God has really said something by listening to him speak in the text. However, the problem is, when you don’t have good exegesis and hermeneutics, you have to become the old lady in the tower. You need an authoritarian elite, whether it be popular authors, parents, or both. That is why hermeneutics and proper interpretation of scripture are infinitely important.

I realize that I have been very hard on the radical Christian Patriarchalists, and, imparticular Andrea Reins in this post. However, my concern is that, when the authority of scripture is usurped by the authority of man, either to bind to people’s conscience things that aren’t found in God’s word or to contradict God’s word, it will lead to a dangerous authoritarianism.