|
Passions flare over Norman film
The online version of ‘Angel tells tragic tale of Larry Norman’ (July), John Cody’s interview with Fallen Angel director David Di Sabatino, drew an extraordinarily polarized response. Following is a cross-section of opinions.
Larry had an absolutely enormous burden of expectation on his shoulders. In
fact, he really was in a similar situation to Presley, Lennon or Michael
Jackson. Everywhere you go, you meet a lot of people who are obsessive fans of
his.
For that reason, I’ve always found it easy to forgive his behaviour. He couldn’t have led a normal life – because no matter where he went, there were people wanting a part of him. That
kind of adulation is difficult for anyone to cope with.
Add to that the slings and arrows that he received from the Christian
establishment. It’s easy to forget just how conservative the church was back in the 60s and 70s,
and how utterly outrageous Larry would have seemed.
And then, there were his health issues.
None of the above excuses whatever lying and cheating might have taken place;
but it might help explain it, in part.
Bottom line: I can still enjoy his music. What Di Sabatino said about Jacob is
true. The Bible is absolutely full of flawed characters God used. I don’t let the whole Bathsheba thing put me off David’s Psalms, either.
DC Cardwell
The primary role of ‘Christian journalism’ – if there is such a thing – is to bring wholeness, healing, and restoration.
These were never the goals of Di Sabatino; and it is clear that they are not the
goals of CanadianChristianity.com, either.
TB Gilman
I think the truth is the best thing for everyone. I don’t know why people would criticize your article. That’s weird to me.
It was super insightful – but then again, I’m not threatened by imperfection in the church.
Deb
Those enriched by Norman’s work now confront reports of his private life – the imperfect, who dared take a stand for the Perfect.
Whether Fallen Angel handles the less admirable aspects of his life in as flattering a manner as fans
would like, Cody presents a balanced report on the fallible artist placing
himself on the line to make his statement.
The lesson is that, whenever an enterprise is built around a testimony for
Christ, the spiritual battle intensifies. There’s no fallibility allowed. Who among us would welcome the pressure of keeping
such a standard in public? At some point, keeping up appearances is inevitable.
Norman’s work was a pivotal contribution to faith, expressed purely in visceral pop
culture. It will stand – despite, or perhaps alongside, the story presented by Fallen Angel .
Al Harlow
I hope you can live with yourselves after not actually doing your due diligence
regarding this article. I worked and lived with Larry for a year in LA, and no
one from the film has interviewed me. I saw and heard many things first hand – but none as outrageous as what has been written about.
There are many who had the same positive experience with Larry as I did.
This is utterly disgraceful. It is tragic!
Brander ‘Standing Bear’ McDonald
Whether or not it was inaccurate, the over-riding impression I get from the
article is that this guy Norman was a human being – who found out that accepting Jesus didn’t change him the way the church tells you it does, and yet didn’t want to give up hope (nor the image people had of him). Sounds like me.
I don’t have much tolerance for contemporary Christian music; but I’d probably like to hear some of his songs.
Cody helps clarify one of my greatest problems with the church: that everyone
tries to cover the truth about themselves. We’d be a much more authentic people if we didn’t feel the need to project an image of love and fulfillment – that most don’t have – in order to conform to everyone else in the church, who are trying to project
the same thing.
JP
It is helpful for the Christian community to recognize and talk about the fact
that we are all fallen, and continue to struggle. I had the opportunity to meet
Larry Norman a couple of times, and I had heard rumours about his ‘complications.’ Still, he was a hero to me – and his music an inspiration.
I think Larry was a prophet. And if you are a student of the Bible, you will
know God’s prophets were always complicated human beings – who continued to sin, had ego problems, and who much of the world would assume
were mentally unbalanced.
The fact was that Larry Norman had issues – and Fallen Angel addresses this. But that’s not a reason to dismiss Norman, his music – or honest reflections on the person he was.
On the contrary: his music is even more meaningful, knowing that it came from
someone who struggled with his demons – just like the rest of us.
Murray Stiller
Sanctuary recipient must apologize
Re your July story, ‘Former KGB agent relies on God in sanctuary’: some of us have our doubts about this man, despite the article’s talk of forgiveness for his past.
I don’t recall hearing Lennikov apologize or admit any guilt about abusing our laws
and goodwill. There must be an admission of guilt before there can be
forgiveness.
It has been suggested throughout this messy business that the government is
guilty of separating the family in question – when, in fact, his wife and son are free to go with him.
Lennikov and his family have played the system like a fiddle. Proof of this is
that, when he was given an extension in order to be able to attend his son’s graduation, he very ungraciously treated us like suckers by requesting ‘sanctuary’ at a local church.
Let him remove himself to someplace neutral, and apply for citizenship from
without – just like everyone else must. He might be surprised at the generosity of
Canadians to those who play by the rules.
Larry Bennett , Burnaby
Continue article >>
|
True Anglicans oppose apostasy
Re: ‘B.C. Anglicans sue for divorce’ (July):
George Cadman of the Diocese of New Westminster skates on rather thin ice, and
seems willing to divert from the facts of the matter. It was the actions of the
diocese that precipitated the court action.
The media might portray this as a situation of Anglicans vs. Anglicans, or liberals vs. conservatives. The truth, however, is that this case is one of orthodoxy versus apostasy.
To be a true Anglican, one must be a believer in the authority of scripture.
Their stance on key doctrines places the apostate bishops and clergy within the
Anglican Church of Canada outside of Anglicanism – despite any claim to the contrary.
Clearly, true Anglicans would rebel in mass if their priests would tell the
truth of the matter. At their ordination, they made specific promises before
God – and that includes upholding and standing for the faith.
Frank C. Wirrell , Abbotsford
Christians divided over evolution
Brendan Ritchie (‘Ross theory won’t impact science,’ Readers Forum, July) declares: “Our evolutionary history is as obvious as our wisdom teeth, our tailbone and our
appendix.”
He is trotting out the old, tired ‘vestigial organs’ argument in favour of Darwinian evolution. Darwin wrote of organs “bearing the plain stamp of inutility,” or uselessness.
Unfortunately, Ritchie’s fellow evolutionists do not unanimously agree that vestigial organs offer
worthwhile support for evolution. “Our evolutionary history” is not quite as obvious to everyone else as it is to him.
In 1981, zoologist S. R. Scadding wrote a classic article titled ‘Do ‘vestigial organs’ provide evidence for evolution?’
Scadding concluded that “the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is
invalid” on both practical and theoretical grounds. He showed that a variety of
purportedly vestigial structures do have functions – including the appendix and the coccyx (‘tailbone’). Wisdom teeth, of course, are obviously functional for eating.
A 2007 article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology noted the appendix is “often considered to be a vestige of evolutionary development, despite evidence
to the contrary, based on comparative primate anatomy.”
Richard Peachey, Abbotsford
I commend Hugh Ross for his attempt to recognize that any attempt to tear down
evolutionary theory by suggesting there are holes or gaps in it is doomed to
fail. It is doomed to fail because, ideally, science claims knowledge
provisionally, not as fixed dogma.
But I must take issue with Ross’ view of the creation/evolution debate. The problem arises when he proposes the “development of comprehensive creation ‘models.’” This can never happen.
In the entire history of creationism, no model has been proposed that was a
coherent scientific theory, with peer review in serious scientific journals.
Please don’t suggest this is some massive conspiracy of ‘Science,’ or you will be sharing a room with flat earthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
It is theology’s job to look for evidence of purpose and meaning in the universe. To reject
evolution because it doesn’t speak about ultimate causes is to reject the notion of science altogether.
Any attempt to inject the supernatural or spiritual into science is just not
scientific. The cold hard facts are that ‘creation science’ and ‘intelligent design’ are not real science.
I sympathize with the motivations behind those movements, however. Evolution, at
first glance, does seem to threaten our notions of God’s providence and his mercy.
Random mutation and natural selection seem to place God at a distance, and paint
him as indifferent to millions of years of suffering. However, I would argue
that, upon close study of evolutionary theory, God is revealed as bigger,
closer, and more compassionate that we could possibly imagine.
My fear is that we evangelicals have painted ourselves into a corner. By rejecting science, we are creating barriers preventing the mainstream culture
from hearing the gospel.
The more we argue for ‘creation science,’ the more the mainstream rightly sees us as a paranoid clique with our
collective heads in the sand.
For 2,000 years, the historical church has striven to integrate scientific
understanding into its interpretation of the scriptures. If we refuse to follow in this tradition, we risk losing any relevance in the
wider world.
Spencer Capier , Vancouver
I began my honours science degree with an open mind. After the first year,
studying a combination of zoology, botany, microbiology, organic chemistry,
genetics and statistics, I was dumbfounded that anyone could believe in evolution.
The latter two subjects alone make it so improbable when one considers that over
99 percent of mutations are deleterious. Interpret that with statistics!
When, in the first class, the zoology professor began by asking if anyone was
not convinced of evolutionary theory, I raised my hand – the only one in the auditorium of some 400 students.
As Brendan Ritchie notes, evolutionary theory is simply accepted by students today – and herein lies the problem.
Where are the honestly inquisitive minds science depends on? Where are people
like the Christian Galileo, who questioned the geocentric view of the solar
system against prevailing dogma?
Science doesn’t need people who jump on the prevailing bandwagon and ‘accept’ that they have to endorse what is placed before them.
Rather than “damage the intellectual lives of Christians,” as Ritchie asserts, people like Hugh Ross foster the inquisitive spirit at the
heart of true science.
Gary Desterke , Maple Ridge
September 2009
|
