The gang discusses World Vision’s controversial new policy. Then, the day after the show is taped and in the can, World Vision changes back. Oops! No time to retape, so we’re a little out of date. But we also have a lively discussion about Phil’s favorite recent movies and Skye’s theology of work. No podcast next week as everyone heads off for spring break!
Listen to the episode | Download this episode | Find this episode on iTunes
First time watching one of your podcasts and I am so disappointed. I love Veggie Tales and Whats in the Bible. I loved Phil’s book. So my disappointment is heartfelt to hear the disregard for God’s word. My husband and I have supported World Vision children for almost 20 years. They are much more than an organization that “hands out corn”. Why do they hand out corn, because the Bible tells us to care for the needy and that same Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin. As a sponsor I sign and send in some kind of evangalistic tool to my sponsored child that is supplied from World Vision almost on a monthly basis. Clearly World Vision is evangalistic. When they feed the poor they do it in Jesus’ name. As Christians can we evangalize but present a false view of who God is? Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Not a side issue like child baptism etc. Although culture changes in what they stress throughout time, thankfully the Bible does not. When the Bible calls homosexuality a sin it does matter weather it was at the time of the writing, present or 100 years from now.
As far as “Red State Boogie men” go, things are a bit different down here in the “Bible Belt.” I think because of the religious dominance, there is a little bit of a little man’s syndrome here when it comes to philosophy, anthropology, etc. I had several professors in college who did tried as hard as they could to convince everyone that God did not exist. I would imagine that outside the “Red States” things would probably be a little more congenial, but here they are not. Signing a statement that God is dead, however, is probably a little bit of an overreach–even for us.
I was so blessed to hear about the Redeem Work conference. The American Church has largely ignored our employment and work-related issues, yet so much is wrapped up in the 40 hours a week we work. And now that work schedules push 60 hours and commutes add even more time, those issues loom larger than ever. I’ve been writing on Christianity and our work lives for more than a decade, so it was good to hear that others are sharing that same burden.
Thank you also for mentioning Aaron Niequist and A New Liturgy (http://anewliturgy.com/) . I listened to the material and was both impressed and blessed.
Lastly, while talking about pop culture, silly movies, celebrities, and such are escapist fun, it’s Redeem Work, A New Liturgy, and other discussions like those that make this podcast essential listening. Please highlight more like them. Thank you!
Phil, you did miss a couple Old Testament shout-outs in “Mr. Peabody and Sherman.” There’s a snippet in ancient Egypt where baby Moses is being fished out of the Nile (I think that’s during the nostalgia montage where Peabody is recalling how Sherman came into his life). Later, when Mr.P and S are inside the giant Anubis statue trying to stop the “dis-embalming” of Penny, they threaten the Egyptians with plagues. One member of the crowd says, “Again with the plagues!? Why did I ever move to Egypt?” So religion wasn’t completely ignored, nor was it exclusively portrayed as creepy. Anyone who has been to Sunday school or seen a Charlton Heston movie (“Soylent green is people!”) could have caught those as a nod to the Bible.
Keep up the great show. I’m hooked! Looking forward to your comments about World Vision’s near-immediate 180.
reuters.comPhil,
It is End of western civilization as we know it. Gone are the days where you can work hard, excell in your job and expect to continue working. You must now also adopt the values of every one in social media or risk loosing your job. We now live in a world that if we offend a group of people they can get us fired and make it nearly impossible to find work. Will another company ever higher Brendan Eich again or would he be able to start another business ever? That is a steep price to pay for donating $1,000 dollars to a campaign.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
Love the show. Love you all. Feel like you’re family, I have been listening to the three of you go round the table for so long…. OH WAIT! U are family. Brothers and sisters. Cant wait to meet y’all. Nuff doting.
Like any good family member I wanted to briefly weigh-in on the subject of World Vision’s latest declaration. After listening to every podcast you have done, I just want to point out to you all, that the general consensus of your trio always seems to lean toward grace, for whatever the subject is! Which is why I am a fan. We are to exemplify grace in the very manner in which Christ did (that is the definition of a disciple right? to follow the leader?) , which we all try to do through the leading of the Holy Spirit, through the Word and other means of God teaching us individually. My concern with the latest dialogue regarding this “touchy” subject, speaks to severity of sin. Frankly, we see Jesus extending grace always, even to the Pharisees whom he spoke most harshly to, but we do not see him condoning sin in ANY sense. I believe you guys are thinking naturally on this subject, and naturally over-thinking the issue to the point of being led toward a wrong direction. I hope it’s clear to you by my wording of this, that I do not believe you have somehow “stepped over a line” or anything overdramatic. And I am not for “kicking out the gays”. Really? We have to, as Christians , be able to stand firm on SOMETHING, and I believe that that something is The Word. I think you all would agree that the Word is pretty clear on homosexuality being blatant sin. We have such a huge push in our society right now by the homosexual community for “gay rights”, that we see churches resisting (naturally ! what would we expect?). And we need to continue to keep each other, as the church, accountable to how we react to these subjects. For that part, I think you all do a marvelous job at hashing out the issues. (But seriously Phil… there is SOOO much other news out there to talk about besides gays and atheists…. really) But to get back to my point, I really feel as though at times you are willing to cede ground on sin issues as if that will somehow help. As I read scripture, sin is not multiple, individual, bad-choices stacking up against us, but rather it’s a matter of ownership. We have two choices: God, or anything else as master. Sin always leads to death, and I feel it is unfortunate that the church isn’t as wrapped up in fighting the tidal wave of adultery and divorce in our churches as it is in getting entangled in the homosexual debate! But World Vision’s decision is not a surprise to me at least. This is the Christian culture-war, and we see many groups giving way to pander to some “middle ground”. Phil- you yourself know that Jesus’ mission wasn’t about feeding people food or giving them clothes, or you might as well follow Ghandi or some noble missionary. So why did he charge us to take care of the poor? It always comes back to leading people to God himself, and stewardship of His creation. And if our churches or para-churches say , “we don’t really want to get into that debate, we don’t care how the people who represent our organization live, we just want to feed the poor”, then I agree with you, that they might as well be a Muslim organization, or non-religious at all. But that also isn’t to say that churches or organizations just “throw out” people dealing with sin. I believe the line is whether or not an individual is in fact “dealing” with their sin, or fully giving in to it. And how can you legislate that? Again, who (what) is your master? Its hard to communicate the full weight of this topic in a short blog, and no doubt such a short response can be misconstrued as well as an hour-long podcast. I just wanted to let you guys know that from this end of the mic, it sounds an awful lot like conceding the severity of the issue “in the name of giving grace”, which Jesus never did. Peace to you all. Keep the great podcasts coming.
Phil, found your podcast about a month ago after one of your blog posts showed up in my Zite feed. You guys have a really intelligent and energizing conversation going on, and I’m so glad I found it. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and I’ve struggled to find faith based podcasts that are on par with a lot of the secular podcasts I enjoy. You have something special going on here.
I did want to share this for other non-Apple people like myself. I’ve struggled without success for several weeks to find the RSS link to subscribe to the show and have been listening via a variety of workarounds. Last night, I was thrilled to realize I can use this link to subscribe via all non-iTunes podcast readers: http://thephilvischerpodcast.libsyn.com/rss I wanted to put that out there for anyone else who’s been looking for the RSS link. If I’ve simply missed the location to that RSS link (sometimes I overlook the obvious), please delete this post.
Thanks and please keep up the great work.
Hey guys, I’ve always enjoyed the podcast. You guys make me laugh and have refreshing views on a lot of sticky topics. I just want to push back on a couple things you say, Phil, in the movies section…a few things that rustled my jimmies, per say.
First, I really liked Peabody and Sherman too. I thought it was a solid, well told story, and one of the funniest movies I’ve seen for a while. I just want to push back a little though on your critique on how it portrays science over religion. I think it’s unfair to make that claim. In no way did the movie set out to say anything about science or religion; it was a story about the deep regard between a father and his adopted son. I also think at the core of your critique is affected by how our culture portrays “Science vs. Religion” assuming that they are mutually exclusive. At some point you said, “I’m intrigued at how popular media portrays science vs. religion.” Popular media does tend to put them side by side and brands them as one OR the other. But you guys have even talked about this in previous podcasts. Science is an observable understanding of the world and Religion has more philosophical implications, sure there’s plenty of overlap. But my point is: Science, in its purest form, is of a ‘neutral’ affiliation, no one’s going to get upset or *not see the film* because it includes Leonardo da Vinci, but Religion has a lot of emotional affiliation attached to it, if they included Luther, would they have to include the prophet Muhammad? And then we get in to this weird area of inclusiveness that is far outside the *story* of a father and a son. These movies are made for general audiences, Walt Disney was very open about not having religious inclusion in his films as to appeal to a greater audience. And your comments on the Egyptians are also unfair, you’re making blanket assumptions that by portraying Egyptian Religion in a creepy way, they’re saying religion in general is creepy…but honestly, is Egyptian Religion not creepy? And it’s relatively safe territory because no one who follows Rah is going to make a big deal about it. I don’t think it’s saying anything about religion as a general world view, just making an interesting plot filled with conflict and resolution in the context of the world they created…so yeah…ahem, I get uh…emotional about stories in animated films.
And.
One of my friends is a Wes Anderson fan boy. I guess…I don’t hate his films. And I know I’m getting caught up on words and you probably don’t mean this to the level I’m taking it, but when you say “…the only real artists, still allowed to make commercial sized films”. I can’t help but cringe a little. This gets shoulders deep into the distinction of ‘art and entertainment’ and I have no problem making a distinction between the two. At the extremes: Art being an expression outside of audience consideration – expression for the sake of expression, and entertainment is the creation something hoping to entertain someone who is experiencing it. But the problem is the huge crossover in the venn diagram of these two circles, as well as, film is primarily an entertainment medium, if you don’t plan on people watching your film, don’t put it in theaters. My biggest gripe is: why do you distinct these two as “real artists”? because they do things different than the norm? and does that in of itself make them “real artists”? Is someone who works on Peabody and Sherman, not a “real artist”? (freakin fake artists out there!) Like I said, I’m getting worked up over something you didn’t entirely mean, but I just get upset with the pretentious nature of most of my filmmaking peers. I have nothing against Wes Anderson, my issue comes when people assume his movies are more ‘artistic’ just because they don’t fit into the typical mold of a story. As well, the Idea that because he has complete control over his film this makes him more of an artist than people who collaborate. I very much reject this idea…M. Night Shyalmalan has complete control over his films and so far I’m hard pressed to find his fan boys. Film is inherently a collaborative medium. I very much think that films with more people’s thoughts and ideas going into it are far more artistic than any one guy who is uncomfortable with other people affecting *His Artistic Vision* as if it’s divinely inspired, saying, “no no no, can you deliver that line 40% more awkward?”. Or that one guy you were talking about who purposefully had unconventional endings, how is that more artistic? I’m not saying it’s ‘less’ artistic. (Personally though, it doooeees come off overly affected by what everyone else is doing, like he’s not making a story he wants to tell, he just making movies that are purposefully different) Which in the terms of painting, we do have the cubists and abstract expressionists…but does the fact that they are intentionally breaking the mold make them have a “stronger artistic vision” or just being petty. That was rude…I apologize abstract expressionists, it’s not petty, and I’m not saying one is better or more artistic than the other, they both actually can’t exist without the other. If you like moonrise kingdom, I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong, I just am tired of the pretentious vibe that my peers promote that complete control and intentional diversion from the commercial form are “more artistic”.
Just some things that grinded my gears. Anyway I do really enjoy you guy’s discussions. And as a character animator, who would fall under the Christian label, trying to break into the film industry. I do appreciate your thoughts on ‘dreams’. I’ve many a times struggled with how self-serving ‘dreams’ (based on our current western definition) are. And figuring out how I can still do what I feel I’m wired for, which is already a highly privileged medium, but still try to actively live out a God centered life. So thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience! And you should do next week’s theme song as the French, Monty Python peas from The Wall of Jericho. I always enjoyed that bit.
adam
Hi Phil,
What is it about the Gospels that tells you that the supernatural claims made in them really happened? We don’t even know who wrote the Gospels, whether they were reporting facts or just making up folk hero-type tales, or whether they verified any of the “facts” by checking with other people. We also know that millions of Jews who lived in the area back then didn’t find the evidence compelling, so why should people do so today?
Probably a longer conversation than can be crammed into blog comments, I’m afraid. Jews for the most part didn’t reject Jesus because they rejected the supernatural stories about him. They rejected him because he didn’t fit their expectation for the “messiah.” The crowds started leaving him when the “signs and wonders” of his earlier ministry were replaced by teaching they didn’t expect and Jesus’ rejection of a political role. Several extra-biblical contemporary historians report that this “Jesus” was some sort of magician or wonder-worker. So his reputation for working wonders extends beyond the biblical accounts. For the Jews at the time, though, the problem was his failure to pick up the mantle of Jewish nationalism. Why do I trust the Bible overall? As I mentioned to Peter in our conversation, the predictive nature of NT teaching lines up with my personal experience and the experience of many others I know. I don’t have trouble, in general, with supernatural stories because I have no trouble believing the natural world isn’t all there is. I’ve seen enough in my life and in the lives of others to feel fairly comfortable in that position. That’s probably about as much as I can explain in this context… buy me a drink sometime and I’ll try to explain more fully!
World Vision is not entitled to a certain level of donations which are then deprived by evil biblical Christian culture warriors who want to starve children for an ideological agenda. Rather people have been given, by providence, only so many resources to give back to God’s work. As good stewards of those resources, we must choose charities to give to which best reflect the kingdom of God. If not World Vision, then maybe Samaritan’s Purse.
Indeed, if conversionary missionaries lead to more democratic, prosperous societies, perhaps evangelism is just as important as handing out rice. If struggling societies seek first the kingdom of God, material essentials will be added unto them.