Dancing with the Stars needs to "put its knickers BACK on"

Last night's season opener of Dancing with the Stars was very disappointing. There was an overwhelming amount of sexualised content, and this is particularly inappropriate considering the 7:30 time slot when children may be watching.

By the end of the third dance we had:

• Daniel McPherson touching Sonia's leg
• Bruno saying he couldn't keep his eyes off Sonia
• The female dancers wearing hardly anything
• Mark arkwardly attempting to get in on the sexualisation by referring to the dancers as "sexy"
• Todd McKenny telling a dancer to take her knickers off

And if that wasn't enough, to top it off there was that move where the Sunrise reporter ran his hand between his partner's breasts. The comments that followed about that 18 year old dancer and the sexual tension between her and her partner were unnecessary.

Dancing with the stars needs to "put its knickers back on". The objectification of women is not appropriate at 7:30 or indeed in any timeslot. The objectification of women is a form of slavery. We are not here simply for the sexual delight of men.

We may be "liberated" so that we can join the workforce but while we allow men to treat us as sexual objects that exist for the sole purpose of appeasing their sexual appetites we have gained nothing. We have simply exchanged one form of slavery (house slavery) for three others (wage slavery, debt slavery and sexual slavery). We need to be vigilant about the views on women that we allow to be part of our society. This is having, and will have an enormous effect on the next generation. Girls need freedom and space to grow up not measuring themselves by how sexually attractive men find them, but instead by discovering WHO they really are, and their value in who they are, not in their:

• Dress size
• Breast size
• Blondeness
• Use of brazillian waxing services
• Skimpiness of clothing

Our western culture has become completely debauched. It is time that we started treating each other with respect and dignity, and the pornification of our society has robbed us of that. There is nothing glamorous about gadding about with nothing on and having men lust after you as an object. Being the trash-can for a man's excess bodily fluids is demeaning. There is no honour or respect in it. It is not a reflection of a woman's worth or place in the world. She is beautiful and she is loved, because she was MADE BY GOD to be an object of His love (with her CLOTHES ON).

You might of picked up that I am angry. Well I am. I am fed up with this sick and twisted culture where women are pushed into conforming to an image to please men (the porn image). Where we are told that being sexually loose is freedom although it is really slavery. We conform to this because we want to be loved. When we do conform to that porn image that feeds men's weakness and creates a culture that is just as toxic and crippling for them as it is for us. It's a cycle because as much as a women conforms to that image it doesn't make men love her, they despise her, so she continues to change herself more and more. She doesn't accept that she is made in the image of God, and that the purpose of her life is to be conformed into the image of Christ, not that of Aphrodite/Venus. And men are never happy either, as much as they pursue those women that conform to the image they desire they are never truly satisfied. If they were they wouldn't need to move on to the next girl and the next girl and the next girl.

It's time to tear down our idols. Only Christ can truly satisfy.

God bless,
Bec

And there's more...

I've been writing a lot about the sexual depravity of our society this week. I thought the series of three would be the end (although I never imagined there would be a "series"), but there is more in the paper today. I have been following with some interest over the last few days the results of the government's investigation of the sexualisation of children.

One would have hoped that the government investigation would come back with some constructive recommendations to ensure that the media and marketers targetting children would be held to some standards regarding sexual content. However instead the investigation has come back and said that the media's self regulation is working well, and that it is really just the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are watching.

That is insanely naive and selfish. No child is under their parents' 100% supervision and control 100% of the time. Bringing up kids is something that parents need to do in partnership with society. There are regulations around swimming pool fencing, because we already as a society recognise to a certain extent that parents can't watch their kids all of the time. And so we regulate to make the environment safe, so that together with parental supervision children are kept as safe as possible.

The impact of sexualised/pornographic images on young minds is as dangerous to young minds, as drowning is to young bodies. If children see these images before their parents have been able to explain sexuality to them in ways conducive to healthy development, then they have no frame of reference for filtering and making judgements on whether what they are seeing is appropriate.

The major argument behind not doing anything about removing sexualised/pornographic images from places where children might see them seems to be the "infringement" of adults so-called "right" to self expression. There seems to be a liberal contigent that just wants to do what they want to do, no matter who it hurts. There seems to have been a shift from the "I'm not hurting anybody" argument to the "who the hell cares who I am hurting, I'm having fun" as an attitude towards so-called "adult entertainment". This is the heights of selfishness.

I recently heard a speaker say that sexual abuse for children isn't just where they have been molested, but that exposure to sexualised/pornographic images has the same kind of impact on children. Yet of course, as a society we don't think it's as bad, especially if it was an "accidental" exposure, but the impact is as devastating. Before they have the capacity to understand what good God-given, marital sexuality looks like, their attitudes and understanding of sex is twisted into the warped mindset of the porn industry and its bedfellows. The thing about sexualised images that are targetted at children is that it's more insidious than direct abuse, a much larger number of children will have been impacted by that, than by direct abuse.

As our society continues to decline into all out sexual debauchery, the problem is only going to get worse. The devastation to the post-internet generations will be epidemic. This is why we have to fight every step of the way to make our society a safe place for children to grow up, letting them be kids, and not forcing them to deal with adult issues before they are pyschologically and spiritually ready. We also need to resource and train parents on how to talk to their children about sexuality, in a way that will lead to healthy marriages in their childrens' futures.

One of the difficulties in the Australian context is that we tend to be quite politically apathetic. As Christians I think we need to start getting really good at engaging with our political system to bring a prophetic voice to bear. If we do not proclaim God's will in this kind of situation then nobody else will. I'd urge you, find out who your local MP is both federally and state, and when issues like this come up, or the abortion and euthanasia ones in Victoria at the moment, write to your MP. Each letter/email they receive they view as representing the view of 100 people. We can make an impact by engaging in our political system.

God bless,
Bec

In the world but not of the world...

As Christians we are called to live out our lives in the midst of a culture that is predominantly antagonistic towards our beliefs. Often this antagonism is hidden and implicit rather than in your face, but however it manifests itself, the worldly culture is not the culture of the Kingdom of God. The most difficult part of this is that although we know that we are not supposed to live as the world lives, there is so much in the worldly culture that appeals to our sinful nature. So we are at war, not only against the outward influence of the world, but our own flesh's desire to be part of that world and partake of a myriad of sinful behaviours.

There is good sense in restricting ourselves from partaking in those external things that most appeal to our sinful nature to lead us into sin. For instance, if we have an abusive relationship with alcohol, then it is wise to not go to bars and lovingly hold glasses of scotch in our hands. Proverbs 5 talks about this in the context of adultery, "Keep to a path far from [the adulteress], do not go near the door of her house" (v8). Verses 3-4 are also instructive, "For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword." The things that are most dangerous to us are those that have the appearance of being good. Within this context it would further be an appropriate application to say that Christian people should avoid getting too close to non-Christian members of the opposite sex EVEN IF (and perhaps especially if) they think it is an opportunity to share the gospel. So many people's lives are shipwrecked on that doozy of a lie. They draw close to someone, emotionally invest, thinking they are just "loving as a brother/sister for Jesus' sake", and then end up in sin and walking away from God.

But we can take seperation from the world too far... There is a fascinating story in today's Age about a reclusive Jewish community in Melbourne, they go far far beyond the requirements of the Torah. In their zeal to maintain holiness they go so far as to segregate boys and girls from the age of 8. They do not use their wife's first name in public, only around their own children. They do not use the first name of other women to whom they are not married, to do so they see as the beginning of an illicit relationship. When the children are 16 they are sent overseas to seminary until they marry, at which point they are informed about sex and are then allowed to pursue secular university education and work. Men look at the ground as they walk, for fear of looking at a woman. Women dress conservatively, cover their hair (or shave it off once they are married, and wear wigs/scarves). They believe that, "if we want our children to uphold our religion the way we believe it, to the dot of the law, dress code etc, the only way is to isolate children from all outside influences".

This is so sadly mistaken, because the other side of this story is that the reason this group made the paper today, is that one of the female teachers in their segregated school has been accused of sexually abusing some of the girls. Now I know the atheist jihadists will see this as a vindication of their view that "fundamentalist" religion is the cause of all suffering. However, the truth is simply this, unfortunately, when we try to remove ourselves from influences that we think will corrupt us, we forget that sin comes with us into our segregated communities, because we have sinful natures! In the world or out of it, as long as people are there, before Christ returns, there will ALWAYS be sin issues.

OK, so having said that I still think there is a good argument for Christian schools, and other methods of living "not of the world". Particularly with children, it is scary how impressionable they are, and I think it doesn't matter which school you send them to all children will be indoctrinated. Every school will have a prevailing philosophy and agenda which it is trying to push. Recent comments from the federal Education Minister's advisor suggested that they saw Christian schools as subversive to the cohesion of society because Christian schools would not promote the secular "doctrines" of abortion, free sex and evolution that were necessary for the smooth operation of society. I think if I have the choice between my children being indoctrinated with the doctrines of abortion, free sex and evolution compared to grace, love, forgiveness, service, love, love, (did I mention love?) I'd choose the later everytime. I do not want my children growing up believing that sexual immorality is normal and appropriate. It isn't. It's enslaving (and I say that out of painful experience not just 'high ideals') and sinful, whether or not our society realises it.

For this same reason I am careful about what television I watch, because I am conscious of how much of an impact secular media has made on the way I think. Many of the strongholds and deceptive philosophies that I have fought against, and still fight against were formed in me through watching popular media. Based on the Romans 12:1-2 principle, "You are what you eat" (The Bec Paraphrase), I choose to abstain from junk food (worldly media) and eat healthy (bible, christian books/blogs, bible, bible, bible etc). I particularly don't watch things that promote/depict violence or sexual immorality. (For this reason, I am in NO hurry to watch Underbelly! ;-)) I also don't listen to secular music if I can avoid it, since so much of the content falls into the following categories, (a) idolatry of love; (b) idolatry of sex; (c) disrespect of women, authority etc. I am quite capable of coming up with enough sinful and rebellious thoughts on my own, I don't need any help with that!

In all honesty, I can see a point where this might make evangelism difficult. In not engaging the culture I live in, perhaps this makes relating to non-Christians more difficult. However, this hasn't been my experience to date. The times I clash most with non-Christians ideologically is over issues of trusting God versus doing things in my human strength, my relationship with money particularly has come up a number of times in this context. After all why does one need to worry and grasp after riches when we have a Father who graciously provides all that we need? I can't remember the last time I lost a conversation over whether or not I had seen such and such on telly, or whether or not I liked a certain song. In all honesty I've probably always been a bit different from "everyone else" anyway, I guess being different and seperate because of my Christianity mightn't feel that weird because I've always been an outsider. So if I'm going to be a weirdo, why not be a weirdo for Christ?

God bless,
Bec

Enchanted by 'Enchanted'

Last night we went and saw 'Enchanted', the lastest Disney flick. It was lots of fun, the heroine was so delightfully innocent, and the prince... Well the prince he did look good with puffy sleeves, but there wasn't much between his ears, if you catch my drift!! :) Susan Sarandon played an amazing Evil Step Mother. And her cronie was similarly wonderful.

I loved the following points that the movie made:

1. Real love is romantic and fairytale-like
   
   AND
   


2. Real love accepts the imperfection of the other person, and is rational about love

It's really easy to get caught up in one of two camps. The overly-romantic-hopelessly-naive camp which says as long as you love each other nothing else matters, that love will find a way, but is sketchy on details of HOW. Or the love-hurts-best-not-to-risk-it-all-based-on-feelings camp, these people have been hurt, and quite justifiably do not want to risk their hearts, when their heads tell them it's going to head in pain.

I think the balance position is right, we need to love with our hearts AND minds. It would be stupid (but how often do we do this) to run into a relationship with someone who we can quite plainly see is incompatible with us, or does not have the maturity to be in a relationship, or is not a Christian, or has a life controlling habit, or has completely different aims in life etc etc. So there should be a level where we check off the mental list of what we are/are not looking for in a life partner BEFORE letting our hearts run away with us.

My understanding is that God doesn't always reveal a specific person to whom He wishes us to marry. However, to my thinking if we ask Him to lead us in this, are diligent about following what He says in His word about choosing partners, and then He does say "Yes" about a particular person, that's as safe as you can get. As He is the only one who knows you perfectly and the other person perfectly, He is the only one who can say definitively whether you are compatible, sufficiently mature to be in a relationship, of similar grounding in the faith, etc etc. Probably worth testing what you are hearing though, just in case the flesh is speaking louder than His Spirit! :) (e.g. If you are rationalising about something, that isn't God)

If you do get the "Yes" from God, and it's confirmed by people who are mature in the faith and you respect, I reckon enjoy being in love for all it's worth!!! Be the hopeless romantic. Be the princess, and he the prince. Don't hold back in fear, in faith trust God's choice, and choose to love that person with all you've got. Not just in mushy feelings, but make the choices that say you love them too.

God knows best who is "made for us", so when He brings "Eve" to "Adam", say, "Woah! S/he's the one for me!" To hold back in fear, would be like if Adam had instead said, "meh, she's kinda pretty, but I think I like the elephant better".

God bless,
Bec

Reflections on Grace & The Phantom of the Opera

Yesterday was an important day for me. It marked 2 years since God moved into my life in such a significant way that I could not continue to ignore Him and the fact that He is entitled to my love and worship. Ever since that day life has never been the same. I think there’s a really good reason why the bible refers to the process of becoming a Christian as being “born again”, because in SO many ways my life really started then. Also that image that is captured in baptism, of dying with Christ and being raised again with Him is so true. Who I was, what I wanted, what motivated me, what my core beliefs and values were have seismically shifted.

Quite incidentally I went and saw Phantom with some friends last night. Now the two things may not seem to be particularly linked, however I saw in the characters of the Phantom, Christine and the Vicomte de Chagny some pictures that say some great things about the human condition and the capacity of love and grace to free us; which illustrates much of my testimony of the past two years walking with God.

The character of the phantom is a great picture of someone who is broken. Some crappy things have happened in his life, and so he hides from life and the world, because by putting up those walls he thinks he can protect himself from being hurt. He’s different, and even around people he’s felt alone because the loneliest place in the world is in amongst people who do not ‘see’ you and do not accept you. The more isolated he has become the more his needs have ached, and so he’s buried himself in the music and in a dream of a relationship with someone who he sees as lovely and innocent. He starts in the relationship with her on the assumption that she could not love him as he is, so he hides from her too. Only showing her those parts of himself that he believes that she will find attractive. The sad truth being that the relationship can never be genuine when he is not being himself, in all of his imperfection and brokenness. But because he has never been able to address his need and his pain through conventional means he has become desperate and will do anything to have what he wants, thinking that it will make the pain go away. His behaviour becomes more and more extreme, from being Christine’s “Angel of Music” to where he tries to force her to marry him by threatening the life of the man she loves.

At two places Christine tears his mask away from him. She is actually interested in who he really is, not just the “Angel of Music” persona that he has adopted. When she does this he shrinks away from her. There’s this fear that she will reject him. Yet by not allowing her the chance to decide for herself, he in effect rejects himself on her behalf. He carries around in his head this belief that he really is not good enough. He does not allowing for the possibility that someone could love him in his imperfection and brokeness.

What is so beautiful about this play occurs very close to the end. Christine’s boyfriend is suspended from a noose, and the Phantom demands that she choose, to marry the phantom and her boyfriend lives, or not to marry him, and her boyfriend dies. Nice position to be put in, and as Christine puts it, “The tears I might have shed for your dark fate, Grow cold and turn to tears of hate”. A perfectly normal human reaction, but what follows is amazing. It is a wonderful picture of someone who out of their own human compassion COULD NOT show love or grace, but instead calls on God to help them do it anyway. Christine cries out, “God give me courage to show you, You are not alone...” and then plants a great big kiss on the demasked phantom. Not on the phantom when he’s all masked and hidden, not when he’s playing his “Angel of Music” role. But when he is demasked, and when the worst of his character and behaviour has been exposed. And what is his response? In a word, repentance. He lets them both go.

In Raoul (Vicomte de Chagny) there is a certain Christlikeness. In that last scene where Christine has to choose between a life of slavery with the Phantom versus her own freedom at the expense of Raoul's life, Raoul is entirely willing to lay down his life so that she can be free, "Don't throw your life away for my sake!" he calls out. He would rather die than have her live in darkness. And then in the song, "That's all I ask of you" the things that Raoul sings to Christine are so reminiscent of much of what scripture says:

• Walk in the light as he is in the light (1 Jn 1:7) vs Raoul - "No more talk of darkness"
• Do not fear (1 Jn 4:18) vs Raoul - "Forget these wide-eyed fears"
• He is with us (Mt 28:20) vs Raoul - "I'm here"
• He will look after us and protect us from harm (Ps 121:7) vs Raoul - "nothing can harm you"
• His word is sweet! (Ps 119:103) vs Raoul - "my words will warm and calm you."
• He has set us free (Gal 5:1) vs Raoul - "Let me be your freedom"
• He will protect us (Ps 12:7) and He will guide us (Ex 15:13) vs Raoul - "I'm here, with you, beside you, to guard you and to guide you..."
• He is our shelter (Ps 31:20) vs Raoul - "Let me be your shelter"
• We are safe (Ps 4:8) vs Raoul - "You're safe: No-one will find you, your fears are far behind you"

So who was I two years ago? The girl behind the mask, disconnected and hurt. Lots of little things during my life had lead me to a point where I felt completely alone and unwanted. Like the Phantom there were certain parts of myself that I let people see, only that which I thought they wouldn't reject. Like the Phantom I created alternate people to be, he was the 'Angel of Music', for me it was any number of the stereotypes of what a girl/woman should be.

Two years ago I came to a fork in the road, more darkness, or a new path. Some beautiful people saw behind my mask. Like Christine had every right to recoil from me, but instead relying on God they showed me love and grace. I could not explain it as being anything other than God, because there was no natural reason for them to love me. It revealed something of the heart of God towards me, and set me on that new path. So now the mask is off. I am broken, I am imperfect. But I am Bec. It's been wonderful to discover that I'm loved just for being Bec. And God's working on the brokenness :)

God bless,
Bec