Of Course It's a Christian Video Game: The word Covenant is featured prominently

The New York Times ran a piece about evangelical churches using Halo III to reach young people. The remarkable thing about it has nothing to do with how well it's written or how insightful it is—in fact, it's a pretty unremarkable piece of journalism, and I mean no insult, as I've written plenty of those myself. Rather, it's remarkable because I think mainstream evangelicals are likely to yawn when reading the piece. Churches using a violent video game to reach teenagers? Shocking! No, not really.

Let's be honest; we're not talking about Grand Theft Auto; we're talking about the latest iteration of the Halo brand. I've played the first two, and since I've yet to pony up for an Xbox 360, I have to admit to not having played III. I thoroughly enjoyed Halo. My response to the game was much like the first PC version of Tomb Raider I played many years ago: different, challenging, creative, unique, fun! But it's Halo. You're killing aliens or humans. No one gives a shit about the religious dimension to the Covenant forces. Because of my background, I did have a limited interest in the choice of a word like covenant in a fps, but I didn't like Halo because of the backstory; I liked it because of the gameplay. And I've never found the graphic depiction of animated violence to be all that disturbing: sorry, I just don't. And neither do most Christians I know.

The Church has a long history of supporting violence in many manifestations: capital punishment, war, slavery, subjugation of women, corporal punishment, spousal abuse, etc. They've been holding hands with violence since they decided God killed Jesus. If your first principles are are saturated with violence, deicide, divine murder, and blood atonement, how can you object to violence...so long as it's directed against someone who deserves it?

What is remarkable about this piece is that the New York Times tried to make a story out of something that isn't a story. Yes, churches use Halo III, and they're likely to use any violent game that doesn't include nudity, profanity, satanism (including the demons in Quake), or symbols of other faiths (unless the Crusaders are pillaging a mosque). What's remarkable about this piece is that people outside the Church look in and say, "Aren't you opposed to violence?" and they really think the Church should be opposed to violence, because, apparently, they understand the source document better than evangelicals do.

If the big issues are avoided or demonized—homosexuality, abortion, pre- or extramarital sex, nudity, masturbation, "false" religions, profanity, and blasphemy—the Church will sanctify any method within pop culture to "reach" people for Jesus. Violence? Come on. The Church still hasn't figured out that violence is a form of pornography; that's why they flocked to The Passion of the Christ.

Comments

[Dallas Tim]

Is anyone really opposed to ANY violence? I don't think so. Violence is a reality that is often required. Obviously, violence is often wrong and bad, but no one can make the (rational) argument that we should oppose any/all violence.

Maybe we should define "violence." It probably means different things to different people. Sports can be violent. Law enforcement can be legitimately violent. Are these things wrong? When opposite sides agree to participate, is it any less "violent?"

Does the Bible call for complete non-violence? I don't think so. Jesus spoke against hurting others, but did that include the preclusion of civil involvement or parental discipline? Some go too far, I agree, but one must read the text and ask themselves, is this a reflection of something that I've perverted, or is is in line with Jesus' commands? I, unfortunately, don't have the answers, but each situation must be reviewed in light of Scripture (for me) and then decided upon. I might need to use a gun. I might need to spank my child. Do I rush to do either? Hopefully not, but "violence" isn't all or nothing.

The Church has been wrong many times because we refuse to let the Word of God dictate our behavior and instead, forced our own comfortability on the text.

Violence is often simply the stronger party enforcing it's desire on the weaker. God does that and will continue to do so. Jesus did it and it is a continual part of our existence. The problem is deciding who gets the final say. The Bible says God does and ultimately His plan will crush those who stand in the way. That does not give us the right to prematurely envoke what we think needs to be done according to our mood and/or pride.

Capital punishment - Biblical

Slavery - Biblical (allowed as society demanded but not encouraged.)

Subjugation of Women - Again, the violation of God's plan was allowed, but the NT told Christian men to treat their wives with the utmost respect, honor, and love. End of debate.

Homosexuality - Sin. A perversion of God's plan. The NT made clear that God would judge in His time, but that civil authorities were to be respected and we are not to take matters into our own hands unless absolutely neccesary (hardly ever).

Abortion - The Bible is somewhat silent, but it would appear rather clear that the unborn are created by God and therefore to be respected as any other human life would be.

Sorry about the lengthy post but the Bible must be taken seriously in each instance. It often clarified itself with regards to confung issues and the coming of Jesus certainly made sense of much of the OT. We are told in the NT, for the most part, how to act. The less clear issues can usually also be resolved by a little more dilligence with the text.

Go Cowboys...

[greg]

Tim,

Biblical is a word that simply means "there's a reference to it in the Bible and it supports my view so I think it's God's will."

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

You're generalizing.

Violence is not an either/or dilema. Would I agree that the Bible is often used as a proof-text for a variety of misappropriated actions? Yes, and so is every other philosophical system ever know to man.

There's not one issue where I can say that I just have no clue how to approach it Biblically. There might not be detailed instructions but the attitude (according to the NT) plays an important role in those areas.

Anyone who tries to create a situation where the Bible has not provided ample answers (often in Jesus' own words) to life's questions often have their own established views as well and are also only looking for the same kind of support for those presuppositions by saying "Well the Bible is flawed because it says ....."

[Leighton]

Tim,

What does the Bible have to say about how to fight for your life when you're in arrythmia almost to the point of fibrillation, and you're trying to not panic or go into shock until you can get help? Praying doesn't help.

Not all questions are idle speculation. Your last paragraph is broad almost to the point of slander.

[Leighton]

Eh...libel. Libel is written, slander is spoken.

[greg]

Tim,

I'd have far more respect for your opinions if you'd admit your biases up front. The Bible sanctions random violence over and over again, but it does so with the chimera of divine mandate. That's why I scoff at any notion that there is any kind of consensus of what is "biblical." Sex: rape, forced marriage of the rapist, concubinage, polygamy. You'll notice the woman's subjected status in all those "biblical" models. Violence: murdering infants, murdering strangers, murdering pagans, murdering enemies, assassination, plague, political revolution, human sacrifice. Nice. Slavery. Racism. Xenophobia. Homophobia. What lovely "biblical" concepts. At least have the honesty to admit how flawed that book is.

[Leighton]

To go into more detail:

Not all answers are intellectual heuristics. Some are experiences; some are actions; some are found in community. When someone who's felt God's presence her whole life suddenly feels only darkness when she's going through a bout of chemotherapy that screws up her brain chemistry, and says she just can't see the answers anymore, do you open up the text and show her where she's wrong, or do you sit with her and hold her hand?

Not all answers take the form of guidelines. Those that don't cannot be contained in any text. They can be pointed to, or directed, but not contained.

That you find such a marvelous array of guidelines in the Bible is guaranteed because it is a book containing thousands of years of collected experiences; that it has been an exhaustive set of guidelines says more about you and your dedication and creativity than it does about the text. Over the years, I have heard identical--sometimes to the word--arguments from Quran and Book of Mormon inerrantists.

Does it seem to say something evil? Either we're misunderstanding it, or we're misunderstanding God or Allah, who is the only one who truly knows what "goodness" is. His ways are not our ways. Does it seem to contradict what we think we know from history? Well, history is "just a series of educated guesses," or something, and why not take it from the mouth of someone who was actually there? Are there seeming contradictions? That's only because of our stubbornness and lack of understanding. The Bible/BoM/Quran, correctly interpreted, has no contradictions. We don't always know what the correct interpretation is because we're human and not God/Allah, but we know such a correct interpretation exists.

Seriously, read through the Book of Mormon a few times, get an annotated copy, and go spend some time on a Mormon message board and try to get them to admit that one of the contradictions is a contradiction. It's the very definition of "special pleading"--one standard for our holy book, and another for yours. Most who are BoM inerrantists are also Biblical inerrantists, so you'd have that in common.

[Leighton]

Oh, and on the subject of the original post--I was happy to see the result of the article, for my own idiosyncratic reasons, since it broadens the basis for these Christian kids to communicate with non-Christians--though probably most of the ones coming in will already be gamers.

The one guy who consistently outscored me in Counterstrike when we were in college is a Christian. They've got some good solid gamers. I heard from one of them that Jesus was the kind of guy who, were he around today, would totally kick everyone's ass in Mario Kart.

[Dallas Tim]

To lable something as random just because you don't understand it is rather arrogant. We live in a culture that demands everything make perfect sense to us as if we could possibly comprehend the universe completely.

Where does God command "random" violence? He always has/had a purpose but didn't always spell out every little detail to the humans He communicated with.

Don't forget, God knew He was dealing with a group of screw-ups who couldn't even watch the Red Sea swallow up the entire Egyptian army without grumbling about being hungry almost immediately after.

We were told in the garden by God that women would bear certain responsibilities for what happened. Men, while not having the same set of resulting issues, were, none the less dealt an appointed share of the burden. Are you going to say it's not fair that women suffer so much through labor pains while men just have to sit there and yell "push, push?" Her vagina is ripping apart in excrutiating agony and he just stands there telling her to "hang in there, it's almost over." Sounds fair to me?!?!

Why doesn't God just kill everyone except the Christians? Why not eliminate everyone who will murder tomorrow ahead of time? Why Floods, famines, earthquakes, etc...?

I just tire of hearing how little sense the Bible makes when the same thing could be said of random evolution.

What's the alternative to the Bible? A guy who was crucified on a cross so that we could be nice to poor people? C'mon. He could have lived another 40 years and taught a lot more instead of dying.

The Bible makes perfect sense and that's my bias. I've never denied it so you can't claim I haven't been up front about it.

As for cardiac arrythmia, the Bible is clear... God answers prayer. He heals. He listenes and even though we ALL die eventually, eternity with Him awaits those who have trusted Him. It doesn't say we will never get sick, or that we'll always have millions in the bank.

The Bible takes faith, not as much as evolution takes, but faith none the less. The text isn't a 1st grade primer. It's the communication of the God of the universe with His creation.

I'm much more suspect of those who contend that they have it all figured out.

[Leighton]

Tim,

Serious question--are you looking to have a conversation, or are you doing your stick-in-the-anthill thing again?

[greg]

And in that extra 40 years he could have said something far more profound than "love your enemy"? A text Christians willfully and constantly ignore to lobby for sanctioned and unsanctioned violence. Indeed. Good thing he died on the cross. Imagine how much more shitty Christians could have been had he lived any longer...

[Dallas Tim]

Why does being disagreed with always send everyone into a defensive posture?

I am merely posting the truth as I see it. If the tone of what I say is upsetting (not sure how you can read tone, but I have no ill intent) I apologize, but I am just trying to explain my point of view.

As for "Love your enemy" He could have given much more in the way of additional guidance for all sorts of things. Heck He could have introduced us (as the omniscient God-Man) to things like electricity, medicine, agricultural advances, etc... If He really wanted to change society, why didn't he talk about hygiene. It took Joseph Lister in the 1800's to discover that "Hey, let's disinfect that knife between surgeries and see if the 50 mortality rate goes down."

If He was so smart and just concerned about society, he could have advanced it leaps and bounds with what are now common knowledge ideas.

Leighton, everyone speaks their mind here. Greg takes digs at everyone (except you) on a regular basis. He even admits to stirring things up on purpose. I'm not offended by his (or your) responses. I'm just participating honestly. Let me state for the record that I am certain beyond any doubt that were you and I to take an I.Q test, your score would be substantially ahead of mine (Greg's probably would not be far behind yours). I am no mental giant looking to show everyone where they are wrong. I'm just contributing where I feel inclined and have been open about my views, biases and opinions regarding said topics.

Peace.

[Leighton]

Given my background in science departments, I tend to take lies like "Evolution takes faith" pretty personally. It's an indirect assault on my livelihood, and it's libel against dozens of capable, dedicated researchers, many of them Christian, who I've worked with and gotten to know over the years.

I've no doubt this is your opinion come by honestly, but at a certain point back in the chain, there was someone (usually a Christian, but not always) who lied in order to spread whatever misinformation has led you to that conclusion. Probably the biggest lie is that evolution can even be an answer to existential questions, as opposed to a descriptive way of explaining the history of life. That's not the way science operates. It's not in the business of Answers, and people who try to make it that way are almost all non-scientists themselves, and tend to behave just like any other ideologues.

[Leighton]

Also, full disclosure, this has come up more than twice in recent face-to-face conversations, so you are quite correct in your implicit claim that I may not have the proper objectivity to have this conversation today. I'll stay out of this thread until Sunday, and see from there whether I can clean up some of my mess.

[Jeff]

As Greg said most christians wouldn't be concerned by the violence. In fact DT is happy to argue for the right to kill, and make Jesus take his side. Despite a new law to love one another, love your enemy, and turn your cheek statements made by Jesus. So yeah not shocking that some youth pastor, or parents, didn't think this game was a bad idea to use for evangikilling.

I wonder the point of using the game at all is? I can set at home and play with people all over the world. So why would I go to church to play? Plus I don't see much hope of building a real relationship just setting and playing a video game. Maybe it opens the door to later opportunities, but so does a lot of other stuff you could do. My main thing is I don't think entertainment is a good or long term way to bring people into the community of Christ. I get entertained everywhere, why would I pick to go do it somewhere that I know has the underlying purpose of "saving me." Saving me from what, you do the same thing at church that I do at home. What is different?

[goz]

"they're likely to use any violent game that doesn't include nudity, profanity, satanism (including the demons in Quake), or symbols of other faiths (unless the Crusaders are pillaging a mosque)"

I think it's really interesting the order in which you listed the shut-out criteria here. That could happily apply to which films are permissible for many a conservative evangelical mind.

I wonder why nudity and sex, particularly in the states, is considered an evil far greater than violence?

[greg]

Goz,

Because the Western Church hasn't developed a good theology of sex. They still think restrictions that applied to a culture in which females married at 13 are applicable today. Imagine...a rubric in which professional women who are seeking advanced degrees are constrained to behave as if they are on a par with adolescents. And evangelicals wonder why their purity nonsense reaches almost no one.

[trent]

Here is my problem. Why is the church constantly trying to get converts by watering down the gospel. Jesus didn't do it. In fact if Jesus were a pastor in a town with a church like "Lifechurch" (could be any megachurch actually) Jesus' church would be smaller.

If you look at the ministry of Jesus you see a guy who started off with multiple thousands of followers, who, when they found out how hard living the truth would be, they quit. At the end who was there with Jesus? Two women and an adolescent boy.

So here we assume that Jesus did not understand corporate advertising tactics very well, so we compromise the integrity of his message and when it turns out poorly we shrug our shoulders.

It is simply surprising to me that the modern day, grow at all costs church, even exists. I am afraid that when the costs do get high, it may not.

If God is who He says He is. If what we believe is true, then we need Him more than He needs us.

[M.Corley]

Jeff,
A lot of teenagers go to youth groups to find other kids their age to hang out with. I went when I was younger, and it was fun. A lot of churches set up a club house type of environment with games, athletics, etc... it's a place to hang out with peers. Plus, video games are definitely more fun when there are groups of people playing them together. The message, well, at least the speaker is often somebody who's not too much older, or if they are, they're usually funny. When it's done, you get to play games again.

[Leighton]

Eh, after a couple days, I don't think I can do much good in this thread.

[dr dobson]

I can just see it now on billboards across the Metroplex: Come See Dallas Tim’s Summer Sermon Series: CHASS: C-aptial punishment; H-omosexuality; A-bortion; S-lavery; S-ubjugation of Women. You could create (and not evolve) a clever kick-ass character to really reel them in (kind of like Bob Tilton used to by using that huge grain elevator off of I-35W painted up with the bright rainbow—my how I’m sure he regrets that little faux-pas usage of the “rainbow”, but I digress).

You could also do those cool slick-ads (like they have in Vegas and South Beach), but instead of buxom “ladies”, you could show Jesus in a flowing glo-gown of immense proportions, all-the-while holding a banner over his head with the acronym CHASS in one hand the New Testament in the other hand, but only if gold-leafed as if it were straight from Moroni himself.

[Dallas Tim]

There seems to be alot of criticizm here about how the "church" has screwed up the Truth of the Bible.

If you look at the NT, the writers take the OT's strict requirments for the Children of Israel (who were under a rigid Theocracy) and explain how we are now to live under different conditions. What part of the NT's dictates about sex are difficult for a modern woman to follow? Peter says the marital bed (man and women) is undefiled and appropriate. How is that constraining for the professional woman? Is telling her to save herself for her husband (and he for her) too unprofessional? Are Herpes and AIDS not considered professional these days?

How does the Bible make it harder for families? I take serious issue with Christian leaders who pervert what Jesus taught about life, relationships, equality and morality. I also have the right to take issue with those who make what WE have screwed up equal to what they assume the Bible has caused by its directives for living.
What the Bible teaches is the most efficient, relaxing, satisfying, disease-free, dysfunction reducing way of life for anyone... single or not.

And where does loving our enemies and punishing those who destroy our society become mutually exclusive ideas? I have to love my enemy so I can't punish someone who raped and killed an 8 year old girl in Florida? Yeah, that's really showing love to just "turn the other cheek" and let him off the hook. National laws about conduct and personal responsibility are often approached differently. The State has a rigth/mandate to punish (even up to putting someone to death) but we, individually, are told not to seek personal revenge and/or hate those who do us wrong. To say we can't carry out justice because God wants us to all just get along is silly and a complete misapplication of Biblical teaching at every turn (is does make for an easy either/or dilema though and so is a favorite line of those who want to do away with objective morality).

If your youth pastor was wrong, if your senior pastor was wrong, if you were taught that men should dominate their wives, or that blacks are inferior to whites or that we should kill every gay person we find (or at least hate them blatantly) then those people have much to answer for before God. The Bible teaches none of that for us today.

[dr dobson]

DT--your closing thought is exactly correct. The problem with your entire thought in this thread, however, is that such thought is not supported by anything you offer as evidence. In fact, you have defended CHASS in your statement about Biblical truth.

Again, it is the flaw of human behavior that keeps moving the heart of God back to His people; not God's anger at our "stepping out line" or failing to live up to "the standard". Until we reconcile our treatment of our neighbor in light of the example given by Jesus, we are no better than the rubes who killed Jesus. In fact, we are the ones who kill him each and every time we pass on an opportunity to mete out grace to those around us everyday.

Jesus was killed because he presented a threat to the dominating system of power and dominion of his day. In killing Jesus, the powerful eliminated that which disagreed with them.

Your system of Biblical defense is couched in very similar terms--destroy all that is not holy/worthy (from an inerrant Biblical perspective, of course) lest the purity of God's "plan" be compromised.

On a more personal level, any belief system which espouses an "approach and avoid" scenario when it comes to the dirty and downtrodden will never see the goal of the good news: to share in the grace and love given to all of creation, not just those who can read the King's english.

[Dallas Tim]

Dr. Dob,

You said...

"...Jesus was killed because he presented a threat to the dominating system of power and dominion of his day."

My question to you is, what threat did Jesus pose to the system of His day?

[Jeff]

DT,
Ummm. Read Luke 4:14-30.