Christian Response to “Why I Raise My Children Without God” – Week 2

blog - God is Not LogicalLast week, I addressed the first of the seven reasons Deborah Mitchell cited in her controversial CNN article “Why I Raise My Children Without God.”

Mitchell’s 7 Reasons “Why I Raise My Children Without God” were, as follows….

  1. God is a bad parent and role model.
  2. God is not logical.
  3. God is not fair.
  4. God does not protect the innocent.
  5. God is not present.
  6. God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
  7. God Teaches Narcissism

This Week: 2) God is not logical.

Mitchell writes:

     How many times have you heard, “Why did God allow this to happen?” And this: “It’s not for us to understand.” Translate: We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue. Take for example the senseless tragedy in Newtown. Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God. He had a reason. He wanted more angels. Only he knows why. We write poems saying that we told God to leave our schools. Now he’s making us pay the price. If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind? Doesn’t this go against everything Christ taught us in the New Testament?

The question we should be asking is this: “Why did we allow this to happen?” How can we fix this? No imaginary person is going to give us the answers or tell us why. Only we have the ability to be logical and to problem solve, and we should not abdicate these responsibilities to “God” just because a topic is tough or uncomfortable to address.

What About This Statement Is Wrong?

In all honesty, I’ve read this point from Mitchell about a dozen times and I have a hard time seeing it as a legitimate argument that God is not “logical.” I feel like I, even as a Christian pastor, could come up with a better case against the logic of God.  Attack his triune nature.  Attack the hypostatic union (i.e. Jesus being both true God and true man).  Attack the notions of God as eternal or omnipresent.  But to suggest that God (or the idea of God) is illogical because there is pain and suffering in the world is such a weak argument that it has essentially been dismissed by over 90% of the world throughout history, who do, in fact, believe in some form of “higher power.”  Let me explain.

Last week I challenged Mitchell’s assertion that God, as the Bible presents him, is not a loving “parent” or “role model.”  I’m going to do so again by asking a simple question: Is it logical for a parent to ever allow their child to go through pain?

I remember reading the story of a Christian father who was talking about the growth of his children.  He mentioned how one day he was watching his little daughter, who had been wanting to learn how to sew, working at threading a needle in her room.  He said he had observed her without her knowing.  He saw her prick her finger and a little drop of blood came to the surface on her finger.  She winced a bit and shed maybe a tear, but persistently kept plugging away at trying to thread that needle.  He said it was everything he could do to not rush into the room and take care of his precious daughter’s little finger.  But he gathered himself and went and sat down in the other room, observing her from a distance.  A minute or two later, the girl came running to him, shouting, “Daddy, Daddy, look what I did!”  He reasoned that if he had immediately intervened and threaded the needle for her, she wouldn’t have pricked her finger, but she also wouldn’t have learned how to thread the needle.  And by the daughter’s own admission, the pain she went through to become “greater” was well worth it.

I understand that parents don’t want their children to go through unnecessary pain.  But is it possible that there is such a thing as necessary pain and suffering and discomfort in this world?  Well, to get in the best physical shape that you can, to train for a marathon, for instance, every athlete knows it requires some personal discomfort to get there.  Every serious student knows that to get your degree from any reputable academic institution requires hours upon hours of personal, occasionally uncomfortable mental discipline.  Physical and mental greatness seem to come at the cost of some pain.  I’m certainly not trying to trivialize the pain of great tragedies in the world, like the Newtown massacre, which Mitchell pointed to.  If you presume so, please check out the recent article I wrote on it.  I’m simply trying to establish a point that the world seems to view as fairly obvious – that greatness generally comes at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears.

If that principle is indeed a universal truth – that pain and adversity, if handled properly, creates a better you – then wouldn’t it be true of humanity not just in physical or mental endeavors, but also psychologically, morally, and spiritually.  The Apostle Paul certainly seemed to think so.  “And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.  Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;perseverance, character; and character, hope.” (Rom. 5:2-4)

If God is indeed as much or more wiser than us in the same way that a parent is wiser than his/her child, wouldn’t it be safe to say that we, as God’s children, don’t always understand God’s logic?  Does a child always understand the logic of a bedtime?  Does a child always grasp the importance of a balanced diet and why cookies for dinner doesn’t work?  Of course not.

The problem is not so much that we can’t grasp the logic of God.  The problem is that most of us are not humble enough to admit that there might be a being out there who actually knows us and what’s best for us better than we ourselves do.

Is it possible then that we humans are so flawed that we screw the world up to such a degree that, at points, God needs to either discipline us or at least do some occasionally painful damage control?  As one who believes that I’m one of those children, I’m not arrogant enough to suggest that I know why God allows the specific tragedies that he does.  I’m simply suggesting that it’s not that far-fetched to imagine that they may be, at times, necessary and even beneficial for the human race.

While no one enjoyed the recent recession, did it not teach us all the valuable lesson of learning to live within our means?  I don’t want anyone to die from AIDS, but didn’t the pandemic teach many something about the implications of the way we use the powerful act of sex?  You get the point.

What About This Statement Is Truth?

There are 2 things Mitchell said under this point that resounded with me, which I nearly completely agree with.  And both points can perhaps be summarized in this one statement from her: Referring to the Newtown murders, she said “Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God. He had a reason. He wanted more angels. Only he knows why.”

She got us.

1) We should take responsibility for our actions.  While God allowed the Newtown massacres, he didn’t cause them.  Too many people confuse knowledge with causality in the conversation about God’s operation.   If I know that a friend is going to rob a bank, I have a responsibility to both discourage the friend and warn the bank.  If my friend goes ahead and robs the bank anyways, I will not go to jail for it.  I was not an accomplice.  I did what was reasonable in deterring the action.  As I indicated in last week’s post, in a world with volition, you can’t simply force everyone’s actions.  Therefore, if God intervened every single time a human was about to do something that caused pain, it’s hard to argue that there would be any volition in the world.  Put differently, if you don’t even have the opportunity to do bad, how do you know if the good which you do is really “good”?  How would we ever see sincerity if everything was forced?  How would we ever truly know someone?

I have no idea why God allowed these children in Newtown to die.  To even speculate is almost to insinuate blame upon God.  Flawed, hurting, broken sinners in a sinful world sometimes commit murder.  It’s tragic and it’s embarrassing for us as humans, not for God.

2) Bad theology from Christians.  Mitchell’s line about “God wanted more angels” was both painful and smile-inducing to read, as I’ve unfortunately heard many well-intentioned Christians share similar, totally unscriptural sentiments.  The voice of vehement atheists in America has proportionately grown with the rise of biblical illiteracy.  In other words, atheists have gotten more confident in what they believe as Christians have gotten less confident in what the Bible teaches, due to their own lack of investigation.

If I was looking for answers about the Newtown murders and “because God wanted more angels” was the only rationale I got from Christians, I’d be more compelled to jump on the atheist band wagon too.  At that point a Christian is not using the Bible; they’re only using their own individual romanticized notions of God, i.e. their personal feelings and logic, which is neither objectively more nor less true than anyone else’s feelings or logic.

Now this is perhaps easy for me to say as someone whose living is made by proximity to God’s Word.  Still, I don’t expect every Christian to be able to debunk some bad assertions made by the non-Christian world.  However, I do expect every Christian to be working to obtain a fuller knowledge of the truth of the Bible in order that they not only not present false hope (1 Tim. 6:3-4), but that they may also “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)  Every Christian, from 3 years old to 103, needs to be able to do that.

How Is the Gospel of Jesus More Beautiful Than This Belief?

When confronting his brothers in Egypt, the very ones who had debated killing him, but instead sold him into slavery in a foreign land, Joseph said, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Gen. 50:20)  Joseph saw through the garbage of his life and the sin of this world to recognize that God used it all to elevate him to a prominent position in Egypt so that he could help humanity prosper.  Now that is NEITHER the dismissiveness of “It’s not for us to understand” NOR is it the immense pressure and unrealistic expectation of “How can we fix this?”, since problems like violence, and war, and famine, and disease have been around for all recorded history and we still have not been able to solve them.

God doesn’t force good things.  Humanity isn’t capable of completely good things.  But the Bible teaches that God is big enough and strong enough and wise enough that he can take our flawed efforts, our selfish motives, and our ill will and turn it all into gold.  And this helps us better understand exactly how good he is to us.  This is most obviously seen in the cross of Jesus.  There, God takes the worst of evils and turns it into the greatest of good – the worst injustice in history now becomes the greatest blessing the world has ever known.  God’s Son dies, but God immediately gains billions of children through faith in that heroic Son.

Is a belief in such a God not a more beautiful way to view the world?

Furthermore, is a belief in such a God really all that illogical?  If this God really did create our universe and all of its corresponding laws (time & space, etc.) wouldn’t he necessarily both exist outside of this universe and also possess the ability to penetrate this universe (i.e. transcendence)?  Consequently, his logic would not be illogical, but supralogical.  And the logic of an infinite Creator God would never be able to be fully processed by the finite minds of his human creatures.

The Yellow line indicates the capacity of God, which goes infinitely beyond the boundaries (and laws) of this universe which he himself created.

The Yellow line indicates the capacity of God, which goes infinitely beyond the boundaries (and laws) of this universe which he himself created.

Three Summary Points to Consider:

1) Does allowing pain in the world really conflict with the idea of a loving God?  Does a parent allowing discomfort in their child’s life (e.g. through discipline) conflict with the idea of them being a loving parent?

2) Whether or not you agree with the idea of the Bible being God’s Word, you must attest that it clearly indicates that every human problem we encounter in this world is indeed human-induced (Rom. 5:12).  Therefore, we absolutely need to be clear that humans are the ones who must be held responsible for suffering and creatively work together to eliminate similar future tragedies.

3) The main message of the Bible (and basic modus operandi of God in the Bible) is that God transformed the greatest evil, the death of his innocent Son, into the greatest good, salvation for all who believe.  This doesn’t seem to fit nicely into human logic.  But is this simply illogical, or is it possible that it’s supralogical?

Christian Response to “Why I Raise My Children Without God” – Week 1

blog - Christian Response1Deborah Mitchell recently wrote an article for CNN iReport titled, “Why I Raise My Children Without God.” The essay is now more than two-thirds the way to a million views, and has already received the most comments of any submission on the citizen journalism platform on CNN’s Belief Blog.  Additionally, Mitchell’s post not only generated a great deal of feedback, but it was the tone of the feedback that is particularly noteworthy.  Mitchell clearly raised the ire of many Americans who flagged her article as “inappropriate” so many times that the CNN iReport producer had to issue a public disclaimer stating why the article hasn’t yet been taken down, as it does not meet the CNN criteria for violation of Community Guidelines.  This reminds me of an old saying in preaching (and general communication) – that if your content lacks substance, yell like hell.  Similarly, it appears as though many Christians vehemently dislike Mitchell’s article, but don’t quite know how to intellectually debunk it, get frustrated, and react with internet yelling, i.e. CAPS LOCK and “flagging as inappropriate.”

Furthermore, many responders commented on how brave Mitchell’s post was and how they share her sentiments about Christians and Christianity and religion in general, supporting the recent research that overt religious practice in America is on a pretty rapid downward trend.

Closer to home, I’ve had more than a few members bring the article to my attention, so I thought it’d be a great opportunity to address the 7 reasons Mitchell states for why she raises her two kids, now teenagers, without God.

Each week moving forward, I’ll tackle one of the 7 reasons.  Each week, I’d encourage you, like the Bereans, to “receive the message….and examine the Scriptures….to see if … (it) is true.” (Acts 17:11)

Mitchell’s 7 Reasons “Why I Raise My Children Without God”

  1. God is a bad parent and role model.
  2. God is not logical.
  3. God is not fair.
  4. God does not protect the innocent.
  5. God is not present.
  6. God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
  7. God Teaches Narcissism

This Week: 1) God is a bad parent and role model.

Mitchell writes:

If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Good people don’t stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children. They don’t condone violence and abuse. “He has given us free will,” you say? Our children have free will, but we still step in and guide them.

What About This Statement Is Wrong?

Without making this a semantics argument about what “good” or “bad” truly means, I still think it’s important to point out  the obvious – what one person deems “good” or “bad” does not make it such.  For instance, what exactly is a “good” parent?  Do “good” parents allow their children to drink pop or not?  You’d find many, many parents who would categorize themselves as “good” who might fall on either side of that debate.  So from the start, to dismiss “God” on the basis of a relativizing statement seems a bit hollow.

None of the statements that Mitchell makes here are axiomatic or even grounded in anything.  If you’re going to debate something, you must cite some source outside of yourself, or you fall into the post-Enlightenment trap of arrogantly suggesting that your personal feelings and your personal logic are the ultimate authority.  And what’s to say that your feelings or logic are more authoritative than mine.  Pointing to yourself as authoritative is far more narrow-minded than any Christians pointing to the Bible as authoritative.  Let me show you.

Take the statement, “Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others.”  On what basis do you make that claim?  Does that mean that a parent could never allow their child to enter the armed forces to protect our country because that child might actually end up having to kill someone in defense?  Does that mean that a parent should not tolerate a son physically defending a girl who is being sexually abused?  Is it always wrong to punch someone?  The moment you use words like “wrong” or “good” or “bad” you’re suggesting that there is some higher authority out there OR that you yourself are indeed “god” and determine what is truly right or wrong for everyone.

Mitchell says, “Good people don’t stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children. They don’t condone violence and abuse.”  Again, without this being entirely a semantics argument, how is she defining “horrible acts” and “innocent (people)” and the idea that God would “condone violence and abuse” here?  She’s not taking such unqualified assertions from my Bible. I’d be curious to know exactly how many Bible studies Mitchell has participated in throughout her life.  In fact, the doctrine of Judgment Day in the Bible says that no one gets away with anything in the end.  Every sin, from genocide to white lies, from rape to dirty thoughts, will be accounted for.  Everyone will answer to God.

The Bible suggests in no uncertain terms that God hates sin, violence, and death.  “To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.” (Prov. 8:13)  And yet, God still sometimes curiously allows it.  He doesn’t cause it, but he allows it.  Why?  This gets to the heart of why God created mankind.  God certainly could have created beings that did exactly as he programmed them to.  They, however, wouldn’t have been humans.  We’d call them robots.  Robots have no choice.  They do what they are told.  But, as many science fiction movies have taught us, you can’t have real relationship with artificial intelligence.  The Triune God of the Bible, who is a 3-in-1 relationship unto himself, loved the beauty of relationship and wanted it to expand, so he created more beings to have relationship with.  But there’s one caveat.  For these beings to be truly relational, they must have the capacity to resist relationship, including relationship with him (i.e. “unbelief”).

Mitchell is saying that God idly stands by and watches evil happen.  She says this makes him a bad parent.  She claims, “‘He has given us free will,’ you say? Our children have free will, but we still step in and guide them.”  I doubt it.  Mitchell has two teenagers.  I’m assuming they’ve done something to hurt others or themselves at some point.  Is Mitchell a “bad” parent for not intervening?  Possibly?  But maybe not.  Look at it this way: If Mitchell forced every behavior of her teenagers, would that make her a “good” parent?  No one in their right mind would say yes to that because we all know that children need to grow, and forcing their every move does not provide them opportunity to do so.

The moment that you understand that a “good” parent is not a parent who simply forces their child’s behavior is the moment you realize that Mitchell’s claim here is false.

What About This Statement Is Truth?

God does not and should not fit the definition of a human parent or role model.  That’s sort of like calling Jesus a bad football player – since he never intended to take on that exact human role, it’s a strange accusation.

If not primarily a parent or role model, then what is he?  He’s God.  For our benefit, the Holy Spirit often inspired writers of the Bible to paint God in relational human terms, terms we can understand.  The Spirit even uses anthropomorphisms, such as “the right hand of God” of the “face of God” to help us understand him.  Now, God, as a spirit being doesn’t have a right hand or face per say, but that type of language helps us understand the nature and qualities of God more deeply.

Similarly, through Jesus we are able to call God our “Father” because he possesses some of the tendencies of a wonderful earthly father – he provides, protects, supports, teaches, comforts, etc.  But God is not an earthly parent.  For starters, he’s not currently visible to us on earth – most would agree that this seems to be a general requirement for a good human parent.  Additionally, while he came to earth in the form of Jesus and was perfect and guiltless, he didn’t come primarily to be a role model.  For instance, shouldn’t a really good role model for flawed humans be one who graciously admits his/her mistakes and apologizes?  Jesus never made a mistake and therefore he never really modeled repentance for us.  Rather, Jesus primarily “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15)  Teaching you and I to be really good people was not his main mission because he knew we could never be good enough to earn salvation.  He came to save us, not present a role model for us.

How Is the Gospel of Jesus More Beautiful Than This Belief?

Let me propose this to you as a concept of “parent” and “role model” – would a perfect parent/role model not be someone who 1) does for you what you cannot do and 2) teaches you to do that which you can do, so that you may simultaneously both have guaranteed success and continued growth?

Is that not EXACTLY what Jesus does?!  He changes places with you on the cross that should be your cross to redeem you to eternal life because you and I were incapable of that (2 Cor. 5:21) and then he sends his Spirit into us so that we can continue to develop into the people he created and destined us to be (John 15:26).

While in one sense God is not primarily a human parent or role model to us, in another sense, a far greater sense, he is the ULTIMATE parent and role model.  Human parents and role models fail you.  God has not (1 Chron. 28:20).  Human parents and role models can lie to you.  God cannot (Num. 23:19).  Human parents and role models can leave you.  God will not (Deut. 31:6, 8; Matt. 28:20).  Human parents and roles models may put their own interests ahead of you.  God does not (Gal. 3:13).

Three Summary Points to Consider:

1) If children have no freedom, but every decision is made for them by their parents and every action is forced by their parents, is that “good” parenting?

2) Is it even fair to grade God on our estimation of a “good” earthly parent or role model?  Wouldn’t God, by definition, not fit into one of those limited human categories?

3) In general terms, the Bible paints God as one who does for you the things you cannot do and empowers you to grow to do the things that you can do.  If that’s true, does such an individual not sound like a high quality candidate for parent or role model?

The Need for Christian Entertainers

blog - Hollywood

“It is time to recognize that the true tutors of our children are not schoolteachers or university professors but filmmakers, advertising executives and pop culture purveyors.  Disney does more than Duke, Spielberg outweighs Stanford, MTV trumps MIT.” (Benjamin R. Barber, M.I.T. graduate and Professor of Civil Society at the University of Maryland, More Democracy! More Revolution!, The Nation, Volume: 267, Issue: 0013, October 26, 1998)

It’s a little strange to me that for a nation which claims 80% of its citizens as Christian, there is only a fraction of positions or roles in the entertainment community that, if I had the talent or drive to do so, my conscience would allow me to participate in.  Sure, there are still a number of famous actors and musicians and comedians who will state that they are indeed Christian, but, for most of them, it’s fairly difficult to know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:20).

In the text I preached from this past Sunday, 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10, the Apostle Paul says about the believers in Thessalonica that “our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.” (vs. 5)  Notice that Paul doesn’t say that the gospel came apart from words.  The gospel always comes with words.  But the gospel never enters your heart simply with disempowered words.  Those words are invariably accompanied by Holy Spirit-given power and conviction.  Now, might we slip in moments of weakness?  Of course.  Our sinful nature is unrelenting.  And so we repent daily. That said, there are many self-professed “Christians” who exist with gospel words rattling around inside of them, but no power or conviction of the Holy Spirit being evidenced in their life.

What does this have to do with Christian entertainers?  There’s a chasm of difference, properly called “repentance” and “faith”, between the person who sins and confesses their sin to God, runs to Jesus for forgiveness, and flees their sin, as opposed to someone who willfully and publicly makes a living through behavior incompatible with the gospel.

As I consider my favorite TV shows and movies throughout my life, my favorite comedians, my favorite musicians, I wonder how many of these roles I could comfortably perform in as a Christian.  While morality is not the essence of Christianity, it’s a necessary byproduct of Christianity.

In the history of sin, there has always been sinful public entertainment.  For instance, while there is some debate amongst commentators, John the Baptist’s beheading likely came about as the result of men being very pleased by overtly sexual public entertainment.  “On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for them and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked.” (Matt. 14:6-7)  She probably wasn’t tap dancing.  Similarly, the tremendously violent entertainment that occurred, occasionally at the expense of the early Christians, at the Roman Colosseum in Rome in the first several centuries A.D. is well-documented.  Unapologetically sinful entertainment forms will always exist this side of heaven.

While entertainment often looks like that, and perhaps increasingly looks like that, it certainly does not have to look like that.  Every comedian will tell you that vulgar humor is cheap and easy humor, but it’s certainly not the only humor.  Similarly, reigning Billboard magazine Artist of the Decade, rapper Eminem, in one of his most famous lyrics, wrote, “Will Smith don’t gotta cuss in his raps to sell records; well I do”……at which point he continues by returning to his notoriously vulgar language.  While some of the shock value entertainment of the late 90s and early 2000s has seemed to fade, entertainment in America has now reached a strange place filled with reality television, recycled classics, and a yet unquenched thirst for something which postmodernism has labeled a “metanarrative” (i.e. deeply connected story) which is now blatantly being referred to by storytellers simply as “meta” (cf. movies like Scream 4 and Cabin in the Woods).  In other words, very few good new stories are being told anymore.  I do NOT for a second think that society’s shift to biblical illiteracy and our current inability to tell good stories is merely coincidental.  The term “metanarrative” was actually developed from biblical scholarship and critical theory.  People who do not know the ULTIMATE story of the Bible and all of the universal themes fascinatingly told in its collected stories simply cannot know how to tell stories with the same brilliance.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Today we live in a world where we find many Christian churches trying to pattern themselves after cultural art.  There was a time when the Christian church largely drove the world of art and entertainment.  Much of the lasting art of the Renaissance, for instance – music, painting, sculpture, literature, drama, architecture – was commissioned by the church.  Notice how different that is from the main, most influential medium of art and entertainment today – feature films.  Most all movie production commissioned by the church today will go straight to DVD and/or star Kirk Cameron.  Don’t get me wrong.  I loved Growing Pains.  And I haven’t disliked some of his recent work.  But the fact remains that Cameron’s most influential and critically acclaimed work will be his role as mischievous 80s teen Mike Seaver.

There has been good art created by Christians.  Really good.  C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia remains a classic in children’s literature.  His contemporary and friend, J.R.R. Tolkien had a slightly different philosophy on Christian literature.  He believed that when a Christian wrote, if he had true Christian faith in him, it would naturally come out in his art.  He didn’t need to make it as transparent as Lewis.  Yet, you don’t have to examine his Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Hobbit too carefully to see that biblical themes permeate his masterpieces.

Paul told the Corinthian Christians, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31), and to the Colossian Christians, he said, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 3:17)  Christians aren’t to just write Christian music, they are to write good music.  Christians don’t just write Christian literature, they write good literature.  Christians don’t just make Christian movies, they make good movies.  Created in God’s image, they are given the duty of subduing the earth by using their God-given talents to arrange the world to create beauty, all to the glory of God.

Let me put this a slightly different way.  I like my role as a pastor, but if I were to do it all over again and really wanted to influence the world, I’d probably make movies.  Or, for instance, if 100 million dollars fell into my lap today, I don’t know that I’d build hundreds of churches.  Maybe.  I do love and appreciate churches.  But I’m afraid that in a matter of time I’d have hundreds of mostly empty ones.  I think I’d probably build a good movie studio that told great stories…..all to the glory of God.