UnBEARable

I've been following the news with regard to the plight of Gillian Gibbons, with some interest this week.

It is utter madness.

I understand that in Islamic law, it is wrong to portray anything as Mohamed; we've been through that episode in Europe last year with the furore concerning the Mohamed cartoons. I recall commenting at the time that the principle difference between Jesus and Mohamed over personal slander, was that Jesus endured it... whilst Mohamed legislated against it (in my view, to preserve his public image).

We could talk theology here... but what is the point? The root of this argument is less about theology and more about the nature of children. Reports suggest that Ms Gibbons merely facilitated the discussion about what to name the "offending" teddy bear; the children drew their own conclusions.

The children no doubt chose to name the teddy after character they were familiar with... and why not? After all, we live in a culture where the name Mohamed is charting in the top flight of name choices; for a child, theology doesn't even enter their minds over such things.

Furthermore, Sudan is possibly one of the last places on Earth that could claim to be in a position to make moral life and death judgements. They need to get their own house in order and make sure the Darfur conflict is fully resolved before making such assumptions collectively as a people.

This kind of news story gets me riled because it plays directly into the radical secularists hands. I'm talking about the kind of people who practically come out in hives when you mention the words "religion","faith", "God" or even "spirituality". Yes... a lot of bad has been done in the name of God... but that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Godly people have been a force for positive change throughout history.

People might be reading this and saying "but if they said it about Jesus, you'd be the same".

No I wouldn't.

As I have stated before... Jesus did not legislate to protect himself, he came to endure the scorn of men... and redeem them despite it:

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Isaiah 53:3-5

Jesus wasn't concerned with how men perceived him because he knew who he was and his Father - God, affirmed it publicly.

I am utterly convinced that Jesus reaction would be completely different, because he understands the hearts, minds and souls of little children:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

Matthew 19:13-15

"He called a little child, whom he placed among them. And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes a humble place—becoming like this child—is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

Matthew 18:2-5

Jesus would never call for the death of someone over such a thing... he even said blasphemy against him (the Son), would be forgiven (not that it's an excuse for us to partake in it). T conclude on a lighter note, I'll say that the harshest thing he'd do would probably be something along the lines of what Captain Sheridan did when confronted with a similar situation in Babylon 5:

Space the offending teddy... and not a human being for pities sake!

Go Figure That One!

While I was away in the Lake District, I stumbled upon the following snippet of news:

Action figures face competition from talking Jesus doll next year.

Apparently this toy line (distributed by One2Believe), does pretty well for itself in America... but I find myself questioning - why? I can understand Christian parents wanting to buy their children edifying toys, playthings that foster the growth of the Gospel message in the hearts of their offspring; but is it really appropriate to use a Jesus figure to do it? Now of course, the obvious critical angle to come from would be the whole "not making idols or carved images" commandment, I accept that neither kids, nor parents would be "worshipping" the dolls as such... but the question remains.

Another question, is whether kids in their innocence, would play with the toys as the manufacturers or parents intended. Kids are great at imaginary play... they like making up stories with their toys and you never know quite what role the toys are going to play - the opening of Toy Story springs to mind as an example. The Guardian spoke about Jesus going head to head with Spider-Man in the shops... but is it that far a leap to imagine kids getting the Son of God duking it out with the web-slinger in their toy box? It works the other way too... when I was a child, I was told off by my dad for hanging my Action Man from the bath cruciform. So if a kid can use Action Man as Jesus, then surely it's just as easy for kids to use a Jesus doll like Action Man!

And looking at things a little lighter, what about toy abuse? I referenced Toy Story earlier... but imagine... what if a Jesus doll ended up in the hands of Sid??????

Oh the inhumanity! I can just see Sid, preparing to send Buzz Lightyear exploding off into the ionosphere when all of a sudden instead of Woody, the Jesus doll pipes up from the barbecue grill... "love your neighbour as yourself!" and then a similar scene to the one above unfolding - hilarious.

Going back to the original, more serious point I was making and I think my main reason for finding this more than a little tasteless is just that... well, the concept is just so tacky! I just find the idea of action dolls that are based on real life people too much. Just under 10 years ago, they started churning out Princess Diana doll which were equally in bad taste... and that in my opinion was definitely idolatrous.

I don't think this idea will take off as well in the UK as it has in the US, we think too differently to the Americans

I think action figures and dolls exist mainly for developing children's imaginations and their ability to play with others... I believe if parents want to engage with their children spiritually, they should do so through prayer and storytelling... genuine interaction with children - isn't that what good parenting involves?