Columnists > Mailbag


Issue: "Daniel of the Year 1998," Dec. 5, 1998

Enough already

It is so sad that Christians will undoubtedly fall for the lure of The Prince of Egypt ("Answer to prayer," Nov. 7). Multiple millions of dollars will be spent by evangelical holiday shoppers on a film just because it has a biblical overtone, that takes the he out of references to God (because it's "clearer to young children") and "removes the gender" (the stated ambition of producer Penney Finkelman). So we may not get the movie junk at MacDonald's or Burger King, but I'll betcha it'll be in all the Christian bookstores. Ugh. Enough already. Of course Tommy Nelson is excited about this "opportunity ... we've never had before." They are the ones who will be cashing in on the sanitized movie merchandising. The church should be determining how and when the gospel is shared, not Hollywood. If we are starting to rely on the movie industry to help us along, then we are truly more lame than I imagined. - Mrs. G. Frank Strickland, Lisbon, Maine

Eyes off the prize

What are we doing focusing our attention on Moses on Dec. 18 (the day The Prince of Egypt is scheduled to premiere), one week before Christmas? Even if The Prince of Egypt proves to be biblically correct instead of politically correct, Hollywood still wins, because it has succeeded in redirecting our focus away from Christ. - Don Ritsman, Cedar Grove, Wis.


We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

DreamWorks' The Prince of Egypt may not have hit the bullseye, but it is on target. We all should try to get our children, grandchildren, and ourselves out to see this one or there may not be another. Perhaps if The Prince of Egypt does well, the next one will be closer yet to the mark. - Clayton A. Riehle, Portville, N.Y.


The cover story about the film The Prince of Egypt was grossly misleading and ambiguous. Statements on the cover referring to "a new pharaoh" and "Exodus from Disney" made it sound like the film was another watered-down, altered, and redefined history lesson from Hollywood. And the caption "DreamWorks' Prince of Egypt follows Disney's Pocahontas & Hunchback" ... does that mean Prince of Egypt follows the same philosophies and historical rewrites of those movies or just that it was released after those two movies? - Kimball D. Chase, San Dimas, Calif.

Sobering satire

Roy Maynard's "An Innocent Abroad" (Nov. 7) was excellent satire: finely spun, understated, morally pure. I would like to have seen the article greatly expanded along the same lines. We should also remember that Francis Schaeffer and others warned that our own descent into degeneration is only about a generation behind that of Europe, and take heed from the picture Mr. Maynard painted. - Tim Harris, Bala Cynwyd, Pa.

Some would be Christian

When I saw The Big Chill with my husband in 1983, I made a comment that I still think is true: If the movie maker really wanted to capture what happened to the radicals of the '70s-one of them would have become a Christian ("The chilling effect," Nov. 7). The heart of the '70s was idealism-and there were many truth seekers who stumbled their way into the kingdom of God. Yes, the majority chose narcissism, but the Jesus movement walked alongside these radicals and led many of us from emptiness to the only real meaning there is in life-a relationship with Jesus that in turn spills over to others. - Dale Karen Edwards, Baton Rouge, La.

Good tonic

How sad that many do not see what Marvin Olasky was saying in his "World serious" column (Oct. 17). For many like myself, it was both a breath of fresh air and a dose of good tonic. What he said was insightful, concise, and easy to understand. Although many were offended to some degree at his conclusions, this should in no way make WORLD drop the ball and give up the debate. Paul, as evidenced by his scriptural analogies, gave proper significance to athletics. To paraphrase the writer of Ecclesiastes, everything has its proper place under heaven, along with a time and purpose for it. For those offended at God's providence in this matter, I for one find no coincidence in the birth of professional sports with the effects of the Industrial Revolution, where the body was suddenly free of much work. I suppose one could find almost anything to be work that would break the Sabbath commandment if done on Sunday (or Saturday for some sects). I've found it most helpful to hear pro athletes themselves often declare that "We get paid to practice-we play for free." Practices on Sunday? Let's hope not. Sports in place of worship? May it never be! Hopefully, the games themselves are relaxation for fans, and recreation (to re-create, or create anew) for the participants. Remember: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Was WORLD serious? I sure hope so. - Michael Hughes, Candler, N.C.


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Job-seeker friendly

    Southern California churches reach the unemployed through job fairs 


    After a fiery trial

    Intelligent design proponent David Coppedge reflects on his wrongful termination…