Most every Christian (and many non-Christians) are familiar with the story of the prodigal son. A father has two sons and plans to leave a sizable inheritance to both upon of them upon his death. The younger son, being impulsive and impatient, demands he get his inheritance now while he is still young enough to enjoy it, and he promptly heads out into the world to live the “wild life,” blowing through every penny until he is left poor and homeless, living in a literal pig pen. At the lowest point of his life, he realizes that even his father’s servants live better than he does – at least they are fed and given shelter! He swallows his pride and heads back home, intending to ask his dad simply to have a job as one of his servants after all he’d done. His dad, however, sees him coming home, and immediately orders a feast and celebration, declaring, “My son was dead, but now he is alive! He has come home!” It’s a parable that is very well known.
But what about the firstborn son? Where does he fit into this story? Jesus tells of how the firstborn son was confused, and even bitter towards his father’s reaction when his younger brother returned home. Here he was, a loyal and faithful son, working for his father and earning his share of the inheritance. He never squandered his money, and he definitely was more deserving of a party than his brother was. And yet it was his brother who got the celebration after doing the exact opposite! The firstborn son was so angry that he refused to even come to the party. When his dad asked him what the problem was, he responded by asking, “Why does HE get a celebration?! I’ve stayed loyal, I’ve done your bidding, and I haven’t even gotten a young goat to share with my friends. That brat comes home after blowing everything, and you gave him the biggest steak we have!”
On the surface, it makes perfect sense why the elder son would be upset. I mean, he has a point. He never led the wild life. He was always at his father’s side, doing what was asked of him. And yet he never was given any sort of celebration. And in reality, it probably was never even expected. I mean, if you do what’s asked of you, why do you even need a celebration? It’s just part of life! But when your brother takes half of the family’s money and blows it, coming back home smelling like a pig pen and begging forgiveness, why should HE get a feast?! He got what he deserves!
How many of us are “firstborn Christians”? How many of us were raised in the church, or are long-time church members who show up every Sunday, volunteer for events, pay tithes, and play a large part in our church? Don’t we deserve to be celebrated? I mean, it’s because of US that there’s even a church here, right? If we didn’t show up every week, there wouldn’t be a place for prodigals to come. That’s why WE are the ones who matter here, not those losers who keep screwing up.
Or is it????
As the prodigal’s father explained, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.” The firstborn was already guaranteed everything the father had because of his loyalty. Why did he need his father to give him a young goat (or anything, really), when he already had everything he needed? And aside from that, why couldn’t the firstborn be happy that his brother, whom he hadn’t seen in a long time, had returned home?
Why can’t we as Christians, especially “firstborn Christians,” celebrate when sinners are found instead of complaining about how “our needs are not being met.” God has already met everyone one of our needs, and will continue to do so. So put away your griping and let’s welcome the lost, for they now are found.
There’s no doubt about it; we are by far the most informed generation this world has ever seen. We are bombarded literally by the minute with information, whether it be the latest news, celebrity gossip, sports scores, movie showings (and spoilers), and even personal family events. All we gotta do is pick up that magical little gizmo we carry everywhere, tap the screen a few times, and we can get pretty much any information we want.
We also have the unprecedented ability to SHARE information with each other. It could be mundane, or it could be life-changing, but we can let everyone know what is going on pretty much instantly through social media. Bored at work? Turn on Facebook Live, and all of your friends can watch you be bored at work! Just got a passing grade on an exam? Shout it from the virtual rooftops with a picture of your score on Instagram. Heck, even the President of the United States seems to be addicted to Twitter (for better or worse).
While this ability to share information and stay informed is unlike any we’ve seen in history, it also comes with inherent problems. Prior to social media, information had to be obtained through a bit more laborious methods – trips to the library, buying a newspaper, or tuning into the nightly news. More often than not, this information went through at least some form of vetting prior to being distributed. That’s not to say that the information was more accurate in the past than it is now; it just means that more was at stake if said information was incorrect. If a newscaster wanted to keep his job, he had to be trusted by the general public, so his reputation was on the line with every single story he broadcast. Same with journalists and publishers. Sure, some still had an agenda (anytime a human is involved, there will ALWAYS be some sort of bias), but the risks were such that one or two “fake news” stories or pieces of misinformation could make or break a career (just ask Dan Rather).
Today, “fake news” is all the rage. It’s not about information so much as it is about attention. Want to look like a moron? Go for it, but at least you’ll look like a moron with millions of views and likes, which can be translated into monetary gain. Just look at the recent meme phenomenon/trainwreck, Danielle Bregolli, the 13-year-old delinquent whose single appearance on Dr. Phil turned her into an instant celebrity for being nothing more than a teenage brat. She’s now making all kinds of money, including commercial deals, from a criminal attitude and one single, poorly-enunciated phrase. She is this year’s “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”
That’s not to say that we can’t be entertained as well as informed. In fact, some of the most entertaining individuals are also the most informative. Look at The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight. Both shows feature biting satire, but also with a heavy political and social commentary tied to them. Again, bias is heavy, but it just goes to show that, if you have the right platform, your word can spread like never before thanks to online viewing and clips on YouTube.
But that leads us to the question – who should we trust for information?
In the past (I’m talking at least half a century, not last week), information was primarily obtained from folks who were older than us. Parents, teachers, mentors, clergy, they all played a part in making the next generation who they were in some way. They passed on what they learned to the next generation, who would repeat the cycle in perpetuity. Once again, bias was still present, as all of these folks had at least SOME sort of reason for passing along this piece of information over that, but for the most part, children learned from their elders, and young adults gained their knowledge from those older and more experienced. And aside from the schoolyard experience, that’s how information was accepted.
Today, however, with the never-before-seen amount of contact among our peers, self-education seems to have overtaken the history of passed-down education. Teenagers and young adults (millenials, if you will) are questioning, challenging, and often outright rejecting education from elders in favor of learning from each other, and in a way, it’s hard to blame them. Why continue to rely on one or two sources of information we we literally have a whole world of information at our fingertips? It also has resulted in a lack of trust among the current generation. With so many different variations of the same information, it becomes difficult to determine what the truth actually is (just ask Sean Spicer).
So the question then becomes, should the current generation start looking again to the previous to help vet some of this information, or has that model been completely outdated by the amount of (and access to) information available to us? Is it safe to learn with (and through) each other, or do we as a society NEED the wisdom and guidance of past generations?
From a Biblical standpoint, you can find many instances of being referred to wise counsel, and while that sometimes refers to elders (either as a governing body in the church or just someone older than you), it does not reserve wisdom and guidance SOLELY to them. If you are a Christian (as I am), you believe that God (through the Bible) is the one true source of wisdom, but how this wisdom is obtained depends on the person. Many churches, however, take this to to mean that ONLY previous generations have the authority and/or ability to train up the next generation. In fact, some church leaders take this to an extreme, refusing to accept any sort of input from younger generations, which is viewed as inherently flawed (“How can THEY possibly have more knowledge or wisdom than me? I’m older than them; I have authority over them; I MUST be right, and they MUST yield to me!”). Obviously, they never paid much attention to the books of Samuel, and how an 11-year-old boy was given knowledge of the fall of his mentor’s entire dynasty.
So again, back to the question at hand: is the time-honored tradition of passing down information from one generation to the next now outdated by the amount of knowledge and information available to us? In all honesty, I think the two models (learning from each other and learning from those who have gone before us) should work hand-in-hand. We have such an abundance of information, but we seem to lack the wisdom to determine what information we should take as definitive, which is where having guidance comes into play. Sure, we can question and challenge, but we should also be willing to accept that there are some folks who DO have the experience and wisdom to help you determine what is and is not right.
‘Tis the season – so to speak – when our televisions are bombarded with various Christmas programs and specials. It’s A Wonderful Life, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, It’s Christmas Charlie Brown, Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer, and a whole slew of cartoons, Hallmark movies, and music concerts fill both network and cable time slots in an effort to display the holiday spirit. Some are very well done, others are simply phoned in; nevertheless, they play virtually endlessly through December 25th.
One in particular that I remember from my own youth seems to be all but forgotten. I never would have seen it myself had it not been for my mother recording it on VHS from cable (WGN if I remember correctly): George and the Christmas Star – a tale of a young man who, while decorating his Christmas tree, decides that a standard paper star on top simply won’t do.
That premise, in and of itself, isn’t all that outlandish in comparison to most other specials. What makes this 24 minute cartoon stand out is the lengths that the titular character goes to find the perfect tree topper….
For starters, the ultimate decoration he desires is an actual star he sees outside his window. But how to get it? Simple! He gathers “a few odds and ends” from his home and builds a fully functioning space ship (at this point, one gathers that “logic” is a moot point in this story) and launches himself into outer space to catch this star.
Ok, a bit unusual, but not ENTIRELY out there, compared to a magic snowman or a deer with a neon schnoz, but we are only 3 minutes in. Throughout George’s journey, he meets an alien robot who owns a planetary motel (but all he ever wanted to be was a piano player), is ordered by space rangers (also robotic) that star hunting requires a permit (of course!), is captured by space pirates, meets a lovely female astronaut, and has to deal with an evil space bike gang.
I couldn’t make that up if I tried!!
Ultimately, George does catch that shiny star and makes his way back home, only for the star to immediately shoot back off into the sky where it belongs. At this point, he realizes that Christmas is not about decorations, but about being with his new found friends.
So how, you may ask, is this show a favorite of mine? How is a plot that seems born from a bad game of Mad Libs even remotely entertaining?
The answer comes from its execution. The story is narrated by the main character in a largely understated, calm, and almost dismissive tone, as if the entire series of events was just another day. For as off-the-wall as each scenario may be, George never once even raises his voice in emphasis. Of course he flew into space and did all these things. Who wouldn’t? The strange and outrageous scenes are not played directly for laughs; they’re simply odd for the sake of being odd, but there is such charm in them that you almost forget that you’re watching one of the few sci-fi Christmas cartoons. And at no point does the story talk down to the audience.
This special was produced in Canada in 1985. I was 4 years old when Mom recorded it, which means that it aired at least once in the US in 1987. Since then, that VHS has been completely worn out. A few years back, I found a VHS copy on Amazon, as well as a DVD that includes other “Christmas Classics” that I’ve never heard of, both for under $10 each, but this past week, I found the entire special on YouTube in one full 24 minute clip. I sat and watched the whole thing on my iPhone and was just as amused now as I was 25 years ago (the video has since been removed from YouTube).
If you are tired of the usual Christmas specials and are looking for something different (and I DO mean different), look up George and the Christmas Star.
The Ernest movies are among Hollywood’s surprise success stories. The “Ernest P. Worrell” character originated as a redneck pitchman played by Jim Varney for a series of Nashville-produced ad’s. Ernest was so popular that he quickly began making ad’s for products throughout the country, often produced at director John Cherry’s Nashville home with a hand-held camera. The character became so popular that Varney was invited to take part in a holiday parade. When Varney (as Ernest) received a bigger response from the crowd than Mickey Mouse, Disney executives took notice and offered Varney a movie deal.
The first film, Ernest Goes to Camp, has become a cult classic since its release in 1988 (and also was the final film of Italian-turned-Native-American character actor, Bill “Iron Eyes” Cody). The unexpected success of Camp meant Disney wanted another Ernest film. The follow-up was the charming Ernest Saves Christmas.
For those of you unaware, Ernest Saves Christmas stars the titular redneck character who gets inadvertently sucked into a quest by Santa Claus himself to find a suitable replacement. While Ernest may be the star of the film, the story really does revolve around Santa, played beautifully by Douglas Seale (most famous as the voice of the “Sultan” in Aladdin).
According to this film, the role of Santa is one that isn’t held by one individual, but is passed on over generations. This particular Santa admits that he has held onto the position longer than he should have, resorting to hand-written notes to keep track of who is naughty or nice as his magic continues to fade. The magic is only replenished when a suitable replacement takes over the role. This is quite an interesting idea, and one that was revisited somewhat in another Disney film, The Santa Clause. The difference here, however, is that Santa has to convince his chosen successor of his validity.
This proves to be harder than expected, as the one Santa is eyeing for the position is a former children’s television host, Joe Caruthers, who is attempting to break into mainstream films as a legitimate actor. The kind-hearted Joe seems willing to at least hear the jolly one out, but Joe’s agent, Marty, sees Santa as a senile old man who is getting in the way of Joe’s big break. It’s with the help of Ernest’s convoluted schemes that Santa is eventually able to reach Joe and explain the situation to him.
Meanwhile, a teenage runaway is scraping along by conning her way from place to place. When one of her con jobs puts her in trouble, she crosses paths with Ernest and Santa. The two take her in, with Santa being aware of her situation, but allowing her to learn her own lessons in a genuinely touching side story.
Director Cherry admits that this is his favorite among the many Ernest films made over the years, and its’ easy to see why. Rather than being a series of set-pieces strung together by a thin plot, the idea of Santa actually putting Christmas at risk due to his own selfish desires puts the typically-joyous Father Christmas at a more human and vulnerable level. This isn’t a perfect Santa. He gets hurt. He gets frustrated. He makes mistakes. He even gets angry. Seale’s performance only adds to the magic – you completely buy into his Santa Claus, even at his lowest.
Since he doesn’t have to carry the film all on his own, Varney is free to play with the Ernest character (as well as several other characters), creating some truly funny moments. You definitely have to suspend disbelief at times, but such is the case with this type of comedy – embellishment and exaggeration. Noelle Parker’s runaway has enough attitude to cover up her own vulnerability, which she plays very well.
While this isn’t a beloved classic along the lines of It’s A Wonderful Life or A Christmas Carol, Ernest Saves Christmas nonetheless is a fun, enjoyable 90 minutes of silly humor mixed with a unique and often touching Santa story. If you have Netflix, the film is currently available to streaming. It’s worth a watch if you haven’t seen it. Knowhutimean, Vern?
There are so many things I can be mad about in this life. At the same time, there are so many things that I should be thankful for, often as the result of my frustrations. For example:
FRUSTRATION: I struggle to pay my bills sometimes.
THANKFUL: I have a roof over my head, water and electricity.
FRUSTRATION: I need to get gas in my car.
THANKFUL: I have a car to get me where I need to go.
FRUSTRATION: I have to go into work early.
THANKFUL: I have a job to support my family.
FRUSTRATION: My kids are running wild throughout the house.
THANKFUL: I have been blessed to be a parent.
FRUSTRATION: My wife and I are in an argument.
THANKFUL: I have a wife who loves me and is willing to accept me even with my faults.
As you can see, even in the worst of times, there is always a blessing to be found.
‘Tis the season – so to speak – when our televisions are bombarded with various Christmas programs and specials. It’s A Wonderful Life, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, It’s Christmas Charlie Brown, Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer, and a whole slew of cartoons, Hallmark movies, and music concerts fill both network and cable time slots in an effort to display the holiday spirit. Some are very well done, others are simply phoned in; nevertheless, they play virtually endlessly through December 25th.
The Ernest movies are among Hollywood’s surprise success stories. The “Ernest P. Worrell” character originated as a redneck pitchman played by Jim Varney for a series of Nashville-produced ad’s. Ernest was so popular that he quickly began making ad’s for products throughout the country, often produced at director John Cherry’s Nashville home with a hand-held camera. The character became so popular that Varney was invited to take part in a holiday parade. When Varney (as Ernest) received a bigger response from the crowd than Mickey Mouse, Disney executives took notice and offered Varney a movie deal.