March 2008 Archives

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 31, 2008 | Permalink

The Turley family rejoices at the wedding of their son Justin.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 29, 2008 | Permalink

Walt Disney is as much a mentality and a consciousness as he is either a human being or a series of accomplishments. He is a state of mind to all of us, even those who hate Walt Disney. Even if they don’t want to live inside the Walt Disney state of mind, they do, because it’s so pervasive in our culture—Neil Gabler

In the twentieth century, no man did more to shape the values of family culture for good or evil than Walt Disney. As a motivator, innovator, and filmmaker, his efforts impacted millions across the globe through his movies, theme parks, and television shows. Disney taught Americans how to think about a family vacation. His work helped to define the literary and cultural sensibilities of a generation of American children and introduced enduring and iconic expressions of childhood that remain with us to this day.

But Disney’s great weakness was this: Even at his best, his morality was not linked to a defined transcendent standard; his worldview was syncretistic, being a mixture of Christian moralism and mythic paganism.

Despite his far-reaching influence, Christians have not thoroughly evaluated the worldview and accomplishments of Walt Disney from a biblical perspective. And until recent decades, the Disney logo was synonymous with family values. The consequence of this myopic acceptance of Disney has led many parents to blindly expose their children to a diversity of problematic messages, from the sensuality and pantheism of Pocahontas to the immodesty and rebellion of the Little Mermaid.

Now Disney: A Christian Critique provides parents and independent filmmakers with a theological critique of Disney’s legacy and includes the most important lessons to be learned from Walt’s victories and failures. Presented first at Vision Forum Ministries’ Christian Filmmakers Academy, this groundbreaking symposium is a critical tool for anyone seeking to disciple their children in biblical cultural analysis.

Evaluating the Disney Legacy

These messages examine the Disney philosophy of filmmaking, the history of the Disney empire, and the impact of Disney’s many innovations on film and culture. Also included is an analysis of the philosophical and theological perspectives often presented in Disney’s children classics, both for good and for evil.

Examples of Good

• Walt Disney’s personal emphasis on the family as a basic unit of society.
• Appreciation for science, investigation, exploration, and innovation.
• Cultivation of virtues of heroic boyhood.
• Gratitude for the American legacy of freedom.

Examples of Bad

• Moralism without sound theological foundation.
• The “cutification” of witchcraft and evil.
• Reliance on pagan myth and fantasy, rather than biblical icons and worldview.
• Promotion of Darwinian evolutionism.

The timing of this series could not be better!

Disney’s pro-homosexual policies, their promotion of disturbing anti-family, R-rated films through Touchstone Pictures, and their move away from the historic values of their founder have led to boycotts and general concern with the direction of the company.

Now, more than ever, Christian leaders, parents,and filmmakers need a biblical grid with which to interpret Walt Disney, his legacy ,and the latest moves to integrate Disney into American Christian culture.

Walt Disney: A Christian Critique may be the most thought-provoking audio series you hear all year. It explains that the true story of Disney is a testimony to the culture-changing potential which can be realized by men who believe in moral values and who have a commitment to innovation and creativity. But this story is also a testimony to the limitations of storytelling apart from the presuppositions of Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture: moralism and sentiment can only go so far. In the end, an undefined and inconsistent theological grid is unsustainable. Its very success will become its undoing. This is the true legacy of Disney.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 25, 2008 | Permalink

Next week we will bring you a report on this important conference.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 25, 2008 | Permalink

The San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival has an update on film submission guidelines:

Film shorts which in good faith were formally begun prior to the announcement of the 2009 rules (March 10, 2008), and where the filmmakers sign an affidavit indicating that they were formally in production of the project prior to the announcement of the 2009 rules, are eligible under this “grandfather’s clause” to submit their film short for consideration for semi-finalist status, even where the film is as long as 55 minutes in length. To apply under the “grandfather’s clause,” an affidavit signed by all producers and director(s) for the film must be received by the SAICFF office prior to submission of the film online.

Click here to read the entire rules.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 25, 2008 | Permalink

One thing we are learning is that life is far more vigorous than many within the medical community will admit. The below story is not the first, nor is it the last account of an individual declared brain dead, who was anything but dead.

CNN is reporting the amazing story of a 21 year old young man from Oklahoma who was declared “brain dead” back in November.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma (AP) — Zach Dunlap says he feels “pretty good,” four months after he was declared brain dead and doctors were about to remove his organs for transplant.

Dunlap was pronounced dead November 19 at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, after he was injured in an all-terrain vehicle accident. His family approved having his organs harvested.

As family members were paying their last respects, he moved his foot and hand. He reacted to a pocketknife scraped across his foot and to pressure applied under a fingernail. After 48 days in the hospital, he was allowed to return home, where he continues to work on his recovery.

On Monday, he and his family were in New York, appearing on NBC’s “Today.”

“I feel pretty good. but it’s just hard ... just ain’t got the patience,” Dunlap told NBC...

His father, Doug, said he saw the results of the brain scan.

“There was no activity at all, no blood flow at all.”

Zach’s mother, Pam, said that when she discovered he was still alive, “That was the most miraculous feeling.”

“We had gone, like I said, from the lowest possible emotion that a parent could feel to the top of the mountains again,” she said.

Click here to read the rest of this fascinating story.

Afterward: I am growing increasingly more concerned about the use of “brain dead” to justify a host of ethically pragmatic outcomes, including the cessation of food and water (i.e., starvation) for individuals who are comatose. We must stand for the proposition that the connection between soul and body—not the brain wave scan—is the determiner of life. The presumption is that the soul remains in the body, where the heart continues to beat and the blood to flow, even in the case of “brain death.” We know this because “brain dead” individuals sometimes regain consciousness. Thus, to deprive a living (though “brain dead”) person of their organs is to kill them.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 25, 2008 | Permalink

Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children and the nursing infants. Let the bridegroom come out of his room and the bride out of her bridal chamber. Joel 2:16

We praise the Lord for the covenant marriage this Saturday of Vision Forum designer Justin Turley and Melissa Keen.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 24, 2008 | Permalink

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 10:6-9

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 24, 2008 | Permalink

The blue-eyed Miss Belle Chancey

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 24, 2008 | Permalink

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. Isaiah 61:10

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 24, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 24, 2008 | Permalink

Dr. Joe Morecraft and bride Becky will be joining Vision Forum Ministries for the 2008 Scotland Faith and Freedom Tour. Dr. Morecraft, one of the top reformed Christian historians in the world, will be our “Historian Emeritus” for this grand adventure which takes us from The Royal Mile, to the battle fields of Wallace, to the spots of martyrdom of the Covenanters to the ancient Isle of Iona, and the mountains of the Scottish Highlands.

Above he is pictured with Providence and Honor Phillips at the Jamestown Quadricentennial: A Celebration of America’s Providential History.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 22, 2008 | Permalink

Special Symposiums for Pastors, Fathers, Lawmakers

God has called men to rise to leadership in the family, the church, and the state. The 2008 Witherspoon School includes important training on the biblical foundations of law and public policy and the relationship of Christianity to the Constitution and the American legal system. In addition, our special topics and symposiums aim to address the most timely and relevant issues of our day.

The Symposium on Defining Issues of the 2008 Elections
Topics include: A precise overview of the presidential candidates’ records on the top ten issues for the American family; biblical voting theory; constitutional solutions to the imperial judiciary; biblical just warfare theory and the U.S military policy; the future of pro-homosexual legislation; the biblical and social implications of America’s first female president; Our bio-medical ethical future—from abortion and stem-cell research to eugenics and designer babies; and American sovereignty and the North American Corridor.

You May Not Take Our Arms: A Symposium on the Future of the Second Amendment
For the first time in more than a century, the United States Supreme Court is preparing to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment. In addition, both Republican and Democratic frontrunners for President have disturbing pro-gun control track records. At this year’s Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, you will hear a distinctively biblical perspective from national experts on the right of the people to be armed.

Symposium on the Defense of the Local Church
The biblical, historical, and constitutional position for the Church in America presumes the autonomy of Christ’s church to be a self-governing, self-regulating institution. But legal and cultural trends threaten the peace of the church. Now legal experts and scholars prepare pastors and churchmen for a diversity of issues which threaten the peace of Christ’s church, including hate crimes and anti-sexual discrimination legislation, church discipline, parental rights and home school freedoms, the Internet and the local church, medical and religious liberties, and more.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 20, 2008 | Permalink

To enter the ballot box without careful consideration of God’s law-word revelation and His requirements for Christians selecting leaders is an act of arrogance, ingratitude, and abdication. Jesus—-speaking through the transcendent truths of Scripture—-must be our guide and our stay for all civil duties.

And that is why I believe that in this election year it should be the priority of every American home educating parent to teach his children both the American system of government and those biblical principles for the election of leaders which must guide our voting ethics. I recommend two resources: First, my CDs Biblical Principles of the Ballot Box is a helpful overview of the principles and issues, necessary to make wise applications. Second, Buddy Hanson’s excellent book Choose ye This Day: God’s Instructions on How to Select Leaders, is a superb textbook with which to train your children—-and yourself!

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 20, 2008 | Permalink

Report II: From Bob Renaud and Nathaniel Darnell from the United States Supreme Court

After waiting in line outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building for over fourteen hours, the first fifty in line were finally given admittance. Gratefully, since we were both within the first fifty in line, we entered the building with great excitement tempered only slightly by sleepy eyes. We were briefed on how to conduct ourselves in the room during oral arguments, taken through a metal detector, put our personal items in a locker, and then were ushered into the back of the room.

The room was absolutely packed. Attorneys who were members of the Supreme Court bar sat near in the front, and special guests sat in the middle. Several tall, no-nonsense security guards in blue suits stood imposingly in key positions among the crowded seats.

We waited at our wooden seats for about half-an-hour. During that time, we finally met someone who supported the D.C. gun ban. She was a Harvard Law School student named Morgan. Soon, three of us were having a friendly debate with her in quiet whispers.

Suddenly, a cry went out from the front of the room for our attention. “All rise!” a voice proclaimed. We stood in unison like a choir. As if from nowhere, the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices appeared at each of their seats in their black robes. Against the ornate architecture and reverent ceremony, when they entered the room an air of respect rushed in with them.

They were looked upon as nine modern demi-gods: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Samuel Alito. But once they sat down, they seemed dwarfed by the tall backs of their black chairs.

As we were taking it all in, our thoughts were interrupted by the balif’s concluding words: “God save the United States and this honorable court!”

To accentuate the sense of power and awe, Chief Justice Roberts immediately began to assert his complete authority over the proceeding. Before we knew it, the Chief Justice had called upon Justice Thomas to read a decision from a previous case. We had been waiting for hours for this hearing to begin, but now it was moving faster than we could keep up.

As abruptly as the reading of the decision had begun, it ended, and then the court turned its attention to several attorneys being considered for admittance to the Supreme Court Bar. That was over within minutes.

Then Chief Justice Robert’s concisely introduced the case D.C. v. Heller and the attorney for the District of Columbia. The race was on. I soon came to realize that Chief justice Robert’s was nothing if not quick and concise. He always made his comments suddenly and quickly, getting immediately to the point—unlike most of the other justices, especially Justice Breyer.

The attorney for the District of Columbia was Walter Dellinger, who presented the basic arguments of the case for the city, arguing that the first phrase of the Second Amendment conditioned the right to bear arms upon the people being a part of a militia. This point was met within a few minutes by pointed questions from the most out-spoken conservatives of the bench: Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts.

Then Justice Kennedy chimed in. Everyone seemed to hold their breaths to hear what he would say, trying to detect what direction he was leaning in this case since he would likely be the swing vote to carry the majority. Kennedy seemed to realize his significance because in his effort to hold his cards close to the table, his questions seemed so obscure that the attorney became confused, not understanding what he was asking. Nor could most of us.

The presentation and interview with the Walter Dellinger on behalf of D.C. lasted about half-an-hour, and then the U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stepped up to the lectern. He presented himself with polish and ease, responding to each justice’s question by first giving their name. Dellinger had never called the justices by their names.

Next, the justices grilled Clement for over an hour. Each of the liberal justices had their own nuanced line of questions to propel at him. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted in her questioning that the Second Amendment was sexually discriminatory, since the militia at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights consisted of only men ages 14 to 45. Justice Breyer asked long, verbose questions riddled with puzzling hypotheticals that began to lull us to sleep. When the third attorney was answering one long question from Breyer, he became lost in all of the verbiage.

“You want to say yes,” Justice Scalia fed the attorney, seeming to figure that was the response Breyer wanted. Everybody laughed.

But Breyer finally gave away his position by saying that he believed the people could have a right to bear arms—only if they were in fact a part of a state militia.

Next, Dick Heller’s attorney Alan Gura approached the lectern. The Justices started asking him some simple questions, but he seemed nervous. He adopted a concession the Solicitor General Clement had made, arguing that the right to keep and bear arms may be regulated reasonably. Once that concession was clear, Justice Stevens bludgeoned the attorney with it.

“Are you, in effect reading the amendment to say that the right shall not be unreasonably infringed instead of shall not be infringed?” Stevens asked. “So we can—consistent with your view, we can simply read this: ‘It shall not be unreasonably infringed’?”

The attorney stammered, knowing that he was caught in a trap. Justice Scalia came to his rescue with a soft-ball comment.

As the discussion progressed it became increasingly narrow, moving away from the broad question of whether the court would overturn the current state gun laws and more toward the D.C. law. Finally, the discussion centered on the odd requirement that D.C. residents had to keep the guns in their home either disassembled or with a trigger lock. Justices Scalia and Roberts questions centered on how ridiculous it would be for someone to have to try to assemble their gun or unlock their trigger lock when they were in immediate danger from a burglar.

Chief Justice Roberts then asked Mr. Dellinger, “So how long does it take? If your interpretation is correct, how long does it take to remove the trigger lock and make the gun operable?”

Mr. Dellinger replied, “You—place a trigger lock on it, and it has—the version I have, a few—you can buy them at 17th Street Hardware—has a code, like a three digit code. You turn the code and you pll it apart. That’s all it takes. Even—It took me three seconds.”

Scalia jumped in. “We turn on the lamp next to your bed so you can—you can turn the knob at 3-22-95, and so somebody—”

“Well—” Mr. Dellinger started.

Chief Justice Roberts interjected, “Is it like that? Is it a numerical code?”

“Yes, you can have one with a numerical code,” Mr. Dellinger said.

Chief Justice Roberts continued to press Mr. Dellinger. “So then you turn on your lamp, you pick up your reading glasses—”

The audience erupted into laughter.

Justice Thomas remained characteristically quiet during the entire oral argument. But he leaned back in his chair and grinned at some of the ridiculous arguments of Mr. Dellinger.

Suddenly, then, just as abruptly as it had began, it was over. The last attorney had no sooner uttered his final sentence than the Chief Justice called for dismissal, banged his gavel, and justices disappeared behind the red curtain.

Based on the line of questions given by the various justices, it does not seem that the conservatives have enough votes to make a sweeping change that would restrict state gun restrictions. Chief Justice Robert’s track record has shown him to favor winning a more unanimous victory over a narrow decision than risking a 5-4 split on a broad but more controversial decision. In order to appeal to Justice Kennedy, he will likely try to keep the decision narrow, affecting only the D.C. law and probably the requirements of dismantling the guns or trigger-locking them.

Time will tell.

Bob Renaud and Nathaniel Darnell at 7:30 am on March 18 on the steps of the Supreme Court. Behind them on the right is Dick Heller, who the case is named after, and two other original plaintiffs.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 19, 2008 | Permalink

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case dealing with the Second Amendment right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. The name of the case is D.C. v. Heller. This is the first significant case the United States Supreme Court has heard dealing with gun rights since 1939.

Two members of the Vision Forum staff, Bob Renaud and Nathaniel Darnell, traveled to Washington, D.C. to witness this historic event. Both of these men are students with Oak Brook College of Law, and they were joined by five other Oak Brook students and alumni. Several other law students turned out for the event, including students from Harvard Law, George Mason, and George Washington Law School, but Oak Brook had the highest contingency of law students representing their school—and all of them were former homeschoolers. (See the AP Story here.)

Below is Bob Renaud and Nathaniel Darnell’s on-the-scene account of the day’s events.

The Report

We arrived at 1:00 p.m. on Monday afternoon. By that time there were already 20 people in line ahead of us, seven of which had already been camped out since the night before. By 11:00 p.m. on Monday, the line would grow to over 100 people. They came from all corners of the country, and they included a variety of characters. Two fervent gun supporters from Phoenix entertained the crowd by singing a number of pro-gun songs they had written in a barbershop-style a cappella duet. Another older gentleman paced up and down the crowd trying to provoke a debate with any anti-gun proponents, but couldn’t find anyone.

The news media, which turned out with their microphones, cameras, and lights met the same result. Of all the people we met waiting in line, only one person supported the D.C. law against gun ownership.

One female reporter from NPR stuck a microphone in Bob Renauds’s face and asked why he was here.

“I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a corporate right,” Bob said matter-of-factly.

“Well, don’t you realize that Washington, D.C. has the highest crime rate in the country? So don’t you think they should have the gun ban?” the reporter retorted.

Bob smiled. “Well, if you are going to use that evidentiary argument, then do you realize that in every state that has passed concealed carry laws, the crime rate has dropped in each of those states? So I believe that the Supreme Court should affirm the appellant decision overturning the gun ban, and thus allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.”

After a long, seething pause, the reporter responded, “Well, okay, I guess that’s fair enough. Is there anybody here who supports the D.C. law?” She looked around, but no one in line responded.

Another reporter from the Washington Post asked us why we were here. “Because we believe in the Second Amendment right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms,” we replied. The reporters scribbled some of our comments down on her pad as she asked some more questions.

“The phrase ‘the people’ in the Constitution is never used to refer to an entity of the civil government,” Nathaniel Darnell said to the reporter. “In each instance where it appears, it is used to refer to individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment directly distinguishes between the government and the people when it says that the powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, respectively.”

The reporter looked quizzical.

“Also, the phrase ‘the militia’ is directly distinguished from the military of the government in the Fifth Amendment, when it is listed separately from the armed land forces and the navy,” Nathaniel added.

“Uh-huh,” the reporter muttered, lowering her pen. “Does anyone here support the gun ban?”

You could have heard a cricket chirp.

The Washington Post later mentioned the seven Oak Brook students in an article they posted early this morning (See the story here). TV news reporters also swarmed around us with their bright lights shining in our faces. Friends called us to say they had seen us on some TV news networks.

It was a clear sunny day in Washington, D.C. in the 50-degree range, but as the sun descended, the temperature would drop into the low 40s. Thankfully, the air was still, almost as if in quiet anticipation.

Around 7:00 p.m. someone organized a pizza order for everyone in the line. Many contributed to the order and within half-an-hour an SUV pulled up and delivered dozens of pizzas to the line.

The cordiality of the group was impressive. We interacted from students from other law schools, and enjoyed friendly discussion on the case, and their law-school experiences.

By midnight, people in the line were breaking out sleeping bags and blankets, snuggling up against the curbside by the lawn.

At 7:20 a.m., we were told to file in front of the building and issued tickets.

More to follow . . .

Click here interview on Gun Rights. Click here for the audio.)to listen to a fascinating interview regarding the legitimacy of the second amendment on C-SPANinterview on Gun Rights. Click here for the audio.).

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 19, 2008 | Permalink

For the first time in more than a century, the United States Supreme Court is about to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment. In addition, both Republican and Democratic frontrunners for President have disturbing pro-gun control track records. At this year’s Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, you will hear a distinctively biblical perspective from national experts on the right of the people to be armed. This is one of the many symposia, lectures, and tracks offered for May’s event. Space is still available.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 18, 2008 | Permalink

Geoff Botkin is producing what many believe may well be one of the most important biblical worldview teaching tools of the new millennium. The Battle for Civilization is significant in scope, and will be filmed in numerous countries around the globe. Click here to view this important new trailer.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 17, 2008 | Permalink

Wow! Imagine my joy and surprise when I opened my mail today and found this magnificent drawing of Virginia Hope Phillips sketched by Miss Jessica H., from Lynchburg, Virginia. Thank you Jessica for beautifully capturing the spirit of she who is precious in her father’s eyes.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 14, 2008 | Permalink

Scott Brown Director of the NCFIC invites you to join him at “The Master’s Plan for Fatherhood Workshop”

(To view this video clip, you must have QuickTime 7 installed.)

The Master’s Plan for Fatherhood is a two-day conference designed to give men a clear biblical roadmap for their role as fathers. As part of this two-day event, to be held April 4-5 in Wake Forest, North Carolina, my good friend Scott Brown along with the other speakers will encourage men to actively train up their children in the ways of the Lord through biblical exposition and training in the practical matters of fatherhood. Everything in the conference schedule will work to provide fathers a practical daily vision for leading their families in life through the Word of God. Each man will leave with a theological base and a written plan to guide him in his everyday life. This workshop will uniquely focus its exposition on important fatherhood passages found in the Old Testament.

Click here to get more information.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 13, 2008 | Permalink

We were grateful to the Lord for a packed press room this Monday at the National Religious Broadcaster’s annual convention. Special thanks to Stephen Kendrick, producer of Facing The Giants, and the up-coming film Fireproof, for his inspiring introductory words.

The announcement that a private foundation had made possible the world’s largest cash prize for any film festival (secular or Christian) was met with excitement both by members of the press and leaders within the Christian filmmaking community. Our message: It’s time to invest in the future by honoring uncompromising filmmakers who aspire to be part of the solution.

Christians like to complain. We hate the evil we see being poured into the minds of America’s children, but how often do we put our money where our mouths are? How often are we willing to do the long-term hard work to build meaningful lasting solutions to the problems before us?

On the other hand, the secular world invests billions in an anti-Christian mission. They are evangels of an opposing religious worldview. And they do have a long-term agenda—one which is at war with God. Without a vision of victory from the Christian community, is it any wonder that the liberals, evolutionists, and Gospel opponents have achieved cultural hegemony?

Our mission is not to infiltrate Hollywood, nor merely to temper its distasteful agenda, but to replace it altogether. We are about the business of building a replacement industry—one that is distinctively Christian in message and methodology. This world-class grand prize sends a message that Christians are serious about investing in those independent Christian filmmakers who are willing to work outside of Hollywood, and to produce competitive films of technical excellence, with a presuppositionally biblical message.

Through the generosity of a private foundation, SAICFF has secured the largest cash prize in the world and hopes to use it to send a message—we are willing to invest in our community; we must do more than curse the darkness; we will communicate a vision for the future that involves hard work, preparation, and the advancement of a Christ-honoring message and methods in this important medium of film.

We have added a variety of new and important categories for recognition and awards at the January 2009 SAICFF. We thank God for important organizations like Samaritan Ministries (Vision Forum uses and loves their ministry) who believe in this message and stand with us. Over the course of the year we hope to secure additional prizes and sponsorships so that we can reward filmmakers of different ages and skill levels who represent the future of Christian filmmaking outside of Hollywood. One of the first sponsorships we intend to secure is for a new $10,000 Audience Choice award. (For sponsorship information contact our director Nathan Barnes at sponsors@saicff.org.)

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 12, 2008 | Permalink

Monday’s press conference at the NRB announcing the mission to invest heavily in independent Christian film making at the SAICFF, has sent a surge of interest in the cause of Christ-centered media outside of the Hollywood machine. The Lord has been kind to open up numerous opportunities to interact with the press and share a message of no-compromise in the battle against anti-Christian culture. Here is part of the message I have been sharing on television and radio (as in the interview pictured):

“In the battle for culture, Christians are eating the scraps that have landed on the floor from the Hollywood table. Strategically, we have as a community largely limited our efforts to simply detoxifying some of the most poisonous elements of Hollywood films. Too often we drink deeply from films which advance worldviews at war with God, and we are content to do so as long as there is no overt immorality. We have set our sights very low, and the result is that we often find ourselves in a position of cultural retreat—or perhaps like the little boy with the finger in the dike hoping to hold back the floodgate of destruction, but seeing the inevitable destruction.

This is not a vision of victory.

We believe more is needed. We believe that Christians need to build a replacement industry dedicated to films which honor Christ from top to bottom. We need to make the long-term investment to train and equip independent Christian filmmakers who are committed to distinctively Christian film-making for the glory of God.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 12, 2008 | Permalink

For Immediate Release
San Antonio, TX, March 10, 2008

Christian Filmmakers to Receive The Top Cash Prize in World:

The San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival to Announce $101,000 Grand Prize “Jubilee Award”

On Monday, March 10, the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival (SAICFF) will unveil plans to give away the single largest first place cash prize in the world awarded by any film festival—secular or Christian.

Thanks to the generous donation of a private foundation, the cash prize payout for their annual “Best of Festival” Jubilee Award is being upped to more than $101,000, giving it the top rank for cash prizes among film festivals worldwide. In addition, it is expected that other cash, product and service related prizes will bring the total value of awards for the next SAICFF in excess of $200,000. Doug Phillips, founder of the SAICFF, will make the announcement at an official press conference to be held at 1:30pm at the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

The unprecedented announcement comes during a sustained crescendo for independent Christian films. In recent years, the industry has enjoyed mainstream praise and box office success for low-budget indy films such as Facing the Giants. Privately-financed blockbusters like The Passion of the Christ have challenged the conventional wisdom on issues of marketing, distribution and ticket sales.

“Purse strings of liberal filmmakers have financed anti-Christian values and moral decadence through film for decades,” remarked Phillips. “They have had their day, and now is the time for a Christian reformation in filmmaking.”

Phillips noted, “We at the SAICFF are endeavoring to spearhead this reformation by giving the largest cash prize award in the world to our ‘Best of Festival’ Winner—to reward that filmmaker who best communicates a Christian worldview with artistic excellence through their work. Because a private foundation has chosen to invest, the future of Christian film making in America, the SAICFF is able to offer independant Christian film makers a signifigant incentive.”

“Our mission is not to infiltrate Hollywood, nor merely to temper its distasteful agenda,” Phillips said, “but to replace it altogether. We are about the business of building a replacement industry—one that is distinctively Christian in message and methodology. This world class grand prize sends a message that Christians are serious about investing in those independent Christian filmmakers who are willing to work outside of Hollywood, and to produce competitive films of technical excellence, with a presuppositionally biblical message.”

The SAICFF is also announcing the inclusion of feature films, promotional media and commercial advertisements into its line-up of Jubilee Award winning categories. For the January, 2009 ceremony, awards will be given in the following categories: Best of Film Festival; Best Documentary Short; Best Dramatic Short Film; Best Creation Film; Best Biblical Family Film; Best Promotional Media; Best Commercial Advertisement; Best Young Filmmakers Short; Best Trailer; Audience Choice Award; Best Treatment; Best Original Score (Special Award).

Since firming up plans to offer a $101,000 Grand Prize at the film festival, the SAICFF has secured festival sponsorships from the NRB Network as well as Samaritan Ministries International, and more significant sponsorships are in the works.

“We are thankful for our sponsors” Phillips stated. “And we welcome others who desire to help us spread the word about this new opportunity, as well as those who want to aid us financially in expanding this effort.”

“It does little good to complain about Hollywood’s corrupt agenda,” continued Phillips. “Our goal is to light a candle—to show that there is hope outside Hollywood by rewarding culture changers who are recapturing film for Christ’s glory.”

The San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival will hold its fifth annual festival in the Alamo City on January 8-10, 2009. The deadline for film submissions is November 1, 2008 for feature films and October 1, 2008 for all other film categories.

To learn more about the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, visit “http://www.independentchristianfilms.org.” Watch a new promotional video with additional commentary about the 2009 SAICFF.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 10, 2008 | Permalink

An old lawyer’s adage says that hard cases make bad law. Last week, the accuracy of this statement was demonstrated by a California appeals court, which handed down a shocking decision stating that homeschooling is illegal in the state, unless the parent has a teaching certificate. The case, Rachel L. v. Superior Court, began as a child welfare proceeding. A lower court held that no matter what the family’s problems may have been, the court could not and would not order that the children be enrolled in a full-time “public or private” school because the parents had a constitutional right to home school their children. On appeal, the court for the Second Appellate Division disagreed. It interpreted the California statutes as requiring that students be educated in either public school, full time private school, or else, if in the home, only by a credentialed tutor. Homeschooling, it said, was illegal.

Banning Home Education is Unconstitutional, Contrary to Statute, and a Violation of the Moral Law of God Which May Not Be Amended by Courts or Acts of Congress

This court decision is a frontal assault on the rights of parents to homeschool in the state of California. The decision is wrong for many reasons, three of which follow: First, it is a complete rewriting of the California statutes, which for years have been understood to allow home education with only a simple notification/registration requirement. (See a summary of current California law here.) Second, and more importantly, even if the novel interpretation recently advanced by the court was proper, any prohibition on home education of this nature violates a parent’s constitutional rights in the education of their children. Finally, it is contrary to the transcendent moral law of God which can not be amended by statute or judicial decision. Courts many not deprive a parent of their right to obey the moral commands of Scripture, one example of which is the application of the Greatest Commandment (“to love God”) through a daily parent to child, walk-along, talk-along (e.g. Deuteronomy 6) approach to education and discipleship which many Christians seek to honor and emulate through home education.

The case is being appealed, to the California Supreme Court. The original case was argued and decided almost without anyone knowing about it. Now that it’s out in the open, the Pacific Justice Institute is handling the appeal, and HSLDA is filing a brief.

Jim Dobson and Mike Farris Defend Home Educators
Dr. James Dobson was joined by HSLDA founder Mike Farris, for a special edition radio broadcast to address the attack on parental rights. Commenting on the case on his radio show today, Dr. Dobson stated: “The court is guilty of an imperious assault on the rights of parents. How dare these judges have the audacity to label tens of thousands of parents criminals — the equivalent to drug dealers or pickpockets — because they want to raise and educate their children according to their deeply held values?” Click here to listen to today’s important broadcast

Besides complete reversal of the outrageous lower court decision, the California Supreme Court has another option as well: the court opinion can be “depublished.” This means that, even if the California Supreme Court believes that the order should stand as applied to this particular family, the opinion is taken off the books and loses its value as precedent. It will not apply to any other family, and will do nothing to affect the legality of homeschooling in California. (HSLDA is collecting signatures on a petition to depublish here.)

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 7, 2008 | Permalink

I just returned from Answers in Genesis where I enjoyed a fruitful meeting with AIG President Ken Ham who has just released an important new book titled Darwin’s Plantation which details the social chaos created by the theory of evolution, and its implication for “race.”

For years, creationists have been explaining both the evil and the error of racism. We have noted, for example, that the Bible does not divide people groups on the basis of skin color, but along “tribes and tongues and nations.” In fact, the Bible teaches that there is only one race—the human race! Our vocabulary needs to be revised to reflect this important principle.

For more than a decade I have had the privilege of explaining to tens of thousands of people at Back to Genesis conferences, home school conferences, and Vision Forum events that the theory of evolution is behind much of the excess and horror associated with modern racism, and that this racism has contributed to genocide, abortion, eugenics, and social chaos. One part of the message is this: Racism is not only unbiblical and hateful, but the agenda of racism is often advanced based on scientific and historical claims which are completely spurious.

For example, bigots who oppose so-called “interracial marriage” come in many stripes. Some who claim to be Christian appeal to bogus views of the Book of Genesis. Inevitably, they deny a young earth and literal six-day creation, and hold to fantastical and theologically bizzare views of the circumstances surrounding the Tower of Babel. But historically, other bigots have appealed to eugenic theories built on Darwinian propositions. Certainly no scientific fraud has done more to advance racial hatred, arrogance, and flawed public policy than Ernst Haeckel’s “Biogenetic Law” or embryonic recapitulation theory.

I want to recommend that readers of my blog take a good look at Ken’s new book. This fascinating book gives a thorough history of the effect of evolution on the history of the United States, and examines the global harvest of death and tragedy that stems from Darwin’s controversial theories. You will also learn the origin of the word “race” and what the Christian view should be in a compassionate and uniquely compelling perspective. I also recommend that you consider listening to the Back to Genesis conference album, with talks by me and Dr. John Morris. Both are important resources to help Christians navigate through the diverse theological, scientific, and worldview issues of the day.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 7, 2008 | Permalink

During the 1960s my father joined William F. Buckley, Jr. and others in the founding of Young Americans for Freedom. Dad penned this short blog post about his experiences with Mr. Buckley.

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 3, 2008 | Permalink

If you need an organ for transplant, and you need it fast, the place most likely to accommodate your need is the People’s Republic of China. But the organ may have come with a cost—the hastened death of an innocent. For years now reports have been coming out of China that this one billion strong Maoist dictatorship harvests organs from living humans with the goal of selling them to needy Westerners with cash.

Here in America, medical ethics over the last half a century have been in state of fundamental transition, an issue we address at The Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy. For some time, life advocates in America have raised concern about the potential spread of organ harvesting in America, by physicians who take a low view of perpetuating indefinitely the lives of terminal, comatose, or poor “quality of life” patients, and who see opportunities to save the lives of some individuals at the expense of others.

This debate has again come to the attention of the public with the trial of a highly respected transplant physician who has been charged with hastening the death of a patient for the purpose of organ harvesting. CNN describes it as “a far-reaching case that could impact the nation’s organ donation industry.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 3, 2008 | Permalink

Dear Mr. Philips and Mr. Botkin,

Thank you so very much not only for your new message concerning the Western, which I actually have not yet heard, but even just for this thought-provoking email!!! Our family is a great fan of Westerns, but as I read I was alarmed at what we have possibly overlooked (or been deceived concerning) in some of the films we have (embarrassingly) enjoyed! Thank you for sounding the alarm as some of us have very possibly ignorantly slept through the dream! We shall be investigating further!!

Sincerely and Gratefully, Mrs. C. in Nebraska

Dear Vision Forum

Upon receiving your recent email on reclaiming the Western film genre from Hollywood, I can’t help but think of the contrasts of the godly from the ungodly. Our family mourned with you this past year after hearing about the passing of a godly young man who had accomplished so much for the Lord in his short life of 19 years—Michael Billings. From the beautiful tributes we read of his life, we can only imagine what a blessing he must have been and the impact He must have made and continues to make for Christ’s Kingdom. His knowledge of history and theology must have given great glory to God, showing God’s hand of Providence in the affairs of men, and He now enjoys the presence of His LORD!

On the other hand, there was also another young man who died this past year who starred in a worthless and historically-revising Western film (Brokeback Mountain) which glorified one of the most abominable sins mentioned in Romans 1... When young filmmakers contrast the lives of these two young men, what more motivation can there be for them to produce works that aim to enlarge Christ’s Kingdom as they exalt their Savior in their films? Everything else pales in comparison to that! May God give us more of a vision to make the most of these short lives we’ve been given for God’s glory!

Posted by Doug Phillips on March 3, 2008 | Permalink