ghoti_mhic_uait | Elsie Dinsmore

Current Mood: amused

Entry tags:

Elsie Dinsmore

It's nice to leave the poor little Yanks in their bubbles, unmolested by clue-sticks, yes?

Elsie Dinsmore was the heroine of a set of books. Really boring books. They are generally held up as examples of how not to evangelise to children, because the lessons they teach can be summarised as 'Christianity is boring and will make you boring and unsufferable'.

A group of Christians (or, for all I know, pagans with a chip on their shoulder) has made a series of dolls called 'Life of Faith' They're hideous and freaky, and all about the evangelisation. Whatever.

I just found out that they're also based on the Elsie books.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Link?

http://www.alifeoffaith.com/

What does this have to do with Americans? *puzzled*
(Keep in mind I didn't know what Protestants were until I was 9.. before that I thought there were 2 religions: Jewish and Catholic! So my knowledge of evangelical anything is kind of thin. :-) )

The dolls are American. The idea that the books are any good, for anything other than Victorian kitsch value is American, as far as I can tell.

I meant evangelical in the sense of 'God is good! You should like God!' rather than in the more fundamentalist sense, but I suspect they're both.

(Have you seen these Jewish dolls? They're quite sweet, and the stories seem more interesting.)

Ah right, I got confused by the Yanks in a bubble thing :)

I've seen Gali Girls. I like the concept (it's better than the other ones I saw that were REALLY stereotyped in terms of gender roles) but I'm not sure about the execution.

Tefillin Barbie is cool though, even if I'm not into the whole women-wearing-tallit-and-tefillin thing!

There was an official Rabbi Barbie at some stage as well, wasn't there, for Reform Jews?

I can't find it now, so maybe I'm mistaken.

Well, that's part of the problem of evangelism.
My mother used to tell about the magic lantern shows she watched as a girl: "...and when they turned to the Lord, you knew it was nearly time to come home" and I must say that there is something of the same in the testimony of many who stand at the front of church, as they tell you of their exciting lives as a gangster, or a drug dealer, or a car thief, or any other thing like that, and the story does tend to get duller after the bit where they asked Jesus into their lives.
On the other hand, there is much to commend the Christian life: having enormous amounts of fun without the need to go drinking is a big plus from my point of view.

Finally, I think you mean "they're hideous and freaky", else I need to ask "their hideous and freaky what?"

There are books where Christianity is seen as a good thing without being boring, though. I mean, the Screwtape letters aren't boring, and Narnia isn;t boring, and I'm sure there are many other examples.

Not so sure, actually. The thing about Narnia is that, IMO, the Christian bits often seemed to be separate from the non-boring bits. The whole deal with the apple tree in The Magician's Nephew, for example, completely failed to stick in my memory from reading the books as a small child, whereas I could clearly remember most of the fun stuff with the rings and the Wood between the Worlds. When I re-read the series a couple of years ago I found that most of the overtly religious bits were the bits that I'd forgotten about. The sole exception was Aslan's self-sacrifice and resurrection, which it's hard to forget about because it's such a core component of the plot of LWW, but even then I had no memory of why he sacrificed himself, or what his death and resurrection gained anybody over him not having done either.

So my impression of the Narnia books is that they're rather like a TV programme one watches avidly, punctuated with advert breaks one ignores. They may have contained Christianity and non-boring-ness in the same books, but they still didn't manage to make the two inseparable.

Hmmm. That's interesting.

But, you know, I'm sure it doesn't have to be that way.

Oh, and I think I was going to write about their hideous and freaky faces, but have changed it now.

I recall someone propounding the position that the Man In Black was one of the finest witnesses the Christian faith could ask for.

Yes. He's not the only one. One of the biggest problems facing the Christian church is the image that church is for sissies. The "wet Christian man" is not an ideal role model for anyone. Nor is almost every example of a Christian seen in popular television programmes. Yes, I know there are exceptions. I've had this discussion lots of times.

The main benefit of christianity is that it relieves you of the alleged necessity of going out drinking? Wow. Someone should really let the pope know - I'm pretty sure he's still labouring under the infantile delusion that the point of the exercise is eternal blissful salvation in the light of the creator.

I misread this by mistake. I thought you meant someone should tell the pope that he needn't go out drinking. Mind you, there is a strong association between catholicism and booze (they like a tipple, they put bars in their university Catholic chaplaincies or parish social clubs, that sort of thing), at least in my own hazy sense of the world, while other denominations, such as Salvation Army and Methodists, don't touch the stuff (even with bargepoles) and sign pledges.

It is, of course, possible to have lots of fun without being Christian or drinking vast amounts of alcohol; I think I might be confused as to the reason for the initial remark.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that I do fancy a drink or two every now and again.
However, unlike many people I encounter in the workplace and on the train, my Christian friends and I seem able to have a great time without the need for social lubrication brought on by alcohol. As for caffeine, that, my friend, is another story.

In some places I have found that lots of Catholics take their coffee with no sugar, on account of once having given up the sugar for Lent. Do you think this happens a lot?

Yes, I've noticed that too.

I don't think that's the *main* benefit. I think

ringbark was suggesting it as a side benefit. And one which, as

alison_lees points out, I don't suffer from.

Did I? I'm getting confused. Anyway, seems like it was a good thing, so it must be okay?

Hmmmm. I don't think I said it was the main benefit. If that's what it sounded like, then something has gone wrong here.
Salvation and eternal life are much better as a unique proposition than optional sobriety and friends everywhere with persecution in lots of places.

Your first sentence says you think my wife is clueless and insular. I think that's quite insulting (as well as not true).

I'm sorry that that's how you read it. I certainly would never have applied the words to your wife, nor even think it. I also did not mean to imply that all yanks think the same; 'yank' isn't even an insult when I say it, although I'm aware it is when, for example, a Southerner says it.

However, these particular insular clueless people are USians, and because of the insularity, I thought it was worth mentioning. That particular mistake is not one I can imagine beginning in any other country.

It only reads that way if said wife is 'poor' and 'little'. The sentence does not refer to any other type of Yank, which I think sometimes means a particular kind of US person, anyway? Presumably, said wife will be richly erudite, etc.. and not defined by these words?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Elsie Dinsmore

no subject

Be warned; they really are scary

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject