The Great Barbie Debate

A few days ago I found myself observing my oldest daughter play with her Fisher-Price Learning House. She rang the doorbell, changed the stations on the radio, opened and closed the door, and checked the rain gutter for itsy bitsy spiders. At one point she even used her toy screwdriver to fix all the screws on the house. Watching her I realized that she was practicing and indeed preparing for the realities of life. I was reminded of my own childhood play and one of my then favorite toys: Barbie.

Over the years a great debate has occured regarding this popular toy by Mattel. Much ado has been focused on her unrealistic body proportions and her flawless appearance. Arguments range from the damaging affects Barbie has on the self-image of impressionable little girls to Barbie being a a negative role model in the area of goals and aspirations.

As a young girl, playing with Barbie was one of my favorite pastimes. I was unaware of her unmentionable identity prior to Mattel's purchase of her rights and subsequent makeover. I simply enjoyed pretending to be grown up when I played.

For me, Barbie provided an opportunity to establish a home, create a family, and interact with a community. Each time we played Barbies, my sister and I spent much time preparing. We gathered items from around the house and set up homes for our Barbies. We took the time to match them up in marriage with a Ken doll and give them children to parent. The improportionate figure and flawless beauty wasn't the focus of our play. Instead, the time we spent playing with an unrealistic doll was used in a very realistic manner.

According to Mary F. Longo of the University of Ohio Extension, "Children learn about the world and experience life through play." She says that "through play, children practice the roles they will play later in life." In thinking about it, I realized in her own way, Barbie helped prepare me for my role as a wife, mother, and a keeper of my home. The focus of my playtime with this doll was yet another way of turning my heart to what really mattered: family.

Does this mean I'm not concerned about the body image Barbie communicates and how it might affect my young daughters? Of course, I am. It's difficult enough to be female in our society without having to deal with dolls that paint a portrait of physical perfection. Yet, I don't believe Barbie should be dismissed solely on this criteria.

When my girls are old enough to play with Barbie, I see no problem in letting them do so (as long as their dolls of choice are modestly dressed). As I once did, perhaps they'll also enjoy preparing for a family of their own through play.

And, as they do play, there won't be a lack of guidance when it comes to beauty and how it relates to Barbie. I'll make sure that they know where true beauty lies: in a life spent loving and serving the Lord.

But for now, Barbie is a toy a few years away from making an appearance in our playroom. For now my girls seem much more interested in cars, trains, and tools.

Choosing Motherhood

As it is for most mothers, grocery shopping is one of the many things I do on a continual basis. It seems we’re always in need of some product, whether it’s milk, juice or some obscure ingredient like juniper berries.

On a recent shopping trip, which included both kids in tow, I found myself surveying magazine headlines as I waited in the checkout lane. As my gaze moved from headline to headline, I noticed a trend: Hollywood and motherhood. One cover in particular summed up the sentiments of all the headlines in a simple, yet thought-provoking phrase: "Motherhood now the hottest role in Hollywood."

Interesting. It’s not as if celebrity mothers is new news. For decades women in Hollywood have been having babies. Vivian Leigh, Lucille Ball, Audrey Hepburn, Doris Day, Mary Tyler Moore, Goldie Hawn, Demi Moore and Reese Witherspoon –- all moms. Yet, judging from magazines and entertainment news in general, suddenly pregnancy and babies are the latest trend in Tinseltown. It seems that in the last several years celebrity motherhood has recaptured the attention of our culture's gatekeepers -- the editors, producers and commentators -– in a way it hasn't since the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s first persuaded women that motherhood wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Some celebrity moms have even put their careers on hold to care for their children. Britney Spears took a short-lived hiatus to stay at home with her son, even considering this option full-time, while actress Gwyneth Paltrow commented last Spring, "With another baby on its way, I don't think I will be doing a lot for the next year or so either. Having Apple has changed everything for me. It's changed the way I see the world — I feel like it's even changed my DNA."

Being a mother isn't a financially rewarding career choice. There's no 401k, no Christmas bonuses and no pay raises. Nor does it result in public accolades, other than a mention from the pastor on Mother's Day. There are no Academy Awards given for "Greatest Number of Diaper Changes in a Given Day" or "Best Performance in the Category of Sleep-Deprivation." It’s far from glamorous. Showers aren’t guaranteed, and all clothes have the potential to become a canvas for spit-up or better yet, peanut butter and jelly fingerprints. Plain and simple: motherhood is hard work. Yet, despite this, even women who have it all desire to gain the title "Mommy."

Realistically, for many Hollywood starlets, choosing motherhood isn’t all that sacrificial. There will be nannies for the babies, housekeepers for the home and personal trainers for the unsightly tummy bulge. Most celebrity moms won’t be trying to balance husband, baby, laundry, meals and housework. Because of their financial means, they have the ability to "have it all" – fame, a successful career and motherhood.

But, for those women such as myself, who don’t have the financial means of Hollywood’s "A-list," choosing motherhood means sacrifice. It means sleep-deprivation, little or no privacy and ultimately, dying to oneself daily. For those who don’t have to work outside the home for their family to survive financially, it also means making tough decisions. Will I pursue my career? Or will I choose to stay at home and invest my time, energy and love in my children?

Trading Briefcases for Diaper Bags

Recently ABC News reported that "54 percent of mothers with a graduate or professional degree no longer work full time." According to law professor Linda Hirshman, in a February 2006 interview on Good Morning America, this decision is a dangerous one for these women, their children and society as a whole. She adamantly attacked the decision of educated women who've opted to trade in suits, brief cases and laptops for sweat pants, diaper bags and bottles. Hirshman, a working mom herself, went as far as to say, "I think it's a mistake for these highly educated and capable women to make that choice [to stay home]. I am saying an educated, competent adult's place is in the office."

It seems that many, including Hirshman, have failed to realize that motherhood is not about women finding personal fulfillment. It's not about adding a child to an already full lifestyle and expecting nothing to change. Children aren't simply another accessory added with the intention of making oneself feel good. Motherhood is about more than simply what's best for the mother.

And, perhaps what society is witnessing in this migration of women from the workplace to the home is this: Well-known and educated women have discovered what many women have already known for centuries -- motherhood offers an indescribable fulfillment that can't be found elsewhere. Something in those who've pursued education and careers to find satisfaction has whispered, "There has to be more." And, whether we know it or not, we've found that the desire for children isn’t simply a response to a ticking biological clock. Instead, having children feeds a deep God-given longing to support, nurture and bring about life.

Growing up, I always imagined myself pursuing a career first. Marriage and children were a goal to be obtained later. However, all of that changed when I met my husband while in graduate school. We married within a year of meeting and I was pregnant before our first anniversary.

Just a few months after finishing a master’s degree in film and television producing, I gave birth to our oldest daughter. While part of me felt like I was giving up a dream in not pursuing what I’d studied, I made the decision to stay at home with her. Honestly, there are times when I wonder what could've been if I'd pursued a career at this point in my life, but these thoughts are fleeting. I know that the young lives of my children are for but a season, and I want to be there for every moment of that season.

I don’t believe the interest that media are taking in Hollywood mothers, as well as the growing number of educated women leaving their full-time careers to stay home, is simply a fading trend. Instead, it speaks loudly that motherhood is a worthy calling to pursue. It reminds us that lasting fulfillment isn’t found in movies that will someday be obscure or irrelevant, in gold statues cluttering up a shelf or in the applause of fans. And it’s not found in corner offices, business trips or high power positions. Instead, it's in the unconditional love expressed in an infant’s smile. It's in the sweet utterance of the name, "Mommy." It’s in a joy that can be found in denying oneself to embrace the gift and the calling of motherhood.

For more on the Linda Hirshman interview, check out what Girl Talk and Al Mohler had to say about it back in February.

The Art of Selling Modesty

The Short of It

The book Sexy Girls: How Hot is Too Hot?:

1. Shows that while the principles included in the book are good, they can’t be put into practice, even by the book’s publisher. This models for the reader that it is enough just to concur with the themes presented in the book, that it’s not necessary to change our behavior. (See James 1:23-24.)

2. It can put a “stumbling block” in the way of unsuspecting guys who happen to see this book on Amazon or at the Christian bookstore. (See Matt. 18:6.)

3. It sets a dangerous precedent for book publishers: If it’s shown that using a “sexy girl” on the cover of a book boosts sales and nobody in the Christian community challenges that book’s cover, then it paves the way for other book publishers to adopt similar techniques to sell their materials.

The Long of It

In the matter of 24 hours, eight reviews were added to Amazon on a book that had previously received little attention on the site. Sure, there'd been a few reviews previously posted, but nothing like what ensued during this seemingly small time period.

Nothing short of controversy could spur on such an onslaught of comments. In this case it was a couple reviews questioning the appropriateness of the book's cover. A Christian book written by a Christian author and published by a Christian book publisher, it features the torso of a woman dressed in a tube top. And, while part of the book's title, placed in a black box, covers her exposed mid-drift, the picture does well to accentuate her well defined shoulders and hint at her cleavage, while making sure part of this headless, faceless woman's stomach peeks out at us. The book, Sexy Girls: How Hot Is Too Hot?, was written by best-selling author Hayley DiMarco and published by Hungry Planet. The goal of the work: To teach teenage girls the importance of modesty.

What's clear from the Amazon debate is that Christian audiences are split over the appropriateness of this book's cover image. Some have no qualms with picture. Others, such as me, my husband, several family members, and friends, are concerned about the impact of such a visual image. Still others have concerns over its appropriateness, yet have embraced the work despite this due to its inner message. In an email I received from a large Christian bookstore chain in response to my concerns, I was told this:

I reviewed this book for our buyer before it was published and ame to the same conclusion that you did. In fact, I will quote rom the first paragraph of my review: "The content of this book is fine and is very much needed. I only wish the title and cover at were different. I'm sure that's done for the purpose of getting teenage girls to pick it up and read it, but the suggestive cover art and title actually do what the author is trying to get the female reader not to do."

There is some consensus that if the girl on the cover were dressed appropriately, those for whom the book is written wouldn't pick it up to look through it or buy and read it. So even though I agree with your assessment of the cover art, we believe that it is so important to get the message of the book to girls who are tempted to dress like this that we are carrying it in our stores.

In an email two of my female friends received in response to their concerns over the cover's appropriateness, the publisher had this to say:

Regarding the cover, let's see if we can replicate the issue of "using sex" to sell books but, this time, let's replace the topic of modesty with one that might have less static for you: men that are unfaithful. If we at Hungry Planet were ever to do a book on this topic, we would never use a cover of a man not cheating on his wife. "The Glory of a Faithful Husband" for example would not be an effective title nor would an accompanying cover depicting a man snuggling up to his wife on the couch with a bowl of popcorn watching a movie for a book on infidelity. We package books that attempt to address people's immediate or looming problems. Instead of the "glory" title, we would deem the titles, "Cheating Husbands" or "How Men Destroy Their Marriages" much more effective along with a cover that depicts a man slipping into a hotel room with a strange woman (biblical term). Now, when using this alternate topic and example, I can't imagine a reasonable person expressing grave concern that the cover I've described is endorsing infidelity. Rather, we'd be using effective imagery to convey the nature of the problem in one quick visual, or "aha!" moment. No one would have a problem with using a picture of infidelity to "sell a book" on the topic of infidelity.

The other thing to remember about "Sexy Girls" is it is written for a female audience. If we were using sex to sell this book, we would have a hunky Abercrombie & Fitch guy on the cover to use sex to sell. So in both these cases, those that are initially objecting to the cover are not looking at it in context. Instead, the concerns being raised from a few Christian men are from knee-jerk reactions to the imagery which just proves Hayley DiMarco's main point in the book that men are visual creatures.

Hmmm. For those of us who are concerned with the cover's appropriateness, let's examine the publisher's argument point by point to see if it holds up.

First, we're told, "We package books that attempt to address people's immediate or looming problems. Instead of the 'glory' title, we would deem the titles, 'Cheating Husbands' or 'How Men Destroy Their Marriages' much more effective along with a cover that depicts a man slipping into a hotel room with a strange woman." In today's society modesty and unfaithfulness are indeed "looming problems." However, so is pornography. If we're to follow the publisher's logic, then would a pornographic picture on the front of a book addressing the problems of pornography be appropriate because in the publisher's words, it would "be using effective imagery to convey the nature of the problem in one quick visual, or 'aha!' moment"? Should we sell such a book in our Christian bookstores?

The question also needs to be raised whether using less "obvious" imagery on the front of books such as Lisa Bevere's Kissed the Girls and Made Them Cry or Joshua Harris' Sex Is Not the Problem, Lust Is has hindered their messages of sexual purity from being communicated, not to mention reduced their book sales.

Second, we're reminded that Sexy Girls is targeted to the female audience. Okay, so the writer and the publisher are targeting teenage girls. Therefore, they've determined that the cover is appropriate. Yet, I'm left to wonder this: Are teenage girls the only ones who lay eyes on the cover? Or, has this cover which is unashamedly displayed in Christian bookstores across the U.S. suddenly made these stores an unsafe haven for men? Will men now need to walk through what used to be a safe place on guard against the sexual immodesty of this cover? Because, after all, as DiMarco tells teen girls on page 32 of this book:

All men are attracted by different parts of your body that you may or may not have exposed. They aren't all sex-crazed--well, maybe they are, but it's natural to some extent. I mean, they have these things called hormones, which do somewhat color how guys see the world, and by that I mean your body. So whether you are targeting them or not, they are looking.

So, although DiMarco and her publishers are not targeting this book to guys, I bet you that guys are looking and, because they are as DiMarco says "visual creatures" who "are turned on by what they see" (p. 33), this book has the ability to tempt a man to lust.

Third, we're told that, "If we were using sex to sell this book, we would have a hunky Abercrombie & Fitch guy on the cover to use sex to sell." The publishers are asking us to believe that female sexuality is not something used to sell products to females. I beg to differ.

As a former television and film graduate student, I was taught that in film there's a technique of focusing on part of the woman, rather than the woman as a whole. This is referred to by feminist film scholar Laura Mulvey as "the gaze"; a technique that put renowned filmmakers such as Alfred Hitcock under fire for his continued use of it. Defined as the camera's eye being that of the male viewpoint, shots are targeted to portray the woman as less than human; instead as an object made up of parts.

We see this technique employed today in television commercials, not to simply sell products to men, but instead to sell products to women. Victoria's Secret may show the woman as a whole, however the emphasis is on the woman's body, specifically the stomach, breasts, and thighs. Additionally, many commercials for beauty products such as lotion and body wash incorporate shots of women's legs, bare backs, and hints at their chests. These television advertisements rarely show the woman as a whole individual without also emphasizing her parts as means of displaying her sexuality. In the secular community it is recognized as an attempt to use sexuality to grab the viewer's attention and sell a particular product; in both of these examples products that were created for and are marketed to women.

Fourth, the publisher writes, "So in both these cases, those that are initially objecting to the cover are not looking at it in context. Instead, the concerns being raised from a few Christian men are from knee-jerk reactions to the imagery which just proves Hayley DiMarco's main point in the book that men are visual creatures."

One, I read the book, cover to cover. Two, I'm not sure why my female friends who wrote the publisher, as well as myself, fit into the category of "a few Christian men." We are women who are raising our concerns. The inclusion of this statement from the publisher shows that they are ignoring the concerns from women and failing to acknowledge that it's not simply men who have a problem with this cover.

In conclusion, it's clear from the publisher's email that they recognize this cover displays immodesty. In admitting that they're using what they term "effective imagery to convey the nature of the problem in one quick visual, or 'aha!' moment," they're admitting that they know the picture portrays sexual immodesty. Let's look at what DiMarco has to say about those who recognize the power of sexual immodesty, yet to choose to use it anyway:

We can't mess around with the spirits and the hearts of those around us. It just isn't holy, and it most certainly isn't safe. Jesus makes it pretty clear that to do so carries a terrible price. He says 'woe' to those who are the stumbling block.Woe! Not a thing to play around with. Before you read this, you had the excuse of ignorance. You don't have to worry about being in deep spiritual trouble, because you didn't know what you were doing, and God judges your heart and motives. But now that you do get it, the rules have changed. Now you are esponsible for how you dress... You can no longer make yourself a stumbling block to the men in your path. If you do, woe to you! (p. 95)

From the content of this book it's clear that the author and the publisher are well aware of the impact sexual immodesty has on men in general. Yet, they justify their cover choice, failing to admit that by using this cover and placing it in Christian bookstores, sending it to male editors for promotion, encouraging male youth pastors to give it to the girls in their churches, they've put a stumbling block in the paths of these men. In this case, the means should not justify the ends.

It's not my intention to see the content of this message not reach teen girls. Instead my motivation in writing this and other commentary on the book is to see it not reach audiences with its current cover. The author and publisher need to be held accountable for going against the very message they claim to promote.

Review of Getting Serious About Getting Married

Author Debbie Maken closes her controversial book, Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness with "If you have read this far, I assume your reaction will either be 'hate it' or 'love it.' No one walks away from my material lukewarm." For the most part this seems to be true. Boundless writer Candice Z. Watters praised the book (albeit not without pointing out a few flaws), while Christianity Today's Camerin Courtney didn't care for Maken's message. However, apparently I'm one of the few and far between who closed Maken's book still standing on the fence between love and hate. I loved portions of it, while at the same time felt that Maken was a bit extreme in the communication of her message. I knew that if I'd read this book as a single, I would've put it down encouraged in some respects, yet frustrated and depressed in others.

Let's start with what I loved. One, the message that marriage is God-ordained and something to be sought after is much needed in a society such as ours, where many seem reluctant to embrace responsibility. Additionally, it's good to remind women that fertility does begin to decrease with age. However, as I read the book I was concerned with what seemed to be an idolization of marriage. Yes, marriage is wonderful. I would much rather be married to my husband than be single. There are no and's, if's, or but's about that. However, I went into marriage knowing that I was marrying a sinner; that marriage would fill some of my needs, but that it wasn't the end all and be all. It didn't guarantee consistent, unwavering happiness. I understand that Maken is exalting marriage to such a high place because that's what her book is selling: marriage. However, I'm concerned that if women read this book without balanced teaching as I had pre-marriage, that they will enter it with unrealistic expectations.

Without a doubt, my favorite part of the book was part 3. In it Maken gives women practical ways to get serious about getting married. She encourages "saying no to the dating game," "enlisting agency," and "inspiring men to biblical manhood."

As someone who courtship worked well for, I eagerly embraced her chapter on saying no to dating. She's not saying that women shouldn't go out on a date with a guy to see if there's potential. Instead, she's pointing to a new way of approaching and defining dating, as something not casual, but as a step toward seeking marriage. The questions Maken equips women with are great. She encourages readers, before the end of a second date, to "ask his intentions and motives," "ask about his history," "be honest" about their desire for marriage, "to set limits," and to "just say no" to future dates if there isn't the potential or desire for marriage on one or both parts. Her point is that after three months the couple should know if the relationship is headed toward marriage. While this may seem too fast for some, it's what happened for me and my husband. We were engaged within four months of starting our courtship, but determined prior to that (at about three months) we wanted to marry one another.

The chapter on enlisting agency, which is a bit of a puzzling term, points to asking those you respect and trust, such as parents, to help you find a suitable mate. Maken argues this point well. A big part of her argument is having accountability, which forces the man to only pursue if serious.

Maken also hits a home run with her chapter on how to encourage biblical male leadership. Had this chapter not been included, it may have left readers frustrated with her earlier discussion of lack of male leadership being the cause of prolonged singleness. Women may have closed the book asking, "Okay, so that's the problem, but you didn't tell me how to help solve it."

Now, here's what I didn't so much care for, in addition to it fostering unrealistic expectations in marriage ...

Maken's main point is that prolonged singleness is wrong. However, I think that women who are still in their 20's, are pursuing marriage, but haven't gotten married yet could find this book depressing when they shouldn't. Not only that, but feel pressure to just go out and get married without also being sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. When I met my husband, I didn't know at first that we'd end up together. I did take the steps of responding to his interest. I wasn't sitting around waiting for a sign before saying, "Yes, let's explore this." However, I wouldn't have married him if I hadn't felt a clear direction from the Lord that, yes, this was who He wanted me to marry. I think this book is lacking the balance of, "What does God have to say about me marrying this particular person." It's seems to stop at: Find a Christian man. Get married.

Additionally, I'm concerned about the emotional state Maken encourages. She tells readers, "It's okay to feel miserable about not being married." She points to people feeling miserable in the Bible as evidence that it's okay for us to practice this also. While I agree with her statement that we should be free to express our feelings honestly to the Lord, I think that Maken misses finding joy in the journey. It's almost as if she's encouraging generations of single women to not simply be motivated toward to marriage (which is a good thing), but to walk around unhappy, depressed, and miserable while they seek it. I think that Carolyn Mahaney in her book Feminine Appeal offers a more balanced view of emotions. She writes:

As Christians, our lives are to be characterized by joy. C.S. Lewis once said: "It is a Christian duty, as you know, for every to be as happy as he can." We can fulfill this "duty" to be happy by refusing to yield to sinful feelings. Like Hannah, we too can know true joy in the midst of trying circumstances, if we submit our hearts to God's truth."

As noted in this quote, Mahaney uses Hannah as an example of someone who responded to unwanted circumstances -- not being able to conceive when a child was desperately wanted -- with bitterness, anger, and despair. Mahaney says she was corrected for her bitterness by Elkanah. She writes, "Hannah responded to Elkanah's correction. She poured out her soul to the Lord (v. 15). Then Hannah 'went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad' (v. 18)." Maken, while she does warn against bitterness, writes that we should feel justified in "sometimes feel[ing] sad, angry, and even bitter." She writes, "to act otherwise when we feel these things is to live a lie." She misses that fact that simply because people experience certain emotions in the Bible doesn't mean that there isn't sin behind how they are acting in the midst of less than ideal circumstances. She misses exactly what Mahaney points out -- that "we too can know true joy in the midst of trying circumstances."

In the end, Getting Serious About Getting Married, is worth reading. Maken makes some excellent points. However, readers should take some of what she says with a grain of salt, realizing that she is being extreme (or so, I found her as such) on some items because that's often how writers are taught to sell an argument -- with extremes.

To Dream

Whenever the girls and I spend time with my family, I look forward to catching up on movies I may have missed at the theater. During this trip, I had the opportunity to watch The Greatest Game Ever Played and Dreamer, two films that focus on pursuing a dream in the face of fear, ridicule, and all odds. However, that’s not all the two movies have in common. Both stories also look at reconciliation between fathers and their children.

Since it first opened at theaters last fall, I’ve wanted to see The Greatest Game Ever Played. It’s the story of Francis Ouimet, the son of a common immigrant worker. He is far from a gentlemen’s heir and constantly reminded of this by those above him in the social ladder, as well as by his father. However, his social standing does little to discourage Francis from pursuing his dream: to play golf.

A caddy, Francis is offered the opportunity to play as an amateur in a golf tournament. While he has the encouragement and support of his mother, his father is dead set against Francis wasting his time in the chasing of his dreams. He wants Francis to accept that he is the son of a common worker and not try to fit into the world of gentlemen. At one point father and son strike a bargain. If Francis qualifies in the golf tournament, then and only then can he continue to play golf. If he doesn’t qualify, he must give up his dream forever and accept a common job. Francis’ pursuit of what his mother calls a “God-given gift he’s putting a voice to” creates a rift between father and son that, by the film’s ending, is reconciled.

Dreamer is the story of Cale Crane, her father Ben, and her grandfather, who they call “Pop.” Fired from his job for refusing to let them put an injured racehorse, Sonyador (a.k.a. "Dreamer") down in front of his young daughter, Ben finds himself unemployed and nursing a thoroughbred back to health. His goal of breeding Sonyador and selling the colt ends in disappointment when they learn that Sonyador is infertile. Yet, Cale never loses hope. In Sonyador she still sees a champion, despite the horse's once broken leg. Daily, she tells Sonyador how she sees her, reciting,
You are a great champion. When you ran, the ground shook, the sky opened and mere mortals parted. Part of the way to victory, where you'll meet me in the winner's circle, where I'll put a blanket of flowers on your back.

It isn't long before Sonyador rises to the occasion. As a result of a little girl's refusal to stop believing Pop and Ben are reconciled. And the ties between Ben and Cale are strengthened as never before.

Both films are examples of what filmmaking should be. The Greatest Game Ever Played and Dreamer are about the story. Pure, undefiled story. These movies don’t clutter themselves with profanity, with sex, with violence. They are simple, yet at the same time these stories contain a depth that many times is lacking in films.

At the center of both films is the biblical truth that “for as he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7), or as pop psychology would call it, “the self-fulfilling prophecy.” Both Francis and Cale succeed because they have they don’t allow discouragement and ridicule to influence how they view themselves, or in Cale’s case how she views Sonyador. These movies provide a powerful message for us as viewers. In them we are encouraged to pursue the dreams God has placed in our hearts. And as we do, to never take our eyes off of how God sees us.

I'm looking forward to adding both of these movies to our film collection.