EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnEXECUTIVE EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnSENIOR EDI’I OR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnASSISTANT EDI TORrnAaron D. WolfrnARE DIRECTORrnH. Ward SterettrnDESICNERrnMelanie AndersonrnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnKatherine Dalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rnPhilip Jenkins, /.O. Tate, MichaelrnWashburn, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrn]anet Scott Barlow, Bill Kauffman,rnDonald Livingston, William Mills,rnWilliam Murchison, AndreirnNavrozov, Jacob NeusnerrnEILM EDITORrnGeorge McCartneyrnFOREIGN-AFEAIRS EDITORrnSrdja TrifkovicrnI ,h:GAE-AEEAIRS EDITORrnStephen B. PresserrnRELIGION EDITORrnHarold O.J. BrownrnCIRCUEATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternA publication of The Rockford Instihite,rnEditorial and Ad’crtisirig Offices:rn928 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 6IIO1.rnWebsite: w’vv’vv.chroiiiclcsnragazine.orgrnEditonal Phone: (815)964-5054,rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5813,rnSubscriplion Department: P,0. Box 80(J,rnMount Morris, IL 61054, Call 1-80(1-877-5459,rnCopvright© 2001 by The Rockford Inslitule,rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles: A Magazine of American Culturern(ISSN 0887-5751) is published monthly for $39.00rn(foreigir subscriphons add S12 for surface deliver)-,rn$48 for Air Mail) per vear bv The Rockford Inshhite,rn928 North Main Sheet, Rockford, IL 611057061.rnPreferred periodical postage paid at Rockford, ILrnand addihonal mailing offices. POSTMASIF.R:rnSend address changes to Chronicles, P.O. Box 800,rnMountMorris, IT 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of Tlie Rockford Instihite or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied bv a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.25, No, 10 October 2001rnPrinted iii the United St.ites of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Masculine ChristianityrnRegarding Aaron D. Wolfs article concerningrnNed Flanders’ appearance onrnthe cover oi Christianity Today {CulturalrnRevolutions, May): While I agree thatrnNed is not a flattering portrayal of evangelicalrnChristianit}-, we must rememberrnthat, when dealing with ‘The Simpsons,rnno one is portrayed in a manner anv betterrnthan Ned. I doubt the show’s creatorsrnare ridiculing evangelical Christians thernway jocks would tease and beat up thernschool nerd, as Mr. Wolf suggests. Ifrnthat’s the case, then ever)>one is the schoolrnnerd, because all of the characters arernmocked, not just the Christian. Ned’s exaggeratedrnand laughable mannerisms arernno worse than those of an^ other character.rnMost of the characters (with the possiblernexceptions of Chief Wiggum andrnMr. Burns) aren’t mereh’ targets forrnridicLile, but complex characters withrnstrengths and weaknesses. This includesrnNed. To quote The Simpsons’ executivernproducer, Al Jean, “We don’t mock Ned’srnfaith. We actually think he’s a guy with arnlot of wonderful qualities.”rnWhile, as a Christian, I wouldn’t exactlyrncelebrate Ned Flanders, I wouldn’trntake offense at him either. In the end, inrnThe Simpsons’ world, Ned is just anotherrncartoon character.rn— Brian FifernElk Grove Village, ILrnMr. Wolf Replies:rnLet me begin with a confession: I thinkrnThe Simpsons is the best show on televisionrn(other than, say, Monday NightrnFootball). With his revolving staff of writersrn(which has included NBC’s ConanrnO’Brien), Matt Groening has been ablernto keep his material fresh where lesserrnshows would have suffered writer’s blockrnby now. One of mv favorite characters onrnthe show is Ned Flanders, preciselyrnbecause he embodies so many of therngoofy characteristics that make AmericanrnChristianity—well, goofy. Effeminate,rnthick-mustaehed, always cheer-diddlyeerfulrn—mostof us, if we are honest, wouldrnadmit that we know one or two NedrnFlanderses (especially since, as I pointedrnout in mv article, Flanders is a compositernof fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism,rnmainline Protestantism, and Catholicism).rnAl Jean’s statement is certainly true:rnThe writers for The Simpsons do notrnpaint Ned as a ridiculous caricature (likernChief Wiggum and Mr. Burns); Flandersrnis likable—a nice guv, just like his clonesrnat your church or mine.rnAnd that’s preciselv the point: ChristianityrnToday likes the cartoon caricaturernand has (quite literally) made an icon ofrnit. We are supposed to laugh at the Flandersrnboys (Rod and Todd) when theyrnjump on the trampoline, crying “Catchrnme, Jesus!” and “Each leap brings usrncloser to God!” Christianity Today takesrnit seriously: “The young Flanders boys arerntotal innocents; they believe they are gettingrncloser to God when they jump onrnthe Simpsons’ trampoline, and they complainrnthat they only get to attend churchrnthree times a week.”rnNo one doubts that, as Mark Pinskyrnsaid in his article, “Flanders is a complexrnand nuanced character who often raisesrnserious issues.” Wliat’s disturbing is thatrnevangelicals seem to be “just okily dokily”rnabout being effeminate, anachronistic,rnmilk-toast believers, locked in theirrnown subculture of Christian rock CDs,rnT-shirts that read “God’s Gym” and “ThisrnBlood’s For You,” and copies of Left Behind.rnAs Pinsky put it, “Flanders is actuallyrnthe physical embodiment of’muscularrnChristianity,’ a man who would bernright at home at a Promise Keepers rally.”rnIt’s hard to imagine such “muscular”rnChristians as these standing unflinchinglyrnbefore Nero, confronting the Moorsrnalongside Pepin the Short, nailing 95rnTheses to a door (or excommunicatingrnthe one who did so), or even callingrnsomeone a heretic.rnOn the DeclarationrnI disagree with Stephen B. Presser’s statementrn{The 225th Anniversary of the Declarationrnof Independence: A ChroniclesrnRoundtable, June 2001) that the Declarationrnof Independence is not part of thernU.S. Constitution. True, as the professorrnsays, the Declaration was not adopted byrnconventions in the 13 states in the man-rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn