Share this post

Doing the Dance…

In the 1989 version of Batman, The Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) poses the following question to Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).

“Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?”

Now I’m no political genius (I even had to look up the spelling of genius), but I gotta say that I just don’t understand it. Remind me again why we keep letting these leaders of countries that would like to destroy the United States give speeches on our soil? I read that the President of Columbia University had some tough words for his guest, but my question is why did we even give him the forum? Being the way I’m wired, it got me to thinking….

I wonder if I don’t do the same sometimes with the devil. Do I ever dance, or give him an audience in my thought life? Do I give him the opportunity to speak into my fears, my hopes, my joy? I gotta be honest and say that I probably do. 1 Peter 5:8 says “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.“If I know this, then why even give him the time to do so? Why do the dance?

Maybe I’m mixing religion and politics here, but it just reminded me to be careful who I choose as a dance partner. I never was a good dancer anyway.



Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsSpotifyPandoraTuneIniHeartRadio

Leave a Reply

Comments · 6

  • Ace · September 24, 2007

    I’m not a good dancer either, but thanks for the reminder that we had better be alert and self-controlled. Otherwise, we may give place to something that we certainly don’t want to have to deal with.

  • MichaelConners · September 25, 2007

    Yep, just tell him to “Begone, Satan.”

    Need to be alert to do it, though.

    This may tell my age, but when I think of Devil + music it’s definitely “Sympathy for the Devil”.

  • Susan / Faithwalk · September 25, 2007

    The battle always begins in the mind, in our thoughts. Which of us in all honesty can say we do not sometimes struggle is this area? Just as my husband likes to grab me and dance around the room unexpectedly at times; so does the enemy every now and again and I find myself worrying about something needlessly.
    Good post as always Aaron!

  • LTW · September 25, 2007

    Purely on the President of Iran thing – we invite those with whom we disagree to speak because above all (at least in theory, and in the past) freedom of speech was a highly valued right in this country. The old phrase “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it”. And yes, he wishes harm on us. But he will not do that harm personally. We can be the bigger (more mature, more reasonable) party here and show him that he can say what he wants, but we will still disagree.

    And we also remove at least one argument – that we wouldn’t listen.

  • Aaron · September 25, 2007

    LTW – Great feedback. Well said. My fear (and this is just me talking) is that the world is so different now then I hope, or wish it would be. There is so much more to his motives then I wish we would like to admit. This type of speech is used as propaganda in other places, incites hate, violence and other things. In the culture and temperature we are currently in, I wonder if it’s not better to leave well enough alone.

    There’s a part of me that doesn’t understand how we can roast someone like the Dixie Chicks (right or wrong) for something they said on another countries soil about our President, but we let these guys come in here and say things far worse on our own soil. Somethings not right about that.

    I’m not standing up for the Dixie Chicks when I say that. I’m pointing out that our message is mixed. Especially to other countries….

  • LTW · September 26, 2007

    But by using your example you are starting to understand the difference. They got “roasted” for what they said. Fine. They said it, people disagree. Just because people have the right to say things doesn’t mean everyone (or even anyone) has to agree. They get to say it, I get to disagree with it. And if enough people hear it and disagree with it, there are repercussions – in the case of the Dixie Chicks it is potential economic repercussions. In the case of the Pres. of Iran, if he says enough stuff that we (Americans) find problematic, then maybe we aren’t so quick to judge those in charge when they decide to pursue a military solution against that threat. If, on the other hand, we don’t let him speak, we’re doing 2 things:
    1) Preventing some people, who might not otherwise know, from learning his true intentions.
    2) Providing even MORE propaganda to those that oppose our way of life – “See, they are all hypocrites with all that talk of free speech.”

    I really don’t see it as a mixed message. I see it as a unified message. The message is “You can say what you want, just don’t expect to have the population at large back you or agree with you.” If we let the DC speak their mind, and not the Pres. of Iran, then THAT is a mixed message. IMHO.

Type and hit enter