And what is the point?
Is the truth of an artistic or didactic work to be determined by critics out to advance their own philosophical or religious agendas?
Applying Rosebrough's reasoning to other institutional venues, should a church not be judged by its willingness to stand up for the Gospel but rather by the size of the crowd drawn in Sunday morning?
There was no doubt a time when the influential of Europe condescendingly looked down their noses at the pastor and theologian Rev. Rosebrough identifies with in terms of denominational affiliation.
Should the bold Reformer have quietly taken his seat as well, leaving the issues of his day to be addressed and resolved by more celebrated thinkers and prestigious minds?
There seems to be little way of winning those of Chris Rosebrough's perspective.
He is correct in much of his analysis that a spirit of entertainment has penetrated the operational procedures of how many churches function.
But Cameron is not necessarily plying his craft solely in a the formalized ecclesiastical setting in which Lutherans of Rosebrough's variety insist the form and order of service cannot veer from its highly ordered and regulated nature.
Kirk Cameron will likely never be an historical figure on par with Martin Luther ushering humanity into whole new epochs of understanding where the very relationships between the individual, church, and God are reevaluated in light of reconsidered Scriptural evidence.
However, shouldn't these Christian leaders that bemoan the lack of a Christian influence throughout the arts be a bit more supportive when a fellow believer attempts to burst the epistemological shackles that were often put in place by fellow ministers imposing a misdirected brand of piety to begin with?
By Frederick Meekins