Chris Pratt, an actor who has never used his platform to utter a resentful word about anyone, has somehow become a pincushion for secularists and others who seem viscerally offended by his Christian faith.
Bizarrely, Pratt, who continues to entertain millions in the Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World franchises, among other projects, is routinely and repeatedly lambasted without any discernible rationale.
Most recently, critics called for Pratt to be cancelled and replaced in his Guardians role as Star-Lord, presumably based on opposition to his faith. Twitter rebukes of Pratt led James Gunn, director the first two Guardians of the Galaxy movies, to defend Pratt and his Christian ideals.
Gunn’s defense of Pratt then apparently inspired a Salon article, “Disgraced Director James Gunn Defends Disgraced Actor Chris Pratt.”
Yes, you read that correctly.
Apparently, Pratt is “disgraced,” which is news to anyone who has spent even a second paying attention to his life and career. Pratt, a guy who regularly posts on social media about life, comedy, God, love for his family — and who is routinely cast in some of the biggest movie projects in Hollywood — has, out-of-sight and deep in the bowels of the Upside Down, apparently behaved so badly we should consider him humiliated and discredited.
Why, exactly? No one knows.
But here’s what we do know: the narrative critics have crafted about Pratt is so malevolently opposed to reality that it’s tough to put the insanity into words. Yet the author of the Salon piece seemed to embrace the unfortunate portrayal. Her article, at moments, read more like a strange mystery novel than it did anything convincingly true.
“Pratt … has come under fire for his alleged involvement in a Los Angeles megachurch that may not be welcoming to queer members,” she wrote. “Zoe Church, founded by former Hillsong preacher Chad Veach, who once executive produced a film that described same-sex attraction as ‘sexual brokenness,’ is cagey about its views.”
Then she went on to accuse Pratt of being “elusive” about his relationship with Zoe Church and his views on “gay rights.” That elusiveness (code for “he never gives his political and cultural views on anything”) is apparently grounds for some sort of cancellation or, at the very least, an enigmatic reason for everyone to randomly dislike the actor.
It’s quite strange to call someone “disgraced” based on a belief you think you might have about someone’s purported perspective you actually know nothing about. If that seems like a confusing summary, know this: the confounding breakdown is essentially the basis of most of what underpins raging anti-Pratt sentiment.
If you’re tracking: Pratt is apparently disgraced because he attended churches with biblically based views on sexuality — views some, after cultural evolutions, now disagree with, despite those stances being embraced for millennia. As a result of said attendance, he deserves to be considered “disgraced” — allegedly.
But that’s not all Pratt’s seemingly guilty of, as the writer went on to mention one of the most bizarre narratives used to try to dismiss Pratt yet: that he insulted his ex-wife and son because he dared to thank his current wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger, for giving him a beautiful, healthy baby daughter.
For the rest of this article, visit our content partners at faithwire.com. {eoa}
Read articles like this one and other Spirit-led content in our new platform, CHARISMA PLUS.
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
