Thumbs Up for "Expelled"

American Spectator senior editor Tom Bethell reviews the soon-to-be-released documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (HT: The Pearcey Report)

I can only say that [Ben Stein's] interviews, conducted in a wide variety of locations, from Paris to Jerusalem and from London to Seattle, are outstanding. There are many of them, and they are edited and knitted together with such skill that the whole film is pleasure to watch. By turns serious and hilarious, it manages to be instructive without ever being didactic. (I stress that I didn't see the film in its final form. Some segments may be cut and others added.)


Incompatible worldviews are at stake, and the debate between the advocates of chance and design, often a proxy for combat between atheists and churchgoers, can become acrimonious. In the movie there are somber moments, as when Stein visits World War II death camps and traces the Nazi philosophy back to the godless Darwinian world in which fitness must prevail and everything is permitted. More commonly, however, the movie defuses the underlying tension with lightness and comedy.


It is surely the best thing ever done on this issue, in any medium. At moments it brought tears of joy to my eyes. I have written about this controversy for over 30 years and by the movie's end I felt that those of us who have insisted that Darwinism is a sorry mess and that life surely was designed are going to prevail.

Culture, Compassion, and Compass: Responding to Anti-Christian Media

In a current Christianity Today article titled "When the Media Became a Nuisance," New Testament professor Darrel Bock offers helpful advice on how Christians can constructively respond to blockbuster books, documentaries, and motion pictures that challenge the truthfulness of the Christian faith. As he points out, a critical necessity is equipping:

Rather than seeing new media reports as conspiracies to rail against, why not see them as opportunities to discuss faith with friends and neighbors who will find them intriguing? Only we mustn't do so with an angry or dismissive tone. Rather, we ought to respectfully explain the historic Christian view. Becoming equipped for such discussions may require seminars organized by local churches. Imagine churches working together to help believers contend for the truth in their communities.

The reason Dr. Bock has to urge us to employ our imaginations to envision this kind of equipping is it happens so rarely. What a contrast this vision is to the several emails I've received urging me to boycott the film The Golden Compass. I'm sure those who circulate such missives mean well but hopefully we will not think that we are satisfying our calling to be redemptive agents in the world by trying to organize mass protests via the Internet. Clicking "forward" and "send" is certainly less time consuming and mentally taxing than the activity Darrel Bock commends but it is not nearly as effective in advancing God's kingdom.


Thinking about our propensity to opt for demonstrations over dialogues reminded me of lines I marked years ago in J. Daryl Charles's book, The Unformed Conscience of Evangelicalism: Recovering the Church's Moral Vision. In it, the author laments American evangelicalism's lack of a mature theology of public life and moral persuasion. Referring to Os Guinness's Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It, Charles writes:

Evangelicals, he notes, have frequently concentrated their efforts in domains that are peripheral to society rather than central. Correlatively, they have relied heavily on populist strengths and rhetoric rather than addressing "gatekeepers" of contemporary culture. Moreover, and critical to the viability of an evangelical social ethic, we have sought to change society through political and legal means rather than contending in the marketplace of ideas at the intellectual level. Thus, evangelicals have tended to rely on "a rhetoric of protest, pronouncement, and picketing" rather than on moral persuasion.

Johnson adds:

The relative inattention to winning a person's mind and way of thinking, an inattention that tends to depreciate a long-term strategy of building relationships and addressing moral-philosophical complexities, has lasting results that are counterproductive to evangelicals' mission to the world.

I intend to see The Golden Compass, not only because it looks like a spectacular piece of filmmaking (at least as far as special effects go), but because I want to be able to speak intelligently with the people around me who will see it. I also wish to speak compassionately.

In an excellent article titled "Why We Can Neither Boycott nor Ignore 'The Golden Compass'" (HT: The Pearcey Report), David Dunham addresses this point, drawing lessons from Francis Schaeffer's evangelistic method which involved deconstructing a person's unbiblical worldview (a process Schaeffer referred to as "blowing the roof off"). Dunham notes Schaeffer's insistence that compassion accompany this activity, quoting from The God Who Is There:

These paintings, these poems, and these demonstrations which we have been talking about are the expression of men who are struggling with their appalling lostness. Dare we laugh at such things? Dare we feel superior when we view their tortured expressions in their art? Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously. Then we shall have the right to speak again to our generation. These men are dying while they live; yet where is our compassion for them? There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.

Dunham adds:

That is probably the greatest lesson we can learn from Dr. Schaeffer. You can never share the gospel with someone whom you do not take seriously as a human being; and they will never want to listen to you if your words are not truth and compassion mixed together. There church, and individual Christians in particular, have over the past several centuries struggled greatly with this kind of evangelism. We have often found ourselves more interested in turning up our noses, mocking, belittling, and boycotting the culture, but Schaeffer would have us to find compassion for the culture. So he says, “As I push a man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care about him. Otherwise I will only end up destroying him…” We must have compassion.

Yes I am angry that Philip Pullman wants to “destroy Christianity!” But in his books (which have been adapted into a full length motion picture, released today) I also sense that there is a man who hates God, who is honest about it, and who needs the gospel. I will find in some of his major fans similar feelings of religious disdain. How I share the gospel with them will need to start with recognizing this factor and lovingly tearing down the worldview that supports it as I bring them the gospel. What Schaeffer does so well is to remind us that the culture is part of life, where people’s worldviews are expressed, and though we would often criticize and demean culture it can and should actually be part of how we do evangelism.

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian is a good example of the kind of action those I've quoted above call for. He recently led discussions of Philip Pullman's trilogy at two local libraries. He has also assembled a list of informative posts he wrote while making his way through the books.


Yes, imagine. Imagine a day when emails calling believers to boycott expressions of unbelief are overwhelmingly outnumbered by invitations to learn how to thoughtfully engage those who produce and consume them. I know, it's a stretch. But imagine.

Demons Coming to a Theater Near You

Christianity Today reports:

Ralph Winter—producer of the X-Men and Fantastic Four films—is a well-known Christian in Hollywood, and Walden Media has scored one of the biggest box office hits in recent years with their adaptation of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, by beloved Christian author C. S. Lewis.
Now these two forces are joining for another Lewis adaptation—this time, his cherished spiritual warfare novel, The Screwtape Letters. Variety reports that Winter will produce the adaptation in association with Walden Media.

The adaptation—described as a "midbudget," mostly live-action film—is slated for release some time in 2008. The novel, first published in 1942, is written as a series of letters between two demons, the elder Screwtape and his young nephew, Wormwood, with the seasoned demon offering his young protégé advice on undermining Christian faith and spreading wickedness.

Lewis' stepson, Douglas Gresham—who supervised the production of Wardrobe—will be producing alongside Winter.

I first read about this at Gene Veith's blog and, like him, wonder how well the book can be adapted to film. Based on what Walden did with The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, I have no doubt that there will be some spectacular visual effects. But the Narnia tale is a narrative whereas The Screwtape Letters is considerably different.

In order for it to work, I think the film will have to have a lot of narration - perhaps Screwtape giving dictation while images depict young Wormwood carrying out his uncle's instructions. Part of the intrigue of the novel is that what Lewis describes is all going on in the unseen realm as we carry on our daily routines. How can a movie capture this and still hold an audience's attention? Will this be an instance of the medium obscuring the message? I hope not.

Learning and Teaching How to Watch Movies Worldviewishly

Prompted by an inquiry from a friend, Jeff at The Dawn Treader has posted a helpful list of recommendations and resources for parents wishing to instill the ability to think "worldviewishly" about films in their children and teens. In addition to the fine books he mentions, I'd add another title - Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment by Brian Godawa.

Though it doesn't target parents specifically, this book would certainly benefit any adult wanting to engage young people in intelligent, faith-informed conversation about movies and their meanings. Godawa is an experienced screenwriter who combines his inside knowledge of the industry with his knowledge of Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics resulting in an informative guide that not only helps readers learn how to think Christianly about films but also to understand a film's underlying structure (e.g., theme, hero, hero's goal, the adversary, character flaw, final confrontation, resolution). Godawa posits that the essence of storytelling in movies is about redemption.

A movie takes a hero with an inner flaw, who desires something and has a plan to get it. But he is blocked by an adversary until he almost fails but finally finds a solution. This process of goal, flaw, failure, and self-revelation is the process of paradigm change or conversion in an individual.

Movies, therefore, offer diagnoses about what ails us as well as prescriptions for setting it right. They are, in that respect, "incarnate sermons." Cinematic storytellers are, says Godawa,

...engaging in their craft with an intent to communicate their view of the world and we ought to live in it. They have discovered the power of a well-told story combined with a well-thought-out philosophy that is creatively embodied in the story through character, plot and image. In the same way that worldviews involve a network of individual ideas that are interconnected to serve a greater philosophical interpretation of our experience, so movies are a network of events, images and themes that serve a unified way of interpreting our experience through the effective means of drama.

In an early chapter on the nature of stories and mythology, Godawa claims that Christianity alone provides justification for as well as makes sense of storytelling. "...the biblical notion of linear history, with an author, characters and a purposeful goal, was the philosophical foundation for the search for meaning in a narrative of life. Storytelling is meaningless gibberish unless reality itself is narratable."

The book is divided into three parts. The first, consisting of two chapters, "Stories & Mythology" and "Redemption," is called Storytelling in the Movies. Part Two is called Worldviews in the Movies and includes chapters on existentialism, postmodernism, and other worldviews. In each case, Godawa offers ample illustrations from well-known films. Part Three is called "Spirituality in the Movies" with chapters on "Christianity," "Angels & Demons, Heaven & Hell," and "Faith." Each chapter concludes with discussion questions and sidebars refer readers to related web resources (most often Godawa's site) and books (including James Sire's The Universe Next Door, which Jeff highly recommends in his post). An appendix deals with the issues of sex, violence, and profanity in the Bible and asks whether there is ever any Christian justification for the dramatic portrayal of evil.

I seriously doubt this one will be turned into a movie so don't wait for it. Read the book!

Related posts:
A Call for Artist-Apostles: More on Faith and Film
Using Films to Rattle Cages: Movies and Apologetics

Filmmaking to the Glory of God: Dick Staub on "Facing the Giants"

A few weeks ago Dick Staub hit some nerves when he predicted that "Facing the Giants," the Christian film that gained notoriety for its PG rating, would be "another artistic embarrassment in the name of Jesus." Today he gives further explanation for his criticism and asks a series of thought-provoking questions in response to a reader who took offense at his previous post:

I have no doubt that "Facing the Giants" will make a ton of money, but since when is that American materialistic standard our standard? As for emotional reactions? I'’ve been "moved to tears" by art my kids brought home as children, but I did not expect it should be mounted at the local art museum. If we want to glorify God, why should we champion movies with good storylines that make people cry, but are created with inadequate, uncompetitive budgets and substandard acting? If this film DOES make tons of money, Hollywood may distribute more of them. Do we really want to send the message to Hollywood that the kind of films Christians want will be characterized by poor acting, low production values that are inoffensive, make us cry and also make tons of money? Is this truly how we want to influence Hollywood for God?

Inconsistent Outrage?

At Out of Ur, Dave Terpstra wonders why Christian parents aren't as outraged by Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest as they were by Harry Potter:

The similarity in material between the two movies that should concern parents is amazing. First, both films focus on activities contrary to the teachings Scripture, piracy and witchcraft. Second, the hero of Pirates, like the hero of Potter, is practicing what is considered evil—not just battling against those who practice it. Third, there are dark forces involved in both. Harry Potter films are amuck with sorcery and the like. Pirates of the Caribbean films are full of curses and the undead. The list could go on.

Spider-Man 3 Trailer

Please pardon me as I relive my childhood but back in the days when I was an avid Marvel Comics collector, Spider-Man was my favorite. I'm old enough to remember CBS's cheesey attempt to bring Spidey to life in a weekly series. Unfortunately, "special effects" then had progressed little beyond those that enabled Adam West and Burt Ward to scale Gotham's walls with their batarangs. So, I sat through the first two Spider-Man movies with childlike delight.

Yesterday I saw the teaser trailer for next summer's Spider-Man 3 for the first time and it looks like they've worked Venom into the plot. I confess. I can't wait!

A Call for Artist-Apostles: More on Faith and Film

Believers interested in pursuing careers in film production would do well to heed Barbara Nicolosi's counsel in a commentary recently published in Christianity Today called "Escaping the Creative Ghetto" (HT: Think Christian). Here are some points that stood out to me:

It's not that Christians aren't making stabs at moviemaking and television production. It's that most of these efforts come to naught because our fears and misconceptions have us standing on the sidelines, cursing and boycotting and begging for favors from the pagans who have paid their dues and have the power to green-light stories for the screen.

The whole church needs to brood over what it means to be the Patron of the Arts in a post-Christian setting. We need to wrangle over how best to nurture our young artists and media professionals, and how to maximize the influence of those Christians with talent and charisma. But first of all, we need to figure out what success in Hollywood will look like for the Christian community. What does a Christian worldview mean in entertainment, and will our own brothers and sisters in the church recognize it when our artists start producing it?


....our efforts in entertainment cannot be limited to making movies about saints and the Bible, as though we have nothing to say to the modern world about anything that is not part of our subculture. Borrowing from St. Paul, Christians in entertainment don't have to be always talking about God. They should be talking about everything in a godly way.

Nicolosi goes on to make a point similar to one made by Andrew Fellows (whom I mentioned in the previous post). Fellows warns against evaluating films solely through what he calls the grids of truth and morality. He's not denying that these are important. He's just concerned (rightly, I think) that in doing so, we obscure a film's narrative power by dealing only with abstractions. Rationality and conscience are important but shouldn't be emphasized to the neglect of other areas of our inner lives such as the imagination. Nicolosi writes:

Many godly people think that the goal is for movies to be "non-offensive" in terms of sex, language, and violence. But the problem with that standard is it only describes a void. It doesn't give any creative guidance. A lot of Christians lauded the 2002 release A Walk to Remember mainly on this basis: "It didn't have any bad language, and the two teenagers didn't sleep together." Yes, but it was a banal, predictable story with underdeveloped characters, pedestrian acting, and saccharine dialogue.

I think that what Nicolosi is getting at is that like a lot of Christian music, many Christian attempts at filmmaking lack an honest depiction of depravity, the very thing that we claim makes the gospel so necessary and such marvelous news. There is often a lack of reality about life's fallenness, pain, and confusion on account of the desire to quickly resolve the messiness of life with the gospel. The answer is not to gratuitously depict immorality but to portray it within the context of a truly biblical worldview.

Nicolosi suggests some themes that define a Christian movie and offers the following explanation and remedy for the current state of the film industry:

The principal reason for the moral confusion that ends up on the screen is the paucity of happy, well-catechized believers in the entertainment industry. We do not have enough witnesses to Christ living and loving and working alongside the witnesses to Mammon or secular humanism that have overrun the creative community. We do not have enough thoughtful, godly filmmakers who can draw compelling stories from a mature faith experience.

The world does not need a "Christian cinema" so much as it needs Christians in cinema.

We do not need our churches to set up production companies and make movies. We need the church to approach Hollywood as a missionary territory, to preach and teach and minister.

We need a new generation of artist-apostles to come to the industry with humility and pastoral love.

Using Films to Rattle Cages: Movies and Apologetics

Speaking of films, bethinking.org has posted an excellent audio by Andrew Fellows on the use of film in apologetics. Fellows, a staff member of L'Abri in England, gave this presentation to a group of campus ministry workers.

He begins by dividing the apologetic process into three stages:

1. Subversion
2. Persuasion
3. Proclamation

Proclamation is the telling of the core gospel. Fellows says this is the most precious stage in the process yet complains that for many Christians, this is the only stage. Consequently, we miss many opportunities. Persuasion targets those who, though skeptical, are open to dialogue about the possibility of Christianity being true. Here, believers give reasons for their faith. Finally, subversion, the most challenging stage, is needed when dealing with those who are completely closed to considering the gospel. This involves getting inside the other person's worldview and "rattling their cage." (Though he doesn't mention it, this is equivalent to what Francis Schaeffer meant by "taking the roof off.") Fellows thinks that popular films can be effective tools in this phase of apologetics and estimates that about 80% of his own conversations with those who are closed to Christianity revolve around movies.

Fellows' talk has four main points:

1. Don't underestimate the power of film
2. Allow film to function as narrative
3. Be attentive to the worldview that lies beneath every film
4. Checkpoints for our use of films

In the course of the talk, Fellows explains the power of narrative and how we must learn to make connections between a film's narrative and the Christian story which is the one, true, epic story. Every other story that has ever been told connects to this story in some way. Subversive apologetics through film seizes or exploits the similarities between the film's story and the Christian story while recognizing the essential differences in worldview. (Fellows offers nine worldview questions to ask when viewing a film.) However, the focus of this kind of engagement is not primarily about arguing worldview but about the story and its appeal to the imagination.

Fellows says that the more his own Christian worldview has developed, the more his enjoyment of film has increased. He also says that if unbelievers see that we love and understand films, real discussions will emerge.

During the Q & A, he urges the campus ministry leaders to teach their students how to watch movies, something most of them don't know how to do. Teaching them how to do this will equip them to discuss films with their peers. This caused me to think about the need for churches to educate believers in a similar manner. For those interested, Brian Godawa's book, Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment, is a good resource for that.

Sony Gives The Microphone to Da Vinci Code Critics

Anticipating the May 19th release of its The Da Vinci Code film, Sony Pictures is has created a website for critics of Dan Brown's book to make their case:

The site, thedavincichallenge.com, will post essays by about 45 Christian writers, scholars and leaders of evangelical organizations who will pick apart the book's theological and historical claims about Christianity.

Among the writers are Gordon Robertson, the son of the television evangelist Pat Robertson and co-host of their television show, "The 700 Club," who is writing about how early Christianity survived; and Richard J. Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif. (source)

George Barna, Darrell Bock, and Hugh Hewitt are among the other contributors.


I'm in complete agreement with a point Richard Mouw makes about why Christians should see the movie:

"It's going to be water cooler conversation, so Christians need to take a deep breath, buy the book and shell out the money for the movie. Then we need to educate Christians about what all this means. We need to help them answer someone who says, 'So how do you know Jesus didn't get married?' "

About two years ago our church offered a short class about the book. One of the benefits was that it provided an occasion for many believers to learn about early church history and the development of doctrine for the first time. Now we're talking about effective ways to prepare our teens and adults to intelligently converse with their non-Christian peers who see the film. The Da Vinci Code Deception DVD and this companion guide to the movie from Josh McDowell are among the resources we're thinking about using. 

Is your church doing anything to equip your people to interact with those who will be seeing and talking about the film? If so, please share your plans in the comments.

Al Mohler on Larry King Live Tonight

Albert Mohler will be one of Larry King's guests this evening (9 ET, CNN) discussing the film Brokeback Mountain which he has written about here and here. Here's the teaser from the show's site: "Is it biology or choice? Are same sex unions a legitimate lifestyle? Homosexuals face off with religious conservatives."

The Sermon, the Pitch, and the Cashbox

12/7/05 - updated with related posts below

I confess. I've been counting down the days until the release of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Friday evening I'll be joining a large group from my church to view the film. While at the theater I'll try to put all the marketing hype surrounding the production out of my mind so as not to ruin my enjoyment. As David Wayne notes in his musing about the promotional fervor, "Just as Aslan is on the move in Narnia, so the servants of Mammon are on the move in our world seeking to make us evangelicals their servants." Like David, I too thought back to Tim Challies' question of just how crassly the church is being used to market the new Narnia film as I've witnessed all the hype.


When I read at Reformation 21 that according to the Philadelphia Inquirer Walt Disney Pictures is sponsoring a promotional sermon contest whose winner will be given $1,000, I was shocked. I couldn't believe that Disney would go so far as to sponsor a contest designed to get pastors to give verbal trailers from the pulpit. It just didn't seem like good business sense. Such an offensive move could alienate members of the very audience Disney is banking on to make the film a success.

After a little searching I found what at first appeared to clear Disney of such crass publicity seeking. The "Narnia Sermon Sweepstakes" is sponsored by SermonCentral.com which claims to be the world's largest sermon research site. In addition to $1,000, the grand prize winner will receive a trip for two to London and Oxford, England to walk where Lewis walked and worshiped. All a pastor has to do to enter the competition is submit a qualifying Narnia-related sermon transcript or outline. Apparently it's not necessary that the sermon actually have been preached but the odds are good that if a pastor has expended the time and effort to compose such a message, it will get preached. And those entries that are eventually posted on SermonCentral's site will probably be preached in some form or another from numerous pulpits. The Inquirer claims that Disney is using hired agencies to promote The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in churches. Among them is Outreach Media Inc. which, according to the article, hosts the sermon contest. At first, I thought this was an error having read at SermonCentral.com that it was sponsoring the contest. However, when I visited SermonCentral's page for potential advertisers, I learned that it is an arm of Outreach Media and thus it appears that the sermon contest is indeed another Disney marketing strategy.


Outreach Media Inc. affirms Christian orthodoxy and states its vision as follows: "To create a network of churches and ministries working together to love and serve people with the goal of inviting every person in America to a local Bible believing church and, ultimately, into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." I'm sure there are sincere believers at Outreach who are eager to promote the Narnia film because they are persuaded that it has the potential to turn minds toward contemplation of the gospel. However, given their being in Disney's employ, the decision to run a sermon sweepstakes is a matter of very poor judgment. It may lead some to conclude that the folks at Outreach have succumbed to the craving for Turkish Delight.


RELATED:

Christianity Today asks, "Did Disney Pay for Your Sermon?" and likewise questions "the propriety of offering financial incentives for pastors to preach on a commercial product, even if it is Narnia."

Paul C. at Theospeak.net has a few questions of his own: "What's next, pastors wearing suits emblazoned with sponsor's logos like a NASCAR driver? Maybe cash strapped churches could sell commercial breaks during services to help raise funds?"

Conservatives Flock to "March of the Penguins"

According to the NY Times, a number of political and Christian conservatives consider the film illustrative of intelligent design, the superiority of monogamy, and even the Christian life. One pastor is quoted as saying "Some of the circumstances they experienced seemed to parallel those of Christians. The penguin is falling behind, is like some Christians falling behind. The path changes every year, yet they find their way, is like the Holy Spirit." 


Might this be the making of a new Christian classic -- Penguins' Progress?

The Cost of Being God's Friend

In light of the buzz that has been going on about what it means to have a personal relationship with God and my recent post about theological understanding being displayed in life, this quote I came across in Christianity Today is timely:

To speak of friendship with God can sound so cozy and consoling, as if we are all snuggling up to God; however, there is no riskier vulnerability than to live in friendship with God, because every friendship changes us, because friends have expectations of each other, and because friends are said to be committed to the same things. … Any friend of God is called to faithfully embody the ways of God in the world, even to the point of suffering on account of them. There may be grace and glory in being a friend of God, but there is also clearly a cost. Paul J. Wadell, Becoming Friends

This World Magazine cover story about Christians seeking to be faithful while working in Hollywood, illustrates such costly friendship:

"I will never be home for dinner at 5:30 p.m.," says one of the most successful Christians in Hollywood, Ralph Winter. "In Hollywood, 5:30 is when things are just getting started."

Mr. Winter produced X-Men, Planet of the Apes, Star Trek IV, and this summer's hit, Fantastic Four. But behind the blockbusters are family separation and heartaches. A shoot in Puerto Rico meant being away from his teenage sons for six months. A filming in London coincided with news that his wife's father had died, tragically. He did not go home. "I cannot believe how selfish I was," he said, "how unfeeling I was about her ongoing grief and depression. I was caught up in the excitement of Hollywood and the possibilities of my own career."

Soon after, Mr. Winter was offered a career plum: the chance to direct a new James Bond movie. But production was going to be in England. He realized what his career was doing to his family. He turned down what seemed like the career opportunity of a lifetime—the chance to play with Mr. Bond's weaponized sportscar, exotic locales, and special-effects-driven chase scenes—to devote his time to his wife and kids.

That decision meant he was out of work for six months. Mr. Winter learned that doing the right thing doesn't mean you won't suffer for it. But he was angry at God. Today he sees that God was at work all along. He finally got a chance to work close to home—and with Steven Spielberg, an opportunity he never would have had if he had been filming James Bond in London.

Today, Mr. Winter zealously sets aside time for his family. He also stresses the importance of his church, Bible study, and accountability partners. Without them, he could not remain spiritually and mentally grounded.

The article goes on to explain Winter's involvement as a mentor in Act One, a non profit organization that trains Christians for careers in film and television. Here's how they describe their mission:

Stressing artistry, excellence, professionalism, and spirituality, Act One prepares students to be "salt and light" in writers rooms, on sets, and in studio and network offices. Our goal is not to produce explicitly "religious" entertainment, but movies and TV programs of unusual quality and depth.

I'm always encouraged to see efforts of vocational discipleship like this; people asking and answering questions like "What does being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ look like in this particular sphere?" and "How do I think Christianly about my line of work?" A certain popular Christian book taught believers to pray "Expand my borders." I think the borders that stand in need of being expanded are those of our narrowly-defined conceptions of discipleship. Groups like Act One can aid us toward that end.

The members of Act One have also written a book - Behind the Screen: Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film, and Culture.

Coming to a Sanctuary Near You!

First, there was Left Behind. Then there was Tribulation Force. On October 21, 2005 the third episode, Left Behind: World at War, will open on at least as many screens as the biggest Hollywood films. The only difference: it will open in churches not theaters. According to the full-page ad in Christianity Today, it's "the next chapter in the greatest Christian film series ever!" (That makes me wonder. Exactly how many Christian film series have there been?)



If you can't find a church cinema in your neck of the woods, don't worry. The DVD will be released on October 25. For the rest of you, be sure to get to the chapel on time. Who knows? There may be previews (Return of the Gospel Blimp, maybe?). And remember, as a courtesy to other moviegoers, please silence your cell phones.

The Da Vinci Code Movie

Last year our church offered a four week class on Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code to prepare Christians to intelligently engage friends and family members reading the book. Given the book's success (112 weeks on the New York Times Hardcover Fiction Bestseller List and # 4 this week) next year's film adaptation starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard, is almost certain to be a hit. View the trailer here and the schedule of worldwide release dates here. [HT: Between Two Worlds]

Losing Sleep Over the Sith: Musings on the Movie

I apologize in advance for any incoherence in thought, grammar, or spelling. I didn't climb into my bed until 3 this morning after attending a midnight showing of Revenge of the Sith with our youth pastor, leaders, and members of the youth group. There were about 20 of us total. It's not that I really wanted to see it, you understand. I just thought it would be good for our young people to see one of the older members of the pastoral staff taking interest in something of such interest to them. OK, that's the sleep deprivation talking. I was as eager as any of them to see how and why young Anakin Skywalker transformed into James Earl Jones, I mean, Darth Vader.

After getting seated we had about 45 minutes to wait for the film to begin. I spent some of this time taking note of the myriad of enthusiasts costumed to tribute their favorite characters. One young woman had a bagel on either side of her head. (I didn't see if they were still intact after the movie.) Carrie Fisher would be honored, I'm sure. Of course, there were Vader's and Obi-Wan's of all sizes along with much cooler light sabers than Hasbro's original. A group of teenagers took turns wielding their fluorescent weaponry in choreographed and non-choreographed swashbuckling in the front of the auditorium receiving cheers and jeers depending on their skill.

I also had plenty of time to wax nostalgic. Had it really been almost 30 years since I was the age of many of these kids? The years seem to have flown by at light speed. I was now watching the finale in a cinematic story I started almost three decades ago. A sobering thought. But this wasn't the extent of the philosophical reflection spawned by my moviegoing excursion.

In the climactic duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin, Anakin says to his former teacher "If you are not with me, you are my enemy." I don't think anyone familiar with the gospels can hear that and not think of Jesus' words "Whoever is not with me is against me" (Mt. 12:30; Lk. 11:23) but I think it's more likely that Lucas intended this line to evoke thoughts of George Bush. He may have lived long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away but Obi's response suggests he'd be right at home in 21st century America: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes." Translation: Absolutist thinking belongs to the malevolent and power-hungry. They're dangerous and not to be trusted. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? As if it weren't bad enough to be likened to fundamentalist jihadists, those who believe in absolute truth are now Sith!


Perhaps George Lucas intended it to be humorous, but this dialogue masterfully illustrates relativism's incoherence. In the same fight scene Obi warns Anakin that his new master is evil (might Obi have some repressed Sithian tendencies?). And what is the whole light and dark side of the force thing if not absolutist? I don't recall Yoda, or any other Jedi master for that matter, ever exhorting someone to choose whatever side of the force appealed to them. One of the factors that has made the Star Wars saga so captivating is that it appeals to our knowledge that the distinction between good and evil is real and that the former's triumph over the latter is the way things ought to be.


Ideology aside, I had a great time despite having to fight off sleepiness which was no fault of the movie's. I'm grateful for George Lucas's creative imagination and willingness to persevere in order to bring his vision to life. I've enjoyed the near 30 year ride.