Over the next week or so, we're inviting members to the blog.
If you are a new member, please put a comment under this post answering the following questions:
- Where are you?
- What do you do?
- What is your favorite book? (Yes, besides the Bible).
- What was the last book you read?
- What do you watch on TV?
Yeah, I'm sure there are better questions. Too bad.
52 comments:
Aaron H. (AKA "Trembling")
1. Where: I'm in Winnipeg.
2. What: I'm a writer.
3. Favorite book: Robertson Davies' Fifth Business.
4. Last book: Pipeline by Milt Machlin
5. TV: Formerly West Wing, but it ended. Now, nothing.
Lookign forward to this thing.
I'm proud to have made the first spelling mistake. Should be "looking".
1. Where: Spruce Grove, AB. Soon to live in the village of Caronport.
2. What: Full time student again.
3. Book: The Man Who Was Thursday
4. Latest: Creed or Chaos? by Dorothy L. Sayers
5. TV: Amazing Race, Survivor, NFL, and Soccer when they are in season. Jon Stewart and Colbert Report are the only shows I make an effort to see these days. West Wing has left a huge hole.
I'm lookign AND looking forward to this too.
by the way: fear is the tag name for Jon C. you don't have to have an alias, but we figured it would keep the whole fear and trembling motif together.
1. Where: Maple Ridge, BC
2. What: I work for a politician
3. Favorite book: Tough question so I'll qualify my answer by saying the best one I've read in a while was Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Though an all time favorite would be the Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis.
4. Last book: Girlfriend in a Coma, Douglas Coupland
5. TV: CSI, The Office, Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Oh yeah; forgot about The Office. Great show... I've worked with every type of person depicted on the show.
Good call, Dave.
-Aaron
I AM every type of person depicted on that show. I forgot about that one too. Fantastic television program. CSI on the other hand ... well, since CSI is a point of contention that doesn't really fall in the bounds of this website's debate topics I'll just have to say, "more power to ya" and leave it at that! By the way, speaking of Jon Stewart, there was an incredibly offensive bit on there the other night called "three-timing God" that you can find at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml
if you feel like you can stomach it. It blames God for giving three different religions the same exact "promised land" and is really offensive actually, but on the other hand it is a poignant statement on the absurdity of pluralism. Not everyone can have Jerusalem. In the end someone has to be right.
That's why I keep watching that show. Sort of like the Simpsons, you have to be able to stomach the offensive comments in order to benefit from the half-truth in the satire. I wouldn't feel like I need to do so, except these are the half-truths I feel like I won't hear anywhere else because no one has the guts to talk about them. Besides that, it really helps me to know how people outside my own "demographic" are viewing the world. We're on totally different pages and it won't help if I don't know what the issues are. Also, the show is very funny.
Good point, Jonny. One of the (many) challenge of living a life of relevant faith is in trying to intersect with what entertains the world.
TV both acts as a commentary on today's world and at the same time pushes society farther. Our challenge is to find and enjoy the entertainment and NOT bypass the content that runs contrary to our faith, but rather learn from it.
Unfortunately, in my own life, I know that I really should be more shocked by what I see on television and yet I still find myself laughing at shows like Family Guy and South Park.
Here's an interesting thought: we can safely sit back and watch television with our remote in hand, confident in the knowledge that we can switch channels. In Roman times, did the early Christians attend their society's entertainment at the Arenas? Those were reality shows and as popularly accepted as television today.
i doubt they attended the gladiator shows ... although perhaps a Christian fundamentalist would have been more than happy to go to the arena on saturday night if it were a batch of liberal theologians being put to the lions that night.
although not physical, in the intellectual arena sometimes the attack on christianity is pretty thick on shows like jon stewart and the like, and it can be maddening because so often it is based on a caricature of your average christian rather than an accurate assessment of what i think are our ideals.
so i laugh, because there is truth in the rebuke, but i cry, because the truth of our faith cannot be reduced to a farcical stereotype of a pat robertson or a jerry falwell.
i have to watch myself because i can easily buy into the stereotype myself.
Tim R. (AKA "Coldstorageunit")
1. Where: I'm either in Libya or Calgary, depending on when you ask me.
2. What: I'm an engineer and an amateur philanthropist
3. Favorite book: Well, first I must acknowledge the fantastic taste in literature of those posts above. I absolutely love Robertson Davies' Fifth Business as well as The Man Who Was Thursday, both of which are in my top 5. However, my all time favourite is still The Brothers Karamazov.
4. Last book: Fugitive Pieces by Anne Michaels
5. TV: The Gilmore Girls, that's it. Oh and LOST too. Oh and The Daily Show of course. That's it though.
This is gonna be a fantastic community it seems like. Some great insight already in the comments above.
I'm looking forward to this too.
Great idea fellas.
Great commments. My greatest fear in this line of thinking is that for many Christians their faith really is just a stereotype of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. The fact that those types of people have the following that they do is the single biggest struggle I have with my faith.
Cultural relevance is huge and necessary and I admit as well to laughing at and enjoying things like South Park, Family Guy and movies like Dogma. I don't know about the gladiator arena comparison, it's one I hear regularily but the difference for me is that those arenas actually killed people for entertainment. There's no real comparable persecution of Christians happening in our culture. Sure our faith gets belittled and oversimplified on Comedy shows and political talk shows but there are just as many conservative and/or Christian media outlets who belittle or oversimplify opposing views to their own as well.
Hi Tim... "coldstorageunit" is a great name. My wife and I have some friends who are trying to get us into Gilmore Girls; the dialogue is witty but I don't think I've seen an entire show.
David, you're right about the arenas, but may have added confusion to the conversation: I had mentioned it because I was wondering about the level of what shocks believers in entertainment. We would be shocked by a live death on television because we're not used to it. In Roman times, death was a much more real part of life (in that life expectancy was low, Roman punishment was harsh, etc.)... people died more visibly then. So would their arena entertainment shock them as much? It's easy for us to draw that line today, but was it as easy back then? Rather than trying to draw a comparison between levels of violence in today's entertainment, I was really trying to talk about desensitivity.
Jonny, maybe one of us should put in another call to Tuna.
Aaron, interesting point about the visibility of death in Roman times. I wasn't really trying to say anything about comparing levels of violence but was merely commenting on it from the Christian perspective and what our reaction to it should be. I know that in their contexts there is a comparison to be made and frankly I think that any human being should care about what they allow themselves to be entertained by. I suppose there is a great debate to be had about where we should draw that line.
I'm without a doubt desensitized toward a few different things but I think the bigger point is to be mighty sure that if your taking something into your mind voluntarily it better teach you something. I guess that's vague but I would offer the example that the violence in Saving Private Ryan was honest, hard to watch and necessary for the story. I came away deeply moved and respecting those that fought in that war yet I was disgusted at the same time. Counter that with the violence in a horror movie which I would say has no purpose but to entertain.
In the end to answer the question you originally asked I would guess that some Christians did go to the arenas in Roman times to watch criminals get "what they deserved." I also know that many Christians today take in entertainment with little or no redeeming value. I am one of those at times.
As a follow up comment I'd like to say that I think it's fine to just be entertained sometimes as long as it's not having a negative affect. I suppose that's where the line gets fuzzy.
I'm much more worried about avoiding those who claim to be providing substance and value and are doing nothing of the sort than avoiding the occasional meaningless entertainment.
Thanks for the welcome Mr. Trembling. I enjoyed the book you and Mr. Fear self-titled. Pretty meaty, but fantastic nonetheless.
Gilmore Girls was much better in the early seasons. A lot more witty with tons of subtle literary references. This was all before Rory became a tramp in the latter seasons, which I still enjoy; thus making the transition into the beneficial entertainment discussion quite easy.
So what about that fuzzy line that Dave refers to, i.e. the entertainment that is neither beneficial nor particularly harmful, but merely diversionary. This struggle relates back to the problem of pleasure which Chesterton talks so well about. I often feel guilty about some of the ways I spend my time being entertained; obviously there is always something more beneficial I could be doing. Perhaps Mr. Fear could throw out some quotes, my copy of orthodoxy isn't near at hand.
And where's Cadwell?
great point about violence and desensitivity. i too had not been thinking of tremblings original question in those terms. truly i think we demonize the Roman Arenas when we (in general in our society) are far worse since we have made our living rooms and our big screen tvs our arenas. Difference: hollywood deaths vs. real deaths. but nonetheless should we really find entertainment in the depictions of death and violence?
i think the main question i have to ask myself with entertainment is whether it is redemptive (which is another way of saying what david was saying i think) however, i admit that can be a convenient way to justify watching so much filth. that said, i saw a movie the other day where the main comic routine involved an old lady slapping kids upside the head and verbally insulting them. That's funny? not to me it isn't, or shouldn't be. Whereas a movie with even more graphic scenes of abuse, but which exposes the horrible effects of such conditions can be much more redeeming. i know there's no sound and fast rule there, but that's the principle i go to anyway.
its not that its wrong to simply be entertained, not everything has to be serious, its just that when you are depicting stuff that is "wrong" or whatever, then you have to ask what its for. also, a person has to be aware of how stuff affects them. violent movies don't really make me violent or angry, but if they do for you then it probably is wiser to stick with Honey I Shrunk the Kids.
few more things while I'm here:
I guess as soon as Tuna has checked in we'll get to our first topic eh Mr. Trembling? (although I think we've got one already here) On that note, re adding others to the dialogue, we purposely started small to get an idea how much discussion the blog could handle, but if you know of someone who would be a good regular member of the roundtable let us know.
secondly, Gilmore Girls rules, but I agree it deteriorated a bit more recently.
thirdly, I hereby award the Gilbert Keith Memorial Trophy to Mr. Unit for the first GKC reference. Mind you, it came without a quote, so the reward will quickly fall into other hands if someone can do one better and actually quote the man. I can't right now since my copy of Orthodoxy is in warmstorage in Regina.
"Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men."
GK Chesterton
"I never could see anything wrong in sensationalism; and I am sure our society is suffering more from secrecy than from flamboyant revelations." - Chesterton, from the Illustrated London News column, 10/4/19
Dang, DRC beat me to it. Enjoy your trophy.
well you can both share the Gilbert Keith, very obscure quotes, well done. however, as a result you also qualify for the Monolith, an award given in recognition of profound obscurantism.
Since we aren't on to our first official topic yet, I'll extend the existing discussion with a question: Do any of us see any value in the old expression "be careful little eyes what you see" etc... should we think about that more, or less, or about the same? And are there any absolute no-nos, or is it all relative to who's watching and why?
to see your award go to: http://students.washington.edu/treisman/burningman/random2003/monolith.jpg
Tim, When you say Rory became a tramp, do you mean like a hobo? Did she ride on a train and eat from a can and wear fingerless gloves and play harmonica and lose all her teeth? Wow, I have missed out on something!
I liked West Wing so I'm looking forward to Studio 60, which is another Aaron Sorkin project with Bradley Whitford. I'm a big fan of both, although I could really do without Matthew Perry. (Did you know he won some kind of grammy or whatever for the small part he played in West Wing? I don't even remember him in that show).
Anyhoo... Everything Chesterton says is pure genius. Everything. I like to think that everything I write is just directly taken from Chesterton, except I don't write direct quotes, I quote his words.
"I" "am" "the" "greatest" "man" "alive". See? A direct quote from Chesterton about how awesome I am.
Okay enough silliness.
I hate to say it, but I think there's some relativity to the "be careful what you see" idea. Similar to Paul's food sacrificed to idols -- if you've committed not to watch it, then don't watch it.
Think of it like a spectrum: on the left side is acceptable entertainment that at the same time completely glorifies God. On the right side is the worst of the worst. At some point there's got to be a definite line for all Christians marked "do not cross." Somewhere in there is additional stuff you give up for lent (or or because it's a stumbling block). Our entertainment needs to stay to the left of that line. Now our challenge is to identify what that line is (and maybe leave some cushion for "just in case"). What's unfortunate is that the entertainment on the far left of that spectrum may have good intentions but it's not worth watching... leaving us with a very small window.
Hmmm... that's an off the cuff remark but now that I've written it I'm afraid it's coming out as too simplistic. Sorry if that's how it came across.
I'd like to elaborate but I have a deadline to finish so I'll let you ponder the need for additional complexity in my example.
I like the spectrum analogy and I agree that Paul seems to imply that there is a degree of relativity to moral stands that we take.
For me the line is constantly moving back and forth. Just when I think I can permit myself to watch almost any hollywood entertainment I watch something like Sin City and just about puke which drives my line further to the left. I did enjoy Kill Bill though so maybe I'm just a confused hypocrate.
good spectrum. simple but that helps get the point across. (i think generally people put all that is good and holy on the far right though!) anyway, i love your point about stuff on the far left being well-intentioned but miserably deficient in quality. that's the unfortunate thing with alot of Christian art I'm afraid, so people with good taste (oh that sounds awfully pretentious but I'm leaving it anyway) end up struggling with where "the line" is more than people who, more power to 'em, just absolutely love anything they hear on the radio no matter what.
(on that tangent, let me also say the line has blurred between "christian" music for the sake of congregational singing which by its very nature has to be somewhat simple, and "christian" art which can afford to be more artistic, but doesn't get airplay on "christian" radio because it is the "worship" stuff that wins in the "how many times does the song mention jesus" litmus test.)
anyway, back to the thing about the line on the spectrum. i'm ok with it being relative, but there are two principles I think Christians often forego for the more simplistic approach of discernment which says, "heck as long as i can handle it and it doesn't drag me down in my faith its ok". (this is a flawed principle on its own because we can't always tell how dragged down we are getting)
the first principle has to be the law of love, according to 1 corinthians 10. what that means is that even if i KNOW its ok to eat food sacrificed to idols, if i'm aware that its going to offend someone who isn't quite there yet, then I refrain. the second principle implied in this one is the importance of the conscience, which i think one of you was alluding to. basically, if your conscience is telling you no, then no it has to be, otherwise, even if your conscience is oversensitive, next thing you know your conscience will be useless because you've gotten used to not listening to it.
the key to this second principle is the role of the Holy Spirit and the Word and the interpretive community (ie Church); INFORMING our conscience. So here is where the give and take happens between one man's conviction and another man's freedom. Hence the huge need for dialogue in the Christian church, which has too often been trumped in the name of religious paranoia and avoided in the name of fear of conflict and immaturity regarding relationships and reconciliation.
Packed a lot in those comments. I'm off to Lethbridge for the weekend and may not be online. So chew and digest and add your own stuff and next week sometime we'll start our first official topic on the blog.
peace,
jonny fear
ps mr trembling, hilarious GKC quote about your own personal greatness.
I also have a favorite proof texte I'd like to share, from the church fathers I believe, which I've edited only slightly:
"The love of J...[on] C...[outts] has changed the world."
(I'm striving for the heresy trophy here, with my fingers crossed in anticipation.)
Well Mr. Trembling, if GKC thinks you are the greatest, then I am inclined to agree. So.... well played.
Mr. Fear, i have experienced the love of JC, both the original meaning and your slightly modified one, and it indeed has changed the world.
Mr.'s DRC, Fear, and Trembling: I like what's been said about the spectrum and the necessity of having a line, relative though it may be. One trap I often fall into, which i think might be quite common, is trying to define your line individually. As soon as we take out the role ofcommunity and the invaluable dialogue and discernment it provides we are on a slippery slope.
As for the whole christian artistic sub-culture that we have created to innoculate ourselves from the world I couldn't agree more with some of your thoughts above. It seems that one is almost forced to look elsewhere if one's taste is a little more "refined" shall we say. The only thing I use christian radio for is to wake me up in the morning, since they will usually say something to frustrate me within the first two or three minutes of listening. So naturally people in this group will tend to push their line further to the secular, which I definitely don't have a problem with.
For my part, do we really need to have "christian" and "secular" ends of the entertainment/art spectrum. Could we not just have "good" and "bad" sides. Naturally this does little to solve the problem of where to draw the line, but it sounded clever as I was typing it.
Perhaps we don't want to have a Christian/non-Christian spectrum of art and entertainment. I find the spectrum concept helpful though. However, I am a simpleton.
Some sin is clearly sin... while other sins are ones that we can slide into if we're not careful. I would suggest this includes things like drinking, eating, spending, resting, working... uhhh, actually a lot of things. The enjoyment of some portion of it in moderation is great, while somewhere along the way reaches a point of sin and that point will be different for everyone. I'm not just talking about excess, but I'm also talking about content. Drinking is okay, getting drunk is not (... a sin of excess), AND drinking most liquor is okay, drinking my grandfather's moonshine is not (... a sin of content). I hope that makes sense.
(As a side note, there are several other reasons that you should not drink my grandfather's moonshine... not the least of which is that it burns inside of you like the raging fires of hell.)
I think you're right that one danger is in ignoring the community of God in the dialogue of entertainment values. I also think that it gets way to easy to simply not bother thinking about where that line is, or continually checking in with your conscience to make sure there isn't an adjustment that is necessary.
From CSU's thought that we need a good/bad spectrum, I'm thinking about a slightly modified art/entertainment spectrum: on one axis is quality. On the other axis is popularity. Basically you're going to see 3 distinct areas where there is a lot of art and entertainment: in the "pretentious" zone, in the "pop culture" zone, and in the "pornography" zone. The alliteration works too, don't you think? Let me also say that this spectrum is fully copyrighted by me as of right... now.
Depending on how you define good and bad (redeeming and distasteful or high quality and kitsch), it may still end up as a Christian/nonChristian spectrum if you believe all good things are from God. I lean that way... especially because I think kitsch is inspired by the Prince of Darkness. (haha)
I'd like to mention one of my favorites: The Truman Show. It's a secular movie, certainly not the best movie ever written, not really what anyone would call good art... and yet it entertains me and inspires me at the same time by evoking questions of the purpose of people, predestination and freewill, and God's work in our life.
I've seen some really good content out there (I recall a great magazine geared to youth on this topic) meant to redeem entertainment by discussing "secular" movies and books from a Christian perspective. If anything, I think that gives a great resource to believers to help them find where that line is.
i'm bursting at the seams with laughter and agreement here. as Mr Unit might say, well played.
Good and bad would be even more relative than right and wrong, I'm afraid. one man's masterpeice is another man's waste of time. My favourite movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey is the perfect example of this.
however, i agree that the christian/non christian polarity is wrong-headed at times. i find it helpful sometimes to know that the artist is a believer. it helps me connect i guess. but other than that i don't like labelling art christian.
it isn't helpful, because you label your book store christian and suddenly everything carries more weight. so you sell "the bible cure for cancer" or "left behind" and it is "christian" when perhaps in reality it is from the pit of hell where aaron's grandpa made his moonshine.
i agree that we lose something when our spectrum is totally individual and personal and we shut out the role of community. but how do we involve community without deteriorating to the taboos of our forefathers and the legalism we have so frantically clamoured away from the last few decades? i guess those magazines and websites (ie dobson stuff) are a better approach, aiding in the discernment effort, but for some reason i don't like them. maybe because they are a little too strict. but then again, they do help. i don't know. the question stands.
My kingdom for some of old man Trembling's moonshine.
I agree with your opinion of The Truman Show as well. It definitely was a pretty great social commentary.
I'm curious about this new copyrighted arts/entertainment spectrum. You highlighted only three of the quadrants, so I'm curious what resides in the elusive fourth. All I know is it starts with a "P".
Mr. Fear brings up the valid point that good/bad is just as relative as christian/secular. I only mentioned it because I am guessing that the members of Holy Crap might have pretty similar tastes in the arts/entertainment world. Or so it seems to me at least, since I noticed nobody's favourite book was by Tom Clancy or Danielle Steel or something.
The labels we throw on commodities (christian/secular)is usually pretty frustrating to me. I'm not too concerned about whether the artist is a christian or not but rather whether I like the product or not. Obviously my preference would be for them to be Christians so that they might hang out with me and Gandhi in paradise.
The importance of community for me is to provide me with more information and ideas, both affirming and dissenting. Sometimes this might help to change my opinion on an issue or further cement my resolve. But I think its always beneficial to know what thoughts and ideas are out there.
Mr. Fear, you have mentioned the dreaded name of Dobson. I fear you might have woken a sleeping giant of fury in Mr. DRC. We'll see what happens I guess.
Good times. CSU, Fear and Trembling, you all had me laughing out loud by myself in the office here. Of course laughing out loud alone is the 3rd level of comedy as we all know.
Great topic, I wondered if this discussion would go down this trail and indeed it has so I will weigh in.
I appreciate the quality vs. crap or good vs. bad or "pretentious" (patent pending) vs. "pop culture" (patent pending) vs "pornography" (patent pending)ideas. I also agree that this, while being just as subjective, is a better way to go. I also believe something can be popular and high quality, the two don't cross that often but from time to time they do.
I have a real problem with the way Christians have pulled out of society in the last 50-60 years and created "Christian" music, books, movies, radio, schools etc.. Now we're left with the "Secular" versions of all these things having a far smaller influence from the values in the teachings of Christ because His followers have chickened out and taken their ball and gone home. I guess you know how I feel about our beloved CBC moving to Calgary to become a University.
That being said I hear what Fear is saying about appreciating when I find out someone is a Christian though again this is subjective as only God really knows and as most entertainment comes from the USA and most people in the USA call themselves Christians I don't know if this holds water. Is Jessica Simpson someone you want your daughters/nieces looking up to? She's a Christian.
As far as the Christian sources designed to help see good and bad in secular entertainment, I used to hate these and now I tolerate them, of course some are better than others. I guess the ones that annoy me (Dobson) are the ones that act like they are giving the final say and their subjective recommendation is somehow the absolute truth for all Christians.
Love the Truman Show example, great movie for making someone think and laugh at the same time. I've seen a few movies that have affected me this way in the last few years, Signs, Amelie... I won't list them all. But y'all are right that quality is subjective too as I've met plenty of people who hate M. Night movies and I feel profoundly moved and entertained by them.
I don't know if I said anything new or interesting in all this rambling but there it is.
Let me put in a clarification here that I was not referring to Dobson material in my earlier post. Perhaps, as a direct result of grandpa's "shine" I neglected to mention that. I've seen a few different publications on the idea of redeeming Hollywood and the one I liked the best wasn't a FOTF publication. But what it was, I can't remember right now.
And CSU: I'm not sure that pretentious, pop culture, and pornography are necessarily quadrants but rather general areas on the graph... if each piece of art makes it's own mark on the graph, you end up with a scatter-graph that (I think) will populate in three areas... but not necessarily in individual quadrants. However, since I would consider a lot of pop culture to be not so good (and sometimes even bad), it would appear closer to pornography which we would also define as bad (but for slightly different reasons). I guess good and bad and popular and unpopular are so incredibly subjective that my 2 axis spectrum sucks. I hereby release the spectrum into public domain.
DRC, I'm in agreement with you about M.Night, although I'm concerned about the upcoming movie because I've heard terrible reviews about it. Still, I'm a fan of both M.Night and Paul Giamatti so I'll probably go.
Let's put the spectrum idea aside for a minute and think of it in another way: When you want to bring structure to a creative and subjective topic like art, you need to create rules of inclusion and exclusion... and then deal with all of the exceptions on an individual basis. The better defined your inclusion and exclusion rules are, the fewer exceptions will exist. Developing the rules for inclusion and exclusion is where the community in all it's forms (church, Dobson, etc.) come into play. What are our rules of inclusion and exclusion? Fundamentalists would probably create a larger list of exclusions, preferring to eliminate "just in case" scenarios, and thereby discarding both the proverbial baby along with its proverbial bathwater. Liberal believers might prefer a larger list of inclusions. I hate to say it but there's a middle ground... what is it? We need to find the balanced approach to our list of inclusions and exclusions and I guess we use Scripture and the Spirit to help us respond to each of the exceptions of our inclusion/exclusion rules.
Nothing kills a good debate among believers like suggesting that we take the middle ground. (Sorry about that -- I don't always like that philosophy). But it would be a shame to let this great discussion go by the simple middle ground diffusement. (Hey Jonny, should we have a "middle ground debate killer" award?).
So, in making inclusion and exclusion rules, let's ask: What separates Michelangelo's David from a centerfold? What separates Song of Solomon from a lurid scene in a movie? (Please hear me carefully: I am NOT trying to blur the line or suggest it's relative or say that the centerfold and the adult situations in a movie are okay... I'm asking about what makes them different). In some cases I would say that intent as well as the gratuitious nature of the presentation might be good rules of exclusions, but that doesn't seem complete. Can anyone else do better?
As a side note; I'm on my way to go see M. Night's newest movie this very evening. I will even try to sneak in a coffee purchased outside the premises. And by "sneak in" I mean I will hold the coffee prominently infront of me just daring the ticket attendant to confront me on it. I'll post some thoughts on the movie tomorrow.
I think Mr. Trembling has hit on some great exclusion/inclusion principles in meaning and intent. For my part that's how I usually decide in my head what is right and wrong for me (whether that mental decision leads to action is another matter). You mentioned that is sounds incomplete and I think I agree but am struggling to think of other principles to bring to bear when deciding where to draw the line. Context might be another tool to lend aid. What is the medium associated with, where is it being presented, who is the target demographic, etc... Don't know if that helps or not but I thought i'd throw it out there.
I have to clarify that when I said it helps me sometimes to know the artist is a believer, I wasn't implying that the label "christian" on the front of it is necessarily the criteria I use to discern that. But when I've heard an artist talk about his faith sometimes it can add some added connectivity between he or her and I on what their art is about. That's not to say I don't connect at all with unbelievers ... you get what I'm saying.
Yes. Aaron. The middle ground discussion killer award would be tantamount to genius on your part.
I have to say that the spectrum and the inclusion/exclusion analogies are helpful. I think its complicated when evaluating art because good and bad intersects with right and wrong and so its not like the two are totally separate. Someone may think a movie is good precisely because it is so full of "evil"-wrong stuff, someone else may be attracted to a movie in part because they enjoy the wholesomeness of it. I think too often we think Jamie Dob only loves G movies because of what's not in them but maybe he and his friends have come to like them in part because of what IS in them. Make any sense.
I have a hard time separating the value of art to me personally (ie good or bad) from the value I think it has in the Kingdom as a redemptive peice of work. I don't think I need to apologize for that, but I admit it can be quite subjective. So I don't fault Dobber or other "discernment" tools for being unapologetic about the standards they use for their ratings. If they are overtly stringent in their evaluation they figure people will at least have that to start with. If they were quite loose about it it would lose quite a bit of its usefulness for those who will be looking to exclude a lot.
However, the tone is annoying at times with these folks, at it can be condescending, authoritative, and I think sometimes they miss the forest for the trees.
This is a good topic. So far I think Unit has come closest to answering my question about the role of community in all this. But I sense that most of us sees ourselves as the final authority on all things moral. I'm not making a value judgment on that, but I wonder if we lose something there.
This hasn't been very funny. I've been laughing to most of you guy's comments lately. If I could think of a joke right now I'd give it but I can't.
Last thing. Aaron asked about the difference between David and porn. I think the difference is in how graphic it is. One being far more than another. my question is if intent and meaning are important, then aren't we back to where we started with needing to know where the person is coming from, and won't a label "christian" or "secular" end up becoming part of that? I'm just asking.
Good stuff keep it up.
I have to be honest, Fear, I'm not convinced that the "graphicness" of something is necessarily the best rule.
Let's replace the statue of David with the statue of Giambologna's Rape of the Sabine Women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women). Now THAT is a graphic statue... I'm sure there's worse.
Song of Songs is pretty graphic in its sexuality while the book of Judges and New Testament depictions of Judas' death might earn the Bible an R rating.
What about the movie The Devil's Advocate? Very interesting and disturbing movie and pretty graphic at times... but a powerful message, and not for the faint of heart. Compare with the DVD of Dukes of Hazzard. Dukes of Hazzard was less graphic. Devil's Advocate has a better message for believers.
(Sidenote to DRC & CSU: I'm aware that there are probably better comparisons than those two movies but I -- *ahem* -- own the Dukes of Hazzard DVD and leant it to Fear once and he's razzed me a bit on its less redemptive qualities).
Perhaps graphics, like the intent and the gratuity of the situation can play a part in informing our inclusion/exclusion rules... but an entertainment's "graphicness" is fairly low on the scale for me... lower than gratuity and intent.
Or maybe I'm considering the graphic nature of something in context with the gratuity of the graphicness. Does that make sense? Perhaps there is an inverse relationship with its acceptability. Or maybe not. It is 3 in the morning here.
CSU, I like your additions to the rules of inclusion/exclusion. Context does play a part. The medium itself and the target demographic is a VERY interesting thought. Would that change the inclusion/exclusion of the movie, depending on who was watching it? I'll have to think about that one for a while.
Golly, Jonny, I'm sorry that I'm picking on your arguments... because I'm going to keep going here: do intent and meaning bring us back to Christian/Secular labels? They CAN, but they don't have to. In fact, a set of inclusion/exclusion rules can free us from Christian and secular labels in that some entertainment produced by the "secular" media would be included... not as a "Christian" movie (to pick on movies) but as an acceptable move to watch... a movie that won't be a first class ticket on the damnation train.
And to be fair, our list of inclusion and exclusion rules should exclude Christian movies like Left Behind because of the near-heretical eschatology.
Fear: I'm still thinking about your question of the role of community... Right now they create fairly strict inclusion and exclusion rules and distribute it through magazines, websites, etc. How do you see their role being different and/or more valuable? What can they do differently that would provide us with more value? Is it a matter of engaging in more dialogue? Is it in giving us resources? To be honest, I can't see their role being any different than they are right now: simply offering one of the strictest points of view from which we might play out a little slack on your own judgement. I think there is an individual element based on Paul's food-offered-to-idols teaching.
Fear: I love ya, man. Sorry to pull out both barrels on you. Thanks for the "tantamount to genius" compliment.
Okay, I've promoted The Devil's Advocate, I've confessed my love of the Dukes, and I've bashed Left Behind. Basically, I'm setting myself up for a serious attack from the right (...the Christian right).
It's 3 am, I have about 2 more hours of writing to do, so I'll check out.
By the way, who names their kid "Giambologna"?
Wow, a lot has been said here in the last few posts. Just when I thought the discussion had come full circle I realized it had in fact spiraled, we headed back toward where we started but didn't get all the way back and now we're coming around again.
Side note: I loved Lady in the Water and I have found that a lot of critics haven't liked the last few M. Night movies and here's why I think they haven't: M. Night fans put him in a league with Hitchcok and Kubrick and I think this annoys critics who think his stuff is average so they are more critical than they should be in an attempt to knock him down a notch.
Back to the discussion. I don't think what we've been saying means you have to end up with Christian/Secular labels. What I would suggest is that believers would be better off if there was significantly less or no "Christian" alternatives so that all the talented writers, actors, musicians, cameramen, directors, gaffers etc.. would have to get involved in the regular entertainment world. Would that blur the lines? Absolutely! And they should be blurred so that people have to think in community and for themselves about what they think is redeeming and what had no value instead of depending of FOTF to tell them. If I hear one more Christian tell me, "have you read what Dobson said about that", after I tell them I liked a movie, I'll explode.
So if believers are intermingled throughout the quality and crap, the good and the bad as they are in every other professional sector of society (do we have Christian grocery stores or stock brokerages?) then we are left with an inside influence and impact on the world.
I'll use POD as an example (though they are frought with imperfection as we all are). POD toured with Kid Rock a few years ago. A couple Christian music labels openly criticized them for it. During that tour Kid Rock's rapping dwarf died (I'm not making this up) and as the story goes Mr. Rock turned to POD for comfort, friendship and even prayer. POD had the chance to share their faith with him and introduce him to Jesus. Is Kid Rock a believer? I doubt it. Has he become more wholesome or uplifting since this time? I don't know. What I do know is that this would have never happened if POD hadn't been where they were criticized for going.
I just can't imagine the greater impact believers could have if we all got out of our cozy hiding places and engaged our world, being sure to come back together to fellowship and encourage and sharpen each other.
I haven't even dealt with the question of how we decide what is permissable adn what isn't. Personally I lean toward more inclusion of things I feel I can learn from. I'll put up with a lot that many might exclude to get to that learning moment. At the same time I don't begrudge the Christian who won't watch Devil's Advocate because it's too vulgar or the imagery disturbs them. Those are valid reasons to avoid something, for me the depth and message of that movie was worth putting that other stuff in my head as well. Constantine and Stigmata would be other examples of the same idea for me.
What seperates David from porn? Great question. It can't all be about intent because no matter what an artists intent they can't control the effect it has on people. It can't all be about effect either because I'm sure some pervert out there gets off on David more than porn. Intent can justify the artist and effect can justify the person taking in the art but the intent will not always have the desired effect.
I don't know the answer but I think part of it is to wrestle with open discussion, respect and the freedom to disagree so that we can talk about it, just as we're doing in this blog. There will still be people who passionately disagree on what to include/exclude but at least they would understand each other and not begrudge the other person for their decision.
Dave,
Good call on the integration of believers in society. Actors everywhere are turning to Christ because of the Association of Christian Gaffers. (just kidding)
There actually ARE Christian stock brokers who market themselves as such and that annoys me because of how they've segregated themselves.
I hate it when believers (who don't work in a church-related industry) try to trade on their faith. But that's another discussion on its own, I suppose. And I don't want to ALSO win the tangent award.
By the way, Kid Rock and Pamela Anderson reconciled their relationship from a couple years ago and recently got married. And have you heard that very sensitive song he sang with Sheryl Crow? It seems that POD has had an impact!!!
First off let me acknowledge the ability you fellows have in intertwining deep thought and great comedy, how Chestertonesque. I love it.
Mr. Trembling, good analogy with the Devil's Advocate and Dukes. I haven't seen the Dukes myself yet, but I think I still get what you were trying to say, and I wholeheartedly agree. I think all of us value wisdom and learning highly enough that there is lightly we would not see, or hear, or experience if there is something beneficial to be learned from it.
I'm thinking of some of the more graphic and disturbing movies like Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and American History X; and I wonder what I would be like as a person had I missed those important lessons by chickening out at the first bullet taking a life, a gas chamber full of naked jews thinking they were about to have a shower, or the infamous curb stomping scene in American History X. I think context and target demographics could come into the discussion nicely at this point. Obviously there will be people who, whether by age or maturity, will not be able to grasp or understand the powerful meanings intended and will only be left with many disturbing and graphic memories to haunt them. That would be a good exclusion principle for me. I.e. I prolly wouldn't let my 9 year old watch Schindler's list but would definitely encourage my 15 year old to struggle through it and learn some important life lessons. This is all assuming kids are in the cards for me, but I think the principle still applies.
Mr. DRC, we have had many talks in the past about the Christian mass disengagement from society and our problems with it so I won't delve into that one. I think you know I'm in full agreement on that count.
As a side note, I think this touches on why I like M. Night's movies so much too. For me they always hit on something deeper, something metaphysical; Lady in the Water no exception. Watching an M. Night movie for me is a lot like reading a George MacDonald fairy tale.
Mr. Trembling, you better hope ol Patty Robertson doesn't stumble onto this here blog or he might attempt to excommunicate you or something, although being an enemy of someone like him pretty well guarantees that your a well informed Christ follower in my books, along the lines of a Jim Wallis or Anne Lamott.
Mr. DRC; I also wonder if critics rake M. Night over the coals because his movies force them to ask questions about themselves that make them uncomfortable. And great POD story.
I think it is also important to realize that the majority, I think, of people don't have much of a hunger for knowledge and wisdom. And so there is a huge market and need for things like FOTF and Sojourners and things like that to distill theology and politics and morality (etc...) into something more manageable and accessible to the masses. My problems with things like Dobson's material is all in the presentation. As far as I'm concerned its quite fine for JD to have such strict and confining viewpoints as long as he presents them as good ideas that worked for him, however I don't believe he does that. My beef with Dobson and FOTF comes because his material always comes across to me like they are presenting facts. Like they have the market on doctrine cornered. Nothing grates on me more than Christian's trying to convince people they have it all figured out. There is a whole genre of christian art that falls into this category. I'm thinking right now of the whole guy/girl genre in christian literature, books like "I kissed dating goodbye" and "Everyman's Battle". I think these authors have great ideas for dealing with things like lust, porn, abusive dating, etc...But they always lose me once they start promoting their ideas to the level of right/wrong. Its all presentation; you've got a good idea, great, present it as one. But don't try to elevate it to truth.
There are very few people in this world that I know that could successfully work the word "gaffer" correctly into a sentence. Two are members of this blog, and I salute you.
So, if I design a little figurine or sticker of a Jesus fish sitting down over a cup of coffee with a Darwin fish, would anyone buy it. Or perhaps a Jesus fish and Darwin fish all inside a big Truth Fish. Is there a market? Anyone?
Dehumanizing
Oops, forgot to delete my little "dehumanizing" line from above. It was just a little note to remind me about a thought I had while reading your blogs.
1. Regina
2. Service Advisor at Nissan
3. Mere Christianity and The Body
4. This blog, by the time I figured out what was going on, you have all written quite a lot.
5. Big fan of The Office, Daily Show and Family Guy. May God have mercy on my soul.
Sorry I took so long to get on board. This sounds like a great idea. I thought blog sights were reserved for teenagers and perverts. But this looks like it should be interesting and funny. I'm leaving tomorrow for holidays and I'm not sure how much computer access I will have. I will be back August 17. Feel free to get going with another topic if you can't wait.
I know this first discussion isn't a formal topic but there has already been some great discussion about the Arts. I would imagine being an Evangelical and an Artist would be quite difficult. As Evangelicals we like to call things profane and pronounce judgement on everything. As Evangelicals we support the oral law, a kind of sin fence that keeps us from going over the cliff. As an artist, which I am not, I think your job is to push the boundaries and to express what others can't or don't want to. I don't know what the answer is in trying to resolve what the balance should be. But it should be possible for Evangelical Artisits to exist. Sin is awful and needs to be treated that way but sin fences aren't the answer.
Hey Tuna, welcome aboard!
Great point about the role of artists and evangelical artists. For one brief moment I was sure that you were going to claim that you were an artist and I was laughing in anticipatory disbelief.
Evangelicals tend to be mired in the mud of tradition and that keeps them from pushing the boundaries but I think they're supposed to push the boundaries, too. Unfortunately, evangelical traditionalism is a failed attempt at anti-liturgical holiness.
CSU's right about a lack of hunger of knowledge and wisdom and for a general desire by the masses to have theology and morality distilled for them. That's not only true inside the church but outside as well: that's why we get things like Dear Abby and Anne Landers or a whole crop of current TV shows like (I'm working from memory here) "We're killing our kids", "7 days to save my marriage", "Shalom in the home", "Take a chef home for dinner", etc. (Oddly enough, aren't they all on TLC?) Anyway, these shows and the many like them are basically experts telling regular folk what to do. And so much of it is basic stuff. I saw the first few minutes of "7 days to save my marriage" tonight... what was it about? Communication. Wow, golly, that was a shocker. Anyone who's been married for 5 minutes can tell you that communication is the key to a successful relationship. I've seen a couple episodes of "We're killing our kids" (I watch it because I can't believe how crappy of a host the host is). Anyway, here's a shocker: it's about keeping your kids from getting fat by making sure they eat healthy. People love this garbage because it's easy for them to get someone else to do the thinking for them.
Maybe that's why Dobson and FOTF is so popular. Even though he's uber-strict, people like having someone else tell them what to think.
By the way, CSU, I really like the idea of a random word at the bottom of your message.
gaffer
okay, i'm going to rebutt (great word, if indeed its a word) a few things, and try to make some tentative conclusions. i would suggest each of you try to make some conclusions in the coming days as well. (this might be a good precedent to set for the future routine) obviously this discussion can then live on as long as we want it to, but tomorrow sometime i'll post the new topic that had been promised.
1. trembling: now you are in for it! no, i welcome the critque of my comments, thats what this is for, and it will only sharpen me. however, if you start picking on me i'll be knocking on your door for the long awaited rematch to your date with destiny the last time we wrestled. only this time tuna won't be there to take the brunt)
2. ok enough inside jokes. we'll have to be careful about that. first off: i think by graphicness i meant gratuity, so, touche.
3. i agree that context and target demographic are HUGE factors. as a parent this is especially huge. so, with Michelangelo's David, it may not be graphic, but does the fact it is in a public square make it inapropriate? i may come out with marge simpson on that one.
4. the role of community has to work in tandem with the individual responsibility. i think dobson et al give us good tools, like em or leave em. mostly i think we're losing the local church's role in all this. here is where we get actually flesh and blood people challenging our "rules" of inclusion/exclusion, and hopefully being privy to our "actions" as well. small groups should be venues for this sort of stuff, but i don't think they live up very often. sadly. hope i'm wrong.
5. who named their kid Giambologna?
6. i think coming full circle, david, and spiralling, is how this whole dialogue ends up getting us to work through the issue from all angles, and maybe end up deeper than where we started. Lady in the Water was a bed time story. nothing more, nothing less. not many movies do that so its in a league of its own. not an appealing league to join, but there it is.
7. there may not be "christian" grocery stores, but you can get phone books that tell you where the "christian" owned ones are. i don't like that, unless i'm looking for an honest mechanic. then i read the "christian" phone and avoid those places!
8. i defer with great agreement to david's most recent comments on the integration of believers in society. it ends up being harder, but worth it.
9. i agree that sometimes it can be worth it to sit thru some disagreeable moments in film to get to the learning moments, but i don't think everyone has to. i also think you could portray those things without being totally graphic about it. if i'm a director trying to show how awful violent abuse is i think i'm going to stretch myself artistically in order to find a way to convey this without giving the "violence-addicts" another movie to get off on. (hotel rwanda did this well. passion of the christ did not.)
and no offence, but i chose not to look at trembling's link, not because i feel he shouldn't have included it, but because i can get the point without letting the image in my head.
10. GREAT point by the Unit! i do think that dobson's materials, while well intended as TOOLS, can unfortunately be discernment-killers for people because they don't learn how to think for themselves anymore. they become tools you might say. honestly, though, i'm not sure i'd fault dobson so much as the dobson-worshippers.
11. welcome tuna! make sure you come back from vacation all rested up to help me move!
12. trembling is right. the legalism and easy-answer stuff is as disturbingly prevalent out of the church as in. people even need ET Canada to tell them what to watch.
i believe my conclusions-for-now are entailed within the above points. one last point: i had previously said that i tended to judge things by their redemptive value. but even sin can be redeemed by our gracious God. so i look to him to redeem everything, but that doesn't mean everything goes. hence, for me and you trying to follow our gracious Saviour and holy Lord in this present age (and not a bygone one) this discussion is an important one, and should spill over into our local churches and small groups and wherever else. Amen.
I challenge you all to make whatever conclusory remarks as you can, and if this dialogue continues from there, so be it! Look for the new discussion "thread" in a day or two.
honky
Great conclusions Fear. Not much to add for me so I'll sum up.
I appreciate the spiralling, I hope you don't think I meant that I thought spiralling in a conversation is bad, it's the best direction to go.
As far as fear's comment about Lady in the Water: "Lady in the Water was a bed time story. nothing more, nothing less. not many movies do that so its in a league of its own. not an appealing league to join, but there it is." I think that was a shot at a perceived shallowness in the movie which I don't agree with at all. Giomatti's character was a man who'd given up on life due to intense suffering and through this situation found purpose and value. There was a lot more to the movie as well but I won't go into it as this isn't a movie review blog.
Glad to have Tuna on board, I'd like to see a rematch of the famed wrestle betwixed Tuna, Fear and Trembling.
I think mainly we are all on the same page in most of these issues, or at least in the same book. I vow before you my witnesses to avoid all businesses of any kind which go out of their way to advertise that they are owned by Christians. I will also only spend money in the "Christian" bookstore if the book is a Bible or a theology book or the cd is worship. The line there may be fuzzy but I won't buy Christian pop music or novels etc.. It's my small way of boycotting a culture we should have never created.
I also didn't look at Trembling's link out of cowardice not as a moral stand.
Finally, I will be changing my username to my familar tonytanti to fit in with all the nicknames on here.
it will be good to have tanti around again. yes, this isn't a movie review blog, but, i thought lady in the water was trying to be light and serious at the same time, like a bed time story, and it ended up feeling mostly light to me. i have found that i liked it more as i thought about it after than i did at the time.
i thought you were being positive about the spiral but wasn't sure.
i'd like to see someone summarize this discussion thread with a diagram or outline of the inclusion/exclusion spectrum and the factors that go into the discernment process. we could even weigh those factors on a scale of some sort.
i would also like to see a scale that measures greatness and then we could plot ourselves on the graph accordingly. we probably won't need to draw a low end on the scale i imagine.
note: we've been trying to come up with some "holy crap" awards to give out periodically, so if you have any ideas fire away.
maybe the baby in the bath water award to the best use of cliche, or tim lahaye/jabez award for the person whose comments show the best potential for spin-off book sales ... stuff like that.
FYI (or should I say, shameless plug): I've written a "review" of sorts for Lady in the Water at www.thissideofsunday.blogspot.com if anyone wants to come on over and discuss it further.
The Rape of the Sabine Women is a very famous statue. You've all seen the statue before and won't have realized what its name was. The statue captures some serious emotion and horror and is not graphic in the way that you're thinking it's graphic. It's graphic by comparison to the David in the severity of emotion without being gross or offensive: More like the famous painting "the scream" was graphic in its intense portrayal of emotion. My comparison was not in trying to show a picture of what was PORNOgraphic but rather graphic as compared to how sublime the David is.
Trust me. Please check it out. You won't be offended.
libertine
yes i see what you are saying. and now i know what you meant about giambologna. i wasnt' trying to make an example of you or take a moral stand, i was just illustrating the point i was making at the time. that's quite a statue though, i didn't read up on it but probably will.
Hello all, thanks for the invite.
Joel M. (AKA Underacheiver - Just a demotivational poster I have in my cubicle - www.despair.com)
1. Where: Reside in Delta, BC. Work in Surrey, BC.
2. What: I am a Training Simulator Specialist for NavCanada (www.navcanada.ca) and full-time NCAA football fan.
3. Fav Book: I think I liked the Odessey more than the Iliad, but I also love Star Wars novels and any Clive Cussler novel starring Dirk Pitt. Velvet Elvis was great too.
4. Last Book: Walden by H.D. Thoreau.
5. TV: Saturday football from September to January, Office, Extras, Entourage, and STNG reruns. Stopped watching Family Guy three episodes into the rebirth. I guess I got a bit re-sensitised during the hiatus. I would love to watch Stewart and Colbert regularly, but the work schedule doesn't permit it.
And to keep the ball rolling: I disagree with everything said thus far.
Welcome Joel, you've already made me laugh.
I love Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels as well... read most of 'em: Classic pulp fiction hero. I don't really like his other novels though, which is too bad because I wanted to like them.
Dirk Pitt is a beauty, but Al Giordino takes the cake in my books. I love how he always ends up with some of Admiral Sandecker's personal cigars, that stuff cracks me up.
Welcome underachiever, and like DRC, you have made me laugh already too, God bless you.
Kurt Austin is a wiener, long live Dirk Pitt and Mr. Clark. And perhaps Patrick McLanahan for the Steven Coonts fans out there.
Post a Comment