Two Things:
1) The other day I was in Lifeway with my mom and looking in the video section of the store. Before my eyes was a veritable cornucopia of... nothing. Ok, not completely nothing. There I was standing in front of a shelf full of good intentions wasted and millions of dollars down the drain. There were a few good movies for sale: The Passion of the Christ, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, ... uhm... yup, that was about it. I hate to sound like a cynic, but it's pretty much true. There were at least fifty different productions on display for sale in that store, and I could only think of two of them that were worth buying. Oh wait - Left Behind III is alright. It's not a bad movie, just not a good one either.
I promise you I don't spend all of my time ranting about Christian movies, even though if you are judging by my blog posts so far, it may seem like it. What caught my eye about this shelf was one DVD in particular. It was entitled, Pastor Dave, and it was a Christian sit-com. The DVD itself contained only four or five episodes, but season two had about ten I believe. A Christian sit-com? Immediately my interest was piqued. Just this past semester I actually had to write a 30-minute sit-com episode for my screenwriting class for a series that my professor had invented for the purposes of giving his classes something to work with. In my interest, I flipped the DVD on its back and began to read the episode descriptions, beside which were screen shots of each episode.
Let me just establish here that I have never before watched any of Pastor Dave, but I assume that the group responsible for the DVD covers would know better than to use bad looking screen shots as advertising material. So... I assume that the shots I saw were some of the best shots in the series, or at least indicative of the rest of the shots found in each episode. With that assumption in mind, I was forced to the conclusion that this series was of the same poorly produced quality as many other Christian productions. It's a shame, I was hoping too.
What really caught my eye about this sit-com though was a line written on the back, bottom left-hand corner of the DVD. It said, "Enjoy sit-coms as God intended them to be!" Really? How did God intend sit-coms to be? How did he intend us to enjoy them? It seemed rather arrogant for this one sit-com to lay absolute claim to God's will for situational comedies. And by doing so, what are they really saying? They haven't even said anything specific like "God intended situational comedy to be family friendly" or "God intended situational comedy to be based on Bible characters or individuals in the ministry" (although ironically this one is based on someone in the ministry). No, it only says that by watching this series, we are enjoying sit-coms as God intended them to be enjoyed. In other words, once more we see the "Jesus" brand name coming out again. We are supposed to purchase this series because it conforms to God's will, and we know it conforms to God's will because it tells us it does, without giving any reason no less. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this is arrogant, but last time I checked, Christian movies and television do not count as scripture. Neither does Christian marketing for that matter.
2) Driving home after dropping my siblings off at school this morning, I saw a train passing by overhead ( I was driving under a bridge - the train was not in fact flying... although that would make an interesting story premise wouldn't it? I mean, not on it's own, but paired with something... who knows...). Scrawled across the side of one of the cars were the words: Islam Sucks.
I guess with all of the post-9/11 reaction that Islam and Arabs have gotten, this makes sense. I can understand why someone would write that. What confused me what who would write that? Obviously someone who believes that graffiti is acceptable, but what is their background? Especially in terms of faith. Are they a Christian? Do they think they're a Christian? And was that one of their motives for writing Islam Sucks on the side of a train? And if so, who did they intend to see it? What effect did they intend it to have on them? Or was it just cathartic?
Sometimes I think we really need to be careful how we react to things in the south. For so long now we've established a church culture in which popular Christianity has become the norm in our region that it's easy for popular sentiment and theology to mix and get confused. What I mean is this: Theologically speaking, I believe Islam is false. I do not believe it is an inspired religion, I believe it teaches its adherents false concepts about God and our relationship to him (even though it does value many of the same truths that Christianity does, such as submission to God's will), and I believe that many wrongs have been done in the name of Islam in the same way that many wrongs have been done in the name of Jesus. I also know that in high school I had a very good friend who was a devout Muslim. We were relatively close friends, worked together in extra-curricular activities, and even carpooled at times. We even shared very similar political beliefs. Most of all though, we could converse. If we had differences, we could discuss them. I did not feel the need to declare a crusade on my Islamic friend and he felt no need to declare a Jihad on me. Does that mean I agreed with his religious beliefs? Most certainly not. However I respected the fact that he was a man of faith as was I, and that commonality served as the basis for a relationship that offered plenty of opportunity for conversations about faith.
What I believe has happened of late is that politically, we view Islam, or the radical political groups that fly its banner, as the enemy. And in the south, that combines with the theological difference that Christianity has with Islam through the culture of Popular Christianity that we have fostered by accident. With Popular Christianity as our filter, we lose hold of the theological underpinnings of Christianity's difference with Islam. What began as a disagreement over who God is and how we relate to him became a simple political machine which views Islam in every shape, size, and manifestation as the Enemy with a capital E. This is the sort of mentality which inspires "Islam Sucks", and I very much doubt that the writer of those words was quoting John 3:16 to his or herself as the paint began to fly. Instead, I imagine the thought process went something like this:
Islam destroyed the Twin Towers. Islam attacked the U.S. Islam is an enemy of the U.S. My momma and daddy always learned in church that Islam was bad. Islam is bad and the enemy. Church is good. America is good because of church (aka because it's "Christian"). Things suck in America right now. Life is harder for me right now because things suck in America right now. Islam, as the enemy of America and Church, has made things suck right now. Therefore, Islam sucks.
Ok, so this is obviously an oversimplified version of things, and I doubt the writer of those words literally thought out each individual sentence above, however I do believe that these are some of the unconscious mental premises that might have led to this act of vandalism. At least, I've heard various renditions of these premises from various individuals in various ways. Suffice it to say, you may not think people think this way, but they do.
So how do we prevent this from happening? To be honest, I'm not sure. First of all, we need to extricate ourselves from this Church Culture in the South that we are so proud of. Just because there are a million churches on every street corner and everyone has been to church at least until they hit middle school doesn't mean that there are a corresponding number of people in the South who actually follow Christ. Similarly, it doesn't mean that God favors us any more than he favors say, the North, where you are much less likely to find a church, much less people who go regularly. Second, we need to begin communicating again. Listen, we know that Individuals have hurt us, and that these Individuals did so in the name of Islam. But that's just it, they were Individuals, and Islam is made up of countless Individuals. Christ commanded us to love others, and because of this commandment, we will love all of these Individuals, form meaningful relationships with them, and communicate meaningfully with them rather than turning them into a mass, borg-like enemy. If we don't see Muslims as people, rather than the cause of our political and economic woes, then how ever will we love them enough to share with them the greatest thing that has ever happened for people across the globe?
Well, I think my rambling has run its course. Just some things I'm thinking about.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Truth From The Dark Within
My girlfriend lent me a book of hers entitled Behind The Screen: Hollywood Insiders On Faith, Film, and Culture. It's edited by Spenser Lewerenz and Barbara Nicolosi and I would highly recommend it to any follower of Jesus with an interest in Art, Entertainment, Hollywood, Writing, and what has been termed "The Culture War" that has been taking place in America since who knows when. What is so interesting about this book is that it is a collection of essays by Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, working in some way, shape, or form in the Hollywood entertainment industry. These essays address a variety of issues and questions: What is the role of Christians in Hollywood? Do Christians belong in Hollywood at all? What kind of stories should Christians tell? How should the Church view Hollywood? How should the Church treat Hollywood? Should the Church treat with Hollywood? What is the place of Art in conjunction with Faith and Scripture? How does God work through Art? How does Art glorify him? How does Art inspire, inform, and convict individuals?
As you can see, I like questions. In fact, that's one of the ways I come up with story ideas. I take a situation, and then I go, "What if...?" And from that "what if" I can usually come up with an idea that is capable of dramatically enhancing whatever project I'm working with, if not serving as the basis of a new project altogether. So when I deal with questions, I take them seriously. Questions are important because they show us what we don't know and inspire us to seek answers, and I firmly believe that when we seek answers through questions concerning spiritual matters, what we are really doing is searching after God. I think God appreciates it when we seek him.
On a side note, I was looking up verses having to do with seeking God, and this came up:
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"
- Acts 17:26-28
This is really cool for me, because it just emphasizes so many things that are important to me both as a writer and a human being. God created us, he gave us life, to seek him. And one way we seek him is by asking questions. We want to know more about God, what are relationship is to God, who he is, how he loves us, what his son did for us. These are questions for which we strive to find answers in one form or fashion, even if we won't admit this is what we're doing. So seeking and asking questions is important!!! It's what we do with those questions, how we ask them, and what we do when we get answers, that so often makes the Church wary of questions. The problem is, many times, we ask questions not seeking to find an answer at all. For example, the Pharisees often asked Jesus leading questions to try to trip him up and catch him saying something which they could use as grounds to arrest him. Ironic isn't it that Jesus usually responded to these verbal bear traps by asking a question of his own! The point is, questions are good. Questions help us grow, as long as by questioning, we are genuinely seeking.
Another interesting part about the above passage which really struck me was when the writer of Acts states: " 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "
Who is being spoken to in this passage? Another good question ;) Here, Paul is speaking to the Athenians who were neither Jews nor believers in Jesus. And, lo and behold, he is quoting Athenian poets. What is this? Athenian poets in Scripture? "This can't be!" you might say. They're not Jewish! They're not Christians! They aren't published by Zondervan! Why on Earth would Paul quote these heathen poets? Why would God consider such unworthy specimens worthy of including in Scripture?
There is but one answer I can think of. These Athenian, non-Christian, heathen, goyish (Jewish way of saying Gentile) poets wrote... wait for it... wait for it... THE TRUTH!
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anything and everything non-Christians write is truthful or Scriptural. I am not saying that we should heed every single fact-statement, ethics-statement, and moral-statement ever uttered from the lips of someone who does not follow Christ. That's not what I'm saying, so let me make that clear now before I proceed.
So what am I saying? (Another question - You should be good at spotting these by now.) Essentially, I'm asserting that just because something is not explicitly Christian or authored, penned, painted, drawn, animated - pick your mode of creativity - by a Christian, doesn't mean that it is completely valueless. Nor does it mean that there is no truth to be found in it. Nor in fact, does it mean that the same form of Art work created by a Christian is inherently better in any way shape or form. I can't paint. I am not Picasso. Just because I follow Y'shua doesn't mean that if I paint my family on a piece of construction paper with finger paint then it automatically outclasses Picasso's famous Blue Period. God obviously recognized sufficient truth in the verses of a few Athenian poets who didn't even attribute their inspiration to him (the Athenians believed in artistic Muses, deities more or less) that he saw fit to include it in the very same Scripture that we hold to be authoritative to our spiritual understanding of who He is.
How utterly remarkable.
Why do I bring this up? Frankly, it has to do with this strange idea that the Church today has developed which states that anything that is not explicitly Christian or authored by a Christian must be inherently without Truth. For some reason, we think that all non-Christian music is worthless, that any book written by a non-Christian is of the Devil, and that movies not based off of the book Left Behind should be left in their cases. Obviously, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but in some cases, not so much. For instance, at Liberty University, part of the student Code of Conduct includes a reprimand for:
"Attendance at, possession or viewing of an “R”-rated movie"
The penalty for doing so involves receiving 12+ reprimands (22+ reprimands will put you on disciplinary probation" and a fine of $50.
Now, in a sense, I can understand what they're trying to do at Liberty. In their minds, they are protecting their students, an admirable goal. Protection of one's student body is only logical, however even logic fails when based on the wrong premise. This premise is that, again, if something is not explicitly Christian (and in this case, family friendly) then it is therefore not appropriate for Christian consumption. In other words, there is not sufficient Truth to merit paying it any attention.
Given, many films, books, and songs written by those who do not follow the Lord can have very harmful content. I am not disputing this. However, what I do dispute is this strange monopoly that the Christian Sub-Culture that we seem to have established has on the philosophy of Art. How strange is it that we produce "Christian art" and then expect Christians to only consume "our" work. Is this not the same thing as when a company controls all means of production and then forces the consumer to purchase only their products at whatever price they choose to set? It's the very same thing, just on a cultural, artistic level. We get mad at OPEC for doing it, so why don't we get mad at the "Church Monopoly"? Because God only appreciates art created by Christians? I don't think so; refer to Acts Chapter 17.
So now that I've gone into all of this, what does it have to do with the first paragraph of this ever expanding diatribe? This issue of Art, it's role in the expression of my faith, is very important to me. The fact that it is being circumscribed by a monopoly that justifies itself by stamping the brand name "Jesus" on its products bugs me. It leaves me discontent. And yet, all I can do is ask questions and seek answers, earnestly, praying as I go along, and hoping to gain wisdom from other believers who have walked these same steps before me. This is what Behind The Screen has been to me, a road map of sorts. Does it give me the answers? No. Does it show me the way? No. But it has informed me as to what questions I should be asking, and for that I am very grateful.
An author whose essay particularly struck me was Scott Derrickson who wrote his essay in such a way as to parallel John Bunyan's famous allegory, Pilgrim's Progress. If you don't know, Derrickson co-wrote and directed The Exorcism of Emily Rose. This guy a Christian? Yup. From his writing I have no cause to doubt his claim to faith. The essay followed Derrickson's own journey as he sought to answer many of the same questions I'm asking now, and one such stop on his journey caught my eye: The Monastery of Harmless Entertainment.
Here are a few significant quotes that stuck out to me as he described said Monastery:
"The believers in the Monastery of Harmless Entertainment had a very clear and precise answer to my question: they told me that my duty as a Christian in Hollywood was to create art and entertainment that is above all innocuous and harmless. They told me that my Christian duty was simply to increase the quantity of non-offensive material in the marketplace."
"Nevertheless, what began to disillusion me about the Monastery of Harmless Entertainment was that they advocated the rather ludicrous idea that G- and PG-rated material is inherently superior in moral quality to PG-13- or R-rated material. They thoroughly believed that family-friendly material is intrinsically of higher moral value than R-rated material that explores darker truth. I found this to be totally incongruent with the texts of Scripture."
He goes on to compare the story of Noah's Ark with that of King David, a story that is certainly not PG or even PG-13. Which has higher moral value, he asks?
He then tells of his next stop on his own pilgrim's journey: The Uplifting Movies Theme Park
"This is a place that celebrates and promotes movies that are positive and uplifting."
"I also began to see that many of the movies that they were celebrating and promoting reeked of facile transcendence and cheap sentimentalism. Perhaps this was an issue of taste more than anything else, because I love truth in the dark. There is some real darkness in me, and I'm drawn to stories that grapple with that darkness, then seek to find illumination within it. This is why I work primarily in horror, thriller, and science-fiction genres; those genres are often about truth in dark places. At the Uplifting Movies Theme Park, however, no darkness is allowed. I appreciated the place, but it most certainly did not answer my question for me; it could not tell me my duty as a Christian in Hollywood."
- Scott Derrickson, "A Filmmaker's Progress"
(For quotation purposes, please note that all portions of the above quoted material from Scott Derrickson that are in Bold have been made so by myself for personal emphasis and do not reflect the written formatting employed by the author.)
This rung so true with me that I was astounded. I have a tendency to write dark stories. Not sad stories per se, and sometimes, even happy ones, but often stories that grapple with the darker aspects of human life, existence and the world. To me, an important part of storytelling is revealing things that we often would rather keep hidden, our own sins, the injustices in the world, the effect that sin has on others and our community. These are the stories I'm drawn to, and these are the stories I have a tendency to write. Call me a muck-raker if you want, but I feel that God has given me a rather large rake, and if that's the tool he has decided to entrust to me, like the sword bestowed on Peter by Father Christmas in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, then I had better use it well. To my frustration and sometimes painful emotional struggle, I have discovered that this is not an acceptable position on art within the Christian Monopoly. Either you must be a member of the Monastery of Harmless Entertainment or you must be a perpetual resident of The Uplifting Movies Theme Park. I fit in neither, although I appreciate and borrow from both.
As Derrickson said about himself, I too have real darkness in me: the effects of my own sin with which my new self, the new creation that God brought into being the minute I put my faith in the Lord, grapples everyday. I also bear the scars left by past sin, by the sins of others that have hurt me. I also show spiritual stretch marks, remnants where God has grown me in ways that were not necessarily pleasant, but beneficial and absolutely necessary. My experiences are complex, and frankly, not all peachy, and writers write what they know.
I identify with Derrickson. Here, he speaks Truth, and like him, when I write, I want to write stories that shine a light in the dark, because I know that in the world that we live in there is a lot that is dark and a there are a lot of people out there asking questions and straining their eyes to see in the darkness. I happen to believe things would go a lot easier for them if I would just turn on my flashlight.
As you can see, I like questions. In fact, that's one of the ways I come up with story ideas. I take a situation, and then I go, "What if...?" And from that "what if" I can usually come up with an idea that is capable of dramatically enhancing whatever project I'm working with, if not serving as the basis of a new project altogether. So when I deal with questions, I take them seriously. Questions are important because they show us what we don't know and inspire us to seek answers, and I firmly believe that when we seek answers through questions concerning spiritual matters, what we are really doing is searching after God. I think God appreciates it when we seek him.
On a side note, I was looking up verses having to do with seeking God, and this came up:
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"
- Acts 17:26-28
This is really cool for me, because it just emphasizes so many things that are important to me both as a writer and a human being. God created us, he gave us life, to seek him. And one way we seek him is by asking questions. We want to know more about God, what are relationship is to God, who he is, how he loves us, what his son did for us. These are questions for which we strive to find answers in one form or fashion, even if we won't admit this is what we're doing. So seeking and asking questions is important!!! It's what we do with those questions, how we ask them, and what we do when we get answers, that so often makes the Church wary of questions. The problem is, many times, we ask questions not seeking to find an answer at all. For example, the Pharisees often asked Jesus leading questions to try to trip him up and catch him saying something which they could use as grounds to arrest him. Ironic isn't it that Jesus usually responded to these verbal bear traps by asking a question of his own! The point is, questions are good. Questions help us grow, as long as by questioning, we are genuinely seeking.
Another interesting part about the above passage which really struck me was when the writer of Acts states: " 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "
Who is being spoken to in this passage? Another good question ;) Here, Paul is speaking to the Athenians who were neither Jews nor believers in Jesus. And, lo and behold, he is quoting Athenian poets. What is this? Athenian poets in Scripture? "This can't be!" you might say. They're not Jewish! They're not Christians! They aren't published by Zondervan! Why on Earth would Paul quote these heathen poets? Why would God consider such unworthy specimens worthy of including in Scripture?
There is but one answer I can think of. These Athenian, non-Christian, heathen, goyish (Jewish way of saying Gentile) poets wrote... wait for it... wait for it... THE TRUTH!
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anything and everything non-Christians write is truthful or Scriptural. I am not saying that we should heed every single fact-statement, ethics-statement, and moral-statement ever uttered from the lips of someone who does not follow Christ. That's not what I'm saying, so let me make that clear now before I proceed.
So what am I saying? (Another question - You should be good at spotting these by now.) Essentially, I'm asserting that just because something is not explicitly Christian or authored, penned, painted, drawn, animated - pick your mode of creativity - by a Christian, doesn't mean that it is completely valueless. Nor does it mean that there is no truth to be found in it. Nor in fact, does it mean that the same form of Art work created by a Christian is inherently better in any way shape or form. I can't paint. I am not Picasso. Just because I follow Y'shua doesn't mean that if I paint my family on a piece of construction paper with finger paint then it automatically outclasses Picasso's famous Blue Period. God obviously recognized sufficient truth in the verses of a few Athenian poets who didn't even attribute their inspiration to him (the Athenians believed in artistic Muses, deities more or less) that he saw fit to include it in the very same Scripture that we hold to be authoritative to our spiritual understanding of who He is.
How utterly remarkable.
Why do I bring this up? Frankly, it has to do with this strange idea that the Church today has developed which states that anything that is not explicitly Christian or authored by a Christian must be inherently without Truth. For some reason, we think that all non-Christian music is worthless, that any book written by a non-Christian is of the Devil, and that movies not based off of the book Left Behind should be left in their cases. Obviously, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but in some cases, not so much. For instance, at Liberty University, part of the student Code of Conduct includes a reprimand for:
"Attendance at, possession or viewing of an “R”-rated movie"
The penalty for doing so involves receiving 12+ reprimands (22+ reprimands will put you on disciplinary probation" and a fine of $50.
Now, in a sense, I can understand what they're trying to do at Liberty. In their minds, they are protecting their students, an admirable goal. Protection of one's student body is only logical, however even logic fails when based on the wrong premise. This premise is that, again, if something is not explicitly Christian (and in this case, family friendly) then it is therefore not appropriate for Christian consumption. In other words, there is not sufficient Truth to merit paying it any attention.
Given, many films, books, and songs written by those who do not follow the Lord can have very harmful content. I am not disputing this. However, what I do dispute is this strange monopoly that the Christian Sub-Culture that we seem to have established has on the philosophy of Art. How strange is it that we produce "Christian art" and then expect Christians to only consume "our" work. Is this not the same thing as when a company controls all means of production and then forces the consumer to purchase only their products at whatever price they choose to set? It's the very same thing, just on a cultural, artistic level. We get mad at OPEC for doing it, so why don't we get mad at the "Church Monopoly"? Because God only appreciates art created by Christians? I don't think so; refer to Acts Chapter 17.
So now that I've gone into all of this, what does it have to do with the first paragraph of this ever expanding diatribe? This issue of Art, it's role in the expression of my faith, is very important to me. The fact that it is being circumscribed by a monopoly that justifies itself by stamping the brand name "Jesus" on its products bugs me. It leaves me discontent. And yet, all I can do is ask questions and seek answers, earnestly, praying as I go along, and hoping to gain wisdom from other believers who have walked these same steps before me. This is what Behind The Screen has been to me, a road map of sorts. Does it give me the answers? No. Does it show me the way? No. But it has informed me as to what questions I should be asking, and for that I am very grateful.
An author whose essay particularly struck me was Scott Derrickson who wrote his essay in such a way as to parallel John Bunyan's famous allegory, Pilgrim's Progress. If you don't know, Derrickson co-wrote and directed The Exorcism of Emily Rose. This guy a Christian? Yup. From his writing I have no cause to doubt his claim to faith. The essay followed Derrickson's own journey as he sought to answer many of the same questions I'm asking now, and one such stop on his journey caught my eye: The Monastery of Harmless Entertainment.
Here are a few significant quotes that stuck out to me as he described said Monastery:
"The believers in the Monastery of Harmless Entertainment had a very clear and precise answer to my question: they told me that my duty as a Christian in Hollywood was to create art and entertainment that is above all innocuous and harmless. They told me that my Christian duty was simply to increase the quantity of non-offensive material in the marketplace."
"Nevertheless, what began to disillusion me about the Monastery of Harmless Entertainment was that they advocated the rather ludicrous idea that G- and PG-rated material is inherently superior in moral quality to PG-13- or R-rated material. They thoroughly believed that family-friendly material is intrinsically of higher moral value than R-rated material that explores darker truth. I found this to be totally incongruent with the texts of Scripture."
He goes on to compare the story of Noah's Ark with that of King David, a story that is certainly not PG or even PG-13. Which has higher moral value, he asks?
He then tells of his next stop on his own pilgrim's journey: The Uplifting Movies Theme Park
"This is a place that celebrates and promotes movies that are positive and uplifting."
"I also began to see that many of the movies that they were celebrating and promoting reeked of facile transcendence and cheap sentimentalism. Perhaps this was an issue of taste more than anything else, because I love truth in the dark. There is some real darkness in me, and I'm drawn to stories that grapple with that darkness, then seek to find illumination within it. This is why I work primarily in horror, thriller, and science-fiction genres; those genres are often about truth in dark places. At the Uplifting Movies Theme Park, however, no darkness is allowed. I appreciated the place, but it most certainly did not answer my question for me; it could not tell me my duty as a Christian in Hollywood."
- Scott Derrickson, "A Filmmaker's Progress"
(For quotation purposes, please note that all portions of the above quoted material from Scott Derrickson that are in Bold have been made so by myself for personal emphasis and do not reflect the written formatting employed by the author.)
This rung so true with me that I was astounded. I have a tendency to write dark stories. Not sad stories per se, and sometimes, even happy ones, but often stories that grapple with the darker aspects of human life, existence and the world. To me, an important part of storytelling is revealing things that we often would rather keep hidden, our own sins, the injustices in the world, the effect that sin has on others and our community. These are the stories I'm drawn to, and these are the stories I have a tendency to write. Call me a muck-raker if you want, but I feel that God has given me a rather large rake, and if that's the tool he has decided to entrust to me, like the sword bestowed on Peter by Father Christmas in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, then I had better use it well. To my frustration and sometimes painful emotional struggle, I have discovered that this is not an acceptable position on art within the Christian Monopoly. Either you must be a member of the Monastery of Harmless Entertainment or you must be a perpetual resident of The Uplifting Movies Theme Park. I fit in neither, although I appreciate and borrow from both.
As Derrickson said about himself, I too have real darkness in me: the effects of my own sin with which my new self, the new creation that God brought into being the minute I put my faith in the Lord, grapples everyday. I also bear the scars left by past sin, by the sins of others that have hurt me. I also show spiritual stretch marks, remnants where God has grown me in ways that were not necessarily pleasant, but beneficial and absolutely necessary. My experiences are complex, and frankly, not all peachy, and writers write what they know.
I identify with Derrickson. Here, he speaks Truth, and like him, when I write, I want to write stories that shine a light in the dark, because I know that in the world that we live in there is a lot that is dark and a there are a lot of people out there asking questions and straining their eyes to see in the darkness. I happen to believe things would go a lot easier for them if I would just turn on my flashlight.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Inauguration Post: Lessons From Robin Hood
So this officially makes me a blogger. I never thought I'd see the day, but to be honest, at this point I don't quite mind. I always thought it was kind of silly, writing silly things to silly people who read them online, and for that I must apologize to all of you avid bloggers out there who so industriously work to write meaningful posts that will enrich the lives of whoever reads them. My experience with blogs up until college was limited to Xanga sites where as you can imagine, the subject matter was the equivalent to middle school cafeteria talk. It was only when I got to UNC that I met friends who kept detailed, intuitively remarkable blogs that mattered. These blogs were worth reading, and it is to these blogs that I aspire. So officially, I apologize to blogdom. I underestimated you. And on that note, I begin.
So today on TV, I started watching Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, starring Kevin Costner and written by Pen Densham. In this film, Kevin Costner's character, Robin of Locksley, returns home from the Crusades to discover that England is being run by the tyrannous Prince John. In his efforts to defeat Prince John, Costner's character undergoes a dramatic character change which begins as early as the very first scene where he escapes from near amputation at the hands of the moors (forgive the stereotypes, that's what happens in the movies). In the film, Robin undergoes a transformation from a selfish, rich-man's son to a caring defender of the people, acutely aware of the suffering in his community. In doing so, he becomes defender, teacher, and friend to the outlaws of Sherwood forest and their families.
When I was little, I loved this movie. I guess it was just something about the adventure of it all, the heroism, and the fact that even the humblest most inexperienced men, the poor, of Sherwood Forest, could learn how to fight like Robin Hood. Now that I'm all grown up (and by all grown up, I mean not 10), I still like this movie, but for different reasons. I can appreciate the storytelling much more for one. Here we have a hero story, a quest, gallant comrades in arms, a story arc that ends in the hero being vindicated for his trials, and even a decently sappy romance to top it off. It's not the best story/film in the world, but it's satisfying. I like it.
However, there's so much more to be seen in this film than just a plain tale of adventure. For instance, just look at how it took one person to unify and give direction to an entire community. Without Robin Hood, the thieves of Sherwood forest would have remained just that, a bunch of thieves, hiding for their lives from the Sheriff of Nottingham. Yet, Robin's presence stirred the men to action through one way or another. He was the catalyst that gave their community direction, meaning, and hope. In a sense, it reminds me of the role a producer plays in a film production. The producer deals with so many different individuals with disparate thoughts, ideas, skills, and dreams. Yet, it is also the producer who brings all of these different individuals together to create art in the form of a united whole, a feature film.
In the same way, what role do individual's lives play in shaping a community and giving it life? What about that special teacher who inspires students to go out and do something more than society expects of them? What about that friend who reaches out to you when you don't think anyone cares or when everyone "cares" but you know that they don't really? Or the peacemaker in the family who makes sure everyone sticks together, even when you really want to be at each other's throats? Or the preacher who gives direction to the church and coordinates all of the spiritual gifts and blessings that God has bestowed to the congregation? Sometimes, it just takes one person to make an important issue a relevant issue. No one would care about poverty were it not for individuals who saw the need of the community and vocalized it. The same is true for any issue, regardless of what it is.
And yet, I don't mean to make this a praise-fest for individualism. Individualism is nice. I tend to be very individualistic myself, very independent. That being said, America makes too much of individualism. We all want to go our own way, which sounds a little too reminiscent for my tastes of an often quoted verse from Isaiah if you ask me. Something to do with sheep, which is kind of ironic. In America, we try so hard to be individuals that we often become sheep instead, by being individuals, just like everyone else. Go figure. But that too is not my point. What I'm trying to show is that there is a relationship between individuals, leaders, and their communities. Sometimes a community needs an individual to grab on to and to give it direction, just like the muscles in the body need the skeletal system to latch onto for support and strength. But in the same way, leaders need a community. The community gives them identity, friendship, and most of all strength. A single cord breaks easily, but multiple cords are strong.
Sometimes we forget the importance of our community around us and we try to go it alone, but we have to remember that we can't do that. We are designed to be in community, and the need for a community is just as strong as the need for individualism and leadership. Without each, we're incomplete as human beings, or so my feelings tend to lean. A leader without a community is just an individual with ideas sans application. They're stuck. They aren't going to go anywhere, they're not going to do anything, and they certainly aren't going to grow in their relationship with God all by themselves. Iron sharpens Iron, but if you only have one piece of Iron, well, you're out of luck aren't you? Similarly, a community needs direction, and sometimes individual passions and ideas are excellent ways to provide that. Communities need leaders and without leadership, a community is likely to fall apart from lack of purpose and solidarity.
Plus, Communities help to define leaders and give them shape. Without the men of Sherwood and the need of that community, Robin Hood would never have become Robin Hood. It was through the need of that community that Robin Hood was able to become the leader-figure that he became and the legendary figure that we know and love. In the same way, a leader is never fully who he or she is or could be without a community to give them someone to love and care for. Someone to serve.
In this way, what are our roles in our community? First of all, we need to identify what community we are part of. Who are the outlaws of Sherwood Forest in our lives? Second, we need to figure out our passions and our needs. Just because we're leaders doesn't mean we can't also be led by others. We all have our passions, our areas of discontent as Alex Kirk mentioned at Rockbridge this summer. There are things about society that make us angry, and these are the things that will prompt us to take action and be leaders. We need to identify these passions and learn how to serve in these areas. Yet, just like Robin Hood, when we serve, we become a part of the community that we are serving, and we too have our needs. No man is an island, or so it goes. We need to understand that we all need some sort of direction and leadership in our life, which requires us to be humble too. We need to learn from our communities just as they learn from us. It's this connection and reliance on one another that makes community so vibrant in the first place. So, how can we apply the lessons of leadership and community to our lives and the communities around us? How can we be leaders? Where is there need in our community? And where can we learn from our community? Where does our community help give our own wild passions and dreams definition and structure? These are all questions that we need to consider as we try to understand our roles within our community. Not that this blog or these questions will provide all of the answers, or any for that matter, but I think they're worth thinking about at least.
So lesson learned from Robin Hood: Communities need leaders, and leaders need communities. We need each other, and we shouldn't forget this, no matter where we're at in life, what our careers are, or what American culture tells us.
Thus ends my first post. I hope it was worthwhile.
So today on TV, I started watching Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, starring Kevin Costner and written by Pen Densham. In this film, Kevin Costner's character, Robin of Locksley, returns home from the Crusades to discover that England is being run by the tyrannous Prince John. In his efforts to defeat Prince John, Costner's character undergoes a dramatic character change which begins as early as the very first scene where he escapes from near amputation at the hands of the moors (forgive the stereotypes, that's what happens in the movies). In the film, Robin undergoes a transformation from a selfish, rich-man's son to a caring defender of the people, acutely aware of the suffering in his community. In doing so, he becomes defender, teacher, and friend to the outlaws of Sherwood forest and their families.
When I was little, I loved this movie. I guess it was just something about the adventure of it all, the heroism, and the fact that even the humblest most inexperienced men, the poor, of Sherwood Forest, could learn how to fight like Robin Hood. Now that I'm all grown up (and by all grown up, I mean not 10), I still like this movie, but for different reasons. I can appreciate the storytelling much more for one. Here we have a hero story, a quest, gallant comrades in arms, a story arc that ends in the hero being vindicated for his trials, and even a decently sappy romance to top it off. It's not the best story/film in the world, but it's satisfying. I like it.
However, there's so much more to be seen in this film than just a plain tale of adventure. For instance, just look at how it took one person to unify and give direction to an entire community. Without Robin Hood, the thieves of Sherwood forest would have remained just that, a bunch of thieves, hiding for their lives from the Sheriff of Nottingham. Yet, Robin's presence stirred the men to action through one way or another. He was the catalyst that gave their community direction, meaning, and hope. In a sense, it reminds me of the role a producer plays in a film production. The producer deals with so many different individuals with disparate thoughts, ideas, skills, and dreams. Yet, it is also the producer who brings all of these different individuals together to create art in the form of a united whole, a feature film.
In the same way, what role do individual's lives play in shaping a community and giving it life? What about that special teacher who inspires students to go out and do something more than society expects of them? What about that friend who reaches out to you when you don't think anyone cares or when everyone "cares" but you know that they don't really? Or the peacemaker in the family who makes sure everyone sticks together, even when you really want to be at each other's throats? Or the preacher who gives direction to the church and coordinates all of the spiritual gifts and blessings that God has bestowed to the congregation? Sometimes, it just takes one person to make an important issue a relevant issue. No one would care about poverty were it not for individuals who saw the need of the community and vocalized it. The same is true for any issue, regardless of what it is.
And yet, I don't mean to make this a praise-fest for individualism. Individualism is nice. I tend to be very individualistic myself, very independent. That being said, America makes too much of individualism. We all want to go our own way, which sounds a little too reminiscent for my tastes of an often quoted verse from Isaiah if you ask me. Something to do with sheep, which is kind of ironic. In America, we try so hard to be individuals that we often become sheep instead, by being individuals, just like everyone else. Go figure. But that too is not my point. What I'm trying to show is that there is a relationship between individuals, leaders, and their communities. Sometimes a community needs an individual to grab on to and to give it direction, just like the muscles in the body need the skeletal system to latch onto for support and strength. But in the same way, leaders need a community. The community gives them identity, friendship, and most of all strength. A single cord breaks easily, but multiple cords are strong.
Sometimes we forget the importance of our community around us and we try to go it alone, but we have to remember that we can't do that. We are designed to be in community, and the need for a community is just as strong as the need for individualism and leadership. Without each, we're incomplete as human beings, or so my feelings tend to lean. A leader without a community is just an individual with ideas sans application. They're stuck. They aren't going to go anywhere, they're not going to do anything, and they certainly aren't going to grow in their relationship with God all by themselves. Iron sharpens Iron, but if you only have one piece of Iron, well, you're out of luck aren't you? Similarly, a community needs direction, and sometimes individual passions and ideas are excellent ways to provide that. Communities need leaders and without leadership, a community is likely to fall apart from lack of purpose and solidarity.
Plus, Communities help to define leaders and give them shape. Without the men of Sherwood and the need of that community, Robin Hood would never have become Robin Hood. It was through the need of that community that Robin Hood was able to become the leader-figure that he became and the legendary figure that we know and love. In the same way, a leader is never fully who he or she is or could be without a community to give them someone to love and care for. Someone to serve.
In this way, what are our roles in our community? First of all, we need to identify what community we are part of. Who are the outlaws of Sherwood Forest in our lives? Second, we need to figure out our passions and our needs. Just because we're leaders doesn't mean we can't also be led by others. We all have our passions, our areas of discontent as Alex Kirk mentioned at Rockbridge this summer. There are things about society that make us angry, and these are the things that will prompt us to take action and be leaders. We need to identify these passions and learn how to serve in these areas. Yet, just like Robin Hood, when we serve, we become a part of the community that we are serving, and we too have our needs. No man is an island, or so it goes. We need to understand that we all need some sort of direction and leadership in our life, which requires us to be humble too. We need to learn from our communities just as they learn from us. It's this connection and reliance on one another that makes community so vibrant in the first place. So, how can we apply the lessons of leadership and community to our lives and the communities around us? How can we be leaders? Where is there need in our community? And where can we learn from our community? Where does our community help give our own wild passions and dreams definition and structure? These are all questions that we need to consider as we try to understand our roles within our community. Not that this blog or these questions will provide all of the answers, or any for that matter, but I think they're worth thinking about at least.
So lesson learned from Robin Hood: Communities need leaders, and leaders need communities. We need each other, and we shouldn't forget this, no matter where we're at in life, what our careers are, or what American culture tells us.
Thus ends my first post. I hope it was worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
