Outstanding article on apologetics

Interestingly, in formulating my response to Dr. Sweet I spent some time at the Ooze and found this article:
http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=788
I highly recommend you read it. It is by John Morehead. He has some great insights into how we need to be culturally aware and in touch, but not cave to whatever new thing comes along. It was quite a pleasure to read an article on the Ooze that was demanding that Apologetics are increasingly important and relevant for today. What is so fascinating was that Dr. Sweet told me to check out the Ooze in response to me, I suppose,for defense of his position (I've read the Ooze quite a bit before). Now I am going to come back at him with this article from the Ooze to refute some of his false ideas. I just have a feeling that Dr. Sweet would deny the "importance" of apologetics as Morehead says, and would claim instead that people want to have experiences, or hear stories, or see moving visual images, etc. Not hear an intelligent defense of the faith.

Morehead counters and says that an intelligent defense of the faith is precisely what we need. We simply need, as all cultures do, to figure out the best methods and ways to connect that defense to this new culture. That is a challenge every Christian generation faces: to figure out, be in touch with, and have genuine understanding of the current culture of the day. For us, my friends, it is this new postmodern condition we must understand. But people like Sweet (and McLaren and others) want to change OUR message or change WHO we are as the Church and adapt to them, whereas we maintain (as does Morehead) that the Christian gospel transcends all cultures -- the question is how to get all these different cultures to understand the truth. For postmodern Christian scholars, they want to change or adapt the truth to fit the new culture. Certainly that would be easier. But it is not what Christ has called us to do. I believe that this basic debate between us and those within our ranks that wish to cave to postmodernism happens in every generation. Philosophically, before our time, it was the logical positivists. Christians had a choice to either stand by the truth (the very same truth we defend to postmodernism) and try to figure out a way to communicate that too the new cultural milieu they found themselves in -- OR they could cave to the logical positivists and agree that statements that weren't verifiable were meaningless, that the cannon was unreliable, that we needed to all go to higher criticism, etc. In essence, the liberal theology from Germany early this century. In other times it was other challenges. The point is every generation will present new cultural issues for that generation of Christians to have to tackle. Every single time it will be tempting to just bail on the truth of the Christian message in one way or another and change Christianity to this newest thing, and many will do just that. But every time there will be Christians that with a sharp mind seek to understand this newest culture situation so as NOT to fit Christianity to IT, but to understand how to communicate the truth to that culture and ultimately change the world to fit Christ.

Amen? I know which of those I am. It is encouraging to see folks like Morehead getting an article published on the Ooze who are in the same boat. One final thought, I think there are a handful of people who are on the fence of fitting Christianity to the world vs. being shapers of the world to Christ -- I don't think it is black and white for most (probably including us). And even postmodern Christians like McLaren or Sweet, for example, will from time to time sound like they are on our side of the fence. Well, amen when that happens. I am not trying to create divisions here, but help us see through the haze and midst of postmodernity and what's going on. As Christians we cannot be scared by the current times into thinking, "Crap! The world is changing! Quick we better change Christianity (or truth, or biblical scholarship, or whatever the current case may be) to fit this new world or we'll be left out in the cold!" No, Christianity is the truth, not the changing tides of culture. And we must stand on our truth with an eye for the changing waves and winds of the turbulent sea of human culture and figure out how best to steer the vessel through. But the vessel remains strong and in tact -- indeed it is far beyond us whether we stand upon it's deck or not. It will ride through this current storm and all little maelstroms until Christ returns. And this vessel of the truth of Christ that we stand upon today is the same one that Augustine stood upon as he rode through difficult cultural challenges in his day, the very same deck that Calvin and Luther navigated during cultural upheaval in their time, the very same ship that Boniface preached to the Germans in the face of heathenism, the very same ship that the fathers of the Evangelical movement rode early in this century in the face of cultural challenges of their day. Let us remember that the culture around us (postmodernity or whatever may come next) are the current waves in the sea. They are important, vital even, to understand and guide through. But let's not change the ship to fit the current storm. The storm will pass, a new one will come. And the truth will glide on. With this perspective in mind, I often want to ask folks like Sweet or McLaren what will they say after postmodernity is passe? After whatever comes along next will they stick to their guns and say the "true church" needs to stay to their postmodern system? Will they become just like the Christians today who scream trying to hold onto modernity -- foolishly thinking that somehow Christianity NEEDS modernity? Will they clutch their "new epistemology" and say that it is the right way? Let us rather be the Christians that ride above the storm (while fully engaged with it) and claim not to be "Modern" or "postModern" or "whatever comes along"... but Christian; Followers of the Truth. And the Truth's name is Jesus Christ.

Exchange with Dr. Leonard Sweet

Friends,

This morning I read an article by Dr. Sweet about a church plant up in Michigan (called WestWinds). I appreciated the article and what the church is up to, but was interested in his use of the label "postmodern".
I emailed Dr. Sweet and I have cut and pasted my original email below, (which includes the original article), followed by his response. I am formulating my response now, but I was encouraged by his missive. There are good and bad elements in modernity, there are good and bad elements in postmodernity. We need to embrace the good where we find it and reject what is antithetical to Christianity where we find it in both. Therefore, we need to be not modern or postmodern, but Christian. Dr. Sweet seems to affirm that basic thought. But my one concern is, he seems to do the accept/reject move on Modernity, but I hear him harping only the positive elements of PoMo and I hear no mention of the multitude of problematic elements within it.

Our email dialogue is below, I'll post the rest of it as it develops.
Blessings,
BJ


>>> My original email:
Dr. Leonard Sweet,
thank you for your intriguing article on the WestWinds church (I have cut and pasted it below). I am a student at Denver Seminary studying philosophy. I am in full accord and agreement with these great things that WestWinds church is doing. But my question for you is how exactly is this a "postmodern" church as you call it? The beautiful history of the Church is filled with countless examples of communities of worshipers lifting their hearts aesthetically to God. Certainly a high (and proper) emphasis on aesthetics and artistic appreciation isn't "postmodern", is it? Was Isaac Watts or J. S. Bach a postmodern? Or perhaps it's WestWinds innovation and creativity? Well, I think this is outstanding that they are so willing to try new things: but, again, how is that "postmodern"? Martin Luther's church community tried a lot of new things (and I think most of the time their innovations were for the better), but certainly they were not postmoderns.

I guess I am humbly saying that while I am excited about what WestWinds is doing I don't see how they are specifically postmodern. Please help me see what you mean here by postmodern and why we are using that term to categorize this church. Thank you for your time -- I know it is valuable.

Very Respectfully,
B. Jay Strawser

PS
As one final inquiry: Contrary to your claim, sir, I actually do hear a lot of people (yes, young people, my age -- I am 24), saying "I don't have a church life." That actually is a common complaint. True -- they also long for a spiritual life as you point out. But (perhaps surprisingly) they seem to have this radical notion that the two might be connected. Again, I think it is nothing short of outstanding that WestWinds is offering people "a common spiritual life through the adventure of a sacred pilgrimage with Jesus." That is wonderful! We need more churches with such a clear attitude and vision. But once again... how is that peculiar to postmodernity? Hasn't that been exactly what the Church has always offered followers of Christ? Thank you once again for your time.


[The original Article]
A Cutting Edge Red Tape Church
by Leonard Sweet
Leaders who dream the most are those who are most awake.
Take Ron Martoia, lead pastor at one of the most awakening new church plants in America-WestWinds Community Church in Jackson, Michigan.
WestWinds is awake to the needs of postmoderns. People today aren't complaining, "I don't have a church life." But they are complaining, "I don't have a spiritual life." WestWinds offers postmoderns a common spiritual life through the adventure of a sacred pilgrimage with Jesus.

WestWinds is awake to the arts. Everything about the church is designed to help postmoderns have artistic and aesthetic spiritual experiences. The original Greek meaning of "aesthetics" refers to things that are perceived by the senses. WestWinds is awake to the changing ways postmoderns experience meaning and evaluate reality-through a multisensory, multimedia, multilayering tapestry of gesture, symbol, word, and metaphor. Worship at WestWinds isn't high-tech-it's high aesthetics-deploying artists and designing space for God to be experienced in sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell.
WestWinds is awake to the Spirit. Preferring spirit descriptions to job descriptions, the WestWinds team competes with each other in risk-taking and permission-giving. Martoia takes team-based, not solo, continuing education jaunts. For their team the question isn't, "What's wrong and how can we fix it?" Instead the cutting question is, "What's possible here and who's going to give it a try?" This impulse to create and innovate is what's behind the phrase "cutting red tape." Thomas Edison's laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey was the world's first great R&D facility. In six years, the invention factory at Menlo Park secured more than 400 patents. The U.S. Patent Office watched and waited for packages that were wrapped in a certain kind of red tape. They knew these came from Edison's lab, and they cut these first. WestWinds is an invention factory for the postmodern church.
WestWinds is awake to the future. When one enters the building, what leaps first into consciousness isn't the stunning graphics on the walls or the original sculptures on the floor, but a waist-high row of tiles that riddle the walkway-obviously designed by children. WestWinds takes seriously Jesus' rebuke of his disciples' age bias (Matthew 19:14). Just as Jesus integrated children into his sermons (Matthew 18:2-3), so this church integrates children into its very mission. Instead of honoring its founding fathers, WestWinds celebrates its "founding children." Each colorful tile tells of the hopes and dreams of the 130 charter children of this 22nd century church.
Leonard Sweet is dean of the theological school of Drew University in Madison, New Jersey. (LenISweet@aol.com)


>>>> And Dr. Sweet's response to me:
Bradley:

It's hard for me to answer your email without a lengthy summary of about ten of my books. Have you checked the emerging church movement websites, or The Ooze? A lot of the discussions online address your questions.

But in short:
I argue that the epistemology being formed by digital culture (as opposed to print culture or book culture) is EPIC where E=experiential, P=participatory, I=image rich, and C=connective. In the modern world, the epistemology was Rational/Logical/Linear, Performance-based/Representational, Word-driven, and Individualistic. The "arts" were seldom featured or celebrated in worship (check out the paradigmatic Puritan meeting-house, which was stripped of all images and arts except for "words"). You are right that "postmodern" is more "premodern" than "modern."

I assume you're a student of Doug Groothius, who is opposed to all this "postmodern" missiology. Where I agree with Doug is that essentially the issue is not "postmodern" or "modern" or anything else. The issue is that God is up to something big, and are we going to be a part of what God is doing or not? And what God is doing is not more "sit-and-soak" worship with one-hour Sunday spectaculars that entertain. The true church has always been EPIC, I think. But then I don't want to lose what we learned in modernity either.

Still in One Peace,
len

Great Prayer from ESN

Ineffable Creator,
Who, from the treasures of Your wisdom,
has established three hierarchies of angels,
has arrayed them in marvelous order
above the fiery heavens,
and has marshaled the regions
of the universe with such artful skill,

You are proclaimed
the true font of light and wisdom,
and the primal origin
raised high beyond all things.

Pour forth a ray of Your brightness
into the darkened places of my mind;
disperse from my soul
the twofold darkness
into which I was born:
sin and ignorance.

You make eloquent the tongues of infants.
Refine my speech
and pour forth upon my lips
the goodness of Your blessing.

Grant to me
keenness of mind,
capacity to remember,
skill in learning,
subtlety to interpret,
and eloquence in speech.

May You
guide the beginning of my work,
direct its progress,
and bring it to completion.

You Who are true God and true Man,
Who live and reign, world without end.

Amen

Published in the Raccolta #764, Pius XI Studiorum Ducem, 1923.

Way to go Tornado!!

BJ, Congrats! What an honor. I would love to read your paper and offer any feedback I can but knowing you I am sure it is excellent.

Matt

Great news!

Praise God my friends!

I just got the word from Dr. Scott Smith at Biola that my paper was accepted to be presented at the EPS conference in San Diego in April!!!!

I am totally stoked. I could use anybody's help who wants to offer it on editing, and re-editing, etc, etc this paper until it is rock solid for the conference.
Isn't this great!? I am pumped!

I got the email from Dr. Smith this morning and I was afraid to open it because I assumed I had been rejected. Now I'm on cloud nine. This is awesome. I've never been to San Diego... anybody know of anywhere cool to eat there? :)

PotC and Popular Forms of Communication (please give continued grace to the length)

Andy,

once again, I need to thank you -- and please, to all, I am not merely trying to be cordial or polite here -- but quite seriously, I am appreciative of our rigourous conversation and engagement here. Andy, I particularly want to thank you for "not letting me get away with anything." (Not that I am a Richard Rorty fan, nor do I believe truth has anything to do with what we think it is or let each other get away with... but in such a forum as this, we need to be accountable to one another, hopefully for the purpose of becoming stronger in our arguementation and development of thought). So once again Andy, thank you. As I read your responses I find myself continually murmuring that proverbial, "hmm" that seems to spring from my voicebox everytime I come across a particularly intelligent point (I think we all do that "hmm" whether we actually make the sound or not... know what I mean?).

Let's discuss this "baptism" scene a little more. It sounds like you agree with me in your last response that it was a powerful and important and "moving" scene that -- (for viewers like you and I) -- makes deep theological statements concerning the death of Christ for the sins of the whole world (even though the whole world is his enemy). My original discussion of your comments on it, however, revolved around your connecting it to an earlier Gibson movie Lethal Weapon. As you wrote, "He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the ...showering/baptism of the guard." What I was frustrated about was that it seems you are implicitly claiming that Gibson included the "baptism" scene so that he could reference his own work in a "pious" manner -- that is, that he was trying to give himself some props with the viewer, as if saying, "See that... isn't that great film making? Kind of like Lethal Weapon... remember that? Wasn't that great?" Actually, now I'm not sure if this is what you are claiming, or were claiming, that Mel is trying to do or not. But that was how I originally read it. What did you mean by this original comment? I supposed I am confused on it. Thus, what you and I agree to be a powerful theological idea portrayed in the image of the "baptism" of the guard, I believed you were degrading to being a mere "throwback" for Mel to previous films. I was shocked by such a comment. I could not even imagine thinking about something like Lethal Weapon when I was confronted so powerfully by this idea of Christ's unmerited sacrifice. So when I saw you draw the connection to Lethal Weapon (which for me seems about a billion miles away) I was left with the conclusion... Did Andy just miss the importance of that? Does he really think this scene is in anyway whatsoever connected to Lethal Weapon? But now you have clarified that you did indeed see the theological ramifications of the scene. And I think you were trying to just show how this movie was made in a similiar manner common to most action flicks today. Is this correct?

I hope this clarifies my admittedly harsh first reaction to your comments. I assure you I was not trying to be patronizing in my comments to you. No, I was simply surprised that when you mentioned the baptism scene, the one and only comment you make about is how Mel is refrencing Lethal Weapon with it... no comments at all on how the image is a powerful theological statement. I want to humbly apologize if I was offensive or patronizing in my initial reaction: such an appearance was not intended. Since you felt I was, once again, I sincerely apologize. I respect you and your opinions a great deal. I am simply trying to understand.

To move on to the substance of our disagreement, I'll try to summarize your position at this point: because the PotC is made in a similiar cinematic style as other contemporary films (and uses similiar images, i.e. Lethal Weapon/Braveheart) you fear that "the audience will read them the same way that they read any other violent image in cinema, as violence, as something to withdraw from, to reject, or to be disgusted by or afraid of." You write, "Gibson's film trades in compositon, editing and therefore image-making in ways that are prevalently "hollywood action-flick" style." I think you present your position most cogently with this one sentance, "the construction of the film conforms to the popular use of the medium. I think this is a travesty and an insult to his subject matter."

Alright then, here's response. 1) Yes, first off, the film DOES use the popular constructions of film making today. I don't deny that. This film isn't made in any dramatically different way than other mainline popular films (although, I contend within those basic constructions, it is done very well).

2) Then I want to say... OK.. So what? My mind immeadiatly jumps back to the major writtings of the New Testament, which were written in the everyday, normal, call them "popular" if you like, style, constructions, and uses of the medium. When Matthew wrote his Gospel, I'm sure someone could say, "Matt, this book is written in much the same style and conventions that you always write in. It's written in the common style of communication today. Don't you think this story deserves something different?" But I would disagree. I don't see how Matt's using the popular modes of communication in his culture is "Bad'. I don't see how that is a travesty to the subject matter. Should Matthew of chucked all normal forms of the use of that medium and tried to write in some radical wild way to tell this radical wild story? No, he wrote as he always wrote... but the content of the story is what made it wild and radical (as the story of Christ always does... more on that below). The same is true here with this film. Sure, Mel made this film in the popular style he always makes films (I don't know why we would have expected any different from him), but it is the content of it that particularly makes it incredible.

You can go ahead and call me Marshall, but yes, I agree The Medium is the Message. But I would alter that slighty to say, The Medium is at least part of the Message. But the content is also very important and a large part of the message (I think, originally, Marshall had to be hyperbolic to make his point, because it used to be assumed that the content ALONE was the message). To say it another way, I don't believe that the Medium is ALL of the Message. Perhaps you fear that I think the content alone is the message, and thus you are saying, "hey aren't we saying certain things implicitly by the way or manner in which we tell a story? "

My short answer is: yes, I believe we do. And thus... does the movie the PotC say certain things implicitly about the most important story of all time by the way in which it tells it (namely the contemporary "action flick" style, which is, agreed, a lacking style)? Then my answer, once again, is: yes it does. But HERE is where you and I diverge. You find it a travesty that this story is "lowered" to this crude level of popular "action flick" style. Whereas I find the story of Christ to be capable of transcending even this admitedly "undeserving" style. Let me say it like this, "This movie is yet one more powerful telling of the most important story of all time IN SPITE of the fact that it is a modern popular styled movie!" An that, my friend, must give all the credit to the STORY itself. The content itself is what makes this a powerful film, just as when anytime and in any manner the story of our Lord is told it is powerful.

Certainly, some mediums and styles are far more effective than others. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But, I don't care if it is in "popular action flick style", "old silent film style", "dry academic writting style", "American Sign Language style", "church sermon style", "gospel writting style", "smoke signal style", etc, etc, etc. The amazing thing about this story is that it is incredible in any medium, in any way it is communicated. Yes, even this Mel Gibson popular movie style. And in our culture today -- unfortunately but still truly -- the majority of people are used to and interact most commonly with this Mel Gibson style. If that is the case, then Praise God! His story has been powerfully told in the style most common to people today.

For all of our criticisms of the takeover of the image over the word today, I don't want to ever think that we are immune to its affects. I, for one, know that I have been raised in this image driven media world and I am deeply affected by them (for better or worse). Thus, this movie strongly affected me. It probably would have affected a person from 1816 much differently (and, of course, their common mode of communication from the 1800s would affect me much differently than it affected them).

You say, "What I found was that it [the PotC} was about all of those things [big theological ideas] but in completely inappropriate cinematic language." And to conclude my point in opposition to that, I say: This film is made in the language common to today. I agree the common image-based language of today is lacking. Amen. But regardless of that, this is perhaps as good as this particular cinematic language can get. And, further and much more importantly, the story of Christ rides high upon whatever worthy or unworthy vessel it is placed upon. This film is outstanding precisely because it is about "all of those things" that we agree it is about, and completly in spite of the cinematic language it is presented in. To say it another way, this story of Christ will always be great in spite of whatever lacking language is used to tell it.


The last comment (finally... once again this is way too long... my apologies) I have is on your pointing out the centrality of the viewer. Once again, I completly agree. Absolutely, the proper interpretation of any communication rests a great deal in the viewer. For example, certainly someone could walk right up to an original Monet and say, "eh... no big deal." But does that determine the art's value? No. We agree there is brillance in Monet's work and if a viewer doesn't see it... then a viewer doesn't see it -- but that in no way degrades the art. Just because some people (who knows, perhaps many), will miss the ideas communicated in the PotC that does not degrade the PotC. It simply confirms that the onus is on the viewer to understand.

Blessings my friends,
And Andy, thank you so much for your insights and debate. You clearly are a more experienced student of film and I am a "newbie" to debates over this medium. Thank you for your grace. I'm sure many (or all) of my thoughts might be wrong. These are just my ideas at this point. Thank you for sharpening me.

-BJ

another lengthy post - please forgive

To respond to B Jay I will re-make some points and try to address all of his concerns. I apologize for deliberately omitting some of my feelings about the film (although I did mention a few) - I was trying to limit my comments to what I saw in the film, not its theological ramifications. I am sorry if I offended.

As to my biases walking in (and this may account for my somewhat strong reaction) I was surprisingly moved by the very "human" scenes spread throughout the violence (as I stated earlier) -- however, I was profoundly disappointed by Gibson's lapses into "pedestrian" filmmaking. "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." was my argument and it still is. I made some assumptions regarding Gibson's intent, but assumptions that I made after seeing the film and I attempted in my previous post to point out some of the striking _visual_ similarities between PotC and popular films. And yes, these similarities are "absurd" and repellent because of that. That is why I believe the film is pedestrian. It trades in _images_ that can be seen across a wide range of recent cinema. These are images that audiences are accustomed to "receiving" and not thinking about as "ideas." My beef is that the audience will read them the same way that they read any other violent image in cinema, as violence, as something to withdraw from, to reject, or to be disgusted by or afraid of. Now that I think about it, "pedestrian" might be too nice, since it implies an everyday contemplation (a la paintings or stained glass in church), and Gibson has made a 2 hour, one-time viewing (unless the movie should be viewed daily or weekly as a reminder or in a church even.)

If we might consider the language that the film uses (that of cinema) the basic grammar is that of the shot (mise en scene) and the cut (montage). Cinema, like all art and literature (and yes, I'm making an assumption) comments on its own history through its very style. What I have tried to point out is that Gibson's film trades in compositon, editing and therefore image-making in ways that are prevalently "hollywood action-flick" style. I am repeating myself, but the construction of the film conforms to the popular use of the medium. I think this is a travesty and an insult to his subject matter. I absolutely agree with you that this is the most important story in history. But why then does the film use predominately popular forms? To critique them and demonstrate the very importance and universal, transcendent nature of the story? I would think not, since the tone is one of brutal and unrelenting force of conviction. He is no clever post-modernist, and I am not arguing that Gibson is "patting himself on the back" but rather he is perpetuating images that flood into the popular cinema. A dangerous practice especially with the most important of subjects.

I did not "start from the assumption that this film is NOT going to be about the deep central ideas of the Christian faith (the sinfulness of all of humanity, the redemptive work of Christ on our behalf, the amazing grace of God, the love of Christ for us, etc., etc.) then, of course, you will not see these ideas vividly portrayed through this outstanding film." Kind of patronizing don't you think? How dare you suggest that? It is absolutely about those things, but forgive my repetition, "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." What I found was that it was about all of those things but in completely inappropriate cinematic language.

I appreciate your reading of the baptism toward the end of the film and I agree. "Does not this powerful artistic portrayal of this idea of God’s amazing grace stir you? And is not that exactly what ART does?" Yes to your first question, I was stirred by that particular moment, and a few others. And I assume that this is your argument for why this film is ART? Or how it functions as ART? Does the entire film rise to such heights, does it consistently offer the kind of insight you suggest? Does it need to? Could you have been moved by the spectacle of that image? Was this the film, or your (highly literate and educated) interpretive act? Could you address any of my questions regarding the role of the viewer?

I would like to continue a discussion of the place of images in our world. I am not completely convinced (and not necessarily in agreement with B Jay and the scholars he mentions, although I am sure you are more familiar with them than I) that the image entirely denigrates "communication away from ideas and into impressions that are simply received" since not all images do that and on a certain level it seems to me that the burden lies with an active and thoughtful viewer, who can speak and understand the image as idea, when it is about an idea.

Your argument seems to be: I have found the Passion delivers a strong artistic expression that conveys some of the truths of the Christian faith that surround the crucifixion. How about it?

Incidentally, what are the ethics of discourse surrounding the Bible? Since this film participates in that discourse, does it conform to the ethics of the conversation that is usually engaged in? As an engager in that same discussion, what do you think?

a brief reflection...then a longer post

Wow. Thank you B Jay. I must comment that I am glad to be accepted into your forum. It is not often that I have the opportunity to interact with people other than my wife on such a compelling level. So, thanks for your response and for calling me to the carpet as well. Also, thank you all for the many "recommendations for further reading, etc." I appreciate all of your expertise and willingness to suggest. I'll post again in a bit...

Also writting on coffee and an empty stomach...

And yes Becky, it certainly has a numbing effect. :)

I appreciate your eluciadation on presuppositions, assumptions, inherent biases, and the like. And, I also particularly appreciate your argument that we do not need to be in one of two camps -- either for or against the film. You are correct: this is a false dichotomy. I am guilty of allowing myself to be polarized to the strongly for the film camp. I think this happens when we have debates over things. I want to defend the film against these protests (because I don't think they are valid and I think the film is excellent) and thus, I focus on defense of the film... this ends up polarizing us into two camps. In the end you are right, it is a false dichotomy. You don't need to be "for" or "against" the film. Certainly we can all have mixed reviews.

I guess, though, I am asking for a simply argument from Andy then. I'm not trying to escape assumptions that we all bring to the table, but rather, I am asking him to defend a claim he implicitly makes. He writes:
My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image.

And... I don't think the film does have a pedestrian use of the image.

Can't that be a simple disagreement? I want him to defend that the film actually DOES use the image in such a way. His statement (from which he then builds his entire case) begs the question.

Example: If Jimmy makes the statement, "My chief objection to Bj lies in his punching me in the face..." before we see the rest of his argument can't we ask, "Wait a minute... did Bj punch Jimmy in the face?"

In the same manner, then, when Andy writes, "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." I simply am asking, "Wait a minute... does the film have a pedestrian use of the image?"

Since he makes the claim, the burden is on him to defend it.

I claim that it does not. Instead, I have found the Passion delivers a strong artistic expression that conveys some of the truths of the Christian faith that surround the crucifixion.

Blessings,
BJ

PS
I don't own an iPod... am I a dork or just a ludite?

I disagree with Andy... (Another very long post... sorry)

Andy, first of all, let me thank you for posting here. Of course (as far as I’m concerned) your thoughts on these issues are more than welcome. Second, we stand in real disagreement over several of your points on the film. I’d like to address some of those. But first a point of clarification: as I look over my posts I find that, on the whole, I was only trying to argue on the very polarized specific debate (between Dr. G and I) on the violence of the film. You approach this from several other directions and you bring a lot more to the table in your positions on the film. I appreciate these and I’ll attend to them. But further, I notice that I also was writing a good deal about personal reactions and sentiments towards the film. While this is good to discuss, it is not firm and direct argumentation about the film. In other words, I need to shore up my arguments a little more and really go to bat over specific positions on this film – not just give the classic, “well I felt this way or that way about the film.” Thank you for taking me to task on this – it is appreciated. Finally, yes I do think it was unwise of you to go into the movie with the biases gleaned from Denby and Groothuis… but hey, what can you do if you already read them? I will discuss these biases below.

So let’s begin. It seems that you are attempting to limit the concept of the crucifixion (and really any concept) into terms that can be packaged nicely into image based vs. word based cultural understandings. As a fond reader of the likes of Neil Postman and Ken Meyers, I agree with you implicit assumptions here: our current culture has taken a shift (very much so for the worse) away from the age of the written word and to the dominance of the image. You suggest (as others do) that this is actually some sort of sad devolving back to the pre-Guttenberg era. Again, I agree. I have a decent (but very brief) article that I had published locally on the very subject that I can send you if you like. Let us be clear though: the problem is not the use of an image over the word, but the tendency of that use to denigrate communication away from ideas that are dealt with and into mere impressions that are simply received (for amusement... i.e. Amusing Ourselves to Death). If you are not convinced yet that I am in agreement with you on the sad turns of Popular Culture (I am trying to establish our agreement here without walking through the long discussion itself), then perhaps this will help: I am an avid listener and supporter of Mars Hill Audio Journal, and, quite literally, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes changed my life as my thinking changed on popular culture and our interaction in it.

Ok, so we agree that pop culture has today denigrated the written word and the visual image has usurped control of much of media. This is bad because in that process in general we’ve lost the interaction of complex ideas and slumped to merely receiving entertainment. Here’s the problem – I don’t think Gibson’s film, as a particular, is going to fit nicely into this paradigm. Certainly as part of the larger whole (it is a film, after all) this and all films are part of the larger movement of the takeover of the image going on today. But what I am going to argue is that this film is not part of the movement that specifically demands a post-literate public and worships the image over the idea as opposed to the image as a means of conveyance of the idea.

Here is your full statement to that effect: “My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image. In that way, the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece. He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live. Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners who were largely illiterate and who were just coming to acquire written language, thanks to good ole Gutenberg. Gibson's audience has the benefit of widespread literacy and unprecedented access to scripture, and the responsibility to read and understand the word. Gibson allows the "masses" (who I assume he considers lazy) to skate by with reading the image _he_ constructs on-screen.”

There is a lot going on here. For one, your commentary on medieval iconography (“Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners”) seems a little bold, does it not? Is it not even possible that the parishioners of the medieval church understood something of the importance of Christ, His death and resurrection, and these icons and paintings could be expressions of beauty, art, and aesthetics attempts towards the worship of this God and veneration of these events? Do we have to so debase the use of the image that it is always and only used as a scare tactic or blunt educational (or perhaps you mean indoctranation?) tool for those lowly “illiterates”? Better, what I am questioning is this: Does the use of the image to communicate always have to assume illiteracy or a debased understanding of the principle ideas? Clearly no. And you, most certainly, would agree. You after all appreciate and enjoy the medium of film. My problem with your analysis, then, is that you are the one making the assumptions (not Mel). You assume that his use of the image (I assume as opposed to Monet’s or Da Vinci’s) is this type of “pedestrian use of the image” that you (and I, for that matter) are so against. You just simply assume this, you do not argue for it. You just assert: “the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece”. Again, as I’ve already commented, I think you are making quite a jump (and insult?) to all medieval icon paintings and “grisly” (I’d call some of them beautiful) medieval altarpieces by assuming that THEY are all examples of this “pedestrian use of the image.” But, even if THEY are “Pedestrian” uses (which I am not willing to grant), you never make an argument to show us how Mel’s use of the image is in the same boat.

Again, here is your assertion: “He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live.” Really? How do you know this? I did not see that this film assumed I was literate, educated on theology and philosophy, and understood at a fairly high level of thought the radical concepts of the crucifixion of the holy incarnate God. Nor did I see that this film assumed I was illiterate, uneducated on theological and philosophical concepts, and did not understand the meaning of the crucifixion. It did neither. For you to assume it did one or the other is going to require a strong case on your part (and you’ll have to defend how you can deduce this was the film’s intent). This film presented the story and the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The lynchpin and single most important even in all of history. Some who view this film will have deep understandings of the idea it is presenting. Some will not. Just as some who view an icon painting in a cathedral have an understanding of the idea behind it and some do not.

After you make this unjustified assumption about the film your entire analysis follows. Actually, in essence, you even say that very thing, “After making this assumption, he constructs his film using the same methods and techniques as every other latest blockbuster.” Did he make the assumption? Or are you the one assuming that he did. Prove that he made the assumption of the “illiteracy” of the audience, and then I’ll address your resulting analysis (which all based off of that unfounded assumption).

Incidentally -- and I’m sure we’ll get to them -- I find your arguments after this point to be grossly unfair to the Passion and based off of this terrible initial prejudice you had of the film. With every scene in this film which presents a powerful statement about Christian theology, instead of seeing that idea, you assumed some low form of image parading.

You write (for example), “He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the initial chaining of Jesus, the shoulder dislocation scene and the showering/baptism of the guard, and Braveheart in countless images of torture.” Give me a break. Shoulder dislocations commonly happened during crucifixions. Are you actually claiming that Mel intentionally put that dislocation in the film so has to hearken back to, and egotistically give himself a little nod, his film Lethal Weapon from 1987? Yes, you are actually claiming that, and, frankly, I find it absurd. The chaining of Jesus is a reference to Lethal Weapon? Andy, they captured Jesus in the garden and took him away. That they chained Jesus is a perfectly justified historical speculation. But you are so clearly anti-Gibson from the outset you assume this chaining scene is Mel trying to connect viewers back to his 1987 action flick. And, wait just a minute here, the showering of the blood and water of Christ after he was pierced by the Roman soldier is yet another attempt by Mel to give himself a pat on the back for Lethal Weapon? Come on, you have to see how ridiculous such a claim is. The piercing of Christ’s dead body on the cross and the flow of the blood and water that followed is a powerful moment in the story of the crucifixion that we all know validated his undeniable physical death. It, in itself, is a vital idea fulfilling prophecy concerning Christ and an important moment for believers in our Christ’s passion. That this filmmaker takes this flow of blood and water and speculates that it fell upon the solider that pierced him (which is a perfectly valid assumption) is a POWERFUL statement about what the crucifixion means. The very soldiers who killed the Messiah, the very ones who spilt his blood, are the very people that Christ’s blood was spilt for. Christ died for those Roman soldiers. That his blood actually falls (showers) down upon that soldier is a compelling visual image portrayal of this incredible idea of God’s grace that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” It is a powerful picture of the idea that “while we were still God’s enemy’s, he loved us and died for us.” Did you not see here (right before this scene) Christ call out to the Father and ask him to forgive these men for they knew not what they do? Are not each one of us these soldiers? The facial expressions on the guards themselves, who moments earlier were sadistically executing a man, signal to us that they come to realize that something is different here. Perhaps this man really is who he says he is (the Gospels tell us the story of the Roman guard who came to this realization and said it out loud). Does not this powerful artistic portrayal of this idea of God’s amazing grace stir you? And is not that exactly what ART does?

But, no, you would not have seen that powerful message in that scene. Because you had already assumed that this film was a debased pedestrian use of the image – not art. Thus, when you saw this scene (the showering of the blood of Christ upon the very one who spilt it), instead of seeing the incredible concept of Christ’s blood spilt for his enemies and God’s amazing grace towards us, as I did (and I was deeply moved by it), you saw… it is hard to believe… a throw back to some stupid 80s action movie.

I could go on. I think my point is clear. If you start from the assumption that this film is NOT going to be about the deep central ideas of the Christian faith (the sinfulness of all of humanity, the redemptive work of Christ on our behalf, the amazing grace of God, the love of Christ for us, etc., etc.) then, of course, you will not see these ideas vividly portrayed through this outstanding film. Instead, since you assume that the film will not do that, I suppose you look for possible connections to Hollywood movies. Thank you for those (and the others) that you pointed out. But I, for one, actually think that Gibson was trying to present the ideas of the Christian faith through this medium of film. If you go into the movie with the open mind that the film even could potentially do this – you’d be amazed at what treasures you find therein.

You write, “Gibson engages in the worst elements of popular culture for the greatest of goals.” And we simply disagree. Gibson is a modern day artist. Instead of paintbrushes or musical notes he uses wind-angle lenses and make-up artists as his tools. And this artist painted us a striking, moving, and deep theological statement about the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it somehow definitive? No. But let us add it to the long line of outstanding pieces of expression (a.k.a. “Art”) we have on the cross of our lord that have gone before. Like the Bach piece I mentioned in my previous post, this film is yet one more outstanding resource for us to connect to and understand the cross of Christ.

First, on Bach

On this idea of Christian art displaying powerful theological statements, before I respond to Andy, I first wanted to point out something in Bach's Mass in B minor. I highly recommend each of you study this incredible piece. And, by the way, Ken Meyers did a long discussion about the piece on Mars Hill Audio Journal one time. (It is very good, I've got it if you want to borrow it).

Bach's mass is constructed into 5 parts (just like any Mass). The central part (the 3rd one) is the portion whereby he puts the Apostle's creed to music (the fundamental tenet's of our faith). Within this central piece, it is divided into further 5 pieces. The central one of these again (the 3rd one) is the line from the creed, "was crucified, dead, and buried". Finally, and I don't understand this part fully, but Ken discusses how musically Bach created these musical "arches" that go high then low then highest, then low again, then high.

Thus, you have the crucixion of Jesus Christ as the central phrase, within the central piece, atop the central arch, within the central portion of the whole mass. Quite a theological statement Bach is making right there, merely in his construction of the Mass in B minor. Bach claims that the crucifixion is the central thought in all of Christian theology. I was deeply affected by this theological idea expressed to me in this musical manner by my brother Bach when I first encountered it... exactly what "art" is supposed to do.

Perhaps this can serve as a light intro into my big fat post that is about to come...

Hear a CU Boulder Philosophy Prof on Religious Pluralism

You are invited to the Philosophy and Theology Exchange to hear Dr. Victoria Harrison-Carter's proposal she calls "internalist pluralism." By it she intends to revolutionize the way scholars think about the whole subject of religious truth claims. Briefly, she holds that religious beliefs are true and objective only with regard to their own conceptual schemes. Alumnus Jim Cook will be responding followed by a time of Q & A from the audience. Mark your calendar for Friday, March 5th in the Hannay Conference Room (next to the Birk Center) from 12:00 noon to 1:00 PM.

Christian Aesthetics

Andy, I really liked this portion of your post:

Does anyone know if any work has been done in Christian aesthetics? I am concerned about the difference between saying something is a "good" work of art and "I was moved by it" in Christian thought. Are these statements the same?

These are important questions that I believe are too often lefted unanswered in the Christian community.

I know that Jed has an interest in studying aesthetics, does anyone else out there plan on bringing their Christian philosophic efforts to bear on these issues?

It seems that this is another area that we as Christian philosophers have left to the secular. Yet, it seems so ironic that we do. What better basis could one have for aesthetics than the Imago Dei? Why do we find certain images resonating within our soul? Is it that in some way the image of God in that created work connects with the image of God in us? Difficult questions, but seemingly well worth the effort to examine.