What Makes a Movie Christian?

27 04 2012

What makes a piece of art or music or cinematography ‘Christian’? Sometimes the ‘Christian’ label is slapped onto all sorts of things, from cookies to car insurance, simply because the thing in question was made or sold by a professing Christian. Does Christian involvement in the production of a thing or performance of an action, make that thing/action Christian? What if the same thing/action was produced by an atheist? Is there such a thing as a Christian cookie? What makes the contents Christian? What makes a film ‘Christian’?

Film is a great divider when it comes to ‘Christian’ labelling. Some view the medium itself as inherently bad. Some point to pornographic or violent content in a film as evidence that the film in question is bad and therefore ‘unChristian.’ Some films are called ‘Christian’ because they are made by Christians, others because they contain clear biblical themes. What sort of content in a film truly qualifies it to be called Christian?

I am squeamish when it comes to violence on TV. I don’t like watching it, I don’t like remembering it, and I feel equally uncomfortable watching sexually intimate scenes in films. Nonetheless, I can’t help reflecting on the fact that all the things moralists (often Christians!) typically profess to hate in film also feature prominently in the Bible: violence and violent death, incest, adultery, suicide, heterosexual rape and the threat of homosexual rape, unresolved angst… In short, pretty much every kind of immoral, compromising and complex human behaviour out there. True, the Bible contains a strong and compelling theme of redemption, but like films which are often described as ‘gritty’ or ‘real’, Scripture speaks to the human condition not by outlining esoteric avenues for escape (not every story in the Bible ends on a spiritual ‘high’) but by going into the details of people’s real lives: rejoicing over births and weddings, describing real fear of real enemies, lamenting suffering and death, celebrating goodness and beauty, delighting in and being frustrated by God, sometimes in response to a God who has revealed himself, sometimes in response to a God who seems absent. There is a great deal of irresolution on the small scale in the Bible, if not the big. Short stories of injustice and despair are offset by a much bigger story, the central story, of love and redemption.

It would make for grim, gritty, ‘adult’ viewing if the biblical story of David was transferred to the silver screen. Does that make it any the less Christian? Maybe it’s not necessary for a film to go by the title “The Life of Christ” or to have a Shawshank Redemption finale in order to qualify as ‘Christian.’ Personally, I wonder not that the story of humanity is so depraved, but that for every historical incident of evil, there is a historical story of equal and greater redemption.

Madi Simpson





Riots and Resistance

17 08 2011

There’s been a lot of talk in the international news of an ‘Arab Spring,’ a term encapsulating the unrest and protest by groups of people in the Middle East, and increasingly elsewhere, against autocratic governments and the burdens they place on citizens. Such ‘springs’ are uprisings by the people for the people, with the aim of creating momentum towards greater freedom and democracy.

The riots experienced here in the UK are nothing like that. Here in Britain we’ve had an uprising of an altogether different nature.

Over the past week or so a number of cities across the UK, beginning in London, have seen hordes of (mainly) youths marauding the streets committing wanton acts of aggression and destruction. Millions of pounds worth of damage has accrued due to vandalism, arson and theft. Shops have been looted and burned to the ground. Businesses built over generations have been lost. There’s even been a fatal shooting. So apparently mindless is the violence that some of the rioters even torched their own homes and neighbourhoods. And so perverse is the anarchic spirit at work, that while innocent victims of these crimes struggle to deal with their losses, rioters can be seen in video footage giggling at their handiwork, while looters have posted pictures of themselves grinning beside their caches of stolen goods. Whatever the underlying factors contributing to such behaviour—you can blame it on poverty or fatherlessness or political alienation—it seems this is less about social or economic deprivation, but something else entirely. Having witnessed a shopping centre ransacked by youngsters, one police chief observed, “This wasn’t an angry crowd, this was a greedy crowd.”

Political uprising is one thing, but what are we to make of this? Writing in The Times, Sarah Vine said that she was all in favour of paying taxes to house and educate those who need it, “but when they turn around and throw it back in our faces like delinquent children denied the latest Xbox, a screw turns dangerously tight in the heart.”

It seems impossible not to share her sentiment. How can one not be angry at the depth of destruction and the shallowness of the mob? What is the Christian response? I’m not sure what the official ‘church’ response has been, but it appears that one appropriate response has already been demonstrated in some of the affected areas by residents of different faiths or no faith. In defiance of the destruction levied on them, residents of Clapham, London, armed themselves with brooms and took to the streets to clean up. The spirit of anarchy has been met by a spirit of resilience and hope. With no outside prompting, people are joining together to repair the damage, and so communities are being strengthened by a shared sense of purpose as opposed to merely a shared postcode.

We can lament the state of western culture when its youth commit crimes in the name of greed and entitlement. We can talk till the cows come home about why and how such a thing has come to pass. But if that screw in our hearts is not to tighten further, we need to find a way of responding that will not darken our own hearts. We needn’t try to feel less angry. Anger is appropriate in this instance. Many of the Psalms exemplify the outpouring of anger and despair. What we need to do is acknowledge our anger yet defy the ways it twists our hearts. That requires meeting the spirit of rebellion with the spirit of resistance: reconciliation not revenge, brooms not bats, community welfare not gang warfare. Such a view is necessarily a long term one. It takes time to rebuild broken walls and forgiveness to repair broken lives. But as I understand it, this is what Christ asked people to do. The man who said “do not repay evil with evil”, and who himself faced plenty, either lacked the courage to get even or he knew what he was talking about.

Madi Simpson





“You have to learn how to die”

8 07 2011

How can one fight to produce peace? How can one win a war without causing more wars in the future? These questions hit me, as funny as it may be, while I was listening to a song by Wilco recently. I had probably listened to this song about 20 times before the significance of these lines hit me, which doesn’t say much for my intelligence, as these are almost the only words in the whole song.

Anyway, the lines that grabbed me came from their 2002 album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot:

…It’s a war on war, it’s a war on war
It’s a war on war, there’s a war on war.
You’re gonna lose, you have to lose
You have to learn how to die… (from “War on War”)

In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech on December 10, 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the same issue. He famously said “nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.” [1] He went on to claim, I think rightly, that the foundation of such a nonviolent response is love.

In the immediate context of the African-American struggle for Civil Rights in the USA this meant that “The movement does not seek to liberate Negroes at the expense of the humiliation and enslavement of whites…It seeks to liberate American society and to share in the self-liberation of all the people.” [2] Violence, as a method to achieve this liberation, is ineffective and immoral because it creates a vicious cycle that thrives on hatred rather than love, destroys community and reduces dialogue to monologue, or in other words, “it seeks to annihilate rather than convert.”

I’d like to side-step the contemporary socio-political implications of such a view, although I think they are significant. Instead, I’d like to reflect briefly on an early proponent of this non-violent ethic: Jesus. In his famous Sermon on the Mount he says things like “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.”[3] This self-giving for the “other,” even those “others” who do not seem deserving, is a radical position but it is this response that has the potential to give life to both parties. Significantly though, Jesus didn’t just preach this, he lived it and, indeed, died it.

Collectively, we humans are indeed a violent and oppressive people. The Bible testifies to the fact that the world and people today are broken…if we needed any evidence for this outside of our own experience.  How could God overcome our oppression and violence without resorting to (and propagating) violence and oppression? How could God reconcile the broken world to himself in a way that maintained dialogue and thrived on love?

He had to learn how to die. And that is precisely what he did. In the person of Jesus, God became human and died to free us from such vicious cycles of brokenness. In addition to the metaphysical aspects of sin and redemption, Jesus also serves as our example, the paradigm of how we are to love others so much that we die for them, giving ourselves for others rather than forcing others to give themselves for us.

It is a war on war, at least insofar as war is the culmination of human brokenness. As Wilco said “you have to learn how to die if you wanna, wanna be alive.” I think Jesus agrees.

Ben Edsall
________________________
[1] The text and recordings of MLK Jr.’s two Nobel Prize speeches can be found at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/.
[2] This quote and the point below are made in MLK Jr.’s Nobel Prize lecture on Dec. 11, 1964.
[3] Matthew 5:38-41





Stanley Fish and the emptiness of generic ‘grace’

6 04 2011

A few months back, Stanley Fish (professor of Humanities at Florida International University and public intellectual) took an opportunity to respond to critics who thought that the recent Coen brothers’ film, “True Grit,” “was dull and uninspiring.” In a reflection titled, “Narrative and the Grace of God” he defends the more muted narrative in this film, which lacks some of the flash or melodrama that moviegoers might wish for. Fish comments:

That’s right; there is an evenness to the new movie’s treatment of its events that frustrates Gagliasso’s desire for something climactic and defining. In the movie Gagliasso wanted to see — in fact the original “True Grit” — we are told something about the nature of heroism and virtue and the relationship between the two. In the movie we have just been gifted with, there is no relationship between the two; heroism, of a physical kind, is displayed by almost everyone, “good” and “bad” alike, and the universe seems at best indifferent, and at worst hostile, to its exercise.

Turning to the book which inspired both the original film (starring John Wayne), and its recent remake, Fish sketches a discussion of grace and meaning, and he notes,

There are no easy homiletics here, no direct line drawing from the way things seem to have turned out to the way they ultimately are. While worldly outcomes and the universe’s moral structure no doubt come together in the perspective of eternity, in the eyes of mortals they are entirely disjunct… In the novel and in the Coens’ film it is always like that: things happen, usually bad things (people are hanged, robbed, cheated, shot, knifed, bashed over the head and bitten by snakes), but they don’t have any meaning, except the meaning that you had better not expect much in this life because the brute irrationality of it all is always waiting to smack you in the face.

Fish’s comments on heroism, grasped from the teeth of the absurdity, are certainly not new. If anything, he represents one of the best versions of a long conversation in modern nihilism which includes Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Camus. The thinking goes: In this world, filled with strife, heroism is not to be pursued in the context of one’s contingency as a creature made by God, but rather in a radical rejection of theological structures of meaning. One should accept instead that this world is filled with absurdity. The true hero accepts this, forges his or her own way, and creates meaning in the midst of the chaos which threatens to overwhelm human society.

While one can appreciate threads that run through this way of thinking – the honesty to not accept the naïve optimism of a secular humanism that grasps at a religious faith emptied of meaning, the affirmation of the wholeness and physical integrity of persons in the midst of adversity, and a recognition that the sublime lies just under the surface of our ordinary experience – one must also note that these are intricately tied to nihilistic understandings of the world and the heroic paradigm that accompanies it (other contemporary examples might be, Fight Club, The Quiet Man, and American Beauty, perhaps). In a world without meaning, we must accept what we find, and make the most of it.

But this is not the only, or even the most obvious, way to read the world. If we sense that there is meaning to be found in human relationships, then it may be more sensible to affirm that this is because we are created, and that this world, though occasionally baffling, is not absurd, but beautiful, and filled with life and intentionality. Situations of violence, cruelty, and strife do not stand out as the norm, but rather stand out in such sharp relied because they contrast what we expect of the ordered regularity of creation. Human violence and injustice appal us not because we are naïve, but because it goes against the grain of the created universe. The world seems absurd if we try to narrate its movements without God, or worse still with a distorted image of who God is.

Jeremy Kidwell





Excited by Conflict

7 03 2011

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed those battle scenes. Rifles, tanks on the streets, maps analysing the conflict: all was so… well… exciting. A few months ago the police, army and navy in Rio de Janeiro mounted an overwhelming attack to conquer slums that have been dominated by drug dealers. Like most of my fellow Brazilians, I caught being myself curiously attracted to the conflict, rooting for the police and accessing news sites many times a day to catch the newest

developments. In these past weeks, a similar thing has happened with protests throughout the Middle East, and the world tuned in to watch and speculate on the protests. Conflict, at least controlled, distant conflict, feels fun.

Rainer Rilke went so far as to compose five hymns to celebrate the start of World War I. When the conflict began, the man who many regard as the greatest German poet of the 20th century was caught up in the euphoria, and wrote verses to exalt a sort of greatness absent from peaceful seasons. “Joy! To see those passions born.”[1] For a brief month, before he became disillusioned like everyone else, Rilke celebrated the stark horizons and roused feelings sparked by war, in contrast to boring everyday life.

There are spooky excesses, for sure, but the question still remains I imagine for all of us: why do we enjoy war? Why are we attracted to conflict, violence, superiority? Why won’t we be interested in a movie about a family who lives
happily and harmoniously but are quickly aroused by plots about betrayal, thefts, murders? Even when explicit violence does not take place, why do we crave competition and the feeling of victory and subjugation so strongly, be it in board games, sports or politics?

The simple answer is of course that we are wicked. We enjoy evil, at least when we are far from it. When contrasts are drawn, and we are caught in the collective fervour of hurt pride, we want to see the enemy crushed. We want to see the rival soccer team humiliated. We want the lead actor to steal millions, steal the girl and get away with it, while the police looks clueless.

Our attraction to evil and its pleasures may explain why we resist and scorn goodness so strongly. To be good is to be cheesy, we feel; it is to lack “attitude”. A strong personality is one who is felt to be superior, and whose accomplishments are so tall as to overshadow life anywhere else. As Oscar Wilde quipped, “To be good, according to the vulgar standard of goodness, is obviously quite easy. It merely requires a certain amount of sordid terror, a certain lack of imaginative thought, and a certain low passion for middle-class respectability.” Some people even advocate forms of evil for our wellbeing, like the director of the recent movie Black Swan, who expressed in an interview, “The only way to be perfect is to allow chaos and madness to invade our lives.”[2]

“So are you proposing a merry collective group hug of losers who can’t shine and fight on their own?”, our cynical side may be objecting. Well, kinda, if you put it that way.But let me phrase my suggestion in a tougher way to the “Rambo” inside of us: war with yourself. Channel your aggressiveness for self-pruning; use your longing for victory to win over your dark side. Old-time Puritans called this mortification of sin: the steady resistance to temptation, the confession of any and every sin to God, the courage to repent and ask Jesus to regenerate our hearts. I guess such a battle won’t be undertaken by those who are still afraid to face themselves, and who hurt others with a need to feel superior. But this is a war to be fought, and won, by those who understand and mortify their aggressiveness, who can answer offense with silence, resentment with a reasonable voice, cycles of abuse with a brake of forgiveness. This war is won by those who seek, even in little moments, to create a more peaceful, less vindictive, more at-ease world.

René Breuel


[1] Rainer Rilke, quoted in Tzvetan Todorov, La Bellezza Salverà il Mondo: Wilde, Rilke, Cvetaeva [Les Aventuriers de l’absolu] (Milano: Garzanti, 2010), 96.

[2] Darren Aronofsky, in an interview to the Portuguese Vogue (March 2011).





Why did God allow that rape?

24 01 2011

Now a refugee in Italy, Sayid is running away from his past. He fled his Middle-Eastern home when charged with blasphemy – a sentence which carries a death penalty in his country – after he confronted an Iman who often abused sexually a boy. As part of a religious minority, Sayid faced unnumbered little indignities and persecutions, but one looms large in his past: he witnessed his wife been raped and killed in front of his eyes. What struck me hardest when I heard Sayid’s story is how, as a Christian, he makes sense of the violence he has suffered. He believes all that took place was God’s will, and that his wife’s rape was some kind of punishment for his own sins.

One can understand how Sayid’s polarized context contributed to his strange conclusion. When part of a besieged, suffering minority, people feel the need to have quick, solid answers. In a context of insecurity and suffering, we need all our defences up – social, psychological, theological – and there can’t be room for doubt or ambiguity. There is also the social pressure to conform, or at least respond, to the outside context: if Allah’s defining characteristic is not his love, wisdom or grace, but his strength, and one sees displays of Allah’s strength in Mosques and burkas and music and uniformed police everywhere, one needs the Christian God to be just as strong and unquestionable, even if his other characteristics as a good, gracious God have to be disfigured, and one ends with a vindictive, yet still strong, God, a mirror of Allah.

To be clear, Sayid’s conclusion is obviously out of sync with the Bible. The book of Job – forty-two chapters of complex poetry – is entirely dedicated to refute the idea that the suffering we experience is a punishment for sins committed. In another instance, when a blind man was brought to Jesus, and people asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”, Jesus answer was: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”[1] And Jesus healed the guy and made him see. For Jesus the point was not the origin of his blindness, but the good that could come out if it.

But if the rape and murder of Sayid’s wife were not the result of his sin, how are we to make sense of this atrocious act? Why did God allow it? I guess one could answer Sayid in a number of ways. We could say that God did not intend that act, but that it was instead an act performed by wicked people, who need to be confronted and judged. We could encourage Sayid by saying that God brings good out of evil, pointing for example that the abused boy’s suffering was stopped thanks to Sayid’s courage to confront sexual violence. We could express that God abhors evil, to the point of almost destroying the world when he flooded it in the time of Noah, and that he subjected himself to unspeakable suffering on our behalf, when Jesus died on the cross.

But why did God allow this specific act, this rape? As weird as this would sound to Sayid’s Middle-Eastern ears, and as weak as it sounds to Western skepticism, I would say: I don’t know. The Bible is filled with examples of people ranting at God, clueless about their suffering, expressing the full breadth of their distress and rage and doubt. Jesus himself screamed just before dying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[2]

Why did God allow this evil act? I don’t know. But if God suffers with us to forge a perfect paradise out of this mess, offering his life to save undeserving people, and we have experienced all the breadth of his care for us, and feel in our guts that he is not cruel – no, not at all – but pervasively good, I guess it is ok not to know.

René Breuel 


[1] John 9:1-3

[2] Matthew 27:46





Burn a Koran Day

13 09 2010

The biggest headline dominating the news around the world this past week has been about Rev. Terry Jones, pastor of a church in Florida, United States, and his plans to hold an international day to burn copies of the Qur’an. The repercussions around this act have grown progressively and exponentially, as protesters in Pakistan, Afghanistan and across the Middle East expressed their fury, president Obama urged the reverend to reconsider and cancel the event, and at least 11 countries condemned the event. Today, a mob has attacked a school in India, apparently as a form of retaliation.

This seems like a ripe moment for us to confess the stupid things Christians do. The actions of the reverend are, by any standard, profoundly against the Master he set out to confess, who urged people to love friends, neighbors, and enemies, who died on behalf of those who persecuted him, and who asked God on the cross to forgive those who were crucifying him. Rev. Jones seems more motivated by political ideology than by a clear grasp of the gospel of Jesus, and I, for one, would not mind if he were quietly abducted by a SWAT team and left blindfolded in downtown Kabul, even for a day…

We cannot  judge any group, or religion, by the lonely weirdos in it, of course, but we still have to own and confess sins made in the name of Christ. Christians have done wrong, stupid, and shameful things. The list is not small, and it must surely grieve God to the core and makes he want to vomit: defense of slavery, wrong wars, oppression of women and ethnic minorities, colonialism, religious intolerance, elitism, clericalism, forced conversions, anti-Semitism, obstruction of scientific progress, prejudice of gays, massacres of native peoples, complacency before violence done by governments such as during the Holocaust or the Apartheid.

Surely, so many of the wrong actions Christians have done in the past were performed with other motivations dressed with religious language. The medieval crusades motivated soldiers with Christian rhetoric and downplayed the geographical expansiveness behind the efforts, for instance, as happened with the discovery of the Americas and the division of Africa among European powers. The Holy Inquisition was arguably more about the Church’s power and control than about a loving intent of caring for people. And, if I may add, the actions of Rev. Jones, and George W. Bush’s war against Iraq (sorry if this offends any American nationalist friend…), if done with any pretense to Christian justification, did so by confusing democracy with the gospel, freedom with salvation, America with God’s people. The worst of Christian acts were always committed at moments when the teachings of Jesus were confused with, or substituted by, some current ideology. 

So may this moment lead us to true, wholehearted, contrite, genuine, purifying repentance. May we acknowledge our mistakes, ask God for redemption and ask one another for forgiveness, and beg God for the grace to become better people and to do differently in the future. And may we seek to understand the message of Christ better and distill it from alien ideologies, and to get to know the man who, if he appeared in downtown Kabul, or Karachi, or Baghdad, or London, who not be a promoter of conflict, but would win people’s hearts immediately.

René Breuel








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 635 other followers