Changeless God and Changing Culture

Day Two at Iron Sharpens Iron. The morning Plenary session was Larry Dixon, discussing how to deal with a changing culture. The answer, as we know, is to stay on top of it. Be uncomfortably familiar with it. His text was one of Elle's favorites; Acts 17:16-34. He did an excellant job of pointing out what Paul did in not forsaking the gospel, yet complimenting their religiosity. His confrontation was not an attack on what they believed, but taking what they knew that was true and moving them toward the Gospel. He also said that despite Pauls later commitment to the Gospel only (discussed in Basic Christian Leadership) he was in no way altering his approach. The Gospel remains the same, forever and always. The media through which it is communicated remains flexible. Thus, Marshall Mcluhan was wrong

The 1st seminar I attended was Jeff Riley, discusing Training Student Leaders. He provided a lot of helpful pointers, not only for students, but for all believers. He highlighted hospitality as something that everyone can do and makes everyone feel more welcome, yet is so often forgotten in churches and youth groups.

The 2nd seminar I went to was Using Multimedia in the Church by Mark Woodhouse. Honestly, I felt he was asking the wrong questions. Instead of discussing how we can best use this tool, he was answering the question of whether this tool is appropriate for church. Mark, if you still need to answer that question, maybe we should spend more time in Acts 17.

Finally, the evening Plenary session was Alex Strauch on Making Disciples. He focused on the Great Commision: Why it was great (the Giver had All Authority), the three main parts of it (Go and make disciples, Baptize them, and Teach them to observe all I have commanded) and the promise that accompanies it (Jesus is always with us).

Welcome to ISI

I won't be watching any films over the next few days, as I am in Iowa, attending a conferance called Iron Sharpens Iron. I will refrain from making any Iowa jokes. I did some reading in the car today, knocking out Basic Christian Leadership, and was honestly unimpressed. It felt like a bit of a sermon on not worrying about methodologies, because the Gospel is foolishness anyway. I have trouble swallowing that, and I hope I am wrong on what he was saying.

On a brighter note, Ken Daughters spoke on a biblical theology of change. While I don't agree with everything he said, he pointed out that we too often consider traditions in methodology as biblically based, when we have huge amounts of flexability. He said that "Churches that are dying have either changed something that they cannot change, or they refuse to change something that we can change." I could not agree more.

And Now, the Chamber of Secrets!

My second real interaction with the Harry Potter series gave me more of an understanding to the phenomena. Rowlings has done a good job of giving just enough information to whet our appetites for the intrigue that the world of wizarding offers. Although many of the details sparkle, I’m very disappointed in the plotline of Chamber of Secrets. The film seems like a brooding adolescent version of Sorcerers Stone. Not as quick, but beefier, and with more anger.

I barely recognized Kenneth Branagh, although I knew that he was in the film. He has never matched his work in Henry V, although in this particular performance, he was very good.

It seems wrong to attack the films for the use of sorcery, based on my love for Lord of The Rings, so I would like to address the underlying issues of the plot. Hopefully I can do better than some others dealing with the same film. For instance, Spirituality and Practice didn't do any analysis of the deeper issues in their review, and Crosswalk only deals with whether or not the sorcery is a problem. My take on the sorcery is that parents must make decisions based on their children and the Holy Spirit. There are teenagers I know that couldn't handle the spiders, and elementary kids who could easily grasp the deeper issues in the film while accepting the magical elements for what they are. Diana Saenger singles out fundamentalists for bashing Sorcerers Stone, but agrees that the 2nd movie is too dark.

Because there is no explicit spirituality in the world of Harry Potter, we have significantly more liberty in drawing spiritual lessons from it than with, say, Constantine or Hellboy. Even the sourcery is more of a tool than real sourcery, as Alan Jacobs mentions.

Cinematically, a lot of criticism has been piled on Director Chris Columbus for not pacing the film better and for sticking too closely to the details of the book. Although I can understand the argument, I (and many other readers) prefer translations to adaptations when moving from beloved books into movies. Although I have not read the Potter series, I have a feeling that liberalities taken by a director would be met by the wrath of millions of children. And Columbus does such a good job with the cinematography, special effects and casting that his other faults can be winked at.

As I said in a previous post, Harry Potter seems to pull at more strings than simply wizards, or bullying, or a good story. There is somewhat of the deeper pull that we experience when a story touches a deeper cultural vein. Harry is Harry, but he is also a little bit Wort, and a little bit Frodo and a little bit Prince Cor. He’s a golden boy like LeBron (King) James, and Phyllis Morris connects him with Godric of Finchdale. In any case, Harry is easily seen as an archetype with messianic overtones.

A big portion of the over-arching tension in Chamber of Secrets is not whether or not Hermione or Harry will die because they may be Half-Bloods, but whether or not young Mr. Potter is the Heir of Salazar Slytherin, and in fact about to pour judgment out on the impure wizard world, knowingly or not. Harry seems to be the only wizard powerful enough to be the heir, so he is threatened with the fate of Darth Vadar, savior turned Dark Lord. Rather than run away from the ostracization, Potter chooses to discover if he is the heir, and if not he, than who. Steven Tigner and Alan Jacobs both connect Harry’s struggle to that of Christ, although both are tracing the overarching theme of the series, there are applications in Chamber of Secrets as well. This particular film reminds me most vividly of Christ’s temptations at the beginning of his ministry. He was faced with a decision between doing what was right and doing what was convenient for Him at the time. Even Harry’s tempter has parallels with Satan mentioned briefly by Tigner, but certainly not yet really explored. The rebellion of Lord Voldemort is the reason why he is bad, but his association with snakes is unquestionably playing on cultural sensibilities.

Pungente and Williams look at the conflict in our lives between good and evil, and force us to assimilate Harry’s conflict with our own. The very real choice between the easy road and the right road faces believers daily. Seeking God’s face is hard work sometimes, as much as we love Him. And who wants to carry a cross?

Harry's conflict about being a parselmouth can help us understand some of the conflicts in our own life. Although Harry decided in the first film to avoid being associated with questionable students and questionable houses, the connection does not go away. He struggles throughout the film with choosing to do right. In the same way, as believers, we have chosen our side, but struggle daily to do it again. Note that we are to carry our cross daily, and only when we do that, are we closely following Christ.

Between Q's & Films

Before the next few questions, I'’d like to touch back on Igby. His question of the priest "If heaven is such a wonderful place then how come being crucified is such a big f***ing sacrifice?" struck a raw nerve with me. It is an insolent question, but the priest blew it when he ignored it. (Easy to blame a Catholic, right?) Igby doesn't have enough theological understanding to see that his question is misdirected. Crucifixion was a sacrifice not because it earned Christ heaven, but because He already possessed everything and left it for the cross. The crucifixion was a sacrifice because He was suffering for someone else. And the suffering was no’t purely physical, He also bore the emotional pain of a severed relationship with His Father.

1. I don'’t have three friends. Well, I do, but I won'’t talk to them till at least tomorrow, and probably not until later this week. But I have a related story. There is a girl at our church, Eniko, who is Hungarian, and studied in Europe under a famous doctor, and was brought to the US to teach handicapped children. (I may be a little fuzzy on some of the details) In any case, she was coming to our College & Career group, and we were trying (generally unsuccessfully) to help her understand American culture. What was our brilliant idea? Watch Star Wars. Not go to a baseball game, not visit Greenfield Village, not even a party at Dave and Busters. Star Wars. Films form the common experiences for us in a transient culture. Every student of postmodernism has seen Pulp Fiction, every good Christian kid has seen Princess Bride, and EVERYONE has seen Star Wars.

2. This is a trick question, because I deal in two divergent areas in my ministry. The youth group can probably handle film as a doorway to theological reflection and insight. They may struggle with overcoming their view of it as entertainment, but young people are generally more accepting and insightful with new methodologies than the more rooted. In addition, I know that many of them have done this type of thing with music, which leads itself nicely into film. Theological reflection is not something you ask for from Sparks.
2.1 James Wall is absolutely right in his brief essay Theology and Film. The problem with his recommendation is that it is so difficult to engage in theological reflection through film. I'm thinking about a film we saw over the weekend with some friends. I'd have to take a lot of time to nail some of the stuff down. Maybe a discussion on class barriers? Maybe something on family relationships or the conflict between dreams and responsibilities? In any case, it doesn't come easily. And it won't, until we engage it regularly enough to become familiar with the landscape of film.

3. The place of praxis in the communication of truth is right in the middle. Unless we communicate truth with our lives, we cannot hope to communicate it with our words. When God wanted to communicate truth to us, what did He do? After communicating different ways and at different times, He incarnated.

A review of the right Harry Potter movie is forthcoming, but reviews and reflections always take me longer than they’re supposed to.