Overdue responses

Dr. Who? She or He Who Engages People and Culture in Missional Teaching

1. How would your experience be different with these movies if you watched them as a class? Has the blog atmosphere mimicked communal orientation in any way?
The experience would be different if were watching films as a class primarily because we’d all be watching the same movies. Plus, everyone would hate me because I talk the whole time during movies. The blog has mimicked the community in part, because everyone can enter in, and you can have in depth conversations, and you can connect on a different level. The main drawback is that not everyone is forced to be involved. Of course, Bonnie writes far more than she ever speaks, so maybe the blogs are better.

2. If this is true, how does one maintain ‘biblical authority’ and the ability to communicate the nature of sin to listeners?
This seems pretty think, but I don’t know that we have to tell people about sin for them to understand how it separates us from a holy God. The quotes in question seem McLuhan-esq, by denying that learners can understand what is going on outside of a particularly aimed message. It’s rubbish. I’m not saying that we should not aim at the congregation corporately, but it is not central to effective communication. Ever disagreed with everyone you talked to on the effectiveness of a sermon? So have I.

3. Let’s think about how people in a church engage in popular culture and how church leaders do? Which group goes to more movies? Think about the nature of their entertainment choices and the impact it has on their thoughts on ministry…
The congregation is a mixed bag of tricks. Elders, let me see, ah, yes, my cheat sheet on the back of the bulletin. 1: Probably not many. 2: No, not a fan of movies or television. 3: I think he enjoys studying more than anything else. 4: Doesn’t seem to be a movie guy. 5: Hockey fan. 6: Probably not. Well, I’d say the movies go to the congregation. They probably do not engage culture as much as they should, but for some, that's a moral choice. For others, it is simply not conveniant. Of course, with the rotation through the pulpit, there is a lot of variety in the interests of the speakers, which certainly helps engage more people on a regular basis.

4. Okay, how can we do that? Any practical ideas?
I appreciate it hugely when someone ties two or three ideas together. Another great thing is when 2 learners give almost opposite answers, and the teacher teases out the tension between them, and doesn’t squash the one he thinks is wrong. Of course, sometimes, the teacher has to kill, say, heresy, but generally, it’s better to let the class hammer it out. Leaders can also help by drawing out comments from less outgoing members.

5. What does Dr. Tucker’s interest in Sci-Fi genre say about his approach to ministry?
I’m going to say that he doesn’t deal in reality. Oh, wait, that's me. Let’s try again. How about that he prefers imaginative and creative methodologies. Perhaps he has a particular love for the battle between good and evil, and because of his knowledge that good will ultimately win, was let down by cowboy movies. Perhaps he tries to connect with ur images in his teaching.

Hearing Critical Theological Questions:

1. How can reflecting theologically about popular culture and in this case movies better prepare you to communicate effectively?
Reflecting theologically about popular culture has been good for me because it forces me to see God everywhere. The more places I see God working, the more opportunities I have for sharing him, and communicating His truth. It also helps relationally. Because movies are the equivalent to oral traditions in our culture, you can use them to illustrate, or for reference, which helps to more actively engage those you are communicating with.

2. Describe your favorite type/genre of movie and compare that with themes that emerge in your teaching or discussions with people.
I am, quite frankly, a huge SF/Fantasy fan. I want an epic battle where an unlikely hero or hero’s defeat a dark lord, or evil empire, or whatever. If there’s magic or impossibly futuristic weaponry, I’m prepared to swallow it hook, line & sinker. My teaching tends to focus on stories about miracles. This is especially true for the Sparks. I find it easier to tell a story and ask the learners what it says to them, than to spout a bunch of facts and hope it gets through. I recently heart a message on Epic, discussing the story of the ages, and how it relates to us. I connected with the sermon, even though there were some flaws I would not normally be able to overlook.

3. Pick one of your movies that you watched and do a quick interpretation, assessment and correlation as mentioned above and how could you relate that to someone you know or in a particular ministry setting at your church?
Two weeks ago I was teaching part of a series on hermeneutics to high-schoolers, and I was discussing narrative. In order to help them understand the different levels of narrative in the scripture, I asked one of them to tell me about Harry Potter & the Sorcerers Stone, when she was done, I asked another to tell me how that fit into the story of Harry’s time at Hogwarts. When she was done, I asked another student to tell me how that fit into Harry’s conflict with Voldmort. Three levels in the Scripture, three levels in Harry Potter.

Big Fish and Death

Big Fish offers low hanging fruit for theological reflection in two areas: Relativism and Death. Since Ellie already dealt with the relativism, and the reason I chose Big Fish is the recent experience of my wife's grandmother's death, I really don't have a choice.
Big Fish is the story of a man dying. Ed Bloom has told far out tales his whole life, and his son Will feels like he does not know his father because of the stories that the old man has built. Throughout the story, we have to question the reality of what we are seeing, while understanding that this is the life the old man wishes us to think he lived.


Pungente and Williams say that "No one dies alone" in reference to God's comfort during death. Lost, perhaps giving away it's worldview, says Live Together, Die Alone. I would feel that death is too much of a transition to be faced alone. Given the choice, I would move from being with a community of redeemed sinner directly into communion with the Redeemer. In a sense, Ed does die alone, because he is in denial about the way that his death is occurring. In one of his stories, he discovered the way that he would die when he was very young, but has never told anyone. As his death nears, he asks his son to tell him the story of his own death, and that is how he passes, to an embellishment of his own planning and his son's design.


The Christian response to a believers death has always been puzzling to me. Paul says that we are not to grieve as those who have no hope, and that we should comfort one another with the resurrection. For some reason, we take this to mean that we should not grieve. I can'’t count how many times someone told Grandpa "“She'’s in a better place"” or "“She'’s not in pain any more" or "She'’s happy now" or some such banal banter. OK, Grandpa knows she'’s in heaven, and he'’s not crying because he'’ll never see her again. He'’s crying because they were married for 57 years and he's going to MISS HER! A good friend of mind told me once that the best thing he heard from believers after his grandfather'’s death was "“I'’m praying for you"” and a close second was "If there is anything you need, please call me."” He felt cheated of his grief when told about the better condition his grandfather was in. I would hope that we are comfortable enough with pain that we can allow the grieving to grieve, and not minimize it with truths that sound trite in the face of pain.
In Letters from a Skeptic, an unsaved father asks his son "“Why didn'’t God spare your mother?"” On a macro level, the answer is sin in the world, that does not help us deal with pain. My only response to intense grief at the death of a believer is "“God understands."” In the words of Stuart Townend; How great the pain of searing loss, The Father turns His face away.
One of the things that repeatedly struck me in viewing this film is Ed Bloom'sfearlessnesss in the face of danger, because he knew how he died. It was a decision he had made young, and took full advantage of it. At the circus, lots of dangerous jobs. In the army,volunteeringg for the most dangerousascensions. He knew that he wouldn't die till he was old, and the end took a "strange twist." In this way, he was a perfect example for a believer. We may not know the day or way of our passing, but our confidence in the finished work of Christ, and our security in him gives us a pretty good understanding of how we really end up.
The closing lines of the film are: The man tells his stories so many times that he becomes the stories. They live on after him. And in that way, he becomes immortal. Immortality in manÂ’s memory is a fickle thing. One can never predict what will bring it on. Great kings become historical footnotes; storytellers cannot hope to be remembered after a thousand generations. On the other hand, if one really does live forever, why tell the stories? Our desire to impact the world, to make a difference, was placed there for a reason. Christ told us how to fill this void, drafting us into His task force for kingdom building. We must not strive to be remembered because of how we told our stories, or who heard them. Instead, we should be remembered because our stories made an eternal difference.

Briefly on the film itself: The film was popular, but not amazingly so with the critics. Fans of fairy tales will appreciate it. Tim Burton's work here foreshadows his brilliance in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which also featured Philippe Rousselet's cinematography. In contrast to his normally dark overtones, this may be Burton'’s most colorful work. Only Mars Attacks! (and later Charlie) has come close to the vibrancy that inhabits Big Fish. A nod to sansclyde, as Eddie Vedder performed the vaguely religious Man of the Hour.