The World's Disappointing Stimulants
46 comments | PermalinkI learned nothing. I was not enriched in any way.
. . . I’m weary with the world’s disappointing stimulants. I want more of Christ.
Read the whole thing.Michael Spencer comments:
I have begun to suspect that we can’t see the entertainment idolatry in our own lives.We’ve decided to talk about “how to relate Christ to movies” and so on, which I don’t deny is a worthwhile pursuit, and I believe the glory and truth of God shines through all kinds of cultural windows.
But there’s just a lot- a LOT- of garbage out there. A lot of lies. Distortion. A lot of very bad story telling. A lot of poorly executed entertainment. A lot of humor and excitement drummed up from the lowest common denominators: sex, violence, greed. A lot of wasted minutes, hours and days.
I know Christian young people who live- live- in the world of movies, tv and games. And when I’ve suggested they might be wasting chunks of their lives with what wasn’t worthy of their thoughts, I’ve been pooh-poohed.
Don’t get me wrong. I want Christians engaging art and entertainment. I want Christians making good art and entertainment.
But when we are supposedly deeply moved by something that, at its core, isn’t deeply moving, isn’t redemptive, isn’t part of the grand story, but is just a vast, pretentious, technologically overwhelming retelling of the worst kind of human story, I want to have the backbone to say so.
Ortlund did. Good for him.
posted by JT at Tuesday, August 12, 2008
46 Comments:
If you take such positions to the extreme (as they're doing with the position they're contrasting) then it seems that anything that is not directly related or pointing to Christ is not worth your time. Huh? What happened to the Spirit moving outside of the church? In other words, what happened to seeing God at work in the secular world? I understand saying "no" to endless entertainment, but to say that there was nothing good about The Dark Knight is going too far.
One of the things that stuck out from The Dark Night movie is how the joker understood human depravity. He, at some point in his life, had lost all confidence in men and in their supposed ability to do what is right. He seemed to understand that even men’s apparent good deeds would always be tainted by selfish gain. In my interpretation, this realization and experience seemed to drive him to hopelessness and despair thus he lost his mind and fell into the utter most depths of depravity. At least that is what I saw through my worldview lenses.
This is the center of the bull's eye:
[QUOTE]
But when we are supposedly deeply moved by something that, at its core, isn’t deeply moving, isn’t redemptive, isn’t part of the grand story, but is just a vast, pretentious, technologically overwhelming retelling of the worst kind of human story, I want to have the backbone to say so.
[/QUOTE]
"But when we are supposedly deeply moved by something that, at its core, isn’t deeply moving,"
And who gets to decide what is and isn't? This is a subjective realm. If you don't wish to head to the movies, more power to you. But I agree with Jordan and Chris - to say that there's nothing moving or redemptive about the movie just seems silly to me. Zach over at Vitamin Z has linked several great commentaries exploring the ethical and worldview implications of the film. It's a fantastic piece of art.
The Dark Knight was admittedly flawed -- overly long, overly reliant on menace, overly focused on Heath Ledger's Joker. But to call it "a lie of human idealization" is an epic example of missing the point.
Spencer: "And when I’ve suggested they might be wasting chunks of their lives with what wasn’t worthy of their thoughts, I’ve been pooh-poohed."
He says that...then people proceed to "pooh-pooh" him in the comments...funny.
Jordan,
I think the concern is: Why are most people today so quick to look outside of the church? Sure, the Spirit moves anywhere He wants...but the Spirit definitely moves in the Church and in the Word. Movies, games, etc. aren't inherently wrong, but they consume a lot of Christians' lives. I have college-aged, Christian friends who spend their days playing video games, half-heartedly studying, and seeing every new movie that comes out. It's all empty. They're wasting their lives.
You can find things in almost any movie or game that could point to the things of God. That doesn't mean that spending so much of your life doing that is a good idea.
Just my thoughts.
I seem to recall that Jesus knew how to appreciate a good party. Not everything in the world has to be sitting down and contemplating Christ.
I'm very selective when it comes to movies I see. It doesn't always have to do with the rating because both Tombstone and Braveheart are very intense(which are 2 of my favs of all time) , but its the content and message they portray that drives me to go. As to the Dark Knight , it tries to be much more than a super-hero movie and on many levels its succeeds. At the end , yes the lie ending bothered me a bit , but then I focused on the how Batman , took on himself the sin if you will , of Harvey Dent and the condemnation of the public which is unwarranted , was placed on his back because as Commissioner Gordan said , he could bare it . Plus in the end , no matter how the Joker tried to get Batman to cross the line into chaos , Batman holds . Plus I did like the fact all the characters were broken in some way. We need to engage the culture around us and not be fearful or run from it , and in that area I agree with Pastor Mark Driscoll . That is not to say we sink ourselves into everything , but we must at the very least understand what world views prevail around us and but then preach the gospel ,that is the true hope for a fallen and broken world .
I valued many of the things that RWS points out. That's not to say that I saw the movie because I knew they would be in there (indeed I did not).
I thought it did a good job demonstrating human depravity as well and the inclination everyone has towards evil. When temptation comes what will you stand on in order to overcome it? We know the only true thing is Christ! I kept thinking throughout the movie, "this is where a society goes that does not value God."
Ultimately, though, I saw the movie because I know the overall story of Batman and the kinds of moral issues he struggles with and the often redeeming aspects involved. He is the Christ-figure in the movie. I'm not saying that having a Christ-figure makes the movie OK, I'm just being candid.
HOWEVER, I do wonder what some of the same Christians critiquing the viewing of this movie think about politics? There was a actually some political overtones in the movie (e.g. wire tapping by the government symbolized by the cell phones being monitored). The same depth of Christ is lacking in the political realm, sports realm and our news sources, yet most of us still keep up with them to some extent.
I'm curious, how does one draw the line as to what is valuable for engaging the culture and what is not?
I ask this sincerely without my pat answer ready to pounce on the first person that responds.
don gale, I agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't "pooh-pooh" him for saying that people are wasting chunks of their lives - some people are! I'm hoping that Spencer is reacting against those who see almost every movie and go to them for mostly entertainment reasons. Thus, I may have read it wrong, but it came across to me as though the answer was to stop watching movies or anything "entertaining" since it's not worthy of our thoughts, time, or money. If one followed through with this (and all its implications) then I would expect them to cave-up in the church and completely retreat from the world. People better start selling their iPods or just have sermons and theology lectures on them, no?
rws, I saw a lot of what you did too. Thanks for pointing those things out.
Here's the question the Christian has to answer before attempting to talk about this or any movie:
Given our theistic cosmology, our trinitarian theology, our christological anthropology, and our Bible, what is Art?
Or for the less-academically-poisoned, if we believe in God -- the trinitarian God of Father, Son and Spirit -- and believe that man's identity is ultimately determined by who and what Jesus is, and truth our Bible as God's word and truth, what is Art?
What is Art? Substantiate your answer in some way using that Bible you say you're so enthralled with.
That IS academically poisoned. Have you heard of the analogy of the guy at the microphone who just sits there, clearing his throat, but not saying anything? You're asking us to do a ton of throat-clearing before we can actually hold an opinion. Your question is an important one, but doesn't need to be answered "before attempting to talk about this or any movie"
Frank Turk made the rubber hit the road when he said, "Given our theistic cosmology, our trinitarian theology, our christological anthropology, and our Bible, what is Art?"
It's pretty because in the light of God, it sparkles.
Or, aesthetic value is measured by our enlightened perception of the juxtaposition of the (distorted) kaleidoscopic glories of the created order, with the necessary light supplied by the revelation of God (in, with, through, and against) both the viewer and the viewed.
I haven't seen the film, and I'm not against films.
But I do find it refreshing to see a Christian unashamedly pointing towards Jesus as the ultimate joy and fulfilment of life.
Sure we can watch films and learn about our culture. We can watch them and learn truths about human nature. We can even be thankful to God for films we see.
But if all our relaxation time and our leisure time is time spent just absorbing our culture and its pleasures, then never mind whether it's strictly speaking right or wrong - it's depriving ourself of the greater joy, fulfilment, relaxation, rest to be had in direct relationship with Jesus, our ultimate treasure.
It perhaps similar to being always content to do a newspaper round, when your educational status would actually allow you to work at something more fulfilling. Ignore that if it's not a helpful picture!
I find this post to be based very much so on a first and only time viewing of a film, and lacking in true analysis of what went into the film. I would love to give my thoughts on the Dark Knight, but I would rather let another blogger much more intelligent than I (who has you on his blogroll, Mr. Taylor)explain the merits of the Dark Knight. Please give this a read:
http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/the-dark-knight/
and for his study of the Joker:
http://stillsearching.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/evil-incarnate-in-cinema/
It's hard to imagine that one was unmoved during The Dark Knight. I understand his complaints with the previews, but the epistemological questions that arise during a viewing of the movie are more than enough for me.
Frank,
To take a cue from Tolkien, we start with Genesis 1:1. When we create, we are mirroring the image of the creating God and glorifying Him.
Confusion comes in when people assume that art must be beautiful. Consider the Isenheim altarpiece, which is Christ-honoring and skillfully wrought, but by no means pretty. Indeed, the Scripture itself doesn't adhere to such a standard; consider the book of Judges with its gang rape and dismemberment.
Let me be much, much simpler.
I'm concerned that the quest for cultural engagement- which I support and participate in in my classroom and ministry all the time- has a spin with Christians that's somewhat predictable.
The problem isn't that we should ONLY go see what is about Christ. I'm an AP IV Lit teacher. I WANT people reading/watching great stories.
But it's seeing Christ and the faith in EVERY kind of film, etc that's the problem. We have well regarded Christian critics writing reviews and discussions of the Christian content of a lot of films that are just not very good. But suddenly we need to wear a beret and see something.
I don't think DK was anything as bad as Ortlund. I do believe it was flawed and I do believe it was over hyped. I do believe a lot of bandwagoning is happening as Christians want to be as "perceptive" as Hollywood.
We need a culturally engaged, PROPHETIC and morally alive engagement with media. I'm just suspicious of all the praise we're heaping on everything. It's not all deserved. We're gullible as usual imo.
Was Batman created to be a Christian example or are we simply grasping at anything that might justify our enjoyment?
If people want to go see the Dark Night, than go see it. Enjoy! I just find it ridiculous to suggest we went to "find the Spirit moving outside of the church" or "seeing God work in the secular world". Are we serious?
loren said "Indeed, the Scripture itself doesn't adhere to such a standard;"
But Scripture, while artistic in places, is not art.
Art should inspire worship (I think), so the question a Christian should ask when observing art is "Does this cause me to glorify God?".
It may not be the artists intention, but God has a way of overriding our best intentions, doesn't he?
Is art equal to entertainment? Or is it something completely different?
Entertainment in America is barbaric -- and I found this film not an exception.
This whole conversation is a bit like a dog chasing it's tail. We'll never arrive since art is subjective.
I guess my question is: What Christian doesn't already know that the "world's stimulants" are disappointing? Why is that a huge surprise or noteworthy? Take it for what it is, a movie, and adjust your expectations for what it can do for you.
I think much of this discussion in the Christian blog world is a push back on all the hype. Some of the hype is deserved, certainly some is not.
All the analysis and pontification aside, I'll just say this:
If you don't stand back in awe of the performance of Heath Ledger, you don't have a pulse. He is the only reason I am remembering this movie and can't wait to see it again with my wife.
Daryl,
The Scriptures aren't visual art or "fine art." However, they are made with "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." Defining the arts strictly as worship seems overly narrow, in my humble opinion.
nevergall, I never suggested we should go for that reason. Please re-read my comments. Such a suggestion would definitely be ridiculous.
P.S. Spencer, thanks for your clarification. That makes a lot more sense
Thank you, Vitamin Z.
Art,. . but more specifically, . . the evaluation of art, is subjective.
Let's get off of our high horses and let folks have divergent views on a piece of art.
After all, that's part of what makes anything "art" is that folks are reacting to it in their own personal ways. Not to say there aren't standards and talking points, but it goes too far to make a global judgement, not on the content, but on the quality of the art.
Aaron
No one has mentioned the scene of the two ships, wherein no one chooses to save his life and those of his shipmates by destroying the population of the other ship. I thought that this was a rather heartening scene done with a minimum of corniness. One of the reasons that I thought "Batman Begins" was depressing was its virtual absence of the "ordinary" people for whom Batman was supposedly fighting. There was just Batman and a bunch of thugs.
Speaking more generally, I think it would be good to get out of the habit of looking only to mainstream American movies or poorly made "Christian movies" for edifying entertainment. Independent American films like Robert Duvall's "The Apostle," and foreign films such as Ingmar Bergman's "Winter Light," Carl Dreyer's "Ordet," and Robert Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest" all have problems from the standpoint of orthodoxy, but they are much richer in content than almost anything from Hollywood.
Jordan said:
[QUOTE]
That IS academically poisoned. Have you heard of the analogy of the guy at the microphone who just sits there, clearing his throat, but not saying anything? You're asking us to do a ton of throat-clearing before we can actually hold an opinion. Your question is an important one, but doesn't need to be answered "before attempting to talk about this or any movie"
[/QUOTE]
I cannot disagree more, and I’ll be glad to tell you why in terms anyone can understand.
In the exact same way that you cannot judge Michael Phelps’ performance at the Olympics using the standards of ice hockey, you cannot judge art properly unless you can judge it from God’s perspective – that is, from a perspective that takes into consideration what God has said about man and his work.
Put another way, let me suggest to you that anyone can enjoy pr0nography (the typo is intended), but the question comes back to whether anyone ought to enjoy pr0nography – and that’s a question one wouldn’t bother to ask unless one first had a Trinitarian understanding of creation and humankind.
I’m not asking anyone to clear his throat: I am asking that anyone thinking about this – as Pastor Ortlund has clearly done – first be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Loren Eaton said:
[QUOTE]
To take a cue from Tolkien, we start with Genesis 1:1. When we create, we are mirroring the image of the creating God and glorifying Him.
Confusion comes in when people assume that art must be beautiful. Consider the Isenheim altarpiece, which is Christ-honoring and skillfully wrought, but by no means pretty. Indeed, the Scripture itself doesn't adhere to such a standard; consider the book of Judges with its gang rape and dismemberment.
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect to your grasping at Tolkien, he sought to create “true myth” in which the things which were already created were used by him to convey Truth – his aesthetic relied not on being like God but in fact knowing he was not God and that he needed God both ontologically and soteriologically.
That’s a far cry from the idea, which you are trying to argue against here, that it can only be “true” if it is “pretty” or “beautiful”. King Lear is beautiful – it is not hardly a gloss at puppies-and-bunnies.
This is why it is important that our Christian view of art is actually Christian and not provisional or semi-secularist. As I said previously, anyone can enjoy something which is designed to entertain by appealing to baser appetites – which, btw, doesn’t just have to be sex. A maudlin interest in suffering, melancholy, or even trite emotions like infatuation or glee can all be abused to pander to some audience. Art doesn’t pander.
A robust Christian aesthetic allows us to see clearly the difference between that kind of artistic abuse and true art, and the true roll of the artist.
Daryl:
I reject the idea that Scritpure isn't art. It is actually the archetypal art where man actually says exactly what God would say.
Frank, I can't understand how you see Scripture as "art," in the sense of the word as it is usually used. Scripture is not man saying exactly what God *would* say. It is God's words to man, written down by man, as infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I love Ray Ortlund, Jr. as a brother in Christ and as a wonderful preacher. I haven't seen The Dark Knight (yet), so I can't comment on it. However, I will say that many thoughtful "secular" films have helped me to appreciate God and the Gospel more deeply than most explicitly Christian films.
The films of Ingmar Bergman are a great example. Many (most?) of them are dark in tone-- even bleak at times. Bergman was not a Christian. However, in his films, he deals with questions about God and the fallen human heart more seriously than almost any other director, Christian or not. He would not have used the word "fallen" to describe us or the world, but his movies portray our fallen-ness in profound and moving ways. Some of them even point to kindness, hope, and mercy, though Bergman did not accept that God is the ultimate Source of these things.
Why it is that a non-Christian director's films move me and help me to deeply appreciate God and His Gospel more than most Christian movies? I think it's because they are well-made, well-acted, and realistic about the pain of life in a fallen world. They don't have the whole story. They don't even have the most important part of the story (the Gospel). What they do have, though, is done so much better than the quality of the work that one finds in most Christian films. If only more Christians made great, serious art now, as they did in previous centuries...
Frank,
I'm clearly not as smart as you (and I'm being serious) but I'll try to take your bait for a moment.
Jesus told stories about real people (Lazarus and the rich man; this is debated but I think it's a real story), parables and He hung out with some sketchy folks. He didn't always even explain the meaning of His parables to the larger audience (sometimes He did).
In His parables He was sometimes compared to harsh masters, violent kings and a "thief in the night."
John the Baptist came in a totally different manner (not eating or drinking). They were both condemned by the religious right.
Paul wandered around in Athens looking at their idols and was provoked to preach. Scripture doesn't say that he turned and ran away condemning the Athenians from afar, it also doesn't say that he was entertained by them. Instead it moved him to action. In his preaching he actually quotes poets from Athens to the Athenians and we now have those words as the Word of God describing God (I'm not suggesting that this specifically could still happen). So the Athens' art was used by Paul to communicate the Gospel and their art provoked him to proclaim the Gospel.
Now, with obvious immoral things aside (even if you would say that the Dark Knight is one of those things), is the harder question that needs to be asked really, "what do we do with the art/things of this world?" Rather than, "is it right/wrong to ever view/enjoy the art/things of this world?"
I hope that makes sense. I will be the last to say that my response to "art" is always right. In fact, I question whether or not we should seek any kind of entertainment at all (especially giving our money towards it). I truly wonder about these things. However, I also wonder if Ray Ortlund shared the Gospel with anyone when he went to the movies. I wonder why it was ok for his wife to look at the "sex scenes" and nudge him when they're over, as if that's a good idea??
Who here has sold their house and given the money to the poor? Who here has been asked about the reason for the hope that is in them? Who here has been persecuted the way that Jesus said we would be persecuted if we follow Him?
And if you have sold your home, or are often asked about the hope that is in you or been physically and verbally abused for your beliefs, or if you decided to give away all your stuff when you were mugged, do you even waste any of your time on the computer, news, movies, magazines, games or other sources of entertainment?
I really hope someone in America is living like this. I want to believe that it's possible. I doubt those people are sitting around having a discussion about what movies they should or should not see...
Umm, I went to see the Dark Knight because I like movies especially comic superhero and supervillian movies. I didn't go to learn life lessons or learn about humanity nor do I try to fit the Christian worldview into fictional movies with fictional characters. But that's just me...
Christopher Lake very astutely stated:
| Frank, I can't understand how you
| see Scripture as "art," in the sense
| of the word as it is usually used.
| Scripture is not man saying
| exactly what God *would* say. It
| is God's words to man, written
| down by man, as infallibly
| inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I am going to give the most specific example I have to explain this, granting that other examples may not demonstrate this as vividly are this one will.
The book of 1 Cor begins like this:
Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, it’s Scripture, right? We receive Scripture as God’s words. Period. No question there.
But historically and factually, Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians. He may have been verbally, pleniarily inspired; he may have had Jesus dictate it to him; you may have another theory which allows that the words are God’s words, and you are welcome to that theory.
But we cannot escape the fact that Paul wrote this letter. Paul was involved in its composition – and the better theories of how we can explain this speak to God’s sovereignty to use even Paul’s experience and education to make him an apostle who could write a letter which are God’s very words.
More to the point, the Paul wrote the letter. He composed it. He structured arguments in it. He preached through it. And in that – in the fact that Paul wrote a letter, it is art -- Literature. If you deny that Scripture is literature, you have no basis to read it let alone interpret it or exposit upon it. It is the fact that Scripture comes to us as literature – as art – that we have the ability to encounter it as something more than a page of divinely-inspired digital signals.
And as art, it becomes our model for how we should then “create” “art”. It is the prime example of what how God explicitly reveals himself; I think it speaks to how we should communicate amongst ourselves.
Does that make sense?
Christopher Lake also astutely asked:
| Now, with obvious immoral things
| aside (even if you would say that the
| Dark Knight is one of those things),
| is the harder question that needs to
| be asked really, "what do we do
| with the art/things of this world?"
| Rather than, "is it right/wrong to
| ever view/enjoy the art/things of
| this world?"
As we say at my blog, “AHA!” And now, the rubber hits the road, people. Indeed: what do we do with the things of this world?
Look – this is why the question, from a theological perspective, “what is art?” is –critical- to answer – because we must be able to –discern- the difference between truth and lies, between what is true about the created world and what falsehoods will deceive us.
It is not merely a question of the difference between “truth” and “fiction” – because all fiction is not a lie! Good heavens – must all the parables have been about historical events in order to convey truth? Of course not.
But in acknowledging that, we then have a basis for looking at any piece of art and distinguishing if it is communicating truth or falsehood.
You know: Paul says explicitly, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things,” and also “flee [what comes from the depraved mind]; pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.”
That’s an exhortation to anyone who thinks that all creativity is somehow a reflection of God. It should, at least, be part of our reasoning when we go to the movies.
oh wait: that was queue who asked the astute question. Sorry, queue -- I'm not half as smart as I think I am!
Honestly, Frank, I'm going to have to seriously think over your argument before I answer whether or not it makes sense to me. I only hope that by the time I reach a conclusion, the discussion for this thread is still happening! :-)
Christopher:
If you need any help, you can e-mail me. This is a subject that is more important to me that anything except the Gospel -- but it is founded on the Gospel.
Frank,
I'm checking out after this last exchange, but I'll agree with you that artistic works can succeed by appealing to baser appetites (although whether or not The Dark Knight does so is a matter for debate) and that it's a bad thing.
I appreciate your passion and understand it. Mine is similar -- to see orthodox Christians creating art that is both implicitly and explicitly Christian in the mainstream marketplace. Leif Enger's Peace Like a River is a good example. Let's work to make it happen.
Frank,
Thanks for your answer to Chris, now I get your answer to me. I get the literature/art connection, just hadn't made it before.
Thanks,
So, Frank, would you say that art, then, isn't subjective at all, but is objective, as Scripture is objective, and as Truth is objective?
Dark Knight is not the issue here. Being "culturally engaged" (whatever that is) is the issue. Where is the quest for honest Christian discernment? Our quest to be so "culturally relevant" or to see Christ "shin[ing] in all that's fair" is choking Xianity, imho.
I explain: Our "desire" (yea, lust?) to "know" our culture has actually come close to replacing Christian discernment. More and more, I feel that church leaders and "culturally engaged" Christians are making culture a canon right up there with Scripture. That may be harsh, but in reality, I think this assessment is not far off.
It's yet to be said in this thread (I think), but have we ever considered ourselves to be "worldly"? Seriously, is that term just to be reserved as the parlance of some separatist Baptist? Have we read 1 John 2:15 recently? CJ Mahaney and co. are coming out w/ a small book in about 6 weeks called Worldliness. I greatly anticipate it. CJ's chapter title is compelling "Is This Verse in Your Bible? [1 Jn 2:15]"
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/07/worldliness-edited-by-c-j-mahaney.html
Though, yes, we are supposed to pursue the beautiful and the excellent, and though we as creatures "groan" with the rest of creation for the redemption, the emphasis of Scripture in regards to the Christian's relationship to fallen creation/the world/culture (I know I'm going to get slammed for lumping all those terms together) is antithesis or dissonance.
Frank, thanks for charitably and forcefully leading this discussion (I guess, I'm saying: You "won." but that is subjective, right?=+)
Blessings to all!
Riccardi:
Exactly.
Will:
Booyah. I think you won the argument.
That's good. It's what I thought you were saying. I agree.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home