didn't paul use this same cultural engagement when he quoted their philosophers and god's back to them to begin the conversation at the areopagus?

Interesting perspective. But wasn't Paul using that strategy to disprove their beliefs, through contrast with the truth? I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples here, but feel free to expound further...

Yes. And using movies we can disprove their beliefs as well. In addition, Paul did use them to acknowledge that they were in agreement with the gospel. The people acknowledged this 'unknown god' and Paul used this to say, "I know who this unknown God is." He also then addressed their own philosphers of the day who were constantly discussing how we have our being and meaning. Paul says, "this God I speak of is the one who provides us purpose and meaning."

Today much of our culture is so shaped by movies and tv that as believers we should understand some of what they are learning so we can engage in conversation and speak truth in their lives.

I am so clueless...

There are some folks who won't watch movies or TV out of some kind of self-righteous piety.

I have not been to a movie theatre for more than 26 years, and I will actually sit and watch a movie on the VCR or DVD player from start to finish about once a year or so. The reason is simple- I just don't have the patience for it.

I've got to be doing something. I'll sit and read for hours, but I won't sit and stare at a screen. Without interaction, I'm out the door.

I do agree with you, Eric. Life demonstrates truth in all of its manifestations. We don't need movies to point this out, for the ultimate critique is in our posession.

Theognome

why are you clueless?

Not all people need to watch tv or movies. Some have no interest some need to avoid this because it causes sin in their life. Yes life does demonstrate these truths, but I've found that through communicating in a language they understand well (The Matrix, Star Wars, Smallsville, whatever) I often can move from these to spiritual truths in a way they tend to understand.

This is just one avenue. I am not saying all christians need to use it.

movies provide a reflection and at times even a glimpse into what the media is doing in a particular culture. God can use media to show us how we should bring the Message of Christ into it.

David, I agree with your observation. But not all movies are created equal in this regard. Some movies do little if anything to edify even someone who is actively seeking "truth," and I think it's inappropriate for the church to legitimize such fare by attempting to spiritualize it when the film maker had no such intent.

I realize this is a subjective area, and one person's "The Passion" might be another's "Hannibal." But the world has plenty of examples of evil or immoral behavior against which we can compare and contrast Christ-like behavior and attitudes, without having to resort to movie reviews to make the point.

"Some movies do little if anything to edify even someone who is actively seeking "truth," and I think it's inappropriate for the church to legitimize such fare by attempting to spiritualize it when the film maker had no such intent."

Regardless of 'intent' these film makers are speaking into our lives and into the lives of those around us. It is important to not be ignorant of these communications because often they are the most subtle and most powerful in shaping and reflecting the idealogies of the world around us.

In addition, just because a church watches it, doesn't mean they endorse the falseness seen in the films.

Deg, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree in this matter. If the church had unlimited resources and time, a better case might be made for spending those resources in doing things like movie reviews. As things stand, I believe the kingdom of God is better served by focusing people on the Bible, instead of the silver screen.

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against movies, per se. Unlike Theognome, I'll see 40+ per year. But I find it terribly sad that so many people are so conversant about the "spiritual aspects" of "The Matrix" (for example), and yet those same people can't tell you 10 things about the Bible. Giving them guidance in the former and neglecting the latter is...well, as Scripture puts it, blind guides attempting to lead the blind.

(And I'm not accusing the church in question of doing that. I have no idea about the content or effectiveness of their other ministries. This isn't about that specific church.)

In addition, just because a church watches it, doesn't mean they endorse the falseness seen in the films.

Sorry, but I think that statement is offbase in so many ways that I don't know where to begin to reply to it.

Movies are the new cultural mythos.
The good ones are, as C.S. Lewis said of myth, "gleams of celestial beauty falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility." Or as Eliot said, "broken images." And just as Lewis and Eliot hoped to sift the good from the bad and re-interpret as needed, to take the myths and make them a signpost to the Myth Become Fact, the Church can and should do the same with the new myths (movies and other cultural artifacts).

It's a valid expenditure of resources, especially if it just means sitting a thinking Christian at a computer screen for an hour or two. We all do that anyway. Why not take the culture's unknown gods and twist them to point to the God we know?

I tend to agree with Deg on this.

Jared, I respect and enjoy your perspective on movies, all the more so knowing that you come by it as a Christian. However, we apparently have somewhat different views on the role of the church, at least in this specific area.

IMO, the primary purposes of the Christian church are to glorify God and bring people to salvation in Jesus Christ. Everything the church engages in should advance those purposes. If not, resources are not being properly stewarded. Movie reviews that don't glorify God or bring people closer to Jesus fail both purposes.

[And I'm the first to admit that in this area I have a double standard. A Christian movie reviewer is free to write whatever he or she wishes about a movie, on his or her own time. It's when that reviewer represents - even implicitly - a church that I apply a higher standard in determining the validity of the effort.]

I re-read the review of Hannibal, thinking that perhaps I'd missed something, something that might make the endeavor worthwhile from the perspective I just described. God was mentioned in one sentence, and there was an implication that the lack of faith in God by one character caused her great grief.

This is not enough to salvage this as a legitimate exercise for the church, however. I keep picking on Hannibal, but it's a great example. The reviewer fails to mention that the main character, who is somehow elevated to hero status in a perverted fashion, removes the top of a man's skull, uses a filet knife to slice off a piece of his brain, stir-fries it and eats it while we watch.

"Oh, but now you're just focusing on irrelevant details; the sum is more than the parts" you might argue. Sorry, but what you see is what you get, and a church-sponsored review should provide nothing short of an absolute condemnation of such a scene from a moral perspective.

If a church wants to provide a Christian-based "rating" review to direct members - as individuals and parents - to movies that are edifying or innocuously entertaining, I suppose it can figure out a way to justify the practice (although screenit.com would seem to already fill this need). Anything more than that is simply diverting attention from what (Who) really matters.

I agree with you, Eric. I do not believe we ought to be imitating the world, but standing apart from it. On the balance, most of these shows have little redeeming value.

God chose to use the "foolishness" of preaching to make Himself known to our world. It's in His word that we should find truth and spiritual anchors.

It's in His word that we should find truth and spiritual anchors.

Who's saying otherwise?

Eric, we probably do have differing views of the Church, but I do believe the Church should be first and foremost about glorifying God.
Is your beef that the review was on an individual church's web site? I guess I don't draw such a fine line between that and a Christian reviewing a movie on his own web site. I believe in the Church invisible.

And I'm still not getting your resources thing. How do you know that's all that church does? I think it's fine and dandy for churches to comment on contemporary culture. I may not agree with that church's particular comments (I haven't read the reviews your citing), but I don't discount the concept itself.

Anything more than that is simply diverting attention from what (Who) really matters.

But such is true of all comments that don't include explicit reference to God. Do all your blog posts reference God?
What if the church ran a job-seekers ministry? In their advert for it would they have to mention God? Or could they just say, we have a class for the unemployed at such and so a time?

I'm not surprised by Robert's comment. He takes comfort in the cut and dry. I do too, to some extent. But equating seeing and commenting on (from a Christian perspective) movies with "imitating the world" is a slippery slope that would logically entail entire removal from the world -- working only for Christian businesses, dressing in robes or what-not, etc etc.
We can't change a world we're not prepared to engage. If someone's afraid, by all means they should step aside. But I just don't get the criticism of those trying to shine the Light in the dark places. It continues to make no sense to me.
But that's just me, I guess.

Btw, I've commented on this issue at my site. I'd trackback, if I knew how. I've placed the permalink in the URL box.

Jared, my "beef" is not that a church chooses to use its website in this fashion. I think I'm rather more disappointed that the movie reviews aren't written in such a way as to draw a distinction between worldly and Godly perspectives on the subject matter.

As you say, it's not the concept itself that I find fault with...it's the way the concept is being carried out. There's little if anything in the review of Hannibal, for example, to distinguish this review from any other that you might find in your daily newspaper. I believe the church should distinguish itself from the world in everything it does; if that's oversimplistic or taking comfort in the "cut and dry," then I guess I'm guilty. But, I also believe I'm Scriptural.

As far as "engaging the world," I couldn't agree more. I just don't see any "engaging" taking place in the way the concept is being carried out.

But, you know what? I think this specific example is a judgment call, and hardly a matter of life or death. Or even a test of fellowship. ;-)

I'll pop over to your site to read your extended thoughts on the subject. This has grown beyond the scope of commenting, anyway.

Eric, I apologize for missing your point. I thought you were criticizing the practice in general. I'm not bothered at all by criticizing the way the practice is carried out.

Sorry.

Jared, I take the responsibility for the misunderstanding. In fact, it took this whole discussion for me to finally put my finger on what started out as a vague but real sense of discomfort. The comments on this post helped me walk through the mental process. That's one reason why I like to keep the comments feature turned on...I always learn something, even about myself!

Good discussion! When i first visited the site, my initial feeling and thought was: "Hmmm, well that is interesting, don't know what I think about that." I still haven't decided.

Thought I would drop in and say hello. I'm the pastor at Kaleo Fellowship of Christ, the one that does reviews about current cultural content, music, movies, books, etc.

I figured I would open myself up to any questions if you had them.

david
kaleo fellowship of christ

Hi, David...thanks for stopping by. As you can see, this topic generated a lot of discussion, and a lot of food for thought. Feel free to add your own insights as you deem appropriate. I hope you'll feel welcome here, even if we don't all agree on all the details of the issues being discussed.

Eric,

I wrote a couple of reviews so while I can not speak directly to the Hannibal one (it is a member of the greater a29 community we are part of) I can speak to the ones I've put together.

One of your concerns is the review was not as forth-right in it's deliberate presentation of truth to and through culture. Do you feel the same about these reviews?

Review of Band - LIVE (Sounding Saved)
http://www.kaleo.us/culture/Live%20_%20Birds%20of%20Pray.html

Review of Christina Aguilera (Embracing her Depravity)
http://www.kaleo.us/culture/christina_aguilera.html

I'd be interested in where you draw the line on what is being too steeped in culture.

Drew, I've just finished reading both reviews you mentioned above and I have no hesitation in saying that I think what you've written is completely appropriate, edifying and commendable. These reviews do what the "Hannibal" article didn't: compare and contrast a Scriptural worldview with the philosophies espoused by the secular world.

Perhaps I was unclear in my post, but I don't find fault with churches addressing secular culture in their programs and resources. What I fault is when that culture is presented without any judgments being made about its worth from a Christian perspective. We need to be bold in addressing these issues; the time for subtlety is past...if it was ever appropriate.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention...good job, and may God greatly bless you and your church!