Comments on: The Scandal of the Evangelical Taste

By: thduggie

thduggie — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:18:45 +0000

Thanks for the comments! I remember watching the Spitfire Grill last millenium on the recommendation of our IV staff dude and enjoying it. I hardly ever watch movies these days, but now I have a neat and handy shortlist on my blog!
And I agree with many of your points, Brenda. If our faith is what it claims to be, it should be able to tackle the tough stuff, the biggies, and not just work in a framework of nice people or clear-cut schematics. It should be a real alternative to the world’s solutions, not just a sanitized carbon copy. I sometimes feel like we want to make our faith as inoffensive as possible in order to be welcoming, and instead render it faceless and bland. It’s one of the things I struggle with: how do I make my faith not relevant, but real, in a steel mill? Is real faith always in-your-face noticeable?

By: dstb

dstb — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:59:39 +0000

I don’t know much about these, but the little bit I have listened to has sounded really good. They are audio productions of GA Henty’s “In Freedom’s Cause” and “Under Drake’s Flag”.
http://infreedomscause.com/index.html
http://www.underdrakesflag.com/
I think they may fit the bill as really great entertainment that has a message that doesn’t interrupt the flow of the story, but is an integral part.
Sarah

By: Brenda

Brenda — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:02:00 +0000

Part of the trouble, I’ve found, is defining the audience and, consequently, the expectations of the work. If the audience is the Evangelical church/community, they want something safe. And safe doesn’t have anything that makes waves. No bad words, no bad habits, no conversation that doesn’t hammer home the message. The concern for quality definitely takes a backseat.
If, on the other hand, the audience is “the world”, how much of the world needs to be in the story for it to resonate with them? Can a story still communicate Christ if it is raw, or frightening, or addresses touchy/shameful topics? I know people who claim to be Christians, but they love their chosen media *so* *much* (comic books, science fiction, Joss Whedon) that they make excuses for it. They find a grain of the story that mimics faith in a half-hearted manner, and instantly print the gospel over the whole story. I do think a lot of this is going too far.
Some modern efforts (in film media, mostly) that have surprised me with how much of the Lord they let in have been:
1. Bella – film about a young woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and the compassionate man who changes her life
2. The Blind Side – film about one outspoken Christian family who rescued a boy from poverty and nearly went to jail for it (based on a true story)
3. Jack the Giant Slayer – retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk, but every character in the story must face the question “what do you believe?” with action (NO mention of Christ, but a lot of talking points for faith)
4. The Spitfire Grill – slightly older film (a Catholic work, I believe) about a convict on parole whose quest for spiritual healing brings life to an entire community
5. Faith – S. Korean drama (roughly 26 hours) wherein every character acts upon his/her beliefs. I suspect the intent was towards Buddhism, but this story made room for Christ at every turn, so that evil was practically demonic and good clung to faith until it became a reality. Well worth the effort of all the subtitles. 🙂
I believe that a lot of the Evangelical efforts in books and movies have been to create “nice” stories. Because Jesus makes us “nice” people. But that’s not what Scripture says. God calls us to be good, not nice. One does no harm, but the other works to eradicate evil. And I do think that a “good” story can portray evil for what it is. I just wish we’d be brave enough to follow through on that more often….

By: thduggie

thduggie — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 20:32:26 +0000

It's ironic, isn't it: we try so hard to be relevant and fail because we're trying too hard. We try so hard that the gospel ceases to look like a life-saving alternative: it takes on the appearance of some dowdy me-too product from the WalMart sale bin.

By: Linda Wightman

Linda Wightman — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 00:08:56 +0000

Yes! This is a subject very near and dear to my heart. The article accurately describes much of Christian art as what a friend of mine — several decades ago — called being “of the world but not in it.” The folks who made “Facing the Giants,” “Fireproof,” and some other movies that escape my mind at the moment did quite a good job given their constraints and their amateur status. The movies present positive, much-needed ideas in their story lines, but just when I start to think they’re something I could share with my friends, along comes the pasted-in, obligatory, explicit Gospel message that breaks the flow and would instantly turn my friends off to the whole film. It is as if the only part of the watchman story in Ezekiel 33 that we care about is making sure we’re not held accountable for the other person’s condemnation, because we’ve warned him — even if we’ve done it in a way that makes it almost impossible for him to respond.

One of the biggest reasons I’ve become so taken by the TV series, NCIS is its outstanding craftsmanship, excellence in every area, be it acting, writing, camera work, you name it. I’ve seen nothing like it for such consistent, long-term excellence. (Yes, some episodes are not as good as others. But they’re now in their 12th season, with very, very few that I have found unsatisfactory.) It’s not a Christian show. They have at times been hard on Christians. But as I wrote, their Christmas show was an outstanding example of how the Gospel can be clearly presented implicitly in a way that someone other than the choir can hear. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings saga — the books, not the movies — is another.

Yes, a more explicit presentation at some point is also important. But that’s not the job of art.