Evangelism, Truth and The Clapper

At 12:20 PM 3/28/2005, Doug Barnes wrote:
 But folks recognized it as the true Word of God -- and as such, it *is* evangelism.

This kind of phrase always perks my ears up and makes me wonder. How to talk about it? How to think about it? What to say about it? What analogies "fit"?

Then I thought of the clapper. You all know that little info-mercial gismo that will turn your light on when you clap. The clapper is always listening, waiting, hoping that someone will clap, and then it turns the light on.

It seems to me that we often talk about evangelism in this way, especially with regard to the Bible and "truth". It's like there are lots of chosen lost people out there just waiting, like the clapper, for someone to pass "truth" under their eyes or speak "truth" to their ears and then the lights will go one. Usually "truth" is a very definite group of phrases, assertions, positions, etc. in agreement with a particular group. When a light goes on somewhere, then all those people in that group who get very excited about their particular "truth" definitions (Harry and his "ghetto" language come to mind) all feel very justified by the whole experience. "See, we are right after all. We sent out the "truth" signal (the clap) and someone out there lit up (the clapper) therefore what we say is really true and that person over there is part of us, the chosen..." It IS a very exciting experience for that group because it seems to happen infrequently and in terms of the general population "clappers" are pretty uncommon and we don't find new lights that often.

Constantine

Saw this movie a bit ago and I wanted to blog on it a bit. For a good review of it check out Jeffrey Overstreet's review of it in CT: http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/constantine.html

Why should pastors and other church leaders see this movie?

I've written before about the cultural influence of movies on the people in our churches. Movies are one of the dominant shapers of worldview in our culture today. Many people, inside and outside of churches get their "information" on the spirit world through movies. This has been for a long time now and Constantine is only the latest example. Overstreet points out a number of key issues and other reviewers have pointed out that the movie itself isn't always consistent in following it's own "rules" regarding the spirit world. However, if you want to know what people are picking up and imagining, a church leader should have some awareness of what is out there.

If you haven't seen the movie some of what I write might be considered a spoiler, so if you don't want to have it spoiled, read no more. Otherwise click on "more".

Structuring Sermons with Thomas Groome

Choosing to not follow the traditional "read the text, explain the text" confuses people. It mostly confuses church people, however, because they are the ones that understand and have assimilated the tradition. "Troy" is not marketed by saying "We're going sit you down and teach you how to overcome death by twisting Homer and assimilating into a secular context (gods are unnecessary)." No, they hire Brad Pitt, the best CGI people, etc. and then relieve us of some hard earned cash and slide it under the radar. Jesus said, "The people of the world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light." (Lk 16:8 NIV).

My sermon structures often follow something I learned back in Seminary but not in preaching class, but rather from Spud Snapper in "Christian Education" class and the textbook we read "Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision" by Thomas Groome. I hobbled his 5 stage progression and almost always employ it in sermons:

1. Name/Articulate the Present reality
In this case the "present reality" is that humanity is held in slavery by their fear of death. "Troy" is very useful here because Troy's answer to the fear of death is common in our culture and our world.

I find Groome right on starting here because in the context of a sermon it provides a fairly broad, universal motivation to continue to listen. We all learn in Speech 101 that the purpose of an introduction of a speech is to heighten interest to coax people to pay attention on into the body of your speech. Preachers do this, but they don't realize that if they begin by reading the text right before their sermon (complete with interest engaging introduction) their introduction actually comes second. They also don't realize that your window of interest at the beginning of a sermon is regrettably very short for many of the people sitting out there. You can avoid this by having your text read earlier in the service,  having someone else read the text before you start your sermon and therefore (because of change of speaker) allow your intro to be first your of your mouth, or place your text somewhere in the middle of the sermon, which as you will see is where I will put it.

Why use movies in sermons?

Why preach using movies? Why use Powerpoint? Why not just treat the text linearly?

As I said in my previous post, movies are the worldview shapers of our culture, and in some ways therefore much of the world. The worldviews espoused in many movies are not unique. As we've seen in "Troy" they have been around throughout the ages and so much is simply recycled and repackaged. I believe it is our job to confront the gods of our age and contest their legitimacy with the gospel. I think so much of the Bible, in fact, does this very thing. The reason we don't see it very often is because we are uninformed of the other half of the conflict that the Bible is addressing.

Genesis 1 is a great example. When I took Pentateuch at Seminary our professor began by distributing drawings of Egyptian creation accounts. I didn't really understand why he did it until years later. If you read the creation accounts of the pagan competitors they normally boil down into two categories: sex and violence. Nut and Geb copulate creating the world. Marduk slays his parents and uses their remains to fashion the world. Genesis 1 is a polemic against these creation accounts. We find a God very much in control, very much engaged, very lovingly fashioning order out of chaos. Wow. What a message this must have been for Israelites leaving Egypt in more ways that one!

Look at Jesus. Jesus consistently and persistently confronts the cultural and religious assumption of his place. The parables are often strong polemics against the "conventional wisdom" that surrounded him.

Look at Paul. He fights on two fronts. He takes on both the Judaisers and the Hellenists and contends with them.

Using Troy on Easter

What is the text of this Easter's sermon?

  Click on the icon to download the file.

Why use "Troy"? There is a nice little piece on the web contrasting the movie with Homer: http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=1&id=194 which I think make some good points in terms of the differences.

The movie very clearly is all about the Greek question of immortality. The movie starts with the question in that great quote:

“Men are haunted by the vastness of eternity, and so we ask ourselves, will our actions echo across the centuries? Will strangers hear our names long after we’re gone? And wonder who we were, how bravely we fought, how fiercely we loved?”

The movie here begins with a pretty obvious declaration of what it is about. Now the answer the movie will give will be summarized at the end with a voiceover from Odysseus (Sean Bean, who does the voiceover I quoted above at the beginning of the movie). The shot is that of Odysseus lighting Achilles' funeral pyre in the square of destroyed and plundered Troy.

"If they ever tell my story, let them say 'I walked with giants'. Men rise and fall like the winter wheat but these names will never die. Let them say I lived in the time of Hector, tamer of horses. Let them say I lived in the time of Achilles."

Two other key moments in the film are when Achilles' mother discusses with him what going to Troy will mean:

"If you stay in Larisa, you will find peace. You will find a wonderful woman. You will have sons and daughters, and they will have children, and they will love you. And when you’re gone they will remember you. But when your children are dead and their children after them, your name will be lost. If you go to Troy, glory will be yours. They will write stories about your victories for thousands of years. The world will remember your name. But if you go to Troy, you will never come home. For your glory walks hand in hand with your doom. And I shall never see you again."

Also, during the battle between Hector and Achilles Hector will stumble on a rock, giving Achilles the obvious chance at killing him quickly. Achilles shows at him: “Get up Hector! I will not let a stone take my glory!”

It is also important to note the critical change (as noted in the review I sited above) from Homer in the movie that the characters are thoroughly secular. Priam pays lip service to the gods by telling Hector that Apollo will not allow Troy to fall. It is clear, however, that Priam is filled with pride and his service to Apollo is highly self-serving. Achilles' lieutenant also raises the issue of caution to Achilles before they sack Apollo's temple. He questions his lord's decision to tell the men to sack the temple. "Apollo seeks everything. Perhaps it is not wise to offend him." In response to this Achilles takes his sword and chops off the head of the golden statue of Apollo. Hector when chastised by Priam for not believing that Apollo will save the city basically gives a similar answer. The message is clear. "The gods are uninvolved, impotent or imaginary. They don't matter. Men make their own destiny."

Also it is important to note that at the end of the movie all the "real men" die. Hector, Achilles, Priam, Agamemnon. Paris, the pretty boy (who should have been killed by Menelaus but crawled away from his dual with no honor only to be saved by his honorable and powerful brother Hector) escapes with this life, along with the women and children. The message there too is clear.

So, what is the "word" that the movie brings to its big box congregations who watch in comfy seats with popcorn and Coke? "Immortality is available to humanity through heroism. The best we can do to gain immortality (having our name known throughout the centuries) is to do great deeds of heroism and to make a name for ourselves."

Summation of idea of God by American youth

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4539484

Wish he spent less time with callers and more time with the guest.

Using Movies in Sermons Example

Here is an example of using the movie Troy for my easter sermon. Click here to view it on the web.

Click on the icon to download the file. You will need powerpoint to view it.

More work on the gospel of Mark

This was part of a Voices discussion that I wanted to keep. I've been trying to write down some of what I've been learning from the Gospel of Mark but it hasn't always gelled.

"Like little children"

Those of us who "know" the gospels are familiar with Jesus' exhortation that we become like "little children". It has been my observation that in almost every case the interpretation of this, and the other becoming like children passages was critically dependent upon the interpreters ideas of what little children are. The force of the simile is of course dependent upon how Jesus intended his disciples to connect what aspect of little children they were to emulate. Were they to be short? Pre-pubescent? Unable to lift heavy objects? Poor swimmers? So we came to the passage in our Sunday School class. We looked at Mk 9, Luke 9 and Matthew 18. Fun study. As has often happened, I learn more doing the study and actually teaching the class than I have have before.

There is a curious comparison between Luke and Mark to begin with in the order of the teachings that make up this small section. Mark starts with the "first will be servant of all" section and then Jesus takes the kid. Luke starts with the kid and moves to the servant. The two obviously have to be deeply connected. I read through the commentaries; they weren't terribly helpful in limiting the simile so I tried to think historically. Childhood has gone through so many different permutations in terms of our thought. Romanticism has deeply impacted our view of children, but that clearly isn't what Jesus has in mind. Then it struck me, children throughout the ages have in fact been servants, the lowest kinds. Children in fact are the servants of servants still in many places in the third world. Children fetch water. Children watch other children. Children tend animals. What was the child going that Jesus grabbed for the illustration? Probably waiting on them. It is a parallel teaching to John 13 where Jesus shows them the full extent of his love.

Good Movie Reviews

A newcomer at church turned me on to the movie reviews of a guy named Jeffrey Overstreet (they used to go to the same church). This guy writes really good reviews. He's doing some writing for Christianity Today now too. I thought this quote out of his review of the movie Ray was indicative of how he handles himself with difficult issues; honestly.

Ray is one of those biographies that wants the stigma of having given us "the life of Ray Charles," but also wants us to redeem Charles for his sins. That is not the job of a storyteller. That is the job of the people that Charles wronged. If we are to see and appreciate the glory of what Charles achieved, we need also to know what he did to achieve such glory, what prices he paid. It's not fair to hide from us that his impressive, long-running career came at the expense of more than one marriage, not to mention the wounds inflicted on the hearts of so many apparently trivial children. The whole review on Ray

He also loved Dogville (his review) and The Incredibles which I thought were both sensational movies. I thought his review of Dogville could have been more developed but I saw much more clearly the mastery of The Incredibles through his review. Wonderful stuff.

Processing the Emergent Church Movement

This is something I return to repeatedly. Maybe it's time to summarize some thoughts.

What I really like about the movement:

1. Contextualization: I've always been missionary and the emergent movement has this as a high value. In fact that go further than the Seeker movement to emphasize an incarnational approach which is more consistent and more honest than the seeker movement which seems to sometimes have a "storefront" approach to get you in and then set you up in that old time religion. I think the emergent church is another evolutionary development along those lines although they see themselves as a reaction against.

2. Patience: The emergent church movement very clearly wants to meet people where they are at and are willing to go a good long time with someone who has to work through lots of issues. They want to emphasize humility, acceptance and process in working with people. Again, this IMHO is vitally necessary in working with people in our toxic culture. There is so much hurt and so many wounds from broken families, drug culture, a culture of entertainment and escape, etc. People need a good long time, often decades to work through their stuff and the church needs to have a very long term perspective on dealing with this. This naturally will mean that doctrinal and ethical issues that churches have demanded people work through in a matter of weeks or months, or even years may take decades and the church needs to find a way to put some of these things on hold while still keeping bonds of community and acceptance during the process, often with no guarantee of positive resolution. This frankly is something that the church has shown little stomach for, partly because of our own sinful impulse to be "successful" in "enfolding" and "evangelizing". We sometimes more highly value success on the score card than the needs and lives of people who really do need healing and shalom. I suspect the impulse of McLaren for a "Generous Orthodoxy" really comes from this source not from hidden theological or ideological agendas as suspicious critics might be tempted to presume.

3. Embracing limitation: The emergent church movement wants to emphasize mystery and not having or being able to know it all. This is clearly a reaction against the positivism that grips the fundamentalist movement. That movement, of course reacted against the positivism in modernism which grew out of the enlightenment. This is were we find the connection with post-modernism. The challenge for the emergent movement will be to not drop off into the pit of total post-modernism where all that matters is my own experience with no connection to a "public" world. I think NT Wrights epistemology he works through in the opening chapters of "The New Testament and the People of God" is very helpful with all of this. There still is a "public" universe out there created by the creator God and Christianity ceases to be if it loses contact with that public world. The emergent church rightly, however, wants to be on record as claiming that we aren't certain about everything that has been asserted by some fundamentalists and that we are also still in process of knowing and becoming. That is a helpful correction for a community that tried to claimed to have certainty about more than it could and is often shamed in the public sphere by over-extension.

OK, now my worries:

What is the Gospel?

Great interview with Eugene Peterson

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/26.42.html

Patience and Knowledge

First I posted this link on Voices: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/22.120.html

Harry Der Nederlanden (Editor of Christian Courier, a periodical in Canada) posted this rant that I asked if I could post on my blog. I thought it was great:

Waiting or patience should not just be something reserved for the future. It should be part of all christian epistemology. Both capitalism and socialism have a certain robust confidence over toward reality, arrogating to ourselves the capacity of extorting the good out of it. (Both think to turn stones into bread.) This has had many unintended consequences.

Reformation Christianity also picked up some of this attitude, as we can see by the presence of so many Puritans in the Royal Society. This wasn't just a biblical openness toward science, I think, but also involved a certain attitude toward naming/ knowing that has been referred to as Adamic. The Puritans opted for the plain style not just out of a love for simplicity or out of humility, but also because, having done away with superstition and idolatry, they presumed to have direct access to reality. The phenomenologists talked about Wesenschau - a direct intuition of the way things are.

To confess that faith is an indispensable part of the act of knowing or of apprehending the world is to say that we must wait on God to have the world presented to us. We must receive it as a gift in order to know it.