I love reading Alan Creech’s blog because he’s one of the more honest and transparent people I’ve read. I think he probably gets into trouble because of that sometimes, but I think it’s helpful to read what he has to say. Like this:

Every kind of church is NOT OK. I won’t go off indefinitely on this here, but I’m sort of tired of the hyper “get along” attitude that has crept into some of our conversation. And I don’t mean to say that I like a hyper “don’t get along” attitude either, so please don’t put me in that category. I usually say what I mean, unless I’m holding back so as not to get attacked by those who await such opportunities like a Heron standing on a creek bank. This time I’ll try to say it and be very brief. There ARE forms of church that ARE crippling and harmful to Christians who are part of them - there just are. And some of those are churches that we have generally thought of as OK for a long time. But they’re not. “Well, isn’t there room for this kind and that kind in order to reach everyone?” Well, probably - I would never argue for total homogeneity of expression - that would NOT be my point. I am not simply mad at the “traditional” church because somebody pissed me off or hurt me. Just not.

This seems to be a theme in my life. I’ve been to plenty of different kinds of churches of all different denominations and traditions. My biggest fear is that too many churches become comfortable in the systems and programs they’ve established. After all, when you own large pieces of real estate and have large paid staffs, that means little changes can reverberate in big ways. People are fearful of change and making changes to long-held practices. As a result, churches often fall into harmful and unproductive patterns of behavior that may produce cosmetic and artificial results but don’t actually achieve the purpose that Jesus sought for his Church.

Some interesting new data coming from the Barna Research Group:

this month, comes a new Barna survey loaded with data that suggest the direction of the contemporary church is the wrong one. New Barna data suggest that “born again Christians” have a reputation slightly better than that of prostitutes, but lower than that of lawyers. And Barna, who is often quoted by the “seeker” crowd, for the first time came out with a statement explicitly saying that “seeker” approaches do not attract the unchurched. Instead, he says, the unchurched are seeking God’s presence. “The one thing that the local church can provide that no other social institution does is the tangible, palpable presence of God,” Barna says. “Trying to help people understand who God is, and ushering them into His presence is what we need to be aiming at,” he says.

I think it’s fair to say that the Seeker Movement is officially dead. It was preceded in death by its older sibling the Church Growth Movement.

From the NY Times:

Since the introduction of TiVo in 1999, digital video recorders have attracted a growing base of fans who say the devices have altered more than their viewing habits. TiVo, they say, has changed their lives.

“We are part of the TiVolution,” said Kevin Everett, an ophthalmologist and TiVo user in Birmingham, Mich., in an e-mail message. “If there is one electronic box I would not give up, it’s my TiVo.”

Amen! It’s sad, but this article represents my exact sentiment. Tivo may very well be the greatest invention of our time. It’s even greater than the George Foreman Grill, which is saying a lot for me.

In the wake of the last six weeks of debate over broadcast (in)decency, FCC chief Michael Powell is commenting on whether the FCC should have the ability to regulate cable:

While the FCC has clear authority to regulate broadcast indecency, its reach to cable is tenuous at best. And Mr. Powell said the agency needs clear authority from Congress to regulate violent content on cable.

Mr. Powell commended the commerce committee’s attempt to provide that authority in the bill. But he added, “I feel very, very strongly that the FCC on its own should not extend its authority into such new and untested areas of content without a clear supportive basis in statute.

“I think that’s necessary to provide constitutional certainty,” Mr. Powell said. He noted that amendments not directly related to increasing the FCC’s enforcement authority - such as the media-ownership rules change delay - could slow passage.

The idea that the FCC should have authority to regulate cable and satellite was first floated by Lowell “Bud” Paxon, who runs the PAX network. He told a House subcommittee a few weeks ago that he believes the FCC should get involved in regulating content on cable and satellite and that his researchers were looking into the legal arguments to reach that end.

I think there is a pretty clear line between broadcast television and cable/satellite television in terms of the quality of the content. If you are paying for cable/sat TV in your home, then you should be savvy enough to self-censor the material you don’t want to see or you don’t want your kids to see. It shouldn’t be the job of the FCC to police every cable network’s programming.

At the same time, broadcast TV, because it uses the public spectrum, should be a safe haven for TV viewing. I have no problem with the FCC fining TV and radio stations for indecency or even yanking licenses. The public has a right to expect a certain standard on the public airwaves, and they’ve empowered the FCC to enforce those standards. Unfortunately, the fines are too low and the licenses don’t get yanked often enough.

Two McLaren posts in one week? Anyway, this is a helpful article by Brian McLaren on why he continues to use the term postmodern even though it’s out of vogue with so many proponents and opponents.

I have to agree with Brian that I think postmodernism is a very young paradigm, and it’s foolish for anyone to judge it’s extent or impact to the point of doing away with terminology. It’s a helpful and descriptive term that distinguishes the current shift in thinking from the previous four hundred years:

n many ways, the modern era didn’t fully arrive until the Enlightenment in the mid-1600’s. It emerged gradually but surely over time, and continues growing and developing until today.

In some ways, we have three worlds coexisting on our planet today, even four. 1. There are still prehistoric pockets in a few rainforests (where it might become common to see naked tribesmen talking by cell phones or playing video games before they can read or write … or even before they have a written language!). 2. There are (or have been until very very recently) medieval warlords and feudal economies in places like Afghanistan. 3. There are, of course, huge modern economies and institutions and governments. 4. And … there are these signs of something beyond modernity too.

This is an amazing story that should send chills down the spine of many liberal arts colleges and big state and private universities that have been raising tuition and cutting programs in recent years. Harvard University is planning on offering FREE tuition to students whose families make less than $40,000. For those students whose parents make between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, there will be a big boost in financial aid. I support this completely. Students who come from middle class families are often denied the ability to achieve higher education or end up saddled with massive student loan debt which keeps them locked into the middle class for years to come. It’s about time a university stepped up and made a difference. From the article:

Summers cited new research that shows there are 25 times as many students from the top-income quarter as the bottom at the nation’s 146 most selective public and private schools.

Along with eliminating the average $2,300 expected contribution from low-income students’ families, Harvard also announced that students whose parents earn from $40,000 to $60,000 will receive a substantial increase in aid.

Tuition, room, board and fees at Harvard cost $37,928 this year.

Brown, a junior, said he and other students have been paying their parents’ share of tuition because they didn’t want to ask them for money.

Harvard also plans to more aggressively recruit low-income students, making sure they know they can afford to attend college. Low-income families often overestimate the cost of attending a university, new federal research shows.

“Too often, outstanding students from families of modest means do not believe that college is an option for them, much less an Ivy League university,” Summers said at the recent meeting of the American Council on Education in Miami, according to a transcript published by Harvard. “Our doors have long been open to talented students regardless of financial need, but many students simply do not know or believe this. We are determined to change both the perception and the reality.”

This was too funny not to mention. Via Jason Schultz:

I’ve been falling behind on my New Yorker reading. It’s one of the two magazines I swear by on a regular basis (the other one being Entertainment Weekly). Today I finally flipped through the March 8th issue and reminded myself why I love it.

On the Back Page, Steve Martin has a hilarious one-pager on “Studio Script Notes on ‘The Passion.’ ” Martin usually isn’t as funny on paper as he is on screen (or at least was), but this time, he really does the written word justice. Check out these highlights:

* Love the Jesus character. So likeable. He can’t seem to catch a break! We identify with him because of it. One thing: I think we need to clearly state “the rules.” Why doesn’t he use his superpowers to save himself?

* Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane is hard to say, and Eden is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking outloud.

* Our creative people suggest a clock visual fading in and out in certain scenes, like the Last Supper bit: “Thursday, 7:43 P.M.,” or “Good Friday, 5:14 P.M.”

* Also, could he change water into wine in Last Supper scene? Would be a great moment, and it’s legit. History compression is a movie tradition and could really brighten up the scene. Great trailer moment, too.

* Possible title change: “Lethal Passion.” Kinda works. The more I say it outloud, the more I like it.

* Is there someplace where Jesus could be using an iBook? You know, now that I say it, it sounds ridiculous. Strike that. But think about it. Maybe we start a shot in Heaven with Jesus thoughtfully closing the top?

and my favorite…

* Merchandising issue: it seems the Cross image has been done to death and in public domain — we can’t own it. Could the Cruciifixion scene involve something else? A Toyota would be wrong, but maybe there’s a shape we can copyright, like a wagon wheel?

To re-cap … I thought Mel Gibson’s The Passion is one of the best made films of all-time. I acknowledge that Mel made decisions regarding historical details and theological emphases that reveal a lot about Mel’s personal faith. No one should take this movie as an inspired revelation from God.

I also don’t think you can look at this film in black and white. Like most pieces of art, people have had a wide variety of reactions. Some people have had profound faith-building experiences. Others have been sickened by the violence. That’s art. I think evangelicals were naive to expect that this movie would be an evangelistic walk in the park. Brian McLaren agrees:

In one world, modern American Christians can be trusted to bounce and bound like golden retrievers from one silver-bullet “outreach opportunity” to the next—seeking single source shortcuts to complete our mission, which we hope to finish as soon as possible, I guess so we can all get to heaven so the world and its troubles are left behind™. Maybe it’s a boxed set of books and videos, mass rallies, radio/TV/satellites, the Internet, PowerPoint, or seeker services. Or else it’s adult contemporary praise music, electing Republicans, or a new booklet or tract. Maybe it’s candles! Or a new model (take your pick from traditional-modern, contemporary-modern, or postmodern-modern) for “doing church.” Or a new film.

Two and a half years removed from 9/11 and how are we doing (via InstaPundit):

The Taliban have fallen

Iraq has fallen and has become a bastion of free press in the islamic world.

Libya had given up its WMD’s

North Korea is in multi-lateral talks about WMD’s

A majority of the leadership of Al Queda are dead or in custody

Pro-democracy rumblings are going on in Iran

Arafat is isolated

Many convictions of domestic sleepers or Al Queda members (Portland, NY etc…) and finally

NO SUCCESSFUL TERROR ATTACKS ON US SOIL

And all of this has cost less than 1000 dead American soldiers.

Not too bad.

I saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion on Friday night, so by way of a review, I figured I’d respond to some of AKMA’s observations, since he HASN’T seen the film. Bear with me:

Gibson has set himself a very peculiar challenge. Making a movie about the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life seems as counter intuitive as making a movie of just the fifth act of Hamlet, or of Abraham Lincoln’s trip to the theater; it’s all the degradation and misery without any of the contextual cues that might render the events comprehensible. It’s no wonder people feel deeply moved by this presentation — one would hope we’d feel sympathetic to an inoffensive civilian being dragged off the street, beaten to a bloody pulp, and executed in a uniquely agonizing way

Now, the matter of context remains an interpretive choice — by opting out of a portrayal of Jesus’ teaching and healing ministry, by ignoring the closely-reasoned controversies with his theological rivals, Gibson chooses to represent Jesus as unaccountably persecuted; he contrasts obscene suffering with utter innocence. But that’s neither the gospels’ narrative version of Jesus’ life and significance nor even the passion narrative that, even in Mark, constitutes a heightened, concentrated narrative exposition of how Jesus ends up on the cross. Gibson chooses to film only the grimmest moments from a narrative that ranges from shared joys to confusion and dismay to transcendent ecstasy to brutal, dehumanizing torture. He has the artistic freedom and theological rationale for so choosing — but that’s a choice, not a simple restaging of historical events.

One of my biggest gripes with this film has been how Gibson and others have suggested that for this film to be taken seriously it must be “historically accurate”. Huh? Since when has art been required to be historically accurate for it to be taken seriously? As an artist, Gibson made choices — conscious and unconscious — about what to include, what to exclude, what to emphasize, and what to ignore. Those choices tell us more about HIM than they do about Jesus. I think we all need to understand that. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to re-tell this story with complete historical accuracy because none of us where there, and the source material we have isn’t comprehensive enough for us to reconstruct fine enough details to achieve an acceptable level of historical accurary. Therefore, we get Jesus through the lens of Gibson. That’s fine with me.

Also, Gibson does choose to include MANY moments that are neither grim nor brutal. Once AKMA sees the film, he may wish to amend this statement.

Third, why Latin? I know, everyone’s on him about this, but it’s worth underscoring. Virtually all of the communication among Romans and Israelites would have taken place in Greek, and who knows how much Galileans and Judeans used Greek in conversations among themselves?

I agree, but again, I don’t think Gibson should make the claim that this movie IS comprehensively historically accurate. It’s not and it can’t be. That being said, the use of Latin over Greek does speak to Gibson’s traditionalist Catholic leanings. As long as we recognize that, I don’t think it affects the film’s credibility.

Fourth — and here I switch from questioning Gibson to defending him slightly — if you’re going to make a movie from so short a segment of story, so under-narrated a textual artifact, then you’ll have to flesh out the film version with material that’s not in the text. So when people observe that Gibson has imported motifs, scenes, and characters from non-biblical sources, I say, “Well, of course he has.” It would take only a few minutes to film the last few hours of Jesus’ life as the gospels narrate them — he has to fill up the screen time with something.

But fifth, if he’s going to add material to his source narrative, why does he select the amplifications that he does? He can’t simply claim to be re-telling the gospels; he rejected that opportunity at the outset. He’s composing a macabre theological alternative to the gospels, grounded in a pastiche of ancient, medieval, and nineteenth-century theologies and visions. In Gibsonian theology, the two-word statement “they flogged him” (two words in Greek) becomes the centerpiece, so I am told, of his cinematic Christology.

Again, I don’t recall hearing Gibson ever claim that this is a simply re-telling of the Gospels. If he did say it, then he misunderstands his role an artist and filmmaker. If his goal was to re-tell the Gospels in a historically accurate fashion, then he would be a documentarian or journalist and not a narrative filmmaker.

As a theologian, I can see why AKMA raises these objections. But as a film scholar, I think there are more important questions to be answered. One of which, AKMA touches upon when he asks why Gibson selects the amplifications that he does. I think this is one of the threshold questions that we ought to ask of all filmmakers who make Jesus films, from Sidney Olcott to Cecile B. DeMille to Gibson. I think exploring the similarities and differences would shed some much needed light on and provide some perspective for this film. Gibson isn’t the first nor is he the last director to make a film about Jesus. His motivations and inspirations are best revealed looking at his text rather than in his interviews.