I wish I had more opportunity to concede...far too often I'm forced to mention my line of work. At that point, the conversation either downshifts into current weather patterns, turns into a false-piety fest, or ends. Abruptly.
Though, occasionally, God will throw me someone who hates all things pertaining to organized religion. Though in those cases, concessions tend not to work in my favor...
Keep up the good work, though. I remember back in the pre-"you're a pastor? Wow, that's...great, I mean...awfully respectable..." days I had a lot of great conversations in front of a barbecue.
Just found you through a comment on LaShawn Barber's site, The Christian BBQ just put you on my bookmark list. If this is the way you write I will be back a lot (for whatever that's worth)
This is just incredibly well thought out, and humble at the same time.
Matt,
A big amen to this post.
Brad
Brian, I think you should tell people you're a fisherman. Or a salt preserver. Or how about a lifeguard? It's all very ... village-esque. Hop on IRC sometime and you will find plenty of unbelievers who will be more than happy to bash you exchange theological opinions.
Matt, I think it's rare when a reader finds this site helpful or insightful on a regular basis. On the other hand, I'm not likely to upset you, and I'm regularly told people come here because they don't feel threatened by the author. =)
God bless you too, Brad.
Matt,
No disagreements here on the first and last points, but I have to say that I've seen boatloads of anti-intellectualism in certain sectors of the American Church.
Now if you're strict 5-pointer, then your church probably loves intellectuals and may even be filled with too many of them. But I've seen some jaw-dropping anti-intellectualism in charismatic and Third Wave circles. Before I get a chorus of those who say that's not their church, I'M NOT SAYING ALL ARE THAT WAY. This has just been my own observations.
I saw intellectuals flee at an astonishing rate from one church I was a part of. If you said you know Greek, the hoots would start pouring in. I don't even want to say anymore than that. Some really smart people got treated very poorly and it pained me to see.
Matt,
This is indeed a great essay. Nicely done.
But I have loads of thoughts (I'll restrain myself):
Stipulating for argument's sake that most Christians are sexually repressed, anti-intellectual and hypocritical, I should note that:
Most non-Christians I know are sexually repressed. Those who claim they are not are either lying or have an STD (or both).
Most non-Christians I know are anti-intellectual.
Most non-Christians I know are hypocrites.
Yes, there is an anti-intellectual strain in the Church, but that is due almost entirely to laziness and fear: the average joe, churched or unchurched, Christian or non, really doesn't have the time or energy to stick his head in the clouds. In fact, being an intellectual is a privilege of the moneyed classes (nearly all of America is the moneyed class, comparatively speaking). Indigenous farmers in Nowhere Australia scraping vegetables out of rock hills and pinching beetles for appetizers are not reflecting on post-modern hermeneutics or neo-gnostic structuralism: they are too busy with the simple acts of survival, like the sparrows and lilies of the field (anyone with one whit of ornithological or botanical knowledge knows that a sparrow's or a lily's life ain't easy). Anti-intellectualism is rooted in the human (not merely the Christian) mind for reasons that include jealousy, resentment, and skepticism about the intellect's value for immediate survival.
Moreover, there are all sorts of creative, artistic, literary people, who believe that the intellect is second-rate, limiting, dry, empty, a source for pride. Most secular artists believe that the intuition, the spirit or daemon or muse, is superior to linear, logical, thought. Intuition gives us Robert Frost verse or a Jimmy Hendrix riff, while intellect gives us ICBMs and assembly lines, or so it goes. For most people, passion trumps intellect any day of the week.
No doubt passion plays a major role in Christian living, even in evangelism. One standout verse in Acts describes the disciples' actions AFTER Peter has spoken to the masses: The disciples PLEADED with their listeners, BEGGING them to flee their wicked ways. Thousands were subsequently converted. If the Church could learn to plead and beg again, not just with passion but with love and wisdom and craftiness as well; if it just begged its loved ones to flee wickedness; if the Church could just reveal God as the One who would rather be in Hell (so He descended) with us rather than in Church or Heaven without us; perhaps things would be different. Lord knows I've not begged anyone in a long, long time. Do I really care?
This all reminds me of a Seinfeld episode in which Elaine, sleeping with an alleged born-again Christian (David Puddy), is incensed that he is NOT trying to convert her. "Don't you care that I am going to hell?" she asks urgently. He does not, because, or so he says in so many words, she's damned already.
Last
I make it my goal to challenge the Christian stereotypes prevalent in mainstream society. The Bible gives us the recipe for how to do this; Christians mess up by using their own filters to evaluate His message.
I also think it's a huge mistake to criticize something without evaluating it for yourself. You find Brokeback Mountain to be objectionable and you don't hesitate to say so, but you won't see it yourself so you can discuss openly the issues you have with it? Such a stance will never reflect well in the eyes of others, ever. Even if you find it morally objectionable, you should watch it for yourself if you are going to openly comment on it.
Trent makes a point that I call the "Mapplethorpe Fallacy." I dubbed it thus during the controversy which flared up when several of the late Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photographs toured America's museums (funded in part by American tax dollars).
At the time, a friend of mine said to me,"I don't think you should judge the images until you've been to the exhibit." I replied that I had in fact seen the offending images.
"What did you think?" he asked. I told him that I thought the images were offensive. His reply? "Well, then you shouldn't go to the exhibit."
The vicious (and blind) circularity of this fallacy is endemic to American culture. Trent believes that judgment cannot be made without participating in the act, or witnessing the object, that is under consideration. To properly judge "Brokeback Mountain," Trent insists that one must view it. Of course, I could always read the screenplay, informing myself without viewing the actual film. But I also already know the content: I know the storyline and the values depicted therein. The only thing I cannot tell you is how the story is told, or what images and songs are used to bolster that story. Imagine that I am blind and deaf, or just one or the other. Can I not judge this film without seeing or hearing it? And can I not already make a decision about the film when it posits for our reflection in its promos, "Love is a force of nature"? It is? Do natural forces justify all acts, desires, wants? Some of us can answer that question, definitively, without seeing ANY film.
Moreover, can I not say that it is wrong to murder another human without ever personally killing someone, or knowing someone who has been killed, or even seeing the death of someone depicted in film? Must I withhold judgment about stealing without understanding the complexities of stealing; without having stolen something myself (or been the victim of thieves)?
If I only like classical music, must I listen to all Rock-and Roll before I can definitively say that I think Rock-and-Roll stinks? If I hate oil painting, must I paint with oils and hang out at galleries before I can properly denounce oil painting as a waste of time?
Whether it be personal taste, mere aesthetics, or moral issues, it does not follow that a person must participate in, witness, or experience the things in question before judgment can be made. My judgment might not be as effective as that offered by someone who has indeed participated in X: no doubt a repentant and contrite murderer can denounce murder with more effectiveness than can I. But effectiveness is not to be confused with rightness: God has not murdered (has He?) or had sex with another man (or another God); and yet His moral pronouncements carry the most weight of all: He is right without participation, and his judgments, true as they are, may also be rather inefficient.
If there is a God, does He approve or disapprove of "Brokeback Mountain?" Ca
Bill - the Indigenous people over here in "nowhere australia" where (and are) mainly nomadic hunter gatherers and didn't actually farm. And I would pretty much say that in broad terms - most of australia is a "moneyed class".
matt - brialliant post - I'll be reading some more.
Bill,
I think we all agree the Bible is explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality. To speak against homosexuality should come natural (I would add with grace) to any Christian.
To speak specifically against the movie in any way other than objecting to two gay characters I think begs a good punch of the brackets. If you're repeating what Al Mohler or Michael Maudlin ... er Medlin said, at least attribute your criticism and not report it as your own. If you say you are against Brokeback Mountain because it's been widely reported the movie is about two gay cowboys, OK. That's the reason I'm not going to see it. I'm just not commenting on it otherwise, because I don't know anything else about it besides what others have commented on.
Good post, and well worth talking about. Unfortunately, as so often happens in blog comment sections, I'm here to harp on one point.
Ok, I've not seen "Brokeback Mountain" either. I have read the short story, however. I don't have any plans to see the movie, and I belive that homosexuality is unnatural. I have gay friends who are aware of my position, but it does not conflict with our friendship because we both believe that Christ's first commandment was to love (not judge, or convert) thy neighbor.
I also believe that Christ would never have treated gays and lesbians 1/10th as badly or fearfully as most Christians do. I believe he would have loved them unequivocally. He probably DID love and minister to them unequivocally. Just because the Gospels don't specify the sexual orientation of all the people Christ came in contact with doesn't mean gays weren't a part of his ministry.
All that is beside the point as far as this post, however.
Plenty of Christians have been moved, enlightened, or just plain entertained by movies that featured the protagonist(s) swearing, killing, lusting, working on the sabbath, etc . . . why pick on this one sin of homosexuality? Other sins are promoted and endorsed as acceptable behavior in film. Why does this one upset people so? In my experience, sometimes a deeper message is drawn from the rough textures of human, and therefore sinful, life. So, yes, Bill Gnade, I think you DO have to see the movie in order to condemn it.
Note that I don't believe you do have to see it, period, just that you have to see it in order to condemn it. We are commanded in the bible not to set things or ideas before our eyes that promote sinfulness, but movies that are offensive to evangelical sensibilities promote more sin among Christians than bars in the Bible Belt on a Saturday night. Judgemental attitudes, pride, and hatred towards their fellow man abound in the wake of a picture like Brokeback Mountain. See it or don't, and get on with your life!
I also believe that it is illogical for Mr. Gnade to compare the condemnation of acts which he believes to be wrong (murder, etc.) with the condemnation of a movie based on the tag line from the promos. It's comparing different concepts, like apples and the cardboard company that manufactures boxes that contain Apple Jacks.
At any rate, talking about it, even arguing about it, can be of a great help to all of us, I think. Faith needs fire.
Alas, it appears that I exceeded a word count in the comments section, for my post was quite truncated.
Michael claims I am illogical for comparing things of two different categories. Of course, I may be illogical. But I am making a set of analogies that are of only one category: the category of judgment. If I can make judgment on X without participating in X, then surely I can make judgment on Y without participating in Y.
I know how I want to spend my finite time, and it is not to be spent going to opium dens, casinos, whorehouses, and slasher movies to ensure, for mere vanity's sake (perhaps), that my every judgment on these things is perfect, and perfectly justifiable. Life is short; time is never refundable. Sitting in a theater in order to "make certain" for my gay friends that I "REALLY" understand homosexuality, or homosexual love, is perhaps an idol, and not true Christian love: It is the adoration of my own accuracy, my own relevance.
To Matt: I've no idea who Al Mohler or Michael Medlin are, nor have I even heard of them.
To Robb: Surely you take no offense in my Australia comment! For me, Australia is everything! Egads, you've got Koala bears.
Peace to you all,
BG
Let me try to explain my thinknig this way, then.
I believe I don't have to murder someone to condemn murder because murder is an accepted known quantity -- ending someone's life.
Seeing a movie with questionable subject matter may not be the best thing for me to do, or even an acceptable thing between me and God and where I am in my walk, but until I do see it the movie is NOT a known quantity. Only the trailer is a known quantity. God can reveal a lot to all of us through our actions, and, my definition of our sinful nature, many of those actions are likely to be sinful. Why could God not speak to me through "Brokeback Mountain"? Why is it impossible that I could leave the theater still believing that homosexualtity is wrong but having been touched or enlighted by some other aspect of artistic or emotional merit in the film? Because when you condemn an unknown quantity, you are saying that nothing of value is there. X-Rated or Pornographic movies are unlikely to enlighten. I don't think this qualifies.
Michael,
I think you are making a distinction for yourself that is artificial. How do you KNOW, a priori, that God does not also speak to you through a porno film? It is quite arguable that he does: You can walk away from the film knowing that lust, adultery, fornication and the like are morally wrong; that sex between a married man and woman is truly sacramental and covenantal; and that God created something wonderful in sexuality. All these are good things you could no doubt learn from a porno flick, albeit indirectly.
But you may agree with me, at least, as to what a porno film intends to do; what the director's intent was in making the film in the first place. I think each of us would agree, a priori, that the film's intent is NOT to edify us about God's designs for sexuality: it is designed to be prurient, titillating, profitable, and seductive. I need not see a porno film, in its entirety at least, in order to know this.
What is the intent behind a film like "Brokeback Mountain?" What is the reason for its production? You know as well as I: It is NOT an honest exploration of issues regarding homosexuality. It is a commitment to a demonstrable fallacy, namely, that "Love is a force of nature," and thus, homosexual love, as a "natural force" is justifiable love.
When asked outside the Golden Globe awards whether "Brokeback Mountain" presented "values out of touch with mainstream values," Sheryl Crow's response was telling (I paraphrase, though I heard it): "I think the more promotion of homosexuality the better."
OK. So I haven't seen the film. But I can and will make sound judgments based on what is already known. Sheryl Crow sums up the film's intent perfectly: it is a film in the same manipulative vein as "The Crying Game," (which I saw in theatre). It is a film intent on undoing millennia-old values.
I am not making a clear-cut rule here about film-going or even about judgment. I am saying that valid judgments can be made, even effective ones, without having to participate in or witness that thing or act which is to be judged.
" Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Peace to all!
Clear-cut PERSONAL judgements, perhaps. Each man with fear and trembling, as it says. I am more concerned about blanket condemnation by one group making decisions for others, but I think we've gone as far as we can go on this, and it is, after all, off-topic. (Sorry, Matt!)
Thanks for hashing it out with me, though, Bill.
You're welcome, and thank you. I am pleased to find such thoroughly kind, gentle and thoughtful comments from start to finish.
Peace!
Commenting by HaloScan
