The Nominees Revealed and the Question for the Church

The announcement of this year's Academy Awards nominations always brings with it the usual debates.  Who surprised?  (Bardem!)  Who got snubbed?  (Nolan!)

Momentum.  Controversy.  Favourite.  Underdog.  Every year, all of these words are used to grapple with the Academy's picks.  In fact, I'm even sure that I'll address these issues as time draws nearer to the eventual opening of the envelopes.

Though really, the question for the Church today is something different...

"Should we care?"

Most people give a resounding 'No!' to this issue.  After all, the Oscars is really nothing more than an opportunity for Johnny Depp, Scarlett Johansson and Angelina Jolie to gear up in Versace and Prada and walk the red carpet.  It's frivolous fluff.  Besides, they haven't seen the movies anyways.

As a church, however, I don't think we should be so quick to tune out.

It will come as no surprise to you that, yes, I believe there is relevance hidden under the Gucci and gold for the church today.  Although the Academy has always been accused of being 'out of touch', the films that win (and are even nominated) demonstrate themselves to be cultural touch points.  Because everything is always a product of the time at which it is created, we learn a lot about the worldview and values of the dominant culture of our own time from its films.  Films like The Social Network, Inception, and The King's Speech are films which speak our moment in time (even if they're not set in it).  For the Church at large to ignore this fact is to miss an opportunity to engage Hollywood on their turf.

Art is a doorway to a culture.  The Apostle Paul knew that and would study the poetry and art of a city upon his arrival.  (Lest we forget the statue to the 'Unknown god'...)  As Christians, we have been called into our world with relevance and humble hearts.  We don't always like the messages we hear from the cinema--but that doesn't make them less relevant.  How can we truly speak the Kingdom of God into a culture if we aren't willing to listen to them first?

Yet, at the same time, I would also suggest that the answer to our question can also be 'No' as well.  (Though maybe not for the reason you'd expect.)  The truth is that, as essential as it is to grapple with the texts of the dominant culture, it doesn't hold a candle to the truth of the stories of those in our nearest proximity and community.  In other words, although understanding the theological values inherent within True Grit is a healthy exercise of the mind, it decreases in importance in light of our own ability to hear the voices of the people in our neighbourhood.  These are the stories that matter most.  To contemporize the Gospel, we must first engage our own culture.  The values in our area may be entirely different than those exemplified in this year's Oscar race.

As such, to wrestle with the texts of those worthy of even being mentioned with the phrase "Best Picture Nominee" needs to be vital exercise within the church if it is to stay relevant.  However, one must also not assume they understand the needs of their community simply because they are aware of those of the dominant culture.

And seriously, what does Christopher Nolan have to do to get a nomination for directing?  Throw him a bone, guys...

Avatar

Starring Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver

Directed by James Cameron                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated PG                                                                                    Rating: ****1/2 (out of 5)           

            Dances with Wolves.  Pocahontas.  Ferngully: The Last Rainforest.  Even The Matrix.

            By now, I’m sure that you’ve heard these stories among many others in the discussion as cynical comparisons to James Cameron’s Avatar.  If not, you’ve undoubtedly heard that the special effects (including new 3D technology) that comprise this film are going to change the way that filmmaking is done forever.  (I had even heard that, if you don’t see it in 3D, you might as well not see it at all…)

            Although many of these claims are not unfair, the truth is that James Cameron’s Avatar is much more than mere spectacle or stereotype.

            Story wise, Avatar is set as the human race seeks to mine an invaluable resource from below the surface of the planet, Pandora.  Here, they encounter an indigenous race that refuses to comply with their corporate plans, known as the Na’vi.  As a result, the ‘Company’ (a nod to Cameron’s evil corporation in his 80s epic, Aliens) institutes ‘the Avatar program’, an initiative designed to create a diplomatic solution by ‘downloading’ a human’s consciousness into the body of a Na’vi.  When Jake Sully, a former marine with nothing to lose, is recruited to join the ‘Avatar’ program, he is sent to live amongst the Na’vi to gather military intel for a possible invasion.  However, as Jake becomes increasingly involved in the Na’vi culture, he is forced to re-evaluate his perspectives and grapple with the moral implications of his military involvement.

            The most interesting thing about Avatar though is that Cameron isn’t satisfied with resting on the special effects of his technological masterpiece alone.  Thematically, the movie wrestles with more serious topics ranging from the plight of imperialism to the destructiveness of capitalism.  For our purposes, however, it is important to recognize some of the deeper theological issues that Avatar addresses.  The Na’vi are deeply spiritual people, devout in their worship of Eywa, their deity devoted to keeping ‘nature in balance’.  The Na’vi care for nothing other than peace and connectedness with their planet and each other, a stark contrast to the destructive capitalist mindset of the ‘Company’.  What I found interesting was that, despite the obvious similarities of Na’vi theology to native spirituality, there are some connections with Christian theology.  For example, the name Eywa bears a strong resemblance to the Jewish name for God, Yahweh.  Further, there is even mention of the fact that, in order to really begin living one’s life, they must be born a second time.

            In fact, the film also has a strong missional theme of engagement as well.  Jake’s journey in his avatar is extremely incarnational as he (literally) steps into the Na’vi culture as one of their own.  This transformation is an incredible representation of the tension of evangelical engagement.  What is our motivation as we engage our communities?  Is it to bring our agendas to the world and force them to change?  Or, are we willing to humble ourselves, journey into the comfort zones of others and listen to their stories before we speak?  In Avatar, Jake takes the latter approach and, in doing so, develops such deep relationships with the indigenous people that he quickly becomes a part of their world.  As a result, they trust him and are willing to listen to what he has to say.  They view him as one of their own.  (Incidentally, Jake becomes so ingrained into the Na’vi world that his superior officer, frustrated by the fact that his opportunity for conquest may be slipping away, snarls “You think you’re one of them?  Time to wake up.”)  As the church, it is our responsibility to engage our culture in this manner.  As Jesus took on human form in an effort to reach us, so should we seek to lovingly reach our communities by establishing our place within it.  This is not to say that we lose our identity as believers, but rather that we would begin to understand that we are a called to be a foretaste of the Kingdom amongst the people of the world. 

            Cameron’s Avatar appears to understand the importance of allowing the lives of others reach into our own.  Themes of community, ecology and humility pervade this film, making it so much more than your typical blockbuster.

But, seriously, if you’re going to see it, see it in 3D…

True Grit

Starring Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated PG-13 for violence                                                            Rating: ****1/2 (out of 5)           

            “The wicked run away when there is no one chasing them.” (Proverbs 28:1)

            This is the verse that opens the Coens’ remake of True Grit, and it sums up the world in which Joel and Ethan create perfectly.  Theirs is a wilderness that is harsh and unforgiving and the world in which these characters exist even more so.

            Set in the mid-19^th Century, Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is a 14-year-old girl, sent to town to pick up her father’s body after having been murdered by an outlaw named Tom Cheney (Josh Brolin).  However, upon her arrival, it is revealed that she has much more in mind.  Rather than returning home, Mattie seeks justice for her father’s death and enlists the help of Rooster Cogburn (an unrecognizable Jeff Bridges), a broken, alcoholic US Marshall, to go with her on the journey.  To complicate matters, Mattie and Cogburn must also deal with La Boeuf (Matt Damon), a Texas Ranger who seeks to capture Cheney for his own reasons.  Together, the unlikely trio ventures into the unforgiving terrain of the West to bring back Cheney for his rightful hanging.

            Most interesting to me, however, was the spirituality that pervades this dark scenario.  Rather than one of contemplative humility, the God of this world is one of judgment. An illustration of this comes in the film’s early going as we witness a hanging of three outlaws.  In this instance, the prisoners to the left and right are cold and unrepentant of their crimes.  They are men who act because they choose to.  It’s who they are.  However, when given the chance to speak, the offender in the middle pleads for grace.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that he seeks forgiveness for his actions, his character appears sniveling and weak and, ultimately, receives the same fate as those that are unrepentant.  The message?  Take it like a man, boy.  Everyone dies.  Scenes such as these are mere snapshots of the film’s sense of morality.  Grace is available to all, but only taken by the weak.  No, in this harsh reality, true justice comes in the form of retribution.  (However, it is also interesting to note that redemption is also possible in this world, as exemplified through the transformation of Rooster Cogburn.  Nevertheless, despite his transition, Rooster remains unrepentant for his history of violence, deeming it ‘what was necessary’.)

            What’s more, this world is an example of what happens when we shape God into our own image.  One manifestation of this comes through the extended thematic use of ‘Leaning on the Everlasting Arms’ throughout the course of the film.  Used to set the feel of a traditional western, I also found its use quite ironic given the film’s commitment to vengeance and violence.  These are men and women who take their lives in their own hands.  Yes, there’s concern for the afterlife… but only when faced with death directly.  The best example of this comes through Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross who, at the age of 14, understands God as merciful—she quotes Scripture on several occasions to that effect—yet maintains a heart of vengeance and justice.  Within her, it is almost as though there is a complete disconnect between her understanding of grace and real-world application.  Of course, there are those that deserve forgiveness… just don’t tell her it’s Tom Cheney.  This ‘shaping’ of God is extremely poignant in a culture such as ours that emphasizes personal experience over God’s objective reality.  “God created man… and then man returned the favour” is a phrase that has become increasingly commonplace.  Throughout our culture—and especially the church—we have come to emphasize snippets of God that we like, while downplaying aspects of His character that we do not.  As a result, the Coens have touched upon a cultural value that speaks to our own desire for self-reliance.

            With this in mind, there is a distinct flavour of God in the Coen Brothers’ vision of True Grit.  Though His grace is referenced, it is a picture of the violent and vengeful aspects of God that break through in this portrait of the West.  The God of this land is very present yet as harsh as the terrain that they inhabit.

Chloe

Starring Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, Liam Neeson

Directed by Atom Egoyan                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated R for sexuality, nudity and language                                    Rating: *** ½  (out of 5)           

            In a world of loss and disconnection, how does one ultimately understand their own humanity?  This question is central to the heart of Atom Egoyan’s Chloe, a haunting sexual thriller that grapples with the complexity of human relationships in a culture devoid of the acknowledgement of the existence of God.

            Set in Toronto (playing itself for once), Chloe tells the story of Catherine and David Stewart (Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson, respectively), a married couple who has seemingly lost all the passion in their relationship with one another.   Even their son, Michael (Max Theiriot), has begun to separate emotionally from his family, living his life primarily from within his room.  A professor, David travels often and, as a result, the ever increasing void of family intimacy appears to go unnoticed by him (or is he simply disinterested?)  Nevertheless, Catherine is convinced that another reason exists.  She believes that her husband is having an affair.  Desperate to find the truth, Catherine creates a simple scenario:  she will hire a prostitute to attempt to seduce her husband.

            It is here that we meet Chloe. 

And it is here that things begin to spiral out of control.

As the relationship between Chloe and David intensifies, so too does her relationship with Catherine.  As a result, Catherine is quickly drawn into this world of deceit and loneliness and is soon caught up in her own web.

            The core of Egoyan’s Chloe is the relational dynamic between David and Catherine and how the introduction of Chloe into the mix creates chaos within their marriage.  Although, through this exploration of relationships, Egoyan’s film also wrestles with the reality of human existence in a world without God.  For example, whereas the centrality of God creates wholeness and intimacy, Egoyan’s Chloe offers us a world of disconnect and broken relationships.  Through David and Catherine’s marriage, Egoyan explores the dangers of our cultural obsession with self-satisfaction and online personas.  An excellent example of this comes through the character of David who, because of his hectic work schedule, is able to have his personal needs met via. interactions (both personal and online) with his adoring students.  What’s more, when Catherine inquires as to what he’s doing, he simply minimizes the conversation, keeping her further away from his other life.  In doing so, he continues to create a divide between himself and Catherine yet even he seems unaware of how it began.  (David himself wonders why, despite their former passion for one another, they “no longer pick each other up from the airport”.)  Ironically, this shattering of intimacy has become all too common in our fast-paced world of constant connectivity.  Although we are wired in all the time, one gets the sense that we are never truly open and honest with one another anymore.  True brokenness and intimacy—key signs of the reign of God—have been lost and, as such, we have been left with falsehood and deception.

What’s more, Chloe also recognizes that, in a world without God, the worship of sexuality has become the ultimate expression of life and reality.   Due to the deep scarring of the loss of intimacy, sexuality rapidly is sold as the answer fill the void and achieve personal wholeness once again.  This is best evidenced in the character of Chloe herself who uses sex to meet other needs that are lacking.  To her, sex is the only way that she knows how to experience life, even if the encounters are based on lies.  (She claims that, in her line of work, she can “be anyone you want [her] to be.”)  To Egoyan, sexuality is what is left when one wants to feel fully human in our society.  However, what’s frightening is how accurate this assumption is.  Although created by God as good and whole, sexuality has become gutted of its original intent.  For instance, in our culture that has become so obsessed with the image, there is little doubt that we have lost holistic love for the other.  This loss of the understanding of the image of God, coupled with the accessibility of pornography through the internet has resulted in a tsunami of sexual addictions, both from outside and within the church.  Like Chloe, our culture has the ability to visualize each ‘other’ in “any way [we] want them to be”.  Nevertheless, with the loss of a healthy understanding of the imago Dei, we have therefore found ourselves as a culture seeking to rediscover our humanity through the creation rather than the Creator.

There’s something lingering about Chloe.  Even after the film is over, it stays with you.  Perhaps it’s the intensity of the film’s emotional core.  Or, more chillingly, perhaps it’s the fact that this particular world is all too real.  And familiar.

Up in the Air

Starring George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick                       

Directed by Jason Reitman                                                                        By Steve Norton

Rated 14A                                                                                                *****

Available on DVD and Blu-ray

            “How much does your life weigh?”           

This is the question that is asked in Jason Reitman’s profound film, Up in the Air… and it could not be appropriate than in today’s culture.  Although the novel for Up in the Air (Walter Kirn) was first written in 2001 and the film went into pre-production in mid-2008, it could not have proven more timely than at its release.  As the world grapples with the effects of the ‘economic downturn’ and rising unemployment, Up in the Air seeks to delve into the core values of North American culture.  In doing so, Reitman manages to contemporize an age-old question as he wrestles with what is really important in life.

            Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a man who makes his living travelling across the country, firing people when their bosses are too cowardly to do so.  His motivational speech ‘What’s in your backpack?’ is a testament to his quest for individual achievement, symbolized by his mission of acquiring 10 million air miles.  Travelling 260 days a year, he proudly lives out of his suitcase and feels a strong sense of comfort in the ‘elite status’ that his travels have bestowed upon him.  That is, until he is called into the boss’ office and instructed to bring their young protégée, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) on the road with him so that he can ‘show her the ropes’.  This change in his routine, in combination his encounter with the feisty Alex (Vera Farmiga) – who refers to herself as the ‘female version’ of Ryan) – begins to challenge his worldview of disconnectedness and invites him to question the value of his way of life.

Thematically, there is much to digest and engage, especially for the church.  At its core, the film wrestles with the question of success.  Bingham’s motivational speech establishes his belief that success is merely the next job.  Says Bingham, “Make no mistake.  Moving is living.  We’re not swans.  We’re sharks.”  This mantra dictates the way he lives and the way he engages others.  He remains disconnected from those he is called to fire (he states that it’s better not to know their names) and refuses to be tied down by family relationships (as indicated when his sister reminds him that he’s ‘basically dead’ to them).  Yet, although there are times when Bingham appears to be right in his philosophy (as revealed in Natalie’s relationship with her boyfriend), the film continuously draws the viewer back to the overall hollowness of that ideology.  For Reitman, success lies in the value of one’s relationships and their connectedness.  Connection is the reality of this generation (and actually is a theme which pervades Reitman’s previous work, Juno).  Most fascinating to me is that this film identifies online connection as cold and, ultimately, ineffective.  In fact, in one of the film’s more powerful moments, Natalie is forced to fire someone online, despite the fact that she would much rather do so in person.  Given this generation’s emphasis on hyperconnectivity, I.found this argument surprising and even controversial.  The question of connection is extremely relevant to the church and, I believe, requires more reflection than I can do in a short review.

What’s more, Up in the Air also makes a powerful argument for the value of one’s humanity.  Although he had at first thought of using professional actors, Reitman instead invited people who have actually been fired to play the employees who are being let go.  In order to maintain a sense of reality, Reitman encouraged them to say and do the very things they told their employers at their dismissal.  The result brings a sense of gravitas to the film as people are allowed to bear their souls on camera.  These people are more than just nameless characters in a film.  They are real people with families and lives that are being affected by business decisions.  Oddly enough, it was on this level that I felt the film became most relevant to the state of the church today. If the church is ever to properly engage and speak into the culture for the Kingdom, we must be aware of the humanity of the people with whom we’re ministering.  Simply memorizing evangelical platitudes and strategies is not enough if the church desires to be relevant in our world today.  We must be fully aware of the stories of those around us and speak into them lovingly.  Too often, evangelistic opportunities have been about communicating the Gospel and ignoring the person (not to mention, never following up—as is the case with Bingham).  Instead, we must listen and hear in order to ever be able to properly communicate Kingdom truth.

 Make no mistake, this film is nothing short of remarkable.  Jason Reitman—who has quickly established himself as one Hollywood’s premier young talents—weaves an intricate narrative, without offering any particularly easy answers to the questions that he’s asking.   As Bingham, Clooney gives the most raw performance of his career to date.  It is honest, penetrating and even self-deprecating (especially given that he is arguably Hollywood’s biggest star and really does portray himself as the consummate bachelor).  The female leads (Farmiga and Kendrick) are revelations in their performances and manage to stay in step with Clooney’s performance (and, in some cases, even upstage him).   Nevertheless, I also believe that there is much for the church to engage within this film as well.  Themes of the nature of humanity and connectedness have never been more relevant to our culture and we, as the Kingdom of God, must be able to speak to these issues.  For these reasons, this film quickly becomes a relatable tool for congregations and a valuable reality check for the church in its relationship with the community.

This Is It

Directed by Kenny Ortega                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated PG                                                                                    Rating: **** (out of 5)

This is it.

When he made these comments, Jackson surely had no idea that his words would serve a dual purpose.  In context, he simply meant that his latest concert experience would be his final foray into the public music scene.  Having signed for 50 shows in London throughout the summer, he was ready to move on.  (Although rumours abounded that, should the shows be successful, they would inevitably lead to a massive world tour.)

Of course, after his death last June, we can now see that these words carried with them a sense of irony as well.  Indeed, this cinematic journey is “it” per se.  Built upon behind-the-scenes footage of Jackson’s rehearsals, director Kenny Ortega’s documentary serves as a final farewell to the man whom many have argued was the greatest musical entertainer of all time.

Really, the film is fascinating on a number of levels.  On the surface, it is both a rare and intimate portrait of a truly talented artist at work.  Yes, all the hits are there as Jackson claims that he wants to “play the songs his fans want to hear”.  We are treated to experience elaborate and often eye-popping productions—albeit rehearsals—of his most popular tunes such as Beat It, The Way You Make Me Feel, and, of course, Thriller.  Yes, he could still dance.  Despite reports that he had lost a step, Jackson clearly maintains the choreography that made him a superstar.  (He even throws in a short moonwalk near the end of the film.)  Although, I believe that Ortega manages to accomplish more than simply compiling a ‘best-of’ playlist of Jackson’s catalog.

In many ways, Ortega’s documentary accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do—to offer a portrait of grace to a man who had been shamed by public controversy.  Having had his career—and life—destroyed by allegations of sexual misappropriations with children, Jackson had become an ever-increasing shadow of his former self.  Derided by the media and heavily in debt, Jackson had long since become a laughingstock in the public eye.  However, This Is It isn’t about that.  Ortega places the camera squarely upon Jackson the artist and his music and, in doing so, manages to remind the people why he was beloved in the first place.  This is a raw picture of a man and his creative mind.  There is no hint of a tainted past.  Ortega seeks to demonstrate the genuine heart and soul of a man who had been written off and was seeking a fresh start.  Author Philip Yancey describes grace as the ‘last, best word’ due to its ability to breathe new life into the lost.  There is no question that this is what Ortega seeks to accomplish in this endeavour by separating Jackson from the controversies surrounding him.  We all deserve a second chance—and Jackson is no different.

In addition, this portrait of Jackson also serves as an intriguing reminder of the nature of celebrity in our culture.   Jackson has always demonstrated himself to be a global superstar of the musical scene.  Although often vilified in North America, he was almost deified in other parts of the world.  Make no mistake; this film takes the latter position as opposed to the former.  (Even his signature pose of holding his arms wide with this head back could be seen as a Christ-pose.)  Jackson instills hero worship amongst the crew that clearly feel privileged to be collaborating with him.  In fact, one of the most interesting moments in the film follows his performance of Billie Jean when director Kenny Ortega approaches him and claims that they just had ‘church’.  Ortega’s comment here is intriguing to say the least.  In doing so, he presents a viewpoint that is common to our culture by focusing its worship upon those who can entertain.  After all, what really is the difference between a Coldplay or a Hillsong concert, other than the focal point of the artists and their fans?  In a media culture where the mantle of fame is placed on everyone from Britney Spears to a boy in a balloon, the term ‘celebrity’ is thrown around generously.  There is no doubt of either Jackson’s musical genius or his cultural impact.  Yet, Ortega wants to remind us that he was much more than that.  To Ortega, Jackson was nothing short of an icon; a symbol of hope for those who needed comfort. 

This sort of cultural symbolism is essential for us to understand as we engage our world for the Kingdom of God.  In order to offer genuine hope, we must truly understand where our society places their value.  This Is It is an excellent example of this.  By reminding the fans of Jackson’s cultural impact and importance, Ortega’s documentary seeks to move beyond simple rehearsal footage to almost theological reverence for its subject.  Nevertheless, in light of this, this film also offers a portrait of a man who simply wanted a second chance from those who had abandoned him.   In short, it is a plea for grace from the disenfranchised… and that is a plea that cannot be ignored.

After all, this is it.

From time to time...

I will also be using this blog as a place to drop my film reviews as well.  It is my hope for these reviews to not just about be how 'good' a movie is.  In fact, that's not really what I'm going for.  It's more about what are some of the central spiritual themes that can be mined from them.

I will post some of my back reviews--mainly to get things rolling--so keep in mind that some of these are not currently in the multiplex.  (And, in fact, some of them have already been made available online through Tyndale's website.)  Nevertheless, this seems like the forum to pass them on.

So, let's drop a few and see what happens.

The Communal Nature of Film

Personally, I see film as an expression of our passion for community.

This idea has caused discussion with my peers over the years, and I understand why.  The viewing of a screen can be a very one-directional process.  You receive the image, with no chance to respond directly to the storyteller.  Nevertheless, our desire to give and share stories is clearly built within us.  God, the ultimate Narrator, has given us life in the collection of truths through one another's stories, be it cave paintings or The Hurt Locker.  God invites us to devour Scripture on a daily basis... and what is the Bible except a collection of God stories for our spiritual engagement.  (In fact, even blogging is a part of that Divine impulse for social sharing...)

Besides, when we go to a movie, we're not alone, are we?  (Unless you manage to find that one rare showing where no one else is in the theatre...  That showtime yet eludes me...)  No, we're with a collection of friends and strangers who are engaging the same narrative.  We're being told the same story--and hearing it in completely different ways.  It gives even greater opportunity for us to connect with one another and discuss matters of God, love, and life.  This connection, especially amongst believers, can be a true God-moment.  Scripture says, 'wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there.'  Although often misquoted, this verse doesn't seem to limit the location of where God will show up.  Even over a coffee, discussing Avatar.  

The problem is we don't always do that, do we?  "I just want to go in there and turn my brain off."  It's a comment I've heard a billion times, from different people.  I understand the desire for mindless entertainment.  I do it too.  I enjoyed--and own--movies like Transformers and What About Bob?  But the problem comes when we ignore the fact that we're being fed a worldview every time we take in media.  There's always a message.  If we're never willing to engage the narrative on any level, we're just constantly feeding and feeding with no real exercise for our brains.

Most people are comfortable with this.  Few people I know really want to grapple with cinematic themes and issues after the lights come up.  That's okay.  I understand that.  They've had a hard day and the experience of being together is enough for them.  (Sometimes it is for me too.)  Though I wish they understood things from my perspective as well.

When we wrestle with film, what we're really doing is engaging the narrative in a search for truth.  These are the opportunities that God craves because it's an amazing time to draw near to us.  He is a God who exists in Divine community and He yearns for us to find that wholeness in Him.

And, in those moments, we draw near to each other as well.

In the Beginning...

It's been a long time since I've ventured out into blogging.

In fact, it's probably a good question as to why.  

I mean, seriously, blogs can be silly things.  Anyone can have a blog and include posts to YouTube videos of kitty cats playing Guitar Hero (here) or just rant about things like the guy on the bus that looked at them funny and they KNOW that he's thinking that they haven't done their eyebrows in, like, 10 years!  I have had people say that I should get online and write about the funny things that happen to me.  I've had people say that they would like me to engage my theological side online.  Yet I've resisted.  Partly due to time.  Partly feeling like I just wouldn't really have anything worth saying to the blogosphere.

So, why now?

To tell you the truth, it's time.  There are two parts of me that I believe need to be reconciled and this seems like the best platform to engage that...

I love God and I love movies.

Growing up, I often felt that these two passions of mine were divisive, as though they both were pulling me in separate directions.  Most Christians I dealt with had no interest in discussing film as anything other than frivolous entertainment.  Most film people I spoke to had no interest in matters of faith in our discussion.  As a result, I often felt as though there was something wrong with me.  (Feel sorry for meeee... now.  Thank you.  Let's move on.)  Seriously though, it was an issue to be sure.  However, after finding others like myself at Seminary and online, much has changed for me and I have become confident of the theological importance of film theory.  

So, where do I get that from?

First and foremost, I believe that man was created in God's image.  The imago Dei is the purest expression of God's love for humanity and, as such, is the purest form of our humanity because it reflects His person.  Despite the fact that his sinful nature has marred this image, I do not believe that man has lost this Divine imprint in its entirety.  In fact, I absolutely believe that, because our God is a creative God, our creative impulses are an expression of the imago Dei.  This can be a difficult claim to make in regards to something such as film and popular culture.  The first argument everyone makes is always "There's so much junk (or smut, pending on your age... ;)) out there today!"  It's true.  There's a lot of stuff that distorts the image of God.  I mean, really, how could one argue that pornography is an expression of the image of God?  (And no, I don't think pornography glorifies God... but I do see it as a marring of the sexual image that He did create.)  Personally, I believe that, even if distorted, the root cause of the creative impulse comes from God alone.  And, if that's true, that is definitely worth examining from His perspective.

So, with that in mind, I'd like to start the discussion.  Yeah, let's be serious.  I'll probably have stories like that time on the bus or a video I think is funny.  Really, who doesn't?  But I would love this to be an outlet primarily for musings about God, theology, pop culture and film (both together and separately).  And I invite your comments.  I'm into the discussion.

Thanks everyone.

Let's dance.