Prince Caspian
There are few people who have had more influence on my theological upbringing than C.S. Lewis. My parents gave me the "Chronicles of Narnia" when I was little and I haven't been able to put Lewis down since. For my money there is no greater work of Christian fiction than "The Great Divorce." So, as lame as it might be I can't wait for the next Narnia movie to come out. (Actually I am really hoping they stay with the series long enough to make The Last Battle)
As a youth pastor I have been inundated with material for the Prince Caspian movie. My mailbox has been stuffed full with all kinds of posters, fliers, and suggestions on how to incorporate the material into my programing. Before I go any further, I should let it be known that yes I do plan on taking my youth group to see the movie. However, I have no plans on incorporating any of the material I have been sent into my regular programming. To be quite honest I can't see it as anything more than an elaborate marketing scheme to get more people to buy movie tickets because it is the "Christian thing to do."
Without getting into a discussion on what "Christian business" should look like, the question I want to ask is "How much, if any, influence should "pop culture" have on the church?" As a youth pastor, and someone who is fairly new to full-time ministry, I struggle with this question. I need "stuff" that is going to be appealing to teenagers if I want to get them in the doors, but I refuse the notion, which seems to be the prevailing approach in youth ministry, that what we offer, i.e. the bible, isn't relevant enough, so we need to "spice it up." So, I'm torn.
And then in the midst of my thesis research I read this quote by Jurgen Moltmann which has really challenged me. In his book "The Crucified God," he said, "A Christianity which does not measure itself in theology and practice by this criterion [faith in a crucified Christ] loses its identity and becomes confused with the surrounding world; it becomes the religious fulfillment of the prevailing social interests, or of the interests of those who dominate society. It becomes a chameleon which can no longer be distinguished from the leaves of the tree in which it sits."
It seems to me that we have made the inability to distinguish the church from the prevailing culture a badge of honor, so that we celebrate when people walk through our doors and don't realize that they are at church. But I have to agree with Moltmann that this must not be the case.
So with that thought in mind, I wanted to hear what everyone else thinks about this issue. Particularly in light of our recent conversation on emergent _____________ it seems to be profoundly relevant. Again, I am torn on the issue. So what do you think?
As a youth pastor I have been inundated with material for the Prince Caspian movie. My mailbox has been stuffed full with all kinds of posters, fliers, and suggestions on how to incorporate the material into my programing. Before I go any further, I should let it be known that yes I do plan on taking my youth group to see the movie. However, I have no plans on incorporating any of the material I have been sent into my regular programming. To be quite honest I can't see it as anything more than an elaborate marketing scheme to get more people to buy movie tickets because it is the "Christian thing to do."
Without getting into a discussion on what "Christian business" should look like, the question I want to ask is "How much, if any, influence should "pop culture" have on the church?" As a youth pastor, and someone who is fairly new to full-time ministry, I struggle with this question. I need "stuff" that is going to be appealing to teenagers if I want to get them in the doors, but I refuse the notion, which seems to be the prevailing approach in youth ministry, that what we offer, i.e. the bible, isn't relevant enough, so we need to "spice it up." So, I'm torn.
And then in the midst of my thesis research I read this quote by Jurgen Moltmann which has really challenged me. In his book "The Crucified God," he said, "A Christianity which does not measure itself in theology and practice by this criterion [faith in a crucified Christ] loses its identity and becomes confused with the surrounding world; it becomes the religious fulfillment of the prevailing social interests, or of the interests of those who dominate society. It becomes a chameleon which can no longer be distinguished from the leaves of the tree in which it sits."
It seems to me that we have made the inability to distinguish the church from the prevailing culture a badge of honor, so that we celebrate when people walk through our doors and don't realize that they are at church. But I have to agree with Moltmann that this must not be the case.
So with that thought in mind, I wanted to hear what everyone else thinks about this issue. Particularly in light of our recent conversation on emergent _____________ it seems to be profoundly relevant. Again, I am torn on the issue. So what do you think?
posted by Zack | 12:04 PM
8 Comments:
Good question(s), Zack. While I'm not a big Lewis fan, I spend a lot of my academic energies on interdisciplinary approaches to theology, especially "literature and theology" and "theology and popular culture," so I have some thoughts in response to your post.
I think you've kind of got two (well, more than two, but two primary) issues going on here. There is the question of relevance: this tendency for the church, and for "confessional" academic theology (the kind taught in seminaries and Christian institutions, which seeks to undertake the task of theological thinking in ways that are faithful to Christian orthodoxy) to sometimes engage with popular culture for the sake of "remaining relevant." This hopping on a certain trendy bandwagon kinda annoys me in general, and I think there is the negative tendency hinted at in the Moltmann quote you shared - that the church has so little faith in the eternal relevance of its evangel, that it feels it must appropriate cultural forms and expressions. And so we get attempts to "do theology" using the raw material of film or television or music or literature.
This is usually done in one of several ways, e.g. 1) "look how this film (or whatever) illustrates certain theological themes or ideas," or 2) "look at the way Christian theology is "embedded" in this film," or 3) "look how this film expresses ideas that challenge "traditional" Christian theology," etc. (we might call these kinds of approaches theology with/and/in/through culture; of course there are more possible approaches than this). I tend to regard these types of approaches as dead ends; they are often somewhat interesting, but aren't really able to go very far. They treat popular culture as a kind of handmaiden to theology, an illustrative tool but nothing more, really, than a way to get the "up-and-coming" generation, which is fluent in the media and popular culture, interested in theology by 'speaking their language.'
But I think you're dead right: there is a danger in moving toward, and especially in deliberately working toward, a paradigm where the Church, or Christian theology, are indistinguishable from contemporary culture. I also question whether the criterion of "relevance" is really valuable, or even "Christian," in the first instance. I suspect we feel we have to "make the gospel relevant" because in reality we don't have much faith in the gospel and in its ability to transform lives through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with the Church "appropriating" popular cultural forms and expressions if they can contribute meaningfully to her teaching or her liturgy; but like Moltmann says, we might find ourselves losing our sense of our identity if we allow pop culture to set the agenda for our teaching or liturgy, or if we begin to feel like we HAVE TO draw upon pop culture in order for our message to be valid in our day and age.
To respond to your question in the language you use, I would say that popular culture should have little, if any, influence on the church; but that is not to say that pop culture can't speak meaningfully to the Church, nor does it mean that pop culture can't be usefully appropriated by the Church for her unique purposes. But even though I can allow for it, I still have some misgivings about these kinds of approaches at the point that they don't "respect" the difference between the Church (and her theology) and our popular culture (her theories and practices); and when the Church/theology seeks to subsume pop culture under her metanarrative.
The other issue/question I see here - and admittedly this is a bit outside what your asking explicitly (vis-a-vis the Church) - is one of academic theology, usually of the less "confessional," more "secular" kind, formulating theologies "of" culture (in the Tillichean sense), or exploring the limits of theological thinking by doing "culture AS theology." On one hand, this latter is the point at which what you're cautioning us against is taken to completion - on the other hand, this kind of theological thinking has shifted the terms of what constitutes theology from that which is accountable to, and for the benefit of the Church, to an intellectual pursuit which operates according to it's own criteria and is not beholden to the Church for either its raison d'etre or its legitimation. It may sound surprising or ironic, but this kind of work doesn't really concern me, and actually interests me quite a bit more than the earlier approach, because although it has changed the rules, and can therefore be called into question on the grounds that it isn't "properly" theology, it also isn't necessarily obscuring the unique language of Christian theology by seeking to discuss or express it in the language of popular culture in the way the earlier approach can tend to do.
Does that make sense? I'm not confident I've expressed myself well, but I did want to contribute to this subject, because it is one that I am very invested in. Thanks again, Zack.
Brannon,
You used a word that I liked a lot, that I think probably best describes the church's response to/use of "pop culture" - "appropriate." Clearly this has been the tradition of the church since its inception. In order to evangelize/convert the "heathen" we use their words, symbols, etc. to express the faith in a way they understand. Or we commandeer their holidays and make them our own.
I like the word "appropriate" because it keeps the church in its proper place at the forefront. Culture becomes a tool of the church, rather than the church being simply a mirror image or extension of the culture.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your "misgivings" about the distinct nature of the church. Randy Clapp wrote a book called "Peculiar People" that I think is a wonderful description of how the church should look/act in the world. We are weird people with weird ideas. We believe in weird things like virgin birth, a god enfleshed, and bodily resurrection. Too often we are concerned with how comfortable outsiders are when they come visit our churches. So we bend over backwards to make them feel at home. We serve Starbucks, we ditch the pews, we have cutting edge audio/visuals, and, in a lot of cases particularly in larger churches, we offer all the amenities you would find at the local mall or country club. (there's a GREAT King of the Hill episode on that)
This again is my issue with much of the emergent _____________ that I have come in contact with. I know that many in the ______________ are very interested in the church fathers, etc, which I think is awesome, but, particularly in the case of Dan Kimball, it seems that many of them are overly concerned with the "non-churched" to the point that every aspect of church life is designed to make the outsider feel comfortable. (Again I realized this is not the case with everyone, but with the majority of those that I have come in contact it has been the case)
My thought on the issue is that there shouldn't be a moment when even the "insiders" are completely comfortable with the claims that we make about virgin birth, incarnation, and resurrection. These are weird ideas and lives of self sacrifice and abstinence (not necessarily sexually speaking) from things the world considers "ok" make us a weird, or as Clapp says, a "peculiar people."
I guess the tension comes in with just how do we appropriate culture. This is a task that I think we should always continue to wrestle with. I know that I do now, and I mostly likely continue to wrestle with when I'm old and gray.
Thanks a lot for the response Brannon. Good stuff.
Zack,
You mention the things we believe that make us "peculiar" such as "virgin birth, incarnation, and resurrection." But I think you would agree that belief must be more than intellectual assent and that these are realities as followers of Jesus that we actually live into.
Intellectually believing in the incarnation and the resurrection is one thing but living out these realities in our lives is something else. I think as followers of Jesus we need to actually be both incarnational as well as transformational in culture.
I don't think culture becomes a "tool" for the church; it may just be me, but that sounds like marketing plans and slick church growth schemes. This may not be what you meant at all, it is just the image that came to my mind.
I think culture is the context of the church, that we both become a part of while at the same time allowing the Kingdom of Heaven to burst into this context as our world through us.
I don't think it is a matter of making the "non churched" feel at home with us it is more about us making a home and becoming incarnational in the world and culture we share, yet at the same time still being "peculiar" in it and being transformational through it.
I agree with you that there is great tension in this and something we will always need to wrestle with.
James,
I would absolutely agree with you that the Christian faith is more than intellectual assent. I mention those "beliefs" as what makes us particular because the lives we live are determined by the beliefs we hold. (And vice-versa)
Therefore, I think we can't dismiss the "intellectual assent" either. They go hand in hand. So I don't know that I would fully agree that "Intellectually believing in the incarnation and the resurrection is one thing but living out these realities in our lives is something else." My hesitation here is that it seems, to me at least, that that statement lends itself towards a much greater distinction between "thought" and "life" than I would grant. We live our lives the way we do only because of what we believe/think.
I would agree, and I think this is probably what you are getting at, that we can say we believe something, i.e. the resurrection, and not live accordingly. "Satan" believes in the resurrection and he/she/it "shudders." Certainly there are lot's of people that "believe" in the resurrection but don't live like it. I would just caution about making too much of a distinction.
I certainly see your hesitation about the church using culture as a "tool" being a sort of marketing scheme. I am definitely not a fan of "spicing things up". But to some extent I think the use of culture is 1)unavoidable and 2)maybe even necessary. Take music for example. We sing "contemporary" songs because they are contemporary to our culture, rather than some sort of chant or song that was written in the 12th century that many might find stale or "boring." This isn't to say that I necessarily agree completely with that rationale but it is certainly one we use, and one which I think has some merit.
Missionaries constantly adapt (or as Brannon said "appropriate", again great word choice) cultural elements from the people they are trying to serve. So, I think again, that again it's a matter we constantly wrestle with to understand how to "appropriate."
Finally, you said "I don't think it is a matter of making the "non churched" feel at home with us it is more about us making a home and becoming incarnational in the world and culture we share, yet at the same time still being "peculiar" in it and being transformational through it." I sincerely don't mean this sarcatically, but I don't quite understand what you mean here, or maybe I don't understand how you would you "flush that out", i.e. what does that look like in "real" life to be peculiar and yet make a home in the world and culture?
Good stuff, gentlemen (it'd be nice if we could say, 'gentlemen and gentlewomen', we need some ladies on this thing) anyway, i like the conversation. good topic, very relevant (to use a word that I don't like using much). One way that I have seen culture influencing Christianity is through the sermon. I think this may be one area of our practice that may 'need' to engage in/with, or use as a tool, our culture. let me give you an example I saw on TV the other day.
The pastor was preaching on the final days/hours of King David. His message was about getting rid of some things in the past, and not taking them into the future. If we do not get rid of some things, then they will just keep dragging us down. Anyway, to illustrate the scene portrayed in 1 Kings 2 this pastor used a 'contemporary' illustration.
King David was on his deathbed, and he was about to pass on his throne to Solomon, but there were some things to take care of before Solomon could become King and David could die peacefully. A few people needed to be 'taken out', so to speak. David ordered that three people needed to be done away with before Solomon could take the throne. Solomon carried out the orders and had those people killed.
To illustrate this, the preacher used 'The Godfather' movie. He had the crowd to imagine David on his deathbed giving his last orders. While he was illustrating this, he had the 'Godfather' theme song playing in the background, and for the parts where David spoke, the preacher used a Brando-styled voice. It was an Old Testament story, beautifully illustrated using a piece of American movie culture.
In this way, the culture did not influence or change the church, but the church took something in culture and transformed it to illustrate a Biblical story. Is this not what Jesus did, when he spoke in parables? Is this what you mean by 'appropriate', Brannon?
Now, in regards to the Prince Caspian/Lord of the Rings/Lion Witch and the Wardrobe thing. I think the church latching on to something that is 'popular' at the time is where she gets into danger. She not only tries to change the purpose of these movies' intent (to make money), but she feeds that money-driven intent by having church members go see it, buy the books, and the youth group material that Zack alluded to! The intent of Prince Caspian is not to preach the Gospel. The intent is to make as much money as possible off of a children's storybook. And when the Church buys into that intent, she 'feeds the dragon'.
Now the practical question is, 'What do we do with Prince Caspian?' Be creative. I think one of the reasons we are even talking about this is because the Church has become lazy. It is much easier to let the Hollywood movie producers teach my Sunday School class, than it is for me to spend a few hours a week, writing my own. If one wants to use Prince Caspian, go for it, but my suggestion is to not buy into the hype, don't feed the dragon. CS Lewis wrote these books a long time ago, and I would tend to believe that he never intended for them to make millions in a cinema.
So in regards to culture and the Church, I resonate with the usage of 'appropriation'. Be creative and don't let the culture, the world, tell Christians how to preach the Gospel. We have been given the commission, therefore, it is our job to be the ones to 'go forth into all nations teaching them and baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.'
hey there i dont know much about C.S. Lewis but yeah i can say he had a great imagination. He has come up with such great stories. I have read all the chronicles of narnia and i really want to read all his books.
welcome, ashii. so you want to read Lewis? let me recommend a companion to reading Lewis or Tolkien.
The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and Their Friends. - Humphrey Carpenter
this book gives major insight into the reasoning behind the books Lewis and Tolkien wrote. i learned a lot from this book about those two authors and it places them and their works in context. for example, the children in the Narnia series are based off of some children who lived at Lewis' house during the air raids of London in World War II. also, the Lord of the Rings series was Tolkien's attempt to write a storybook for his kids. its a good read.
Zack,
I am not sure in what way you do not understand this; are you questioning the ability for these two things to coexist, or are you asking what it looks like when they do? I think the short answer to both these questions is Jesus Christ himself; who shows that they can coexist and what it looks like “fleshed out”.
The whole idea of the incarnation is that “God is with us”, he made a home in our humanity and human condition. Jesus became a man living in a particular time and a particular culture, he was a Jew living under Roman rule, he had a home town, he learned a trade, he had family and was invited to weddings, ect, ect. Being God in the flesh he brought God to us on our turf; God came to us because we could never get to him and he made his home with us so we could live in him. Jesus himself is this whole idea “fleshed out”. I think we only need to look to Jesus to see “what it looks like in ‘real’ life to be peculiar and yet make a home in the world and culture”.
I am not saying this is an easy way or that there are easy answers, but if we are going to follow in the steps of Jesus we will become incarnational too. The church is called to be so; the continued incarnational presence of Jesus in the world- his body- God working through flesh and blood humanity in the contexts of where ever humanity lives.
Perhaps we should make a distinction from “conforming to the world” and being incarnational in it. Jesus did not conform to anything that didn’t reflect the character of his Father; this included not conforming to where even the religion he was part of, and made incarnational culturally in, was off base. In our day, the whole wanting to be “peculiar” by not being “secular” idea is a load of garbage; how about we try being peculiar by having things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self control and a sense of compassion and desire to seek justice for others?
I just think sometimes we have a funny idea about how we are to be "peculiar" as if this means we do not partake in “secular” culture and we become weird church folk in all the wrong ways. We mistakenly conform to a church culture that makes us “odd” on the surface but on the inside we are really no different from the rest of the world and the culture around us. What if we could do this the other way around?
I don’t sing “contemporary music” (what the church says is “contemporary” is often 20 years behind) because it is a better “tool” than “boring” church music; I sing it because it is the contemporary music of my culture. I also am thankful that I live in a time and culture where there is an eclectic taste of music so we might find room for an occasional “chant” (this is one reason why ancient/future worship can work in this context). The point is that my Christianity should take an incarnational shape in the culture I live in and at the same time is always challenging the culture I live in to be transformed into the likeness of Christ.
If I wanted to get to know a different culture I would join them in the practices of their culture and sing the songs of their culture; as a missionary I would then ask, what does the life of Jesus look like for a community in that context? Of course their would be things in that culture that would need transformation in order to be more like Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that they would need to conform to Christ likeness the way another culture does.
A great example of this is in one of the texts from the lectionary yesterday; Acts 17:22-31. Paul both condemns idolatry, and ironically at the same time uses their religious context (an alter to the “unknown God”) and the writing from their own poets to point to God as the creator of everything, including them, that we all came from; showing them how God set all these things up so we might “grope for him and find him--though indeed he is not far from each one of us.” What a profound thing to say to these groups of people that God is not far from them, and the evidence of our incarnational God is even in their culture, and reflect from even their own cultural writings.
I wonder if we struggle with these things as evangelicals because we fail to fully appreciate the incarnation; we often just see it as only the necessary step to get to the cross; which is what many think is the most important thing. I am beginning to learn though that even the cross is just an extension of the incarnation. God is with us, yes even in meeting us in death and the awfulness of the sin and injustice of humanity, but this is because God is with us.
I think we need to better preach and live out the reality of the incarnation in the world we live in today. Doing this would give a solid lens for navigating issues like the one you posted about.
Peace,
James
Post a Comment
<< Home