Neill Blomkamp’s Message For Christian Filmmakers

With the release of Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium, the story of a dystopian future where the privileged live in a safe space station above Earth while the impoverished struggle in a desolate waste, I went back to the first of Blomkamp’s feature film, 2009’s District 9. There, Blomkamp partnered with Sharlto Copley to pull back the current on immigration and segregation, apartheid and cultural stereotyping. I have no idea what Blomkamp’s motivation was for mixing spectacular special effects, science fiction, and a moving social commentary, but this is the kind of film I wish Christian filmmakers would start turning out regularly.

In District 9, a low-level government official (Copley) gets “promoted” by his father-in-law, and finds himself overseeing the relocation of an alien nation from the slums of Johannesburg into an internment camp. The set-up is run through a faux documentary feel, with present-day flashbacks discussing the events that preceded the documentary. Sharlto’s Wilkus van der Merwe buys into the party line; the aliens are derogatorily “prawns,” or bottom feeders, with everyone explaining away why it’s okay to disrespect the aliens who seem to mean no harm. Interviewees comment about how the prawns “aren’t even from another country,” how they don’t eat the things humans do or care about the things humans do, how it’s just not natural.

But soon van der Merwe finds himself “sharing space” with the aliens. Soon, his disdain, and his understanding of what humanity thinks of them, wears away as his attitude (among other things) changes. Soon, van der Merwe is walking a mile in the aliens’ shoes, recognizing that he’s not any better than they are. In fact, his newfound understanding lends itself to <em>Avatar</em> by comparison, but somehow, Blomkamp’s delivery is much more gritty and organic (realistic?) than James Cameron’s.

What would happen if Christian art starting telling stories about how we were supposed to love our neighbor by telling stories about humans and aliens, rather than simply dressing up a vignette about people of different backgrounds moving in next to each other in the suburbs, and finding themselves in the same chapel hearing a message about how much Jesus loves them both? Sure, there are some clever Christian stories being told in the movies these days (The Presence, anyone?) but too often, we settle for Christian motifs in the midst of really bad art.

I hope Christians will flock to movies like Elysium and consider their views of immigration, distribution of wealth, and the teachings of Jesus. I don’t expect that all the Christians will agree, but the self-examination and the conversations that could follow should only make the church stronger in the process. Consider that: good art, today’s issues, and Christian conversation. Sounds to me like the perfect word for God’s people today.

Posted in Current Events, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sunday’s Sermon Today: What If… (Ruth Part II)

There are crazy couples everywhere. Couples that should never be together (anyone who has ever married a Kardashian); couples that have their pictures, and their babies on national television (Prince William and Kate Middleton). Desi and Lucy.

But bridging the gap between the displaced Adam and Eve, and the highly respected Joseph and Mary are the couple that almost wasn’t: Boaz and Ruth.

Earlier, we reflected on the way that Ruth and Naomi wound up together, exploring homelessness together, as two widows trying to make their way in the world. Sure, they had each other, but that won’t make them last long. So, wise, old Naomi steers them toward an unmarried man who was a relative of Naomi’s deceased husband.

Ruth gleans after Boaz’s servants, picking up the grain that they don’t want. And she impresses them by working hard all day long. Again, her perseverance pushes her to their attention. Ultimately, that first impression causes Boaz to give her his blessing: he tells her she can freely glean, that she can have water from his men’s supply, and that no one will mess with her, even though she is a foreigner. Because of the way he has heard she cared for Naomi. Time passes, and Boaz instructs his men to leave more than just the leftovers for Ruth. His desire to take care of Ruth and Naomi exceeds the expectations for his familial obligation, just to let her serve.

So, one day, Naomi plays matchmaker. She tells Ruth, you’ve lived here long enough; you need to find a man who will take care of you. And Boaz seems like a good choice. Naomi tells Ruth all of the things to do to set up the right situation for sharing her intentions with Boaz, and in the middle of the night, he recognizes that she is there at his feet!

Ruth claims Boaz as her guardian-redeemer, and he in turn, blesses her in return: “The Lord bless you, my daughter,” he replied. “This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. And now, my daughter, don’t be afraid. I will do for you all you ask. All the people of my town know that you are a woman of noble character. Although it is true that I am a guardian-redeemer of our family, there is another who is more closely related than I. Stay here for the night, and in the morning if he wants to do his duty as your guardian-redeemer, good; let him redeem you. But if he is not willing, as surely as the Lord lives I will do it. Lie here until morning.”

Boaz’ actions show an honorable protection of Ruth, one that we’ll see echoed later in Joseph’s care for Mary when he finds that she is miraculously pregnant with Jesus. He goes to the city gate where the men met every morning, and allowed the other relative to state whether he would care for Naomi and Ruth. Initially, the man wanted to claim it because he would inherit Naomi’s land from her dead husband Elimelech. This was the man who should’ve been Ruth’s husband, her second husband after the death of the first. But when the man realized that he would also have to marry Ruth, and that her children’s right to his inheritance might threaten his own children’s inheritance, he gave up his right to Boaz.

The men exchanged a sandal so that they now had one of their own sandals, and one of the other’s on their feet. To walk a mile in someone else’s shoes seems to take on a whole new meaning does it not? There is something uncomfortable, and not quite right about having on two different kinds of shoes. But it showed the way that their covenanted bond, their agreement could not be forgotten because of the constant reminder.

So Boaz takes Ruth as his wife and they have a child named Obed, who was the father of Jesse, who was the father of David.

And suddenly, Ruth, that widowed woman from Moab, goes from being a nobody who sacrificed her home, her second chance at marriage, her people, and her customs, because she believed in Naomi and what she stood for…. is now somebody.

God, who had proved over and over to not be a god of place or of a time, has shown that he is not a god of a particular people, or a particular style, or a particular origin. God has adopted a Moabite woman, who did things differently, who did not even start out this journey in a household of believers, into the process of the genealogy of the line that would change Israel and Judah forever.

A widowed woman, without line or worth socially, became the great grandmother of David, the first king of Israel chosen by God. Now, we’ll spend some time talking about David the next two weeks, but just soak that in. If Ruth’s first husband doesn’t die, if his dad doesn’t move the family from Israel to Moab in the first place, Ruth doesn’t meet Naomi to follow her back to become Boaz’ wife. If Boaz doesn’t take pity on Ruth, if Boaz isn’t the kind of man he proves to be, he doesn’t marry Ruth, and Ruth never has Obed, who never has Jesse, who never has David.

And where does the king of Israel come from then?

Take it a step further and read through the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, and see that Ruth plays a role in the coming of Jesus that shows how extraordinary it is when God sets in motion a plan for the good of all people.

Ruth, the unbelieving Moabite who converted to following Yahweh God because of Naomi’s witness, who married Boaz because he was just, compassionate, and gracious, becomes a great great great grandmother of Jesus (throw in a few more greats). An outsider of infinite proportions, both as a widow and a Gentile non-believer, became part of the story by which God brought salvation to our world.

We celebrate as part of our understanding of the good news of Jesus Christ that God’s redeeming power in our world takes outsiders and makes them insiders. We recognize that God’s love exceeds all of our biases about race, gender, sexuality, class, and origin. God’s love uses the tragedy of a lost husband and  the isolation of a foreign country to lift up a faithful woman who would connect two disparate, opposite peoples in the family tree of the one and only son of God, Jesus.

Jesus isn’t just for Israel. Jesus isn’t just the immaculate conception in an Israelite girl by the great God of the universe. Jesus is a culmination of centuries of God’s grace shining through people and raising up leaders, bringing people into relationship who were obedient, and ready to answer the call. God showed that his desire for the world and for his kingdom was one of community, of providing a place eternally where outsiders become insiders, where those who have been excluded are made whole in the community of faith.

Here the good news: God saw you on the outside, surrounded by your sin, infected by the sicknesses of pride, of envy, of gossip, of anger, of isolation, and God sent Jesus so that all of those things would be wiped away. All of this effort was put into motion with the falling away of the perfection of Eden, as the human condition existed outside of God’s perfect plan.

And it came to fruition because one foreign widow saw the good and the holy in an old Israelite widow. Because a holy, upright Israelite man did what was right. Because when the moment came, they responded boldly to the call. Because they were ready when they needed to be. Which begs the question…

What is your role to play? Are you supposed to be obedient and go, breaking through your own comfort and security to follow God to a new place, a new situation? Or are you already there, and it’s your responsibility to do what is right, to welcome in the outcast, and to establish that society can be different and spectacular? Did you come here today searching for something, believing that all hope was lost, grasping onto anything that might support you even for a moment?

Know this: God’s kingdom is greater than anything we could ever establish here on earth, but that should not prevent us from trying. There are many who feel abandoned and alone, and they need to hear words of comfort. There are many who have wandered far from home and need to be welcomed back into the community.

Jesus says in Matthew 25 that when we are all called for our accounting of how we’ve lived our lives, that he will say, “‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’”

Will you prepare your hearts to see each hungry, thirsty, homeless, sick, imprisoned stranger as the Christ among us? Will you rise to the occasion and create community, right here?

Our world needs drastic, crazy, ridiculous change. Change that occurs when one life is lived, differently. When one person looks at their own life and speaks brutal honesty into it: “You can do more. You have more to give. You were loved and given so much so that you could love and give so much away.”

Ruth and Boaz, one crazy couple, who created community out of nothing, and made a world different just by responding when the moment was right.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sermons, Theology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robin Hood: Act Justly, Walk Humbly (Movie Review)

There are a series of stories that I consider classics, both because I grew up adoring the characters and because they are, well, classic. Stories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, etc. draw me in no matter what format they are presented in, whether it’s a Smurfs version or the extended versions by authors like T.H. White or Sir Thomas Mallory. This week finds several of Walt Disney’s classic versions releasing in Blu-ray for the very first time, and two of those classic stories are included.

The second of these films coming out today is Robin Hood (1973), the Walt Disney variation of the ancient legend of the outlaw(s) of Sherwood Forest who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Of course, in the animated world of Disney, that sets Robin as a fox pursuing his childhood vixen love interest, Marian, while battling the evil lion prince John, and contending with the malicious wolf Sheriff of Nottingham. With musical backing by Roger Miller, the vocal cast sings, dances, and carries on through the exploits of the outlaws who gave John fits until his brother, the noble King Richard the Lionhearted, returned from the Great Crusades. (Of course, in this version, John’s lieutenant, Hiss the snake, messes with Richard’s mind, and also provides a majority of the hijinks here.)

Rounding out this Robin’s crew are Friar Tuck (a badger), Alan-a-Dale (a rooster), and, of course, Little John (a bear). There are host of other animal creatures, like rabbits, turtles, dogs, and vultures, and suddenly, the epic excitement of the Sherwood men has been transported from the world of Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe into the world of childlike wonder. Years later, I’m still a fan! There’s romance, adventure, intrigue, and humor, and the animation is quite nice in high definition. I’m not sure it’s everyone’s cup of tea, but it’s mine!

Readers of the blog will know that I’m always looking for something below the surface, and Robin’s “steal from the rich and give to the poor” motif is right up my alley.  In Micah 6:8, the prophet says, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (NIV). Micah wants us to understand that God puts a value on being just (doing the right thing) and showing humility. The writer James will later add that the “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27, NIV). To understand our own place in the world, it seems that we have to explore how we interact with the people around us; to believe that we operate in isolation would be to completely miss the mark.

Disney delivers that message here, in the fortieth anniversary of this great, animated tale. We’re reminded that we don’t have only so that we can benefit, but that we have so that others would also be blessed. It’s a story of justice, and a story of the “redistribution of wealth,” as told of us in legend, and cartoon.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sword In The Stone: Your Undiscovered Potential (Movie Review)

There are a series of stories that I consider classics, both because I grew up adoring the characters and because they are, well, classic. Stories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, etc. draw me in no matter what format they are presented in, whether it’s a Smurfs version or the extended versions by authors like T.H. White or Sir Thomas Mallory. This week finds several of Walt Disney’s classic versions releasing in Blu-ray for the very first time, and two of those classic stories are included.

The first, The Sword in the Stone (1963), finds the son of Uther Pendragon living out his miserable existence in anonymity as the secondhand apprentice of a middling knight, known better as “Newt” than as the next king of Britain. But as fate would have it, a misstep in hunting finds young Arthur stumbling into Merlin’s forest hut, and their lives are forever changed. Sure, Merlin has been waiting for a moment like this, as he forecasts the ways that Arthur will change the world, but Arthur has no idea that this is about to happen.

Through a series of tests, culminating in the ability Arthur has to draw Excalibur from a stone, performing a task that no one else can, the once and future king proves that his is the divine right. There’s a mixture of old magic and new science, comedy and drama, irony and satire, that all blends into a wonderful mix of epic Disney proportions. It’s one of the most entertaining, rewatchable flicks that the Mouse has delivered to us, capturing a truly old story (Le Morte D’Arthur) and telling it in a new, and sometimes zany, way.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Karl Swenson’s Merlin is the real star of the show, putting Arthur through his paces and challenging him to be the young king/knight/magician that Merlin knows he can be. In fact, Merlin sees something in Arthur that Arthur cannot see in himself; Merlin recognizes bloodlines, potential, promise, power, and heart in a young man who has been cast off by society because of his hidden lineage. Having just studied the story of Gideon (Judges 6-7), I’m reminded of the ways that God saw, and continues to see, potential in each of us that we cannot see for ourselves. Sometimes, we have mentors who “make it happen”; sometimes, it’s through prayer and discernment that we discover what we’re called to do. Maybe we won’t rule a kingdom, or dominate a jousting tournament, but we may have more in store for us than we could ever imagine.

Ultimately, Arthur comes of age, delivering on the promise of Merlin’s prophecy, but I’m left wondering, are we delivering on our potential? Are we all that God wants us to be? Are we everything God has planned? Seems like we better step up to the stone anvil of our lives and be prepared to pull out the sword that only we can remove. The world is waiting…

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FF Rant: I Hope You Dance, Or, Why I Auction (Fantasy Football)

With fantasy football right around the corner, I’ve been asked by several folks how a fantasy football auction drafts work. So, here’s my play-by-play. Ask questions, challenge points. I’ll use ESPN as my example, as I find it to be the smoothest option so far. My personal preference is a keeper auction draft with PPR (point per reception) scoring, but your examination of your own league’s scoring system and rules for additions, injured players, etc. is crucial. [Quick note on terminology for those new to the game: a keeper draft allows you to draft someone for a value that extends beyond one season; an auction will be explained shortly; PPR scoring benefits those players who don’t necessarily score a lot of touchdowns but are crucial to their team’s success in receptions.]

I remember walking into my first auction draft and feeling some of the same emotions I had walking into my first school dance. Does everyone else know how this works? Some of this is going so fast… and some of it is really slow! How can I…? What should I….? Is someone going to explain all of this to me?

I still get a rush of excitement when I’m drafting against my friends. Some of the leagues include guys I’ve been drafting against for years, but by the time I get around to those drafts in late August and early September, I’ve drafted fifty-plus teams. As I’ve admitted before, I can’t keep up with all of the pre-real draft teams the way I used to, but I still find the give-and-take of the draft to be one of the most fun parts. Sure, pulling off a good trade to win the league is awesome, but most of your league mates will cautiously sit on their hands rather than “go big or go home.”

So here are my thoughts on an auction draft, which sounds risky to those who’ve only ever drafted via snake before. But you have to get out there and bust a move. Otherwise, you’re going to end up sitting on the other side of the cafeteria, wondering why that cute guy/girl never met you halfway and asked you to dance. Seriously, was that actually any fun?

Everything about an auction works the same way in a snake prior to the draft. You can pre-adjust your auction values per player, just like you could pre-rank your players in case you won’t be available for the draft. You should be exploring different experts suggestions about how much to pay per player, and what positions have scarcity or abundance. You can practice through mock drafts or public drafts the types of strategies you might use. But unlike a snake draft, where you’re elevated or condemned based on the predetermined order of your draft (either by league decision or computer randomization), EVERYONE has an equal shot at every player because the budget is the same for everyone (usually $200 per team).

The team itself… is pretty much the same: depending on how you want to load up on players, you’ll spend more money. But if the league is a keeper league, you’re considering how your pick value (or auction value) relates to what you’ll have to surrender the following year. Say that Player A is considered to be a top pick in 2012 but has a terrible year or gets injured, and his draft stock plummets. If you drafted him in the first round or paid $50 for him in 2012, but you could get him in the 4th round or pay $25 for him in 2013, his value is altered. (See: Adrian Peterson 2012 vs. 2013.)

I draft in several leagues that have (1) quarterback spot, (2) running back spots, (2) wide receiver spots, (1) tight end spot, (1) flex (RB/WR/TE) spot, (1) kicker spot, and (1) Defense/Special Teams spot, plus (7) bench spots. In a snake, I’d be obligated to fill up each spot by drafting one player in each of the sixteen rounds; in an auction, I will be forced to keep a minimum of $1 per player for each spot, but how I spend the $200 is up to me.

But once the auction begins…The first person in the queue nominates a player. If the person is absent, the computer’s “auto bid” system nominates the first player in their queue. The typical first player is Adrian Peterson, and team owners can bid on AP in $1 increments for twenty to thirty seconds. Once the clock hits the :10 countdown to the end of the auction, the clock resets to :10 every time an owner bids on AP. There’s little-to-no chance of sneaking up on anyone, but someone will try to bid on :01– they still reset the clock.

As the draft unfolds, each person nominates someone round after round. Team owners can drag and drop a player into the queue, so that they can handpick who they’re nominating. There are strategies for not nominating all of the top talent first, but that depends on how you as an owner want to see the draft play out. (For instance, if you’re playing and several of the teams are set to autobid, you can nominate a few of the lesser players, and potentially fill up the absentee owner’s spots. But sometimes that backfires!) The draft is over when everyone’s money has run out or all of the spots are filled. Remember, that money doesn’t carry over! Kickers still aren’t worth much, some defenses might be more valuable than others, but the majority of the money will be spent on the players you know you want already.

After the draft, you will most likely (in a true auction league) have a budget to pick up players off of waivers. Again, it doesn’t matter what your waiver order is as much as how much you are willing to bid on picking up a player. Someone picking up Alfred Morris last year could’ve paid as much as $50 for the right to get him, and that amount would be deducted from their free agent “bank” of $200. That matters for two reasons: 1) they would only have $150 left for additional free agents and 2) if they chose to keep Morris in a keeper league for this year, they would’ve surrendered $50 from this year’s $200 draft budget. Trades work the same way, with the caveat that a traded player’s keeper value is retained for the following year’s draft.

I strongly encourage you to read ESPN columnist Tristan Cockcroft’s strategy guide to winning an auction draft. It’s more about how to win than how to do it, but it saves me rewriting the next stage. My short summary is this: I’ve seen people try to save it all, and people try to spend it all, and neither works. Some kind of balanced approach that makes sense to you is worthwhile. But again, PRACTICE it out with your predesigned auction sheet beforehand. It’s free, and it’ll let you work out as many kinks as you can.

If you’re still wondering WHY you should be playing fantasy football, check out my first post in this series here. If I think of additional comments, I’ll edit this again sometime; if you think of something I missed, Tweet me or comment below! Thanks as always for reading, and good luck in your draft!

Posted in Fantasy Football, Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Oz The Great & Powerful: Accomplishing Great Things (Movie Review)

I really wanted to dislike Disney’s Oz the Great and Powerful. It seemed so easy from my easy dismissal of the trailer that looked so cheesy, with James Franco as Oz in black and white. But Sam Raimi’s prequel to Frank Baum’s story that Judy Garland sang her way through turns out to be a justifiably strong balance between the scary Theodora (Mila Kunis) and the beautifully kind Glinda (Michelle Williams). There are Munchkins, a talking doll, and flying monkeys. It’s everything you could hope for a prequel to one of the world’s seminal stories about quests, identity, and finding “home.”

But if you’re reading this now, months after the movie released on DVD, you’re hoping for something deeper than whether I liked it or not.  So here are a few thoughts on the film without further ado…

IDENTITY: The con man Oz wants to be someone great, but he doesn’t understand what greatness really is. He thinks it’s what a person does rather than what a person is, that the outward signs are what a person is defined by rather than the heart and mind of the person. When he comes to the moment where he sees that he “might not be the wizard you were expecting, but maybe I’m the wizard you need,” Oz recognizes his own potential in action.

But he still doesn’t see who he really is. He needs Glinda to see it in him, per this brief exchange.

“I knew you had it in you all along.” (Glinda)

“Greatness?” (Oz)

“No, goodness.” (Glinda)

Too often, we fail to see our own potential, our own goodness, the identity that God gave us to do great things, because we’re only defining ourselves by the greatness the world promotes, like wealth, “stuff,” and getting ahead. The land of Oz works differently.

BELIEF: I was struck first by the little, wheelchair-bound girl who begs Oz to save her because she believes in him. She sees his tricks and believes that his “powers” must have deeper, further-reaching implications. She can’t formulate any of that; this little girl just believes what she sees with her eyes. On one side, that kind of belief, that childlike wonder is amazing; on the other hand, when we fail to believe in the right things, it can be… disappointing.

The would-be wizard later proposes that “armed with our faith in one another, as long as we believe, [we can overcome], for anything is possible.” That belief is evident when bad, but not worst, sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), who admits she believes because Oz IS the wizard to her; Glinda’s belief is more real because she believes in the wizard and resists Theodora, even though what she believes in is less tangible.

What we believe in defines us: even those who say they don’t believe in anything (atheists) believe in something. Whether it’s a higher power (which is what the wizard inspires people to believe) or a person or the absence of anything greater than what you can see, you believe in something and it articulates itself in the way you live your life.

As a pastor, I’m aware that people are looking to me with belief, hoping I can provide them some connection to God. And the things they hope for, miraculous healings or immediate divine revelations, don’t always work out the way they wanted. And I can end up feeling inadequate, not in attempting to con them, but in struggling with the aftermath of those “failures,” it helps to remember that I am NOT the Wizard, and that God’s wonder moves even beyond my failures.

CONVERSION: As the hot air balloon swirls, ducked into only to escape his own self-induced consequences, Oz cries out, “Let me out of here! I haven’t accomplished anything  yet. I promise if you let me live I will accomplish great things!” And I was reminded of Martin Luther’s story about crying out to God in the midst of a storm, and swearing he would join the priesthood if only God would save him from that particular storm!

We’re often in those foxholes, aren’t we? Determined that we need to change because of the consequences we’re facing, only to be freed from our immediate fear and returning to our typical ways. We’re a lot like the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, who sinned, fell away from God, were given over to their enemies, cried out and repented, were restored… and started the process all over again.

Can we break that cycle? Can we see our need, embrace our belief in a higher power, and recognize the identity that God is calling us to? We don’t need a fantastic, mystic journey, but we could all stand to learn Oz’s lesson.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Trance: Messing With Your Mind (Movie Review)

Consider the movies you’ve probably seen that Danny Boyle has directed: Slumdog Millionare, 127 Hours, Millions, Sunshine, Trainspotting. The bar is set pretty high, no? Add in James McAvoy (Atonement, X-Men: First Class, Wanted), Vincent Cassel (Black Swan, Mesrine, Ocean’s Twelve & Thirteen), and Rosario Dawson (Rent, Sin City, Seven Pounds) and you figure greatness is just around the corner. But is Trance great, like Memento or Inception, or merely “twisty” like Entrapment or The Thomas Crown Affair remake?

Auctioneer Simon (McAvoy) attempts to stop his associate Franck (Cassel) from stealing Francisco Goya’s “Witches in the Air,” and ends up with some head trauma for his efforts. But when Franck realizes there’s no painting in the satchel he stole, he threatens Simon to reveal the actual painting. They determine that Simon literally can’t remember where it is, so they hire the hypnotist Elizabeth (Dawson) to get the truth out of him. It all seems very normal, until we realize that maybe the narration isn’t absolutely reliable, and that we don’t know any of these characters as well as they present themselves (a la Side Effects).

I didn’t find the movie enjoyable, or entertaining, given that none of the “players” were actually heroic, and while it appears to be a grift, it actually turns into a revenge yarn. How Simon, Franck, and Elizabeth relate to each other makes sense, and is quite a stretch, all at the same time. But none of them are good, noble, or above board, and it’s hard to find their acting enjoyable given the ways they play out their rather flat violence.

In the end, this is a study of how the mind works, the lies we tell ourselves, and the truths that we attempt to convince others to believe. It’s fascinating in its twistedness, but still not positive. Trance wants us to know how we create reality to mask our weakness, our fears, our secrets, and ourselves, to make us feel better about our lives. But it’s a tale that unfortunately doesn’t resolve with any good or positive reality; instead, we’re left with nothing but a hollow revenge.

Given the players involved, and how I feel about most of Boyle’s body of work, I know it’s worth considering in a pretty slim DVD market this summer, but I’d still skip it. Want to see a movie about a con? Go rent The Sting.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Smurfs 2: Born Blue Or Made Blue, It Doesn’t Matter (Movie Review)

I’ve been watching The Smurfs my whole life. There’s just something that draws me in about a bunch of blue, pint-sized souls who see the world from a cheery perspective, even though they’re always the underdogs. It appealed to me as a kid, even as a college student flipping through the “retro” channels. And as an adult, and a parent, I find their “hangwithitness” and communal spirit to be characteristics I want my kids to be immersed in. So, going to see The Smurfs 2? Laugh if you want, but it was a no-brainer for me.

Of course, Peyo’s tiny animated characters got a 3D boost in 2011 with the introduction of live-action stunts and a human cast featuring Neil Patrick Harris, Jayma Mays, and Hank Azaria as Gargamel. This time out, the Smurfs return to New York City, and find themselves quickly in Paris, as Smurfette (Katy Perry) gets kidnapped by Gargamel’s two non-blue Smurf creations, Vexy (Christina Ricci) and Hackus (J. B. Smoove). They re-inlist the Winslows (Harris and Mays) and the unwanted stepfather (Brendan Gleason), trying to foil Gargamel’s plot to use the Smurf essence to control the world. Plot? Straightforward. Underlying theme? More complicated.

Smurfette has a re-occuring dream on her birthday about how she was really Gargamel’s creation to entrap the Smurfs but Papa Smurf (Jonathan Winters) used his love and potions to make her a “real Smurf.” Papa Smurf always tells her that it doesn’t matter where she came from, but Vexy tries to convince her that she’s “one of them,” that it’s okay to be naughty. Adults can see this is really a tug of war about nature versus nurture, and that there are some serious “adoption” issues playing out here between the world of the Smurfs and the real world interaction between the characters played by Harris and Gleason.

All of us want to know who we are and who loves us. Those are issues that shape our identity and our purpose, that give us a reason to get up in the morning and the belief system that we live with. In the end, Smurfette will ultimately prove her nature… and her nurture, and justify a “made in the image of God” argument that I saw coming a mile away as I watched. I’m sure the under six crowd (and most of the older crowd) wasn’t doing a theological study like I was as we watched, but it still made me recognize that my understanding of who we are (as humans) and what we are made for is pretty serious.

In Genesis, it says that God made everything, even men and women, and that he saw that it was good. Then Adam and Eve choose to disobey, committing sin, and are cast out of the Garden of Eden. More sin occurs with their children, and pretty soon, the Earth is in rough shape. But in a covenant with Noah, God says that he will never again destroy humanity, because he can see the good in Noah…. like Papa Smurf sees in Smurfette, even when it seems like all is lost. The “imago dei” is written on our souls, and God sees himself in what he made of us. We stumble, fall away, willfully disobey… and God still draws us back.

Not all of us are raised in homes of faith; not all of us even grow up being treated with love and respect. Still, God’s love pursues us, and asks to be honored in our lives. God thinks so much of us that he adopts us in, he “makes us real Smurfs,” even when we can’t see what it is that we’re supposed to be, by sending Jesus to die on the cross and grant us the opportunity to be restored to what we’re supposed to be in the first place.

Yes, I see all that in The Smurfs 2. Call me crazy, or just recognize that it’s pretty Smurfin’ amazing the places that God’s amazing love for us shows up.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Coming Clean: Reflections From The Beach (Being Church)

I’m not a neat-nik, and I may have germaphobe tendencies. It’s just part of being me. I won’t drink after you, I wash my hands before eating almost every time, and I like to know where things are so I try to put them back. But I’ve discovered that there’s a difference in “clean” that I’ve had to get used to: it’s not the same degree of clean everywhere.

When I used to be a youth minister, taking dozens of teenagers on mission trips to lead VBS or minister to the poor, I remember the gradual breakdown of clean. I’d start off trying to shower, trying to keep the sense of smell to a minimum, but after a few nights of sleeping on the floor without air conditioning, you realize it’s futile. I’ve seen it this week at the beach: you can only try and keep the sand to a minimum. You just can’t keep sand out! (That’s a blog post for another day…)

While there are places that are clean, like our homes (we hope!) or visiting grandma’s house, there are some places where the level of uncleanliness just has to be accepted like the beach. Too often, church is one of those places where we act like people have to be clean, spotless, perfect, all together, or just right, like their spiritual shower has to have them smelling like Axe and radiating spiffiness like Mr. Clean.

Folks, that’s unbiblical.

Having read through Rachel Held Evans’ recent post on millenials, it seems to me that people are hoping the church will be authentic in its ability to see that IT isn’t perfect, making it more receptive to broken people who show up seeking comfort and community. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe in sin, in the things that separate us from being who God wants us to be. I believe there’s right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil.

I still hold fast to the belief that God had a plan when he sent Jesus, but that a good portion of the church is only holding onto half of the vision. There’s one side holding onto the fact that the world was messed up so God sent Jesus to make it right and other side holding up the fact that God loved the world enough to do that. Check out John 3:16 AND 3:17: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” God was willing to sacrifice Jesus to make it right because we’d perish (die eternally from sin) without him, with the intent that the WHOLE WORLD would be saved.

God doesn’t expect us to come to church all cleaned up, smelling like sunshine. (Quite frankly, most of our churches need plenty of TLC before the buildings would smell like sunshine, and the people themselves aren’t smelling so rosy either…) God wants us to come how we are, broken, struggling, hearts expectantly waiting for miracles that only God can give. God created the church for worship, and as a community of people where the sick came for healing. God doesn’t want us to stay dirty, sandy, misguided, and isolated, but he doesn’t expect us to get cleaned off before we show up. That’s impossible.

I firmly believe when churches stop acting like they’re kind of clean is the only kind, that they’re “at home” clean versus “beach” clean is better, we’ll see people recognizing all the good that the church has to offer. Some churches get this, and some don’t. The truth is that churches are made up of people who are all struggling with the same situations, questions, doubts, sins, and everything else that everyone in the world outside the church is struggling with, too. It’s time we stop faking our holier-than-thou attitude, and recognize that without the love of Jesus shining in our lives, we’d be a whole lot dirtier than we are anyway.

For me personally, I’ve got some sand to get rinsed out of my sandals, and if I’m honest, out of my soul as well.

Posted in Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sunday’s Sermon Today: Finding Home (Ruth Part I)

This sermon is Part I of a two-part series. I will preach this sermon on Ruth 1 at the 9 a.m. service for The Stand, on the first day that it meets in the sanctuary of Blandford UMC, on August 11. Part II, for blog purposes, will publish in a week. 

Have you ever been homeless? Seems like a strange question, right? But if you’ve been homeless, you KNOW how wonderful it is to find a place to call home. You know that homelessness is often not just the cause but a symptom of a bigger issue. Whether it’s joblessness, sickness, isolation, or the loss of a loved one, sometimes homelessness is just the tip of the iceberg.

For the woman Ruth, homelessness was just the beginning.

A quick recap of how Ruth ends up homeless. It begins with a man named Elimelek who left his home in Bethlehem and moved to Moab with his wife Naomi. We don’t know why they moved, or what motivated them, but we must assume that the situation in Moab was better for them than staying at home. The Israelites wouldn’t have been inclined to move away from their center of faith and the covenant with God, unless they believed the resources were more plentiful in Moab. So to give their family the best shot at survival, they move away from home.

This practice is much more common today; I even know a man who spends a significant amount of every month in Japan for work. The idea that we would only situate ourselves in a close perimeter to our families is foreign to us, but in the day of Ruth, it would’ve been a significant move for the family of Elimelek to Moab. But for whatever reasons, they settled there and found a temporary resting place.

The sons of Elimelek and Naomi, with unpronounceable names, lived in Moab long enough that they ended up committing another societal faux pas, marrying two Moabite women, named Orpah (rhymes with orca) and Ruth, our heroine. Not only have they situated themselves far from home, but they’ve mixed their family line with Gentiles, people who did not believe in Yahweh God. They had settled for preservation over boldness, security over religious and customary law.

Soon, tragedy struck and all three of the men died. The elderly Naomi was left in a foreign country with no means of supporting herself. In her own country, she would have been taken in by her relatives, but with no husband, no sons, and no property, she had nothing. There are verse after verse in the Bible proclaiming that God expects his followers to care for “widows and orphans.” We can probably understand why orphans would be automatically included in the community’s care: as children, they had no one to care for them. But in these historical days, a widow was just as helpless with no husband or sons to care for her.

So Naomi hears that God was providing what his people needed back in Judah, and she gathered up her possessions and prepared to return home to her ancestors. She began her goodbyes to her daughters-in-law, telling them to return home to their parents, where the customs and laws protected them, ensuring that they would be married by another man. Naomi’s selflessness was exhibited here: she wanted better for her daughter-in-laws than she knew that she could expect for herself.

Initially, both women played the good daughter-in-law roles and said, “oh, no, we’ll go with you.” They were turning their back on the security of that second marriage, of being pulled off of the discard deck of the widow pile. They were young enough to know that without husbands or children, their future still looked significantly bright. Then Naomi rebuffed them again, pushing aside their argument, reminding them why there was no reason to go with her, that they would be strangers in Naomi’s land.

So, Orpah turned back and returned to her parents’ home. She did what made sense, what was logical, what was prudent. Orpah did what most of us would do if we were faced with the same situation: go to a new place with someone we hardly know or boldly go out on faith, and consider the new possibilities in store.

But Ruth chose homelessness. And faithfulness. And steadfast love. Ruth said instead: “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.”

That, friends, is one of the most poetic speeches I have ever heard, at any time, anywhere. Ruth’s bold statements, on behalf of her MOTHER-IN-LAW (c’mon, really, who goes top shelf for their mother-in-law?!), prove that there is more to Ruth than we might have expected. Somehow, who Naomi is has proved to be exemplary, touching, morally moving for Ruth. Somehow, in the midst of a foreign land, Naomi’s faith proved to be righteously bold, proving to be more promising to Ruth than the safety that she could have found if she had returned to her homeland.

Isn’t this the place where Ruth is supposed to say, “well, you’re right, dear. We have always done it this way, where your son died and I go back to my father and he sets me up with a second husband, and I live happily ever after. It’s just the way things work, and they will never change.”

It’s the place where we’d expect Ruth to choose safety and security, the known, over stepping out on faith. Ruth doesn’t revert to historical understandings, to past patterns of behavior. She doesn’t pull a Sheldon and say, but tonight, we always eat this here and do that there.

But instead, Ruth chooses a bold, groundbreaking approach. Ruth chose homelessness with God, over godlessness at home. She chose to go somewhere she wasn’t known, like the opposite of Cheers, to live in a place where the style, the ritual, the worship, was different from hers, because she knew in the long run, that was what was best for her.

And Ruth claims Naomi’s god as her own: she uses a promise with God as her witness, to state her standing with Naomi, and binding herself to Naomi moving forward.

Because of the example of Naomi, Ruth converted to pre-established Judaism, a familial religion, turning aside from her family’s beliefs and homeland, for something unknown.

And this is not the way it’s always been done.

A few years ago, participants at a few churches in the Tri-Cities area set out on faith to create a church for people who were not comfortable or welcome at other churches, for people who were searching for faith and hadn’t found it in a traditional church. They set out to create something new and bold and wonderful.

They pitched the vision, planted the seeds, and worked through their own sweat and tears and prayer to create something intent on changing how people did church. To do church differently.

Now, three years later, we are gathered today, as the Stand at Blandford. The community has met at the Preschool, at Swaders, at the Holiday Inn, and Blandford. I don’t know that any of those places are the final resting place, but they have all been home. They have all been the place where God showed up, and lives were changed. But somehow, setting up shop here seems like an even bolder move: how can a church intent on reaching people who aren’t comfortable in traditional church meet in a traditional church?

It seems that to accomplish being a church plant, wherever we are, there are bold steps, flag-planting moments we need to consider.

To figure out who God wants us to be, looking to the example of Ruth, it is not enough to know what we aren’t, we must know who we are. We must declare publicly and boldly, that we’ll go where God leads, regardless of what it costs us personally. That whether the next five years finds us here, or in a car dealership, or in a funeral home, or in a park, that our God is bigger than our location or our situation. That God’s plan for the Stand requires that we blow up the box and start dancing on its remains.

In the next few months, I propose that we make some extraordinary moves. I do not mean that they are original or that they are earthshattering, but that they are necessarily dangerous for our understanding of ourselves and our comfort zone. I mean that we should devote our selves to these principles for ourselves and for the church.

PRAY: I propose that we begin praying and crying out to God for the plans he knows already for the Stand, and for each of us. I don’t believe we’ll ever live into the plans God has for our lives until we lay our wants, and hopes, and dreams down in front of God, and ask that God’s will be done. Naomi wasn’t terribly happy with God, but she still looked to him in the long run; she still applied the principles of her faith to her life. Neither Naomi nor Ruth ever asked to be widows, but with their boldness, they presented themselves in the slipstream of God’s grace… and found community and comfort there.

STUDY: I propose that we commit ourselves to be disciples of Jesus, regardless of what we think we know or have considered before. We are a community in isolation; individuals spinning our lives and periodically bumping into each other. I’ve been here for the last few months, and I recognize that our community is still not as deep as we’d like it to be. That commitment to each other, like Ruth to Naomi, comes from being known to each other. I think we must study the Scripture to know God, and we must share our stories with each other to be known by our community. I believe that we’ll recognize the person we need to be and who others are through small groups. Which leads me to this challenge: I want us to strive to have every member of the Stand in a weekly or monthly small group by Christmas of this year.

WITNESS: I propose that we commit ourselves to sharing our faith in word and deed in a way that is undeniably evangelistic. I’ve been involved in church leadership for over a decade, and I know that there can be a great vision pitched by the pastor and the leadership, but if the body of the church isn’t committed, the church isn’t going anywhere. We all know that there are dozens of people we know who are struggling with the big questions of life and don’t have anywhere to examine them. We work with them, hang out with them, live next to them, like and dislike them. Heck, we’re even related to them. But have we passionately considered that their need is something we can help relieve, by opening up our community to them? Have we committed ourselves to inviting someone to the Stand EVERY WEEK?

God shows up in Ruth’s life in the midst of change, tragedy, hardship, and voluntary homelessness. But Ruth becomes part of a revolution, part of the movement of God’s work in the world that culminates with Jesus. You’ll have to come back for the 11 o’clock service to find out what I mean. But know this: Ruth’s bold faithfulness, her determined conversion to the belief in the one Yahweh God, was rewarded in her lifetime, and proved that God’s work in the world is never haphazard, never pointless, never unfulfilled.

God is calling you to come home to a right relationship with him, even if your new home is different, strange, and sometimes unrecognizable. Because God wants you to understand that home isn’t a place, or a time, or a situation, but home is the place where God meets you where you are.

Welcome home.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sermons, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments