Stuff you should know, random thoughts
a)
My contract's been renewed for the upcoming school year. Negotiations went well.
b)
I'll be back before Canada Day.
c)
I, an English Literature graduate, have been reading popular literature. I read something of the airport type, spies, guns, and the FBI. The worst thing.... I enjoyed it.
d)
Heard about Sex and the City + Christianity Today? Check it out. After considering the arguments on both sides, let me share my thoughts with everyone (ie. the three people who read this):
i. All the negative letters they published were by men. In my opinion, that's deceptive. There had to have been women who thought the reviews were unwise. Here's one. Point - this is not about men vs. women, as I am guessing CT wants to make it out to be.
ii. More specifically, this is not about men trying to censor a discussion about how women are sexual beings. For sure, that's an awkward discussion, one I'm uncomfortable with. But bringin in a movie with threesome scenes in it is not productive for God's people.
iii. I've been wondering if John Macarthur is right. Lots of people say we need to know the culture so that we can explain it contextually. What Macarthur has been saying is "listen, God's Word knows more about the human heart than your culture can tell you. God's Word is sufficient. (my paraphrase)" Is Sex and the City necessary research for a women's ministry leader? What should I be watching for insight into the sexual nature of the single man? What insight will this movie give that God's Word cannot?
My contract's been renewed for the upcoming school year. Negotiations went well.
b)
I'll be back before Canada Day.
c)
I, an English Literature graduate, have been reading popular literature. I read something of the airport type, spies, guns, and the FBI. The worst thing.... I enjoyed it.
d)
Heard about Sex and the City + Christianity Today? Check it out. After considering the arguments on both sides, let me share my thoughts with everyone (ie. the three people who read this):
i. All the negative letters they published were by men. In my opinion, that's deceptive. There had to have been women who thought the reviews were unwise. Here's one. Point - this is not about men vs. women, as I am guessing CT wants to make it out to be.
ii. More specifically, this is not about men trying to censor a discussion about how women are sexual beings. For sure, that's an awkward discussion, one I'm uncomfortable with. But bringin in a movie with threesome scenes in it is not productive for God's people.
iii. I've been wondering if John Macarthur is right. Lots of people say we need to know the culture so that we can explain it contextually. What Macarthur has been saying is "listen, God's Word knows more about the human heart than your culture can tell you. God's Word is sufficient. (my paraphrase)" Is Sex and the City necessary research for a women's ministry leader? What should I be watching for insight into the sexual nature of the single man? What insight will this movie give that God's Word cannot?
posted by Adam @ 4:55 AM
8 Comments:
At 2:18 PM,
Peter Eddy said…
I remember Mac saying that he doesn't need to study the culture (which was probably an indirect response to Driscoll's theology of cultural engagement) because he lived there and that was enough.
You don't hear Piper complaining about that sort of thing even though he's more paranoid of enculturation than Mac is; Mac at least watches TV - Pipes never does.
As a comment on the article, it said, "We trust our readers to make their own decisions; we won't make those decisions for anyone." Pastorally, I think that's a poor statement. (I acknowledge that CT is not a church, but it seeks to educate people.) I think that it would be beneficial to give a word of advice.
Personally I find it very difficult to start leaning in a certain direction on an issue, whereas, when I'm presented with an opinion, it's much easier to process it and either agree with it or disagree with it.
So, I think that it would be fair for CT to recommend its readers not watch it.
That said (i.e., the suggestion for the Christian to not watch it), I don't think that closes the conversation. There are lots of outlets to read about it. There must be an infinitum of secular outlets that are writing in depth reviews of it from which the Christian can converse with the culture about it.
My point is that the argument, "Not watching the movie closes doors," doesn't fly.
At 7:31 AM,
Adam said…
Peter! You have a blog???
Why didn't you tell me? Why is it not the most famous blog in the blogosphere?
I agree with your comment. CT has a lot of power, and with great power.... Plus, it was a MOVIE REVIEW. And one that sounds very much like a recommendation. The comment you quoted is incredibly irresponsible.
Re: Piper and "Macarthur vs. Driscoll" (warning, this is boring to most people)
Around the time when Macarthur wrote that article on "Grunge Christianity" dissing Driscoll, I had just started getting into Macarthur, but pretty much disagreed with him on this issue. And I still think what people have been saying in response to Macarthur is true.
Why is it that suits and ties are more Glorifying to God? Aren't they just aspects of a specific culture? The question isn't whether the Church should adopt a culture, but which culture will it adopt. Driscoll is correct (in my opinion) that too many Churches have blurred the lines between Christianity and conservative American culture. We must to some degree adopt Paul's "all things to all men" missionary attitude. The Nations must know you don't need a suit, a hymnbook, a choir, and a piano to start a Church.
But as I've heard Macarthur comment more on this issue, I've realized that what drives Macarthur to speak out about this stuff is his devotion to his doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture. He really believes that 40 hours a week of sermon preparation is 1000x better than 5 hours on youtube, 5 hours on myspace, 5 hours on crafting jokes about people who drink decaf, and 5 hours on watching current movies (like Sex and the City) to supplement your 20 hours of sermon prep.
And on this I really respect Macarthur and find it hard not to agree with him. Piper loves Driscoll cause his theology's strong. But Piper is not the kind of preacher Macarthur is. Piper's sermon prep is a Saturday morning. Macarthur's is a forty hour battle through the original language, commentaries, dictionaries, maps, and hard questions. And maybe this is why Piper is not as concerned as Macarthur is. Macarthur wants preachers of the Word, not just good Theologians.
I definitely agree that Driscoll should spend more time in the text and less time trying out humourous tshirts and crafting one-liners. And I definitely think that too many preachers spend too much time watching bad movies to add bad illustrations to their bad sermons. The Word changes worldly people, and that is my greatest need as a Christian in the 21st Century, not more of American culture.
At 1:51 PM,
Peter Eddy said…
--WARNING: Still boring to most people.--
Thanks for your time dialoguing on this, Adam.
Do you ever wonder whether Driscoll was just a fad? I remember Lydia saying that she liked him because he was an expository, verse-by-verse preacher, which, when he's preaching through a book of the Bible, is true. But when you compare a Mac sermon with a Driscoll sermon, there's significantly more meat the former's.
It was nice having a sermon full of jokes for a while, but now I'm not too much a fan. Especially since it's been a few months since he last preached through a book of the Bible. Mac gives his people a break from his regular preaching routine by preaching through a book of the OT. (And the very rare topical series.)
(As a confession, Mac delivered my favourite sermon of all time.)
To defend Piper, yes, he begins writing his sermon on Saturday morning, but I suspect that all week he's reading the original language, reading what the historic Church has said on the text, and thinking about how it applies to his people. That's just a guess.
Did you listen to Mac's address at T4G `06? (It sounds like you did.) There a mix of good and bad advice, of his, in there, I think, on cultural engagement. I agree with you completely that at times it sounds like he's scared of the amoral (i.e., not a question of morality) changes going on around him. At the same time, I agree with Mac that drinking beer and eating chicken wings is not on the job description of a pastorate (which Driscoll's life suggests, though by word he agrees with Mac).
As a final few thoughts:
-Mac is a great preacher;
-I'll start listening to Piper again when he starts expositing a book of the Bible again, 1:1 to the end of the book;
-TV is a huge waste of time.
At 7:10 AM,
Unknown said…
Hey Guys,
I figured I'd weigh in on this whole conversation seeing as how I've: a) seen the movie b) am Christian, and c) am an ardent film buff.
First off, the Sex and the City movie was by any objective standards far less offensive than just about any teenage comedy I've seen in the past 5 years or so (not to mention infinitely more ambitious in terms of its scope) Not that the discussion about Christianity & art that the movie has triggered is a bad thing, but it certainly makes me laugh seeing as how every other week an apparently "innocuous" comedy is being released and reviewed by Christianity Today (which I follow) without any reader uproar.
Having said that, experience (and logic) point me towards the fact that all this uproar has less to do with Sex and the city and more to do with Christian morality vs. art. If all these people writing angry letters were really paying attention all the time rather than just when a movie with the word "sex" comes out, then they would be writing equally furious letters every other week about the aforementioned teen comedies or slasher flicks.
Anyways, that whole larger issue is a totally different beast altogether that I don't wish to occupy hours of time writing about (although I do love to talk about it anytime, anywhere). Suffice to say that I think MacArthur is completely missing point if he thinks that the only half-good justification for watching films with questionable content is to "know the culture". That comment itself betrays the fact that he's talking about something of which he has no actual experience, because those who would side against him (like myself) aren't even looking to toe the line so delicately, we don't try to "justify" these films to our Christian friends by saying we're only observing them at an arm's length to "gain knowledge" on culture, we experience these films intensely and viscerally and in doing so are often presented with some of the most profound and empathetic truths we've ever encountered buried beneath all the dirt and muck.
It's not simply a matter of insight, it's about the empathetic experience. It's knowledge vs. experience, something that we always openly tout about why we love Jesus so much.
Anyways, I suppose I could go on forever about this topic, so I'm sorry to ramble on about this on your blog Adam :) In any case, I love talking this stuff so if anyone ever wants to throw ideas back and forth in person than I'm your man :)
-Jon
At 9:59 AM,
lowonthego said…
it's interesting the way you guys talk about preachers...
i'd say it's the equivalent of how the normative populus criticizes and critiques people in hollywood, and i'm not sure if you hear the semi-arrogance in your blogging voices, but there is some there. (read this in a loving tone, not a condemning one)
i don't really have a comment about this blog, except to say that I watch TV, and i don't find it a huge waste of time.
At 7:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
ninest123 12.31
tory burch outlet, ugg boots, louis vuitton outlet, burberry outlet online, louboutin, jordan shoes, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, burberry, polo ralph lauren outlet, christian louboutin outlet, michael kors outlet, louis vuitton, louboutin shoes, michael kors, polo ralph lauren outlet, chanel handbags, oakley sunglasses, prada handbags, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, gucci outlet, longchamp outlet, uggs on sale, louboutin outlet, michael kors outlet, nike outlet, ugg boots, louis vuitton, nike free, tiffany and co, louis vuitton outlet, ugg boots, michael kors outlet, replica watches, longchamp, prada outlet, replica watches, nike air max, ray ban sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, ugg boots, louis vuitton, nike air max, tiffany jewelry, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet
At 7:02 PM,
Anonymous said…
michael kors, ralph lauren uk, nike air max, converse pas cher, vanessa bruno, true religion outlet, vans pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, coach purses, ray ban uk, abercrombie and fitch, nike air max, nike free, new balance pas cher, nike free run uk, true religion jeans, hermes, oakley pas cher, nike roshe run, ray ban pas cher, air force, michael kors, mulberry, nike air max, nike blazer, hogan, lacoste pas cher, burberry, air max, air jordan pas cher, sac longchamp, longchamp pas cher, coach outlet, north face, tn pas cher, michael kors, michael kors, north face, true religion jeans, longchamp, nike roshe, sac guess, hollister, nike trainers, louboutin pas cher, replica handbags, hollister pas cher, nike huarache, true religion jeans, timberland, lululemon
At 7:06 PM,
Anonymous said…
louis vuitton, canada goose, karen millen, pandora charms, moncler, converse outlet, pandora jewelry, links of london, canada goose, wedding dresses, lancel, moncler, canada goose uk, supra shoes, replica watches, moncler outlet, hollister, toms shoes, doke gabbana outlet, canada goose, doudoune canada goose, coach outlet, canada goose outlet, moncler, ugg boots uk, canada goose, louis vuitton, ugg pas cher, swarovski, barbour, pandora jewelry, marc jacobs, moncler, bottes ugg, louis vuitton, moncler, louis vuitton, sac louis vuitton pas cher, canada goose outlet, montre pas cher, barbour jackets, pandora charms, juicy couture outlet, moncler, juicy couture outlet, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, thomas sabo, swarovski crystal, moncler, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia
nienst123 12.31
Post a Comment
<< Home