This page was created on August 1, 2004
This page was last updated on June 1, 2005

Unlike Jenn, my middle name is “Intentional Provocation” -- kind of long, I know -- and my mantra is “Give me chaos and controversy or give me death!” Or something of that nature. Readers at After Eden may not have noticed yet (ha!), but I particularly specialize in ruffling the feathers of the status quo, whether that be Christian or otherwise.

So given my inclinations, I usually enjoy the musings of Michael Moore and find many of his ideas pretty darn close to the mark, probably because he insidiously appeals to my “inner James Dean” (which typically needs to be exorcised at least once a month). Even though Michael Moore’s films should always be understood as cinematic "op-ed pieces" (as he once described them), I've long felt that his general desire to expose injustice is a value that the Church should embrace -- and in many instances should be fully challenged by instead of writing him off as a “left-wing nut job.”

Still, I have not seen F9/11, and most likely won’t. Why? Because even some liberals have decried his current work as “mockery” and a wholesale doctoring of the facts. There is a fine line between opinion and lie -- and when public discourse (or editorial opinion) crosses that line, it not only loses its integrity but also steps into the hell-hole it allegedly tries to critique. I have heard and read many interviews with Michael Moore regarding F9/11 and personally feel that my money and time could be better spent.

Moore has always stretched the truth to bring people to understand his particular point of view. F9/11 is, by Moore's own admission, designed to counter the supposedly deliberate deceptions of the Bush Administration. And rather than taking the moral high ground against them dirty bastards, Moore adopts the same deceptive tactics. Even the Hollywood Jesus review of F9/11 remarks, "What Moore is doing here is much like a prosecutor presenting a case to a grand jury. In a grand jury, there is only one side of the case presented. The prosecutor is not required to present all the evidence -- only what... will bolster the case." And that's a fine theory for public discourse if we prefer the miasma of legal and political haggling to a genuine pursuit of truth. But such a preference is not very biblical. And what if the truth of a matter serves neither the defense nor the prosecution?

In F9/11, Moore opts for a hard-core prosecution of the Bush Administration instead of a fair presentation of the facts. Example: as even Michael Moore's own website demonstrates, F9/11's claim that Bush's inaugural limo was "pelted with eggs" is dishonest. The limo was struck with a single egg. Now, if I called a single raindrop a downpour, I wouldn't just be exaggerating -- I'd be lying, because I know the difference between a drip and a pelting (and even between the singular drop and the plural drops), and just don't give a rip about the truth. If we can't trust Moore to play fair with eggs, why should we trust him on Weapons of Mass Destruction? Such deception reduces Moore's art to the boring level of the self-righteous preacher who has all of life’s answers wrapped up in very neat packages.

Besides, if there is no room for discussion and the conclusions we must draw are obvious (as is Michael Moore’s belief) then why bother to enter the dialogue at all? He consistently claims to speak for the American people without realizing that much of this nation has simply stopped listening. Going back to the Grand Jury metaphor, he seems satisfied that his arguments merely make sense to his fellow prosecutors while forgotting that there's actually still an undecided jury simply begging for SOMEONE to tell the truth!

The very same macho bravado that Moore decries in Bush is precisely the reason that many Americans have also tuned him out. He is quickly in danger of becoming like Chesterton’s Maniac, who is so sure that his “reasonable” assessment of a given problem is air-tight reality. “The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way.” Moore is taking an increasingly narrow view of the world with its own perversely closed logic.

Fahrenheit 9/11 itself is a symbol for the self-aggrandized political mess our nation has become. I wholeheartedly agree with Jenn that we need less conservative and liberal windbags spouting personal agendas simply to hear themselves speak, and more genuine dialogue between dissenting groups -- dialogue that fosters both understanding and the real pursuit of truth in the midst of competing ideologies. And peremptory assertions of cut-and-dried "answers" discourage such exploration. When religious folk, atheists, skeptics, Democrats or Republicans quit listening, we also quit learning.

We need to let Mr. Moore speak, of course, and we need to take note when he is right, either in principle or in fact. We also need to be brave enough to address the injustices Moore creates when his own version of the "truth" becomes skewed. I simply do not believe that truth is served by a shameless squabble between competing lies.

See? I've been provoked even without seeing the movie! Still, Jenn and I are in basic agreement. Though we both find some of Moore’s assessments credible, we are fed up with his methodology. Can’t we all just get along? 

Okay, I’ll be up front about this. The more that I think about F9/11, the less I think of F9/11. In fact, I don’t seem to be able to talk about it without launching into a rant. But that’s not really the point of After Eden -- or at least that’s not the point of both of the monthly columns. So while I can’t disagree specifically with anything that Jenn or Mike said about F9/11, I can’t help but notice that Mike also seems to have been unable to find anything redeeming in it. Hmm... Actually, Jenn didn’t have much good to say about it either. I know! They must be part of the conspiracy Moore is trying to warn us about!

Seriously, After Eden can't be convinced there's nothing but gutter in Moore's diatribe, can it? Surely the Devil's Advocate can't be the most positive voice in this journal. But before I alone attempt to “salvage the gold” buried in F9/11, I can’t help but throw out a few delicious ironies that I see here:

• Could Moore have made this movie without the same sort of connections that he condemns President Bush for having?
• Now that “indie” films have gone mainstream (not unlike “alternative” music), how does Moore reconcile his involvement with an industry known for the same sort of exploitation that he points his finger at in disgust?
• As for exploitation, Moore seems to have situational concern on this topic. Exploitation of a mother who has lost her child? Acceptable. Exploitation of the poor? Unacceptable.

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."⁵ By this, he means that the central story of the faith is the reconciliation of Man to God through the blood of His Son, Jesus. Christianity, then, is the ministry of reconciliation because all who claim the name of Christ are ministers -- literally, servants in the Greek -- of God's specific conciliatory purpose.

But Christianity is not only the ministry of reconciliation -- it is the ministry of all things godly. One of the other theological terms applied to the act of Jesus' death on the cross is redemption. In conceiving Hollywood Jesus, David Bruce understood that Christianity is also the ministry of redemption -- and in particular, it is the redemptive hope for our culture: not through legislation, stone-throwing or critical negativity, but through showing us the godly things already embedded in our culture. For God reveals Himself through all that He has created, even the things that we may not particularly like.

After Eden is dedicated to this redemptive vision. We believe, as G.K. Chesteron put it, that "humanity is not incidentally engaged, but eternally and systematically engaged, in throwing gold into the gutter and diamonds into the sea."⁶ That's not a reality we endorse. We'd like to help salvage the gold from the gutter, and rescue the diamonds from the sea.

Mike Gunn is a pastor at Harambee Church in Tukwila, Washington, and was cofounder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Jenn Wright is a writer with degrees in literature and theology. She will be co-writing the Narnia coverage for Hollywood Jesus, which will be debuting the summer of 2004 in anticipation of the first movie's 2005 release.

Editor Greg Wright is a writer and ordained minister of the dramatic arts. He is a contributing editor for Hollywood Jesus, and is author of Tolkien in Perspective: Sifting the Gold from the Glitter.

Editor Dave Stark is an ordained minister and former Microsoft manager. He is now a partner in Restoring Hope Construction.

The Devil's Advocate is a composite personality of our consultants and editorial staff. He may look like someone you know -- and probably thinks like a lot of them.

Samuel Pepys
On Provocation

I find my wife hath something in her gizzard, that only waits an opportunity of being provoked to bring up; but I will not, for my content-sake, give it.¹

Hegel
On Public Opinion

Public opinion contains all kinds of falsity and truth, but it takes a great man to find the truth in it. ... The man who lacks sense enough to despise public opinion expressed in gossip will never do anything great.²

Hitler
On Propaganda

As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid.³

Augustine
On Ignorance

Ignorance itself is without a doubt a sin for those who do not wish to understand; for those who, however, cannot understand, it is the punishment of sin.⁴

Chesterton
On Perception
It is a strange thing that many truly spiritual men... have actually spent some hours in speculating upon the precise location of the Garden of Eden. Most probably we are in Eden still. It is only our eyes that have changed.⁷