This page was created on October 1, 2003
This page was last updated on January 4, 2005

I would like to begin my response to Regina's article with a brief defense of my original article on the movie Chicago, reiterating my intent. I feel the subsequent critiques and Regina's "Bodies as Power Tools" article have severely missed my point, and ended up in a quagmire of confusion. With this defense I hope to articulate that Barbara Nicholosi's (yes, I read her review too) -- and subsequently Regina's -- critique of Chicago is a bit of an extrapolation rather than a reality.

First, my intent was to expose both our culture's love affair with glitz and glamour, as well as its unfortunate lack of content -- and the self-justification that often leads to violent acts such as those found in the movie. My desire was not to review the film, or to redirect Christians away or towards such films -- that choice, I feel, is entirely up to the individual. I do feel that Regina and the Devil's Advocate have missed the point, and turned this cultural critique into an "Apples and Oranges" dialogue -- a matter of taste and choice -- rather than exploring with me a culture that is more influenced by a charismatic quick talker than it is by serious reflection and dialogue.

I find this issue to be problematic politically, spiritually and materially, which has been brought to light once again with the political fiasco in California. After all, they voted in a second rate actor as their governor, because of his shallow promises that he'd make a difference. Without content, why would we care at all about sexual politics in the first place? Positions of power have been jockeyed for since Cain killed Abel (if one cares to believe such a story), and women have used their physical being to gain their piece of the power pie for ages; but what does any of this matter without serious discussions about morality, ethics and the consequences of absolute freedom?

Obviously, Regina rightly sheds light on this societal problem, but she does so as both a Catholic and a female. While it is true that women and children are often the innocent victims of injustice and oppression, a majority of the perpetrators -- and their victims -- are men. The attrition of men in the midst of wars (holy or unholy) and oppression is well documented. We must not forget that the victims in the movie were males who were murdered by their jilted lovers, and their murders are justified by the various spins manipulating a very willing public audience. This is evidenced in the movie during one of the songs where the women in jail give their testimonies, and justify their actions by singing in unison, "He deserved what he got!" Although this piece may have been intended to bring gender abuse to light, we as an audience must guard against the foolery and self-justification of vigilantism, and murderous revenge.

The film's main point wasn't gender politics, but the justifications we use (including gender politics!) for our ill-advised actions. This is my issue with a contentless culture that is duped by the Razz-A-Matazz of a pop media world. Chicago illustrated this point beautifully, by characterizing the media as mindless marionettes under the powerful spell of an upscale attorney's slick marketing techniques. Supposing the men did deserve what they got, do we want to dwell in a neo-vigilante culture, where individuals play god by acting as judge and jury over people they feel are evil? Should we murder and take justice into our own hands in the name of a "righteous" cause? Sound familiar?

Regardless, I very much appreciated Regina's comparison of the purpose of the body with Christ's use of His own for the service of the people, and not the play-to-power which has all too often characterized the church in Christendom (Protestant and Catholic). I wholeheartedly agree that our faith is certainly tied into the way we use the very instrument God has given us. As believers, our gospel should begin to reflect a Christ-likeness that embodies His ethic of love, self-sacrifice, forgiveness and reconciliation rather than retaliation and self-serving justification.

I also certainly hope that this dialogue can at least challenge us to question our own ethics, and the self-deception that often shapes them!

OK, OK, OK... Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm somewhat confused about the issue(s) at hand. Here's what I think they are:

Regina's column addresses issues of power, particularly the power wielded by the physical body (both currently and historically). Chicago demonstrates this, and perhaps demonstrates to men how bodies shouldn't be used.

Mike acknowledges the power struggle, but takes exception to the assertion that women are the main victims of injustice and oppression (an opinion readily supported historically, as he notes). The potential lesson in Chicago is not for men regarding gender politics, but a broader application, toward any reason/excuse we use to rationalize our own immorality.

Am I even close here, guys? It seems like Mike has some bees from the last column buzzing around in his bonnet, but I'm not quite following... Maybe it's a pastor thing -- all the buzz is a little over my head, and maybe from a different hive.

At any rate, I think there is one lesson we can draw from all of this: we all experience abuses of power, regardless of gender, race, income level, education, or any other demographic detail we can identify and subsequently blame for our own (individual) immorality. Everyone has had his or her struggles, everyone's past shapes (biases) his or her current life. But life is more than history's bearing upon the present -- it's a sequence of choices we each have to make, including those regarding being a moral person, or being an immoral person. And I agree with Regina that symbols are useful in helping make those choices, some of which are less than ideal.

So it sounds like the symbol of the crucifix is helpful to Mike and Regina in this "sequence of choices." In my observation, the meaning of religious symbols depends on how accessible they are and how open someone is to accepting them. I'm sure that there are plenty of religious symbols of which I am thoroughly ignorant. But in general, popular religions typically benefit by having ready conduits which they can use to educate others to the significance of their symbols. Interesting to consider what kind of power they wield...

It's not just about movies -- really! In November, Pastor Mike Gunn expects to take us to a remote corner of the world -- but not one so remote as to remain untouched by world culture.

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."⁴ 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."⁵ 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.

Regina Doman is a writer, the author of the young adult novel The Shadow of the Bear and other modern stories based on fairy tales; she was also an editor for the late journal Caelum et Terra.

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 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.

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.

Nicholosi
On Chicago

To read Barbara Nicholosi's comments on Chicago, Click Here and scroll about two thirds of the way down the web page to which the link takes you.

Wollstonecraft
On the Rights of Women

The most cruel wounds will of course soon heal, and [women] may still people the world, and dress to please man -- all the purposes which certain celebrated writers have allowed that they were created to fulfill.¹

Eliot
On Human Folly

First, the cold friction of expiring sense / Without enchantment, offering no promise / But bitter tastelessness of shadow fruit / As body and soul begin to fall asunder. / Second, the conscious impotence of rage / At human folly... ²

Dworkin
On Oppression

We as women know that there are no disembodied processes; that all history originates in human flesh; that all oppression is inflicted by the body of one against the body of another; that all social change is built on the bone and muscle, and out of the flesh and blood, of human creators. ³

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.⁶