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

I'm trying to write this column despite the fact that I haven't seen either Chicago or Mel Gibson's The Passion. I am a cultural isolationist of the more obscure kind -- having five small children and being a novelist, I'm just too busy to watch most things, unless someone can prove to me that they're too good to miss.

That means a certain amount of cultural distance during this time in my life (i.e.: I never watch TV and am ignorant of most commercials), aside from what my friends insist I must see. And while I'm an avid fan of The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, and Marvel Comics, aside from keeping up with those blockbusters, I don't often darken the theatre doors. It's even harder to get me to go to a video store.

I hope this can explain why, when I read Pastor Gunn's column on Chicago, my incongruous response was not to run out and rent the DVD, but, rather illogically, to start polling friends and online experts about Chicago. I can do that while I'm answering my email, but getting three kids in car seats and driving somewhere -- that's just too much to ask. And of course, no one has yet seen Mel Gibson's controversial Passion in a finished form, so I can't adequately comment on that, except to say I found the trailer riveting.

So, based on my intrepid analytical research on Chicago, and having watched the trailer for Mel Gibson's Passion, I'll go about with my response to Pastor Gunn. The underlying question he seems to be asking is: which of these two movies would you prefer to watch, and what does that say about you? Or even, which of these two movies should you prefer to watch?

And you know, I don't really think that's a fair question. Griping about why an apple doesn't have a citrus flavor or adequate Vitamin C or doesn't peel so easily as an orange -- it can relieve some frustration, but that's about all.

People seem to expect that Christians, if they are involved with media, would spend all their time creating movies like Mel Gibson's Passion. And actually quite a lot of Christians think that as well. The implicit assumption on both sides is that Christians couldn't (or shouldn't) create movies like Chicago, with their messy morals and ambiguous depictions of sex.

From what my poll tells me, Chicago might have a thing or two to teach us, even about the Gospel. And quite possibly the people who hear the Gospel through Chicago are just those types who couldn't be reached by a film like The Passion.

You see, in order to be properly heard, the Gospel needs preparation -- pre-evangelism, in a sense. In Christ's parable, the Word doesn't materialize in a vacuum -- it falls as a seed upon soil. Films, with their power to touch us deeply, can prepare that soil. And that, in my mind, makes them valuable.

In Catholic tradition, the mystics talk about two ways to God -- the way of negation and the way of affirmation. Both are equally valid and at different times, equally necessary in the life of the soul.

In the first way, the soul reaches God by divesting itself of "all that is not God." When the soul looks at the world, it primarily sees everything as a failed image of God, a distortion of God, a distraction from God, a temptation away from God. This is, I think, the type of spirituality that many Christians find the most comfortable. It seems more religious to most people, including non-Christians. And I have an idea that most people, believers and unbelievers, think that this is the only way to God.

But it's not. There's another way, equally valid and at times equally important in the life of every soul. This second way is the way of affirmation -- where the soul looks at the world and finds not temptations, distractions, and distortions, but opportunities to meet Him, reminders of Him, images of Him, and sometimes the chance to actually touch Him.

And because Christianity is at its heart a paradox -- the-living-God-made-man-who-died -- even something as sordid and glitzy and worldly as a movie musical about murderesses can show us the truth, if only negatively. For instance: that this life isn't fair; that self-delusion is possible; that at times, the innocent die and the wicked escape punishment and are glorified for it. That's true, isn't it? And don't we need to be reminded of that?

Yes, Pastor Gunn states that Chicago "provides the deconstruction without the reconstruction." But does it really need to do that? Or is that something that's beyond its scope?

I say that sometimes it's adequate to provide the deconstruction. After all, isn't that what tilling the soil is all about? Deconstructing the established root structures, soil compaction, and ecosystems to make way for something new? The prophet Hosea had a phrase for it that captures the two parts -- the pre-evangelism and the evangelism -- of the Gospel message: "Break up your fallow ground! It is time to seek the Lord!" (10:2-3)

Perhaps instead of pitting Chicago and The Passion against each other, we should set the two movies beside one another. Though we would probably never watch them one after the other, the two can be seen as representing the two verses above. They don't need to be separated into different camps. After all, apples and oranges, different as they are, often end up in the same basket together.

Mike has, I think, appropriately noted the cultural tendency to favor style over content. And I agree with Regina that any comparison between the two films Chicago and The Passion is akin to comparing apples and oranges... But I think it would be more productive to weigh each film against a wide spectrum of film as a genre, which might give us a more profitable perspective not into whether apples (or style) are more/less important/valuable than oranges (or content), but why individuals might prefer apples or oranges at different times.

It may rightfully be said that the particular films we're discussing occupy the extremes of the "style--content" spectrum. (Notice I didn't say "style versus content" -- they are not in competition, but merely differing [not opposing] aspects by which we are evaluating these films.) And the style-content spectrum is definitely revealed in all its cultural glory when we look at these films side by side. That being said, I don't think it's wise (or useful) to use only these two films as barometers to measure society's tendencies regarding the content of movies. Why? Because of apples and oranges.

Suppose I am going shopping for some fruit. Do I want apples or oranges? Now, many things might affect my decision... Do I need fiber? Do oranges give me heartburn? Have I had apples for the last five months straight? Are either on sale? Which is more seasonal? Whatever the reasons behind my choice, they have less to do with the apples or oranges as fruits than they have to do with me as a person at that particular moment in time. Likewise with style and content in movies: my choice to see Chicago or The Passion may have less to do with the strength in style or content of the movie than with my personal preference at that moment in time. Am I in the mood for something entertaining or provocative? How many musicals have I seen lately? With whom am I going to see this movie? All these things -- and myriad more -- affect why I might see a movie, and why I might enjoy it. It's not necessarily about whether I am duped by the media to be wowed by style rather than probing for content -- because sometimes I choose the flashy, and maybe it makes me think about important things in spite of myself.

Mike's column would make more sense to me if he were comparing Monty Python's The Life of Brian to The Passion, since they both address religious issues (though admittedly with starkly contrasting methods). But really, when it comes down to it, each one of us is going to be affected differently by different things, based on who we are and what is important to us. For some, seeing the bleak picture painted in Chicago might be more poignant and life-changing than seeing the life of Christ depicted on screen. Does that negate the style or content of either? No -- it just means that today I might be after some extra vitamin C, or maybe something I don't have to peel.

It's not just about movies! Coming in October, writer Regina Doman offers some thoughts on trends in contemporary culture.

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.

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 and award-winning actor. 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.

Derrida
On Deconstruction

...deconstruction is affirmation rather than questioning, in a sense which is not positive: I would distinguish between the positive, or positions, and affirmations.¹

Sartre
On Hell in the World

If you want to deserve Hell, you need only stay in bed. The world is iniquity; if you accept it, you are an accomplice...²

Atwood
On Postmodernism

Everything is post these days, as if we're all just a footnote to something earlier that was real enough to have a name of its own.³

Tarkington
On Fashion

We keep ourselves modern by incessantly mistaking floated gossamer for the rock of ages.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