billarnold.typepad.com

Love is Not Arrogant

...love is not...arrogant or rude. (1 Corinthians 13:4-5)

According to Merriam-Webster Online, to be arrogant is to "exaggerate one's own worth or importance." There are many ways this can play out. We may convionce ourselves that what we're doing is more important than what our children want us to do. We may assume our way of doing something is the way others should do it.

Sometimes we practice a form of cultural arrogance. A lot of Americans are guilty of this. There's nothing wrong with patriotism to a certain extent, but some of us think that the American way is always the right way. It seems to me that many Americans don't even realize that there are other approaches to living out there.

The Know-It-All Syndrome

In an interview last year, Scot McKnight was asked, "What do you think that the larger evangelical world needs to learn from the emergers?" I'd like to discuss the third of his five answers:

...culture has a grip on our minds and our theology and that we need to be both more circumspect and humble about what we know and believe.

I'm sorry, but a lot of Christians I interact with are know-it-alls. Post-Enlightenment ideals, such as objectivity and certitude, have caused people to overestimate the extent to which we can know the absolute truth. I'm not going to argue for or against the existence of absolute truth here. I don't think the point of McKnight's quote is that we are doomed to doubt everything. The point is that we should be cautious about the absolutist claims that we sometimes make.

New Series

This weekend is the Superbowl so we will not be meeting for our film discussion group. On the following week we will start a new series, so it's time to start brainstorming again. You can refer back to this post, in which I listed a few themes I thought of. I like the foreign film theme in particular. What ideas do you have? Feel free to contribute even if you're not a part of the discussion group.

Parenthood

Last night we finished our series on the American family with a flick called Parenthood. In case you don't remember it, it's a film made by Ron Howard back in 1989, starring Steve Martin as a troubled father of three. His immediate family is not the only one with problems. It seems that everyon ein his extended family has their own unique family trouble. Happily, the movie ends with just about everyone having a baby and learning some kind of lesson! By the way, it also features Keanu Reeves early in his feature film career and a 15 year old Joaquin Phoenix, who at that time went by the name of Leaf.

We had a good conversation about family last night. We talked about what our parents were like, what we might change, what kind of fears we have about parenthood, and other things. What we didn't talk about is how this movie fits into the American view of family. How does that square with a biblical view? Can we even compare the two, considering all of the cultural layers involved? Let's start clicking on that comment button, folks!

The Story of Us

Last night our film discussion group had a great discussion about The Story of Us, starring Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer. It's the story of what happens to a faltering marriage when the kids go away to camp for the Summer. The narrative of the present is constantly interspersed with flashbacks from the relationship. Many of them feature clashes over what the viewer might perceive to be small matters.

Holly pointed out that there was no insurmountable problem that came between them. Because of this, anyone who's been in an extended relationship can probably relate to the way that little problems can add up in a relationship.

One of the main themes of the movie was the desire both husband and wife had to protect their children. It was interesting to see how they tried to hide what was going on, but in the end, were not quite capable of it. Our group talked about one of the common themes behind what I termed an "American Divorce." That is, the kids are to be "protected" at all costs. That is, parents who split up in the U.S. seem to have the notion that they can make their divorce work in such a way that the kids won't get too hurt in the process. The assumption is that the break up of the parents in a family unit can have some kind of limited impact on the other members.

WARNING: Spoiler coming. If you haven't seen the movie yet, don't click on the link below.

The Family Man

Last night at our film discussion group, we kicked off our new series with The Family Man, starring Nicholas Cage and Téa Leoni. The film begins with a flashback: Jack Campbell is leaving his girlfriend behind for year to do an internship in London. We cut to the present and Jack is an extremely successful businessman who has never married. It is Christmas Eve. He has an encounter with a strange man who pulls a gun in a convenience store. We watch him fall asleep in his apartment, and when he wakes up on Christmas morning, he discovers that he has a wife and two kids.

This is an alternate reality in which he stayed behind with the girlfriend, got married, had a family, and ended up working for his father-in-law. Jack struggles to deal with the sharp contrast between the life that he had enjoyed. As he puts it to his "new" daughter, "I can buy almost anything I want."

I like this movie because of the way it deals with the value of having a family in a realistic, but positive light. It reminds me of an ideal I have always claimed but don't always follow through on. Namely, I have always said that I want to put my family first in life.

The American Family

Our next topic for the film discussion group is going to be "The American Family." We will take a look at four or five films that deal with the subject of family, from an American perspective, in various ways. I would like to see the group spend some time making theological connections, but it shouldn't be forced.

If anyone would like to join us, stay tuned to this blog. We will be meeting sometime next week, but have not determined exactly when. Unless anyone has any objections, we will then take off for a few weeks while the Arnold family is gallivanting off to New Jersey. Most likely we will resume meeting on Sunday nights starting on January 8th.

In the meantime we need to compile our list of films to watch. I came up with 20 possibilities the other night: The Family Man, Spanglish, Stepmom, Kramer vs. Kramer, Raising Arizona, The Upside of Anger, Secrets and Lies, Pieces of April, What's Eating Gilbert Grape?, About a Boy, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, American Beauty, In America, The Incredibles, Moonstruck, Terms of Endearment, Ordinary People, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Vacation, The Godfather.

Now it's your turn. Add to the list, propose the elimination of some, and/or tell me which ones you definitely think we should see.

One More Thought About Niebuhr's Typology

While commenting over at Brodie McGregor's blog, it hit me that although many in the emerging church would probably identify best with the transformationist type, there is also a strong element of the synthesist in us.

Perhaps I should just speak for myself. I suppose I want to transform aspects of culture, but I also want to be transformed by culture. What I mean by that is I want to allow God to speak through culture in such a way that my biased understanding of kingdom life can be transformed.

The synthesist sees the good in culture, but looks at Christ as over and above culture as a whole. I am reminded of Grenz's discussion of scripture as a norming norm in Beyond Foundationalism. I know some emerging types might object to the idea of Christ being above culture because this seems to present a false dichotomy. Jesus came to the earth as a man. His life was lived from within a cultural context, right? I freely admit that I have more to learn about this subject, but at this point there is a lot about this type that makes sense to me.

Again, the typology is not perfect as it stands, but it seems to me that it is allowing me to process some things. I would appreciate any input from readers.
 

Christ and Culture Revisited

My paper on Christ and Culture, by H. Richard Niebuhr, has turned into a critique of the book. My basic thesis is that the book is still useful, but is in need of some serious revision. This week, I was delighted to notice that none other than tallskinnykiwi had linked to my posts about the book in order to introduce people to a poll he was giving. Click here to see what I'm talking about. The discussion that ensued made me think twice about my thesis, though. Perhaps Niebuhr's typology is not really all that salvageable.

If it is salvagable, this is what I think needs to be revised:

1. It needs a view of Christ more solidly rooted in scripture. Glen Stassen has done a great job of talking about the way Jesus is so easily co-opted by any number of agendas. People like N.T. Wright, who writes about a more historically Jewish perspective of Christ are helping in this area.
2. It needs a more postmodern perspective on culture. Howard's Yoder's criticism is that Niebuhr's view of culture is too monolithic, for example. I found that Kathryn Tanner's book, Theories of Culture, was a great resource for moving beyond modern anthropological views of culture.
3. It needs a more careful treatment of history. When examples are given they should be more historically accurate. Consulting people from the group being described might be helpful!
4. It should not be so biased toward a particular view. I suppose Niebuhr had his reasons for the way he structured the book, but I think a little more objectivity might go a long way.

One other problem that can't easily be helped is that people simply misunderstand or misuse typologies. The structure is supposed to allow for discussion about general trends. It is not supposed to be a way to label everyone. Nonetheless, if you understand the five different approaches, I think that maybe you can begin to understand the general direction that others are coming from.

That's the basic gist of my paper. Now I've gone and spoiled it for those who were waiting to read the whole thing. ;-)

Film Discussion Group

Next week Valerie and I will be at a special Thanksgiving service on Sunday night.  I was wondering if people would like to do it on Saturday night instead.  I should also mention that we will be away on December 11, 18, 25, and January 1.  Sorry about that!  Don't think I'm implying that you can't have the group without us, by the way.

Meanwhile, we have to start brainstorming about our next theme.  I thought this might be a good place to discuss some possibilities.  I'll get us started off with a few ideas:

1. Good and Evil: a comparison of dualistic versus pluralistic views of good and evil.
2. Films From Around the World: a comparison of films from several foreign countries.
3. The American Family.  I thought of this because of one of my favorite films, The Family Man, with Nicholas Cage.
4. The Films of M. Night Shyamalan.
5. The Films of Quentin Tarantino.
6. Film adaptations of Shakespeare.
7. Kung-fu movies.

And I could probably keep going, but I'll let you guys jump in.  Just click on the "comments" link and fire away.