HTKWAP/PDBWTAS: #1 Swaying Opinions

This entry started with the post “Back to School Politics.”

“How to Know When a Pundit/Politician Doesn’t Believe What They Are Saying.”

Guideline #1: If one’s opinion depends on knowing the party involved, one doesn’t believe their own opinion.

Corollary: If one’s opinion changes based on knowing the party involved, one doesn’t believe their opinion.

Example: “Presidents should never be allowed to address students! Wait, you’re talking about Obama and not Bush? I mean Presidents should always be allowed to address students!”

Just to be clear, I’m not talking about being suspicious based on those involved.

For example, if my sister Mary says, “Hey, Sean, have some chocolate chip cookies. I made them just for you!” Naturally, I dive into the cookies.

But if my brother Mark says, “Hey, Sean, have some chocolate chip cookies. I made them just for you!” Of course I should approach with due caution.

Emphasis on my being suspect of any cookie that Mark made “just for me.”

However, if I am eating a cookie, and you ask, “Hey, Sean, how’s the cookie taste?” And I say, “I don’t know – is this one of Mary’s cookies or one of Mark’s cookies?” Then this rule applies.

You might tell me, “Mark made the cookie,” and as a result I might say, “It tastes awful.”

But I don’t believe it.

The cookie might indeed taste awful, but I am not saying that the cookie tastes awful. I am saying that I don’t trust cookies that Mark makes just for me.

And if you say, “Oops, I meant Mary made the cookie,” I will of course tell you, “This cookie tastes great!”

Because, again, the taste of the cookie is irrelevant. My comment may sound like I am referring to the taste of the cookie, but I am only referring to my faith in the source of the cookie.

My playwright professor Howard Stein drilled this into me in a seminar on play criticism.

I had to read a script (actually, five at a time) and discuss it with him. He would always include one script without any cover: so no author listed.

Might be written by Arthur Miller. Might be written by a student who flunked out of a playwriting class.

Point was, I had to evaluate the play based on the content, not on my pre-conceived notions about the author.

Because, as I soon learned, Arthur Miller is capable of writing a bad play now and then.

And every once in a while, one can be surprised by a good coming from an unexpected source.

Oh, by the way – Mark is capable of making some really yummy cookies.

Who knew?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Follow up Real world example:

A certain entertainment cable network said at one point, (I paraphrase) “Tea Party demonstrations are by definition Anti-American. It’s just an excuse for a bunch of whiners who can’t handle losing an election to attack their legitimate government; they should shut up and get over it, or move out of the U.S.!”

The same exact people also said, “Tea Party demonstrations are by definition Pro-American. They are a time honored way for groups of patriots to bravely voice their opposition to oppression just as our founding fathers did; they should be publicly praised as national heroes.”

The difference between these two seemingly contradictory opinions?

Four years and one change of power in Washington.

Truth is, they were never talking about the patriotism of Tea Parties. They just wanted to make you think they were.

jmt

Where Have All the Centrists Gone?

Thanks to Linds for putting me on to this report.

Best stuff comes at the end of the report: "There is no place for truth."

Just my thoughts,

Sean

More on the Issue

This blog is linked to my facebook; here is a worthy comment from an respected dissenter.

Earlier he had repeated the misinformation that the “I Pledge” video that was made by Demi Moore to honor the inauguration was made by the DOE in order to be shown with President Obama’s talk with students on Tuesday.

The video was in fact shown in a school in Utah for an unrelated event.

From Grant:

“Sean - thanks for correcting me on that one, but I still feel that the way this is being handled and packaged crosses the line. What better way to convince children that the President (and by extension, his policies) is cool than to have celebrities endorse his message? The fact that even one school showed the "I Pledge" video shows poor judgement... Read More from left-leaning educators, regardless of whether or not the White House endorsed it. Of course, I could just be jealous that Democrats always have the cool celebrities and Republicans are stuck with country music singers.
I'm sorry to be hi-jacking your post like this, but there's one last thing I wanted to say. There's also another sentiment here that at least 48% of the population is feeling and it's this - we don't agree with Obama and that's why we're being vocal about this. You're right to say that the pundits and the politicians don't mean what they say, but we do.
Alright, I'm off to write my own blog now...”

Grant -- No apology necessary. However, you are proving my point exactly.

The argument being presented out there boils down to this:

"The left has proven its extreme power by getting one educator at one school out of 100,000 schools in the nation (total population of said school: under 400 students) to show a four minute long video that includes five seconds of endorsement of the current sitting president.

“This show of power is so overwhelming, that we must respond with a carpet bombing force (and forget that the principal - who didn't watch the vid before hand - had already apologized for the clear error before it even made it to the press) by linking it to an unrelated, pro-education event and calling for a nation wide boycott of said event, and use the unrelated event to demonize the President for wanting to put out a pro-education message by calling such a message the literal equivalent of the master race policies of Adolf Hitler.

“Because we truly believe that the extermination of millions is the moral equivalent to Ashton Kutcher voicing a political opinion.”

My argument is thus:

“This is an extreme, irrational, over-reaction.”

You say that 48 of Americans disagree with the President on this issue, and that “you are right to say that the pundits and the politicians don’t mean what they say, but we do.”

My point exactly.

A large percentage of Americans disagree vehemently with the President on this issue.

They disagree that kids should stay in school and that education is important.

A message they did not disagree with before the pundits and politicians started lying about what the message was;

before those folk got folks like you to believe that the “I Pledge” video and a boatload of other materials were part of the message;

before it became a message linked to a President that is not an American citizen, is a practicing Muslim extremist, pals around with terrorists and (apparently like the other 52% of the country) has only one wish in life: the complete and utter destruction of the United States of America.

I will repeat: virtually none of the politicians or pundits that spread that crap believes any part of it.

But they sure hope you do.

And that’s why it is so dangerous to not know when they are lying.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Back To School Politics

President Obama is planning on giving a “welcome back to school” speech directed to students on Tuesday. The text of his speech will be confined to the importance of education, and encouraging students to stay in school and study hard.

That is such a universal message, no one could be opposed to it being reinforced by the number one representative of our nation, right?

Hee hee hee. Okay, I was just kidding.

Of course politicians and pundits are furiously attacking the idea, claiming it is downright anti-American to allow the President of the United States to speak to our younger citizens.

Boycotts are being called for – let’s keep our kids out of school, lest they hear that school can be a good thing!

Now, before you start going off on one side or the other, I should point out that it isn’t just one side that feels that way – both political parties agree with each other on this issue.

Just not at the same time.

Back when the first President Bush directly addressed students in favor of studying hard, the Dems attacked it as unfair abuse of the office; while prominent Repubs made the claim that only self-absorbed idiots would oppose such an obvious good.

(They were right, by the way.)

So the Right states boldly that the President should and never should be allowed to address students on the topic of education; and the Left avers that the President should and should not be allowed to address students on the topic of education.

Some of y’all might find this contradictory – that someone would claim opposite sides of the same principle without at least an ironic wink to the camera as they do it.

But that is because you have forgotten the first rule of American politics: When a pundit or a politician speaks, chances are

THEY DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

Oh, sure, sometimes through coincidence, a Fox News pundit might say something he also happens to believe, or an MSNBC mouthpiece might take a position on an issue that in his or her non-actor persona they happen to agree with.

But the mistake is to think that the reason they said the thing to begin with is because they find it to be true.

For example, not one of the politicians or pundits mouthing off about this presidential back to school speech actually believe it is a bad idea for the President to encourage education.

What they do oppose is allowing this particular president be associated with a positive thing, because their primary job function is to prevent the other side from gaining any political points.

Just as their counterparts did not want that particular president in 1991 to be associated with a positive thing.

Of course they can’t say that, so instead they shout out whatever they think is most going to help their number one mission. No interest in truth; no interest in whether they believe it or not.

And they are cool with it, because they all know that the other guy doesn’t believe what they are saying either, so they don’t take it personally.

Are you among those that had trouble understanding how President Obama could be willing to partner with his sworn enemy, Senator Clinton, after she devoted so much time trying to convince the world that it would be dangerous to elect that man?

That’s because you forgot that Obama knew that Clinton did not mean anything she said. She wasn’t trying to inform the American public, or protect the people from a menace; she was just doing what they all do to get what she wanted.

So it would be silly to hold her to the things she said during the race when they were on opposing sides.

The problem is that while the pundits and politicians know that they don’t believe a thing they say, the people who hear them don’t always realize that.

They think they are hearing truth; and often believe it themselves, get riled up, and act out on the assumption that they are following voices of truth.

Which is why, starting next week, I am going to offer a public service with a series of blog entries entitled:

“How to Know When a Pundit/Politician Doesn’t Believe What They Are Saying.”

See you then.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

For Your Viewing Pleasure

Three referrals today.

1) You can read the first few chapters of Donald Miller's book on line. Kinda ticked -- I've already been planning on writing a book on life lessons learned through the process of scriptwriting. Looks like that is what Don is doing. And he's such and interesting writer. Rassum frassum.

2) My friend Mark Atteberry put me on to this: THE BUTTERFLY CIRCUS, a short film that can be viewed at The Doorpost Film Project. A beautiful little film; a teeny tad of treacle, but handles the topic without going overboard, thinks I.

3) THE SENSATION OF SIGHT, Aaron Wiederspahn's gorgeous film starring David Strathairn, has a fan music video. Watching this reminded me of how wonderfully moving that movie is.

Enjoy.



Just my thoughts,

Sean

Wrestling with Cats, Wrestling with G-d, Wrestling with a Segue, Wresting with Career

Some random things out there around the net that caught me.

1. This guy is insane, but he makes me happy:

See more funny videos and Cute Animals Videos at Today's Big Thing.

2. Speaking of wrestling, Stuff Christians Like had a post I like -- I focused in on the part about wrestling, the paragraph marked with the "2."

3. And speaking of speaking of things, (yeah, I'm so bad at transitioning from one topic to another, that if you asked me "what's a segue" I would probably guess about four pounds), my pastor had some cool insights on my favorite Bernstein quote.

And before any second fiddlers complain, let me make a correction -- take the word "almost" out of the "almost as good as the first violin" -- it's like Ginger Rogers; she had to do everything Astaire did, only backwards and in heels.

4. Finally, for those that want an insight into the mind of a screenwriter (don't go there, it is a very dark place and the food is awful), you can see a really well done, full length doc profiling three wanna be writers called DREAMS ON SPEC at SnagFilms. Free viewing, with commercials popping up throughout.

(If you are lucky, it will be the Blackberry commercials, rather than having to watch those bears do their business in the woods over and over again. Yeah, I thought the Verizon commercial was irritating until Charmin took over.)

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Awaiting Moderation

I just posted on another blog.

A message popped up saying: “Awaiting moderation.”

Me too, brother, me too.

And awaiting moderation in so many areas.

Some personal (do I really have to finish off the whole Doritos bag?).

Some universal (can we have a cap & trade system set up for reality shows? They can only have another “living in a house together show” if someone agrees to one less “people who should not be allowed to procreate finding their soul mate through the use of a hot tub” show).

So people, let’s stop waiting and get ourselves some moderation.

Can we start with political discourse, please?

No?

Okay then. I’m going back to my bag of Doritos.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Cloud and Fire

My area of So Cal is once again under fire.

Despite the fact that we go through fire season every year, the one closest to me (and least under control right now) is so intense because it is the first fire in that area for sixty years.

I have two friends that have been evacuated from their homes, but Cath and I are no where near in danger of the fire actually getting to us.

We’re close enough to have ash on our patio, and work and home are both plagued with the smell of smoke.

We personally are not in a natural disaster; we are just disaster adjacent.

Here were my observations from the weekend.

Saturday:

For anyone wanting to visit, but don’t have directions to our condo:

Get to Burbank.

Locate the column of black smoke coming straight up behind the mountain.

Point your car at the column, and drive directly toward it.

We are on the side that isn’t on fire.

Sunday:

I was up at that church on Mulholland Drive. Great view of the valley.

At night, the mountains all disappear into the dark, and the valley is just a serious of twinkly lights; Christmas spread across the miles.

But this night there is a twist. The mountains are gone, except for the ridgeline.

Someone has take a bright, neon yellow highlighter and ran a sloppy line along the ridge, stopping at random points, picking up again later down the line.

Looks eerily like the lava lines shot at night by a Hawaiian cameraman.

The total picture does not compute. Gentle, twinkly lights; a border of black darkness; then eruptive lines of neon yellow.

Beautiful and awful.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Welcome

Steampunk Star Wars

Since I've started work on a script set in sci-fi Steampunk, I've had a lot of people asking, "What the heck is Steampunk?"

To give an idea of the look, here is a taste of what STAR WARS might have looked like in Steampunk, by way of Sillof's Workshop. (Thanks, Cory, for the find.)

The designer says this isn't quite Steampunk, but close enough for my purposes.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Tales From The Script looks like an interesting doc, if you're into that whole screenwriting thing.

The quote that makes the trailer worthwhile, the definition of screenwriters:

"Egomaniacs with low self esteem."

Perhaps too true.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Humor - Sarcasm - Cynicism

This answer from an interview of Jon Acuff (author of Stuff Christians Like) by Brian Allain caught my attention:

"6. In your opinion, how is humor different from sarcasm/cynicism?

"JA: Humor pokes at ideas and issues, sarcasm pokes at individuals and cynicism pokes at hope. Humor reflects, sarcasm mocks and cynicism attacks. I fail at this constantly but I try to stay on humor’s team."

Hmmm...

Earl Palmer talks about negative humor, including humor that diminishes.

"The role of humor in this case is to diminish worth through ridicule and once that emptying has happened a climate of permission to do harm is put into place."

For someone who pokes fun a lot, its good for me to revisit such notions.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Public Service, Bright Eyes

I was always a big fan of "Total Eclipse of the Heart." Something about it just hits me.

But what that something is can be elusive.

So it is a good thing we have some scholastic aids in examining this song.

First came the literal video, to help us understand the visuals.



Now the flow chart for the lyrics. (Thanks to Jeff for pointing this out.)

I'm starting to understand.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Give a Damn

A kid I knew from Biola made the news.

He went off to Kenya to make a documentary called “Give a Damn.” He and a small crew of idealistic twenty-somethings.

Part of the gimmick was that during the filming, they would each live on a dollar a day.

While shooting some b-roll scenic shots, the plane they were in crashed.

The missionary pilot died on impact.

Dan’s fellow crew-members, Rob (one of those twenty-somethings, who ironically is part of the project because he’s the guy that doesn’t “give a damn”) pulled Dan and the co-pilot out of the wreckage before it burst into flames.

You can get the story here.

The survivors are stable, although dealing with their injuries.

And they’re staying in Kenya to finish what they started.

You can see more about the doc here.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Will Teach for Food

I get asked "where do you teach?" quite a bit.

Usually I am asked at conferences, or right after talks, or at schools. Often as part of the q & a when I am done teaching a class.

So the real smart aleck answer is: "I teach here. Just now. Weren't you paying attention?"

But instead I say, "Wherever anyone will pay me to teach."

Which sounds like the smart aleck answer. (It isn't; see above for the real smart aleck answer. And start paying attention.)

To prove that I am serious, I am teaching my three hour story structure class tonight.

In a living room in a house in Sherman Oaks.

Yep. Seven people or so, lounging on couches, listening to me lecture.

Strange.

Not as strange as what happened to my friend Jennifer (or, as she now insists I call her, "The New York Times Best Selling Author, Jennifer." Of course she is just getting back at me for the years I made her call me "the guy that got his article published in a local neighborhood newsletter, Sean." Never shoulda made her do that.)

Upon learning that she gave lectures, she was asked, "Do you do children's parties?"

You will have to ask her how that turned out. I'm too busy getting ready for my first living room class.

Hope there's plenty of chalk for the chalkboard.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Feeling Good; Feeling Groovy

Last weekend was one of culture.

I attended a script reading; I attended a film festival; I attended a concert.

Writing that just now made me curious, so I looked up “attend” on the ol’ Webster.

'From Latin “attendere,” literally to stretch to, from.'

Maybe I’m attending myself thin these days.

The reading was a private affair, but I can tell you that we had a good time. I got to read the part of an old, black man. Typecast as usual.

That’s me at the Film Fest with friend Graham, film star Joel, love of my life Catherine, film star Shon, and film star Karen.

The fest was the Feel Good Film Festival. Had friends involved in a film that was one of the three screenings that night – so Catherine and I were ready to sit through two pieces of dreck.

Oh, for those that don’t go to film festivals, when several movies are shown in a cluster, on average 2 out of 3 are unwatchable. It’s just a general rule for artsy festivals.

Art is like brussel sprouts, no one will believe it is good for you if it tastes good.

So film fests sprinkle in healthy doses of bad flicks among their good films to keep the museumy street cred up.

Except Feel Good didn’t get the memo, because all three movies were very good.

Two shorts – “Charlie Thistle,” a marvelous look at color coming into dystopia; and “Whose Dog Is It Anyway?” a charmer about a reluctant dog owner.

And a feature, JESUS PEOPLE. I know the folks that wrote it, as well as several of the actors. So I went in expecting a good time.

(I should clarify – the people I know are good at what they do. Just because I know people involved in a project doesn’t guarantee a good time – not everyone I know is skillful at what they do. Hence I have mastered the phrases, “Well, that was interesting,” and “Wow. Really. I mean… Wow.”)

JESUS PEOPLE did not require any such post-show maneuvering – it was very entertaining, and quite well done. A mockumentary about the world’s worst Christian pop band (think THIS IS SPINAL TAP), the film is very funny (painfully so at times – a little too familiar).

It is also moving in parts (especially in the performances of Joel McCrary and Karen Whipple), and sweet (the budding forbidden romance between the documentary subject and the documentary producer – priceless).

The two bowls – Hollywood Bowl (not even in the nosebleed seats) and the cozier Starlight.

The weekend was capped with a picnic on the lawn of the Starlight Bowl in Burbank –although our quiet evening kept getting interrupted by Big Bad Voodoo Daddy insisting on playing songs and getting us to sing along.

Geez, give a band a venue, and the just insist on entertaining. Go figure.

Hi-dee hi-dee hi-dee hi.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

What's the Way We Spell Success?

Interesting TED lecture by Alain de Botton about how we measure success.

This is a good start at reshaping the way that we look at goals and achievement. The topic of success is a constant one out here in La-La land, where it seems obvious (the part! the sale! the green light! the box office! the awards!) -- yet isn't at all obvious.

Parts last only so long, sales often turn to nothing, green lights more often than not are yellows waiting to snap red, box office only helps to make one more movie, awards are fleeting.

I remember an interview a few years back with a woman who just won a major acting award. The interview was during the after party, which was fairly wild. When asked why she was partying so hard, with remarkable insight she said (and I paraphrase):

"I have to enjoy the award tonight; by tomorrow morning I will realize that my career will never be this good again."

Fleeting.

Two take-aways from Botton:

It is a sin to judge a man by his post. (Augustine)

The problem is that there is nothing at the center that is non-human. (Botton)

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Figured It Out

Craig Ferguson has figured out everything, and I have to say his reasoning is pretty sound.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Things for Today

Things that are out and about:

-Friend Jennifer is on the NY Times Best Seller list. Yep, you heard me right. New. York. Times. Woohoo! Couldn’t a happened to a classier dame.

-Janet reports that Act One alum Melissa d’Arabian got her Hollywood gig the hard way – by winning her own show via a reality show. Congrats, Melissa!

-Screenwriter John August is handing out free money advice to writers. Good stuff. My favorite pearl: “Nearly every screenwriter I speak with has a similar story — you’re never as broke as when you first start making money.”

-Are you a hack writer and need advice? Screenwriting tips for hacks was made for you (and me!) Short tidbits, often snarky, but mostly true tips for the writer. Like tip #36: “Stop treating your characters like precious, precious snowflakes. If something horrible doesn’t happen to them at the end of Act 2, why should I care about Act 3?” Or the perfectly stated tip #33: “An ellipsis cannot be made longer by adding more dots. Don’t be that guy.”

-Donald Miller chastises a plumber for doing good work while avoiding being preachy. (And then Don read the comments, and learned that people take things way too literally.)

Just my thoughts,

Sean

13 Years And Counting ...

If anyone doubted that we are two silly people ... below is our wedding invitation.

Yes, we had a cartoon as our invitation. I mean, really, what could be more fitting?



Thanks again to Sam Vance for the perfect drawing.

Thank you to all of you who witnessed our vows 13 years ago.

Thank you to our friends who've met us since (even those who had no idea Cath had such big hair, or Sean ever had a goatee!).

Thank you to our parents who trusted us into the Lord's hands.

And thanks most of all, to the Lord, who guided us to each other, and continues to bless our lives exceedingly, abundantly, above all that we ask or seek.

To my best friend : I love you!

The Church and Story Part 3: Parables

Here is another piece of the original debate--

Sean,

Just to add some clarification to the discussion.The Dane has already pointed out that there are a number of occassions in Scripture where Jesus uses parables with the clear intent to hide the truth from unbelievers, yet you keep using it as a justification for drama and film in corporate worship. Any response?

David,

The Dane states that obfuscation is the “chief purpose” of Jesus’ parables. While I agree that Jesus did at times speak in parables to keep the dark in the dark (Matthew 13 and Isaiah 6), it wasn’t to make them even more befuddled; and more to my point, it is neither the only nor the chief use of parables by Jesus.

Even if that were the only use of parables, it wouldn’t be an argument to ban use of parables in church – where the congregation is ostensibly not the lost that Jesus was keeping in the dark. While the parable of the sower would be a head-scratcher to the unbelieving, Jesus did expect those with ears to hear to grow from it.

The bigger point is that keeping his teaching in the dark was only one (and by my count, the least used) reason for his choosing to tell parables.

In fact, in the same chapter where he explained that he used parables so that those without sight wouldn’t see, he rattles off a string of parables to the disciples, followed by the question “Do you understand all these things?” (Matthew 13:51) He fully expected them to understand without him having to break it out for them.

Is it really being argued that the lawyer in Luke 10, who was able to state what Jesus meant by “neighbor” immediately after hearing the story of the good Samaritan, somehow didn’t understand the parable?

Or that Jesus taught about prayer (Luke 11), and wrapped up the parables by saying, “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"- did so because he was hoping they wouldn’t understand what he was getting at?

There is a belief out there that if something is one thing, it can only be that one thing. The reason we are having this discussion is because a pastor believes that since he gives a certain style of sermon very well, therefore there must be only one “right” kind of sermon for all pastors.

Jesus did not follow that stricture – in fact, he changed styles to meet people where they were at. Sometimes he would talk to thousands; sometimes he spoke in small groups. Sometimes he spoke in riddles, sometimes plainly; sometimes he answered questions, sometimes he ignored them.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus used parables for all kinds of reasons throughout his ministry. Sometimes it was so those that got it would get it and those that weren’t ready wouldn’t; sometimes it was to illustrate; sometimes to reinforce; sometimes to start conversation; sometimes to break down walls (the crowd would never have tolerated the notion of Samaritan as neighbor without the story), etc.

In Matthew 18, Jesus performs a little bit of theater when asked who is the greatest. He calls a little child up to stand with them – a visual representation to illustrate his answer.

In that same bit of teaching, he mixes exhortation (“Woe to the world!”) and a parable of clarification (telling of the 99 sheep).

Later in chapter 18, when Peter ask how many times one should forgive, Jesus gives his answer (70 times 7), but appears to feel that answer isn’t enough, so he tells the story of the ungrateful servant. He wraps up with “This is how my heavenly father will treat you…” This clearly is not a case of trying to mask meaning and muddle the masses.

In fact, this showcases another use of story – sometimes a question can not be answered literally. If Peter forgave 490 times, it would still not reach the debt that had been forgiven of Peter. And, more to the point, if Peter is legalistically counting off “forgive you”s, he is heading in the wrong direction completely.

Let me repeat this notion: sometimes story is needed because mere literal words can not contain the fullness of the teaching.

I would never go so far as to say that a sermon or a service without story is incomplete – no one sermon or service is meant to hold all of the spiritual life.

But I will say that a theology without story is incomplete.

That is why when we tell the good news of the gospel, we don’t just use the red-letter words of Jesus. We also tell the story of Jesus – where he came from, what he did, the miracles he chose to perform, how he lived and died, and how he lived again.

The greatest story ever told contains more than any sermon trying to describe it ever could.

-Sean

The Church and Story Part 2

A continuation from yesterday…

IF the question is, “Should we permit drama (or story) into the church,” the correct and complete answer is:

“Sure. Why not?”

But of course, that isn’t the right question. This question presupposes an agreement that drama has been banned from the church, and now must justify a return; much akin to the dog that peed all over the living room carpet, and now your spouse is asking, “Should the dog be let back in?”

The real question is, “If we use story, how are we using it?”

Alan Noble contributed this to the discussion:

“… I do think that if church leaders want to use videos or drama in their preaching they need to do a lot more thinking about the medium, how it functions, and what it conveys.

“In a (somewhat) analogous setting, in the teaching profession there has been a lot of debate about the usefulness and value of video in the classroom. On the whole I’ve found that it discourages critical thinking, signals to the students that “learning” has ended and “entertainment” has begun, and in general lowers their expectations as to the seriousness of the subject and their obligation to learn.”

Sadly, Alan has seen some pretty poor use of video in the classroom. In fact, much of the arguments out there calling for a ban on use of story stem from encounters with bad drama, or poorly thought out integration, or an improper emphasis on the role of story.

Brian Walton points out such examples in his comments to yesterday’s blog entry (take some time to hike over and read them. Then stay to read the very insightful comments from Linds and David.)

I have been in worship settings where Alan’s concerns are proven true: the drama team trots out onto the bema, and the congregation (smiling) checks out of worship to have a little restful entertainment.

But the fact that there is bad drama out there is not a compelling argument to ban all use of story in church. Heck, I could rustle up a passel of bad preachers without breaking a sweat – have I just put Pastor Piper out of a job?

Maybe not.

Alan also says,

“If we do chose to include them, it should only be after we’ve thought and prayed long and hard about how the congregation will interpret these mediums and how they will or will not honor God. “

And there we have it.

How will the media be interpreted? Will it deepen our congregation’s experience, or will it distract them? Will it bring glory to G-d, and will it bring the people in closer communion to him?

For example, many Catholic churches will not be instituting live sketches in the mass any time soon. The mass is already designed to be a journey into mystery – a dramatic one at that. An actor performing a character would jar stylistically with the mass; and thus distract.

But the mass does use theater – procession and imitative action; communal metaphoric ritual (passing the flame to allow individual candles to combine to dispel the darkness – such a transcendent moment); and it is common for the pastor to use the homily to illuminate the readings, sometimes through story.

Those are drama styles that fit and enhance their particular needs in that particular setting.

Truth is, the Gospel is wider and deeper and more varied than we tend to give credit to it. Every congregation comes to worship with different needs; and they should openly and prayerful consider what G-d might have for them to fulfill those specific needs at this given time.

For some, that may mean drama. For others, not so much.

Tomorrow: Did Jesus really command us to not use parables?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

For those not interested in a debate about church and drama...

Instead of reading my winded post below, hop on over to the very entertaining "Disneyland tourist or local?" guide by Janet.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

The Church and Story

A couple of weeks back, I let myself get sucked into an argument about whether drama or story should be allowed within a church service.

The argument was played out at Christ and Pop Culture, which gave a link to an interview with Pastor John Piper, which you can read here. (A better rebuttal of Pastor Piper than mine can be found here.)

In a nutshell, Pastor John argues that while no one will go to hell for doing so, that any use of story or illustration anywhere within the church service will damage the kingdom.

The purpose of a church service, the argument goes, is to provide a specific style of “till Jesus comes” preaching. Any church that uses anything that helps the congregation “stay with them and be moved and get helped” undermines the power of such sermons as being the core provider of salvation, and thus is anathema to Pastor John.

This includes any use of illustration, from a drama performed by an actor to a story the preacher himself tells.

I have to admit, I wasn’t even aware of the “sermon wars” – the existence of a “my type of sermon is the one true way, and anyone who preaches another way is of the devil” struggle.

Sure, I was aware of the music wars (“If it has a beat, Old Scratch wrote it!”) and the communion wars (“If the wine is fermented, it negates the power of the bread!”), and we all are aware of the baptism wars (“Dunking if for donuts, not disciples!”).

Apparently such a sermon war exists. (Kenneth E. Bailey, in the first chapter of JACOB AND THE PRODIGAL addresses this tangentially, as he feels he must start the book by validating the use of metaphors, parables and dramatic action while discussing theology.)

I do agree with Pastor Piper that not all churches should use illustrations within their sermons; but I do not agree with his notion that to use anything within a service that “moves” or “helps” the congregation is a danger to the power of sermon.

Paul and Jesus used illustration to clarify their points; it did not negate their power and authority. Many of our brethren have entire church services that do not even contain sermons; their communion with G-d is in no way diminished by that omission.

Pastor Piper argues that if anything other than preaching is shown to either hold, move or help a congregation, that therefore we can (and shall!) assume that preaching can do none of those things.

Either/or.

Thinking that everything must be an “either/or” doesn’t not fit with a G-d that refused “either/or” in his very Gospel; in a savior that is not either G-d or Man, but rather a “both/and.”

The use of parable or illustration does not work for Pastor Piper — all the more power to him (I mean that sincerely). Does that mean all other congregations must choose to believe that either there is no power in parable, or that there is no power in preaching?

Absolutely not.

It is a false dichotomy from the get go.

Tomorrow: The question about church drama that should have been asked.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Life Tips from Screenwriting

Donald Miller showcases on his blog how one aspect of good screenwriting works in life as well, in an entry called: "Lance Armstrong Saves a Cat."

I'm going to have to write a book someday on life lessons from the school of script writing.

Someday.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Geek Rush

(Standard view for most sessions – yep, this is what it looked like from my pov for three days…)

-Friday afternoon rolled into San Diego. Didn’t even unpack the luggage – walked straight from the hotel valet to the Con

-Went into a panel we didn’t care about in order to secure seats in the room for a later panel that we did care about. You do a lot of that at the Con.

An author, in defending how thick the book he wrote was, said, “I spent an entire month writing that novel. How small do you expect it to be?” I alone in the room laughed. Apparently he wasn’t joking.

-Heard the best response to the question: “How do you get your ideas?” To which an author asked back, “I’m trying to figure out how you turn your ideas off?”

-Heard Stephan Pastis (PEARLS BEFORE SWINE comic strip) give his hilarious lecture, complete with cartoons and stories from the trenches of syndication.

Best take-away – Stephan claims his writing did not become good until he stopped trying so hard. He would draw and write as fast as he could, preventing himself from over-editing his initial ideas; he just let it flow.

-Walked the exhibition hall floor. Couldn’t get within six feet of the booths sponsored by the studios. If you want to punish a claustrophobe, make them stand in the middle of the exhibition hall at the Con.

-Saw all kinds of costumes. A full family of Jedi knights, including a lightsaber holding infant in a stroller. A squadron of Predators. A full on transformer – Bumblebee. The entire Superman and Batman family of characters. A number of anime characters, a Patrick from Spongebob and a gaggle of girls wearing red cat hoods. You see a lot of stuff like that at the Con.

-Skipped out early that day, instead seeing the movie MOON. Well worth it.

-Spent Saturday morning taking an extended breakfast with friends who live in SD. Doing the Con casual this year, no need to rush.

-Stood an hour in line for a SteamPunk event. Didn’t get in despite the wait. You do a lot of that at the Con.

-Random line overheard while pushing past a mob swarming for a freebie: “I don’t know what that is – but I want one!”

-Two sessions that you can usually get into that never disappoint: Quick Draw (think improv for artists) and voice over panels.

-Got into the Ray Bradbury session. The moderator spent the first 20 minutes of the one hour session ignoring the fact that Ray was sitting next to him, instead schilling for his own projects, which had nothing to do with Bradbury.

The only entertainment was watching him scramble to come up with connections to justify using up this session for the hawking. One book was a remake of a project that was inspired by an artist that had once met Ray Bradbury. Another was a movie project that might consider casting minor roles with actors that may have at one time been in a play written by Bradbury. Sad.

-The highlight of Ray’s session: showing a clip of an interview with Mike Wallace on the night of the moon landing. The lowlight: seeing how feeble and a bit crazy the sci-fi master has become.

-Passed a lady wearing a baseball jersey and lacy panties that were a tad too small to fulfill their proper function. If it was meant to be a costume, I couldn’t tell you what character. As we passed, heard her complain to her male companion, “People keep staring at my butt. I don’t know why.”

Catherine prevented me from stopping to explain to her why.

-Watched the pilot for HUMAN TARGET. I was a fan of the comic back in the seventies; the tv series isn’t much like the comic. But I liked it a lot anyway.

-Skipped the three hour line for evening screenings, opting instead for the one and a half hour line at Spaghetti Factory. If you are going to be in a long line, there might as well be food at the end of it.

- Stood in line with a lawyer, who happened to also have sold four screenplays, and has a sister who writes on a television series. You do a lot of that at the Con.

-Witnessed a security guard stopping an actual robot replica of R2D2 from rolling into a restricted area. Apparently that was the droid he was looking for.

-Sat with 2,000 of my closest friends watching a DOCTOR WHO panel including showrunner Russel T. Davies and star David Tennant. My wife swooned over the star, which really was as it should be. Responding to a shout of “We love you!” Tennant looked over the massive audience and replied, “And we love you. Each of you in a slightly different, individual way.”

-Left the Con, headed back to LA and sat in traffic for several hours. You do a lot of that at the Con.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Music and Astronomy

I was going to use today's blog to start a discussion I got sucked into recently, on whether drama should be allowed into the church and if story has any real place in our spiritual lives.

That will have to wait as Jeff Berryman re-reminded me of the Karl Paulnack's welcoming speech to parents at the Boston Conservatory.

I will give you the same quote that Jeff does from the speech:

"One of the first cultures to articulate how music really works were the ancient Greeks. And this is going to fascinate you: the Greeks said that music and astronomy were two sides of the same coin. Astronomy was seen as the study of relationships between observable, permanent, external objects, and music was seen as the study of relationships between invisible, internal, hidden objects. Music has a way of finding the big, invisible moving pieces inside our hearts and souls and helping us figure out the position of things inside us."

In trying to write this, the closing paragraph, to wrap up my thoughts and summarize what I feel about Paulnack's insights, everything I wrote just ruined the moment. So instead, I will simply encourage you to find a quiet moment and read the full article.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Tuesday Grab Bag

A couple things out there that caught my eye:

Phil has an interesting entry comparing two icons who recently passed.

Just found The Hollywood Roaster, an Onion for Hollywood. And this article is the one that made me giggle the most.

Richard Clark dives into why dumb movies are dangerous. His paragraph on "other, more sinister attributes" sounds like a section from my talk last Beacon. I would quibble with his notion that a movie being protested by the church is a good indicator of truthiness, but otherwise this is a thoughtfully provoking article. Final paragraph is my favorite.

Stephan Pastis, author of one of the funniest strips out there, contemplates bringing a lawyer into his feud with The Family Circus. (And for those not catching his tone, he is pals with the FC guys.)

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Brooklyn Flora

This months book club read was A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN. We have club members from afar -- read along, then discuss via e-mail.

Susan Kelly is one such member, and gave such a good overview of the book, I decided to give into my laziness and use her comments as my own.

Here are her thoughts:

I didn't realize the book was almost 500 pages till Jack sent that email. Yikes I thought. In the beginning I didn't get into this. I was impatient with all the description early on and so many details, and found Betty Smith's racist language offensive. I realize she wrote this in the 1940's but I wasn't able to let her off the hook easily. That kind of language has been greatly eliminated from polite conversation so when you hear derogatory names for Jewish people, etc. it is shocking. Luckily, there weren't many slurs, etc as the book progressed.

Smith's Francie Nolan and all her family did win me over as they struggle amidst poverty moving from one tenement to another. The characters were smart, witty, (often) diligent, kind and worthy of respect. They were drawn warts and all so even the severely alcoholic father's tremors are mentioned but no one gets away with overemphasizing his addiction. The family knew he wasn't a saint, but they insisted on the truth in their own understanding of their father.

Sissy was one of my favorites. She couldn't read, but she did outsmart Francie's teacher when felt her niece needed someone in her corner. She poses as Francie's mother and confronts and fools a snobbish teacher who Sissy sized up immediately. Calling out to that police officer was inspired.

It was interesting to read as a sociological portrait of a neighborhood, getting a respectful, honest look at how people cope with poverty and how they just lived back then. I was surprised by how they used to celebrate Thanksgiving as we do Halloween with kids dressing up and going to different stores begging for treats. Since kids did so much of the shopping ("Here's a nickel go to the store and get two loaves of bread) smart merchants catered to them (frugally) to win their loyalty. Smith provided so much insight into how people doctored up old bread and left overs to last days. She made that interesting. She almost made the poverty seem fun or adventurous. I had to remind myself that these really were hard times.

Francie has interesting relationships with all her family members. It was fascinating to see how honest and open Katie (the mother) was about sex and boys when Francie was a young teen, how she didn't sugar coat romance, how she was always practical even when Francie was broken hearted. It was amazing how fast these kids grew up, how prematurely they assumed responsibility.

The story got more vital and witty as I went through it. It's really got everything: courage, heart, injustice, jealousy, endurance, murder, weddings, births, deaths, success and failure. Now I'd definitely read more Betty Smith.