Christian perspective

Is there a Christian Activism?

bo.white — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:34:42 -0700

A few years ago, I was speaking at a college event in New York City and I was introduced as being a 'Christian activist'.

This gave me pause and made me think about a variety of nuances on the topic of activism.

For example, can you be a Christian and not be active? Is there such a thing as a Christian 'non-activist'?

Of course, being introduced as an 'activist' sounded better than being introduced as a non-activist, but what is activism?

So, the -ism for this week is activism and it's in the news in a myriad of ways. In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Bono, co-founder of the advocacy group ONE and (Product)RED, writes these words:

OVER long days and nights, I asked Africans about the course of international activism. Should we just pack it up and go home, I asked? There were a few nods. But many more noes. Because most Africans we met seemed to feel the pressing need for new kinds of partnerships, not just among governments, but among citizens, businesses, the rest of us. I sense the end of the usual donor-recipient relationship.
Aid, it’s clear, is still part of the picture. It’s crucial, if you have H.I.V. and are fighting for your life, or if you are a mother wondering why you can’t protect your child against killers with unpronounceable names or if you are a farmer who knows that new seed varietals will mean you have produce that you can take to market in drought or flood. But not the old, dumb, only-game-in-town aid — smart aid that aims to put itself out of business in a generation or two. “Make aid history” is the objective. It always was. Because when we end aid, it’ll mean that extreme poverty is history. But until that glorious day, smart aid can be a reforming tool, demanding accountability and transparency, rewarding measurable results, reinforcing the rule of law, but never imagining for a second that it’s a substitute for trade, investment or self-determination.

In a very real sense, Christian activism is also meant to look ahead to something better and invite people to consider a better world. The gospel, after all, is good news for the now and good news for a new heaven and a new earth. Christians are to be active because the world isn't stagnant or stopping. We are to be activists not to be busy, but because there is a direction or purpose to it. Maybe the word isn't activism merely, but invitationism. Christian people should be constantly inviting the world to something new and better. There is a redemptive restlessness in activism that just seems right.

-bo

MTV Interview: The Church & American Idol

CJ Casciotta — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:09:24 -0700

A while back I wrote a blog called American Idol: Good for TV, Bad for Church which came to the attention of MTV Senior Writer, Gil Kauffman. Gil wanted to know why so many Christians were not only tuning into "Idol" this year, but also performing on the show. He took a couple of quotes from our conversation and put them into his story for MTV.com. Here's an excerpt:

Just as this season kicked off, freelance writer CJ Casciotta penned an essay for faith site ConversantLife.com titled "American Idol — Good for TV. Bad for Church," in which he questioned whether the show's shunning of the "awkward, the socially inept, the ugly, the difficult" during the often cruel early rounds shouldn't be a call to action for the rest of us to embrace those whose lives are a struggle.

Casciotta's interest was piqued when he heard "Shout to the Lord" on "Idol" last season, and he suspects that the inclusion was an overt attempt to court Christian viewers. "The people at 'American Idol' are not idiots. They realize that there's this huge percentage of America that watches TV as a family, and a lot of families go to church. ... [The viewers] know worship leaders and musicians in church, and why not bring that aspect to the show?" he said.

He suspected that the inclusion of so many people of faith on "Idol" this year is part of a trend Christian music has been undergoing over the past decade, growing out of its cloistered corner and going more mainstream without losing its core values. "People who are Christians have a platform through 'American Idol' to write their songs and share their stories, and it doesn't have to fit in with the traditional Christian or worship genre," he said.

In fact, Casciotta said, he thinks Christian voters could end up being the deciding factor in this year's finals. "I would hope for people of faith that they would judge solely by talent," he said. "But if it came down to it, and the two [finalists] were equally talented and one was Christian, people would vote for that person who shares our faith."

To read the full article click here.

I also mentioned to Gil when we talked that I believe the church has had it backwards for a few decades now. Instead of creating culture, we instead settle for copying it. Centuries ago it was quite the opposite. The church was the epicenter for culture creators. Everything from music, to art, to architecture was birthed from it. Perhaps one of the reasons so many Christ Followers are auditioning for American Idol is, in a small way, due to this new renaissance of artistic expression erupting from within the church walls and overflowing to the "outside world." Perhaps, and hopefully, Christians are sensing the freedom to use their unique gifts and talents in and for a culture where every circumstance carries some kind of spiritual significance to it.

I'm interested, what are your thoughts? Do you see this shift happening too? If so, where? Do you agree that this is a good thing? Does anything concern you?

A great video featuring one of my heroes, Craig Detweiler, that hits on my point exactly about halfway through:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Review

CJ Casciotta — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:25:45 -0800

On the heels of a new year with hopes for a more prosperous, less chaotic tomorrow, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button debuts with a timely and sobering declaration: “You never know what’s coming to you.”

…bummer. So whether we brave the recession storm to see our 401k’s intact, whether our facebooking efforts successfully manage to adjust our identities as they appear to others, or whether we blanket our emptiness with credit card purchases collecting more stuff to fill the void, there will come a point where we cannot control the life, the ambitions, the relationships, or the bank accounts we’ve worked so hard to maintain.

And that’s where the tale of Benjamin Button begins, at the apex of this conundrum…a hospital room. A deathbed provides the backdrop for the film’s narration where an old woman with a faint and withering breath admits, “I’m curious what comes next.” What follows is a stylistically unconventional narrative about the significance of “letting go.”

From a single quote, to a short story, to a screenplay, and finally to a 2 ½ hour-long cinematic representation, the story of Benjamin Button has gone on a journey as unpredictable and exhaustive as that of its title character. The film is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald who, in turn, was inspired by a quote from Mark Twain: “Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of 80 and gradually approach 18.” Amazing how a solitary thought can carry with it the capacity to shape culture more than a hundred years later.

The film is directed by David Fincher, best known for his relentless questioning of human nature and motives in films like Se7en, Fight Club, and Zodiac as well as his earlier work as a visual effects specialist for groundbreaking technological endeavors such as the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series. Button proudly displays Fincher’s expertise in both fields, as an introspective narrative about the human condition and as a visually stunning technological achievement. In fact, if it weren’t for the technology available today, the film may never have been made.

For nearly a century after Fitzgerald penned the tale, Hollywood toyed with the idea of making it a feature film but always came to the same conclusion that it was too elaborate to accomplish. That is until technology caught up with the story and acclaimed screenwriter, Eric Roth, took a stab at a script. Roth, whose award winning writing credits include Forest Gump and The Insider, does an excellent job of conveying Fitzgerald’s original beef with early 20th century American culture, that it was too materialistic, self-centered, and greedy. Nothing like today. Where Roth tends to lose people is in the constant brigade of “Gump-like” clichés that over-season the film. “We’re all going the same way, it just depends on how we get there;” “It’s not how well you play, it’s how you feel when you play it;” “You’ve got to do what you’re meant to do.” There’s no doubting Roth’s incredible storytelling capability, but he may need to put the box of chocolates and fortune cookies down while writing. There are one too many crumbs in this script.

Stylistically, Button pulls off a huge risk. The entire film is an unconventional series of flashbacks, time moving backwards as a man’s life propels forward. It’s visually striking, rich in metaphor, with an acute attention to detail. The third act unveils itself with a beautifully crafted montage depicting the film’s overarching theme of fate’s dominance over life that could easily stand alone as a short film. While we’re rarely told how old Benjamin is at any given moment in time, numbers on doors, places in life from which he enters and departs, give us a conjecture.

Most engaging about the film is its exemplary cast of lead and supporting actors. Brad Pitt, in quite possibly his most accomplished role yet, is calm, poised, a straight man to the swirling anthology of capricious personalities that surround him. Pitt plays Benjamin up until the last few moments of the film flawlessly pulling off the unprecedented portrayal of a young boy in an old man’s skin both in delivery and physical appearance. Benjamin’s lover, and, at times an antagonist to everything the film fights for, is Daisy, played by Cate Blanchett. Blanchett embodies, all too realistically, the human drive for self-preservation, pride, and the desire never to be seen as weak and vulnerable. She is everything we wish we could change about ourselves. We feel for her. She is passionate, conflicted, strong but delicate. Both Pitt and Blanchett deliver a kinetic friction between their two characters as seasoned actors in stretching, challenging roles.

It’s Button’s supporting cast, however, that illuminates the film’s memorability and major themes, among them the notion of a creator. When advised by a doctor, “some creatures aren’t meant to survive,” Benjamin’s adopted mother Queenie, played by Taraji P. Henson, tells the infant Benjamin, “You still a child of God.” Ted Manson gives a small but profound performance as Mr. Daws, an absent-minded old man residing in the retirement home Benjamin grows up in. After recalling throughout the film seven random incidents when he was struck by lightning, wisdom from the depths of dementia finally surfaces: “God keeps reminding me I’m lucky to be alive.” Jared Harris, plays Captain Mike, a gruff tattoo artist haunted by his father’s demands to follow the family lineage and work a steamboat. Don’t be surprised if a few of these names come up during Oscar season for best supporting actor nominations.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a story about a world rapidly spinning out of our control and the inescapable reality of time pushing forward. It invites us to let go, to forgive, to wear the scars and wrinkles that define us with illogical joy. A cinematic achievement that will stretch far beyond the 2008 holiday season, Button is a creative and ambitious outlook on life and all the imperfections that make it worth living.