Monday, February 28, 2011
I'm in Los Angeles with a team of students from Regent University and we were blessed on our first full day here to spend time with our friend Matthew Barnett, pastor of the Dream Center. First, I need to say that he has more energy than any one man should possess, and speaks in a steady flow of humor, wisdom and cultural references that defy the mind and astound the soul. He preached a truth wound tightly like a spring, spiralling again and again around a profoundly simple, supple message, "God will supply ALL your needs according to His riches in glory."
He also said something i thought was fascinating. "I was offered the chance to purchase television time, from a reputable source and it would be an excellent opportunity for our ministry. But you know what? I said 'no.' Do you know why church? Because that money would be better used to help the poor. Because God hasn't called us to be a television ministry-- he's called us to help the children in South Central who need a father, children who are stuck in the foster care system. That's where we are going to spend our money."
[Historical sidelight: Pastor Barnett uttered those words in the historic Angelus Temple, built by Aimee Semple McPherson well know for her use of media like radio to share her gospel of healing, tongue speaking and faith. Pretty interesting]
Further, Barnett referenced recent ascerbic debate in the twitterverse between evangelical/reformed heavyweight John Piper and uber cool wordsmith Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church. He said, "I think sometimes we get caught up talking about all these "trending topics" on Twitter and we're just circling around and around the Bible (here the enthusiastic Barnett circumnavigates his Bible on the stage) when what we really need to do is pick it up and read it to a kid that's in need or a prosititute on the street who hasn't eaten or slept in days."
Was it a cheap shot? Well...we've all followed @MatthewBarnett enough on Twitter to know that his words weren't a condemnation of that media. And to be fair, he didn't do justice to the possibly substantive debate on the nature of salvation that is at the heart of the Piper "twittervention" of Bell's alleged universalism. But Sunday I heard a young man sick of the artificial distinction between talking about theology and doing theology. I saw an assembled crowd of 18-26 year olds that were part of "The Movement" who want to take their Bible and walk it out on the streets of Los Angeles. And without saying that the heavyweights involved in the debate are doing ANYTHING wrong, I know from seeing the lives of the 35 Regent students working alongside Operation Blessing in LA, many young people want to Tweet AND serve in the street.
Why not have both?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
I just saw the movie "The Social Network." I liked it, despite some plot pacing problems. But as I watched it, I wondered how much of the story was "true." Mark Suckerberg, the protagonist boy genius who invents "Thefacebook" comes across as socially awkward but focused and brilliant. The movie highlights his relationships with best friend and Facebook Co-founder, Eduardo Saverin, as well as Napster co-founder and Facebook collaborator Sean Parker. It doesn't take long to guess that the actual principals in the story have to be at the best uncomfortable with their portrayals in the movie. And again I wondered, "Is this how it really happened?"
So when I came across a quote from Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the screenplay, I was stunned.
"I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling. What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy’s sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?"1
I can appreciate storytelling as much as the next guy, and understand dramatic or "artistic license." But to be so cavalier about "the truth," as if the details of our life were just some artist's palette of colors to be blended and blurred for the sake of expression, seemed to go over the line. If one owes "integrity" to "storytelling" rather than "the truth" doesn't this place entertainment as the highest good? Hasn't the medium shaped the message, as McLuhan and Postman et. al. said it would?
What do you think? Does the truth have to suffer in order to tell a story? And can "the true" really be the enemy of the good?
1. ^ Harris, Mark (September 17, 2010). "Inventing Facebook". New York Magazine. Retrieved October 9, 2010.