Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Christian Filmmakers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The following I found about your "Medal of Honor" Doc...

"It’s our grandfather’s story about receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. His name is Red Erwin, and there’s an incredible epic story and love story about heroism and this moment of courage."

It sounds a lot like the Red Company...Red-Epic. :-)
 
Joseph Hutson said:
I personally don't want to make movies, AND follow Christ on the side. I want to follow Christ, and others to see His light in the movies I will produce, direct, etc. in the future.

If Christ isn't a part of everything, what is Christ?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that you don't have to force it . . . in fact if you're forcing the issue, trying to make it "obvious" so that everyone "gets it", then you're not being true to yourself which is the first step towards self discovery for the artist. And if you're not being true to yourself, then what ARE you making? Self-centered rhetoric or touching the heart of drama?

Art isn't the place for rhetoric, syllogisms, and formula . . . it's a place and medium to find that unscientific, uncalculated expression that transcends the moment, and finds that emotional center in all of us that speaks of all that makes us human.

If Christ is true in who you are, and you are true to yourself, then you'll also be true to Christ's influence and his presence in your life. The rest will take care of itself.
 
Jason Rodriguez said:
I think the point is that you don't have to force it . . . in fact if you're forcing the issue, trying to make it "obvious" so that everyone "gets it", then you're not being true to yourself which is the first step towards self discovery for the artist. And if you're not being true to yourself, then what ARE you making? Self-centered rhetoric or touching the heart of drama?

Art isn't the place for rhetoric, syllogisms, and formula . . . it's a place and medium to find that unscientific, uncalculated expression that transcends the moment, and finds that emotional center in all of us that speaks of all that makes us human.

If Christ is true in who you are, and you are true to yourself, then you'll also be true to Christ's influence and his presence in your life. The rest will take care of itself.
Click to expand...


Good post.
 
The trouble here for Joseph is that there's no evidence that even the greatest and most awe-inspiring religious art - say, the Sistine Chapel or Bach's B minor Mass - converted even one single soul to religious dogma. And much of this resplendent religious art, including depictions of Christ, is today considered obscene or blasphemous by evangelicals.

It's worth noting here that films with the strongest roots in religious traditions of transcendence and revelation, past and present, which does not include "The Ten Commandments" or "The Passion of Christ", are invariably the product of atheists, who are probably the only ones who still wrestle with age-old religious dilemmas, as opposed to faith-based absolutists who don't have a doubt in the world, whether they're 16 or 96, and insist on scriptural literalism or televangelist dogma.

What does work these days in the churches is the same thing which sells SUVs, Chicken Nuggets, Roto-Rooter service and PBS subscription drives: pop music and resident rock bands.
 
joelnet said:
I'm curious how you guys respond to this:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Click to expand...

Poorly. I tried watching that after a number of people avidly advised me to check it out. I had to eventually stop watching it and just read a synopsis. Wait, was that link you sent the trailer or the real thing? Because the version I saw began with a 10 minute opening montage set to music.

edit: upon trying again it looks like that is the version I saw. For some reason Google Video was skipping and I missed it the first time I clicked on your link.
 
The more complex the elements are, the more ultimate the outcome is. Genuine too.
 
jpp said:
The trouble here for Joseph is that there's no evidence that even the greatest and most awe-inspiring religious art - say, the Sistine Chapel or Bach's B minor Mass - converted even one single soul to religious dogma. And much of this resplendent religious art, including depictions of Christ, is today considered obscene or blasphemous by evangelicals.

It's worth noting here that films with the strongest roots in religious traditions of transcendence and revelation, past and present, which does not include "The Ten Commandments" or "The Passion of Christ", are invariably the product of atheists, who are probably the only ones who still wrestle with age-old religious dilemmas, as opposed to faith-based absolutists who don't have a doubt in the world, whether they're 16 or 96, and insist on scriptural literalism or televangelist dogma.

What does work these days in the churches is the same thing which sells SUVs, Chicken Nuggets, Roto-Rooter service and PBS subscription drives: pop music and resident rock bands.
Click to expand...


The Sistene Chapel was not meant to convert people. It was created for christians. So was most of the religious oriented music and art of that time period. But I understand what you mean. I think people wanting to make movies to convert people are fooling themselves.

To me the best 'Christian art' is the type that inspires, questions and/or motivates existing Christians to examine their relationship with God. If a movie is well done, there is the possibilty of attracting a non christian audience and opening up discussion and debate.

ie... If nothing else, "The Passion of the Christ" started sincere discussions between christians and jews over long simmering issues. Unfortunately, we don't have to many of those types of movies around.
 
zeke said:
The Sistene Chapel was not meant to convert people. It was created for christians. So was most of the religious oriented music and art of that time period. But I understand what you mean. I think people wanting to make movies to convert people are fooling themselves.

To me the best 'Christian art' is the type that inspires, questions and/or motivates existing Christians to examine their relationship with God. If a movie is well done, there is the possibilty of attracting a non christian audience and opening up discussion and debate.
Click to expand...

BINGO.

Movies don't get people converted, and the movies I produce won't have that goal.
 
zeke said:
The Sistene Chapel was not meant to convert people. It was created for christians. So was most of the religious oriented music and art of that time period.
Click to expand...

You're right. But music and audio visual presentations in the evangelical church absolutely are used to attract and hold congregations, as are the Rapture novels and the movies.

My point was that advertising techniques will convert people, but great art won't. However, if Joseph says he's not interested in converting anyone, I believe him. Bach worked for the glory of God, and to fulfill his Sunday mass quota, so why not others?

zeke said:
To me the best 'Christian art' is the type that inspires, questions and/or motivates existing Christians to examine their relationship with God. If a movie is well done, there is the possibilty of attracting a non christian audience and opening up discussion and debate.
Click to expand...

It's far from clear that any art which motivated Christians to examine "their relationship to God" would be acceptable to the intellectual and cultural leaders of the evangelical movement.

We could get into a relativist argument over whether Christian rock, Tim LeHaye and Mel Gibson aren't really as good as Bach, William Faulkner and Andrei Tarkovsky. But in that case, I'd have to throw up my hands in dismay. In fact, I'm going to do that anyway. That we should have arrived at evangelical Christianity, Pat Robertson and selective biblical literalism at this late stage of human history is enough to fill anyone with existential despair, in or out of the Christian theological tradition. Whatever else Scarlet accomplishes, I hope it doesn't further this movement.
 
jpp said:
My point was that advertising techniques will convert people, but great art won't.
Click to expand...

First, I'll just say for the record that I am a Christian.

I don't really know what you're getting at with your posts, or if you consider yourself a Christian or not. I'm just responding to your one point that I quoted, so it doesn't really matter at the moment.

Advertising techniques won't convert people. Often when people "convert" after a rock concert, or alter call, or whatever, it is an emotional thing. But it has to be more than that. You can't be a Christian depending on whether or not you "feel" like it at that particular moment, and a lot of times advertising techniques will only do part of the job. The rest is on the individual themself, and through God.

Neither great art nor advertising techniques can truly convert someone. It doesn't matter how many times you tell someone about the gospel, if they aren't willing to open up themselves then they won't become a Christian. But great art can definitely open up discussion which can in turn lead to people thinking about a subject differently than they did before.

Jesus taught many many lessons with parables, which were stories, so I can't think of a better way to do it ourselves.


Now, I play in a few worship bands for my church. And yes, we play some "rock" or some"pop" music. Yes, one of the church's goals is to attract more people to follow Christ. If we take our faith (not RELIGION, our FAITH) seriously, then we should be wanting other people to be saved too. But we don't play rock music for a purpose of advertising. I play the type of music that I enjoy listening to. Why would I worship God with anything else? It doesn't have to do with attracting more people to me. To me, it has to do with worshiping God the way I know how, and different people do it differently.
 
zeke said:
To me the best 'Christian art' is the type that inspires, questions and/or motivates existing Christians to examine their relationship with God.
Click to expand...
I love theology, but I've always thought the Bible was very hostile towards inquiry and investigation. Stories like the garden of Eden and the tower of Babel say pretty explicitly that knowledge of the universe is a Very Bad Thing for humans to pursue. And the idea that faith alone will decide if we spend eternity in heaven or hell tends to make people uneasy about any reckless free-thinking that might endanger that faith.

zeke said:
If nothing else, "The Passion of the Christ" started sincere discussions between christians and jews over long simmering issues. Unfortunately, we don't have to many of those types of movies around.
Click to expand...
O rly? What exactly were those sincere discussions?
 
Stories like the garden of Eden and the tower of Babel say pretty explicitly that knowledge of the universe is a Very Bad Thing for humans to pursue
Click to expand...

Rather than saying "absolute knowledge" is "bad", there is a very important common theme to both of these stories, and that is the knowledge gained was used as a replacement for God, and the end result was nihilism.
 
Brian Langeman said:
I don't really know what you're getting at with your posts, or if you consider yourself a Christian or not.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm getting at here is that people who make assertions of religious faith are given enormous latitude in modern America. When it's a matter of "faith", everyone is supposed to sit in respectful silence, even when told told they'll burn in hell, and deserve to burn in hell, for failing to accept the Gospel according to Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed or James Dobson. And even when this theology takes on legislative and legal force, and appears to direct foreign policy, we're still supposed to be respectful of it, and stay silent for fear of offending believers.

You say that advertising doesn't convert people, that they have to open their hearts to the gospel. You may be right, I don't know. But you've also chosen to end the argument. If I'm not prepared to concede as a matter of course that the gospels are the word of God, then what do we have to discuss? Clearly, nothing. We're not arguing over anything which can have a factual determination. And yet you're insisting that those outside your faith give that claim the status of a fact, just by asserting it. But the world outside the church does not work that way, we're not a theocracy. At least, not yet. And yet some insist on using theocratic language, even in forums like this.

Brian Langeman said:
Yes, one of the church's goals is to attract more people to follow Christ. If we take our faith (not RELIGION, our FAITH) seriously, then we should be wanting other people to be saved too.
Click to expand...

"Other people" may have views of their own. Absolute truth may be the coin of religion or faith, but for some of us, including some deeply religious Christians, that's to be regretted, not celebrated.
 
jpp said:
I guess what I'm getting at here is that people who make assertions of religious faith are given enormous latitude in modern America. When it's a matter of "faith", everyone is supposed to sit in respectful silence, even when told told they'll burn in hell, and deserve to burn in hell, for failing to accept the Gospel according to Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed or James Dobson. And even when this theology takes on legislative and legal force, and appears to direct foreign policy, we're still supposed to be respectful of it, and stay silent for fear of offending believers.

You say that advertising doesn't convert people, that they have to open their hearts to the gospel. You may be right, I don't know. But you've also chosen to end the argument. If I'm not prepared to concede as a matter of course that the gospels are the word of God, then what do we have to discuss? Clearly, nothing. We're not arguing over anything which can have a factual determination. And yet you're insisting that those outside your faith give that claim the status of a fact, just by asserting it. But the world outside the church does not work that way, we're not a theocracy. At least, not yet. And yet some insist on using theocratic language, even in forums like this.



"Other people" may have views of their own. Absolute truth may be the coin of religion or faith, but for some of us, including some deeply religious people, that's to be regretted, not celebrated.
Click to expand...

Actually, we all deserve to be in hell. It's only by God's grace that those of us who believe can be saved from that fate. I don't wish to put Christians on a high pedestal above everyone else, nor do I think the majority of the Christians on this forum do. I would say on a whole that society is far more fearful of offending other religions. I think the majority of North Americans, or actually the world I think, are not Christians. And it doesn't seem like they have a problem with offending Christians, or proclaiming how flawed our faith is.

I'm saying that you gave that claim the status of a fact. You worded it that way to me at least.

"You're right. But music and audio visual presentations in the evangelical church absolutely are used to attract and hold congregations, as are the Rapture novels and the movies.

My point was that advertising techniques will convert people, but great art won't."

Those were your words, no one elses, and I'm not taking them out of context or anything. I don't know how someone who doesn't believe in a faith can say how people can be converted, when they don't believe in it to begin with. There really isn't a point to arguing over how someone can be converted, because the only one who has the right to judge that is God. I don't believe anyone can say with 100% accuracy what someone else believes in, because it definitely isn't possible to read other peoples' minds.

Other people, as in anyone who isn't a Christian, can have their own views. That's the beauty of life. Free choice. Us Christians believe that God gave us free will, cause life would be so much more boring and pointless if there wasn't free will.
 
Brian Langeman said:
Actually, we all deserve to be in hell. It's only by God's grace that those of us who believe can be saved from that fate. I
Click to expand...

Again, by making such an assertion, you've ended all discussion. What if I don't accept that we all deserve to be in Hell? What if I demand proof for the existence of hell? What if I demand to know what "deserve" means in that sentence? What if I deny the existence of "fate"? It's clear that we have nowhere to go on this one. Discussion is impossible unless we share the same faith. But, in that case, there would be nothing to discuss.

The rest of your post has left me a bit confused. Of course I made declarative statements which I believe are factual. I don't have divine omniscence, but I do the best I can with the available information and my own flawed judgment. If you can prove any assertion wrong on a factual basis, I may concede the point.

However, we can dispute the matter only as long as you don't invoke theology or make supernatural claims. After that, it's finished. You may be right, but there's no way to discuss the subject. If I accepted the theological underpinnings of your argument, there would have been no dispute to begin with.

Finally, the martyrdom line. For the last 8 or so years, the presidency, the Congress (until recently), the Supreme Court, virtually all talk radio, and entire TV and broadcast networks were and are in the hands of the American right wing, which is closely allied with the evangelical movement. Our own president claims to be an evangelical, as do many members of Congress. And the leaders of this movement are in the news every day of the year. They opine on the national soul, the causes of 9/11 and Kartrina (secular humanists and gay pride parades), and offer invaluable foreign policy advice, for example, assassinating Hugo Chavez and reinstalling the white, European-based ruling class (courtesy of Pat Robertson).

If you have nothing to do with those powerful people, and their expressions of faith, then you may feel yourself to be something of minority, and inadequately represented in American life. But from my point of view, we've heard far too much of it in the public square.
 
Guys,

Putting on my Moderator Hat for a minute...

This thread is veering pretty far from discussion of Christian Filmmaking, and into theological discussion going to the very core of people's beliefs. It's dangerous territory online and easy to be misinterpreted and deeply offend someone.

There are plenty of places online to go and discuss theology and the Nature of God. Reduser is not one of them.

Please stick to Filmmaking and away from the deeper theological issues...

Best,

Lucas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top