2008 Films in Review

The staff at Relevant Magazine joined together with some of Relevant's writers, including myself, to compile a list of Relevant's Top 10 Films of 2008. I was happy to contribute to this because as a film addict, I have been disappointed in recent years with the hype-to-reality ratio of many films. This year, however, was an exceptional year for good movies. "Amidst a year of economic turmoil and political history, the film industry kept a steady hand on America's imagination," Relevant's list introduction declares. "Some of the most creative, innovative and compelling films ever made were released in 2008." 

However, I must add something of a disclaimer. First, I have never seen the 8th, 9th or 10th movie on this list. If you hated those movies, don't vent to me because they weren't my picks. Second, there were a couple of movie that I lobbied for which didn't make it. I definitely would have included Ghost Town, the best movie of 2008 that you probably didn't see. I also suggested Son of Rambo, which never had a chance to make a list like this because of its Indy release, and Hellboy II, which was a brilliant movie visually and artistically despite its tragically cheesy name. I also listed The Fall as a runner-up simply because of it's breathtaking cinematography and visual effects. 

So there you have it folks. It was a crowded pack this year with so many good flicks, but those are my selections. Between the list itself and this appendix, did I miss anything? Is there something that you think is a must-watch that didn't get mentioned? Let's chat about it.

Unscrew You!

Recently, I came across a national campaign that impressed me both from a message standpoint and a marketing standpoint. Unscrew America is a collaboration which seeks to encourage people everywhere to save money, reduce energy usage, and foster independence from fossil fuels by replacing old, incandescent bulbs with CFL's and LED's. Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who discourage the use of these bulbs. These people claim CFL's are harmful because they contain trace amounts of mercury, however, organizations like Earth911 have solved this problem by helping people locate recycling depositories in their surrounding area. 

Besides the few on the fringe who will find an excuse to oppose any manner of environmental stewardship, many people are now using light bulbs as they wade into a more eco-friendly lifestyle. "Unscrew America is made up of everyone who helps spread the word about energy efficient lighting," declares their ridiculously sweet interactive website. 

So check them out, let me know what you think and please consider replacing your bulbs if you haven't done so already. Oh, and make sure you watch the videos--hysterical. 

Global greening vs. the economy

It isn't often that I will publish several posts within a given week, and I don't recall ever posting twice in one day. Unlike some bloggers, I have bills to pay and can't sit around typing for free all day. There are only two events that may draw me out of my busy schedule for repeated posts: terrible tragedy or hilarious comedy. Today, it just so happens that the subject is a rare mix of both. 

Penna Dexter, a self-described "conservative activist" with whom I am unacquainted, wrote an opinion piece that has been posted on the homepage of BaptistPress, the Public Relations department for the national headquarters of the SBC. The article, "Global Greening vs. the Economy" basically rehashes old arguments about how environmental policy is bad for the economy. In her mind, the economy should always win out. "Our care for the environment is a high value for most Americans," she writes. "But our economic survival is higher."

Perhaps this is a lesson for all of those who live in pollute-ridden inner cities. When the air becomes saturated with toxic particulate matter that childhood asthma rates reach record levels (as they have in some cities), make sure you protect the smog-producing, economically-critical companies lest we financially burden them. What about the fifteen states in which you could go fishing in the rivers and streams, but it would be illegal to eat those fish due to their high levels of poisons which come from upstream industries? Should we ignore that as well? Not in my book.

Dexter does, however, get it right in one of the waning sentences of the last paragraph when she says, "It's God's idea that man would tend the earth." Perhaps, if that sentence had been placed at the top of this article and the logical progression upon which it was built, readers would have walked away with a better understanding of the article's last three words: "GOOD--ENVIRONMENTAL--STEWARDSHIP."

Read the article and let me know what you think.

Southeastern Receives $126,500 Creation Care Grant

An article has been released from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which outlines a grant we were able to secure in the amount of $126,500 to develop and advance creation care stewardship among Southern Baptists. This will serve many purposes over the next 12 months from a campus-wide recycling program to a creation care conference to be hosted by Southeastern in 2009. While the launch of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative was significant from a messaging standpoint, this grant will move the theoretical to the tangible as Southern Baptists begin to engage the most critical issues of our day. 

Letter to Leith Anderson of the NAE

Late last week, Richard Cizik resigned as the Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) after 28 years of distinguished service. Richard is a man of great courage who embraces a broad, whole gospel agenda. Because of his hard work, issues like creation care, social justice, human rights and poverty became a part of the evangelical platform. Richard was a unifier and a personal friend.

Unfortunately, in Cizik's December 2nd interview with National Public Radio, he placed himself at variance with long-held NAE platforms--most notably, same sex civil unions. Though Rich said he had not changed his mind about traditional marriage, he was "shifting" on the idea of civil unions. Open mouth, insert foot.

Regardless of your position on this issue, you have to understand why Cizik resigned (or was forced to resign, it seems). The NAE must be allowed to require someone serving in such a critical role to speak in harmony with the stated agenda of both NAE and its membership. If Cizik had decided that he was shifting on the abortion issue, the reaction from NAE would have been identical and justifiable. As sad as it is, that's not the end of the story. 

After Cizik resigned, several media outlets including Baptist Press, which is basically the public relations department at the national office of the Southern Baptist Convention, ignored nearly 30 years of Cizik's notable service and instead ran stories calling him controversial and divisive. That isn't so bad when you consider that some on the right have actually called him "Satan's minion" for his strong environmental stance. 

This was a sad development for many reasons, including the message it sends to the world. As someone once told me, "Christians are the only animals who kill their own wounded." Richard Cizik is undoubtedly hurting, and though we must respect the decision made by NAE, our goals as his brothers and sisters should not be to further beat him down. 

It was in response to this and in an effort to see the continuance of Richard's work on a broad range of moral issues that over 50 evangelicals including myself wrote a public letter to Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. Signatories to this letter were from both the right and left; they were both democrats and conservatives; they were both young and more established. Other signatories included Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project, Lynne Hybels of Willowcreek Community Church, Brian McLaren, David Gushee, and Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. 

Our letter supports the right of the NAE to appoint spokespersons who support their stated platforms, celebrates Cizik's 28 years of faithful service, and encourages NAE to select a replacement "who will carry out Richard's vision of a broad Christian moral agenda" including the sanctity of life and compassion for the least of these.  

If you too want to sign this letter, you can do so at WholeGospelAgenda.org.

What do you think? Do you think NAE made a good decision? Do you support a broad moral agenda as described in this letter? What do you think about civil unions?

**Update: "Evangelical Leaders Seek Broad Moral Agenda in Cizik Replacement," Associated Baptist Press**

**Update: "Evangelical Faction Warns against Christian Right," WorldNetDaily**

Hello, My Name is Environmental Pinhead

My holiday season began with three disappointments. First, I went to see the new Vince Vaughn flick, "Four Christmases," and found it to be thoroughly devoid of both humor and holiday cheer. Second, I received a review copy of "Searching for a Better God" and finished the last chapter still wondering what was wrong with our current God and completely convinced that the author didn't know of a better one. Finally, I caught wind of Richard Land's attack on climate science and pro-active environmentalism on his radio program. As a recent article published by EthicsDaily.com (a website and organization for which I have few affections), "Baptist Leader Misstates Environmental Data," has pointed out, Land recently spent his show ranting about how the globe is actually getting cooler, not warmer, and called those who disagree with him "environmental pinheads" and "environmental loons."

Now, I don't mind anyone attacking a particular position with which they disagree. Unless this is your first visit to my blog, you know I do it often myself. What irks me is when people launch an attack with such ferocity and vitriol that their breath could melt steel when they haven't done their homework. As this article points out, Land was quoting data form a Washington Times article referring the United States, NOT the globe. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, 2008 has been the 9th hottest year GLOBALLY on record.

Following Land's radio spot, I was interviewed by the Associated Baptist Press for a story entitled, "Studies Show Rise in Greenhouse Gases in 2007," in which I noted that people who selectively quote data to support a contrarian view are driven more by an ideology than a theology. When viewed theologically, our decisions should always err on the side of love rather than greed in any matter, environmental or otherwise.

"Regardless of one's stance on climate change," I said in the ABP article. "Everyone can agree that pumping record levels of gas into our atmosphere isn't a good idea and certainly wouldn't be consistent with an idea of stewardship."

I have said many times before that I am not convinced of all the claims of climate scientists. I can't even understand some of what they say. But in the face of conflicting evidence on ethical issues, Christians must always act prudently. Prudence, in my mind, means gathering all the facts before making strong claims and doing one's best not to stoop to name calling. 

Thoughts?

Christians and Torture

I will never forget the way I felt while watching a Fox News snippet of Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club. "We have the ability to take [Chavez] out," Robertson told his nearly ancient viewership with a scowling contortion. "And I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I mean, I'm not the President of the Hugo Chavez Fan Club or anything, but I'm not calling for a navy seal to put a bullet in his head either.

I couldn't understand why one of the most vocal Christians in America would call for the United States to breach international law to murder an international head of state. Not only is it a crystal clear violation of Romans 13, it flies in the face of compassion, love, self-control, gentleness, meekness and other peaceful principles replete in scripture.

Fortunately, most Christians I know think Robertson was completely off his rocker. (What else is new?) Yet, I have also heard many self-professing Christians make comments about terrorists that express similar attributes. They comment that if we catch someone with known terrorist ties, we should "use any means necessary to get the information out of them," which is a nice way to say, "Let's torture them."

Somehow, I find being pro-torture difficult to reconcile with the teachings of scripture, much less the ministry of Jesus Christ. Think about it. Jesus came to earth during a time when his part of the world was under the thumb of a notorious terrorist: Herod. Just like Bin Laden has injured all of us, Jesus had been severely affected by the terrorism of King Herod. It was likely Herod (or a member of his immediate family) who personally ordered the death of unknown numbers of children in an effort to kill the Christ-child. If that wasn't enough, Herod ordered the execution of Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist. Yet, there is no record of Jesus ever speaking any malice whatsoever about this terrorist or any other. He wouldn't even open his mouth to save His own life and send the murderer Barabbas to a deserved crucifixion. I think this is significant, and simply adds to the many reasons that Christians must maintain a strong anti-torture position.

The actions that have taken place in the dark recesses of Gitmo and elsewhere are repulsive and should have every American who bears the name of Christ incensed. I certainly can't imagine "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" supporting cutting a terror suspect with scissors, much less urinating on them, trampling them, or throwing them into a bucket of excrement. Certainly this is not what justice looks like. Yet, these atrocities and more have occurred under American watch, if not order, and are delineated in detail in a recent Commonweal Magazine article,"The Secret Weapon: Religious Abuse in 'The War on Terror.'"

Where are the Christian voices on this? Where is the outcry? I encourage you to read this article and give it some serious reflection. When it comes to assassinations and torture, I don't care what Pat Robertson or any other "Christian" commentator thinks; I am certain Jesus is appalled.

What are your thoughts?

Recently, I was interviewed by one of the largest papers in New York, The Poughkeepsie Journal, about a Christian response to environmental crises. I was not familiar with the paper and didn't know what the final article would look like, but today they released "Religions Awakening to Environmentalism," which profiles how many religions in addition to Christianity are coming to see creation care as a moral obligation. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and worth your reading.

Roger Gottlieb took a similar approach in his book, "A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet's Future." The book made me realize how woefully inadequate the Christian response has been.

Take a look at the article linked above and let me know your thoughts.