Vampires and Votes: Episode 41

Have you ever had one of those weeks where you just feel like "meh"? I'm kinda there right now. In the past few days, I fought off a cold (thank you, Jesus and Zicam), wrapped up a few work projects, had a couple hard conversations, and am now getting ready for another retreat this weekend. This is my singles group's Fall retreat, and it will be in a small mining town up in the mountains. Tomorrow night, we have a costume party where we are to dress up as folks would've during the Victorian era in that region. I get kinda excited about it as we start this week's show. Though I wore a corset-like top in a wedding last weekend, so am not looking forward to another evening of bondage. Again, meh. Shoot, it's a party, and I won't be working. I'll survive.

Halloween's Coming -- 0:00
"Halloween's coming, Halloween's coming, skeletons will be after YOU!" So begins a song we sang in grade school. I loved Halloween as a kid, but the "holiday" doesn't generally receive a warm welcome in Christian circles. So dressing up as your favorite demon isn't the best, but what about the employee costume parties at work, or the seemingly innocent doling out of candy to cute kids at your door? Seriously, who can resist a toddler in a pumpkin costume? And what about all those "alternative" celebrations? The Boundless team brings its pasts, prejudices and preferences to the table this week as we dissect the spookiest day of the year.

Dirty Mouths and Dancing Teens -- 14:53
Plugged In Online's Bob Waliszewski is back with the latest movie roundup in this week's culture segment. Which film currently in theaters drops a couple of F-bombs every minute? Which one has outrageously good-looking teens who are squeaky clean, amazingly talented, and plagued with nothing more than their abundant choice of hair products and college scholarships? Bob wades through the good, the bad and the "why are we even talking about this?" in an effort to help the cinematically-challenged among us.

Coffee and Conviction -- 28:32
Join John Thomas as he reflects on his days at a Christian coffee house, where he sipped substandard java and shared the Gospel with patrons. It wasn't always smooth conversation, and sometimes people walked out, yet who but God knows how John was used? Reminds me of Keith Green's lyric: "Just keep doin' your best, and pray that it's blessed...He'll take care of the rest."

Peaceful Politics -- 34:33
This week's Inbox question asks how Christians can discuss the election and share differing opinions with others, but do so in a grace-filled way that doesn't devolve into namecalling and damaged relationships. Candice and I dig down to some of the root concerns, and offer thoughts on how to hold on to your convictions without letting go of your friends.

Have a safe weekend, everyone. Whether you dress up and go to a party, or stay home and read about the Reformation, take a moment to do something real. Have a meaningful conversation with an old friend, pray for the election, thank God for His blessings, help a neighbor. Then kick back and eat an entire bag of candy corn, realizing that even in the midst of pagan holidays, a sketchy economy and a divisive election, God is indeed good.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Mike Theemling said the following at 5:17 AM on Oct 31:

I am not able to listen to the podcast so perhaps I'm not completely qualified to give a response, but I believe the main reason why politics turns so ugly is that either explicitly or implicitly we say that someone who supports a particular candidate that we do not support either has a moral flaw or exercises very poor judgement.

Take for instance the latest Boundless article regarding political/social issues. It argues that if your criteria for a candidate does not conform to a particular methodology, you not a "real" Christian, or have been duped by the media/culture/etc. Basically it's stating if you don't vote according to this criteria, you are either a fraud or ignorant, neither of which anyone appreciates being called.

I remember some time ago talking to a couple friends about the election and when I told them that I haven't made up my mind yet they gave me this look of, "Are you kidding? How could you possibly consider him?!" Well, at the time, I haven't fully vetted both candidates and didn't want to base my decision simply upon what I've heard in ad campaigns (and we all know those are 100% truthful).

This "you are not a true..." attack plays out in other arenas as well. You are not a true feminist if you are against abortion. You are not a true Packers fan if you support Brett Farve's decision to go to the Jets. You are not a true Christian if you don't support candidate X. Last I read, being a Christian wasn't dependent upon voting patterns. I agree that in some circumstances it can help reveal what's going on inside ("By their fruit you will recognize them") but by itself it isn't a litmus test.

Another reason for the hostility is that since we focus so much on the negatives in a campaign, that's the main things people remember about the candidates. We are more familiar with the negatives of our opponent than the positives of our nominee. Psychology reveals that just one negative will cancel out many more positives. Translated into an election, we state that anyone who is opposed to our candidate is more aligned to the "dark side" than we are.

The best way to preserve relationships over such matters is to first reject the "You are not a true..." belief unless it really is explicitly stated as such. Next is to try to understand each other. Usually disagreements in candidates are a result of disimilar issue priorities. As I've said before, I believe that most people only have about 1-3 issues that they really care about with all others being ambivalent (I believe very few people honestly take the "candidate as a whole" approach despite that it sounds good. If that were the case, then by extention you could not say any small set of issues would be the most important for you unless your voting patterns totally contradicted that).

Once that is established, one must make the effort to not bring up the issue simply to annoy someone or to start arguments.("Hey, did you hear about what the news said about your pick?")

Finally, I believe it's important to understand that God will always remain sovereign and ultimately that person will have to answer to God for his positions and choices. And it's not for us say more once we've made our case. If they truly are wrong, we have to trust that God will show him the error of his ways. But we need to be aware that we ourselves might be held accountable too.

I am thankful that I can still be on good terms with those who disagree with me. We can even joke about it sometimes. And although I believe that the political process is important and not insignificant, I also believe that more good can be done for the Kingdom through loving others, prayer, and spreading the Gospel.

2. Swithun said the following at 6:27 AM on Oct 31:

The first part about Halloween was enlightening as over here in he UK it is no where near such a big event. Good to hear Reformation day plugged. I was tempted to write my own 95 theses and pin them on the door of my local church.

Bar far the weakest part of the podcast was Bob Waliszewski film reviews. His criteria, whenever he reviews anything, is if it doesn't have sex, violence or swearing it gets the thumbs up. To dwell on this you can miss the point of the film- eg American Gangster. To be fair the plugged in web reviews are slightly better in this regard. Further there is the question of asthetic goodness as well as moral goodness. My favourite film advocates existentialism but the cinemtography, acting and direction are beautiful.

I also symphasise with Bob with the loss of the family film however to lambast the Oscars for not nominating family films is absurd when there aren't many good ones around. Also There will Be Blood was by far the best film of last year and hardly stacked up the sex and swearing count.

3. Loris said the following at 8:13 AM on Oct 31:

My office's costume party is this morning at 11:30. I'm wearing a blue taffeta and dark red silk medieval dress I made myself. Hoping for the "prettiest" prize!

4. IMO said the following at 8:30 AM on Oct 31:

Mike Theemling,

(Disclaimer: My comment is not politically based)

Just something I thought of recently...it may or may not apply to your comment..

But for some statements, maybe replace "true" with "mature."

For a general example: If I was a more mature Christian, I would be more obedient to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

I guess there is always room to grow and mature as a Christian (which is biblical...from being a baby needing milk to having real food) then saying a blanket and rigid statement of "true" and "false"....
Not sure if I'm explaining myself well...
but I'd like to hear what your opinion on this is.
Thanks!

5. Jeremy said the following at 9:30 AM on Oct 31:

"All you need to know about this film is that there are over 300 f-bombs."

Statements like that really epitomize what I and many others hate about so many Christian move "reviewers"; that really is all that they need to know about a movie. Quality? Artistic value? Message? Context? None of those things matter even slightly if you cannot take a child.

6. Heidi said the following at 9:44 AM on Oct 31:

Halloween!

Dressing up as an angel this year,- to bring some light in the darkness :-) Don´t want to stay away from friends and fun, but still I am not comfortable with being a demon, vampire, witch etc. I want to be in the world, but be there differently.

7. Ted Slater said the following at 11:01 AM on Oct 31:

Jeremy -- if you'd like to listen to such vulgarity, you are free to do so. I don't, and I appreciate the warning.

Call me petty and unsophisticated.

Come to think about it, the scriptwriter's uncreative inclusion of 300+ F-words might betray the weak artistic value of this film.

8. Mike from WI said the following at 11:07 AM on Oct 31:

Shout out to Mike T, #1. Green Bay TV stations play Jets games now that Favre is in NY. Good analogy though...classic example of everything that is of this world changes or can change. I for one am glad he's playing well....equals better draft picks next year!

9. DannieA said the following at 11:38 AM on Oct 31:

I don't revel in Halloween, however, a few secular traditions are cute and are done in the household. I carved a pumpkin yesterday, my dog will be a pumpkin for halloween pictures 2008, at the school I work at, there is a halloween parade and I love seeing the kids dress up. I dressed up like a beat-up boxer (cheap as I have my kickboxing gloves...and makeup for a black eye) and got rave reviews already.

Things I don't revel in during this holiday....parties...dressing up as anything I consider "dark" (eg vampire, demon, evil characters in movies).

Everything should be thought about how you do holidays in your family.

p.s. Amen to Mike...

IMO: Are you still saying that if a person doesn't vote a certain way he/she is not "mature"? There still is a problem with that mentality and it will still burn bridges otherwise meant for deeper relationships

10. IMO said the following at 11:52 AM on Oct 31:

DannieA,

I guess you didn't believe me when I wrote, "(Disclaimer: My comment is not politically based)!"

11. DannieA said the following at 12:03 PM on Oct 31:

IMO: And that wasn't a sarcastic question....wasn't sure what you were referring to. Whether we intend to or not...haven't you noticed that a lot of things have political undertones? I was just asking. :)

12. DannieA said the following at 12:21 PM on Oct 31:

For people who are put off by pluggedin reviews or Christian reviewers...can we just take a moment, disengage and just accept the fact that they are writing from a family perspective? Family in this case would include impressionable children. There are movies that I PERSONALLY think are great and worth watching, HOWEVER, the same movie may not be family friendly nor would I want my little cousins or if I had a child to watch it.
EXAMPLE: I work in a rough school district so I appreciate movies such as 'Freedom Writers' 'Dangerous Minds' 'Lean on Me' etc...I really enjoyed the 'Freedom Writers'. Where I work, walking down the street (which I do regularly because sometimes you have to hunt down parents) I'll hear the foulest language and catcalls etc...so the language factor in a movie such as 'Freedom Writers' does not bother me because it is not put in the movie for shock value...it's a fact of life...however, just because it's a positive movie and motivational especially for people who work in the school system, I'm not going to take a young child or if I had a kid to see the movie and say...'hey, mommy does this on a regular basis, it's a good motivational movie'...it's not appropriate.
Nothing bothers me more in the world then the movies my young 6,7,8, and even 5 year old children are allowed to watch in the name of 'good special effects' etc. it's just not appropriate for a Christian family. As children get older, there are instances to talk about issues, and then as kids age, mature and come to an older level, other movies may be appropriate for them to see that may have more negative components...
my thoughts...I'm just a little tired of hearing people bash christian reviewers....there is a purpose for it.

13. Jeremy said the following at 1:03 PM on Oct 31:

"Come to think about it, the scriptwriter's uncreative inclusion of 300+ F-words might betray the weak artistic value of this film."

It might, and it might not. It just confounds me when someone whose job, at least nominally, is to review movies, is completely uninterested in whether it does.

If specific words really make a film unwatchable for someone, he could look at the rating for the film. It just seems like that kind of "review" is both completely unhelpful and has pretty clear undertones of dismissal of the art form as a whole.

14. BDB said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 31:

Hmmm...I remember once a discussion on a news program on one of the African-American channels on my cable system. They were discussing rap, and one of them pointed out that Will Smith and LL Cool J managed to be successful without swearing. Maybe that's why I find Will Smith movies entertaining...

The coarseness of political discourse troubles me greatly. The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story about a Portland Family that had their political sign stolen. They put up a web cam...and ended up with hundreds of people from around the world logging into "guard" the sign. They've also been featured on CNN and their local news.

I took a look at the site. I was quite disturbed to see members of the opposing party log into chat, then within a few minutes, start swearing (which was blocked by the filter) and generally berating the people guarding the sign. The chat moderator usually bounces them when they start swearing and being racist.

But it's really quite telling. If people's only interaction with those of the other "side" is being sworn at and berated, no wonder they won't listen. They quickly become convinced that the other "side" is just a bunch of crazy, hateful people. And frankly, the evidence backs them up.

At the same time, my "Yes on 8" signs have now suffered five attacks - either being knocked down or stolen. I have three more, so I can make it to election day. But it's clear to me that way, way too many people think it's OK to silence political speech. Political speech needs to be answered forthrightly, not silenced. That's the only way to persuade people to do the right thing.

15. Swithun said the following at 5:09 PM on Oct 31:

"For people who are put off by pluggedin reviews or Christian reviewers...can we just take a moment, disengage and just accept the fact that they are writing from a family perspective?" DannieA

Fair enough but this site is aimed at primarily 20s and 30s so the reviews on the show should reflect this. Anybody who takes a five year old to an R rated film needs their heads examining. My point is that we should review the film on its artistic merits- this does not mean not mentioning a certain film has 300 f-words in but it means you don't just leave it at that and then move on. Sometimes when I here "reviews" I think they're aiming at 10 year olds.

Also can anyone defend the wholly unwarranted attack on There Will Be Blood?

16. Loris said the following at 10:21 AM on Nov 1:

By the way, my costume won "most original" and I got a $40 Walmart card as the prize. So excited!

17. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 1:

IMO you said:

"But for some statements, maybe replace 'true' with 'mature.'

For a general example: If I was a more mature Christian, I would be more obedient to the promptings of the Holy Spirit."

I agree that it can mean mature as well and to some that's what they mean. But in the political realm it often seems (at least to me) that the implication is "real (as in true) Christians vote for..."

Take the latest article published by Boundless. Here is what the author says:

"But if you're a believer who has ever seen an ultrasound picture of an unborn child, or read through the many Scriptures attesting to prenatal life, I am suggesting that abortion is a bigger issue than just about anything else — and I say that unapologetically."

Notice those words, "If you are a believer...". The unspoken implication here is that if you claim you are a believer but don't consider abortion a trump issue that there is a serious flaw in either your faith or as the article stated have been enchanted and misled by the mainstream culture/media. Perhaps even that you really aren't one after all.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that abortion isn't an important issue and I'm not going to get into the debate here about whether or it truly is the most important issue for a Christian. My criticism was simply that many pull this "Are you really one of us?" line with regards to voting patterns. Being a Christian depends upon one thing: One's response to Jesus Christ. To imply that it also requires to vote a certain way is akin to the Early Church stating that Gentiles weren't truly Believers unless they also were circumcised.

It's fine to debate the merits and priorities of particular issues, even about what's important for a Christian to do. But we do need to watch our language and not equate one's identity in Christ with one's political viewpoint (unless perhaps of course it's something hyperbolically obvious like supporting a Satan worshiper who publically states he/she wants to destroy all Believers).

18. BDB said the following at 8:45 PM on Nov 1:

Loris (#3) wrote:

>>a blue taffeta and dark red silk medieval dress I made myself. Hoping for the "prettiest" prize!<<

After reading this, I went to my church's "Trunk or Treat" Halloween alternative for the neighborhood. I was working a both right next to someone in a similar dress. All evening I kept thinking, "I wonder if we should do a prettiest prize for the volunteers?"

19. Mike said the following at 4:53 AM on Nov 2:

Just a historical point on All Hallow's Even for the folks who are disturbed by dressing up as a denizen from darkness:

The tradition in Celtic circles was that All Hallow's Even was the night of the year when evil spirits could roam the earth due to a weakening of the barrier between the spirit world and the material world; hence, they would run amuck doing maximum mischief. Folks would dress up as demons, devils, and the like as camouflage, in the belief that the evil ones would mistake them for one of their own. In other words, for protection, not because they wanted to be evil.

So, if it disturbs you, don't do it...but keep in mind the original purpose was to protect oneself from the forces of darkness.

20. Beatrice81 said the following at 7:25 PM on Nov 2:

Thanks, Jeremy. I haven't read Plugged In in years, but you reminded me of what I disliked about it -- the dismissive and out-of-context reductionism of a film into a laundy list of disparate items.

It's the cinematic equivalent of a restaurant review that said "Well, the decor includes 26 halogen lights and 32 Italian leather-backed chairs. The Veal Parmiggiana uses 1/3 cup of olive oil, 2 large eggs, and a cup of grated parmesan." Tells me virtually nothing about the quality of the dining experience.

Same with those movie reviews; they tell me nothing about the quality of the film or the cinematic experience. Fine if you're the kind of person who judges movies by the number of swear-words and cigarettes, or if your idea of a good movie is something that would appeal to a 6-year-old. But kinda inadequate for adults who appreciate serious and mature themes for our $7.50.

21. IMO said the following at 10:27 AM on Nov 3:

"the dismissive and out-of-context reductionism of a film into a laundy list of disparate items. "

No they don't.

This is the layout:

They have the intro. Then they have the following sections:
"positive elements"
"spiritual content"
"sexual content"
"violent content"
"crude or profane language"
"drug and alcohol content"
"other negative elements"
"conclusion"

So let's say my husband and I want to watch a movie. There is one that is very interesting but is rated "R". Typically we stay away from R rated movies--a decision we both made. But there is no indication of sex or nude scenes in a movie. So we go on PluggedinOnline and look primary at the "sexual content" to determine if we should see this movie. We also look at the "crude or profane language" section to see if or how many times the Lord's name is taken in vain. Then we talk about whether want to see the movie/whether it meets our criteria.

This is one way my husband and I practice discernment when going to see the movies.

Other couples have different criteria.

If you can't see the value in this tool (Plugged in Online) that we use, that's fine.

But don't bash the website because IT does have benefit to many people, with or without children.

Oh and on a side note, if you are a parent that has teenagers, this site can be beneficial for you to. I think most parents still want to know what kind of movies their teenager is watching.

22. IMO said the following at 11:04 AM on Nov 3:

"But kinda inadequate for adults who appreciate serious and mature themes for our $7.50."

Just wanted to add one more thing...
I do not want to "appreciate serious and mature themes" if the movie has nude scenes and plenty of blasphemy. That is our deal breaker.

To say this another way, I appreciate serious and mature themes.

However, "serious" and "mature" are blanket words and can mean different things to different people.

Also, we will not seat back and let sexual temptation creep into our minds nor will we be passively accepting and enjoying a movie with plenty of blasphemy.

23. Swithun said the following at 3:30 PM on Nov 3:

As I said before the quality of the plugged in reviews are a lot better than the "reviews" on the Boundless podcast which is where I concentrated my criticism.

IMO, will defend the quality of the reviews on Boundless? Including the attack on There Will Be Blood?

Also IMO, what is so particular about sex and blasphemy? There are loads of other anti-Christian messages in films and are normally more dangerous such as the advocation of materialism or the portrayal of humanity as normally good but occasionally bad. Also in regards sex isn't the moral context more important than the act itself- if all the sex was inside marriage and shown to be good most of the problem would disappear. The main problem is that it shows adultery and promiscuity to be good.

The main point is to be discerning when we watch films and critically engage with his message. If a film won't cause you to sin and it is technically good then there is no reason why you shouldn't watch it.

24. Tami said the following at 4:25 PM on Nov 3:

About the PluggedIn movie reviews:

If we're using a "restaurant review" metaphor, then I might suggest the following:

I have a life-threatening allergy to certain nuts. I always have to ask if those nuts are in the dish. A dish might sound really tasty, but if the dish has that nut, guess what? No matter how beautifully presented, no matter how high quality the other ingredients, no matter the chef who made it -- I won't be ordering it. It's not because I'm ignorant of all those things, or that I'll say to other people, "That dish is COMPLETELY trash because *I* can't eat it! It has no merit whatsoever". It's because of that little thing -- that nut -- that *is* in it, and could kill me. (And I'm not being overdramatic.)

OK, a movie won't literally kill me like a nut could. But I think that asking what's in a movie before I "take it in" is wise. Like the restaurant dish -- I can still appreciate that the movie might have artistic merit or discuss important ideas. But do *I* need to see it? Knowing what's "in there" can help me make the decision. I might still make the decision to see it -- but at least I'm forewarned. Even so, a preponderance of too many "bad ingredients" might spoil the whole thing for me.

So no. Judging a recipe strictly by its list of ingredients is not the point. But for those of us who need to be vigilant, seeking out that ingredient list is smart!

25. Jeremy said the following at 4:41 PM on Nov 3:

Swithun --

You seem to have a bone to pick with the comment about There Will be Blood. For anyone who didn't catch it, the reviewer, in discussing last year's Oscars, said "I mean, No Country for Old Men? There Will be Blood? Give me a break!" I liked There Will be Blood too (aside from a distractingly awful soundtrack), but come on, that is barely an "attack".

Side note, but No Country for Old Men is vastly overrated.

26. Swithun said the following at 2:34 AM on Nov 4:

Jeremy,

The general tone surrounding the comments regarding No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood was disdain for the type of content in these films and that Hollywood should have been nominating family films. Again family films good, mature films bad (There Will Be Blood is certainly mature unlike most films that try to be an are intensely juvenile). Also TWBB has no swearing, sex and only a particularly violent scene at the end.

And I agree, No Country For Old Men is vastly overrated. The Bourne Ultimatum was far better but TWBB was the film of the year.

27. IMO said the following at 10:23 AM on Nov 4:

Swithun said, "IMO, will defend the quality of the reviews on Boundless? Including the attack on There Will Be Blood?"

Please specify the comment I made. Otherwise I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

Swithun said,"Also IMO, what is so particular about sex and blasphemy?"

I don't even know where to start, though the answer seems way to obvious to me-->hmm what's wrong with sitting back and enjoying blasphemy onscreen, oh I wonder?

I don't have to defend our decision. I would say you have no right to attack me for the decisions and choices we make regarding our discernment (esp when we think we strive to align our discernment with Scripture). But you know what, we don't have "RIGHTS" in Christ Jesus. So you do as you please. Keep attacking. I just hope you are aware of what you are doing.

28. Swithun said the following at 5:54 PM on Nov 4:

IMO, you didn't make a comment in support of the reviews on the podcast; only on the plugged in reviews. I cited you for a defence since you think along the same lines.

Did I ever say anywhere that you should enjoy blasphemy? All I said is for you to see the film as a whole and critically engage with it.

Further I have not attacked you for not watching a film for sexual or language content. All I asked is why you thought those two were of such importance in contrast to those I forwarded. Now if seeing any nude/sexual scenes will cause you to sin then as I said before don't watch it.