Showing posts with label films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label films. Show all posts

Monday

3 Skype Calls that Killed a Beautiful Film

Photo by Ed Araquel - © 2014 Egoli Tossell Film/ Co-Produktionsgesellschaft "Hector 1" GmbH & Co. KG/ Happiness Productions Inc./ Wild Bunch Germany/
I recently watched a little known film called Hector and the Search for Happiness which starred the always funny Simon Pegg in a Walter Mitty-esque story of one unfulfilled man's search for life's true meaning.  The story unfolds as London psychiatrist, Hector (Pegg), takes a surprising whirlwind journey around the world, making notations and sketches in his notebook along the way in order to discover what makes people happy.  The parallels to the far superior film, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, are obvious and plentiful.

In the case of Hector the filmmakers don't reach the heights of Mitty in terms of cinematography, which is sad since it can hardly be blamed on budget given the existence of the Hindi film Highway which kills them both in that regard and does so with less money than either.  And I bring up cinematography -- or a filmmakers ability to know beauty when they see it and capture it skillfully -- because it hints at Hector's greatest sin -- it's blatant ethnocentrism.

Unlike Mitty and definitely unlike Highway, Hector doesn't know a non-white human when it sees it.  All it knows are stereotypes -- Chinese are monks and prostitutes; Africans are sick kids, simple villagers, and violent thugs.  We do get some tender moments from an ill-defined, terminally ill Muslim woman, but she too is merely a vehicle for showing us that Hector is a better guy than he realizes (we don't know here nation of origin or language but we do get a nice, cliche "how you say ..." moment).

Here's is where the ethnocentrism really shines.  Several times, Hector video Skypes back to London to talk with his girlfriend, Clara.  In these calls, he begins by telling Clara where he is.  Here is the summary:

Call #1, "I'm in China!"

Call #2, "I'm in Africa!"

Call #3, "I'm in L.A.!"

Do you see what I see?  A bit of Google research will help you know that Hector is actually in Shanghai and then later somewhere in Tibet.  Of course, this several day overland journey is never explained in the film nor are we told the names of these locations.  Because, after all, China is China.  It is the land of mystical monks living in the mountains and abused prostitutes living in the cities.  Even one potentially important moment of conversation between Hector and his prostitute friend regarding a group of migrant laborers is glossed over with a superficial observation of the comparative happiness of the laborers in the context of frowning, wealthy businessmen.  Ah, yes, poor people are so happy.  I should point out that one character in the China act of the film gets a fair amount of development -- a wealthy, white British business man.

So, China is China.  But at least we aren't saying that Asia is Asia.  Which is exactly what we get from Hector's second call.

"I'm in Africa!"  Yes, he is.  But where?  We are never told.  It appears that most of the African scenes were shot in South Africa, but it isn't necessarily supposed to be South Africa.  It is an intentionally undefined African nation.  Local languages are not captioned or identified.  Nor are cities for that matter or local dishes or, really anything.  Of course, we learn the names of a local white NGO worker and get to hear about his calling and even his sexual orientation.  We also get to know quite a lot about a local drug dealer who gets a healthy amount of character development. We even get to know about his wife's mental health problems.  Of course, he isn't African but rather a transplant from Latin America or Spain (we aren't told which).

The Africans who do get lines in the film are some simple villagers who spend their day's eating "sweet potato stew" and partying, cruel thugs who kidnap and imprison Hector, and, of course, sick African children.  This is Africa.  And Africa is Africa.

There is also the inexplicable journey of Hector from Shanghai to South Africa which involves a final flight on a comically rickety propeller plane upon which passengers are freely smoking and holding livestock in their laps.  Since there are multiple major airports throughout South Africa served by many fine airlines, one wonders why Hector must fly on this clearly unsafe plane.  I'll be the first to admit that Emirates and others don't use their best planes on flights in and out of Africa, but this is just silly.  Clearly, the filmmakers want to emphasize very clearly that Africa is underdeveloped and unsafe.

Africa is Africa and Africa is bad.  Not without its charms, like elephants grazing and fun dance music, but bad.

So we come to the third call.  In which Hector reports to Clara that, "I am in L.A."  He we get lots of lines and names and character backgrounds -- after all, the characters are white and Western.  They live in nice houses and happy children and go to fine colleges.  I don't need to say more.

China is China.  Africa is Africa.  But when we get to the West, we get to know names of actual cities.  What filmmaker would ever dream of Hector reporting to Clara, "I'm in North America!"

Do a compare and contrast and see how Mitty and Highway portray peoples and places.  These other films are flawed but truly beautiful and not only show us how rich and unique various ethno-linguistic people groups are but also do a fine job of searching for and finding out some wonderful and insightful things about happiness.

Hector, to be fair, doesn't miss this entirely.  An eccentric old professor at the end of the film tells his students to not worry so much about the pursuit of happiness but rather the happiness of pursuit.  Yes, that is a turn of phrase worthy of the Sphinx (cf. Mystery Men), but it isn't wrong.  That is basically what we learn from Mitty and Highway but I am not convinced that Hector gets it in the end.  He is closer, but the very fact that his life-changing journey is reduced to ethnic stereotypes and a notebook full of platitudes suggests that he hasn't enjoyed the pursuit much at all.

Friends, pay attention.  As I once read in a qualitative research design methods textbook, "There are some who say that the most important step of any journey is the first one.  There are others who argue that the most brilliant and resplendent step is the last.  But, in fact, it is all the steps in between that make the journey.  Be present for every step."

There is it, and if Hector was paying attention, he would have had the chance to learn this lesson earlier when his NGO friend said, "There is a difference between being here and being here to be photographed being here." Yes, that was a good line and worth watching the whole movie just to hear.  So, while Hector feels more like a short-term mission team came home and tried to make a movie about the meaning of life, it's not without its insight.  Or at least, insight can be drawn from this leaky cistern.

If you want to be happy along life's journey, start by being present for every step and don't take too many selfies.

Saturday

On the Road: "Simple Superstars of East Africa"



I am thrilled to publicly announce one of the biggest trips thus far in the history of Trinity International -- "Simple Superstars of East Africa"!

Coming in November, a handful of Trinity teammates will be traveling to Ethiopia and Uganda with our dear friend, Wilbur Sargunaraj for what is sure to be an busy and fruitful several days of work.

The highlights and goals of our trip are as follows:

  • To host 3-4 "Simple Superstar" community concerts feat. Wilbur Sargunaraj to bless children and families impacted by poverty, HIV/AIDS in both Ethiopia and Uganda.  Local leaders from our ministries Goh Bright Future and Endiro will help us facilitate this.  In most cases, these concerts will include free meals for members of the community.
  • To investigate opportunities for potential international or local workers to "MoveIn" to needy communities as well as to secure part or full-time employment.  The need for more laborers in this mission field is critical and we hope this trip will enable us to develop concrete plans for mobilization.
  • To record multiple short films and music videos which will highlight our East African children's work, raise awareness of the opportunities and challenges presented by global migration, and to honor some cool aspects of East African life and culture.  Films will be used specifically by our East African ministries (Goh Bright Future and Endiro) to raise awareness and to mobilize prayer and laborers.  The diaspora short film will be premiered at Manila 2015: Lausanne Global Forum on Diaspora Mission
  • To study more carefully diaspora South Asian Hindu and Muslim populations especially in Uganda and opportunities to minister among them.
  • To facilitate greater collaboration between our Ethiopian and Ugandan ministries in order to share best practices and resources.  We hope to see more church planting result in Uganda and more self-sustaining mission practices in Ethiopia.
Financial Needs for the Trip [GIVE NOW]:

We need to raise a large amount of money in a very short time in order to make this trip possible.  The team that is going will include myself along with teammates originally from India, Bhutan, Ethiopia and Uganda.  It will be a fantastic, multi-cultural team.  Here is a breakdown of the costs:

Air Travel (5 persons):      7300
Community Concerts:       2000
Lodging:                             500
Vehicle Rental:                   400
Sound mixing/recording:    Donated
Video recording/editings:   Donated
____________________________
Total:                                   $10,200

Raised thus far: 10.2% ($1050)

That is a large amount of money that we need to raise very quickly.  Please give your gift of support today.  We have well over a thousand people who follow our ministry, pray for us, and have been blessed by our work in the past.  If everyone gives even a very small amount, we will be well on our way.  Give now here!

[Note: Your gifts of support are made to Trinity International Baptist Mission a licensed 501c3 charity. Your donations are fully tax deductible and you will receive a giving record. Our online giving is secured by PayPal.]


Monday

Bhutanese Take On Technology Abuse and Relationships in the Short Film "One Day"

Today I want to commend a group of young Bhutanese creatives who are seeking to make a positive difference among the Bhutanese refugee global community through film-making.  The short film entitled "One Day" is clearly a beginning effort by a group that is just becoming acquainted with the medium.  However, they take on a very important issue (i.e. how social media and technology impact personal relationships) and they do so with clarity.

I hope you will watch "One Day" and share it with your friends.  Also, I encourage you to visit the YouTube Channel of Tassie Bhutanese Entertainment and encourage these youth.  Personally, I believe that Bhutanese-Nepali young men have a natural penchant for the creative arts and that this may be a very significant sign of hope for their future.



By the way, if you are unfamiliar with the unique genre of Nepali cinema, you will find certain things rather shocking.  For example, their is a rather unexpected scene of violence that non-Bhutanese viewers may find laughable or otherwise unappealing.  However, I found that it rather fits very well into what I've come to expect in Nepali films and is actually a kind of powerful symbolism to communicate the destruction that social media sites can wreak on family relationships.

Enjoy!

Sunday

Why Poverty [Finalist, India] - PovertyCure Film Festival

My dear friend, Wilbur Sargunaraj has just been honored by the PovertyCure film festival.  His short film "Why Poverty" has been nominated as a finalist for several awards.  You can help Wilbs by clicking the link below and then "LIKE" ing the video (top right corner of the page).  Of course, I strongly recommend the Why Poverty film.  It is a funny, heart-warming, and powerful look at poverty in India.

After you have "LIKE"d the page, be sure to share it with others. Here is the link:

Why Poverty [Finalist, India] - PovertyCure Film Festival - Library - PovertyCure:

Blessings to you! I'm on the way to east Africa.

Friday

Entirely Unbalanced: A Review of "Half Devil, Half Child" (Pt. 3 of 3)

Photo By Sailing "Footprints: Real to Reel" (Ronn ashore)
Today we reach the end of our three-part review and response to the controversial film Half Devil, Half Child. If you are just joining us, don't forget to check out part 1 and part 2. Our special guest blogger, John Raines, has been providing us with some very helpful missiological reflections on a film that doesn't often wade very deep into such waters.  As John put it in part on, the film tries to accomplish its goal of attacking insider movements by cacophony rather than by clarity.

In today's post, we move on to some important "takeaways". These are issues that the film raises as a way of discrediting insider movements without providing much in the way of constructive solutions to the underlying problems to which they point.  I have very often dealt with the same kind of attitude in working among Hindus.  Outsider Movement Christians will frequently point fingers (or worse) at things that people like me are doing wrong.  They will label it Satanic and heretical and call me nasty names.  What they don't do is acknowledge that genuine cultural boundaries and difficulties exist which should be carefully considered and constructively approached.  It seems that such problems are solved easily enough via a process of community extraction -- i.e. a gospel which says, "Leave your community, join ours and follow our rules and you shall be saved" (which I've written more about here). 

If you are engaged in ministry and life among Muslims, I hope you will carefully consider the following takeaways.  If your responses to the issues are little more than a list of "thou shalt nots" then you really aren't contributing anything of value to a very real and important discussion of how to bring the good news of Jesus the Messiah all peoples.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Take-away Talking Points

So if our main goal should be to think and pray about the particulars of the "insider" debate, what are some things that this film brought up that we should give some serious thought to? There are a few issues that I'm not going to discuss at length because I'm not sure they deserve it. One would be the reference to Paul's letters as something less than the word of God, and more like "Hadith". It's complicated – I've heard some things like this before – and we could hash out what's really going on there, but at the end of the day, if whoever made that claim really means that Paul's writing is less than the word of God, then we don't have a lot to talk about. I do wish they could have actually interviewed someone who advocates for that, simply so we could have a better understanding of what exactly is being said. But they did not, so we will move on to more central debates. My goal, as I have said before, is to address these issues as if they are real problems. Therefore a part of my goal in writing is that a reader will recognize that these controversial missiological practices, even when they have strayed into error, were initiated as a response to problems that we still need to solve.

1. Bible Translations that remove "Son of God"
The first thing that needs to be discussed is Bible translation, particularly those Bible translations which replace the term "Son of God" with other things like "Messiah" or "Anointed King" or something else. Translation is a significant interest of mine, and I find this debate fascinatingly complex. I do not think that we should replace the term "son of God" with a different title, but the linguistic debate is not a cut and dry one. Here's what I mean: We want our Bible translators to have a thorough grasp of the language of Scripture – in this case, a dialect of Greek spoken by many and influenced by 2nd Temple Judaism's religious language. When Scripture uses the term "Son of God" to describe Jesus, Christians hear a very clear declaration of the doctrines of the Nicene Creed, that Jesus is of one being with the Father, begotten but not made. If you're wondering where I'm going with this, let me assure you: we are right about all those things. But when the Holy Spirit inspired writers to use the term "Son of God", he was doing something far more subtle than you or I quite have the ears for any longer. To Jewish people and other non-Christians who read the Old Testament in the 1st century, the language "Son of God" was a Messianic title. In the ancient world, it was a way of referring to a king, in the case of the Jews, the perfect King – promised descendant of David. For Christians and readers of the Old Testament, it was also a way of referring to Adam (Luke 3:38), and thereby thinking of Jesus as a second Adam. Christians did not learn that Jesus was God from the phrase "Son of God." They learned it by listening to Jesus' teachings and watching his actions (which we have recorded in the Gospels), by studying the Old Testament prophecies, by praying in the Spirit, and by meditating reverently upon Him. Then, because they already knew that Jesus was God, they understood that "Son of God" had always also meant "God the Son." Many translators who replace the term know this history. They also know that the term "Son of God" is understood among Muslims to mean that God took Mary as his wife by having sex with her. In a desire to avoid this miscommunication, they have opted for the meaning that first century Jews and God-fearers would have understood by the phrase "Son of God" by replacing that term with something like "Annointed One". I think this is an unfortunate decision, though, and that despite the term's capacity for miscommunication, we are inviting people to misunderstand Jesus just as badly by omitting it. Especially once those people become disciples. 

2. Jesus-followers who don't need the Church?
Another topic that theologians and missionaries need to discuss is ecclesiology, and that's going to be a difficult talk because ecclesiology is fairly up in the air for a lot of evangelicals. In fact, the ecclesiological situation within established Christianity is so dire that I'm not sure we even have a sensible picture of what it would mean for Muslim-background believers to embrace the Church. But it is not less important simply because we are quite bad at it, too. Christ called us into his Kingdom. He literally called people to redefine family loyalties in such a way that believers were fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters to each other before anything else. We should not run ahead of ourselves to apply this principle hastily, without proper reflection on the different ways that this can be lived out. But it does seem to say that you cannot be a member of the body of Christ without actually needing the whole body; you cannot truly love Christ and desert his bride. 

The need for the body of Christ is most concretely seen in the life of the believer in three ways: The need for discipleship, the need for the Sacraments, and the need for the Spiritual gifts of other believers. Discipleship means learning to read Scripture and worship God according to the rule of faith, in the same way that all Christians have always known God and worshipped Him. The need for the Sacraments is simply the need that all believers have to be baptized and receive the Lord's Supper together regularly, out of obedience to Christ and the calling of the Spirit to center our lives around these holy things. The need for the Spiritual gifts of other believers is the need that every Christian has to be built into something larger than him- or herself by Spirit-filled diversity-in-unity. Can Jesus-followers who remain in the mosque have fellowship with the body of Christ in these ways? Or, more hopefully, how can they do so?

3. Using the name "Christian"
Photo By Edge of Space
Is choosing not to use the name "Christian" to describe oneself the same thing as rejecting the body? I think it may be for some, but it does not have to be, and so I would say that it is different from rejecting the body, and oftentimes it is actually appropriate for a Muslim who comes to Christ to avoid the term "Christian". The reason for this is that the term is not prescribed by Scripture, but simply described, and furthermore, the word "Christian" has gained a lot of baggage for Muslims since the Crusades. The two are heard as if synonymous by many, and for those Muslims to leave Islam to become a "Christian" feels like choosing to side with the invading army that is currently pillaging your countryside and killing your fathers and brothers and sons. Many Muslims, when they come to Christ, choose instead to call themselves "Jesus-followers". Some also choose to keep the name "Muslim" but simply add the "Jesus-follower" on. This is, of course, controversial. Is it tantamount with refusing to repent? This depends on how the word Muslim is understood. The core meaning of the word Islam means "submission [to God]." The core meaning of the word Muslim means "one who has submitted [to God]." However, it varies from place to place and person to person as to how many other meanings have been added to this idea. Regardless of where you go, if you were to invite someone to, "turn away from Islam?", you run the very real risk of literally saying, "would you like to stop submitting to God?" It is difficult to know what to do with the title "Muslim", but whatever is done, we should avoid presenting our faith as something which stops people from submitting to God.

4. Understanding the Trinity and Spiritual Formation
One statement from the film that made me think was that if someone, "does not understand the Trinity, it is impossible for him to understand the gospel. So how can he develop as a true Trinitarian Christian in a mosque that denies the very Trinitarian notion?" First things first, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is of first-order importance for the Christian, and that the affirmation of it is one of the first tests of orthodoxy. But let's be clear as to what is being said in the above quote: Dr. Jones (the speaker) is not saying that evangelism should begin with a formulaic explanation of the Trinity. He is asking how a person who has professed faith in Christ can develop as a Trinitarian Christian if he or she continues to attend a mosque. I believe strongly in the role of the body of Christ in the spiritual formation of individuals, so this question is a good one, I think. But if someone is attending the mosque, does it necessarily follow that they don't have any contact with other believers or that they don't read the Bible? For some people, this may be true, and for others it may not. This is one of the big problems with the way the debate is framed: it assumes that there is some standard playbook that says things like "'Insiders' will form no contact with other believers for spiritual formation." What if you go to mosque, but you also meet with other believers for prayer, teaching, and Sacraments? Why can't that be an option in this debate? 

--------------------------------------------------

And well, there you have it.  Of course, there is much more to be said and much more that is being said.  Let me mention here again that the recent Christianity Today article "Worshiping Jesus in the Mosque" is a very good read on this issue -- an interview with an actual insider movement disciple of Jesus.  To be sure, the title of the article is bad and misleading (seeing as the interviewee does not worship Jesus in a mosque), but I understand that was an editorial decision and not that of the author or interviewee.  

In summary, I believe that the opponents of insider movements generate much more heat than light.  I even saw a recent tweet that said that "The Insider Movement is in league with the Liberals".  I mean, that's an awesome tweet on so many levels, but it's hardly helpful.  Of course there are plenty of nicer people that warn against contextualization.  They often raise important concerns, but I feel nearly always fail to grasp the complexities of the issues and moreover so often fail to grasp the most essential foundational principles.  Perhaps a good starting point for any further debate on insider movements and contextualization should be the following question:

Do you agree with what Donald McGavran wrote about cross-cultural evangelism waaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1955 (Bridges of God): "The first thing NOT to do is snatch individuals out of their people into a different society"?

[Entirely Unbalanced: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

Thursday

Entirely Unbalanced: A Review of "Half Devil, Half Child" (Pt. 2 of 3)

Photo By FirasMT

Today we continue (check out part 1 here) with part 2 of our 3-part review and response to the Outsider Movement film Half Devil, Half Child.  Today, our guest blogger, John Raines, shares some critical insights about discipleship and colonialism before taking on the film's take on the false reporting of mass conversions in Bangladesh.   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There Are No Shortcuts to Good Missiology -OR- Real Problems Should Not Be Dismissed Because of Some Bad Solutions

The problem with labels like the "Insider Movement" and "insiders" is that they are a way of bypassing helpful, but difficult, theological discussions of the particulars. Rather than carefully attending to the discipleship of each new believer, you simply have to ask, "should a person proclaim Jesus inside a mosque or not?" If you say "yes", then you can support anyone who tries to. If you say "no", then you can fight all the people who said "yes". But neither answer is good missiology or real contextualization. We might dig a little deeper by asking, "what would someone have to do in order to be able to proclaim Jesus in a mosque?" The answers to that question would vary greatly because there are so many different types of mosques. In some mosques, in order to be listened to, you might need to interpret the Qur'an like a radical Salafi. In other mosques, simply claiming to believe in the God of Abraham would be enough. And, of course, there is a wide spectrum between these two, and that spectrum is full of issues that we need to think about and discern as the body of Christ. Boiling that discernment process down to one question, "do you agree with the Insider Movement or not", is perhaps the least helpful thing that anyone in the process has yet done.

But here is the biggest problem: even if these "Insider Movement" advocates have answered every missiological challenge wrongly, they did so while responding to real problems that exist in communicating the gospel to Muslim people. These are issues that need to be addressed – wisely, and drawing from a wealth of theological reflection and church history, certainly, but they must be addressed – because they are real problems. It is a problem that when we say "Son of God" a Muslim hears, "the offspring of God's sex with a woman". It is a problem that the division between a believing son and an unbelieving father might be historical baggage (like the Crusades), so that the true sword of the Gospel is not even brought to bear. It is a problem that one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, the Trinity, is almost universally misunderstood by Muslims to be polytheism. These are all problems that we, the Church, need to address in the way we share the gospel. Things like the film Half Devil, Half Child dismiss all of them by attributing false motives to the missionaries who are trying to respond to such problems. While it is true that some people who follow these contextualization practices do it to gain money or avoid persecution, the attempt to contextualize the Gospel for Muslims is not driven by these motives, but rather by a desire to solve problems like the ones mentioned above. The debate over contextualization can only advance helpfully as it centers itself around answering these questions in a theologically sound way.

Contextualization and Post-Colonialism

The film Half Devil, Half Child is framed to be a statement about the colonialism that is inherent in practicing contextualized missions. It hopes to show that contextualizing the Gospel is a Western idea, which the indigenous believers of Bangladesh reject and which the Muslims of Bangladesh can see through, and therefore that contextualization is colonial. Now of course, any missionary practice that subjugates those with whom it is sharing the gospel is itself offensive to the gospel and should be stopped, so this is a serious charge. But I wonder how we are defining colonialism in this case. There is a certain definition of colonialism which simply says that colonialism is the attempt of empowered people of one culture to influence the disempowered people of another culture. Power in this case may be defined as access to resources which enable one to realize one's full potential, goals, and happiness. Westerners often have more access to resources than others, are therefore more empowered, and are by definition colonial in all attempts to teach or share the Gospel in Bangladesh. Or as the film put it, "You know what we [Western Christians] should do? Sit down and shut up." 

But, the definition used above is not the definition of "colonialism" as the global Church has sought to address that problem over the past 50 years (or the last 2,000 years by different names), and it does not really seem to be the definition at work on the ground in Bangladesh, either. By the way the Church has addressed colonialism, it seems to be defining colonialism more like this: colonialism is the establishment and support of hierarchical structures in which the people of one culture hold power over the people of another culture, and in this case, power is defined as the freedom to choose how to use indigenous resources (personnel, finances, time, energy, etc.). The Church has moved away from this kind of colonialism by raising up indigenous leaders who exercise all the authority within the power structures that steer the indigenous church. But these leaders, by virtue of having often been "raised up" by Westerners, themselves speak in the tones of the traditions of their spiritual fathers and mothers, even though they speak with their own voices. There will always exist that tension, which is why every Christian who disciples a brother or sister must strive to be the image of Christ. Within this scheme, anyone may bring the gospel to anyone else, and it is not colonial provided it comes not in the power of man but in the power of the Spirit and provided that the same Spirit is acknowledged in the lives of indigenous believers as raising them up and gifting them for leadership among their own people in Christ's Church. This, in fact, was the way that the established indigenous church in Bangladesh came to be guided by the Bangladeshi brothers who were shown in the film.

How colonial is this wave of contextualized missiology dubbed the "Insider Movement"? Insofar as it is a general collection of ideas and practices initiated by Western missionaries (and that is complicated) with the intent to create change among Bangladeshi Muslims, it is colonial according to the first definition. However, if these contextualized missionary practices are raising up Bangladeshi leaders who exercise authority among their constituents, then it is not more colonial than the established indigenous church in Bangladesh, although it will continue to exhibit similar tensions, which are inherent in that form of post-colonialism. Even based on the evidence of the film, the leaders and practitioners of contextualized ministry in Bangladesh are now Bangladeshis. If that is true, then the key concern is not so much colonialism, but whether the tradition that these indigenous leaders echo is a faithful one. And so, again, we must return to the specific issues of the contextualization debate in order to helpfully move forward.

A Story and Its Use

Before I proceed to mention those particulars, I feel the need to comment on one of the film's sub-plots: the false reporting that hundreds of thousands of converts had come to Christ in Bangladesh through "insider" ministries. The story receives a prominent place in the film, but is a bit confusing and possibly misleading. Some national missionaries had falsely reported 750,000 new baptisms to their Western supporter, the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, and they had reported that these believers were all "insiders". They used pictures of people taking their public baths, claiming that they were photos of baptisms. Reporting massive numbers of baptisms insured that the organization would continue to support their work. (It's a good example of what happens when your organization is too numbers-focused, but everyone in the world has already beaten the IMB with that stick, so I won't say more.) Eventually one of the nationals' conscience was burdened by the lie, and he confessed, bringing the whole house of cards down. 

It's a very good story. Here's how that story can legitimately be applied to the "insider" debate: 

Because the baptism numbers were so high, we assumed that these methods were amazingly effective, and that made us want to use them. Now, however, we see that the methods are not the silver bullet we thought they were. This was a good lesson to learn, and besides, we should never judge the validity of a practice based solely on its perceived effectiveness anyway! Lesson learned. 

I'm not sure that was the angle from which this story was told, though. Here's how I fear that the story was illegitimately applied to the "insider" debate by implication in this film: 

Advocates of the Insider Movement are all liars and swindlers who report false numbers in order to receive money from the West.  

This isn't a logical conclusion to draw from this story because the false missionary was not practicing any sort of missiology – he was just lying about a lot of things. He wasn't an "insider"; he was lying about being an "insider". If this sort of practice were typical of the "Insider Movement", then there would be no bad insider movements to worry about (or good ones, obviously) because no one claiming to be using "insider" practices would actually be doing so. They wouldn't be sharing the gospel at all. They'd just be con-men pretending to use contextualized missiology, but not really doing so. So there would be no mosques full of "insiders" for us to worry about. There would just be a handful of people claiming that there were. To imply that this was typical of "insiders" would therefore be self-contradictory. And yet, by the way the film is put together, I'm not sure that wasn't being implied. 

Wednesday

Entirely Unbalanced: A Review of "Half Devil, Half Child" (Pt. 1 of 3)


Photo by By Roel Wijnants
In 2012, Red Futon Films released the film Half Devil, Half Child directed by Bill Nikides, whom the film's website describes as "the leading expert in Muslim ministry specifically on the Insider Movement" who is also known for his work as a co-editor to the questionably titled Chrislam (If you want to become a follower of Chrislam like, check this out). That's right, THE leading expert.  So, that just about settles it I suppose.  Any and all detractors now fall firmly into the category of "not THE leading expert". But we press on . . .

If you've been around this blog for awhile, you know that I'm a big believer in the intentional pursuit of contextualization in cross-cultural mission as imitation of Christ's Incarnation and that not only as a sound and Biblical missiological practice but also as a spiritual discipline.  I have written on the level of Biblical and missiological principle [see for example my response to John Piper] specifically in response to Outsider Movement advocates (i.e. those who attack contextualization and insider movements), but my special area of interest is the Hindu world.  For that reason, I make it a rule not to comment on specific forms and practices up for debate in the more popularly discussed realm of contextualization among Muslims.  However, when I saw that this documentary was being kicked all around the Twittersphere, I was more than eager for our own ministry's resident Islamic scholar take a crack at it.  

John Raines is an experienced cross-cultural worker and a highly gifted younger scholar who has been with our team for a while and normally writes at his own blog, Speech Acts.  He is, sadly, not the leading expert on Muslim ministry.  However, his response is careful, insightful and does an excellent job of shining a light on the deficiencies, inconsistencies and general imbalance of Half Devil, Half Child - a film that we overwhelmingly do NOT recommend except as a case study in propagandizing. So, without further ado, here is part one of our 3-part review of the film:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to the film Half Devil, Half Child - John Raines

Introduction

There's a recent documentary film about "the Insider Movement" in Bangladesh. After seeing enough links to it bouncing around the internet, I finally ponied up the $3 and rented it. It's called Half Devil, Half Child, it's 80 minutes long, the interviews are engaging, and I think it will be effective in accomplishing its main goal. What is its main goal? To convince churches in America not to support missionaries who are engaging in the missiological practices of the "Insider Movement." Unfortunately, the film proceeds toward this goal by cacophony, not by clarity on what the Insider Movement is. More importantly, it fails to address how the Gospel ought to be preached and incarnated in the Muslim world, and without this constructive component, the film ultimately just another voice in the shouting match. 

Debate on the Insider Movement: Failing to Acknowledge Diversity in the "Insider Movement" Results in Confusion

The film's most confusing aspects arise from its failure to acknowledge the complexity of the Insider Movement - or, as Cody Lorance recently put it on this blog, that the "Insider Movement" doesn't actually exist, but is instead a lot of different insider movements that are diverse in their practices. The diversity of this kind of missiological thinking and praxis is actually discernible in some of the individual interviews in the documentary, but the film's editing smoothes over these nuances in favor of its big idea –insider missiology is all bad. 

The narrative arc of the film conveys one main idea: what started out as a missiological theory in the West has turned into a cesspool of heresy in Bangladesh. To illustrate this point, the film accuses advocates of the "Insider Movement," who are labeled insiders, of a long list of offenses, some of which seem mutually exclusive. For example, insiders are charged with denying Christ by staying in the mosque (in the documentary, none are charged with denying Jesus in speech – only in action – even the main "insider" interviewed in the film was very proactive in sharing what the Gospels say about Jesus), but are later shown as disingenuous because they stay in the mosque when it is obvious to all the Muslims there that they are Christians. So which is it? Do their actions deny Christ or do their actions overtly identify them as his followers? There may be some "insiders" for whom the first is true and others for whom the second is true, but it seems extremely unlikely that both could be true for any one person. 

Whether or not an "insider" denies or proclaims Jesus by his or her actions depends upon a massive number of decisions – whether to pray with non-believers or not, whether to wash before prayer or not, whether to pray publicly in the name of "God" or in the name of "Jesus", whether to call themselves a "Christian", a "Jesus Follower", a "Jesus-following Muslim", or simply a "Muslim", whether to quote the Quranic passages that don't contradict the Bible, whether to publicize their rejection of certain Islamic practices or not – thousands of small situations and choices which make up a life that either proclaims or denies Christ. It's actually the same thing that every Christian everywhere has ever experienced, and most of us have a fairly mixed track record. Some of the people labeled "insiders", find themselves in incredibly complex situations and navigate their choices poorly. They seem to deny Christ. Others navigate their choices wisely and, though like the rest of us they still make mistakes, they manage to proclaim Jesus inside the mosque.

[Want more? Check out What is wrong with Biblical Missiology's Critique of the Insider Movement? and Responding to John Piper's Response to "The Insider Movement"]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget to check in again tomorrow for part 2 of our review of Half Devil, Half Child.  In the meantime, I strongly recommend taking a look at the excellent article "Worshiping Jesus in a Mosque" recently published by Christianity Today.

[Entirely Unbalanced: Part 1Part 2Part 3]

Friday

Tuesday

Nice Short Films Made by Bhutanese-Nepali Youth

I've come across two nice little films made by youth who are Bhutanese refugees living in England.  The concept of the films are simple and focused on how life has changed for them since resettling in the West.  I enjoyed them both and think you might as well.


Life Beginning from justin rhodes on Vimeo.



Sharing Stories -Introduction Film from justin rhodes on Vimeo.

Sunday

TONIGHT--Perpetual Film Fest: "Damascus"

Tonight we'll be screening the new film "Damascus" at Trinity International Baptist Mission (at my house).  This Syrian-made film tells the story of Paul from the book of Acts.  Take a look at the trailer below and then join us tonight at 6:30PM at 112 Horizon Circle in Carol Stream, IL (bring your favorite snacks):

Monday

TIBM's Perpetual Film Fest: Bella

BellaLast night at Trinity International Baptist Mission (TIBM) we gathered for our monthly installment of the "Perpetual Film Fest".  This month featured the Alejandro Monteverde film Bella.  This dialog-heavy story of brokenness, love, redemption, and new life reminded me of a more morally and spiritually profound Before Sunset. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it. Themes worth noting: adoption/abortion, love, family, cross-cultural communication, and healing.

Sunday

The TIBM Perpetual Film Fest: "Endgame"

Hey everyone, just wanted to let you know that TIBM's house church begins our "Perpetual Film Fest" tonight (it will be a monthly thing) with the film "Endgame."  This gives us a nice little South Africa theme as we look towards Cape Town 2010 which will begin soon.  I'm not offering a review of the film at this point.  But if you are interested in one, John Armstrong has provided a nice one here.

So, you are all welcome to join us tonight at 6:30PM at 112 Horizon Circlce in Carol Stream, IL (United States) for the first edition of our new film fest which will also feature worship and discussion. See you there!

Saturday

The Last Airbender- Shyamalan's Fall from Grace

Without hesitation, I can say that "The Last Airbender" was the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. M. Night Shyamalan, what happened to you, buddy? He's fallen a long way from "The Sixth Sense" which was an ingenious retelling of the pey myth contextualized for an American audience (which I actually recommend to people who are seeking to understand Folk Hinduism better). Shyamalan's attempt to produce a Middle Earth-type franchise just makes me want to die. Yes, sadly, this film sets itself up to be the first in a series. We can only hope that the producers wise up and scrap the sequels or, dare I say, Shyamalan.

Actually, it pains me to say that, because I've always been something of a Shyamalan fan. I even liked "Unbreakable." But, he's driven off a cliff on this last offering, and I can't go there with him.

And, someone needs to say this, I used to think it was kind of clever when Shyamalan would make little cameos in his films. It made for a fun "Where's Waldo" type of experience. But, now he's just kind of forcing himself on us by taking on major roles. Not nearly as fun.

So, moral of the story, spending lots of money on special effects, sets, and imagery of vast beautiful landscapes does not make your film the Lord of the Rings. Now, just for fun, here's a few others giving their review of Airbender:



The Last Airbender | Trailer & Official Movie Site | Now Playing In 3D