Fight or Die: How to Lose Friends and Irritate People

Thanks again for this reminder of what Calvary shaped love must be.

I was appalled by the video, but the offense was not due to the pacifism of the words, rather because the images of the video dominate the video. Turn off the sound or ignore the words, and the images argue for the glory of war. Young soldiers marching and preparing for war. Confident, brave and noble, the images argue for war. The image of Christ in it does not oppose the images, and even the slogan fight or die visually argue for war.

The words are hard to follow with the tonality and background music. The words become secondary to the thrust of the images, hence the video actual becomes more prowar than the its creators intend. It is a problem of film as a medium, images more powerful than words it uses.

Drug companies have long taken this in their ads. The most beautiful and most motion occurs during the time the voice over is saying the possible side effects, distracting the ear with the eye.

I am certain that the film makers are not trying to argue for war, but unfortunately their form does exactly that. I have found that with many Christian filmmakers using a visual that is powerful and cool looking without pausing to reflect what those images actually do or say.

This is incredibly hard for me. If I had to put a label on myself, I would confess to being a pacifist. My brothers are in the American military. To vocalize my beliefs can sometimes be disrespectful of them personally. It comes down to the question of this, do I show them love by not sharing my opinion publically or do I share my opinion and risk the chance that they would not feel love from me. I've chosen, in most cases, to be very careful about what I post or say because of my love for them.

Ah, like a breath of fresh air! Every now and the Sojo will put something redemptive like this up. Thank God!
The most offensive elements of Christianity when rightly practiced are simply:
1. The exclusivity of Christ's claims to divinity and sole access to the Father.
2. The anti-pagan, anti-state, anti-power-over subversive ethic of spiteful pacifism.
These messages are blurred out when we spend so much time and energy attempting to achieve those mandates peculiar to the gospel through the very vehicles Christ rejected.
How can we expect the same institution which wages imperial wars to have the capacity to justly manage social welfare programs? The question should not be, "shall we use government for war or for provision of public goods?" rather we need to first ask, "can government accomplish either end in a just manner?"
Jesus said no, because there were unavoidable power-over mechanisms involved either way, and so He provided Himself and the Church as the proper organic vehicles (I shirk from labeling the church an institution) for accomplishing these ends.
Nathanael Snow

I appreciate liberalinlove's comments however, I see differently from my context. The images of marching off to war and Christ on the cross are opposites to me. I thought the slogan "Fight or Die?" was also meaningful. The world has two options fight or run, but Christ lives out the Kingdom's third option of dying. Life comes from death, not the other way around. Again, the piece to me was pro death and anti-war/anti-fighting.

Okay, so to be an obedient servant of God at he time of Numbers 31 required we kill with the sword or club every being that draws breath, accepting girls and young women who were still virgins (my, what sort of PTSD that will obtain) who could be our booty/slaves/comcubines. But today we need to do precisely the opposite, based on the same texts Holy Scripture.

Look, I like the latter view, obviously as any non-sociopath would. But, as Robert Price once said in 1979 (well before he became an atheist) in The Christian Century:

"Young Evangelicals may take such an approach to pacificism . . . Solutions to such problems seem simple, because the issues are seen in black-and-white terms. What is the absolutely righteous thing to do? Then let's do it! And if the standard of living drops, people lose jobs, foreign powers pounce, then what? Trust the Lord! Even if he doesn't deliver us from a nuclear attack prompted by our unilateral disarmament, our country is no doubt sinful enough to deserve what it gets. At any rate, it will provide the Young Evangelical "righteous remnant" (the explicit terms, incidentally, in which they see themselves) with an excellent opportunity to "go the way of the cross," paying the cost of radical disciple­ship. What else can a "radical Christian" expect in this fallen age?"

Well, Price is a weird guy, but I have always wondered whether pacificism requires we drag down every other human being, whatever they believe with, us in our noble intentions.

titopoet said:
"I was appalled by the video, but the offense was not due to the pacifism of the words, rather because the images of the video dominate the video."

Well, it is a video, not an audio recording, so as visual communication, the images are going to tend to dominate the video.

titopoet said:
"Turn off the sound or ignore the words, and the images argue for the glory of war."

The video doesn't, within itself, present any reason to view it with the sound off. If the piece is taken on its own terms, clearly there is to be sound. If one wishes to violate the intent of the piece and wrest an "alternate" reading, well, nothing is stopping anyone from doing so, except perhaps common sense.

Clearly there is to be a juxtaposition between words spoken and images shown. Clearly it is intended to be an uncomfortable juxtaposition as the images, in and of themselves are fairly banal. At least the images are fairly banal for anyone living in a modern militarized culture. That's what should make them uncomfortable. When these all too familiar jingoistic images are juxtaposed with truthful speech regarding Jesus and his teaching, these familiar banal images become shocking, maybe even revolting.
titopoet said:
"The words are hard to follow with the tonality and background music. The words become secondary to the thrust of the images, hence the video actual becomes more prowar than the its creators intend. It is a problem of film as a medium, images more powerful than words it uses."

I had no difficulty following the words. The music and ambient sound bolsters and adds to the tension between word and image, which, it seems clear to me, is the point of the piece.

One of the strengths of film as a medium is its ability to preempt cold acerbic detached rational didactic discourse. Film's compelling power, particularly to a generation for whom the filmic language is lingua franca, is its ability to engage the whole person. On the one hand it is reasoned assertion, it isn't a random chaos of images; on the other hand it reaches deeply into our personal narratives, it connects it's story with our story and so, for many, is able to effect profound impact.

The images and "words it uses" cannot be pulled capriciously apart any more than your spirit and body can be pulled apart. That's Gnosticism. You are spirit and body. The filmic medium isn't Gnostic. It isn't concrete images or abstract words. It is the marriage of image and word.

titopoet said:
"Drug companies have long taken this in their ads. The most beautiful and most motion occurs during the time the voice over is saying the possible side effects, distracting the ear with the eye."

You have correctly deduced the intention of some drug companies. I fail to see what this has to do with this video.

titopoet said:
"I am certain that the film makers are not trying to argue for war, but unfortunately their form does exactly that."

If the form has so successfully argued for war, what has allowed you to deduce the film makers intention? i.e. that they are not arguing for war.

titopoet said:
"I have found that with many Christian filmmakers using a visual that is powerful and cool looking without pausing to reflect what those images actually do or say."

First of all, I fail to see how historic stock footage of Australian soldiers could be considered "cool looking."

By "Christian filmmakers" do you mean Christians wishing to make didactic propositional statements similar to those found in many sermons, but who use film instead of preaching a sermon?

If so, then I agree, this film has failed in this regard.

By "Christian filmmakers" do you mean Christians who are filmmakers and who, with honesty and painful commitment, wrestle through their faith on the canvas of their craft; who, by the necessity of their craft, must pause and reflect on "what images actually do or say?"

If so, I believe this film maker has done you a faithful service in taking time to pause and reflect on the issues surrounding Jesus' peaceful way; further to pause and reflect on a creative and effective way to communicate to heart and head a reasoned, passionate, personal response to Jesus' peaceful way.

Hey Jarrod, I appreciate your thoughts here. At the church I was one of the pastors at (and still occasionally teach at) we would support the Anzac remembrance service that still takes place across the road from in the memorial park. In fact this church is closing down one of its services this weekend to be there in support (as Anzac day falls on a Sunday). They would argue that it is an opportunity to connect with the community.

Given yours and my brief discussions on the Anzac holy-day as well as your statement above - it has certainly left me challenged about how this kind of connection has come about as well as how the new church community which I now lead will make the presence of Christ known; would we be different...if so how? I know the other staff members at my former church (whom I love and respect) hold quite different perspectives to me on non-violent action - so I reckon there is rich conversation to be had once again with them; I am just thankful that we can.

Finishing a paper on 1 John 4:1-6 last night was an interesting process with Anzac day in the background...Among other things, it struck me that as the author defines the true gospel as that of Jesus as the Christ he emphasises a striking contrast between the "world" and the "church". I came to the conclusion that in an era where great emphasis is placed upon churches being "seeker friendly", perhaps there is an important question to be asked about where our churches (and ourselves as part of them) may have been so accommodating of secularity that they/we have lost the radically countercultural witness of Christ.

And Jarrod, as you have rightly intimated...this radically countercultural witness of Love is costly.

Of course this is not a new question...but it does have a new freshness too it.

Shalom.
T.

Pauline Kael did a masterful job pointing out Clint Eastwood's movie Unforgiven, while attempting to argue against violence actually glorified it with its images. The reason being by using the visual language of the Westerns to make his point, he subverted his message. In normal Westerns good guys blow away bad guys, in Unforgiven good guys blow away bad guys, but they feel bad about it. Why I bring this up is that you are correct that film is the lingua franca of today. All the more important to take care with the images one uses. Take Ken Burns Civil War, he would present the young army marching into war followed by post battlefield pictures of dead soldiers and moody music and voice over reading period letters talking about the senselessness of the battle. Far more effective arguing against war.

The question is are images of young men confidently and happily going to war the best images to use to argue against war? I can think of half a dozen images better suited for the job just off the top of my head. A mother crying into a army uniform, a grave yard of soldiers, a pompous general with a voice over about the waste and uselessness of the battle.

The examples you give would be overt and obvious statements. As such they could better be made as statements; say an essay or a speech. As I pointed out earlier, sermons tend to be an example of obvious statements; didactic propositional answers stemming from previously held knowledge. The answers are answers to questions posed by those with possession of the answers.

This video piece isn't-and wasn't intended to be-an overt statement. It was created by a poet, and poets tend to deal in questions rather than answers. Poets don't tell us about ourselves, they show us ourselves. Poets don't give us answers to our questions, they create questions and let us come to our own answers.

This is the way Jesus taught. He didn't so much make statements as create questions. He told subtle obtuse stories. He collided ideas like "neighbor" and "Samaritan," "love" and "kingdom," "Prince of Peace" and "death on a cross." He disrupted sensibilities. This is the essence of juxtaposition, to place two seemingly contradictory ideas in close proximity for the purpose of disrupting an accepted reading of those two ideas. The hoped for outcome of this juxtaposition is a disruption of sensibilities and, ultimately, within that disruption, a reassessment of one's sensibilities regarding both ideas.

The filmmaker intentionally juxtaposed "images of young men confidently and happily going to war" with speech questioning war. It's the whole point of the piece.

Placing images of a "mother crying into an army uniform" over top a person talking against war creates no juxtaposition, no tension, no contention. The image of a mother crying into an army uniform would be maudlin, obvious, perhaps manipulative. It is a simple flat statement, a statement directed "at" and not coming "from," a statement with an agenda. Statements with agendas were once called propaganda. Statements with agendas are easy to see through and people, in general, resent them. People don't like to be coerced. Indeed, we were not created to be coerced, we were created, in all of our glorious and frightening freedom, to be wooed. Won over by the gracious extravagant lavish love of the bridegroom.

Ironically, the realm of questioning this video raises has to do with our bridegroom who held so steadfastly to a refusal to coerce that he died for it. Jesus didn't flee from his love for us, nor did he fight for his love for us, he died for his love for us.

I would ask, how can we, as followers and friends of Jesus do less? Why would we blithely become propagandists with an agenda? Why would we resort to simple flat coercion? Our Master, our example, didn't make statements "at" us, he became one of us, he spoke "from" us. Given all the things he could be, he chose to be a story teller with no agenda but love. He spoke as a poet who created questions and let us come to our own answers while he patiently, persistently, delightedly waited.

Would this statement be helpful? "You are wrong to think war is right." Do some of the comments above indicate that the poetic question-asking stance of the piece effectively opened up space for consideration where an overt statement would not have? Perhaps the root of the universal presence of art through the ages is our created need to be wooed. Perhaps the video, the original post and it's comments are an example of that need.

Not to change the subject too much, I want to suggest that Clint Eastwood has come a long way in his understanding of the redemptive power of non-violence. In his more recent film, "Gran Torino," in the movie's climactic scene the main character lays down his life in self-sacrificial love so that the oppressed might be delivered from the power of evil. The character, a violent man in his past, comes to understand the power of self-sacrificial love (especially loving one's neighbors and enemies) and freely chooses the liberating path of non-violence to defeat the forces of evil in the film. I won't offer specifics if you have not seen the film. Despite the excess of foul language in the movie, I encourage folks to see the film. The climactic scene is one of the most powerful depictions of redemption that I have seen on film.

When I was at Fuller, there was an art week full of events designed to challenge the worldview of the students, give offense if you will. During lunch rush a young woman student hipster painted Cross with words around it, and several stick figures doing violence. Many student loved it, calling great expression of art. Many students found the style offensive as she intended, it challenged their assumptions about what is art. It didn't work for me for another reason. I recognized that is was a poor imitation of Jean-Michel Basquiat's work. As art, it was derivative. She wanted to shock, and I groaned. It was as effective as a pun repeated dozens of time. (Go to any student art show and you see such imitations, the only difference was it had a progressive Christian slant) The people that agreed with her views were confirmed in their beliefs and those didn't were frustrated, and, importantly, dismissive of the piece.

Take the example of the 10 year old photographer in Houston. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolita... His image was banned by his emergent progressive church, because it was too powerful. His art was authentic rather than derivative.

I bring this up because the above video piece is pretty obvious in its intent and the people who agree with it love it, and those that don't will easily dismiss it.
"This video piece isn't-and wasn't intended to be-an overt statement." But that what it was, an the overt statement. Poetry is powerful and criticism of the video is on aesthetic grounds and not its message.

Take this piece by my favorite poet Denise Levertov http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/leverto... :

Making Peace

A voice from the dark called out,
"The poets must give us
imagination of peace, to oust the intense, familiar
imagination of disaster. Peace, not only
the absence of war."

But peace, like a poem,
is not there ahead of itself,
can't be imagined before it is made,
can't be known except
in the words of its making,
grammar of justice,
syntax of mutual aid.

A feeling towards it,
dimly sensing a rhythm, is all we have
until we begin to utter its metaphors,
learning them as we speak.

A line of peace might appear
if we restructured the sentence our lives are making,
revoked its reaffirmation of profit and power,
questioned our needs, allowed
long pauses. . . .

A cadence of peace might balance its weight
on that different fulcrum; peace, a presence,
an energy field more intense than war,
might pulse then,
stanza by stanza into the world,
each act of living
one of its words, each word
a vibration of light--facets
of the forming crystal.

Critiquing the technical and artistic skill of the video is beside the point, isn't it? Is there no US national or military/veterans' celebration that the Church participates in? In Canada, on Nov. 11, we celebrate Remembrance Day, with christian services at cenotaphs in even the smallest of small towns, and parades of armed forces personnel or air cadets, the RCMP officer with a dress uniform, the Girl Guides, etc. Everyone wears a red poppy pin to remember veterans of WWI, WWII, Korea, UN peacekeeping missions, and now Afghanistan. When the date falls on a Sunday, the service will probably be devoted to it. Our country, like Australia, has a defining moment in its history as a battle in WWI; Vimy Ridge. This holiday is, however, not a Christian holiday, and for the same reasons as in the video, I try to annoy my friends and keep it out of Church.

Hi, I put together the video. It wasn't "art that bled out of me." I just took the afternoon to put something together for my friend Jarrod that could be used to start a discussion and disorient a bit :)

I took the footage that was available. I stayed with the "marching off" stills because I know I "march off" to serving my ego, or my fear of security or whatever pharoh I'm serving that day other than dying into to Christ and living upside down.

You guys all sound smarter than me and it's a blessings to be in the conversation :) So encouraged by the healthy dialogue. Man, ya'll would make for great quests at a dinner table.

Peace to ya all.

travis
the work of the peple

Blogs Search Engine...

Blogs Search Engine...

I'm a little confused as to what you actually disagreed with in Driscoll's preaching in the video? Could you please clarify what he said that was actually wrong? I'm missing how Driscoll's comments match N.T. Wright carichature. My concern hear is whether you actually understand that God hates all of humanity because we are all sinners. God's hatred and love are not either/or, they are both/and. Thankfull, through Jesus, God's hatred of us is overcome by God's love for us, so that everyone who believes in Jesus will not be comdemned but will have everlasting life (John 3:16).

This is a tough call Glenn and a good question. I was raised by fundamentalists, who surrounded themselves with like-minded people. These people would whole heartedly agree with the presentation by Driscoll, as in theory do I. These same people however would never accept him due to his often profane presentation of sermons. What we fail to hear is what grace causes us to become.

I have literally heard such comments as, "let us dangle the feet of gays, over the pit of hell, so that they may feel the wrath of God and come to repentance."

Wrath becomes transferrable and permissible by virtue of the understanding of "sin" and a means to "save" or call others to salvation. In other words, it isn't God's wrath of sin paid for by a willing sacrifice, but it is our wrath of sin used for evangelism or political purposes. It becomes hatred of liberals, hatred of non-christians such as Muslims or Mormons, hatred of...and the goal is to see God's wrath rain down on such individuals.

God's wrath is spent. The sacrificial lamb has paid the price. The bible says it is God's goodness that leads us to repentance. Even Paul said I do not the things I want to do because of what wars in me. Yet God is at work in us to both make us want to and to do His good pleasure. Phil. 2:13,14

I spent years and years singing my favorite song, Oh what a worm I am. I just never could hit the mark due to my ongoing sin. It is grace finally that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fear relieved. I'm not sure how the enemy takes the truth of the cross and twists it to become a forum for wrath against our fellow man.

Where this post is pursuing peaceful resolutions to conflict, I am sure the author has come up against people similar to who I was raised with.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it has the power to save to the uttermost. Romans 1:16. The question again, is how do we share a gospel, the good news, that gave us a Jesus, who tells us to pursue peace, to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to feed the hungry, visit those who are in prison, and take care of widows and orphans.

Instead of, those people deserve what they get because of the wrath of God against sinners, we must walk out the gospel in its entirety.
Again it is our personal experiences that dictate our perceptions. So the thoughts are from my own life and may be skewed.