Tag Archives: review

Movies to See in 2012

After a less than stellar 2011, it looks as if 2012 is shaping up to be a fine, potentially spectacular, year for movie going audiences.  With a few genuinely solid films already released in the doldrums of the winter/early spring season, things are set to kick into high gear today with the release of Marvel Comics, The Avengers.

Bear in mind, this is not a complete list of everything film geeks are anticipating, nor is it merely a list of films that others have loved.  For instance, you will not find the too-soon-to-be-necessary (or even remotely interesting) Amazing Spiderman on this list, nor will you find the marginally efficient, yet-intensely-over-rated Hunger Games.  This is simply a list of films that I am excited to see, some large, some small, yet all filled with promise for one reason or another. Continue reading →

“Divided” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

Let’s be clear.  Divided is not the sort of film I typically review on this site.  For starters, it is a documentary, which greatly reduces the likelihood that it will have any measurable impact on the greater society as a whole.  Even the best, Oscar-winning documentaries barely move the needle on the cultural Richter scale.  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Divided is a documentary that calls into question one of the most sacred cows of contemporary Christian culture: youth ministry.  So while certain church leaders may be prone to watch for the sake of gleaning a few truths, the chances that this might be seen by large segments of the Church body are infinitesimally small.

Nevertheless, is Divided worth seeing?  Sadly, I have to offer a bit of a mixed review.  On the upside, the documentarian, Philip Leclerc, is asking a set of questions that desperately need to be asked in light of the sobering statistics related to young adults abandoning the church.  There is a clearly a problem in the way that many within the church are approaching youth ministry.  In their fervor to retain the kids, it would seem that many are more interested in creating a carnival atmosphere with hipster pastors than they are in teaching the time-honored truths of Scripture to a generation that is desperately famished for spiritual nourishment.  So for the courage it takes to question this contemporary methodology, I applaud Leclerc for his stand.  Moreover, I applaud him for some of the counter-cultural conclusions he reaches, as they are worthy of consideration.

Having said that, it would seem that Philip Leclerc has seen a few too many Michael Moore style documentaries.  And what I mean by that is that he in no way attempts to present this issue in a fair and balanced manor.  In support of his seemingly pre-ordained conclusions, he lines up a cadre of notable leaders such as: Ken Hamm, Voddie Bauchman, and Scott Brown.  As their counterparts, he offers up a motley assortment of teenagers including a multi-pierced girl whose mohawk won’t stay up because she’s been in the “mosh pit” at a local Christian rock concert.  And it’s this pervasive sense of imbalance that ultimately prevents this documentary from being a truly noteworthy look into this critical issue.


This film, which can be viewed for free by clicking on this link, has not been rated by the Motion Picture Association of America.

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

There is an old adage that tells us that a recipe can only be as good as the ingredients that are used.  If that is true, consider the Oscar-nominated Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. It begins with director Stephen Daldry, a man so narratively gifted that all three of his previous films have gone on to earn “Best Picture” nominations.  To that, you add the two-time, Academy Award-winning actor, Tom Hanks, in the role of a saintly father who may be the only person on earth who understands his uniquely challenged son.  Now mix in Sandra Bullock, just two years removed from her own Oscar-winning performance, as a bereaved mother left to deal with her own grief, even as she struggles to help her son come to grips with his loss.  Finally, take all these ingredients and set them in the context of the “jumpers” leaping from the burning towers on September 11th.  What should emerge from the oven is a scintillating film that finally gives voice to our collective grief and rage.  But, unfortunately, this is not the case.  Indeed, there are two critical weaknesses that take the legs right out from underneath this film and ultimately prevent it from becoming anything more than an overly-saccharine sympathy card that leaves nothing but a bad aftertaste in your mouth.

So what are the issues?  Well, the first problem has to do with the adaptation of the source material itself.  In fairness to Eric Roth, anytime a screenwriter has to distill the content of a novel down to a script that can be filmed in two hours, material is going to be sacrificed.  But in this case, many of Jonathan Safran Foer’s most insightful musings on the nature of war and terror have been left on the editing room floor.  In the novel, the only reason the grandfather re-emerges into the life of this scarred young boy is because he, too, knows what it means to lose a parent to the ever-turning gears of war.  But here, in the film, the fire-bombings of Dresden during World War II are used only as a set up to explain the grandfather’s selectively mute nature.  Thus, the larger theme of war and its impact on the lives of the innocent is almost completely absent.  And that is a very real problem when you are attempting to say something of value on the subject of 9/11. If you do ultimately decide to see this film, ask yourself this: how would the film have been substantially changed if Oskar’s father did not die in the attacks of 9/11, but in a random car accident that left him with just enough time to place a few phone calls?  If you believe, as I do, that nothing would have functionally changed, than you will begin to see the central problem with the film.  To reduce the events of September 11th to nothing more than a plot device that allows a character to grow is to fundamentally disrespect the nearly 3000 people that lost their lives on that day in history.

The second major issue with this film has to do with the casting of young Thomas Horn.  For some inexplicable reason, director Stephen Daldry made the decision to cast a complete unknown in the role of Oskar Schell.  Prior to this film, Horn had never acted either in film or in television; and that is a massive liability for a film in which the young actor is required to play an emotionally shattered boy who is likely suffering from the effects of Asperger’s Syndrome as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Yes, every once in a while, a Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense comes along to take us all by surprise.  But that is the exception and not the rule.

So where does Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close sit in the pantheon of 9/11 films?  Probably somewhere beneath Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center, and just above Adam Sandler’s Reign Over Me.  At best, it’s an adequate film that leaves the viewer wondering: is it just too soon to expect a film to really be able to handle the events of that day? 

This film has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA for emotional thematic material, some disturbing images, and language.

Capturing 9/11 on Film: The Documentaries …

Earlier this week, my wife and I went to see the latest film based upon the events of September 11th, 2001.  In the hopes of putting Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close within its proper context, I have decided to offer this brief series on the history of 9/11 and film.  Yesterday, we examined the major studio releases that have sought to relive the events of that day.  Today, we will continue the series by taking a closer look at the notable documentaries.[1]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9/11 (2002).

By far the “gold standard” of all the documentaries on this subject, this is the film that almost wasn’t.  On the morning of September 11th, French documentarians Gedeon and Jules Naudet were out on the streets of New York, making a film about a young probationary firefighter.  But as fate would have it, the brothers were standing in the flight path of the first plane as it flew straight overhead and into the side Tower 1.  Thus, these two brothers became eyewitnesses to history as they captured the only known footage of the first strike as well as the only internal footage of the chaos that erupted in the Trade Centers as the firefighters fought their way into the building in a heroic attempt to rescue the survivors.

Ten years after the fact, this film still stands out as a giant among the many imitators.  By the sheer virtue of its immediate and unparalleled access to the events of the day, it possesses a power that can still reduce the viewer to a state of shock.  From the off camera sounds of the bodies striking the pavement to the steely look of grim determination in the rescuers eyes, the viewer is given a front row seat to hell-on-earth, a seat that might gladly be surrendered if it weren’t so important to remember.

102 Minutes that Changed America (2008).

If 9/11 is the “gold standard” of the documentaries that have sought to understand these events, the History Channel’s 102 Minutes that Changed America comes in a very close second.  Wisely eschewing the footage that played ad nausea in the aftermath of the attacks, this documentary is instead assembled by cobbling together footage from the countless amateur videographers that were filming throughout New York.

What gives this documentary its power is the lack of a singular narrative voice.  There is no filter for this footage. There is no news anchor gravely interpreting the chaos.   There is no buffer from the anguish and pain.  Instead, there is only shaky, raw footage painstakingly stitched together in such a way as to tell “our story,” as we all came to grips with the way our lives were going to change through these events.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004).

Thus far, we have looked at two documentaries that sought to provide cathartic release by offering the viewer an intimate opportunity to relive the events of that day.  Unlike these other two films, however, Fahrenheit 9/11 has no such purpose.  Instead, Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts to take a broader, more politicized, view of the events as it offers up an interpretation of the day that links the attacks, the Bush Presidency, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Bin Laden family and the Western dependence upon oil.

Regardless of whether you agree with the politics of the film or not, Fahrenheit 9/11 is significant in that it won the Palme d’Or at the 57th Cannes Film Festival in France; and on the strength of that win, went on to be released in the United States just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election.

9/11: The Falling Man (2006).

The least well known of the documentaries we have discussed, 9/11: The Falling Man is nevertheless an excellent look at one of the nearly 200 “jumpers” who elected to plummet to their demise rather than facing what they presumed would be a slow death via fire and smoke inhalation.

On the day after the attacks, newspapers around the world ran a photograph, which came to be known as: “The Falling Man.” It had been taken by the Associated Press photographer Richard Drew; and unlike any other image from that day, it alone was branded as distasteful and voyeuristic by a mainstream media that never printed it again.  But some, such as the documentarians responsible for this film, believed that this picture needed to be confronted, for it alone communicated the true horror experienced by those trapped in a burning building.[2]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tomorrow, this series will conclude by taking a look at the Oscar-nominated film, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

[1] It should be noted that no documentaries related to the “alternative accounts” of 9/11 are included in this list.  Such accounts, while widespread on the internet, are too radically different from the accounts accepted as factual by mainstream America, and thus they are a separate entity unto themselves.

[2] 9/11: The Falling Man can be viewed online at the following address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU&feature=player_embedded

Capturing 9/11 on Film

Last night, my wife and I decided to take in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, one of the nine films nominated for the “Best Picture” of 2012.  Ordinarily, after viewing a film of this nature, I would simply put up a “One-Minute Review,” and be done with it.  But something about this film has elicited responses within me that demand more than a few perfunctory paragraphs. So today, I am going to begin a brief series on the subject of 9/11 and film.  And to get things rolling, I am simply going to highlight a few major films that have attempted to address this subject over the past 10 years.

United 93 (2006).

On the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Paul Greengrass, director of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, offered us this partly speculative, real-time account of the only hijacked plane that failed to strike its intended target.  Much to his credit, Greengrass wisely rejected any attempt to entertain the audience and largely avoided almost all of the exploitative melodrama that one would normally expect from a picture of this nature.  In fact, he was so resistant to the notion of fictionalizing or sentimentalizing the events of 9/11 that he even saw fit to cast some of the real flight controllers as themselves in the film.  Without question, this is the rawest of the films released to date, as it offers no hope and no explanation.

September 11 (2002).

Released within one year of the tragic events of 9/11, this ambitious, yet rarely-seen, film is actually a compilation of eleven “shorts,” filmed by directors such as: Mira Nair, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Sean Penn.  With each segment lasting exactly 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame, the filmmakers were given broad latitude to explore how the events of the titular day affected people all around the world.  As with any film of this nature, some segments are stronger than others.  Having said that, this film deserves to be seen, if for no other reason than it was the first of its kind to tackle the issue while the wounds were still raw and bleeding.

World Trade Center (2006).

Released around the same time as United 93, this film could not be more different in tone or effect.  Subverting his usual flair for political muckraking, director Oliver Stone instead elected to film a patriotic story of two Port Authority rescue workers who were trapped when the Twin Towers collapsed, and were amongst the last of the survivors to be extracted from “Ground Zero.”  While the film’s tagline sees fit to remind us that this is “a true story of courage and survival,” one can’t help but wonder if we are being reminded of this fact because the sense of hope that the film conveys feels so out of place with everything that the viewer knows to be true about the events of that day.

Reign Over Me (2007).

Six years after the attacks of 9/11, Adam Sandler commendably used his clout to make the first mainstream, Hollywood movie about the emotional fallout that followed the events of that day.  Unfortunately, Sandler’s best intentions were seriously undermined by his own desire to stretch himself as a dramatic actor.  The resultant film is a melodramatic mess that only sporadically comes to life when the under-rated, but always-excellent Don Cheadle enters the frame to provide some measure of gravitas and genuine humanity.  Sadly, by the end, we are left with a vision of “hope” that feels almost as patently false as much of Sandler’s acting career.

Part 2 of this series will explore a few of the most significant documentaries on the subject of 9/11, while part 3 will conclude by placing Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close within the proper context of our culture’s attempts to capture this event on film.

“Chronicle” (2012): A One-Minute Film Review

Sometimes, for reasons we cannot fully explain, a film succeeds in ways that neither we, nor the studio, honestly expect.  If you want a great example of just this sort of phenomena, look no further that the recently released and poorly named, Chronicle.  Shot on an almost ridiculously low budget by a director whose only previous experience was on cable television, it was released in the dead of winter – a time slot usually reserved for films that will soon be making their debut appearance in the remainder bins of your local Walmart.

But Chronicle smartly rises above its humble budget and its inauspicious release date by offering something unusual: a nuanced psychological profile of a teenager struggling to rise above the ruins of his home life.  Mashing up the “found footage” and super-hero genres, it wisely avoids the rote stereotypes often found in films of this nature, and instead gives us a briskly paced meditation upon humiliation, empowerment, hubris, and naked aggression.

By the time this pleasant little treat reaches its unexpected climax, the viewer is left wondering whether this might just be one of the more honest portraits of teenaged American life in the 21st century.  While the films are miles apart in tonality, one couldn’t help but think back to Diablo Cody’s Juno, an equally insightful look into the mind of modern adolescence.

If you are a fan of the unusual and/or unexpected, I would strongly recommend seeing this film, in spite of its terrible title and its less-than-inspired marketing campaign.  This is the kind of film that heralds the arrival of a new talent, and I for one will be eagerly waiting in line when the creators of this film release their next work.

 

This film has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA for: intense action and violence, thematic material, some language and teenage drinking.

“The Tree of Life” (2011): A One-Minute Film Review

How to explain a Terence Malick film to someone who has never seen one?  All at once, they are poetic, rapturous, maddening, illuminating, and even, perhaps, in a few choice moments, a bit pretentious. But one thing is for sure.  No matter what else you one might be tempted to say about a film by this man, you can never say that it is … expected. Enter Malick’s latest offering: The Tree of Life.  Lacking anything that could be conventionally described as a clear or linear storyline, the director, instead, seems utterly content to film a visual meditation on the themes of creation and evolution, fathers and sons, faith and doubt.  It is a story about a particular family rooted in a particular culture, but it’s larger than that, more ambitious in its reach.  Perhaps the best way to say it is to say that while this is the story of a family set in the 1950s, it is also the timeless story of humanity and its’ God.

In his book entitled Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, psychologist Paul Vitz puts forth an argument in which he suggests that severe disappointment with one’s biological father often leads to an individual rejecting the concept of a heavenly Father.  Tracing both the histories of prominent atheists as well as prominent theists, Vitz turns Freud’s projection theory of religion on its head, as he makes a compelling case for a correlation between our willingness to conceive of a God that cares and our experiences with fathers that may or may not.

In many ways, The Tree of Life is an almost prayerful examination of Vitz’s central thesis, filled with wondrous moments of staggering beauty and wrenching snapshots of belittling pain.  And in the end, you can almost hear the words of the Apostle Paul echoing through the narrated voiceover:  “There are two ways in life: the way of nature and the way of grace.  You have to choose which one you’ll follow.”

I highly recommend The Tree of Life as one of the most audacious and profound films released in this new millennium.

This film has been rated PG-13 for thematic material and brief language.

“Good Christian Bitches” and the Ugly Reflection We May Not Wish to See

In just a few short weeks, ABC will launch a new mid-season series under the moniker GCB.[1]  Originally titled Good Christians Bitches, the series tells the story of Amanda Vaughn, a now-single, mother-of-two, who is forced to return home to Dallas, Texas after her marriage ends in a spectacularly public scandal.  As a former high school bully, Vaughn hopes to rebuild her life through the assistance of her mother and the help of the local church.  But as the title of the series not so subtly suggests, she is quickly given an education in the “true nature” of Christian women.  In the words of Leslie Bibb, the lead actress:

“This show shines a light on people who say, “I go to church every Sunday, I’m a God-fearing person.  [This show] is like, ‘Hey, y’all, let’s just look at what’s really going on.’”

Not surprisingly, last March, when the series was still in its formative stages, the Parents Television Council came out swinging.   According to Tim Winter, the President of the PTC:

“The ‘B-word’ is toxic and is used to degrade, abuse, harass, bully and humiliate women.  The ‘Christian’ element only adds insult to injury. Regardless of whether the title ultimately makes it to broadcast, ABC has publicly proclaimed its values and it has tarnished the Disney brand … Would ABC even consider another faith to denigrate?  Would they even consider a program title or a plot line based on ‘Bitches’ who were Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist? I suspect not, and I certainly hope not.  So why the double standard?”[2]

Now on the one hand, Winter makes an excellent point.  For in American society, you do not see the widespread, open denigration of other faith groups in the same way that you see the media declare open season on Christianity.  In fact, having a character profess belief in Jesus the Christ has almost become a lazy, shorthand way of setting that character up as the antagonist of a screenplay.  But I’m not interested in talking about the unfair nature of negative stereotyping in the media.  Instead, I am interested in talking about our reactions to such messaging.  Consider, if you will, the words of the Christ as captured by the Apostle John in his Gospel:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.  Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.”[3]

Culture tells stories.  Indeed, culture itself is a story.  So should we be surprised that a secular company that is charged with the task of telling stories that make money denigrates Christianity?  Absolutely not.  Jesus told us to expect this sort of behavior.  But here’s the thing.  He didn’t simply say, “This is coming.”  He also entrusted His apostles to tell us a little about how we should respond.  And it is on this point that I want to turn your attention to the first letter penned by the Apostle Peter.

“Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you.  But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad.If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory,who is the Spirit of God, rests on you.  But let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or criminal or as a troublemaker.  But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name. For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God.[4]

Now I want you to look very closely at the latter portion of that passage.  It starts by reminding us that not all suffering is the result of unjust persecution.  Some suffering is nothing more than the product of our own actions – our own hypocrisy.  Some suffering is brought on by the fact that we claim the name of Christ, but act as if He has not given us a “spirit of power” that enables us to live lives that bring honor to His name.[5]

So today, on the eve of the launch of Good Christian Bitches, I want to ask a question.  Is society mocking us because of the exemplary way in which we bear witness to the love and sacrifice of Jesus the Christ?  Or are we being mocked because of the hypocrisy the world sees in a church that wants to claim the name of Jesus while still holding on to some of the very behaviors that we are called to release?

While I can’t say that I will likely be a regular connoisseur of this program, part of me is grateful that it’s going to air.  Part of me is grateful that society is holding a mirror up to the church, and is asking pointed, satirical – dare I say, prophetic – questions.  For through questions comes self-examination, and through self-examination comes refinement and renewed commitment to Kingdom values.

So here’s to hoping that so long as Good Christian Bitches airs, we have the courage look at this portrait of our community.  And here’s to hoping that through this ugly mirror, we, as Christians, might become more invested in telling better stories through our lives that are marked by humility, forgiveness, courage and a renewed commitment to justice.

[1] The title of the original source material was “Good Christian Bitches.”   After the Parents Television Council submitted a petition with over 120,000 signatures to ABC, the title was changed to “Good Christians Belles” before eventually being changed again to “GCB.”  New Zealand is the only market in which the show will be aired under its original title.

[3] John 15:18-20a.

[4] 1 Peter 4:12-17

[5] 1 Timothy 1:7.

“Humilitas”: A Saturday Afternoon Book Review

Today, I would like to introduce the “Saturday Afternoon Book Review,” a new series highlighting little-known books that offer valuable and often challenging insights into subjects that are sorely in need of genuine theological reflection.  I begin with John Dickson’s 2011 release, entitled Humilitas: A Lost Key to Life, Love and Leadership.

As I recently made my way through this slim, yet highly engaging, volume on the subject of humility, I was struck by one overwhelmingly convicting thought.  This virtue, which in many ways encapsulates the “fruits of the spirit”[1] described by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians, has largely disappeared in today’s society.  As the secular culture continues to promote thinking and behaviors that veer dangerously close to narcissism, the modern church has likewise adopted a similar culture whereby successful leaders and pastors are often given a pass on this characteristic so long as they can skillfully construct a wide-ranging ministry that is financially robust and openly admired.

But the interesting thing about Dickson’s book is that it does not pit humility against success or growth.  Instead, it tries to make the argument that humility is often one of the most important characteristics of those people that have historically achieved the loftiest of goals.  In other words, while people seem to be able to construct “empires” that “succeed” over a short period of time, very few construct anything lasting or memorable unless they are grounded first by the belief that it is not the individual that matters.

What a clarion call in an Enlightened society and church that seems ever more interested in elevating the glory of the individual over the needs of the community.

[1] The fruits of the Spirit are defined in Galatians 5:22-23 as follows: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Lisbeth Salander, Genital Piercing and the Dearth of Female Role Models in the Church

A few weeks ago, I picked up Scot McKnight’s new e-book entitled Junia is Not Alone.  Interestingly enough, the very week that I purchased his book, the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly arrived in my mailbox, complete with a cover caption that read: “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: How an Intense New Thriller Brought the World’s Coolest Heroine to Life.”  This, of course, got me to thinking.

Why would a magazine choose to describe Lisbeth Salander as the “coolest heroine?”  What is it about Salander that has fascinated us as a society?  What is it about her story that seems to ring so true?  While the theories abound, I think the film’s director, David Fincher, gives us a great insight when he describes how they developed Salander’s look.

“Trish Summerville, the costume designer, and I talked a lot [about Salander’s appearance].  Trish has some of the most beautiful piercings and little studs in her nose, but that’s jewelry.  By contrast, Lisbeth’s piercings – brow, nose, lip, nipple – actually look painful and self-violating.  We went back to that first idea of Sid Vicious[1] with a safety pin through his cheek and what it meant.  That was not a way of saying, ‘Look at me, I’m special, I’m different, I’m committed.’  It was a way of saying, ‘Get away or you’re going to get blood on you.’”

You see, in many ways, Lisbeth Salander, as first conceived by Steig Larrsen, represents the next step in the cultural evolution of the female archetype.  She is the post-feminist, warrior – the literary and celluloid sister of Lara Croft,[2] Buffy Summers,[3] Angelina Jolie,[4] and even the pre-pubescent Hit Girl.  But is that all that there is to her character? Is she nothing more than an avenging angel?  Again, Fincher and his team are right there to help us understand.

“She’s not an avenging angel.  We were never interested in that.  We never felt this was Dirty Harry or Death Wish.  She’s a person who has to deal with a lot of things …   Psychologically, she has to work on two currents.  One of them is saying, I don’t trust anyone, I don’t want to have anyone in my life, and I’m willing put on this garb that says, “Stay the fuck away from me.’  And at the same time, it’s almost as if she’s in agreement with what everyone has always said about her, which is that she’s trash.  She’s perfectly willing to look like refuse in order to be left alone.”

So who is Lisbeth Salander?  She’s the new 21st century female role model.  She’s a deeply scarred and troubled young woman, sexually aware, outwardly self-confident, inwardly bruised, and profoundly violent.  In many ways, she’s a male fantasy – a millennial Cinderella who, while awaiting her knight in shining armor, has the courage and the moxie to take on all comers.  Sure, she’s in need of rescue, but she’s not about to sit around twiddling her thumbs.

So with this cultural story as a background, I picked up McKnight’s new e-book, in which he lays out a devastatingly brilliant argument regarding the neutering of the Apostle Junia.  So well-documented and so airtight was his argument that I found it astonishing that we, as a church, have not heard more about the lone female apostle in the New Testament, a woman described by the Apostle Paul himself as being “prominent among the apostles.”[5]  Now I’m not going to bother you with the details of McKnight’s argument.  Quite honestly, if you’re really that interested in this subject, you should just pick up the book for $2.99.  It’s only 35 pages long; and it’ll excite your imagination in ways my reductionist summary never could.

But my point is simply this.  We know that the cultural story is a damaging story that offers little in terms of real hope for young women in the world today.  We know that sexualizing your body for the sake of marketing yourself isn’t the answer.  And we know that vengeance for all of the abuses suffered – both large and small – will never lead to closure or reconciliation.

But as McKnight so clearly illustrates, we also fail to tell a different story!  We make sloppy hermeneutical decisions to violate the text and propagate the false idea that Junia was a man.  We rarely speak on Hulldah.  We barely touch on Deborah.  In fact, about the only thing we tend to offer is a vision of the “godly wife” from Proverbs 31 – a vision that is often carefully edited to omit the fact that she works outside of the home,[6] earning her own income[7] even as she built a public reputation that is so sound, that it’s praised by the leaders of the community.[8]

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum.  And I fear that if the church does not begin to seriously take up the task of offering a truly counter-cultural image of what a female disciple might actually look like, if the church continues to let silence be its guiding principle on this subject, than we are likely looking at a future where the vacuum will be filled – not by the likes of Junia, Hulldah, and Deborah, but by the likes of Lisbeth, Buffy, and even the young Chloe Grace Moretz – women left with no choice but to “kick ass.”[9]

Click here for a discussion on misogyny, Lisbeth and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

[1] Sid Vicious was the iconic base player for the seminal punk band, Sex Pistols.

[2] Lara Croft is the fictional main character of the Tomb Raider video game series.  First released in 1996, the character has become so iconic that it has spawned 11 video game sequels, two film adaptations, a series of young adult books and even a few academic monographs seeking to understand her influence.

[3] Buffy Summers is a fictional character first developed by Josh Whedon in a 1992 film entitled Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  While Whedon’s film was essentially dead-on-arrival, he resurrected the character in a breakout series starring Sarah Michelle Gellar.  The series ran for several years, and gave birth to a spin-off program entitled, Angel, as well as numerous non-canon material such as comic books, novels and video games.

[4] Angelina Jolie is an Oscar-winning actress who first came to international fame playing Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider series.  Although she has flashed serious talent in numerous smaller projects, she is most well known for playing the type of woman described in this article.  Films in which she is depicted in this fashion include: Gone in Sixty Seconds, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Wanted and Salt.

[5] Romans 16:7.

[6] Proverbs 31:24.

[7] Proverbs 31:16.

[8] Proverbs 31:31.

[9] One of the most shocking, and provocative examples of this new female archetype is represented by Chloe Grace Moretz in Matthew Vaughn’s film, Kick Ass.  Here, the young Ms. Moretz plays a 10-year old girl who is trained to be a killer by her ex-cop father, played by Nicholas Cage.  While the film was ostensibly about the titular hero played by Aaron Johnson, the phenomenon was built around Moretz’s breakout performance as a young girl, deeply scared, but able to take on all comers.