Having followed the discussion regarding the movie The Butler, I thought I would add my two cents worth. Not about race relations in America–that would take a whole different post with a whole lot of explanations.
What I find interesting is tracking the reactions to The Butler. It is evident that, in the typical style of Hollywood, the creators of this movie played fast and loose with the facts at hand. Portions of the overall experience of life for an African-American during those years were portrayed as if they happened within the life of the family actually named in the film. That these events were very real, that the fear of racial violence was real, and the world was (and remains) unjust should not be in doubt. That such problems echo into our current lives should also not be in doubt. Just as the Holocaust haunts both Jews and Germans, so the racial legacy of America haunts us all.
In truth, The Butler was not a documentary, though. It was a sermon on race in America. Apart from having a definite Scripture reading at the beginning, this is a secular sermon regarding one of the looming elephants in our culture. The difficulty is that by blurring the lines of truth in the little aspects of the film, by creating a fictional butler around the life of a real person, the larger issues are obscured to some of us because of the details. This works in film making, but it falters in one of the keys of sermon building: know your audience.
I am not, however, writing to pile on Lee Daniel’s The Butler. (Even the naming is tad annoying: there was a film in 1916 called The Butler, so they had to rename this one? Really, there was confusion?)
I do think that the questions raised in criticism of historical semi-accuracy for that film point us to a bigger problem. Pastor, if you think the valuable point in The Butler is obscured by the fictional character being born in a different state than his real life inspiration, what about that story you told last Sunday regarding the size of the fish you caught?
Now, some people might be willing to overlook minor adjustments to the details in service of a greater point. After all, if you are able to preach to a 1000 by claiming you’ve done it before, when the nearest was 150, should we fault you? After all, the bigger story is at hand, right? The greater opportunity to do good eclipses the need to be exact on the finer points of details, right?
After all, we only have so many minutes to preach. And if it took compressing facts to make a 2-hour sermon on race, how much more compression should we take?
Except we cannot risk it. Our audience will, eventually, check our facts. And we cannot say that our sermon was meant to dramatize the whole of a situation, can we? Our preaching and teaching must resound with truth, from the Truth of the Word down through the truth of just how many people you really have led to Jesus over the years.
Over the years, I have grown accustomed to Hollywood portraying history with a loose grip: The Butler, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Gods and Generals, The Longest Day… the list is pretty long of films that give us good lessons wrapped with historical laxity. Yet all along, I would admittedly not buy a used car from the typical Hollywood producer, because I assume, based on lives and methods, that honesty is not their forte. Messages are, though.
For we who proclaim the Christian Gospel, honesty and the message are inextricably linked. You cannot embellish the facts of your life, the stories you use to illustrate, or the Gospel you proclaim. If all we have, at the end of the day, is a fictionalized account to prove a point, we are not preaching the Word of God. That, folks, is unacceptable.
A quick clarification: certainly Jesus taught in parables. And parables that are expressed as clearly fictional are a different matter entirely. I am addressing the tendency we see to take the truth and “improve it” for storytelling purposes.
This is an issue with the larger Christian community and creates an unnecessary stumbling block to sharing our gospel witness.
Case in point: The facebook story about the megachurch pastor who dressed as a homeless person on his first day to teach his church a lesson on “the least of these”. Great story! Many of my brothers and sisters in Christ shared it and it showed up on my wall every day for weeks.
…except that it is unverifiable as well as untrue regarding specific points. The picture that came with the story is of an actual homeless person in the UK, not the pastor mentioned. There is no church that has been identified as a place that this actually happened. When I first read the story, I just did a google search and quickly found out the problems with the story.
Interstingly enough, when I posted something about the lack of discernment in what Christians post on facebook (without stating the specific story), I got resounding amens from the very ones who shared the story!
That story is a blend of a few novels, including the classic In His Steps. It’s just one thing that comes to mind…
A few folks who have falsified themselves for fame also came to mind. I’ve known a few pastors who got caught with “stretches” on their resumes…many of whom recovered and found new work much quicker than the churches did.
My main thrust was this: Hollywood takes licenses with the truth, but we ought to be careful.
Not to specifically fuss at pastors, but there are times when some of them found more joy in their storytelling prowess than in their careful exegesis of the Bible. It reminded me of two things:
1. Johnathan Edwards read his sermons from paper.
2. At SWBTS during the ’86 Spring Convocation (on the second floor of the Naylor Student Center if anyone happens to remember this as well) we had a Black speaker from Philadelphia who did exactly the same thing: read his message directly, word-for-word from paper. The students in the room noted it and asked if he went “off script” at all. He said he did not. I think the majority of us were quite surprised.
A lot of us pastors are actually who I am specifically calling out on this one.
For example, for me to preach on the needs of the poor is a good thing. For me to preach on the needs of the poor and talk about being born in poverty would be even more interesting…but it would take a truth: we need to care about the poor and add a lie to it: I wasn’t born in poverty. My parents were not wealthy, but there wasn’t poverty by any stretch of the imagination.
But it sure would make for a more sympathetic sounding sermon.
See almost any talk by E. Caner as an example of this. Does not seem to have hurt him much though so I suppose it is an acceptable idea.
There’s a local TV prosperity preacher here (that fashions himself after Joel Osteen, even has billboards with them pictured together) that tells stories about growing up in poverty regularly when everyone knows he grew up in an affluent suburban enclave. Apparently it doesn’t matter.
It ought to matter. That it does not speaks more poorly of us than it does of them.
Bennent, I was thinking the same thing!
As an alum of LU I was deeply hurt and aghast at the defense they gave for Caner, sure they demoted him but …. But then another evangelical school picked him up real quickly.
I remember Elmer towns saying after the “investigation” something to the effect of – Dr. Caner did not lie, but there were some statements that didnt line up with the truth.
I’ll try to find the exact quote.
I’m sorry Caner said that he never mislead anyone but admitted to “pulpit mistakes”.
Towns said this….
“It’s not an ethical issue, It’s not a moral issue. We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage.”
http://www.baptiststandard.com/news/faith-culture/11086-university-backs-seminary-president-amid-charges-of-misrepresentation
So Tarheel’s link is fascinating. I think in order to fully absorb it, many SBs will have to put aside their bunker mentality for just a moment and consider the possibility that the majority of the Baptist Standard article is sourced from other publications and would be perceived by the public as being credible.
The temptation when one has bunker mentality is to truly believe that the entire world is out to get “us” and then to justify a defense of “one of us” when the behavior is arguably indefensible. That article arguably outlines behavior that is indefensible and that Towns wisely chose not to defend.
But he also didn’t admit that the storytelling that might have been done does damage to our collected witness. And that when a leader does that, he must be called out and his wrongdoing needs to be directly addressed. If the article is true, then to the extent that it is true it affirms the point Doug is making.
Which isn’t to say Caner is guilty of all of the things he is accused of by others. Just that it is truly ironic and unfortunate that while he worked at Liberty he took quite a few liberties with his own resume. Not that any of us is immune to exaggeration of our own stories or something…
I took issue with Dr Towns suggesting that this was not a moral or ethical issue, it falls under theological freedom…..do what?
Theological freedom to lie? That stretches my understanding of a faculty members theological freedom to a level that is way beyond me understanding of it!
Lying in his sermons and in the classroom is supremely ethical and supremely moral!
Like I said, I am still hurt by all that.
Towns’ response to the situation is arguably both political (obviously) and a result of bunker mentality at least in the sense of not opening up an SB leader to additional external criticism in my opinion. Leaders often softball responses to provide immediate protection of reputation while acting decisively in private.
That Caner changed institutions strongly indicates that Towns’ actions got the message across. I don’t think it was a message designed specifically to enable the behavior you dislike. It’s just that the lack of clarity–the lack of transparency in fact–is a political strategy designed to help avoid further criticism of Caner and of Liberty. It very much was the OTHER kind of bunker mentality in my opinion: INCOMING…put your pot on NOW.
Obviously I meant lying in the pulpit and in the classroom is both unethical and immoral.
“Factual statements that were self contradictory,” is the phrase that I marveled over at length. That whole story is both amazing and annoying.
Bennett…..YES!
That is the Dr. Towns quote I was looking for that I could not remember exactly and could not find.
Mind blowing.
I am not at all sure I understand the clamor for “historical accuracy” in movies before some people–conservative white evangelicals especially–will accept them. Well, maybe I do; I suspect that it is because it makes people uncomfortable. But the simple fact is a movie, whether made in Hollywood or at Sherwood Pictures in Albany, Georgia, has a certain power to convey truth even within a fictional setting. That is always the case with art, whether a motion picture, a book, or a painting. No one, for instance, complains that Picasso’s Guernica is a 100% historically accurate depiction of the Spanish Civil War or the 1812 Overture for Napoleon’s defeat in Russia; the truth is not so much in the “facts” of which they are composed, but rather in the truth they transmit: that atrocities happened and perpetrators exposed for one, and the emotional content of Napoleon’s defeat for the other. This is always the case in historical fiction, and while any of us–myself included–may quibble about details, to allow that to occupy our entire vision suggests (to me at least) that we are more defensive that is comfortable to admit, even to ourselves. A given sermon may be “artistic,” but there is a different standard for truthfulness in a Christian pulpit than in many other realms.
John
My point is just that: movies have that license, unless they claim to be clearly documentaries. Although it does risk obscuring the point if you’re trying to make a point: take Braveheart, for example: the movie makers, for no clear reason, shifted some of the historical details about the battles of William Wallace. If they changed historical details like that, what did they obscure about his character?
A sermon, the life of a minister, however, should take no such license. If you fought the Battle of Bannockburn with long spears and cavalry, then don’t claim you did so at Stirling.
In general, if you claim to be telling the truth, you ought to be telling the truth. If you admit, up front, that you’re telling a fictional story, then be fictional. But be clear about what you’re doing.
Howard Bell Wright wrote a famous and inspiring work of fiction entitled “Shepherd of the Hills.” He was inspired by the beauty of the Ozarks as well as the people who lived in the hills. His story included a beautiful yet sad story of the personal redemption of the main character, and the sharing of the author’s personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It was also very prophetic in nature – when the world realized the splendor of the hills, the nature of the area would change forever. Hollywood bought the rights to the story and even had the iconic John Wayne lead in the starring role, while Henry Hathaway who would work with Wayne in “True Grit” directed. This also was Wayne’s first film in color. It was screened in Branson in 1941 – half the theater emptied after about an hour, and the local critics were totally demoralized and deflated. The film is infamous in that it is one of the more radical departures of a book to film in Hollywood history – so much so that I dare say than hardly anyone on this board have heard of the film – even die hard Wayne fans.
I dare say John, “truth is truth” if on the lips of a Pastor or anyone. The standard is universal and the same for every day life or even in entertainment. I don’t think that any realm, including politicians or movie directors and screen writers will get away with it for long. The Truth is always watching.
Rob
Doug: I would disagree with this post and this is not even comparable to Ergun Caner. Not even slightly.
The movies that have made the most impact on me were and are “To Kill a Mockingbird”, “Ghosts of Mississippi” and “Mississippi Burning”. They contain facts with fiction on the characters. The facts however were real.
I agree with John Farriss in that I think for white evangelicals to dismiss “The Butler” based on the liking or not liking of the actors is to dismiss an important part of history that we should not forget. Art is art. It speaks more powerfully than the media can. Stories have always been a way of getting a point across which is why Christ used parables in his teaching.
I also agree with John in that it makes white evangelicals feel uncomfortable, yet they hail CS Lewis and preach on his stories all the time. It should make us uncomfortable. That is good writing.
Debbie, have you ever seen “a time to kill”.
All those movies you mentioned were great, insightful and thought provoking.
The Butler was also an ok movie (too many big name actors and events was a bit overwhelming, and constant in and out of them was distracting) but my biggest problem was the intimation in the lead up to it that it was a true biographical story. Very little was biographical. That is deceitful….just like what Caner did.
Yes Tarheel I have seen a “Time to Kill”. John Grisham is one of my favorite authors and I think I’ve seen about every Grisham based movie. It too was very powerful and addressed the problem well I thought.
The “close your eyes and imagine” jury scene was beyond compelling and really, really made the point.
That was a great movie. One of my all time favs.
The tension between the defense lawyer and the defendant was intense too….
The tension between the defense lawyer and the defendant was intense too…
Yeah Tarheel your right, it was. That was interesting. The more the lawyer knew his client the less intense he was. The ending said it all don’t you think?
Yea….you refering to the “close your eyes” scene?
Wow!
So stretching the truth in sermons is acceptable?
Because to disagree with the post is to state that: lying about your personal history to advance your ministry is something you’re okay with.
This was my statement on movies: “Over the years, I have grown accustomed to Hollywood portraying history with a loose grip: The Butler, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Gods and Generals, The Longest Day… the list is pretty long of films that give us good lessons wrapped with historical laxity”
This was my statement on sermons: “For we who proclaim the Christian Gospel, honesty and the message are inextricably linked. You cannot embellish the facts of your life, the stories you use to illustrate, or the Gospel you proclaim. If all we have, at the end of the day, is a fictionalized account to prove a point, we are not preaching the Word of God. That, folks, is unacceptable”
You took the exactly opposite point of what is being said. The reality of many movies, including The Butler, is that they are not 100% accurate–there was not a White House Butler whose life ran the same lines as the film. That is what movies do.
That cannot be what preachers do.
And I’ve never preached a CS Lewis story as if it were true. Anyone who preached claiming they had physically been in Narnia would be stretching their credibility past the breaking point.
I am sorry Doug, I read the post, but I read it wrong. Yes, I do agree sermons should be truthful.
Truth is fine. Fiction is fine. But blending truth and fiction so that the fiction appears to be truth is wrong. It is falsehood. I haven’t seen The Butler so I can’t speak to that situation.
But in my experience Christians are often gullible and prone to repeating the stories that they agree with and what they want to hear. You can use any of the many “Obama is coming to steal your children’s souls” stories that circulate from time to time. In my experience, any negative story about the President or some other high ranking democrat is believed without question.
From what I understand Bill, the black community does think it’s speaks to the situation and my thinking is they should know.
One more time, to make this abundantly clear:
This is not to critique the film. Everyone who has commented on The Butler has admitted that there are aspects that are fictionalized for the sake of making a movie. The movie makers admit that. Nobody should be caught off guard. For the love of bacon, they changed the Butler’s name. It’s obviously meant to cover more than just a strict biography.
The point was this: pastors cannot do the same thing. Hollywood can do this to illustrate a story and make a point. See: The Butler, Glory, Remember the Titans, Braveheart, Gods and Generals, The Patriot. This is done all the time in Hollywood.
It should NEVER be done from the pulpit. Fiction should be clearly labeled as fiction: I’ve never been Narnia, except in my imagination. If I use someone’s fiction, like Lewis, to illustrate, I highlight that it is from fiction–for example, Lewis’ A Grief Observed or Surprised by Joy are non-fiction, so there’s a difference to note.
But a preacher cannot stand there and claim to have seen something he has not, done something he has not, or lived something he has not. Even if it fits the message. A preacher cannot claim something as true that is not and expect to have any credibility.
The point was to make this connection: we see people pounce on minor details in a movie, but we seem to hardly care about major details from preachers. And that is exactly wrong.
Roots II was set about 60 miles south of where I grew up–and a few years before. When it started on TV, I resolved to watch the program. Unfortunately, the bad people said the same things some of my relatives said and even had the same accent as my relatives. After about half an hour, I decided this was no fun and changed the channel.
Some things we can’t escape. But we can recognize that they were not right.
The mention of Liberty University and Doug’s belief that pastors should not lie in their sermons reminds of a Jerry Falwell sermon. In 1980 Jimmy Carter invited Falwell and a few other pastors to the White House. There was a discussion of a number of issues. In a later sermon Falwell stated he had boldly asked Carter why he had practicing homosexuals on his staff. He stated Carter said it was because he was president of all Americans. When the story got to the White house Carter stated that was not true and Falwell again said it happened. Then Carter provided a recording and a transcript of the meeting proving that the exchange never took place and the issue was not discussed. All Falwell would say then was that he shouldn’t have said it and he had made a reckless statement. He never apologized and never said he obviously lied and made up the whole thing to make him sound good to his audience.
This is the type of thing that causes we evangelicals to lose credibility. Falwell for some reason was given as an example of conservative evangelical religion even though I would never consider him as such.
Ron,
Was the audio of the entire meeting, beginning to end, including every word that was said?
I have no doubt that he asked Carter that it sure sounds like something he’d do…..I somewhat knew Falwell…he was lots of things…some good and some less so….but a liar is not a way I would identify him.
Politicians?….well, I’ll leave that up to you.
Tarheel,
The whole meeting was taped. Actually Jerry admitted his story was made up and did not happen. Jerry Falwell may not be a liar but he did lie in this instance and has in others. You can probably google and find references or look in the Sep. 15, 1980 Newsweek magazine.
Falwell claimed to be a conservative and an inerrantist but in spite of knowing that the Bible says in John 14:6 that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that there is no other way to the Father except through Jesus, Falwell associated with and supported the ministry of Sun Myung Moon a man who claimed to be the Christ and said Jesus was a failure. To me this was supporting a lie. It could be he did this because he had asked Moon to financially help Liberty University when it was in trouble.
Jerry Falwell died over six years ago. Is there a purpose in bashing him today?
I would not consider myself Falwellian (as to style and tactics, anyway), but Liberty is an excellent school that God seems to have blessed either because of or in spite of Falwell’s character.
But now, Falwell is with our Lord and perhaps we have bigger fish to fry as gospel ministers than to enumerate his faults.
Amen, thank you Dave.. I knew and loved Doc Falwell…despite areas of disagreement (not unlike those you mentioned) I always knew him to be a man of integrity.
I’m not going to dignify other comments any further by responding Mr. West