Celebrating criminals as heroes has been a longstanding Hollywood tradition, from 1931’s “The Public Enemy,” in which James Cagney played a Prohibition-era bootlegger, to the recent “Public Enemies,” starring Johnny Depp as famed bank robber John Dillinger.

What struck me as I watched this play out yet again is that it’s a narrative tradition the Bible – one of our earliest narratives – avoids altogether. That’s curious, because the Bible is otherwise full of all sorts of seedy Hollywood elements – sex, violence and so forth. There are scoundrels aplenty in its pages, but most of their stories spend less time on the sordid details of their sins than on their hard-won redemption.

Movies such as “Public Enemies” are all about the crime and punishment. Directed by macho filmmaker Michael Mann (“Heat,” “Miami Vice”), “Public Enemies” immerses itself in its tough-guy underworld, with Johnny Depp’s Dillinger as the noble outlaw at its center.

Robbing a bank, Dillinger flashes a smile and tells a customer to keep the cash he had laid out on the counter. “We’re not here for your money,” he says. He’s nothing less than a gentleman to the female tellers he temporarily kidnaps in order to make his getaway, even leaving one his fine top coat so she won’t be cold.

Add to this the fact that Dillinger is rarely shown with actual blood on his hands and you have yet one more addition to the legend of Dillinger as some sort of gallant, Depression-era Robin Hood.

Of course, as in gangster movies since the dawn of cinema, even the dashing criminal must get his comeuppance. And so “Public Enemies” ends with Dillinger’s death at the hands of the FBI outside of Chicago’s Biograph Theater. Yet the “punishment” feels as obligatory as the opening titles of 1931’s “The Public Enemy,” which took great pains to insist that the movie to follow wasn’t meant to glorify a criminal lifestyle.

The Bible has villains who are punished too – think of Judas. But Judas’ suicide was a dismal ending to a tragic story, not a slow-motion, romanticized, martyr-like moment.

Hardly the sort of part for a matinee idol like Johnny Depp.

Admittedly, we’re a little late to the game on this, but TC has finally made the leap to Facebook.  Our main delay centered around our internal discussions of what we should do make a Facebook page interactive for TC-ers.

Instead of sitting around and talking about it any longer, we’re asking you what you want.  We’ve started a discussion over on our Facebook page where you can share your thoughts.  If you want it to just be a feed of the latest posts, that’s fine.  But we’re really interested to hear if there’s something more you want.

Earlier this month, when visitors came to the largest video game conference in the U.S., they were greeted by protesters.  The group of people were Christians who were upset at the release of a new video game called Dante’s Inferno.  At least that’s what the video game developer, Electronic Arts, wanted you to think.

As Phil Cooke recently pointed out on his blog, the protesters were actually actors hired through a marketing firm for EA.  The company hoped the parody protests would generate some publicity like real protests have in the past.  The fake mob carried signs saying “Hell Is Not a Video Game” and “Trade in Your PlayStation for a PrayStation.”  Plus EA even created a website, which unfortunately mirrors some awful Christian design work, to make the protests seem more realistic.

As I read this article, the question that popped into my mind was the same that Cooke shared with his readers.

When the culture creates a parody protest from Christians, isn’t that a huge indicator that the real ones they’re making fun of, don’t work? Maybe it’s time Christians created a new engagement strategy.

What do you think?

I wrote earlier on celebrating sexuality within a Christian worldview. I still think the world yearns for affirmation of our sexuality from God’s point of view, especially since the world never hesitates to offer distortions and lies on the topic.

However, the most intriguing responses to me were the voices of Christian singles. I heard much pain and a little anger toward the church on the topic.

Part of the irony about Christian sexuality is an acknowledgment that singles are created sexual persons too, even if celibate. And I confess, I’ve spoken more with struggling couples than singles, so I’m not sure how to speak well to the issue. The call to celibacy is clear enough, but how do we speak together in love and care?

So I’d love to hear more from singles about how the church can minister to them, not so much in terms of a an overall organization or a big program for all singles, but pastorally as sexual persons.

How should pastors speak to you as a single person about your sexuality? Is it something you restrict? Manage? Celebrate? What words would you use? What insensitive terms make you cringe when you hear them applied to you from church people and pastors?

What advice do you have young singles?

What do you wish every pastor would hear?

Frankly, I’m looking for an education from singles about singles and their sexuality so I can be a better pastor.  Let me hear more of your voices!

So, what’s so special about embryonic stem cells? Here’s how President Obama described them in the speech we looked at in a previous post:

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions: to regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair; to spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles; to treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

It’s good that the president wishes to avoid overstating the “promise of stem cell research,” but it’s hard not to be impressed by that list of maladies. It looks like the kind of list you see in an advertisement for organic bovine fecal extract (or similar remedies). How did stems cells, and specifically embryonic stem cells, get this reputation?

Embryonic stem cell (ES cells) have two distinguishing properties. First and most notably, they have unlimited developmental potential. In other words, an embryonic stem cell is capable of developing into any cell type: nerve cell, muscle cell, skin cell, blood cell. Unlike every other known cell type, and unlike so-called adult stem cells, an ES cell hasn’t burned any bridges by becoming committed to a particular lineage of descendants. The stem cells in the bone marrow, for example, are adult stem cells which are quite useful for making new blood cells but are unable to make muscle cells by virtue of their commitment to the blood-cell lineage. The bone marrow stem cells can make several different types of cells, so they are referred to as multipotent. The ES cells, lacking any constraint on their developmental trajectory, are called pluripotent. It is their pluripotency that makes them so interesting and so potentially useful.

The second property is self-renewal. A stem cell, by definition, has the capacity to regenerate itself every time it divides. So when a stem cell divides, it makes two distinct cells: one is a cell that can go on to develop into a particular cell type (nerve, muscle, skin, blood) and the other is a cell that retains the properties of the original stem cell. This is important, because when cells make their final developmental decision they often forfeit their ability to divide anymore. If stem cells merely turned into such cells, the body would quickly run out of stem cells. Now, note that this second property is not specific to ES cells: all stem cells of every kind have the property of self-renewal. That’s what makes them stem cells.

Putting these two properties together, we see that ES cells are cells that can self-renew continuously, so that a small population (in a culture dish) can quickly be expanded into a very large population which can be easily subdivided and shared with multiple labs and/or frozen for future use. And these cells can be coaxed into becoming any cell type. Add a little of this and a little of that, and you can get ES cells to turn into dopaminergic neurons, which are the very cells that are destroyed in Parkinson’s disease. Skin cells? Done. Heart muscle cells? Done. Sperm? Eggs? Believe it or not, yes, that’s been done. (Think about that one. We’ll come back to it in the future.)

And that means that ES cells represent a practically unlimited source of human cells of every type. This is why the cells are thought to have the potential to help us understand and address maladies of the kind the president listed: they provide an opportunity to study the ins and outs of development, but much more importantly they provide an opportunity to create the cells and tissues that can be used to fix damaged bodies.

The potential is real. It shouldn’t be overstated, but it’s real. And yet we all know why the creation of ES cells is profoundly controversial. It seems to me that this is a serious ethical conflict, a real problem. Defining it as a “false choice” – as the president unwisely did in his speech – doesn’t solve the problem. Is there another way?

A couple of months ago, ESPN did a story on professional athletes and their tithing habits.

Famous boxer Evander Holyfield was one of the athletes profiled.  He’s given millions of dollars to his church (which faces some controversy of its own, but let’s set that aside for now).  At the same time, his mansion in Georgia went into foreclosure.  When questioned about why he would pay his tithe before his mortgage he said:

“Because I know that tithe, me paying that tithe, it’s going to better me off in the long run.”

The Bible talks about both paying debt and tithes, but if you were in the same situation as Holyfield, what would you do?  Which would you pay first?

(Quick Thought comments should be short.  Maybe a couple sentences but no more than 100 words or so.)

I won’t defend reality television as a quality genre of tv, but I will admit freely that I occasionally enjoy watching it. Especially as a roommate bonding activity. Though I don’t generally watch television for edification (everybody needs to space out once in a while), I occasionally am surprised to find some anyway.

I’ve seen a few episodes of the new season of Tori and Dean: Home Sweet Hollywood. This series follows the lives of Tori Spelling and Dean McDermott and their two young children. I actually was not previously a huge fan of either of these people, and I know there’s a lot of editing in these situations, but I like this show. What I especially like about it is that both Tori and Dean are really relatable, flawed, human characters. Even though some of their activities are kind of opulent and ridiculous in a Hollywood kind of way, some of Tori’s worries and reactions especially are things I recognize from my own life. It’s kind of comforting to see your own struggles (and sometimes neuroses) in other people as well, whether or not those people are rich or famous. Perhaps this appeal explains the popularity of Bravo’s Real Housewives series as well.

Something I’ve grown to appreciate about Tori and Dean in particular, though, is the loving way that Tori and Dean treat each other.  For example, in a recent episode, Dean was offered the lead in a TV movie that filmed during the time they were scheduled to move into a new house. Leaving Tori (ok, and her friends and hired help) to move the entire home and care for the children was stressful for her. Watching them negotiate each other’s personal and professional needs in this situation was kind of inspiring. They were both aware that people need to make sacrifices to make relationships work, and were willing to consider a variety of possibilities. Ultimately, Tori said to Dean something like “No, you need to take the job. I’m stressed about it, but things like this happen in life.”

I think it’s really unusual to see couples deal with these questions in a respectful, loving, direct way on television.  In fact, it’s rare I see a married couple on TV that makes me think “yeah, that’s the kind of relationship I want.” Most men on TV are relationally and domestically incompetent (I’ve taken to calling this Sitcom Dad syndrome), and women are often passive aggressive or nags or both. They don’t represent people I want to be or be in relationships with. Sometimes I feel like couples on TV, “real” and fictional, could use some training in interpersonal communication.

I think examples like Tori and Dean are a great reminder that God sows his grace indiscriminately, and sometimes people who aren’t even Christians can show us what it means to love each other and to try to do what’s right in a relationship. There are plenty of things about Tori and Dean’s life that I do not envy or desire, but I’m grateful for the opportunity to see things I do want to appreciate and emulate. Especially after the heavily-publicized relational struggles of other reality tv couples like John and Kate (see the TC thread on that too) it’s good to see that fame doesn’t always corrupt relationships, and pictures of God-given love and patience show up in unexpected places.

A core principle of the backlash against the social messaging service Twitter—or are we up to the backlash against the anti-backlash now?—is that shorter messages are dumber messages. Twitter constrains messages to a mere 140 characters, and critics say it just puts another dent in our insect-like attention spans, and our ability to think and communicate complex thought. Shorter, shallower, dumber—it’s the trajectory of Western civilization.

As a writer, though, I believe in a different principle, the one that says: “If you need the long version, I’ll have it to you tomorrow. If you need the short version, it won’t be finished until next week.” Shorter can be—though certainly not necessarily—harder, crisper, smarter, more effective, more meaningful. (Perhaps I can convince you, by counterexample, as you read further in this post, that shorter is better.)

It struck me recently that this is the governing principle of the biblical book of Proverbs, and that Proverbs might be the best ancient analogue to Twitter. I wanted to test this theory by seeing how the book of Proverbs worked as a Twitter feed, but then I realized that somebody already had, at www.twitter.com/proverbsfeed. See? Perfect. (And in fact, since Hebrew is a much more concise language than English, Proverbs was originally written in even fewer characters, 100 or less per proverb.)

Read the rest of this entry »

We recently took a poll about how TC-ers juggle summer vacations and going to church.

The vast majority of us, 75%, keep on keepin’ on during the summer.  But about a fourth of us miss a few Sundays at our home church thanks to vacationing, sleeping in, playing in sun, etc.

So I’m wondering, what’s your routine if you’re out of town on Sunday?  Do you visit a church where ever you are?  Maybe you hold your own devotions in a hotel room?  Or do you take a little summer sabbatical?

“Madea Goes to Jail,” producer-writer-director-star Tyler Perry’s sixth feature film, came out on DVD this week, adding to one of the more remarkable and idiosyncratic careers in Hollywood.

Without the support of a major studio or the talent of big-time stars – and in the face of routinely negative reviews – Perry’s movies have been reliably, resoundingly profitable. How does he do it?

One theory points to the fact that Perry’s films frequently contain a Christian message, thereby appealing to a market that puts religious content ahead of marketing influence, star power and critical opinion. Perry’s movies often feature moral scoundrels – prostitutes, drug dealers, abusive husbands – who find redemption via a combination of family and Christianity. Madea – a sassy, pistol-toting grandmother played by Perry in drag – may go to jail, but she’s also the founding member of his church of lost-their-way saints.

Read the rest of this entry »