Blogcritics Author: Jordan J. Ballor

Power and Tyranny in Civilization IV

Jordan J. Ballor — Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:35:13 EDT

Civ IV deserves praise for integrating religion into the game play, but in the end it becomes one more tool for tyranny.
It took awhile, but after its release in 2005, the latest installment of the popular computer game Civilization IV was received warmly by many cultural commentators. Civilization IV, or Civ IV for short, was hailed alternatively as "a video game for the ages," and "a kind of social-sciences chessboard that blends history and logic...

Digital Book Review: The Logos Edition of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics

Jordan J. Ballor — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:51:12 EDT

What was an unwieldy and often inaccessible resource in print form becomes a powerful tool for critical engagement of contemporary theology.
Late last year controversy arose after the federal Bureau of Prisons had created a list of approved religious and spiritual books that would be allowed into prison chapels. Among those authors who was excluded from the list was the greatly influential twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth. The potentially incendiary nature of religion was...

Beowulf Fails To Uphold Its Legacy

Jordan J. Ballor — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:42:15 EST

Unless you go to the film solely for the special effects or have absolutely no appreciation for the narrative legacy of the epic, avoid this Beowulf film.
When I first heard that the epic tale of Beowulf was being made into a feature-length film, I was excited. Ever since I had first seen the live-action version of The Fellowship of the Ring from Peter Jackson, I had thought that a similar treatment could do a wonderful job with the Beowulf epic.And then when I learned that the Beowulf film was going...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Home Runs Against Hitler: The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg

Jordan J. Ballor — Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:47:56 EDT

Over the weekend I had the chance to see an airing of the 1998 documentary, The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg on Detroit public television. The film does an excellent job portraying the life of a baseball superstar complicated by social and political events in the 1930s and 1940s. One of the film's featured commentators was Alan Dershowitz, who said Hank Greenberg was the most important Jew in the world in the 1930s because he exploded Hitler's propaganda myths about the physical superiority of Aryans. Greenberg stood 6'4" and in 1938 he finished the season with 58 home runs, making a remarkable run at the home run record of Babe Ruth.During that decade Greenberg thought of himself as hitting "home runs against Hitler." But in 1941, Greenberg traded in his bats for bullets, serving in the armed forces between 1941-1944 during WWII.While he was not particularly observant religiously, the film does a good job of showing how important Greenberg's Jewish identity became to him as his career wore on, as his prominent standing within the local, national, and global Jewish communities increased along with his accomplishments on the field."Hank Greenberg was a great hero in Detroit, especially to the Jewish population," said Tigers Hall of Fame broadcaster Ernie Harwell.In a strange twist of fate, the still-productive Greenberg was traded before his final season from the Detroit Tigers to the Pittsburgh Pirates, where he was present for Jackie Robinson's entry into the majors. Greenberg and Robinson faced each other on the field, and Greenberg was able to give Robinson words of encouragement in the face of virulent racism.In seeing the hatred that Robinson faced, Greenberg was able to relativize the powerful anti-Semitism he had faced in his own breakthrough to the major leagues. Greenberg felt that after his feats on the field of baseball and the field of battle that it was only after WWII that the question of his ethnic and religious identity was pushed to the background. He had finally become simply a baseball player -- and he hopefully predicted that Jackie Robinson would one day come to achieve that recognition as well.As we mark the beginning of baseball season this week in 2007, it's a good opportunity to remember the contributions of Hammerin' Hank Greenberg on the baseball field and to the cause of social and religious tolerance in the modern world.Greenberg was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1956, and in just nine full seasons finished with a career batting average of .313, along with 331 home runs and 1276 RBI. Tiger great Hal Newhouser said of Greenberg that if he had to pick one batter to drive in a run in a crucial situation, he would pick Hank Greenberg over greats like Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. Unless, of course, the batter would be facing Greenberg's arch-nemesis, the great Cleveland pitcher Bob Feller!

Jordan J. Ballor is a Ph.D. student in historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. Jordan serves as associate editor of the Journal of Markets & Morality and is a contributor to the Acton Institute PowerBlog.

Movie Review: 300

Jordan J. Ballor — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:44:30 EDT

I saw 300 on Saturday night. The IMAX was sold out, so I saw it in "digital cinema presentation," which was of noticeably higher quality than a regular showing.I really liked the film (Anthony Bradley gives it a 'B'). The visuals are quite striking and impressive. The action sequences alone are well worth the price of admission. Gerard Butler gives a powerful performance as King Leonidas, and his wife, Queen Gorgo (played by Lena Headey), does more than hold her own. When an emissary from Xerxes arrives in Sparta, he is taken aback that a woman dare speak in the counsel of men. Gorgo responds that only Spartan women are capable of birthing "proper men."In the strength of her performance, however, Headey stands above the rest of the cast, who are constantly in danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer forcefulness of Butler's portrayal. In particular the portrayal of Delios, the narrator and witness to the events of 300, by David Wenham (who also played Faramir in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) suffers notably in comparison to Butler's Leonidas.There is a fair bit of titillation, from the sensuality of a "drunk adolescent" oracle to the lurid temptations faced by the Ephialtes, and once the violence starts it is quite graphic. This film certainly won't get the Dove Foundation's approval. The grim gallows humor of the dialogue lends itself to numerous memorable one-liners, mostly from the mouth of Leonidas. He tells the self-proclaimed god-man Xerxes, for instance, that he cannot kneel in submission because his legs are cramped from killing Persians all day. At other times the dialogue seems a bit uneven, perhaps because of the notable difference in verbal requirements between a graphic novel and a screenplay.The film has received mixed reviews, in large part due to the facile comparisons that could be made between Leonidas and George W. Bush. A leitmotif of the film is the battle between the free citizen warriors of Sparta and the slaves under the tyrannical domination of Xerxes. Thus, says Leonidas, "A new age has come, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it."Particularly suited to contemporary comparison is the scene in which the other Greeks abandon Leonidas and his Spartans to their death at the hands of Xerxes' forces. It is almost impossible at that point not to think of the splintering of the coalition forces in Iraq. Of course there are many reasons that the movie shouldn't be taken as an allegory for the modern situation, but the ease with which parts of the film can be interpreted in this way no doubt explains much of the media's ambivalence toward the film.It's worth noting what Lord Acton observed about the character of freedom and democracy in particular after the united Greeks were victorious in the Persian wars. This ushered in a period where Athens dominated the confederation of city-states, and whose abuse of power (from the perspective of the Spartans) led to the Peloponnesian War.Acton writes of Athens and their democracy, "But the lesson of their experience endures for all times, for it teaches that government by the whole people, being the government of the most numerous and most powerful class, is an evil of the same nature as unmixed monarchy, and requires, for nearly the same reasons, institutions that shall protect it against itself, and shall uphold the permanent reign of law against arbitrary revolutions of opinion."We can see this danger in the film itself, as the commitment of the warrior-state of Sparta to the purity and strength of bloodline leads to the practice of eugenics and infanticide. This practice comes home to roost in an ironic fashion indeed, playing a direct role in the demise of Leonidas himself. And so perhaps there are some contemporary lessons to be learned from 300 after all beyond the obvious ones about the value of bravery, fortitude, and commitment.

Movie Review: The Pursuit of Happyness

Jordan J. Ballor — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:33:23 EST

Will Smith's latest movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, stands as an extended argument underscoring the truth of conservative values. This may sound like an improbable anomaly given the traditional political, ethical, and social allegiances of Hollywood, but the power of the story lies in its basis in fact, and this in turn prevents it from being appropriated as a tool for liberal political ideology.The narrative is inspired by the true life experiences of Christopher Gardner, a struggling and homeless single father turned successful stockbroker and CEO. The story begins in 1981, as the nation was beginning to emerge from the dark economic period inaugurated under the administration of President Jimmy Carter. Early on the protagonist is watching a television address by Ronald Reagan, outlining the woeful fiscal climate of the country, with record deficits and unemployment. The national unemployment rate for the first few years of the 1980s hovered between 7.1 and 9.7 percent. By 1989 the rate would be at a decade low of 5.3 percent. In real life, Christopher Gardner speaks of his "spiritual genetics," a legacy of religious affection inculcated in him by his mother. Religious elements in the film are understated but nevertheless present. One of the film's great moments of emotional catharsis occurs in the context of a gospel worship service. On another occasion, Christopher's son, played by Will Smith's own son Jaden Christopher Syre Smith, tells a joke:There was a man who was drowning, and a boat came, and the man on the boat said "Do you need help?" and the man said "God will save me". Then another boat came and he tried to help him, but he said "God will save me", then he drowned and went to Heaven. Then the man told God, "God, why didn't you save me?" and God said "I sent you two boats, you dummy!"The point of the joke and its place in the film is that God normally works his providential will through natural means.An instance of this providential work comes in Gardner's relationship with his job as the movie begins, as a salesman of bone density scanners. The credulous Gardner has invested his family's savings into purchasing a stock of these devices, which he can in turn sell to his exclusive market of San Fransisco area medical centers. In order to finance their living expenses for the duration of an unpaid internship (his entry into the stockbroking profession), Gardner must sell all of his remaining scanners.At one point Chris Jr. and his father fancifully imagine that the scanner is a time machine, and Chris Sr. uses this as an opportunity to distract his son from their dire circumstances. They pretend that they have traveled back to prehistoric times and must seek refuge from the marauding dinosaurs. This imaginative playfulness belies the fact that they must spend the night in a subway station bathroom, one of the more touching scenes in the film.But the scanner truly is a "time machine" in a metaphorical sense. When Gardner has finally sold the final machine, he describes it as an injection of "four more weeks" of oxygen. The sale of the machines, cashing in on their capital value, represents much needed time to complete the critically important internship at Dean Witter.Absent from the movie are traditional hallmarks of liberal criticism of the market economy: Gardner's story is one that occurs within an America conceived as a meritocracy rather than one defined by racism or class struggle. All of the rich white characters in the film, with one possible exception, treat Gardner with respect, fairness, and dignity, even compassion. And Gardner does in fact fight against poverty, but he does so within a context that ultimately rewards his hard work and intelligence. While there are striking images that display the contrast between rich and poor, Gardner's financial success as a stockbroker is actually dependent upon the creation of wealth through entrepreneurship and enterprise in the stock market.The Pursuit of Happyness succeeds as a broad meditation on the themes of liberty and justice articulated in The Declaration of Independence. In an ironic twist on Jefferson's conception of the role of government, Gardner quotes the language of the first draft of the Declaration (which ultimately was not adopted), that speaks about the "disturbers of our harmony." The greatest disturber of Gardner's harmony and the largest obstacle in his pursuit of happiness turns out to be the government itself, when it seizes $600 from Gardner's bank account for overdue taxes, leaving him with less than $25. It is at this point in the story when Gardner and son are finally evicted from their last hotel room and must seek refuge in the beds of the Christian mission's homeless shelter.Gardner is understandably and perhaps justifiably incensed: "That's my money! They can't just take it!" The desperation in Gardner's character is as much a result of his devotion to his son and his valiant efforts to meet his parental responsibilities as anything else. When Chris' wife leaves the family for New York, he repeats emphatically of his son, "Christopher is staying with me." Augustine reiterates the classical depiction of the common filial bond in a father's attitude toward his son, saying, "Surely what Cicero says comes straight from the heart of all fathers, when he wrote: 'You are the only man of all men whom I would wish to surpass me in all things'." So much of what Gardner does in Pursuit is aimed at the welfare and betterment of his own child. Thus, he tells young Chris, "You got a dream, you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it. You want something? Go get it. Period."The Pursuit of Happyness is well worth seeing, as a life lesson in the value of hard work and devotion to family. The series of pitfalls and the breathless, stressful, non-stop pace with which Gardner seeks to overcome these challenges underscores the nature of the pursuit of happiness in this world:It was right then that I started thinking about Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, and our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I remember thinking, "How did he know to put the pursuit part in there?" That maybe happiness is something we can only pursue, and maybe actually we can never have it, no matter what. How did he know that?The spiritual realities that are implicit in the film but come through in the real life story of Chris Gardner, who has manifested his faith in part through his work with the Glide United Methodist Church in San Francisco, hint at the truth that our happiness is dependent on the orientation of our use of earthly goods toward a reality greater than ourselves. Seeking happiness in only material or transient objects is necessarily a fleeting experience.Even so, the story of Chris Gardner illustrates the best that is possible within this worldly order, wherein earthly goods enable a measure of peace, while at the same time still pointing to the ultimate peace that is only achievable on the basis of a transcendent divine reality.

Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience

Jordan J. Ballor — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:12:28 EDT

Ron Sider’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience is a noteworthy achievement. On the one hand, it represents an almost complete shift away from left-leaning government-oriented solutions to social and economic problems that characterize the first edition of his popular Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. This movement had already become apparent by the time Sider released the 20th anniversary edition of Rich Christians, in which he embraced increased access to markets and capital investment as necessary components of solutions to global poverty. In Scandal, Sider explicitly acknowledges this perspective, as he writes of “the stunning success of market economies in producing ever-greater material abundance.”Sider is thus able to recognize the basic goodness of creation: “Historic Christianity has been profoundly materialistic. The created world is good. God wants us to create wealth and delight in the bounty of the material world.” A key part of Sider’s project is to properly and relatively value the material and temporal in light of the spiritual and eternal. Thus he rightly notes that “historic Christianity also placed firm boundaries on this materialism. Nothing, not even the whole material world, matters as much as one’s relationship with God.”In this brief text, Sider time and again emphasizes the call to Christian faithfulness that has been the hallmark of his career. Freed from the pervasive distortions of leftist economic ideology, Sider’s corresponding message becomes even more clear and powerful. Thus he writes, “If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”By acknowledging the relative but real good of wealth, Sider is able to incisively point out the dangers that necessarily flow out of affluence. Sider argues that the opportunity and responsibility that come with wealth have created a corresponding temptation, and “nurtured a practical materialism that has maximized individual choice. Desiring ever-growing sales to produce ever-greater profits, businesses discovered the power of seductive advertising.” He maintains that American Christians “must dethrone mammon and materialism in our hearts and congregations through a more faithful use of our money.”Sider’s main adversary in this book is the licentious antinomianism of American evangelical Christianity. He writes, “Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activity, most ‘Christians’ regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment.” Sider’s call is to a rigorously faithful and pious Christianity, consistent in both theory and practice. As he argues, “We proudly trumpet our orthodox doctrine of Christ as true God and true man and then disobey his teaching.”In this project, Sider issues a prophetic lament over the behavior of American Christians: “We divorce, though doing so is contrary to his commands. We are the richest people in human history and know that tens of millions of brothers and sisters in Christ live in grinding poverty, and we give only a pittance, and almost all of that goes to our local congregation. Only a tiny fraction of what we do give ever reaches poor Christians in other places. Christ died to create one new multicultural body of believers, yet we display more racism than liberal Christians who doubt his deity.”The downside of Sider’s prophetic zeal is that the book is characterized by a reactionary tone, and this leads to some conflicting emphases and propositions despite Sider’s desire for consistency. Thus he can say on the one hand, in good evangelical fashion, that nothing matters as much as one’s personal relationship with God, and that “forgiveness of sins is at the center of Jesus’s proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom.” But he can also say that “the gospel and salvation involve far more than forgiveness of sins” and, “an exclusive emphasis on personal, individualistic approaches without a parallel concern for structural causes and solutions is wrong at several points.”Sider attempts to synthesize these truths by using the complementary images of Christ as both Savior and Lord. He writes, “Many contemporary Christians act as if it is possible to divide Jesus up, accepting him as Savior and neglecting him as Lord. But Jesus is one person. He cannot be torn apart that way. Either we accept the whole person, Lord and Savior, or we do not accept him at all.” Generally speaking, Christ as Savior refers to the personal forgiveness of sins, while Christ as Lord refers to the rule of Christ’s kingdom in social structures.The challenge for Sider and those following him will be to rightly emphasize both the individual and social aspects of the gospel message without swinging the pendulum too far the opposite way. Indeed, if evangelicals have traditionally emphasized the personal at the cost of the social, progressives have traditionally done the reverse. Sider makes an admirable attempt to mediate between these two extremes, and although he is not completely successful, he does provide us a useful model. Is evangelism something for which resources are really just “left over”? Does Sider’s continuing affiliation with Jim Wallis and Call to Renewal adequately express this mediating position?Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote that for the Anglo-Saxon churches, the “blessings of suffering and of the rebirth that might follow from it are withdrawn from the church.” Sider’s book is an attempt to emphasize the costliness of grace and the sacrifices that we must be willing to make in faithful service to our Lord. The American church is a comfortable church and is not accustomed to suffering. For this reason, Sider’s message is a timely one that ought not be ignored."To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." Revelation 3:14-22 (NIV)

Superman and Jesus? Not So Fast...

Jordan J. Ballor — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:04:50 EDT

The 16th-century Reformed theologian Peter Martyr Vermigli wrote that “nothing may be found in the world so abject or lowly that it gives no witness to God.” This was such a standard doctrine in the Christian tradition that 200 years later Jonathan Edwards, America’s greatest theologian, could write of something as mundane as the life and death cycle of insects as attesting to the “wisdom of the Creator.”These days it has become commonplace for Christians to make far more specific claims that worldly things display the reality, power, and wisdom of God. Indeed, a distinctively Christ-oriented interpretation is a regular occurrence. For example, mega-church leader Mark Driscoll wrote recently about Jack Bauer, the lead character from the hit TV series 24, as a “type” of Christ.This typological language is derived from a long-accepted tradition of interpreting the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, specifically that the Old Testament foreshadowed the things of the New in signs and figures. In this way, one might say that King David was a type of Christ, because he was the head of God’s people, or that Moses, as God’s prophet and lawgiver, was a type of Christ.The latest example of this application of typological interpretation to contemporary figures comes with the recent spate of articles ahead of the release of this summer’s anticipated blockbuster Superman Returns. Religion educators in the UK are using Superman “as a modern-day example of Jesus Christ” to “give children an insight into morality and religious thinking.” Dr. Greg Garrett, professor of English at Baylor University, says that Superman “is just about as near as popular culture can come to showing us what a savior might look and act like.” Steve Skelton, author of The Gospel According to the World’s Greatest Superhero as well as the video-based Super Man Bible Study, says that the similarities between Christ and Superman are so close that he has to wonder, “Who else could it be referring to?”These kinds of observations stem from a laudable impulse to responsibly engage the culture and bring religious convictions to bear in the public square. But Christians risk undermining our own influence when we simply latch on to the pop icon of the moment in undiscerning and uncritical ways. We simultaneously risk becoming unwitting tools of clever marketers, who wish to tap the financial and moral resources of evangelical Christianity.Some things point us to God in rather direct ways, others more indirectly, and still others show us divine truths by opposition and contrast rather than by similarity. Superman is a figure who is striking not so much for his similarity to Christ, but rather for his dissimilarity. We might say that the typological relation between Jesus and Superman is that of Christ and anti-Christ. Indeed, those looking for a more direct analogue to the comic hero Superman would do well to look at the writings of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, whose intellectual influence was in full bloom on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1930s, the decade when the Superman comic was born.Many Christians embraced the Superman hero when a trailer for the new movie was released using the words of Superman’s father Jor-El, voiced by Marlon Brando: “Even though you’ve been raised as a human being you’re not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I sent them you... my only son.”The superficial similarities between Jesus and Superman are clear. Both are sons sent to Earth to save humankind. But it is here that the likeness ends and the more fundamental differences appear. What the preceding quote illustrates is that Superman is supposed to lead humankind into a future in which we realize our own innate potential. The title character in Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra teaches the people about the coming of the Superman, and speaks of this potential: “It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.” Humans are “something that is to be surpassed,” and “a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman.”This goal is the Superman, who is “the sense of their existence” and “the lightning out of the dark cloud.” In a posthumously published book, aptly titled The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche makes the explicit case for his opposition of the Superman to the Christian, whom he calls “the sick human animal.”Nietzsche’s Superman is a being who embodies the will to power, for “Life itself is to my mind the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking, there is decline.” Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound: The comic book figure Superman is the embodiment of such invincibility and power. The antithesis of power and strength is weakness and suffering. The apostle Paul writes of Jesus Christ, who “humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross.” Christ the suffering servant, who sacrifices himself and endures the ignominious death of crucifixion for the sins of the world, is the scandal of Christianity, the stumbling block opposing the wisdom of the world. And this is why Nietzsche, who captures worldly wisdom so well, writes so disparagingly about “the death of the Nazarene.”Superman, the secular savior-figure, manifests the superlative qualities that the world worships: power, strength, immortality. Jesus Christ embodies mercy, weakness, and suffering. But as Paul also writes, “The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.”The comic figure of Superman may indeed point us to Christ. Many Christian commentators are right in recognizing this. But if we do truly see Christ through Superman, it is by contrast and not by similarity.

Movie Review: Nacho Libre

Jordan J. Ballor — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:25:51 EDT

Jack Black stars as the title character in this campy salute to Lucha Libre, or freestyle wrestling, a hallmark of popular Latin culture. In Nacho Libre, Black’s character begins as the lowly Ignacio, an orphan who grew up at a Catholic mission and who has now become one of the mission brothers. Ever since his youth, Ignacio has dreamed of becoming a luchador, a flamboyant and famous wrestler. Instead, Ignacio serves at the mission, caring for a new generation of needy orphans. When Sister Encarnación (Ana de la Reguera) arrives to be the orphans’ new teacher, Ignacio has even more incentive to become successful and wealthy so that he can impress the attractive young nun. Ignacio’s motives are not entirely pure, and indeed, he must keep his burgeoning young wrestling career a secret, because Lucha Libre is condemned by the Catholic mission. Lucha Libre, it seems, is seen as a form of idolatry, as the wrestlers seek only praise and wealth for themselves. Indeed, Ignacio’s interaction with the luchadores confirms this, as Ramses, who Ignacio acknowledges is “the best,” turns out to be a less than charitable figure. But Ignacio will not be denied his destiny and so he dons the persona of Nacho Libre once a week to wrestle with his tag team partner Esqueleto, well played by Héctor Jiménez. The two are rather inept wrestlers, but are such lovable losers they become crowd favorites and are well paid despite their incompetence. This is not enough for Nacho, who has visions, perhaps delusions, of greatness. He wants to win.Ignacio’s desire to reach his own destiny can been seen as a response to his perceived calling in life, otherwise known as his vocation, an idea which has a rich tradition in Christian theology. Vocation is literally “a calling,” and it is clear that Ignacio’s desire to become a luchador has been deeply implanted with him since his youth.The dramatic tension enters into the equation because of the Church’s disapproval of Ignacio’s dream profession. This speaks to the difficulty faced when a person is convinced of a calling that is in an industry wholly condemned by ecclesiastical authorities. To be sure, there are some professions in which it is impossible to be both a Christian and remain in that line of work. But perhaps, thinks Ignacio, wrestling is not one of them. He can see some clear good that luchadores might do, not the least of which is providing hopeless orphans a positive role model. Is Ignacio’s perceived calling merely his own vain, self-seeking ambition or a legitimate vocation from God? In some ways, Ignacio’s efforts can be seen as done by one who seeks to reform the Church’s understanding of this worldly profession. In this way, Ignacio/Nacho acts as a more mundane and contemporary analogue to the more famous reforms advocated by Martin Luther in the sixteenth-century. When Luther left the Augustinian monastery and the celibate priesthood, in the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it was a “return from the cloister to the world,” and “the worst blow the world had suffered since the early days of Christianity.” To be sure, Ignacio’s attempts at reform are far less dramatic and consequential, but we can see a parallel in the effort to carve out some validity for the Christian pursuit of a secular calling.But it is only when Ignacio comes to the realization that his calling is not simply about his own edification but the service of others that he enjoys a measure of wrestling success. Ignacio’s epiphany seems to truly come home as he acts out a Jonah-like trek into the wilderness, constructing a makeshift shelter on the edge of the village after his wrestling exploits are exposed and he is ejected from the monastery (see Jonah 4:5).This illustrates another truth about the Christian concept of vocation, in that this calling is in every case a calling to serve others rather than simply yourself. In this sense, Bonhoeffer also writes, “Only in so far as the Christian’s secular calling is exercised in the following of Jesus does it receive from the gospel new sanction and justification.” At first Ignacio’s selfish ambitions overshadow his desire to do good for the orphans and the mission, but his calling to serve is finally affirmed by the Church when he makes it clear that he is intent on sacrificing and serving the best interests of the orphans.Those viewers who are fans of Jack Black will not be disappointed, as the movie in large part serves as a vehicle for his brand of dynamic and madly physical comedic stylings. The film is directed by Jared Hess, made famous by his direction of the cult hit Napoleon Dynamite (2004). Nacho Libre shares some of the same quirkiness of dialogue as the previous film, although it is not quite so charming and entertaining the second time around. Some of the scenes do not noticeably advance the plot and seem more like excuses for Jack Black to be entertaining than to fit seamlessly into the flow of the film. Even so, Nacho Libre is an entertaining movie, although fans of Jack Black and those at least familiar with Lucha Libre will have much more to enjoy. In the end, Nacho Libre rates as not a quarter, nor a half, nor a full, but rather a three-quarter nelson.

Narnia and Risking Disney Buffoonery

Jordan J. Ballor — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:40:52 EST

Would C.S. Lewis Have Risked a Disney 'Nightmare'?A newly published letter by C.S. Lewis shows how clearly he would have objected to a live-action version of his Chronicles of Narnia story, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Lewis writes in the letter dated Dec. 18, 1959, "I am absolutely opposed ... to a TV version. Anthropomorphic animals, when taken out of narrative into actual visibility, always turn into buffoonery or nightmare." The Christian apologist was primarily concerned with the depiction of Aslan, the lion character who functions as an allegory of Jesus Christ: "A human, pantomime, Aslan [would] be to me blasphemy." He further comments that an animated version would be acceptable, but laments that Walt Disney combines "so much vulgarity with his genius." The letter raises a critical question for devotees of Lewis's work: Should we be opposed to this past weekend's live-action release?On one level, the answer might be simple. Lewis explicitly says he is adamantly opposed to a live-action version. Therefore we should be, too. But on further inspection, the basis for Lewis's opposition was the propriety of human pantomime of talking animals, particularly that of the lion Aslan. But the just-released Disney version answers this concern to a large extent, because Aslan is a CGI (computer graphics imaging) creation, much like The Lord of the Rings' Gollum, a 21st century version of Lewis-era animation. And since Lewis approves of this kind of depiction of Aslan, his major complaint seems to be answered. But his comment about the "vulgarity" of the work of Walt Disney raises a somewhat more complex question. Is there something about the medium of motion pictures (animation included) that is morally questionable?One way to get at answering this question is to briefly review how a particular American denomination tackled the issue in the last century. The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) is a small, historically ethnic denomination founded by immigrants from the Netherlands. In the first generations of immigration, these Dutch settlers were concerned about accommodation of their church to American culture. One of the salient points of concern was the so-called "film arts."In 1928, the governing assembly of the denomination, the CRC Synod, put forth its first official position on the Reformed Christian attitude toward movie-going, issuing a warning against theater attendance. The 1928 decision held that such "worldly amusements" as theater attendance were not inherently evil, but that their actual institutionalization in America was corrupt. Hollywood was seen as a haven for anti-Christian messages. Indeed, the temptation to worldliness in a medium renowned for its depictions and glorification of violence, lust, and depravity made it clear that Christians ought to avoid such practices.In the ensuing decades, debate about the synodical decision grew, and the church's position was clarified and modified to the current position: "film is a legitimate cultural medium to be used by Christians," who "must exercise responsible, Spirit-guided, and enlightened discrimination in the use of the film arts." The emphasis now is that the Christian should "engage in constructive critique of the film arts with the help of specialists, and cooperate with others to produce Christian films, videos, and television."So which of these positions does Lewis's concern about Disney's "vulgarity" agree with? And are these positions mutually exclusive? It's clear that both Lewis' opinion and the contention of the 1928 decision have in mind the proclivity of secular movies to be rife with themes that run contrary to the tenets of biblical Christianity. The situation in 1928 was such that the prudent course of action appeared to be complete withdrawal from the medium. The wisdom of this course has been questioned in the following years, and the consensus is that rather than a complete withdrawal, the best course for Christians to take is a discriminating stance towards secular movies, and to actively participate in the creation of films consistent with biblical standards. Groups like The Dove Foundation have been created "to encourage and promote the creation, production and distribution of wholesome family entertainment."The Narnia phenomenon illustrates the rather striking reversal of the 1928 decision. Of the film's $180 million budget, nearly $80 million has been spent on marketing, with primary focus on the use of churches and Christian groups in the marketing strategy. This past Sunday, at least one CRC congregation showed the complete 9-minute movie trailer during the actual worship service. While we should wonder whether churches' embrace of movie marketing has taken us a bit too far in the opposite direction, we can agree with Lewis's stepson, Douglas Gresham, that "the Enemy has been running the cinema. It's time we took it back from him." -- Jordan J. Ballor is associate editor with the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Mich.