Sermon Interaction: Why Should We Read About Black Church History? by John Talley III

-->

February is Black History Month. This is the time when schools across America study the history of African-Americans. They learn about leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Fredrick Douglas, Rosa Parks, Harriett Tubman, and so on.

I believe people should learn about black history throughout the whole year. Not solely during “Black History Month.” In fact, people should be knowledgeable about history, in general (ancient, world, military, etc.). Taking it a step further, the Church should be familiar with church history. We should know Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, Athanasius, Tertullian, Augustine, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale. Great men of the Reformation like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox. Perhaps, you have never heard of these names. Let me encourage you to research these men in order to have a robust understanding of church history.

But black church history is just as significant. There are at least two reasons why we should read about black church history.

We should we read about black church history in order to better engage with Christians who are black.

Understanding a particular people can go a long way. It is very helpful to understand people for the purpose of engaging them. In order to engage, you actually have to understand ethnicity, culture, and history. This naturally should encourage you to investigate “Black Church History.”

Black history should be seen and articulated through the lens of the black church. Having a historical analysis of black church history gives you the competency and platform to affirm, rebuke, and educate. It’s true that some black folks struggle with white reformers such as Jonathan Edwards because he owned slaves, for instance—so we need to be equipped for how to think about this. If a white pastor quoted Edwards from the pulpit, it could be a stumbling block for some blacks in the congregation. However, it might be helpful to look at Lemuel Haynes, an African-American who actually benefited from the works of Jonathan Edwards and was a Calvinist.

For some reason, blacks are very communal. For instance, if I go into a restaurant and I see a black dude acting a fool. I’m not going to say, “That dude is making himself look like an idiot.” I’m going to lean over to my wife and say, “He is making us look like idiots,” and then I’m going to kindly tell him to sit his butt down and act like he’s got some sense and hopefully get a Gospel-opportunity with him. Likewise, quoting Lemuel Haynes on the pulpit, especially for those who have blacks in their congregation, has a communal element to it. Ultimately, this engages with Christians who are black without compromising sound doctrine and educates those who may be ignorant about black reformers.

We should read about black church history to be encouraged by the power and work of the Holy Spirit.

The third person of the Trinity has worked through many people of different ethnicities in history and will continue to do His work. As Christians, we are utterly dependent upon the Holy Spirit. He comforts, convicts, regenerates, sanctifies, and indwells in every genuine believer. In black church history, we can see the Spirit’s work.

Essentially, God gets the glory, and that should be an encouragement through trials and tribulations. After all, why do we read about Jonathan Edwards? George Whitefield? John Calvin? We do so in order to learn from them and be encouraged by how the Holy Spirit worked through them. Shouldn’t we do the same with black church history?

In conclusion, history is important. It’s important because we can understand certain things about the world and society. It’s important because we can understand our origins. Simply put, black church history is church history, just like black history is American history.

An Urban Theologian Addendum: Five Reasons to Study Black Church History, Episode #6 – addendum by Jennifer Bell

Urban Theologian, formerly Backpack Radio, did an episode titled “Five Reasons to Study Black Church History.” You can listen here.

I didn’t write a full “reflection” piece, but these were the five reasons discussed on the show:

1.     To be encouraged, challenged, and inspired;

2.     To become a better ambassador;

3.     To grow in your love and trust of the Lord;

4.     To grow in your love of the Church;

5.     To declare and display Gospel values.

My Problem with Starbucks Discipleship by John Talley III

I love Starbucks coffee! I normally get a Venti Iced Coffee with eight pumps of sweetener and extra 2% milk. I’ve been there so many times that I know how much it’s going to cost, which is $3.19. I’m still trying to figure if this is a good or bad thing. Nevertheless, Starbucks coffee is a good thing. Praise God for it! 

I also love discipleship! I love interacting with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to learn and grow with them. I love hearing how they have been encouraged in God’s word and their evangelistic opportunities. I’m encouraged that we are able to confess sin and seek the Lord for forgiveness. We know that Christ has paid for all sins past, present, and future for all those who repent and believe in Him. 

So what’s the problem with Starbucks Discipleship? Let’s first define the phrase Starbucks Discipleship. This refers to meeting someone at a coffee shop—oftentimes Starbucks—and talking about things: perhaps great things such as church and theology. However, you guys may never move past the point of meeting at Starbucks.

 There are at least two problems with this: 

1.     It has the potential for inauthenticity.

As Christians, we have the tendency to “fake it, until we make it.” What I mean by that is that we can be around other Christians and throw out a bunch of evangelical terminology, but be completely miserable inwardly. We can go through the motions and lack spiritual community with others. How can two Starbucks meetings a month really build deep relationships? If meaningful relationships aren’t built, people are not going to keep it real with one another, because they don’t feel like they know one another. So it’s easy for one to give the Christian clichéd response to everything and say, “Man…everything is going well. God is good, you know?” But, in their heads, they’re really thinking, “I ain’t telling you what’s really going on in my life. I barely even know you. We talk here and there, and it’s always about systematic theology or your spiritual strengths. What about your spiritual failures? Why can’t it be about family? Work? Sports?  And why do we always have to meet here at this coffee shop?” The whole thing can give the impression that the person is not worth the time to meet at one’s own house or other intimate places, which brings me to the next problem.

2.     It’s not an investment of time.

Simply put, you make time for what you value. I’m convinced that Starbucks discipleship isn’t a sufficient amount of time to build deep and healthy relationships. Think about it. If somebody meets with a dude from his church for one hour every two weeks, that’s two hours a month; this means that there were twenty-four hours of “discipleship” in twelve months. It will take those two guys seven years to spend a week with each other! Now, I know the number seven represents perfection but, without a doubt, this isn’t enough time!

It has to go beyond the coffee stench into each other’s homes, neighborhoods, road trips, business trips, vacations, conferences, birthday parties, and so on. When I look into the Gospel of Matthew, I see life-on-life discipleship. I see Jesus calling His disciples and they followed Him immediately and that’s when discipleship began (Matthew 4:18-22; Matthew 9:9). It seems that this was an ongoing endeavor with His disciples. They heard Him preach, teach, serve, and heal. They spent a significant amount of time with Him. They were there when He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26: 36-45) even though they fell asleep. My point is that throughout this book, and the other books of the Gospels, they were with Him in many different aspects of His life. Likewise, we should spend more time with one another in different areas of our lives. As a man without children, I want to be around you and your family to see how you interact with your kids. I want to see how you treat your wife. I want to see how you handle money. I want to see you preach and teach God’s Word. I want to see and hear your struggles in life and how lust is a thorn in your side. I want to talk sports, food, and everything else. This takes work, a lot of work and time, which Starbucks Discipleship cannot accomplish because it doesn’t have the capacity to do so because it isn’t designed to do so.

In conclusion, I don’t want to discourage you from drinking Starbucks. In fact, after I finish typing this, I might go up there and get my Venti Iced Coffee. I think I’m overdue! My point is to highlight the potential danger if we only stop at the coffee shop. It has to go beyond this. It has to be a genuine friendship that is immersed in the Gospel, which brings us together in the first place. It goes deeper into our failures and our need for God’s grace. We have to realize that we haven’t arrived yet and we both need to have discipleship. We need to learn and grow from one another. One practical bit of advice I can give is to just bring people into what you’re already doing. You don’t have to re-invent the wheel. It doesn’t have to be programmed. So let’s look at all areas of our lives and be in community with one another. Let’s fight against inauthenticity.

Pastor V’s Shout Outs by Vermon Pierre

1. Giving accurate history about Islam. I was a history major in college, so I naturally gravitate to writing that helps us better understand the past. Here’s a simple Vermon proverb – If you can’t or won’t study the past, you can’t and won’t be able to really understand the present.

In that vein, I like this recent post about Islam: Does Islam Inevitably Lead to Violence?

It fits in with some of my own study on this topic (I wrote my senior thesis on the radical Islamic origins of Saudi Arabia). Understanding the tensions within Islam can help us better understand why things are happening in the way that they are happening today. And, by God’s grace, it will lead to more opportunities for the Gospel to be planted in people’s hearts.

2. Giving accurate history about the civil rights era. Again, present debates in the area of race relations can only be understood by being courageous enough to regularly study and talk about the past. Especially when it comes to this particular topic, it’s important to read primary sources—what people actually said and did. I found Justin Taylor’s blog series interviewing various historians a helpful pointer in that direction. Here is part 1. And it’s really worth reading the succeeding parts:

February 6, 2015

February 9, 2015

February 10, 2015

3. The TV and movie industry, for being totally sold out to doing superhero-based shows and films. Oh man, I never thought the secret hobby of my youth—reading comic books—would become mainstream. It’s almost a bit overwhelming how much stuff is out there right now. And it’s legit. I saw an episode of “The Flash” that actually has Gorilla Grodd in it—yes, a telepathic talking gorilla! Roll your eyes all you want, haters, but the world now belongs to pop culture awesomeness.

The Elephant In The Room by Kirsten Snyder

The elephant had long ago been mentioned. It was more than mentioned. It had lumbered from the unhidden, odd position in the corner to the center of the room, spotlighted like a 1960’s operating theater. The elephant lay there, tolerating  uncomfortable poking and prodding, and no anesthesia for the pain. Now, it had been some time since the exploratory surgery had been performed, and yet the elephant still lingered. It stayed there, making a home. We had to learn to live with the elephant. There was no trying to hide it away, nor could we even if we tried. We got accustomed to making our way around the large occupant. At first we were cheerful, hopeful even, that our time with the elephant would be an event not to be missed. As time went on, we felt more like we were in the home of the elephant, instead of the elephant in ours. Our routines revolved around the elephant. Our space revolved around its needs. The room was the elephant. We tried to move out, but we found the elephant just tied on to us, as if circus-trained. And so, we sit. The elephant. The room that became the elephant. And us. Welcome.

This metaphor illustrates the thing—the knee-jerk reaction, the incident, the disagreement, the socio-political ideology, the gossip, the illness—that has been acknowledged, but not forgotten. The uncomfortable thing that lingers in a lack of forgiveness or misunderstanding, or simply just exists. The people who we are called to be in community despite the elephant in the room.

Urban Theologian: Faith, Film & Philosophy (with Doug Geivett), Episode #7 by Jennifer Bell

Geivett wrote Faith, Film & Philosophy: Big Ideas on the Big Screen, which sounds like my cup o’ tea. In this radio episode, Geivett and our friends ask the following question: How does one analyze film in a Christian and philosophical way?

I love this question, and I regularly obsess—and I do mean obsess—about it. Just last night, my husband and I paused “The Walking Dead” (see the zombie conversation) to talk about whether or not one can place any responsibility for domestic abuse on a film like Fifty Shades of Grey.

I said yes; he said probably not—but only because he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about and he’s very suspicious of large crowds thinking stuff together. But the real answer is this: Yes, of course films like this are partly—partly—responsible for domestic abuse.  (Before dropping this subject altogether, let me point out an interesting clip of the usually-kinda-offensive-but-strangely-intelligent-and-often-engaging comedian, Russell Brand, talking about porn: go here.) 

This needs, I’m sure, exploration and development. The underlying questions surround the role and influence of film in particular, and the role and influence of Art in general (not that Fifty Shades is Art, because it’s, like, not). How, in essence, are Christians supposed to think about film?

One thing this show seems to reveal is that Christians should be thinking actively, not passively, about film. Though this seems simple enough, it’s actually rather radical. For the most part, we seem pretty passive in our filmic undertakings. We’re just trying to be entertained or—God forbid—escape with a movie. Two of the films that Geivett analyzes in his book are The Truman Show and Being John Malkovich. In this discussion, he shows how active analysis might look.

Geivett noted that, in our analysis, we might begin with the following question: Does this film make an argument? Can you really imagine sitting down with your family and thinking about this stuff? For example, did you see Frozen? Did you think about “Let It Go”? Did you ask what it is that we should let go? I think I did, but I think I got it wrong. I initially assumed, incorrectly I think, that the film’s worldview advocated some kind of unencumbered life, in which we let go of our obligations and commitments. After another bout of analysis, I changed my mind about it. This film advocated freakin’ love and revealed that a commitment-free life was untenable!

Well, you see what I’m doing.

If, though, you can determine what kind of argument is being made—if one is, indeed, being made (is this an inevitability?)—you then have a thesis. Geivett acknowledges that this is not always such an easy task because there are multiple characters and multiple points of view. Therefore, a discerning viewer is sorting through, often enough, multiple worldviews. One might especially look at the protagonist. But that, too, can be confusing. The worldview of the protagonist can—in a possibly sophisticated moment of filmic finesse—differ from the overall message embedded in the story. But these are worthy, responsible endeavors.

When we uncover the argument or message, we can then ask if it’s true. We can examine assumptions and values presented in the films.


I find this whole topic fascinating, and I can’t wait to check out the book. I’m not really sure whether or not two issues are addressed at all by the author, but I continue to think about these:

1. The effect(s) of film: do films cause behavior? Do films merely reflect?
2. The value of the analysis: I have been adamantly in favor of looking at themes in particular films—but is it worth it? For example, my very favorite film to analyze is Pulp Fiction—which is so violent and offensive that I can’t show it in a single classroom. Does the value of analysis outweigh the damage (if there is damage) in watching it? My first response is that the value does outweigh the cost. However, as a mom, I know I’m pretty nuts about keeping my kids out of the room when we’re watching stuff. So what does it all mean? Should Christians watch stuff, just because the message might be worth our attention?

Great show. So much to think about!

Roosevelt Favorites: Without Blemish by John Talley III

In my private reading time, I’m currently in the book of Leviticus. I know some of you may wonder, “Did he just say Leviticus?” Yes, I said Leviticus! It’s actually a really good book. I strongly encourage you to pick it up. You will encounter the holiness of God and how He reveals and regulates the people of Israel.

Holiness is the clear theme in this book, which is part of God’s character and what He desires.

The great theologian, R.C. Sproul, writes, “I am convinced that it [holiness] is one of the most important ideas that a Christian can ever grapple with. It is basic to our whole understanding of God and Christianity” (Sproul, 1998, p.11). Furthermore, this book is full of rich theology, but one thing that stuck out to me was this phrase: “without blemish.” Theologically speaking, something that has a flaw or mark is not worthy, sufficient, nor acceptable as a sacrifice.

Consider these verses, which contain this phrase “without blemish”:

Leviticus 1:3- “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish.”

Leviticus 1:10- “If his gift for a burnt offering is from the flock, from the sheep or goats, he shall bring a male without blemish.”

Leviticus 3:1- “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offers an animal from the herd, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord.”

Leviticus 3:6- “If his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering to the Lord is an animal from the flock, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.”

Leviticus 4:3- If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering”

Should I continue? I don’t mean to be beat a dead horse, but I think you guys get the point. Without blemish is a repeated phrase throughout this great book. But what exactly does it mean?

First, we have to understand the context. The people of Israel were commanded to live a certain way because God desires for His people to be Holy (Leviticus 20:26). Mark Dever, the founder of 9Marks and a pastor in D.C., writes, “…[H]e also wants [H]is people to live distinctly from the fallen world around them, where people do not naturally reflect [H]is character. His special people should be distinguished from the nations by the way they live” (Dever, 2006, p. 94-95). In addition, He governed His people in a way that they were to make sacrifices (i.e. burnt, grain, peace, and other offerings).

Second, we must understand that perfection is the standard. God’s holy righteous standard has always been perfection. This is what the phrase without blemish is trying to communicate. All of the animals in the Old Testament that were sacrificed had to be spotless to be considered an offering in the first place. Moses makes this point evident with the previous verses that I mentioned (Leviticus 1:3, 10, 3:1, 6, 4:3).

Last, we must understand that these sacrifices ultimately point to Jesus Christ. These sacrifices symbolized the payment for sinful deeds, but do not fulfill them. Christ does that on behalf of all those who repent and believe in Him. He is the embodiment of what it means to be without blemish. He was born of a virgin, fulfilled the law, suffered, died, and was resurrected. Hebrews 4:15 tell us the He was tempted like we were, yet was without sin. Philippians 2:6 tells us that He was in the form of God. Who better to meet the criteria of perfection?

In conclusion, I love the book of Leviticus. I’m looking forward to continue learning more about His holiness and how God regulated the people of Israel. It is important to understand the context, to know that perfection is the standard, and to see that the sacrifices foreshadow the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the ultimate sacrifice that satisfied the wrath of God. Have you repented and trusted in the risen Savior who is without blemish?

Pastor V’s Shout Outs by Vermon Pierre

My list of things I want to highlight. So, shout out to:

1. Lecrae and his last album, Anomaly. It did take me about two or three listens to figure it out, but I eventually came to really like it. I understand it now as more of a complete project (as opposed to a bunch of random singles stuck together), which can be appreciated as a complete story from the first track to the last. Some of my favorites tracks include “Give In” (powerful and convicting for me every single time I hear it) and “Nuthin” (all you old school hip hop heads, did you catch the “I’ve Got 5 On It”  by Luniz sample in this track?)

One review of his album worth checking out is here.

2. Jordan Taylor and his “one free single per month” deal. Staying on the music tip, I’d like to highlight the creative work that our brother Jordan has been doing recently. The music is some of the freshest stuff I’ve ever heard from him (or from most musicians out there); but I have to say I especially enjoy the graphic art and writing that goes along with each single. Keep putting out the good stuff, man!

3. Jen Wilkin’s blog post on the necessity of male-female friendships in the church can be found here. I’ve been told that men and women can’t be friends and now, more than ever, I want to say that this is absolutely ridiculous and potentially harmful to cultivating real community. Let’s remember that the Bible has a category for men and women to interact with each other outside of the marriage relationship, and that is the category of family, of being “brothers and sisters” in Christ. Inherent in the brother-sister relationship should be healthy supportive loving friendships, friendships that obviously can (and should!) stand up against the temptations that tear apart male and female relationships in the secular non-gospel-based world.

Pop Culture Corner: What Does It All Mean? Sean McGinty and Jennifer Bell Talk Zombies

Jennifer:  I guess this discussion arose from your own mention of an interest in zombies. This got me thinking. In all honesty, up until February 2015, I really never gave them a serious thought. I’ll tell you a little about how my own preoccupation began, and then I’d like to hear from you.

First, I’m very much into the world of writing and the Arts, and what it means for Christians to be both writers/artists and patrons of the Arts. Second, I think TV is undergoing a kind of renaissance, in which the quality has blossomed. There’s something big writer snobs like me talk a lot about: “Literary TV.” This TV Renaissance, so to speak, has totally sucked me in—and I’m no longer dissing TV. Though a lot of it is sooooo very dumb. Third, trends in pop culture fascinate me. What leads to these trends? What do they say about culture? About Christianity? Fourth, I said I’m a snob. I am. I probably shouldn’t say that. Especially in a churchy forum. But, well, my husband and I—having neared the very end of the Great American Novel of Television, “Mad Men”—decided to turn on “The Walking Dead.” Sick fascination? Lurid interest? Zombies are—let’s face it—in. A total cultural phenomenon. So we tried it out.

Sean, let me tell you this: I freakin’ love that show!

Originally, I thought it was dumb (I don’t anymore) and, line-by-line, the writing was weak. Now, I’d suggest that—despite plot holes and unanswered questions—the story is pretty strong. But what’s the deal? Sean, what is your own interest? And should Christians pay attention to this cultural phenomenon?

Sean: Whenever I start thinking about the zombie genre, I end up thinking about a movie that doesn't have a single one: Carriers, the 2009 film starring Chris Pine (the new Capt. Kirk). Quick plot overview: Two brothers and their girlfriends travel across a plague-devastated America in hopes of reaching a childhood vacation spot. The group has adopted a set of rules which need to be strictly followed if they want to stave off infection (ex: Don't try to help the sick because they're already dead). The course of the trip tests how dedicated the foursome truly is to those rules and how they react when they're on the wrong side of them. 

“Rotten Tomatoes” clearly disagrees with me on this, but I think it's a great movie. And relevant to our discussion. It's one that reflects most of the elements that are so attractive in the zombie genre . First on that list, Independence: and not necessarily the good kind. Zombies are the quintessential American monster. I mean, it's a hoard of people that sweep clean the existing government and society, allowing the survivors to set up their own vision of order. That's American Soul 101. The first scene of Carriers has the kids in a stolen Benz, driving through a Western landscape, drinking beer and acting like it’s spring break. It's the picture of freedom from authority, and we love it. It's the same reason John Wayne was a star, striking out to places where he could make his own law and play the game however he liked. Looking at “The Walking Dead,” we see it when Glenn hops in that red sports car and peels out of Atlanta on the wrong side of the road. Nobody tells us what to do.

Jennifer: First, I just added Carriers to my Netflix queue. Second, be very careful what you say about “The Walking Dead.” No spoilers allowed!

Sean: No spoilers, promise. So theme # 1 is Independence. Theme #2 is the presence of Moral Dilemma. The zombie genre is able to engage viewers by pushing the moral stakes to the maximum. It let's us fiddle around with the question of what we would do in similar circumstances. It's a powerful hook although, more often than not, zombie movies bungle it. They tend to contrast merely flawed protagonists with über-wicked bad guys. Since we naturally identify with the hero, I think it causes us to belittle our own fallenness. We like to think of ourselves as Rick Grimes instead of the blatantly evil Governor. Yeah, we're a little messed up; we make mistakes, but deep down we're pretty okay. We do terrible stuff sometimes, but it's justified. Carriers never gives us that option. Without revealing too much, the characters’ attempt to set up their own independence via the rules for survival proves disastrous. These aren't people who help us affirm the basic goodness of humanity. In fact, the character we most identify with, the one who seems the most moral throughout the movie, is the one who commits what is arguably the worst crime of all. And the film doesn't go on to excuse it. It just leaves you with the question of how much are you willing to lose in order to do the right thing.

Jennifer: I can’t wait to see this freakin’ film. (Good point, though, on this basic goodness issue. Much of the artistic offerings we see do not deal with the fallen nature of humankind. We are all Rick Grimes, a pretty good guy.)

Sean:  I think you'll like Carriers. But, finally, the zombie genre is popular simply because it's violent. Theme #3 is Violence.  I had a professor in college who occasionally made shows for the History Channel. He bemoaned the fact that the network required images of sex or violence at least every two minutes in order to keep the viewers attention. “The Walking Dead” is particularly egregious on this count. The producers have routinely giggled like sixth graders about how they're allowed to make the show as bloody as they like. And, ultimately, this is one of the things that holds the show back. “The Walking Dead” is consistently able to ride the wave of shock value instead of working on its many weaknesses.

Jennifer: You know, I’m not totally sure I agree with you on the appeal of violence, but I would need to think more about it. I don’t think I’m into the violence and gore. I think I like the other two things you mentioned, though, and the idea of exploring how the future is constructed by secular society: that interests me a lot. But I need to think more about it.

Without spoilers, what would you say are its weaknesses? If you can’t say without revealing plot stuff, don’t say it.

Sean: I think the main problem is, as you pointed out, the weak writing. You're somewhere in Season 2, right? By the second half of Season 4, it's like they realized that dialogue isn't their forte and just decided to eliminate as much as possible.

Jennifer: I’m sorry to hear that.

Sean: Pacing is also a major issue. By their very nature, zombie stories usually turn into either road trips or sieges. That doesn't give you a ton to work with, and I suspect that's why we get whole episodes of characters going on supply runs . . . and not completing them before the credits roll. That wouldn't be a huge problem if the characters were fleshed out well, but the majority of them have always seemed two-dimensional. And, again, the extreme violence acts as camouflage for all this.

Jennifer: I just want to quickly interrupt you to mention that the road trip element, while not at all unique to Americans, definitely has a special appeal. So, with this zombie apocalypse, we’ve got this admixture of elements like the cowboy/anarchist/renegade, the road trip, and future anxiety. But back to you . . .

Sean: Carriers is a strong contrast here. It doesn't get bogged down with voyeuristic violence. The movie draws its tension from moral choices and relationships, which creates a more lasting impression than the numbing gore of “The Walking Dead.” 

As to whether or not it's important for Christians to be paying attention to the current monster zeitgeist, I'd say no. TV and movies can be fun to watch and discuss, but I don't think they offer much value to the Christian life other than that. I'm of the opinion that Christians are way too concerned with pop culture trends. It seems as though this stems either from the belief that the Gospel isn't interesting enough on its own and needs to be hidden in whatever is popular at the moment, or from the desire to not be seen as all that different from our non-Christian neighbors. These positions, if maintained, will inevitably lead to a watering down of God's Word, a hyper-spiritualization of trivial things, and the dangerous pride of wanting to be thought well of by the world. So sure, relax with a movie or a little TV, but I don't think we should consider it more important than that.

Jennifer:  Oh, no, Sean! I hope you’re up for this. I’m about to totally, unequivocally disagree with you!

Sean: No problem, I like a good back and forth.

Jennifer: Well, first, some kindly affirmation of your thought process! I like what you’re saying about zombies as the quintessential American monster, though—and this is probably important—they have Haitian roots, as well as other important non-American sources. Perhaps what is even more significant than the monster is the response. The response to zombies may be the quintessential American response: Zombies turn us all into cowboys, and cowboys are American.

Sean: I think the Haitian origin of zombies fits nicely into their categorization as American. They're immigrants! And they change pretty dramatically once they land here. The Haitian zombie was sort of like an undead robot controlled by a voodoo wizard. The modern "destroy-the-brain!" hoard didn't show up until Romero's Night of the Living Dead. And yes, I do hate myself a little bit for knowing this much about zombies.

Jennifer: Still, though, why zombies? Doesn’t some other kind of apocalypse evoke the same response? What is so especially important about the Zombie Apocalypse? Why the masses of brainless dead people?

Sean: I'm not sure the zombie apocalypse is really all that different from the wider dystopian genre. Many of the elements that are common in zombie movies are found in series like The Hunger Games or Divergent. I imagine part of the popularity is due to the violence, but I also think it's just a matter of fashion. A decade ago vampires were everywhere; now it's zombies. In another ten years, it'll be Bigfoots or something. Try to turn that one into a supernatural romance, Hollywood!

Jennifer: I’m a little all over the place here, so bear with me—but one of my first responses to “The Walking Dead,” when we began watching and I was all skeptical, was that the brainlessness took something away for me. What? A challenge? They’re dumb! Why is that the face of the apocalypse?

And this is why I’m ultimately disagreeing with you. I think pop culture and TV reflects the heart of the audience, and those interested in zombies are, through their interest, expressing spiritual preoccupations. I have definitely thought about this in terms of the preponderance of apocalyptic films (ranging from I am Legend to The Book of Eli, to barely skim the surface). There are reasons for this preoccupation. They reflect spiritual anxieties, desires, hopes. Where is meaning found in the apocalypse? Why is the apocalypse always so lousy, so fearful? The future is inevitably scary and hopeless. What makes one a hero in the apocalypse?

And, once one has accepted this preoccupation with the end times, we might turn to a secondary question. Why zombies, our favorite apocalyptic creation?

So, let me turn it over to you with this challenge: there’s no such thing as watching TV for the mere purpose of entertainment. We’re selling ourselves short. We need to take every thought captive. Even zombies. Especially zombies. TV as mere entertainment is—dare I say it—distasteful to me.

Sean:  I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the notion that popular TV and film reflect spiritual characteristics of the viewers and creators, but a lot of things do that. Your conversations with your coworkers, the way you spend your money, how you act in a traffic jam: they all reflect the heart to some degree. So my push-back question is what makes TV so special? 

Or, look at it this way, do Christians need TV and movies to grow spiritually? Did Christians prior to the 20th century have a more difficult time increasing in faithfulness? Clearly not, nor would many of those past Christians point to the pop culture elements of their own time as being particularly important.

The only thing that really lays open the heart is God's Word. Scripture describes itself as a sharp sword able to pierce the intentions of a person. The Spirit works through the Word to reveal our sinfulness and the redemption of that sinfulness on the Cross. These are the things that draw us closer to the Lord and subsequently allow us to love people better. Television and movies can't do that, and so I'm hard pressed to think of them as having much importance for the Christian life.

Now, I can appreciate the argument that TV could help us get a bead on cultural issues, which can potentially be useful in communicating the Gospel to non-Christians. Yet, even here, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. While every time and place has its own particulars, the humanity of The Aeneid is the same humanity of “The Walking Dead.” That is to say, pop culture isn't really telling us anything we didn't already know. The longing for redemption, for example, is always there. It expresses itself in different ways, but it's not as if Daryl's growth as a character suddenly opens our eyes to its reality.

Jennifer: Them’s fightin’ words, Sean! I won’t go crazy on you, though—and we can’t go on and on about this exhaustively, though it’s tempting. I’m stung by your suggestion that pop culture isn’t really telling us anything we didn't already know. For me, this raises many, many important questions: Is TV “art”? Is it a “low-brow” form of art? Is pop culture also “low-brow”? Is Art or TV or pop culture merely reflective, as opposed to being its own constructive or creative force? And, finally, is Daryl’s growth as a character opening my eyes in any way?

Very briefly, I do want to say this. I really think—and I’ve thought about this way too much—that TV is an art form, and it’s also undergoing a fairly spectacular renaissance, as I mentioned earlier, as it moves closer and closer to the novel. Recent years have revealed something along the lines of literary TV with serialization, which you find in such shows as “The Walking Dead” or “Mad Men.” Unlike the classic daytime soap opera, these new shows worry over big, complex themes—the stuff of Art with a capital A. There’s still a lot of garbage, of course, and “The Walking Dead” is no Sistine Chapel—but the potential for TV is there.

And, in saying this, I would strongly, adamantly, wildly, and ruthlessly argue that Art and pop culture are not merely reflective. In these things, one may see how reality is understood, indeed. But, in these things, one may also see reality better and more clearly than one ever has before. Art and pop culture can offer visions of reality that make sense to us, that help us to comprehend our world, that enlighten us in unheard of ways. I can look at Darryl and understand what it means to be a human made in the Image of God—in a way I’ve never, ever considered before.

I’m going to end here, just because I have to. Final thoughts?

Sean: First off, let me thank you for the discussion. I had a great time talking with you about this! Back to the topic at hand...

In regards to what qualifies as art, I feel completely unequipped to tackle the question. But I'd love to hear you talk about it with one of the RCC artists! So let me sidestep that topic and go on to some of the other issues you raise.

My main concern in this conversation is twofold: one, the static nature of humanity and, two, the sufficiency of Scripture for godliness. In regards to the nature of humanity, I'd reject any notion that modern humanity is inherently different from ancient humanity, and that art is therefore necessary to show us the ever-changing aspects of mankind (just to clarify, I'm not saying you hold to this idea, but it seems to me that this is the logical endpoint of the ideas being advocated). And so it's in this sense that I'm saying that pop culture isn't telling us anything new. Not that individuals can't learn something from pop culture, but that, in light of the broad swath of humanity's history, pop culture doesn't have a new, unique message. 

Second, and this is related to the first point, I believe Scripture provides all we need in order to grow in Christ. Now, that doesn't mean that God hasn't used His people throughout the ages to help us understand Scripture, just that there is no other source of revelation that tells us about increasing in faith. So, with that in mind, I have to absolutely disagree with you about Darryl showing what it means to be made in the Image of God in an unheard of way. We see what it means to be made in the Image of God by looking to the perfect embodiment of the Image of God: Jesus Himself. If Darryl shows us the Image of God in a new way, that means Christ is somehow lacking, and, besides being incorrect, leads to a host of other problems.

Jennifer:  Yeah, I think unheard of way isn’t right.

Sean: Let me use a pop culture example other than “The Walking Dead” to try to sum up my views. Last week, Christianity Today posted an article with the eye-rolling title of "The Prophetic Voice of Leslie Knope," highlighting the main character of the TV show “Parks and Recreation” and, in particular, her love for friends and community. Now, putting aside the question of whether or not a message which doesn't involve God or His Word could ever be described as prophetic, does the message that “Parks and Rec” sends mean that it's important for Christians to watch it? I'd say no. While Christians can, and must, affirm the love of friends and community, we do so because of Scripture's revelation, not because we see it on TV. Indeed, we see exactly what this love is only because of Scripture. The proper use of “Parks and Rec” is to treat it as an enjoyable and entertaining reminder of particular type of love. And that, I think, is the chief purpose of Art (without saying that “Parks and Rec” does or doesn't qualify for the category), to show us beauty and glorify the Lord as the source of all beauty. Art is a mirror that's enriching. Art is not a source of revelation. So, going back to my earlier statement, go ahead and enjoy TV and movies. Hopefully, the good ones will remind you of important things. Hopefully, the good ones will be beautiful. But a Christian isn't spiritually hindered by not watching movies, going to the museum, or visiting the Sistine Chapel. 

Jennifer:  Thanks, Sean. And I love “Parks and Rec.” Though maybe not as much as “The Walking Dead”! Oh, no! Did I just say that aloud? If you’re an Artist—or an Artiste—and you’d like to do one of these über-fascinating dialogues (because you know we don’t fully agree with Sean), let me know.