I haven’t quite finished my top 10 of 2009 but here is my Top 20 films from 2000 – 2009.

What’s yours?

1)Lost in Translation

2)X-men 2

3)Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

4)Cache(Hidden)

5)Let the Right One In

6)King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

7)Memento

8)Bourne Trilogy

9)Children of Men

10)Eden Lake

11)Inglourious Basterds

12)Elephant

13)Hedwig and the Angry Inch

14)Superbad

15)Pan’s Labyrinth

16)Spirited Away

17)About a Boy

18)Munich

19)The Dark Knight

20)Planet Terror

read the article here

The public premiere of my new short film, “prodigal” has just been announced.

Saturday 16th January 2010 @ the Glasgow Film Theatre

The film follows a repentant Satan as he makes a vow with God to let him back into Heaven, but a group of angels and demons will stop at nothing to make sure that doesn’t happen.

All details can be found here

Heard this today and had to share it: (paraphrased)

“The word Christianity does not appear in the bible. The word christian, occurs three times. The word disciple occurs 263 times. So the central driving force of the bible is not necessarily a religion or a complicated system that needs to be defended or argued for. What you find, most often is simply… ‘disciple’. Someone who is a follower, an apprentice, a student of Jesus. A learner. if you are any of these things your fundamental posture is humility, ‘I’m learning. I’m growing.’ Expectation. ‘I am assume there are a whole bunch of things I don’t know and so I’ll be learning them. And some things that I thought were true and have hung on to, I may need to let go.’ An expectation that you’ll always be encountering new things.

Are we still in that frame of mind or do we (arrogantly) think we know it all now?

Interesting article by Andrew Shamy.

The more I learn about youth culture, the more I realize I have so much more to learn. But the issue I am having now is whether I try to contextualise the gospel at all so that I communicate it effectively within the culture. Am I simply doing what the Victorian missionaries by teaching them the gospel in a culturally irrelevant way? Do I try to adapt the stories and beliefs so that they “get it”?

But then I get worried because I think about syncretism and whether I would be taking things too far. The other questions are, can you really take things too far? Who decides what is Christian and what is not when it comes to beliefs and practices? Surely that is relative.

I’ve always been taught that the great commission in Matthew 28 confirms the need to be baptized in water. Peter and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 and the subsequent letters of Paul back this up. But even in the translation of word “baptism” (baptizo in Greek) there is fierce debate. Does it only been immersion in the sense of water (Strong, 1990:16) or is it an all encompassing word that could mean immersion in a physical material (water, dirt etc) but also immersion in the ways of…?(Jackson, 2006:451).

If immersion by water was a contextualised way of understanding Jesus’ command, could we immerse our young people in a different method? For example it is suggested in “Christianity in Culture” by Charles Kraft that a more appropriate western method could be being placed in a coffin to symbolise the death of the old self (Kraft, 1979:331). I find all of this incredible fascinating but at the same time frustrating.

Going back to the idea of contextualising the Gospel stories, on Sunday I listened to a children’s talk on ‘The Good Samaritan’ by a visiting ‘student’ minister. She related the story to the young people by changing all of the characters into sweets. But sitting watching it I could see the young people were interested (probably hoping that they would get to eat the sweets once she was finished- they didn’t) but by changing the story in this way, the original point was lost. Jesus was not simply saying, help each other. He wouldn’t have got crucified for that. For me, that was a step too far as it lost the meaning entirely.

The challenge then is holding in tension contextualisation and syncretism. Simply put, you know you’ve gone too far if you’ve lost the meaning. But then I guess even that is subjective. Take for example a DVD I bought recently but haven’t got around to watching yet. The film is called the “Son of Man” and it is a modern retelling of the gospel story set in South Africa. The reviews on ‘ebay’ range from “a masterpiece” to “blasphemy”. Maybe one man’s contextualisation really is another man’s syncretism. I understand Hesselgrave’s concern about the danger of creative forms of contextualisation (Hesselgrave, 1989:174) but disagree strongly with his conclusions regarding the sacraments. He suggests that the original form of the sacraments in the bible dictates the limit of interpretation but that brings us back to David Miller’s question of whether the acts of the apostles were supracultural (above cultural translation) or a cultural translation of the words of Jesus. I would argue for the latter.

So where does this leave me?

I realise that I do try to communicate the gospel in a culturally relevant way but there are clear examples in my head when I know that this has not been the case. There have been times when I have simply communicated it to them in a foreign way (ie. in my cultural understanding). I think questions have to be asked of how often do I try to translate and adapt these stories in ways that they will understand and “get”. In truth, sometimes I forget that my culture is very different to the young peoples’ culture. I know for other leaders this is a frustration. “Why don’t they understand?” is a phrase I have heard many times at the meetings we have at the end of the night. “They just need Jesus” is another common phrase. But what Jesus do they need? Your interpretation of Jesus or a Jesus that is culturally relevant to them? Or is that syncretism?

Review Contains Spoilers

On Wednesday night I went to see the play, “Statistics” by Hipshot Theatre Company. The play itself was performed in The Market Inn, a pub in the centre of Ayr and much of the story also took place in the pub. This gave an interesting dynamic to the story as it was if the action was happening around you, but i’ll talk more about that later.

The story centres around the character Lee, who leaves the army at the start of the play because he has been sexually assaulted. He returns home to his group of friends and struggles to settle back into ordinary life. They spend their nights drinking and getting high until a local gangster recruits them to do a job for him. But things aren’t as straightforward as that.

The main theme  in the play as I saw it was “secrets”. Lee, his best mate Jamie and the gangster Tait are all keeping secrets from others. We see the burden that these secrets have on each other and the effects they have on the people around them. There is a definite sense of relief when these secrets are told and the characters are able to unburden themselves.

What I liked about the Play

Overall I enjoyed the play and felt that it was a strong first piece by Hipshot Theatre Company writers/performers Chris Taylor and Barry Carson. The characters of Lee and Jamie were well written and competently acted by Chris Taylor and Barry Carson. The friendship between them was authentic and they played off one another well. Both of them handled the comic and serious aspects of the play well although there were a few “stiff” lines of dialogue.

The story kept me interested  and there were a few surprises that kept me guessing until the end.

Although I didn’t feel the “inner conflict” scene where Lee was boxing against his abuser was needed, it was an original way of handing the scene and it was little touches like this that set this apart from other amateur plays I have scene.

Setting the play within a pub was an excellent idea and reflected the ethos of the company. Their vision is to bring theatre back to the masses. Rather than expecting audiences to come to a theatre, the theatre comes to them. Although not a new idea it is a refreshing vision and was really what Shakespeare was trying to do all those years ago. They wanted to show that theatre could be relevant to those that believed it was irrelevant and they succeeded.

What Could Have Been Better

As I said previously the characters of Lee and Jamie were well written and fleshed out, but I cannot say the same for the rest of the characters. That is not to say the acting of those were bad because I felt Ian Plunkett, Tony Moynaugh, Stuart Falconer and David Campbell did well with what they were given but these characters could have been developed further.

The only character that I felt really didn’t suit the play was Tait. I felt he was written badly and ultimately acted badly. I didn’t find him threatening and once all the revelations were out, he came across as a whiny child. Not the persona you expect from a head gangster and it undid everything that had come before it.

The story also came apart in the last few minutes. I was confused with what exactly was going on in the last bar fight and wondered how Tam the bartender had come back from the dead to save the day. Doesn’t Tait know how to make sure someone is really dead? The final monologue also had me confused as suddenly there was a message thrown in about the dangers of cocaine, which seemed out of place as the play didn’t seem to be about this at all. It wasn’t the cocaine that had kick started these events, it was the rape. the cocaine was just a way of dealing with it.

The music between scene changes annoyed me as well as the music didn’t really fit and it was horribly cut off as the new scene started. A fade out would have worked better.

Finally let me go back to the idea of setting the play in a pub. I felt this was a great idea as it freed the play from certain constraints but in the last pub scene I felt is also constricted it. The overall staging of that last scene was poor but that was because of the limited space and the fact that the audience were all around them. The end fight wasn’t convincing because there wasn’t space for it to happen and after Tait was stabbed it seemed unnatural for him to walk back across the pub and die on the dance floor.

Most of these points are small niggles that didn’t stop me from enjoying the play but to correct these problems would have made it so much better.

In Conclusion

I am very interested to see where Chris and Barry take their vision as the idea of setting it in unconventional venues is a brilliant one. I think there is also more scope to develop true integration of story and venue. To find ways that the audience truly feels that the action is going on around them. Whether this is where Hipshot is going I’m not sure but I would definitely like to see it go that way. For example what would the play have been like if the story took place solely in the pub? What if the fights literally spilled out on to the audience?

I wish Chris and Barry all the best and look forward to seeing their next piece of work.

Here’s the talk I gave to Central Evangelical Church at their Sunday morning service on the 20th September around the issue of doubt.

Comments please.

download it here or listen online below

Next week, our Sunday night youth fellowship (for want of a better term) will start looking at the beatitudes. The beatitudes were eight statements or announcements that Jesus chose to make at the start of ‘the sermon on the mount’ and ultimately his ministry. They are not something I hear preached on very much and that is precisely why I wanted our group to look at them. Maybe it’s because we don’t like what they proclaim or we just don’t understand them. But that’s no excuse not to look at them. For me, they summarise everything that Jesus had came to announce. I’m going to focus just on the first one for now but you can see all of them below

³“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
⁵Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
⁶Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
⁷Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
⁸Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
⁹Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Thanks to Tom Wright, William Barclay, Dave Andrews and Rob Bell for their insights on this subject.

First off, contrary to some opinions, the beatitudes are not a list of things to do in order to be blessed or to have God on your side. They are not eight steps to know God more. They are statements. They are announcements. They are just how things are. But who are the poor in spirit?

To some this has been translated as, ‘those that realize their need for God’ and in some sense this is true but that again is something you have to do. Something you have to work at. That doesn’t seem to be what Jesus is on about (to me anyway).

The poor in spirit then are those that are just that, ‘poor in spirit’. Those that don’t have all the answers. Those that mess up time and time again. Those that are addicted to things they know they shouldn’t be. In other words…

“blessed are the adulterers, the prostitutes, the drug addicts, the paedophiles, the murderers, the liars, the time wasters, the dirty minded, the porn stars, the dictators. Blessed are those who get it wrong time and time again, those that continually do what they shouldn’t do, those that society calls scum, useless, irrelevant, passed it, unnecessary. Blessed are the tax cheats, the rapists, the space cadets, the abused. Blessed are all of those who society or religion or communities have deemed sub human.”

Does that sound wrong? Offensive even? Surely God doesn’t love everyone like that? Why would he?

Let me ask you a question then. Why did Jesus have to have dinner at a tax collectors house who had cheated hundreds, if not thousands, of people out of their money? Why did a man throw a banquet in which he invited the low lives and the degenerates to? Why did Jesus walk around healing people?

He just did. Why does God love these people? Why is God on their side? He just is.

“…theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”. That’s the gospel. That’s (one of) the message(s) that Jesus came to proclaim. It may not be fair. You might think it’s not right but it just is.

When Philippe Petit illegally walked across the twin towers on a tightrope in 1974 everyone wanted to know why. He couldn’t understand why people would ask him this. He said, “i’ve just performed something miraculous and all they want to know is why. There is no why”.

It’s the same with God. There is now why. It just is. There is a place for all those people at the banquet. Jesus didn’t come to announce his message to the rich in spirit or those that had it all together. He said, “he came for the ill”.

The Kingdom of Heaven is for everyone and when we start becoming the gatekeepers, saying who is and who isn’t in, then we deface what God had in mind. What Jesus had in mind with the first beatitude. Let’s live our lives with this proclamation stamped on our minds and on our hearts.

“Blessed are the truly f**ked up for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs”.

I just listened to an incredibly exciting and thought provoking sermon that Rob Bell gave to ‘Mars Hill’ church a couple of weeks ago on how we read Genesis 1 and 2 and had to share it. Listen to it below or go to the Mars Hill website here