Heaven movies

Candlemass wrote:

Am I missing something here, or are some of you suggesting that truth isn't important?

Well, I guess perhaps I am suggesting that in the realm of ENTERTAINMENT, truth isn't necessarily important or is at least a more fluid idea.  Movies that are "based on a true story" whether Heaven is Real, American Sniper, or that Lifetime drivel are based on someone's true story, it is truth as they see it and report it.  It may or may not have any resemblance to the capital-T Truth, but it is arguably a truth nonetheless.  Bottom line:  movies like this are not intended to be teaching videos, they are meant to be entertaining.

I've said it before and I guess I'm saying it again... For years, I heard people in the church complain about the garbage coming out of Hollywood, and the music industry for that matter, and how "someone should make something more uplifting". Now that it's happening,  there seems to be no end to the criticism of these products. 
I will admit, there are some ridiculous offerings out there (Noah, Exodus) and I  don't know if the story behind Heaven is for Real actually happened, or not. What I do know is that I believe in heaven, as the movie presents it. I believe Jesus died, and rose again, for me (Son of God). I believe in spiritual warfare  (War Room), being a good father and a man of integrity, as God sees it (Courageous), fighting for and cherishing my marriage  (Fireproof), etc, etc. I don't recommend anyone getting their theology from a movie, but an encouraging "God's got your back" message is something I'll take any day.

Amen, metaldude!

So to combat Hollywood's evils, we make bad art w/half baked ideas based on half truths that are embellished...ok!

Considering that Hollywood is evil, makes band art with half baked ideas based on half to no truths that are super embellished, yes! 

alldatndensum wrote:

Considering that Hollywood is evil, makes band art

...but I like band art!

alldatndensum wrote:

Considering that Hollywood is evil, makes band art with half baked ideas based on half to no truths that are super embellished, yes! 

So I'm going to respectfully say this is the kind of attitude that drives me berserk. This implies that since "the world's" standard is so low, immoral and crappy, that excuses bad art made by Christians.

This is the attitude that allows Chris Tomlin to make the same album over and over, filled with mediocre songs and bland, boring lyrics. But since it's full of truth, we allow it. Nay, we celebrate it.

Shouldn't our standard be what God thinks is good, and not jus something better than the world by some facet?

While I see what you are saying, some of that same "bland" art is a matter of perspective.  Tomlin writes simple music that can easily be done in churches.  Seeing that he is one of the biggest names in Christian music today, a lot of people love what he does.

Besides, what kind or quality of art does God like?  He made people who can do movies, music, books, etc. that could be considered masterpieces.  He also created folks who can make a decent story or album that may be good but not considered great.  Is one more honoring to God?  Or, is our "standard" of what is good what we apply as the marker for what God likes?

Sadly, I think it is more of the latter than what we care to confess.

I know this is going astray, but I used to be a big critic of Tomlin and the worship music movement until I got perspective.  He, Hillsong, Jesus Culture, and all these worship music folk are doing just what alldat said--writing music for use in church.  So it needs to be simple, repetitive, and rather vanilla in terms of artistry.  It is functional music.  It is music written to be sung by a bunch of people who are not (in general) trained musicians.  Yes, Bach also wrote church music, but his was written to be performed by professional musicians.  The stuff intended for congregational singing was basic four-part harmony and by far the least interesting part of his output.  The problem I have with Tomlin, et al. is the fact that it has been commodified, that we are selling worship.

As for the kind and quality of art God likes, it is all speculation.  IMO, as we are created in God's image, we need to live lives worthy of that, and that means don't just slop something together and ask God to bless it or say "God gave me this".  In other words, those of us who create art should make it with as much quality as we can.  WE aren't going to be Beethoven or Coltrane or Steve Vai, but we can be our personal best.  I believe that is the art that honors God.

Amen!

You both make good points.

Yes, Tomlin et. al. make music for the church. I get that. But it's gotten to be so vanilla that it's boring. I've listened to a lot of podcasts recently that have people that are Christians but left the church. One of the big reasons is the music.

Now I know that's a silly reason to leave the church, but on some level I also understand it. Most of those songs just aren't engaging. One of my biggest struggles with playing on our worship team is that we sing a song that asks Jesus to "take me deeper than my feet could ever wander", but then when we have that opportunity, we don't.

And yes, I know that some artists that I don't enjoy may still be making excellent art in God's eyes. I just have a hard time believing that when the lyrics are all about mountains, eagles and fire. If God is as amazing as the Bible says he is, surely we can be more creative in our expression to him.

Staying on this tangent...I am truly conflicted over modern worship music.  There is a lot of stuff that is easy for a congregation to sing that is really trite and cliched musically and lyrically.  There is some stuff that is interesting lyrically and musically, but most of it is hard to get a group to sing well.  Where the singable meets interesting there are also a good number of songs, but those get played to death.  As for the vanilla nature, IMO that goes back to the selling worship idea.  Not only do they want their songs sung in church, they want them to get good airplay on K-LOVE.  Yes, I am cynical that way.

In fairness thought, the classic hymns are kinda the same way.  "In the Garden" is pure Tin Pan Alley schlock.  "How Great Thou Art" has a melody that is a little tricky for non-singers.

I do think there is a danger of thinking church music needs to be entertaining to us and honestly that's what I hear when I hear about people leaving the church because of the music.

I hear ya me77. But I think there is a crossroads where people write truly creative music that groups can sing. I mean, one of my favorite bands of all time is Deliriou5? (Did You Feel the Mountains Tremble?, I Could Sing of Your Love Forever, Majesty, etc.). I'm also a John Mark McMillan fan (How He Loves, Skeleton Bones, Love At the End).

I've come to realize that I like music that is more creative, likely due to the fact I'm a musician and singer, and I've written a few (albeit crappy) songs.

And yes I agree that a lot of worship music is commercialized. I despise that.

Your last point is dead on. I don't think it should entertain us. But it should engage us. I mean, for most people if the song sucks, they immediately think that's a reflection of God (I've actually heard people say this is why they stayed unchurched for so long). There must be a place where the music is creative (and therefore shows God's creative side) but still accessible for the masses.