The article on Improv was interesting. What I took from it is that there is more of a problem with the way we do arts in the Christian context these days, than with the concept of Christians doing comedy. The thing about how they couldn’t seem to pull anything off because they always seemed to need to stop short of saying something “bad” was particularly telling. This doesn’t seem to have been a problem with the great Christian art forms of the past (at least the examples that have survived.) You don’t see them always seeming to teeter on the edge of depravity but having to pull back. They were working out of a Christian mindset, and seemed comfortable in the idea that there is much that is thought-provoking, or beautiful, or funny, within the sphere of the sanctified mind. These folks at Saddleback don’t seem to have grasped that. Whether that’s a problem with the particular players, whose maturity hasn’t reached the point that they can function within that mindset comfortably, or with the underlying assumptions of their approach, I don’t know. But I suspect it’s at least as much the latter as the former — if you are consciously operating within a milieu where saying the word “bar” is automatically going to be problematic, but you’re still using a form in which the “bar” is normally an essential element of the routine, it signals to me that you’re more about trying to imitate something you think comes out of the world in a bowdlerized form, than about creating something from within a Christian mindset that shares some characteristics with more worldly versions. It also tells me that they haven’t a chance of doing real comedy if they can’t make the distinction between what is appropriate behavior to encourage or imitate, and what is appropriate to reference in the context of story-telling, or if they think they’re beholden to an audience with the same problem.

I’m thinking the R-word has made a resurgence because it has become “shocking” again. In the 80s people were using it all the time. Kids, adults, everybody. It was part of the faddish slang of the day. Then it was largely removed from public discourse because it was deemed offensive. You can thank the “politically correct” crowd for this. I’m not saying its removal was a bad or good thing, but that’s the bunch who pushed for it. It’s not just “retard” that’s considered bad; one isn’t even supposed to refer to refer to the state of being as “mental retardation”. The preferred term is “intellectual or developmental disability”.

It’s not the term “mental retardation” that’s making a come back, though that term is still used by people who don’t know it’s no longer the preferred one. It’s the slang “retard” that’s bad. And typically it’s not used to refer to people who actually have mental disability. It that respect it’s like the term “gay” which often gets used as a pejorative in situations that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

As for Tropic Thunder, I don’t think the criticism it received was fully warranted. Stiller’s character was a caricature of a self-absorbed wholly ignorant Hollywood actor. I don’t think the character’s use of the term is indicative of Stiller’s feelings towards the disabled. (Though, I guess its possible.)

Having worked with the developmentally disabled (or whatever the current term is) for a number of years in the past in Canada, I always thought that “retarded” and “mentally retarded” were acceptable terms in the U.S. long after we’d stopped using them here. Are they still acceptable there (as opposed to “retard”)?

Thanks for sending us to Choosing Thomas. Beautiful.

Tim Challies said,This made sense until I thought about the kind of person who would say, ‘I’m not interested in eternal salvation, but I’d love to spend a Saturday night in a small conference room watching Christian improvisational comedy!’”

Without having read the referenced article, simply responding to the above-quoted sentence by Tim:

Well, we don’t know why someone declined an invitation, and regardless of why, such a program can serve to break down barriers and keep communication lines open. Sure it’s not “hard core” evangelism but I am not sure that’s the only legitimate mode of interacting with non-believers — for a church or for the individual Christian.

“Choosing Thomas” was both heartbreaking and wonderful all wrapped in one. I haven’t cried so hard in a while! I sent it onto friends labeled, “Get a kleenex!” I kept thinking, “back 100 years ago, it wasn’t even an option to kill the child; this is the stuff people went through.” Because we call death, “passing on” and we don’t go through the hard things like this couple has and so much more to cover up the pain and reality of death, it’s no wonder the majority of people (in America anyway) go through life as if we will always have tomorrow and life “should” be a bed of roses. It’s so contrary to the promises of Christ; that we will have tribulations. That was an amazing couple who chose to live with their son the way he was. I’m sure it made them a stronger couple.