Okay, so we don’t know anything about Westerns, and couldn’t pull off talking about them in any helpful way. Instead, we spend 30 minutes talking about our relative Michael Moore related articles, as well as how the experience of watching Capitalism: A Love Story in the theater actually went.
Every week, Richard Clark and Ben Bartlett sit back and discuss the posts of the previous week on Christ and Pop Culture, acknowledge and respond to the big issues in popular culture, and give a sneak peak at the week ahead. We love feedback! If you’d like to respond you can comment on the website, send an email to christandpopculture@gmail.com, or go to our contact page. We would love to respond to feedback on the show, so do it now! Subscribe to us in iTunes by clicking here. While you’re at it, review us in iTunes! We’ll love you forever!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Pop Culture is everywhere. We just acknowledge it. Christ and Pop Culture is an attempt to discuss and think rightly about the common knowledge of our age. 
Just a few thoughts . . .
Don’t support what Michael Moore does? Have the guts to only pay for stuff that is worthwhile, thoughtful, truthful, accurate, etc? This has come a long way. It’s one thing for someone to believe for themselves that something is “worthwhile, thoughtful, truthful, accurate, etc.” and share that opinion, but to tell people to “have the guts” to only support what “I” think is “worthwhile, thoughtful, truthful, accurate, etc.” is pretty extreme.
Also, Rich takes issue with Glenn Beck’s book title “Arguing with Idiots.” Fine, I’ll stand by that. But to them turn around and call arguments that Michael Moore makes (and arguments that others also agree with) “stupid,” “ridiculous,” etc. seems a bit suspect. Actually, it doesn’t even seem suspect, it is.
You are entitled to have your opinion about Michael Moore’s new film. But your language seems to make it appear that you think that anyone who would buy into such silly notions is stupid and needs to be smart like you. The problem lies in that this very thing seems to be something you take issue with in someone like Glenn Beck or Michael Moore.
I’m all for talking about the movie and its message, healthy discussion and disagreement is fine. But it seems that the main point here lately is to point out how “stupid” Moore’s points are and how dumb people are for agreeing with him. There’s plenty of Christians who support Moore’s message in this new film and not all of us are too stupid to know how a good argument is made.
Just thought I’d bring this up. There’s been a lot of things said here lately that have seemed pretty harsh and even a bit hurtful towards anyone who might support this movie.
Kiel, I don’t think we ever said that Moore himself or anyone who supports him was “stupid.” There’s is definitely a distinction between those two things, and that’s important to understand.
If we’ve been hurtful somehow, that’s unfortunate, but I don’t believe it’s fair to say we’re doing the same things Moore and Beck do: that is, to make villains and idiots out of those that disagree with us. I can tell you for an absolute fact that this isn’t where I’m coming from.
What’s the best way to express our feelings about a movie that proclaims that “democracy” should replace “capitalism” and that “evil can’t be regulated”? (isn’t the point of regulation to keep evil at bay?) For us, we felt incredulity and frustration was about right.
I pulled the quotes straight from the podcast. I’m sure you’ve listened to it before you put it up, did the language not come across as harsh to you? If not, that’s fine. This topic causes a lot of emotion in people, myself included, so perhaps I’m hearing things wrong. But I still feel like telling people to “have the guts” to not support a particular documentary movie is just not helpful.
I also just want to throw out a few things pertaining to the movie itself. I constantly hear the argument that 3 priests don’t validate anything. True, three agreeing voices do not a truism make. But at the same time, just because three voices agree doesn’t automatically rule out that it might be true.
When is the last time anyone watched a documentary in which the filmmaker just went out and interviewed 100 people and put it together to give an answer to whether something is true or not? Never, right? Because that would be ludicris. In this position, you interview people that you feel would have a good grasp on the subject. In Michael Moore’s case, he’s a Roman Catholic (maybe a stretch, but that’s what he claims) so it would make sense that for a religious viewpoint he would go to his priest and bishop.
We should listen closely and be prepared to not believe everything we hear, but in this case, since it’s Moore, I feel like people are on edge to discredit any point he tries to make when he’s not doing anything that different that any other documentary filmmaker. So what that he interviewed three Roman Catholic Priests. You’re allowed to not agree with them, but I’m not sure how allowable it is to throw out the whole thing just because he only interviewed three priests.
I do want to add that we watched the movie with a group of people from our church, and many of us had VERY different opinions about this. Some felt the way you do about the film and Moore. However, we all met together afterwards at someone’s house, ate cake, and talked about the movie for the better part of an hour. There were many opinions presented, but I don’t recall anyone feeling as though there opinion was any lesser than anyone elses. And that’s how this has FELT – and that’s key because feelings are subjective. If you’re not meaning to make it seem as though people are crazy for supporting this movie, that’s totally fine and I’m reading it WAY wrong. But from what I’ve heard it feels and sounds like that’s what’s happening.
What quotes did you actually pull from the podcast? Because the part I’m concerned about is when you say we’re doing the same thing as Moore and Beck: oversimplifying the issue so as to make people look stupid or evil.
This was not only the opposite of our intention, but we went to great pains to clarify that this wasn’t the case.
It’s a fair argument that “have the guts” may have been strong, but from my perspective your accusation doesn’t quite match the crime. Also, I think Ben was probably trying to communicate that suggestion to those who already basically disagreed with Moore. To them, it would be a little less harsh, I think.
I think we were looking for more than just man on the street interviews for Moore to prove his point. Instead, we wanted more to talk about what scripture had to say on the subject, or in his case maybe even the pope would have been good. But everyone knows he could just as easily have found 3 priests who disagreed with his point.
“since it’s Moore, I feel like people are on edge to discredit any point he tries to make when he’s not doing anything that different that any other documentary filmmaker”
One problem with that is that Moore has kind of discredited himself with his previous films.
The other problem is that, well, we did kind of try to take him seriously. But Moore doesn’t give you anything to work with unless want to agree with him. Then his overstated cases and sarcastic jokes work really well.
If you felt that your opinion was lesser than ours, I’m sorry for that. But, I would encourage you to consider the differences between mediums here. I’m not surprised that you had a better experience with a group of people whom you know and who care for one another. We have the problem of having to speak to various people in various situations, so it’s hard to control how all of these people interpret us.
In the case of the podcast, we basically just seek to have a conversation with one another, with our audience in mind. Sometimes we do this better than at other times.
Still, I would agree – feelings are subjective and if we made you feel a certain way, I suggest you consider our true motives. They weren’t to make a person feel stupid or bad, but were instead intended to discredit a documentary this is unfortunately wrong on many levels.
Your definition of ‘not supporting’ here endorses a disengagement of the issues and the media of our day. You’re suggesting that I’m supposed to outsource my cultural engagement and discernment. To whom? With what criteria? In essence you’ve just called for a boycott, and I’m so tired of Christians calling for boycotts.
Your point is well-made that Christianity is on a different plane than politics, or economic systems. But your shaky handling of whether capitalism is based on greed demonstrates gross over-simplifications on your own part, perhaps even equal to the ones you’re pointing out.
To understand and articulate what capitalism is, you need a fuller understanding of what “not capitalism” is. While Michael Moore’s movie might not provide the most authoritative source, there is no doubt that it has initiated conversation on this subject. If you don’t think that’s of worth, perhaps you shouldn’t have devoted an entire podcast to, you know, talking about it… :-)
Hey Kiel,
The mistake is certainly mine for expressing too strongly. I think my larger issue was that many people pour their dollars into things that are especially polemic and unhelpful, whether that is Michael Moore or Ben Stein. I’m not saying you can’t watch it… I’m just saying if you know it will be unhelpful, don’t wrongly support it with your money.
All that said, I do appreciate you calling me out on a hypocritical action. I apologize and I’ll try to do better.
Separately, my problem with Michael Moore’s stuff was not merely his perspective. For instance, I think it’s a great idea if the Catholic church thinks capitalism is evil to put it in the movie. My problem is the WAY he makes his arguments… they were full of false analogies, fallacies, unsupported claims, etc. In short, it’s not just that they wouldn’t hold up in a court of law- they wouldn’t hold up in a high-school debate class (I should know, I taught one).
As I mention in the podcast, Moore had some great things to say and perspectives to highlight, but he ruins it with his juvenile arguments and inability to understand his subject thoroughly. I just feel that if we as Christians want to promote healthy debate, we shouldn’t support such immature forms of argument.
I would LOVE a Moore movie that merely highlighted the types of problems capitalism or US economic policies create; but he couldn’t contain himself, and had to get into a big moral system argument he didn’t really understand. At that point, it became a joke rather than a thoughtful critique.
Brad,
Thanks for the thoughts. Some quick points:
I don’t think I’m calling for any type of serious boycott. If Michael Moore makes movies that are helpful or thoughtful, I’d gladly go see them. And I went to see this one because I hadn’t seen any of his yet and wanted to give him a fair shake. You are certainly right that most Christians have at least some responsibility to engage and understand the issues of our day.
But it would take quite a bit to get me to see another of his, for the same reason I didn’t watch Expelled… I just don’t appreciate juvenile arguments passed off as serious analysis. That’s all I really mean.
And in fairness, a thorough analysis of capitalism is a little hard to do in a short article or podcast… I was mostly going for simple structures to make the point. I do think, though, that they were PROPORTIONAL descriptions- meaning that they correctly pass along the basic idea, unlike Michael Moore’s which are so clearly biased and misapplied as to be useless to the thinking person.
Finally, I can certainly agree that it is right and good for citizens to constantly think about and reevaluate their economic system to see what changes need to be made to make the world better. But let’s not kid ourselves- those conversations were happening long before Michael Moore, and they continue today whether he participates or not. I’ve studied many economic systems in college and on my own, and somehow managed to do it without the childish perspectives of Michael Moore.
If you have some ideas of media we could engage that challenge Christians’ view of capitalism in a more thoughtful way, I’d happily take a look and write about it.
Ben
Thanks for the reply Ben.
It appears that I’m on the complete other side of the coin from you all on this issue. My wife and I have been telling everyone to go see this movie, even if they don’t like Moore, because we believe this is an important issue. Even if you go see the movie and don’t like the arguments, it opens the door for real discussions within our own communities that is much needed on this subject. And isn’t that what’s important?
I’m not going to argue about Moore’s debate tactics, because frankly, I agree with the premise of the argument regardless of how good or not good he delivered it based on the textbook. I’m not much of a debater myself, and am not in a place to critique his ability to do so. I’m definitely open to listening to alternatives he should have used, but all that I’ve heard coming from the opposing side so far have been remarks completely dismissing the whole idea and not giving a whole lot of thoughtful and specific points that should have been made (which makes sense, I guess, if someone doesn’t agree with the premise in the first place).
I’m really interested in hearing from someone who is behind the idea of socialism or a capitalism overhaul give their ideas of how they feel Moore could have better proved his points.
In the meantime, I found “Capitalism: A Love Story” to be a very entertaining, informative, and important film.
I’m increasingly coming to the place were I believe that the single deepest problem with the church in America is its uncritical adoption of capitalism and consumerism into its theology and cultural life. And, maybe, when school isn’t keeping me up late into the night, I’ll write a post outlining some of my concerns. Some of my older posts (Wearing Our Faith, for example) touch on this issue already.
That said, I have to agree with Ben. I have not watched a Moore film for the same reason I didn’t watch Expelled, not because I disagreed with their essential ideas, but because their rhetoric was not actually helpful to the discussion. It’s critique I have of the Daily Show, and Richard Dawkins. What is going to help make a change in people will not be derision, sarcasm, oversimplification, etc. These tactics only lead to more division in our country and churches. Instead, we need to be charitable, loving those we disagree with enough to entertain and understand their perspective while still critiquing them when they are wrong. Whether it comes from Beck, or Moore, or Stein, or Limbaugh (sp?), it is important for us to be charitable enough to engage their ideas, but love them enough to call them to account for their abuses.
Kiel,
Between this and your comment about Bell, I’ve been thinking about the need for a thoughtful, theologically and biblically grounded writer/thinker/pastor/whatnot to address capitalism, consumerism, and various social justice issues. I agree with you that the church and public in general needs to engage these ideas a lot more, but I am deeply concerned that if the only people who are speaking on these issues do so in a manner that is offensive and unproductive (my assessment of Moore, take it or leave it) or theologically problematic (again, my assessment of Bell, take it or leave it), then we are not going to see the real change that we need.
I wonder if some of our readers or writers know of any conservative (theologically) thinkers who are thoughtfully and productively engaging these economic and social issues? Tim Keller? If so, I’d like to hear what they have to say and perhaps start supporting them.
Good response, Ben. I’m glad you clarified some of those things.
One more push-pushback: I think you need to see Expelled before you can make a critique that it’s “juvenile”. Making such a strong, specific judgement statement about a movie in the same sentence as an admission that you haven’t seen it undermines the value of your opinion. Adopting a secondary (or tertiary) source’s opinion is the kind of thing that Christians do, and are in some cases encouraged to do, with far too much regularity.
Hey guys,
Great clarifying thoughts, this is a good way to tone down my overly strong statements.
Kiel, I can see why there can be value in having people see movies like Moore’s as a way of raising awareness about an issue that is important to you. However, I think the problem you are going to face is that Moore’s arguments are so poorly constructed that anyone of a critical, analytical mindset is going to be turned off if they don’t already agree when they start watching. For myself, I was struck by the lack of solid evidence, the fact that he didn’t compare these so-called horrifying conditions to those of other countries, the blatent stereotyping of the “greedy corporate” types and the “moral everyman” types, and his seeming inability to discuss or consider the implications of his statements. Does he truly think a complete economic revolution would prevent poverty or greed?
So, that’s why I am especially angry about his immature style of argumentation- it gets in the way of the very powerful stories he has opportunity to tell, stories that should call us to action if they weren’t obscured by the way he makes his points.
Brad, you could be right about me needing to see Expelled, though one major thing strikes me… very few people who didn’t already agree with it seemed to think it was fair or balanced or well-argued. That (along with the many reviews I read) suggests to me that it wasn’t done with care. However, I could be wrong.
Of course, everyone only has so much time in their lives, and we can’t always resort to the “see it before you critique it” argument. There’s no way to study every single perspective, movie, book, or argument. Sometimes there is validity to saying that a movie making obscure connections between Nazism and evolutionists is juvenile.
That said, you are certainly correct that Christians should take much greater care in not saying things with certainty until they know for sure, and I need to place myself in that group as well.
There you go — that’s a much better approach to your opinion on Expelled. I’m not saying you need to see it, but if you’re going to hold and publish strong, personal opinions, and you haven’t seen it, that gets weird. :-)
Hey, guys.
Great podcast about Westerns :)
I do have one comment to make about the podcast, and that is your contention that the Bible has nothing to say about economic systems.
I would disagree at this point. One primary value that runs throughout the Bible is “thou shalt not steal.”
The one thing that Moore’s socialistic agenda does is to legalize stealing. As long as you have enough people voting to remove someone’s property, it becomes legal to steal from the “rich” and give to the “poor.”
As others have noted, Moore’s economics is like two coyotes and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. To subsidize Paul, Moore wants to rob Peter.
The biblical question is not whether Christians should help the poor (clearly we should), but whether it is the jurisdiction and responsibility of Caesar to do so.
best,
Dale
Dale,
By that definition of stealing, the OT command to leave a portion of crops for the poor and the NT command to render unto Caesar must also be considered stealing, since both are examples of the government taking some property from an individual to give to someone else, regardless of the individual’s preference in the matter.
Alan,
God commanding *individuals* to support the poor by gleaning isn’t stealing.
The OT gleaning laws are lawful Welfare.
It would be stealing if the poor had taken a 4×4 through the orchids and taken all of the fruit off the trees from the landowners.
Best,
Dale
Dale,
I’m not sure what the 4×4 analogy is supposed to mean, but I will say that the OT gleaning laws, at the very least, suggest that it can be right for a government to command (even if this command does come from God) its people to surrender their property in order to provide for the poor.
In light of this command, it seems to me that the burden of proof rests on those who want to argue that the government does not have the right to take property from its citizens.
And if you grant, as I assume you do, that taxation is a right of the government, and that taxation is not stealing, how do you determine what is stealing?
Whimsy, Alan. It’s the arbiter of all such things.