Page 2607 – Christianity Today (2024)

Inside Bob Dylan’s Jesus Yearsby Jerry WexlerHighway 61 Entertainment, October 2008120 minutes, $13.99

“I had no idea it was going to be wall-to-wall Jesus!” laughs legendary record producer Jerry Wexler in a new documentary, Inside Bob Dylan’s Jesus Years.

Wexler was discussing Slow Train Coming, Dylan’s 1979 album that was both revered and reviled. Dylan’s conversion to Christianity—and the three evangelically minded albums that followed—shocked the music world so completely that it remains one of the most provocative and disputed periods in the icon’s storied history. Last year’s artsy biopic I’m Not There glossed over that period, but this film pieces together interviews with Dylan’s former pastor, fellow musicians from the Slow Train era, and even some of the music critics who initially derided his “Jesus music.” It offers a rare glimpse into an oft-misunderstood era. (Dylan was not interviewed for this film, but archived conversations with him are included.)

Director Joel Gilbert coaxes some great reminiscences out of his interview subjects. He captures the mood and tension of the Jesus years in striking detail and digs for rare personal insights into Dylan’s personality. Perhaps the documentary’s most rewarding segment is its re-creation of the notorious Slow Train-era concerts, in which Dylan’s newfound faith was celebrated by a few and criticized by many. One of Dylan’s backup singers tells how Dylan had his entire band and crew spend time in prayer before each show. And Dylan himself sums it up in one archival interview snippet from the era: “You heard it here: Jesus is Lord.”

If there is anything disappointing about this film, it’s that the final few moments seem to cast Dylan’s born-again years as just another phase in his artistic development, something he quickly discarded. Many students of Dylan might argue that his religious convictions never went away—they just became subtler. This documentary may not convince anybody of the artistic greatness of Dylan’s Jesus music, but it helps one understand and appreciate it as a sincere outgrowth of Dylan’s own spiritual seeking.

Josh Hurst, film critic, ChristianityTodayMovies.com

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Inside Bob Dylan’s Jesus Years can be purchased at Amazon.com and other retailers.

Hurst also reviewed the album for ChristianityTodayMovies.com.

Previous Christianity Today articles on Dylan include:

Parsing Pop Lyrics | Tangled Up in The Bible translates Dylan’s use of scripture. (November 1, 2004)

Watered-Down Love | Bob Dylan encountered Jesus in 1978, and that light has not entirely faded as he turns 60. By Steve Turner (May 24, 2001)

Not Buying into the Subculture | Slow Train Coming reveals that Bob Dylan’s quest for answers has been satisfied. By David Singer (Jan. 4, 1980)

Bob Dylan Finds His Source | “A call into the bars, into the streets, into the world, to repentance.”
By Noel Paul Stookey | (February 4, 1980)

Has Born-again Bob Dylan Returned to Judaism? | The singer’s response to an Olympics ministry opportunity might settle the matter once for all. (Jan. 13, 1984)

Bob Dylan: Still Blowin’ in the Wind | Christianity Today reviews Dylan’s work before the singer’s conversion to Christianity. By Daniel J. Evearitt (Dec. 3, 1976)

University of Chicago professor Jean Bethke Elshtain and Wheaton College professor Alan Jacobs have written on Bob Dylan for Christianity Today‘s sister publication Books & Culture.

America’s teenagers are up to something.

According to a 2005 study by the Corporation for National and Community Service, an estimated 15.5 million U.S. teens—55 percent—participate in volunteer activities. The teen volunteering rate is nearly twice the adult rate of 29 percent. Youth volunteer more than 1.3 billion hours of community service each year.

Much of that service takes place in churches raising money for the needy. Youth group fundraising efforts (volleyball marathons, 30-hour fasts) are a staple feature of local newspapers. But once in a while, the efforts of Christian youth are so extraordinary, they make national news.

Christianity Today interviewed two such teens to put some flesh on this trend.

On most basketball teams, if you only hit half of your free throws, you’ll be on the bench. Unless you are playing for Hoops of Hope.

Even the team captain—Austin Gutwein, the charity’s 14-year-old founder—only hits about 50 percent of his free throws. But all he cares about is that for every free throw he shoots—regardless of how many he makes—another AIDS orphan in Africa is helped.

That’s the premise of Hoops of Hope, which Austin founded at age nine after watching a World Vision video about AIDS in Africa. The story focused on a little Zambian girl who had lost her parents to AIDS.

“She was alone, living in a mud hut, huddling under a tarp in the rain,” says Austin, who lives with his family—parents Dan and Denise and sister Brittany, 13—in Mesa, Arizona. “It was incredibly sad. I started thinking what life would be like if I lost my parents, and I couldn’t imagine that.

“I felt like God was telling me to do something.”

2,057 free throws

So Austin started what he calls a “shoot-a-thon.” He asks sponsors to pledge money while he shoots a ton of free throws—giving a whole new meaning to the term charity stripe.

Hoops of Hope officially tipped off on World AIDS Day in December 2004, when Austin shot 2,057 free throws—one for each child orphaned during a typical school day (based on the U.N.’s estimate that 6,000 children worldwide are orphaned daily as a result of AIDS).

Austin raised almost $3,000 that first year, and sponsored eight AIDS orphans through World Vision. The relief agency began to spread the word about Hoops of Hope, and people around the world started holding their own events. The charity, continuing its partnership with World Vision, has raised almost $500,000 in four years.

Some of that money was used to build a school in Zambia. Austin was at the grand opening last fall, where village leaders thanked him in front of a crowd of over 1,000.

“I was blown away,” Austin says. “This school is going to do a lot for these kids and this village.”

In 2007, with more than 5,000 participating worldwide, Hoops of Hope raised over $200,000 to build a medical lab and counseling center in Zambia; Austin plans to visit that project in March.

This year, Hoops of Hope is shooting for enough money to build another clinic in Zambia, with a focus on the prevention of mother-to-child AIDS transmission.

“Prevention is absolutely part of our mission,” says Austin. “We want to prevent kids from being orphaned in the first place. We want those who have AIDS to receive treatment for it. And we want them to learn about the love of Christ.”

Hoops of Hope has added another partner: the Revolve Tour, an event for teen girls featuring Christian musicians and speakers—including Austin. Thousands are signing up to participate in Hoops of Hope.

When Austin speaks at the conferences, he tells the girls, “You don’t have to change the world. You just change the world for one person.”

Austin doesn’t get caught up in the politics or morality questions of AIDS.

“As kids, we don’t worry about why anybody has it or how they got it,” he says. “All we kids want to do is help other kids.

“We can change the world as kids,” he adds, citing 1 Timothy 4:12 as his motivation. “We don’t need to wait till we are adults. We can make a difference now.”

As a preschooler, Kendall Ciesemier believed she would grow up to be famous, though she didn’t know what for.

Then, one day in fourth grade, Kendall came to her parents, Mike and Ellery, and said, “God told me I’m going to be famous for helping people.”

But what people? She found the answer a year later while watching an Oprah special on AIDS orphans in Africa. Kendall, then 11, was moved by the story of a 12-year-old girl who had lost her parents to AIDS and was caring for three younger siblings.

“I thought, How can anybody do that?” Kendall, now 15, says. “My mom was sitting there crying, but I was thinking, You can cry, but I’m going to do something about it.“

She went to her room, did an online search for “AIDS orphans in Africa,” and found World Vision’s website, where she learned she could sponsor a child for $360 a year. She rounded up her birthday and Christmas money and part of her savings, stuffed $360 into an envelope, and asked her parents for a stamp.

“I’m sponsoring a child,” she announced. “And don’t ask me a lot of questions, because I want to do this all by myself.”

Six months later, Kendall needed a liver transplant. Born with a rare condition called biliary atresia, she had lived a relatively normal childhood, though with frequent medical attention. Now her liver was failing. She spent most of the summer of 2004 in the hospital; the first transplant failed due to complications, but the second was a success.

Just before being admitted to the hospital, Kendall had an idea: Rather than collect the usual sickbed assortment of flowers and teddy bears, why not ask people to donate to AIDS orphans instead? She went back to World Vision’s website and learned that she could sponsor a community in Zambia—for $60,000.

“So that’s where I set my goal,” she says. “My parents were like, ‘Maybe you should go for $1,000.’ They tried to convince me to aim lower, but I was like, ‘No way!’ “

And with that, on the eve of a surgery she might not have survived, Kids Caring 4 Kids (KC4K) was born. Even while Kendall was fighting for her life, donations started pouring in.

Once out of the hospital, she recruited friends and held bake sales, set up lemonade stands, and sold KC4K T-shirts. In October 2006, they reached the $60,000.

Kendall also connected with the AIDS ministry at Wheaton Bible Church, the suburban Chicago congregation her family attended at the time. Through the church’s missionaries and partnerships, Kendall and KC4K began supporting Hope for Life, a ministry to orphans in Kenya.

Word about KC4K started to spread. cbs did a piece for The Early Show. And in early 2007, Kendall was named one of Prudential’s “Top Ten Youth Volunteers” in the nation.

Surprise assembly

Then Oprah noticed. Working secretly with Kendall’s parents, Winfrey’s staff arranged a surprise assembly at Wheaton North High School in September 2007. Former President Bill Clinton, at the time promoting his new book, Giving, was to be the special guest.

While Clinton gave a generic speech about the school’s acts of service, Kendall sat in the crowd thinking, We’re no different from any other school. This is so lame. Next thing she knew, Clinton was calling her name, beckoning her to the stage. Clinton said he was taking her to Chicago—right now—to be a special guest on Oprah’s show.

Kendall, her parents, and older brother Connor piled into a caravan with the ex-President. Two hours later, she was on TV, sitting between Oprah and Clinton, telling viewers about KC4K.

“I was like, Am I dreaming?” she says now. “It was ridiculous.”

It got even more ridiculous when Clinton announced that an anonymous friend had just written a check to KC4K—for $500,000. “I just started to cry,” says Kendall. “I thought, This cannot get any better.“

Now quite healthy—she was recently given medical clearance to take her first trip to Africa, which she hopes will happen next year—Kendall says KC4K’s five-year total is up to about $700,000.

The money is being spent to help African children. Two recent projects, both with Bright Hope International, include a dorm at a Kenyan orphanage and a meal program for 600 widows, orphans, and AIDS patients at a Zambian facility. They are looking into more projects to fund.

Kendall’s dad oversees the business end of things, but no checks are written without her approval. “I get to check off everything as the final decision maker,” she says. “It’s sort of like shopping—I get to go shopping with all this money, finding projects that I can support to change people’s lives.”

She summarizes her experience, saying, “When you totally give yourself up to be a tool for God and let him work through you, he listens. And he does it.”

Judith Nichols, an expert on generational giving, has compared four generations, those born between World Wars I and II up through today’s youth. She concludes that the oldest and the youngest living generations are much more civic-minded than the two generations in between. But while the older generation mostly focused on America, young people today show concern for the entire world. Kendall and Austin are dramatic examples of that.

Mark Moring is a CT associate editor.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

For more information about these groups, visit HoopsofHope.org and KidsCaring4Kids.com. Christianity Today also has more articles on .

The Library of Congress’ American Folklife Center is seeking sermons that are preached in U.S. houses of worship during inaugural week.

The library said it would mark the historic inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama as the nation’s first African-American president by adding sermons from a range of houses of worship and secular settings to its spoken-word collection.

“In anticipation of citizens’ efforts to mark this historic time around the country, the American Folklife Center will be collecting audio and video recordings of sermons and orations that comment on the significance of the inauguration of 2009,” the center states on its Web site. “It is expected that such sermons and orations will be delivered at churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, as well as before humanist congregations and other secular gatherings. The American Folklife Center is seeking as wide a representation of orations as possible.”

The collection will include written texts and audio and video recordings from Jan. 16-25. They must be sent to the center by Feb. 27. Recordings, texts and related printed programs that meet the center’s specifications will be processed by archivists and then made available

to students, scholars and the general public.

The drama between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Colemen continues as Franken won the ballot recount for a Minnesota senate seat by 225 votes.

It’s not official, but so far, it looks like Franken may win this round. Franken has an entire chapter in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them entitled “Thank God for Jerry Falwell,” referring to the late pastor who co-founded the Moral Majority.

Franken refers to Ann Coulter’s book Slander where Coulter writes “The Religious Right,” is the “boogeyman” for the left. Franken writes that “if Coulter doesn’t think the religious right exists, she should really get out more. I’ve been to Christian Coalition events, and there are a lot of people there . . . The point is, they’re big and they’re growing.”

After his book was published, Steve Waldman of Beliefnet asked Franken what was wrong with the Religious Right.

They sometimes forget we don’t live in a theocracy. They can be in the public square and express their opinion but to expect other people to alter their behavior to say that, for example, that hom*osexuality is immoral because it says so in the Bible…I mean it also says you can’t eat pork. I don’t see a lot of orthodox Jews saying people who eat pork shouldn’t be allowed to get insurance benefits.

I mean there’s stuff in the Bible how about how to sell your daughter. They kind of are pretty selective about what is important and what isn’t. I think slavery is ok in the Bible. It’s stupid! It’s like the dumbest thing that they want to proscribe other people’s behavior based on their belief.

In other words, Franken won’t be singing “You’ve Got a Friend in Me.”

In four weeks, top Anglican bishops and archbishops will gather in Alexandria, Egypt, to determine the next steps for the worldwide Anglican Communion, deeply divided over gays in the church, women’s ordination, and the authority of Scripture.

Presbyterian, Methodist, and other mainline Protestant pastors have been closely watching the Anglican struggles, since many Protestant groups are under many of the same theological pressures.

Among Anglican conservatives, the spectrum of response is widening. Many pastors and churches are joining the new Anglican Church of North America. But not every conservative pastor or church is jumping ship.

Recently, Russell Levenson Jr. contacted Christianity Today on behalf of his church, St. Martin’s Houston. The congregation of more than 8,200 members is the largest single parish church within the Episcopal Church (TEC). It’s not surprising that it is in Houston, the land of megachurches; it is also no surprise that this church is conservative, evangelical, and healthy. The surprise is that its rector (senior pastor) is staying within the Episcopal Church. He has joined with other conservatives in the Communion Partners Plan.

Members of the plan support the moratoria on additional gay bishops and same-sex blessings, and also views the draft Anglican Covenant as one way to facilitate renewal. Levenson agreed to an exclusive e-mail interview to detail why he and his church are not leaving. (The following transcript has been edited for length.)

What is the role of the Communion Partners in the Episcopal Church?

The Communion Partners is a fellowship that will work closely together not only to provide a means of mutual support among its primates, bishops, and rectors, but also [to] provide a witness to the importance of evangelical faith. I am keenly aware that some feel that their only choice is to leave a very sick, in some places dying, in other places errant, Episcopal Church.

But I do not think leaving is the answer. That is where the Communion Partners rest. Daniel had to stay in Babylon, but did not abandon his faith. Jeremiah was not given another Israel. Ezekiel had to preach to the dry bones. When Jesus and his message were completely rejected, he did not leave. He wept. He stayed. He did not move on to Egypt. He stayed and faithfully preached when they believed and when they did not believe.

There appears, for now, to be tremendous hope in the other forms of Anglicanism that have been springing up around the country. But they are very much in their embryonic stages. In my previous diocese, there were six different expressions of Anglican identity in one small area of the state. None of them were growing significantly. There are already some divisions within these breakaway movements over liturgy, women’s ordination, and prayer book language. I wish them well, but I would have rather seen them stay.

I have asked every person I personally know that has [left] or was pondering to leave the Episcopal Church if they were prevented in some way by their parish or bishop from preaching the gospel. Each one has said, “No.”

They have been criticized. They have been mocked at clergy conferences, but they have not been prevented from preaching the gospel, and thus I wonder why they leave. But I do honor their decision to do so.

In Jesus’ last prayer before his arrest, he prayed that his followers would “be made one” (John 17:11). How can anyone hear that prayer, knowing it was prayed with Christ’s blood-stained sweat, and say that division is the way forward? How can we read Paul’s plea, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3), and strive for further schism?

Do you think TEC will move in 2009 to allow more gay bishops and same-sex unions/gay marriage? If so, what will you do?

Every effort will be made by those who support the revisionist agenda to seek approval for the ordination of persons sexually active outside of heterosexual marriage, and who seek approval of same-sex blessings — every effort will be made to further that agenda.

If we see a further step to the Left, at this time it will be disastrous. There are many who believe the Episcopal Church can withstand another body blow like it did in 2003, and it may. But the furthering disunity between the polar opposites will grow even further; another similar step will make the hemorrhage after the General Convention in 2003 look like a paper cut.

Some will argue that the Episcopal Church has put on the brakes on issues related to human sexuality since 2003, but that is simply not true. There has been a consistent and pervasive move to further the agenda. I have pleaded with the presiding bishop, [Katharine Jefferts Schori], to hit the pause button — to honor the moratoria — to not pole vault over the obvious divisions and try and land in a place that the church cannot land without further division.

We will stay and continue to preach faithfully; we will build strong relationships with other bishops, clergy, parishes, and dioceses who share that desire; and we will work with all due diligence to embrace whatever requests the greater Anglican Communion makes of its constituent members.

Church fathers said the two great enemies of the body of Christ were heresy and schism. They did not say one was better than the other — only that both were tools of the Devil to divide the body of Christ. I think we are seeing both actively at work in virtually every mainline denomination today. We have an obligation to stand against both and work instead for a faithful, orthodox witness and a body of believers bound by their common love of the Lord Jesus and one another.

What exactly are you seeking? The resignation of Bishop Gene Robinson? A new affirmation of the creeds, councils, and canons of the church? Or something else?

The Communion Partners Plan seeks to be a fellowship of like-minded and like-hearted primates, bishops, and rectors. After our spring meeting, we will be looking [for] ways to expand participation by associate and assistant clergy, lay persons, and institutions as well. We are committed to the Windsor Process and unfolding Covenant Process [reform initiatives from conservatives], and we share a common commitment to biblical, orthodox, and evangelical faith. While we are Episcopal, we are not defined primarily by our denomination, but by our participation in the body of Christ. The General Convention that approved Bishop Robinson’s consecration and those who support that decision (as well as a decision to bless same-sex unions) are promoting a revisionist agenda not consistent with the teaching of Holy Scripture or the tradition of the church.

It would be an honorable thing if Bishop Robinson resigned. I do not think he will do so, but clearly his election and subsequent consecration was one of the most divisive events in the body of Christ. The press has not done an adequate job of reporting on the success stories in the Episcopal Church, and it has also — too often — presumed that the vast majority of Episcopalians agree with the revisionist agenda. I would argue that the vast majority in the pews do not. Many bishops do not, and many clergy do not.

Episcopal leaders say that the Anglican way has always been tolerant of a wide range of beliefs. What are the limits?

We have been traditionally been called “the Church of the Middle Way.” While we profess allegiance to the Holy Scriptures and the Creeds, we are not a confessional church. You will find in TEC those who stand in a wide variety of places on issues [such as] morality, politics, even worship style (from high to low, traditional to charismatic, etc.). You will also find us now struggling with how to reach out to the gay community without an endorsem*nt of a lifestyle inconsistent with Holy Scripture. That said, we have not done a very good job of upholding even basic principles [of] human sexuality — a gift to be lived out within the context of heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

The vast majority of sexual indiscretion and sin with which I deal in my pastoral work is not connected to hom*osexual misconduct, but heterosexual (infidelity, serial monogamy, promiscuity). We spend a lot of time wagging the finger (perhaps too much time) on one expression of human sexuality, when in reality, everyone’s sexuality is tainted with original sin — all are in need of redemption, conversion, and sanctification.

As to limits, those who would deny the basic creedal elements (the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection) would then be stepping outside not only historic Episcopal faith, but Christian faith as well.

Do you regard the current TEC presiding bishop as a leader faithful to historic orthodoxy? If not, what should be done?

I have met with the presiding bishop on a few occasions. At least in my experience, she [Presiding Bishop Schori] has spent more time actively listening to those who disagree with her or the current direction of TEC than [did] either of her two predecessors. I have heard her say things with which I completely disagree, and some things with which I agree. On those points of disagreement, I have — both in personal meetings and in correspondence — stated my disagreement and even challenged her on those points. I do not find her to be defensive. As to whether or not she is a leader faithful to historic orthodoxy, I cannot speak to her personal theology; that really is her story to tell. I do believe her position on these divisive issues around human sexuality to be inconsistent with the history and tradition of the church and the teaching of Scripture.

I sincerely hope she will not allow the revisionist agenda to take another step forward. I think she can begin next summer’s convention by stifling any resolution, canonical shift, [or] liturgical revision that could be perceived as a step further to the Left on the divisive issues around human sexuality.

Do any conservative evangelicals support your decision to stay (for the time being) within TEC?

I had the opportunity to visit with John Stott in late November. We talked and prayed about many things, including the ongoing challenges in the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church. As I asked him which path he thought it best for me to take, he said, clearly, “If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, ‘the church is evidence of God’s patience.’ And we just don’t know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share.”

Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today has a special section on the Anglican division.

Spiritual seekers seek till the very end of life, demonstrated a recent New York Times piece about the friendships between “spiritual but not religious” hospice patients and their chaplains. As hospice care has become an affordable, dignifying end-of-life choice in recent decades (the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization says that 38 percent of deaths last year were in hospice) the demand for hospice chaplains has boomed. The Association of Professional Chaplains reports a 50 percent jump in the last 10 years of the number of U.S. hospice chaplains.

Chaplaincy culture has changed, too. What was once a field of ordained clergy is now filled by many who see it more as social work than a divine calling.

No matter chaplains’ motives, the benefit of spiritual support in the last days is undeniable, something the medical community plainly recognizes. Serving alongside nurses, counselors, and home health aides, chaplains “are the patient’s advocate,” says Phil Kenyon, an Illinois resident taking chaplaincy training at Vitas, a national accreditation program. “You are showing a dying person dignity and love that in some cases, they may never have received in their lives.”

The patient’s requests may be anything from prayer to chats about God, to chats about anything but God, to confession, to simply having a hand held. Other patients may not even know someone is there; oftentimes it’s the family making requests on their behalf. (Families stand at the center of the hospice-care model, as relational comfort is one proven way to stave off depression and further ailments.) Whatever the spiritual needs, it’s always the patient seeking the chaplain, not the other way around.

Sadly, the hospice patients requesting a chaplain’s care are usually those disconnected from church or other faith communities. As one director of a hospice organization told the Times, “The ones with a family priest, they’re not calling us.” They do not have congregations coming to fix meals, run errands, talk with the family, and, most importantly, help them die well with the church’s rituals. Surrounding family members also suffer from no network, since they must at once attend to their loved one’s physical needs and try to answer questions they themselves may be asking. This leaves many families exhausted and unprepared to begin the grieving process.

Joanne Webber, widow of beloved theologian Robert Webber, notes the irony. “The people most likely to call on a hospice chaplain [are] non-Christians,” she says. “Because Christians tend to be surrounded by their family and friends, it might actually intimidate the hospice person. You would end up giving your testimony to them.”

The church is not to miss this chance to serve those whose worth is no longer about productivity but primarily, and simply, about bearing God’s image. Given that the number of hospice patients will rise as the boomer generation ages and hospice care becomes a normal part of dying in America, Christians ought to be at the forefront of providing this ministry of presence in years to come. Those with the heart for spiritual care can complete most chaplaincy certification programs within two years. And lay members, though not always able to interact with patients, can volunteer at hospitals and nursing homes and visit neighbors to meet practical needs and assure families they are not alone.

Instead of requiring the weak and hopeless to seek us out, we should be seeking them out, bringing with us the presence of Christ. And, if sensitively timed and led by the Holy Spirit, we may be asked to speak of the “reason for the hope that you have” — even in the face of death. It’s the uniquely Christian hope in the Resurrection that should compel us to share it with those who need it most.

Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today has previous editorials, more articles on life ethics, and a special section on death and dying.

Morris Chestnut is that actor you know but can’t quite place where you’ve seen him. After nearly two decades of starring in films like Boyz in the Hood, The Best Man and The Perfect Holiday, Chestnut has successfully carved out a niche for himself as the urban romantic lead.

In his latest film, Not Easily Broken, opening Friday, Chestnut leaves the dating drama behind to explore how a marriage can quickly fall apart without the three-strand cord of two committed people and faith in God.

Based on the novel by pastor and author Bishop T.D. Jakes, Not Easily Broken follows the marriage of Dave (Chestnut) and Clarice (Taraji P. Henson) Johnson. Forced to become the breadwinner for the family after an injury destroys Dave’s athletic career, Clarice grows increasingly addicted to her own professional success, ultimately ignoring her husband’s desire for a family. When Clarice is injured in a near-fatal car accident and Dave finds comfort and temptation in a friendship with his wife’s physical therapist, the fragility of the Johnsons’ marriage is exposed. Faced with the threat of divorce, the couple must decide if their marriage is beyond repair.

CT Movies spoke with actor/producer Chestnut about Not Easily Broken, the joy of working with breakout star Taraji P. Henson (a major role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and why he feels belief in a higher power is crucial to a lasting marriage.

Not Easily Broken begins where most other love stories end—the wedding. Why do you think so few films focus on the marriage stage of a relationship rather than dating?

Morris Chestnut: I think it’s more interesting for people to see the courtship, because that’s always unpredictable and a lot of people can relate. With this particular film, we’re dealing with marriage, so unless you’re married you’re not going to be able to relate to Taraji P. Henson’s character or my character. That is why we have Eddie Cibrian’s character (who was married but now he’s divorced) and Wood Harris’s character that’s never been married. Not Easily Broken is not just a movie about marriage; it’s a movie about real people and issues they’re dealing with.

You not only star in this film, but you’re the executive producer as well. Why did you want to be so intimately involved with this project?

Chestnut: They gave me the opportunity when they approached me with starring in the film, and I wanted to do more than just act in this movie. I wanted to be able to make some decisions and bring people in that I like. I was so fortunate to be able to do that.

You have been married for over 11 years and now have two children. How did making this film shape your perspective of marriage?

Chestnut: It didn’t change my perspective at all actually. I’ve always been a person who looks at the world from a realistic point of view instead of from an idealistic point of view. After 11 years, I have my very strong opinions about what it takes to make a marriage work.

What was it like creating a marriage on screen with Taraji P. Henson? Did you draw from your real-life marriage relationship?

Chestnut: When the director Bill Duke and I discussed it, Taraji was at the top of our list to play this character. I drew on my own experiences of marriage to play this character, but Taraji is such a fantastic actress that we kind of just fell right into place.

Your character Dave wants to have a child but his wife isn’t ready. We don’t often see this dynamic onscreen—usually it’s the other way around. How common do you think this dynamic is in American families today?

Chestnut: I would probably say it’s rarer than the other way around. But most men, especially those involved in sports, want a son to raise up in sports. The rare aspect is the woman not wanting kids.

In the movie, the idea was we’d grow up, get married, buy the house with the white picket fence, and have kids. That changed along the way. The circ*mstances dictated that she grew in a different direction and it changed her way of thinking about things. She wanted to maintain a certain type of lifestyle and in order to do that she wasn’t ready to have kids because she knew that would interfere.

Not Easily Broken primarily follows the marital stress of an African-American couple. Do you think the challenges the couple face are unique to their culture or universal obstacles in marriage?

Chestnut: I think it’s broad. Look at Sarah Palin and her situation. In her marriage, she was the one in the public eye, striving to reach heights greater than what her husband probably had in mind in terms of visibility and money. I think it’s universal.

This film is based on the book by Bishop T.D. Jakes. He believes faith in Jesus Christ is crucial to a lasting marriage. What role has faith played in your life and marriage?

Chestnut: I was raised in a Baptist church, so I’ve always been strong in my faith. I don’t go to church every week, but I’m also not one who goes to church once a year. I’ve always had a belief that there’s a higher power and the way I live my life is going to affect me in the afterlife as well.

With its strong message of the enduring nature of marriage, Not Easily Broken will likely appeal to a Christian audience. How do you think the film will be received outside of the church?

Chestnut: It should be well received, because if no one told you it was based on a T.D. Jakes book, you probably would have no idea it was coming from such a strong faith position. Most people want to see a movie to be entertained. If they want to get an education, they go see a documentary. So as long as they come in and understand they’re going to be entertained and then get hit subliminally with all of these messages, I think we’ll reach a great audience.

What else would you like people to know about the film?

Chestnut: This is a very entertaining movie. They will be touched; they will laugh and they will cry. In the end, they will have a joyful two hours spent.

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

A long awaiting ruling of the Californai Supreme Court was released today concerning three conservative parishes that left the national Episcopal Church. The ruling is a huge set back for conservatives.

According to media reports:

In an unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the property belongs to the Episcopal Church because the parishes agreed to abide by the mother church’s rules, which include specific language about property ownership.

St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood pulled out of the 2.1 million-member national Episcopal Church in 2004 and sought to retain property ownership.

Each church held deeds in their names to the property. The court ruled that Episcopal Church canons made it clear the property belonged to the individual parishes only as long as they remained part of the bigger church.

“When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it,” Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin wrote for the seven-member court.

Reaction to the ruling predictably have leaders in the Episcopal church declaring complete victory.

I will update this entry with comments and reactions in a few hours’ time.

Our church’s elders have a pretty good safeguard against unwanted persons slipping into our leadership team during the annual elections. Of course the elders had to approve all candidates for church office, but we also followed the convention of allowing any one elder among the twelve to veto the name of any candidate he “had a problem with,” even if that problem was unsubstantiated or described as “just a bad feeling.”

On the surface the practice seemed reasonable enough. After all, we had a fine, tight group of men with a good chemistry. We didn’t want anyone coming in who might disturb that fragile balance or who might not be a team player. We were all painfully aware of churches where a poorly chosen elder or staff person had kept things in a continual uproar. So, we thought it was best to be safe. But safe leadership isn’t good leadership.

Doris Kearns Goodwin’s remarkable 2005 book, Team of Rivals, uncovers the many leadership lessons to be learned from Abraham Lincoln. Her entire work is dedicated to the idea that Lincoln’s greatness is to be found in his willingness to embrace the concept of a leadership team composed of men who were not only diverse in their views, but were his personal rivals as well. In exquisite detail Goodwin tracks the careers of Civil War cabinet members William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates, three men with far more national recognition and, seemingly, presidential capabilities than the lightweight lawyer from rural Illinois. Each had gone to the 1860 Chicago Republican Convention assuming that one of them would be running for president in the fall; none had given a second thought to Lincoln or his chances.

When Lincoln deliberately decided to include these men in the innermost workings of his daily administration he was taking a risk. Senator Seward took the offer to mean that he would be the acting president behind a figurehead Lincoln. Then, as if he had not invited enough trouble into his house, Lincoln chose three Democrats to be Postmaster General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of the Navy.

It did not make for an easy beginning. Seward immediately invited Lincoln to come to his home, hat in hand, where the greater man could instruct the lesser one on cabinet selections and other pressing matters. War Secretary Edwin M. Stanton rather openly referred to the president as “the original gorilla,” and the upper crust ladies of Washington, including the cabinet wives, were socially brutal to Mary Lincoln upon her arrival, going out of their ways to insult and embarrass her.

These were just the kinds of difficulties the elders at my church were trying to avoid with our unwritten veto rule. Surely God wouldn’t want us to actually invite potential disunity into our leadership. Yet Goodwin’s thesis that great leadership neither punishes nor ignores ideological foes, but rather embraces them, has important implications for our increasingly large and complex church governmental structures. The danger of group-think is ever present in congregations where dissent is seen only as a problem. Church leaders often extol the virtues of 90 percent congregational confirmation votes for the new building program or the new minister, or the elders’ “unanimous agreement” that the church needs to take a certain action. But we forget that many of God’s commands in Scripture required leaders to go against the tides of popular opinion. If Abraham Lincoln could use the power of diverse opinions and contrary egos to save the nation, then we ought to look more closely at the benefits of dissenting opinions in our churches as well.

David Fitch pastors the Life on the Vine Christian Community, a vibrant emergent church work in the Chicago area. At fifty, and in possession of a PhD from Northwestern (Theological Ethics, Church and Society), a professorship, and a lengthy list of books and articles, few could blame him for preferring life’s rounded corners and softer edges. And no one would expect him to invite discomfort and disquiet into his own church. Yet, that is what he did by bringing on Matt Tebbe, a generation younger at 31 and fresh from seminary. Matt’s earlier life also included a ministry experience that was considerably different from that of Life on the Vine. Fitch knew that the arrangement would have its rough edges—Matt had worshipped at the Vine for a year-and-a-half before joining the ministry there, and the styles of the two men were clearly different. Why would a pastor forge that kind of iron edge into what should be a gratifying middle-aged ministry?

Fitch concluded that “the rewards outweighed the pain. [Matt] pushed us regarding people we were missing [in the church],” and Matt possesses the vital capacity to tell his senior pastor when he is being unreasonable. There is no sappy sit-com; there is no easy happy ending to the story. But since Matt came on board Fitch says he can recount numerous times when he has helped the older minister practice the “discipline of submitting,” something senior ministers are usually better at requiring than modeling. Fitch believes that many of those encounters “changed our relationship.” He recalled a time when the younger minister called the older one to thank him for his humility and willingness to listen. Those incidents highlight another unsuspected benefit in a ministry of rivals done well: the personal and spiritual growth of the rival which Fitch says has been “astounding.”

Sometimes the ministry of rivals can play out in less tumultuous ways, and over longer seasons. C. Robert Wetzel, now president of the Emmanuel School of Religion in East Tennessee, recalls his simmering feud with a fellow member of the Milligan College faculty many years ago. Wetzel’s rival, Education Department Chair Paul Clark, would become his subordinate some years later when the former became the academic dean of the college, but both men served the college superbly despite their differences. Says Wetzel, “He was relentless but kind in his advocacy of the philosophy of education he championed. I was also relentless, but had to have my quality of kindness chided and instructed. In any event, I think Milligan College is stronger today because of these prolonged discussions.” Recently Milligan named a wing of the new faculty office building in honor of Paul Clark, a reward Wetzel described as “a well-deserved recognition.”

We men, in particular, are fond of glibly citing Proverbs 27:17 concerning the way in which “iron sharpens iron” when two strong personalities pursue their differences in a truly Christian context. But too often we flee that ancient wisdom when the sparks from the grating iron begin to fly. There is no evidence of such a costly retreat in the New Testament, all of its unity pleas notwithstanding. Paul and the earliest Judaizers—Christians, all—went at each other hammer and tongs, a fact that neither Paul nor the early church fathers tried to keep under literary wraps even when Paul’s anger extended to Peter and James.

Doris Kearns Goodwin concluded that Lincoln’s “unprecedented decision to incorporate his eminent rivals into his political family, the cabinet, was evidence of a profound self-confidence and a first indication of what would prove to others a most unexpected greatness.” The decision was neither a sign of weakness nor cowardice, but rather of strength and hope. In the end, Lincoln’s adversaries were some of his greatest disciples. Seward became one of his closest personal friends and advisors, and Goodwin states that the irascible and always composed Stanton would weep uncontrollably at the mention of Lincoln’s name after the assassination. So, too, for Jesus’ disciples, men who only hours before his arrest and crucifixion engaged in a juvenile argument over who was to be the greatest among them, but who three days later became a singular, world-changing force. Rivalry and unity, it seems, are cut from the same cloth.

Jeff Knowles is a writer and retired research administrator who lives with his wife, Lezlee, in Columbus, Ohio.

Copyright © 2009 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.