We in the Church are famous for shooting our wounded, and, somehow I feel that by admitting and acknowledging our past, without trying to interpret it to the person who is being made privvy to it, is our confession. Neither do I think that forsaking our sin means that we cease loving or showing love and compassion for those who are caught up in it. I do believe that God has not yanked the signs and wonders from our grasp, but the skepticism over charismania is not unfounded either.

I know in my spirit that there has to be a balance between the written Word (logos) and the living Word (rhema). I’m not trying to be super-spiritual, but I know that the Holy Spirit is a person, and that we are in-dwelled by the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, aka the Comforter, etc. It stands to reason that, since God is the same and that He never changes, that He is willing and able to do what He did in biblical times. In fact, I’m sure that He has been acting all along in history. He does what He wants to, when He wants to, and how He wants to, using whom He wants to. If He used Baalam’s donkey, a dumb beast, why can’t He use flawed human beings to do His work? That is what makes faith a mystery ….

What does the Bible say about the Greeks who seek after signs? It is often a LACK of faith that needs to see something miraculous happen.

But the church fathers had a saying that bears thinking about. Absus non tollit usum, which roughly translated means “abuse is no excuse to negate the use”… ergo, just because someone misuses something doesn’t mean there isn’t merit in it. The Pentecostal/charismatic world is rife with nonsense. I am as appalled by people who claim to have experienced 15 miracles before they have breakfast. And some of those holy huddles that go on where everyone is getting “blessed” by the Spirit are embarrassing when juxtaposed with the reality of human suffering that goes on around the world.

But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Mystery is a long part of the Christian narrative, and this story is very much part of that tradition.

dd

Brad

I didn’t realize that Calvary chapel initially had a pretty charismatic foundation (at least that’s the case in the documentary).

One of the powerful messages to me from the film is how Lonnie Frisbee came from the “counter culture” into the the religious system and became a catalyst for its growth, and then that very religious system (and growth) was probably the cause of a lot of guilt and shame that prevented him from being totally healed of his struggles with homosexuality.

I have no doubt that he knew the Lord personally and was used by God. I think our struggle with accepting some of this is that we have predefined notions of what a Christian or the “Man of God” should look like and Lonnie definitely challenges just about everyone of those notions! But isn’t it like God to use the unlikely people so that the results are so clearly about Him and not that person’s gifting or charisma (which is too often only what we rely on).

On a very basic level, I’m glad that God can use broken people like Lonnie Frisbee because it’s a reminder that he can use each one of us. It’s about Jesus IN us working THROUGH us doing His work for His glory and purposes. That’s why it’s called “the fruit of the Spirit,” not “the fruit of the believer.”

The church has always looked for heroes… and Lonnie Frisbee was one of those catalysts of a movement in history that the church didn’t know what to do with when his lifestyle didn’t match the hero they wanted.

I recently crossed paths with a woman who had been a pastors wife for 40 years. Their daughter left her husband for another woman. Devastated years later, I am having a conversation with her and she said to me… “I have always been afraid that if I love this woman (the girlfriend of her daughter) it will be as if I am condoning her behavior.”

WOW… after 40 years of pastoring… my heart broke for this pastors wife… bound up and unable to love. Difficult stuff… and I believe this is wide-spread. And that this documentary speaks to the heart of this issue.

Fair enough…

I guess, for me, I don’t necessarily need to have the writer/director take those telling the story seriously as much as I need to get to know the people telling the story well enough that I can decide whether or not I can take them seriously. Not sure if I explained that right…

A great example for me was EO International’s (The Netherlands) documentary entitled FACES BEHIND DEATH ROW: The Carla Fay Tucker Story. Most of the documentary is the brother of a lady murdered by Carla Fay Tucker telling his story, raw and uncensored. It’s one of the most powerful and convincing stories of God’s tranforming power that I’ve ever seen, swearing and all. I don’t think it would have been as powerful had EO tried to tell the story itself instead of EO letting this guy, who lived it, tell the story. Granted, that’s not always possible to do, and in the case of Frisbee probably not possible at all… I was just wanting to get to know those people a little better so I could believe them more wholeheartedly. I didn’t get to know them well enough to give them my trust. Maybe I was asking too much.

Anyway — in the words of Forest Gump, “that’s all I have to say about that”… on to that blonde scalawag we both know and love… I’ll make you a deal. You send me a copy of the final version of “Frisbee” (we need to offer it to our networks anyway) and I’ll send you a copy of our production “Larry Norman: Live and Kicking” (sorry, a 1995 production available only on VHS - it’s out of print, but I have a couple copies stashed away for posterity). My email is brad@crownvideo.com. Email me your address and I’ll send it out. I think you already know our address.

Over and out,
Brad

Thanks for responding.

I think that those of us that have some sort of emotional attachment for the evangelical world are prone to wince a little too stringently when we see stuff from the charismatic world. I am with you there.

My concern is that we don’t overdo it, though, and become too closed in the rare chance that one of these voices that claims to be divinely inspired actually is. If you probe this story and all that is Calvary Chapel, this is one doozy of a story… and it is not a house built by pragmatics (as is the case with Willow Creek or Saddleback or the Crystal Cathedral).

I think what you felt as me being overly generous to this world was me actually taking them seriously, something that I got big marks in the documentary world for. Just like filmmakers who went into the Nazi skinhead or punk rock world and take them just as they are, so too I took this charismatically-tinged story just as these people were saying it… without a narrator saying, “Well, they are saying this, but what they really mean is this.”

That would have been far worse.

Alas, you and I share a passion for a certain blonde-headed rascal, so, am sure that we could find common ground if we were to meet. Met some of your team and enjoyed talking with them. I should shoot you a copy of the updated version.

ciao,

dd

Second, David Di Sabatino was wondering about my tag “docu-sins” that I attached to “Frisbee” and why I never responded to his alleged email. Sorry David, I don’t believe I have ever received an email from you. I know you expressed some displeasure of my editorial to my friend and business associate, Tim Wilson, but not directly to me. But let me respond now…

I used the term “Docu-sins” in reference my feeling that Di Sabatino was using snippets of interviews in order to drive viewers to a point HE was making, rather than let me, the viewer, come to my own conclusions based on fuller pieces of interviews. That’s why I said I felt a bit manipulated while watching it. I think it’s important to note that I believe it is possible to be manipulative even when presenting information which is in fact truthful. It’s the way it’s delivered. I also emphasize “I felt a bit manipulated”… I don’t want to overstate this. It wasn’t extreme.

Another “Docu-sin” I referred to was that I felt there were some assumptions made and then arguments built on those assumptions that I hadn’t yet accepted as fact. That’s OK. I’m a bit of a cynic and I often question assumptions that many accept at face value. I experience this with many documentaries. One assumption I didn’t necessarily accept was that Frisbee was actually filled with the Spirt and God was actually working through him. Quite frankly, I have never assumed that “signs and wonders” are automatically of God (I’m probably going to hell for that comment The most important question for me is did Lonnie Frisbee really KNOW God. Was his relationship with God REAL and DEEP. I can’t assume the answer is “yes” based simply on the works he allegedly did.

Okay, two more quick comments. What I wrote was not a reveiw of “Frisbee”, it was an meant to be an essay on the importance of documentary films and how crucial it is for documentarians to set aside their own preconceived ideas and agendas. It’s almost impossible to do, but they must try to do so.

Also, in the end, I liked “Frisbee”. I was captivated and intrigued by it. Just because I had some negative comments about it, doesn’t mean I didn’t think it was well done. I also acknowledged the copy I was watching wasn’t the final cut.

So David, I hope this finally puts to rest the “unanswered email” I never got You’re doing a great job. I was very sorry not to have seen you when you were in Edmonton recently. Two of my close friends attended and said the showing of “Frisbee” and the ensuing discussion were exceptional. Keep up the good work!

There were reviews that I didn’t like because they didn’t understand or like my movie, but they didn’t just make unsubstantiated claims and then hide when asked to explain.

If you want better reviews, here they are.

www.ocweekly.com/features/features/the-first-jesus-freak/19081

www.variety.com/review/VE1117928721.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&query=Hippie+preacher

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/daviddisabatino.html

Hope this engenders some great discussion.

… and that Brad Mix answers my email, finally.

=)

dd