Thoughts on "Elementary" Season One

It is hard to put a finger exactly on what makes “Elementary” a lesser Holmes, but it does feel as though it is.

On the one hand it is an entertaining enough show. It has engaging crimes and clever solutions. It is well written and acted. It develops the characters over the course of the season and has a compelling season-long arch. However, something feels off.

For instance, there is the ultimately gimmicky conceit of Watson as a woman. That would not be so bad in and of itself, but there are two things working against it here:

Vital vs. Best (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

One of the keys to good leadership is the ability to distinguish between that which is vital and that which is simply best.

There are certain things—ideas, methods, approaches, beliefs, etc.—which are essential to the movements, communities and projects that we lead. They are the things that we cannot do without.

However, there are also things which are merely the best. They are things that we know from experience or from others’ experience (or that we simply believe to be) the best of many ways forward. Sometimes the biggest mistake leaders make is to insist on “the best” from those they lead. Instead of making progress and allowing people to advance in their own way, they gum up the process by insisting that people attempt things that they are not capable of, that they don’t believe in, or that they are not gifted to do.

In the areas of doctrine and faith this is often one of the most important things to grasp, and yet it is also an area where it is hardest to achieve. Some leaders see their views on pet, side issues as being more important than they really are. Some get so caught up in these arguments over extraneous issues that they fail to ensure a correct understanding of the vital doctrines. Even in areas where error may exist in such, minor teachings, it is often better to lay them aside in favor of more vital teaching. The side issues can correct themselves over time or simply don’t deserve the time and effort that can be spent on truly important issues.

"Hanna" (2011)

It is a story that has been told before, many, many times. It is even presented in the traditional way, albeit with a modern take. “Hanna” is a fairy-tale about the dangers and horrors of growing up and leaving home. As a film it is beautiful, visually interesting, and excellently made. As a story it lacks a certain spirit. However, that may be because it really is just a fairy tale a la Grimm.

Hanna is a 15 year old who has been raised by her father in the arctic regions with a singularity of purpose. Her whole life has been preparation for the time when she will leave home and face the world, as well as a mission that will ensure her future. There is a woman in the world who will try to kill her if she ever finds out Hanna is alive. (Here is the point where one asks, why not train or simply BE someone else?) If Hanna ever wants to grow up and live a “normal” life, she will have to kill this wicked witch/big bad wolf first.

The only problem is that, with all the preparation for what must be done, Hanna is never taught the sort of skills she will need later on—how to live in the world. It is a classic case of prepare-your-kid-for-evil-at-the-expense-of-preparing-her-for-good. Sure enough, Hanna leaves home, fulfills her mission (she thinks), and then realizes she is wholly unprepared for the rest of her life.

As a movie “Hanna” is good enough, as a message it is OK, but just as Hanna was insufficient and missing something vital, this film is lacking enough to be considered great.

Lifestyle Evangelism 007 Edition (Missional Myths 2)

There seem to be three (at least) Missional Myths that people are embracing to one degree or another these days. They are all born out of solid ideas, but taken to extremes they are detrimental. And the more people buy into these myths the worse it is for their impact on the mission.

In my younger days I ran into an approach to witnessing that combined a good idea (live as you believe, be authentic) with a cop-out. It went something like this: “I let my life be my witness.” These people would really have you believe that a religious lifestyle alone would bring people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, they were usually simply too ashamed of their own faith to talk about it.

These days there is a similar, just as pervasive, philosophy in missions. It also takes a good or at least needed idea (sometimes you have to be something other than a religious professional to gain access to the lost) and tries to make it a universal “best practice” for all mission efforts. They would have you believe that the best way to reach people with the story of Christ is to pretend to be something other than a witness.

Now, there are places in the world where Christians are not free to share their story. There are places where people are not allowed to live if sharing the Gospel is their job. In those places, people need another reason to be there. Most of the time their other reason is a legitimate job. However, to convince me that this is the best approach everywhere they need to do more than just say it is so. The data tends to argue against them. Even in places where being a witness is illegal, the people who openly do so see more results than those who hide their faith.

The sad truth is that a lot of these believers spend more energy and time maintaining a “cover” than they do witnessing, all to maintain a method of witness that is less effective. Part of the appeal may lie in the romantic idea of having a cover. Missional types are more susceptible to hero complexes than those who do not follow a missional vocation, and the 007 approach to mission certainly feels more heroic than openly embracing a message and a lifestyle than tend to be looked upon with disdain.

TV and Storytelling

The Writer’s Guild of America recently released a list of the 101 best written TV series of all time. The list is—as all of these things are—highly debatable and a mere conglomeration of opinions. However, it is also highly interesting and thought provoking. For instance:

16 of the shows are currently airing, and over half of the best TV of all time aired in this millennium, within the past 13 years. Almost 10 percent are talk or variety shows. None are “reality shows.” 60% are hour-long programs. On a more personal level, I have seen every episode of exactly six of the series, but not a single episode of 43 of the series. So, my television IQ is not very high compared to the pop-culture experts. My own tentative top eleven list would be something more along the lines of:

11. The Twilight Zone

10. Seinfeld

9. Sherlock

8. Buffy the Vampire Slayer

7. A Nero Wolfe Mystery

6. Mr. Bean

5. Doctor Who

4. The Andy Griffith Show

3. Lost

2. The X Files

1. Columbo

In any case, television as a story telling medium has grown and developed over the years. In many ways it may be a better potential medium for storytelling than film these days. However, its cultural context is perhaps even more anchored in its own time, and its real zeitgeist and influence on culture is more limited and fragile.