The first day of the first Flickerings Film Showcase at Cornerstone Festival, we asked the question in our first afternoon discussion, "What Is A 'Christian' Film?"

Traditionally — in the traditions represented by many of those present — the notion of "Christian film" has had a specific, forensic meaning, and specific examples come to mind — "Rapture Movies," to use a descriptive term used by our panel. Of course, in addition to a preponderance of films whose content consists of a particular sensationalist apocalyptic theology and treatment, most of these so-called "Christian films" share a common didactic (some would say "evangelistic") form: "ending with an altar call", is one way of putting it.

This question is obviously a subset of a larger question regarding "Christian art", of which much discussion has already been done at Cornerstone and among those who make up our expanded festival community. In fact, there was some resistance among some in the Flickerings audience toward going over what clearly was for them, old territory for those who had already worked through such issues in connection with music, literature and the visual arts. This attitude in itself seems a hopeful sign for the larger Cornerstone culture.

The inauguration of Flickerings represented for Cornerstone a formal recognition of an ongoing process of forging or reclaiming a Christian vision of culture, one which has now turned to the art of film. Raising the fundamental questions was a way of picking up the discussion about film by Christians in our own cultural community where it tends to end — and making that point a new beginning.

Of course, until they begin to see filmmakers and commentators of the caliber of their best 20th century novelists, poets and critics, Christians taking part in this discussion about film shall have to depend largely upon the insights of those in other art forms as they approach the fundamental questions.

Indeed, literary criticism can be most helpful here. C.S. Lewis, for example, spoke of "Christian" literature, hesitantly, with very careful distinctions.

"Christian literature can exist only in the same sense in which Christian cookery might exist. If would be possible, and it might be edifying, to write a Christian cookery book. Such a book would exclude dishes whose preparation involves unnecessary human labor or animal suffering, and dishes excessively luxurious. That is to say, its choice of dishes would be Christian. But there could be nothing specifically Christian about the actual cooking of the dishes included. Boiling an egg is the same process whether you are a Christian or a Pagan."

C.S. Lewis, "Christianity & Literature"

One of the Flickerings attendees later complained, however, that some of the films (actually, one in particular) was not, to their mind, "Christ-centered": another term with much less meaning than those who wield it as sword and shield seem to think. In this instance, "Christ-centered" involved using the name of Christ to absolutize a preferred political ideology and demonize a dissident perspective. Most of the time, however, people who bring this kind over overt standard of "Christian" to their judgment of art insist a work, to be legitimate, must in some way communicate specific "Christian" content, or use commonly accepted "Christian" symbols and language (aka "cliches" or "stereotypes").

Walker Percy (following his teacher Kierkegaard) had much to say about the rapid and constant devaluation of the symbols we use to communicate and the desperate measures people have to take to break through cliche to encounter authentic experience. The task of the artist has always been to race ahead of the devaluation in search of new symbols, new ways of expressing both our most fundamental common human issues but also the peculiar issues of our own time and place. For the Christian artist, said Percy, the task requires a special cunning and deviousness, "for he is working with a prostituted vocabulary which must be either discarded or somehow miraculously rejuvenated." "Christ-centered" is part of a vocabulary in need of rejuvenation.

Percy himself was only "Christ-centered" (or, "Christ-haunted", perhaps he would have said) in the sense of being a Christian and looking Christianly at human absurdities in his time and place — without being a "Christian novelist."

In the same way, T. S. Eliot would have been loathe to consider himself a "religious poet", finding as he did such a perspective inherently limiting:

For the great majority of people who love poetry, 'religious poetry' is a variety of minor poetry: the religious poet is not a poet who is treating the whole subject matter of poetry in a religious spirit, but a poet who is dealing with a confined part of this subject matter: who is leaving out what men consider major passions, and thereby confessing his ignorance of them."

T.S. Eliot, "Religion & Literature"

"What I want," said Eliot, "is a literature that is unconsciously, rather than deliberately and defiantly, Christian..."

What most people who prefer "Christian films" want will continue to be religious propaganda: it seems safe to observe that no genius has yet arisen to redeem the genre from its own dubious history. And that is "Why" — to make note of the advertised subtitle of our first panel discussion — "'Christian films' have been 'Left Behind'." And so, for Flickerings, will be this particular question.

The question for the second day's discussion was "Why Create?"

One might as well ask: 'Why Love?'   Or 'Why Pray?'

Of course, following from the traditional definition of "Christian film", the primary motivation for making films (and other art-making) in the religious tradition of many of us has been utility: for evangelistic or other didactic purposes.

Again, the criticism of an essentially utilitarian motivation as the sole or even the highest rationale for art making has been well underway in our expanded Cornerstone Festival community for the nearly two decades of the event.

Indeed, while in some ways, it was observed, we stand with film where we stood with music twenty-five years ago, there is a sense that much of what has been learned in developing a music culture will apply in the case of film: the wheel need not necessarily be re-invented. Growth might come quicker.

Rather than mounting an apologetic for the artistic endeavor, then, our discussion reviewed a general theology of Christian creativity and culture and moved right into a serving of notice that the time when filmmaking by Christians must be justified by utilitarian or "evangelistic" criteria has also passed.

We create for the same reasons we pray and we love — indeed, for the same reason we breathe: because we must: because we are created in the image of a Creator, because our subcreation (Tolkien's word) pleases Him, because it pleases us, because to do otherwise would render us less than fully human.

One more reason to create films is a new one: because, at last, we can.

Indeed, the answer to the opposite question "Why NOT create?" with regard to film has long been — practically speaking — that the tools were not available. Suddenly, all at once, the means of production — and post-production — and distribution — have been democratized, in the same way that music making has so long been a democratic art form. There's no reason to think that many of those creative young people who otherwise might have formed garage bands won't now channel their energies into making films — just because they can.

If you spoke with panelist Rick Harden, or heard his Art Rageous seminars, you caught something of his excitement that this particular historical moment involves another sort of change: a sense of turning a corner, a turn some may not be able to make. Indeed, the 'Rapture' films may in fact reflect an anxious desire to escape, not the end of the world, but the end of Modernity. And with that end, perhaps the Modern insistence on utility and measurable results, the horror of ambiguity and mystery, the abstraction of dogma from story which has led to so much bad "Christian" art, will render questions which seemed fundamental to the launch of our first Flickerings program entirely moot.

Young people see the world differently: the new generation gap is not just technological. The emerging generation of Christian artists will have less trouble bridging the gap between body and spirit; their work will be less an overconfident declaration of answers than an agonized wrestling with questions; less foregrounding of Christian symbols than the embodiment of Christian experience: their approach to "Christ-centered" art will be Incarnation.

And, rounding that corner, the afternoon discussions Flickerings left debate about fundamentals behind, and we turned our attention to making films.

It was so refreshing to come down to earth and talk shop.

Be nice to your boom guy — his is a thankless task and if you don't thank him, you'll be recruiting replacements from among the extras. Don't waste all afternoon on a dolly shot you don't have the crew to do right, and wish later you could have spent that time on three or four static set-ups. Go crew on somebody else's shoot if you plan on asking him to someday crew for you.

Different kinds of filmmakers participated. A professional or two, patiently working their way from smaller toward bigger projects. One who makes videos for her church. Some who make films just for themselves, because they must.

The best part was just being there together, listening, talking, caught up in the sheer novelty of the of "What — you, too? I thought I was the only one!" experience. While some practical information was doubtless shared in this nuts and bolts session, the most important contribution of this panel (and the others) was the excuse it provided to make contact between people. Somebody passed around a sign-up sheet for a proposed online discussion. There was a powerful sense we were witnessing the beginning of something important.

And there have already been ideas about where to go next. For the second Flickerings, it has been suggested: even more "excuses" for filmmakers to meet and network, for support and mentoring, perhaps even a forum for peer review of works finished and in-progress, along with practical "how to" workshops on making films, starting festivals, and creating microcinemas.

There is plenty, it seems, to keep us busy for the forseeable future.

Meanwhile, during the Q & A period, there was the odd voice trying to steer the conversation back to issues we'd addressed on the panels over the previous two days. Of course, questions about "Christian" films and "Why Create?" will always be asked and never be fully answered. But those who took part in the first Flickerings Film Showcase at Cornerstone Festival will tell you that, as far as this group of filmmakers go, we've been there and we've done that.

Now it's time to go make films. Hope to see yours (and you) next year.