A Lesson for the Church from the Star Wars Prequels

Have you ever heard of a little movie called Star Wars? Unless you've been living in a galaxy far, far away, of course you have! The vast majority of fans felt the original trilogy was fantastic. Then came the prequels. Before the release of Episode I the expectations and excitement of the fans was off the charts. They figured with the amount of time that had passed between the conclusion of the original trilogy and the release of the new trilogy, the story lines and characters would be incredibly well developed. And with the advancement in technology fans figured the special effects would be mind blowing. But when the movies were released fans found the prequels to not even come close to the quality of the originals. The story lines were clunky and felt forced, the dialogue was weak and often cheesy, much of the acting was sub-par (even from amazing actors), some of the characters were way over the top (Jar-Jar Binks), and being that almost the entire trilogy was shot in studios in front of green-screens, the movies felt sterile. What happened? Why did the prequels end up being so horribly inferior to the originals? The answer is simple. They were made by a bunch of "yes-men."

When George Lucas created the original trilogy he stepped onto the scene as a young director and screenwriter who was known by most only as the guy who created American Graffiti. He had to fight to get the movie made and was at the mercy of the producers and studios funding his vision. Being that he was breaking new ground, Lucas was heavily dependent on the input from his team. When Lucas went on to create the second and third movies in the original trilogy, he recognized his limitations. He teamed up with Leigh Brackett and the great Lawrence Kasdan to write the movies and had Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand direct them. Lucas clashed at times with Keshner over his decisions as he was directing The Empire Strikes Back. Yet, Empire went on to arguably be the best Star Wars movie of them all. Oddly enough, Lucas has stated that it's his least favorite. But the key to the success of the original trilogy was the variety of voices giving input into their creation and the freedom to disagree with Lucas, out of concern for the quality and success of the movies.

This was not the case during the creation of the prequels. By the time Lucas set out to create the prequels he had become one of the top power brokers in Hollywood. Star Wars was legendary and everybody wanted to be a part of Lucas' new endeavor. So people in the biz went out of their way to kiss up to Lucas. Famous actors began talking publicly about what big Star Wars fans they were. This helped actors like Samuel L. Jackson land a part in the new trilogy. Lucas' power and the sense that one was overwhelmingly blessed to be a part of his new trilogy created an environment of unquestioning compliance. Lucas even wrote and directed all three movies himself, with only Attack of the Clones having a second screenwriter (Jonathan Hales). The collaboration and input that existed among the cast and crew during the original trilogy was virtually gone as Lucas wielded his power and nobody wanted to risk being ousted from what was certain to be another legendary trilogy. The cast and crew ignored their own creative senses and became a bunch of "yes-men." Nobody dared challenge Lucas. Nobody wanted to be the one to shout out, "The Emperor has no clothes!" Even the Oscar caliber actor, Natalie Portman, seemed wooden as she performed under Lucas' direction. The absence of the collaborative atmosphere that allowed for creative ideas to flow and creative differences to exist resulted in a far inferior trilogy that didn't even come close to the power of the original.

The conditions that existed during the creation of the Star Wars prequels are the same conditions that exist in much of the church and have made her weak and immature. What at one time was a family that valued the input of each member (or at least that was the ideal Jesus spoke of and Paul wrote about) has come to esteem "yes-men." Most Christian groups most value those who will "put up and shut up," who will conform to the group, not question any of their practices, not promote change, not point out error, and will agree with everything that is taught. Anybody who dares, IN LOVE, to point out "the Emperor has nor clothes!" is branded, not as one who has everybody's best interest in mind, but a rebel. Those who love the church and voice where they see she is going off track are not viewed as fellow collaborators on the same journey but as troublemakers who need to get back into yes-man mode. The church will never grow in love and power through the man-pleasing conformity of the "yes-men." It is through collaboration in an environment where each member is free to offer her/his input that the body of Christ comes into maturity. But you can't hear what I just said through institutional ears. That will never work in the hierarchical systems of men where people are still clothed in the old creation. This only works when we are family (invested in each others lives) and we live out of our new nature in Christ. Where the old nature reigns "yes-men" are esteemed because everybody is in it for themselves. There has to be some kind of order. Where Christ though the new nature reigns collaboration is esteemed because we're humble enough to realize we all only see in part and we have each other's best interest in mind.