Rant Advisory Level: Orange

I read today that Ebert and Roeper gave The Passion of the Christ two thumbs up. “Mel Gibson is a masterful storyteller, and this is the work of his lifetime,” Roeper said. I don’t know how significant that is in the long or the short term, but it was interesting to see given the status those guys have in the realm of American cinematic discourse. I guess it interests me for the same reason that I chose the banner up top that includes Michael Medved’s quote (rather than Billy Graham’s or the Pope’s or those of several other famous Christians).

I think it’s worth noting that reputable film critics without a dog in the fight consider this a very good film. There’s so much shouting going on about whether the existence of The Passion is good or bad for society, and it seems like heads get less and less level with every day that passes. I get the sense that people are digging in based on their assumptions and agendas and not giving the film a chance to just be a film. Jewish opponents of the film think it’s dangerous propaganda. Christian advocates of the film call it “the greatest tool for evangelism in 2,000 years” (and we’ll chalk the elevation of a Mel Gibson film over the New Testament up to a well-intentioned, if overzealous subculture). Unfortunately what could be a very healthy and helpful dialogue has deteriorated before it’s even started in many corners. That’s a shame.

Here’s my other beef. People can just be silly and, well, stupid. I read this quote in a CNN story from a woman who saw the film on Wednesday: “I think it is, in a way, Hollywood’s interpretation of something,” she said. “And I’m not quite sure of the ultimate purpose, because I do feel it is extremely graphic and somewhat biased.” No kidding. News flash — a movie based on the Bible made by a professing Christ-follower about the death of Jesus is biased. Oh, and that’s bad. I suppose she’d prefer to see an “unbiased” portrayal of Jesus being tortured and nailed to wooden beams. I have no idea what that means, but maybe it involves some Moonies and Martians and Portuguese lesbians standing around the cross and giving their alternative points of view about life and salvation. Sounds like a great movie. Somebody call Alec Baldwin.

Look, I don’t expect everyone to love Jesus, and I don’t expect everyone to love me because I love Jesus. I understand and embrace life in a pluralistic world. What makes absolutely no sense to me is this notion that we need to sanitize ourselves to some mythical land of unbiased vanilla. Let’s all pretend that we don’t believe anything that might possibly conflict with or threaten someone else’s beliefs.

And that’s the first problem with that nonsense — it’s all pretend. It’s a fairytale. People believe, and they believe lots of different things in lots of different ways. Quit trying to run from it. This is not about my oppressive and exclusive religion. It’s about all of us (and Christians need to learn this too) dealing with reality rather than trying to conjure up Fantasy Island where everyone pretends not to notice the fairly noticable difference between Tatoo and Mr. Roarke.

My other major problem with this absurd push for a world of eternal neutrality is that it’s boring as hell. Okay, so that’s a poor choice of words since it would be hypocritical for me to pretend that hell is boring in the midst of a rant like this. But you get the point. I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe – who really wants to live like that? I’ll take passionate people who disagree with me over a bunch of lifeless newts who don’t believe anything at all.

So anyway, here’s my moment behind the pulpit on the eve of the film’s release — Let it be what it is. It’s a film. It’s art. It’s an imaginative visual depiction of the gospel accounts of the final twelve hours of the life of Christ. It isn’t the Bible, nor is it an interfaith story about why all religions are equally valid paths to God. It’s important and it’s worth seeing for all kinds of people, Christian and non-Christian. Read the film, don’t just receive it. Give it an avenue into your brain and your soul. There’s no reason to avoid that, no matter who you currently say that Jesus is. If he’s Lord, you should want the deeper encounter. If he’s not, your soul has nothing to lose. Whatever you do, don’t get into a shouting match with anyone. Jesus never dragged anyone into the Kingdom by the throat, and you aren’t going to one-up Him in that regard.

A note to the regular commenters: I just upgraded my commenting account, which means you now can post longer comments. The previous limit was 1000 characters; now it’s 3000. This also rids us of the ridiculous ads. I do this because I love you. Carry on.

For anyone interested, I just finished posting a huge photo update to the family site.

I think this The Last Days of Jesus thing may be worth talking about, but I don’t want to stir it up if no one is interested. So, if you’re interested, go read this transcript from the show. I don’t know how exhaustive it is relative to what aired, but it appears to be (at least) a thorough representation of the program. Once you read it, chime in to let me know you’ve read it and you’re down with a discussion. I’m interested in a dynamic of this beyond the actual conversation about the historical accounts of the last days of Jesus, but I won’t go into detail now so as not to taint anyone’s honest perspective or reaction.

So, who watched The Last Days of Jesus on NBC tonight? We were out, and I forgot to set the VCR. I’m curious about it, particularly after realizing that Stone Phillips hosted it. It’s my understanding that he’s a believer. Anyone roll tape on it?

As I expected, the issue I didn’t get to last night has surfaced pretty quickly. It was the one quote from Gibson’s interview on ABC that tended to attract the most attention from my Christian friends. The common sentiment was – I thought the whole thing was great, but what in the world did he mean when he said “everyone gets to heaven, I just have an easier way?” For the record, this is how it actually went down…

Diane is voicing over shots of Mel’s Traditionalist Catholic church, noting that his particular home in Catholicism stands in opposition to the Vatican reforms of the 1960’s (known as Vatican II…not to be confused with Lethal Weapon 2). Among those reforms was a more inclusive view of other faiths. Concluding her voiceover, Diane says, “So when we talked with Gibson and his other actors, we wondered, ‘Does his Traditionalist view bar the door to Heaven for Jews, Protestants, Muslims?’”

Mel: Well, I’m…yeah. I’m saying it’s an easier ride where I am because it’s like, uh, I have to believe that.

I have some thoughts on what that particular moment in the interview might represent, and I tend to break those thoughts into a couple of possibilities.

First, I think it’s worth talking about context a bit. I know a little about TV and film production, and I was occasionally confused during the interview by the cut-aways from Mel and Diane’s one-on-one shots to this other interview where Mel was accompanied by Maia Morgenstern, the actress who plays Mary, and Jim Caviezel, the actor who plays Jesus. This particular answer is one of those occasions. We hear the question in Diane’s voiceover, then they cut to his answer from this other interview that we don’t really know much about. It seemed like an odd edit with all kinds of questions about context. We don’t actually know what he was asked to provoke that particular answer, and he could have been saying something fairly different from how it played with that edit. It could have been something as simple as Paul’s declaration in 1 Corinthians 1 that the preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. He could have simply meant that the road to eternal life is “easier” for him because he was raised Christian (or Catholic) than it is for those who live most of their lives under Muslim or Jewish teachings. Remember, he said Jews and Muslims can get to Heaven – he didn’t say they could get there without Jesus. In that sense, believing the Gospel is often easier for those who are raised under Christian teaching than those who aren’t.

It’s also entirely possible that the editing was a coincidence and that we didn’t miss the context of what he said and meant. So, if the context was fairly solid, what did he mean? I think the answer to that has a lot to do with him being Catholic. Before I take a swing at this, let me acknowledge that I’m not a master theologian. If that’s true about my command of Protestant doctrine, it’s certainly truer when it comes to Catholic theology. It’s also worth noting that it’s a bad idea to assume the label “Catholic” is a monolithic and universal descriptor. There are all kinds of Catholics just like there are all kinds of Baptists. There are Baptists who ordain homosexuals, and there are Baptists who wag around picket signs that say, “God hates fags.” Most Baptists are somewhere in between those extremes. A lot of Protestants are inclined to paint Catholics with broad strokes that don’t necessarily apply to any and every Catholic. My attempt to discuss Mel’s Catholic theology will be feeble and very, very general. There are at least a few regular visitors here who either are presently Catholic or have some Catholic background or connection. Feel free to chime in and correct or clarify my hacking up of what you learned in Catechism class.

I’ll start by reminding everyone that Mel is very Catholic. Most of what he said to Diane Sawyer was safe for evangelicals, but Traditionalist Catholicism generally thinks of itself as more Catholic than the Vatican. He’s not going to be walking the aisle of Hollywood Baptist Church anytime soon.

That said, the perspective that Mel was probably representing with his statement that “it is possible for people who are not even Christian to get into the Kingdom of Heaven,” is a fairly standard Catholic doctrine when it comes to salvation. As I understand it, it’s generally the idea that certain folks who aren’t terribly evil have a second chance of sorts in the afterlife to have Jesus burn away their sin so they can eventually get their ticket punched. It’s not ideal since Purgatory isn’t Disneyland, but I guess it beats the eternal smell of sulfur. They don’t necessarily view it as a way around Christ as The Way; they just think Jesus can work atonement for some folks post-humus. The standard Protestant reminder is that Catholics generally factor in the role of works or deeds more than Protestants when it comes to determining who’s under the cover of grace and who isn’t. So it probably makes some sense that they think some non-confessors can get a second chance if their lives were somehow good enough to avoid immediate damnation. This is not universalism. It’s not a declaration that all good Jews and good Muslims and good whatevers get to Heaven eventually. The Catholic belief in Purgatory is not a guarantee for good people who don’t follow Christ. It’s just a possibility, and a fairly mysterious one at that.

I also think it’s fair to point out, lest we start looking down our Presbyterian and Baptist noses at the concept of Purgatory, that there are a lot more Protestant theologians than you might think who espouse a very similar notion, minus some of the details. Here’s some blog homework before you comment on all of this – take five minutes and read the first half of Romans 2, paying particular attention to verses 11-16. (I’ve linked to a couple of versions here that I think are particularly interesting. Read verse 16 in The Message a few times.) Mull that over and let me know if you’re absolutely sure about what it means about who definitely gets into Heaven and who doesn’t. This is one of those passages most people (wisely) won’t declare a precise interpretation of, but many suspect it means God works salvation for some who we wouldn’t necessarily identify as Christians using our particular language and labels. I think the typical end game in those interpretations is to say, “I’m not sure who that might be, and I don’t know that we can know who it might be, so you’re better off not trying to slip in under that cover.” That’s pretty similar to Mel’s: “It’s an easier ride where I am.” I’m not entirely sure what to do with all of that, but I’m pretty confident that none of our theological systems will lack for gaping holes when exposed to the fires of eternal Truth.

I’m not arguing for an ecumenical or universalist mish-mash, but I don’t think Mel is either. The guy just spent three-hundred-hundred Gs of his own coin to make a film about the brutal death of a homeless man from Nazareth two thousand years ago. I’m pretty sure he thinks Jesus is relevant to folks’ eternal destinies.

I need to quickly remind a certain wife-beating soul singer about the this stuff protocol when it comes to anonymous posters and pseudonyms. Generally, neither are allowed. I tend to be a little lenient when the made up names appear once or twice for humor, but we don’t do permanent internet handles on here. Especially once you start posting serious thoughts, you have to be who you are. It’s not a silly rule just to have a rule. If there’s any point to this experiment, it partly involves having worthwhile adult discussions. We’re going to do that the old fashioned way with our names attached. No chat room disguises. So, divulge your true identity or prepare to disappear from this stuff.

[Disclaimer: I finished writing this after I hit the end-of-the-day-mental-exhaustion wall, so I’m not affording it the typical proofread and edit treatment. I know some of you will be shocked to know that I actually proofread the other nonsense I post here, but nonetheless… Just be warned that I haven’t taken the time to grind down any of the sharper edges on this one. If you’re a member of the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority or work for Focus on the Family and are easily annoyed or offended, you might want to put on your thick skin.]

So everybody’s talking about The Passion of the Christ, especially after Mel’s visit with Diane Sawyer on ABC last night. I’ve posted a banner or two at the top of the site and linked to an article, but I haven’t actually commented on the film with any depth. Sometimes I hesitate to wade into big, obvious stories here. I’m not entirely sure why. I guess I just don’t want this to turn into the spot where I dispense unoriginal and unnecessary opinion just to prove I have something to say about something. I may do that anyway at times, but I guess I’ll just refer any complaints back to that whole sovereign tyrant bit. Anyway, I feel like cracking open this Jesus movie conversation. I’ve had several sidebars with some of our site regulars about it, and there’s been enough discussion in the comment section that it seems to make sense to give the thing its own little home here.

Before I get into the film itself, I want to pull the curtain back on a few things that will give my perspective a little more context. Some may see this as a brief moment of rolling around in the mud of my own opinions, but so be it. The readership on this site is more diverse than you might think. The spectrum runs from a Ph.D. who’s a declared atheist to a traveling preacher (and lots in between). When we belly up to the bar of religion and spirituality and (particularly) Jesus, we’re all lugging around the baggage of assumptions and biases and all sorts of other imperfections that make the same words mean something different to each of us. I can’t prevent that, but I do want to be as clear as I can about what I mean when I start rambling about this film.

This context stuff may be all over the map, but here goes…

I don’t usually get excited about the mainstreaming of Christianity via mass media or mass evangelism. What I mean is I still view the journey of following Christ as mysterious, revolutionary, subversive, and counter-cultural (in almost any culture). I don’t think the world needs more Christian music or Christian books or Christian movies to experience spiritual renewal. Not all of that stuff is bad (and yes, it is appropriate to read that as: “some of that stuff is bad”), but it’s not what God needs from the Church. I’m pretty sure He doesn’t need anything from us, but I think He wants people who are serious about cutting through all of their traditions and rituals and cultural lenses to figure out Who Jesus really was and is and decide if they really want to follow Him more than they want the comfort of what they’ve always known. Then he wants all those people to get together and be the Church by living in real community, embracing honesty and vulnerability as they love each other and follow Jesus. That following Jesus part involves a lot more grace and servanthood than it does politics or power. It’s a lot simpler and less flashy than most of us think. It’s more about sacrifice than success; more humility than publicity.

So I didn’t anticipate a global revival when Kirk Cameron hit the big screens in the first installment of the Left Behind (ahem) films. I’m not all that impressed when I see Stephen Baldwin wearing hats with crosses on them on Celebrity Mole. If he’s a believer, that’s great, but I don’t find his testimony any more valuable or commendable than that of the guy who cleans the toilets at my church. I don’t think God values the church that bought 30,000 tickets for Mel’s movie any more than the church that hasn’t seen $30,000 come through its bank account in its entire existence. Neither do I. There are certainly some benefits to our President being a professing Christian, but you won’t find a shred of New Testament support for the notion that the strategic political advancement of Christians is a necessary or worthwhile priority for the Church.

God doesn’t need more attention from Hollywood or the media. The Gospel isn’t handicapped by media bias. The Church doesn’t need more influence in Washington. Non-believers don’t need rock carvings in Alabama courthouses to find truth. School children don’t need to declare this “one nation under God” or be led in ritual prayers to communicate with God. American Christians, with very few exceptions, aren’t being persecuted. Life may not be as comfortable for some of us as it was a few decades ago, but curl up next to the fire with a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs if you think you’re suffering for Jesus. Besides, we were told to expect hardship and rejection, not to fight for our rights or lobby for protection and clout.

So anyway, that’s me. Obviously I’m neglecting elaboration on a lot of those ideas, but you can imagine how long that would take. If you’re offended or upset by any of that, well, send me an email. I’ll either explain or apologize or defend myself. Maybe all three. That may or may not seem relevant to what I write next, but it helps me believe I’m making a little more sense here.

That said, I guess it’s fairly obvious that, even with my typically cynical and dismissive view of mass marketed Christianity, I’m interested and intrigued by this particular film. I should try to explain why (although I’m not going to offer an exhaustive dissertation on the whole deal…at least not yet). For starters, every indication is that this film is going to be artistically and cinematically superior to all of its Jesus-themed predecessors. In other words, it’s going to have merit purely as a film, not just as a moving picture tract. It also seems to be faithful to the biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus. That combination may prove to be unprecedented — a truly artful portrayal of the story many of us deem the most important ever told.

I also think it’s going to prove to be a powerful impetus for conversations of all shapes, smells, and sizes. This isn’t just about more people getting saved. It’s not just about shocking people into God’s Kingdom. There is very little meaningful, serious dialogue taking place between people who believe and people who don’t. We’re a lot better at stereotyping, dismissing, and ridiculing one another than we are at really talking to and understanding each other. The film hasn’t even hit theaters, and the conversation is already a contagious phenomenon.

That brings me to The Interview. Think what you want about Mel Gibson or his film or Jesus, but it’s hard to dispute that it was a compelling hour of television. When you consider that it ran in the same heat as a show where people eat intestines and swim in spiders for money and a competition to be the lucky gal that marries a midget, it’s not hard to declare it a superior viewing experience to 99% of the sludge on television.

A few particular moments merit comment. First, the whole interview was worthwhile for me to hear a guy of Mel’s stature and experience declare this: “I’ve been to the pinnacle of what secular utopia has to offer, right…it’s just this kind of, everything…I’ve got money, fame, this, that, and the other…and it’s all been like ‘Here, here you go,’ like that. And when I was younger I got my proboscis out and I dipped it into the font and sucked it up. It didn’t matter. There wasn’t enough. It wasn’t good enough. It’s not good enough. It leaves you empty. The more you eat, the emptier you get. I’m not gonna miss that. Don’t want it. It’s a drag…it’s really a drag.”

I also thought he handled the two moments of personal tension pretty well. One was a question about some unkind stuff he said about New York Times reporter Frank Rich, who had accused Gibson’s publicist of being a Holocaust denier/defender. Turns out the publicist’s parents have these little numbers tattooed on their arms from their stint in Nazi concentration camps. Mel’s agitation with Rich and the NYT seemed understandable, and he was honest and real and funny in explaining that. He also showed a lot of patience and grace in talking about his father, but was direct in shutting Diane down when she started taking his tolerance for granted. Dave did a nice little bit on that tonight, making Mel’s eyes turn red and showing him call down lightning from the sky to zap Diane out of existence.

There was one other more serious angle of the interview I was going to comment on, but I’m tired. Rather than rambling incoherently, I’ll shut it down here for now and see where this goes.

Just remember as you comment that you’re among Catholics, Baptists, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, and other assorted affiliations and non-affiliations. Play nice.

It appears that, despite their creative costuming, innovative names, and rump-shaking grooves, OutKast has endangered the photographic integrity of Polaroid pictures worldwide.

Hey ya…

A couple of you have heard this before, but my number one complaint about GWB since he became President is his stupefying inability to pronounce the word nuclear. He pronounces it like an old man drinking coffee at a West Texas Dairy Queen — nu-cu-lar. As in, “Everybody says they tore that cold wall down, but I know those damn Russians are gonna shoot some nu-cu-lar bombs at us one of these days. I hear they got one ah them nu-cu-lar bombs pointed right at Odessa.”

I’m sure George has been handicapped in this way since before he became leader of the free world, but nukes just didn’t come up that much when he was running my home state of Texas. Nonetheless, at some point, you’d think someone would tip him off to the proper pronunciationn of a word that tends to pop up now and then when you’re Commander in Chief of the military with more nukes than most of the rest of the world put together. Honestly, I’m not that shocked that he has trouble with certain words, but he’s done this at virtually every platform possible, including each State of the Union address and a recent speech at the National Defense University. It’s utterly incomprehensible to me that his experienced staff has either been unable to convince him to change or failed to summon the guts to correct him.

After almost four years of this torture, Dave has finally come to the rescue. Always a friend to bumbling Presidents and other celebrities, he introduced a new segment this week called It’s pronounced Nu-Klee-ur. Naturally, they splice together thirty-three video clips of W doing his DQ bit. It’s greatness, and terribly sad. If he doesn’t get this right soon, I may vote for Kerry or Sharpton or Stallone.