Friday, September 26, 2003
Heather: Okay, now *I'm* going to weigh in on Mel's movie.
I'm looking forward to it. I admit it. I'm reading biased sources, I admit that too. Keep that in mind as you read on. And my last caveat: I haven't read everything out there about it, nor am I an expert in Christian heritage, history, the Gospels, modern journalism, or just about anything except my two kids and maybe teaching a couple of Romance languages to middle school kids.
I believe from what I've read that Mel Gibson is trying to do God's work. He's basing his film on Scripture and is previewing it to a variety of folks. Not just Traditionalists, or SSPX, or sedevacantists, or Jesuits. Evangelicals and Jews, too. Even Star Jones managed to see it (invited by her pastor, I believe--and she came out terrifically moved).
What most of his audiences do seem to have in common is a belief in the Bible and its historical accuracy. They may not be academics but they have a strong Christian bent to them. He isn't using specifically the Douay-Rheims, or the KJV, NAB, NIV, RSV, or NRSV. He's using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four books all those versions have in common, firmly included since the Canon was formed back in the fourth century.
How controversial. When looking for a story of redemption, I can't think of a better source.
What his critics seem to have in common is a disrespect for the Bible, or at least a disbelief in the truth of it. Late dates, contradiction hunters, doubters, et cetera. I'm sure they believe they're doing God's work, too. In fact, protecting Jews from actual anti-Semitic attacks is also God's work. However, they want a story, one that's soft and fuzzy and inoffensive and untrue to its Biblical source. A Christian version of the Westernized watered-down Buddhism so popular today.
But Satan is real. Unfortunately, he doesn't always shout or look like Tim Curry in Legend. His work is not always so obvious as abortion or genocide.
Sometimes, he just whispers doubts into good people's ears.
I'm looking forward to it. I admit it. I'm reading biased sources, I admit that too. Keep that in mind as you read on. And my last caveat: I haven't read everything out there about it, nor am I an expert in Christian heritage, history, the Gospels, modern journalism, or just about anything except my two kids and maybe teaching a couple of Romance languages to middle school kids.
I believe from what I've read that Mel Gibson is trying to do God's work. He's basing his film on Scripture and is previewing it to a variety of folks. Not just Traditionalists, or SSPX, or sedevacantists, or Jesuits. Evangelicals and Jews, too. Even Star Jones managed to see it (invited by her pastor, I believe--and she came out terrifically moved).
What most of his audiences do seem to have in common is a belief in the Bible and its historical accuracy. They may not be academics but they have a strong Christian bent to them. He isn't using specifically the Douay-Rheims, or the KJV, NAB, NIV, RSV, or NRSV. He's using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four books all those versions have in common, firmly included since the Canon was formed back in the fourth century.
How controversial. When looking for a story of redemption, I can't think of a better source.
What his critics seem to have in common is a disrespect for the Bible, or at least a disbelief in the truth of it. Late dates, contradiction hunters, doubters, et cetera. I'm sure they believe they're doing God's work, too. In fact, protecting Jews from actual anti-Semitic attacks is also God's work. However, they want a story, one that's soft and fuzzy and inoffensive and untrue to its Biblical source. A Christian version of the Westernized watered-down Buddhism so popular today.
But Satan is real. Unfortunately, he doesn't always shout or look like Tim Curry in Legend. His work is not always so obvious as abortion or genocide.
Sometimes, he just whispers doubts into good people's ears.
