Both Things

In 2004, 10 years ago now, "The Passion of the Christ" was released.  It was a film that no major studio was willing to touch, despite the fact its director's previous effort ("Braveheart") was not only incredibly financially successful, but won 5 Academy Awards.  

People in Hollywood were so against the film, it felt as if negative thoughts about it were written well before these same people even saw the film (or whether they ever did at all). 

Jami Bernard of the New York Daily News called it "the most virulently antisemitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II."

Hypocritically, now Hollywood is trying to (still) jump on that bandwagon.  There are multiple movies being released this year based on biblical stories.  "Noah," even boasts an enormous budget. Most people would admit this is in direct correlation to the gigantic success of "The Passion."  

The fact that this film is so controversial is something I simply do not understand.  I cannot help but find people’s over the top criticism of it to be in large part dishonest. 

A defense and 4 star review by the late, esteemed critic Roger Ebert, stood out in large part for being in the minority of open-mindedness (Ebert was no fan of religion).  "My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably…. A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion."  -Roger Ebert 

What we had was a film that in this writer’s opinion, is a masterpiece of film-making.  From cinematography to score to acting and direction, this is a film that should be celebrated.  To many Christians, it was and is.  But awards would not be forthcoming and we need not wonder why.  

Then Gibson would be arrested for DUI and he would start down a life spiral that some (myself included) wondered if he would be able to pull out of.  For many critics of Gibson and his film, the horrible things said by Gibson were almost inconsequential.  It was more a celebratory sentiment and still is.  A “look we told you so.”  And while Hollywood loves a comeback and seems willing to forgive nearly anyone over anything, forgiving Gibson is still not in the cards.  Which makes a few of his public supporters all the more touching in their outward show of support for a man, they say, we do not know.

Actor Jim Caviezel was a kind of collateral damage casualty for playing Christ in Gibson’s movie.  In 2004 Caviezel was a star on the rise.  Having attained acclaim for his performances in “The Thin Red Line,” “Frequency” and “The Count of Monte Cristo,” starring in one of the biggest money making films of all time would seem to be a good career move.  But until he showed up on television a few years ago in Person of Interest, Caviezel nearly disappeared. 

Gibson, for one, warned him.  Twenty minutes after offering him the role, Gibson tried to talk Caviezel out of taking it. 

"The next day, he said, 'I want you to be aware of what you are going to go through. You may never work again.'”

Distancing oneself from Gibson would have seemed solid career advice when things were at their worst.  But Caviezel brought up Gibson himself during this time, without being asked.

"Mel Gibson, he’s a horrible sinner, isn't he?  Mel Gibson doesn't need your judgment, he needs your prayers.”

Jodie Foster has been close to Gibson ever since they starred in “Maverick,” together. 

“I knew the minute I met him that I would love him the rest of my life.” 

While never excusing Gibson’s past behavior, Foster is staunch in her support for her friend. She has been criticized for it. 

Just one example is Salon.com writer Mary Elizabeth Williams, who wrote about Foster, “The movie icon continues to go to bat for her embattled friend. Maybe it's time to rethink the acclaimed actress."

Continually standing up for your friend while not excusing his behavior seems to me to be the epitome of a great friend.  Especially when few will do so publicly.

"He is kind and loyal and thoughtful.  And I can spend hours on the phone with him talking about life.”

“I know him in a very complex way.  He’s a real person; he’s not a cardboard cutout.  I know that he has troubles, and when you love somebody you don’t just walk away from them when they are struggling.”

Foster recently received the Cecille B Demille Award.  In receiving her award, Foster had Gibson as one of her guests at her table, along with her two sons.  In the closing remarks to her speech, Foster thanked, “And of course, Mel Gibson.  You know you saved me too.”

How Gibson might have saved the notoriously media shy Foster, we can only guess.  But the feeling is not Foster’s alone.

A few years back, Robert Downey Jr.’s career was struggling from his constant battles with addiction.  One of the people that helped get him work when his career was at its lowest point, was Mel Gibson.  Now Downey is about as big a star as there is in Hollywood.  Downey too, won a prestigious award due to this career resurgence.  In winning it he insisted Mel Gibson be the one that presented him with the award.  Downey then took his allotted speech time to talk solely about Gibson.  How Gibson helped him when he was at his worst.

"I humbly ask that you join me - unless you are completely without sin, and in which case you picked the wrong f@#%ing industry - in forgiving my friend of his trespasses and offering him the same clean slate that you have me and allowing him to continue his great and on-going contribution to our collective art without shame.”  -Robert Downey, Jr.

Speaking directly to industry people, Downey’s comments received a standing ovation.  A standing ovation from people who if they wanted to, could help revive the career of a man who was once one of the biggest stars in the world.  It seems few if any have called.

This took place in the same year "The Hangover 2," came out. A film in which Gibson was cast in a very small role.  The actors decided they did not want Gibson in their film.  That is their prerogative.  But to then have no issue acting alongside a convicted rapist in Mike Tyson, shows one example of the hypocrisy.

“I couldn't get hired and he cast me.  He said if I accepted responsibility-he called it hugging the cactus-long enough, my life would take meaning.  And if he helped me, I would help the next guy.  But it was not reasonable to assume the next guy would be him.”     -Robert Downey Jr.

Downey has not given up.  Just this year there are reports that he is using all his clout to convince the powers that be to cast Gibson in an “Iron Man” or “Avengers” film.  On that, we wait, while not holding our breath.  

During the Two And A Half Men, fiasco with Charlie Sheen, in which he was admittedly back on drugs and seemed to be acting like someone in his last days, he was asked where the best help had come during that time.  His answer: Mel Gibson and Robert Downey, Jr.

“They just offered love to me.”

2003 Interview
DIANE SAWYER: "What does the evil side want?"

MEL GIBSON: "It wants you, it wants you. People are capable of horrors, of atrocities. We're also capable of wonderful things, of good things and we have the choice. What do we choose, you know. And often, many of us, at different times, choose both things."

Climbing To God (Well No Wonder)

I saw the crowd getting out from the previous showing.  The first group was a young couple.  "That was pretty good," the guy said to his girlfriend.

The next couple that walked by me was maybe 45 to 50.  The husband turned to his wife and just shrugged his shoulders.  It was a nonverbal;  "I don't know?  What did you think?"

The next and last group that came out were in their late 60s, I would guess.  3 couples.

"Wow.  That was the worst movie."

"That has to be one of the worst films ever or I just didn't get it."

"There is no way we could have known how bad that would be."

Such is the nature of a Terrence Malick film.  My favorite filmmaker.

I laughed to myself and walked in with high anticipation to see his latest; "To The Wonder."

There has probably never been an audience for a Malick film (at least in his "later" period) that came out and all agreed how great the film was.   But, there is probably often that one person who is also quite captivated.  I am that one person when I go see his movies.

I was actually the only person in the theater at my 9:45pm showing.  And what I saw, while not quite to the lofty heights of some previous Malick films, was still for me a great and enjoyable movie going experience.  One that is also fairly easy to understand in my opinion.  While still being the type of work that can generate meaningful discussion

Love him or hate him Malick is a legendary director.  One that audiences do not flock to but many critics get excited about.  With "To The Wonder," the critics have not been kind.  And to some extent, I don't understand it.  I know Malick isn't for everyone.  I know even as he won the Palme d 'Or for his last film, "The Tree of Life," people also booed it at Cannes after its screening.  He is divisive.  Very.

But I think there is something more to the derision by critics this time around.  And it is something he has been hitting on in every film since his first.  It is God.

But this time God is loud and clear and its hard to argue its a Christian God and no other.  And I think for critics that was finally too much.

This is a film, overtly Christian enough, I feel church groups could get parishioners together to go see it.  The reason that hasn't or will not ever happen is because:

A:  Its an "art film,"   (see the comments of the last couples above)
B:  Its got sex it in.

The sex part is possibly interesting, being church congregations went in mass to see the extreme violence of "The Passion of The Christ."  But I understand. 

I don't remember sex scenes in any other Malick film.  They give it its R rating, which unlike the well deserved R for "The Passion Of The Christ," here feels a bit silly.  I can't think of a tamer R rated film.

Those scenes are not remotely gratuitous   They help tell a story of a relationship.  And the most loving sex we see in the film, is after the couple has gotten married.  Not before.  I am not the only one who noticed this.

Film critic for The New Yorker, David Denby: "We don’t need to be chastised with the ideal of Christian love to understand that sex isn’t enough.”

Huh?

Critics have called the film shallow; which feels to me like the very last thing it is.  It's only a thin film if you don't like the message.  Which most of them interestingly enough don't mention.  This is like reviewing "Friday The 13th," and not mentioning its intended to be scary.

Is an overt Christian message by definition, a thin one?  This is what they seem to be saying.














As far as the film itself.  I loved it.   I continue to have both an understanding of why people don't like Malick films, as well as an "How do they not like this guy's work?" kind of attitude.

I was worried when I heard Ben Affleck was cast (Christian Bale was the original choice).  But he is fine for what and who he is meant to be and represent in my opinion.  The true accolades for the actors must go to the non American members of the cast.  Olga Kurylenko as Marina; you can not take your eyes off her.  And my favorite performance is by Javier Bardem as a priest who feels far away from God.

As far as settings go, Mont St. Michael is a wonderful choice.














This is the "Wonder" of the title.  Or at least one of them.  The early scenes there between Marina and Neil seem to set the stage for everything that comes after.

Once back in America, Neil works as a type of geologist/environmental advocate, taking soil samples of the contaminated neighborhood near his own home.  The worried locals, in one scene start following him down the street as if he were literally their savior.  Contrast this to Neil and Marina jumping lightly on the mud surrounding Mont St. Michael.  It seems a bit perilous and indeed that area is in fact dangerous.  But they never fall through.  Back in the States, Neil struggles to climb a high mound of dirt, which signifies all of his ongoing struggles at the time, as well as contrasting their earlier "climbing the steps to the wonder."  

In fact steps and stairs are a recurring theme.

You might be reminded of Jacob's steps.  His stairway or ladder to Heaven.

Later, we see Neil looking up the stairs of the home he shares with Marina.  Looking for her as she looks down from above.  Neither really wanting to be seen by the other.

Marina being above Neil is not happenstance.  Marina seems on a higher spiritual plane; maybe than anyone in the film.  Though I argue Bardem's preist, is a sympathetic  portrayal.   Something actually rare in movies.


Amongst all the classical music and hushed tones is the fact that most of the time these actors are constantly moving.

Something I felt was intentional became reinforced to me by Bilge Ibiri.  His theory being "To The Wonder," is really a ballet.


"He wanted his films to break free of typical narrative methods and to adopt a more musical style of discourse.  Malick seemed to achieve that with the movement-based structure of The Tree of Life.  There, what we were seeing and hearing on screen seemed more often to correlate to the meter of a symphonic movement than to the typical narrative "acts" of a film."  (1)

Even when people are not moving fast like Marina, the movements do feel intentional and even akin to dance.  As in the scene where Neil and Jane (Rachel McAdams) are out amongst the Bison.  Neil and Jane have deliberate head movements.  Jane looks everywhere she can but at Neil.  Once she finally does look at Neil she quickly averts her gaze, as if she just looked at the sun.  It is just one example of literal physical movement telling the story.


The beach as afterlife in "The Tree of Life," might help us better look at this film as well.

This is in many ways the smallest Malick film in scope.  And yet there is a lot here to ruminate on and enjoy if one goes into it with the right state of mind.

I believe the reputation of this film (like "The New World" and "The Thin Red Line") will improve over time.

If Malick or this specific film, isn't your thing, I'm ok with that.

But if its something more.  If a film concerning God isn't your thing, then let us be honest about that.  It does not seem so obvious until you never mention the themes in the first place.

(1)  http://ebiri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/to-wonder-i-write-on-water-things-i.html


(2)  I almost did not write anything on this film, because I see there are more than a few very strong pieces written on it already.  For a very strong piece on the film, read Jugu Abraham's review, linked below.

Though I might suggest you read only after you have seen the film.

http://moviessansfrontiers.blogspot.in/2013/04/144-us-director-terrence-malicks-sixth.html

The Last Critic

For the first 21 years of my life, I never knew life without my dog. She came along the same time as my brother. And picking her out amongst a sea of golden retriever puppies is one of my  earliest memories of anything. Her death as I was entering an age of adulthood signaled a true ending of a time frame for me.

As silly as that sounds, I think any of us can look back on people and things that were always there, even beyond our parents and siblings.  I recently realized Roger Ebert was always there too.

 

I remember discovering Siskel and Ebert at a very young age and having to see every episode. This was before I even decided I loved movies. I surely did not see that many. And through no fault of her own, taking me to see the next Werner Herzog film was not a priority of my mother's at the time.

Shortly before Gene Siskel's death, he talked about "The Thin Red Line," as one of his favorite movies of that year. Roger Ebert preferred the "realism" of "Saving Private Ryan," to the "poetry" of Terrence Malick's "Red Line." Siskel’s counter argument was the notion that there are no atheists in foxholes. He preferred the poetry.

I watched this review and then went out and saw "The Thin Red Line," the next day.  I have loved Terrence Malick films ever since.  And in the back of my mind, I always figured one reason for my love of his films, was my belief in God.    

It was one of the last films Siskel would have the energy to talk about on camera.  Just two weeks after taping his last show, he would die.  As Ebert himself got sicker and closer to death, he had a noticeable increasing appreciation for Malick. I do not think this is wish fulfillment as a fan of both critic and filmmaker. His 3 Star review of "The Thin Red Line," (1998) seemed to grow over time into a greater love and admiration. When Martin Scorsese named it the best film made in the 90s, Ebert gushed his admiration for it as well. 

"The New World," (2005) would receive his highest rating of 4 stars and "The Tree of Life," (2011) would make Ebert's final list of the Top 10 Films Ever Made. Malick’s "Days of Heaven,"(1978) would open EbertFest, a film festival with movies hand picked by the critic, just a week after his death.

So what? People's admiration for an artist's work grows over the years. Yes. But no director is more spiritual (in the best sense of that word I so often hate) than Malick. No one makes you think of God more, while often rarely mentioning Him. I've wondered if Ebert, like Siskel before him, started to love the poetry over the realism.

And being Ebert was a non-believer makes this observation all the more interesting to me.

 

I preferred Siskel. I believe he was a superior critic based on shared preferences and arguments. 

 

But based on writing ability, Ebert had few equals. He was a hell of a writer. He could write about a film you did not enjoy (or did) and almost, convince you that you were wrong.  He could condemn a film in ways wanna be critics of today do not understand.  He could explain why with much more than "that sucked," because he understood film.     

Writing about a film myself, I would make it a goal not to quote Ebert. But I usually failed with this; he was so extremely quotable.

Ebert was always at a computer; I am sure more so after he lost his ability to speak. As a follower of his on Twitter, one could feel more of a connection to him than any other "celebrity," who might tweet where we could see their new film or stand up routine. Ebert would tweet throughout the day. Maybe 50 times a day. He would read every comment from his blog. He would often answer questions directly to you, if he did not find a place for them online (as in his Movie Answer Man Section). I know this because he emailed me with an answer to a question once. I do not remember the question or the answer, just that it appeared it was really Ebert corresponding with me.

In this insight of a kind of knowing, few famous people give you, you got to know Ebert a little bit. And it wasn’t all great.

Ebert could be kind of an ass.

 

His condescending way of speaking could grow tiresome.  Bashing Right Leaning Christians, or anyone that has ever disagreed with him or voted differently.  My twitter account is a who's who of people I do not agree with.  But Ebert would venture into the Michael Savage realm of unnecessary meanness in his arguments.  I know I unfollowed his account at least once. 

When a cast member of the film, "Jackass," died in a car accident, Ebert quickly tweeted,"Friends don't let Jackasses drink and drive."

While alcohol may have been a factor, it was too soon to know for sure as well as highly insensitive to call a dead man a jackass. Ebert was disingenuous with part of his defense being, the deceased was on Jackass, so he therefore did not say anything wrong.

Other times he could be far more intelligent and clever with his venom.

His exchange with director Vincent Gallo is classic. Ebert reviewed Gallo's "The Brown Bunny," at Cannes, calling it the worst film he had ever seen play at the French Film Festival.

Gallo responded by unoriginally insulting Ebert's weight as well as wishing that Roger would catch colon cancer. Ebert responded by saying his colonoscopy was more entertaining than Gallo's film. And concerning his weight, "Someday I will be thin, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of The Brown Bunny."

After his initial illness and time off from his show. New partner Richard Roeper used various guest hosts, waiting in vain for Ebert to be able to return. Eventually "At The Movies" was retooled with Ben Lyons as a co host with Ben Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was and is a respected critic. Lyons was horrible. The privileged son of critic Jeffrey Lyons, viewers not only felt they knew exactly why and how Lyons got the job, they also knew he wasn't ready for such a leap.

 

And Ebert responded with a highly entertaining criticism in the form of an article titled, "Roger's Little Rule Book." In it he mentions rules for film critics. All of which were things Lyons was reportedly violating at the time. "Accept No Favors," "Be Prepared To Give a Negative Review," "Never Review A Film You Had Anything To Do With," "No Posing For Photos," (meaning actors or directors)" "No Autographs," etc.

 

The producers of the show surely took on Lyons to attract a younger audience. But viewership immediately took a nose dive and the show Ebert had kept afloat for years was cancelled quickly. Ebert's reputation only grew from the debacle. While he still gets some work, Lyons is mostly a joke now in the industry.

I don't believe Gene Siskel was a religious man at all. I know Roger Ebert was not. He wrote of it often; his atheism, or agnosticism or whatever label he would accuse others of putting on him. “Secular Humanist,” is the label he came to prefer.  But for a nonbeliever, and one critical of religion, he did seem to acknowledge a continual religious respect of some kind. 

Maybe this was an example of a God-shaped hole theory, that all us knowingly or not want to fill. 

Maybe he just enjoyed the pomp of religion.

For Atheists,
There's no good news.

They'll never sing,

A song of faith.

In their songs,

They have a rule.

The "he" is always lowercase.

- Steve Martin

"If I were to say I don't believe God exists, that wouldn't mean I believe God doesn't exist. Nor does it mean I don't know, which implies that I could know." -Roger Ebert How I Believe In God

Interestingly, the former Catholic altar-boy married a woman that is from his descriptions, a strong Christian. 

“I consider myself Catholic, lock, stock and barrel, with this technical loophole: I cannot believe in God. I refuse to call myself a atheist however, because that indicates too great a certainty about the unknowable.” -Roger Ebert How I am a roman catholic

“I believe mankind in general evidently has a need to believe in higher powers and an existence not limited to the physical duration of the body. But these needs are hopes, and believing them doesn't make them true." 

Concerning his awe of how we were possibly here in the first place He surmised quantum theory. And he did seem to be fascinated by it all.  "I am not a believer, not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am still awake at night, asking how? I am more content with the question than I would be with an answer."   -Roger Ebert    How I Believe In God 

Ebert might have written a story he was unaware of.  I suppose his story could be read differently by everyone.  But I read a most fascinating journey, written out in opinion pieces and movie reviews.  Sometimes I would find beauty in his words; even in the way he would describe his non belief.  Other times he seemed to hit all around something and in my opinion, miss the true meaning.  Or just fall short of making a more perfect connection. 

"Some few films evoke the wonderment of life's experience, and those I consider a form of prayer. Not prayer "to" anyone or anything, but prayer "about" everyone and everything. I believe prayer that makes requests is pointless. What will be, will be. But I value the kind of prayer when you stand at the edge of the sea, or beneath a tree, or smell a flower, or love someone, or do a good thing. Those prayers validate existence and snatch it away from meaningless routine."    -Roger Ebert         "A Prayer Beneath The Tree of Life"

 
Roger Ebert, was a lot of guys. His reviews would show both aggravating closed mindedness as well as other times huge levels of open mindedness; to enjoy a film whose subject matter he might not agree with.

“The Passion of the Christ”: “My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably.

I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.”     4 Stars

Other times Ebert was far less gracious for films that went against his view of things. For the longest time, he refused to even see Ben Stein’s Anti-Darwin film, “Expelled.” Eventually he did write a lengthy article about it, in which he eviscerates it completely.

If Ebert did have a religion, it was Darwinism.

Ebert's death was a long time coming.  He knew his days were getting shorter, faster than most.  The way he decided to face this, might be what I admired about him the most.

"Movies idealize the dying."  -Roger Ebert

He coined the phrase, "Ali MacGraw Syndrome."

"That's the medical condition in which you grow more and more beautiful until you die,” he said.  

Ebert knew that is not the case.  His appearance in losing his jaw to cancer, was off putting to many.  While he was always "the fat one," to Siskel's, "the bald one," his appearance was now such that he could not appear on television regularly.  But this did not stop him from showing the world what he looked like.  What dying looked like.  And how it did not resemble a young Ali MacGraw.  

He would liken his appearance to the Phantom of the Opera (the old silent film version).  A local NC comic, upon just recently seeing his appearance at the news of his death, joked he looked like the Puppets in Genesis' "Land of Confusion," video. 

It is a blessing he possessed the Type A personality that would not allow him to die a recluse.  He probably worked as much as ever. 

"Here is a character who says, I see it coming, I will face it, I will not turn away, I will observe it as long as my eyes and my mind still function."  -Roger Ebert  (Describing the main character in the film "Melancholia.")     Melancholia Descends on Toronto

"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear."   -Roger Ebert             Roger Ebert:  The Essential Man

Ebert seemed in my outsider’s view to follow the way of Nature. And I understand that. But my prayer was (indeed to someone) that he maybe followed the way of Grace at the end as well.

The last film Roger Ebert ever reviewed was Terrence Malick's "To The Wonder."

The least regarded film in the love him or hate him, director's canon; Ebert found much to love in his 3.5 star review.

"There will be many who find "To the Wonder" elusive and too effervescent. They'll be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply. I understand that, and I think Terrence Malick does, too. But here he has attempted to reach more deeply than that: to reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need."

                          

Labels and Apologies

1 Peter 4:16, "However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

Before a Mormon woman wrote the insanely popular "Twilight" books, the biggest author writing of vampires was a staunch atheist named Anne Rice. And her vampires didn’t exactly sparkle in the sunlight.

In 1998 Anne Rice shocked many people when she declared she was a Christian. At the age of 58, she returned to a faith she had not had since the age of 18.

She began writing not of vampires as much, but of Jesus. In 2004 she stated, she would "write only for the Lord." And she found success with these books, as she had with her previous writing.

Then, on July 29, 2010, she stated she was no longer a Christian.

"Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."

In her reasons for quitting, Rice says she disagrees with many of the views of Christians. She cites as one example for her decision, an article written by a Catholic Priest that states that: "Abortion and homosexual acts are unequivocally intrinsic moral evils."

But he also writes, "I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect. At the same time, never forget that genuine love demands that we seek, above all, the salvation of souls. Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls."

I suppose since she cites this man as a reason (among others) then we could debate if the statement is true or biblical. But that would do little. If you agree or disagree you probably wont be swayed by some blogger with 8 (and counting!) followers.

So one question might be, is disagreeing with what some Christians think on one or two topics, enough to leave Christianity altogether?

Maybe to some the topic is too huge, too important to stay in the church. Ok. But members within the church have disagreed on this topic for years, and still often worship together, knowing they agree on so much as to still be brothers and sisters in Christ.

We are all sinners, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or just metro sexual. A stance as a "pro life" or "pro gay" Christian doesn't make you a non sinner. The point of labeling yourself as a Christian is to tell people, I AM a sinner, but it is Jesus Christ that forgives me and loves me anyway.

Rice also mentioned members of the Westboro Baptist Church in her renouncing Christianity. To me this is like citing the KKK as a reason for hating all white people, or removing all crosses everywhere. Surely she would condemn people for saying all Muslims are hate filled terrorists because of a handful of them. Why not give her own (former) religion the same compensation?

But after all, "Christianity" is just a word.  Just a label.  Right?

Can we still follow Christ and not call ourselves Christians; because some of those guys are messed up wackadoos; but hey, not me!?

I remember when I considered stopping my love of the Dallas Cowboys when they acquired the player Terrell Owens. I didn’t like Owens, he had a history with our team, and I did not like the fact he was now on it.  I wanted to align myself with a team in which I could root for and like most of the players.

People said I was not a “true fan” for letting this one issue make me consider switching my allegiance.  Now he is long gone and I root for them same as always. Even though I nearly denounced my fandom for a football team, it was after all, just a football team. I would never think to denounce Jesus Christ because some crazies who claim to be Christians, don’t make us look good. 

Shouldn’t “true” fans get over the fact that not everyone in our group is someone we might hang out with regularly?

Remember, the Church is important to God. Can we honestly withdraw from the church and still be followers of Christ if it means so much to Him?

Father Robert Barron says he does not think what Rice is doing is actually possible.  To "follow Christ but leave the church."

"The church is not an organization primarily, it is an organism.  It's a living body."

John 15:5  “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Barron also mentions how God says "Saul, why do you persecute me?"  Saul is going to persecute the church, not God specifically.  "That's the intimate connection between the head and his mystical body," says Barron.

Followers of Jesus Christ were first called “Christians” in Antioch [acts 11:26] because their behavior, activity, and speech were like Christ.  It was originally used by the unsaved people of Antioch as a kind of contemptuous nickname used to make fun of the Christians.  It literally means, “belonging to the party of Christ” or an “adherent or follower of Christ.”

That sounds pretty good.  I embrace that title even as I fall far short of deserving it.

Why should we want to distance ourselves or apologize for 'belonging to the party of Christ"?

Jay Bakker, one of the more well known "Hipster Preachers" of today has as his church motto, "Religion Kills."  He famously put as an ad for his church, “'As Christians, we are sorry for being self-righteous judgmental bastards.'"   Revolution NYC: A church for people who have given up on church.”

Christianity has enough detractors.  It feels to me like Bakker and others way of reaching out is saying "its ok to hate us, we kind of hate us too."  I have heard Bakker speak both in person and in talks online.  I never feel lifted up.  While that could be looked at as just a preference of style, I feel it is because you sense his dislike for the "group" he belongs to.  His disgust for fellow Christians who disagree with him on these social issues is palpable, even when he isn't talking about them; though he talks about them a lot. 

Most hipsters enjoy Bob Dylan.  He needs to hear one of Dylan's great lyrics..."Serve God and be Cheerful."

He preaches tolerance and seems completely intolerant of Christians; who have reached an honest and studied opinion that happens to differ from his own. 

Christians are often targets in this world. But a big problem with that is, we often seem to paint the bullseye on our chest and tell others to shoot.

This fad of Christians apologizing for being Christian; is it what Jesus would want from us?  To apologize for being something that literally says we are followers of Christ?

We are so PC and apologetic to not offend anyone, we are ok with denying who we are.

Then by standing for everything we indeed stand for nothing and have an apostate religion.

How easy is it to be fishers of men when asked if we are Christian, we must say..."well kind of, I mean no, but, see..."

How much respect do people have for us when we seem to not even want to admit to following what should be the most proud thing in our lives?

“Yeah I’m a Christian, but I'm not like those. You can like me. I don’t mind how you act or what you do, if that's what it takes.”


"But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become." -Anne Rice

I agree that Christ is most important. But who has ever said that being a Christian means following you or me? You try to be a good example, but if following someone was all it took, no one would need Christ.

I  remember Bono being interviewed once, in where he said he did not feel worthy to be called a Christian. He was "inspired to be worthy of the word." He also said before and after this interview that he was in fact a Christian, he was not denouncing anything. He just felt the word was so big as to hope to be worthy of it. This feels to me to be the antithesis of Rice's conclusion.

Bono feels he is not worthy of Christianity. Rice feels Christianity is not worthy of her.

 Does Rice not see the Christians she has left as worthy of her tolerance, acceptance and love?  Gifts she has given to others.

But if Rice continues to reject us Christians, that’s fine.  We should make sure we do not reject her.  As Father Robert Barron says to Rice, “Come back, come home.  Cuz we need you."

It is one label worth having.

Sorry, that's just how I feel.

 

Circle the Answer that is MOST Correct

Through study I strive to be that person who can  respond and answer questions or comments (or articles) as best as I can.

I read this and was interested how the various ministers, deacons (theologians) that I have encountered in my life might answer this article.  This is not to say you must agree with what you think my answer would be.  I realize I have minister friends from all viewpoints within the Christian Faith.  I'm truly curious.  I'd love for you to indulge me with your various thoughts.  Only respectful discussion is welcome, but I'd love to have just that.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/12/hey_kirk_cameron_learn_your_bible/

Kid's Today

I always thought it was supposed to be cool to be older.  I mean I know that old geezer Pete Townsend said it wasnt cool back when he was real young.  But I thought people say, in the church especially, did not hold this view.  That they did not see themselves as superior.  But this is often not the case.

The "Cool Kids" as I once dubbed them, seem to have all the answers.  Even if that means they are the only ones smart enough to know there are no real answers.

Recently this article got linked around a lot of places.  Here is the link

http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=8616

and below would be my response to it.  Like many such things, it has some truth in it.  But I feel  people aren't seeing it for all it contains.  And if they are, that is even more upsetting.

How To Get Young People To Stay In The Church

Reject everything from the past as square because really, what could you learn from an elder?

Do not be different from the world, be as much the same as possible.  Conform when necessary. 

Never say you do not condone anything; that is insinuating some things are wrong.

Water down the Word so we never feel wrong; rather we prefer to feel good in and about all things.

Actually, water down the Word to the point it doesn’t really matter.  That will keep us in your church.  As long as it doesn’t much resemble a church. 

Then when we realize there is nothing new or unique about what we hear at church from anything else we ever hear, we will get bored and leave, no matter how rocking your band might be.  Because they still aren’t as rocking as bands I can buy or go see some other day or night.  But right up until that point, we will stay in your church.

Not The Last Out

If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.   John 15:19

Gary Carter was determined not to be the last out.  But according to the people controlling the videoboard, he already was.

With two outs in the bottom of the 10th in game 6 of the 1986 World Series, Carter was all that stood between the Red Sox defeating the Mets and being World Champions for the first time since 1918.

As Carter walked to the plate, this message could be seen on the videoboard: 
"Congratulations, 1986 World Champions, Boston Red Sox."

"I was our last hope," he said, "and as I took my place and looked out at Schiraldi, all sounds shrank back, and I felt a presence in me, or perhaps besides me, a calming certainty that I wasn't alone. I was not alone, and I was not, so help me, going to make the last out of the World Series. I felt certain of that."

Carter is not the lasting imagine of that game; but without him that image would have never happened.  He did not make that last out.  He started an incredible rally (he had started one in the 8th inning as well) that culminated in the Mets winning the World Series in Game 7.

Carter was a Mets as well as Expos hero.  Beloved by two teams.  He was also disliked my teammates on both teams, for reasons that might not seem fair.  He had the courage to be completely different.  Keith Hernandez, Dwight Gooden, Daryl Strawberry, Lenny Dykstra and other former teammates are all now infamous for their bad behavior during that time.  Carter was ridiculed and chastised for being decent and moral.     

Strawberry and others would ostracize him for not sleeping with groupies and for not taking drugs.  He once even stated he would enjoy having his wife come along on some away games.  This was not the wrong thing to say because teammates needed this time to bond.  It was wrong in their eyes because this was the time for the team to engage in behavior their wives would not want to see.

"He rubbed a lot of people the wrong way," Warren Cromartie, an Expos outfielder, once told me. "Gary was just ... different.

"There was a lack of respect for Gary Carter. He was clearly an overwhelming minority -- or I should say an underwhelming minority."  (1)

"He was too religious, too good, too square -- Tim Tebow with more talent and without social media." said writer Tom Verducci.

"His whole life is baseball and the Lord, and of course his family," said Reardon, Carter's Montreal Expos teammate. (2)

That enthusiasm for one's faith and family just never sat well with much of his team.  They never understood his love for life, especially when not taking part in these extra curricular activities.

"My enthusiasm for my family -- and for baseball, and other things, too -- strikes some people as a bit too much. My happiness crowds people a little." (3)

How could a man enjoy his job AND his family?  This behavior made people suspicious.  Writer Jim Murray said of him, "Gary Carter is the type of guy who, if he saved a child from drowning, the mother would look at him and say, 'Where's his hat?'" (4)

I respect as I wrote before, someone like Tom Brady for caring so much about something that as children we feel is everything to us.  Then we grow up and find out it doesn't mean near the same to the actual players as it does us fans. 

Carter had that same drive and appreciation for what he was a part of.  Mike Schmidt said seeing Gary Carter get elected into the Hall of Fame and what it meant to him, made Schmidt appreciate his own Hall of Fame election all the more. 

But Carter also seemed to have a peace and joy about him as well.

That child like enthusiasm earned him the nickname "Kid" even though the older players didn't usually mean it as a compliment.  As in "kid calm down, stop running so hard its just a practice."

So what was it that made Carter so joyful and so different?  I think a key to that can be found in his opening statement when named Manager of Palm Beach Atlantic University.  Carter's stated mission on the day he was hired:  "My primary goal is to help these young athletes become better Christians and prepare them for life, not just baseball."

Carter was different.  And often unappreciated for it by immature teammates trying to hide their own insecurities. 

Biographer of the 1986 Mets, Jeff Pearlman, wrote, "They saw an uncompromised figure and didn't much care for the vision of it."   (5)

Gary Carter died just a few days ago of Brain Cancer.  People that get caught up in whats "fair" would say this was not the fair ending.  That it is not right he should go ahead of former teammates that abused their bodies and squandered their gifts.

But Carter, unlike many of those former teammates, was ready for this.  As much as we can be.  Maybe looking back now his actions serve as a call to prepare themselves.  Ourselves.

Being different is exactly what we are called to do. 

If you watch one clip of Carter playing, I would make it the one below.  The very last at bat of his career.  At the plate trying to help his team gain the lead in a meaningless game.  But the "Kid" didn't have that switch.  Nothing is meaningless if it gives joy to those watching.  And Gary Carter had the joy of a Little Leaguer.  His whole career and beyond.  Quite a nice way to be different.   
 


(1)  Jeff Pearlman:  "News of Gary Carter's Inoperable Brain Cancer Hits Especially Hard" January 23, 2012
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1194101/2/index.htm

(2)  Tom Verducci   "Gary Carter: The Light of The Mets"  February 16, 2012  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1194993/index.htm

(3)  A Dream Season, by John Hough Jr.,

(4)  Tom Verducci "Gary Carter: The Light of The Mets" February 16, 2012 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1194993/index.htm

(5)  The Bad Guys Won  by Jeff Pearlman