"To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the Tree of Life which is in the Paradise of God."
Revelation 2:7
Yesterday I saw a film alone.I went by myself because I knew my wife would not like the film.This is not a knock on her, she is smart enough to know Hangover 2 was awful.But I wanted to see the new Terrence Malick film, The Tree Of Life.Malick is my favorite director. Malick is not for everyone.I realize that.His films will never make Hangover 2 type of money.But they just might be remembered much longer.
They are works of art.Whether you like the art or not is up to you; but it is defiantly film as art form on display.
At the showing, there were possibly 25 people in the theater.More than I expected, but since The Tree of Life recently won the coveted Palm d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, maybe a few people knew this and were curious.Maybe a couple other Malick fans were actually in the audience.Maybe someone just saw Brad Pitt was in it and that was reason enough.Whatever the reason, The Tree of Life demands your full attention.It is not an easy film.It is darn near a silent film for much of the experience.
By 15 minutes in, I saw 3 people walk out.One more would follow; that I noticed.
The film is one of the most ambitious I have ever seen.It starts with words from God to Job.
Job 38: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Few people even attempt films like this.And for good reason.It’s hard to pull off.It’s the kind of story in theme, I tried to write right away when I started writing fiction.
In college, I wrote a 45 page story for an important class and had a one on one with the professor.She said, “It seems to me the theme is, ‘why are we all here?What’s the meaning of life?’”She asked it as if surely that’s not how deep I was attempting to get.
My answer: “yes.”
I try to scale down stories now.I see the power in simple things.But Malick still has that teenage enthusiasm at the ultimate questions and the ultimate way to tell them.
“The only other film I've seen with this boldness of vision is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it lacked Malick's fierce evocation of human feeling. There were once several directors who yearned to make no less than a masterpiece, but now there are only a few.” -Roger Ebert
The film's opening third deals with the creation of the universe and our planet.While there is no dialogue during most of this stretch, there is glorious music and the images on screen are amazing.
But the absence of conventional narrative bothers people.I don’t know that its people’s fault even.
I’ve witnessed twice recently, people’s reactions that I do not think were genuine.One was during that first mentioned film, Hangover 2.One young man kept laughing, because he thought that’s what he wassupposed to be doing within his peer group.He would repeat the “joke” just said and laugh, loudly.Until even he couldn’t keep doing it anymore. Because nothing was actually funny.
Famous comedians often get this pass as well.I witnessed a comedian I quite enjoy open his show and not say anything funny for the first few minutes.But a young man laughed hysterically at jokes like, “Hello.Nice to be here.”
If nobody in the entire world had ever seen a film before, which film would people be flocking to see?That’s the kind of new eyed wonder I hope for.To not have preconceived notions or expectations.To enjoy something (or not) because I enjoy it, not because it’s what I’m programmed to think.
If the script is not 3 acts divided every 30 pages, that might also be a good thing on
occasion.
So what was the Tree Of Life about, anyway?Well, I hope someone else I know sees it one day (and likes it) so we can have that conversation.For me:
God’s got a lot on his plate.But one family as seemingly insignificant as the O’Brien’s in Waco, Texas in the 1950s, is not insignificant at all to Him.
The universe is vast and amazing and impossible to even grasp or measure.And in all that, a family of 5 in a small town is a focus.As is your family.Or you alone.You are everything to the Creator.His greatest creation.
Not a bad thing to ponder at the movies.If you don’t walk out first.
Matthew 6:26
"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"
Glenn Beck is NOT insane. In fact, I think he is pretty shrewd.
Just a few years ago almost nobody had heard of him. Now you could argue he got too big for Fox News.
Christian leaders are often in two camps. The liberal (progressive) camp that makes fun of Glenn Beck for being "a nut" and disregarding his frequent talk of Jesus. The next camp is the conservative evangelicals who listen to much of what Beck says, because they agree with him politically. And they love that he mentions God and Jesus often. "Right on Brother Glenn, for mentioning God!"
Now the first camp hates Beck. And if hate seems like a strong word, well if it doesn't fit, its still pretty close.
One side hates Beck for reasons I think are often wrong. The other side loves Beck, while disregarding or not knowing reasons why they should be a bit wary.
I used to hear Beck years ago on long 15 hour car trips when talk radio is the only thing left to listen too. (Democrats should blame talk radio on bad music as much as anything)
I heard him before he was the Glenn Beck of today. It was before he even got his CNN show, and maybe surprising to some, he did not like George W. Bush none too much.
Last year, Beck held a big to do on the D.C. Mall. He proudly preached to the masses and had people of multiple denominations praying together.
The question would be, praying to whom? (Its not "who" is it, I was never well at grammar?)
Beck is a Mormon. And without making this completely into a Mormon history lesson, they don't believe the same things most Christians believe. And I still find a large amount of people who have no idea Beck is a Mormon.
Mormonism was started on a foundation that they had the true Word of God, not the perverted version Christians have. Now they call themselves Christians? Many still admit that they are not so.
They hold the Book of Mormon up as equal to the Bible, and many view it as superior to the Bible. This and the Doctrine Of Covenants, Articles of Faith. The Pearl of Great Price. Things if you are not a Mormon you probably haven't been reading.
There is much more that is different, that does not make Mormonism simply a different denomination, as it is recently presented.
"The two faiths occupy opposite sides of a theological chasm that makes the gulf between Catholics and Protestants look narrow by comparison." (2)
-Ross Douthat
The thing is, Beck often sounds more Christian than many people who say they are Christian. And I think he sincerely believes he is a Christian; though there is theology that might contradict that, I won't get into right now. (3)
Many Evangelical Christians showed up to pray with Beck. James Dobson and Franklin Graham were interestingly enough "busy that day."
Mormons don't believe The Fall was such a bad thing. Chances are, most of Beck's Christian fans do.
From mormon.org
"They didn’t feel any sorrow or pain, which might seem nice, except that without it, they also couldn’t feel joy. They didn’t remember their pre-earth life. If they hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit, they would have lived like that forever and never had children. Mankind never would have been born or the world populated."
"But it wasn’t all bad because they could now feel great joy. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25) (4)
Mormons believe in many gods. They believe they can become a god themselves.
"As man is, God once was" is a common Mormon mantra.
They believe in not a Virgin Birth, but physical sex between God and Mary.
Many believe God has a wife. (Not a church as 'the bride' thing)
Many believe God now physically lives off a star system named Kolob.
(Battlestar Galactica's planet Kobol came from this)
This is common doctrine begun by Joseph Smith. Today, Kolob, it is not really talked about as much, or it is looked at as a metaphor.
Beck doesn't mention most of these specific things. He often shrugs and sighs, "people don't think I'm a Christian."
But obviously, much of Mormonism (and this is just scratching the surface) sounds nothing like Christianity. I have read more than once, that it is only in recent years that Mormons tried to align themselves with Christianity.
Beck is often upfront about being Mormon. He is proud of it. You can order a video where he talks about it. But other times he seems to be leaving things out on purpose.
He went on the 700 Club.
Glenn Beck: "In 2000 I dedicated myself to the Lord, and He has been great to me."
Pat Robertson: "That's a miracle of God's grace."
In the entire interview Beck never mentioned he was Mormon and Robertson never brought it up. Why does Robertson excuse this?
It has to be because politically, Beck and Robertson are close.
Mormons were huge in getting Proposition 8 passed. And while if you believe in Prop 8, I'm sure you like this fact; isn't Robertson a little misleading in his presentation of a man, that does not pray to the same God he, (and most of his supporters) pray too?
A political discussion between Robertson and Beck, I don't have a problem with. A discussion of one's faith that is based on deceit, I do have issue with.
On Robertson's own CBN website, there is an article called "How Do I Recognize A Cult?" In it, Mormons are the first "cult" mentioned.
"Mormons do not believe, for example, that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons must work their way to heaven."
"In summary, the Mormon church is a prosperous, growing organization that has produced many people of exemplary character. But when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth." (5)
Now in many ways you could ignore the man's religion. You could simply choose to watch him or not watch him based on what he says politically.
I get that. If I only watched films based on what I thought of the actor's personal life, I would probably not get to watch many movies. So I'm not saying don't watch.
But he seems like he is moving more from Rush Limbaugh and starting to become more, well, Pat Robertson.
Which is also fine if you believe what he believes. Or actually know what he believes.
But if as he gets more and more into preacher mode, you feel supporting him might be supporting Christian causes, I'd look again.
And people like Robertson and others who align Beck as a Christian, then confuse people who hear or read Beck.
In his new book, 7 Wonders That Will Change Your Life, Beck says follow any religion you feel like.
"Finding what worked for me made all the difference. Finding what works for you will do the same." -Glenn Beck pg.157
To a new Christian or interested Christian, that would sound confusing.
Being as Beck is saying he is Christian, with the endorsement of Christian Leaders in his pocket.
Just a few days ago Beck was in Chicago.
"In his two-hour show...Beck spoke much of God's purpose and human sin. Although he did not, tellingly, mention the name Jesus Christ."
“I can't continue to do the chalkboard thing and say, ‘Look, it all ends with George Soros',” Beck said in the second half of his show, fighting back tears (or an inestimably fine facsimile thereof). “But somebody has to be the watch.”
(6)
And being this is the case, we simply should know where he is coming from. Because as Beck says "we all need to get back to God." We should know the majority of us, disagree with just what god he refers too.
"Glenn has now moved into an area where we must draw a clear line theologically and doctrinally. While Christians can join Glenn in opposing tyranny, socialism, cultural Marxism, and the like… we cannot join him spiritually." -Brannon Howse (Worldview Radio) (7)
"We can work together politically for sure, but conducting joint worship services, that’s not possible." -Gary Cass (8)
Russell More Dean, Dean of the School of Theology for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said it this way:
"The answer to this scandal isn’t a retreat, as some would have it, to an allegedly apolitical isolation. Such attempts lead us right back here, in spades, to a hyper-political wasteland. If the churches are not forming consciences, consciences will be formed by the status quo, including whatever demagogues can yell the loudest or cry the hardest. The answer isn’t a narrowing sectarianism, retreating further and further into our enclaves. The answer includes local churches that preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and disciple their congregations to know the difference between the kingdom of God and the latest political whim." (9)
Instead of "political whim" I would simply say, "know the difference between the kingdom of God and what is not."
There is an evangelist on TV that has a red phone on his set as a prop, telling Beck to give him a call. "You sound a lot like a Christian, Glenn. Lets make it official." (10)
Close enough should not be an answer to the ultimate question.
Galatians 1: 9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Sources:
1. This is a piece I started writing sometime last year. I have struggled with it because I do not like criticizing people I feel are completely sincere; though sincerely wrong. I also have a friend who is Mormon, and I respect him. I have verified everything I've said here with him; as well as from my own research. If he has disagreed even the slightest with any doctrine, in our discussions, then I did not add it to this article.
3. There is doctrine in the Mormon faith about lying. You could find one description here: http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
I do not think Beck for example practices this, but I do think it is doctrine that has been used by others
"That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth."
-Deuteronomy 11:21
The Thin Red Line was Terrence Malick’s third film. He had made one very good film (Badlands) and one masterpiece (Days of Heaven). Then he went away.
For twenty years.
So when The Thin Red Line was announced, fans were excited. Famous actors far and wide salivated over working with him.
But a Malick film will never earn Cameron type money. Or in this case, Spielberg.
The film was often looked at as “that other World War II movie” that came out the same year as Saving Private Ryan. Both strong films, Ryan has the much more conventional script and style. The Thin Red Line seemed to get lost in the shuffle. Somewhat appropriately, it was nominated for 7 Oscars, but took home none.
But as seems to happen with Malick, the reputation of the film gets better and better as time passes.
Martin Scorsese dubbed it the greatest film made in the 90s.
"The greatest contemporary war film I've seen." Gene Siskel (1)
Critic Dan Schneider even mentions Ryan in his review, as they seem for better or worse linked.
“While both films were released in the same year, and cover the same war, the qualitative difference is immense. Saving Private Ryan wallows in stereotypes and clichéd characters, while The Thin Red Line cores into even its most marginal characters- sometimes with merely a shot of the actor looking at another actor.” (2)
I won’t go that far, because I liked Saving Private Ryan. But upon leaving the theater after watching The Thin Red Line, I immediately looked for the next showing, to see if I had enough time to watch it again. For a paced, over two and a half hour war film, some probably find that crazy. But it was a war film done unlike any other I had seen.
I have watched it 7 or 8 times since, and always find things in it I did not notice previously.
The opening sets the tone of man struggling with nature. The soldiers seem to fight against nature as much as the Japanese.
Nature struggles with itself.
We see a crocodile slither into the water. Then these lines:
“What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?”
Not your typical “war film” opening. And so the film paces itself along. With extensive voice-overs that often sound like poetry from the minds of the soldiers.
“This great evil. Where does it come from? How’d it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who’s doin’ this? Who’s killin’ us? Robbing us of life and light. Mockin’ us with the sight of what we might’ve known. Does our ruin benefit the earth? Does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine?”
“I'm dying. Slow as a tree.”
Martin Scorsese: “The Thin Red Line works very differently from most films; as you watch it you wonder, what is narrative in movies? Is it everything? And if so, is there only one way to handle it?"
"Its almost like an endless picture. There’s no beginning and no end.” (3)
Malick is not your typical director; if there is such a thing. He attended both Harvard and Oxford, and taught Philosophy at MIT. (4) He has shown interest in multiple religions. He is said to know the Bible extensively.
The plot for Days of Heaven, is very similar to the Book of Ruth.
He is reclusive to the point that JD Salinger would have been impressed. He does not want his own signature on almost anything, which can make contracts a bit difficult. The contracts he does agree to, prevent his likeness from being used to promote his films. A big magazine article on the film could only find one current picture of him to put in their piece. As it turned out, the picture they found was not him at all but actually of a producer. (5)
Imagine a major magazine unsure what Spielberg looked like.
But for his quirks, Malick is a true original.
No Director seems more in love with God's creation.
With, The Thin Red Line, there is not one gun shot fired until well over 40 minutes in.
And when the boats hit the beach and the soldiers storm it, it is the complete opposite of that famous scene at D-Day.
There is nobody there. No enemy is fighting back. The place looks beautiful. Why would we fight a war here? Maybe the enemy had the same idea.
Of course the enemy is waiting. The officers were wrong about when to expect them. Things are upside down. Pointed out by a soldier who says, “they got fish that live in trees here.”
Nick Nolte represents those officers that stay away from the real combat, while ordering others to be brave and tough and keep going.
In a brilliantly acted scene, Nolte (Lt. Col Tall) orders Elias Koteas (Capt Staros) to attack the enemy. Staros refuses, believing it is a no win suicide mission. Nolte’s performance is nearly all rage and bravado. But here you see him trying desperately to contain his anger at what he has just heard.
When Tall finds Staros later on that day, the situation has changed. According to Staros, “just in the last 5 minutes.”
So who was correct? Tall relieves Staros of his command, and with a wicked use of psychology, tells Staros he will make sure he receives the Silver Star.
“Might as well have the purple heart too.”
“Why?”
“Because of that scratch on your face. And because of those cuts on your hands.”
The voice-overs often blend to a point where you are unsure who is speaking. This was purposeful. Sometimes the person speaking is not even the person shown on screen.
I believe the reasoning is mentioned in a voice-over by Witt: “Maybe all men got one big soul everybody's a part of, all faces are the same man.”
This is a paraphrase of a passage in Steinbeck’s, The Grapes Of Wrath. (5)
It’s an idea mentioned again at the end of the film.
To that end, Malick does something I had rarely seen in war film to that point, much less a World War II film.
He makes us sympathetic to the enemy. And yet not in an Anti-American way.
When our guys win an important skirmish, we see a Japanese soldier weeping and embracing his fallen friend, just as we had seen earlier from our main characters.
An American soldier speaks cruelly to a dying Japanese soldier. The soldier is responding, but unless you speak Japanese, you have no idea what he is saying. Translated, he states, “You will die too someday.” (6)
And we get one very powerful voice-over from a dead Japanese face.
“Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too.”
There are strong performances throughout the film. But the conscience of the film is Private Witt, played by Jim Caviezel (The Passion of The Christ).
Witt seems to enjoy life too much to have a career military. When the film opens, he is AWOL, on an island playing with the native children and flirting with one of the native women. He swims in the ocean and soaks in all of his surrounding world.
There are moments when Caviezel is just looking around at people. But it is precisely how he is looking that embodies Witt.
It is a great performance that is almost like one from a silent film actor at times.
You know what he is thinking or feeling without the need for him saying anything.
Jim Caviezel: “There are moments in that film where I felt absolutely filled with the Holy Spirit, tremendously. Terry said, “Look over here at the people, at the men that are dying.” I kept looking around and I began to weep, and it was right before I was ever in that scene. It was a miracle after miracle.” (7)
A fellow soldier accidentally kills himself by pulling his grenade incorrectly. As he lays screaming and dying, it is only Witt that calms him down at all.
"You're gonna be all right. Even if you die. You didn't let your brother down."
Witt's biggest relationship is with Penn's, Welsh. The counterpoints of personality in these characters was also being shown by the two men off camera. Malick saw this and used it.
Penn recalls of his scenes with Caviezel: “I think some of it was just there, you know, between Jim and I. We were very different people, and I think that he could speak to this in some ways better than I could, because he’s got a… he’s a person of a particular faith. I think that we were not wildly far off of who each character was anyways. A lot of it was just there.”
Jim Caviezel: “Terry said to me, “What do you think of Sean Penn?” I said, “He’s like a rock. One day you can go up and talk to him, and there’s some days he doesn’t know who you are. That’s Sean Penn.” When we were shooting that scene, Terry says, “Tell him that, tell him what you told me.”
"On many days Sean and I would go out and run and work out together, and I kind of talked to him a lot about where I came from, my faith, and so on. Once Penn asked me, ‘What makes you tick?’”
“Do you really want to know?”
“Yeah.”
“Jesus Christ.”
“When I came on the set, Penn [as Welsh] said “You still seeing the big ole’ light?” I think I said, “I still see a spark in you. I know he’s in you, I know there’s something going on.” (8)
This dialogue from actual conversations plays out in the last scene Witt and Welsh have together in the film.
The relationship between Welsh and Witt worked so well, that other ones had to be shelved. They just weren't as important.
One of these was between Welsh and Fife, played by Adrien Brody (The Pianist). Brody would see his once leading role relegated to almost nothing.
While this could have been devastating to his career, Malick would suggest using him to future directors. A work reference from Terrence Malick goes a long way.
One point of contention for Malick and the studio was that they required him to cast big name stars. They knew every star in Hollywood would work on the project for nothing. On this point they would not budge.
So Malick cast stars as higher ranking officers; to give them a sense of importance. But his stars were the unknown actors playing the low ranked soldiers. While you see George Clooney's name on the poster, he only shows up at the end, and for about 1 minute.
Other actors who shot scenes never to even make the final cut included Billy Bob Thornton, Gary Oldman, Lukas Haas, Martin Sheen, Bill Pullman, Viggo Mortenson and Mickey Rourke.
But one actor that did make the cut was John Dee Smith. Smith only has two credits according to IMBD. As Private Train in The Thin Red Line and an episode of E.R. a year later.
Smith was only supposed to be on set for a brief time. And in that brief time, he kept missing his mark and had to apologize to Malick.
But Malick liked him. He invited him to dinner that night.
John Dee Smith: "There we talked about life, about how I came out of poverty and my parents were killed and onward until I went to college before being cast in The Thin Red Line. Terry told me of his own faith and of his life in Texas. I ended up staying on the set and he used me for scenes where he could draw from my personal experiences and use it as dialogue."
(9)
It is Smith's voice (often wrongly credited) we hear in the final voice-over.
"Where is it that we were together? Who were you that I lived with? The brother. The friend. Darkness, light, strife and love. Are they the workings of one mind? The features of the same face? Oh my soul, let me be in you now. Look out through my eyes. Look out at the things you made. All things shining.”
Train has a tattoo on his arm that reads 1 John 4:4. It is the most subtle of details. But something Malick chose to be in the film.
1 John 4:4: "You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world."
If Malick chooses big themes for his films, he probably comes by that way of thinking honestly.
He experienced his share of tragedy early on in life. Maybe it is why he was drawn to John Dee Smith.
Malick was the oldest of three boys. The middle son was in a bad automobile accident, in which his young wife was killed and he was severely burned.
His youngest brother, Larry, loved the guitar. So much so that he went to Spain to study with his hero, guitar virtuoso Segovia. In 1968 Larry was so upset for his lack of progress at the art form he loved, that he broke both of his hands.
Their father went to Spain out of concern. When he arrived, Larry had already killed himself.
Malick's ex wife believes he always had a strong sense of guilt for his brother's death. (10)
Interestingly, the Witt character feels responsible for the death of his father. But this is never really mentioned in the movie.
Malick's intensity for art seems like something he shared with his brother.
The Tree of Life, Malick's 5th film, will be released later this year. It is a film he has been working on for some time. Long before The Thin Red Line. Sean Penn is again in the cynics role, and the film might be looked at as a bit of a companion piece.
As it was written in a version long ago, Malick dramatizes the origins of life. And he wanted to do it in a way nobody had seen it done before.
"In one version, the story began with a sleeping god, underwater, dreaming of the origins of the universe, starting with the big bang and moving forward, as fluorescent fish swam into the deity’s nostrils and out again." (11)
Love him or hate him, Malick is an original voice who does his best to make his films.
And if this time his reach finally exceeds his grasp, well that reach will no doubt be pretty commendable.
We people in general are opinionated. Its just our way.
So its hard not to voice those opinions. And when other people give their opinions, that don't jive with our own opinions; watch out, things might get heated. But that's just my opinion.
But how as a Christian can you ever give an opinion, if it is not one of full agreement?
Because it was famously said "thou shalt not judge." So. I attempt not to do so. Which at times can be more difficult than "thou shalt not steal" among others.
When Mel Brooks dropped those extra 5 Commandments, I think "Thou Shalt Not Judge" must have been #11.
It is often difficult to state an opinion without someone who disagrees saying "you cant judge me!"
"Well, I was just stating."
"Judgemental jerk!" (door slams) end scene
The definition of judging has become having a different opinion and not keeping it a secret.
I disagree with many friends on religion and politics. I don't think they find me judgemental over that. I hope not.
I disagree with many friends over sports. I am rather sure they don't lump me as judgemental because I don't like the Lakers.
def: judge
-To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
-To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: judge a case.
-Obsolete To pass sentence on; condemn.
The first one of those definitions doesn't sound so bad. I don't think "look for the plank in your own eye" was talking about that as much.
To condemn is when I think we have problems.
So where is the line? Are we not meant to point out to people when they are doing wrong? Hold them accountable?
Accountability partners are a good thing. What if you met with your accountability partner and it went like this:
MARK: Hi Bob!
BOB: Hi Mark! Great to see you. So how have you been doing with everything this week?
MARK: Don't you judge me!
(door slams)
end scene
I recently saw the report from a news station in Texas of a woman who is holding "pole dancing for Jesus" classes. The woman is a former stripper who said she decided she would teach what she liked about "dancing."
People may come to her gym, and for free, learn how to pole dance. They must simply bring a church program. When watching the report I waited patiently for the obvious statements.
Like when the police find buried hookers in someones back yard:
"He was such a nice man. Kind of quiet. Kept to himself."
Then I got my token lines.
"You are not a good Christian when you judge."
But wait a sec, you, just judged people by saying that, um...
Then the one I waited for.
"God is the only one that judges."
That's true. And He is. Don't you worry.
It seems that since we are so on edge not to judge, that we feel we have no right to point out when people do wrong.
What if this worked in all things?
Lord Barnes: "Sir, you are accused of killing 3 people. How do you plead?"
Suspect: "Lord Barnes. I plead: 'Thou shalt not judge me.'"
Lord Barnes: "Oh, quite right, cheerio, pip pip and all that. Off ya go."
Well of course that would not work. But then if it would not work in that way, should it also not be so, when it comes to questions of God?
The truth is important. If trying to get to the truth causes us to be condemned as judgemental, I think maybe its the offended side with the judging problem.
Let us not always agree to disagree. Not always.
Let us debate and refute until we reach a mutual and true understanding of the scripture.
Is that impossible? Maybe. Probable? Probably not. But getting to the truth is not the worst standard.
Ive only been watching Craig Ferguson for the past year or so. I shied away because, #1 Im a Conan O'Brien fan and #2 I really hated The Drew Carey Show. I had only known Ferguson from The Drew Carey show previously.
But one day I watched. And I laughed. But more than that I realized, this guy Ferguson is really smart. I came to realize he has directed films, he has written an acclaimed memoir and novel and his stand up each night appears largely improvized. This kind of intelligence I have envied in others all my life.
Leno makes obscene money reading mediocre jokes off cue cards. Ferguson is at his best when he is obviously just riffing.
Really intelligent people often seem a bit crazy.
Ferguson is a famous recovering addict and alcoholic. He mentions it often.
Recently of course, Charlie Sheen has been all over the news. And it is entertaining, to a point. "Im not bi-polar, Im bi-winning." I mean thats a quote for the ages. But really, I find that whole situation sad.
And I bring up Ferguson in part, because he seems to have decided the same thing.
He recently said he would not make any more Sheen jokes. If you have not seen this clip I would ask you to watch; it is not very long.
I dont begrudge anyone making Sheen jokes, really. I dont want to sound holier than thou. Its hard not to laugh at the absurd spectacle.
But are we not encouraging the man's own self destruction?
He just got on Twitter and broke a record for over a million followers in one day. And the reason he admitted he is on twitter? He is getting paid for his usually odd ball tweets.
Would he be making this much money if all his tweets sounded, well, normal?
But we should recognize these people need serious help.
What a tragedy the whole Anna Nicole Smith saga turned into. You can not tell me she was not mentally ill. There is even now an opera about her. Many of her "people" are upset over this. But they helped create her. Are they not only upset because they are not seeing money from it?
Isn't it interesting, maybe some of the best help Sheen has currently gotten, is from Robert Downey Jr and Mel Gibson?
In Sheen's own words, "they just offered love to me." It seemed to resonate with him on some level. Maybe if he was only hearing from friends like this, and not being rewarded for his wild antics and statements, the right words would truly get through.
It is hard not to crane your neck when you see an accident. I simply hope we are not encouraging him to get back in the car drunk.
I think I was really close to becoming one.I’ve used U2 while teaching Sunday School.I enjoy Johnny Cash. I'm often on my laptop.
I enjoy coffee.
I have black, rimmed glasses that make me look smarter than I am.
But, something doesn’t quite jive.
They love what Jesus loves, but don’t hate what Jesus hates.In fact, I think they revel in their perceived naughty school boy rebellions.
The latest Big Tent Christianity event just wrapped up.So I have been reflecting on the first one, which I attended last year in Raleigh, NC.Big Tent equals Emergent Christianity, or Emergent 2.0, or whatever new title we have this time.But of course nothing has really changed and the concept is not new.
I was looking over some of the talks from last year’s event and came across the blog for one of the speakers.Hugh Hollowell posted a pithy article asking “Do I Deny The Resurrection?” (1) by never answering the question, but by looking down on you for even posing it.
This is an (oversimplified example) annoyance I have with Emergent Christians.They feel they are too smart by half yet, their theology feels shallow.
McLaren makes a habit of making big statements and then saying “but I could be wrong about it all.”Way to commit.
Bell says things like, “what IF the Virgin Birth wasn’t true?” (2)
“I mean, um, I’m not remotely saying that, I’m just saying what if?”
Nadia Bolz-Weber started her talk last year with a rambling “spoken word”(so much cooler than a poem) and wasn’t the first or last to throw out some curse words for effect.
Almost every time I hear a minister curse in a talk I sense they think they came up with the idea.I know Tony Campolo did it many years ago.I doubt he was the first then, either.
We are ministers that curse!We are hard core!Join us.
They eschew dogma, wrestle with scripture, drop F-bombs like rose petals, love rock music, slam poetry and visual art. (3)
Way to be completely different from the rest of the world.
Back to Hugh Hollowell’s blog post though.I think that’s why I started writing my own in the first place.
One annoyed reader named Mike commented:“It’s clear that your position is that what you do is more important than what you believe, but I don’t understand the motivation behind hiding what you believe.What would you lose by telling people the truth?”
Then Hugh follows that comment with“Because I have no interest in pretending that God cares more about whether I intellectually agree to a historical fact than whether I love my neighbor as I do myself.”
Historical fact?That makes the resurrection sound like a foot note.
My Fun Facts Book: A: Who quarterbacked the San Diego Chargers to their last Super Bowl appearance? B:Who was the first Black Miss America? C:Who was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead in 3 days, all to take on the cost of our sins on Himself? See answers at bottom:
Whether it did or did not happen matters.
“I do not believe that kind of certainty is possible from such a distant event.” Replied another commenter, arguing (I think accurately) that Hugh Hollowell was saying we should act as if it happened, and whether it did or not is irrelevant. (4)
But you call yourself Christian?If I chalked the resurrection up to a “maybe” then my heart surely wouldn’t be into Jesus.
If the resurrection did not happen, then to paraphrase CS Lewis (or Bono for my Emergent friends cuz he said it too) then Jesus was just a nut.We can’t have it both ways.
Either he was a loon going around claiming to be God and getting his followers killed for their belief in this; or he actually was and is God.
And what kind of a God was/is Jesus?According to some, He was all about love.Love to the hippy point of view that anything goes.
Do not misunderstand.God IS love.But saying any and everything in this world is ok in the name of love, is not biblical.
God loves us.A Father that reprimands is a loving father.
But the cool kids are more moral than God.
They believe in a God that is incapable of hating anything.Anything including sin.This is heretical on a monumental scale.
Sin is so important to God, his Son was tortured because of our sin.We should not take sin lightly.Nor should we feel we know better what constitutes sin than God.
You cannot out love God.To think so is narcissistic to the extreme.
Answers:
A: Stan Humphries B: Vanessa Williams C: Jesus Christ
Sources:
(1)Hugh Hollowell“Do I Deny The Ressurrection?” Tuesday, December 14 2010
This article was originally posted on a different website, following the Raleigh, NC Big Tent Christianity Conference. Since the second Big Tent Christianity conference is happening now, I figured I would repost here.
I recently attended a Big Tent Christianity Conference in Raleigh, NC. Big Tent is another buzzword or offshoot of the Emergent Movement. Speakers at the conference included Brian McLaren (often attributed with starting the Emergent movement), Shane Claiborne, and Jay Bakker (Jim and Tammy Faye’s son).
Ministers and theologians spoke with passion about justice, denominationalism, and sexuality, among other things. We sang a few songs and at break times you could go around to different booths. Booths included “People of Faith Against The Death Penalty,” Wesley Seminary, Mars Hill Graduate School, and a table selling books by many of the big emergent leaders of today. Some of the writers were in the room.
Now I figured I might disagree with some of what was said. I knew this going in, but that is why I wanted to go. I wanted to feel challenged and hear some decent debate/discussion. Tony Campolo is lumped in the emergent pastor category often, and I have found him interesting, ever since I heard him speak in 1985.
Leaving the conference, I came away feeling, well, possibly sad. Now no, it was not a revival really, I get that. But everyone who spoke is a professing Christian. I heard Jesus mentioned. We sang a couple songs about “justice” and making our heart “green” was one lyric sang amongst all the Styrofoam coffee cups and numerous laptops.
But upon first leaving I did not feel filled up. Then I went home and thought about it all.
As much as we as Christians want to reach out to people, I feel maybe we have lost sight of something. It seems many are so concerned with reaching out and including all in this tent, that they are compromising the scripture.
Overall, it felt like there was just enough truth to be dangerous.
One comment I wrote down was, “Jesus never said he follows scripture. He said he follows God.”
It seemed to me that people were getting way too close to just disregarding the Bible all together.
I thought about how minister Rob Bell once wrote it would not really matter if we found out the Virgin Birth did not happen.
Lutheran minister Nadia Bolz-Weber, said, “I preach the gospel I actually need to hear.”
Interesting. Shouldn’t we hear all of it? Even the tough parts?
The topic of Big Tent Sexuality, quickly turned into a discussion on only homosexuality.
Kimberly Knight, a lesbian woman and a minister, stated “we look silly arguing issues of homosexuality to secular people.” I had to think, what does that matter?
Aren’t we supposed to stick out and look different than the rest of the world? We should not come across as rude or judgmental, but I did not think silly was an issue.
A general mantra seems to be: “why are we worried about this issue, when A: is happening over here and B: is happening over there?”
Just because there are all sorts of issues to deal with, doesn’t mean we completely ignore another does it?
Maybe the most interesting speaker for me was Brian Ammons, a gay man and member of the Alliance of Baptists. Brian had a take I had not yet heard; as he is offended by the arguments that “gay people can’t help it, they were born this way.”
Ammons says this was all strategy created in the 1970s. “It’s victimizing, it’s saying you have no choice. I have a choice with whom I’m sleeping with.”
Jay Bakker closed out this topic. He passionately preached about supporting his homosexual brothers and sisters and said “I don’t think it is a sin. But if you do, you must get past it.”
Concerning Jesus, he said, “If the Torah was his Bible, he didn’t follow it.”
This to me is a perfect example of a quote that needed some follow up. I mean, is it true? A little true; not true at all?
The one time I remember the panel being really tested by the moderator, was one of the most interesting moments. During the topic of Justice, the panel was asked, if they felt that the very safety net structures in society they always vote for, were actually hurting their ability to practice Christian Justice?
This was followed by an almost awkward pause, and eventual answers that made little sense. A better answer is out there, but I do not think the panel was even prepared to have to answer for themselves.
Bakker was the only person I saw with a Bible in hand. Raising it up, he stated, “Has this distorted our view of love?”
“I challenge anyone to prove me differently. The concept we have of gays or lesbians, the concept against two people in loving committed relationships, is nowhere to be found in the bible.”
“Don’t preach against my LBGT brothers and sisters. It’s not there! People say I’m picking and choosing, well maybe I am, but it’s not there!”
But homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible as wrong. The argument most people make is it’s not directly mentioned by Jesus, so therefore it can’t be wrong.
But don’t tell me it is not mentioned. Does monogamy make everything alright?
We seem to be ignoring parts of the Bible when they do not suit us. There are passages I have struggled with. It is why study and discussion is important to me.
A sentiment I felt through the conference was “we like the bible, but we wouldn’t mind ripping out a few pages.”
“I don’t worship the Bible, I worship Christ. If this (the Bible) gets in the way of love, then throw it out.” -Jay Bakker
My main concern is, are we loving our brothers and sisters to hell? Maybe that puts too fine a point on it, but I do not know any other way to say it.
I am reminded of a video one church made where a man is drowning. Another man sees this along the beach and shouts out, “I love you! I love you! Be my friend!”
Of course the man drowns. So how loving are we really, if it just helps lead to one’s destruction?
I realize some people will never agree with me on the Bible. Some would say, it was written a long time ago, by men, and just take it for whatever good you get out of it.
But I just cannot make myself do that. If Christianity means anything to me, then the whole book matters to me.
Jesus is not only responsible for the words in red.
W.C. Fields; that famous comic actor, was also well known at the time for being an outspoken atheist. A famous story goes that a few weeks before he died, a friend visited him at the hospital and found him in his bed reading the Bible. His friend asked what he was doing and Fields responded, “I’m looking for loopholes.”
There were some good things said in Raleigh last week. But if shaping the Bible to any way that feels more comfortable to us is an answer, then count me out.
I want to make sure God is shaping me, and not the other way around.
John Shore is a Christian writer who wrote an article titled, “Toward a Christianity of Common Sense.”
I would like to comment on some of his points, because I think the article articulates a lot of what is wrong with many Christian leaders of today. I do not feel they quite understand Christianity. If they do, they are attempting to make it something else, and by that, make God something else. We can all try to be better Christians, but when we decide we are more moral than God, that is when I have a problem. We should not be shaping God into our image.
Mr. Shore begins with this statement: “Without question, I’m a Christian.” And I won't argue that point.
If he has asked Jesus to be his Lord and Savior and repented of his sins then who am I to say he is not. But then if he is, I find it even more disturbing that he (and many others) seem to be giving believer and non-believers some odd information. (His statements in bullet points)
• "'No one comes to the Father except through me' does not mean that only Christians will be allowed into heaven. It means that Jesus decides who does and doesn't make the cut."
And he has this insight, how? I mean, I believe Jesus decides, but the inference is that you do not have to believe in Jesus.
But, Jesus said you do. Examples:
John 14:6 “No one comes to the father except through me.”
Acts 4:12 “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
John 10:1 “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber.”
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
I do not read that to say, “that whoever Jesus feels is best, will have eternal life.”
Shane Claiborne has mentioned John 3:17 as a way of proving his view of Universalism.
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17)
Now if this was the one verse, maybe I would agree with Claiborne. But we have the very famous verse before it, as well as this one right after.
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only son.” (John 3:18)
Now we all have friends who are nonbelievers. Family members. Nothing seems worse than thinking they might not join us in eternity. So we try not to think about it at all. We tell ourselves they are good people, so they will be fine.
They are not good people. No matter how much good they might be doing for others, they are not good. Neither are you. Neither am I.
Not one of us is truly “good.” That is why we need God’s grace. Good luck getting to perfect without it.
• "God's will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not judge and punish us."
This is one of those loaded statements that I love oh so much. It is saying that God does not judge, when it is very plain in Scripture that He does. Does He want to forgive and teach us over judging us? I would say so. But we can’t leave out the uncomfortable parts of God, just because we want. He is right to judge and has all authority in doing so.
• "The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people toward him. He does need our help -- or could certainly use it, anyway -- making sure that people know that they are loved."
This is my issue with these statements. Telling a nonbeliever about Jesus Christ is showing them love. If I love someone, I want them to be aware of something I’m really into. But some people will gladly show you the latest film or music they are into, but not ever mention Jesus. Why? Because then you are pushing religion on them? I’ve never been accused of pushing Beethoven on to anyone. If you don’t like the music, I’ll leave you alone. But I am going to play it for you, because I think its great music. And I think a relationship with Jesus Christ is a bit more important than Beethoven.
If we truly love someone, we help them. We ask them to be with us serving the Lord for eternity.
“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.” (Revelation 3:19)
• "The single most telling indicator of a person's moral character has nothing to do with how he or she defines or worships God, and everything to do with how he or she treat others."
Ok, I believe this is called “Moralism.” Moralism is not Christianity. Should Christians have strong character? Yes. If we have truly repented, then we are actively trying to be more Christ like. But the implication here is that we can work our way to Heaven. The whole point is that we cannot do it on our own. You are never going to reach perfect. Only Christ accomplished that.
What Christ did for us does not make common sense.
August 1999
