Waving or Drowning?

Frank has every right to assert why he personally won't go see the movie. No problems there.

But his projection (or implications) of what others ought to do (or not do) smacks of the fundamentalism he seems quick to criticise.

This is the problem I'm seeing with progressive Christianity (or liberal politics for that matter).

In their haste to decry the absoluteness of the so called right, they seem to miss the absoluteness they use themselves.

I believe this defines hypocrisy does it not?

Rick - I'm missing the projection part. Where has he done anything but "assert why he personally won't go see the movie
?

Seems clear to me Mike:

The person I meet when I pray is not subject to negotiation or interpretation by a movie director.

What's the implication here? Seems obvious. Mel Gibson's depiction of who Jesus is or might be doesn't meet Francis' narrow notion of who he meets when he prays. I call that arrogance.

But I am surprised that so many who say they are believers are allowing a mere movie to crash into that very private sacred space we Christians call our souls.

What's Francis implying here? That only people like himself, who don't go see movies about Christ, are so in touch spiritually that they don't allow their private sacred spaces to be invaded?

Please...

The arrogance and condescencion here drips like an annoying faucet...

I understand what he means by not wanting anyone else's vision of Jesus to impinge on his own, more mystical, interpretation. The sacred is often private, individual, revelatory.
However, I must say that despite agreeing with that one point, I don't agree with the rest of it. I've often found that seeing a more broad spectrum of Jesus (i.e. hearing how other people have been met by Him in their own lives) can help us check our own "visions" of him, to get us shaken up a bit so that we can ask ourselves, "what of my perceptions of Jesus are of God, and what are of me?" Although I know that not everybody goes to see the Passion with the same mindset. Many go with the same consumer mentality, ready to just wallpaper a movie Jesus over whatever lay in them before.

In balancing this kind of issue, and with my ratty temperament,I frequently have to remind myself of Olsen's helpful comment:
"In Essentials: Unity
In non-essentials: Liberty
In all things: Charity" It has away of re-focusing the soul.
David

That's true David... I couldn't agree with you more...

But apparently, Francis' soul can't be refocused unless he's alone with God during prayer time and nothing is allowed to invade that sacred space.

:rolleyes

Hey Rick - maybe a different way to look at this is to ask why this piece (or Francis' writing) bothers you so much? I thought that Francis was very clear about this being HIS interpretation. What in you is reacting to a personal statement about a personal spirituality such that you want to comment on it publically?

Respectfully,

Lisa

Lisa,

My own experience with people like Francis is framing my thoughts here.

In my personal view, there's an implication here on Francis part that denotes a looking-down at people who saw the movie and who found it to be redeeming in some way.

I see it as yet another dig at Mel Gibson.

I see it as confirmation that those who decry the so called religious right and how they perceive the world are in actuality just as guilty of attempting to define right/wrong, good/bad as the 'fundamentalists' but fail to see or recognise that guilt.

Wow - there is a lot of stuff in here. Would it be fair to summarize by saying that your overarching theme is for people to be mindful that there are two (or more!) ways of looking at things? From reading your other comments, it seems to me that an important idea to you is that all of us believers, whatever our political or theological convictions, remember that no one has the "right" answer.

What a great reminder about community!

Once again an interesting conversation.

My personal viewpoint is that Frank is missing out on the wisdom and insight of others by not embracing other perspectives as they may be depicted in book, film or otherwise.

Arrogance and condescension? I think that is judgemental and is dripping with divisiveness.

i did see the movie, and found this (shaeffer's premise) to be true. what i experienced personally was far greater than could be captured on film. it was disappointing. kind of like seeing a bad 'lion, witch, wardrobe' as a child and thinking 'that is NOT aslan'. it's so much richer in my mind's eye.

i guess for those who haven't experienced something greater or who have no personal experience with christ 'the passion' might be the highest achievement their imaginations could conjure. i left finding it left a flat taste in my mouth. i was moved by the mother's heart and the relationship between mary and her son, but the rest (esp. mary magdeline/caught in adultery) was so two dimensional i wished i hadn't gone.

Personally, I didn't go see "The Passtion" because I don't really care about what Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Gospels is. However, Schaeffner's renunciation of this movie on the grounds of the spiritual principle that people shouldn't be "allowing a mere movie to crash into that very private sacred space" is ludicrous. Film is a form of art. Is Gibson's art any less valid than DaVinci's portrayal of the Last Supper? I don't think so. Here's an idea: Have the strength of mind not to ALLOW your image of Christ to be altered by Mel Gibson's casting choice. I think a more relevant (and interesting) topic that he/we should ponder is WHY so many people feel the need to see a movie such as this.

Pete,

Maybe one day, when you're not real busy, you can fill me in on the how my post is judgmental and divisive, and Francis' isn't...

I'm dying to understand the difference.

Hey!Re the Passion here is a positive comment just out in the April edition of First Things, a fine Catholic mag.
"It appears that the problem with Mel Gibson's film is that it is too pro-Christian. The director of the Council of Religious Leaders in Chicago saw an advance screening and said: "Personally I have mixed feelings about the the movie. It is clearly a message-movie.And the message is: I believe in Jesus as the Son of God. It is straight out evangelical, Jesus died for your sins stuff." Aha! So that is what Gibson is up to. Clearly the film should be accompanied by an advisory giving fair warning to the Christianly challenged." I like that.
David

I agree with a bunch and disagree on a bunch of what I'm reading here. That's the beauty of it. We get to. Having said that ...

Who's box are you guys trying to get God to fit into? Maybe the movie speaks to some hearts ... DaVinci to others ... nature to others ... and honest prayer to pretty much all of us.

God gets to use whatever vehicle He wants to get through to us. And since we're all different, we all respond differently to His message and grace. What seared your heart and conscience was a pin-prick to another. And so the mystery of the moving of the Holy Spirit goes.

Lets cut each other some slack gang ...

Thank you Gord.
Enough with the mud slinging already....

Even though I hesitated to step into the "fray" :) when I read Gord's words, I just wanted to echo them. I think we need to be thankful that some Christians especially those who are more or less not really living what they believe will be challenged by a visual display of what Jesus did, whether it is the old "JESUS" movie, which has been seen millions of times with hundreds of thousands confessing Christ as Savior after watching, or from watching Mel's version. The important thing is that we realize that God will and can use anything.

Let's not hack something just because it doesn't fit our version or our way of looking at the Gospel.

I have a friend who has not made a confession of faith or anything yet, but he comes to our church regularly, is starting to read the Bible and really wanted to see the Passion, and it has stirred the spark to seek out this God of ours even more in his heart. S

o, I say, thank you Mel, for being willing to step out and give life to your vision.

For that matter, how many of us have a vision that we are afraid to step out and give birth to, let alone maybe have to give up our livelihood to produce or pay with our own money to see come to pass?

I think even that part of the story should be a challenge and an inspiration to us all! Would I be willing to risk my influence and 35 million dollars of my own money to give birth to something God has laid on my heart? I hope so.

I think you guys all have great valid points, and it really encourages me to read all your opinions and views on the subject. I just felt I needed to put my piece in. I am only back from seeing, "The Passion of Christ" about an hour, so it is still fresh on my mind and heart.

As someone stated earlier, it is a tool God has used to get the message to some people and it may not work for everyone, because we are all different. I know people who have had negative and positive feelings from seeing it and respect them both. It definetly stirred something in me and I am thankfull for that.

This film may have its good points, and bad points. But I feel (for me anyways) it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. All in, I think it is amazing, that in this day and age, the Gospel story is being shown and told to millions of people in the form of a number one movie.

Someone posted something on another blog about Jesus meeting people where they were, in their own context. The media is such a large business and is viewed by almost everyone on the planet. In my opinion, this film was a good thing.
Cheers

"Never make a principle out of your experience; let God be as original with other people as he is with you." (Oswald Chambers)

Great quote, Gord.
Thanks.