April 8,
2004
Dear Concerned Citizen,
The Passion
of the Christ presents a radically counter-cultural view of love.
The Established Church of Hollywood and much of current American culture
holds to the Romantic creed that love is all about feelings. I am in love,
if I like the way I feel when I am with the other person. Those enjoyable
feelings are usually some variation of lust, or self-aggrandizement. When
the pleasantness or the intensity fades, I have fallen out of love.
By contrast, Jesus demonstrates a love that has nothing to do with feelings.
The life of Jesus teaches that love is a decision. To love is to will
and to do the good of another person. Jesus made a decision to love: to
love His father, to love His immediate followers, and to love all of us.
After seeing Gibson’s movie, no one could believe that Jesus allowed
Himself to be crucified because He felt like it. But He did it anyway,
trusting in the goodness of His father’s will.
When Mary, John and Mary Magdalene followed Jesus up the hill to Calvary,
they probably didn’t like the way it felt. Their love for Jesus
didn’t make them feel important or special on that particular Friday
afternoon. But they followed Him anyway. They had already learned from
Jesus that love is a good in itself.
In Gibson’s movie, everybody who acts on their feelings comes off
looking like a loser. The unthinking mob demanded the death of Jesus.
Pontius Pilate knowingly condemned an innocent man rather than risk his
career. Peter acted on his fear, denied Jesus and ran away. Judas succumbed
to despair and hung himself.
The Hollywood image of love has only to do with feelings, and with acting
upon the passions. An entire agenda of sex, marriage and family, flows
directly from this view of love. Love is nothing but a feeling.
But no one can sustain the intense euphoric feeling so common at the beginning
of a relationship, and so commonly shown on the Big Screen. Marriage becomes
nothing more than a temporary contract between people who “love”
each other, because “love” is necessarily temporary.
Since children don’t always make us feel good, we certainly can’t
be expected to take the demands of childrearing seriously. We come to
demand sexual activity unhinged from childbearing, as a constitutional
right. In that frame of mind, sex comes to have no social or moral significance.
Sex is merely a recreational good.
Everyone wants love in their lives. But the more vigorously we pursue
the counterfeit signs of love, the more frustrated we’re likely
to become. We go through life feeling cheated, because we know in our
deepest hearts, that we were made for love. We can’t get it by chasing
our feelings, but we don’t know any other way. We convince ourselves
we are entitled to have any kind of relationship with anyone, on any terms
we choose, thinking that this time, perhaps, it will work. This is part
of the impulse behind the demand for an unlimited right to divorce and
remarriage, to cohabitation, and to same sex marriage.
When Jesus tells His followers, “love one another as I have loved
you,” he isn’t telling us to parrot His feelings. He is telling
us to make a practice of pursuing the good of others. He is inviting us
to be attentive enough to others that we can actually figure out what
is good for them.
We have to be realistic about the limits of what we can actually do to
be helpful to those we love. It means we sometimes have conflict with
others, because we shouldn’t always give them what they are asking
for. We can’t use other people as means to achieving our ends.
Committing ourselves to doing the good of another draws us out of our
natural self-centeredness and opens for us the possibility of being engaged
with others. Jesus invites us to fling ourselves into the adventure of
lifelong love with our spouses and children.
His
idea is for us to take up the cross and follow Him, as The Passion
makes clear.
The Impact of The Passion Is Now Worldwide
This Easter
week Gibson’s Passion entered Hollywood’s Holy of Holies:
the top ten U.S. all time box office hits.
62 percent of all respondents to a Beliefnet.com poll answered “yes”
to the question “Are you reading the Bible more as a result of the
movie The Passion of the Christ?”
But even these achievements are not the most remarkable news on the film
this week. Around the world, even in Muslim and communist countries, tens
of millions of tickets are being sold. An unknowable number of pirated
copies are being sold on the street.
Beijing: “Thanks to an avalanche of English language pirated copies,
the fever for Gibson’s blockbuster The Passion of the Christ is
spreading across China, as young Catholics are taking great pains to encourage
their friends and schoolmates to see the film.”
Qatar: “After seeing The Passion Muslims start searching for the
Gospel. In just 3 days more than a 1/10 of the population has seen the
film. The film is becoming so popular in Qatar that some theaters have
cancelled showings of other films in order to increase viewings of Gibson’s
blockbuster.”
Philippines: “The film which was first shown publicly a week ago
continues to draw many viewers, especially those from nearby provinces.
Weeks before its official showing, however, film copies have been pirated
into VCDs and DVDs (sold for US $1.50) and have been circulating around
the country. For some it is a blessing. At least the film can be seen
by a wider audience, especially in areas where there are no movie houses.”
Ramallah: “Ali Batha is a student at the University of Berzet who
said she watched the film at home with other friends out of curiosity,
to understand the reasons behind Jewish anger as well that of religious
leaders and critics. Yet the film, which he initially watched due to his
inquisitive nature, has led Ali Batha to admit the movie is one of the
greatest in history and a product of incredible movie making skills. He
added that he was almost disappointed that he “didn’t find
anything that sparks anti-Semitism”.
Responses to: "If Not Under God" Then "Under Whom"?
When I was in school in the 60's and 70's we were expected and required to stand up and participate in the pledge and morning prayer. If we didn't, we got sent to the principal's office and worse to my Dad. In the 90's when my sons were in school they were required to stand still, be quiet and participate if they chose to. Any student who refused to at least allow other students to participate then got into trouble. I doubt their Dads did anything about it. Allowing a choice for God isn't good enough for these people because so many of us and our kids aren't making the choice that suits them. So' the next step is to remove God completely so there can be no free choice. This march to remove any and all references to God has been going on for years now. Has anyone bothered to look at crime stats now compared to 40 years ago. See the connection? D. C.
I enjoy your articles so I feel badly disagreeing with your recent "under
God," article. I'll keep it simple-
1. We don't say the pledge of allegiance in our church and I don’t
expect the school to say the creed. Mixing the two is not beneficial to
either side. Watering down our faith to fit a pledge may even be dangerous.
2. Setting up any situation where a non-believer (or one who believers in gods as opposed to God) may feel compelled to make a faith confession is not going to move them toward belief. Only people who lives their lives "under God" can do that.
3. Parents who want their children to say "under God" are more than welcome to teach them prayers at home and to make sure they are attending religious education classes.
Blessings in your ministry. I will keep reading and greatly appreciate your resource! Pastor A. H.
I happened to notice the article “If Not Under God Then Under Whom?”
was very much like some writings and speeches of David Barton, founder
of Wallbuilders, Inc. Barton’s research meets the rigorous requirement
of “best evidence” source documentation for his footnotes.
This standard passes legal evidentiary requirements. So I made an attempt
to find three points that I recall I either heard or read of Barton:
1) The Northwest Ordinance, a federal territory, had made it law that Christian education was a requirement for candidacy to statehood for that territory;
2) That three states ratified the Constitution while even having a state established church. This meant that three states had a state religion so that every citizen of that state was also a member of the state-church. It would not be until circa 1840 that the last state would dissolve the state-church establishment by request of its citizens that found it amenable to have church members by voluntary dedication, and not by mandate. One state was Virginia, and the other states I believe may have been Connecticut and Rhode Island;
3) A copy of the Bill of Rights submitted to the House where the proposed amendment 14 on the Bill of Rights was stricken by the Senate (but actually from an article not published by Wallbuilders.). That amendment was a corresponding to the 1st Amendment found on the same bill; but stipulated that establishment of religion would be prohibited also in the states. This actually makes sense when we consider Barton’s claim on state established churches because those states would be condoning a law that is against their own sovereign disposition. J. H. Jr.
Perhaps the answer is "Under our President," because heaven
knows he thinks he has the right to judge and protect us. Rev.
J. C.
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
