Last month, USA Today reported on a new study just released by Lifeway Research.  According to their survey of 2000 voters, only 16% of Americans would find themselves more likely to vote for a candidate if he or she were to consistently express religious beliefs in public forums.  Now take a look at some of the other findings:

As you can see, Republicans (32%) are eight times more likely to be positively influenced by a candidate’s religious views than are Democratic voters (4%).  Conversely, more than half of all Democrats (55%) would actively move away from supporting a religiously vocal candidate, as opposed to the 7% of Republicans who would do the same.

So what do you think?  Does a candidate who expresses his or her religious beliefs have the potential to draw you towards them or does it tend to push you away? 

Today, I honor Marie Colvin, veteran war correspondent for the Sunday Times.  History may never recall her as one who changed the world, but I, for one, will always be grateful that there are people like her who are willing “to speak the truth to power” – people willing to “send home the first rough draft of history.”

Goodbye Ms. Colvin.

For most of us who are relatively unaware of the history of the ancient world, to say that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime between 68 and 71 A.D. is to say very little.  But for those that know their history, this statement is actually quite stunning.  For if this Gospel was, indeed, composed during this era, than we know that it’s author was writing during one of the most tumultuous times in the history of the Jewish people – a time when everything the Jews knew and believed to be true came to a devastating end.

In 65 A.D., the land of Israel, which had been living under the burden of Roman occupation for nearly 130 years, was entering a season of extreme duress.  While living in an empire had never been easy, the local governance of the Judean province had recently passed into the hands of a man by the name of Gessius Florus – a man who, at that point in time, was seemingly unmatched in his contempt for the Jews.  Having already made a mockery of the Jewish cultic practices and of the legal system, he had gone on to raid the Temple treasuries of more than 1200 pounds of gold, publicly claiming that the money was owed to the Emperor Nero, himself.[1]

Bust of Nero at the Musei Capitolini, Rome

Needless to say, many within the Jewish population were outraged by Florus’ actions, which in turn lead to all sorts of civil disturbances breaking out in Caesarea and in the capital city of Jerusalem, itself.  Unwilling to let these disturbances burn themselves out, the Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that Florus immediately attempted to put down the uprising by sending soldiers into Jerusalem, who promptly arrested and then crucified more 3600 leaders in the rebellion.

To make matters even worse, the uprisings had caught the attention of the Roman Emperor Nero, who was already reeling from the various intrigues and rebellions that were threatening his control over the Empire.  Fearful that the political unrest in the Judean province might give his enemies just the opening that they were looking for, Nero did the very thing that most despots tend to do when frightened: he upped the ante and doubled down on the pressure that was already being exerted upon the Israelites.  This was like pouring gasoline onto an already raging fire.

Not surprisingly, many Jewish fighters – including the Zealots – rose up and attacked the Roman forces in the city of Jerusalem.  After burning Herod’s Palace to the ground, they seized control of the Temple and immediately ceased the offering of sacrifices to Yahweh on behalf of the Emperor Nero.  This was an open declaration of war.

In the days that followed, Gessius Florus was removed from power by the Roman authorities, even as the Emperor Nero quickly moved to dispatch the 12^th Roman Legion to quell the rising tide.  From the Empire’s perspective, things went from bad to worse, when the 12^th Legion was ambushed by the Jewish Zealots near the narrow mountain pass of Beth Horon.  The rout was on, as Rome lost some 5300 infantrymen along with another 380 mounted troops. The 12^th Legion had been completely annihilated – a defeat that was, at that time, unparalleled in Empire’s history.

But Rome was not quick to admit defeat, nor was it slow to counter.  The greatly admired General Vespasian (and his son Titus) were sent into the region with two full Roman legions as well as six detachments of cavalry and numerous other troops sent by various regional kings.  By 68 A.D., General Vespasian had devastated the Galilean countryside in the north, and was poised to lay siege to Jerusalem itself.  But as providence would have it, the Emperor Nero committed suicide, and Vespasian was forced to return to Rome, where he would eventually became the new Emperor.

In Vespasian’s absence, his son, Titus, was left with over 60,000 trained soldiers and untold numbers of war machines to finish the work of his father.  Having surrounded Jerusalem on all sides, and having cut off every major roadway leading into the country, Titus began the five month siege of the capital city.  In the words of the famed Jewish historian, Josephus:

“Throughout the city, people were dying of hunger in large numbers, and enduring unspeakable sufferings. In every house, the merest hint of food sparked violence; and close relatives fell to blows, snatching from one another the pitiful supports of life. No respect was paid even to the dying; the ruffians [anti-Roman Zealots] searched them, in case they were concealing food somewhere in their clothes, or just pretending to be near death. Gaping with hunger, like mad dogs, lawless gangs went staggering and reeling through the streets, battering upon the doors like drunkards, and so bewildered that they broke into the same house two or three times in an hour. Need drove the starving to gnaw at anything. Refuse, which even animals would reject, was collected and turned into food. And in the end they were eating belts and shoes, and the leather stripped off their shields.”

So great was the suffering of Jerusalem at this time – so extreme was the privation – that Josephus goes on to record another, more ghastly incident that is best told in his own words:

“Famine gnawed at [the mother’] vitals, and the fire of rage was ever fiercer than famine. So, driven by fury and want, she committed a crime against nature. Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, ‘My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews.’ And with these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place.”[2]

When the walls of Jerusalem finally collapsed, more than 600,000 Jewish people were put to the sword.  Those that managed to survive were brutally taken into captivity where they were forced to work in the mines or worse yet, to perform in the gladiatorial games.  These were the days in which the Second Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground just as Jesus the Christ had prophesied; and these were the days in which the Zealots made their last stand in the dessert fortress of Masada.

The desert fortress of Masada, where the Jewish Zealots made their last stand in 74 A.D.

If you want to understand the Gospel of Mark, than you need to understand that this is a Gospel forged in the context of war.  It is a Gospel driven by a sense of urgency as the cradle of Christianity was dashed to the ground and the church was forced to crawl out from beneath the rubble.  This was Mark’s world.  And this was the world into which he dared to suggest that this was just “the beginning of the Good News about Jesus the Christ.”[3]

Born in Northern Ireland in 1949, Ed Dobson immigrated to the United States in 1964.  By the age of 23, he had earned his Masters Degree from Bob Jones University, and had taken his first post as the Dean of Men at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Just seven years later, in 1979, Ed joined the Board of Directors for Falwell’s newly organized Moral Majority.  In the hopes of combating the moral decline of American culture, Falwell, Dobson and others eschewed the traditional Baptist practice of separating faith and politics; and instead sought to build a grassroots network that would lobby for a “pro-family” agenda in America.

But by the late 1980s, Ed Dobson had come to realize that Falwell’s vision of a fundamentalist “Christian Nation” was one that he could no longer embrace.  While his convictions regarding Jesus and the Scriptures remained rock solid, he came to believe that the cultural problems of the late 20^th century were not problems that could be remedied through political activism.  So, in 1987, Ed left Liberty University and the Moral Majority, and became the Senior Pastor of Calvary Church[2] in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  For the next 18 years, he labored to build into this congregation, before eventually resigning when the rigors of his illness became too great to bear.

Now, in the Twilight of his life, Ed Dobson has undertaken a new venture.  No longer able to minister in the ways that he once did, he has released a series of short films, in which he ruminates on the lessons he has learned as a follower of Christ.    These are not lessons about building grassroots organizations, nor are they lessons about ministering in the context of a megachurch.  Instead, Ed is taking us on a journey to the doorsteps of death, bravely offering insights about what it means to live as a Christian at the end of a long and unexpected journey.

Today, I’d like to challenge you to sit down for 10 minutes with Ed Dobson.  Listen to what he has to say.  And if, by the end, you find yourself longing to hear more, you can follow this link,which will lead to you to Flannel.org.  There, you can purchase all five “shorts” for just $7.99.

So what are the issues?  Well, the first problem has to do with the adaptation of the source material itself.  In fairness to Eric Roth, anytime a screenwriter has to distill the content of a novel down to a script that can be filmed in two hours, material is going to be sacrificed.  But in this case, many of Jonathan Safran Foer’s most insightful musings on the nature of war and terror have been left on the editing room floor.  In the novel, the only reason the grandfather re-emerges into the life of this scarred young boy is because he, too, knows what it means to lose a parent to the ever-turning gears of war.  But here, in the film, the fire-bombings of Dresden during World War II are used only as a set up to explain the grandfather’s selectively mute nature.  Thus, the larger theme of war and its impact on the lives of the innocent is almost completely absent.  And that is a very real problem when you are attempting to say something of value on the subject of 9/11. If you do ultimately decide to see this film, ask yourself this: how would the film have been substantially changed if Oskar’s father did not die in the attacks of 9/11, but in a random car accident that left him with just enough time to place a few phone calls?  If you believe, as I do, that nothing would have functionally changed, than you will begin to see the central problem with the film.  To reduce the events of September 11^th to nothing more than a plot device that allows a character to grow is to fundamentally disrespect the nearly 3000 people that lost their lives on that day in history.

The second major issue with this film has to do with the casting of young Thomas Horn.  For some inexplicable reason, director Stephen Daldry made the decision to cast a complete unknown in the role of Oskar Schell.  Prior to this film, Horn had never acted either in film or in television; and that is a massive liability for a film in which the young actor is required to play an emotionally shattered boy who is likely suffering from the effects of Asperger’s Syndrome as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Yes, every once in a while, a Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense comes along to take us all by surprise.  But that is the exception and not the rule.

So where does Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close sit in the pantheon of 9/11 films?  Probably somewhere beneath Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center, and just above Adam Sandler’s Reign Over Me.  At best, it’s an adequate film that leaves the viewer wondering: is it just too soon to expect a film to really be able to handle the events of that day? 

This film has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA for emotional thematic material, some disturbing images, and language.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

9/11 (2002).

By far the “gold standard” of all the documentaries on this subject, this is the film that almost wasn’t.  On the morning of September 11^th, French documentarians Gedeon and Jules Naudet were out on the streets of New York, making a film about a young probationary firefighter.  But as fate would have it, the brothers were standing in the flight path of the first plane as it flew straight overhead and into the side Tower 1.  Thus, these two brothers became eyewitnesses to history as they captured the only known footage of the first strike as well as the only internal footage of the chaos that erupted in the Trade Centers as the firefighters fought their way into the building in a heroic attempt to rescue the survivors.

Ten years after the fact, this film still stands out as a giant among the many imitators.  By the sheer virtue of its immediate and unparalleled access to the events of the day, it possesses a power that can still reduce the viewer to a state of shock.  From the off camera sounds of the bodies striking the pavement to the steely look of grim determination in the rescuers eyes, the viewer is given a front row seat to hell-on-earth, a seat that might gladly be surrendered if it weren’t so important to remember.

102 Minutes that Changed America (2008).

If 9/11 is the “gold standard” of the documentaries that have sought to understand these events, the History Channel’s 102 Minutes that Changed America comes in a very close second.  Wisely eschewing the footage that played ad nausea in the aftermath of the attacks, this documentary is instead assembled by cobbling together footage from the countless amateur videographers that were filming throughout New York.

What gives this documentary its power is the lack of a singular narrative voice.  There is no filter for this footage. There is no news anchor gravely interpreting the chaos.   There is no buffer from the anguish and pain.  Instead, there is only shaky, raw footage painstakingly stitched together in such a way as to tell “our story,” as we all came to grips with the way our lives were going to change through these events.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004).

Thus far, we have looked at two documentaries that sought to provide cathartic release by offering the viewer an intimate opportunity to relive the events of that day.  Unlike these other two films, however, Fahrenheit 9/11 has no such purpose.  Instead, Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts to take a broader, more politicized, view of the events as it offers up an interpretation of the day that links the attacks, the Bush Presidency, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Bin Laden family and the Western dependence upon oil.

Regardless of whether you agree with the politics of the film or not, Fahrenheit 9/11 is significant in that it won the Palme d’Or at the 57^th Cannes Film Festival in France; and on the strength of that win, went on to be released in the United States just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election.

9/11: The Falling Man (2006).

The least well known of the documentaries we have discussed, 9/11: The Falling Man is nevertheless an excellent look at one of the nearly 200 “jumpers” who elected to plummet to their demise rather than facing what they presumed would be a slow death via fire and smoke inhalation.

On the day after the attacks, newspapers around the world ran a photograph, which came to be known as: “The Falling Man.” It had been taken by the Associated Press photographer Richard Drew; and unlike any other image from that day, it alone was branded as distasteful and voyeuristic by a mainstream media that never printed it again.  But some, such as the documentarians responsible for this film, believed that this picture needed to be confronted, for it alone communicated the true horror experienced by those trapped in a burning building.[2]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tomorrow, this series will conclude by taking a look at the Oscar-nominated film, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

United 93 (2006).

On the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, Paul Greengrass, director of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, offered us this partly speculative, real-time account of the only hijacked plane that failed to strike its intended target.  Much to his credit, Greengrass wisely rejected any attempt to entertain the audience and largely avoided almost all of the exploitative melodrama that one would normally expect from a picture of this nature.  In fact, he was so resistant to the notion of fictionalizing or sentimentalizing the events of 9/11 that he even saw fit to cast some of the real flight controllers as themselves in the film.  Without question, this is the rawest of the films released to date, as it offers no hope and no explanation.

September 11 (2002).

Released within one year of the tragic events of 9/11, this ambitious, yet rarely-seen, film is actually a compilation of eleven “shorts,” filmed by directors such as: Mira Nair, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Sean Penn.  With each segment lasting exactly 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame, the filmmakers were given broad latitude to explore how the events of the titular day affected people all around the world.  As with any film of this nature, some segments are stronger than others.  Having said that, this film deserves to be seen, if for no other reason than it was the first of its kind to tackle the issue while the wounds were still raw and bleeding.

World Trade Center (2006).

Released around the same time as United 93, this film could not be more different in tone or effect.  Subverting his usual flair for political muckraking, director Oliver Stone instead elected to film a patriotic story of two Port Authority rescue workers who were trapped when the Twin Towers collapsed, and were amongst the last of the survivors to be extracted from “Ground Zero.”  While the film’s tagline sees fit to remind us that this is “a true story of courage and survival,” one can’t help but wonder if we are being reminded of this fact because the sense of hope that the film conveys feels so out of place with everything that the viewer knows to be true about the events of that day.

Reign Over Me (2007).

Six years after the attacks of 9/11, Adam Sandler commendably used his clout to make the first mainstream, Hollywood movie about the emotional fallout that followed the events of that day.  Unfortunately, Sandler’s best intentions were seriously undermined by his own desire to stretch himself as a dramatic actor.  The resultant film is a melodramatic mess that only sporadically comes to life when the under-rated, but always-excellent Don Cheadle enters the frame to provide some measure of gravitas and genuine humanity.  Sadly, by the end, we are left with a vision of “hope” that feels almost as patently false as much of Sandler’s acting career.

Part 2 of this series will explore a few of the most significant documentaries on the subject of 9/11, while part 3 will conclude by placing Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close within the proper context of our culture’s attempts to capture this event on film.

“There has been a distortion in the media that we are providing death for gays. That is not true.  When a homosexual defiles a kid of less than 18 years old, we are providing a penalty for this.”[3]

So who is telling the truth?  Is Mr. Bahati correct when he asserts that this is all one big distortion or fabrication?  Or has the media gotten it right?   Judge for yourself.  Right now, as lawmakers debate this bill, there is a provision within it that relates to what is being called “aggravated homosexuality.”  And in short, “aggravated homosexuality” is being defined as any homosexual act that occurs between an HIV-infected individual and a partner under the age of 18.  Now consider the reality.  The vast majority of HIV-infected individuals have no knowledge of their medical standing until the signs and symptoms of the disease begin to emerge.  Therefore, it is entirely possible, and indeed, even likely, that a gay teenaged couple could be participating in a capital crime with absolutely no awareness that their activities are putting them in danger of receiving the death penalty.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that the law, if passed, would also require a 14-year period of imprisonment for anyone who failed to report known homosexual activity.  So imagine this scenerio.  A pastor begins to counsel a boy, who eventually reveals that he is in a gay relationship with a peer.  In this scenerio, the pastor faces a decision.  If he fails to report the boy, he himself could be reported, tried, convicted and imprisoned for the next 14 years of his life.  On the other hand, if he opts to turn the boy in to the authorities, the boy could be tested for HIV, and – if found to be infected – would face the death penalty.

So here is the question that conservative evangelicals in the West face: what do we make of a nation such as Uganda when it attempts to pass legislation ostensibly supported by Christian Scripture such as Leviticus 20:13?  Is this an acceptable vision of a “Christian Nation?”  If it is, then why are we not pushing for these same sorts of laws in the United States?  And if it is not, how can you defend that stance in light of a passage such as that which was just cited above?

Ultimately, this all comes down to how we understand, interpret and apply Scripture in a context that is democratic and not theocratic.  Many on the conservative end of the political spectrum are completely comfortable arguing against the legalization of homosexual marriage on the grounds of passages such as Leviticus 18:22.  But at the same time, when they see a society such as Uganda make an attempt to legislate on the grounds of Leviticus 20:13, they are horrified.   And the question that begs to be asked is: why?  What interpretive method is being used to justify the application of the first passage, while the second passage is completely ignored? 

Any thoughts?

“I think that I agree that the Trinity is a non-negotiable.  I believe that the Trinity is a centerpiece – a key pillar that holds up the tent of what biblical orthodoxy and Christianity is.  It’s not a negotiable point.  However, the nuance of how Trinitarian is Trinitarian enough and is he Trinitarian enough – this is where people get a little more exacting and rigorous than I would be comfortable being.  But just because I don’t demand the same level of articulateness about the Trinity from a person to consider them a brother does not mean that I don’t think Trinitarianism is important.  I think it’s very important.  I think it’s essential.  I think it’s central.  I think it’s non-negotiable.  But what I don’t feel the necessity of is holding people to a creedal preciseness about their Trinitarianism in order to see them as a Christian …”

On the one hand, it is very easy to see MacDonald’s statement as a charitable approach to the faith that may even be worthy of emulation.  But the problem is, he’s not talking about a relatively new Christian who has little to no influence over the universal church.  Instead, he had erected a public stage on which he was interviewing a massively influential pastor whose words carry real weight in the broader church community.  By offering Jakes a public stage to discuss his admittedly deviant theological heritage – a heritage that he may or may not have fully left behind – MacDonald is tacitly telling people that Jakes’ questionable theology is “orthodox enough.”

Sadly, this was not the worst part of the interview.  About thirty-four minutes into the discussion, a caller telephoned in and had this to say:

“I’m an African American and I was under the impression that Pastor Jakes was a Prosperity Gospel pastor which is the reason why I wasn’t listening to him.  I would also like to interject that just because he’s African American – that is no reason to defend inerrant scripture.”[1]

MacDonald’s reply could not have been more problematic:

“I don’t think that Bishop Jakes’ ethnicity is a point – I just don’t even think it’s relevant to the subject.  I think that trying to make that part of the subject is very troubling to me.  I don’t think it has anything to do with ethnicity at all.”

Now, this is my question to you: if Pastor James MacDonald doesn’t think that Jakes’ ethnicity is relevant to this conversation, than why did he subsequently post two videos on his personal blog in which he discussed nothing but race and how that played a part in this controversy?  Keep in mind, these videos were not something that MacDonald posted at some distant point in the past.  These highly inflammatory videos were posted on January 30^th and February 1^st of this year – just five days before this interview. Thus, it would appear that Pastor MacDonald is trying to “spin” the interview in such a way as to make himself look as favorable as he can before the listening audience.  And unfortunately, he was not yet done with the “spinning”:

“I can only say that we didn’t get into the issue of prosperity theology in the Elephant Room in a public way, but many were exhorting us that some of these conversations should be private.  And all I can say is that Bishop Jakes would not currently accept the designation of Prosperity preacher or Word of Faith preacher as an accurate description of what he believes currently.  Now his ministry will have to bear that out.  I’m not here to defend him or to stick up for his various errors.  I don’t want to minimize error that is significant.   All I’m saying is that he, as of two weeks ago, would not accept those terms in private conversation as accurate descriptors of what he believes.”

To be quite honest, it is difficult to know where one should even begin dissecting this comment.  After telling the listening audience that the Elephant Room was all about modeling public conversations about significant differences in theology, MacDonald suddenly wants to be able to say that this conversation was had in private.  But that is not the point of the Elephant Room.  So why wasn’t this difference publicly addressed – particularly when MacDonald himself is on public record referring to the Prosperity Gospel a “false Gospel?”

Secondly, and equally important, is what MacDonald said next:  “All I can say is that Bishop Jakes would not currently accept the designation of Prosperity preacher or Word of Faith preacher as an accurate description of what he believes currently.”  Now stop and think about what MacDonald just said.  He is clearly implying that because Jakes does not “currently” accept the label of “Prosperity Gospel Preacher,” that Jakes may be a teacher that should be embraced by this listener.  But how faulty is that thinking?!  It’s like asking the abusive husband, “Are you a wife beater?”  What do you think he’s going to say?  “Prosperity Gospel” is not a term of endearment for most evangelicals.  It’s a warning that the Gospel is being severely warped and distorted.   If Jakes had really changed, then why would MacDonald not want to give him every opportunity at the Elephant Room to publicly disown his former teaching?  Imagine how powerful that could have been!

But Pastor James MacDonald was not interested in having that conversation in public. If he was, it was his conference and he could have made it happen. Moreover, he does not appear to be willing to take a public stand by warning the Moody listeners away from a presentation of the Gospel that he once branded as dangerous and false.  So once again, one is left with the impression that James MacDonald is more invested in protecting his public image and his decision to host Jakes at the Elephant Room than he is in protecting his own congregation and the larger body of Christ.

“Since I was a kid, I have been moved and inspired by the story of Noah and his family’s journey. The imaginations of countless generations have sparked to this epic story of faith. It’s my hope that I can present a window into Noah’s passion and perseverance for the silver screen.”

If all goes according to plan, the tentatively titled Noah is set to be released in the fall of 2013.