The Book of Eli is rated R for adult content, profanity, images of rape, and excessive violence. It also, rather startlingly, has an overt, fairly profound Christian theme.
So is the Book of Eli a “Christian film”?
That question — and the film — illustrates the ambiguity of the concept of “Christian” anything. Especially Christian art.
Many of the reviewers of the film illustrate the conundrum Christians have created for themselves. On the one hand, we demand clear biblical themes and references. The Book of Eli has these. But on the other hand, we demand sanitized, family friendly fare. And this is where the film falls short. Way short.
During its pre-screening, one reviewer noted that “‘The Book of Eli’ contains just as much (if not more) Christian imagery as ‘The Chronicles of Narnia.'” Nevertheless they asked, Will Christian Audience’s Embrace Denzel’s ‘Book of Eli’?
“I’m really going to be interested to see how this movie plays with Christians,” says Paul Asay, associate editor of Focus on the Family’s Plugged In, an entertainment site for evangelical Christians. “My guess is that evangelical leaders will have a difficult time fully embracing the film, but a lot of actual evangelicals will go.”
The question was, “Will true believers rally around a violent, hard-R movie like ‘The Book of Eli’ — even if it heavily promotes Christian themes?”
New York Post film critic Kyle Smith, in his review Onward Christian Soldier, the film as an “overtly, unabashedly Christian one.”
“The Book of Eli” is not only a well-done action picture but an overtly, unabashedly Christian one in which Denzel Washington plays a soldier of God. He’s on a divinely-inspired quest — yes, a literal mission from God — to take The Book to the West as a swarm of wrongdoers led by Gary Oldman try to stop him.
But even though Smith would go on to call ‘The Book of Eli’ a “Christian blockbuster,” the problem is the film’s excessive gore, dismemberment, rape, blood splatter, and the standard R-rated language. Both body count and cussword count have kept believers from going “all in” on “Eli.”
In fact, not everyone was thrilled about meshing violence with the film’s religious content, leading one columnist ask, Is the Book of Eli anti-Christian?
Devout filmgoers will soon realize that “the brand of Christianity on display in ‘Eli’ is as warped as they come,” says S.E. Cupp in the New York Daily News. Washington’s character is a “crusader” who defends the Bible by “beheading, stabbing, shooting and head-butting” anyone who gets in his way. Only “violent, fundamentalist” Christians will relate to this “Hollywood caricature.” (bold mine)
In i09’s interview with the Hughes brothers, the directors admitted reluctance about “the religious stuff or the spiritual stuff” in the script, and were concerned to make sure the film did not come off as “preachy.” But when the interviewer suggests that Eli “walks the line of being an evangelical film,” the directors downplayed any connection. It was Denzel Washington, a professing Christian, who sold the story. One Christian review site even described Washington as “protecting” the film the same way his character protected the Book.
“Denzel by nature is a very religious, spiritual man,” said [Director] Albert Hughes, “and he makes no secret of that. He brought all that to the project and helped us with it, because we’re not exactly the most dedicated Bible readers in the world.”
“I spent a lot of time going through the Bible to find passages that Eli could quote at appropriate moments,” said screenwriter Gary Whitta. “Denzel found a bunch as well because he’s a Christian man. He’d come into script meetings with the script on one hand and the Bible in the other. He found all these parallels, and had Post-it™ notes all over the place because he’d been up all night finding these things.”
Apparently, the script and the passion Denzel Washington brought to the project, left a mark on the directors.
“There’s a scene where Gary Oldman’s character makes a statement that the Bible isn’t just a book, it’s a weapon, and that made me go ‘Whoa!'” said Allen Hughes. “The whole movie leading up to that point had Eli reciting Scripture, and you knew he was a man of the Bible, a man of faith. But when you hear this other character say that, I thought, ‘This is deep. It’s about something, and not just blowing stuff up.'”
Still, it’s hard to get past all the “blowing stuff up.”
And that’s the dilemma many Christian filmgoers seem to have with “Eli.” The Associated Baptist Press review of the film uses this Christian reviewer as an example:
The movie’s hard edge may give some religious moviegoers pause. Angela Walker, director of producer relations for ChristianCinema.com, wrote that she pondered the movie’s objectionable content for a month after seeing an advance screening before deciding the film’s spiritual themes were redeeming qualities.
“Personally, I want to support filmmakers who explore questions of faith in their films,” she wrote. “For me, choosing to see this film is casting a vote for Hollywood filmmakers to keep making films about faith. It is telling them I will buy tickets to films they create about topics I’m interested in.”
I concur with Ms. Walker’s conclusion.
When I first saw The Book of Eli, I liked it. Only mildly. I thought the violence was way too excessive. But the twist ending and the biblical theme won me over. Plus, “I [too] want to support filmmakers who explore questions of faith in their films.”
So is “The Book of Eli” a “Christian film?”
While Focus on the Family’s Plugged In review counts cusswords —
More than a dozen f-words and half-a-dozen s-words. God’s name is paired with “d??n.” “B??ch,” “b??tard” and “h???” are said.
the reviewer is forced to concede:
The Book of Eli is, perhaps, the most explicitly Christian film I’ve seen come out of the secular film industry since The Passion of the Christ. Indeed, it’s something of a Sunday sermon wrapped in a Mad Max adventure.
Does the violence eradicate Eli’s message? No.
Does the message redeem Eli’s violence? No.
This, then, is a spiritual tale told through the prism of a dystopian Western; a religious story shellacked with gore.
Even the ultra-conservative Ted Baehr and his Movieguide seems to capitulate:
THE BOOK OF ELI is very captivating, awe-inspiring, and ultimately uplifting, with excellent production standards and absorbing character portrayals. The movie’s blatant support of Christianity and the overt references to the Bible are greatly encouraging and very surprising. Throughout the story, Eli prays, teaches others to pray, quotes Scripture, and walks by faith in God. Regrettably, extreme caution is advised for the movie’s excessive amount of extreme, brutal violence, some scenes of implied, attempted rape, and unnecessary foul language.
Apparently, as long as a film or book contains “blatant support of Christianity” and “overt references to the Bible,” body count and cussword count are excusable.
Really?
Whatever you conclude, “The Book of Eli” may be the perfect example of the dilemma consumers of evangelical pop culture have created for ourselves.
DM Dutcher quotes “1. Mark 7:20-23. What is inside a man is what defiles him. and then interprets as follows: The context of this is ceremonial actions like washing hands before eating meat, but in general, the point of how we handle external neutral things isn’t what causes us to sin; it’s the moral or immoral things we specifically do.
There’s a few problems with this DM. Number one? This principle IS restricted to food alone and I’ll tell you why. First is fact that as you’ve noted, the Lord specifically SAYS it’s about the hypocritical pharisees and their obsession with ceremony which in this case has to do with hand washings as you’ve also noted as well. He goes so far as to include defecation (that’s what the word means) as a defining component of His lesson. In the Mark 7 narrative we have stomach and then elimination. His MAIN point being that the heart is never effected.
However, the Matthew 15 parallel is deadly because there Jesus explicitly states “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” MOUTH. He is talking about what goes into the mouth. NOT the whole of the external universe. The first article in the Greek is in the nominative case making it the subject of the phrase. The second and third articles along with the the present participle (entering) and the man himself, are all accusative, being then the subject. The NASB above is perfect. The subject is the mouth and man and how non defiling things (represented by the first nominative article) enter him. Nothing entering his MOUTH can defile him because it can’t affect his heart.
However, as Job so profoundly tells in his 31st chapter verse 1, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?” And of course the incarnate Word of God famously told us in Matthew 5:28 about LOOKING on a woman with lust. What enters his stomach is “neutral”. But NOT what enters his EYES. If you demand it I’ll make a case for ears too.
Even with all that said, NONE of this is the point I’ve been making. Which is, “if a piece of multimedia (audio/visual) “art” was produced in sin then it is sin for ANYone to consume it. I’m still waiting for a SINGLE answer here on that question.
DM Dutcher quotes “2. 1 cor 15:33. Evil communication corrupts good habits.” and then interprets as follows: The context is in false teaching, but the standard of something put in this chapter is whether or not a thing is true, not if it is secular or Christian. A “christian” who teaches heresy isn’t right.
A few problems here too. Right off the bat this refutes your first point, because according to this, external influences clearly DO corrupt good morals. The word here (ethos) means a variety of things which can be summed in the phrase “external influence”. I kid you not. It conveys people, conversation, environment and so on. Even in this specific usage. If a full color three story photo realistic movie screen pouring an avalanche of the violation of all ten of God’s commandments into one’s eyes AND ears does not answer to this passage then somebody, pray tell, inform me of what does please.
DM Dutcher paraphrases “3. Phil 4:8. Whatsoever is pure etc…, mediate on these things. Just, pure, noble, of virtue and of a good report. and then interprets as follows: Again, we should think on things based on content. There isn’t really any scriptural argument against rejecting secular things as such, but there are scriptures on what we should think on, also like:
Agreed. If it WAS NOT sin to produce it then it MIGHT be lawful to consume it. Maybe. THEN, it is neutral and THEN your guys beloved principle of liberty applies. For some, certain things might recall past life experiences for instance to where even otherwise indifferent things are sin to them, but not for others. Watching someone attempt to contort Philippians 4:8 to allow for the ingestion of visual media entertainment FILLED with everything God forbids, in the name of some fractured notion of “cultural engagement” and or “artistic license” is however a truly grotesque experience. Brett McCracken does a particularity impressive job here. (I now have a special place in my heart for that boy. Long story)
DM Dutcher references “4. Gal 5:19-5:23. Works of the flesh, works of the spirit.” and then interprets as follows: “The latter part includes virtues like love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, etc. Again, sort of a table of basic virtues to think on and to manifest, and corresponding immorality that estranges people. I think you can use this as a guide to entertainment, and a secular film or work that aligns with these values is better than a Christian work which doesn’t, and may manifest things like heresy or wrath.
A secular film wherein sin was not required for it’s production is not necessarily sin to consume. However, a generally positive and moralistic film FULL of redemption that is NOT in Christ, but does a great job of making people feel good about not needing Him is more deceptive and dangerous than straight up porn. As a bit of a tangent, think with me for a minute though man. How can there be a “Christian” film that doesn’t portray Christian values? The characteristics of a thing are what define it. How can there b a _______________anything that doesn’t have any of the values that the content of it’s name implies?
DM Dutcher references “5. Romans 14:14-17. and then interprets as follows: “Participation in the secular marketplace (meat offered to idols) isn’t seen as bad in itself. To the pure, all things are pure. However, we’re to act keeping in mind how we cause offense to each other. I think this means that there are worldly things that are neutral, but if the context of consuming them leads to endorsing unbelief among weaker brothers who maintain strict separation, we shouldn’t do so.”
The ALL things Paul was referring to were food, feasts and festivals alone and THEM alone in that passage. ESPECIALLY food though. a small book could be written just on this principle of unclean foods becoming clean in the advent of the New Covenant. In your very own passage in Mark 7 above (Jesus is said to have specifically declared all foods clean), Peter’s vision of the sheet in Acts 10 and Paul’s general references for instances. Today people mistakenly think that this natter of food here is a triviality representing the tip of an iceberg of other things as well, but this is simply not the case. Food ITSELF IS the point. It was a huge deal that unclean foods and meat sacrificed to idols were now permissible along with gentiles being converted to the now fulfilled religion of Abraham which it actually DID represent, as directly evinced in Acts 10 again.
All of the horrific debauchery and blood splattering violence and profane blasphemous language in movies IS NOT NEUTRAL foods. This really needs to be pointed out?
DM Dutcher says “These are some verses, but I think you can make a case that (1.) Simple participation in the secular media isn’t bad,”
I never said it was. I said 😀 “if sin was requited for it’s production, then sin is required for it’s consumption.” THAT, gentlemen, is the principle. Can somebody address THAT please?
DM Dutcher says “but instead [is bad if] it causes weaker believers to be offended or the works portray the wrong values,”
This is manifestly scriptural and has always been recognized as such, so therefore I wholeheartedly agree.
DM Dutcher says “and (2.) it’s possible to think on things that are fruits of the Spirit or what Lewis called sub-christian values, and secular works might have worth insomuch as they portray them.”
Let’s mercifully leave Lewis outta this and this is a very questionable “might”. There are NO fruits of the Spirit without the Spirit and unless you can show me otherwise there is no Spirit without the new birth in Christ. Again, a high quality moralistic, generally positive, feel good movie that relieves people of their conviction of their need for Christ because of their now feeling even better about themselves and mankind than they did before seeing it, is far more dangerous than some raunchy brain dead comedy.
DM Dutcher says “Also, the idea of strict separation is seen as a quality of the weaker brother. It’s not bad, but it’s not in itself a virtue. Each man has their own walk with God, and we have to be wary of how we get in the way of that.”
Please see all of the above.
DM Dutcher says “I think you can have an idea of how to judge secular media from these things.?
OR, you can just use the biblical principle of: “If the IMDB content report tells me that that neither I nor my family could have performed or produced what is there without sin, then neither can we consume it without promoting the sin of our neighbor whom we commanded to love”. That eliminates most movies instantly. THEN we can start maybe applying the principles of liberty of conscience in an actually biblical way to the actually neutral ones that are left, insofar as those principles may really apply at all.
There’s too many points here to respond to. I mean seriously, I’m sitting here trying to number each response I make, and I’m already at six not even halfway through. It would be easier honestly just to write a manifesto than to respond, so I have to bail out.
Forgive me. It was late after a very LONG day as I finished this and I was carrying on a Facebook conversation at the same time.
This sentence in the first section should read:
” The second and third articles along with the the present participle (entering) and the man himself, are all accusative, being then the object.”
I’m no scholar of Koine Greek anyway, but I’ve learned enough to fumble through the text.
J.B. says yet again, what myself and my watching friends have also heard a thousand times: “The Bible is filled with incest, murder, prostitution, and all matter of sin. Isn’t it sinful to read the Bible?”
Are you proposing that reading the theopneustos, divinely inspired, Word of almighty God in written inscripturated form, is the same as paying real unbelievers to actually “perform” it’s content in front of a film crew so millions of strangers can watch?
“And Adam knew his wife”. or “Onan spilled his seed on the ground” or “David went into Bathsheba”. OR the entire Song of Solomon (another favorite of the post modern libertines) which was written in almost excessively tasteful euphemistic poetic language? Reading these is the experiential equivalent of watching real people “perform” them?
Should God have had Gomer followed with a film crew in order to make the lesson of Hosea more effective?
Don’t feel too bad, you certainly won’t be the first to disappear when I ask this.
What about Exodus 3 where the spotlessly and blindingly pure and righteous God, before whom all the legions of Heaven cry day and night,
“HOLY HOLY HOLY is the Lord of Hosts!!! the whole earth is full of His glory!!”
promises to hold none guiltless who dare utter His name in vain? Does He somehow make exceptions because some artsy shartsy pagan decides to put it in a movie? You people don’t seem to have the first flickering clue who you are playing games with.
While we’re on the subject of “words”. Pasted from a previous conversation.
============================================
WORDS, and the ability to speak them are precious and sacred. Regardless of the exact theological implications upon the ordo salutis, confession is made with the mouth unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10) God created by the command of His WORD(Genesis 1:3, Hebrews 11:3 and John 1:2). Jesus Christ is the living WORD of almighty God. (John 1:1-14) Spoken communication is a major component of the Imago Dei whereby we bear His very image. (Genesis 1:3 and 1:27) That is why he commands in Ephesians 4:29 “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Should we intentionally pay God’s money to hear unbelievers thoughtlessly and many times blasphemously speak that which we are commanded never to say ourselves?
And to anyone who may call legalism here, do please hear the incarnate WORD of God: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:33-37)
Every careless WORD (ESV). Is the consumption of such “culture” conducive to transformation from the world by the renewing of one’s mind or conformity to it? (Romans 12:1-2) If we are not supposed to blaspheme, take the Lord’s name in vain or let ANY corrupting talk come out of our mouths, then why pray tell would we pay sinners to do it for us?
============================================
And btw, YES WE CAN know someone’s heart. We know it by what they SPEAK. Jesus just said so. We can’t know as precisely or comprehensively as God does, but oh yes we can know somebody’s heart. This whole “Judge not” and “you don’t know their heart” deal is the method by which the enemy preemptively protects his immoralities and heresies in the church. First he deceives multitudes into abominable God grieving error and THEN he brazenly convinces those who embrace that error that any attempt to expose it to the light of the Word is “judgmental” and “unloving” LOL! You almost have to stand in a sort of begrudging respect of the old serpent. He’s been spectacularly successful.
I know I’m pushing your indulgence Mike. I do appreciate it and will TRY to shut up for while.
J.B. says yet again, what myself and my watching friends have also heard a thousand times: “The Bible is filled with incest, murder, prostitution, and all matter of sin. Isn’t it sinful to read the Bible?”
J.B. (and anybody else) please see HERE
Greg, I find it interesting that you reply to your own postings on your site by copy and pasting your comments about other topics from other sites into you your own blog? That seems like a deceptive practice to me, like you’re trying to make it appear that there’s more activity on your site then there actually is.
I don’t see how this conversation about ‘The Book of Eli’ has anything to do with your post about ‘Frozen’. A movie which I loved and saw three times.
To wit, please remove from your site any and all quotes from my postings. I didn’t give you permission to use them, nor to my knowledge did Mike give you permission to take content from his site and use it on yours.
I did not post on your site, I will not be posting on your site, and I do not want what I posted on Mike’s site to appear on your site and give the impression that I’m responding go your blog posts.
With regards to the movie:
I haven’t seen it. When I first saw the previews I wasn’t interested in seeing it. I don’t exactly remember why, but I think I sensed it was about a “religious” topic and I generally don’t like ‘secular’ movies that mangle/mock Christians themes. It might have been the dystopian context, which I generally don’t like either.
After reading the post, I was intrigued, but probably wouldn’t watch it. I have zero tolerance for rape, implied or otherwise, in books and movies. I find it deeply disturbing and I shutdown.
As to whether or not it’s a ‘Christian’ film, I guess that depends on the definition of the term. Does it mean a film with Christian theme, or one made by Christians for Christians, or something in between?
In the past year or so I’ve become less interested in seeing realistic violence in movies. I have no problem with what I call cartoon violence (aliens, zombies, super-heroes) but the violence in police dramas, gangster movies, etc. turns me off.
I’m also not about to question Denzel Washington’s faith, or anyone else’s, regarding where they draw that line. I know Christians who have worked in Hollywood, on stage, in bands, etc. They are genuine people who love God, study his word, pray, and seek to serve God and others. Have they played some ‘questionable’ roles? Sure. But it’s not for me to say if they were wrong or not. If they asked me, I’d give them my advice, but we each must work out our own faith. The eating meat sacrificed to idols issue has been brought up already. I think this is similar.
Is somebody worldly or sinful for making a movie like this or watching it? Maybe. But I’m not about to judge that person.
Romans 14:4 says: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.”
If they’re wrong, God will show them. If they’re not listening to God, my judgment of them isn’t really going to matter much. They may not be able to see the problem in an issue, but they’ll grow, just like we all do. I believed things as a young Christian that make me cringe now. But I learned.
On the flip side, I absolutely love the movie Aliens. (the second one) There’s violence, cursing, sexual-innuendo, and the like. But there is also love, sacrifice, loyalty, and forgiveness.
There are two scenes I find amazing. In one, the hated Lt. Gorman and tough Pvt. Vasquez are trapped in an air duct. Up until this point, she despises this man. But they’re trapped, injured and the aliens are coming. They wordlessly decide to sacrifice themselves by detonating a small ‘grenade’ to slow the alien advance. In a split second, you realize she forgives this man who’s been an incompetent wimp up until that point, because he’s willing to sacrifice his life to save others.
An even more powerful Christian message to me is the image of Ripley going into the elevator with weapons in hand and the complex crumbling around her. It brings tears to my eyes every time see it. (and even now as I write about it.) That is a symbol to me of what Jesus does for his children. (parable of the lost sheep) Jesus would travel into very depths of hell, armed with his power, risking his life to rescue one lost child. We are as important to him as Newt was to Ripley.
(my apologies to anyone who hasn’t seen the film.)
That part of the movie transformed my view of movies. Films are a powerful medium and the images they contain can transform. But what speaks to you may not speak to me and vice versa.
The Book of Eli may have sinful elements, but the ‘message’ may just reach an unsaved person. A person who might never darken the door of a church. Is it right or wrong? I don’t honestly know. But God could use that seed, and I’m sure he does, for greater good.
I think it was Robert K. Johnston in his book “Reel spirituality” that said, (and I’m paraphrasing) There is a conversation happening about God but it’s not happening in churches. It’s happening in diners and coffee shops as people discuss spiritual themes they see in movies.
Christians rejection of movies, which was and is doctrine in some churches, means that they we are not part of that conversation. That’s a stark contract to Jesus who used to hang out with sinners. (and be criticized for it by the religious of his day.)
Would Jesus go see ‘Book of Eli’? I don’t know. Probably not. But Jesus was a unique person with a very unique mission. However, I’m sure he’d want to talk to people who did and find out what they thought about it. He wouldn’t judge and condemn them for seeing it.
I’m always amazed that sinner loved to be with Jesus and he loved to be with them. He could be unconditionally loving, patient and compassionate without ever making the feel judged. Were they convicted about their behavior and want to be better? Absolutely, but it was his love and his example that transformed them, not a demand for sinlessness.
I’m sorry if I rambled.
A guy who doesn’t want his name on my site says:
Greg, I find it interesting that you reply to your own postings on your site by copy and pasting your comments about other topics from other sites into you your own blog? That seems like a deceptive practice to me, like you’re trying to make it appear that there’s more activity on your site then there actually is.
My “blog” functions as a text editor for my comments on other people’s blogs. If it gets traffic fine, if not I don’t really care. There are references both there and ALL over the places I’ve been where all of that that is plainly stated. If you look you can find them easily. I have nothing to prove to you. I start a new one every so often and just stick vaguely related stuff in there as it comes up in other places.
A guy who doesn’t want his name on my site says: “I don’t see how this conversation about ‘The Book of Eli’ has anything to do with your post about ‘Frozen’. A movie which I loved and saw three times.”
I don’t care what you see at my place. It’s my place.
A guy who doesn’t want his name on my site says: “To wit, please remove from your site any and all quotes from my postings.”
I respectfully decline. The web is world wide and very public. If you want privacy, don’t post on public websites. I will however anonymize your words so that your name does not appear on my site.
A guy who doesn’t want his name on my site says: “I didn’t give you permission to use them,”
I don’t need your permission. They’re on Mike’s front lawn where anybody driving by can see. I saw and I took a picture. If you don’t want to be seen. Stay home.
A guy who doesn’t want his name on my site says: “nor to my knowledge did Mike give you permission to take content from his site and use it on yours.”
Nor to my knowledge has Mike made you guardian over himself or his site. He knows I’m linking there and what the content is. Ask him. It would only be wrong if I plagiarized him (or you) and gave no citation. You aren’t the first person whose tried to attack ME when they didn’t have any biblical answers. Trust me. Its’ a loser.
A guy who doesn’t want his name on my site says: “I did not post on your site, I will not be posting on your site, and I do not want what I posted on Mike’s site to appear on your site and give the impression that I’m responding go your blog posts.”
There are as always, links up and down the page showing where the conversations come from clearly indicating that they are NOT originating from my so called “blog”. This is childish, petty and I must be honest, a bit cowardly. Mike and I are getting along fine near as I can tell.
As I say. I will edit your name out as soon as it is practical for me to do so. I will NOT address this here again. Talk about OFF topic. Email me.
Wow. This is so tone-deaf I’m beginning to entertain the idea this is a Joaquin Phoenix-like bit of performance art that someone will someday own and apologize for.
At least that would make sense.
I sincerely apologize Peter. I have NOT had the time to edit your nam out of those comments yet. It is absolutely not intentional
I sincerely apologize Patrick. I have NOT had the time to edit your nam out of those comments yet. It is absolutely not intentional
Your name is now gone from my site Patrick.
Thank you. You’re a man of your word.
You’re welcome. 🙂
Tiribulus,
When you are confronted with Jesus teaching using parables – such as where an unbelieving Samaritan is more a brother than a fellow believer – your answers are not responsive. You say “that was Jesus doing it.” In other words, you condemn Jesus’s actions and example while somehow absolving Him because He’s Christ. That is wrong. Using parables was not a sin for which Jesus was given a pass.
I agree that paying people to engage in sin to create a movie is wrong. I don’t believe it follows that watching the movie is sinful. This sounds like the failed medieval dogma of “dirty money” that was long ago rejected. Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists have long employed others to do things that they would consider sinful. When Christians considered charging interest to be sinful (usury), they paid Jews to perform banking for them.
J.B.
Jb, I’m going to have to handle this later. These are terrible arguments, that I have dealt with with others many times. Actually your second answer is uniquely bad. I don’t think I can remember anyone trying to make that case that way before. I have stuff to do all day for now though.
JB says: “When you are confronted with Jesus teaching using parables – such as where an unbelieving Samaritan is more a brother than a fellow believer – your answers are not responsive. You say “that was Jesus doing it.” In other words, you condemn Jesus’s actions and example while somehow absolving Him because He’s Christ. That is wrong. Using parables was not a sin for which Jesus was given a pass.”
You missed my point entirely JB. It had nothing do with the whether parables or stories are a godly didactic device or not. The point was WHO was doing the teaching. NOwhere in the whole of scripture do we find any precedent for the mortally dangerous practice of looking to the unregenerate for theology, philosophy or morality. We never find God saying to Israel:
I don’t see that.
Neither do I see Paul telling Timothy:
JB says: “I agree that paying people to engage in sin to create a movie is wrong. I don’t believe it follows that watching the movie is sinful. This sounds like the failed medieval dogma of “dirty money” that was long ago rejected. Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists have long employed others to do things that they would consider sinful. When Christians considered charging interest to be sinful (usury), they paid Jews to perform banking for them.
No sir. If sin was required for the production of that media, then your paying to consume it IS the financing of that sin. If you see it for free, you’re a thief. Even if you COULD see it for free, your participation is hypocrisy unless you would be willing to sin with them in it’s production. In which case hypocrisy is avoided but at the cost of being in sin in conscience at the point of production. The one thing that is NOT possible is to participate in this without sin. Most of the people I meet just plug their ears, tell me I’m a “troll” and do what they want. Fine, but ARE living a life of sinful abuse of those you are commanded to love as yourself. You ARE promoting and financing their judgement. You can talk at me until Jesus descends from heaven with a shout and the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God, but you will never EVER escape this truth.
Jill says: “Of course it’s a sin to knowingly pay for the entertainment of watching others sin”….”I do agree with you, but only in specific contexts where it’s obvious that we are paying others to perform sinful acts.”
I want to make clear that I am NOT accusing you of anything. I’m not impugning your virtue as a lady or your moral uprightness in any way by these questions. I don’t know until I ask. Keep that in mind please.
How much plain nudity even without actual contact would you be willing to display in front of a room full of men not your husband so millions of other men not your husband could see you too? Is there any “artistic” justification that your own husband would accept as a Christian man for his covenant wife publicly displaying any part of herself, which is his alone this way? Would your Missouri Synod church eat popcorn with yourself and your husband and watch their fellow member bare herself in a theater full of unbelievers as long as it wasn’t THAT bad and it was “artistic” enough?
Would you be willing to “artistically” blaspheme the name of the Lord because “it’s only a movie” and “you’re just acting”? How deep would that stab feel if YOU were the one saying those things?
Would you tell the people in that theater about your love of Jesus afterward in the lobby when they saw it was you on that screen? Would they take you seriously?
Also, please hypothetically apply this whole line of questioning to your children. What you think if it were them?
Yes I have phrased these questions in a very direct manner, but I again reiterate. No assumptions, no accusations. Only honest inquiry. I want NO wiggle room.
And you phoney big brothers leave her alone. She has ten times the courage of any of you (except MAYBE JB) and can handle this herself just fine.
I’ve looked over your blog Jill. You are most exceedingly capable. Showing powerful intelligence, a great vocabulary and a keen command of the language. The hat of this incurable complimentarian is off.
I wait in sincere anticipation of your honorable godly answers to these questions. It will then be your turn to ask me WHATEVER you wish. If you are so inclined.
I think this relates to the topic and the tangent that has consumed this thread:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/why-christians-should-engage-non-christian-art
“Art plays an important part in a life well lived.
A skilled painting, sculpture or photograph can make us uncomfortable and challenge our assumptions. Film can inspire us. Good literature can give us empathy for others outside our own limited realm and shed light on the triumph and destitution of the human condition. Great art points us to grace.
To be completely honest, The Grapes of Wrath spoke to me more than most Christian books I have read.”
Thanks Johne. Right on schedule. Not one single mention of scripture in that entire article as usual. (or your comment here for that matter, just neato sounding rhetoric) Not one. She might even be right on some stuff, but that’s not the point. She doesn’t care to find out from God Himself how to interpret her own heart or the world around her. Does she?
Carly triumphantly proclaims her totally subjective autonomous opinion: “Here is what I have come to believe: that God loves art—music included. And art that makes us happy or makes us think is glorifying to Him.”
Translation? “God must love what I love” How does she know? He just does I guess. We don’t get any scripture, but then again we never do. In her bio thing along the right there it says:
“she now writes about rediscovering Jesus apart from her legalistic past,”
What’s the translation of this now? “having thrown off anything like biblical standards, Carly has found new “liberty” to pursue an illicit slobbering love affair with the world while “discovering a hip n groovy tie dyed Jesus created in her own image”
Don’t get me wrong. I actually do believe that art and artists CAN honor God. Including music. Also, true legalism IS DEADLY? However this humanistic antinomian carnality is not the answer. It’s good ol fashioned rebellious backsliding with a 21st century paint job. I took a glance around her blog. The usual self obsessed emergent liberal paganism. Any more Johne? Oh nevermind. My bohemian bookmark collection is massive enough already. 😀
I don’t know what ‘right on schedule’ means to you. To me, it means ‘this article popped up in my Inbox today and I thought it was both interesting and relevant to the subject of the post.’
re: the ‘there is no scripture’ drum, I have enjoyed Charleton Heston reading scripture, but I have also enjoyed him in The Planet of the Apes.
I mean here you are with another piece minus any reference to the ancient Christian scriptures for support of it’s entire thesis. That’s the IN thing now ya know. “Christianity” with no…. well… Christianity.
I am a Westminster Calvinist Johne. The divines BEGAN their magnificent <a href="http://www.opc.org/wcf.html"CONFESSION with the divinely self authenticating scriptures for extremely good reasons. Among others, It guards against theologically and morally relativistic uncertainty disguised as liberty just like this unholy article you linked to.
Little to no scripture means little to no truth. (Did I really just have to say that?)
(This is why I proofread posts at my own place first. I didn’t this one and broke the HTML tagging in my hurry.)
I mean here you are with another piece minus any reference to the ancient Christian scriptures for support of it’s entire thesis. That’s the IN thing now ya know. “Christianity” with no…. well… Christianity.
I am a Westminster Calvinist Johne. The assembly BEGAN their magnificent CONFESSION with the divinely self authenticating scriptures for extremely good reasons. Among others, It guards against theologically and morally relativistic uncertainty disguised as liberty just like this unholy article you linked to.
Little to no scripture means little to no truth. (Did I really just have to say that?)
You know, it’s weird – what I see is this: “One who posts deliberately provocative messages to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.” There’s a term for that, but it isn’t “Westminster Calvinist.”
“what I see is this: “One who posts deliberately provocative messages to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”
That’s not weird. You need glasses. Spiritual ones. 😀 You have misjudged my intentions by several hundred million light years. I am a Westminster Calvinist who actually takes seriously what that means. “Disruption and argument” for the sake of it could not possibly be further from my intentions.
I honestly don’t know what your intentions are, Greg. Scripture says we can tell a tree by its fruit. Your fruit in this thread has been provocative, off-topic posts, a superior attitude, and language that has caused disruption and argument. That’s near enough the classic definition of a troll to give one pause. Any number of people have tried to reason with you to ease off just a smidge to no avail. What intent should one infer from that?
I’d be more inclined to give you some benefit of the doubt with regard to your intentions if your replies were closer to on-topic without belittling those who don’t agree with you or wish to participate in your tangents. Every time /I/ posted something on-topic in this thread, you’ve shot me down and with what appears to be glee (at best) and prejudice (at worst).
If your true intentions are genuinely benevolent, I would expect to see different, better fruit. I’m not proud. I’m willing to be surprised.
Your fruit inspection skills are informed by liberal publications like Relevant (which is anything but) magazine, instead of the infallible word of the most high God.
Johne, not that your life should be unduly influenced by such things, but you could impress the livin daylights outta me if you would answer my question to Jill as applied to yourself. Are you married? I don’t do tangents. I ask very relevant (unlike the magazine) questions and people like you go on and on for days about ME (as if THAT were on topic), while refusing to answer those simple questions.
Folks don’t like it when someone tries to force moral consistency upon their permissive views. The simple solution is to let the scriptures govern everything you think say or do. Problem solved. That’s why you will never have this trouble with the me friend. You can ask me absolutely anything and I WILL answer without the slightest trepidation.
As I’ve said a hundred times already. I stand on the shoulders of a great cloud of witnesses. It’s a great place to be Johne. Where you live, everyone does what’s right in their own eyes, like in the days of the judges. That’s not gospel. It’s post modern relativistic uncertainty.
JB, I haven’t forgotten about you.
Where’s the “Like” button?
I meant for John’s comment.
“Like.” 😉
Greg,
I noted the dictionary definition of a troll and noted that your behavior in this thread fits the definition. Instead of owning that, you turn it around and continue to point the finger elsewhere. I’m nearly at the ‘throw my arms up and shake the dust off my sandals’ stage.
I did ask you something up-thread which you never responded to. I asked what was the topic so near to Jesus that he was sweating drops of blood when He prayed, what was one of the great themes is from the book of Acts, what topic appears in the conclusion of Romans 15, what Paul is referring to in Eph. 4: 1 – 6, Phil. 2: 1 – 8, Col. 2:2, 3:15, and what Jesus was getting at in John 13:35. As this is a scripture question, I’m sure this will be right down your alley.
(And, no, I’m not answering your question. At this point, it seems prudent not to give you any more ammo to shoot at me with.)
You know what? I need to confess something – on Sunday, my pastor preached from Matthew 20. In the past two chapters, Jesus had been relentless attacking human pride. I started grappling with something on Sunday but I didn’t seize the opportunity at that time to confess and repent. I guess I should do that now. There are two ways to test pride. I have failed that test.
Greg, I have been proud, and I’m sorry. That is not appropriate for a servant of God. Mea culpa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjBBmMbkC0Y
Johne Cook, you never answered me whether you want answers, including to the one I must have missed?
I’ve listened to your Pastor’s sermon 3 times in my car. Though there is no doubt he and disagree on quite a bit, I rather enjoyed it and found it edifying. This certainly is not a “mine against yours” type of thing at all, but I thought I’d return the favor. This is my pastor a couple years ago preaching about self righteousness. He’s pretty young too.
http://tiribulus.net/audio/Brooks_Self_righteousness.mp3
I didn’t get a chance to respond to your last comment Johne because I have at least two people including one not from here and JB who is, ahead of you. Are you retracting those questions? I’d be happy to answer.
If your apology is to me, I wasn’t looking for one, but I accept.
I have also downloaded your pastor’s sermon and will listen soon.
Guys, guys. Internet trolls aren’t like stone trolls – they won’t turn into rock when the sun rises, so there’s no point in keeping them arguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmISCcWcepY
Who would ever think that all this bitter vitriol could come from behind that pretty smile? Wadda bummer 🙁
I found the Focus on the Family review a bit funny. The “secular film industry” didn’t make The Passion of the Christ. They all passed on Mel Gibson’s film, he produced it himself. The review, and some others, make it sound like Christianity lives in a bubble and that violence doesn’t really exist alongside it and they are somehow shocked that evil exists. How do
we engage the world with these mindsets? I suspect many do not.
All that aside, if the Generally Accepted Definition of a “Christian film” is, “Any film created by Christians with some sort of Christian theme for Christians,” then no, Eli isn’t a Christian film. This definition, often also applied to Christian fiction, likely doesn’t include books by Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. We’ve been down that path before. “Being Christian” is a far more vast place than what many have defined it as.
Even if we came up with a better definition, Eli is a different case. A case where Christian themes emerged on their own strengths, similar to films such as Signs or Henry Poole was Here. Should Christians fear films like these? No, because they show Christianity’s strength outside of the bubble. There are many films that distort and suppress Christian themes, but many that do not.
Eli largely wins through its visual style and script. Is it overly violent? I think it ranks less on the violence scale than Gladiator or Braveheart, but above The Patriot (all R-rated films). Some automatically run from that rating, but that isn’t a fair assessment. Films like The Patriot, Machine Gun Preacher or The Passion aren’t R because they are evil/profane/bad, but because they are realistic. Sometimes adult just means adult.
Greg, I wanted to take a minute to answer the questions you raised in THIS COMMENT above, and then I’m bowing out of this discussion. I suggest you do the same.
You asked: “If YOU believed it would be sin for yourself or your family to perform or produce a work of modern media, would it then be sin for you to promote and finance the sin of others by consuming it? Yes or no please? Here I’ll get real specific for you. Nude sex scene. Real live people really nude. Handling and fondling and groping and licking and kissing and __________. That’s not fake, like the violence. Those people are really doing that. Would God approve if that woman were your wife? Or daughter? Would He or they approve if the man were you? Would an explanation like “well that’s just acting” fly in you family? Does it fly with God? What about language? Is it sin for people to REALLY use profane degrading language and blaspheme and debase the name of our God and in many cases His only begotten Son?”
My answer: No. I don’t believe “it would be sin for [my]self or [my] family to perform or produce a work of modern media,” even those with questionable content. You’ve effectively, but unfairly, whitewashed an entire industry and its product, and branded it as sinful without possibly seeing everything and knowing everything that is a part of that industry or the people involved in it. Also, this promotes a “touch not, taste not” form of religion that denies ones’ personal relationship with the Holy Spirit in favor of an external tablet of conduct and restrictions. It’s not much different than saying ALL Catholics are going to hell or ALL rock music is evil or ALL meat eaters are killers or EVERYONE that has a tattoo is damned. Is there moral sewage in Hollywood? Absolutely. But I believe such an approach is terribly flawed. Whether or not you believe St. Paul’s “meat sacrificed to idols” concept applies here, I do. That was a uniquely cultural issue that appealed to Old Covenant ethos — “Don’t eat this! Don’t touch that!” — that now came under the New Covenant paradigm. Thus, the appeal to the believer’s conscience. Furthermore, your approach also indiscriminately attaches the label of “evil” to things — namely art and art viewing — that are far more nuanced than you are allowing.
Let me give you an example. Hieronymus Bosch, 16th century Christian artist, used fantastic, sometimes disturbing imagery, to illustrate religious concepts. His classic Garden of Earthly Delights , depicts the horrors of hell, and contains ghastly scenes that include nude figures, fornication, eroticism, torture, vomit, excrement, etc. You may dismiss this as “just a painting” and “not the real thing.” They are however the same types of images you decry in your film analyses (unless you would be suggesting that illustrated erotic images are impotent). So would it be a sin for a Christian woman to pose nude for Mr. Bosch’s religious work? Mind you, this was/is a common practice for artists. What if that work ultimately influences some people to eschew hell for heaven, as it did Peter Hitchens, brother of famous atheist Christopher Hitchens, who was so disturbed by Bosch’s painting that he eventually came to Christ. These are the types of nuances that I think we miss out on by issuing blanket condemnations of things like film and art and fiction. There is a much finer line than we like to admit.
Of course, not all films involve nude sex scenes. Or as you aptly described, “Real live people really nude. Handling and fondling and groping and licking and kissing.” I’d venture to say that the majority of films — other than actual porn — do not contain such imagery in proliferation. R-rated movies typically make much less money than G and PG-rated. Can a Christian actor, director, producer, etc. be involved in making or selling a film that contained nude sex scenes. Frankly, I cannot make a blanket judgement. Obviously, Christian actors must wrestle with such decisions. Can a sex scene between a husband and wife be discreet? How much nudity will there be? Is partial nudity unacceptable? Is nudity acceptable if it isn’t gratuitous (showing someone’s rear end through the back of a hospital gown or a rape victim or a woman breastfeeding.) What is the intended purpose of the nudity? See? It’s not that simple. Suggesting that Christian actors are automatically sinning simply because they choose a role that involves nudity or a sex scene is, I think, misguided.
Greg, let me also say, I find it rather fascinating that you seem to be giving violence a pass. “[Sex scenes are] not fake, like the violence.” So it is tolerable to show dismemberment, rape, torture, etc.? There is good reason to believe that seeding our minds with violent images is just as bad, if not worse, than with sex. Regarding profanity, it’s a subject I talk about a lot here and would encourage you to check out some of my other posts on the subject to get my gist. Bottom line: The OKJV version uses terminology that some would consider profanity today. It’s a sliding scale, in my mind. Words do not have magic power, which is the danger, I believe, of drawing a list of censurable language content for ALL believers.
Anyway, I have to run. I appreciate your tenacity to debate and get your point across. But I simply must ask that you tone it down. I generally do not ban commenters from my site. But, frankly, you’re being so relentless and combative, I have to consider that an option. I hope it doesn’t come to that, brother. Grace and peace!
“There is good reason to believe that seeding our minds with violent images is just as bad, if not worse, than with sex.”
Thank you, Mike, for putting that in your comment. It’s the big thing that’s bothered me for a long time in debates about the content of Christian fiction. All this hand-wringing and rending garments and gnashing of teeth about swearing and sex, yet why not the same questions about violence?
From the 25th of last month in response to a lady who showed up at my site and asked the question on hers “Hey, if the prophet Elijah can behead the 400 prophets of Baal in the Bible, why do we freak out if we see it in a modern film?” She linked back to the article we are in now. My response is <a href="https://plus.google.com/102843657126047990872/posts/Y8YxdDKpGHM"THERE
I concentrate on bad, especially blasphemous language and sexual contact, kissing and nudity because it’s real as Mike has said. Our bloodthirstiness has also grown from a man clutching his bloodless chest and falling over 60 years ago to where absolute ultra realistic spraying spurting disemboweling gore and gurgling agonizing death is mundane.
Everything that is meaningful and precious has been vulgarized and trivialized be our servile addiction to visual entertainment media.
I’m still deliberating on how to proceed. I do respect that this is your site. You’re simply wrong Mike and I can prove it. Say that to me and I’m I’ll ears. Being proven wrong means to me that I have more truth than I did before. A thing for which you, or anybody would have my have most emphatic gratitude. I live by Proverbs 9:9. I only ask credible biblical evidence. I’ll probably write a response and not post it here, but link it from my place.
Firefox crashed before I was done with the above post and somehow submitted it unfinished. I apologize even though it wasn’t my fault.
From the 25th of last month in response to a lady who showed up at my site and asked the question on hers “Hey, if the prophet Elijah can behead the 400 prophets of Baal in the Bible, why do we freak out if we see it in a modern film?” She linked back to the article we are in now. My response is <a href="https://plus.google.com/102843657126047990872/posts/Y8YxdDKpGHM"THERE
I concentrate on bad, especially blasphemous language and sexual contact, kissing and nudity because it’s real as Mike has said. Our bloodthirstiness has also grown from a man clutching his bloodless chest and falling over 60 years ago to where absolute ultra realistic spraying spurting disemboweling gore and gurgling agonizing death is mundane.
Everything that is meaningful and precious has been vulgarized and trivialized be our servile addiction to visual entertainment media.
I’m still deliberating on how to proceed. I do respect that this is your site. You’re simply wrong Mike and I can prove it. Say that to me and I’m I’ll ears. Being proven wrong means to me that I have more truth than I did before. A thing for which you, or anybody would have my have most emphatic gratitude. I live by Proverbs 9:9. I only ask credible biblical evidence. I’ll probably write a response and not post it here, but link it from my place. Just to be clear Mike. You DID just say that appearing nude and in sex scenes would be blessed by God for yourself and or your wife? With other people I assume too? Am I correct? And, contrary to Exodus 3, God will apparently hold you guiltless after all for taking his name in vain as long s it’s on a movie screen? This is what you said above. My full answer will not be here. You make me very sad Mike you really do. honestly, would have called someone a liar who attributed something like this to you had I not seen it first 🙁
For ease of access, here’s what I said to the woman (who is black) last month for those without a Google account.
From the 25th of last month in response to a lady who showed up at my site and asked the question on hers “Hey, if the prophet Elijah can behead the 400 prophets of Baal in the Bible, why do we freak out if we see it in a modern film?” She linked back to the article we are in now. My response follows
“Because we DON’T SEE it in the bible. We read about it in non visual literary form. A prophet of God executing idolators. That’s all it says, “Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. That’s the direct quote.
“No spurting spraying blood and crackling bones and sloppy slurping guts or none of the sick gore guzzling trash that passes as art in today’s society.
Carole I take it you see that my answers to others, answers your unfortunate misuse of Acts 17 at my site?
Get this lesson now please. God’s divine prerogative of reportage in His directly inspired scriptures does NOT translate into a license for filth from modern libertines claiming His name.
All that said, you are course welcome ANYtime at my place to say ANYthing. Even if it’s just to yell at me. I can take it 🙂
Lest you have any untoward suspicions my dear. Though myself white as the wind driven snow, my church is 95% black and so are my Facebook friends. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002020333790?
…. uh, I have to ask ….. why does the level of melanin in this woman’s skin have ANY bearing on this?
Excuse me while I employ the literary device of the rant:
Why is it that in every other aspect of life, when the words “take his name” are used, they refer to, say, a woman who takes the name of her husband, or a king who is is referred to by the country. Or an ambassador.
But when we use that in terms of the 10 Commandments, we think it means the words that come out of our mouth. Not what we call ourselves.
Yet over and over, God tells the people of Israel that one of the things he’s bothered by is how their actions make his name profaned among the nations.
Their actions.
They’ve taken his name, and aren’t living in a way that is worthy of that name. They aren’t “walking in a way that is worthy of the calling with which they are called.”
And yet, in American Christianity, if we can be as obnoxious as we like, but hey! If we aren’t using four letter words, or saying OMG, we are perfectly following that Command.
We have taken his name – Christ+ian. But have we taken that name in vain? Let me remind you that actually, the people of God were rebuked for making vows — swearing (the original use of that word) in names other than his.
Now our harsh, unkind, or otherwise abusive language will reflect badly on the name we’ve taken – Christ+ian. So that’s why we should watch the words we say.
Okay, rant over.
Joanna asks: …. uh, I have to ask ….. why does the level of melanin in this woman’s skin have ANY bearing on this?
Because I happen to have VERY extensive experience with black people (I live in Detroit and attend a mostly black church) and some of the material and links she has, led me to believe that she MAY be suspicious of a white man’s criticism. Maybe. So I preemptively put that to rest. IF she comes here and says that she never would have had such suspicions, I will happily defer to her statement.
AND: “Excuse me while I employ the literary device of the rant: followed by her “rant”
That is not a rant my dear. Those are great points and ones I take with the utmost seriousness. I commend to you the Westminster Larger Catechism of 1646-47. Please Read QUESTIONS 112, 113 and 114. In fact for a real education on Christian morality that’s actually biblical, start reading at question 91 though say 151. The 120 plus men who spent several years hammering out their confession and catechisms would weep bitterly if they read the comments in this thread and many others. They would be aghast and appalled that anyone dare name the name of the spotless lamb of God and promote as “liberty” in His name what we see here. You simply have no idea.
With all due respect, being a rant and making good points are far from exclusive. The rant has a rich and long literary history in the world of rhetoric and essays. Most great authors of the last century employed it to some degree in their writings.
That said, you’ve just completely proven to me that you care only about wining your argument. The way *you* brought her skin melanin levels into this shows you were more interested in preemptively crushing her objections than in reasoning with her as a member of the body of Christ.
How magnanimous of you. How *Christ*-like.
Okay, I’m out of here. I came in as a troll to answer a troll, and then got pulled into the very same trolling argument.
Oops. O_o
My life rule about the internets is you never convince anyone but yourself of your own right-ness. The only way change happens is in relationship. Face to face. Where you are in a place to speak truth into the lives of those God has place you with. Everything else is empty rhetoric and self-congratulatory verbiage. Like that^ What I just wrote. >_< 😀
Please stop. Just stop. You are upsetting this entire community, from what I can see. You charge in here like a rutting bull invading a picnic. You show no respect to anyone. You are making me want to avoid a place I’ve visited for years and have made many friends.
It’s not my blog. I can’t ban you. But I can ask you to please just go away.
Joanna, my above was in response to Greg.
I got it — that’s what happens when you have multiple people respond to the same comment. Otherwise it would be offset, like this one. 🙂
Joanna,
You have given me a new understanding of that command. I’ve always heard and understood it as “Use the Lord’s name”, not as “Identify with the Lord’s name.” My wife “took my name” when we got married and her behavior has honored me at every step. I now believe that’s what that command was intended to mean.