Mel Gibson
So this may be overdue, but I wanted to comment on the whole Mel Gibson escapade. He made some pretty strong anti-Jewish ("Semitic" technically refers to Arabic people as well) comments after being pulled over drunk. As a result, a bunch of Hollywood has disowned him, he is losing business opportunities, and many have refused to forgive him in any way.
Here's my first problem with the whole thing: he was drunk. He was drunk, for goodness sake! His blood alcohol level was .12 at the police station, meaning he was a lot higher when he got in his car in the first place. Now, that's no excuse for what was said, but anyone who has been around anyone else who is drunk knows that *gasp* alcohol impairs your ability to reason. Emotions take over and things are said that aren't meant.
I think a more important issue at hand, though, is the self-righteous standard our culture has of public conduct, while simultaneously declaring "to each his own" - what's right for you is right for you. We leap at the first sign of corporate mistakes, but are afraid to say homosexuality is immoral. We condemn the tobacco industry, yet enact laws to keep pornography legal. We ridicule McDonald's for "making" us fat, yet use profanity in public without shame. We declare a celebrity dead because of a drunken rant, yet can't wait to hear the new gossip on celebrity divorces or extra-marital affairs. Our societal standards are upside down!
Now if Gibson had not apologized, my opinion would have been different. Yet, he gave a very humble and thorough apology. Those who are refusing to forgive him are bringing judgment on themselves. More importantly, though, our society is bringing judgment to itself in its distortion of true ethics, trading in the fight against true evil for the fight against fake evil.
posted by Chris Hill @ 8/30/2006 10:12:00 PM
23 comments
23 Comments:
It also would be a good thing to forgive him for taking the death of Jesus Christ and turning it into a form of entertainment by means of a multi-million dollar Hollywood production.
You're right about society, though.
Chris,
Don't be shocked, but I agree with you. Good job. It is also pretty ironic that anti-Jewish, Hollywood leftists are screaming "anti-semitism" at Mel Gibson.... But of course they don't see the contradiction. By the way I finally made a blog post for you. It is kind of long though.
Dominic,
It would also be a good thing to thank him for reaching millions of people touched by the movie who would not have otherwise been exposed to the gospel in such an emotional way. How many spiritual conversations (and probably conversions) came about because of it? I can attest to many, just from the conversations I had with non-believers at school and work who would not otherwise have been open to discussion. By the way, there is a Jesus film ministry put on by Campus Crusade that has been used by God to save the souls of millions of people. They don't use Mel Gibson's film (because they already made their own, decades ago), but the concept is much the same. I don't see why Mel Gibson needs forgiveness for making it. I'm also not aware of anyone who found the film to be a source of 'entertainment'.
Dominic, your snide comments are highly unfounded. The movie even caused some criminals to be so overwhelmed by their sins that they turned themselves in. Gibson threw a ton of his own money into the film with no guarantee of return because no one in hollywood supported him. He also received intense criticism and personal rejection as a result of the movie. I don't think he made it for the money.
Guys, I believe this movie brings the whole of humanity one step closer to the final state of apostate christianity. Go ahead and think its great, God can work even through even the most wicked of devices. Im not even going to entertain you on this one.
However, Chris, I would be interested in hearing your testimony of how you were born again. Maybe in your next blog entry. Id be happy to share my experience.
Dominic,
Your comments are somewhat hysterical. I don't mean that in a cynical manner; I'm truly confused by what you said. Are you questioning my salvation?
Chris
Because we are finding so many things to disagree on, I thought perhaps we could share a common experience I am assuming we both have had. Why you would want to think I am trying to question your faith is beyond me.
Because all of a sudden, in the middle of a discussion on Mel Gibson, after saying something I support "brings the whole of humanity one step closer to the final state of apostate christianity", you asked me to share my testimony. Sharing testimonies is a good thing, but that is not the topic at hand here, nor do you moderate the discussions on this blog (although you are again trying to do so). Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from side comments.
Dominic,
I would honestly like to know your answer to this one: is the Jesus Film sinful?
Id rather not get into this but if you really want to know my opinion about the Passion Ill respond more fully later.
Sinful? As in it is not an inspired work of God? As in having its origins in the systems of the world rather than in the Kindgom of God? As in doing something out of your own natural wisdom and expecting God's blessing on it? Yes, I do believe so.
It's pretty impressive that God used such a horrible sin (www.jesusfilm.org) to bring more than 200 million people to acceptance of Christ.
Do you believe it is a sin to display images of Christ? (If so you may be more comfortable in this other religion.)
Dominic, are you really serious? Your words stand alone. I need not even critique you.
I guess I have not seen the Jesus Film. I thought this was blog entry was about Mel Gibson and his actions. To talk about other things would seem to be off topic.
Ill try to watch the Jesus Film when I get some time.
You two are asking questions with the sole intention of trying to catch me slip up at some point so you can critcize me. Remember how the Pharisees would continually do that to Jesus? He called them a brood of vipers.
James 2:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure..."
No Dominic. You've already displayed odd beliefs. My sole objective with the question above (which you ignored) is to understand just how deeply those odd beliefs extend so I know whether or not to ever bother discussing reasonable theology with you in the future (to clarify: by "odd" I mean "deviating from traditional Christian doctrine," not "stupid" or "retarded"). I'm pretty sure I have the answer now. And I'm not insulting you by saying that--I am merely acknowledging the truth that if two people start from completely different premises there is no point trying to come to agreement with that person since it cannot be obtained. That's why I want clarity on this. If, for example, you believe it is a sin to display an image of Christ and I do not, we are starting from such different positions that there is no purpose in discussing whether or not a movie about Jesus is a sin--obviously you would think it is and I would think it's not. Case closed. So are we, or are we not, coming from two completely different assumptions? If yes, then we are wasting your time and mine by discussing this.
The Jesus film was brought up because it has so many similarities to the Passion yet is also a very effective ministry. How is that not on topic?
No, Dominic, we're not trying to make you slip at all. In fact, when you said you weren't going to make comments, I said, "good." You said that the Jesus Film was sinful. There was no trick in that. If you thought we were refering to the Passion (a different film), then you failed to read what was made very clear in previous posts. To blame your comments on someone else is irresponsible. If you think you erred, there is always room for correcting oneself. However, there is no room to blame others for your actions. That just digs a deeper hole.
This was a worthwhile read (posted at townhall.com)
Jews shot in Seattle, Left angry at Mel Gibson
August 8, 2006
Dennis Prager
On July 28, 2006, a Muslim entered the building of the Seattle Jewish Federation and shot every Jew he saw, murdering one woman and wounding five others.
On the same day, Mel Gibson was arrested on DUI charges and while intoxicated let loose with anti-Semitic invective at the Jewish police officer who arrested him.
Question: Which story has most troubled the Left?
The answer is known to any American who can hear or read.
So, the real question is: Why? Why has the shooting and murder of Jews elicited less angst from the Left than the anti-Semitic statements made by Mel Gibson when drunk?
The answers are very troubling. As Time magazine said about global warming (but never about Islamic terror), "Be worried, very worried."
We should be worried about this: The liberal world fears -- and much of it loathes -- fundamentalist Christians considerably more than it does fundamentalist Muslims.
This is as true of most Jewish liberals -- even though conservative Christians are Israel's and the Jews' most loyal supporters and even though Nazi-like anti-Semitism permeates much of the Muslim world -- as it is of most other liberals, certainly including the mainstream media.
That is why Jewish writer Zev Chafets wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "On the same day Gibson got into trouble in Malibu, a fellow named Naveed Afzal Haq brought a pistol to the Jewish Federation office in Seattle and shot six women, killing one. Two days later, this personal jihad -- one of the most gory anti-Jewish crimes in American history -- got second billing on the ADL website, under "Mel Gibson's Apology for Tirade 'Insufficient.' " (For the record, the ADL later announced it had accepted Mel Gibson's apology.)
This is one more example of the greatest flaw of contemporary liberalism -- its inability to recognize and confront the greatest evils. Since the 1960s, when liberalism became indistinguishable from the Left -- e.g., when New York Times positions became indistinguishable from those of The Nation -- liberals tended to attack opponents of evil far more than those who actually committed evil. The Left (around the world) was far more antagonistic to Ronald Reagan than to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, and far more disturbed by anti-Communism than by Communism.
So, too, today. For example, with few exceptions (the liberal columnist Thomas Friedman being one of the most notable) one only hears conservatives use the term "Islamo-fascism." Nearly the entire academic world that discusses the issue is far more concerned with the threat of "Islamophobia" than of Islamo-fascism. Liberal and left-wing anger is largely reserved for conservatives and especially conservative Christians, while analogous antipathy about Islamic groups with genocidal designs on Israel or America is largely to be found on the Right.
The liberal doctrine on fundamentalist American Christians is that they are the moral equivalent of fundamentalist Muslims and constitute a similar threat to our republic. As bestselling author Karen Armstrong said to Bill Moyers on PBS, "Fundamentalists are not friends of democracy. And that includes your fundamentalists in the United States."
Regarded by the liberal media as perhaps the greatest living historian and commentator on religion, Karen Armstrong does not even see the Muslim fundamentalist support for murder of innocents as a distinguishing feature. According to Armstrong, "Christian fundamentalists in the United States have committed fewer acts of terror than the others for two main reasons: they live in a more peaceful society . . . [and they] believe that the democratic federal government of the United States will collapse without their needing to take action: God will see to it" [beliefnet.com].
The antipathy toward Christian fundamentalists and conservatives is why Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic statements trouble the Left more than Naveed Haq and the genocidal anti-Semitism permeating the Muslim world. And what is it about those Christians that most disturbs the Left? That they talk in terms of good and evil and believe the former must fight the latter, precisely the area of the Left's greatest weakness.
Let us also remember that the same evening Mel Gibson was arrested, a Muslim American shot several Jewish aid workers in Seattle, killing at least one of them. The mainstream media, as they often do, greatly overemphasize trivial evils and misdeeds, while largely ignoring the worst evils that occur. This is why we heard very little about what happened in Seattle, but an overwhelming amount of what Mel Gibson said while drunk. Another black eye in a long string of black eyes for our news media.
Jed
Agreed. A Christian who says anti-Jewish remarks is worse than a Muslim who kills Jews. Again: a society with upside down values.
Yes, Christians are depicted far more negatively in our news media than radical Muslims are. A couple reasons for this:
-The left is a cowardly movement. They know Christians and Jews won't conspire to kill them, unlike some Muslims, if they speak poorly of their religion. This is why virtually no American mainstream news outlet published the Mohammad cartoons during the riots last spring.
-The greatest weakness of the left is their inability to identify and fight real evil. Fighting real evil is one of the core beliefs of Christianity. Because of this, the left fought anti-Communism, not Communism, during the Cold War, and today, they fight Islamo-phobia, not Islamic fundamentialism.
In sum, the left fights the good, or those who fight the bad, and never do they call the bad, bad. On the left, the bad are called misunderstood, helpless, or victimized, but never bad. Only the good are bad on the left.
Jed
i'm now getting into this conversation now. Dominic, if you're still following this blog, I am confused as to what you find sinful about mel gibson's movie. Yes, I admit, not every bit of it was truly inspired by God. We don't know how Jesus fell on the way to the cross, or whether it took several romans to subdue peter as he cut a man's ear off, but i don't think that was the point of the movie. All of the major events and actions occurred in accordance with scripture. Jesus being sent to pilate, pilate sending him away, jesus praying for strength in the garden of gesthemane, the apostles falling asleep, peter and all of the apostles falling asleep, jesus being whipped brtually so that he was 'marred beyond any man' almost not recognizable as a human, being ridiculed and denounced by the religious leaders of the day (with several exceptions that were also showed) jesus being a humble servant to God and to mankind until the last breath and being raised to life. I find all of this true and divine. Is the movie divine? No. but it is based on God's word and tells the fundamental truths that God cares about and what changes a man into a child of light, a child of God. It is not a matter of salvation or should it divide the body of christ if we question how jesus fell, or whether jesus saw the devil as a human being as depicted in the movie. but we do know that satan, in all his power and strength, was there trying to throw jesus off of his pedestal as the true king of kings and lord of lords. Jesus clearly saw this in a spiritual way, and in a movie the only way to adequately depict that and get the affect is to show a person in the form of satan. If you disagree with that i can understand, but these differences do not make the movie a sinful production of mankind.
I also have not seen the jesus film but i know that it has saved hundreds of millions and will continue to do so until the technology of mankind is rendered useless. By the witnesses of others i have to say that there must be something life changing in it in order for it to effect millions upon millions.
Dominic, although there have been some rough words shared here, i think i represent chris and jordan in saying that we are not trying to trap you a pharisee, but are trying to comprehend your difference of opinion on an issue that has been, by a large majority i think in the christian world, a great success in telling the story of christ without dumming it down or taking away from his words. Even in the beginning it says, 'but he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.'
with the spirit of brotherhood in christ,
erik
i am so sorry, that last paragraph should read, 'we are not trying to trap you like (we are) a pharisee, as a pharisee does'
forgive the error, no harm intended,
erik
Post a Comment
<< Home