How Was Jesus God?

Stephen Fowl

A new reading of the New Testament shows that the earliest Christology is also the highest.

Go and Do Likewise
Go and Do Likewise
God Crucified: Monothiesm and Christology in the New Testamentby Richard Bauckham Eerdmans, 1999 79 pp.; $12, paper

The virtues of this superb book lie as much in its critique as in its constructive proposal. In a thin volume—compressed from his Didsbury Lectures at the British Isles Nazarene College, slightly revised and lightly annotated—Richard Bauckham lays out the outlines for a decisive shift in contemporary approaches to New Testament Christology. The compression of Bauckham’s argument comes at a cost. He leaves out the fuller marshalling of textual evidence to support his claims, and he promises a volume that will take up that task in the near future. Yet there is a sense in which this support is not necessary to the central theses of his argument, because the argument does not primarily depend on bringing new evidence to bear on an old problem. Rather, Bauckham proposes a new—clearly superior—way of reading the evidence about the relationship between the New Testament’s claims about Jesus’ identity and the identity of God as understood within the context of Second Temple Judaism.

Over the past generation, the most common way of presenting New Testament Christology has been a History of Religions approach, which seeks to relate the New Testament’s claims about Christ to conceptions of monotheism current in early Judaism. On this view, the more strict the monotheism of the Second Temple period, the more difficult it becomes for the first Jewish followers of Jesus to attribute real divinity to him.

The solution, from a History of Religions standpoint, lies in revising our understanding of Jewish monotheism at this time by attending to the numerous semi-divine intermediary figures who appear in Jewish literature of the period. Such an approach reveals that early Judaism did not conceive of monotheism as strictly as one might think. Hence the first Christians could rely on views about these intermediary figures for the conceptual and theological tools they would need to fashion their accounts of Jesus’ connection to God. The New Testament’s claims about Jesus’ divinity, then, are not all that radical. Rather, they represent a sort of ratcheting up of the already existing notion of semi-divine intermediary figures.

Bauckham proposes a radical departure from this way of approaching New Testament Christology by focusing on the way God’s identity was perceived. “What has been lacking in the whole discussion of this issue has been an adequate understanding of the ways in which Second Temple Judaism understood the uniqueness of God,” he writes. “By acquiring such an understanding, we shall be able to see that what the New Testament texts in general do is take up the well-known Jewish monotheistic ways of distinguishing the one God from all other reality and use these precisely as ways of including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God as commonly understood in Second Temple Judaism.”

As Bauckham presents the problem of relating Jesus and Jewish montheism, the key issue has little to do with intermediary figures. Rather, the crucial first step is characterizing the unique identity of the God of Israel. A full account of God’s unique identity would be beyond the scope of Bauckham’s work here. His account, however, is sufficient to advance the several key claims.

First, two features were primarily characteristic of God’s identity: “the one God is the sole Creator of all things and. … the one God is the sole Ruler of all things.” Further, worship of this one God corresponds to God’s identity. Worship entails recognition of God’s unique identity and can only be offered to the Creator and Ruler of all, not to any created subject beings. Finally, as the intermediary figures are clearly created and subject, they are unambiguously distinct from God’s identity. They can in no way provide a bridge over which New Testament thinking about Christ can inch its way toward divinity.

Personifications of God, however, such as Word and Wisdom, obviously can be included within God’s identity without ever compromising the singularity of that identity. Thus, Bauckham asserts, “The decisive step of including Jesus in the unique identity of God was not a step that could be facilitated by prior, less radical steps. It was a step which, whenever it were taken, had to be taken simply for its own sake and de novo.”

This paves the way for Bauckham to make two related but separable claims. The first is historical: The earliest Christology in the New Testament is also the highest. At this point Bauckham can only delimit the contours of his argument. In short, he notes the role of Psalm 110:1 (“The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make my enemies a footstool for your feet’—NIV; this verse is cited 21 times in the New Testament) in early Christology, as well as Philippians 2:6-11. In these and other texts, it becomes clear that the New Testament writers ascribe to Christ the same sort of sovereignty over all things that is constitutive of God’s identity. Further, though less widespread, the New Testament also includes Christ in God’s creative activity.

These brief expositions set up Bauckham’s second and, more significant, claim: The New Testament does not simply associate Christ with God—a move that would compromise the singularity of God’s identity. Rather, it includes Christ within God’s identity. The New Testament’s claims about Christ’s inclusion within God’s identity, however, do require further specification of God’s identity. In his third chapter, Bauckham explores one way in which this is done. His example goes right to the heart of the matter.

The crucifixion provides the occasion at which the first Christians must further elaborate God’s identity, he writes. “The profoundest points of New Testament Christology occur when the inclusion of the exalted Christ in the divine identity entails the inclusion of the crucified Christ in the divine identity, and when the christological pattern of humiliation and exaltation is recognized as revelatory of God, indeed as the definitive revelation of who God is.”

One of the keys for the New Testament writers as they articulate this claim is Isaiah 40-55. Bauckham presents three examples of early Christian readings of Isaiah 40-55: Philippians 2:6-11, Revelation, and John. Again, these discussions will require further detail in the larger volume. Nevertheless, there is enough detail here to allow even those who disagree on specific details to agree on the basic thrust of Bauckham’s presentation.

Let me reiterate that this is an excellent book. In clear, concise terms, it makes a compelling case for scholars to redirect their attentions when it comes to New Testament Christology. Moreover, it manifestly displays the fruitfulness of focusing on God’s identity as a key to understanding New Testament Christology.

One of the great advantages of reviewing a book that points so directly to a larger subsequent volume is that one can use the occasion to make suggestions about things that might be taken up in the work to come. I have three suggestions in this regard.

First, although he may not see his work this way, Bauckham’s focus on God’s identity implicitly poses sharp and probing questions to the entire History of Religions approach to New Testament Christology. As Bauckham shows, issues of God’s identity and the ways in which the New Testament positions Christ in relation to that identity require close attention to the relevant texts and an unpacking of the logical and theological implications of holding those texts to be true. Such an approach is much like providing a grammar for the use of terms like “God” and “Christ” in the biblical writings. If this is correct, it would seem to marginalize severely the importance of using background material in ways typical of a History of Religions approach. A brief discussion of this from Baukham’s perspective would prove interesting.

The two further suggestions take up some isolated comments that Bauckham offers regarding the constructive theological appropriation of his work. Bauckham makes no direct arguments about how his approach to New Testament Christology might be placed within a larger narrative of the shape of Christology leading to Nicea and Chalcedon. Nevertheless, in the few offhand remarks he does make, he appears to accept the view that post- New Testament Christological reflection seems to make a decisive shift from Jewish to Greek categories, from concerns with the identity of the God as rendered in the Old Testament to concerns about God’s being.

While I do not want to build too much on these isolated comments, I think there is a strong body of patristic scholarship that recognizes Nicene dogma as a serious, scripturally grounded pattern of judgments designed to explicate further implications of the New Testament’s inclusion of Christ within the identity of the one God of Israel. I agree with Bauckham’s strong thesis about New Testament Christology, but he does not seem to recognize the intense pressure that the New Testament’s Christological claims exert on the singularity of God’s identity.

It is one thing to note that personifications of divine attributes such as Word and Wisdom can be included in God’s identity without compromising monotheism. When those personifications are also then applied to the Christ, the Son of the living God, it is clear that the New Testament is including Christ within God’s singular identity. What is not clear enough in the New Testament is how this inclusion avoids fracturing the singularity of that identity. What is further required—and what orthodox developments provide—is a more developed, scripturally normed grammar of divine singularity. I would, therefore, be interested in seeing a further chapter both recognizing the pressure New Testament Christology puts on monotheism and tracing the continuities between Bauckham’s thesis and later Christological developments.

Finally, Bauckham’s closing sentences must be called to account. Here he accuses patristic theologians of failing to come to grips with the key feature of God’s identity as revealed in the New Testament, that is, that God’s identity is revealed in the human life and crucifixion of Jesus. “That God was crucified is indeed a patristic formulation,” he writes, “but the Fathers largely resisted its implications for the doctrine of God. Adequate theological appropriation of the deepest insights of New Testament Christology. … will not occur until Martin Luther, Karl Barth and more recent theologies of the cross [viz., Moltmann].”

If the recent work of the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson is correct, however, Christian theology from Justin through Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor was a sustained, if not always comfortable, struggle to account for the fact that the incarnate crucified one was also God. Moreover, in the embodied

theology of the early martyrs there seems to be ample material to suggest that theologies of the cross were both understood and lived throughout the patristic period.

I offer these suggestions and concerns not so much as criticisms, but as a way of suggesting how theologically fruitful I expect Bauckham’s work here to be.

God Crucified would make a fine classroom text and would work well with church groups. Bauckham has laid out the skeleton of a significant and, to my mind, correct argument for a major revision of both the procedures and the results of New Testament Christology, and I eagerly await the subsequent volume.

Stephen Fowl is professor of theology at Loyola College in Maryland. Coeditor of the journal Modern Theology from 1990 to 1995, he is the author most recently of Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Blackwell).

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine.Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.

Theology

To Embrace the Enemy

interview with Miroslav Volf

Is reconciliation possible in the wake of such evil?

Christianity Today September 1, 2001
Miroslav Volf is known for grappling with matters of grace and forgiveness in the face of great pain and transgression. His widely read 1996 book Exclusion & Embrace probed theological implications of reconciliation in a fractured world. A professor of theology at Yale Divinity School, Volf’s interest in reconciliation is not simply academic. Born in Croatia, he came of age in communist Yugoslavia, where he witnessed the ethnic tensions between the Croats and Serbs. After the fall of communism in 1991, those tensions escalated into a bloody war.

Last week in New York City, while terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and thousands of innocent lives, Volf was only a few blocks away, speaking at the Annual International Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations on the importance of reconciling with our enemies. A week later, Christianity Today senior news writer Tony Carnes spoke to him about terrorism and forgiveness.

When did you discover that the World Trade Center had been attacked?

After my talk, as I was leaving the United Nations building. Some of the U.N. personnel informed us that there had been a major terrorist attack. As I walked out to Grand Central Station, I could see a large clowd of dust in the distance.

Were you afraid?

I felt very strange. I had been inside talking about reconciliation with our enemies at the same time that a terrorist attack was taking place and the World Trade Center towers were collapsing. You have to understand: I come from a country that suffered comparatively much greater damage—where one third of the land was captured and whole cities were leveled. Just one town, Vukovar, nearby my own home city was completely destroyed, and 30,000 people were either killed or driven out. We had about a million refugees out of a population of 4.5 million. Still, I was horrified and shocked by what happened here.

To see New York deserted and its people flocking out of lower Manhattan, like a stream of refugees, was jarring. You could see the fear and shock in people’s eyes. Some were trying to make phone calls and could not. There was a huge sense of gloom and danger. I felt trapped. When I arrived at Grand Central Station, my train was not going. I had to wait about four hours before catching the train back to New Haven.

As many as 5,000 people may have been killed as a result of the attack on the World Trade Center. Does this kind of atrocity cause you to second guess your ideas about reconciliation with one’s enemies?

One of the points in my talk at the U.N. was that we, as Christians, must develop a will to embrace and be reconciled with our enemy. This will to embrace is absolutely unconditional. There is no imaginable deed that should take a person outside our will to embrace him, because there is no imaginable deed that can take a person out of God’s will to embrace humanity—which is what I think is inscribed in big letters in the narrative of the Cross of Christ.

A tragedy like last week’s comes close to the sort of offense that one could imagine would put its perpetrators beyond our will to embrace them, but it does not. And it does not simply because Christ already died for all of us.

But reconciliation is the last thing on the minds of most Americans—including Christians. We are angry.

The first thought on many of our minds was that such vicious acts demand revenge. When I realized what happened, I felt a sense of shock and grief for the loss of life and the major disruption that had taken place. But then I felt we needed to go after them, that they needed to pay.

Is it wrong to feel that way?

On one level, there will be a gut reaction—a sense of rage. Rage is natural first response. It is also an appropriate response if we do it before the God of infinite love and justice. It is how I read the imprecatory Psalms, like Psalm 137, which pronounce blessing on those who size and dash the Babylonian little ones against the rock. Those words may sound vengeful. But what is significant is that, this being a ritual prayer, is giving his anger over to God. In the same way, we need to bring our rage before God and the Cross of Christ.

Ultimately, however, we cannot leave it at the gut reaction. There must be a Christian response. And as Christians, the will to embrace and forgive our enemy must be unconditional. How do we respond as Christians, not simply as human beings or as patriots who have legitimate feelings of being aggrieved and assaulted? This is the important question. And the answer lies in reconciliation.

What about justice?

Divine grace does not preclude justice being done. The naming of the deeds as evil and the protection of those who are innocent is extraordinarily important. But none of these things means we should not also seek to forgive the offender and reconcile with the offender. We can never close the door to reconciliation and all our actions must be directed toward the goal of reconciliation. Just reconciliation, of course, because justice is an integral part of reconciliation.

What if the other party—your enemy—sees you as a cancer on the world, as many Muslim extremists view Americans?

The perspective of the other person may not be the correct one and probably is a profoundly skewed one. Enmity, especially strong enmity, has the effect of skewing perspectives on others. However, there might be questions of justice between nations that are at stake here too. We would do well to use this occasion as a nation to ask, “What would cause a person or group of individuals to see us in a way you describe and commit such an act?” Many people from outside this nation, rightly or wrongly, think of the U.S. as this huge giant with economic and military prowess that steps on the toes of smaller nations. That perspective is on the whole not correct, but some of it may be true.

For any victim, particularly us Americans, it is difficult to see ourselves through the eyes of our offender. But for any victim it is the most salutary thing to do. Why was I perceived this way? Why did they act toward me in this way? This in no way justifies the hatred of their behavior toward us—especially when thousands of innocent people are killed—but the sheer exercise of examining our own actions and attitudes can be fruitful, and is indeed essential if we are to reconcile and live in peace with justice.

President Bush has suggested that bringing Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders to justice may require killing them. Would that be just?

We have to protect ourselves from the possibility of such an event happening again. That’s an easier prospect when the evildoer can be caught and in some sense restrained. But religious terrorism and suicide bombings are not like other crimes. If you are certain they would repeat the act, trying to stop them and in the process possibly kill them may be required. I think it would be analogous to the situation with Hitler’s Germany. I have always felt that Christians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who attempted an assassination of Hitler, had the right perspective on such acts. Bonhoeffer was convinced that he was doing the right thing—even though doing the right thing entailed doing the wrong thing. He was doing a right thing for which he felt he had to repent. He was doing the right wrong thing. Taking a life is always the wrong thing. The choice Bonhoeffer had was doing the lesser of the evils. However, the fact that one has to do evil and chooses the lesser one doesn’t mean it becomes not evil. He must still repent of his sin. The self-righteousness with which we go after those who have assaulted us and the absence of any sense that we ourselves are implicated in their act is to me deeply troubling.

Do you agree with the rhetoric of war that has been applied to this event?

There has been much talk about “hunting down” and “punishing” the terrorists. That is very dangerous language. Animals are hunted down. That language serves to take the perpetrators out of the very community of our species—”They are the barbarians and animals, and we are the good and decent ones.” I agree that we must work to find out who did it and, in a carefully qualified sense, bring those people to justice. But we shouldn’t speak in a way that debases their humanity. That kind of language seems to put the perpetrator beyond redemption.

How can there be a genuine reconciliation between terrorist and victim when both are dead? And how can there be an embrace when we don’t know who did this?

Christians believe that there will be a Judgment Day at the end. And it is my belief that on that day justice will be done and there will be a reconciliation between those who have profoundly injured one another takes place. My Yale colleague Professor Carlos Eire sometimes visits his relatives in a small community of Cuban immigrants near Chicago. Not long ago, a pious Catholic woman there asked him, “Is it possible for Fidel Castro to be in heaven?” Professor Eire told her that the Christian faith teaches that nobody is beyond the pale of redemption. It is possible for Castro to end up in heaven. There was dead silence. Then she said, “Well, I wouldn’t want to be in heaven. I can’t imagine a heaven in which I would live with Fidel Castro.” This woman could not fathom the scandalous truth that no one—not even our mortal enemies—is beyond divine grace.

Many events in this world remain hidden in deep obscurity. We don’t know who all the perpetrators of this evil act are. We don’t know exactly how to seek real justice. That is why there will be a Last Judgment. Generally when people talk of Last Judgment, they say it is a horrible day. But the final judgment is good news, certainly good news to the victims, and also good news to the perpetrators, since the judgment will be rendered not only by a just Judge who sees and knows all things but by the judge who has given his life for the salvation of the world. Christ who died on the cross is the same Christ who will sit on the judgment seat and who is going to render the judgment, judgment of justice and of grace. He is the reason why forgiveness and reconciliation are possible.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See today’s related transcript of Volf’s September 11 speech given during the attacks on New York City.

To read Volf’s vita and publications, visit the Yale Divinity School site.

Volf’s articles for Christianity Todayinclude “A Mother’s Strange Love,” about his adopted son and the book review “Jehovah on Trial.”

Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliationis available from ChristianBook.com.

Previous Christianity Todayarticles by and about Volf include:

Love Your Heavenly Enemy | How are we going to live eternally with those we can’t stand now? (Oct. 23, 2000)

Peace Be With You | Looking beyond naivete and cynicism about peacemaking at Wheaton’s Christianity and Violence conference. (March 20, 2000)

Miroslav Volf: Speaking truth to the world | (Feb. 8, 1999)

Culture

Can Any Good Thing Come Out of Hollywood?

An interview with producer Ken Wales

Christianity Today September 1, 2001

(This article originally appeared in the September 21, 1984, issue of Christianity Today.)

Whether most Christians like to admit it or not, movies produced by the secular film industry have an impact on the church as well as society. A recent Christianity Today survey of readers’ film interests and attendance shows that this former taboo is disappearing, particularly among younger Christians and members of the clergy who feel films help them stay in tune with contemporary life.

While many Christians lament what they discern to be ever-declining standards in films shown in the local theater, few know what, if anything, can be done to change the situation or affect positively the industry that is generally referred to simply as “Hollywood.” Producer Ken Wales, an elder at Bel Air Presbyterian Church and a minister’s son who has climbed the film industry ladder, recently spent some time with CT editors discussing motion pictures and the many questions that trouble Christians.

Wales studied film at the University of Southern California as recipient of the first Walt Disney scholarship. He began his professional career as an actor, and for many years was associated with writer-director Blake Edwards. He has produced numerous feature films, including The Tamarind Seed (Julie Andrews and Omar Sharifo and Wild Rovers (MGM; William Holden and Ryan O’Neal). He was also involved in producing the Ernest Hemingway story Islands in the Stream and Darling Lili, The Party, and Revenge of the Pink Panther.

In 1981 Wales received an Emmy nomination and the Golden Globe Award as coproducer of the television miniseries John Steinbeck’s East of Eden. Most recently he was producer of the feature film The Prodigal for World Wide Pictures, film arm of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Hollywood will not produce films for Christians because they think Christians will not go to films. How do you respond to Christians who say they are offended by films?The film industry, in general, does not produce films on a large scale for special audiences. Filmmakers go after a story because it has several probabilities in it for success. which translate to economic gain. The elements for financial “success” include: (1) well-known, celebrity-status “star” actors or actresses; (2) “trendy topics,” or a story based on a best-selling book, stage play, musical, popular person, or event; (3) a director with a high box-office track record—George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, for example.

Generally, a film has to return at the box office about three times its “negative” cost (the cost of making the film). The point at which profit becomes possible on a film varies, of course, with the negative cost of the film, and demonstrates the huge amount of money a film must “take in” at the box office to approach a profit level.

So you’re saying that afilm Christians would like has little chance.The box office history shows there must be a broader mass appeal to create a high ihonetary return to the studio. So, generally, Hollywood does not produce films specifically for Christians or any group.

Yet we do find films that contain certain elements that are “Christian.” For instance, in Tender Mercies we have the character of a broken-down countrywestern singer who is taken in and befriended by a widow. She has a very strong faith, and sings in the local Baptist church choir. He becomes almost a surrogate stepfather to her young son, and he begins to attend church with her, more to please her than anything else, and becbmes more acquainted with the Christian faith. Later he says, “Yes, I want to be baptized along with the boy,” and he is.

Was that film developed by Christians? It’s almost too much to say, “There was a Christian writer or director in that film who suddenly wanted to inject a witness for his faith and therefore wrote the baptism scene and fulfilled the stewardship of his vocation.” It doesn’t quite work that way. The writer of that story felt that baptism was a part of the southwest Christian Baptist experience, and that it would be logical for this to happen in the reality of life. So while we don’t have films being produced by Christians for Christians, there are films that contain elements of Christian experience.

Christians are very quick, I believe, to look for film characters that are positive role models. The best example, perhaps, was Sound ofMusic. A number of strong,elements contributed to it becoming an “all-time” hit: the enormous popularity of the stage musical and the loveliness of the story, the memorable music and picturesque, settings, the jeopardy of World War II and the escape, and the very positive role-model character of Maria, portrayed so superbly by Julie Andrews. Sound of Music became more than just a film. It was an event.

Could you define “certain elements” a little more?Seldom is there an R-rated picture among the extremely popular films. The public, by and large, does not want to have to view something that is extremely explicit—in the treatment of language, violence, and sexual situations. I believe more implicitness is preferable, as in the allegories by George Lucas in Star Wars. In Sound of Music we see love and romance sensitively and beautifully depicted, and personal relationships in jeopardy and solved. The total experience of our movie-going evening is positive as opposed to negative.

Perhaps the most important element is involvement. Films that are highly popular have an extraordinary power to draw the viewer right into the story. Return of the Jedi has brought in over $267 million. A former college schoolmate, director George Lucas, is going to be well set for the rest of his life—but he gave up ten years of his life to create the Star Wars series. He has said he experienced a creative and personal burnout, and is “just beginning to get things in order.”

Why aren’t more good films made?No one starts out to make a “bad” or unsuccessful picture. Somewhere along the way all sorts of problems may enter in, and it begins to go haywire. Only one out of ten films is successful. With that kind of economics, the industry can only exist on the blockbusters that provide the buffer and allow the other movies to be made.

Is that because it’s a high-risk venture?I feel it is high-risk because of the foolish choices of subject matter. Hollywood continues to be an island, in many respects, and the creative forces—producers, directors, writers—are alone on that oasis. Movie-making deals made and arrangements consummated (or not consummated) represent an entire separate industry. There is too much frantic energy and money spent in all the deal making. Persons who are not qualified are suddenly producers, and so a producer who is not a filmmaker but perhaps a legal expert and financier now has the creative control over a project. It is only when there are enough creative persons who buck that system, who are willing to go up against it or work quietly within it, that somehow the films that have “heart” and a meaningful center are made.

How much of that is a quest for the blockbuster? In other words, is it “go for broke” almost every time? Each studio wants as much as it can get. It’s very much akin to what is happening in the book-publishing field. Publishing houses seek out authors who present themselves well on television, and they say, “You keep writing the books, and as long as we can put you on the talk shows, and the promotion trail and the sell market, we’re going to have a hit.”

Most successful Christian book companies acknowledge that you cannot go for the best seller every time. You must have a certain percentage that will be good, steady, long-range sellers, and a certain percentage that will be modest sellers but good for the company.Filmmaking, from the very start, has been a rather strange business. There’s never been an industry that has invested so little in its future in research and development. The early producers took all the money out without giving some back. We have a world in the film industry that is entrepreneurial when it really should be a creative enterprise that has the business as the by-product.

The film industry and Christians view movies from different perspectives. What does Hollywood consider a good film and what do you think Christians consider a good film? I feel that Christians must look beyond the errors of the filmmaker. There may be something in a film that is redeeming and has much value, so let’s be sure that our condemnation of language and violence doesn’t blind us to the good values that may be there. Christians should not be petty in perceiving offensive material in film. At the same time, we should find ways to commend films that make a strong effort to convey Christian values and are exemplary—and, I think, this is a key thing—a “Christian vision of life.” We also need more courageous Christians in the decision-making process as writers, directors, producers, actors. And, very important, we need Christians who are able financially to invest substantially large amounts of money in the initial development of desirable, well-done films.

We can start this by encouraging Christians to view films selectively and to accept film as film, and then say, “I agree or disagree with this.” A film should be described as “good” or “poor” on its own merit as film. Second, Christianity Today can assist by continuing to review current and popular films. It is very important to inform viewers of films that should be seen. Third, we should urge Christians to respond to the studios and theaters with comments, both positive and negative. We especially must have positive feedback when it is deserved. Fourth, we filmmakers need to try to avoid potentially disastrous film productions where severe problems and failure are predictable.

What does the rating systemreflect for us who are Christian?Basically, the ratings board, which is sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America, is an association of producing organizations, mainly the major motion-picture studios. The studios support the ratings board by submitting films for a rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, or X. Most films are PG; most producers desire PG because so many teenagers “wouldn’t be caught dead” in a G-rated film. Peer group pressure is heavy here.

So we have a factor working on the rating system that really doesn’t have anything to do with the film or the industry itself, except that it’s a social phenomenon: it’s not “cool” to see a Grated film. An X is equally a death knell for a film. Someone who receives an X does everything he can economically to pull it back into an R. There is a very fine line, and I have wondered why many PG films haven’t dropped into an R; there is an incredible blur there.

Film companies (and even some Christian organizations producing films) either overtly or subconsciously go after a PG rating—in order not to miss the mainstream of the viewing audience, said to be the teenage audience from about age 14 on into the 20s. I think that is rather interesting, because even in trying to present values that are fine and uplifting and morally challenging, we’re saying we can’t really quite accept the label of goodness, that we have to compromise it a bit so that “everybody” will want to see our film. I think this is an issue that should be wrestled with.

How useful do you think the rating system is then? Do you think people pay any attention to it? Does the motion picture industry take it seriously?Probably more so than not. The ratings have undergone a lot of change over the years. One of the earliest rating systems was basically the Catholic Legion of Decency. Its C rating on a film condemned it. Then, suddenly, a C began to be sought. This happened with The Moon Is Blue, a film in which the words “virgin” and “seduce” were mentioned, and the world was broken open. The picture was released without the code of approval. Suddenly, here was a film released without approval that did tremendous box office.

I think people do pay attention to the ratings. My feeling is that parents would rather see the rating system in place than not used at all.

Chariots of Fire was widely received by audiences, Christian and secular alike. Why do you think that happened?David Putman, the producer of Chariots of Fire, had produced it in London and Scotland, and the film really did not have a “home” or an “umbrella.” It was done by a small producing organization, who offered it to several major studios that turned it down, and it wound up in the Ladd Company at Warner Brothers.

It was an excellent film that included a unique story, competitive characters, visually exciting settings, and the excitement of the 1924 Olympics. But most important, the visual sense of the film, the style, the music—all of those elements were fresh. Eric Liddell’s character was greatly admired by the Christian audience for his strength of conviction. The Jewish audience also cheered its hero. Here were two hero and role models that the audience identified with strongly. They had human weaknesses and frailties, but their strengths overshadowed their frailties. The film received very good critical reviews. The reviews really helped to make the picture successful.

What are some specific changes that you would like to see in the relationships between Christians and the film industry?First, openness on both sides. There has been such a wall created, and a “warring” across that wall, that any attempt at conciliation and reconciliation should be highly praised and encouraged. If it is true, for example, that Norman Lear is going to include a sympathetic Christian character in his sitcoms, that’s a great step.

Second, Christians should let the industry know when it is on target. One response is support at the box office. Another is by letters to the editor. That kind of reaction is highly effective.

Also, we need to develop writers and artists of the written word, of the screenplay, who can capture Christian reality and create a script that will have all the elements of any good film. We need desperately to develop fine Christian writers to do this, because the film screenplay is the foundation and key to an excellent motion picture.

Other than as an evangelistic tool, how can a film with a Christian message be used?Films Incorporated, a 16-mm film company, provides rental 16-mm films that cover a broad range of general interest films, including those released commercially. Over the years they have published a very good discussion guide called Dialogue with the World that goes hand-in-hand with each of their films. You can rent a film, and there will be a discussion guide available with it. I’ve used this to have a film series at church.

In a church, Christians can become more familiar with film as film, and learn how to view films. The important thing is to use film as a basis for discussion. Another way is for a church to go together as a group and see a film at a theater. For example, if Tender Mercies is being shown, you could plan an evening and go as a group, then meet for a snack afterwards and talk about it.

What have you faced personally as a Christian in the film industry?

In any art form and creative endeavor where the emotions play such a strong part, there is an incredible need for a strong faith at the center of one’s being. When I was an actor under contract, one’s acceptance or rejection was based upon not only talent and preparation, but rather on one’s looks, luck, on whether the casting director had his eggs upside-down that morning or wasn’t feeling well—all the things that really were not germane to the process.

I have seen many friends, actors and actresses, go off the “deep end” because of a lack of spiritual-centeredness. In contrast, more and more I see younger actors and actresses who are very much in the Lord; and Christ and God are a central part of their lives.

This has been exemplified by the Vineyard, which includes many arts people who meet in a rather unorthodox way and express themselves in experimental forms of worship. There are people in films who are living their faith and quick to express it. I’m finding more and more of that witness as I go about the industry.

On a personal basis, I’m very human, and while I’m a Christian and attempt to practice my belief, I so often fall short. One positive aspect I can point to is that in problem-solving as a producer, my value and contribution is like a psychologist’s. It really is as a spiritual leader, a shepherd. And I view my role as a producer as all-encompassing. I am on the set ready to minister to the needs of the filmmaking process. If I know we won’t be able to get a shot because it’s going to cost too much money, I can go to the director and say, “Here are four other ways we can solve that.” I’ll offer him an alternative rather than put him against the wall and say, “You can’t do that; that shot’s out.” I can offer a support to his creative process. I have found that really stepping aside and taking time for quietness, contemplation, and prayer when I’ve been faced with a dilemma has inevitably brought about the right solution.

One example is when we were shooting the television miniseries of John Steinbeck’sEast o f Eden in Savannah, Georgia. I went out to the village, a Georgia lumber camp that we were supposed to make into a New England village. Lo and behold, we had a New England village with western porches. The set looked like something out of a western! Here we were, one day from shooting that set. I remember saying, “God, send me not only a new art director, but about 10 million gallons of black and white paint and a few things like that.” The cameraman, Frank Stanley, and I had to find all the black and white and red paint in the county. We tore the porches off the buildings, quickly put up shutters, painted the barn red, painted the other buildings gray and white, used black hardware, and brought in artificial grass from a funeral home.

Finally the new art director arrived. I said to him, “I’ve seen you somewhere before.” Suddenly I asked, “Where do you attend church?”

He said, “I go to Bet Air Presbyterian.” We had worshiped almost literally side-by-side.

Also, I don’t “blow up,” even if everything is going haywire. That is simply a hallmark of my approach to things that I stay calm. Sally Spaulding, the script supervisor on East of Eden, came up to me. “You know, I’ve been watching,” she said, “and I appreciate your approach to the film. Something else, too: we go to the same church.” There were four of us on that crew who all went to the same church but who had not known each other because of the size of the congregation.

On Good Friday we were back in California shooting in Salinas. (We had to shoot on Good Friday, and I wasn’t fond of that, but it was necessary.) While they were preparing a shot, the four of us went off onto one side of the field and had our own quiet time. We shared a very intimate Good Friday observance. My faith is an indigenous partner in the entire process of creating a film.

I’ve never as a Christian been comfortable saying, “I have a burden.” But that is changing, thanks to an industrywide organization called Fellowship of Christians in the Arts, Media, and Entertainment (FCAME). I happily find myself spending 8-10 hours a week with aspiring Christian actors, actresses, writers, directors. That’s all right; along the way other people gave me a hand, and helped me. Now I can return this kindness to someone else.

FCAME is now growing to where persons at decision-making levels are gathering for fellowship and Bible study. I’m encouraged by what I see in terms of the professionalism and the competency of that group.

What projects, stories, ideas, concepts do you have in mind? What would you consider to be the most satisfying thing that you could be doing?My hope for the last nine years and passionate burning desire is to see Christy, the book by Catherine Marshall, become film. It was on the agenda at MGM in 1969, but it was cancelled along with a number of other pictures there when the studio ownership changed. It offers an excellent story, and it has the familiarity of a very well-known and well-loved book. I think there’s an audience that is awaiting that. Many times when I was with Catherine, people would come up after she had spoken and say, “When is Christy going to be a film?” I think this is a very good project. The story.is moving and exciting, and it has the potential to be one of the best films ever produced. Over five million copies of the book have been sold (it is in its seventieth printing), and it continues to be a well-loved best seller.

The important thing is for me to be involved in projects that have a meaningful center. On a more secular basis, the one that is the most exciting for me right now is the life of John Steinbeck, done as a miniseries. Steinbeck has some very interesting Christian allegories in his writing. In his East o f Eden, we see the whole Cain and Abel story told over and over. In fact, the characters are C and A—Charles and Adam. Cain and Abel, Caleb and Aaron. The theme is that the sins of the father are indeed visited on the sons. Steinbeck writes about the Hebrew concept of timshel. It is the concept of choosing right over wrong, the concept of free will. There’s very much an awareness, on the part of Steinbeck, of God as Supreme Being. So that particular project excites me.

How do you view the relationship of the art and science involved in film-making?Science basically involves technology. Film is an art that relies heavily on technology. There is a strong colaboration, and the director and producer and writer must use all of that technology as a tool of the art expression. The film takes on a life of its own, I believe, from the script. Often you suddenly discover that something is there you didn’t even realize was there. It may be a whole other subplot that suddenly comes to the forefront, or a character that has grown immensely. That happened in The Prodigal with the character of the father, played by John Cullum. It was not a very strong role in the script, yet when Jim Collier directed and finished it, that role became a key.

I wonder sometimes if we will get to the place where technology will be the rule. There is being developed now a technique, a computer-generation technique, that will allow you to put an actor in a room and shoot him in all sorts of different angles, all sides of him, and take a complete inventory of his looks, his being, his voice, the whole person. From that, the computer will be able to draw him in any conceivable position. Look happy, look sad: punch it into the computer. So once you’ve “shot” the actor, you literally may not need him the rest of the picture.

What do we need to tell people about objectionable films?I have mixed feelings about that. One approach is to ignore something and not create a lot of fuss, because in turn, a lot of fuss excites people, who will then go and see a film. Then the studio makes more money at the box office, and it validates the film company’s belief that the film was economically successful. And all we’ve done is to contribute to the perpetuation of the whole thing.

On the other hand, there are occasions when we simply cannot let something slide by. We need to speak up, especially if we see a portrayal that is misrepresentative of Christians, or something that violates our standards of decency. A good thorough sort-out ought to take place instead of a hasty condemnation.

Isn’t it too bad that films with Christian themes are so weak? The television miniseries on Peter and Paul, for instance, was poor.I was sad, because I would like to have done that program. Three companies were working on Peter and Paul projects—but why wasn’t there a Christian effort mounted before those three got the idea? It is important that a film with a Christian message be so well done and so professional that it stands on its own as a filmgoing experience. It also boils down to funding—just to get something started. Christy can be a financial success; it’s economically possible. The money is there—we see it going into all other forms and definitions of mission and evangelism. I remember Tom Howard’s article in Christianity Today on “Expensive Churches: Extravagance for God’s Sake?” [Aug. 1979]. In it he uses the analogy of bringing lovely yellow roses to an old lady and giving her a sense of beauty and inspiration, and didn’t that have as much merit as bringing her a cup of soup? There’s something to be said for providing an experience in which people gain hope and further reflection on their own lives.

This article originally appeared in the September 21, 1984, issue of Christianity Today.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

Also appearing on our site today:

Cinema Verities | Even when they’re writing fiction, these Hollywood insiders bring the truth to bear.

Reel School for Real Christians | Act One prepares Christian screenwriters to write Hollywood blockbusters.

The Internet Movie Database lists the film and television credits for Ken Wales, who eventually brought Christy to television in 1994.

At the end of Christy’s run in 1996, Wales and others involved in the show were interviewed on KFLR in Phoenix. For more on the seires, see sites in the Christy Web ring.

A Los Angeles Times article wondered if Christy could mean the return of family wholesomeness.

On NPR’s Morning Edition, Monique Parsons interviewed devout Christians Karen Hall (Judging Amy), Ralph Winter (Planet of the Apes), and Ken Wales (Christy) on how Hollywood portrays faith.

Every Thursday, Christianity Today.com’s Film Forum looks at what mainstream and religious critics are saying about current films.

Related Christianity Today articles include:

The World Behind the Movie | Why Hollywood has a hard time getting Christianity right, and how we can tell when it does. (Jan. 29, 2001)

From Davey & Goliath to Homer and Ned | Steve Tompkins believes God has a sense of humor. (Jan. 26, 2001)

Horror Stories for Christians | Believers dream again of a breakthrough film. Left Behind is not it. (Dec. 6, 2000)

Jennings on Jesus | ABC anchorman Peter Jennings discusses what moved him as he filmed a special on the life of Christ. (June 26, 2000)

Redeemed Bad Boys of the WWF | Former professional wrestlers confront this multimillion-dollar industry’s dark side. (May 26, 2000)

Won’t You Be My Neighbor? | At the center of Mister Rogers’ cheery songs and smiles lies a God-ordained mission to children. (Feb. 29, 2000)

NBC Purchases Chunk of Pax TV | Will the network retain its family focus? (Nov. 15, 1999)

Christian Filmmakers Jump on End-times Bandwagon | Bestseller Left Behind is slated for the big screen (Oct. 5, 1999)

The Movie Missionary | David Bruce uses film reviews to introduce web surfers to Jesus. (Nov. 9, 1999)

PAX TV off the Ground | Viewers fed up with televised sex, violence, and crudity have a new alternative. (Oct. 5, 1998)

Will New Christian TV Network Beat the Odds? | Due to be launched in August, Pax Net will offer family-oriented programming that addresses issues of faith. (April 27, 1998)

Producers Rediscover Religious Themes (Nov. 17, 1997)

CBS Sends Mixed Signals, Critics Say (Oct. 7, 1996)

Church Life

“Where I Minister, Grace Abounds Over Sin”

Rev. Richard Del Rio as told to Tony Carnes

“At Ground Zero, a New York pastor strives to be a symbol that God is present and available.”

Christianity Today September 1, 2001

Editor’s note: The Rev. Richard Del Rio is the head of Abounding Grace Ministries in New York City and was among the first pastors on site after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on September 11. He ministered among firefighters, police, and rescue workers. He described his experiences for ct senior news writer Tony Carnes at the Port Authority Police Crisis Command Post at Ground Zero. Across from them stood a chart listing missing officers and recovered dead officers. The chart included a prayer writ large: “Lord, my brothers have lost their way. Give me the strength to bring them home.”

I always ask the local police precinct where the toughest drug-crime corners are and then set up our ministry truck right there.

So, when the World Trade Center towers were attacked, I instinctively thought that that was the place where I could pastor effectively. Besides, our ministry’s trucks feature the towers outlined in red, and as a construction-company owner, I had helped to build the towers. It was personal. That’s my building and those were our guys getting destroyed out there.

I dropped my toast, ran out and jumped on my big hog, a Harley-Davidson Electra Glide. On the way, I put on my pastor’s collar and police identification tag.

Ash, Debris, and Fire Hoses

Coming down FDR Drive on the east side of Manhattan, I rolled through the smoke at Houston Street, then the ash piled up, beginning at the Fulton Street Fish Market. Rolling off the drive, I parked my hog because there were too many obstructions for a cycle.

Right away, a cop came running up. “Father, can you come over here and bless these body parts?”

He had mistaken me for a priest, but I came over. There was a torso, a detached head, shoulders, and a leg all piled up. I prayed with him, while cars exploded and burning papers floated through the air. All around us, cops and firefighters with looks of utter despair were running through the roar of noise and the awful smell.

After praying, I then joined the stream of rescuers. I had hardly gone a block when an Asian woman came running out of a novelty store, crying, “Please help me! My husband is in a wheelchair and trapped!”

The store was filled with ash and smoke, but the old guy still had a little fight in him. He insisted, “I’ll be okay.” Of course, he wasn’t and he couldn’t move his wheelchair through all the ash, debris, and fire hoses.

I told him, “Don’t even try! You can’t get there by yourself. Let me try.” It was tough to get him out, but we made it over to a safe zone.

I went back to join up with some cops from my home precinct, the Ninth. They were trying to dig out a police van so that they could drive to the World Trade Center site. We used bottled tea to clean the windows and [bottled] nectar to fill the radiator. We got it going and made it to pretty close to the site. There was just utter devastation on the way. A bridge had fallen on a fire truck and had crushed it down to 2 feet high.

We hopped out and struggled through the ash and smoke. On my right was the cemetery of St. Paul’s Church. Some of the tombstones had been blasted down, and all around them were little fires like burning bushes in the cemetery. There were men’s and women’s shoes scattered around.

I also passed my friend’s church, Faith Exchange Fellowship. It was in a building next door to the Marriott Hotel. A fire was raging in it, but I was pretty sure that my friend had gotten out.

No One to Be Found

Going up with hundreds of rescuers, we scoured the Pile, as it came to be called, for anybody moving or any sound. There just was not time to think, but I kept praying to myself.

It was an indescribable and pathetic sight. Someone would call out, “Move this!” Someplace else on the Pile, another person would cry, “Over here! Bring a ladder!” Sometimes, when we pushed a big piece of metal over, fire would come whooshing out. It was hard to listen for cries of survivors because of the roar, yelling, popping, and the sloshing of the fire hoses.

And we didn’t find anyone. There wasn’t anyone to be found.

So, I went back to the morgue, which was being set up in the Brooks Brothers clothing store. Unbelievably, some of the dummies were still standing in the windows. They were elegantly dressed, with their shoes laid out, and all of it was covered by the white ash from the death of the towers.

Inside, there was one body in a dark green bag laid off to the side. People were trying to clear out space, so I grabbed a shovel to make a path out front.

I remembered back to when I was a young punk kid, messing with girls and drugs, and how Arlene, who became my wife of 28 years, told me about the Lord. Now, I wondered, What can I say? There was no joking around and little conversation. The rescuers really just needed someone to be there. So, I thought, That is what I’ll be, a presence and a symbol that God is present and available. I kept praying to myself for everyone. For a week, I only slept an hour or two or three a day.

Of course, the rescuers would come up to me for comfort and prayer. I didn’t realize at the time that I was the only pastor there. I found out latter that the firemen’s priest [Mychal Judge] had been killed. I made the prayers simple so that the men and women could remember and repeat them later.

Worse than Vietnam

A few days into the rescue effort, a big, burly fireman came over. I put my arm around his shoulders and asked, “How are you doing?”

He told me, “Rough. I was in Vietnam, and this is worse.”

I noticed that he had numbers tattooed in different places on his body, so I asked what they stood for.

“That’s my Social Security Number,” he said, “because there is no guarantee that they can identify me if I am in parts.”

I was stunned. Not knowing what else to say, I asked him if he would like to pray. He said, “Yes,” and started weeping. As we prayed, he called out, “Jesus, save me!”

I was absolutely unprepared for this catastrophe. Most everyone in the church was. And I am absolutely changed by it. Perhaps we all are. The people are gone. That’s the reality—that will hit us. But Jesus gives abounding grace even where sin has reigned unto death.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

Christianity Today‘s previous coverage of the September 11 attacks include:

Books & Culture Corner: Myths of the Taliban | Misinformation and disinformation abounds. What do we know? (Sept. 24, 2001)

Now What? | A Christian response to religious terrorism. (Sept. 21, 2001)

To Embrace the Enemy | Is reconciliation possible in the wake of such evil? (Sept. 21, 2001)

After the Grave in the Air | True reconciliation comes not by ignoring justice nor by putting justice first, but by unconditional embrace. (Sept. 21, 2001)

Film Forum: Shock Waves Tear Through a Shock-Value Industry | How can we think of movies at a time like this? (Sept. 20, 2001)

Was September 11 the Beginning of the End? | Observers say geography and gravity of attacks have led to little prophecy speculation. (Sept. 19, 2001)

The End of the World (Trade Center) | Dispatches from out of the dust. (Sept. 19, 2001)

Active Christian on Flight 93 Hailed as a Hero | Wheaton College graduate and others “figured out how to do extraordinary things” aboard United plane. (Sept. 19, 2001)

With Grief and Anger, the U.S. Mourns Its Losses | A week of official services and impromtu demonstrations follows shocking attacks. (Sept. 18, 2001)

Orthodox Church Near Ground Zero Hopes to Rise Again | Members hope to rebuild 169-year-old structure, which stood only 500 feet from the World Trade Center. (Sept. 18, 2001)

Churches Meet Needs at Ground Zero | Brooklyn pastors and parishioners thank God for survival, but help victims and families cope. (Sept. 17, 2001)

Church Mourns ‘Father Frank’ | Fond memories comfort those who knew retired priest killed in World Trade Center attack. ? (Sept. 17, 2001)

Books & Culture Corner: The Imagination of Disaster | “We thought we were invulnerable.” Really? (Sept. 17, 2001)

Taking It Personally | What do we do with all this anger? (Sept. 14, 2001)

‘Is That Thunder?’ | With metal cracking at the World Trade Center, New York pastors cry out to God. (Sept. 14, 2001)

Shaken Christians Turn to Prayer | Impromptu services usher in the bereaved by word of mouth, road signs, and e-mail. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Christians Provide Comfort in the Shadow of Calamity | Still “stunned and reeling,” New Yorkers seek support at prayer service. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Illinois Pastor on Fatal Flight | Jeffrey Mladenik, 43, was involved in workplace ministry, international adoption. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Communication Troubles Challenge U.S. Church Relief Agencies | Aid work continues amid atmosphere of shock, fear, and sporatic harrassment. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Reflections on Suffering | Classic and contemporary quotations for dark times. (Sept. 13, 2001)

When Sin Reigns | An event like this shows us what humans are capable of becoming—both as children of darkness and of light. (Sept. 13, 2001)

In the Belly of the Beast | Christians, calling terrorist attack “satanically brilliant,” minister at epicenter of World Trade disaster. (Sept. 12, 2001)

Churches, Agencies Respond to Attacks | Leaders call for prayer, justice, and mercy. (Sept. 12, 2001)

Muslims Fear a Backlash | No matter who is responsible, observers feel a reaction will still be present. (Sept. 12, 2001)

A Wake-Up Call to Become Global Christians | The deadly attacks on America will provoke many responses, but Christians are commanded to love our neighbors. (Sept. 12, 2001)

Nation’s Religious Leaders Urge Calm, Pray for Peace | Churches will maintain prayer vigils for victims and leaders. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Church Leaders Around World Deplore ‘Unspeakable Horror’ of Attack | Christians urged to unite in prayer as they unite in shock and denunciation. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Experts Say Spiritual Roots Will Aid in Coping With Catastrophe | Pray and connect with others, advise nation’s chaplains. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Fear and Hate | In times like this, as in all other times, Christians have a responsibility to love above all else. (Sept. 11, 2001)

God’s Message in the Language of Events | In the face of evil, we must focus on keeping our hearts right. (Sept. 11, 2001)

For in-depth and continuing coverage, see The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and Yahoo full coverage.

Yahoo has also compiled aid organization contact information, closure notification, and survivor lists.

For more Christian perspectives and responses, see various articles posted on Christianity.com, Crosswalk.com, and Beliefnet.com.

The Text This Week, a resource for pastors, has collected sermons and reflections in response to the Sept. 11 events.

The BBC, Boston.com, The Village Voice, and USA Today have photo essays of the destruction.

The Washington Post has a list of tenants of the World Trade Center and a graphic depicting the attack.

Slate.com explained who responds to crisis situations.

“Weblog: After Devil Manifestations, Crosses Appear at the World Trade Center Site”

Ted Olsen

“re:generation quarterly’s special issue, Amy Grant’s Christmas tour, and CWA’s new president.”

Christianity Today September 1, 2001
God has his appearances, too Several media organizations have noted the appearance of Satan in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Well, writes the New York Post‘s Rod Dreher—there are also signs of victory over the devil. “Two days after the disaster,” he writes, “a construction worker found several perfectly formed crosses planted upright in a pit in the rubble of the heavily damaged 6 World Trade Center.” Since then, “exhausted and emotionally overwhelmed rescue workers have been flocking to the site to pray and meditate.” Frank Silecchia, who found the crosses, explains that they’re “just shards of steel that came from the Tower 1 [the north tower], and went right through the roof of Building 6 and destroyed the entire center of it.” But they’ve become much more for the workers and even journalists who’ve visited. Silecchia is reportedly trying to convince New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani not to demolish the site during the cleanup efforts. (Unfortunately, there’s no photo on the Post‘s Web site. If you find one, e-mail me.)

re:generation quarterly needs to change its name

After the September 11 attacks, magazines around the country scrambled to change their issues. But you wouldn’t expect a magazine that only comes out four times a year to address the attacks. So you’ve got to hand it to the folks over at re:generation quarterly, which put together a Web-only issue by September 17—and it’s actually very good. Ironically, the article by editor Andy Crouch (also a CT columnist) uses the opportunity to attack relevancy. “If there is one lesson the church can learn from 11 September, it’s the futility of trying to be relevant to the culture,” he writes. “How many PowerPoint presentations on the characteristics of—take your pick—’postmodern culture,’ of ‘young people today,’ of ‘what seekers are looking for’ are going to be dragged to the Trash icon in the next few months?” We’ve spent too much time trying to understand pop culture, he writes, and not enough joining together in understanding the gospel. “The answers to all of [today’s] questions depend not one bit upon an understanding of last month’s top hip-hop artists. They hang entirely upon how deeply and richly we have read the Word of God … and how deeply and richly we have known the Word made flesh.”

Much has changed, he writes:

Shortly before an airplane crashed into the Pentagon a few miles from where I sat toying with the remains of an oversized banana muffin, I had said to a colleague with a perfectly straight face, “Like most people my age, I have very few real heroes.” Oh, I was a Gen Xer straight out of central casting—quick to see the flawed human core of every noble endeavor, emphatically including my own. Well, forget it. I have hundreds of heroes now.

But not everything has changed, writes Bill Haley. “The reality of evil has not changed. … The cry for justice has not changed. … Human nature has not changed. … The call to pray for our enemies has not changed.”

Brian Walsh, however, is struck by just how much has changed. “The president knows, his cabinet knows, the guy on the street knows, and we all know, deep down, that things will never be the same again. … We need to lament the end of an empire, not because that empire was just, and not because that empire should continue, but because the death of this empire will not come without much bloodshed. And it has only just begun. Maybe, if we lament, then there might be an opportunity for us to repent.'”

Albert Louis Zambone, junior dean of the Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Oxford, England, tries to reconcile these competing mantras—that everything has changed, and the important things have not changed: “‘The war creates no absolutely new situation,’ C. S. Lewis rebukes me, ‘it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it.'” But he indeed is aggravated. He tells of his difficulty teaching and saying the Lord’s Prayer.

There are other good pieces in the digital issue as well—Rudy Carrasco on the importance of understanding Islam, a first-person narrative on family by Annie Young, a poem by David Wright. And the site suggests there’s more to come. It’s absolutely wonderful that the editors were able to put this special issue together so quickly, but the message the reader is left with is that they really didn’t have to: Truth is Truth no matter what, and God is still on the throne.

In other news …

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See our past Weblog updates:

September 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17

September 14b | 14a | 13 | 12 | 10

September 7 | 6 | 5 | 4

August 31 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27

August 24 | 23 | 22 | 20

August 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 |13

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7

Myths of the Taliban

John Wilson

Misinformation and disinformation abounds. What do we know?

Christianity Today September 1, 2001
One of the most striking features of the mass of reporting and commentary that has appeared in the aftermath of September 11 is the sheer volume of misinformation and disinformation dispensed. Typical is a story by Barry Bearak from the September 19 The New York Times, “Taliban: From Vigilantes to Strict Rulers.”

“Time and again,” Bearak writes,

America and other nations have accused Mr. bin Laden of terrorism and demanded his surrender to stand trial. Mullah Omar [the Taliban’s leader] has refused.

One can speculate about the reasons. They might include the Afghan consecration of hospitality, the need the Taliban have for the Saudi multi-millionaire’s support and a sincere belief in his innocence. Most Afghans presume that Mr. bin Laden’s notorious reputation is undeserved.

One can speculate, yes, and one wishes that one could attribute a wicked irony to Bearak’s suggestion that the “Afghan consecration of hospitality” accounts for the Taliban’s intransigence. But Bearak appears to be writing for an infantilized public presumed to be incapable of critical thought, let alone the detection of irony.

What does it mean, for instance, to speak of “a sincere belief” in bin Laden’s “innocence,” when he has said quite openly that it is the duty of good Muslims to kill Americans? Elsewhere the Times has reported that bin Laden is widely regarded as a hero in Afghanistan and in many other Islamic countries. What is he a hero for? His hospitality?

But then much that we’ve been told about the Taliban doesn’t make sense. A widely circulated piece first posted on Salon, “An Afghan-American Speaks,” describes the Taliban as “a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997.” The author, Tamim Ansary, explains that “the people of Afghanistan” had nothing to do with the ascendancy of the Taliban or the crimes of bin Laden:

When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think “the people of Afghanistan” think “the Jews in the concentration camps.”

This piece has been forwarded to me by half a dozen Christian friends and acquaintances as an exceptionally valuable testimony. But wait a minute. How did the Nazis come to power? Who was it who adored Hitler? Why are there many Afghans outside Afghanistan who believe the Taliban are on the right track? The Times reports conflicts at mosques in the United States between Taliban supporters and critics. Isn’t it likely that “the people of Afghanistan” are also divided, some supporting the Taliban and bin Laden, some not? Why are Afghanistan’s neighbors—especially Pakistan—so worried that the influence of the Taliban will fuel Islamic fundamentalist uprisings in the region? And even in a time when everyone under the sun is ready to co-opt the Holocaust, doesn’t Ansary’s reference to the concentration camps strike a grotesquely false note?

The truth doesn’t come packaged like this, for consumption that requires no thought. A good place to start digging is a book published last year by Yale University Press, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. The author, Ahmed Rashid, is a journalist who has covered Afghanistan for many years.

Rashid reminds us—no one in Washington seems to remember—that initially U.S. policymakers supported the Taliban. And while strategic calculations—such as the notion that the Taliban would be helpful to U.S. interests as a thorn in the side of Iran—were paramount, Rashid makes it clear that U.S. business interests were also involved, particularly in a spectacularly ambitious plan for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, to be built by the American company Unocal.

According to Rashid, the decisive influence in changing U.S. policy toward the Taliban (and eventually scuttling Unocal’s pipeline plan) was the vigorous campaign by feminists in the United States, outraged by the Taliban’s treatment of girls and women. “As always with the Clinton agenda,” he writes, ” domestic political concerns outweighed foreign policy-making and the wishes of allies. Clinton only woke up to the Afghanistan problem when American women knocked on his door,” figuratively speaking, of course.

Rashid doesn’t explain the rise of the Taliban by reference to psychotic cults, nor does he suggest that “the Afghan people” had nothing to do with it, though he says that the spirit of Islam as it has been practiced in Afghanistan is quite alien to rigid fundamentalism. He stresses several themes: the anarchy that preceded the Taliban’s rule (the memory of which, he suggests, keeps many Afghans willing to support them, even if with great reluctance), the extraordinary brutality with which they established their regime, and their efforts to manipulate various factions (ethnic, regional, and so on) within Afghanistan to maintain control. His account is strong on political and economic matters—and he includes a very helpful timeline in an appendix—but there is very little about the religious aspect of the Taliban, nor does he give us a sense of their inwardness. Without that, a huge piece of the puzzle is missing.

And however valuable it is as a starting point, Rashid’s book is one man’s account. There is in fact a great deal we simply don’t know about the Taliban. Now that President Bush has issued his ultimatum, we may be learning a lot more, fast.

John Wilson is editor of Books & Culture and editor-at-large for Christianity Today.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

In August, Christianity Today.com’s In Perspective focused on the Taliban, The Friendliest Murderous Militants in the World.

BBC offers a look at Who are the Taliban? and Who is Osama Bin Ladin?

A recent Reuters article reported that Muslim countries as divided as Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey cringe at the Taliban’s strict and extremist interpretation of Islam.

Human Rights Watch has extensive information on Afghanistan—especially the Taliban and the continuing civil war.

PBS’s Online Newhour has a collection of archived and continuing coverage of Afghanistan going as far back as 1983.

MSNBC’s Pariah Nation: A Journey Through Afghanistan follows MSNBC.com’s Preston Mendenhall travels through the country this spring. There, he found a surprising resistence to Taliban rule.

Previous Christianity Today coverage of the Taliban includes:

Aid Workers Held Captive | Taliban alleges housing group’s staff engaged in evangelism. (Aug. 13, 2001)

Diplomats Receive Visas Into Afghanistan, but Will Only Meet with Officials | Over a week after raid on Shelter Germany, future for workers still unclear. (Aug. 13, 2001)

Taliban Threatens Death to Converts | Afghanistan’s Islamic army also says it will kill any non-Muslim seeking converts. (Feb. 15, 2001)

Christianity Today‘s previous coverage of the September 11 attacks include:

Where I Minister, Grace Abounds Over Sin | At Ground Zero, a New York pastor strives to be a symbol that God is present and available. (Sept. 24, 2001)

Now What? | A Christian response to religious terrorism. (Sept. 21, 2001)

To Embrace the Enemy | Is reconciliation possible in the wake of such evil? (Sept. 21, 2001)

After the Grave in the Air | True reconciliation comes not by ignoring justice nor by putting justice first, but by unconditional embrace. (Sept. 21, 2001)

Film Forum: Shock Waves Tear Through a Shock-Value Industry | How can we think of movies at a time like this? (Sept. 20, 2001)

Was September 11 the Beginning of the End? | Observers say geography and gravity of attacks have led to little prophecy speculation. (Sept. 19, 2001)

The End of the World (Trade Center) | Dispatches from out of the dust. (Sept. 19, 2001)

Active Christian on Flight 93 Hailed as a Hero | Wheaton College graduate and others “figured out how to do extraordinary things” aboard United plane. (Sept. 19, 2001)

With Grief and Anger, the U.S. Mourns Its Losses | A week of official services and impromtu demonstrations follows shocking attacks. (Sept. 18, 2001)

Orthodox Church Near Ground Zero Hopes to Rise Again | Members hope to rebuild 169-year-old structure, which stood only 500 feet from the World Trade Center. (Sept. 18, 2001)

Churches Meet Needs at Ground Zero | Brooklyn pastors and parishioners thank God for survival, but help victims and families cope. (Sept. 17, 2001)

Church Mourns ‘Father Frank’ | Fond memories comfort those who knew retired priest killed in World Trade Center attack. ? (Sept. 17, 2001)

Books & Culture Corner: The Imagination of Disaster | “We thought we were invulnerable.” Really? (Sept. 17, 2001)

Taking It Personally | What do we do with all this anger? (Sept. 14, 2001)

‘Is That Thunder?’ | With metal cracking at the World Trade Center, New York pastors cry out to God. (Sept. 14, 2001)

Shaken Christians Turn to Prayer | Impromptu services usher in the bereaved by word of mouth, road signs, and e-mail. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Christians Provide Comfort in the Shadow of Calamity | Still “stunned and reeling,” New Yorkers seek support at prayer service. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Illinois Pastor on Fatal Flight | Jeffrey Mladenik, 43, was involved in workplace ministry, international adoption. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Communication Troubles Challenge U.S. Church Relief Agencies | Aid work continues amid atmosphere of shock, fear, and sporatic harrassment. (Sept. 13, 2001)

Reflections on Suffering | Classic and contemporary quotations for dark times. (Sept. 13, 2001)

When Sin Reigns | An event like this shows us what humans are capable of becoming—both as children of darkness and of light. (Sept. 13, 2001)

In the Belly of the Beast | Christians, calling terrorist attack “satanically brilliant,” minister at epicenter of World Trade disaster. (Sept. 12, 2001)

Churches, Agencies Respond to Attacks | Leaders call for prayer, justice, and mercy. (Sept. 12, 2001)

Muslims Fear a Backlash | No matter who is responsible, observers feel a reaction will still be present. (Sept. 12, 2001)

A Wake-Up Call to Become Global Christians | The deadly attacks on America will provoke many responses, but Christians are commanded to love our neighbors. (Sept. 12, 2001)

Nation’s Religious Leaders Urge Calm, Pray for Peace | Churches will maintain prayer vigils for victims and leaders. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Church Leaders Around World Deplore ‘Unspeakable Horror’ of Attack | Christians urged to unite in prayer as they unite in shock and denunciation. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Experts Say Spiritual Roots Will Aid in Coping With Catastrophe | Pray and connect with others, advise nation’s chaplains. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Fear and Hate | In times like this, as in all other times, Christians have a responsibility to love above all else. (Sept. 11, 2001)

God’s Message in the Language of Events | In the face of evil, we must focus on keeping our hearts right. (Sept. 11, 2001)

Visit Books & Culture online at BooksandCulture.com or subscribe here.

Books & Culture Corner appears Mondays at ChristianityToday.com. Earlier Books & Culture Corners include:

The Imagination of Disaster | “We thought we were invulnerable.” Really? (Sept. 17, 2001)

More Sex, Fewer Children | Mixed messages on condoms, contraception, and fertility. (Sept. 10, 2001)

The Strange Case of Napoleon Beazley | The latest poster boy for death row chic. (Aug. 27, 2001)

Apocalyptic City | The dream and the nightmare of megalopolis (Aug. 20, 2001)

Megalopolis Forty Years On | The ambiguous face of the city. (Aug. 13, 2001)

The Future Is Now | You want the news? Read science fiction. (Aug. 6, 2001)

Memorable Memoirs | Whether telling us about the Spirit in the South or the crumbling atheism of a Chinese immigrant, these books provide windos into others’ lives. (July 30, 2001)

The Distorted Story of Memoir Inc. | There are many good autobiographies out there, but do those who write about them have to pretend they’re the only books worth reading? (July 23, 2001)

Looking for the Soul of CBA | Nearly anything that can be said about Christian publishing is true to some extent, thanks to the industry’s ever-enlarging territory. (July 16, 2001)

Give Me Your Muslims, Your Hindus, Your Eastern Orthodox, Yearning to Breathe Free | Immigration’s long-ignored effect on American religion is garnering much attention from scholars (July 9, 2001)

Shrekked | Why are readers responding passionately about a simple film review? (July 2, 2001)

Debutante Fiction | The New Yorker should have paid less attention to the novelty of its writers and more attention to their writing. (June 18, 2001)

TV Is About to Get Worse

Ted Olsen

“Updating the gospel to show its relevance, and the amazing but tragic tale of a boy saved by the Bible.”

Christianity Today September 1, 2001
Fall TV preview: Nudity, profanity, and obscenity Having concluded his season of The West Wing by having the fictional president call God a “feckless thug” and telling him “to Hell with you” (albeit in Latin), show creator Aaron Sorkin is eager to take the Lord’s name in vain this season. If it happens, reports The New York Times, it would break a longstanding taboo. Other shows are scrambling to break different taboos. NYPD Blue creator Steven Bochco wants to use “a scatological reference that has never before been uttered on an ABC series” on his new show Philly. The pilot for CBS’s Wolf Lake contains “a particularly revealing sex scene.” And an unnamed CBS script includes a word “considered to be on the furthermost reaches of decorum.” (God bless The New York Times for its apparent in-house rules on profanity—it neither prints the words themselves nor the dash-dash-dash euphemisms.) “Standards have eased gradually over the decades,” explains Times writer Jim Rutenberg. “But the struggles behind the scenes are growing more strident and more complicated—making some people wonder where the boundaries of taste will settle in the next few years.” The television show creators are pointing to the popularity of HBO’s The Sopranos as evidence that Americans want more nudity, profanity, and violence in their entertainment. But if nudity, profanity, and violence were what made The Sopranos so popular, wouldn’t Cinemax be the highest-rated cable station? What’s particularly ironic is that Sorkin, Bochco, and other show creators who are saying network TV should be more like The Sopranos are the same people who are always complaining about the lack of original network programs.

Street price for cocaine hit now apparently 30 pieces of silver Network television creators aren’t the only ones pushing the envelope. The British chapter of Youth for Christ has a new film out about Jesus that has come under attack as a distortion of the Bible and harmful to young people. An Absence of Stones, which will be shown to secondary school students to convince them that the Bible is relevant, depicts Jesus as a 15-year-old and the Judas figure (now a girl) betrays him for cocaine. Instead of being crucified, Jesus is murdered by a classmate. Forgive Weblog for being confused, but doesn’t making that many changes to the story actually suggest to teens that the Bible isn’t relevant to their lives?

Bible saves teen from mother’s shotgun At least one teen believes in the power of the Bible. Actually, it’s a terribly tragic story, but is so amazing that it’s difficult to keep in mind how horrible it is. Sixteen-year-old Kenny Wallace of North Fort Myers, Florida, was shot by his mother Sunday morning with a 16-gauge shotgun. The only thing that saved him was his Bible. “The Bible deflected 99 percent of the blast,” says his pastor, Steve Rogers. “The shotgun blast blew a two-inch hole in it. It saved his life. It’s a miracle.” Wallace agrees. “God pulled the Bible in the way,” he says. “He used the Bible as my sword and my shield.” Sadly, Wallace’s 6-year-old brother was killed. The 911 call by Leslie Ann Wallace, where she confesses to the shootings, is absolutely horrific.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See our past Weblog updates:

August 31 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27

August 24 | 23 | 22 | 20

August 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 |13

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6

August 3 | 2 | 1 July 31 | 30

July 27 | 25 | 24 | 23

July 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16

July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9

Taliban Judge Says Christian Workers May Be Hanged

Ted Olsen

“Jews for Jesus accused of poaching Curious George, and other stories from media sources around the world”

Christianity Today September 1, 2001
Death penalty may be back on table for Shelter Now workers The eight foreign aid workers standing trial in Afghanistan for promoting Christianity may be executed, says a senior Taliban official. “We will punish them according to the laws they have broken,” Taliban chief justice Mawlawi Noor Mohammad Saqib told the Pakistan-based news agency Afghan Islamic Press. “If they have broken the law and should be hanged, then we will punish them like that.” But Saqib told a different story to the western media. “Talk of what the punishment will be is premature,” he told the Associated Press. “We are not saying anything about the trial proceedings or about the punishment until it is finished.” Saqib also refused to meet with three Western diplomats today.

Burnhams reported alive as Abu Sayyaf members killed New Tribes missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham are alive but suffering, say media reports out of the southern Philippines island of Basilan. Civilians who saw the missionaries last week say food is scarce both among the Abu Sayyaf rebels and their 18 captives. Meanwhile, fighting continues between the kidnappers and the Philippine military, and the government has promised to add more soldiers to the effort. Three of the rebels and one solider were killed in fighting yesterday. But in a hopeful turn of events, American hostage Guillermo Sobero was reportedly seen alive despite reports that the Abu Sayyaf decapitated him. Military officials are still investigating the sighting.

Curious George publishers angry at being aped in Jews for Jesus pamphlet That crazy monkey created by Margaret and H.A. Rey is always getting into trouble for being places he shouldn’t be. And the latest place he’s been spotted is in an evangelistic tract by Jews for Jesus. The man in the yellow hat, a.k.a. publisher Houghton Mifflin, has sued the organization for a minimum of $500,000, saying the tract has “confused the consuming public” into thinking Curious George “is associated with or endorses” the messianic organization. Jews for Jesus spokeswoman Susan Perlman says the tract is protected parody, and, besides, “We think Curious George would like it.”

More articles

Homosexual unions:

Life ethics:

Education:

Church life:

Missions and ministry:

Popular culture:

  • Bono ripe for sainthood | He is a committed Christian after all, and famous for his good works. Not to mention the fact that he’s already done more preaching than the 12 apostles combined. (Frank McNally, The Irish Times)
  • Church puts faith in Harry Potter | St Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in Syracuse, New York, is running classes comparing Potter with Jesus Christ. (The Sunday Times)
  • Pope attends QuoVadis premiere | Film has largest budget in Polish history (BBC)

Books:

  • How to link two media, and two faiths as well | It’s not often that a scholarly work is turned into film, but Marvin R. Wilson’s Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith is about to become a PBS documentary (The New York Times)
  • Earlier: Film Tries to Bridge Jewish, Evangelical Chasm | A new documentary explores each group’s concept of prayer, the Bible, and the Messiah. (Christianity Today, Jan. 24)
  • Bill Bright: Twilight of the evangelist | Along with Billy Graham, he’s one of the giants of the Evangelical movement. Now the Campus Crusade for Christ founder wants to write Christian potboillers (Time)
  • The Word made fresh | A review of Alister McGrath’s In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture (The Sydney Morning Herald)

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See our past Weblog updates:

September 4

August 31 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27

August 24 | 23 | 22 | 20

August 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 |13

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6

August 3 | 2 | 1 July 31 | 30

July 27 | 25 | 24 | 23

July 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16

July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9

“Sleepless and ‘Terrified’, Orphans, Staff Dare to Hope Truce Will Hold”

Ross Dunn

“After three days of fighting in Beit Jala, the Israeli army withdraws but warns it may return.”

Christianity Today September 1, 2001
The pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran church and orphanage in Beit Jala and the children in his care are waiting nervously to see whether a fragile Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire will hold.

For three days, fighting raged in and around the church, where 45 Palestinian children huddled for safety. Early in the morning on August 28, the Israeli army invaded the church compound as they fought with Palestinian militants. The forces withdrew early in the morning on August 30 in the face of international condemnation.

At the height of the fighting, the pastor, Jadallah Shihadeh, conducted media interviews, while outside the building Palestinians fired guns and threw homemade bombs at Israeli troops, who responded with tank and machine-gun fire.

“We couldn’t sleep for days,” said the pastor, who faced a threatened walkout by frightened staff. “The children were terrified. All of us we were terrified and we have lost our nerves.”

Observing a temporary cease-fire, Israeli troops withdrew from Beit Jala. Israeli Defence Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer warned that he would order his forces back into the town if Palestinian attacks resumed on the nearby Jewish neighbourhood of Gilo, built on land annexed by Israel from the West Bank.

But Shihadeh said that even if this happened, he would stay to protect the children, who are both Christian and Muslim. “Whatever happens, it is my responsibility as a pastor to stay with the children,” he said. “They are Palestinian children, they lost their parents. They come from a very, very difficult situation.”

He said that Israel had misjudged the situation badly by entering Beit Jala. All that Palestinians desired was their own state, he said, in which they could live in peace side-by-side with the Jewish State.

As the pastor spoke, Palestinian gunmen outside the church moved into an open street to shoot at Israeli soldiers. They quickly ducked back into doorways to shelter from the firestorm they received in return.

One Palestinian gunman identified himself as a member of the military wing of Fatah, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s faction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Holding a pipe bomb that he later hurled at Israeli soldiers, he said he was not afraid to die for the cause of liberating Beit Jala from military occupation.

He said that his wife, who was nursing their newborn son, encouraged him to fight, declaring she wished she could have been at his side. “For Muslims and Arabs, Jihad (holy war) is more important than family and our children,” he said. “For us the land equals our children, and we defend them.”

As an Israeli tank approached, the Palestinian riflemen ran for cover, and waited for another opportunity to fire back at the enemy.

It remains uncertain whether the Palestinian militants will abide by an understanding reached between Israeli and Palestinian political leaders to observe a local truce.

Bishara Daoud, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and a resident of Beit Jala, did not believe any cease-fire would hold as long as Israel continued to occupy areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

He said that Beit Jala had not been truly liberated even when it was first handed over to Palestinian self-rule six years ago, because Israeli troops had remained on the outskirts of the town.

“I think we still are facing the occupation itself, no withdrawal for the Israelis, even when they took this step to enter again Area A [denoting a Palestinian self-rule area] in Beit Jala,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that Beit Jala had been liberated completely because we could not control our sky or the [ground].”

The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) has strongly condemned the Israeli military occupation of the town of Beit Jala, particularly the use by Israeli forces of the Lutheran church there as a base for military activities.

In a brief note to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, LWF general secretary, Dr Ishmael Noko, expressed “the outrage””of the global organization at the invasion of “one of the holy places of the Christian community of Beit Jala.”

“I cannot refrain from saying how deeply this rash and precipitate action has undermined the LWF’s faith” in the Israeli government’s goodwill in responding to the current crisis, Noko said.

The general secretary, who was attending meetings in preparation for the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, called for the withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces in the Beit Jala area.

The Lutheran Bishop in Jerusalem, Munib A. Younan, also condemned the Israeli occupation of the church in Beit Jala.

Last October the LWF general secretary wrote to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak protesting against the occupation of the LWF-run Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem by Israeli forces.

Copyright © 2001 ENI

Related Elsewhere

Media coverage of the Israeli occupation of Beit Jala included:

Israel’s Beit Jala Thrust Divides Christian Town— Reuters (Aug. 28, 2001)

Israelis take town; US again is critical — Boston Globe (Aug. 29, 2001)

Lutheran Church says 50 children stranded in Beit Jala — The Jerusalem Post (Aug. 29, 2001)

Villagers Trapped as Israelis Vow to Stay ‘as Long as It Takes’ — Los Angeles Times (Aug. 29, 2001)

U.S. Asks Israel to Pull Troops From Town in West Bank — The New York Times (Aug. 29, 2001)

Israeli invasion provokes outrage — The Guardian (Aug. 29, 2001)

Israeli troops leave Beit Jala — BBC News (August 30, 2001)

For current articles on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, see Yahoo’s full coveragearea.

Previous Christianity Todayarticles on violence in the Holy Land:

Amid Fears for Future, Jerusalem’s Churches Embark On Prayers for Peace | Week of prayer launched with services held in various congregations. (Aug. 22, 2001)

Strengthen Christian Presence In The Holy Land, Carey Pleads | Middle-East leaders asked to help tone down violence that has killed 650 in 10 months. (August 2, 2001)

Greek Orthodox Priest Falls Victim to Middle East Conflict | Monks worry they may appear as threats to each warring side. (June 21, 2001)

Violence Puts Archaeologists Between Rocks, Hard Places | About half of the planned excavations in the Holy Land this summer have been canceled. (June 27, 2001)

Pilgrimages Drop and Workers Lose Jobs as Middle East Violence Continues | Silence fills places normally crowded with pilgrims, reports British group. (April 11, 2001)

Holy Land Roadblocks | Christian pilgrims learn about Palestinians’ everyday indignities. (Apr. 9, 2001)

Christian Zionists Rally for Jewish State | More than 600 Christians from around the world flock to Jerusalem to show solidarity with Israel as peace process collapses. (Apr. 9, 2001)

Between a Rock and a Holy Site | Muslims have stepped up their efforts to take control of places revered by Jews and Christians. (Feb. 13, 2001)

The Peace Regress | What’s behind the current outbreak of hostilities in the Holy Land? (Jan. 11, 2001)

Conflict in the Holy Land | A timeline of trials for the most contested piece of real estate in the world.

Christmas in Palestine: Hunger and War | Starvation threatens Palestinian villages if U.N. aid continues to be delayed, Vatican official warns. (Dec. 13, 2000)

Between the Temple Mount and a Hard Place | Palestinian Christians want both peace in their villages and justice for their Muslim brothers. (Dec. 5, 2000)

Christmas Plans for Bethlehem Scrapped | Escalating violence cancels millennial celebration in town of Christ’s birth. (Dec. 1, 2000)

Lutheran Bishop’s Appeal from Jerusalem | Religious leader’s letter requests prayer for Christians, Jews, and Palestinians in troubled region. (Nov. 10, 2000)

Latin Patriarch tells Israel to Surrender Lands to Palestinians | Catholic leader says Israel will never have peace unless it “converts all of its neighbors to friends.” (Nov. 1, 2000)

Fighting Engulfs a Christian Hospital in Jerusalem | Lutherans call conflict on their hospital grounds “an affront” to humanitarian purposes. (Oct. 16, 2000)

Israelis and Palestinians Pay Tribute to Pope’s Pilgrimage to Holy Land | Though some at grassroots remain unappeased, leaders of both groups are full of praise. (March 29, 2000)

Prepared for Pilgrims? | As Christian tourism surges, Holy Land believers brave troubled future. (Feb. 10, 2000)

Apology Crusaders to Enter Israel (April 15, 1999)

West Bank Squeezed by Warring Majorities | (Nov. 16, 1998)

Squeezed by Warring Majorities (November 6, 1998)

How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend (Oct. 5, 1998)

Jerusalem as Jesus Views It (Oct. 5, 1998)

Temple Mount on Shaky Ground? | (April 6, 1998)

“O Shakespeare, Where Art Thy Morals?”

Jeffrey Overstreet

“What Christian and mainstream critics are saying about the Othello adaptation O, Jeepers Creepers, and other current movies.”

Christianity Today September 1, 2001

Hot from the Oven

In the news, a pornographer is suing Oprah Winfrey over use of the title “O,” for which he claims to own the copyright. While Oprah defends the title of her ladies’ magazine, yet another O is making headlines. O—the movie—has nothing to do with pornography or Oprah; it is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Othello, and it’s directed by Tim Blake Nelson, who starred as Delmar in … you guessed it … O Brother, Where Art Thou?

While the movie portrays an outbreak of violence at a high school, the film is not, as some might claim, capitalizing on the Columbine event, or any other outbreak of school violence. In fact, it was a year after the film was completed, when Miramax finally decided to release it to theatres, that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris suddenly opened fire on Columbine High School. Miramax had to change their plans out of consideration for the families and friends affected by the tragedy. Now that it has arrived in theatres, will it encourage or glamorize violence? Critics don’t seem to think so, and some argue that this update of Shakespeare’s classic tale of jealousy and its consequences just might serve to discourage violence.

O stars Mekhi Phifer as the tormented Odin, Josh Hartnett (Pearl Harbor) in the Iago-ish role of Hugo, and the impressive Julia Stiles (Save the Last Dance, State and Main, and last year’s modernized Hamlet) as “Desi.” As Hugo watches his father, the football coach, favor Odin, the school’s champion athlete, and as he watches Odin win the heart of the dean’s daughter Desi, his jealousy leads him to deceive Odin, leading to murder and chaos.

The U.S. Catholic Conference‘s critic found it all a bit too much: “Director Tim Blake Nelson’s brutal modernization of Shakespeare’s classic story … is involving, but the inescapable presentation of remorseless teen killings leaves the senses numb.” Movie Parables‘ Michael Elliott found the progression of Phifer’s Odin from “sweet, generous [and] good-natured” to “a cold jealous killer” to be “simply too great a leap and Phifer is unable to make it convincing.” He adds, “Julia Stiles needed to flesh out her character a bit more. While she’s serviceable in the role, too many unanswered questions are left in her wake.” Elliott concludes with limited kudos: “Points should be given for the clever way the filmmakers incorporate the various plot elements of Othello, updating them for their modern version. Still, when all is said and done, O can only be called a valiant effort but one that ultimately comes up short.”

John Adair, Preview‘s family-oriented critic, testifies that the play’s “emotional core survives in this retelling. The audience glimpses the disastrous and destructive results caused by a consuming jealousy to all those involved. However, the effects are not glamorized as several difficult-to-watch scenes depict people motivated by their jealousy.” While depictions of jealousy impressed Adair, portrayals of other inappropriate behavior among high-schoolers troubled him, including a sexual encounter that turns to rape, as well as some ‘explicit locker room conversations’ and drug use.”

Other critics had similar moral objections to seeing high school kids behaving inappropriately. The Dove Foundation‘s Phil Boatwright argues: “The movie has many strengths that are unfortunately overtaken by its shortcomings. Thankfully, O is not a contemporary group of actors butchering the bard’s original dialogue. Somewhere amongst the overwhelmingly smutty dialogue and in-your-face sexuality is a well-acted, well-directed story of love and friendships gone awry.”

“Despite being a faithful and interesting treatment of Shakespeare filled with decent performances, one has to wonder what good will come from it, and whether it should have stayed on the shelf,” muses Bob Smithouser at Focus on the Family.

Ted Baehr’s Movieguide review faults “the school setting,” then argues that the film dilute[s] the dramatic power of Odin’s precipitous fall from grace” since Odin and Desi are only dating and not married in the film. Then, the reviewer faults “the introduction of substance abuse, foul language and tasteless sexual immorality,” which the critic claims “dilutes the moral, Christian beauty in Shakespeare’s classic play.” (I wonder, is this critic aware of how many double-entendres, derogatory language, and crass put-downs are littered throughout Shakespeare’s original texts?)

At the onFilm discussion list, Peter T. Chattaway (Books and Culture, Christianity Today) says, “I appreciated the way they moved Othello into a modern high-school setting, though I wasn’t entirely convinced that the film’s characters, developed as they were on the film’s own terms, would have gone the ‘big step’ of creating such an elaborate, violent plot in the end. Still, due to recent events, the violence doesn’t seem so far-fetched any more.” From there, he reflects on the source play itself. “When things go sour, it’s very tempting to blame Iago for poisoning [Othello’s and Desdemona’s] relationship … but the fact is, no matter how much Iago deceives or manipulates Othello, Othello—like all of us—is responsible for his own actions, and that potential for violence against the one he loves was there within him all along. … Interestingly, [O] fleshes out the Iago character’s motivations a little more, showing how he responds to his father’s neglect, but again, even if his father’s neglect explains Hugo’s actions, it does not and cannot excuse his actions. Hugo acts of his own free will, too.”

The current trend of retelling Shakespeare in a modern context is bringing to young moviegoers an exciting and appealing entry into one of literature’s most moral and compelling bodies of work. And it is one of art’s greatest benefits that it can help us explore relevant cultural issues, such as how rejection can lead to hate and, ultimately, to violence, even in young people.

“I was portraying some of the feelings of high school students everywhere,” Nelson told the Chicago Sun-Times. “These feelings of jealousy are as old as time. These are the same feelings that motivated that Elizabethan play and they motivate my movie … and they will motivate the version of Othello they do 100 years from now with holograms, probably.”

Roger Ebert observes, “We have a peculiar inability in our country to understand the contexts of things; when it comes to art, we interpret troublesome works in the most literal and simple-minded way. In the aftermath of Columbine, Washington legislators called on Hollywood to police itself, and rumbled about possible national censorship. Miramax caved in by suppressing this film. To suggest that O was part of the solution and not part of the problem would have required a sophistication that our public officials either lack, or are afraid to reveal, for fear of offending the bottom-feeders among their constituents.” He calls O “a good film for most of the way, and then a powerful film at the end. Those who think this film will inspire events like Columbine should ask themselves how often audiences want to be like the despised villain.”

* * *

A horror flick debuted at the top of the box office this week, surprising critics who thought that the recent invasion of Scream-inspired teen-slasher flicks had worn out its welcome. Jeepers Creepers follows a brother and sister on their way home from college, where along the road they discover an abandoned church that is now home to a seemingly invincible and horrifying creature.

The U.S. Catholic Conference is more troubled than scared by the movie: “The gaping holes in writer-director Victor Salva’s muddled plot are scarier than this preposterous monster movie, which abruptly stops without wrapping up its many loose strands.”

Phil Boatwright at The Dove Foundation writes, “The film is terrifying, often causing startled audience members to shout out for the dim-witted heroes to run for their lives—the audience participation being the best part of this spooky, but clichéd horror flick.” But he is not impressed by the thinking behind the scaring. “The script’s terror … stems from its satanic being, with little theology to back up the premise that this creature is allowed to feed every 23 [years for 23 days]. If there is a meaning to the number 23, it most likely comes from occult ritual rather than biblical scripture. Nor does the script contain a good vs. evil theme. Although one character is spared when she begins praying the Lord’s Prayer, little else in the picture could be construed as evidence that God defeats the evil one. Indeed, the Almighty is never referred to, except as a profanity.” He adds that films like this may seem like escapist entertainment, but viewers should instead proceed with caution. “You may jump. You may laugh. But chances are good this film won’t nourish you.”

Mainstream critics were busy comparing the movie’s momentum to an aggravating automotive experience. Andrew O’Hehir at Salon.com says the film “gets off to a great start and then simply shuts down, like an awesome vintage car on an ambitious road trip.” And Mike Clark at USA Today agrees: “Jeepers Creepers is no big-screen keeper, but it does survive its 40-minute test drive before turning into a lemon.”

Still CookingAmerican Pie 2, almost entirely condemned by critics in the religious media, is still showing a strong presence; it was knocked to #2 in the top ten by Jeepers Creepers after three weeks at #1. Why is this bawdy, toilet-humor comedy scoring so well and appealing to so many?

This week at The Film Forum, rather than taking a stance of mere moral outrage, Rich Kennedy asks: “What possible value is there to the believer in the experience of such a romp depicting sex obsessed Lotharios?” And then, considering the film’s outrageous story of teens getting into trouble with sex, he answers himself: “There is never anything to be gained by avoidance of an issue. Believers have stood athwart the sexual revolution and said, ‘avert your eyes, don’t do that … ‘ with indifferent result for an awfully long time. AP2 deftly skews the great divide between the sexes at every age and shows in blunt detail how adrift one can be under the influence of Values-Of-The-Month. So why sit through this again? Straw-man depictions of valueless behavior have an artificiality easily refuted by experience. But here is a clever, funny depiction that drives home the point just fine. Humor and farce work best on these matters as no less than Moliere, Shaw, and Wilde have shown in the past. No way am I saying that writer Adam Herz (this is supposed to be about his youth) and director James B. Rogers are anywhere near their league. I am saying that this approach has pedigree and there is some wisdom here amongst the trash.”

* * *

Meanwhile, Woody’s Allen’s The Curse of the Jade Scorpion threw fuel on the fire of those who can’t take Allen seriously as a romantic lead. At Christian Spotlight on the Movies, Douglas Downs loses patience with Allen’s insistence on casting himself opposite younger women. “Woody should have cast someone else in the role of investigator C.W. Briggs. Jerry Seinfeld, perhaps? Perhaps he is more of a legend in his own mind then in reality. New plots are in order, Mr. Allen … ones without you as the heartthrob cast with women half your age.” He also found the film to be flat: “I did smile a few times at some of the lame attempts at comedy (maybe I could be hypnotized to smile more).”

But The Film Forum‘s Jeff Diaz had a grand time: “I just love going to these things for just the witty banter and grasp of comic timing that is so lost these days in supposed comedy films today. Have we forgotten the craft of wit? Of turning jokes on the head of a pin? Of timing even? Thankfully not everyone has. Everyone could go and see this and have a wonderful time if they are willing to turn their brains on a little and relax.”

Personally, I find Woody’s onscreen romantic gravity to be part of the fun of his movies. How many romantic leads has Hollywood offered us that were clearly not the sort of men women would really pursue? The persona that Woody has developed for himself in his movies is a manic cartoon, a caricature on par with one of the Marx Brothers or Charlie Chaplin. He’s a clown, and I doubt Allen would ever argue that he’s meant to be realistic. But through his adventures and errors, he stumbles onto larger things that are indeed worth thinking about.

And besides, Hollywood has always mismatched couples. I’m not excusing it—it certainly reflect an unhealthy emphasis the importance of a woman’s youthful appearance—but Woody Allen is hardly to be singled-out for having onscreen romances with younger women. If you blow the whistle on him, then you should definitely also blow the whistle on movies that ask us to take such generation gaps seriously. You’ll end up locking up Humphrey Bogart, Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, and on and on …

* * *

As Christians and caretakers continue to protest Bubble Boy‘s comic portrayal of a boy insulated against the world around him, Peter Chattaway offers some argument with the films accusers. At the onFilm discussion list, he writes, “While I can see why people who suffer from immune deficiency might not appreciate a comedy about someone with that illness, the key thing for me would be whether the movie encourages us to laugh at or with the character. The ad for this film, which focused on Jimmy, the boy in the plastic bubble, getting tossed around by buses and trucks and planes and female mud wrestlers, seemed to make him an object of our humor, but the film itself encouraged us to identify with the character, so I’d say I was laughing with, not at, him.”

Addressing the film’s mockery of Christianity, Chattaway asks, “Was the caricatured portrayal of Christians offensive? I guess so, but I think it’s safe to say we have all known parents who wanted to keep their children safe at home, cloistered in the Christian ghetto, removed from the perceived ‘evils’ of the world around us, and, like it or not, that aspect of the Christian culture deserves satirizing. (Is it okay when Christian humorists at The Door and ship-of-fools.com mock our foibles, but not when presumably secular filmmakers do so? Does the source of the humor really matter?) Perhaps we might complain there are no clearly positive Christian stereotypes in the film to balance the negative stereotypes—but I can’t say this bothered me, since we get plenty of positive Christian stereotypes in other films anyway, and since pretty much every character in this film was a stereotype of one sort or another anyway.”

He concludes: “I am reluctant to say that Bubble Boy was a good film, but I can’t say it was as bad as the reviews made it out to be.”

Next week: The Fall film calendar. Is anything worthwhile coming to a theatre near you?

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

Earlier Film Forum postings include these other movies in the box-office top ten: Rush Hour 2, The Others, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Rat Race, The Princess Diaries, and Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.
Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube