I watched the Passion of the Christ for the 2nd time during the Passion Week. I never thought I’d watch it a 2nd time, but I’m certainly glad I did. 

I wonder now, about 7 years removed from the completion of it, if old Gibby considers it his magnum opus or if he has any regrets in making it? Devoutly defending it with his words, Gibson has not done quite as good a job defending it with his lifestyle. Threatening phone calls, divorce, sexual activity outside marriage, alleged abuse….

How could this be? Here’s one possibility (another possibility is he might not be a true believer-but that’s too easy)

No doubt Mel had a bulls-eye on his back. Promoting Jesus will get you a bulls-eye on your back. Promoting Jesus and abstinence before marriage on the basketball court, like Dwight Howard claimed such a desire to do, landed him with a kid out of wedlock and leading the league in technical fouls.

I for one am happy I’m not in the NBA. I would hate for cameras to focus on me after I made a bad shot, or complained to the ref’s. I would probably lead the league in technical fouls; it takes everything in me not to argue with church softball refs! And I don’t know what its like to have cheerleaders throwing themselves at me while I’m a single guy in my early 20’s. I don’t excuse Howard’s or Gibson’s behavior in the least. Both have hurt their witness because they chose to do so.

But I don’t know the same level of the public bull’s eye-ness as those guys know. With fame comes the bulls-eye.

In this article, Jim Caviezel explains how Gibson warned him that “You’ll never work in this town again.”

I think Gibson understood that there would be a bulls-eye, but he obviously didn’t understand the spiritual depth of such a bulls-eye. He understood the professional attack, but he didn’t realize how prone he was to real spiritual attack. The man who stood up for Jesus probably didn’t consider himself capable of such things (I imagine), just like Peter thought Jesus was loony when He predicted his denial. 

“It could never happen to me.” Famous last words, particularly for our witness.

Little did Mel know Satan cares far more about destroying your character than your destroying your career. If he can get two birds with one stone, then great. But when your witness and credibility is destroyed, as you could clearly say is the case with Mel, Satan can say, “It’s been a good year.”

But there is hope. In this article, Caviezel admits his career hasn’t recovered, but his witness, as far as I can remember from lack of “bad press,” wasn’t destroyed. He can still speak at a Mega-Baptist church and have some credibility.

I got the news Osama Bin Ladin had been killed while watching SportsCenter as it flashed across the bottom ticker. Amy and I were thankful. Not really glad that he was dead, but more so that they had found that joker. I would have been just as glad had he been captured and not killed. 

 

 The next morning there were a zillion blog posts, facebook comments, and tweets. Jonathon Dodson gives a response to the various responses, cautioning people to digest, listen, and think through the various issues (and I think there really are a multitude of them) first.

Should I feel conviction about feeling some sense of satisfaction about justice, although only partial, being served? I’m not advocating throwing a party, but should I, or should we, only feel sadness at his death? We should probably feel a bit of sadness that someone chose to look at Jesus and say, “You aren’t God, and I will not submit to and trust you.” That doesn’t bode well for him, nor for billions like him. This gospel coalition post shaped and directed some of my thoughts the next day.

But should Christians simply mourn the death of a such an evil person and not thank God for justice? Should the soldiers who killed him in war, not thank God for such a deliverance? Should we not thank God for our soldiers doing their jobs well? I think our world and our emotions are far too complex for a simple answer. But I don’t think we should feel guilty for being thankful.

I’m also thankful for the boldness of people to post their reflections, which go against popular sentiment. My sense of justice, as I suspect with many, can sometimes-or rather often-border on a desire for personal retribution. And I did have to repent from being glad that Osama was now in hell. But I still think there is more to it.

You can read more here

While I understand that I’m condemned for my sins and only have Jesus to look to, I don’t think it honors Jesus to not admit there could be no difference between your sins, those of your non-believing grandmother, and those of Osama. 

De Young writes in a more recent post

You can check out several of his scriptural references. This is a great post on moral equivalence.

Doug Wilson, who I rarely ever agree with, has a solid post, questioning the “well, we’re all sinners and deserve death” mentality, saying it actually hurts your evangelism. You can read more here.

In the end, I think we should have mixed emotions. Not celebrating in the streets, but not simple mourning either, nor self-righteously boasting that you are in the minority for your convictions (not calling out anyone but I do know that we’re prone to works-righteousness). I’m thankful for living within a community, albeit sometimes cyber-community where we can graciously disagree with one another. And I’m thankful for some of the pertinent questions which have been raised, as well as others like this one which has recently popped into my mind: what or how should we pray for when we pray for our enemies, particularly terrorists?

Some people believe in God for different reasons, or at the very least, find some evidences more compelling than others. Being primarily a pre-suppositionalist myself, and having submitted myself first to the biblical worldview, I find this approach makes more sense of reality than any other system of thought. However I do find some reasons like Blaise Paschal’s “greatness and wretchedness” principle-that man is capable of so much good and so much evil-one of the most intellectual satisfying (we are created in the image of God and yet fallen).  While Tim Keller takes a more pre-suppositional approach in the first section of A Reason for God he does give “clues” rather than “proofs” that God does in fact exist in the latter chapters. Whether a curious unbeliever or mature believer, who like most of us wrestle with doubts, this book does us both a great service. 

And yet outside of this intellectual framework or body of evidences, sometimes very small things “happen” to us which get our attention and serve as clues of God’s existence and presence. For instance, take running into someone at some place at some time, when only a combination of other events would allow such a “chance” meeting to happen. That’s why this guy says he believes in God.

Those kind of events which we believe couldn’t ever happen if God had not somehow ordered them to fall out accordingly never cease to amaze and affirm. But I’m not sure we can build our faith upon such events, and certainly we can’t use them to definitively give a “reason for the hope we have (I Peter 3:15).” After all, there are other “chance” meetings which turn out pretty bad. I’m sure plenty of folks, due to a series of unusual events, found themselves in the path of the southern tornadoes and died. 

The faith described in this article is personal, and I don’t necessarily question it (though I would probably not connect evangelical, Rob Bell, gay and lesbian award winner). I didn’t watch the video but just read the article.

Perhaps if we ever cross paths-and who’s to say that we couldn’t ever (we could both agree on that), I’d probably ask him to check out Keller’s A Reason For God. If nothing else, he might get a fuller picture of the gospel than with Bell.

I often find myself drawn to the CNN belief blog. I don’t necessarily find a ton of affinity for the particular expressions of Christianity presented, but I’m almost always thankful for the thoughtful dialog. Sometimes folks will raise questions I’ve never thought too much about. One such title is this: Is Judas in heaven or hell?

I, along with Dante, presume the latter, rather than the former. Not that I’m good company, but I think I’m in good company. 

But this hip young pastor has some interesting takes. I’ve summarized some and quoted another.

1.) He argues that both Judas and Peter sinned, and made a “mistake.” Both were filled with remorse. Peter just didn’t kill himself, so he lived long enough to see Jesus’ forgiveness.

  

Was Judas’ sin worse than Peter’s? Well, Jesus does tell Pilate that “he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin (John 19:11).” So I guess Jesus kind of squashes that thinking. And he does say, “it would have been better for Judas, “if he had not been born.” (Matt 14:21; 26:24). Still it doesn’t tell us where Judas is, only that it doesn’t bode well for him. But in my mind, 2 Corinthians 7:10 has always cleared up the difference between Judas and Peter in regards to sin, sorrow, repentance, and salvation: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”

2.)  The bible doesn’t speak of Judas’ eternal state, so we shouldn’t speculate. How do even know who’s there and who’s not?

Speculation on who’s in and who’s out is never a good thing. Great point. We’ve simply been given parameters: have the Son=life/No Son=judgment and wrath. But those parameters are such that we shouldn’t throw up our hands and say, “God only knows.” It is true that God only knows, but God does more than just know, He gives us His trustworthy Word. If someone professes faith, displays faith, and perseveres until the end (or professes faith at the end-like the thief on the cross), we ought to have a level of confidence where that person is. The “God only knows” type thinking only celebrates unbiblical uncertainty for the sake of trying to make others more gracious and less dogmatic in gray areas. Noble goals, but there are better ways to reach them.

3.)  “It is easier to debate these issues and make speculations about others than it is to actually look at ourselves in the mirror. It is always easier to think someone else is worse off then we are. But maybe as we approach Easter, we can be reminded that for Christians, the cross and the grave should silence all of these debates. We all fall short and deserve death, but because of what Jesus did on the cross 2,000 years ago, we are able to have life. And I believe that where you end up, God only knows.”

I really like this paragraph, minus the last sentence. He draws us away from speculation because it only serves to take our gaze off our own sin and to stare at the sin of others. Beautiful. That is our tendency, to look at others sins’ as worse than ours; we all could make a good living if we got paid for that type of thing. Then the truth of the gospel-that Jesus died for those deserving death. Amen. Nailed it.

I could ask some more speculative questions like “What would repentance have looked like for Judas,” but I’ll take heed of the pastor’s challenge to see my sin and see my Savior. That should take up enough time.

This is take two on “Is God really a gentlemen?” I’ve already made the point that we need a God who intervenes in our lives, who does in a very real sense “force Himself on us.” So in that way, I would say, we don’t need or should want a gentlemen God.

However, I don’t think the term gentlemen is completely without merit. It all depends upon the picture you have of a gentlemen. In the movie Last of the Mohicans, one of the characters Duncan, plays the role of the perfect-or close to it-gentlemen. While his commitment to what is “proper” leaves those less anal about “proper” (particularly during a time of war) dissatisfied, one cannot completely begrudge him his mentality. There seems a consistent commitment to sacrifice for more than just his country under the surface of this military man.

He loves a woman who refuses to love him back. He would be happy to see the one whom she does love hanged, and even bluntly says so. But he leaves us no doubt that this is truly a gentlemen of gentlemen. When the Native American captures his “love”, they decide to burn this woman to atone for the sins of her father. And so he literally steps in, offering himself instead as a replacement sacrifice. 

He dies so that she can live, even though it meant her living and loving another man. That’s a gentlemen. Giving up his life for the good of another whom he wished could be his wife.

If this is a gentlemen, then we have a God who does even more. Jesus, as the perfect gentlemen, offers himself not to temporary flames but to God the Father in order to exhaust his burning hot wrath. And he does this to secure and purchase the hand of His bride, the church. For the joy set before Him, he willingly suffers and gives himself up for the joy of His bride. Because of his death, the two can now live in intimate relationship.