Backlog: Dissatisfied with the Jesus of the Bible, female Roman Catholic fiction writer creates her own Jesus

If Jesus had been a woman, he wouldn't have fulfilled the Messianic prophecies--a fact which escapes feminists. As reported by Elaine Lies of Reuters, August 18, 2011:

TOKYO - As a child, Kristen Wolf set up a makeshift altar in the driveway of her home, decorating a desk with a white cloth and a crucifix before proceeding to conduct a Mass and causing a stir that resulted in a reprimand.

The move came, she now says, from a sense that she was left outside the center of Catholic tradition and spirituality by her gender, a feeling that led her decades later to write “The Way,” a re-imagining of the story of Jesus with a woman in the central role.

“I had a very definite sense, even as a young child, of being somehow excluded from my spiritual experience,” Wolf said in a recent telephone interview.

“As I looked on it, the church leaders could only be male and our God was male, the main player was the Father’s only son. The women were mostly in ancillary roles ... I never felt there was a heroic female.”

Decades later, after attending Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. and studying the Bible and mythology, as well as reading retellings of once-male stories from a female point of view, Wolf thought there was a need for a new take on the Biblical tale of the Messiah.

The result was the story of Anna, a tomboy in ancient Palestine whose androgynous appearance leads to her being disguised as a boy and sold to shepherds. Captured and taught by a group of women who live according to an ancient philosophy, she tries to spread their teachings to ordinary people.

Wolf said that she didn’t want to be critical of any religion, but instead sought to tap into one of the major stories still told in modern society — just from a slightly different angle.

“The stories need to be dusted off and re-invigorated. My intention was to create a new story that we tell differently, that brings out the timelessness of this story, this person Jesus,” she said.

“It captures that timelessness but reshapes it so it becomes relevant in our lives again.”

The book took some time to be sold to a publisher, but Wolf said she felt that was due at least as much to difficult times in the industry and her own status as a debut novelist. She noted that much of the response since it was launched has been positive.

While there were pleasures and perils involved in retelling such a famous story, she found the overall experience was “thrilling.”

“You already have, intrinsically, a powerful, moving, evocative story and character that has already stood the test of time. It’s as if you’re working with a great masterpiece of human emotion,” she said.

“Which probably also ties into why you’re at peril, because you’re taking something that is powerful and you are willing to alter it. Your intention is to refresh it but I suppose there’s always the risk that you don’t.”

25 years ago: Violent Islamic protests over The Satanic Verses contrast with peaceful Christian protests over The Last Temptation of Christ

On February 14, 1989, Iran's Supreme Ruler, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa--a legal judgment--encouraging Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie, author of the novel The Satanic Verses (1988), accused of being disrespectful to the prophet Muhammad. The fatwa came amidst violent protests against the novel in several Muslim countries. The day after the fatwa, one of the Ayatollah's aides offered $1 million for the death of Mr. Rushdie. On February 18, Mr. Rushdie issued a statement saying, "I profoundly regret the distress that publication has occasioned to sincere followers of Islam." The next day, the Ayatollah rejected the apology, and Mr. Rushdie was forced into hiding for the next 9 1/2 years, until a new Iranian President, Mohammed Khatami, publicly stated that Iran would not support the fatwa. Of course, just because the government of Iran may not officially support the fatwa doesn't mean that private individuals or organizations don't still support it, and there are still people who would be quite happy to kill Mr. Rushdie or reward anyone who does.

In Western nations, university campuses showed their support for freedom by holding marathon public readings of The Satanic Verses. As an aside, it was during such activity at the University of Alberta that I discovered a number of books by American novelist Thomas Dixon (1864-1946) on the shelves of Rutherford Library. I'd heard of Mr. Dixon years earlier, but had never read any of his books, and had never bothered looking for them. When I found his novels in the library early in 1989, the first one I read was his most notorious: The Clansman (1905), which inspired the famous film The Birth of a Nation (1915). I found the book to be racist and offensive by modern standards, but it's also entertaining and fascinating to read, and is one of my guilty pleasures. I couldn't help but think that if people at the university really believed in "freedom to read," they should hold public readings from The Clansman. The reader may go here for a free dowload of The Clansman and make up his own mind.

The protests by Muslims against The Satanic Verses occurred about six months after protests by Christians--mainly in the United States--against the motion picture The Last Temptation of Christ, which portrayed Jesus Christ in a manner that could charitably be described as blasphemous and defamatory. It's hard not to notice the difference between Islamic reaction against The Satanic Verses--a novel that hadn't yet been committed to screen--and Christian reaction against The Last Temptation of Christ. The movie was based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, originally published in Greek as O Teleutaios Peirasmos in 1953, and first published in English as The Last Temptation in 1960.

As to the movie and the controversy surrounding it, a typical establishment media view was expressed by critic David Ehrenstein in his notes accompanying the DVD of the movie. Mr. Ehrenstein is a typical liberal--accusing others of what he's guilty of himself. To paraphrase Mr. Ehrenstein, his account is a mixture of half-truths, outright lies, and anti-Christian slurs--with the addition of a large dose of Jewish paranoia. However, his description of the movie's content is very accurate:

The Last Temptation of Christ is, without question, one of the most serious, literate, complex, and deeply felt religious films ever made...this adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis' imaginative retelling of the life of Christ should surely be discussed...by theological scholars and thoughtful moviegoers for years to come. Unfortunately, such serious discussion has been blocked by a yowling mob of right-wing zealots who have stood in the way of all discussions of the work since it was first released in 1988...

...In 1983, Scorcese began preproduction on the film for Paramount Pictures...But weeks before the shooting was to begin the project was canceled--at least in part as a result of a letter-writing campaign engineered by right-wing Christian groups. They claimed that Last Temptation would portray Christ as a homosexual--though such a notion figured neither in the Kazantzakis novel nor in the film Scorsese planned. Unbowed, Scorsese persevered, eventually making Last Temptation for Universal (for an estimated $6 million to $8 million) four years later...

...But by that time, the hysterical fantasies of a select few had given way to the organized campaign of a larger and more sinister consortium. Fueled by half-truths, outright lies, and anti-Semitic slurs--the likes of which haven't been heard since the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg--this well-orchestrated campaign demanded nothing less than Last Temptation's total destruction. Spearheaded by Tim Penland of MasterMedia and Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ, an ad hoc committee of self-styled "fundamentalist leaders" declared that a film none of them had seen depicted " a mentally-deranged, lust-driven man who, in a dream sequence, comes down off the cross and has a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene." If Universal would not burn the negative, they offered to buy it to destroy it themselves.

Predictably, those TV-savvy reverends Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon joined the chorus of disapproval, along with the three Pats--Robertson, Buchanan, and Boone. Though they hadn't seen the film, they were far from disinclined to discuss it. Likewise, director Franco Zeffirelli withdrew his Young Toscanini from the Venice Film Festival when he learned that Last Temptation--which he described sight-unseen as "truly horrible and completely deranged"--was invited there for a screening. In this he was little different from the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, who, though he hadn't seen the film, deemed it "morally offensive."

Still, the archbishop made a point of distancing his critique from the protests of the Reverend H.L. Hymers, who staged a rally in front of the home of Lew Wasserman, then chairman of MCA, the parent company of Universal Pictures. Carrying placards proclaiming "Wasserman fans anti-Semitism," the minister and his flock proceeded to provide the fanning--chanting to all who'd hear that "Jewish money" was behind Last Temptation.

Had the Reverend Hymers been a bit more attentive to detail, he would have been aware that Nikos Kazantzakis was of the Greek Orthodox faith; that Paul Schrader, who wrote the screenplay, was raised as a Calvinist; and that Martin Scorsese was a Roman Catholic. But then, Hymers hadn't seen the film either. And why should he, or any of Last Temptation's foes, want to confuse themselves with the facts?

Rather than a "blasphemous" attack on Christ's divinity, climaxing with a salacious "sex scene," The Last Temptation of Christ is a stirring affirmation of faith both in the person of Jesus and in his teachings. This affirmation is unorthodox only in that it requires a viewer to think about the meaning of the gospels for every one of the film's 163 minutes. And it is this process of thought that the film's attackers can't abide--particularly as such thought involves the paradox of Jesus' simultaneous divinity and humanity. And this is the crux of the matter. For The Last Temptation of Christ presents divinity not as a given, but rather as a process Christ explores through his humanity. Consequently, the film's message couldn't be simpler. By experiencing Jesus' divinity as a process, we come to learn how the divine might enter our own lives.

We first meet Jesus as a grown man--frail and terrified. Troubled by crippling headaches and mystical visions, he's well aware that he isn't like ordinary men but is uncertain about what the future holds in store for him. He sees himself as a sinner, for while he's resisted sin, he feels he's done so out of cowardice. He takes personal responsibility for the fact that Mary Magdalene has become a prostitute--blaming himself for not having married her and provided a normal life.

His friend Judas is convinced that Jesus' future is in politics--as the man who will lead the Jews in revolt against their Roman captors. But after meditating in the desert, Jesus comes to a different realization of his destiny. Slowly gathering about him the group of men and women who would become his disciples, he begins to preach.

"I'll just open my mouth and God will do the talking," he says at first. Later, as he gains conviction, he talks both of love and of "the sword." Finally, he comes to realize that his purpose on Earth is to be the "lamb of God," sacrificing himself on the cross. He urges Judas to betray him in order to accomplish this mission. And it is on the cross he faces his "last temptation."

Looking down, Jesus sees a beautiful little girl who claims to be an angel of the Lord. She tells him his sufferings are over and that he doesn't have to go through with the crucifixion. It is only a test--like God's telling Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Taking him to a verdant valley, the girl presents him to Mary Magdalene for marriage. Magdalene later dies, but Jesus continues living a quiet life with Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus--the man whom he raised from the dead. "There is only one woman in the world," the girl tells him. He fathers children and lives to a ripe old age. But on Jesus' deathbed an angry Judas confronts him. He tells him he's missed his calling by not being crucified. And he reveals that the angelic-looking girl is, in fact, the devil. Realizing the truth, Jesus recommits himself to God--and finds himself back on the cross. In truth, he's been there all along. The "last temptation" took place in a flash, between his questioning why God has "forsaken him" and his final declaration that "it is accomplished." It is in this final moment that Christ's divinity is fully revealed.

All of this, needless to say, means nothing to the film's enemies, who have used it as little more than a ploy to regain ground lost in the wake of the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart money and sex scandals. And that's not to mention those other opportunists, who, in the wake of Last Temptation, have created a powerful reactionary political lobby within the Republican Party that calls itself "Christian" while harboring beliefs and attitudes that are more political than spiritual.

But that is another matter--and the possible subject of another movie. For the moment, it is enough to contemplate--in reasoned calm--the power and glory of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. David Ehrenstein, DVD, 2000, The Criterion Collection

Evidence to rebut Mr. Ehrenstein's contentions are taken mainly from Michael Medved's book Hollywood vs. America (1992), pp. 37-49, and John Ankerberg & John Weldon's out-of-print but very informative booklet The Facts on "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988). I saw the movie on DVD in 2013 (which explains why I'm able to quote Mr. Ehrenstein's notes), and I can confirm that everything in the movie cited by Messrs. Ankerberg & Weldon and others critical of the film is accurate.

Mr. Ehrenstein claims that serious discussion of the film has been blocked by a "yowling mob" of right-wing zealots who have stood in the way of all discussions of the work..." On the contrary, it was Christian leaders who wanted a serious discussion of the movie's content, and they were denied that privilege. Two weeks before the movie's release, John Ankerberg invited representatives of Universal Studios to appear on the John Ankerberg Television Show to discuss the movie with Campus Crusade for Christ president Bill Bright, American Family Association director Donald Wildmon, newspaper columnist Cal Thomas, and lawyer and Christian apologist John Warwick Montgomery. Universal Studios officially declined the opportunity (Ankerberg & Weldon, pp. 40-41). At the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Washington, D.C. in February 1988, representatives of Universal Studios promised to allow 10 Christian leaders to view the film two months before its release, and that they would be allowed to delete materials that they found offensive to their beliefs. A preview screening scheduled for June 1988, and a July 12 preview screening for evangelical leaders was also cancelled--although a screening was held that day for liberal clergy (Ankerberg & Weldon, p. 41).

Mr. Ehrenstein may be partially right when he says that early protest against the movie was based on a belief that Jesus Christ would be portrayed as a homosexual. There's a long-standing urban legend within evangelicalism that says that a movie portraying the sex life of Christ is in the works. This goes back at least as far as 1978; I remember seeing a half-hour television broadcast that summer on that subject, hosted by Pat Boone and sponsored by an organization called the Interfaith Committee Against Blasphemy, based in Glendale, California, if I remember correctly. A campaign urging that protest letters be sent to "Attorney General Scott" of Illinois (why, I don't know) was still going on 10 years later (when I received one such form letter with a space for my signature, to be sent to the aforementioned Mr. Scott). Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper discussed the myth in his book Hollywood Urban Legends (2001), pp. 113-118. I don't know if Christians in 1983 were assuming that The Last Temptation of Christ was the movie that they had been hearing about, or whether Mr. Ehrenstein is confused or misinformed about the early protests.

The "sinister consortium" that Mr. Ehrenstein mentions, whose protests culminated in a protest of 25,000 people outside the "Black Tower" housing the head offices of MCA/Universal in Universal City, California on August 11, 1988, included the National Council of Catholic Bishops; National Catholic Conference; Southern Baptist Convention; Eastern Orthodox Church of America; Archbishop of Canterbury; Archbishop of Paris; Christian Democratic Party of Italy (Italy's largest political party); 20 members of the United States House of Representatives; and Mother Teresa of Calcutta (Medved, pp. 37-39).

Mr. Ehrenstein makes much of Rev. R.L. Hymers' protests as if he was typical of those who were opposed to the movie, although Mr. Ehrenstein is generous enough to note that Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archbishop Roger Mahony distanced himself from Rev. Hymers. Mr. Medved points out that Rev. Hymers represented virtually no one other than himself and his 250-member Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle, but received a disproportionate amount of press coverage, while mainstream Protestant and Catholic protesters denounced Rev. Hymers. However, southern California pastors such as Jack Hayford and Lloyd Ogilvie, whose congregations were each at least 20 times as large as those of Rev. Hymers, were virtually ignored (Medved, pp. 43-44).

The overwhelming majority of the protesters focused their opposition where it rightly belonged--on the content of the movie itself. Mr. Ehrenstein is correct in pointing out that the creative talent behind the movie was Gentile, although novelist Nikos Kazantzakis was actually a pantheist in his beliefs (Ankerberg & Weldon, pp. 47-48). However, as boorish and distasteful as Rev. Hymers' protests were--I especially dislike the idea of protesting outside people's homes--I think it's legitimate to look at who was in charge of the studio that made and distributed The Last Temptation of Christ, especially since MCA/Universal went out of its way to be as offensive and insensitive toward Christians as possible. Tal Brooke, president of Spiritual Counterfeits Project, isn't shy in expressing his opinion:

You recall the timid protesters who dared name Lew Wasserman as the power behind the film on their posters. It was written up in the LA Times. Then Mel Brooks was quoted as becoming so enraged with these protesters as to threaten to do his own film spoofing Jesus Christ. The message: Christians had better shut up fast and learn who's running the show. Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell were nothing compared to what would come ahead.

But the protesters in Hollywood were right. Presiding over MCA Universal pictures when the film came out was Lew Wasserman, chairman and chief executive, and the undisputed ruler of MCA, Inc., the parent of Universal Studios. Beneath him were other collaborators: Sidney Sheinberg, MCA President; Gary Goldstein, heading National Promotion and Field Operations; and Simon Kornblitt, Vice President of Marketing.

The reality is that in film after film attacking the Christian Faith you have been looking at the credits and seeing prominently displayed the names of a trigger-sensitive minority who have helped produce and often directed the films. Ironically, they have been busy at work in the culture, introducing hate crime bills that would ban any critical speech against them, while they have been harping on their own persecution and building expensive museums around the world about their victimization and suffering. The double standard is outrageous, but no one dare protest above a whisper.

You wonder quietly to yourself whether you are really seeing a pattern here (just the fact that you are seeing the pattern may prove that you are just a bigot blinded by prejudice, as many would tell you). If you are the average Christian, this may take years for you to work through if you ever see it at all. Chances are it will be easier for you to look away. Tal Brooke, Sanctioned Mockery: And the Rise of Attacks on Christians, SCP Journal, 30:4-31:1, 2007, p. 6

Jews have more than enough enemies that they don't deserve, and it doesn't help their cause to attack the faith of those who are virtually their only friends. While inflammatory actions and words such as those of Rev. R.L. Hymers don't encourage Jews to think well of Christians, it's also true that inflammatory behaviour such as that of MCA/Universal and inflammatory language such as that used by Mr. Ehrenstein don't do anything to encourage Christians to think well of Jews. Mr. Ehrenstein's whining about anti-Semitic slurs that "haven't been heard since the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg" is Jewish paranoia at its most absurd and hysterical (and it's probably not a good idea on his part to invoke the names of two traitors).

Mr. Ehrenstein mentions Bill Bright and Tim Penland in his critique, and cites them as examples of Christians who criticized the film without seeing it. As I stated earlier--and which Mr. Ehrenstein neglects to mention--one of the reasons that prominent Christian opponents of the film didn't see it is because Universal Pictures reneged on its promise to them of an advance screening. I didn't agree with Mr. Bright's idea of bribing the studio to destroy prints of the film; it would have been better if Universal had shown good taste and simply shelved the movie. As for Mr. Penland, Mr. Ehrenstein neglects to mention that he was Universal's agent who was dealing with Christian leaders, and he resigned in protest when the studio cancelled the June 1988 advance screening for Christian leaders (Ankerberg & Weldon, p. 41).

Mr. Ehrenstein, while harping on the film's opponents not having seen the movie, also fails to explain how, not having seen the film, their criticisms of the film's content were so accurate; all the things about the movie that they objected to were actually in the movie. The protesters' objections to The Last Temptation of Christ weren't based on nothing, but on a copy of the script that was leaked to Christian leaders in advance of the film's release (Ankerberg & Weldon, p. 41).

Mr. Ehrenstein's praise of the film's depiction of Jesus Christ indicates his total ignorance of the subject; I seriously doubt that he's read the New Testament. The Jesus of The Last Temptation of Christ is filled with doubt and fear, and is consumed with his own sin, which seems impossible for someone of "simultaneous divinity and humanity." He's not worth following, or crucifying. The movie is so far off the mark as far as historical accuracy is concerned that if the real names of the characters weren't used, I wouldn't know who they were. The most accurate part of the movie is the pre-title crawl quoting the novel:

"The dual substance of Christ--the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God...has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me. My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh...and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met."

Nikos Kazantzakis
From the book
"The Last Temptation of Christ"

This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon the fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.

Blasphemy and historical innacuracy aside, The Last Temptation of Christ is a terrible movie. Mr. Medved says he knows of a number of critics who privately hated the movie, but publicly and hypocritically praised it because they didn't want to be seen as being in sympathy with Christian protesters. Mr. Medved was one of the few critics to publicly slam the film:

It is the height of irony that all this controversy should be generated by a film that turns out to be so breathtakingly bad, so unbearably boring. In my opinion, the controversy about this picture as a lot more interesting than the film itself. Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America, 1992, p.47

In a 1991 interview on the Focus on the Family radio program, Mr. Medved accurately summed up the movie as 2 hours and 40 minutes of excruciating boredom punctuated with outbursts of pointless violence. As for protests after the release of the movie, the Saint Michel cinema in Paris was bombed shortly after the movie opened there in 1988; I'm not aware of any violent protests in North America. Fellow Christian cultural observer Chris Milner and I dropped by the Westmount Theatre complex in Edmonton on opening night to see if there was any protest taking place. The only protester was Bill Haines, who was handing out evangelistic tracts. He had quite a number left over, because we counted only seven people coming out of the theatre after the early evening screening. I don't think The Last Temptation of Christ lasted more than two weeks in Edmonton theatres, which was typical of its dismal performance at the box office. Estimates of the movie's losses range from $10-14 million (Medved, p. 43).

Nine years after The Last Temptation of Christ, Martin Scorsese directed another movie--Kundun--about a religious leader, in this case the 14th Dalai Lama, leader of Tibetan Buddhism. Mr. Scorsese made Kundun in association with the Dalai Lama, which certainly was in marked contrast to his attitude toward Christians while making The Last Temptation of Christ. Universal Pictures, which had been so "courageous" in producing and distributing The Last Temptation of Christ, passed on Kundun for fear of offending the Chinese, who refuse to recognize the independence of Tibet or the leadership of the Dalai Lama. Kundun was instead released by Disney. In contrast to the hypocritical near-unanimity in praise for The Last Temptation of Christ, critical opinion on Kundun was more divided. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, who, along with his television colleague Gene Siskel had given an enthusiastic "thumbs up" to The Last Temptation of Christ, gave Kundun a less-glowing, but still positive review, while noticing the difference in Mr. Scorsese's depiction of the main character of each movie:

There is rarely the sense that a living, breathing and (dare I say?) fallible human inhabits the body of the Dalai Lama. Unlike Scorsese's portrait of Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ, this is not a man striving for perfection, but perfection in the shape of a man. ... Once we understand that "Kundun" will not be a drama involving a plausible human character, we are freed to see the film as it is: an act of devotion, an act even of spiritual desperation, flung into the eyes of 20th century materialism. The film's visuals and music are rich and inspiring, and like a mass by Bach or a Renaissance church painting, it exists as an aid to worship: It wants to enhance, not question.

Kundun managed to surpass The Last Temptation of Christ in one notable area: it was an even bigger box office flop.

It's worth noting that in contrast to the Islamic protests surrounding Mr. Rushdie's novel, the protests against The Last Temptation of Christ--with the exception of the theatre bombing in Paris--were peaceful (even those of Rev. R.L. Hymers). Martin Scorsese has continued to make movies, and no one associated with The Last Temptation of Christ has had to go into hiding for fear of his life. Lest anyone think I have a knee-jerk aversion to anyone associated with this awful movie, I've seen about 10 of Mr. Scorsese's movies, including some he made after The Last Temptation of Christ. I like some of his movies and dislike others. I rate The Aviator (2004) as the best of Mr. Scorsese's movies that I've seen. I haven't seen Kundun--but then, not many have. As for screenwriter Paul Schrader, I don't think he's ever been known to have written anything uplifting--Taxi Driver (1976) is an example of his work--and he's an example of the bitter fruit of Calvinism.

I have yet to hear of any "yowling mob" that's been preventing any serious discussion of The Last Temptation of Christ by, for example, threatening to bomb a film studies department that might want to screen the movie--but maybe Mr. Ehrenstein knows more than I do about that. On January 25, 2014, Wells Cathedral, which is affiliated with the increasingly buffoonish and pagan institution that still goes by the name of the Church of England, put on a screening of the movie, and the event included a live video address from Mr. Scorsese.

It's now been more than 25 years since The Satanic Verses was published. However, as Mr. Medved has pointed out, nobody in Hollywood--including Universal Pictures--has seen fit to make this novel into a movie (Medved, p. 40). Where's the "courage" that Hollywood people are always celebrating when they make movies that might be seen as "controversial?" Such cowardice is understandable, since non-Hollywood filmmakers who've dared to make movies critical of Islam have been the subject of protests similar to those that surrounded The Satanic Verses. One recalls Dutch director Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in Amsterdam on November 2, 2004, several months after the television broadcast of his 10-minute short film Submission (2004); or another Dutch director, Geert Wilders, whose short film Fitna (2008) earned him a fatwa from the terrorist organization al-Qaeda; or Innocence of Muslims (2012), a 14-minute trailer that appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in Muslim countries. This blogger awaits the same display of courage by Hollywood filmmakers regarding The Satanic Verses that they so boldly displayed when they inflicted The Last Temptation of Christ on an unreceptive public.

February 12: Date of infamy

In looking at other sites and old almanacs for today's entry in one of my other blogs, it struck me that February 12 is associated with more than its share of abominations. 105 years ago today, on February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born, and it would have been better for the world if he hadn't been born. Abe Lincoln was born on the same day; there are some people who have a negative view of Mr. Lincoln, but I'll let Americans argue over that. A sampling of other notable events on this date:

225 years ago
1789

Ethan Allen, a leading figure in the American Revolution and one of the founders of Vermont, died at the age of 51 of an apparent fit of apoplexy while returning home from a visit to his cousin. His book Reason: the Only Oracle of Man had been published in 1785, and the title tells all you need to know about Mr. Allen's religious views. The book was a critical and commercial failure, and Mr. Allen's foolishness has now presumably been corrected.

40 years ago
1974

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, was arrested by force after he and his wife had refused two summonses for him to meet with state investigators. Soviet officials had been outraged by the recent publication of Mr. Solzhenitsyn's novel The Gulag Archipelago, an expose of the U.S.S.R.'s prison system. The next day, Mr. Solzhenitsyn was stripped of his Soviet citizenship and deported to West Germany.

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. John 12:3-6

Eight days after kidnapping newspaper heiress Patty Hearst from her Berkeley, California apartment, the Symbionese Liberation Army demanded that her father, San Francisco Examiner editor and president Randolph Hearst, give $230 million of free food to the poor as evidence of good faith in negotiating for his daughter's release. The SLA's leader, Donald DeFreeze, aka "General Field Marshal Cinque Mtume," addressed Mr. Hearst as "the corporate chairman of a fascist media empire of the ultra right," and told him he was "quite willing to carry out the execution of your daughter to save the life of starving men, women, and children of every race." The demand was accompanied by a tape of Miss Hearst pleading for her father's cooperation. According to the Wikipedia entry, the seven heads of the SLA's logo represented the seven principles of the bogus holiday Kwanzaa. I have to admire the Judas Iscariot-like passion for social justice of Mr. DeFreeze, even if he was just a street thug whose career in wealth redistribution began with an attempt to rob a prostitute of $10. If he hadn't committed suicide during a shootout with police in Los Angeles on May 17, 1974, Mr. DeFreeze, the only Negro member of an organization that was supposedly leading the "black revolution," may well have ended up with a position in the administration of White House occupant B. Hussein Obama or become a tenured professor at Eastern University, participating in protests with Ron Sider and Tony Campolo.

25 years ago
1989

Police in Pakistan killed six people who were protesting Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses (1988), which was accused of being disresepctful toward the prophet Muhammad. Two days later, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa--a legal judgment--calling for the death of Mr. Rushdie, and the day after that, one of the Ayatollah's aides offered $1 million for Mr. Rushdie's death, prompting Mr. Rushdie to go into hiding. The reaction of Muslims to The Satanic Verses was considerably different from the reaction of Christians to the film The Last Temptation of Christ several months earlier, but that's a subject for another post.

20 years ago
1994

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

Sue Rodriguez, 43, a resident of Victoria, British Columbia, died in hospital. She was diagnosed with amyotropic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease) in 1991, and sued the B.C. government for the legal right to assisted suicide, which was an offense in the Criminal Code of Canada punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. On September 30, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the Criminal Code prohibition on assisted suicide. Svend Robinson, a member of the Canadian House of Commons (NDP--Burnaby-Kingsway), assisted in Mrs. Rodriguez's campaign, and claimed to have been in the hospital room when she committed suicide with the help an anonymous physician. Although assisted suicide remains illegal in Canada, national opinion seems to have shifted in an increasingly pro-death direction in the 20 years since the death of Sue Rodriguez, but no doctor has yet been identified or come forward as the one who helped end her life, which makes this blogger suspect that the "anonymous" physician may have been a "nonexistent" physician. The only person who claims to have been in the room with Mrs. Rodriguez is Svend Robinson, and yet he's never been charged in connection with her death. Mr. Robinson was the first Canadian MP to come out of the closet as a sodomite, and he was constantly trying to get the law changed to lower the age of consent for sex--no doubt to make it easier for men to have sex with boys. His career in Parliament ended shortly after he stole an expensive ring from a public auction site.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I Timothy 2:12

In Toronto, Rev. Victoria Matthews was consecrated the first female Bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada.

The Winter Olympic Games, featuring 1,884 athletes from 67 countries, opened in Lillehammer, Norway. Much of the opening ceremony consisted of celebrations of Norse paganism.

10 years ago
2004

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:18-32

More than 85 couples participated in "marriage" ceremonies as the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to sodomite and lesbian couples in response to a directive from Mayor Gavin Newsom, contrary to a California state law.

Scientists in South Korea announced that they had created 30 human embryos by cloning for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research, and had removed embryonic stem cells from them.

California pastor protests Costco's classification of the Bible as fiction

As reported by Joel Furches of Jarrettsville Christianity Examiner, November 20, 2013:

On November 15th, 2013, Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach was shopping at his local Costco in Simi Valley, California, when he was surprised to see a Bible in the Fiction section. On inspecting the $14.95 price tag, he found that, sure enough, it was labeled as Fiction.

Upset, Kaltenbach attempted to complain to Costco, but was unable to find an employee, so instead tweeted a picture of the Bible and its label.
Kaltenbach argues that this is a matter of tolerance. He claims that labeling a Bible as Fiction is tantamount to calling out Christianity as untrue, a claim not to be made lightly, and certainly one that should be avoided by a public company such as Costco.

There are four attitudes likely to be adopted on this news item: those who consider it a bold and proper stance for Costco to finally label the Bible for what it really is; those who hold that the Bible is an accurate representation of history, or at the very least, a legitimate and ancient system of belief, and should therefore fall in the category of non-fiction; those who would be willing to give religious believers their freedom to believe, but don't think that the Bible rises to the level of "non-fiction"; and finally, those who think that the whole affair is much ado about nothing, and couldn't care less what Costco chooses to label their Bibles.

In an increasingly Postmodern culture, rigid categories such as "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" may be seen as increasingly too narrow, especially to classify a book as controversial as the Bible. More than ever, a distinction is being made between the categories of History and Religion. More and more people - professing Christians even - would consider the Bible to be a kind of "Religious Truth" without being a historical one. Only those at the extremes would continue to maintain that the Bible is either true or it isn't; that no shades of grey are permitted to enter the discussion.

Adding to this confusion is the fact that there is a very real argument to be made that the authors of scripture claimed to be transmitting actual history...

...Not only does the Bible claim that it is literally true, it admits that if it is not true, it is a lie and a vain faith.

If the Bible cannot be taken literally, it cannot be taken at all. It does not, by its own admission, leave anyone the option of an airy, poetic, spiritualized reading that sets it aside as historical fact.

The first century Christians certainly didn’t have that option. Of the handful of writers that composed the New Testament, most of them were supposedly executed for their beliefs according to early church writers, including Peter, Paul, and James. Men do not willingly suffer such abuses for what they believe is not literally true.

By the same token, the concept of scripture as Fiction is a mockery of those in totalitarian countries who, today, are imprisoned or executed for their beliefs...

...The Bible is either true or it is a lie. It is either fact or it is fiction. There is no third option.

Amen, Mr. Furches and Pastor Kaltenbach.

Liberty University (and another "Christian" school) stage a work by Jesus Christ Superstar composer

One would think that a "Christian" university would be unwilling to stage a theatrical work by the composer of the music for Jesus Christ Superstar,but Liberty University has no such qualms, as they will be staging a production of The Phantom of the Opera (with its distinctively Christian content) in April 2011. As reported by Mitzi Bible of Liberty University News Service on March 23, 2011:

The Liberty University Theatre Arts Department will have a few surprises in store when Phantom of the Opera opens April 8 in the new Tower Theater.

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s story of a masked figure who lurks beneath the catacombs of the Paris Opera House, wreaking havoc for all who enter, will be told with many creative sets and illusions.

"The sets are intricate because they’re basically magic tricks — we don’t want to reveal how they’re done, but they’re being built into the sets," said Linda Nell Cooper, director and head of the Theatre Arts Department...

...There is much anticipation for the near-sold-out show, which could be called the largest endeavor for Liberty’s theater program.

May 31, 2011 update:
It seems that Liberty University isn't the only "Christian" school presenting The Phantom of the Opera. From Elk Island Public Schools in the County of Strathcona in Alberta comes this media release (link in original):

Media Releases
SCA Secondary Presents The Phantom of the Opera

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

Sherwood Park… Strathcona Christian Academy (SCA) Secondary Fine Arts is proud to present The Phantom of the Opera from May 17 to 20 at 7:00 p.m. Two matinee performances will run May 18 and 20 at 12:00 noon.

Download the full Media Release: SCA_PhantomoftheOpera.pdf

Matthew 24, the New Age "Master Jesus," and The Message

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Matthew 24:4-5 (KJV)

Lighthouse Trails Research Blog, one of the best resources available, has just published a fascinating post by Ray Yungen (taken from the 2007 edition of his book For Many Shall Come in My Name (Lighthouse Trails Publishing), pp. 151-156) on Matthew 24. This paragraph in particular (from page 152) got my attention:

A basic tenet of New Age thinking is that of the Master Jesus. Adherents to this idea believe during the unrecorded period of His life, Jesus traveled to various occult centers and mystery schools in such places as Tibet, India, Persia, and Egypt; at these places this same Jesus learned the metaphysical secrets of the ages. Therefore, they claim this Jesus spent seventeen years of travel on a pilgrimage of higher consciousness. According to this viewpoint, Jesus of Nazareth became the Master Jesus, one who allegedly gained mastery over the physical world by becoming one with his higher self.

I knew I’d seen the phrase "Master Jesus" before, and I remembered where I'd seen it: The Message. As I’ve previously posted, the phrases "Lord Jesus" and "Lord Jesus Christ" aren’t found in The Message even once, but a quick search at Bible Gateway finds that the phrase "Master Jesus" is used in The Message 73 times (!)--in each instance, a change from the word "Lord."

One such passage that struck me was Philippians 3:20. For purposes of comparison, here’s how that verse reads in the King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version (2010), followed by The Message’s rendition:

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: KJV

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; NASB

But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, NIV (2010)

But there's far more to life for us. We're citizens of high heaven! We're waiting the arrival of the Savior, the Master, Jesus Christ, The Message

The perceptive reader will notice that in The Message’s rendition of Philippians 3:20, there's no statement that we’re waiting for the "Master, Jesus Christ" to come from heaven. To read this version, the "Master" could well be someone who’s already on Earth when he’s revealed as the Saviour--a change in the text that I regard as very suspicious!

The Cross in the Egg falls short of presenting the gospel

The Cross in the Egg: The Easter Story Retold for Children is a children’s book by Shirley Taylor, published in 1999. The author was (as of 1999) a banker from Altheimer, Arkansas who was active in Altheimer United Methodist Church. I don’t question the motives or sincerity of the author, but the story, even allowing that it’s written for children, is not an adequate retelling of the Easter story. The story is about a rabbit who comes across Jesus while He’s praying in the garden of Gethsemane the night before His crucifixion. One of Jesus’ tears falls onto Rabbit’s head, and Jesus touches the place where the tear fell. Rabbit’s heart is filled with love for Jesus, and he goes home to see if he can find a gift for Jesus to make Him happy. Mrs. Hen collects a basket of eggs, and Rabbit makes some dyes out of berries and colours the eggs. He weaves roses around the basket and fills the basket with a dozen eggs. One of the eggs cracks (the crack is shaped like a cross), but Owl tells rabbit that jesus will love the broken egg as much as all the others. Rabbit goes to Jerusalem to find Jesus, but Crow tells him that Jesus was crucified by soldiers, and is dead and buried. Rabbit reaches the tomb, and finds it empty, with the stone rolled away. Rabbit is confused and heartbroken, and stops for a nap. He’s awakened by a bright light and a voice telling him that Jesus has risen. When Rabbit tells the voice about the gift he’d brought, the voice tells him that he’s already given the gift that Jesus treasures more than any other, by opening his heart to receive His love. The voice then tells him to share the eggs with children everywhere to remind them of God’s gift of eternal life. Rabbit does so, except for the cracked egg, which he keeps as a reminder of his meeting with Jesus.

A major problem with The Cross in the Egg isn't so much error within, as truth left out. For example, we’re not told who Jesus is; He’s just a man with some disciples who gets crucified and rises from the dead. When Jesus prays, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want" in the garden of Gethsemane, His prayer, although biblically correct (Matthew 26:39), isn’t put into any context; although you can’t tell from the story what Jesus is referring to when He mentions "this cup." When Crow tells Rabbit, "I saw soldiers crucify Him on a cross" (which is biblically correct--Matthew 27:27-35; Mark 15:16-25; John 19:16-23), we’re not told why He was crucified. The roles played by the Jews (Matthew 26:57-68, 27:26; Mark 14:53-63; John 18:12-14, 19-24; Acts 2:23, 7:52), Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:11-25; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-23; John 18:28-19:16), and indeed, the rest of us (Isaiah 53:5-6) in His crucifixion are ignored. There’s no mention of Him being crucified for our sins (Isaiah 53:5-6; I Peter 2:24, 3:18); that the shedding of His blood satisfied His Father’s condition of forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22; I John 2:2, 4:10); or of the necessity of repentance (Acts 17:30).

When one of the eggs gets cracked, Owl says, "Jesus will love the broken egg as much as all the others." That’s a nice-sounding sentiment, but it doesn’t square with what the Bible says. In the Old Testament, God commanded that animals that were sacrificed as offerings to Him be without any physical defect (Exodus 12:5, 29:1; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 4:23; Numbers 19:2, 28:3,9). God rebuked Israel for disobedience in this area (Malachi 1:7-8, 13-14). Even the priests presenting the offerings were to be without physical defect (Leviticus 21:17-23). Of course, the eggs in this story were offered as a gift rather than as a sacrifice; nevertheless, it’s hardly appropriate to offer something that’s broken as a gift to the King of Kings. When the wise men followed the star in the eastern sky in search of Jesus (Matthew 2:1-2), they brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:11)--items fit for a King.

When Rabbit goes to the tomb, he finds the stone rolled away, and the voice tells him that Jesus has been raised from the tomb. This is biblically correct (Matthew 28:2-6; Mark 16:4-6; Luke 24:2-6; John 20:1-17). The voice then says, "Rabbit, you have already given the one gift that Jesus treasures more than any other. You have opened your eyes to receive His love. Therefore, He is with you always." The trouble with this is that it’s not stated that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was His supreme expression of His love (But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8).

It hardly needs to be pointed out that Jesus Christ shed His blood on the cross for the sins of man, not for animals. To try to communicate the gospel through fictitious animals just doesn’t work, in my opinion. Especially is it not appropriate to try to communicate the truths about the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ using the traditional symbols of rabbits and eggs. The word "Easter" itself is derived from Astarte (also sometimes rendered as Ishtar), the Babylonian fertility goddess. Rabbits and eggs are obvious symbols of fertility, and the book ends up Christianizing pagan symbols. When you mix truth and error, you don’t end up with truth.

According to the book’s dust jacket,

Taylor has recast the Easter Bunny as Rabbit, who tells the Easter story in a child-friendly way. By so doing, the author prepares young children for key gospel concepts.

Taylor’s story is brought to life by animal and human characters who combine...to tell the story of God’s love through grace--in spite of our feelings of unworthiness.

As for the last part of the preceding paragraph, our problem isn’t feelings of unworthiness, but actual unworthiness. It’s often said, and rightly so, that the gospel is so simple that even a child can believe it. However, it’s necessary that the gospel be clearly communicated and clearly understood. If I were reading this book as a child (and I was one, once), I wouldn’t come away with an adequate idea of what the gospel is. The Cross in the Egg contains some truth, but not enough, and it falls short of the mark when it comes to presenting the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Flaming Sword: A prophetic novel?

With Halfblack Messiah about to be inaugurated as President of the United States, interested readers might want to search for The Flaming Sword, the last published work from my favourite politically-incorrect novelist, Thomas Dixon (go here for free download). Mr. Dixon was best known for his trilogy of novels in the early 1900s that dwelt on racial themes: The Leopard's Spots (1902); The Clansman (1905); and The Traitor (1907). These novels, particularly The Clansman, served as the basis for D.W. Griffith's epic film The Birth of a Nation (1915).

The Flaming Sword, published in 1939 when Mr. Dixon was 75, was a story about a Communist conspiracy to take over the United States, using Negroes as dupes. In doing research for the book, Mr. Dixon examined all the newspaper accounts he could find of race riots in the United States from 1900-1938. Mr. Dixon was out of fashion by 1938, and The Flaming Sword was published by a small firm called Monarch Publishing Company in Atlanta (which may explain why The Flaming Sword is much harder to find than Mr. Dixon's earlier works). I haven't space here (or the inclination) to post excerpts from the book, but I will say that Mr. Dixon mixes real historical figures (e.g. W.E.B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey) with the fiction, in an entertaining (and sometimes disturbing way). Any resemblance between Thomas Dixon's fictitious speculation in The Flaming Sword and the presence of Halfblack Messiah in the White House, is, of course, coincidental--or is it?