100 years ago--Couéism peaks in North America

It's actually approaching 101 years ago and I should have posted this much earlier, but I didn't want to let the year go by without noting that 2023 marked 100 years since Émile Coué, a French pharmacist and psychologist whose ideas had achieved popularity in Europe, became even more of a celebrity in America, with an advance publicity campaign preceding his arrival in New York City in January 1923 for a series of personal appearances. Dr. Coué and his wife founded La Société Lorraine de Psychologie appliquée (The Lorraine Society of Applied Psychology) in Nancy in 1913. His book La Maîtrise de soi-même par l'autosuggestion consciente (Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion) was published in England in 1920, and was a best-seller when it was published in the United States in 1922.

Dr. Coué could lay claim to be the father of modern positive self-talk, which he called autosuggestion, recommending that people constantly repeat the following saying to themselves: "Tous les jours à tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux" ("Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"). In addition to psychological improvement, advocates of Couéism claimed that repetition of the mantra could effect physical healing. Dr. Coué claimed that he didn't heal people, but that people healed themselves. His campaigns didn't always produce the desired results, as reported in the Edmonton Bulletin, April 11, 1922 (bold, capitals in original):

Patients Were Made Hysterical Throguh Treatment Being Given by Nerve Specialist at Hospital

-----

TORONTO, April 10--What was intended as a triumphant finale to Dr. Coue's sensational auto-suggestion campaign in England resulted in a near tragedy in a neurological hospital for soldiers at Tooting just outside London, England, according to a special cable to the Mail and Empire today. The cable continues:

"Lady Beatty, who is responsible in a great measure for Coue's presence in England, introduced the famous expert to patients but was forced to flee from the lecture room when shell-shocked soldiers were plunged into hysteria. Writhing and shrieking, the soldiers flung themselves on the floor, the doctors and nurses being unable to pacify them.

"The tragic outcome followed Coue's treatment of one patient who declared himself cured of severe headaches. John Withers, a soldier suffering from bodily tremors, was the next patient. Suddenly while Coue was passing his hands over the soldier's body, Withers suddenly gave piercing shrieks, writhed and twisted himself like a contortionist and threw himself on the floor. The effect on the rest of the patients was instantaneous. Man after man groaned and shrieked, gripped with uncontrollable hysteria. A witness said: "The scene was indescribably hellish."

"Lady Beatty, standing near Withers, attempted to calm him, but her efforts were to no avail. Pandemonium became so great that she was forced to make a hasty retreat.

"Coue has left for France. The hospital authorities said Sunday night that all the patients had recovered from the temporary hysteria."

(I can't help but notice that the behaviour of the soldiers resulting from Dr. Coué's "treatment" was virtually identical to the behaviour of those who receive the allegedly healing touch of charismaniac frauds such as Rodney Howard-Browne, Benny Hinn, and the "holy laughter" crowd, which those "healers" blasphemously ascribe to the Holy Spirit).

Dr. Coué's visit to New York proved to be very popular. Those who lived too far away to see Dr. Coué were unable to avoid him, since his name and theories seemed to be everywhere in North America. The Edmonton Journal, for instance, published an exclusive series of articles by Dr. Coué. On February 18, 1923, the short film The Message of Emile Coué opened in theatres in the United States. According to The Film Daily, February 25, 1923:

A demonstration by Emile Coue, by means of titles and illustrations of his points, of the theory of auto-suggestion. Coue is shown lecturing before a group of people, and you get the impression that you yourself are listening. The well-known phrase "Day by Day" is stressed a great many times in the closing sequence and finally the audience is made to say it with M. Coue.

The film opened in Edmonton on March 12. According to the Edmonton Bulletin, March 10, 1923 (bold, capitals in original):

M. COUE ON MONDAY AT THE EMPRESS

-----

His Famous Theories to Be Explained by Pantomimic Gestures

-----

Every day and every way--of course you know the rest. It's the slogan which has covered the continent of America at least. Now it has reached even to the screen, and Emile Coue himself will shortly be seen at the Empress theatre in a sereis of two reel films, on which he will explain his theories by pantomimic gesture...There are no doubt millions of persons who would never otherwise have the benefit of seeing and hearing the famous man who has received more publicity than many a famous screen star.

After Dr. Coue has explained his theories, the actual practice of the theories will be shown by actors in little scenes following each separate explanation by M. Coue himself.

The picture starts with the caption, "I am not a miracle man." Then Mr. Coue is photographed saying the words. This is the method employed through the picture. Extracts from his book on auto-suggestion are also given in written form on the screen, and then M. Coue is shown speaking and gesturing accordingly. He seems, it is said, to have a real gift of pantomime.

Manager Bert Blackmore, of the Empress theatre, knowing the intense interest taken in the Coue method and knowing that, after all, few persons know very little about it, is progressive enough to obtain these films for his theatre, so all will have an opportunity of getting M. Coue and his theories practically at first hand.

For those unaware of cinematic history, movies were silent in 1923, thus explaining the need for "pantomimic gestures." I don't know if the film still exists, but Internet Movie Database hasn't received the minimum number of five viewer responses required to provide a numerical rating.

Dave Hunt offered the following comments on Émile Coué:

Of all the false messiahs of recent times, none seems less likely than Emile Coué. Yet few people have played a more important part in the preparation of the world for the Antichrist than the almost comic "originator of the psychotherapeutic system called Couéism"...Couéism was the modern forerunner to self-help and other New Age groups and beliefs that are proliferating at an almost unbelievable rate across the United States in the 1980's and even infiltrating the church.

While working as an obscure pharmacist in Troyes, France, around the turn of the century, Emile Coué "observed his patients receiving from certain drugs beneficial effects that could not be ascribed to the medicines. That led him to believe that it was the power of 'imagination' that effected the cure." This discovery launched Coué into a study of hypnosis around 1901, with special interest in the apparent therapeutic effects of self-hypnosis. The modern applications of hypnosis have their roots in "Mesmerism." However, it was Coué who carried Mesmer's theory to its logical conclusion and thereby laid the foundation for the New Age...

...One of the earliest pioneers of the free clinic concept, Coué seemed to be genuine in his concern to help others. In 1910 he set up a free clinic iin Nancy, France to practice his now-perfected system...In 1920 he set up a clinic in New York...

...Preaching remarkable powers of "suggestion," the Messiah of the New Age had arrived befoe his time. In spite of the cure of so many serious ailments by the power of "suggestion" that Couéism effected throughout the Western world, Coué's "system" eventually fell into disrepute. Couéism failed because it was taken to be exaclty what its originator claimed: a "system." As Coué's followers forgot to believe what they were saying and chanted the magic words more and more mechanically, the cures became less and less, until no one believed anymore.

Had Coué only lived into the New Age, he would have seen himself fully vindicated in the adoption of hypnosis by the American Medical Association and its growing use by psychologists and psychiatrists. The old master would be pleased, too, to see in the 1980s a host of self-improvement techniques based upon the very same "power of suggestion" that he was convinced could cure anything: "positive thinking," "possibility thinking," self-hypnosis tapes by the thousands, numerous salesmanship and management success seminars used by both Christians and non-Christians, positive mental attitude (PMA) seminars, est (Erhard Seminars Training), Lifespring, Silva Mind Control, Alpha Level Training, biofeedback, guided imagery, creative visualization, Confluent Education, psychotherapies by the score, and an almost endless list of other New Age self-improvement techniques...

...Whereas Mesmer publicly declared that "he could help only people suffering from nervous disorders and no others," Coué demonstrated that the power of suggestion has no such limits. The New Age is a revival of Coué's adaptation and extension of Mesmer's limited theory: that human potential is unlimited, because the mind through suggestion can accomplish and create anything that it believes it can... (Dave Hunt, Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust, 1983, pp. 117-120)

By the end of 1923, there were signs that the popularity of Couéism had passed its peak, and his name seldom appeared in North American newspapers after that year until his death in Nancy on July 2, 1926 at the age of 69. Although Dr. Coué's fame was relatively short-lived, and his name is largely unknown today, his influence remains, with his spiritual descendants including Napoleon Hill, Maxwell Maltz, W. Clement Stone, Norman Vincent Peale, and Robert Schuller, some of whom masqueraded as Christians, and all of whom have been influential in the New Age Movement.

Movie about notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell opens in theatres on October 12

The reader will notice the willingness of those in positions of legal and political power to ignore the law, with disastrous and evil consequences. As reported by Phelim McAleer in The Epoch Times, August 24, 2018 (updated August 29, 2018) (link in original):

I’ve just produced a movie about the true story of America’s most prolific serial killer. You might think there is nothing unusual or noteworthy about that—stories about serial killers seem to make up an awful lot of movies and prime-time TV these days.

But what if I told you that not only is it about America’s biggest serial killer—one most people have never heard of—but that it also touches on one of the most contentious and divisive issues in America today?

The film is about Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor who is serving several life sentences for murder. And his case has been mostly ignored by a pro-choice media that does not want to report on any story that shines a negative light on abortion.

It seems this is the perfect time for a spotlight to be shone on what’s really happening in abortion clinics across the country.

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy means that, for the first time, there might be an abortion-skeptic majority on the bench. This has animated and alarmed abortion supporters. They are determined to stop Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. Planned Parenthood has pledged to give over $30 million to pro-choice candidates in the midterm elections. It is going to become one of the hottest topics in an already heated political environment.

So what exactly do abortion lobbyists and Cecile Richards want to preserve? What rights need to be protected from the Kavanaugh grouping? Do we really need fewer, not more, regulations, as abortion advocates maintain?

The fact is, most people know very little about what goes on behind closed doors in the nation’s abortion clinics. We didn’t, either, until we started researching for the film.

Gosnell was a respected doctor in the highly regulated state of Pennsylvania. Gosnell also happened to be a serial killer who kept killing and getting away with it, despite those regulations. Inspections of Gosnell’s clinic uncovered serious violations and health hazards, but officials took no action and refused to investigate further.

But worse was to come in 1995, when Tom Ridge was elected governor of Pennsylvania as a “pro-choice” Republican. He won and immediately, in contravention of the law, announced an end to the already cursory annual inspections.

The decision cleared the way for Gosnell to operate what a grand jury would later describe as a “baby charnel house” while regulators looked the other way.

A Philadelphia jury eventually found Gosnell guilty on three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. Investigators believed that over the course of 30 years, he killed hundreds, perhaps thousands.

Despite this dramatic evidence, the trial was initially not covered by the mainstream media. Eventually, a social media campaign forced them to send reporters and give the case some coverage.

It seems no one wants to learn from the Gosnell case.

Striking down a Texas law aimed at monitoring abortion clinics, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg described Gosnell as a “rogue practitioner.” Ginsberg offered little in the way of proof for her claim. But evidence from a pair of recent congressional investigations has revealed what other abortion providers have done behind closed doors despite apparently ironclad laws and regulations.

The Senate judiciary committee and a House select investigative panel looked into claims that Planned Parenthood sold body parts of aborted fetuses to private labs. The probes soon widened to look at the other illegal behaviors of some abortion practitioners. The Senate committee report detailed the practices of a Texas abortionist that bear a striking resemblance to Gosnell’s grisly work.

According to one employee’s testimony, every week abortions concerning “three to four infants would show signs of life.” And just like Gosnell, the doctor would immediately kill them. The employee said he employed Gosnell’s technique of “snipping the infant’s spinal cord with scissors.”

But the investigations’ most shocking findings detailed how the body-part selling business worked.

One company, Advanced Biosciences Resources (ABR), produced sales orders and invoices that showed they paid Planned Parenthood $55 for a baby’s brain, then sold it to a researcher for over $3,000—a profit of 2,800 percent.

The Senate investigation published invoices that showed ABR bought a fetus from Planned Parenthood for $60. According to their own sales figures, they “sold its brain to one customer for $325; both of its eyes for $325 each ($650 total) to a second customer, a portion of its liver for $325 to a third customer; its thymus for $325 and another portion of liver to a fourth customer; and its lung for $325 to a fifth customer.”

Another clinic sold the skin of a Down syndrome baby for $325.

Our film does not look at these later investigations. We focus on the Gosnell investigation and how he was allowed to keep killing. We look at the heroes who put him behind bars.

If Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice, abortion in America will come under a massive spotlight. It is important that the spotlight reveals truths, not myths. Our film is part of that process.

Phelim McAleer is a journalist and film producer. His new film, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer,” will be released nationwide on Oct. 12. For more information, visit GosnellMovie.com

Roman Catholic school chaplain mixes Star Wars into his messages

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

This may be regarded as a companion to the post immediately preceding. What passes for evangelicalism in the second decade of the 21st century isn't alone in mixing truth and error--which always produces error. Submitted for your approval, the following item about a Roman Catholic school chaplain in Alberta who thinks he can build a bridge between Christianity and Hinduism. As reported by Janet French in the Edmonton Journal, March 12, 2018 (bold, link in original):

A school chaplain’s penchant for pop culture has become a mainstay in his religion lessons to Catholic students near Edmonton.

Mike Landry, a Spruce Grove-based chaplain in Evergreen Catholic Schools, turns to the Jedi, the First Order and the Resistance to teach about the Bible and talk to students about their problems.

“When you’re sitting in a religion class, you’ve got people from all these backgrounds who come from all these different perspectives, and you’re trying to see how you can meet all of them where they are without them feel pushed, or judged, or forced, but inviting them into something that I believe will help them,” Landry said in an interview last week.

The chaplain made his case to teachers for drawing meaningful parallels between the Star Wars movies and Christianity at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention last week.

Not the first Edmonton chaplain to take advantage of these corollaries, Landry said he’s continuing the work of the late Father Michael Mireau, a beloved Edmonton Catholic Schools chaplain who died of cancer at age 42 in 2014. Mireau was known to wave a light sabre around from the pulpit and weave Star Wars references into his homilies.

Landry, who is based at St. Peter the Apostle School and visits the other nine schools in the division, said he works in collaboration with counsellors, a social worker and other support staff to help students with personal or family problems.

Some students come from devout families and others know little of Catholicism, he said.

Trust the Force
Star Wars creator George Lucas borrowed generously from Christianity when creating the first two movie trilogies, Landry said.

The Jedi Council is like popes and bishops making decisions for the collective good, and the Jedi Academy is a bit like seminary school, he said.

The Force — an energy that binds the galaxy together and that both Jedi and their foes, the Sith, wield in the movies — is somewhat like the Holy Spirit in Christianity, Landry said.

In the more recent movies, characters implore one another to “trust The Force.” Students, like some characters, can be skeptical of religion. Discussing that doubt is a way to begin teaching about the historical evidence documenting Jesus’ existence, Landry said.

Star Wars characters who turn to the “dark side” out of fear and anger, like Darth Vader, can stimulate discussion about how power can be abused for evil, he said.

When kids make choices that make teachers “want to pull our hair out,” they can discuss the character Kylo Ren, the son of Princess Leia and Han Solo, whose conscience nags at him while he works for the dark side.

Said Landry: “I don’t think they have trouble understanding (religious teachings). I think they have trouble wanting to understand. They want to see that it’s relevant to them. A Jewish carpenter from 20 centuries ago, what does he have to do with what I’m doing in Spruce Grove today? And sometimes these stories become a nice bridge.”

Rabi Maharaj, who grew up as a Hindu guru in Trinidad before coming to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, was interviewed by Dr. Emil Gaverluk for a series of broadcasts of Southwest Radio Church, airing in January 1982. Mr. Maharaj's comments show that Mr. Landry is very wrong when he tries to point out the similarities between Star Wars and Christianity, especially when it comes to the Force:

Christians told me how very much they enjoyed these movies, and how great they were. I really get worried when Christians tell me how much they are excited about these films, seeing them several times, without realizing how much antichrist philosophy these films are propagating. Quite honestly, the most powerful presentation of Hindu philosophy I have seen anywhere in the West is the film The Empire Strikes Back!

I am not a cinema fan. I do not have time to go to the cinema, because I work especially among students on the campuses. I do go maybe once a year to see an appropriate film, one that the students are seeing and that I think is fit to view. So I went to see The Empire Strikes Back. I was astonished at how much Hinduism was propagated in that film from start to finish. I have not seen a more powerful presentation of Hinduism. It was an impressive film, beautiful photography, sensational and all of that, but the philosophy that the film was plugging was Hinduism. People were accepting this philosophy of life. People want to know what I have against Star Wars. In this movie a person comes away forgetting all about the science fiction elements in the film, but comes away with that one thing in mind, the nucleus of the film, the Force--"May the Force be with you!" Just weeks after the film was released there were bumper stickers, buttons and T-shirts with this statement on them. Weeks after it was released, I went to see it in Colorado, and I discovered that there were hundreds of young people in the mountains worshiping the Force. Some of them were saying the Force was the Holy Spirit. I had to say to them very clearly, I even said it on television, that it was an insult to God to call Him a Force! God is not a force. God is a person! A force is impersonal, but God is personal. Satan wants modern man, western man to have a wrong concept of God--for man to think of God in terms of a force. That is what Satan really wants.

Emil Gaverluk and Rabindranath R. Maharaj, Hinduism and Other Satanic Deceptions, 1982, pp. 19-20

Here's what the Lord Jesus Christ had to say about the Holy Spirit (it should be noted that the word "of" in the Kings James Version often means, as it does in this passage, "from"):

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16:7-13

A force doesn't convict anyone "of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment," and no one is morally accountable to a force.

For further reading, I recommend Death of a Guru by Rabi Maharaj with Dave Hunt (1977, 1984); Hinduism and Other Satanic Deceptions by Emil Gaverluk and Rabi Maharaj (1982); and Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust by Dave Hunt (1983). I have tapes of the six broadcasts that Mr. Maharaj and Dr. Gaverluk recorded, as well as the four broadcasts (in April or May 1983) of conversations between Messrs. Maharaj and Hunt, followed by four broadcasts of Mr. Hunt speaking alone, on the occasion of the publication of Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust. Southwest Radio Ministries probably doesn't make them available anymore, but the reader is encouraged to get them anywhere they can be found. Despite being 35-37 years old, the material covered in those broadcasts remains relevant--maybe more now than ever.

Self-driving Uber car runs down and kills pedestrian in Arizona

As Paul Harvey used to say, "If you don't have enough to worry about..." As reported by Gabrielle Olivera and Ryan Randazzo of the Arizona Republic, March 19, 2018 (links in original):

In what is believed to be the nation's first pedestrian death involving an autonomous vehicle, a 49-year-old woman was hit and killed by a self-driving Volvo operated by Uber while crossing a street in Tempe on Sunday night.

The woman was crossing Mill Avenue outside the crosswalk near the Marque Theatre at about 10 p.m. when she was hit, police said.

Sgt. Ronald Elcock, a Tempe police spokesman, said the car was on autonomous mode with a driver behind the wheel when it hit the pedestrian.

The woman, identified as Elaine Herzberg of Mesa, died at a hospital.

Uber said that its operations of self-driving cars have been "paused." The company did not dispute the police report of the vehicle operating in autonomous mode.

Uber has been carrying customers in the self-driving cars in limited parts of Tempe and Scottsdale.

"Our hearts go out to the victim’s family," Uber said. "We’re fully cooperating with local authorities as they investigate this incident."

The Phoenix area is among several sites where Uber, Waymo and other companies are testing autonomous vehicles. Nearly every accident involving autonomous cars so far has been the fault of other drivers. Sunday's fatality was the first.

In 2016, a man driving a Tesla car with partial automation was killed in Florida when he hit a truck. However, that vehicle was not intended to operate without an attentive driver, in contrast with the Uber and Waymo vehicles.

Uber and Waymo have drivers in their test cars in the Phoenix area to take control only when the cars encounter a traffic situation they can't negotiate, or if they are driving outside of areas the companies have mapped sufficiently enough to allow the cars to run on their own. Waymo has even taken operators out of the driver seat for some tests.

As of Monday afternoon, police were investigating what caused the collision and said that Uber was assisting.

Hollywood predicted this decades ago:





HT: Vox Popoli

World's first Klingon tourist centre opens in Stockholm

Submitted for your approval, more evidence that you can't be a satirist anymore, as reported by Lee Roden of The Local (Sweden), January 16, 2018 (links in original):

The world's first "Klingon tourist centre" is set to open in Sweden, in a collaboration between a Stockholm theatre and an organization which calls itself the Klingon Institute of Cultural Exchange.
The doors of "Visit Qo'noS" will open at Turteatern in southern Stockholm on February third, allowing humans to learn about the culture and customs of the fictional warrior race from Star Trek until late March.

No stone has been left unturned at what Turteatern's Theresa Jonasson told The Local is the "first Klingon centre in Alpha Quadrant" (which apparently is the part of the Milky Way where Earth lies, in Star Trek lore).

"The visitors check in at the reception desk, where they will get some tourist information, such as a visitor map of the Klingon capital First City. They will then be invited into the ceremonial presentation hall. The non-hologram live-act presentation is performed by the four Klingon ambassadors Ban'Shee, Mara, Morath and Klag, all from the House of Duras," she explained.

"The visitors/audience will be introduced to the Klingon culture and customs and acquire lifesaving tips to apply when interacting with Klingons. There will also be a singalong, dancing, Klingon opera, and scenes from the famous Klingon play Romyo je joloywI' (better known on Earth as Romeo and Juliet), by Shex'pir. The visitors will also get a taste of Klingon martial arts in an authentic battle re-enactment, as well as be invited to try Klingon cuisine such as Gagh and blood wine."

Even by science fiction standards, Star Trek fans are known for being a particularly passionate bunch, and the Stockholm theatre has been careful to try to meet their high expectations when it comes to costumes and staging. It has also called upon the help of Klingonska Akademien (The Klingon Academy), an Uppsala-based society with expertise in the Klingon language, who has even written a Klingon-English dictionary.

The tourist centre project is the brainchild of Turteatern's artistic director Nils Poletti, who Jonasson claims was put in contact with the mysterious Klingon Institute of Cultural Exchange by (dead) jazz composer and self-proclaimed Saturn native Sun Ra.

Jonasson was reluctant to give too much more away, but did make a point of reassuring diehards that the Klingons will be of the more traditional kind:

"The most common question is if the Klingons look like the Klingons in the new Star Trek TV series Discovery, which of course they do not. That series is offensive for Klingons, and should not be mentioned during the presentation."

The galaxy's only conveniently reachable Klingon tourist centre has already caused some excitement, selling out its first date and being featured by a number of international science fiction sites.

For any readers fluent in alien languages, a message from the Klingon Institute of Cultural Exchange in Klingon can even be found here.

For more on Star Trek, see my post Star Trek: Discovery prohibits any mention of God (August 5, 2017).

Floozies for Christ: Porn star Kamilla Warneck

For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: Leviticus 11:44a
As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion. Proverbs 11:22

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.
Do not offer the parts of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. Romans 6:12-13 (NIV)

Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body...
...Flee fornication. I Corinthians 6:13b, 18a

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh saints; Ephesians 5:3

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;
that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, I Thessalonians 4:3-4 (NIV)

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; I Timothy 2:9

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; I Peter 2:11

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: I Peter 4:17a

60 years ago, American gangster Mickey Cohen professed to have come to faith in Jesus Christ after meeting Billy Graham, but saw no need to change his occupation, saying, "Christian football players, Christian cowboys, Christian politicians; why not a Christian gangster?" In the late 1970s, pornography merchant Larry Flynt briefly claimed to be "born again," supposedly being "converted" by Ruth Carter Stapleton, sister of U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Flynt exhibited no changes in his life, continued to publish Hustler magazine, and eventually, like the dog returning to his vomit in Proverbs 26:11, became an outspoken anti-Christian activist (and Mrs. Stapleton promoted "inner healing" and died a New Ager in 1983 at the age of 54, thinking she could visualize her cancer disappearing).

Submitted for your disapproval, yet another example of what is seen too often today in the professing church of Jesus Christ, where there's no connection between a profession of faith and holy living. As reported by Janet Tappin Coelho in the London Sun, April 27, 2017 (updated April 28, 2017):

A PORN star has outraged churchgoers by declaring she is an Evangelical Christian who believes there’s nothing wrong with her work in the eyes of God.

Kamilla Warneck is one of the hottest adult movie stars in Brazil and has appeared in hundreds of erotic movies.
Now the 25-year-old, who grew up in a deeply religious household, has caused controversy with her claims in an interview on X-rated TV show Pornolandia.

The hardcore actress declares she has an “Evangelical faith” and says she doesn’t believe it clashes with her career because she is a “good person at heart.”

Host Nicole Puzzi, who has interviewed dozens of sex industry stars, appeared surprised as she asked: “But how do you relate that to your work because people believe a porno actress cannot be Evangelical and cannot be religious.”

The curvaceous brunette insists: “People are very judgemental. They try to make you conform in a way they think an Evangelical should be because society says so.

“But I don’t agree with this. I think God sees inside our hearts. He judges the good and the bad things you do, and I do good things for people.

“I’m a good person at heart and that’s what matters.”

The clip went viral with some on social media condemning her to “burn in hell” while others said she has the right to do what she wants.

The late-night online magazine show included a risqué striptease by the sultry Rio model in which she wields a collection of dangerous weapons including a gun and knife while dancing suggestively as she undresses for the camera.

It’s a performance and a lifestyle her intensely religious family would disapprove of if they knew.

She said: “My family don’t have a clue about what I do for a living. I haven’t told them but to be honest I really don’t care if they find out.”

In fact, the blue movie actress has already upset her church-going family by divorcing her husband of three years and setting up home with a woman.

She reveals: "My family was really shocked when they found out. It took them a while to accept because their Evangelical beliefs and prejudice against gay relationships made it hard for them to come to terms with my decision.

“They think it’s just a phase I'm going through. That may well be the case, but one day I might shock them even more because I’m prepared to live with anyone so long as they make me happy, and that could include finding love with a transsexual.”

Kamilla left home at 15 to live on her own because of family issues. She doesn't disclose the reasons for doing so.

She said: “As a child, I wanted to grow up to be a ballerina. But I discovered I loved having sex when I was a teen and especially when people were watching.

“One New Year’s Eve I was making out in a tent with a guy I’d just met, and people outside could see what was going on by the shadows cast from a light behind the tent.

“It made me really excited and horny to know they were watching what we were doing.”

The sexy star, who Nicole said looked too young to be "behaving badly" because of the braces her teeth and her "fresh face beauty", got a job as a stripper and pole dancer when she turned 18.

Kamilla said: “I never thought about working in the adult movie industry until a friend invited me to do a raunchy sex show with her.

“Three months later I was invited to take part in an X-rated film and as I was curious about what it involved, I decided to accept the offer.

“I love my work and I want people to appreciate and respect what I do. It’s job where I make good money and I am successful.

“I still have a normal life outside and when I get the chance I go to church with a Bible in my hand."

I don't know whether or not Miss Warneck is actually a Christian--only God knows that--but I'm entitled to say that I don't believe she's a Christian, because the publicly available evidence doesn't support her claim to be a Christian. If she is, when did she come to Christ? She's been attracted to an ungodly lifestyle from a young age, according to her own statements.

As for Miss Warneck being "a good person," Romans 3:10-12 refutes the idea that any of us are good. I think it was James Q. Wilson who found in his criminological studies that most criminals believe themselves to be good people, even while they're in the process of committing crimes. Miss Warneck complains about people being judgmental and trying to make her conform to how an Evangelical should behave "because society says so," but that's not true--the criticism of her not living up to her professed Christian beliefs isn't because she's violating the norms of society, but because she's willfully violating the commands of God as clearly stated in the Bible (see the passages at the top of this post). Her comment is interesting in that she's acknowledging that even "society" disapproves of her behaviour; indeed, most non-Christians have higher moral standards than Kamilla Warneck.

Miss Warneck may go to church with a Bible in her hand, but she doesn't give any evidence of reading or heeding it, or acknowledging its authority over her life. Any true Christian church should, in accord with the instructions given in I Corinthians 5, bar her from fellowship as long as she continues to flout God's commands. Although I Corinthians 5 refers to the immoral brother, I think the same standard applies to women who claim to be Christians but who are living immoral lives.

The best comment on people such as Miss Warneck is an anecdote--which may or may not be true--about the famous 19th century American evangelist D.L. Moody. Mr. Moody, so the story goes, was walking back to his hotel after one of his rallies when a drunk in the gutter recognized him and said, "Oh, Mr. Moody, I'm one of your converts." Mr. Moody replied, "You must be; it's obvious you aren't Christ's."

See my previous posts Floozies for Christ: Bristol Palin (May 20, 2010) and Floozies for Christ: Carrie Prejean (May 22, 2010).

40 years ago: Islamic terrorists take people hostage in Washington, D.C. while demanding the cancellation of the screening of a movie about Muhammad

On March 9, 1977, 12 Hanafi Muslim gunmen seized three buildings in Washington, D.C.--the District Building; B'nai B'rith headquarters; and the Islamic Center of Washington--beginning a 39-hour standoff. One of the terrorists' demands was that the U.S. premiere screening of the movie Mohammad, Messenger of God (1976) be cancelled because they regarded the film as sacrilegious. The incident concluded peacefully on March 11 when the more than 130 hostages were released after ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran joined the negotiations. The film's world premiere screening, on July 30, 1976 in London, had been beset by bomb threats and a hasty change of the film's title to The Message--but at least that screening had taken place without any hostages being seized.

Harry and Michael Medved, in their entertaining and fascinating book The Hollywood Hall of Shame (1984), have a chapter on Mohammad, Messenger of God (pp. 143-152), with detailed information on the movie. They note the irony of Muslims protesting a movie that was produced and directed by a Muslim--Moustapha Akkad--and financed by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi--after initial funding from King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and subsequent funding from King Hassan II Morocco was withdrawn. For those who may be unaware, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Libya are Muslim countries.

It's worth comparing the reaction of Hanafi--a branch of Sunni Islam--Muslims who protested Mohammad, Messenger of God with the reaction of Christians who protested the blasphemous movie The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. In the latter case, there were letters of protest, and a rally outside the offices of MCA/Universal in Universal City, California, where 25,000 people heard a few speeches--and then quietly left. What violent protests did take place were in France, and were attributed to extremist Roman Catholics. See my post 25 years ago: Violent Islamic protests over The Satanic Verses contrast with peaceful Christian protests over The Last Temptation of Christ (February 21, 2014).

There's one delicious similarity in the case of both movies: The Last Temptation of Christ was a major box office failure, with a loss reported to be as much as $14 million, when promotional and other costs are added to the basic cost of making the movie. According to the Medved brothers (p. 151), Mohammad, Messenger of God had, by 1984, made less than $2 million in the United States and less than $5 million worldwide, making for a loss of almost $30 million. Wikipedia and Infogalactic report a take of $15 million, still a considerable loss when other costs are factored in. The movie was reportedly popular with Shiite Iranians.

Life imitates art as 2014's Noah sounds like a real-life version of 1994 spoof ...And God Spoke

In the same vein in which the "mockumentary" movie This is Spinal Tap (1984) made fun of rock music documentary films, ...And God Spoke, which opened at the Festival of Festivals in Toronto in 1993 and went into general release in 1994, pokes fun at fictitious movie producers who who decided to make a movie based on the Bible (see trailer). The producers know next to nothing about the Bible and are too lazy to read it (the director asks a Catholic worker on the set how many disciples Jesus had), but they think they'll be able to get by. The production falls behind schedule after the first day, and before long, saving money takes precedence over faithfulness to the source material.

Gaffes abound, forcing the production further behind schedule, e.g., the actress who plays Eve has a prominent tattoo, and the replica of the ark is built inside a factory and then proves to be too big to get through the factory door and onto the outdoor set. In order to raise more money for the production, the producers decide that some product placement is necessary, so Moses (played by Soupy Sales) is shown coming down a small hill (they couldn't afford a mountan) carrying the tablets of the Ten Commandments in one hand and a six-pack of Coca-Cola cans in the other--not exactly accurate period detail. The movie finally gets finished and released, and is a total disaster, but eventually becomes a cult hit through midnight screenings (a la The Rocky Horror Picture Show), with fans showing up at the theatres in costumes resembling those of the movie's characters.

Flash forward 20 years, and we have Noah (2014). I have no intention of seeing it, but numerous Christian commentators and bloggers have seen it, and there are too many well-informed critiques available from them to mention here. It seems as though producer/director/writer Darren Aronofsky has spent about as much time in the Bible as his fictional counterparts in ...And God Spoke. Even secular reviewers have noticed that Noah isn't exactly faithful to the source material.

Katherine Monk of Canada's Postmedia News states, in her March 28, 2014 review:

...Given all we've heard about the cost of production and big-budget effects, Noah had to deliver two spectacles in grand fashion.

We needed to see an ancient flood that made our feet feel wet, and we needed to see realistic animals loaded onto a gigantic ark that looked plausible from a mariner's perspective.

Aronofsky only half-delivers the goods because it seems a lot of money went toward creating Watchers - characters made of stone and stardust that protect Noah from the marauding hordes.

Here Aronofsky brings a little Judaic Shul to the mix by interpreting the Nephilim, or angels, in the form of Golem - mud monsters. These cartoonish creatures are by far the most insane part of this crazy ride - and not just because the central rock man is voiced by Nick Nolte - but they fit the Dungeons and Dragons landscape, which in turn peels the Noah story away from sacred scripture and reinvents it as a grim fairy tale.

If only he'd been able to pull it all together as something other than an awkward, rectangular box, Noah might have had some real style and gone somewhere interesting...

As an amusing sidelight, Ms. Monk tweets that she got a little taste of the real thing as she left the theatre:

God must love Noah.... just got out of Aronofsky screening and walked into a downpour, then a hail storm.

And according to Adam Nayman in the Toronto newspaper The Globe and Mail, March 28, 2014:

...In Noah, the director takes perhaps the most spectacular chapter of the Greatest Story Ever Told and renders it utterly underwhelming. The drab, under-lit look of Noah, which was shot by Aronofsky’s talented long-time cinematographer Matthew Libatique, represents an attempt to ground myth in reality – to quite literally ground it in acres and acres of mud...

...The gravitas of Noah’s knowledge that the majority of life on Earth is about to be wiped out clashes with the oversized absurdity of much of what’s going on around him, including the clan’s collaboration with a group of giant rock monsters (actually fallen angels), who, whatever their actual scriptural origins, look and sound like creatures from other high-end blockbusters – gigantic refugees from The Lord of the Rings.

These and other gimmicky touches suggest that Aronofsky is trying to justify his project’s massive cost, and yet it’s obvious that what he’s really after is a sense of intimacy. The film’s second half, set inside the Ark as the storm rages outside, is basically a sea-bound psychodrama that finds Noah wrestling with a form of survivor’s guilt and channelling it against the other passengers...

...Aronofsky and his co-writer Ari Handel struggle to create authentic drama and so fall back on action-movie clichés. The point at which Noah stops dead so that two burly movie stars can roll around on the ground pummelling one another is when some viewers may start to suspect that the director is piloting his own gigantic vessel on cruise control.

The film is not without its moments: One shot of a rocky outcropping teeming with people trying to escape the rising tide is borderline-Boschian, and an intelligently designed recap of the Creation myth provocatively overlays Old Testament language on images of evolution. But most of what’s on offer here feels depressingly familiar, especially Crowe’s performance, which doesn’t deviate from the actor’s track record of hard, manful glowering; frankly, he was much better playing a man caught between his loved ones and a larger sense of duty in The Insider (which also featured some more authentically visionary hallucinations to boot).

As for the other actors, they’re badly wasted, especially Connelly, whose screen time mostly consists of grinding herbs to put the Ark’s non-human passengers to sleep (which also cuts down on the special-effects budget, since that means we never really have to see the critters in action)...

...Noah never quite achieves the grandeur it’s reaching for, maybe because in the end the director isn’t really stretching all that far. He has upped the weight, but he hasn’t raised the bar.

There are of course, two major differences between Noah and the fictitious epic in ...And God Spoke: Noah had a much bigger budget, and is a big box office hit. I have no intention of seeing Noah, so I'll have to go by the reviews that give the impression that it's a miserable piece of work. I'm one of the few people who's seen ...And God Spoke, and it was a lot of fun--especially for those who know the Bible--and probably at least as Biblically accurate as Noah.

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.

Headline of the year: "The Mecca That Is Jerusalem"

Since the day that I brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build an house in, that my name might be there; neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel:
But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel. II Chronicles 6:5-6

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.
Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King...
...As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God: God will establish it for ever. Selah. Psalms 48:1-2, 8

For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. Psalms 132:13

This is the funniest headline I've seen in a long time, and you'll find it here, over a review by Susan Hallett of the IMAX 3D documentary film Jerusalem in the Canadian edition of The Epoch Times, September 25, 2013 (updated September 28, 2013).

30 years ago: The world premiere of The God Makers

On December 31, 1982, The God Makers, produced by Jeremiah Films, received its premiere screening at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. The film is a hard-hitting expose of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as the Mormons.

Ed Decker and Dick Baer, former members of the Mormon Melchizededk priesthood, attempted to persuade a Los Angeles law firm to launch a class-action suit against the LDS on behalf of people like themselves who had seen their marriages and families destroyed. The film is centred around a reenactment of Mr. Decker and Mr. Baer's presentation to the law firm, which paints a very different picture of the Mormon Church from that which the church presents to the public. Despite overwhelming evidence to support the complaints against the church, the law firm decided against pursuing the matter because they didn't believe that the complainants had enough money to offset the deep pockets of the Mormon Church.

According to Grace Community Church pastor John MacArthur, "This film is dynamite, the most powerful thing I've seen! Get your Mormon friends to view it!"

The film was followed in 1984 by a book of the same title authored by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, and by a subsequent documentary and book (written by Ed Decker and Caryl Matrisciana) titled The God Makers II in 1988. Both dcoumentaries and both books are recommended by this blogger.

A new documentary film takes a skeptical look at Transcendental Meditation

The accumulation of wealth by Eastern religious leaders shouldn't surprise anyone. Remember, they live on a spiritual plane above and beyond the material world that the rest of us inhabit, which leaves them free to amass as much wealth as possible. Since material wealth doesn't mean anything to them (insert wink here), they're free to enjoy it without feeling burdened by it.

Some of us remember the Natural Law Party--the political wing of TM--spending a huge amount of money in an attempt to elect candidates in the 1993 Canadian federal election. Their meditation--and money--had about as much influence on voters in Canada as it had had on voters in other countries' elections, and it worked about as well as "yogic flying" worked in defying the law of gravity.

According to this review in Maclean's by Brian D. Johnson:

He was the original guru pop star. Made famous by the Beatles in the 1960s, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was the godfather of the Transcendental Meditation movement, known as TM. He inspired such acolytes as author Deepak Chopra and filmmaker David Lynch, and remained TM’s figurehead until his death in 2008 at the age of 94. The Maharishi was once dubbed "the giggling guru." But now it appears he may have been giggling all the way to the bank. David Wants to Fly, a new documentary shown last week at Toronto’s Hot Docs festival, offers compelling evidence that the Maharishi’s empire of enlightenment is more devoted to shaking down its followers and amassing wealth than transcending the material world.

Halfblack Messiah and Turner Classic Movies--an interesting juxtaposition

Tonight (January 27, 2010), while White House occupant B. Hussein Obama is delivering his first State of the Union address, Turner Classic Movies is showing the following movies, beginning at 6 P.M. MST: My Son John (1952); I Was a Communist for the FBI (1951); and The Manchurian Candidate (1962). If this is just a coincidence, it’s an interesting (or, as Joel Rosenberg would say, "curious") one indeed. I'll be watching the movies.