For those of us who care about truth and righteousness, Hollywood offers very little.  However, this 2003-2004 season offers some hope and promise.  Allow me to cite two examples:

• First on 26 September 2003, the new motion picture, “Luther,” will be released in over 300 theaters nationwide.  The film stars Joseph Fiennes as Martin Luther and features other Hollywood stars including Sir Peter Ustinov, Alfred Milona, Jonathan Firth and Claire Cox.  The movie will have a PG-13 rating due to the violence depicted in association with the 1525 Peasants’ War.  Although the film depicts Luther as a family man, as a hymnwriter and as a husband, the chief focus of the movie is on the Gospel: Luther coming to an understanding of justification by faith, the application of that truth to his role as priest and professor and his role as leader of a large movement called the Reformation.  The film depicts each major event of his life from his decision to leave the study of law to become a monk, his discovery of the gospel, his anger over Johann Tetzel’s selling of indulgences, to his thunderous sermons at Wittenberg.  Viewers also see his utter anguish over the 1525 Peasants’ Revolt that his message unleashed.  Over 50,000 rebels were killed during that revolt and Luther struggled intensely with the reality of what he unleashed.  In short, this is a powerful movie that will grip people with the intensity of Luther’s struggle and the liberation of the message he championed.  It is time for his story to be told to this generation.  It will not only be told through the movie but there is an accompanying book published by the Concordia Publishing House.  May God use this film in powerful ways.
 
See the article on the film in The Lutheran Witness (September 2003), pp. 6-11.

• Second is the “Passion,” a film project by Mel Gibson.  It is probably the most graphic film ever shot about the suffering and death of Jesus.  The horrors of the torture Jesus endured and the reality of death by crucifixion are depicted in explicit detail.  In its attempt to be realistic, its characters speak in Aramaic.  The film is meticulous in its dependence on the Gospel accounts and, for that reason, many fear it will stoke a fresh spate of anti-Semitism.  It should not.  The Gospels make it crystal clear that almost all of Jesus’ followers were Jews and that it was the Roman government that actually executed Jesus.  However, the Gospel accounts also make it crystal clear that the Jewish leadership wanted Jesus to go and they manipulated Rome to carry out the execution.  That is not anti-Semitism; that is historical fact.  But those who are critics of what Gibson is doing are missing the whole point: Christ’s crucifixion was a monstrous evil that actually was the best thing that ever happened.  Through His death, Jesus purchased the redemption of the human race from sin.  The result is God’s offer of forgiveness and justification to all who accept that offer in faith.  It was not the Jews who nailed Jesus to the cross and it was not the Romans; it was all of us!  Our sins made it necessary for Jesus to die and we all in effect killed Jesus.  That is the vital center of the gospel and that is what Gibson is trying to convey in his film.  In defending Gibson’s film, critic G. Edward Veith has argued, “The controversy over the Mel Gibson movie is a testimony to the failure of Christians to communicate effectively what they believe.  Secularists, by and large, think Christianity is all about moralism, with good people going to heaven and bad people going to hell.  They have no idea that Christianity is really about grace, forgiveness, God becoming flesh, Christ giving His life and rising again for the salvation of sinners.”  Gibson redirects our thoughts as Christians back to the main thing--the cross.  It is clear from the New Testament that the cross is a stumbling block, repugnant and offensive nonsense to those who refuse God’s grace; but is liberating power to those who accept it.  The cross is controversial and Gibson’s movie is reminding us of that truth.  But his movie is also reminding us that the cross is the center of our faith. 

See Veith’s article in World (16 August 2003), p. 13 and Richard Corliss, Time (18 August 2003).

Back to top

THE “LAWRENCE” CASE AND A BACKLASH?

After the US Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law in late June, a marked change occurred in the way Americans viewed the possibility of gays marrying.  The breadth of Justice Kennedy’s decision whereby (1) he ruled that ethical disapproval is not a basis for states to make legislation and whereby (2) he ruled that at the heart of liberty is personal autonomy was staggering.  So staggering that many now are arguing that the legitimizing of same-sex marriages is inevitable.  But there is significant evidence that Americans are not willing to accept same-sex marriages.  After the Supreme Court decision, the number of Americans who said sexual relations between homosexuals should be legal fell from 60% in May to 48% in July, the lowest number since 1996.  Polls taken after the “Lawrence” decision also revealed a sudden drop in the number of Americans who said they would support civil unions for gays and lesbians, from 49% in May to 37% in August.  There are some in the leadership of the gay rights movement that are now arguing that the “Lawrence” decision may actually result in a setback for the movement.  (Something similar happened after Hawaii’s Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that gays and lesbians had a constitutional right to marry in that state.  The result: 34 states passed laws declaring that they would not recognize same-sex marriages.)  Some thoughts for our reflection:
 
• The court has done something like this before.  In 1973, it struck down abortion laws in 46 states, and it did so in a freewheeling way that even some scholars and justices who were in favor of abortion rights found constitutionally questionable.  Justice Harry Blackman said the Constitution protected the right to choose first trimester abortions, but, to justify this claim, cited nothing specific in the Constitution except the nebulous implied right of privacy.  The result energized an entire generation of abortion opponents and crystallized the issue of cultural decadence for millions of Americans.  This energy led not only to opposition to abortion but to pornography, gay rights and the E.R.A.  Many also called for the resurrection of school prayer and the place of the Ten Commandments as a symbol of our legal heritage.  Roe v. Wade pushed many Americans to the edge of a culture war for the heart, soul and mind of American civilization.  Because of the way the Court decided Roe, positions on abortion now define judicial appointments and political candidates, often at all levels of government.  What both the Lawrence case and the Roe case demonstrate is that relying on the courts for victories that you are unable to win in the legislatures is not a recipe for enduring success.  It is just the opposite, namely the unleashing of a struggle to define the source of ethical and moral authority within American civilization: Is it either a transcendent source or is it the autonomous self as the source?  In both cases, the Court argued that it was the autonomous self that was the source of ethical authority; but for those who believe in God that is unacceptable.  Hence, the culture war. 

• In such situations, where there is a debate over the source of ethical authority, one would think that the spiritual leaders of the nation would be of help.  But this is not the case.  At least in terms of the mainline denominations, the leadership is as confused as everyone else.  In fact, it seems at least in the mainline Protestant denominations, the leadership is siding with those who see authority sourced in self, not God.  We saw this in the recent acceptance of V. Gene Robinson as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire.  Witness the confusion and lack of decisive action on the part of mainline leadership:

1) The Presbyterian Church--Does ordain openly gay clergy, if they remain celibate, and does bless same-sex unions, as long as they are not equated with marriage.

2) Reform Judaism--Does ordain openly gay clergy and does bless same-sex marriages.

3) Evangelical Lutheran Church--Does ordain openly gay clergy, if they remain celibate, but does not bless same-sex unions.

4) United Methodist Church--Surprisingly, it does not ordain gay clergy or bless same-sex unions.

The tragedy of all this is that the leadership of these fellowships long ago abandoned the clear teaching of Scripture on human sexuality.  Transcendent authority on ethical questions is no longer what these fellowships follow; in the name of love and tolerance they embrace postmodern autonomy.  So, instead of giving spiritual leadership, these fellowships are really characterized as the blind leading the blind.  They know the truth that resides in Scripture, choose to disobey it and then lead their “flocks” down the path of doom.  What will they say when they stand before Almighty God?

See article Jeffrey Rosen, “How to Reignite the Culture Wars,” New York Times Magazine (7 September 2003), pp. 48-50 and Time (18 August 2003), pp. 50-51.

Back to top

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS WELFARE AGENCIES

At the local level, school boards and governments face a huge dilemma--they must pay for rising school costs without raising taxes.  Schools are costly enterprises.  The average K-12 public school student costs taxpayers close to $8,000 per year.  Over the 13-year school career, that adds up to over $100,000.  Because it is so costly, J.H. Snider argues that public schools are finding ways to keep fewer kids enrolled in public schools.  First, they are discouraging development that includes family dwellings, where there would be children that need schools.  Second, they are facilitating high dropout rates among poor, at-risk students.  Third, they are encouraging the affluent students to go to private schools, where enrollments are booming.  The result then is that affluent families do not want to fund schools their children do not use.  The other result is that the public schools are being turned into a welfare service for the disadvantaged.

I can think of no better argument for vouchers.  If the governments (national, state and local) across this nation would give parents a voucher to fund their children’s education, they would choose the best schools.  The public schools that cannot compete would die; and that may not be a bad thing.  Genuine competition would force the welfare-service-schools to measure up or go out of existence.  Many of the public schools in the major urban areas of our nation are a disgrace. They do not deserve any more funding.  What is needed is broad-based reform of this welfare service system called public education.  The place to begin is with school vouchers.

See Snider’s article in the Washington Post (2 September 2003).

Back to top