Husband to Patty. Daddy to Kimberly and Tommie. Grandpa Doc to Cohen, Max, Fox, and Marlee. Pastor to Snow Hill Baptist Church. Graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reading. Photography. Golf. Colorado. Jeeping. Friend.
The views and opinions expressed here are my own and should not be construed as representing the corporate views of the church I pastor.
Share:
2 comments on “The church and the Passion of the Christ …”
Spencer seems to have a nice argument with himself over the question, “Is The Passion of Christ over-exposed and over-hyped?” First explaining the mindset of the Christian masses, and then refuting it with his heightened sense of awareness. The same pattern can be found in a macro sense of his article — First he becomes agitated at the excessive exposure and attention on this movie, so he responds by writing an article featuring it.
Additionally, I’m not sure how the diatribe about R-rated movies really fits. His suggestion that movies depicting rape and graphic violence have equal merit based on reality factor is insulting. To his credit, his style remains consistent — first applauding the church for ‘endorsing’ an R-rated movie, and then arguing against a ridiculous R-rated policy (that he himself contrived) a couple paragraphs later.
Unfortunately, I’m not clear what he concluded. Buried beneath all this unfocused debate are some interesting points about hypocrisy, the focus of the church, and commercialization of spirituality. Ironically, in this article the movie seems to attract attention only to then distract from the focal points. I’d like to see him write a follow-up article that focuses on these points that he only ‘flirted with’ in this article. “Come on Spence; tell us what you ‘really’ think….”
These comments should not be viewed as polemical for the article. The article is not anit-movie. Instead, the article is a look at how the “church” responds to such a movie with slogans like, “the greatest evanelistic opportunity in 2000 years.” And why would that be the case? What does that say about the opportunity to be the body of Christ for 2000 years and demonstrate what it looks like to love, live and follow Jesus. Not nearly the evangelisitc opportunity the movie is, or so it purported. There may also be an attempt to stir us to avoid making this a cult film – Christian film. We will make it so if only Christians view the film. And further it will be so if we do not invite those needing Christ to join us – and it does not mean we need to give an invitation after viewing the film. If the film is as screeners have said, there will be enough to chew on without me messing it up for them.
Spencer seems to have a nice argument with himself over the question, “Is The Passion of Christ over-exposed and over-hyped?” First explaining the mindset of the Christian masses, and then refuting it with his heightened sense of awareness. The same pattern can be found in a macro sense of his article — First he becomes agitated at the excessive exposure and attention on this movie, so he responds by writing an article featuring it.
Additionally, I’m not sure how the diatribe about R-rated movies really fits. His suggestion that movies depicting rape and graphic violence have equal merit based on reality factor is insulting. To his credit, his style remains consistent — first applauding the church for ‘endorsing’ an R-rated movie, and then arguing against a ridiculous R-rated policy (that he himself contrived) a couple paragraphs later.
Unfortunately, I’m not clear what he concluded. Buried beneath all this unfocused debate are some interesting points about hypocrisy, the focus of the church, and commercialization of spirituality. Ironically, in this article the movie seems to attract attention only to then distract from the focal points. I’d like to see him write a follow-up article that focuses on these points that he only ‘flirted with’ in this article. “Come on Spence; tell us what you ‘really’ think….”
These comments should not be viewed as polemical for the article. The article is not anit-movie. Instead, the article is a look at how the “church” responds to such a movie with slogans like, “the greatest evanelistic opportunity in 2000 years.” And why would that be the case? What does that say about the opportunity to be the body of Christ for 2000 years and demonstrate what it looks like to love, live and follow Jesus. Not nearly the evangelisitc opportunity the movie is, or so it purported. There may also be an attempt to stir us to avoid making this a cult film – Christian film. We will make it so if only Christians view the film. And further it will be so if we do not invite those needing Christ to join us – and it does not mean we need to give an invitation after viewing the film. If the film is as screeners have said, there will be enough to chew on without me messing it up for them.