Jump to content

The Last Sin Eater (2007)


Recommended Posts

I would never let the pay get in the way of an honest representation of my opinion of a film. And I would never say that any mediocre writing on my part was justified by the paycheque.

No, I dare say not. But I rather imagine that you wouldn't write the same style of review, nor include the same content, for Film Comment as you would for, say, Entertainment Weekly.

So naturally I also wouldn't expect the same kind of film from American Zoetrope as I would from Walden Media, even if the same director made the two films. (Remember how Cape Fear followed Goodfellas?)

Somehow, somewhere, it seems that a wide variety of criteria must apply to judging a film a "success" rather than artistic achievement alone. For instance, what if a film only satisfies the director? Is it a failure?

I could, however, be all wet.

Greg Wright

Managing Editor, Past the Popcorn

Consulting Editor, Hollywood Jesus

Leader of the Uruk-Howdy, Orcs of the West

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd just like to say that Mark did a great job on the radio interview. The host sounded like a totally different guy after things were explained to him... So just keep on winning people over, one at a time!

"Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"

« Nous connaîtrions-nous seulement un peu nous-mêmes, sans les arts? »

Quoted on Canada's $20 bill; from Gabrielle Roy's novel La montagne secrète. The English translation, The Hidden Mountain, is by Harry L. Binsse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Wright wrote:

: I rather imagine that you wouldn't write the same style of review, nor include the

: same content, for Film Comment as you would for, say, Entertainment Weekly.

Depending on the film, yeah.

: For instance, what if a film only satisfies the director? Is it a failure?

If you're the sort of critic who doesn't care for self-indulgence, yeah. :)

Tim Willson wrote:

: I'd just like to say that Mark did a great job on the radio interview. The host sounded

: like a totally different guy after things were explained to him... So just keep on

: winning people over, one at a time!

That was my reaction too, but then the radio host began posting nasty messages on our blogs -- and today, he apparently devoted a portion of his show to slamming me again. (I won't be able to hear it until the mp3 of today's show goes up.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... except that the host *wasn't* won over, Tim, and that's what's so frustrating. He *sounded* won over, but then, AFTER that interview, he got on Peter's blog, and mine, and told us we have an anti-evangelical agenda. So, maybe Moring won over some listeners (he did do a great job), but Edwards continued his attacks after the show, and was back on the air bashing Peter and his review again today.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, maybe Moring won over some listeners (he did do a great job), but Edwards continued his attacks after the show, and was back on the air bashing Peter and his review again today.

Edwards, not Evans. My bad. Yeah, you're right about the chronology. So much for rapprochement. Does he take callers? "Hey, Paul -- how come you're such a nice guy on the air and such a jerk on the Web?"

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The radio host, Paul Evans, followed up on this controversy by interviewing Mark Moring, editor of CT Movies (and thus the guy responsible for keeping both Peter and Jeffrey in line). It's actually a very respectful, thoughtful interview and goes some distance toward a significant rapprochement. Mark is full of praise for Jeffrey, which must be nice to hear.

Link to the interview at Peter's blog.

I'm a little lost. I can't find the link in Peter's blog. Anyone got a link you can post here?

I have the link to last week's Michael Landon Jr. interview. But not this morning's interview with Mark.

Edited by Plot Device

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's here, but note the chronology. This aired on 2/13, 4-6 p.m. Eastern time. After interviewing Mark, Paul visits Jeffrey's blog and accuses CT of having an "anti-evangelical agenda." Jeffrey responds, and then Paul goes ballistic, accusing Jeffrey of:

a committment to the deconstructionist philosophy that plagues contemporary Christianity, especially in its emergent forms. This postmodern view of truth has obviously infected CT movie reviewers.

It is a lack of committment to objective truth - sacred, inspired, inerrant, eternal, unchangeable truth as revealed in God's word - that gives you the space to allow for profanity and the gospel to not be mutually exclusive.

Apparently Jeffrey's suggestion that different people may interpret a novel in different ways is a sign of a "deconstructionist philosophy," according to Paul.

Edited by mrmando

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received a long email from Paul, in which he defended himself and then told me that he was "certain" that I would take his words out of context and post them here.

Well, I'm not going to do that.

I try not to take people's words out of context.

He says that in the list I posted earlier, I was taking him out of context.

So, I admit that I am sometimes wrong, and I invite Paul to come to this thread and explain for himself what he meant by those words, so that I can be shown where I am wrong about his claims.

And just in case I *might* have taken his words out of context, you are all AGAIN invited to read his posts on my blog, and on Peter's blog, and come to your own conclusions. I'll stay out of the way, so there's no middleman, and no distortion.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just received a long email from Paul, in which he defended himself and then told me that he was "certain" that I would take his words out of context and post them here.

I might be misreading the context here ;) but that one word ("certain") seems very hostile. It's downright accusatory.

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's here, but note the chronology. This aired on 2/13, 4-6 p.m. Eastern time. After interviewing Mark, Paul visits Jeffrey's blog and accuses CT of having an "anti-evangelical agenda." Jeffrey responds, and then Paul goes ballistic, accusing Jeffrey of:
a committment to the deconstructionist philosophy that plagues contemporary Christianity, especially in its emergent forms. This postmodern view of truth has obviously infected CT movie reviewers.

It is a lack of committment to objective truth - sacred, inspired, inerrant, eternal, unchangeable truth as revealed in God's word - that gives you the space to allow for profanity and the gospel to not be mutually exclusive.

Apparently Jeffrey's suggestion that different people may interpret a novel in different ways is a "deconstructionist philosophy," according to Paul.

Thank you.

I just finished listening. Mark gave a clear explanation of the difference between the Most Redeeming List and the Critics' Choice List, and the driving criteria of how each list is picked. And then five minutes later, Paul asked "What is the driving criteria for that list?" And Mark graciously did NOT say "I already told you!"

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just received a long email from Paul... He says that in the list I posted earlier, I was taking him out of context.

So, I admit that I am sometimes wrong, and I invite Paul to come to this thread and explain for himself what he meant by those words... [NOTE: abbreviated quote]

Hi Paul -- I'm hoping you've dropped in on us and will join our sometimes rambunctious community for more in-depth discussions about the matters that have recently come up. I loved the tone of your interview with Mark, partly because of the sweeping generalizations that were made when Michael Landon Jr. was on your show. ("If [Peter Chattaway] had ever spent any time with anyone who had ever known Christ..." -- if not in so many words.) So, my first encounter with you was in the context of a drive-by smear of the motives of CT reviewers and writers. Your follow-up interview with Mark showed a good deal of willingness to grant some benefit of the doubt, to accept the notion that people with whom you disagree may have very solid rationale for their position.

The temptation in radio, perhaps now more than ever, is to wade into controversy for its own sake. It's nice to know that you are as interested in light as in heat. I'd like to think that we (A&F members) are as well, and I hope you feel free to dive in.

"Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"

« Nous connaîtrions-nous seulement un peu nous-mêmes, sans les arts? »

Quoted on Canada's $20 bill; from Gabrielle Roy's novel La montagne secrète. The English translation, The Hidden Mountain, is by Harry L. Binsse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved ALL of this post, mrmando. Even this part right here:

just because some of its critics don't share your interpretation of a particular movie ... that's nothing but arrogant, hyperbolic crazy talk.

even though it can likely be misconstrued as "Those godless heathens over at A&F have called me arrogant and crazy!"

It's a fine piece of writing. It's a TRUE piece of writing. And thanks for the link.

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nugget from Paul's Thursday show. It's near the beginning of this clip; sounds like he led off the show with it.

I'm listening right now. I was mad and made an angry post here in THIS posting block about two hours ago. I have just deleted it.

Here's my latest response. Hopefully, it's a little calmer:

Mr. Edwards said in his Thursday 2/15/07 broadcast (time stamp 51:07)

My feeling is that CT --particularly in the movie reviews-- are just so bent on being hip and in touch with the culture that they're afraid to read Christian values into their movie reviews, as if somehow that's just not proper. We set our Christian values off to the side and we do the Roger Ebert thing and the Gene Siskel thing. You know what? If I want a secular review of a movie, I can go to Roger Ebert. I can read those guys. But I come to Christianity Today for something beyond that. I come to Christianity Today for a Biblical world view and, specifically, an Evangelical world view on the stories they cover, and on the movies they cover, on the books they review. I want to know: What is the Evangelical perspective? And when Peter Chattaway criticizes "The Last Sin Eater" for simply being and doing what it is Christianity is and does -- for being Evangelical -- I just gotta scratch my head and say "What's the deal? What. Is. The deal?"

Mr. Edwards said in his Thursday 2/15/07 broadcast (time stamp 54:40)

Peter Chattaway doesn't criticize the movie as art. He chooses to criticize the one thing that Christians ought to be most adamant about, and that is evangelism and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And THAT's my concern. He's not saying the movie's just a bad film all together. When that happens, certainly I think a Christian movie reviewer ought to be honest. I never ever wanna say that a Christian movie reviewer should simply say that a movie is good because it's Christian. I mean, that would be pat. That would be silly. And so I'm not saying to Christianity Today: "You are OBLIGATED -- because Michael Landon Jr. is a Christian and he's producing and directing and writing the screenplay of a Christian film -- that you're OBLIGATED to promote this film and say good things about it." That's not what I'm saying. My question is a broader philosophical question: Why is it that Christianity Today seems to be picking on Michael Landon for doing exactly what Christianity Today has spent fifty years doing, which is evangelizing?

My response:

Evangelizing needs to have relevance. Films with goals to evangelize can't allow themselves to be either trite, irrelevant or predictable because they are then self-defeating. Mr. Edwards' observation that contemporary Christian movie reviewers are "just so bent on being hip and in touch with the culture that they're afraid to read Christian values into their movie reviews" is neither fair nor accurate. Christian film critics like Peter Chattaway and Jeffrey Overstreet very much want to see effective evangelizing films. In fact, it would make them ecstatically happy to see such films distributed all the time. It's just that they continue to see ones that merely ATTEMPT to be evangelizing, and instead woefully undo themselves via a poorly executed cinematic presentation of the Gospel. Too many of these films don't know how to utilize the art form in a manner palatable to unsaved filmgoers. Evangelistic punch lines are GREAT! Peter most likely would LOVE to see a dozen films or more per year released with evangelistic punch lines built into them. But the set up and execution of such punch lines needs to be superb. It needs to be excellent. It requires a skilful and gentle hand to render such a punch line "effective."

Neither Peter Chattaway nor Christianity Today object to films that have evangelistic punch lines. They object to films that bungle the delivery of those precious and important punch lines through the gross and all-too-common errors of obviousness, lack of imagination, and belaboring of the point. Peter was not faulting "The Last Sin Eater" for having a Gospel punch line. He took issue with how the punch line was ultimately served up.

Mr. Edawrd's questions this by saying "when Peter Chattaway criticizes 'The Last Sin Eater' for simply being and doing what it is Christianity is and does -- for being Evangelical -- I just gotta scratch my head and say "What's the deal? What. Is. The deal?" The deal is that while it's a very good thing to be Evangelical, it's tragically self-defeating to be ineffective at it.

Edited by Plot Device

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
even though it can likely be misconstrued as "Those godless heathens over at A&F have called me arrogant and crazy!"

Well, I was attacking the speech, not necessarily the speaker. It occurs to me, though, that Mark has already explained the CT Movies "Critic's Choice" criteria to Paul. It's about films that are made with excellence, not about films whose worldview CT necessarily shares or endorses. For example, I had to admit Million Dollar Baby was made with excellence even though I disagreed with the conclusions it drew.

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mrmando wrote:

: Paul seems to equate "good film" with "faithful adaptation of the book," . . .

Yeah, if I ever comment on this again at my blog -- and I'm so zonked from juggling home and work right now, I don't know if I will -- I'll have to lead off with the fact that Edwards has a real bug up his butt about "accuracy" in film adaptations of novels, but he can't seem to "accurately" represent the positions of the people that he's arguing against. I think the latter kind of accuracy is at least as important as the former, and probably more so.

Plot Device wrote:

: Peter most likely would LOVE to see a dozen films or more per year

: released with evangelistic punch lines built into them.

Well... Let's say I would love to see a dozen films or more per year that invite people into the depth and mystery of God's revelation to mankind -- be it general revelation, special revelation, whatever. I want people to meet Christ, and sometimes even to know him by name.

What I DON'T care for all that much is movies that try to sell something to an audience that already has what's being sold. I got tired of listening to Stryper and other Christian bands when I was a teenager because I had been a Christian all my life (or at least since I was seven years old, for those who think you don't become a Christian until you say the "sinner's prayer"; I was baptized a few years later, when I was eleven, for whatever that's worth), and I wasn't getting anything out of songs that kept saying "Become a Christian! Become a Christian! Become a Christian!" (I actually still like Stryper's 'Reason for the Season', on some levels, but lines like "You got it... if you want it... Just... be...lieve..." are just too commercial-jingle-y.) Eventually I moved on to other artists who were exploring the mysteries of faith, and doubt, and belief -- including bands like Daniel Amos, which for all their talent would almost certainly never have thrived or possibly even existed outside of the "contemporary Christian music" niche.

So what I would like to see is more "contemporary Christian films" that follow the Daniel Amos example, rather than the Stryper example.

Michael Landon Jr. and/or Paul Edwards pretty much admit that the point in making a film like The Last Sin Eater is to evangelize, yet the only people who are really going to bother watching this movie, because of its preachiness and its clunky artistry, are Christians who have already been evangelized ... and what's the point of THAT?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I just spent the better part of a day, when I needed to be doing other things, writing my last contribution to this debate. I needed today to work on Auralia's Colors, but man... I really need to make something out of the hurt these broadcasts have caused me.

Anyway, if the accusations continue, I'm just going to keep referring people to this rather long-winded explanation, and leave it at that.

I received a new, official invitation to appear on the Paul Edwards show today, and I declined. If Mark's defense of CT didn't make any difference to the host, I have no reason to believe mine would. (I just hope those Detroit listeners take the time to hear (or read) both sides of the issue.) I might reconsider if the show airs a public apology to the CT movie reviewers, though.

Anyway, back to the work of evangelism. ;)

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I just spent the better part of a day, when I needed to be doing other things, writing my last contribution to this debate. I needed today to work on Auralia's Colors, but man... I really need to make something out of the hurt these broadcasts have caused me.

Anyway, if the accusations continue, I'm just going to keep referring people to this rather long-winded explanation, and leave it at that.

I received a new, official invitation to appear on the Paul Edwards show today, and I declined. If Mark's defense of CT didn't make any difference to the host, I have no reason to believe mine would. (I just hope those Detroit listeners take the time to hear (or read) both sides of the issue.) I might reconsider if the show airs a public apology to the CT movie reviewers, though.

Anyway, back to the work of evangelism. ;)

Sorry it's been such a drag. The worst part of all this is that it's a fellow brethren in Christ who's been doing it.

Glad you declined to go on the air. It was most likely not going to be a productive or edifying endevor.

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be sure to read the thrilling conclusion to the drama over at Peter's blog, where Paul "bows out" of the discussion and bemoans the impossibility of an "honest debate" with Jeffrey.

Whether the dishonesty has been mostly on Paul's part or on Jeffrey's, I leave to the reader to decide.

Paul also chides various people for calling him things like "jerk" (hey, I confess, that was me) and offers this little pearl of wisdom:

Ad Hominem attacks are the final resort of your opponent when he can't answer your facts.

In the context of this debate, I submit that those who engaged in ad hominem attacks on Paul did so not because they couldn't answer his facts, but because they got frustrated when Paul refused to answer their facts.

P.S. Oh, and hey, here is an example of two films that improve upon their source material by adding Christian themes to it. If these films had remained faithful to their books, I submit that they wouldn't be remembered so fondly ... and they certainly would have a lot less to recommend them to Christian viewers.

Edited by mrmando

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

Paul may have "bowed out" of the discussion over at Peter's blog, but that doesn't mean he's finished talking.

He's now got a nice long post over at his own blog, under the title "Postmodern Lessons Learned from CT Movies." Not only that, at his Web site there's a feed from the blog post, under the even more provocative title "Christianity Today movie reviewers launch character attack on Michael Landon, Jr. and Paul Edwards." It begins thusly:

The movie reviewers over at Christianity Today have launched a full scale assault on my character on at least three different blogs over the last week, in some cases taking out of context snippets of what I have posted at their sites and posting them on another site where I do not have posting privileges, thus prohibiting me from responding.
I feel left out! It isn't just CT movie reviewers who have questioned Paul's character or posted his statements here, but they're the only ones he pays any attention to. Wah! :angry:

But seriously, did anyone at any time attack Michael Landon Jr.'s character? I think we questioned his filmmaking talent and wondered whether he meant to insinuate that Peter doesn't know any Christians, but I don't recall anyone attacking his character. As for Paul's character, all I can say is that I think we've reached the point where character attacks become quite unnecessary. One hardly need rely on comments from me, Peter, Jeffrey, or anyone else to determine what sort of person Paul is. Paul has done a fine job of displaying his character on his own.

By "another site where I do not have posting privileges," Paul, I presume you mean this site. You know what? Posting accounts on this site are free and easily obtainable, or at least they were when I signed up. Please feel free to obtain an account and respond to your heart's content, but don't snivel over on your blog that anyone is "prohibiting" you from responding. It's possible, of course, that if you do join up, you might proceed to make yourself so odious that you get banned from the site (it's happened with other people). But unless and until that happens, the prohibition exists only in your head, and your whining about it serves only to make you look foolish.

Here's another real doozy of a quote from Paul:

The reality is [Mark, Peter, and Jeffrey] are guys who spend all day immersed in the culture of Hollywood, ostensibly
Edited by mrmando

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Update:

Paul may have "bowed out" of the discussion over at Peter's blog, but that doesn't mean he's finished talking.

He's now got a nice long post over at his own blog, under the title "Postmodern Lessons Learned from CT Movies."

It appears the post has been removed. I skimmed it earlier tonight, but now it is no longer there. It was pretty brutal, so perhaps he thought better of it and removed it.

regards,

-Lance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to the update: The blog post I mentioned above has now DISAPPEARED from Paul's blog!

Unbelievable! Boy, that Paul is quick with the Delete key. I guess the thought of my coming over there and posting some comments was just too much for him to contemplate.

But I'm quicker than he is. I managed to save his entire post as a Word document. It's attached. I did not change a word of it.

Paul, don't try the "I didn't say that" argument with anything from your original post. The fact that you withdrew it doesn't mean you didn't say it.

I expect he'll do a little editing and then repost ... and at that point we can have some fun comparing the two versions.

P.S. Second attachment is another Word doc containing a screenshot of Paul's Web site before he took down the feed for the post in question.

[Attachments removed as a courtesy following a request by an A&F user]

Edited by Guest
Removal of attachments as a courtesy

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading about 90% of the correspondence, it doesn't seem like Mr. Edwards and the A&Fer's disagree as much as it seems.

I think one thing that happens in arguments, especially over the internet, is focusing on aspects of the disagreement, attacking that, and going further in that direction. So after some exchanges, we are really much farther apart than we need to be. Perhaps a day of deep sea fishing together and sharing a six-pack would blur all these lines that feel so dividing right now.

But, since this is the internet and all we have to focus on are our disagreements, let me chime in. ;)

I will say that it seems like both sides are taking inappropriate jabs. Beyond that, there seems to be one underlying issue that I cannot understand:

Paul is accuses CT of being postmodern in the worst sense. Postmodern here meaning all truth is relative. That is a far different statement than saying that truth can be found in many different sources. The latter I think is the claim of CT, and perhaps it is a postmodern bend, but not in the sense of everybody is ok and nothing matters.

And, sidenote. This thing about the gospel and profanity being mutually exclusive. I can't understand how that can be the case. Now I can see an argument for christian behavior and profanity being mutually exclusive, perhaps. But the gospel is not about behaviour. It is about grace. What does profanity have to do with the gospel? If it did have anything to do with the gospel, it would mean curse all the hell you want, Jesus still loves you.

"I am quietly judging you" - Magnolia

Link to post
Share on other sites

I...

I...

Wow.

Just...

Wow.

I'm sure there's a lesson here for us all. I just don't know where to start in summing it up.

Here's the link to Edwards' post: http://godandculture.wordpress.com/2007/02...from-ct-movies/

It's back online.

Remember the progression: Peter wrote a review that contained nothing erroneous. Claims about CT having an "anti-evangelical agenda" were made on Edwards' show... by Edwards. We posted things that explained why that was false, and defined our perspective of our evangelical purpose. And every time we have tried to answer the harsh claims being made on Edwards' show and blog, we've been characterized as "attacking his character." So... it's okay to attack CT and its reviewers and make all kinds of false claims... but don't try to defend yourself against these attacks, or you'll be seen as persecuting the attackers. Sigh....

Edited by Jeffrey Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I...

I...

Wow.

Just...

Wow.

I'm sure there's a lesson here for us all. I just don't know where to start in summing it up.

My advice:

1) Do not post ANYTHING ELSE about all of this, either here or ANYWHERE ELSE at all.

2) DO NOT go on the air with that man.

3) DO NOT call him on the phone.

4) DO NOT send him any e-mail.

5) Call your pastors.

6) Contact a Christian mediator.

7) Contact a lawyer (CT probably has an entire room full of lawyers at its disposal).

8) Have the Christian mediator contact Mr. Edwards and request a formal summit meeting between Mr. Edwards and yourselves (possibly just Mr. Edwards and Mark because Mark is the editor) to be conducted in person, face-to-face, behind closed doors in a spirit of Chrisyian reconciliation.

9) If Mr. Edwards refuses this, and tries again to have you guys get on the air with him (on his turf where he controls everything) THEN HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

10) And then post one more blog entry in which you declare to the world that you have done all of the above and yet Mr. Edwards refused a summit meeting with a Christian mediator and preferred to hide behind the tyrrany of his radio program.

::EDIT::

mrmando suggested I also do something about that statement.

In light of Matthew 18:15-17, I will rephrase that to say: IF Mr. Edwards won't agree to all of this, THEN treat him like a pagan or a tax collector.

Edited by Plot Device

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...