Phil’s question about your favorite film Jesus got me thinking about the guy we both favor, Bruce Marchiano, who played Him in both The Visual Bible: Matthew and The Visual Bible: Acts.

My first reaction when I saw Machiano in the role was, “Wow! Finally a Jesus who looks like He could possibly be a Middle Eastern Jew!” In spite of the fact that I’m a Republican (and so obviously a racist and anti-Semite), I’ve always been irritated by blonde, blue-eyed Jesuses.* Even when Hollywood set out to produce a biting, “realistic,” debunking portrayal in The Last Temptation of Christ, they cast blonde, blue-eyed Willem Dafoe.

I suppose there’s no point throwing mud at an icon unless it’s iconographic-looking.

Anyway, I liked that about Marchiano. But even better was his ground-breaking portrayal. His Jesus is full of life–an open-hearted, easy-laughing man who clearly lives each moment to its full potential and views everyone He meets as a gift from God. His suffering in His Passion is all the more wrenching for the contrast.

This, in my view, is precisely what Jesus must have been like. That’s why people were impelled to follow Him–“In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.” (John 1:4)

*Yeah, yeah. I know Marchiano’s got blue eyes. You can’t have everything. Especially when you’re looking for a man to play God.

Christianity Today published a list a couple years ago of its top ten movies about Jesus. In this list, I learned that Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings was so moving, no one made another movie about the Lord until after the director died. Not on this list are the films made by The Visual Bible, which I thought were very good.

Have you seen any of these? Which is your favorite or perhaps least disliked? What do you think generally about movies depicting Christ? Are they bound to get it all wrong from the start, or do you think it’s possible to make a good one?

Lutheran and otherwise great fellow Gene Edward Veith agrees with The Vatican’s latest pronouncement: The name of the Lord Almighty, spelled YHWH, should not be spoken. I don’t know what to think about this. I love the names of the Lord. I think modern Christians would have a closer relationship with Him if they knew several of his glorious names, which mean The Lord who see, The Lord provides, The Lord is my peace, The Almighty, and The All-Sufficent. Didn’t the Lord tell Moses His name when he asked, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3)

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

Remembered but never spoken is awkward.

Jimmy Davis gives six excuses for not praying, and as if that wasn’t good enough, he follows it with 17 reasons to pray.

I heard from Jared (through Facebook) that singer/songwriter Ray Boltz has publicly announced his homosexuality. I guess he doesn’t perform much music anymore, but it’s still a disappointing revelation.

“This is what it really comes down to,” he says. “If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

I think I can understand that feeling, but it doesn’t make him right. God did not make him homosexual, and the Bible has strong words against homosexual acts.

But I wonder if the grace of salvation cannot overcome bad theology like this. That’s probably a fruitless debate. The larger point is that Boltz, like all of us, needs to repent of what God’s law clearly condemns (1 Timothy 1:8-14). I’m disappointed he didn’t get the sound Bible teaching he should have received all these years.

Have I talked about dancing on this blog yet? I probably have. But if so, it was long enough ago that I’ve forgotten about it.*

My earlier post about that appalling video from Jared at Thinklings got me thinking about the old dancing taboo. I suspect a number of us grew up with it, and those who didn’t wonder how such an odd rule came to be.

My own childhood church was in no doubt about the sinfulness of dancing. (This is kind of unusual for Lutherans, by the way. Lutherans in general tend to be party animals, a lot like Italians, only less outgoing. Just substitute beer for wine. The dancing is different, but the spirit is the same.)

But I come from the Scandinavian Lutheran pietists, who objected to dancing on two grounds: Continue reading I won’t dance; don’t ask me →

I’m not sure where this post is going. I’m thinking through a thought I had this morning. I hope it will be short.

So I’ll do my best to be superficial.

It seems to me, too often in the church, we disagree in the wrong way. When someone suggests a new thing, our response tends to be, “This is un-Christian. It’s unscriptural. It’s heretical.”

In fact, very often the idea is just stupid.

(These thoughts were inspired by this post over at “Stuff Christians like.”)

Wouldn’t it be better to say, “That’s a stupid idea,” than “That’s a heretical idea?”

It would move the disagreement out of the realm of matters of faith, into matters of judgment.

We’d just be insulting the other person’s intelligence.

I guess that doesn’t help much.

Conflict resolution has never been my strong suit.

Thanks to Dale for sharing this link.

Ain’t it great to live in a rational world, where the old, dogmatic religious superstitions have been swept away?