Ken, if you read my comments carefully you should understand that the point was that emotionalism is a tool sometimes used by manipulators to conjure up feelings which can be and have been used to achieve particular goals. Two examples, 911 and Mogadishu, Somalia, given to support that assertion were recent and I think you are accurate in calling them a “hate crime against your (my) people…”, though I never used the term hate crime. [As an aside to Mogadishu, I recognize that an American soldier killed in combat actions is to the Somali, an enemy soldier. My sensibilities were offended at seeing him mutilated and his remains, recognizable to his loved ones, dragged through the streets with glee.] I also referred to two less recent examples-Passion Play inflamed pogroms and the Crusades (specifically referred to in the Madrid bombings). There’s plenty of guilt to go around in the former and respecting the latter, the “fify stars and thirteen stripes” did not make that show.

I am not clear on the point your friend is making. Are U-2, Madonna and Brittney making inroads too deep into his culture? Are American corporations bringing their corporate cultures into the mainstream of his culture? What are we talking about here? If he has a beef with some of the debased and, lets be frank here, defiled stuff pouring out of the sewers of western culture, he can join the club. It is an important issue and a legitimate criticism.

There are problems however, not the least of which seems to be an implied justification in your friend’s remarks of killing innocents to hold back the overwhelming tide of western culture. As it sweeps over what? Spain? Does Saladin now want it back?

I want to restate clearly, as I did in earlier comments, these remarks are not political but are intimately related to the emerging theology at hand. If western culture is destroying another culture by means of exporting, among other things, entertainment, which is offensive to the religious sensibilities of that culture, why does the Church then, not only take a pass on those issues, but seems unable or unwilling to take a stand, define and enforce some kind of moral purity in everything from business ethics to appropriate expressions of sexuality among those who call themselves the Church. Certainly these inconsistent elements of western Christianity are as offensive, if not more so, to your friend’s sensibilities than too many MacDonalds in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. [Please pardon me if I have assumed too much in thinking that we have been talking about Islamic sensibilities here. I think the problem is still much the same with respect to any culture’s clash with western culture.]

Finally, I did not say or suggest at all or at any point the only emotions shown in the third-world were those expressed at the expense of American military personnel. Given your inaccurate restatement of my (and Bob’s) comments and your response, I can conclude you either misunderstood the comments, had an agenda or that your orthopraxy was selective. In charity, I will assume you misunderstood the comments.

Now to the important topics. With respect to Mel’s film, my friend’s bible reading and his questions, do I conclude from reading you that my answer was one of many valid ways to skin that particular cat? Or are you saying it would behove me to learn something of the other explanaions of what the crucifixion accomplished (explanations more congenial to you? to them?)and share one of those instead? Or are you suggesting I shrug my shoulders and say, “Who knows!”? I guess there is a fourth alternative and that would be to have a playbook ready and depending on how I read the seeker’s preferences, I could pull a particular spin on the crucifixion out of a hat and see how he liked it. If that one didn’t float his boat, I could go to option two.

I do note well and accept your idea of saying less. In this I would envision simply inviting my friend to come and get involved in our faith community and see what it all means. It makes a lot of sense actually. Involvement in ministry and participation in worship and the life of the community should speak far louder than mere words. You are certainly right in saying the world needs to see more Jesus and less of me and you.

I think also that your picking up on the risks of an incipient gnosticism is well said and right on point. I also agree with you that Bob’s ideas are on the right track, despite the risks, and will yield good fruit and mature, discplined Christians probably more quickly than a static lecture, book, inquirer’s class will. At least I think that is what he was talking about in his “old Christians’ class”.

I take something more from the scourging and crucifixion depicted in Mel’s film than a vague sense that Jesus did something for me. Forget conflicting theologicial debates concerning atonement theories-taking scriptures as they point to, detail and elaborate on the sacrifice of “the Lamb of God”, it seems apparent, in my opinion, taking the totality of scripture bearing on the subject into account, that a punishment, a penalty for sins was in the mix with whatever else took place. Whatever expectations I may or may not have of God, His anger towards me is not one of them. Nor is there an expectation of God’s anger towards my friend. That anger in whatever terms or modality it existed was (pick a term) sated, expiated, slaked, satisfied (my personal favorite) when Jesus suffered during His passion.

Jesus makes things OK with God, while true, seems blithe and shallow in this context and a bit like “T shirt theology”. If that comprehension of the crucifixion engenders in you Ken, the kind of emotions associated with Holy Week, Good Friday and Easter that Bob was talking about, then I would not want to tamper with it at all. If it does not, (you started your comments indicating that you were having trouble in this area), you might, among other things, examine the crucifixion and explanations of it which are less than appealing to you on a personal level and which have a more orthodox look and feel to them. I would say none of the old orthodox theologians, many of them your fellow countrymen, were fools and, though not currently in favor, they may yet have a thing or two to say to us on this matter. I actually have a favorite among them, J.C. Ryle, whose books have seemingly had a bit of a revival and are getting fairly easy to find and at reasonable prices.

Your brother and friend,
in Christ.

Alario