AfterEdenLogo.jpg - 16337 Bytes

OTHER DESTINATIONS
 After Eden Journal
After Eden Archives
The After Eden Forum
POP CULTURE FROM A SPIRITUAL POINT OF VIEW

Everyone welcome. More Trailers. More Photos. More Information. Spiritual. Unique. Friendly.

OVER 700,000,000 HITS

(Home) (Contents) (What's New ) (Current Movies) (Upcoming Movies)(New On Video) (On Video) (Store) (News) (Music) (Art) (Television) (Cartoons) (Spiritual Direction) (Bulletin Board) (Send Email) (Guest Book) (About Us ) (Links)


Search Hollywood Jesus
HERE


Take Your Crusade and Shove It!
A Journal Entry for July, 2004

This page was created on July 1, 2004
This page was last updated on January 4, 2005
 
By Mike Gunn
Why is it that we seem to hate zealots? You know -- those nut jobs who stand outside ballgames with bullhorns shouting, "Turn or burn!" while wearing placards decrying everything from "pill poppers" to "Simpsons watchers." Is it because we know for sure that these zealots are wrong, or because we don't like what we hear? Or is it possible that we simply disdain those with a clear vision and focus in their lives? After all, these people seem to be so "narrow minded!" Where do they get off telling us what to do? How dare they turn opinion into some sort of ideal foisted upon our liberal (and, of course, open) minds?

I suggest that "tolerance" has made us sort of bored, and even boring. There is an old proverb that says, "If you don't have anything to die for, then you don't have anything to live for." There is some truth to this proverb when moral outrage takes a back seat to niceties and a pluralism that has done more to create ethical confusion than any previous moral theory.

Ultimately, what gives anyone the right to express moral outrage? Or a better question: does the right to express moral outrage even exist? Because if the right to moral outrage exists, then some standard for morality or cultural superiority must also exist. Recently there have been three interesting incidents that have called my attention to these questions.

A few months back, I was reading in one of the local newspapers about a woman who had left a good paying job to become an evangelist for her cause. She became a "Born Again" Vegan and began her journey to preach the doctrine of a meatless diet. Substitute the word "Christian" for "Vegan," and

"gospel" for "meatless diet," and the article would discuss the aforementioned whacko evangelists who litter our streets with tons of paper tracts. This woman had also dedicated her own life to her personal "good news" -- her own moral crusade -- and expected people to change when they heard the "truth" about animal cruelty, and meat/protein diets.

Then there's the documentary I recently watched about Immaterial John, a crusader who lives on $3600 per year (yes, that's per year), and who only creates one pound of garbage each year. His cause? Solid waste, and America's propensity towards wasteful consumption. He is manic

about his cause, and has the zealousness of a Jehovah's Witness on steroids.

And like the JW's, both of these people have connected to a purpose greater than themselves. Both live with a single-minded passion and evangelistic fervor that might embarrass our often idle and passionless Christianity. Many of us, however, find the "good intentions" of John and his Vegan sister wasted and misguided. Their causes seem either impossible or irrelevant, and we see their actions as an attempt to "impose" their moral views on others -- which doesn't sit too well with a culture that believes that all moral opinions are equally valid and relative.

A third incident occurred in a wealthy suburb of Seattle that has been dealing with the moral dilemma of whether or not to allow "Tent City" (a mobile community of homeless people) to roost in their community. Generally, the citizens have been outraged by the potential "danger" to their community, and sought

legal action to bar Tent City from using public land. It was then that a local Catholic congregation stepped up, and gave Tent City permission to stay on their premises; but the locals are still seeking legal action against Tent City and the church.

This all caused me to reflect that, in a world of moral ambiguity and passionless living, there should be no real reason for moral outrage. Yet here these suburbanites were, passionately protesting care for the poor, disenfranchised and hopeless. Ironic. But still they protest, and still Immaterial John and that Vegan woman take moral stands based on their convictions.

I contend that any passionate protest, any crusade for morality, supports the existence of a moral lawgiver -- a righteous judge who demands justice. Historically, it has been the Church -- like the Catholic congregation that came to Tent City's rescue -- that has, in all her resplendent

beauty and ugliness, led us to care about those who are disenfranchised. And thank God for that! Moral change comes first from changed lives, which in turn come from a real, moral God working in those lives to change them. Our moral foundation comes from His very being -- not from an arbitrary opinion, or a vague "higher value." Humans love because He loves; we are driven to act justly because He acts justly (whether or not we think He does, in our finite opinion); we find grace and forgiveness in our hearts because He first grants grace and forgiveness.

When any of us -- any of us -- act in love, grace, justice, mercy or compassion, we act in the image by which we are created, an image we cannot completely deny. We are hopelessly moral animals, because we are graciously created in God's moral image.

That being the case, Immaterial John and the Vegan are acting in concert with the justice that God has embedded in their hearts, no matter how misguided we feel their actions may be.

I think we can embrace moral zeal. God knows there are many things that we need to be outraged about in the events of our times. Let's do so in concert with the word of the God whose very nature tells us there's a difference between our culture's values and those that move His heart.

Immaterial John photos courtesy Red Clay Pictures. Gateway cows courtesy Wagner International. Timberland and Genesco's shoes for homeless program, Nashville, courtesy PR NewsFoto.

Would you like to comment on this article? Please stop in at the After Eden Forum on Hollywood Jesus. Click Here!
Response by Jenn Wright

I hadn't really thought about it until Mike's article, but it is rather paradoxical that in our American world of passionate tolerance (read passion for passionlessness) there is still room for people to get indignant about anything. Hm. It would seem that the anti-zealots are as zealous in their anti-zeal as the zealots are in whatever they're zealous about. Go figure.

Yet despite the fact that I generally agree with Mike's observations, I have some objections to his intuitive leap to the reason behind moral outrage -- that is, there being a Moral Lawgiver. I do believe in such a righteous lawgiver; however, I'm not sure that our human moral outrage is necessarily evidence of that. Here's why:

  • Moral outrage in and of itself does not always spring from well-grounded morality. Does Ms. Vegan's anti-carnivorous outrage point us to a Higher Moral Being? Is Immaterial John's crusade against waste pointing toward Something Greater, or just something other?
  • Moral outrage often accompanies acts of less-than-sanity. Committing murder in the name of "pro-life" comes to mind. Can moral outrage be dichotomously good and bad?
  • What about those whose moral outrage opposes our own? The outrage felt by the Shi'ite Muslims toward the Western world (particularly Jews and Christians) is just as earnest and sincere as the Americans' outrage over the attack on the World Trade Center towers. Does this opposition mean that the Moral Lawgiver is on one side or the other?
  • And what about America's moral outrage, that left hundreds of thousands of Japanese (100 times more than the Twin Towers attack) dead, dying, and disabled? Is this evidence of a Greater Moral Being, or just our own bent and broken human version of morality?
With those questions (not answers) in mind, I also have a theory as to why zealots are so abrasive -- it's because they expect that everyone should think the way they do, and they treat you like an idiot if you don't. I should know -- I'm famous for it. I have opinions about things that are very clear to me, and I have oodles of evidence to support them. Sometimes I just can't figure out why when other people add up the same 2 and 2, they get 5, while I get the right answer (4). You see, it's not too far a step from having an opinion to becoming a zealot.

And, really, I do think we're all zealots at heart about something... even something as insipid (and ironic) as tolerance.

Would you like to comment on this article? Please stop in at the After Eden Forum on Hollywood Jesus. Click Here!
 
The Devil's Advocate Speaks

Okay, I'll admit it. I typically do my best to avoid making eye contact with people screaming from makeshift pulpits, wherever it may be. Is this because I'm threatened? I don't think so. Instead, I just don't find this sort of confrontation as an effective or compelling approach. So my reaction is more of a question -- why should I listen? Would anyone listen if I spared my friends by taking my venting to the streets? I doubt it.

Some may see these people and their messages as diamonds in the rough and may relish the opportunity to engage them in a spirited discussion. However, most people don't have the luxury of being able to invest the time and energy to determine which messages merit their attention. Similarly, I don't solicit manuscripts when looking for a good book to read, or schedule a casting call when I want to watch a movie. Rather than starting from scratch, I assume that a mindshare is dynamic enough to remain relevant -- that good ideas and perspectives will have bubbled to the top.

Mike brings up some great examples of zealots. However, I wouldn't say that I find them inspirational. The air of preachy-ness or extremism around many people "with a mission" puts me off. To generalize, zealots tend to attack rather than affirm or persuade. If you didn't drink the Kool-Aid, then you've got the problem. I suggest that a less confrontational "lead by example" approach would win more people over. For example, defenders of the institution of marriage would have a stronger argument if more people really treated marriage as a sacred institution. Instead, these zealots must fall back on smoke screens and scapegoats in an attempt to protect an ideal that many of them don't even uphold themselves.

That said, there typically are inconsistencies with many ideologies that, when taken to their logical end, leave us with more questions than answers. So, what if everyone stopped eating meat or stopped providing Immaterial John his all-you-can-eat waste buffet? Then what? What would John and all those animals do? Would they really be better off? Or would we just end up trading one set of problems for another?

I live in what I am told is a "wealthy" area not far from Tent City, and I am certain that people would pitch a fit if anyone tried to pitch a tent here. Ironically, in this neighborhood teeming with homes boasting what real-estate agents cheerfully refer to as "deferred maintenance," a boat parked on an overgrown front yard doesn't even trip the outrage meter. So what "ruins" the neighborhood and what is considered outrage-worthy is most likely based on who is doing the ruining.

One thing that Mike didn't mention directly is that Tent City is more of a symptom than the problem itself. Why isn't there moral outrage about the fact that there are so many homeless people that they require a Tent City to call home? Wouldn't that be the obvious focus if Mike's theory of the moral lawgiver applied? Instead, the reaction to Tent City seems more like evidence of a selfish lawgiver. As Jenn mentions, outrage and a person's reaction to it are based on perspective. That's mine, and I'm sure it is as inconsistent as any out there.

 
About After Eden

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."4 By this, he means that the central story of the faith is the reconciliation of Man to God through the blood of His Son, Jesus. Christianity, then, is the ministry of reconciliation because all who claim the name of Christ are ministers -- literally, servants in the Greek -- of God's specific conciliatory purpose.

But Christianity is not only the ministry of reconciliation -- it is the ministry of all things godly. One of the other theological terms applied to the act of Jesus' death on the cross is redemption. In conceiving Hollywood Jesus, David Bruce understood that Christianity is also the ministry of redemption -- and in particular, it is the redemptive hope for our culture: not through legislation, stone-throwing or critical negativity, but through showing us the godly things already embedded in our culture. For God reveals Himself through all that He has created, even the things that we may not particularly like.

After Eden is dedicated to this redemptive vision. We believe, as G.K. Chesteron put it, that "humanity is not incidentally engaged, but eternally and systematically engaged, in throwing gold into the gutter and diamonds into the sea."5 That's not a reality we endorse. We'd like to help salvage the gold from the gutter, and rescue the diamonds from the sea.

Mike Gunn is a pastor at Harambee Church in Tukwila, Washington, and was cofounder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Jenn Wright is a writer with degrees in literature and theology. She will be co-writing the Narnia coverage for Hollywood Jesus, which will be debuting the summer of 2004 in anticipation of the first movie's 2005 release.

Editor Greg Wright is a writer and ordained minister of the dramatic arts. He is a contributing editor for Hollywood Jesus, and is author of Tolkien in Perspective: Sifting the Gold from the Glitter.

Editor Dave Stark is an ordained minister and former Microsoft manager. He is now a partner in Restoring Hope Construction.

The Devil's Advocate is a composite personality of our consultants and editorial staff. He may look like someone you know -- and probably thinks like a lot of them.

Do you have comments or suggestions regarding the After Eden journal on Hollywood Jesus? Would you like to receive notification of new articles and updates?
Please email Editor Greg Wright.
 


Hollywood Jesus News Letter
Receive the Hollywood Jesus Newsletter FREE.

JUST CLICK  and Send a Blank E-Mail



Copyright © 1998-2004 David Bruce. All rights reserved. "Hollywood Jesus" is a trademark owned by David Bruce. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form. See copyright information. Review our Privacy Policy and the Bulletin Board Forum rules. Please notify us of any errors so corrections can be made. All film stills, trailers, video clips and trademarks are the property of their respective owners and may not be reproduced for any reason whatsoever. If proper notation of owned material is not given please notify us so we can make adjustments.
 

Director John Boorman
On Passion

What is passion? It is surely the becoming of a person. Are we not, for most of our lives, marking time? Most of our being is at rest, unlived. In passion, the body and the spirit seek expression outside of self.1

 

Bertrand Russell
On Boredom

Boredom is ... a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of it.2

 

Henry Miller
On Waste

The word which gives the key to the national vice is waste. And people who are wasteful are not wise, neither can they remain young and vigorous. In order to transmute energy to higher and more subtle levels one must first conserve it.3

 

Disneyland
Trash Bin Legend

Waste Please.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Chesterton
On Perception
It is a strange thing that many truly spiritual men... have actually spent some hours in speculating upon the precise location of the Garden of Eden. Most probably we are in Eden still. It is only our eyes that have changed.6

 
Notes

  1. John Boorman, entry in Projections, May 16, 1991.
  2. Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness, ch. 4 (1930).
  3. Henry Miller, "Dr. Souchon: Surgeon-Painter," The Air-Conditioned Nightmare (1945).
  4. 2 Corinthians 5:18, New International Version.
  5. G. K. Chesterton, The Defendant, J. M. Dent, 1901, p. 16.
  6. G. K. Chesterton, The Defendant, J. M. Dent, 1901, p. 13.