What's in consideration in this post is Dan Merchant's theology. Specifically, his failure to give a proper account and interpretation of the Bible in an effort to promote his movie. I would call that dishonest, except that I would be trying to impugn his character based upon something that I don't know firsthand.
But, what I do know firsthand is what the Bible says, because I can read it for myself, and then compare it to what Merchant claims it says. Let's pick up the conversation between Lauer and Merchant toward the end of the interview.
At the end of this interview, Lauer asks Merchant, "Maybe this plays, Dan, into this whole 'division' thing, but what would you say to a Christian who, who might be offended by the seeming frivolous look you take at, at religion and faith in this, in this particular effort?"
Dan then answers: "Well, what I hope people would see is how deadly serious I am, uh, that as believers, we need to get back to what Jesus preached, which is 'Love one another'. The Last Supper, which is, people will know The Da Vinci Code, there's a painting about it. . ."
Matt Lauer: "I heard about it, it's in the Bible too."
Dan: "That's right....yuhhh, but the Last Supper, the, the followers say, 'Hey, Lord, what's the most important commandment? He says, 'Love one another'."
Matt Lauer: "Yeah, we seemed to have strayed far away from that, in many cases."
Dan: "I'm afraid so."
As you can see, Dan makes the claim that during the Last Supper, the disciples asked Him which commandment was the greatest. But you can read all three accounts of the Last Supper, and you will not find that discussion anywhere. Yet, if you look in the Johanine Gospel, which DOES NOT HAVE A RECORD OF the Last Supper (but does mention it), that is where you will find the disciples being told by Jesus that "a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another. As I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)
But even beyond the fact that Dan got it wrong, associating the Last Supper with the New Commandment, he compounds his error by failing to maintain the context of the issuance of this command. Specifically, this New Commandment is given, NOT to the whole world, but only to His disciples. And it is given to His disciples so that the REST OF THE WORLD can witness that they are truly Christians, because they really do love one another. That is why Jesus says, "By this shall all men know that you are MY disciples..."
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Dan's Interview with Matt Lauer - part 1
Ok, so here's a link to a YouTube video of an interview that Dan Merchant had with Matt Lauer. I wanted to give a critique of the interview on a couple of points that Dan makes that (SURPRISE!!!) I disagree with.
To begin with, Dan refers to himself as "relatively a Conservative Christian", but unfortunately throughout his four-year work on this project, has rarely, if ever, spoken directly concerning his political or religious views, and just where does he stand on the issues.
That is a very important point, because if it can be shown just how liberal Dan Merchant REALLY is, it would completely destroy his unspoken claim to neutrality and residing in the center of the spectrums. On the other hand, if Merchant is more to the right on the issues, but fails to articulate them and defend them, then he is no different than a Trojan Horse campaign to silence those on the Right with which he supposedly shares an ideology.
I read an interview that Dan gave in a gay (Queer) magazine, and when he was asked to answer where he stood on the issue of church/state separation, he demurred to the fact that such a declaration would be above his pay-grade, so to speak. He stated that he was not a Constitutional lawyer, and therefore could not offer an opinion.
Really. You have an incredible thesis that you are trying to promote which is chock full of your opinions regarding how Christians on the Right should act, and you don't have an opinion of the issue of the separation of church and state? Incredible. Is there really a thinking American who doesn't have a position on that issue?
I'm maintaining that Dan carefully crafts his answers just as subtly as a gifted politician, who understands that his answers can later be used against him. But people say things over the course of time that reveal exactly where they stand, and so it should be no surprise that we can cull that kind of information from the internet through careful and judicious examination of what is out there.
I believe that a Conservative would very quickly allow that there is no such thing as the church/state separation. He would have no qualms with making his voice heard on this issue. A Liberal with an agenda to promote, on the other hand, would be very careful not to anger the people he's trying to convince to join him in a "less strident" discussion.
If you want to know where Merchant stands on the political/religious spectrum, you only need to speak to those who receive him readily, and speak in glowing terms of his movie. Take, for example, Tom Krattenmaker (who I previously discussed in this blog) who says that "Dan is a (sic) evangelical, albeit a mavericky one." "Mavericky one"?? LOL What does that mean? Does that mean that Dan preaches the Gospel of salvation? Well no, because it isn't contained in his "Christian" movie.
But let's be honest here, shall we? A "maverick" is one who is at odds with members of his own organization or party. Like when the Liberals talk kindly of Olympia Snowe (RINO-ME), or John McCain (RINO-AZ). They call such Republicans "Mavericks". Do you get where I'm going with that? It doesn't appear difficult to connect the dots between liberalism and Dan Merchant.
If Republicans who turncoat their own party can be labled "RINO's", then what do you label a Christian who turncoats Conservatist Christianity? A "CINO" - Conservative In Name Only?
To begin with, Dan refers to himself as "relatively a Conservative Christian", but unfortunately throughout his four-year work on this project, has rarely, if ever, spoken directly concerning his political or religious views, and just where does he stand on the issues.
That is a very important point, because if it can be shown just how liberal Dan Merchant REALLY is, it would completely destroy his unspoken claim to neutrality and residing in the center of the spectrums. On the other hand, if Merchant is more to the right on the issues, but fails to articulate them and defend them, then he is no different than a Trojan Horse campaign to silence those on the Right with which he supposedly shares an ideology.
I read an interview that Dan gave in a gay (Queer) magazine, and when he was asked to answer where he stood on the issue of church/state separation, he demurred to the fact that such a declaration would be above his pay-grade, so to speak. He stated that he was not a Constitutional lawyer, and therefore could not offer an opinion.
Really. You have an incredible thesis that you are trying to promote which is chock full of your opinions regarding how Christians on the Right should act, and you don't have an opinion of the issue of the separation of church and state? Incredible. Is there really a thinking American who doesn't have a position on that issue?
I'm maintaining that Dan carefully crafts his answers just as subtly as a gifted politician, who understands that his answers can later be used against him. But people say things over the course of time that reveal exactly where they stand, and so it should be no surprise that we can cull that kind of information from the internet through careful and judicious examination of what is out there.
I believe that a Conservative would very quickly allow that there is no such thing as the church/state separation. He would have no qualms with making his voice heard on this issue. A Liberal with an agenda to promote, on the other hand, would be very careful not to anger the people he's trying to convince to join him in a "less strident" discussion.
If you want to know where Merchant stands on the political/religious spectrum, you only need to speak to those who receive him readily, and speak in glowing terms of his movie. Take, for example, Tom Krattenmaker (who I previously discussed in this blog) who says that "Dan is a (sic) evangelical, albeit a mavericky one." "Mavericky one"?? LOL What does that mean? Does that mean that Dan preaches the Gospel of salvation? Well no, because it isn't contained in his "Christian" movie.
But let's be honest here, shall we? A "maverick" is one who is at odds with members of his own organization or party. Like when the Liberals talk kindly of Olympia Snowe (RINO-ME), or John McCain (RINO-AZ). They call such Republicans "Mavericks". Do you get where I'm going with that? It doesn't appear difficult to connect the dots between liberalism and Dan Merchant.
If Republicans who turncoat their own party can be labled "RINO's", then what do you label a Christian who turncoats Conservatist Christianity? A "CINO" - Conservative In Name Only?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)