[PPActionnGuys]

To all and sundry,

This looks to be an interesting discussion and I have a few thoughts on the root of it and on most of the shoots that have grown from it.

First off, I had heard that Gibson's movie is strictly a presentation of the Gospel According to St. John. Having said that, I must say a little about how information is passed from one to another, and received by one from another with I hope more than a nod in the direction the holy fathers show us regarding the goal of illumination.

Before I launch into that though let me say that the congregation I am a part of is highly interested in the negative press the movie is getting from the Jews who rail that it is anti-semitic. We are working on preparing martials to answer that charge. Anything that will get people talking about the Lord is a good thing, in our opinion, becaues we dearly want for their sake for them to be introduced to Him. We believe it is His desire as well, and will use every oportunity available.

Then maybe about the concern of the Graham type churches (LOL). Yes, anyone who wants to be obedient to Mt.28:19 will consider any communication of the Gospel a good thing and want to be part of its dissemination. Of course, a lot of stock will have been placed in its truthfulness.

All of you readers will want to ask yourselves how well you know the gospel account and can you be of assistance to anyone who doesn't but has seen the film when they start asking you questions about it and your faith? This doesn't mean you will have to have seen the movie, BTW, but knowing the Gospel is essential.

Dear Father R., yes, it would be St. John to point out what only he among the disciples witnessed, that a soldier drew blood and water from our Lord's own side. He mentions this again in the fifth chapter of his first epistle, where he declares that it was the Lord who came "by water and the blood" with the Spirit as witness (1Jn.5:6-8), and he makes much mention of blood in the Revelation [Apocalypse] (particularly that the shed blood of the lamb is redemptive, [1:5:9], and that by it and the word of their testimony the Accuser of the brethren is conquered [12:11]. It is interesting, don't you think, that the one who would make the most of "light" would also be the one to make so much of blood, and that no doubt because that is where the life is.

As to the images that "go through one's mind" of course images appear to the minds of those of us who see whenever information, true or false comes to us however it comes. You might like to know, FWIW that it is easier to "process" what comes from our reading (I don't know about hearing, but I assume it to be the same), and this probably because it is our own construction. What we see before our eyes, visual images that bombard us in, say the movies are not processed well at all because, I think, so little is left to the imagination.

I think it is probably important to remember as the fathers teach that "we are not our thoughts" (this information was given me in lectures by an Orthodox deacon on Unseen Warfare, I'm sorry I can't give any real citations), oremotions, and thus to "stand aloof" of them, so to speak, observing them as they "run through the mind."
At this point, it is wise to suggest that one speak to one's spiritual advisor about this, and pay attention to any advice he or she might give, particularly about prayer. But this will be of some aide in "processing" what comes through the senses.

Thus of course we must avoid the sensational, but we needn't fear all "affenctive" or feeling responses to what comes in, at least if we "watch them at the gate." Remember that the Greek word for compassion in Scripture, splangthna is associated with the midrif, as a corresponding Hebrew word, rahamim is particularly with the womb. It is in being passive to them, that gives the passions their negative association, and human beings were not created to be "led around" by a noose of any kind. We thus submit our wilfullness to the Author of Freedom Himself.

The Fathers, I think, are constantly reminding us how to "obey the first commandmant" which is to "Have no other gods besides He Who Is (Ho OWN, as it were), who'd delivered "from the land of Egypt, the Houlse of bondage." and so, no images of Him, until, of course, He became "imaged" in the Son of Man, born in the likeness (and in his own case) image of God.

So of course throughout life we will necessarily make use of the senses, but if we can make it senseible use, and under the watchful oversight of the King of Kings, as we constantly work at bringing all before Him as often as possible, we will perhaps someday find true illumination.

Regarding J.R.R.Tolkein, it is true that he was a devout Catholic, and one of his sons is even an RC priest. Regarding TLOR He said that his lembas or elvinbread was holy communion, but he dinstanced himself allegory and wouldn't have any of his stuff read as such, which is probably why this about the bread only came out once. But the work is a study of human response to evil, complete with dealing with temptations to power, and especially about sins of manipulative control of creatures from the very least to the very great. In his letters, he explains quite a lot. Of course I cannot really say, but I don't think his world view is "unOrthodox."

Anyway, just some thoughts,

Yours, Richard

P.s., it is a good idea, in my opinion, to be as watchful as personal prejudice, and ignorance, as it is of passion. --RL