The Conservative Edge

I live not too far away from where “Touchdown Jesus” was displayed. I have passed the statue many times as I have traveled on the I-75 corridor between Dayton and Cincinnati. I never thought about God when I looked at it. Instead, I wondered if the church that made the display really understood that it was drawing more attention to them than it ever could draw to God.

I’ve also wondered if the church, and so many churches like them, even bother to study the real meaning of scripture. Sometimes, the behavior and attitudes of church leaders and their congregations seem to indicate that nobody takes time to read the Bible anymore. If the Solid Rock ministry had bothered to check the New Testament, they would have found that constructing the “Touchdown Jesus” statue would have been an exercise in futility, folly, and ignorance.

Firstly, the Bible declares that man was made in the image of God; therefore, human beings are to be the ultimate representation of God/Godliness by their very lifestyles. Jesus stated in the Book of Matthew, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” It is obvious, then, that good works should cause people to think about the character of God, in a way that sculptures or art could never accomplish.

Secondly, there is an astounding speech made by the Apostle Paul as he addressed the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens, Greece. His remarks are recorded in the Book of Acts, chapter 17. In particular, Paul stated that, “…we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” He went on further to call it “ignorance” and that God commands all men to repent. This powerful argument was the result of Paul’s frustration with a city that seemed to be wholly given to idolatry. Paul was trying to reveal how we cannot express God through sculpture or images, but that we do express Him through a virtuous and honorable life.

I have heard that the Solid Rock church might rebuild “Touchdown Jesus.” Frankly, I think they should use the money for a better purpose. I know it is highly unlikely that lightning will hit twice in the same spot, but if God is involved…well, you just never know.

Last week, I read a feature article in Parade magazine about author Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code series of books. Of course you’ve likely heard about his latest book, The Lost Symbol, which has just been released. The novels make extensive use of symbolism and secret societies that work to achieve power and influence world events.

One idea that was explored in Brown’s first book was that Jesus Christ had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, and subsequently fathered children by her. And, as the generations passed, there arose a secret order of people who could trace some lineage back to Jesus and Mary. A fanciful notion indeed, but one that can be refuted with a single verse from the 53rd chapter of the Book of Isaiah. Furthermore, genealogists generally concur that if Jesus did father any children, His line would have been diluted within a few generations.

I remember Brown being interviewed for a special program aired on the History Channel. The program dealt with secret societies, some of which were mentioned in The Da Vinci Code. None of Brown’s theories could be confirmed. I recall Brown using phrases like “We’re not sure, but…,” “It could be that…,” “There may have been…,” and so on. Maybe that contributed to the success of his book. The more ambiguous and mysterious a story is, the more people want to read it and concoct their own ideas. Many who preach and teach from the Bible do the same thing. Instead of making the Bible easier to understand, a lot of preachers cloak their half-baked theories behind the guise of some “revelation” from God.

But Brown goes further in his latest interview with Parade magazine. He revealed that at one point in his life, he decided that the Bible didn’t make sense, but that science made much more sense. That’s understandable, to a degree. Sometimes things that are seen and proven are easier to deal with than things or ideas that must be accepted by faith. Perhaps Brown, due to his disdain for the Bible, intentionally misconstrued Jesus’ relationship with Mary in order to develop the evolution of the various secret societies.

Where Brown really goes astray is when he discusses his idea of the Sacred Feminine, which is actually his idea of a woman-centered Christianity. He says that he studied older religions, especially paganism, and also the Mother Earth concept. He even asked the questions “What if God were a woman?” and “What if we embraced our feminine side—the more creative, passive, loving side?” Brown contrasted these questions with his observation about the destructiveness of man, and that we spend more time killing each other than on solving problems. He equates this tendency to kill with testosterone.

That idea is absurd. The trouble is, Brown isn’t the only one who claims that testosterone is inherently bad, causing men to kill and destroy. This idea is leading to the emasculation of society, where men and fathers don’t matter anymore, because super women can raise a family alone and save the world at the same time. But men can be creative—just look at the architectural designs of Frank Lloyd Wright, or read the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkein for proof. Testosterone doesn’t automatically make men killers. But I am grateful that there have been men in history who did fight for a cause. This world would be much different if, for example, Charles Martel had not defeated the ancient Islamic warriors at the Battle of Tours. Indeed, I’d like to ask a question—what if George Washington had been a woman? Some men have been pretty great, after all.

This past Thursday (May 7) was Gary Cooper’s birthday. I mention this fact because Cooper was one of the great introverted actors in American history. Turner Classic Movies has a nice tribute to Cooper on its website. The TCM video, made in 1991, is narrated by Clint Eastwood.

It was appropriate for Eastwood to do the narration, since he is a self-confessed introvert. In addition, you can see some similarities between Eastwood and Cooper, in both acting styles and physical characteristics. Charlton Heston once said of Cooper that “If this wasn’t what the American man was, it was what he was supposed to be,” and I think we might be able to say the same for Eastwood.

I am writing about these actors because it seems that we don’t get to see their kind on the screen anymore. We used to at least grudgingly admire the rugged characters created by actors like Cooper, Eastwood, John Wayne, and others. We once respected the strong, silent individual who let his actions speak louder than his words. Masculinity was defined by characters like Rooster Cogburn, Dirty Harry, The Man With No Name, and even the Road Warrior. But today, masculinity is smothered by political correctness and feminism.

It might seem counter-intuitive to think that introverted actors could deliver such powerful performances on the big screen. After all, aren’t introverts supposed to be weak, quiet pushovers? Hardly. For one thing, it takes much more strength to be silent than it does to chatter on and on. I believe there is an ancient Eastern proverb that says “He who speaks does not know; he who knows does not speak.” This is the power of introversion. While many content themselves with incessant ramblings about the weather or shopping (think Tweeter), introverts are taking things in, and thinking deeply about ideas and big issues. Maybe introverts make better heroes. They are more willing to act, alone if necessary, as the idea or situation requires.

And now, I’m about to take a strange turn. You see, I’m reminded of someone who is seldom seen as a personality type. Many people read the New Testament, but how many try to imagine what kind of man Jesus Christ was? There was a live person who spoke the words recorded in the four Gospels, and He ate, cried, walked, slept, and breathed just like we do. But when many people say they “know” Jesus, I tend to think they are knowing their imaginary Jesus. My guess is that Jesus was an introvert. He was a man who acted alone when He had to. He spoke from His understanding of principles and ideas. He was a big thinker. But, He was also a very private person, and preferred to associate with a chosen few. He ultimately—tragically—faced death alone, because of what He believed in, and what He saw in us.

He made a pretty good hero, I’d say.