The Da Vinci Dissapointment

OK, I'm a Christian. And for sure, according to men like Robert Langdon, I have no ability to remain unbiased about my view of this movie. Let the reader beware.

Ah, maybe that's true; but certainly any amateur historian can tell that the "facts" in this movie are, er, well, even more skewed than in Dan Brown's novel. All that aside (and I swear there will be no mention from here on in regarding the theology and fictional nature of this movie), it was a huge disappointment nonetheless. I should have known a movie with this much hype would have failed to deliver. Still, I wasn't really that surprised.

What really surprised me was how the book became such a bestseller in the first place. It was severely preachy (in a way that prevented you from drawing your own conclusions, or even thinking for yourself) and dull, with limited action. I have said all along that Brown's Angels and Demons would have made for a better movie.

In spite of the talents of one of our nation's premiere actors (Tom Hanks) and directors (Ron Howard), this movie is choppy and rushed, yet still too long (with awkward dialogue reminicsent of The Omega Code and Left Behind). I had a similar feeling reading the book, which was 100 pages too long. So I don’t really think that the problem was completely with Howard or Hanks. There simply wasn’t enough legitimate storyline in the book to make it a go. Hanks' and Howard's biggest faux pas is the fact that they took the gig in the first place.

I did feel, however, that Ian McKellen was convincing as Leigh Teabing. (I guess when you hate the Church as much as he does, it’s easy to play a guy that hates the Church?) What I don’t get is how the famed Roger Ebert can say, "The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations." What "startling revelations" did he see? Was he high? This movie is severely enslaved to the obvious. The alleged "startling revelations" have long been drawn out in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Tomb of God and The Jesus Mysteries. There are no new startling revelations—just old revelations made far more concrete and unengaging. The only thing startling is the fact that this movie will gross millions.

I was disappointed the most because I actually expected Howard and Hanks to make this movie better than the book, and had heard that there were some plot twists that would "blow my mind." Well, they did clean up a few inaccuracies—like, Silas the homicidal, albino monk has blue eyes instead of red like in the book. We can thank NOAH (National Organization of Albinism and Hypo-pigmentation) for that, and Howard even made Langdon a spokesman for some of the counter arguments of Teabing's rant in regard to Christianity being a fabrication based on pagan religions.

That lasts for, oh, about two minutes, until even Langdon is rescued from the miry clay of Christianity's dirt and becomes a true believer in the grail legend.

The one thing the movie did reveal to me was the absurdity of that legend's claims. It made National Treasure look like a documentary. As a matter of fact, I think the comparison is very valid. National Treasure was entertaining, and The Da Vinci Code was, well, read above. Both movies had a conspiracy theory as the main story, but one preached and the other showed. They both found their treasures at the end, but one was worth something and the other was dissatisfying. They both were supposed to be intriguing, and one was and the other wasn’t.

Instead of continuing my rant, I will attempt to make two observations that underlie this movie. The first of these is a positive look at Sophie's rise from skepticism to belief. The book conveys the impression that it's more important that Sophie find her family than that she find the Holy Grail. But in the movie, family issues are wholly secondary (her brother is even written out of the script), and it is revealed that Sophie is indeed the last remaining descendent of Jesus Christ. In a scene at the end of the movie, Langdon (Hanks) asks Sophie (Audrey Tatou) if knowing that she was from the line of Jesus would change her view in regards to faith and her place on earth. You got a sense that she has been struggling with her identity, and what to do with it. In spite of Hanks' New Age lines “It only matters what you believe,” and “What's divine? Maybe the divine is in all of us,” we do feel that maybe her struggle is similar to the universal struggle of coming to terms with an identity in Christ.

We all struggle with or against faith (one way or another) and what we should do as a result—and Sophie, at least, matures into her role as a descendent of Jesus Christ. She is a stark contrast to Silas, who seeks redemption through self-flagellation, while never coming to a knowledge of the truth. But Sophie comes to saving knowledge, of a sort, by realizing her identity is in Him and not herself.

My second observation ends with a whimper. Teabing fights hard to reveal the heinous coverup of the Church, one that made Jesus Christ a god who died for our sins while vitiating the "sacred feminine" in its path. He mouths the skeptic's mantra that "a belief in one true god means killing in his name." It's important for Teabing to reveal the truth, so that the world can find out that the "greatest story ever told is a lie."

I am trying to analyze that as a believer, trying to objectively think through its ramifications. Is it better to make Jesus a man who got married and did some decent things (and even that’s debatable) and then dies, or to portray Him as the God/Man who, because of His great love for His Father and His creation, came to earth to put His life down for the sake of others so that His justice could prevail in a very unjust land, bringing hope to millions in an otherwise meaningless existence? Maybe the divine is in us all, and we have killed millions in our own name!

Whether the biblical story is true or not is certainly up for debate, as the movie weakly demonstrates. But it is still the greatest story ever told. There is no greater story than love conquering hate through sacrifice. And this is ultimately the movie’s greatest flaw. Though the ending of Dan Brown's book was equally non-redemptive, it was at least open-ended and embraced a sense of mystery. But the movie changes the ending and reveals the physical hiding place of the Holy Grail.

But in spite of the glorious music that accompanies the find, I found myself saying, "So what! Where's the hope? Is this startling revelation all you have?"

Unfortunately, the answer is "yes."

We're hip, We're progressive, We're Elitist

I love it. Seattle Weekly posted an article (pg. 21) of this week's edition in regards to residents of the "Progressive" and multi-cultural neighborhoods of Columbia City and Hillman (Both neighborhoods which allegedly promote "Inclusiveness and Diversity."). It seems as though the hip crowd's tolerance stops at the homeless. DESC is planning on building apartments for the homeless in a nearby strip, and the residents who usually flash signs like, No one is illegal," and "Support immigrant rights," in their windows have "Castigated the project as housing for sexual predators, and criminals." It's funny how often we "Social progressives" are all talk until action involves a real sacrifice on our own part, then our true self (Greedy, heartless and elitist) takes over. What a wierd world this is, and we're all culpable!

Nausea

Here's some thoughts on a book I reviewed years ago!

“I grasp at each second, trying to suck it dry. Nothing happens which I do not seize, which I do not fix forever in myself, nothing, neither the fugitive tenderness of those lovely eyes, nor the noises of the street, nor the false dawn of early morning: and even so the minute passes and I do not hold it back, I like to see it pass.” (Pg. 38)

And so goes Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nobel Prize winning book (1964) Nausea. Many consider this book Jean-Paul Sartre’s most important novel, and a “landmark in existential fiction.” Sartre is considered one of the most prolific French Existentialist writers of the 20th century. He was skilled as a philosopher, novelist, play-write and critic, ably bridging the gap between the academy and the “lay” person.

The book is the story of Frenchman Antoine Roquentin, a French writer critiquing his existence and surrounding culture in diary form. As I read on, I felt that I had been downloaded on to a Woody Allen movie set. Roquentin lamented life with a cast of witty epiphany and morbid self-interest and disdain (Nausea) for life. The Nausea he felt every time he came into bearing with his own existence. A nausea he vehemently tries to preclude through a derivative manipulation of his circumstances.

Nausea takes us into the depths of our souls and concludes that nothing is there. It’s a vapid, one-dimensional hole struggling for meaning. A cold hearted existence locating meaning through our own dvice, and then watching them flow into the endless vat of meaninglessness. This is clearly felt in Roquentin’s sexual dalliances. They are jejune, detached experiences that are a result of mutual “needs” devoid of real purpose or depth. There is no sharing of self, because ultimately there is no self to share, only presence. Roquentin tries desperately to make sense of his world, and escape this nausea, but seems appalled at the useless ways in which the characters he observes hypocritically deal with their own lives. Whether human rationalism depicted through the autodidacte (A man trying to read all the books in the library), the religious affections of his culture, or the hope of human love, he concludes its emptiness and seeming disdain for their existence too. Even when he turns inward for strength, he finds a vacuum. As writer Hayden Carruth writes in the introduction, “Neither the experience of the outside world nor the contemplation of the inner world can give meaning to existence.” (Pg. xii)

I must say Nausea leaves you, well, nauseated. However Sartre does an artistic job of pulling you into his world and gives us a soulful description of his brand of existentialism, as felt in the following quote.

“I had always realized it; I hadn’t the right to exist. I had appeared by chance, I existed like a stone, a plant or a microbe, My life put out feelers towards small pleasures in every direction. Sometimes it sent out vague signals; at other times I felt nothing more than a harmless buzzing.” (Pg. 84)

We are at once reminded by these words that Sartre and atheistic existentialism clearly recognize the fate of the world apart from god. Nothingness, a cruel existence without purpose, a derived essence of meaning. This book rips the heart out of optimistic humanism, and because of this, and it’s soulful inventory on the human condition, it is worth the read. Beware though, you may find some of the words haunting your soul, and extricating you from some of your blind coping mechanisms, and casting you into a canyon of despair. This book speaks honestly and vividly of life as it is without god. It is reminiscent of philosophers and writers through the ages that have honestly surveyed their lives, and have come up empty, reminding us that there really is nothing new under the sun. Despite our great technological advances in the past 100 years, man still searches for meaning on his own terms, only to realize, like Sartre, there is nothing to be found. We have discovered all there is, and in the long haul have bored ourselves to death.

I can’t say the book was enjoyable, but I can say it was enlightening, and a reminder that like Ecclesiastes concludes, life under the sun, without God is “meaninglessness, meaninglessness, meaninglessness.”

The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time

I would like to preface this posting by saying how excited I was to hear that Jeffrey Sachs, the famed economist, had published a book with the title after which this article is named. I first heard about the book in a Time magazine article entitled, “The End of Poverty,” that I read on a flight home from India in 2005. The article stated that Sachs believed extreme poverty[1] could be eliminated by the year 2025. That’s in our lifetime.

This issue is dear to my heart and I firmly believe that the evangelical is amiss to exclude our responsibility in caring for the poor and marginalized. We are called to be God’s presence in this world, both with the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the living out of that gospel in suffering with those that are marginalized. Since this article doesn’t explore this theological reality, this sentiment will have to suffice. I believe that if the church put its energy into helping the world’s poor and marginalized--as it does to thwart gay marriages and teach intelligent design in the schools--we would see the world respond to the church, and ultimately to the gospel, in vastly different ways.

Ironically, I was reading the article while sitting next to a young, liberally-minded female from Seattle who was returning from Guatemala where she had done relief work. She noticed that we were a large group, and asked about our trip. I told her that I taught at a pastor’s conference while the group worked in a children’s home for mostly untouchable children. She was excited that we had helped some of India’s poorest, but it became clear that she viewed our efforts as an imperialistic imposition of Christian poison in an otherwise beautiful land. While she remained gracious and cordial, it came to a head as we began to discuss the Times article, and how an end to such a horrific problem could be found. I indicated that groups like World Vision, which done an incredible job of aiding the marginalized and poor all over the globe, need to be supported. Her response was striking. She said, “I don’t know what I think about that,” and continued, “Well it’s a Christian organization and the idea of anyone forcing their religious views on to unassuming cultures under the guise of relief is questionable.”

The woman on the plane was in step with Jeffrey Sachs’ theory of exterminating extreme poverty. It’s a prevailing attitude that epic novels like the Da Vinci Code capitalize on; it’s an attitude that sees Christianity, and religion for that matter, as part of the problem and hardly part of the solution. The church has lost its compass and become something utterly different than that for which it was intended. To this idea, a professor of sociology and comparative religions at the University of Washington writes this:

“Unfortunately in today’s intellectual environment, that simple and obvious statement[2] is widely regarded as both unfortunate and false. Proponents of the revisionist claim overcome its inherent contradiction by assigning many of the most unfortunate aspects of history to religious causes, while flatly denying even the most obvious and overwhelming evidence that religion was the basis for the “good” things that have come to pass. For example, it is argued that Christianity played no significant role in sustaining the abolitionist cause but was a major factor in justifying slavery.”

No doubt Christianity has earned its reputation. But, at the heart of the biblical message is the call to glorify God in everything we do. There are many factors to solving world hunger, a fact Sachs quite aptly points out. To mitigate the need for faith and suggest that scientific technology and human reason will eradicate poverty is naïve and a residual effect of tired enlightenment promises and cheesy boomer optimism. He emphasizes: “Four overarching ideas of the enlightenment inspire us today.” Sachs continues, “…that political institutions are human constructs that should be fashioned consciously to meet the needs of society.” Note the stress on “should.” These constructs have been used for both good and evil, which is the nature of their creators. Secondly, “The economic system could similarly be shaped to meet human needs.” Note the use of “could.” Thirdly, Sachs quotes Immanuel Kant from a text written in 1795, “…calling for an appropriate global system of governance to end the age-old scourge of war.” And lastly, the idea that science and technology, fueled by human reason, can be a sustained “force for social improvements and human betterment.”

These governing truths are positive contributions to a solution, but only if they are placed in the context of the writings, which have been richly influenced by a Christian morality and assume a free democracy. The fact is, human reason has led us to Marxism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and so forth. Whose reason is correct? Which technology is good or evil, and who makes that call?

Science and technology have given humanity a phenomenal advance in education and the health sciences, but technology is also responsible for nuclear weaponry, environmental hazards, and the fragmenting of culture. Science, technology, and reason aren’t used in a vacuum; Sachs’ attempt to deify them only exacerbates the issue at hand. The chapter entitled, “Myths and Magic Bullets” most emphasizes Sachs’ lack of education in the cross disciplines of sociology, social biology, anthropology, and comparative religion. He acknowledges some problems with his own world view, like social Darwinism, but does a poor job of dealing with the human nature behind the problem. This is due to his “enlightened” view of human nature, which can never account for the real “evil” in this world. Thinking good thoughts and crunching numbers to pay for the United Nations’ “Millennial Development Goals” signed by every nation in the Great Eight, including the United States, doesn’t appear to be enough; none of the nations have made good on their promises. Sachs seems to disregard greed and the will to power as a problem of human nature.

He is right to conclude that ending poverty is our duty, but he fails miserably in his chapter entitled, “Why We Should Do It,” to actually tell us why we should do it. It’s the old bootstrap mentality of the American western boomer that desires to cling to the idea that “We’re all winners.” (To borrow a line from a Seinfeld episode). I do not think that “Christianizing” the world is going to eradicate hunger and poverty, but I do believe that if we continue to try to do ethical and moral things apart from an ethical and moral God, we will continue to run in to the empty, soulless, and shallow promises that modernism has delivered. Technology and reason have done wonderful things for mankind. And as Rodney Stark reminds us, Christianity played a huge role in advancing the scientific theory that advances that technology. However, technology and reason have also shaped the bloodiest and vilest century humanity has ever seen. Human reason is flawed and limited, and decisions will continue to be made out of expedience and self interest, spelling disaster for the victims in its wake.

Although aspects of the book were upsetting, I do believe that the book is a worthwhile read. I resonate with Sachs’ heart for the poor. I concur with his plea that this project is the moral thing to do; it is also very dear to the heart of the God we claim to worship.

There are scores of verses from Genesis to Revelation that remind us of the following, “He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him” (Proverbs 14:31). As believers in the creator and savior of this world, we alone have the moral foundation to care about the things that God cares about. We should be championing attempts to end these heinous issues and promoting organizations like Jubilee 2000 and the One Campaign--groups that lobby the Great Eight, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank to eradicate debt for the poorest countries in the world. Most of these countries cannot put any of their gross natural product toward the education and health of their people, as they are too busy paying off trillions of dollars of debt to the world’s richest nations. Sachs eradicates the myth that if governments eliminate debt and give these nations money, corrupt leaders will take the money and use it for their own pleasures. This is a myth that is most often used as a justification of why these countries shouldn’t be given aid. Sachs argues rightly that, “Africa’s governance is typical for countries at the same level of income.” He goes on to state that issues of good governance, freedom, and democracy will come more as a result of a stable economy, not the other way around.

I also appreciate his research regarding the needed amount of money to end this travesty. Many people wrongly perceive that billions have been given to these countries and the money has been squandered in poor planning or corruption. In reality, as Sachs indicates in this book, the money given is simply not enough and is usually spent on immediate needs and debt relief instead of programs that would begin to end poverty and hunger. Subsequently, he calls for the wealthy nations to honor their commitment to the United Nations “Millennium Development Goals” written and agreed on in 2001 by the Great Eight. The goals are:

1. Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

2. Achieve Universal Primary Education

3. Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

4. Reduce Child Mortality Rates

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Infectious Diseases

7. Ensure Environmental Sustainability

8. Develop a Global Partnership for Development

These goals are achievable and morally sound according to Sachs. However, skepticism abounds since the “1978 pledge of ‘Health for All by the Year 2000’ the world arrived in 2000 with the AIDS pandemic, resurgent TB and malaria, and billions of the world’s poor without reliable, or sometimes any, access to essential health services.” He goes on to say that the wealthy nations--who pledged 0.7 percent of their GNP to help this cause--decreased their giving from 0.3 to 0.2 percent in the 1990s, which was considered a time of economic boom for many of these countries. I believe that Sachs is in denial when he claims that morality and values aren’t relevant, because this is a matter of greed and power, not resources. The United States, believed by many to be the largest benefactor, gives more money annually than any other country, but is only the seventh highest donor in the developed, western countries in percentage of their GNP. [3]

Can the United States afford it? No doubt. In 2000, the IRS released a report on the richest taxpayers. The top 400 richest taxpayers alone had a combined income of $69 billion, which is $12 billion more than the combined GNP of four of the countries[4] on George Bush’s “Tropical Tour.” Once again we see that the problem is one of value, not resources. All the technology and human reason so cherished in the West is not going to eradicate poverty in our lifetime when the wealthiest countries continue to give less than 2 percent of their GNP.

I appreciate Sachs’ heart for this issue. He is concerned that decreasing U.S. giving will hurt its place in world politics. In truth, the United States has much to offer a world that will only sink deeper and deeper into modernist/Marxist utopias if it continues to fail to obey God’s desire to help the poor. This issue should be on the forefront of any Christian-led political agenda, but it is not. This leads many to skepticism, and fear--especially of the religious right, who, although a minority in the United States, has the political voice of a majority.

I was convicted in my own hypocrisy of being a pseudo-liberal decrying the evils of multi-national corporations and capitalism. While I agree with Sachs that the anti-globalization movement has challenged the Great Eight, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank for their “self-serving accolades,” they have been misinformed and sometimes a bit hypocritical. Sachs challenged me to rethink wealth building and even to look at it from a biblical perspective. Wealth and the people given the ability to make wealth are not evil. These people are in a position to effect change in this world. The Gates Foundation alone is doing more than any single foundation or religious institution, period. They must be recognized for that, and hopefully their generosity will challenge the church to similarly give to causes outside of its own four walls. While I am still reserved on my economic views, as I believe that people should regard money with a stewardship point of view, I have been clearly challenged to think beyond a reaction.

I was disappointed with two aspects of Sachs’ world view. He fears the religious right’s “powerful force,” which is the belief in the “end of the world” from a Left Behind perspective that allegedly fuels the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Where does his research come from? Secondly, and admittedly picayune, Sachs takes the righteous highroad when he discusses his involvement in Poland’s economic recovery only after they adopted a free democracy. He then goes on to praise China and works readily with them in their economic recovery, in spite of their communism and gross, documented human rights violations.

So what do we do as a church and as people of God? I want to suggest a few things, some coming from the book, and others added by myself.

1. Make a commitment to help with the world’s hunger, disease, and economic issues

2. Begin to listen to, and raise the voice of, the poor in our land and especially abroad

3. Make a personal commitment to living out the gospel in ways that reflect the heart of God

4. Preach a gospel that includes a lived-out lifestyle and not a personal/individualistic salvation

5. Begin to encourage and put aside money and human resources to help social causes that are not only outside of our church’s walls, but do not necessarily benefit our own congregation

6. Include in matters of our holiness/sanctification our responsibility to our communities and the world

7. Make a plan to communicate the world’s heartaches to your people, so that they can make well-informed decisions and prayers

8. Ask God to break our hearts, so that we love the things He loves and hate the things He hates

I don’t know if we are going to end poverty, but I do believe it is our role as believers to care about the plight of the suffering, poor, and marginalized. The gospel is best served through a congregation living it and serving and loving the people to whom God has called them. We would be amiss to serve only our immediate neighbor, when Christ Himself has defined a neighbor as the one in need.

---

[1] Extreme poverty unlike moderate or relative poverty means that the households cannot meet basic needs for survival such as food, clean water, health care, education and basic shelter and clothing, subsequently many of these people die daily from very preventable diseases, over exposure to the elements or hunger. Approximately 1.1 billion (Nearly 20% of the world’s population) lives in extreme poverty.

[2] That Christianity has played a significant role in the advances of scientific knowledge, and positive social solutions like the abolitionist movement.

[3] The current figure for the U.S. is 0.15% or 0.18% if you include private citizens and the non-profit giving sector.

[4] Botswana, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda

India 2006

This was my 8th year in a row that I traveled to India to teach at a pastors conference, and have our team play and work with the 150 kids at the children's home (See picture above). Once again I come away from my expereince having learned more than I taught, and having been blessed more than I blessed. The sights, sounds and smells can be unbearable at times as you peruse the impoverished neighborhoods, but there is a rythm that makes it all surreal and sublime at the same time. One of the questions I had my group ponder throughout the week was "If you could change one thing to help the world's poor, what would it be?"



That question might seem easy to answer in some people's minds. "I would give them education, medical care or food!" That certainly seems logical and even humane, but would that make a difference? The more you interface with the "Poor," the more you realize how poor you actually are. It's a false sense of pride that says we have the answers for the world's solutions. We appear to have it together since we have what our culture values as important (Education, wealth and health), yet we are starving for something that maybe these people have. Is it possible that the best thing we can give to the poor is their dignity? There's no doubt that we who are resourced need to help those that are not, but we must do so in such a way that doesn't take away the very thing that we can learn from them.

Bottom line it was a great trip that made me think more than I gave anyone answers, and made me remember the fact that the gospel is more than a few propositions to be believed, but certainly entails a story to be lived. Our group was studying Philippians during our trip and is
interesting how certain familiar verses strike you differently in different contexts. Philippians 1:29 is the verse that jumped out at me this time, which reads,"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him." Hmm? Really? The word "Granted" comes from the same root that we get the word 'Grace' from, which means favor or gift. God gifts us, or favors so that we can not only believe, but "Suffer" for the cause of Christ. Maybe the poor and the oppressed are especially blessed in order to teach us that our possessions and our "wisdom" is not enough to bring about the joy I sometimes see in the eyes of the destitute. Of course I'm not advocating that we have it worse, or that we shouldn't help those in need, but I do believe that we should do so after we understand their needs, and explore the gifts of the ones that we are gifting.

Africa; Who Cares?

I know this is a bit late in that both movies The Lord of War, and the Constant Gardener have come and gone pratically without a wimper from the silver screen. I have just recently seen both movies ironically on a plane going to Africa to speak, and work with Agathos, an organization in South Africa and Zambia doing their best to help with the AIDS crises in those countries. You did know there was a crises didn't you? The numbers are staggering. Over 25% of the population is infected, and if something doesn't happen soon over 70% of the male population from the ages of 18-35 will be dead.
Anyway, both movies concerned Africa, and both movies showed how easy it is to justify our actions when money is involved. As much as I enjoyed the Constant Gardener, it is too easy to blame large companies for our moral failures and not accept the blame for our own. The crises in many parts of the African continent is enormous and the world stands afar and watches with a blind eye. I do it, you do, and we are all culpable. We sat and watched a slaughter in Rwanda, we continue to watch the slaughter in the Sudan, and we will watch the slaughter in Zimbabwe, because Africa is not economically viable. Do I have a plan, unfortunately not, I'm like the rest of you, a deconstructor wishing for an ideal that will never happen in a sin soaked world!

Bono Knows Bible!

If you're wondering what I'm doing here, at a prayer breakfast, well, so am I. I'm certainly not here as a man of the cloth, unless that cloth is leather. It's certainly not because I'm a rock star. Which leaves one possible explanation: I'm here because I've got a messianic complex.

Yes, it's true. And for anyone who knows me, it's hardly a revelation.

Well, I'm the first to admit that there's something unnatural...something unseemly...about rock stars mounting the pulpit and preaching at presidents, and then disappearing to their villas in the south of France. Talk about a fish out of water. It was weird enough when Jesse Helms showed up at a U2 concert...but this is really weird, isn't it?

You know, one of the things I love about this country is its separation of church and state. Although I have to say: in inviting me here, both church and state have been separated from something else completely: their mind.

Mr. President, are you sure about this?

It's very humbling and I will try to keep my homily brief. But be warned - I'm Irish.

I'd like to talk about the laws of man, here in this city where those laws are written. And I'd like to talk about higher laws. It would be great to assume that the one serves the other; that the laws of man serve these higher laws...but of course, they don't always. And I presume that, in a sense, is why you're here.

I presume the reason for this gathering is that all of us here - Muslims, Jews, Christians - all are searching our souls for how to better serve our family, our community, our nation, our God.

I know I am. Searching, I mean. And that, I suppose, is what led me here, too.

Yes, it's odd, having a rock star here - but maybe it's odder for me than for you. You see, I avoided religious people most of my life. Maybe it had something to do with having a father who was Protestant and a mother who was Catholic in a country where the line between the two was, quite literally, a battle line. Where the line between church and state was...well, a little blurry, and hard to see.

I remember how my mother would bring us to chapel on Sundays... and my father used to wait outside. One of the things that I picked up from my father and my mother was the sense that religion often gets in the way of God.

For me, at least, it got in the way. Seeing what religious people, in the name of God, did to my native land...and in this country, seeing God's second-hand car salesmen on the cable TV channels, offering indulgences for cash...in fact, all over the world, seeing the self-righteousness roll down like a mighty stream from certain corners of the religious establishment...

I must confess, I changed the channel. I wanted my MTV.

Even though I was a believer.

Perhaps because I was a believer.

I was cynical...not about God, but about God's politics. (There you are, Jim.)

Then, in 1997, a couple of eccentric, septuagenarian British Christians went and ruined my shtick - my reproachfulness. They did it by describing the millennium, the year 2000, as a Jubilee year, as an opportunity to cancel the chronic debts of the world's poorest people. They had the audacity to renew the Lord's call - and were joined by Pope John Paul II, who, from an Irish half-Catholic's point of view, may have had a more direct line to the Almighty.

'Jubilee' - why 'Jubilee'?

What was this year of Jubilee, this year of our Lord's favor?

I'd always read the scriptures, even the obscure stuff. There it was in Leviticus (25:35)...

'If your brother becomes poor,' the scriptures say, 'and cannot maintain himself...you shall maintain him.... You shall not lend him your money at interest, not give him your food for profit.'

It is such an important idea, Jubilee, that Jesus begins his ministry with this. Jesus is a young man, he's met with the rabbis, impressed everyone, people are talking. The elders say, he's a clever guy, this Jesus, but he hasn't done much...yet. He hasn't spoken in public before...

When he does, is first words are from Isaiah: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' he says, 'because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.' And Jesus proclaims the year of the Lord's favour, the year of Jubilee (Luke 4:18).

What he was really talking about was an era of grace - and we're still in it.

So fast-forward 2,000 years. That same thought, grace, was made incarnate - in a movement of all kinds of people. It wasn't a bless-me club... it wasn't a holy huddle. These religious guys were willing to get out in the streets, get their boots dirty, wave the placards, follow their convictions with actions...making it really hard for people like me to keep their distance. It was amazing. I almost started to like these church people.

But then my cynicism got another helping hand.

It was what Colin Powell, a five-star general, called the greatest W.M.D. of them all: a tiny little virus called AIDS. And the religious community, in large part, missed it. The ones that didn't miss it could only see it as divine retribution for bad behaviour. Even on children...even [though the] fastest growing group of HIV infections were married, faithful women.

Aha, there they go again! I thought to myself judgmentalism is back!

But in truth, I was wrong again. The church was slow but the church got busy on this the leprosy of our age.

Love was on the move.

Mercy was on the move.

God was on the move.

Moving people of all kinds to work with others they had never met, never would have cared to meet...conservative church groups hanging out with spokesmen for the gay community, all singing off the same hymn sheet on AIDS...soccer moms and quarterbacks...hip-hop stars and country stars. This is what happens when God gets on the move: crazy stuff happens!

Popes were seen wearing sunglasses!

Jesse Helms was seen with a ghetto blaster!

Crazy stuff. Evidence of the spirit.

It was breathtaking. Literally. It stopped the world in its tracks.

When churches started demonstrating on debt, governments listened - and acted. When churches starting organising, petitioning, and even - that most unholy of acts today, God forbid, lobbying...on AIDS and global health, governments listened - and acted.

I'm here today in all humility to say: you changed minds; you changed policy; you changed the world.

Look, whatever thoughts you have about God, who He is or if He exists, most will agree that if there is a God, He has a special place for the poor. In fact, the poor are where God lives.

Check Judaism. Check Islam. Check pretty much anyone.

I mean, God may well be with us in our mansions on the hill. I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of controversial stuff. Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing we can all agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and poor.

God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them. "If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom with become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire in scorched places."

It's not a coincidence that in the scriptures, poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It's not an accident. That's a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. (You know, the only time Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.) 'As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me' (Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.

Here's some good news for the president. After 9/11 we were told America would have no time for the world's poor. America would be taken up with its own problems of safety. And it's true these are dangerous times, but America has not drawn the blinds and double-locked the doors.

In fact, you have doubled aid to Africa. You have tripled funding for global health. Mr. President, your emergency plan for AIDS relief and support for the Global Fund - you and Congress - have put 700,000 people onto life-saving anti-retroviral drugs and provided 8 million bed nets to protect children from malaria.

Outstanding human achievements. Counterintuitive. Historic. Be very, very proud.

But here's the bad news. From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There is much more to do. There's a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response.

And finally, it's not about charity after all, is it? It's about justice.

Let me repeat that: It's not about charity, it's about justice.

And that's too bad.

Because you're good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can't afford it.

But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment.

Sixty-five hundred Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about justice and equality.

Because there's no way we can look at what's happening in Africa and, if we're honest, conclude that deep down, we really accept that Africans are equal to us. Anywhere else in the world, we wouldn't accept it. Look at what happened in South East Asia with the tsunami. 150,000 lives lost to that misnomer of all misnomers, "mother nature." In Africa, 150,000 lives are lost every month. A tsunami every month. And it's a completely avoidable catastrophe.

It's annoying but justice and equality are mates. Aren't they? Justice always wants to hang out with equality. And equality is a real pain.

You know, think of those Jewish sheep-herders going to meet the Pharaoh, mud on their shoes, and the Pharaoh says, "Equal?" A preposterous idea: rich and poor are equal? And they say, "Yeah, 'equal,' that's what it says here in this book. We're all made in the image of God."

And eventually the Pharaoh says, "OK, I can accept that. I can accept the Jews - but not the blacks."

"Not the women. Not the gays. Not the Irish. No way, man."

So on we go with our journey of equality.

On we go in the pursuit of justice.

We hear that call in the ONE Campaign, a growing movement of more than 2 million Americans...Left and Right together... united in the belief that where you live should no longer determine whether you live.

We hear that call even more powerfully today, as we mourn the loss of Coretta Scott King - mother of a movement for equality, one that changed the world but is only just getting started. These issues are as alive as they ever were; they just change shape and cross the seas.

Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market...that's a justice issue. Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents...that's a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents...that's a justice issue.

And while the law is what we say it is, God is not silent on the subject.

That's why I say there's the law of the land¿. And then there is a higher standard. There's the law of the land, and we can hire experts to write them so they benefit us, so the laws say it's OK to protect our agriculture but it's not OK for African farmers to do the same, to earn a living?

As the laws of man are written, that's what they say.

God will not accept that.

Mine won't, at least. Will yours?

[ pause]

I close this morning on...very...thin...ice.

This is a dangerous idea I've put on the table: my God vs. your God, their God vs. our God...vs. no God. It is very easy, in these times, to see religion as a force for division rather than unity.

And this is a town - Washington - that knows something of division.

But the reason I am here, and the reason I keep coming back to Washington, is because this is a town that is proving it can come together on behalf of what the scriptures call the least of these.

This is not a Republican idea. It is not a Democratic idea. It is not even, with all due respect, an American idea. Nor it is unique to any one faith.

'Do to others as you would have them do to you' (Luke 6:30). Jesus says that.

'Righteousness is this: that one should...give away wealth out of love for him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for the emancipation of the captives.' The Koran says that (2.177).

Thus sayeth the Lord: 'Bring the homeless poor into the house, when you see the naked, cover him, then your light will break out like the dawn and your recovery will speedily spring fourth, then your Lord will be your rear guard.' The Jewish scripture says that. Isaiah 58 again.

That is a powerful incentive: 'The Lord will watch your back.' Sounds like a good deal to me, right now.

A number of years ago, I met a wise man who changed my life. In countless ways, large and small, I was always seeking the Lord's blessing. I was saying, you know, I have a new song, look after it¿. I have a family, please look after them¿. I have this crazy idea...

And this wise man said: stop.

He said, stop asking God to bless what you're doing.

Get involved in what God is doing - because it's already blessed.

Well, God, as I said, is with the poor. That, I believe, is what God is doing.

And that is what he's calling us to do.

I was amazed when I first got to this country and I learned how much some churchgoers tithe. Up to 10% of the family budget. Well, how does that compare with the federal budget, the budget for the entire American family? How much of that goes to the poorest people in the world? Less than 1%.

Mr. President, Congress, people of faith, people of America:

I want to suggest to you today that you see the flow of effective foreign assistance as tithing.... Which, to be truly meaningful, will mean an additional 1% of the federal budget tithed to the poor.

What is 1%?

1% is not merely a number on a balance sheet.

1% is the girl in Africa who gets to go to school, thanks to you. 1% is the AIDS patient who gets her medicine, thanks to you. 1% is the African entrepreneur who can start a small family business thanks to you. 1% is not redecorating presidential palaces or money flowing down a rat hole. This 1% is digging waterholes to provide clean water.

1% is a new partnership with Africa, not paternalism toward Africa, where increased assistance flows toward improved governance and initiatives with proven track records and away from boondoggles and white elephants of every description.

America gives less than 1% now. We're asking for an extra 1% to change the world. to transform millions of lives - but not just that and I say this to the military men now - to transform the way that they see us.

1% is national security, enlightened economic self-interest, and a better, safer world rolled into one. Sounds to me that in this town of deals and compromises, 1% is the best bargain around.

These goals - clean water for all; school for every child; medicine for the afflicted, an end to extreme and senseless poverty - these are not just any goals; they are the Millennium Development goals, which this country supports. And they are more than that. They are the Beatitudes for a globalised world.

Now, I'm very lucky. I don't have to sit on any budget committees. And I certainly don't have to sit where you do, Mr. President. I don't have to make the tough choices.

But I can tell you this:

To give 1% more is right. It's smart. And it's blessed.

There is a continent - Africa - being consumed by flames.

I truly believe that when the history books are written, our age will be remembered for three things: the war on terror, the digital revolution, and what we did - or did not to - to put the fire out in Africa.

History, like God, is watching what we do.

Thank you. Thank you, America, and God bless you all.

Narnia, A Bit Lacking?

I went to see Narnia the other day, and would have to say that I give it a solid C rating. It's been interesting discussing the film with my evangelical friends who find my review a bit too harsh. But basically I found the film a bit boring, lacking in any real charachter development, and tension in the film. There was no real reason for me to hate the villain, or to even love the hero Aslan. It does seem, as I remember, that the book had a more majestic Aslan. Some have said that the bloodless battle was weak, and maybe it was, but I don't think so. There are plenty of action violence films (Like StarWars) that don't get graphically violent, but still convey action, or even tension. Some have alluded to the fact that Lewis wrote the book as a chil;dren's story, so of course it would lack development, and tension, but even C.S. Lewis was once quoted as saying that if a child's story could not appeal to an adult, it was a poor child's story. There have been many great children films like Shrek (Interesting since Andrew Adamson directed Shrek), Monster's INC. etc. that are made for children, but thoroughly enjoyable. Some have pointed to poor acting, but I really don't think so. I think maybe it's the allegory that C.S. Lewis' friend and colleague J.R. Tolkien had a bit of a problem with. Isn't it how we Christians do art? There has to be that Christ figure, and one for one allegory, or we sem to struggle with it's validity. I just got done reading the Da Vinci Code, and although I find it's theology to be quite amusing, I was encouraged to find out that Dan Brown didn't feel the need to tie up all the loose knots at the end of the story. He actually lets you think about what he said, and what appears to be what he believes. Can't we Christians learn to tell good stories, develop our charachters, allow our readers/viewers to "Feel" our story, and actually allow them to make their own conclusions? Well, see it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions, since that's what aret is ultimately about, our misguided intepretations, isn't it?