Lorraine Yuk-Lan Law Phillips takes a look at controversy and Christianity . . . that is films that are considered controversial by Christians and then Christian films that are considered Christian which completely contradict the Bible.  See her insightful and inciteful essay here (the thought-provoking essay is written in Chinese so if you can’t read "traditional" Chinese you may wish to use the Babel Fish Translator from Alta Vista although it does tend to butcher things and make them even more incomprehensivle but unfortunately somtimes it’s all we have and the vague mess is sometimes better than nothing . . . sometimes).  In her essay, Lorraine does descibe one of her gambits when faced with aggressive evangelical Christian types in Taiwan . . . and that is to immediately ask them what language the Bible was originally written in . . . nine out of ten will answer "English" . . . yes, that’s right, English.  She will then go into her Dead Languages Gambit and start drilling them on this or that regarding a number of the major stories that every Christian is familiar with . . . or at least they think they are . . . then she hits ’em with the "facts" that are clear in the Bible but which most lay Christians don’t know . . . they only know the Hollywood versions which often have nothing to do with the original text.  See her essay for specific examples.  I have had similar experiences with students in a number of my courses where I use film to supplement the study of literature.  A few of the films I have shown are of the so-called controversial subject matter variety as labeled by this or that Church . . . and once in awhile a student will complain that this or that film was offensive to her because of the religous views expressed (or, more accurately, seemingly anti-religious views which are actually merely alternative interpretations or takes on age-old debate or discussion that most students have never been exposed to due to the watered down sermonizing they get from their particular pulpits).  Of course, my goal is not to change anyone’s religious views (although I have had a LOT of folks approach me with the specific goal of forcing me into changing mine – something which just ain’t gonna happen through the strategies they employ).  Of course, I do open myself up for some of that sort of thing as I do indeed seem to discuss the Bible as literature and as inspirational for a large part of Western literature in a number of my classes . . . can’t really avoid the Bible if you’re looking to Western culture . . . and I will be teaching a course on The Bible and Literature in the next academic year so I expect Christians and curious non-Christians alike to be sitting in the course.  It will be a strange phenomenon as I really want to take the opportunity to teach the subject of the course rather than to use it as a pulpit for conversion as some folks have attempted to do so in the past and still do at other schools (one fellow at another major Taipei-based university actually requires his students to attend weekly Bible study and I know of another woman – years ago – gave extra credit to students who signed a pledge stating that they had "acccepted Jesus as their personal saviors" . . . in a literature course no less, something I find to be reprehensible and a gross abuse of one’s position as an educator . . . of course, I can also think of some very good examples of conscientious and ethical teachers who are Christian and examples of those who are not . . . it’s all personal and not really indicative of everyone of this or that persuasion, there just tend to be some trends but those trends don’t reflect every instance within a group).  The bulk of Lorraine’s essay deals with why some films are "acceptable" to the Church even though they are scripturally inaccurate while other films that are often much more faithful to the scriptures are considered controversial.  By the way, was Jesus Jewish or not?  See her essay for an answer.

All the best,
Brian