allo dieu? c’est moi, marguerite.

tonight i saw the surprisingly well-attended lord save us from your followers: how the gospel of love is dividing america here at lc. it's a documentary on christianity and how divisive it is in the country today. the filmmaker is from portland and much of the footage was shot here. it was a pre-screening with the director, as it won't be released nationally until june. some of the graphics were still a little rough, but overall i would say it is made well. it raises many questions but is rather unsatisfying in the answer department. i guess that's kind of the point, to raise questions and start conversations, rather than dole out solid solutions for free.

i came away with two big questions. the first being, what role does the church play in the doctrine of separation of church and state? i think the government plays a somewhat significant role in this as far as banning prayer in public schools and removing religious symbols and monuments from government buildings {though i'm sure there are many people out there who would say that the government is not doing nearly enough}. but with the kind of influence that churches have over their congregants {according to the film, 80% of evangelicals voted to re-elect bush in 2004}, do they have an obligation to keep the state and politics away from the pulpit? i'm not saying religious values can't inform political decisions, i'm wondering what would happen if religious leaders were less outspoken about their political views and allowed their followers to make their own judgments. i honestly don't see a problem with same-sex marriage {oregon affirmed nearly 300 domestic partnerships yesterday, as the first state to do this, which gives same sex couples the same rights as married couples under the state} or abortion. i can understand a fundamental or conservative christian feeling strong moral qualms against them but i don't feel that should inform other people's decisions. so what if the reasons behind the misgivings were explained rather than antagonizing alternative lifestyles and only supporting candidates directly in line with closed minded views?

my other question is more personal. i would venture to identify as a recovering evangelical {that's a whole other story}, maybe even a christian. i mostly agree with the film's capstone or conclusion that we should love one another and not lambaste each other over our beliefs. where i become concerned is how that will be communicated to others. i have large issues with proselytizing and converting the masses, but i feel that loving and respecting one another is a very valuable tenet as human beings. my reasons for it lie in the life and works of jesus christ. i'm sure many people would disagree with me, so the argument that we should be nice to each other because jesus was doesn't get me very far. so how does this 'gospel' of love get communicated without coming off as a fanatic evangelicalism or a cracked-out hippie-peace-love?

i, for one, do not have the answers. like i said, the film raises more questions than answers them. but judging on conversations had and overhead this evening, the documentary at least gets the ball rolling and people are now talking in a respectful, intelligent manner. maybe there's hope after all.