apparantley, the paper had published a couple of reviews about the movie by writers whom mr. hill found to have "absolutist points of view and little sense of humor"
in response to one writer's view that "the davinci code is a deeply deceptive account of what christians really believe about jesus.", mr. hill wrote:
really? what do christians believe about jesus? my christian
acquaintances are of many minds when it comes to what jesus
taught and how we are to live."
about comments made by dennis mccain and chuck colsen, mr. hill writes:
"both suggest that there is one clear definition of what a christian is supposed
this is the world that we live in. to mr. hill in florida, and countless others, being a christian can mean many things. i am reminded of several people i know and have known who feel the same way. to be a christian is to be more or less moral, and to think that the person called jesus from 2000 years ago had some good things to say.
where do they get these ideas? who is teaching them that there are multiple definitions of what it means to be a christian? maybe a better question is, what are we * not * teaching, that leads to this way of thinking?
in our churches, in our homes, and in our work places, do we, as christians, add any validity to the claims of mr. hill from florida, that "christian" can mean many things? or are we striving to teach, and share, and live, and know that the gospel is only this: that all of mankind is born sinners who deserve an eternity of the wrath of god, and that god sent his son jesus christ to die and appease his wrath for the sins of all who would place their hope and faith in him, and that true faith in christ produces fruit of obedience and holiness.
is this what we are teaching and sharing about our faith? or are we teaching, maybe even by our silence, that to be christian is to be "moral" or "religious"?