1. Yes, I have read the Bible. In fact, I am currently teaching the New Testament for ministerial students. As part of my doctoral studies, I was a student of several of the finest Biblical scholars in the world. I pastored three churches and have been in the ministry 34 years. You call me an "igorant fool."

2. Yes, I am familiar with the Roman Catholic stations of the cross and have a great respect for that spiritual exercise. I think Gibson replaces that honorable interactive devotional exercise with a horrific spectacle which orients a person away from that contemplative practice which should move us toward reducing suffering around us and within us. The purpose of becoming acquainted with suffering is not to wallow in it but to develop compassion in order to reduce it and redeem it.

3. Yes, I was at the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast and heard the wonderful remarks of Henry Bloch. In fact, a couple years ago, I delivered the Invocation.

4. No, I do not approve of using the film as an opportunity for an altar-call. As one of my students says, it is like getting stone drunk in Vegas and marrying a stranger.

5. Yes, I believe in the power of vicarious suffering, but the Bible does not dwell in such detail on the suffering. Would salvation have been ineffective if Jesus had fewer lashes? What about all those who suffered more than Jesus? Should we admire them more because they went through more? I think these are irrelevant questions that arise from the perverse fascination Gibson has with the reduction of the personhood and divinity of Christ to a piece of meat.

6. You write, "There's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of anti-Semitism in the movie." The overwhelming judgment of the rabbis with whom I have spoken is that the movie is anti-Semitic. I think they may be better judges of the dangers of this movie than are Christians who are less likely to appreciate the violence done to Jews.

7. How do I live with myself? you ask. I respond: I am at peace with death, with God, with my duty. I do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus to love God and to love my neighbor as myself.

8. It is interesting that the Christianity has developed a number of theories of how atonement works, but never adopted one as its official doctrine. Respecting the mystery of salvation, instead of reducing it to a penal operation, seems more reverent to the witness of Christ.

9. I accept the Bible as inspired as I accept Homer, the Gita, and Shakespeare as inspired. I know too much about how the texts were developed and their historical context to fail to appreciate the amazing and wonderful process by which they have been transmitted to us. No, I don’t accept everything in the Bible literally. When Jesus is called “the lamb of God,” should I imagine he has wool? Knowing when and how to assess the language is not always as obvious, however.

10. You ask: Is there more than one God? -- I prefer to talk about the Infinite, which avoids the narrow question of the most primitive arithmetic.

11. You ask: Is there eternal life? -- I believe all things including people are interrelated and influence persists through time. I also like Wittgenstein's saying, "He lives eternally who lives in the present."

12. You ask, "What makes you think you are greater than and know more than God himself?" I answer: I don't think I am greater than God Himself; I am just a weekly columnist.  But I ask you, "What makes you think you know what God thinks?" You ask, "Who are you to question God?" I'm not questioning God, I'm questioning people's conceptions of God and the Gibson movie in particular.

13. You ask, "Have I condemned violence in other movies?" Yes, most certainly. For example, in 1994, the very first year I wrote the column, I said:
 “Movies such as ‘Natural Born Killers’ . . . suggest that the meaning of ‘hero’ has degenerated. . . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger says a hero never blinks when shooting. ‘You look weak if the noise makes you blink.’ The hero is ‘above emotions’ and looks at his ‘victim’ instead of his gun.”
  I thought a hero was someone who helped people, not someone who killed them. Silly me. This is how perverted our culture has become, and why the Gibson movie is such alarming evidence of our degeneracy.

14. You ask, "Why am I tolerant of every faith except Christianity?" Well, if I am intolerant, why did I take communion at the beginning of Lent? Why do I write with appreciation about Christian subjects more than any other faith in my column?

15. You say, "The Gibson movie was true." I find it unhistorical and unBiblical. He introduced many events that are nowhere in the Bible. His whitewash of Pilate fails to utilize the historic evidence we have about his cruelty. I think the movie was false. We disagree.

16. You say God is in fact "vengeful." My God is Love (1 John4:8).

17. You say you are curious about my question, "Why doesn't God simply forgive humanity without the barbaric sacrifice." I do not believe it is necessary for an all-powerful and all-loving God to accept an innocent person to be punished for other people's wickedness. That is not only unloving, it is unjust. Civilized people don't punish the innocent. How can I admire a God who acts in such a barbaric way? There are more helpful understandings of the mystery of atonement, and I will devote a future column to at least one of them.
   Your statement that a particular theory of the atonement "is the very basis of Christianity" surprises me. I can confidently say that neither the penal substitutionary (Luther, Calvin) nor the satisfaction (Anselm) theories of atonement, are required doctrines within Christianity,  nor is the ransom theory (Greek theory, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa). Abelard (demonstrative theory), Weber (social transformation), the Thomistic synthesis (solidarity), and other understandings of this sacred mystery are available to all Christians and I think move in a healthier direction.
    I respectfully request that you reconsider whether your understanding of the atonement is a requirement of your faith, which I deeply respect. I am not denying the atonement; I am calling one theory of it barbaric because it models barbaric thinking and behavior, and attributes it to a just and loving God.
    Interfaith dialogue is not very useful if people just speak platitudes to each other. It is important to share the severe questions within and between the various faiths if we are to achieve mutual purification of our understandings of the Infinite. I am not offering you my deepest respect if I withhold from you my best thinking, however it may challenge you, nor am I respecting you if I am not open to changing my view as a result of our dialogue. I hope I am open to that, and I hope you might be as well.
    As I indicated in the March 4 column, I plan to write a future column outlining at least one view of the atonement that makes more sense to me.
    I cannot write you without acknowledging the reality of the enormous pain you yourself have endured, and my continuing high regard for you. If the theory of atonement you embrace works for you, and comforts you, I do not want to deprive you of it. But it causes enormous difficulties and suffering for others, and you should also know that.
    I think having this conversation is very important, and perhaps one redeeming outcome of the Gibson movie as that such conversations may now take place.

18. You say the popularity of the movie is proof of the fact that this is a Christian nation. Does the fact that we are also among the most violent nations arise from the fact that we are a Christian nation?

19. You ask, "What else could have moved the calloused heart of man (women) to silence and the recognition of his (her) own inability to impress God with their own goodness?" This is the key to one of the theories of atonement that I believe deserves serious reflection. The dynamic implied in the question is part of the explanation for the effectiveness of the work of Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi, and certainly is relevant to understanding the mystery of atonement. But I do not think it alone is a sufficient explanation.

20. What about Job and the Songs of the Suffering Servant?
Job is a powerful book. It is important to note that the Hollywood beginning and ending were added to the original text, as was the Whirlwind speech which is a sheer power-play and does not respond to the question the book addresses. Isaiah 40-55 contains some of the most amazing passages of spiritual writing of any religion I know, and I wish they were better appreciated by more people. I am sorry Gibson does not appear to understand these sacred texts.

21. You write, "The Bible teaches from its outset in the Book of Genesis, that a substitute is necessary to atone for the sin of man.  First it was an animal of one kind of another, and finally it was Jesus who was offered once for all for the sin of man. There can be no remission for sin without the shedding of blood."
   Why? Because God says so? Perhaps you think God said this, but that is where we disagree.
   This is one reason why I believe it is so useful to place the Bible in its historic context, along with other ancient literature. It makes no sense to me that a loving God should construct the world that you picture, requiring the innocent to suffer for the guilty.
   Instead of going after Osama bin Laden, why don't we sacrifice, say, three thousand horses in New York's Central Park? Or round up the first born male of every family with an income of over $100,000 a year and put them to death?
   It is certainly hard to explain this to folk of other faiths who believe in fairness.

22. You write, "I've written books on the Kennedy Assassination and lecture on the Founding Fathers' precepts regarding their undergirding faith in the founding documents.  You are, unfortunately, just another secular, liberal agenda-setting cub reporter, employed by the increasingly far-left editorial board of the once-glorious KC Star."
   Actually, I am a 61-year old minister ordained 34 years ago after earning my doctorate. I currently teach a course on the New Testament to ministerial students. I prepare this column as a free-lance writer, not as a Star employee.
   Fifteen years ago I organized the Kansas City Interfaith Council, and from that I have friends of many faiths who have enlarged and deepened my personal spiritual perspective. In that context, I see the Gibson movie as evidence of secularism, not as a revelation of salvation. While I respect those who celebrate the movie and am glad they are personally able to find inspiration in it, I grieve over the overwhelming violence to which our culture is addicted and the religious illiteracy which justifies it.

23. You write, "through Adam we all have sined." Speak for yourself. And if you have sinned, why should I credit what you say -- you may be bedeviled in your thinking.
 This primitive idea, that the children are responsible for the parents' sins, is ridiculous. One can appreciate a metaphorical truth: that the errors of parents sometimes affect the children, and they may in fact suffer because of what the parents did. But that does not meant the children are responsible for the parents' misdeeds.

24. You write, "You are terribly mistaken.  Worse than that, you desire to pull others into these mistaken beliefs.  Read the Bible and believe every word of it.  What better source do you have for believing?  Those that you choose to believe? Those that tickle your soul? I'm sick of hearing your words."
    Do you choose to believe the Bible? If so, why do I not have the right to choose?
 If you do not choose to believe the Bible, are you forced into doing so? If this is the case, why should I accept something you are forced into believing?

25. You write, "If God openly forgave humanity, men would lose their choice.  Their hearts would turn to wrong." I don't see a lot of evidence that the sacrifice of Christ has improved the level of loving among Christians who historically have been the most violent of the major religions. How would God's open forgiveness deprive me of a choice to accept or reject his love and live the path of compassion? Would it not inspire me by His example?

26. You write, "it is not the accused son's offer to die but the judge Himself, God the Son, died in our place." This still makes no sense to me. Are you saying that since God is responsible for all this mess, he has to kill himself? Or if God is not responsible, and just the judge, why has he set up rules which require him to kill himself? Don't we condemn suicide? What kind of example is this?

27. You ask, "What linguistic errors? Are you saying that Jesus didn't speak Aramic?" Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, not Aramic, and possibly Greek, the language of the New Testament, and the word CHRIST is Greek. The problem is with Latin. The Romans did not converse in Latin in that part of the world. Greek was the language used most widely throughout the Roman Empire at that time.

28. You ask, "If Jesus didn't come to suffer, why should he come at all?" Perhaps to teach and lead the path of love.

29. You say I miss the point about the VOLUNTARY nature of the suffering of Christ. As I understand it, the theological perspective from which you write may be something like:
a. God who knows everything, is all-loving, and all powerful, created humanity knowing they would be sinful and need to be punished for all eternity. Even new-born babies deserve eternal hell-fire because they inherit Adam’s sin.
b. God cannot tolerate such sinfulness of the creatures he has made and demands someone be punished for this wickedness.
c. God's son, Jesus, voluntarily accepts God's wrath and suffers as a substitute for the rest of us so we can escape eternal damnation and instead have everlasting life.
d. So God buys into the deal and allows his innocent son to suffer and die (although we have the assured happy Resurrection ending, so why go through all this in the first place?).
e. Instead of those who deserve to be punished, Jesus voluntarily accepts our punishment because only he has sufficient favor with God to get him to call off his wrath against the humans he created.
 So I do understand the voluntary nature of the sacrifice of Jesus. But the story makes no sense to me in these terms. It seems barbaric.
 There is a way of understanding this story which reveals very deep and wonderful truths about the nature of existence, but one has to go deeper than the literal, and I will try to hint at that in a future column.

30. You ask about my statement that John was written to appeal to the Romans and thus downplays the cruelty of Pilate and places blame upon the Jews. I did write, " The Gospel of John was written to make Christianity more acceptable to Rome and downplays Pilate's cruelty." I did not mean to imply that the chief purpose of John's gospel was to appease Rome. It has a much greater purpose: to reveal the identity and nature of the Christ (both fully human and fully divine) to an inclusive Christian community. However, the community was (perhaps I should say communities were)  under threat by Rome, and Jews (the Test Benediction) were increasingly exclusive and hostile. Raymond Brown writes of the "polemical attitude" that characterizes the gospel. The phrase "the Jews" (which should probably be translated as "the Jewish establishment" or "Jewish leaders" in places) appears 70 times in John but only a half dozen in each of the other gospels. This suggests that when John wrote, Jews and Christians were becoming distinct groups. John attacks Jews for their unbelief in Jesus, where the other gospels attack Jews for hypocrisy, etc. While the earlier Roman tradition had excepted Jews from regular state religious duties and honored them for the antiquity of their faith, Christians moved toward distinguishing themselves from Jews not only for theological reasons but also because they hoped to be perceived as no threat to Rome as Jews became problematic. Hence the slant that the Jews (ie, the Jewish establishment) were responsible for the death of Jesus, not so much the reluctant Roman authorities, though history makes clear how vicious Pilate actually was.
    If I were writing that sentence today and had a bit more space, I might word it this way: "The Gospel of John was written to make Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews within the Roman Empire and downplays Pilate's cruelty." It would have been interesting to include an acknowledgement of Jewish wisdom traditions at this time and the influence of Egyptian Isis worship that can be seen as at least an indirect influence on the Gospel of John.