March 10, 2008 - 3:31 PM EDT

Thanks for the plug Michael. It’s good to see you engaged once again! As I posted on my blog, I've resisted, for the most part, responding to critics. I chose that path based on some sound advice from a professional historian and author for whom I have great respect. I've also chosen to not respond because some of the critics lack any objective credibility. One I have in mind trashed the book early on while admitting he hadn't read it! His subsequent blog posts seem to have evolved on that issue; from not reading it, to reading a chapter and the bibliography, to now having read it all—but the hatchet job came first. In addition, it’s obvious someone hasn’t read the book when many of the questions they raise ARE actually addressed in the book!! Some critics would be shocked to find that I agree with some of their opinions—if they’d actually read the book. One critic even trashed the book before it was ever released! How’s that for “objectivity”?

Now Mr. Smeltzer admits: "Let me preface this by saying that I was predisposed to dislike the film prior to viewing, based on some things I had heard about it." Was he able to overcome that predisposition or did it color his opinion? Who knows? Regardless, I appreciate him taking the time to write the review while admitting his opinion was already slanted to be negative. While I disagree with some of his conclusions and comments, I think his honesty and attempt at objectivity is commendable.

Admittedly, the film does not address, to any great depth, the paradoxes to which Mr. Smeltzer makes reference (my book does). It’s important to remember, however, that there is only so much you can squeeze into a 48 minute film. Based on what some critics have suggested needed to be included in the film, it would have had to have been a mini-series! Early on, there was some discussion about making this film run much longer—90 to 120 minutes. That would have been my preference. Ultimately, the business aspects of the project—production costs, marketing, and time constraints dictated certain limitations. Furthermore, though I was one of the executive producers, I did not have complete editorial control. Nonetheless I am overall, very pleased with the final results.

Though I wanted the film’s main focus to be on Jackson’s Lexington years and the Sunday school class, we were also trying to accomplish what I believe to be a difficult task: Produce a documentary that would introduce Jackson to those who knew very little about him while also bringing some fresh information to more serious students. I think we accomplished that, despite what the critics say. Not perfectly, but not bad for 48 minutes. We also wanted the film to be acceptable in both Christian and “secular” markets. That wasn’t as difficult, given Jackson’s Christian faith—it is what it is. Regarding analytical content, we preferred taking a “show me, don’t tell me” approach and allow viewers to come to their own conclusions. We assume most viewers are intelligent enough to do so. Bud Robertson perhaps said it best when he said the film was “intended to be more inspirational than historical, but I believe it was both.”

‘Nuff said.