Let's Don't and Say We Did

That's it. I've had enough and I'm calling it, since Hollywood won't.

The movie line "Let's do this!" and its variant "Let's do this thing!", as an attempt at creating dramatic tension:

R.I.P. 7-20-10

May you never be uttered again.

Money in the Bank

So Creflo Dollar is coming to Greensboro later this week, no doubt because The Dollar is looking for some cash. And I'm sure many will turn out to hear him, a sad testimony to the spiritual state of our city. But this is what I don't get. He's a televangelist, and his last name is "Dollar", allegedly. How much more truth in advertising do you want? Would it help if his middle name was "Imgonnatakeyour"?

A Fifth of Disney: Toy Story 3 & Prince of Persia

Since I had an extra day off last week, I thought I'd take the opportunity to take in a couple of movies. I doubt I have any long reviews in me, but here are a couple of thoughts.

I first went and saw "Toy Story 3". I went to a noon showing, on July 5th, so it was me, and a theater full of families with little kids, which made the whole experience more enjoyable. That may not be what you'd expect to hear from a single guy, but there you have it.

The movie itself was just wonderful. The only complaint I might have is that it dipped a little deep into the sentimentalism at times. But I'm not sure they could have made a movie with such subject matter as this one without that being an issue. I also couldn't help but wonder if it wasn't a bit intense for smaller children at times. But not being a parent, I really couldn't say for sure. Overall, though, it was fantastic. I have nothing more to say about it at this point, other than that Pixar has hit another one out of the park.

Later that afternoon, I slipped out to another theater and saw "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time". This is a Disney film that came out a number of weeks ago, preceded by all the hype that Disney tends to throw behind its films. It seemed to me to get buried among all the other Summer films that have come out, so I was under the impression that maybe it had done poorly. But quite the contrary is true, according to Wikipedia, although the film seems to have been better received overall in the rest of the world than in the U. S. My impression of the film wasn't helped, I might add, by the turnout at the showing I went to. I thought at first I would be watching it alone, until one lone woman wandered in during the previews. Yeah, I was disappointed. Not by the low turnout, but that I didn't have the theater to myself. I know, it was selfish. Mea culpa.

I knew almost nothing going into the film. I knew there was a dagger that turned back time, and that Jake Gyllenhall spent alot of time in acrobatic stunts through the film, jumping from roof to roof and the like. Yet it seemed like fun, and worth checking out.

And fun it was. Not "stop what you're doing and go see it right now" fun, but "not a waste of money" fun. The cinematography was great. There were lots of beautiful aerial shots, the kind that are only worth seeing on the big screen. The fight scenes were very enjoyable. The acting was mostly good, and the script was pretty good - though both of these could have been better.

Another fun thing about Disney films, though, is that whenever you watch one, you get to play the "Find the Leftist Agenda" game. Disney is often using its movies to promote some Leftist ideology, and it was no different with "Prince of Persia". The fact that the movie was set in Persia provided Disney with an obvious target, and that is United States foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. What was once considered Persia covered what is now Iran, though the Persian Empire at its height covered much of the Middle East, and spread into Europe and Asia. In the movie, we have Persia, the world empire (like the U. S.), invading a city (a smaller power, like any of the Middle Eastern countries), due to spy reports that alleged the city was producing weapons that it was selling to Persia's enemies. If by now the supposed WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of Iraq haven't come to mind, then you haven't been paying much attention to world events over the past decade. In addition, the fact that the movie is essentially set in Iran suggests some allusion to U. S. sanctions against Iran, born out of a fear of them attaining nuclear weapons.

Having referred to this as a "Leftist ideology", however, is a bit dishonest, unless one considers Libertarians "Leftist". And while I'm no Leftist myself, my leanings are Libertarian with regard to the subject of intervention in world affairs. My own tendency is to regard the move of U. S. troops into Iraq as an unjust invasion, a view that would equally find a home in classic Conservatism (in contrast to the Neo-conservatism of today). So far as I've been able to determine, U. S. troops never did find the WMD's in Iraq that were the excuse for our invasion (which is mirrored in the false reports of weapons production in the city of Alamut in the movie). And I have a hard time seeing how the U. S. has the right to tell Iran whether or not they should have nuclear weapons. To do so is a violation of national sovereignty, and is more likely to cause more violence, jeopardizing more lives, American and otherwise, and causing more problems all around.

The film leads to a Romantic turning back of time, as if the majority of troubles in the story never happened to begin with, except for the invasion of Alamut itself. This is easily solved through a "why can't we all get along" treaty between Persia and Alamut, which actually makes no sense, in that Alamut was already a Persian city prior to the invasion. Then they all held hands and sang "It's a Small World After All". Okay, not really. But it wouldn't have been entirely out of place. The bad guy gets it, nobody else ends up actually suffering as a result, and they all live happily ever after.

I don't know how other viewers might feel, but there's something incredibly dissatisfying about a movie that proposes a story that is entirely undone by its ending. All the joys and sorrows that the characters went through were for nothing after all. What a waste. It leaves no place for good change, no place for maturity. And it proposes a world which could be forever left in a place of limbo. It could be that everything I go through in my life I will end up having to just repeat sometime later. It is the cyclical worldview of the East, and it is a cesspool of death and depression. And it makes me feel as if I've just wasted two hours of my life on this movie. Eschaton, it turns out, is absolutely necessary, or else nothing in the world has meaning.

None of this is new for Disney, however. "Prince of Persia" is supposed to be the new "Pirates of the Caribbean", and was made by the same group of folks who made the "Pirates" trilogy. I have my doubts about Jake Gyllenhaal having the same draw as Johnny Depp, at least enough of a draw to turn "Prince of Persia" into a series of films as successful as "Pirates". Nonetheless, alot of the same themes are present in "Prince of Persia" that one finds in the "Pirates" trilogy, especially the last two films. There is the cyclical worldview of the East. In fact, what is "Eastern" is generally lifted up as being superior to what is "Western" in both "Persia" and "Pirates". You also have a confusion of gender roles, which is itself counter to Western Christian culture. In connection with this, you have a sort of sexuality that is particularly violent in nature, built more upon power and control than on love and sacrifice. This is also true of the recent "Clash of the Titans". Interestingly enough, actress Gemma Arterton was at the center of said sexual tension in both "Prince of Persia" and "Clash of the Titans", playing "Tamina" and "Io" in each, respectively. In "Pirates" 2 and 3, this is seen in Keira Knightly's character Elizabeth Swann, who departs from the classic feminine role of the first film to take on explicitly masculine roles in the second and third films, a sort of slap in the face of the traditional Western feminine societal role.

At the end of "Prince of Persia", the men of Persia bow to Tamina and confess their error in invading Alamut. The feminine spirit of the East triumphs over the masculine spirit of the West. The masculine West is violent, you see, whereas the feminine East is peaceful. Yet to achieve this a confusion of gender has to take place. To triumph is to have power, even if it is carried out in a passive-aggressive way. And passive-aggressive behavior is, after all, an expression of or a type of violence. While Tamina's actions throughout the movie are at times explicitly violent, they are often passive and manipulative. Such is the feminine way, when the men in a society have failed. And the failure of men in our society is what has led to the confusion of gender roles in feature films such as "Prince of Persia".

This is not to say, of course, that there is no manly sacrifice that occurs in the movie. The main character Dastan is very much so an image of manly, Christ-like sacrifice. And yet such is the state of modern American storytelling. Thankfully, we still have elements of truth in our storytelling, remainders of Christendom that have yet to be fully eradicated from our society, though folks like Disney might be doing their best to complete the task. However, the confusion still remains. In the end, the only truly righteous character in the movie is Tamina, the female character. The men are, in the end, all failures.

So while it may appear that Disney is attempting merely to repeat the success of "Pirates" in "Prince of Persia", they seem to be doing more. They are continuing to promote the same anti-Western, anti-Conservative, and anti-Christian worldview that they sought to push via "Pirates". Hopefully they will fail in this endeavor.

Ironic in all of this is that I began the day with "Toy Story 3". It is also a Disney film, and yet, as has usually been the case, the fact that it is a Pixar film seems to have made all the difference in the world. While one can find its share of sleazy masculine characters, "Toy Story 3" is also shot throughout with manly sacrifice. In fact, the film itself ends with Andy's sacrifice of his toys, by giving them all, including Woody, his most prized toy, to a little girl. Andy has grown up, and is leaving for college, and to grow up is to grow in sacrifice.

Maybe someday I'll grow up to be like Andy, and won't be so disappointed when I don't have a movie theater all to myself.

Dr. T. David Gordon, on Worship and Technology

T. David Gordon, professor at Grove City College, seems to have been a busy man as of late. He is the author of two books on the convergence of Christian worship and the media: "Why Johnny Can't Preach: How the Media Have Shaped the Messengers" and "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal". Unfortunately, I haven't read either one, but they seem to be well worth checking out, if the following two interviews are any indication. First, here is an interview with Todd Wilken on the Lutheran radio show "Issues, Etc." They discuss the declension of worship music in the American church over the past few decades, and how there's no such thing as aesthetic relativism:

http://issuesetc.org/podcast/522062910H1S1.mp3

Then there is the following interview on the White Horse Inn. Dr. Gordon discusses how our lives have been overrun by media and technology, and how succumbing to this takeover has made us a shallow people, incapable of sustained reflection and contemplation:

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/white-horse-inn/listen/distracting-ourselves-to-death-121250.html

Both worthy conversations, and too often avoided in the church.

Mt. Vesuvius and the First Century Tribulation

Hershel Shanks asks if the the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (79 AD) and the resulting devastation was God's act of vengeance on the Roman Empire for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. Scripture would seem moreso to support the idea that it was part of God's answer for Rome's persecution of His Church, which they carried out along with the Jewish people, until the Jews turned on Rome, resulting in Jerusalem's destruction, foretold by Jesus, the end of the Jews' apostasy from God and His Covenant. Vesuvius was a part of "the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world" (Rev. 3:10):

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=4&ArticleID=6

Will Rogers on Alcohol

The Prohibitionists say that drinking is bad for you, but the Bible says that Noah made wine and drank it and he only lived to be 950 years. Show me an abstainer who ever lived that long. - Will Rogers

Clash of the Ridiculously Big Lizards

Also in the news: Godzilla saves Tokyo from Mothra. More at eleven:

Snake bursts after gobbling gator

Old Posts: Worship of the State

I've posted this here before, but as the subject of the article continues to be a major problem in the American church, I think it is worth revisiting.

This coming Sunday is Independence Day here in the United States. This, in turn, means that churchgoers this Sunday will be greeted with a myriad of patriotic symbols that don’t normally show up on Sunday morning. Many are used to the American flag being always in front of them during their worship services. But this Sunday, that flag will be saluted, or even carried down the center aisle in a procession, even in churches that don’t normally have processions. Patriotic songs will be sung where hymns usually go. Extra prayers will be said for politicians as well as for our troops deployed throughout the world. Most sermons will carry an American theme. In some churches, those sermons will be of the “let’s get God back in America again” variety, complete with the standard talk about legalized abortion and absence of prayer in schools. In some churches, the sermon will be a vague sentiment about what a great country we live in.

And in all of this, very few people will stop and ask why they are doing all those things. It is the Fourth of July, after all, and this is what you do.

But why? Why is this assumed to be standard practice? I think the reason, as I mentioned in a previous post, is the victory of statism over society. We live in a country where the state wants to own everything, and we gladly oblige. They own our children. They tell us where and when to send our children to school, what they are to be taught, what they are to do while they are there, and what import this has upon their lives. They own our property. If they want a piece of it to build a superhighway, they tell us they are going to buy it or else take it. “Our” land, apparently, is only on loan from the government. They own our other possessions as well. They tax the money we make, then what we spend it on, and what we leave to our children when we die, if they have left us anything to leave to our children.

And we respond to all this by, every once in a while, giving them the one hour on Sunday morning that God has called His own. Now it is clear that the government wants that hour every Sunday. Whenever a church becomes incorporated in the United States, it gives over the rights to what it says and does on Sunday morning to the state, though thankfully the state has yet to assert its “right”. But the church is not an adjunct of the state. The church, as presented in Scripture, is a whole separate institution. It is instituted by God, with its own laws and its own leaders. The leaders of the state have no authority in the church.

When the Church of Jesus Christ comes together on Sunday morning, it is for one reason alone – to worship the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It isn’t to lift up the State as the great saviour of mankind (which it is not).

I recognize that the chances that what I’m writing here will be read by someone in a church somewhere who makes decisions on what goes on on Sunday mornings is very slim. Nonetheless, to those of you who do read this, I encourage you to think through the question and consider it carefully. Pray for your congregation and its leaders. Pray that the pressures of the state will decrease against the church. Don’t be afraid to talk with your church leaders about the matter. And seek to live your own life, insofar as you legitimately can, free from the tyranny of the state.

For a further consideration of the subject of flags and the church, this article written from a Canadian Reformed perspective is well worth reading.

That Plato Was a Clever One

A little something for the Classical scholars out there:

Manchester historian deciphers hidden 'Plato Code'

Note this statement from Dr. Jay Kennedy, who says he found the code:

"In ancient times, many of his followers said his writings were written in symbols; in modern times that was denied," he said. "So I've rediscovered that the Ancients were correct."

Just another case of the arrogance of Modernity.

I trust the "Plato Code" conforms to reality more than the "Bible Code" of a few years ago did. Ten bucks says this will be the subject of Dan Brown's next novel.

A Few Quick Shots: Music, the Bible, and Other Things I Always Talk About

Hits have been up here on the old blog, so to those of you who are visiting, I bid you a fond welcome. I have no idea why you're visiting, though, as no new comments have been posted in a couple of weeks. Nonetheless, your thoughts are always welcome on anything I put here, so feel free to offer them if you like.

Circumstances have been such that I haven't been able to write anything of substance in a while. Between work and the customary Summer yard upkeep, I've been fairly preoccupied. I hope, however, to get back in to writing before long, so keep checking back. In the meantime, in lieu of anything of substantial length, here are a couple of brief thoughts.

*****************************

As a guitarist, and a repentant former contemporary worship leader, one thing I spend a lot of time thinking about is music, both inside and outside of the church. Unfortunately, I find it's something that lots of people think much about, as they tend to be more concerned with the type of music used in worship than what the church they attend believes about most anything else. For most people, their pastor could be a rank heretic on any number of issues, and they would never know, let alone care. Hence, the number of professing Christians who think that preachers like Joel Osteen or T. D. Jakes should be listened to. But so long as the Evangelical church either avoids theology, or consistently apologizes whenever theology accidentally slips into a sermon or church life, this will remain a problem. Unless the church teaches and emphasizes the need to learn theology, most people won't seek it out.

Having said all this, music is something that must be considered, if one is to live life to the glory of God. After all, music is, like all things, a theological matter. One approach to the question of music I've never heard taken, though, has to do with maturity and music. If over my life I am called to mature as a person, which includes maturing as a Christian, one would expect that all areas of my life would be affected somehow by my maturity. That is, in fact, the case, though we don't usually think of it in those terms. We may listen to a certain style of music when we are young children, for instance, that we wouldn't when we are adults. But what happens if, as we grow older, our tastes in music don't change?

Let's say I was meeting a friend for lunch. As I pulled into the parking lot of our restaurant of choice, the friend were to approach my car, and hear what I had playing on the stereo: "The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...". Now I'm a single, thirty-six year old man. I have no children. Wouldn't the friend reasonably find this a bit disturbing?

This used to be more easily recognizable in American society. In years not-so-far-past, it would have been understood that a forty-year old man who was still listening to certain music of his youth, with his earring and his Bon Jovi t-shirt, was experiencing some measure of stunted growth. Yes, when I was sixteen, I thought "Ice Ice Baby" was an intriguing song with many layers of depth. But when I became a man, I put away childish things, and this is, I believe, connected somewhat to the graying of what little bit of hair I have left.

This is not to say that every song that has ever made it to pop radio is somehow of the devil, or that it would a sin for me to listen to any of it at this point in my life. Some top forty hits of days of yore still make onto my stereo. Simon & Garfunkel, Jim Croce, Dwight Yoakam, Buck Owens - and more recent ones like Brad Paisley and Norah Jones - all get the occasional spin. But they get mixed in with Bach and Vivaldi now. And were the temptation to break out New Edition's "Cool It Now" to kick in, I'd become very concerned.

*******************************

I have a very basic philosophy when it comes to Scripture: God wrote a really long, complicated book, and He calls me to do my best to learn it and to live it out. And if 2 Timothy 3:16 is true (and it is), then that includes all those verses I can't make sense of yet. True love not only pursues, but also gives the one it loves something to pursue. And because God loves us, He didn't put everything on the low-hanging branches where it's easy to reach. The fact that we think everything in Scripture should be simple to get a hold of finds manifestation in other areas of our lives as well. If we aren't willing to pursue God through His Word, should we be surprised if our other relationships, such as marriage, fall apart as well?

Gaelic Psalm Singing

A short, beautiful video from the homeland of my forebears. Those familiar with Appalachian music, especially Appalachian church music, will recognize the similarities with the Psalm singing heard here.

"Avatar" Review by Brian Godawa

The latest issue of the Christian Research Journal features a great review/analysis of "Avatar" by screenwriter and critic Brian Godawa. It's very insightful, thorough, and well-written. The article isn't available on the CRI website, but you can probably pick up a copy at your local Barnes & Noble or Borders, or order it directly from CRI:

http://journal.equip.org/issues/avatar-a-postmodern-pagan-myth

The Life of John Calvin, by Theodore Beza: a Book Review

The Life of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Evangelical Press, 1997, 144 pgs.


Of all the significant figures in Church history, probably none has been more maligned and misrepresented than John Calvin. One of the key leaders of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, his impact has been far broader than most people, and than even most Christians, realize. And yet he has been the subject of endless criticism, even to the present day, by non-Christians as well as professing Christians, including those who are heirs of Calvin's work, though those individuals may never know.

One of the things a person learns upon reading Theodore Beza's "The Life of Calvin" is that many of the same accusations that have been leveled at Calvin since he lived were also leveled at him during his own life. Written and published just a few months after Calvin's death, Beza's treatment of Calvin's life was clearly designed in part as a response to those who would paint Calvin in a negative light. This is especially evident in the last chapter of the book, where Beza specifically seeks to answer several mischaracterizations of Calvin.

Beza's defense of Calvin was something that I found very refreshing about the book. The most common approach to biography in our day is that of postmodern deconstruction, where it is the tendency to reject the notion of true heroes, to reject the idea that people of good character can exist. Biographers today focus much on bringing out the flaws of their subjects, and question the claims of integrity made by those who were close to the individuals in their lifetimes. Sometimes this is understandable. A biography is one person's viewpoint, after all, and not infallible. Yet the degree to which such skepticism is taken is often quite hilarious, and does little more than show the arrogance of modern commentators for what it is. Aside from this dubious approach, we have in the case of Calvin plenty of reason to accept Beza's presentation of him as a righteous man. Along with Beza's testimony, we have the testimony of others who were close to Calvin, who confirm the truth of what Beza said of him. And if that weren't enough, we have Calvin's own writings and sermons, and all the fruit of his labours, which to this day continue to be an unspeakable blessing in the Church, in Western culture, and in the world.

A few other things stood out to me in particular as I read this book, so let me highlight them in brief.

First, Calvin was a man who recognized his own flaws. In contrast to those who would portray Calvin as self-righteous, he clearly saw himself as a sinner, and noted his own mistakes openly. That said, he was a godly man, and sincere in his efforts to serve God and His people. He was not one who sought to tyrannize others, as he is often represented as being, but rather gave all of his time and efforts for the good of God's people.

Second, he was a man of a weak constitution and poor health. Beza considers this to be partly a result of Calvin's own nature, but also of his tireless service for the Church. Calvin slept little, which no doubt contributed to his many illnesses and led to his early death. In spite of his lack of sleep and poor health, he continued diligently in his duties as pastor and theologian, slowing down as little as possible. He dealt with a number of ailments, such as migraines, gout, and an irregular digestive system. He consequently ate little, limiting himself to one small meal a day, and it was not uncommon for him to go up to forty-eight hours without eating at all. On a personal note, I must say that I find this quite comforting, having my own health problems that plague me regularly.

Calvin also dealt constantly with spiritual attacks against the Reformed Church. Some came from outside of Geneva, especially from the Roman Church. And yet also there were constantly those who sought to undermine the Reformed doctrine who maintained no connection to Rome. In particular, there were many who attacked the doctrine of the Trinity. Much of Beza's work is focused on this aspect of life in Geneva. The most famous person in connection with Calvin to teach heresy about the Trinity is, of course, Michael Servetus, but he was far from the only one. Many were banished from Geneva by the city officials (of which Calvin was not one) for publicly teaching against the Christian faith. Calvin fought through all of this, defending God's Word and His Church from all who would seek to tear it apart.

Lastly, I would like briefly to address the matter of Servetus. If one portion of Calvin's life is brought up to discredit him more than any other, it is this one. Servetus was a well-known heretic in Europe. In fact, he was so well known that the Roman Church already had him in their sights, and would have put him to death for his false teachings, had they been able to get their hands on him. Calvin is often saddled with the blame for Servetus's death, but nothing could be further from the truth.

For one thing, most people would criticize the idea that heretics should be put to death at all. Whatever one might think about this, it was not uncommon, as Beza notes, to put to death not only heretics, but also adulterers, in Germany and Switzerland at that time. To treat Geneva as if it were some sort of unique case in this is historic dishonesty. But in my mind it raises a fundamental problem to the way we think in our time. Basically, the question is this: which is worse, the temporal death of one man, or the eternal death of many? So long as a heretic is allowed to live, he is leading others to Hell with him. We think that Christianity is a relationship that is essentially divorced from doctrine. A person may deny the Trinity, we think, but he still has a relationship with Jesus, and that's what matters. But that is contrary to Scripture. If one denies an essential aspect of the true God, then it is no longer the true God he worships, but a false god - he no longer has any hope of salvation, unless he repents. And so doctrine matters, and eternally so. In the economy of God, it would be better to put to death one obstinate heretic than to allow him to lead others away from God and to eternal death.

Beza makes it clear that both he and Calvin saw the death of Servetus as appropriate. That said, Calvin had done everything he could to prevent it from happening. Before even going to Geneva, Servetus had written to Calvin to tell him he was coming. Calvin promptly wrote him back, telling him not to come, and warning him that he would certainly be arrested and punished by the civil authorities if he did. But Servetus ignored his advice, and went to Geneva anyway. In his trial, Servetus was tried and convicted on charges of heresy, and condemned to be burned at the stake. Calvin petitioned for a lighter sentence, and requested that Servetus's execution be by beheading, therefore much less painful. The court ignored Calvin's request. And even just hours before Servetus's execution, Calvin visited him in his cell and begged with him to reconsider his views, that his life might be spared. Philip Schaff notes this in his multi-volume set "The History of the Christian Church". Servetus, of course, did not change, and was put to death.

I don't expect that many who read this will find themselves in sympathy with Calvin on these things. We are creatures of our time, and our time teaches us that the most important question to ask is, "why can't we all just get along?" Yet to allow ourselves to dismiss all of Calvin's teaching and work because of this one situation shows ourselves to be hypocritical. There is no one person that we have learned from in our lives of whom we couldn't find some aspect of their life that we would consider odious. In addition, the only way to properly critique those of another time and place is in humility. Whether we agree or disagree with him over the Servetus affair, his life overall was one of godliness, and his teaching was characterized by a sincere love for God and His Church. Few of us today could come close to him. And so it is on this basis that both Calvin's life and work are worthy of our consideration.

End Times Fiction, by Gary DeMar: a Book Review

Though its popularity has been waning in recent years, Dispensationalism remains the most commonly held view of the end times in the church. Thankfully, this is gradually changing, in part due to the work of theologians like Gary DeMar. Published in 2001, DeMar wrote "End Times Fiction" at the height of the "Left Behind" craze, the hugely bestselling Dispensationalism fiction series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins. Since then, the series has ended, though it continues to sell well, and though Lahaye, the theological side of the writing duo, has gone on to write other works on the subject of the end times. "End Times Fiction", as originally published, has gone out of print, though an updated version entitled "Left Behind: Separating Fact From Fiction" is available from American Vision, Gary DeMar's ministry.

"End Times Fiction" is a critique of the theology of the "Left Behind" series, otherwise known as Dispensationalism. Many books have been written to critique Dispensationalism, most of which are very well done, and which have served the Church well. DeMar's book, however, takes a different tact than the rest. Drawing specific passages out of the "Left Behind" books, DeMar sets out the teachings of the books clearly and then offers a Biblical critique.

One of the things I like about "End Times Fiction" is that it is one of the most accessible treatments of Dispensational Eschatology that I have read. Being focused on the "Left Behind" novels and the teaching contained in them, the reader has a specific reference point by which to understand DeMar's critiques. DeMar expands his critiques beyond the "Left Behind" books though, bringing in Lahaye's other writings on the subject, as well as the writings of other prominent Dispensationalist teachers. DeMar's book is also quite thorough. Having just finished the book, I can't think of any aspect of the "Left Behind" series that he overlooked.

DeMar is a Partial Preterist, so his critiques toward Dispensationalism are coupled with explanations of specific passages from a Partial Preterist perspective. In so doing, DeMar offers a sound explanation of Scripture's teaching on passages that are typically assigned to the end times. I especially found his detailed consideration of Matthew 24 to be helpful here. He shows how the chapter is to be understood as relating to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and he does so without getting caught up in the sort of minutiae that often distracts theologians. At only 232 pages, the fact that the book deals with so many issues in such a short space, and so completely at that, is quite impressive.

In closing, I have nothing but praise for this book. For anyone whose only knowledge of the end times comes from what they've learned in the Evangelical church, or from the "Left Behind" series, I would highly recommend it.

J. Gresham Machen, on Not Pitting Life and Doctrine Against Each Other

The New Testament gives not one bit of comfort to those who separate faith from knowledge, to those who hold the absurd view that a man can trust a person about whom he knows nothing. What many men despise today as "doctrine" the New Testament calls the gospel; and the New Testament treats it as the message upon which salvation depends.

But if that be so, if salvation depends on the message in which Christ is offered as Saviour, it is obviously important that we should get the message straight. That is where Christian scholarship comes in. Christian scholarship is important in order that we many tell the story of Jesus and His love straight and full and plain.

At this point, indeed, an objection may arise. Is not the gospel a very simple thing, it may be asked; and will not its simplicity be obscured by too much scholarly research? The objection springs from a false view of what scholarship is; it springs from the notion that scholarship leads a man to be obscure. Exactly the reverse is the case. Ignorance is obscure; but scholarship brings order out of confusion, places things in their logical relations, and makes the message shine forth clear.

There are, indeed, evangelists who are not scholars, but scholarship is necessary to evangelism all the same. In the first place, though there are evangelists who are not scholars, the greatest evangelists, like the Apostle Paul and like Martin Luther, have been scholars. In the second place, the evangelists who are not scholars are dependent upon scholars to help them get their message straight; it is out of a great underlying fund of Christian learning that true evangelism springs.

That is something that the Church of our day needs to take to heart. Life, according to the New Testament, is founded upon truth; and the attempt to reverse the order results only in despair and in spiritual death. Let us not deceive ourselves, my friends. Christian experience is necessary to evangelism; but evangelism does not consist merely in the rehearsal of what has happened in the evangelist's own soul. We shall, indeed, be but poor witnesses for Christ if we can tell only what Christ has done for the world or for the Church and cannot tell what he has done personally for us. But we shall also be poor witnesses if we recount only the experiences of our own lives. Christian evangelism does not consist merely in a man's going about the world saying: "Look at me, what a wonderful experience I have how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit; you can all be as good and as happy as I am if you will just make a complete surrender of your wills in obedience to what I say." That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is. We can preach the gospel, they tell us, by our lives, and do not need to preach it by our words. But they are wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of our glorious Christian virtues; they are not saved by the contagion of our experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach to them thus only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ; for it is only through the gospel which sets Him forth that they can be saved.

If you want health for your souls, and if you want to be the instruments of bringing health to others, do not turn your gaze forever within, as though you could find Christ there. Nay, turn your gaze away from your own miserable experiences, away from you own sin, to the Lord Jesus Christ as He is offered to us in the gospel. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." Only when we turn away from ourselves to that uplifted Saviour shall we have healing for our deadly hurt.

- "The Importance of Christian Scholarship", found in Education, Christianity, and the State, pp. 19-21

BP and the Gulf Oil Spill: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

So today BP apparently admitted that far more oil is spilling into the Gulf than they have been estimating. Here's a link to the Associated Press article on the matter:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9FQPKC00

The question that will be on many people's minds will be to what degree BP has simply not been coming clean about the matter (pardon the pun). This brought to mind the following passage on the attempts at cover-up that came in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, from William Lutz's 1996 book The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone's Saying Anymore:


When the oil tanker Exxon Valdez hit the rocks in Prince William Sound in Alaska, a lot more than crude oil flowed. Faced with such a monumental environmental disaster, the folks at Exxon swallowed hard, bit the bullet, and proceeded to clean everything up with doublespeak.

As the residents complained of polluted beaches and the slow to nonexistent cleanup, the executives at Exxon were calling almost thirty-five miles of beaches in Alaska "environmentally clean" and "environmentally stabilized." but then maybe they never bothered to actually visit the beaches and look at them. Paul Nussbaum, a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, did walk on the beaches that had been declared clean or stabilized and found that they were "still covered with oil. They glisten in the sun, slick with crude. Wipe any stone and come away with a handful of oil. Beneath each rock is a pool of uncollected sludge. In the shallow pools created by the outgoing tide, minnow-sized fish swim beneath rainbows of oil sheen." The reporter for Newsweek magazine walked the same beaches and found "the rocks were gritty, sticky and dark brown. Droplets of spray formed beads on the surface, as they would on waxed paper." But that didn't bother Otto Harrison, Exxon's general manager of the Valdez cleanup operations, because he had a whole new definition of the word "clean": Clean "doesn't mean every oil stain is off every rock.... It means that the natural inhabitants can live there without harm." In a twelve-minute film shown during the Exxon shareholders' meeting, the narrator of the film described the Prince William shoreline as "the so-called beaches, mainly piles of dark, volcanic rock." In its press releases, Exxon stopped referring to the beaches as being "cleaned" but called them "treated."

This is a very effective form of doublespeak. Exxon has simply redefined a common word and used it the way it wants to. (pp. 134-135)


Complete "transparency" (the word in vogue these days) from either the U.S. government or BP in this situation is probably too much to expect. More than likely, the coming months will see the doublespeak flowing about as freely as the oil is now, just as in the Exxon Valdez spill. Of course, that will be, for both parties involved in the current crisis, just business as usual.

America Alone, by Mark Steyn: a Book Review

Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" originally came out in 2006, and if I remember correctly, that's the year I started reading it. In between reading other books, I've picked it back up and read a few pages at a time, determined at some point to finish it. And since 2006, we've moved from a Republican Bush presidency to a Democratic Obama presidency - a significant shift, considering the book revolves around the place of the U.S. government in international relations. Yet despite this and other changes, Steyn's book (which I've finally finished) still remains largely relevant to current events.

Steyn's thesis is essentially that Islam is a real threat to the Western world, and unless it is resisted, in particular by the United States, the formerly Christian West will become the new Islamic West. He discusses how Muslims, rather than taking over Europe first and foremost through acts of violence, have gradually moved into Europe, and simply outgrown native Europeans by having lots of children. In the meantime, native Europeans have decreased in population by failing to "be fruitful and multiply", a symptom of their post-Christian mindset. He does document, however, the numerous acts of violence that have been conducted by Muslims, and notes the practice of the Leftist Western media in generally covering up the peculiarly religious nature of this violence.

He goes on to discuss the failure of the democratic-socialist state in the West, and how it has amassed debt beyond what future generations can reasonably pay, particularly in light of his first point regarding population decline. And lastly, he discusses how the democratic-socialist state has created a sense of ennui in Western countries, making its older and largely childless citizens ripe for the picking by its idealistic and youthful counterparts found in Islam.

There are a number of positive points to Steyn's book. He highlights in no uncertain terms the fact that Islam at its heart is a violent, intolerant religion. While it's true that there are many Muslims in the world who would never think of harming their non-Muslim neighbors, for them to behave that way is inconsistent with their professed faith. The goal of Islam is world conquest, and while having babies is one good way of accomplishing this, so is violent jihad, as the Koran clearly teaches. Steyn convinced me that Islam is a genuine threat, and I believe his analysis of it is largely correct.

His three points, concerning population decline in the West, the incredible debt of the democratic-socialist state, and its failure to create energetic and motivated citizens, are right on target.

I do have a couple of caveats about his arguments, though. For one, Steyn is a bit more of a Neoconservative than I am. I am not so convinced to the degree he is that it is the United States' duty to police the world. I can see some argument for alliances with other countries, though I am hesitant about even that. And even so, there have been huge problems with the way the U. S. has gone about doing it in the past century. Ron Paul, in the collection of speeches found in his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom", given before the U. S. House of Representatives between 1976 and 2006, has provided many illustrations of how the U. S. has repeatedly bumbled its involvement with those countries it has made treaties with, made evident once the bullets started flying. We have often found ourselves supplying troops to one side of a war, and supplying arms to the other side, all because we foolishly entered into treaties with both parties at some time prior to the war in question. We call this "keeping the world free" and "maintaining peace", and yet tyranny and warfare remain. Why the idea that it may be best to just get out of the way never occurs to us is beyond me. This said, I do not entirely know what approach the U. S. should take in driving back Islam, if any, in other countries throughout the world. I do know that I'm not as gung-ho about our intervention in other countries as Steyn is, as we have made more than our share of messes by this approach. So this is an ongoing question for me, and one which Steyn did not help resolve, as he provides relatively little in the way of positive solutions..

Secondly, while I appreciate Steyn's assessment of the condition of post-Christian Europe, I believe he leaves out a couple key factors in considering what may best stop the spread of Islam. Steyn's work is not theological in nature, so one can't exactly expect him to adequately address elements related to the Church. And yet the key cause of the failure of European society is the Church. Wherever the Church goes, the culture follows. When we obey God, then we are blessed, and, incidentally, so are those around us who are not Christians. Those who long for a non-religious State are simply fooling themselves. Everything is by nature religious, including the State. If the State doesn't make Christianity its religion, then some other religion will rush in to fill the vacuum. If the Church in Europe can recover itself, then perhaps Europe will not turn out to be as far gone as it might seem.

My last point relates to this, and that is to point out that Steyn does not take into account the Providence of God. He is the one ultimately Who raises up some nations and puts others down. He can turn whole people groups by His willing it alone. Now it is true that He normally works through the agency of man, and so the best way to assure that Europe be saved from utter disaster would be for Christian men everywhere to repent and return to God. And so the future of Europe as Steyn paints it isn't a foregone conclusion. We can still hold out hope that God will have mercy upon Europe (and the U. S.), and draw us all in repentance back to Himself.

All in all, this is a very good book. Steyn is a clever, witty, and engaging writer. And, all caveats to the side, it is well worth the read.

The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis: A Book Review

An acquaintance a number of years ago told me that C. S. Lewis's "The Abolition of Man" was "the toughest little book" he had ever read. Having now read it myself, I would have to say the same. Subtitled "Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools", it was originally three lectures on the subject of education that Lewis gave in the early 1940's. And yet the essays go far deeper matter than that of education, to the question of epistemology. One way to categorize it would be as a defense of Classical Thought, as over against Modernist Thought. Another way to look at it would be as defending Objective Truth, as over against Subjectivism. Or, it can be described as a defense of Natural Law, or Natural Philosophy, as opposed to Relativism.

As I already implied, I found the book to be some tough slogging. I took my time and tried to understand each passage before I moved on, but there are a few brief places that will require re-reading, now that I've finished the book, if I'm ever going to understand them. Anyone who only knows Lewis from "The Chronicles of Narnia", "The Screwtape Letters", or even "Mere Christianity", will likely find themselves baffled, unless they have some background in philosophy. In short, Lewis is arguing that the purveyors modern thought, whether knowingly or unknowingly, undermine what is true, good, and beautiful, as well as the love of such things. Lewis argues that these things exist in the absolute, and that they were found among the Classical cultures. Without them, all cultures, all civilizations, fall into ruin.

Lewis is brilliant in his argumentation, as usual, even though at times I don't agree with him. And that takes me to the place of critique. If I have one major criticism of the book, it's that Lewis makes no attempt to defend the uniqueness of Christianity, as over against the other religions of the world. Now it's certain that Lewis believed the only way of salvation was through Jesus Christ, as he made apparent in some of his other writings, such as "Mere Christianity". And yet he seemed to allow for the possibility of those who never heard the Gospel to be saved, if they were faithful to their own religion. One thinks of Emeth the young Calormene in "The Last Battle" as an example. (The fact that he is named "Emeth", the Hebrew word for "truth", was no accident on Lewis's part.) Lewis is here simply following a more Catholic notion of Natural Theology, so it isn't as if his approach has no precedent here. And yet such an approach seems to me to clearly contradict certain passages of Scripture, such as Romans 1-3, as well as the clear treatment of the "gods" of the nations in the Old Testament.

In addition, Lewis cites a number of examples of "the Tao" (his word for Natural Law, an unfortunate choice, I think) in the writings of philosophers and theologians from various cultures and religions throughout the Classical world. While there are abundant similarities, there are plenty of contrasts that, though the book isn't designed to address them, still seem to me too great to simply brush past. Stoics are cited right next to the Gospel of John, as if Holy Scripture's teaching on self-denial is the same as Stoicism's. And statements from ancient Greek and Roman sources, teaching the notion of the supremacy of the State, are put side by side with statements about the primacy of the family, as if no contradiction between the two exist, let alone any contradiction with God's Word.

And all this leaves out the question of the existence of Natural Law itself. I must say that it is an issue I still need to work through. What exactly is meant by "Natural Law" anyway? Lewis attempts to define it, but the length of the book (that is, the length of the lecture time) didn't really allow Lewis to expound on that question, in my opinion, to the degree it needs to be. In addition, there is often confusion over what exactly is meant by "Objective Truth", a question brought up occasionally in our Postmodern (so-called) context. Does "Objective" mean that I have the ability as a human to get outside of a situation and judge it without any motive whatsoever? Lewis would seem to answer "No." In one of the better portions of the book, Lewis teaches that the affections, or the desires, are not neutral. Therefore they must be trained. Part of a good "education" (to use the word differently than we typically mean it - that is, to use it the right way) is to train the appetites and the emotions. We are to love and desire that which is good, and that is something that can be taught. In fact, it must be taught, or else all other attempts to "teach" are in vain.

So to sum up, and in spite of the negatives, this is a brilliant book, and a worthy read. Proceed with caution, and prepare to have your mind rattled.

A Brief Act of Shameless Self-promotion

I found out last night that I now have my own entry on the Internet Movie Database site, for a couple of tracks I did for a short film called "Castle Hayne", made by Subcreations Productions. I also did a couple of pieces for a short film called "Juniper and Lamplight", also by Subcreations Productions. I don't imagine my brief stints into the world of movie music will result in a burgeoning career as a "composer" (my official title on IMDB). Nonetheless, it's a nice bit of fun, and I certainly would entertain the thought of any other requests that came my way.

Clash of the Titans - A Movie Review (So-Called)

First, let me say that I made a mistake of glancing at a review of "Clash of the Titans" by Brian Godawa before going to see it today, so what I'm about to write will be partly derivative and responsive to him.

There are a few commonly-known observations I could make about the movie up front. For one, it's a remake of the 1981 movie of the same name. Both, of course, are more or less based on the ancient Greek myth of Perseus. For those who have seen the old film, as well as the trailer for the new film, it will be apparent that some of the cheesiness of the original has been dispensed with. That, of course, is a welcome change.

The new movie itself is just under two hours long. For those who aren't conscious of such things, let me note for you that this generally means you should expect minimal character development. This is especially true of action films, which tend to suffer in that area to begin with. And it is true of this film. The audience is expected to believe that, after knowing each other for only a few days (or forty-five minutes, depending on how you want to time it), there is supposed to be some sort of deep, abiding bond between the heroes. Kind of like those really close, long-lasting relationships you still have with all those people you spent a week at summer camp with as a kid. The standard movie tricks are utilized in an attempt to deceive the audience this way, deep abiding stares and the like. Whether or not the general public will find all this convincing I don't know - I know I didn't.

The short time span of the film also indicates the fact that one can expect constant action. I didn't time them, but I would guess the breaks in action couldn't have been more than sixty seconds each. So for every action scene, that's two dead brain cells per second, times sixty seconds per minute...

The CGI and cinematography were beautiful, and that is one plus that the film had. And the endless aforementioned action scenes were at least entertaining, if not contributing to the intellectual depth of the viewer. The film had a particularly dark cast to it, much like the Lord of the Rings films. In fact, the was much here that reminded one of the Lord of the Rings films - or, rather, seemed like a deliberate imitation thereof. Minus, that is, nine or ten hours of movie time that allowed for conversation, travel, character development, etc. All the stuff that made Lord of the Rings convincing and interesting, in other words.

Brian Godawa noted in his review that the theme of the film is Humanism, and he is correct. Mankind has grown angry with the gods, but the gods have brought judgment on mankind for failing to offer their worship to them. And the answer is supposed to come in one who is half-man, half-god, namely Perseus. Whether this is supposed by the film makers to be a bastardization of the two natures of Christ one can only speculate. Godawa notes a line by Zeus at the end of the film, in which he says, "I wanted men to worship me. But I didn't want it to cost me a son." He suggests that was intended to be a clear contrast with Christianity. Perhaps it was. But demigods were a part of ancient Greek myth, and Perseus was a demigod in Greek mythology, and the actual son of Zeus. So to suppose that the film makers intended that as a slap in the face of Christianity is a conclusion one can't fully come to. Nonetheless, there do seem to be clear indications that portions of the film were shaped by modern notions of religious fundamentalism, and especially Christian Fundamentalism. The portrayal of organized religion in particular in the film has an especially modern (or postmodern) feel to it, and clearly suggests that religious institutions are untrustworthy, and filled with fools and con-artists. That this is a common view today, held by those who claim to be Christians, and those who don't, should be well-known. As a side note, I personally recognize the failures of the church, and know her leaders aren't perfect. And anyone who knows me is aware that I am more than happy to offer critiques of the church where I think it's appropriate to do so. But when I run across people who know little Scripture, little church history, and little theology, who then attempt to critique the church, my patience runs thin with them. Such people generally shouldn't be listened to. This not only characterizes my reaction to people I talk to who are like this, but my reaction to this film as well. It struck me as a particularly ignorant critique of organized religion. The sad thing is that with the ignorance of the average viewer, the critique will be effective, and will contribute to the further idolatry of self, of Humanism, in our society.

In the end, Perseus rejects an offer to dwell among the gods rather than men. The gods are not really needed, it seems. Or make that organized religion. "Imagine there's no heaven...."

Lastly, I would like to note Liam Neeson's role as Zeus in this film. Now that he's played Aslan (the Christ figure), and Zeus, I think he should continue to increase his deity resume. I would recommend sending him to India, and letting him play Lord Vishnu in some Bollywood film. While he's gone, perhaps another actor could fill in as Aslan in the next Narnia film - someone with a less wimpy voice.

So the film was fun, but watch out for the worldview. That's the short of it. I'll give it three stars out of five for the entertainment value alone, but I'm being generous - that thing those of us in that organized religion called "Christianity" do.