The Wasted Summer of ‘08: Some Read, but I Watch Movies

I’ve seen a few movies over the last few weeks since my last movie “review”, but haven’t taken the time to comment on them. Let me begin to do that now.

My last movie post was right after I had seen WALL-E and Hancock. A few days after that, I pulled another double at the theater, first seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth.

I knew nothing about the movie in advance. I knew it bore the title of the Jules Verne classic, and so I assumed it was based off of the book, though I thought maybe this film was the book done in a modern setting. As it turn out, this wasn’t exactly the case.

Here’s the gist of it. A seismologist (played by Brendan Fraser) is carrying on the legacy of his deceased brother, also a seismologist. During the visit of his brother’s son, he and his nephew end up traveling to an area of newly discovered seismic activity, meet a mountain guide who takes them to their desired location, where they fall into and find their way out of the center of the earth. Along the way it is learned that the deceased seismologist was a Vernian, one who believed that the center of the earth as portrayed by Verne in his famous book was actually true.

That’s the short of it, and it really deserves little explication beyond this. The movie was in 3-D, and when I visited my local theater, I was informed that they didn’t have 3-D capability. I had my mind set on seeing it, so I did, though after seeing it I wish I had just gone to a theater that was set up for 3-D. Much of the movie was set up to be a cinematic thrill ride, and without the 3-D, the thrill ride was more of a walk in the park.

So far as content goes, I might begin by saying that this movie was created by Walden Media, the same folks who brought us the horrible film renderings of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Prince Caspian. They didn’t do much better with Journey. Brendan Fraser, while I haven’t seen many of his movies, is an actor that I always find less than convincing. The first two Mummy movies were enjoyable, but not exactly high drama. The only movie he was in that I really enjoyed a lot was Looney Toons: Back in Action. (Maybe it’s just having grown up with Bugs Bunny & friends, but I could watch that movie over and over again.) Fraser was his typical character here, drifting between irresponsible goof and action hero. The other actors were unfamiliar to me. They were reasonably interesting, though they weren’t good enough to make the movie all that impressive.

Being from Walden Media, the film was touted as a family film. It was a clean film, though there were a couple of moments that I wish had been left out. As the seismologist and his nephew are hiking with their female mountain guide, the nephew pronounces, “I have dibbs on the mountain guide.” Fraser’s character responds, “I have dibbs on the mountain guide. You’re only thirteen. You don’t get dibbs on the mountain guide.” Later these statements are revealed to the woman, who responds, “Nobody gets dibbs on the mountain guide.” The fact that even the adult male protaganist in the movie is presented as one who would see a woman as something to “get dibbs on” is disturbing, and it doesn’t belong in a family film. But the presence of a woman requires some romance, of course. This comes about in a stereotypical scene in which Fraser’s character is about to risk his life to save his nephew, and the female character plants a good-bye kiss on him, for fear that she might never see again this man that she just met and barely knows. The two are shown embracing in the final scene of the movie, as if we are supposed to believe that they lived happily ever after. To say these present a faulty understanding of male-female relations and of courtship is to say the least, though I’ve come not to expect Walden Media to understand that.

Then there was the gradual undressing of the adult characters of the movie. The center of the earth gradually increases in temperature while they are there, and this results in the characters being nearly down to their skivies by the end of the thing. Now this is logical considering the plotline of the movie, and I don’t think that normally I would have noticed, had it not been for the scene in which Fraser’s character, protecting the life of the mountain guide, gets a sleeve of his shirt torn off by a giant man eating Venus Fly Trap. After defeating the plant and saving the woman, he responds by reaching up and tearing the other sleeve off, as if he couldn’t carry on with such asymmetry. It was so blatant as to be laughable. I’m sure somewhere in Fraser’s contract a clause was included that required the exposure of his biceps. Once again, this isn’t really necessary in a family film.

The only other Walden Media film I’ve seen was Amazing Grace which, though I praised it when it came out, had its own problems, particularly in the areas of theology and historical accuracy. But considering the ones from them I have seen, I am struck by a thread that runs between the group of them, and that is the subject of faith and unbelief. This is particularly present in how it relates to the subject of imagination. If one follows the gospel according to Walden Media, it would seem that any worldview will work, so long as you have faith. The Bible could be true, or, for that matter, so could Jules Verne’s book. Now maybe this hasn’t been Walden Media’s intention. But I find the similarities between the films striking, and it makes me wonder. It is a matter I’m still mulling over, so I can’t add any more thoughts to this, though I would encourage the reader to think about it. And I would welcome any thoughts from those who may have seen any of Walden Media’s other films, particularly the more recent ones like Bridge to Teribithia, The Water Horse, and Nim’s Island.

The CGI was good. And the plotline had potential. But the movie was all about action and little about characters. Even the scene that was supposed to make you feel personally for the characters, that of the finding and burial of the deceased seismologist’s body, while well done and touching for me, wasn’t enough to salvage the movie. Part of the problem is a common one, and that is that the movie was too short. Then again, it was supposed to be a family movie, and I guess one can’t expect too much from a film aimed at appealling to the ten year old boy and the forty year old mother. Too much character over too long a period of time, and the ten year old boy will be wanting to hit the video game machines outside the theater.

So would I recommend the film? At this point I’m not sure what to say. It wasn’t horrible. And not being a parent, I’m at a loss to some degree when it comes to what is appropriate for what children at what ages. If you have a solid understanding of male-female relations in your family, it is something you practice everyday, and you’re prepared to talk the above mentioned aspects of the film over with your children afterward, then I imagine you’ll be safe. If you aren’t willing to do these things, then you have larger questions in you life than whether or not to go to the theater today.

After Journey, I stayed at the theater and saw Kit Kittredge: An American Girl. I felt rather awkward going to see it, being a single adult male and going to see a movie I wouldn’t make my son endure, if I had a son. But it seemed like a clean movie, the sort of movie as a Christian I’d like to encourage Hollywood (via money) to make. And I knew someone who had seen it and liked it, so I wanted to check it out. It turned out to be little more exciting than Journey.

The protaganist, Kit Kittredge, is a young girl who lives in Cincinatti during the Great Depression. We witness her neighbors, and then her own family, go through financial hardship, and we see how they interact with others as a result of their trials. Kit’s father loses his job and goes to New York to earn money for the family, leaving his wife to care for Kit. Kit’s mother takes in borders to make ends meet, which borders turn out to be a hodge podge of characters from all walks of life. The climax of the movie comes when some of the borders turn out to be thieves, and Kit and her friends participate in the exposure and capture of the criminals.

The movie seems innocent on the face of it. But the viewer soon finds himself (and his daughter, presumably) assaulted with all sorts of pluralistic and politically Leftist agendas. It was only after seeing the movie that I learned that Julia Roberts was executive producer for it, a fact which would have prepared me for the propaganda, had I been aware of it in advance. I should have done more research.

First there is the guilt mongering on the middle class. The world of which Kit’s family is a part sees itself as better than the scapegoats of the society, the hobos. The hobos of Kit’s time were the poor, many of which we learn were once doctors and lawyers, just like us, only thrust into the life of the hobo by an economic downturn. Middle class people, you see, always think they are better than the poor, and are arrogant and greedy. Of course, those of the lower class are never responsible for their poverty - laziness has nothing to do with it. And how big is Julia Roberts’s house?

The one exception is Kit’s family, though this view of the poor isn’t completely absent from her household. Her family is presented as journeying from being on the edge of middle class snootiness, to escaping it due to its financial crisis. Of course, self-righteousness is always wrong, no matter who holds it. But the fact that the movie is projecting this onto today’s middle class is an inescapable conclusion, and it is inaccurate.

We are made aware early on that the family is living during the time of the Presidency of that great Socialist, Franklin D. Roosevelt. When one cynical uncle expresses doubt about the New Deal, Kit’s father counters with unwavering hope in FDR’s socialist agenda. Of course, no one questions whether it may have been socialism that created the mess in the first place, or whether said socialism may simply continue to create economic problems thereafter, which, of course, has been the case. But when you have the wealth of Hollywood but ignorance of simple economics, a little raising of the taxes doesn’t affect you.

Then there is the anti-masculinity and gender bending of the film. One of the sweet little innocent hobo children of the film (an African-American child, incidentally. Only white people are allowed in the middle class, you see.) poses as a little boy throughout the film, only to be discovered to be a little girl at the end of the film. Protected by a slightly older hobo boy after her father has died, she poses as a little boy for safety. Adult men, it seems, may harm her, as only men are evil. One father, who goes to a larger city to find work, ends up leaving his family for good. Only men, you see, are unfaithful to their marriage vows. And at the beginning of the film, Kit has four female friends who are a part of her secret all-girl club, which meets in her tree house. Two of the girls are forced to move away, but by the end of the film they are replaced, by the rather weak boy of the father who disappeared on his family, and by the gender-confusing African American girl. You see, we’re all one world - black, white, straight, gender non-specific. Why can’t we all just get along? And our world would be so much better if women (or little girls, apparently) were running the clubhouse.

As I mentioned, thievery takes place, as three of the borders are found to be part of a local as well as regional crime spree. At the heart of the movie is the middle class bias against hobos. The hobos are just innocent people, apparently, as the actual thieves are middle class people posing as hobos. We meet, once again, the myth of the noble savage at work again, only slightly modified. People aren’t born sinners, it seems. It is civilization, and, inherently, wealth, that corrupts, not the heart of man. The thieves are two men and a woman, which may initially make one think that my assessment of the film’s view of men is skewed. But as we reach the climax of the movie, we see the female thief “come to her senses” and aid in the capture of the other two thieves. Men, it seems, are incurable sinners, whereas women can actually change their ways when they are wrong.

The ending is a tear-jerking moment (though no tears were jerked from me) too closely akin to the ending of It’s a Wonderful Life to be legally permissible. Everybody “Comes Together” in an indiscriminatory pluralistic stew and celebrates as if they were Christians. Kit’s father, who has been away working in New York since early in the film, shows up at the door of the family’s home, his chistled, soap opera star face covered with a two day old beard (he’s been living poor in New York for weeks, and he’s only been unable to shave over the past two days?), and proclaims that he is home to stay, and that he will now find work in town. But as I recall, the reason he left for New York in the first place was that there was no work in town, and conditions haven’t changed. This is, of course, supposed to be a heart-warming “Daddy is home to stay” moment, and perfectly appropriate. In fact, one could draw plenty of Biblical analogies from it. But the logical inconsistencies with the plot are brazen, and while I suppose this wouldn’t be noticed by the little girl who is moved over the thought of Daddy being home, it is ridiculous to me. The writers could have cleaned this up much better. The result is sentimentalism triumphing over truth. But this is present throughout the film, so this scene, in that sense, is just consistent with the rest.

So the film ends where it begins, in transformative, Old Creation/New Creation, chiastic fashion, albeit a sentimentalistic, pluralistic chiastic fashion. It’s a classic case of pagans borrowing from Christians and then warping whatever they’ve borrowed. There are truths throughout the film that I would echo, even mixed in with the elements of the film I’ve highlighted. The problem is that they are marred by pagan thought, as I’ve also highlighted.

Aside from all of this, the film suffers, just like Journey, as a result of lack of depth. Once again, it is a children’s film, and this may have something to do with it. The acting is a little more convincing than some of what I’ve seen lately, and features an all-star cast. But it doesn’t make the film worth seeing.

So this should serve as a warning to Christians, especially Christian parents, everywhere. Just because a movie is “clean” (which usually means no sex, violence, profanity, drugs, or alcohol - as if these were the only sins in the world - thanks for nothing, Fundamentalism) doesn’t mean it’s good. Don’t waste your time or money on this one. Not only would it not be helpful to your children. I’d go so far as to say it would be harmful for them.

I’ve seen a couple of other movies since seeing these, but they’ll have to wait for another time.

Abortion and Civil Life

I am pro-life, and I am so because Holy Scripture forbids murder. The often overlooked aspect of the abortion debate is that it is part of a larger body of questions involving what human beings are. We bear the image of God in a way unique in all of creation. Because of this, we are called by God to treat all people, both the born and the unborn, with love.

In light of this, I am often amazed at how the key issues of civil life polarize people who, other than on the hot topics of the day, pretty much agree with one another on what is considered to be a permissible way to conduct one’s life. This is especially true in the area of sexual ethics. Take the issue of sex outside of marriage, for instance. It is common nowadays for people who are dating to live together. And yet the same people often will take a dogmatic stance against abortion. Often this is a result of growing up in a morally conservative environment which, here in the South, usually involves growing up in the church to some degree. Certainly, abortion is a much more serious issue than sleeping with someone to whom you aren’t married. But the root issue is the same. Both the woman who aborts her baby and the person who sleeps with someone to whom they aren’t married say, “I don’t care if it’s right or wrong. What I want is more important than whether it is good or evil.” Both sins violate the image of God in a person, seeing that person as an object to be used according to one’s own pleasure. It is only reasonable, then, that an abortion culture should grow out of a sexually immoral culture. The thing that the sexually immoral person doesn’t understand is that once you’ve headed down that road, you can’t stop the bus. You can’t say, “I only want this level of immorality to be allowed in society, but anything beyond this shouldn’t be allowed.” Sin is like the snowball rolling downhill - once it’s started rolling, you’ll eventually end up with an avalanche, unless you are able to stop the whole thing. And like an avalanche, it’s much easier to stop when it’s just a snowball.

Sasquatch claim wasn't worth squat

Well, it turns out the claims of a Bigfoot find were false. But it wasn't discovered until some Bigfoot hunters put up money to buy the "carcass". And the whereabouts of the finders of the "Bigfoot" are currently unknown. Not too surprising, huh? I found it hard to believe that someone would call a big news conference and make a false claim that they had found something like this. My naivete knows no bounds, I suppose. I have a tendency to forget that some people don't care about truth and integrity.

So what now? Will the liars live in the backwoods away from society for the rest of their lives, lest they get sued for every penny they have? Have they hopped a plane for another country? I'm not even sure what the legal situation is here. However they decided they would deal with things after the truth became known, I can't imagine they thought life would be enjoyable hereafter.

For those who saw the opening ceremony...

Do you remember those footprint-shaped fireworks that flashed across the sky during the opening ceremony of the Olympics? As it turns out, they were fake. They were actually computer-generated and added to the final cut before the ceremony, taped several hours earlier, was aired in the U.S. And you remember the excessively-cute little girl who sang the solo during the procession of the Chinese flag? She was actually lip syncing, and it wasn't even her voice on the recording. The little girl who actually sang the song didn't quite have the "cuteness" factor to represent China, it was decided. Some may not be bothered by such things, but I find it disappointing.

Scribblative Agincourting shutting down

Sadly, the Scribblative Agincourting blog is shutting down. And I just linked it in the sidebar a few weeks ago. I've barely spent any time there, so I guess I've got a lot of reading to do. If you haven't visited it, check it out while it's still up.

Yet Another Yeti Sighting; Or, My, What Big Feet You Have!

The latest claims of a Bigfoot find. Am I skeptical? Of course - very skeptical. But if these guys are lying, they’re doing it in an awfully public way. And if they’re telling the truth, they’re going to have to provide some serious evidence, i. e., the body they claim they have. And if they don’t provide the body for scrutiny, they have a miserable, heckled life ahead of them.

And in Georgia, on top of it. If it’s real, I’ll be sad that Flannery O’Connor isn’t alive to see it.

HT: gilgal

Socialised Gymnasts

During the women’s gymnastics events this evening, one of the NBC commentators made the statement that the Chinese women (at least, some of them) were taken from their parents when they were very young (as young as three) and sent away to schools where they immediately begin to train to be Olympic gymnasts. Realizing the possible reactions of any viewers that might have been paying attention to what he was saying, he immediately countered what he had just said by saying, “not that they were, you know, torn from their parents arms and taken away crying.” I’m sure, of course, he would have us to believe he has first hand experience of this. The truth of the matter, however, is that that is exactly how the average child would have been taken away in such a situation. But the Chinese system of dictating a child’s upbringing, while worse than the American system in the details, still works on the same principle as the American system, that of Socialism. We wouldn’t want our American sports commentators slipping up and criticizing American government education, even in a round about way, would we?

I found it interesting as I watched the interactions of the American female gymnasts with one another how they contrasted with the behaviour of the Chinese female gymnasts. The Americans were very affectionate with one another, quick to hug one another after they finished each event. The Chinese, on the other hand, rarely hugged one another, opting to “high five” each other instead. I think it can reasonably be argued that this is the detrimental result of living under a political system that sees all relationships as in competition with it, and which, as a result of seeing the deified State as the Highest Good, destroys families by separating them and removing children from the place where God intended them to learn a healthy sense of relationship and affection. Thankfully, our heritage has kept the incipient Socialism we deal with from creeping into our lives any more than it has, though it gains ground year after year.

Update: Berek, over on my Myspace blog, helpfully pointed out that hugging is not a standard means of friends expressing affection for one another in the Far East, and that therefore the absence of hugging didn't necessarily have anything to do with the affection felt between the gymnasts. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that this could be a mere cultural difference. Again, alas.

China, Greece, and Providence

The Summer Olympics in Beijing have begun, and I love it. With all the televised coverage that’s taking place, it makes one want to quit his job just to see it all. Alas, the bills won’t pay themselves.

Many are boycotting the Olympics this year, due to China’s horrendous human rights record. The Free Tibet movement tends to be a focus, though China’s involvement in the abuses in the Sudan have been noted as well. But the issue of Tibet is a cause celebre. With the ongoing Western fascination with Tibetan culture, Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, yoga, Eastern meditative practices, etc., I have a hard time not being a bit skeptical. Rarely does one find a person in the media who is as interested in any civil unrest one might find in the West. And I understand the interest. There is much beauty in Eastern cultures. But I fear that what is at play here is really a subtle Western paternalism (no matter how much those with such interest would like to escape said paternalism) and the ongoing myth of the noble savage. I believe the West has done lots of wrong. But I don’t believe we’re to blame for everything that’s gone wrong in the world. Tibetans are sinners, too. And I also sympathize with those who would like to see Tibet free. I’m in favour of seccession in principle, when it is the will of the people. But my opposition of Western paternalism is wrapped up with my opposition of American interventionism. It isn’t our duty to solve the world’s problems. This, again, is a theological problem. If we were to believe in the doctrine of Providence again, to which our founding fathers referred with such regularity that the word still passes us by without a thought as we read them, then we would trust God to work out the world’s problems when it isn‘t any of our business. Ours is essentially a Pelagian foreign policy.

Those who call for our government to “do something” about China and Tibet are just asking for a different form of Socialism. As I recall, Socialism in China is the problem.

So I won’t be boycotting the Olympics. If I had been called upon, through business or some other means, to participate in them in a more active way, such as attending them, I don’t know what decision I would have made. But so long as my involvement lies in nothing more than turning on the TV, I don’t expect any “boycotting” on my part would effect a political revolution in China. That will take place through the faithfulness of an estimated 60 million Christians in China, who worship God mainly underground, and through our prayer for them, in addition to any missionary activities we can carry out in aid to them. As the West continues to crumble, it will only be a matter of time before the East becomes the center of Christendom once again.

Also, I can’t help but wonder if exposing those in China to so many Westerners through the Olympics won’t actually be a benefit. Certainly, there’s much in the West that I hope the East never adopts, though Japan, sadly, seems to have already done so. Still, there’s a certain effectiveness to killing with kindness. Maybe, in a world shaped by the dictator, the last thing China needs is for the West to be dictatorial.

On a different note, why is Shaun White’s HP commercial getting so much airplay during the Summer Olympics? He’s strictly Winter Olympics, isn’t he? Somebody help me out here.

Today, of course, was the Sabbath, and I was successful in resisting the temptation to waste away in front of the Olympics all day. As a Sabbatarian, one of my personal commitments is to stay away from commercial TV on the Lord’s Day (though I’ve never sworn any sort of oath along these lines). The commercial aspect, combined with the belief that the Lord’s Day should be preserved for worship, study, and rest, lead me to this practice. As early as last night, as I looked on the NBC website at the TV schedule, I began to wrestle with the decision of how to handle today. And I’m not joking when I say that the case of Eric Liddell came to mind. As popularized in Chariots of Fire, God honored Liddell when Liddell honored the Lord’s Day. But would God still have been honoring Liddell if He hadn’t let him win the Men’s 400 meter race? Yes, though one might get the impression from the movie that if we obey God that we’ll always come in first place in whatever we attempt in this world. God honored Liddell through a blessed career as a missionary in China, and the underground church in China is one way in which God has chosen to honor Eric Liddell. The blood of the martyrs is indeed the seed of the church.

So God honored me today with a three hour nap, which I needed much more than I needed to watch the Olympics. I did go out and take a brief walk around the neighborhood late this afternoon. Liddell (in the movie, at least) said he felt God’s pleasure when he ran. I wish I could say I felt God’s pleasure when I walked, but instead I only felt a pain in my right foot that wasn’t there when I started out the door. I trust the Lord was pleased with me nonetheless. After all, the reality of God’s blessing rarely consists in how one feels.

Those who missed the opening exercises of the Olympics missed a treat. The amount of time and money put into the display was well worth it, so far as the rest of the world goes. Here the boycotters of the Olympics, however, may have a point. “How much better would it be if that money were used for the needs of the poor throughout China?” they would say. Nonetheless, I am reminded of the occasions when two different women (this appears to have happened twice - see Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12) anointed Jesus with a very expensive flask of oil, and the disciples considered this to be a waste, as the ointment could have been sold and the money used to feed the poor. (In the case of Judas, in John 12, we are told that his real motivation was one of greed, though we are not told that this is the motivation of the other disciples.) Jesus’s answer is one of eschatology. “The poor,” He says, “you always have with you, but me you don’t. These women are anointing my body for burial.” But the question is, did these women know that’s what they were doing, or did they see their actions merely as an act of worship? It could be that they had listened to Jesus’s teaching so well that they knew He was about to die, and that this was their reason. If so, then we have a lot to learn from them about redemptive-historical hermeneutics - would that we were so understanding of Jesus’s teaching! Nonetheless, my assumption has always been that this was simply an act of worship on their part, as they were being led by the Spirit, and that God Providentially worked these things out to have eschatological significance.

I am also reminded of Jane Dempsey Douglass’s foreword to Paul Corby Finney’s book Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition. The book shows and discusses the tradition of the visual arts as they emerged out of the Calvinistic wing of the Protestant Reformation. Part of Calvin’s commitment to simplicity in worship, notes Douglass, is born out of his concern for good stewardship. It is inappropriate for the church to be ostentatious in its décor, thought Calvin, while the city is full of poor people. This was particularly felt in Geneva in Calvin’s day, a city that had its share of those who were poor. Douglass also seems to imply that part of the issue was the church’s image to those outside of her. If the church is “wasting” money on visual arts, while those right outside the church doors are starving, then why would those who don’t believe have any interest in knowing this God that the church purports to represent?

I haven’t actually read Calvin on this, so I am merely basing my thoughts off of Douglass’s words. And I’m not fully aware of the situation in Geneva at the time. Also, I don’t doubt the behaviour of the Roman Church at the time influenced Calvin’s thought to some degree (I am thinking particularly of the events surrounding the fundraising for and building of St. Peter‘s Basilica). But while I believe there is something to Calvin’s idea here, I think it may be a bit overstated. There are certainly those who are genuinely poor in the world, and it is the duty of the church to take care of those people. Nonetheless, many who are poor are so because of their own laziness. While those people may need some financial help, it is also the churches duty to exhort such people to repentance, and possibly to cut off help to them if they refuse to work (as Paul says that a man who doesn‘t work shouldn‘t eat). Also, while Jesus’s words point out the eschatological dimension of his anointing, His words still ring true that we will always have the poor with us. As with much of the international interventionism I mentioned earlier, both of the Left and the Right varieties, there is much utopianism in the thought of those who promote social welfare policies. Great strides can be made in the church being faithful to its calling, but if we think we’ll ever get it exactly right this side of the eschaton, we’re wrong. Also, as Doug Jones has pointed out in a number of his lectures, it is our tendency, being post-Enlightenment, to think that aesthetics lies on the periphery of life. But nothing could be further from the truth. We are visual beings, created in the image of a God who created an elaborately beautiful world for our enjoyment. It is only normal for us to want to imitate Him, particularly in our worship of Him.

In short, I think an argument can be made for ostentatious churches. As God commanded that both the Tabernacle and the Temple of the Old Testament be elaborate in their beauty, and as Christ’s body, which He spoke of as the Temple, was anointed with expensive ointment, I think it is appropriate that our churches in the New Covenant, which is called the better covenant, be clothed in beauty. Along the same lines, I think a good argument can be made for elaborate displays outside the church such as took place in Beijing this past Friday. Whether I’m right or wrong, I enjoyed the show anyway.

I found it strange that the “Summer” Olympics would be taking place so late in the summer. In my mind, Summer is almost over. The government school year, around which so much of my life and culture is based, and which is about to begin, still largely shapes my view of the calendar year. But it’s also a change in climate that directs my view of the seasons. The first hint of change from summer to autumn, though subtle, took place this past Thursday evening. I went out to my car for something late that night and felt the first cool breeze I had felt in months. Autumn is my favourite season, and so familiar sentimental feelings soon came upon me. One aspect of fall that quickly came to mind is one that is a late addition to my life, and that is the Greek Festival held every year here in Greensboro at The Dormition of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Church. I first attended one evening several years ago with some friends, and that night I began to develop a fascination with Greek culture that carries on to today. By that point in my life I had developed a disgust with American “culture”, if you can call it culture. Meeting with Greek culture was a breath of fresh air like no other. Good food, dancing, music, and the beauty of the Greek Orthodox Church was overwhelming to me. I understand fully how this could influence Protestants to join the Greek Church, as I probably would have myself a long time ago, were it not for serious theological disagreements with Eastern Orthodoxy. If nothing else, I wish Americans would learn something on how to do culture from the Greeks. Until the American church learns something on how to do worship from the Greeks, however, I suppose this is a distant hope.

My memories of the Greek Festival left me longing for some Greek food. There are a couple of Greek delis that I’ve often thought of trying out but haven’t, and so when my hunger for Greek food started, I began contemplating when I could visit one of them. I ended up going to one of them on my way home from work Saturday night and grabbing a gyro with lamb and beef. Man, those Greeks know good food.

One thing I learned Friday night in watching the opening exercises of the Olympics was that the parade of the athletes always begins with the Olympians from Greece, since the Olympics originated in Ancient Greece. That’s appropriate. It wasn’t until after I had eaten some leftover Chinese food for lunch on Saturday and began thinking of getting Greek food for dinner that I began to realized the coincidental nature of my meals. China, Greece…Chinese food, Greek food… ah, life’s little Providences…

Power over justice

Fighting is going on between South Ossetia and Georgia, and Russia has chosen to side with South Ossetia. Of course, the conflict has been going on for some time, and the American media has just now chosen to begin to pay attention, no doubt because of Russia’s new involvement in the situation. Representatives of the U. S. government have urged the Russian government to withdraw troops from the region. And why? Because Georgia was on track to join NATO, and if that were to happen, the the U. S. would have a place in the region by which to gain advantage against Russia. Also, there is a major oil pipeline in the region. The most annoying thing is that this is being presented by our government as an issue of Georgia’s national sovereignty. What about South Ossetia’s national sovereignty? From our government’s perspective, this seems to me to be more about our trying to step outside the bounds of our national sovereignty to impose our wills on those who don’t actually have to answer to us. The years 1861 through 1865 loom large in the background.

Issues, Etc. Returns

A few months back I sadly noted that a select group of individuals in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod lost their minds and cancelled the fantastic LCMS-sponsored Issues, Etc. I just learned today that, while the select individuals never regained their minds, a group of private donors have enabled the show to return to the airwaves. Go listen to it, if you've never heard it. You'll find it at http://www.issuesetc.org/index.html.

A Plurality of Links

I added a few links recently to the side column, and so I thought I would make a brief comment about them.

My personal background of influences is rather diverse. My parents were both Southern Baptists, but we began attending a Plymouth Brethren assembly when I was fairly young. I left the Plymouth Brethren about nine years ago, and have been in many different churches since then. I believe that I have learned things in each of those churches, while I might disagree with any number of things that each church teaches. And in my studies, I’ve always tried to read in a variety of Christian traditions. While this might not be the approach that most Christians should take, I consider it a wise thing for me to do. I’m always interested in others’ perspectives on Scripture, hoping that in listening to others, I can gain new insight. I take this approach, all the while holding firmly to what I am convinced Scripture teaches. Ultimately, I only adhere to any teaching insofar as I am convinced that it is what Scripture teaches.

I say all of this as a bit of a caveat for anyone who might go surfing through my links list. I include links that I find interesting or helpful, but I make no promises as to the correctness of any of the teaching one may find when visiting the websites I’ve linked. To give some examples, I recently linked to blogs or websites run by those who hold to the following teachings, all of which I disagree with: Dispensationalism, Amillenialism, New Covenant Theology, Immersion-only baptism, Congregational church government, consubstantiation, and strict “regulative principle” worship. (I could probably find a few more things, but that will suffice for now.) Some of the sites are run by people I know or have met, some by those I have simply heard of. Some of the links are to local churches, most of which I have attended or visited, but one or two which I have not.

I had a desire to link to local churches other than my own, out of a spirit of Evangelical ecumenism, and the same would apply to the blogs I’ve linked. I trust the reader who visits these websites will read with care, not simply believing everything he reads, just as he would do with this blog. And my hope would be that the “Divine Majesty”, as the Prayer Book says, would “inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord: And grant that all those who do confess [His] holy Name may agree in the truth of [His] holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.” I hope also that this blog may be a part of that.

Shedd on 19th Century Liberalism’s Revision of the Confession

The spirit of revision, it is said, is ‘in the air’, and this is assigned as a reason why it should be stimulated and strengthened. This would also be a reason for the increase of malaria.

--W. G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed

Festschrift for Norman Shepherd

Kerygma Press will be releasing a festschrift for Norman Shepherd next year. For details, see the post on it at Andrew Sandlin's blog.

WALL-E and Hancock

Today was a movie day for me. As I mentioned in a previous post, there have been a number of movies that have come out recently that I have wanted to see, but haven’t had the opportunity. So I went to the theater this morning, ate lunch at a nearby restaurant, and returned to the theater for a second movie. I don’t know if it’s normal for people to do that (my guess would be no), but that’s what I did. Considering gas prices these days, it seemed like a wise choice to go ahead and see two while I was there.

(There are spoilers from here on. Continue at your own risk, or choice, or whatever.)

I started out the day with WALL-E. It hadn’t been my first choice, until last night when I ran across this interview with the writer and director of the movie, Andrew Stanton, on the Christianity Today website. (I found the link through the Avenue blog). I haven’t read the whole interview yet, but I read enough to push the movie to the top of the list. It was a good choice. I had had some concerns that the film was just another Hollywood enviro-Nazi film, based on what I knew of the plot. Stanton seems to deny that in the interview, though the “denial” was a bit ambiguous. I was able to see past that, though, to what the film was actually about. The movie turned out to be a beautiful, moving story about the love of life. It was also a beautiful love story between the two robots. There were some cheesy aspects to the film. In particular, the humans rooting for the robots came off a bit corny. But other than that minor point, it was a terrific film.

The interview notes the two most obvious Biblical themes. One is that the ship on which the humans are living resembles Noah’s ark. The other is that of WALL-E being Adam and Eve being, well, Eve. This is the most obvious and was intentional, as Stanton mentioned in the interview. We also see in the behaviour of the two robots the notion of sacrificial love, causing both to serve as Christological figures. There is also the broader theme that the sacrificial love is for the purpose of redeeming the whole Creation, a love that fulfills its purpose, thus bringing an eschatological aspect to the film. In short, we get the whole gospel in story form here. And it isn’t done in a shallow way. It was done in a way that made you love the characters and root for them.

One aspect that I especially loved was something not usually loved, and that was the closing credits. During the first couple of minutes of them, the viewer is watching a series of scenes related to the movie, but done in a variety of art forms. In fact, one is treated to a history of art in miniature. Beginning with cave paintings, the scenes quickly move to Egyptian hieroglyphics, then ancient Greek art, moving quickly to Renaissance art (did I miss some other stages there, or were they left out? It moved too quickly for me to catch it all), then Impressionist painting, then Post-Impressionist, into early Eighties video game graphics, then late eighties and early nineties. It was an amazing and incredibly creative move, and simply the icing on the cake of an all-around terrific movie. Definitely one of the best of the year. I highly, highly recommend it.

After my lunch break, I returned to the theater to see what my be coming on soon. Out of the movies I haven’t seen but wanted to, Hancock was the next up. I wish I could say I enjoyed it as much as I did WALL-E. Hancock was one film that, based on the numerous trailers I had seen, I thought I would love. And it started out well. Hancock was a worthless bum, though a bum with super powers, who Jason Bateman’s character tries to turn into a worthwhile superhero. That was the first half of the film, and pretty much was summed up in all the trailers. The second half, though, was kept well hidden and provided quite a plot twist. I was enjoying the film up until this point, for the most part. It was all downhill from here, however.

As it turns out, Bateman’s wife, played by Charlize Theron, was a superhero like Hancock, and, in a round about way, Hancock’s wife. It turns out they’ve both lived for thousands of years. There were once many others like them, but all the others have died off. Whenever a couple like them gets close to each other, they begin to lose their super powers. This provides the tension for the rest of the film.

It was sort of a clever idea, but it just didn’t work for me. Pretty much everything I just told you was all the back story provided, and it wasn’t enough to make the story interesting. Hancock being “married” to a woman unknowingly who is married to a mortal as well provides all sorts of moral ambiguity, a problem the film was already plagued with. And the moral ambiguity is never resolved in any significant way, in my opinion. In the end, Theron’s character remains married to the mortal, rather than the man she’s actually “married” to, in order that the man she’s actually “married” to can carry on his life of protecting others. Now, it’s easy to understand when watching the film. It just wasn’t enjoyable, and, quite frankly, I’m not sure I can entirely say why yet - I’m still thinking through it.

And while I’m still thinking through it, I can with confidence say that you shouldn’t waste your time on this film. It had the potential of being a great film. It just never materialized.

One last point I would like to make has to do with the age appropriateness of this movie. It is rated PG-13, and for good reason. I wish people would understand these things, like the guy in front of me who brought a boy who looked to be about eight to the film. I have thought this often recently, including when I saw The Incredible Hulk, which had a lot of very intense scenes and plenty of graphic language, as I sat a few seats down from a family with two or three children under ten. And they weren’t the only ones in the theater like that.

And yet people don’t seem to be concerned about what children see or hear anymore. If I were a parent, and had my child with me in the theater today, not knowing what I was getting him into, I would have taken him out of the theater when the first use of @sshole occurred. Sadly, the first use of it in the movie was by a child probably about eight years old. Hollywood is clueless, and the general public is becoming more and more clueless. It is sad.

That’s it for now. I’m hoping to catch a couple more later in the week. We’ll see if the schedule allows for that, and if so, I’ll try to blog my thoughts on them.

Deil colic the wame o’ ye, fause thief; daur ye say Mass in my lug?

Rock on! We need more of this kind of thing in the church:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7504472.stm

I couldn’t understand much of what the guy said, but hooray for him having said it. He called a spade a spade, that much I could tell. I love the fact that he had long hair, was wearing a black t-shirt, and was carrying a motorcycle helmet. He reminded me a bit of John the Baptist, contrasted so sharply with all the neatly dressed people around him. Too bad he was all alone in his protest.

The clergy may often be clueless on the issue of homosexuality. But I’m glad not all of the laity are. And if it takes the laity standing up and challenging the clergy, then so be it. Jenny Geddes would be proud.

The Theater, The Theater, The Theater…Whatever Has Happened to the Theater?

I’ve been intending for some time now to blog about the movies I’ve seen so far this Summer, but other commitments have kept me from it until now.

I’m normally not a big moviegoer. Recently, however, I’ve found myself a bit more drawn to the theater. Part of it has been the movies that have come out, and part of it, I think, has just been a desire to get out of the house a bit more. And since the Summer is only partially over, and there are a number of films that look promising yet to be released, I expect I’ll continue to be at the movies on a regular basis.

For now, let me offer a few brief thoughts on the ones I’ve seen so far.

Prince Caspian - I had mentioned in another post that I was planning to see it, and have intended to comment ever since. But I simply don’t have much to say about it, other then that it was a very poor adaptation of Lewis’s book. Better yet, let me state this in a less politically correct way - the movie was crap. Those who travel around the Christian blog world will probably already know that Andrew Adamson, writer and director of both films, isn’t the most Biblically astute individual in the world. I didn’t know that until after I saw Prince Caspian, though, as I was trying to avoid reviews of the movie before going to see it. Now it all makes sense. And the fact that Disney has been involved in both films should have tipped me off about the possible disaster, but I was oblivious.

There were lots of changes made to the storylines. This was done quite a bit in the first Narnia movie, and that drove me nuts. Yet, I could still endure the movie. In this one, however, I was really peeved. Now, it has been a couple of years since I read the book, and though I re-read portions of it before and after seeing it, there is a lot I don’t remember. Nonetheless, I remember enough to be ticked.

There are two major problems that I had with the film. One was the conflict between Caspian and Peter, which never occurred in the book. Much of the beauty of the Narnia books is that while the Pevensie children aren’t perfect, they are what kings and queens are supposed to be, and that is noble. They never would have bickered pettily the way they do in the film. The fight with the boys in the train station at the beginning of the film would never have happened. And most of all, Peter wouldn’t have fought for control of the Narnians just to satisfy his own ego. But modern pagan thinking can’t comprehend approaching life any other way than through power and control. It does seem that there was an attempt to show why Peter’s actions were bad, through the failed battle that resulted. But Lewis knew what he was doing. If you want to teach others how to behave correctly, you don’t do it by showing them how not to behave. You do it by showing how to behave correctly. You show goodness to be beautiful by demonstrating goodness, and by making it enticing. To some degree, this seems like the common modern storytelling obsession with the anti-hero. But while there is a very important place for the anti-hero in storytelling, there really is such a thing as a righteous person, and there is a need for righteous people to be portrayed in literature as well. I understand that this is a reaction to the unrealistic Romanticism of previous decades. Nonetheless, I personally am sick of the anti-hero.

This poor choice of pitting Caspian against Peter led to the ridiculous addition of the offensive against the Telmarine castle and the slaughter of many Narnians, a script choice that looks more like a political commentary on the war in Iraq than anything else to me. I don’t agree with the war, but you can keep your political agenda out of Lewis’s story, thank you.

The other thing that really ticked me off was the “love story” between Caspian and Susan. This ended, of course, with Susan throwing herself at Caspian and giving him a kiss at the end of the film. This didn’t happen in Lewis’s book, of course, because Lewis’s women (the good ones, that is) had both self-respect and self-control. This is something that the modern pagan can’t comprehend. Women today are brash and foolish. In other words, the are willing participants in their own whoredom. This is encouraged for pagan women, and there is increasingly little resistance in Christian circles. No, Susan didn’t sleep with Caspian. But you wouldn’t have gotten an Evangelical crowd out to see the film if she had. (Maybe that will be part of the next film, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which, amazingly, has the same title as a book by C. S. Lewis). But a kiss is just a kiss, right? Right. A kiss is just a sacred exchange of affection between a man and a woman who are devoted to one another - that’s all it is. A kiss used to mean something in our culture, just like sex used to mean something in our culture. But neither do anymore. Aslan, in the movie, sighed contentedly at Susan and Caspian’s kiss. But the real Aslan, the Aslan of Lewis’s book, would have put a claw in Caspian’s back for that one, and maybe Susan’s, too.

There are other things I didn’t like about the film, such as the presentation of Trumpkin as a frowny crank, and the failure to portray Lucy relationship with Aslan sufficiently. But the above were enough to destroy the film. I’m glad I have the books to return to in order to enjoy the story once again. As for the Narnia movies, if I go see any more of them, it will be in the two dollar theater.

The next movie I saw was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I was really looking forward to it, but was rather disappointed, for a number of reasons. I have fond memories of the previous Indiana Jones films. Harrison Ford is on up in years, though, so I was a bit in doubt about his returning to this character. My doubts were confirmed. The Harrison Ford I remember, both in the Star Wars films and the Indiana Jones films, was full of life. One of the most enjoyable things about watching him act was the way his facial expressions, especially his eyes, conveyed the meaning of the moment. But in this film, the life seemed to be gone, as his eyes seemed to convey nothing but boredom. The movie contained a number of age jokes aimed at Ford, and rightly so.

Ford’s young sidekick, Shia LeBeouf, is a good actor, but he didn’t impress me here. I’m sure any future Indiana Jones films with him in them will show improvement as his character takes shape. I thought some of LeBeouf’s roles in other films (such as I, Robot, and, especially, Transformers) showed him to be a better actor than this one.

The storyline was considerably uninteresting to me. The link between Mayan culture and the so-called crystal skulls has a long history in popular archaeology, and so it would have made for an interesting story itself. But beyond that, the movie got wacky. The mythology of Area 51 has been overplayed, so I thought it was hokey (though the linking of this film to Raiders through Area 51 was a clever idea). Cate Blanchett as a Commie psychic was too unbelievable. The return of Karen Allen as Marion was a good idea, but her acting was rather uninteresting as well. The linking of the Mayan Skulls (which testing has now proven to be a hoax) to space aliens was bizarre and a bit too George Noory. (Wasn’t this already done in the original Stargate movie anyway, only this time it’s in South America instead of Egypt?) The post-colonialism of the movie was rather suspicious, too. This time, Indy’s returning something instead of stealing something? Give me a break. It was the nineteen-sixties, man, not the two-thousands.

There was one interesting aspect of the film, however, and that was the contrasting of rightly attained knowledge and wrongly attained knowledge. This in many ways parallels Raiders. Blanchett’s character wanted all knowledge, no matter what the cost. This we know to be an attempt a attaining the status of deity. She therefore serves as a foil against Indy’s character, who encourages his son, a school drop out, to gain all the knowledge he can. Some knowledge is meant for man, and other knowledge is not. And there is a right way to attain knowledge, and a wrong way, for even knowledge that it is good to attain can be attained in the wrong way. Plus, even that knowledge that is meant for man is not to be used for self-aggrandizement. While some of the lines in the movie dealing with this theme sounded a bit too much like an Afterschool Special, it was an interesting theme nonetheless. I just wish it had been developed in a better way.

After this came The Incredible Hulk. Since I loved Iron Man, I was excited about this one. Sadly, it was nearly as good as Iron Man. Apparently, there was some disagreement between Marvel Entertainment and Ed Norton (who played Bruce Banner) about the structure of the film. Norton wanted more dialogue and character development, which would have required pushing the film over two hours. Marvel, however, still stinging from Ang Lee’s flop Hulk, wanted more action and less dialogue, keeping the film under two hours. They should have listened to Norton. Marvel won out, of course, and the result was a shallow, fast-paced film. Norton and the others in the film are tremendous actors. It’s just a shame they didn’t get to show off their talents.

The film was not intended to be a sequel of Lee’s film. This is evident from the back-story quickly covered during the opening credits of the current film. Nonetheless, the choice was made to begin the film with Banner living in South America, exactly where the last film left him. A strange choice, I thought, but there it is. The cinematography and the cgi were fantastic. But the feeling was one of a constant hurry from one place to another.

A couple of redeeming aspects of the film were the inclusion of a clip of Bill Bixby from The Courtship of Eddie's Father (with Norton watching it - pretty funny) and theme music lifted from the 1970's Incredible Hulk TV show. The latter was an important part of my childhood, and I didn't realize how important until the familiar theme music, played at the end of every show as the wandering Banner traveled on to the next town, lofted from the movie theater speakers into my ears. The music was very sentimental, after the spirit of the time, and apparently made a greater impact upon me than I remembered. It's amazing how something like that can affect you more than you know, and it's especially amazing considering that I haven't seen the show in probably twenty-five years.

The fact that this film was done in preparation for an Avengers film was evident. In the beginning of the film, we find Banner studying martial arts in order to control his anger. While Banner is in active search for a cure throughout the film, the suggestion from others (such as Betty Ross) of harnessing his “power” through gaining control of his anger becomes a theme. And in the last scene of the movie, we see Banner, now living in a cabin in Canada, inducing an “episode” of turning into the Hulk in a controlled way through the Eastern meditation he has been practicing. The purpose? To prepare the Hulk to be a “good guy” and part of the Avengers. This is confirmed by the appearance of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) toward the end of the film. There are already plans for a Thor movie as well as a Captain America movie before the Avengers film. Hopefully Marvel will work a little harder on character development in these three films.

And the last movie I saw was Get Smart. It was a big let-down. It wasn’t nearly as funny as the trailers made it look like it would be. There were a few good jokes and gags here and there, and the basic storyline was good. The end result just wasn’t impressive. In fact, it was so unimpressive that I won’t waste any more time commenting on it than this.

I haven’t seen any movies in a couple of weeks, so I’m behind. But I plan to see at least a couple in the coming week. So far, the best of the Summer has been the low-budget Son of Rambow, followed by Iron Man. Hopefully, the others I see won’t feel so much like a waste of money as these four most recent films have.

Bible stuff

Mark Horne's comments on this passage from Romans reminded me of how much I'd like to have a Bible without chapter or verse divisions. I'm sure there are some translations that you can buy that way (the KJV, at least). But as best I can tell, the English Standard Version, my favourite translation, is yet to be published in that form.

Prior to visiting the Crossway page, I looked at all the versions of the ESV available from Christian Book Distributors, hoping that there actually was a version without chapter or verse divisions. In my search, I found a couple of interesting versions to be published in the near future. First, Crossway is planning to release a parallel Bible featuring both the ESV and Martin Luther's German translation of the Scriptures. How quirky is that? Maybe this is something they received alot of requests from Lutherans for. Nonetheless, it wouldn't have been something I would have expected. And it will be neat for those who know German. The Bible is scheduled to be released next March.

The other is a version of the ESV that is to be published by Oxford University Press that also contains the Apocrypha. OUP has released a couple of Bibles with the ESV so far. But this, like the above, isn't something I would have expected. This will be an entirely new translation of the Apocrypha, translated according to the same methods as the ESV. This will be quite welcome, as other translations are either dated (KJV, RSV) or weighted by liberal biases (NRSV). For more details, see the CBD page about it. It is scheduled to be released next February.

J. Vernon McGee on the Effeminacy of Pentecostalism

My friend, if you take the women out of the tongues movement, it would die overnight. You may say, “That’s not a nice thing to say.” I know it’s not nice, but it is true.

-- Thru the Bible, 1 Corinthians 14:34

Good news out of Sweden

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7491908.stm

Dutch doobies okay, but...

...tobacco (in public, at least) is not. Strange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7482571.stm

Repetition

There is a problem with newness; or, rather, there is a problem with an obsession with newness. As I write this, I am listening to J. S. Bach’s “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” for the I-don’t-know-how-many-hundredth time. It hasn’t lost its sweetness, its beauty, its ability to lift my soul. In fact, I’ve found that when I am in a good mood, I have started going about my daily business whistling the melody of it - at least, the portion of it that I know.

So is the greatness of Bach’s music in the fact that it is old? Not necessarily. That which is older is often better for us, due to the depravity, both moral and aesthetic, of the culture we find ourselves in. As C. S. Lewis said, in his defense of reading old books, every generation has its blind spots. The point he was making was that there is a need for us to read authors who lived in another era, in order that we be fuller people, aware of our own generation’s blind spots. And yet the reverse is also true. It is noticeable with those who become obsessed with an era other than their own. Those who spend all their time reading Puritan authors, for instance, can easily lapse into seeing everything the exact same way that the Puritans did, including buying into any erroneous beliefs the Puritans had as well. Then there are those who become taken with the Victorian era, the result being Anglo-Catholics afraid of going to Hell (or, maybe, just spending more time in Purgatory) for accidentally eating the main course with their salad forks.

The greatness of Bach’s music lies in its conformity to the Triune God. Something in his aesthetic reflects God’s character, causing even pagans over the past three hundred to praise him.

And yet, much of the appreciation of good art lies in the repeated experience of it. I’m sure I didn’t appreciate “Jesu” the first time I heard it, or any of Bach’s music, for that matter. It took a certain measure of maturity before it hit me the way it does now. And now, I can’t help but to praise God for allowing me to experience such beautiful music. It is such that it isn’t merely listening to beautiful music anymore. It is, for me, hearing God speak, telling me that He loves me, and that so long as He reigns, everything is going to be alright in my life and in this world.

But the repetition is important. It is an enculturation, a shaping of my view of the world. This is part of the reason that commercial music is everywhere in the public sphere. The idea is to shape the individual until he thinks of himself mainly as a consumer. In so doing, the person begins to act as he has come to think of himself. His main goal is to attain material goods, thinking he needs them, whether or not he actually does. This is part of the reason that I don’t shop on Sundays. I believe Sabbatarianism to be Biblical, and so I seek to devote all of Sunday to rest as Scripture requires, and to worship of God and study of His word. But the commercial sphere wants that day, too. Think about it - why do so many sale ads get published in the paper on Sunday? Certainly, it’s technically the beginning of the week - though, considering our language of “the weekend” and beginning a new week on Monday, one would think Sunday was the last day of the week. But we and the advertisers together have made Sunday the biggest shopping day of the week, and any notion of giving that day to God has largely disappeared from our culture. Lest anyone miss it, this hasn’t made us any Godlier. As a Christian who believes the Sabbath is Sunday, I’m more than happy to refuse that day to the pagans who could care less about me but want my money.

And so I have grown to largely hate commercial music. So far as I can help it, I don’t want it shaping me into something I don’t want to be, something other than the best person I can be. I prefer to expose myself to those art forms that are most glorifying to God and most beneficial to me. That doesn’t mean that Bach can be all that I listen to. But, as with all forms of art, I’m thoughtful in what I choose.

Repetition in stories are important in the same way that repetition in experiencing music is important. Children here often understand this better than we adults do. They tend to glory in the repetition of a thing. A father picks up his son and throws him for what may seem to the child to be hundreds of feet in the air. And what does the child say, as he falls into his father’s hands, the giggling mess that he is? “Do it again, Daddy.” It is the wisest people for whom the setting and the rising of the sun never gets old.

Children are the same way with stories. How many parents get weary of reading the same bedtime story to their children night after night? And this isn’t to say there is never a need for a change. There are many stories in the world, and sometimes children need to be directed to a new one, lest the old one become wearisome for them and they begin to stagnate. God even varies the rising and the setting of the sun for us on a regular basis.

But children know that the enjoyment of the story lies to some degree in its repetition, though they may not know why. It is in the repetition of it that it shapes you and becomes part of you. It is also in the repetition that one can really know if it’s a good story. There are stories that immediately please on a superficial level, but do nothing on repeated exposure. But good stories carry an eternal newness about them. They have a depth that only opens to you over time. You experience them over and over again, and you learn things about them that you didn’t know before. In this sense, a particular artistic creation reflects its creator. Shallow people create shallow art; people with depth of character create art with depth of character. And reverse is true as well: shallow art creates shallow people, and art with depth of character creates people with depth of character.

God does new things all the time. “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you” (Ps. 102:25-28). Sometimes He turns fertile fields into a lake, and sometimes He turns lakes into deserts. Sometimes He allows Christian kingdoms to last a thousand years, and sometimes He moves the center of the activity of His church halfway around the world. And yet some things He does the same, day after day, for His own glory and enjoyment, as One who delights in repetition, and for our sakes, that we may reflect His enjoyment and rest secure in Him.

How could you not know?

So one day you’re walking along, minding your own business, and all of a sudden you find yourself giving birth to a baby you didn’t know you were pregnant with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7445055.stm

We’re North Carolinians, and Yes, We’re Weird - but We’re Proud of It

Unusual Names

In 1898, it was reported that there were a number of families in Rutherford County with very odd names. There was a family named Clements with children named Zeno, Zula, Zebulon, Zinnie, Zolen, Zaco, Zaluski, Zenix, Zalf, and Zeolly. Another family named Andrews inflicted the following on their children: Kansas Love, Quitina Quiltina Quinn and Eulalia Valtasia Flabanico Anifecto. And yet another family named Allen disfigured their children with Linsco, Lansco and Stumpco. A few years before this report, another child near Louisburg, North Carolina, was reported to have the following names: Jesse Fido Ringtail Fillmore Hancock Jarvis Dowd Harper.

-- From Forgotten Tales of North Carolina

Thoughts from Screwtape, upon the death of Yves Saint Laurent

In a rough and ready way, of course, this question is decided for us by spirits far deeper down in the Lowerarchy than you and I. It is the business of these great masters to produce in every age a general misdirection of what may be called sexual “taste”. This they do by working through the small circle of popular artists, dressmakers, actresses and advertisers who determine the fashionable type. The aim is to guide each sex away from those members of the other with whom spiritually helpful, happy, and fertile marriages are most likely. Thus we have now for many centuries triumphed over nature to the extent of making certain secondary characteristics of the male (such as the beard) disagreeable to nearly all the females - and there is more in that than you might suppose. As regards the male taste we have varied a good deal. At one time we have directed it to the statuesque and aristocratic type of beauty, mixing men’s vanity with their desires and encouraging the race to breed chiefly from the most arrogant and prodigal women. At another, we have selected an exaggeratedly feminine type, faint and languishing, so that folly and cowardice, and all the general falseness and littleness of mind which go with them, shall be at a premium. At present we are on the opposite tack. The age of jazz has succeeded the age of the waltz, and we now teach men to like women whose bodies are scarcely distinguishable from those of boys. Since this is a kind of beauty even more transitory than most, we thus aggravate the female’s chronic horror of growing old (with many excellent results) and render her less willing and less able to bear children. And that is not all. We have engineered a great increase in the licence which society allows to the representation of the apparent nude (not the real nude) in art, and its exhibition on the stage or the bathing beach. It is all a fake, of course; the figures in the popular art are falsely drawn; the real women in bathing suits or tights are actually pinched in and propped up to make them appear firmer and more slender and more boyish than nature allows a full-grown woman to be. Yet at the same time, the modern world is taught to believe that it is being “frank” and healthy” and getting back to nature. As a result we are more and more directing the desires of men to something which does not exist - making the role of the eye in sexuality more and more important and at the same time making its demands more and more impossible. What follows you can easily forecast!

-- The Screwtape Letters, ch. XX

Son of Rambow

“Garrison Keillor was raised Plymouth Brethren,” an acquaintance once told me.

“Really?” I replied. “That’s funny. I wonder why he always talks about Lutherans then, and never the Plymouth Brethren.”

“Somebody asked him that one time,” he answered. “Keillor said it’s because nobody has heard of the Plymouth Brethren.”

I don’t know if this story is true or not. In part, it seems to be, as in listening to Keillor’s tales of Lake Wobegon since then I have heard the occasional reference to “the sanctified Brethren”, as he likes to call them. I can’t imagine that the average listener has a clue who he’s talking about. But a handful of us do - we sanctified ones, that is.

And it isn’t entirely true that nobody has heard of the Plymouth Brethren. The fact that the PB’s don’t call themselves by that name doesn’t help things. But the occasional student of church history has heard of them, as have those individuals familiar with the most infamous product of Brethrenism, occultist Alistair Crowley. Nonetheless, the Brethren are fairly unknown, at least in our day.

The Plymouth Brethren were one of the many Restorationist religious groups to emerge in the United Kingdom and the United States in the 19th century. Beginning in the 1820’s, they based their approach to the Christian life on a concept of returning to “the simplicity of the early church”, as they believed it had been. This meant doing away with many things they considered to be trappings created by the organized church through the centuries: denominations, ordained clergy, and liturgies, for starters. They sought to emphasize a sense of the priesthood of all believers, manifest in a sort of evangelical ecumenism. They met with one another outside of the organized church, believing that the table of the Lord was for all who believed in Jesus, no matter their denominational affiliation.

A tension began to grow early on in the movement, and continues to this day. If the New Testament church is supposed to meet a certain way, that being the way the Brethren had determined, and that it is as clear in the Scriptures as the Brethren believed it was, then how are those who claim to be Christians but do not meet in the same way to be perceived?

There soon grew up with this a concept of the Higher Spiritual Life which further shaped the Brethren’s dealings with those not of their beliefs. It was determined, building off of John Wesley’s doctrine of Perfectionism and Medieval mysticism, that there are two different types of Christians in the world. There are those who are Carnal, and those who are Spiritual. The Carnal Christian is saved, but is walking out of fellowship with God. This is due to things like unconfessed sin and outright disobedience. Then there is the Spiritual Christian. He is not only saved, but is walking in fellowship with God. He lives in perfect congruity with the will of God, and in so doing lives on a higher plane of spiritual beatitude than the Carnal Christian. Thus conceived, the PB’s had their answer to those who didn’t meet as they did - those people were either unbelievers or Carnal Christians.

But why did so few follow their way? Here we arrive at the Plymouth Brethren’s most notable contribution to modern Christianity. The Brethren had determined, mostly through their most notable founder John Nelson Darby, that their was taught in Scripture a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. God’s main dealing was with Israel, but when they had rejected his Son, God had set them aside for a time while He created a Gentile church. This was temporary, as God would eventually remove His church from the world (through a Pre-Tribulational Rapture) and begin to work with Israel again. God’s church, it was believed, would fail to obey God just as Israel did, and so the flow of history would be a slow train to depravity and destruction. Based off of this eschatological scheme, the Brethren determined that they were living in “the last days”. And if they were, then it would only be reasonable that few would truly be following Christ toward the end of the world. They determined they were that few.

So in order to keep themselves pure from the “world”, which they had defined in the Gnostic fashion of separation from material things (much like Medieval monasticism - the Brethren are far more Roman Catholic than they realize) as well as separation from those not of their way, they sought to refrain from activities which they saw as worldly. Since the world would be ending soon, who cares about culture, for instance? “Why polish the brass on a sinking ship?” as is often repeated. In the Plymouth Brethren worldview, “the earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof,” is only marginally true.

Thankfully, not all Plymouth Brethren are consistent with their theology, thus verifying that it isn’t as true as they think it is. How one is supposed to have a secular job or shop at the grocery store with that theology is beyond me. But the living with the contradictions is maddening, as I know from first hand experience, having grown up Plymouth Brethren.

Also, some Brethren are more Open to allowing non-Brethren into their midst, and thus they are often called “Open Brethren”. This was my background which, though less legalistic in some ways than the stricter Brethren (usually called Closed, Exclusive, or Strict Brethren), has many of the same problems as the Closed Brethren, not to mention some of its own.

The Plymouth Brethren were, and still are, small in number. And yet their influence has been felt far beyond what one would expect. I don’t doubt that the theology as I’ve described it above will ring true to most of those that have grown up in the Evangelical church, as it is the prevailing approach to the Christian life. Even more influential has been the end times theology of the Plymouth Brethren, as is manifest in the millions of books sold, first by Hal Lindsey, and then by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins. Comparatively few people have heard of the Plymouth Brethren, but the majority of Christians in the United States believe in the Pretrib rapture.

“So why is he writing all of this?” you might be asking yourself. Would you believe it is the preface to a movie review? (Just trust me.)

I’ve seen a number of movies recently: Expelled, Iron Man, Prince Caspian, Indiana Jones (comments on the latter two are forthcoming, I hope). But today I saw the best one of them all, and that is Son of Rambow. I don’t doubt that unless you are a connoisseur of the most obscure movies, you haven’t heard of it. Only one theater in my town was playing it, and that was a theater that, as I learned just recently, specializes in low-budget, foreign, and independent films. In fact, I watched it in a small screen theater built for only about forty people. Nonetheless, it topped the big-budget films I have seen recently.

It is about a boy from a Closed Plymouth Brethren family (see, there is a connection) named Will. His father is deceased, and he lives with his mother, his sister, and his grandmother. Unusual for his Brethren background, he attends a local non-Brethren school, where he meets another boy named Lee Carter.

Now I could tell you more about it, and I will. But you have to go see the movie first, before I give all the spoilers.

Are you back now? Okay, let’s carry on.

Will is a boy whose imagination is far grander than his Brethren faith would like it to be. He is an artist, but his family’s religion isn’t especially friendly to such expressions. He meets Lee, a rough boy who coerces Will into starring in his Rambo-like home movie, which Lee is making to enter into a BBC Young Filmmakers contest. In the process, Will sees a television (and a movie - First Blood) for the first time. He quickly finds his imagination and his young masculinity set free in a way he had never before experienced. A sharp contrast from his life in a home run by an overbearing and grieving widowed mother (Mary), as well as his life in a faith that inspires a passivistic piety, Will takes after the world of Rambo and filmmaking with gusto.

Lee’s family life is a direct contrast to Will’s. Living with his abusive brother who runs the family’s convalescent home while their mother lives with her boyfriend in another country, Lee reflects in his treatment of others the treatment he has received in his own family.

Woven into the picture is the visit of a number of French exchange students to Will’s school, and the particular fascination of a number of students with one particular French boy named Didier. The film is set in the 1980’s, noticeable in the haircuts of the students, and especially in the New Wave style of Didier. Eventually Didier and his followers cross paths with Will, and work their way into his and Lee’s film, much to Lee’s dislike.

The climax of the film comes in a conflict between Will and Lee, resulting in Lee’s being seriously injured in an accident. The end result is good, however, as the accident brings reconciliation between Will and Lee, as well as between Lee and his brother.

I’m sure many will be disinclined to see the film because it revolves around a family from a Christian tradition they’ve never heard of. I may be incorrect, but I don’t see that as a hindrance to enjoying this film. Anyone familiar with American Christianity knows Pietism when they see it, though they might not be able to identify it by its name.

And Will’s church is Pietistic. Meeting in a simple building with white walls and wooden chairs which all face toward one another, in the center of which sits a simple communion table, each member is required to take off their watch at the door, lest they be tempted to look at it while the service is in progress. (I’m sure many a minister would think that a good idea, not to mention the collecting of cell phones.) The women and men both dress in the plainest of ways: the men in their earth-tone pants, shirts and jackets, and the women in their plain dresses, skirts, and head coverings.

The plainness of Will’s church and home stand in sharp contrast to his broad imagination. He draws in drawing books, he has a vast mural he has worked on gradually in a bathroom stall at school, and like a Medieval illuminator, he draws on page after page of his Bible, often taking his artistic cues from words in the text he is writing on.

But the Pietist is to take pleasure in spiritual things, not worldly things. This means things of the Brethren assembly and of God. And yet God seemed curiously absent from the movie in any direct sense. While that aspect might be a little overdone when it comes to representing the Brethren, there is a truth there which I personally have experienced. When personal sanctification is the emphasis, a sanctification which I alone am responsible to achieve, then God can easily (and often does) get bumped out of the picture. I am left to save myself, or to re-achieve the higher life by myself, while God sits in Heaven, impatiently brooding over my consistent inability to walk in perfect holiness.

The tension between pleasure and the Pietistic standard emerges in other ways as well. Will’s mother has an ongoing “relationship” with one of the Brethren men (named Joshua), but it is a relationship in the loosest of ways. Unable to have any physical contact due to accepted conduct with the opposite sex, the desire and frustration between the two is visible.

The plainness of Will’s life also stands in contrast to that of the French students. Up to date with the latest fashion and music, they are extremely appealing, not only to Will, but the rest of his schoolmates, who are trapped their simple school uniforms.

And yet, there seems to be some mocking of the French students as well. Didier, who at first behaves aloof and above the British students, soon condescends to meet Will when he learns of Will’s talent and that he is making a movie. Didier is presented at first as a savior: it is no coincidence that it is in the school’s chapel that Will is taken to meet Didier. Didier emerges from shadows and descends from the chancel like a priest or Christ himself, illuminated by sunlight beaming through the chapel windows. Yet he soon shows himself to be a child like the rest, longing for acceptance from one higher than himself.

The longing for a father is central to the film. The shed in which Will’s father worked behind the family’s house is where Will hides to do his drawing. When Joshua attempts to take the place of Will’s father, the man proves himself to be a complete failure. The absence of a father can explain Will’s inability to deal with a bully like Lee, and his willingness to trust Lee implicitly. Lee’s father abandoned his family, and his mother’s boyfriend has even taken her away from her children. The following that emerges around Didier can itself be seen as a longing for a father figure. And while it is a more subtle theme to the film, there is some accusation of the failure of patriarchy present. Those who know the Brethren know that there is a strong emphasis on male-only leadership, both in the home and the assembly. Yet other than Joshua’s paltry attempts to help bring Will “back into the fold”, the men are noticeably uninvolved with Will and his family. Uninvolved, that is, until they decide to visit Mary to let her know that she is being warned of the possibility of expulsion from the Brethren due to Will’s behavior and her failure to control him. In patriarchy, this is often true to life. When it comes to loving relationship, the men are absent. But whenever things get to the breaking point, they are more than willing to show up and dish out some judgment.

Adults in the film are generally portrayed as failures. And yet, when all is said and done, there is one adult who comes to her senses: Will’s mother. Having reflected on her own bad childhood experiences with the Brethren, she eventually rejects the Brethren that are rejecting her. The symbolism of her removing her head covering twice at the end of the film - once as she cries and holds her children in her husband’s shed, and later as she throws Joshua out of her house for good - will no doubt slip past the viewer not familiar with Brethren tradition. In so doing, she is rejecting the authority of the Brethren and, more specifically, the male leadership of the assembly that has been oppressive to her. By removing the head covering, she is saying, “you have failed me, and I am removing myself from under you. I will no longer submit to you.”

And yet, what is the answer? In this collection of people looking for a hero-father, where do they find him, and who is he? It sadly isn’t in a true presence of the church. When the movie is over, the only church in the film is cast aside. And, as I mentioned before, God is noticeably absent in any clear way. The answer seems to come in a restoration of relationships: Lee to his brother and to Will, and Will to his family. What is presented doesn’t seem to be a sort of feminism as the answer, as is so frequent in American films. What appears to be presented is a renewed masculinity. Will and Lee, without the masculine leadership they should have, manage to find their way nonetheless. They have failed themselves, and have repented. They have learned from their mistakes, and will conduct themselves differently from now on. Most interesting is the death and resurrection they both experience at the end of the film. Both boys, in fact, serve as pictures of Christ.

The experience that Will and his family go through is no fiction. While I can’t side with all the conclusions of the film, the insights are numerous and are communicated in the most creative of ways.

I believe, for instance, that wives should submit to husbands, and I believe that men in leadership in the church have real authority. Yet husbands and church leaders must love sacrificially, or else destroy the souls of those under their care.

I also believe certain things aren’t permissible under God’s law. It wouldn’t have been a solution for Joshua and Mary to start sleeping together outside of marriage, for instance. And yet licentiousness doesn’t just emerge in a vacuum. While sometimes it comes simply out of sin and rebelliousness, oftentimes it comes about due to legalism. In fact, the natural fruit of legalism is lawlessness.

So in the end, a true Biblical worldview won out. That worldview is one that embraces beauty, love, sacrifice, family, and community. It is a sign of the church’s failure to give these things that people have to go outside of her to find them and therefore to live more Biblically.

And there’s my brief analysis of the film. I’m sure many other things will stand out to me more in future viewings (I do intend to see it again). And there are other matters that I wonder about. For instance, is the film shaped in the form of a chiasm? At first glance, it would appear that it does, though I could be wrong. My imagination could be just carrying me away.

Links, movies, I'm a lazy bum, etc.

A happy Memorial Day weekend to you all. (That is, you Americans.) I have today off from work, which, since it is Saturday, is unusual for me. And so far I’m finding it hard to get up and do anything.

I just got done adding a few new links in the side bar to your left, as well as removing some dead links. In new links, I have added Pastor John Barach’s blog. I’ve learned a lot from reading his blog over the past few years, and have often thought of linking him, though I’ve always forgotten when I got around to updating my links. As it turns out, he linked me before I got a chance to link him. Hits have increased on this page a fair bit over the past few weeks, and I can only figure that it must be because he linked me. So many thanks to Pastor Barach for that. His blog also has a great links section. I try to keep a handful of links on this page, but he has a number I would add if I was willing to take the time. But I’m not. Yes, folks, that’s internet laziness. Sad, isn’t it?

I also added The Rabbit Room to the blog links. It is a page featuring the ruminations of a number of Christian artists, and is headed by Andrew Peterson, one of the few Contemporary Christian musicians I’ll listen to anymore. But I’ll save that rabbit trail for another time (snicker).

In the general links section, I’ve added a link to Kemper Crabb’s website. Kemper is a musician and an ordained Episcopal priest. He plays for a Prog-rock band called Atomic Opera (who, I must confess, I’ve never heard. I’m working on it.), played with King’s X in years past, and has even sat in with Caedmon’s Call a few times. He has a number of solo recordings, including his classic The Vigil. He is very influenced by Early Music (pre-Baroque), hence my being drawn to it. Check him out.

I’ve added a link to the page dedicated to the teaching of N. T. Wright, theologian, Bible scholar, and Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. There are other pages featuring his work, but this page both links to those other sites and has things not otherwise available on the web. His work is indispensable for those seeking to understand the Bible better.

Lastly, I’ve added a link to Athanasius Press, a publishing house affiliated with Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. They’re a small publisher, but offer a number of fantastic books, as well as audio and video teaching series.

I just received James Jordan’s teaching series on Numbers through Judges from Athanasius Press, and began listening to it as I was writing this. One doesn’t retain a whole lot when trying to write and listening to a lecture at the same time (at least, I don’t), but I did pick up on one interesting thing in Scripture I hadn’t noticed before in the story of Joseph. In Genesis 40, the King James Version tells us that Joseph is put in prison with the “butler” and the baker of the king of Egypt. In fact, as later translations such as the English Standard Version tell us, the “butler” was in fact the king’s cupbearer (Genesis 40:1). So we have the baker and the cupbearer, corresponding to bread and wine, that is, the Eucharist. It was a passing comment, and Jordan doesn’t expound on the passage any further. Knowing his thought, I would expect he would explain how there is a movement from bread to wine in the passage, as well as in Joseph’s life more broadly, and that this is noted partly in the fact that the king puts the baker to death whereas the cupbearer is allowed to live. The movement from bread to wine symbolizes the movement from immaturity to maturity, and so the order of partaking that Christ established isn’t merely accidental, but intentional. I would expect Jordan would say something like that. But I’m not Jordan, so that’s mere speculation. And I should probably leave this kind of deep thought to the theologians and exegetes anyway.

This evening, I am planning to meet some friends to see Prince Caspian. I have resisted reading any reviews of it, though some friends tipped me off about the many changes made to the story from the book. After the Tolkien films and the last Narnia film, I tend to go in with low expectations from the moviemakers anyway. I just finished reading the Narnia series a couple of months ago, and the book I enjoyed the most was, in fact, Prince Caspian. But it’s been a couple of years since I read it, and I haven’t had a chance to reread it in preparation to see the film, so maybe I won’t get too bent out of shape. I’m sure I’ll be offering my thoughts here later on. I had hoped to go see Indiana Jones today too, but though my body is awake, my motivation appears to still be in bed. I’m a sad case.

As a side note, I just learned that Robert Downey Jr., in the role of Tony Stark (aka Iron Man), will be making an appearance in the upcoming Incredible Hulk movie as a tie-in to the Iron Man movie. Could this be all leading to the Avengers movie I predicted? Only time will tell.

That’s all for now. Y’all have a blessed Sabbath, and a good Memorial Day.

The limits of comprehension

A flash of light, a cloud of dust, and what was the question?

-- Prairie Home Companion Pretty Good Joke Book

U. S. general worships Allah

An American soldier uses a copy of the Quran for target practice and is caught (or supposedly - I’m leaving open the possibility of a scapegoat). He is forced to write a letter of apology to Sunni leaders. Now I think the whole act of using the Quran for target practice was fairly childish, and that one shouldn‘t do anything to tick someone else off without good reason, though I don‘t personally think he should be disciplined for it. But what followed was that the general who read the apology to the Sunni leaders kissed a copy of the Quran which he then presented to them. He was spreading the word, I suppose. In case there is any doubt, let me make this abundantly clear. Though the general might not have thought of it this way, his act of kissing the Quran was an act of worship, of idolatry. That’s what your tax dollars are going towards, folks.

The worst part about it is the motivation behind it, which is apparent in the article. We can’t tick off the Sunnis, because they’re our allies in our war. That’s right, our war - not theirs. Read the article here.

Even the Finnish hate Neil Young

I'm speechless.

Hat tip: The Avenue

Iron Man

I know that this is opening weekend for Prince Caspian, and so I probably should have gone to see it. But I’ve been hankering to go see Iron Man, and since I was off work yesterday, that’s what I did.

Comic book movies have been the rage the past few years, and reasonably so. I’m less likely to go see a movie featuring some new action story that I have no familiarity with. Movie production companies are somewhat unpredictable in the quality they put out, and unless I have some assurance that I won’t be wasting my money on some film, I’m unwilling to pay. Sadly, movie reviewers are no help. Either they are blinded by their own political agendas which align with the majority of the populace within the intellectually isolated province known as Hollywood, or they don’t know morality from a hole in the ground, thus making it difficult to know whether or not to trust them. Christian reviewers are no help either, as they are usually too busy counting profanities to know whether or not they are watching a well-crafted storyline in action.

But comic book movies have proven a relatively safe bet as of late. There have been exceptions, of course. The first of the Fantastic Four movies was abhorrent, and as those who saw the second one warned me of its equally poor quality, I didn’t bother to see it. The X-Men movies were terrific so long as Bryan Singer was at the helm. But when he jumped ship to go to the new Superman film (not that great itself), he left the third X-Men film to fall apart in the hands of others. Much criticism was also thrown at the Incredible Hulk movie from about four years ago, and I’ll admit I disliked it at first. Repeated watchings have given me a sense of appreciation for it. Apparently I’m the only one though, as the whole cast from the last film was chucked and has been replaced for the sequel, due out this summer.

Despite some missteps, the movies based off of comics have been good. They aren’t always as morally sound as I being a Christian would like them to be, but they do pretty good over all, and I overlook their wickedness in the same way I overlook the wickedness of the worldly-minded people I deal with everyday.

Iron Man was one of the better comic book movies. (Warning: spoilers ahead.) I think I only had a couple of Iron Man comic books when I was a kid, and so I wasn’t really familiar with the basic storyline. That ignorance didn’t prevent me from enjoying the film, though.

Robert Downey Jr. played Tony Stark, who became Iron Man in the film. I don’t keep up with the gossip in Hollywood, but I knew enough to know that Downey has had his share of substance abuse problems. It has interfered with jobs he’s worked on, resulting in his being removed from the cast of Ally McBeal a few years back after a short stint on the show. I had heard nothing about him since then, and so I was both surprised and glad when I first saw trailers for the movie and saw he was playing the lead. I wouldn’t have pinned him for a superhero role, but he pulled it off and, I thought, was perfect for the part.

But the first commercials I saw for the film only featured him. As it turns out, the film features Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow, who played Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts. Downey’s humor was a highlight of the film, and his chemistry with Paltrow was fantastic.

The script was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the music was great. Yes, it was all great. I especially thought the inclusion of a portion of Black Sabbath’s song “Iron Man” during the closing credits was a nice touch. What would an Iron Man movie be without it?

There were the expected political agendas. The film begins in the Middle East (Pakistan, I believe… I don’t remember for sure), and a fair portion of it is set there. Tony Stark goes from being a weapons manufacturer, to being captured by radical Muslims (though you can rest assured that neither the word “radical” nor the word “Muslim” was used in the movie), to deciding that, since his weapons are falling into the wrong hands, his company will no longer produce weapons. The typical simplistic Hollywood leftist pacifist position is at play here, and while I side neither with the left nor the neoconservative right, it would be nice if Hollywood could make a movie without trying to preach at me. Make a violent action film, and preach against war in the movie. What’s wrong with this picture? (Pardon the pun.)

But Stark’s personal transformation carries Christic overtones to it too, as do many superhero myths. He goes through a sort of death and resurrection, as he descends into a cave (into the earth), only to arise as a new man. This also pairs with the historic American Evangelical narrative of the New Birth. Stark goes from being a rich playboy, to being born again as a man repentant of his former life and interested in the world around him for the first time. The only down side to this is that while he finds the woman who should be his true bride (Pepper Potts), the relationship remains frustrated to the end of the film. Oh well. There’s always the sequel.

And there will be a sequel, as those patient enough to wait until the end of the credits found out. Samuel L. Jackson makes an unexpected appearance there, suggesting the possibility that the next film will in fact be an Avengers film. I can’t help but wonder if this is Marvel’s attempt at making up for it’s screw-up on the X-Men franchise. Two X-Men that I know of (Wolverine and Beast) were also Avengers in the comic books, and so this might present a chance for a cross-over from those movies. Spiderman was also an Avenger, as was the Incredible Hulk, so maybe there will be some connections there as well. Marvel will have to do it up right for me to like an Avengers film as well as I liked the first two X-Men films, but here’s hoping they will pull it off.

For now, though, if you haven’t seen Iron Man, you should. It’s worth the price.

I Voted

Today was the North Carolina primary election, and, being the good citizen I am, I went and voted. Of course, I am a good citizen who wants the government to stay out of areas that are none of its business (something our officials seem to have a hard time doing), but nonetheless.

We had a number of bond referendums up for vote, and seeing that our current stewards have been doing a poor job with what we have already entrusted them, I voted against all of them. Now if there had only been a referendum against spending tax payer dollars on those stupid “I Voted” stickers, I would have given my hearty “Aye”. Alas, such was not up for the vote. Understandably. Even discussing such a thing would be a waste of time and money, and our officials wouldn’t dare waste time and money, would they?

Expelled

Last night I went with some friends, both old and new, to see Ben Stein’s movie Expelled. I’m a little skeptical whenever Evangelicals jump on the bandwagon of some movie or another, as they have with this one. Too often it is an indicator that the movie in question is morally sound but talent deprived. It also is indicative of the fact that Evangelicals have allowed themselves to be so shaped by Hollywood that they really think that revival will come if we go to these films in mass numbers. A good movie can be a help, but it’s more important that we worship God well and love our families and neighbors. That’s how revival happens – or, maybe better, reformation.

The safeguard here, I guess, is that the movie wasn’t made by Evangelicals, but by a Jewish man. Thankfully, Expelled is not only morally sound but also full of talent – at least, insofar as a documentary can be. Ben Stein, of course, is a class act himself. The movie didn’t go heavy into the details of science with regard to the debates over Darwin’s theories. I consider it more of a popularizing film – designed to bring awareness to the issue at hand so that those who have been ignorant of it can pursue the subject in more depth on their own as they desire. Nonetheless, the subject matter was handled well considering, and it was very entertaining. The cinematography and music were both excellent. And the final interview with Richard Dawkins was alone worth the ticket price.

Highly recommended.

There's nothing above the belt

How many impoverished actors does it take to make an Enzyte commercial?

Party Hard

One of the refreshing things in coming to Reformed theology was the more Biblical and therefore freer view that the Reformed take with regard to alcohol. I have over the years had occasion to drink with both Christians and pagans, and the experiences have proven that it isn’t the thing itself that is sinful, but how it is used. Drinking with believers is a joyous thing. But being the only believer drinking in the midst of pagans is depressing beyond words. Drunkenness becomes an issue, of course. But if you think the unbelievers you know are wicked, just wait till they get liquored up. And I’m not even considering the dancing on tables and bars part. Just let the wine loosen the tongue and listen as people begin to tell you what they really think. It’s the weak moments that show what a person is really made of, and that’s true of both believers and unbelievers.

I understand why Fundamentalists would want to eliminate the use of alcohol altogether. Just listening to unbelievers I know who act as if they have no other reason to live than to go to the bar and get wasted talk about their love affair with alcohol makes me never want to touch the stuff again. But then again, when you’ve set your heart against God, you can convince yourself that you’re having fun in you sin when the whole time you’re really just miserable deep down inside.

Part of the issue isn’t even the alcohol per se, but the atmosphere that drinking pagans cultivate. It’s the places they drink (not bars in general, but the types of bars), the way they dress, and the way they talk. Those who think that the Christian faith is separate from aesthetics (the shape of architecture, the shape of language and conversation, the shape of fashion) are mistaken. If all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Christ, then there is no area of life that can be disconnected from Him. But when we try to disconnect part of our lives from Him, we just make fools of ourselves, and harm ourselves and others.

I don’t intend to stop drinking, though I drink seldom. The Fundamentalists are wrong in their approach to alcohol. But I’ll continue to grieve when I hear unbelievers (especially those I know personally and care about) talk as if partying till they’re unconscious was the highlight of their lives.

Ourspace

I had a brainstorm last night. I’m thinking about starting my own social networking site – a social networking site for socialists. I’ll call it “Ourspace”. The tag line will be “a place for comrades”. Participation won’t be optional, and government oversight will be prevalent and mandatory. There will be no decking out one’s page with bright color schemes of one’s own choosing – just the same basic color scheme of scarlet red and army green for every page. After all, we wouldn’t want inequality between the different individual’s pages. Ourspace pages would be free and available for all, though you would be taxed for them, and standing in line for hours at a time in order to use one’s page would be a regular occurrence - and you’d better hope your page was still there when you got to the front of the line. (Never mind the incoherence of the last sentence. Logic is for the weak. Besides, it all evens out in the end.)

Socialism sounds fun, doesn’t it?

The Top Ten Things Raymond Arroyo Would Never Say

10. That Neuhaus guy is so full of it.

9. Could I interview a Protestant for a change?

8. That Hillary’d make a great president.

7. I think I’d look better with a beard.

6. Mary who?

5. My job sucks.

4. The last Pope was much better than the guy we’ve got now.

3. Vatican II sure screwed up the Mass.

2. Well, it wasn’t the best speech Benedict’s ever given…

1. Hey Ratzinger! What’s with the Santa hat?