I like movies. And I like history. But I seldom like it when someone joins the two together. Films about historical figures or based on historical events generally disappoint or upset me. That's because most film-makers seem to be less interested in telling the story than in promoting their social agendas. A great example of this is Ridley Scott's latest piece of celluloid excrement, The Kingdom of Heaven. Badly filmed, badly acted, badly edited and, most of all, badly written. The Christians are either insane, idiotic, savage or anachronisitic models of 21st century liberal Protestants. Orlando Bloom is supremely over-rated and needs to stick to playing taciturn fairies. And those are reasons I called The Kingdom of Heaven the worst movie on earth.
But enough about that. There are two new films that deal with historical subjects which are receiving a good deal of attention right now: Munich and The New World. I haven't seen either one of them yet, so I won't offer any personal opinions about them in this post.
I will, however, link you to a few reviewers that I respect.
First, here is Michael Medved on Munich. I'm not very familiar with all the information surrounding the events recounted in the film, but if we assume (for the sake of argument) Mr. Medved is correct with his facts, then Spielberg has done a disservice to Israel, America, and the war on terror. Admittedly, I am a-priori inclined to agree with Medved because I have personally found him to be a level-headed film critic and one whose opinions about movies frequently parallel my own. He particularly earned my respect when, as an observant Orthodox Jew, he vociferously defended Mel Gibson's movie. The fact that the government of Israel is attacking Spielberg's movie Munich also causes me to suspect Medved's evaluation has merit. Religiously, I am no Zionist. I don't think the piece of real estate lying between Egypt and Syria has any more significance today in God's plan than does Lichtenstein. But I wholeheartedly endorse the state of Israel's right to defend itself. And to equate a government's attack on its enemies to terrorist acts is morally irresponsible.
The second film of interest is called The New World and it's about John Smith's landing in America and his relationship with the native girl, Pocahontas. Several Christian critics are speaking favorably of the film such as Steve Beard, Peter T. Chattaway and Jeffrey Overstreet. This film version, I am pleased to report, represents Pocahontas's conversion to Christianity and does so, apparently, without rancor. If so, then this is much better history than the putrid mess put out by Disney a few years ago which turned this Christian native American girl into a tree-hugging, New Age, Greenpeace, Gaia worshipper.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
"Munich" and "The New World" - Reviewing the Reviews
Friday, January 20, 2006
Back from Ft. Wayne Symposia
I just arrived home this evening from a week of theological stimulation at my alma mater. Each January, Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, IN holds a series of lectures relating to topics of biblical and systematic theology. I always enjoy attending this event, certainly because of the lectures, but also for the social interaction. Many alumni treat this week as a grand reunion. I get to see friends and classmates from all over the world whom I seldom see otherwise. And the chapel services are nothing less than phenomenal. Hearing 500 Lutheran pastors singing hymns in that building is riveting. But I know that I also benefit from the laughs and conversations, sharing a beer or three, with my colleagues in the pastoral ministry. And yet. . . it feels so good to be home.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, January 19, 2006
What If Jesus Returned Today?
I found this quote over on Rightwing News. He got it from Hog On Ice.
I think this guy is dead right. And I'd also apply it to the Christian Church. A mark of the Messiah is rejection. And it is the mark of a Christian as well. "Woe to you when all men speak well of you (Luke 6:26).
"Imagine the kerfuffle (if Jesus came back today). He comes back, and He goes on TV and says, "Okay, homosexuality is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Stop watching porn. Quit smoking dope. And by the way, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other non-Christian religions are wrong, so stop practicing them." Every fat lesbian activist in San Francisco would be out in the street, running around topless and waving a sign reading, "Kill Jesus NOW!" Jesse Jackson would condemn Him. Cindy Sheehan would demand a meeting. Liberals would start calling him JesusHitler."
Most Christians today think, "Oh, if only I'd been there. I would have stayed awake in Gethsemane. I would have brought the Savior a cup of cool water as he stumbled along the Via Dolorosa. I would have been like Mary and stood at the foot of the cross.
Baloney! You would have wet yourself with fear when the soldiers marched up. You would have hidden in your home and locked the doors. You would have trampled over childrern and old women to get out of harm's way. Admit it.
A person will only suffer for something or someone he loves. And there are precious few who love Jesus more than their own lives. Christians who can't be bothered to suffer the smallest inconveniences for the sake of Jesus would, at best, have turned their backs on him and scattered like mice. And more likely, they would have shouted, "crucify him," with the crowd. At least Mel Gibson is an honest man. In his film, those were his own hands you see nailing the spikes into Jesus. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Feminist Hypocrisy
First, let me be clear. I firmly believe in equal pay for equal work. I am not opposed to all of the ideals of the women's movement. Of course, no one, woman or man, has the right to kill unborn children. But that's not the subject I want to address right now.
One of the stereotypical feminist canards is that men are violent and women are nurturing. The joke is usually that if women ruled the world, there'd be no wars. I don't deny that men are violent, but if you don't think women can be every bit as mean and nasty... well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. And don't try to read between my lines. I am blessed to be married to the most perfect wonderful woman on the planet who would never intentionally hurt a flea (actually fleas do need to be afraid of my wife). I'm just trying to point out that radical feminism is hypocritical.
The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. And the idea of a fun time for a batch of 10 year old boys usually includes heavy doses of punching, tackling, tripping, tumbling and even biting. Clearly testosterone is a mighty powerful chemical.
I will agree that all men are selfish jerks. But so are all women, frankly. Spite, wrath, vindictiveness, pettiness, egocentrism and vanity are gender neutral vices. Women are not as likely to express their aggressions by taking a swipe at your face, but the demonization of masculinity and the attempted emasculation of church and society are not going to improve the world.
The knife block you see pictured above is an actual product. It's called the "All Men Are Bastards Knife Block."
HT: Right Wing News
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Lutheran Bloggers Conference
Last night, here at Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne, IN, we held our first Confessional Lutheran Bloggers Conference. It was fun. Got to meet some great people whose blogs I read every day.
Our speakers were:
Pr. Walt Snyder of Ask the Pastor
Dr. Gene Veith of Cranach
Rev. Eric Stefanski of CAT41 (not a blog)
Jason Evans of Theology Geek
In addition to the speakers and myself, the other Lutheran Bloggers that were present are listed below. Forgive me if I forget someone. I didn't have a chance to greet everyone and we didn't take attendance. Tell me if you were omitted. There were also a number of non-bloggers present who are interested in blogging.
Beggar's All
Bloghardt's Reflector
Confessions of a Young Lutheran
Drowning Myself Whenever I Can
Indiana Jane
The Joshua Victor Theory
Madre's Missives
Preachrblog
Putting Out the Fire
Rev. Cwirla's Blogosphere
This was a good start. And the presentations were very good. Perhaps this is something that we can do again next year and, with more publicity, get even more Lutheran bloggers to meet face to face (in "hard-copy" as Dr. Veith put it) and share ideas.
Thanks to Jason, to Rev. Zimmerman at the sem and Mr. John Klinger, the tech wizard and thanks to everyone else too.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
"The Book of Daniel"
Have you heard about NBC's newest dramedy airing on Friday nights? It's got an impressive cast.
It's called The Book of Ishmael and it's about this suburban pill-popping Muslim imam named Ishmael who gets regular visitations from the prophet Mohammed. And the twist is that Mohammed is this cool, laid-back California prophet who specializes in snappy one-liners.
The show has raised a bit of a ruckus because Ishmael is a drug addict, his wife is an alcoholic, his daughter shows her ankles to the boys at school and his adopted Chinese son is really a transgendered gigolo with low self-esteem.
The fact that every devout Muslim in the world considers the show blasphemous is not a concern of the Network. Insiders say that before long, N B C will stand for No one Buys Commercials.
Polygamy is Next
This is very simple. Where does the definition of marriage come from? If it comes from tradition, that can be changed. If it comes from the norms of Western culture, it can be changed. If it comes from the will of the people, then it can be changed. Only if the idea of marriage springs from a source beyond humanity, a higher authority, can any definition of marriage remain stable.
The Sun Also Rises, Capiche?
Antonio Soprano as Ernest Hemingway? Yeah, maybe. See here. Make sure you read the last couple of paragraphs.
Sphere: Related ContentFriday, January 13, 2006
Fame and Fortune: Highest Values
Iran to Hang Teenaged Rape Victim
Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.
Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.
She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.
As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.
The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Green Glow-in-the-Dark Pigs
It's late and I've had a long and tiring day. My brain is too spent to work properly right now. But I just know that tomorrow morning I am going to be able to think of all kinds of reasons why this is bad.
Go here for the story.
HT: Southern Conservative
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
More On Emily Rose
Darrell, over at Film Geeks 2.0, has posted a new review of The Exorcism of Emily Rose. And since I just watched the DVD two nights ago myself, I thought I would post a few words. I commented on this film earlier when it was first in the theaters, as did Darrell.
I think it was a good movie. Probably one of my five favorites of the year. First because it was just so well made. The cast was top of the line. Jennifer Carpenter, as Emily Rose, deserves some attention. She was superlative. Laura Linney, who has never given a bad performance, said more with her facial expressions at times than most actors do with a thousand lines of text. Her intelligence was commanding. And if Tom Wilkenson is not nominated for an Academy Award, an injustice will have occured. Usually Christian clergy are portrayed in films as either ignorant, bigotted, or villainous - or all three. Wilkenson's Father Moore was intelligent, sensitive, pastoral, strong, passionate about his beliefs, and willing to sacrifice himself for what is good.
As a pastor, I think this film and others like it can serve a useful purpose. Movies about the devil or demon possession are often overly sensationalistic, gory or special effects laden. This one had it's scary moments, but it was comparatively easy handed in the effects department, which I appreciated. This put more of the attention on the characters. And these characters are exceptionally well-drawn.
What I didn't like:
What I liked:
More Thoughts On Anne Rice's Jesus Novel
Check out this post at Necessary Roughness for more thoughts on Christ the Lord by Anne Rice. I recommend the novel.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Baby Rapists
Monday, January 09, 2006
Douse the Mouse Before It Runs to the House
If you know me very well, you know that I am not a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) sympathizer. Some people say, "Meat is murder," or "Fur is murder." I think that is ridiculous. Meat is food. And fur is clothing.
I am, at the same time, an animal lover. I own two cats, a dog and two frogs. And if my wife would let me, I'd have more. She says I don't do enough to clean up the poop as it is and she's got a point.
One time, we were having trouble with mice in our kitchen so we put out that sticky paper to catch him. And then there he was, cute as button. But stuck from head to tail on the sticky trap. I had to do something with him. I could have just thrown him in the trash and he'd die eventually. But looking at him, I had pity. So I put him in a plastic bag and slammed the bag as hard as I could against the cement floor in my garage. Then I threw him away.
You see, I needed to get rid of that mouse. But I also didn't want it to suffer, even though it was just a mouse. So I bashed its brains in. Of course, my wife will tell you that I almost cried afterward. I said ALMOST!
Then today I read this bizarre story about the Texas man who found a mouse in his house and instead of killing it, he threw it into a pile of burning leaves in his backyard. And just as you would expect, the little critter didn't care for that one bit. So the flaming rodent zipped out of the fire and right back. . . you guessed it, into the man's house. No one was hurt (human, that is) but the man lost his house and all his possessions.
Now first, let me say that this was an inhumane way to kill a mouse. I despise the platform of these animal rights activists who equate the life of a dog or cow or chicken with that of a human being. But I also don't approve of cruelty to any of God's creatures.
I feel bad for the mouse. But I feel much worse for the poor 81 year-old man who lost his house and everything in it - even if what he did was kinda dumb.
Lesson: Don't light living animals on fire.
What is your opinion?
HT: Aardvark Alley.
Ever See a One-Eyed Cat?
Sunday, January 08, 2006
The Baptism of Jesus
“And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. . . . At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the River (Mark 1)."
Do you remember that old Sesame Street ditty? There'd be three apple pies and one piece of chocolate cake and they'd sing:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
That's what come to my mind when I consider the baptism of Jesus. In Matthew's Gospel, it is recorded that John strenuously tried to deter Jesus from being baptized. But the Lord said it must be done to fulfill all righteousness.
What was the Holy One of God doing there amongst all the sinners? He had no sins of His own to confess? Of what did He need to repent? He didn't need the baptism of John for His own sake. But the Righteous One became the Chief Sinner in order to pardon the truly guilty.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Blessed Epiphany to You!!
January 6 is the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord. The word Epiphany means revelation and this is the season when we consider the ways God reveals himself to us in Jesus Christ.
The Gospel reading for January 6 (at least in our tradition) is Matthew 2, the story of the wise men or magi from the east who visit our Lord in Bethlehem.
First a couple of factoids. While it is generally traditional to show three wise men, the Scriptures don't, in fact, tell us their number. Only that their were three gifts. It does use the plural so it was more than one, but it could've be 2 or 20 for all we can say.
Another tidbit is that we don't know their names or exactly where they came from. Generally we'd say that they were Persian or Babylonian. That's a sound guess. We know from Old Testament history that the Jews were taken into captivity into Babylon for 70 years and many remained when Cyrus the Persian overtook Babylon. Thus Persian-types and Babylonian-types were somewhat familiar with Israel and the Hebrew prophecies. These ancient cultures were also renowned for their astronomical observations.
What was the star exactly? The Bible says that it moved to guide the magi to the very house where Jesus and his mother were staying. Many have undertaken to ascertain what kind of star this might be. Stars are fixed and do not move. What about the records of other star-gazing nations? Surely any kind of major change in the heavens - such as the appearance of a new star - would have been universally noticed.
I think it's key to note that the Greek word used here is aster. We get the english words astronomy and asteroid from it. Aster can refer to just about any heavenly body so it need not have been a star as we scientific moderns would define it. Maybe it was a meteor, a comet, or an uncommon alignments of the planets. Dozens of theories have been offered.
I find the most compelling explanation to also be one of the oldest. St. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century, proposed that the aster in Matthew 2 was an angelic being of some kind. That makes the most sense to me. Why? Because it is hard to find a widely convincing explanation if we only consider the known phenomena of nature. Comets or nova would have been observed and written about. One tantalizing theory involving the alignment of certain planets and constellations is fascinating but it would fail to explain how it guided the magi to the specific house where Jesus was staying.
And besides, angels are involved in almost every other aspect of the birth narratives. It makes sense that they'd be involved here as well. And it relieves us of having to explain it by scrunching together scientific data into a handful of not-wholly-satisfactory speculations. It fits the nature of an angel to lead people to Jesus. And there is ancient church support. To me, it's the most compelling explanation.
For more reflection on the Epiphany, head over to Aardvark Alley.
Best Blonde Joke Ever
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Child Rapist Gets 60 Days
Here's a story to give you morning indigestion.
First, there is a man named Mark Hulett who raped a little girl repeatedly over a span of four years starting when she was seven years old.
Second, the prosecutor asked for 8-20 years in prison, which seems like a light sentence to me. I would support hanging the man by his neck until dead. And I suspect a large majority of the American population would agree with me.
Except, of course, the judge overseeing this case. It seems the man was convicted of the crime and the judge only gave him 60 days. And his reasoning: "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul."
That's got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Who is this message for? The criminal or the victims? And of course he is dead wrong. Anger solves lots of problems. Who does this judge think is worse, the child rapist or the people who get mad at the child rapist? You want to know what is corrosive? Child rape. That's pretty bad.
For someone who is trying to eradicate anger, this fellow - Edward Cashman - is flopping big time. For instance, he's made me angry. What about you? What about the parents of the 11 year old victim? I'm guessing they were mad at Mark Hulett for repeatedly raping their daughter. Now, instead of helping de-corrode their souls, Judge Cashman has only made them angry at one more person . . . him.
And this is what really snaps the camel's back. The judge said he doesn't want to punish Mark Hulett because punishment - and here I have to quote - "doesn't work." What? Doesn't work how? The purpose of punishment is to punish. In what way does punishment not do that? Oh, I suppose if you think that punishment is supposed to cure cancer, then it doesn't work. Or if punishment is supposed to make the criminal a better person, then it doesn't work at that either. But the purpose of punishment, as far as I see it according to St. Paul in Romans chapter 13 is to . . . you guessed it, punish.
I thank God that there will be a reckoning. And I know full well that apart from God's grace in Jesus Christ, I likewise deserve God's wrath. No less than Mark Hulett. And that is why Christ instituted the Church: to preach about the atonement and the forgiveness of sins. And the reason why God instituted the government is to punish wrongdoers like Hulett.
Judges and courts exist, not to implement their own wills upon others - nor to forgive sinners and absolve the penitents for that matter - but to implement the just and perfect will of the Creator and Divine Lawgiver and Judge of All in these circumstances. Morally bankrupt judges like the Honorable Edward Cashman should recall that God is angry with sinners and it's his job to punish them.
Any dissenters should please take this up with St. Paul in Romans 13 and not me.
(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)
