The Blind Side

Just got home from the movie theater, where I joined my wife and parents to see The Blind Side, which has received box-office success and decent critical reviews. It is the "feel-good drama" of the holiday season, but it is not at all superficial or cheesy.

Sandra Bullock is a wonderful actress whose work in the past has been overlooked. Initially I took her to be a "star" of comedy, action, and chick flicks, but she has since revealed a profound sensitivity and depth in films like Crash and Notorious. I feel that with this film, she is receiving long-overdue recognition, having already nabbed Golden Globe and Screen Actor's Guild nominations for this role. I hope to see her as one of the five Best Actress nominees on Oscar night.

The film's portrayal of committed Christians is overtly positive; it is the strong faith of Bullock's character (Leigh Anne Tuohy) that impels her and her family to take Michael Oher into their home. Their actions are among the most solid examples of specifically Christian compassion and social activism (as opposed to the many secular versions on the market today) that I have seen on film. No segment of society (the poor, the rich, Republicans, bureaucrats) is "demonized" or "blamed" for anything. (Well, there are a couple smart-assed low blows directed towards the GOP, but what do you expect from Hollywood?) The film's lack of cynicism is refreshing.

What I appreciated most about the film is the way in which Leigh Anne Tuohy's compassion for Michael Oher was not a generalized, detached sorrow for his lot in life. She invested in his life as an individual, intentionally struggling to understand who he was. And then she used what she knew about him to motivate him to excel in all areas of his life. The same could be said about her husband, her children, and the other Christian teachers depicted in the film. All of the Christians in the film are true witnesses of the way Christ loves each of us.

Props to director John Lee Hancock, the cast and crew, and the producers for having the integrity to put out such an inspiring film.

And extra props to Michael Oher for his life and his triumph. Sorry the Steelers got lucky and beat you yesterday... :)

The Grand Miracle

"The Christian story is precisely the story of one grand miracle, the Christian assertion being that what is beyond all space and time, what is uncreated, eternal, came into nature, into human nature, descended into His own universe, and rose again, bringing nature up with Him. It is precisely one great miracle. If you take that away there is nothing specifically Christian left."

- C. S. Lewis


"The Incarnation is the eucatastrophe of human history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends with joy."

- J. R. R. Tolkien

Light in the Darkness

"The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned."

- Isaiah 9:2

This is a classic Christmas verse that we hear every year at some point during the Advent season. It has become one of those sentimental texts that hits our ears and somehow provokes a nice reaction in our hearts, without being absorbed fully in our brains. Darkness becomes light. A nice positive message over which we should rejoice, right?

Or is it?

Have you ever been in a situation of darkness for a long time, when your eyes have become totally adjusted to it and you're actually able to make your way around? What would be your initial reaction if someone immediately shined a light in your eyes? Would you welcome the light?

No! Whether you've just been awakened by someone turning on your bedroom light, or you're seeing approaching headlights while driving on a lonely, unillumined road in the dark... Your eyes are used to the darkness, and your first reaction is not to welcome it but to shield yourself from it, fearing its penetrating brightness. You must make a choice to allow your eyes to adjust to the light, in order that you might see the things the light reveals.

John's Gospel tells us that "Light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. All those who do evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed" (John 3:19-20). All humans live in a state of willful rebellion against their Creator. Until recently this was generally accepted as the doctrine of Original Sin. To such rebelliousness, the Divine light of truth is not something that is initially welcome, for it will expose those things which made darkness so appealing.

In American culture the Christmas story has become so "sanitized" that it no longer makes the impact that should be made by a bright light shining in darkness. It has become a cutesy children's tale, enmeshed in elements of paganism and commercialism, that does nothing to penetrate beneath the surface of our lives and shock us with a prophetic indictment that should accompany the proclamation of God's Word.

Can we reclaim the message of Luke 1, which tells us that the cultural, political, and religious establishment generally fails to grasp what God is really all about, and that we must be receptive to messages of Divine truth from unexpected places, from the fringe of life?

Are we willing to view Mary and Joseph in a different light...not as iconic, perfect saints but as a scared young couple willing to put everything on the line for the sake of the call God placed on their lives? Are Christ-followers willing to be more like that second option, instead of unfairly holding themselves and others to the standard of the first?

Can we discern a deeper meaning in the story of the Magi, whose faith in pagan religious practices and in their own wisdom led them to the evil dictator Herod, while it was the Word of God alone that led them to Baby of Bethlehem?

Is there a political message in the story of King Herod, who ruled with lies and fear rather than with truth and justice? Will the "Herods" of our day (of all political affiliations) learn to bend their knees before the true King of Kings and be willing to expose all their deeds to the light of Christ's truth?

Most importantly, are we willing to acknowledge that so much of what we define as Christmas today...commercialism, entertainment, obligatory gifts, and wanton busyness...that these things have nothing to do with the One whose birth we celebrate and whose life we claim as our standard of everything that is true and good.

May the light of Christmas break through the darkness of sin, injustice, and apathy, that we may truly sing, "Joy to the world! The Lord is come!"

Reflections on "The Sing-Off"

This past week my wife and I became engrossed in NBC's new talent competition, "The Sing-Off." What an incredible display of vocal talent by very diverse groups of singers! You don't have to be a musician to appreciate how tough it is for a group to sing a cappella music well, and these groups have nailed it each night!

My two favorite groups are "Nota" (who have given a distinctively urban grit to a cappella music) and "The Beelzebubs" (who combine off-the-wall college-boy antics with superior vocal stylings, and they project the simple fact that music is just plain fun). Going with my gut, I'll predict that "The Beelzebubs" will take the grand prize, but I think "Nota" will give them a tough fight till the end.

Even though I am staying away from theology books until January 1, I've been reminded through my reading of secular books that anything can provoke theological reflection, for God has saturated every inch of His creation with clues to His character and truth. One only needs to seek, and he will find. (I think I read that somewhere...)

With that in mind, here is a nugget of theological wisdom that "The Sing-Off" has helped me to clarify:

The human voice is the only musical instrument that God made without any help from human beings, and it is without a doubt the most beautiful instrument of all. As my wife and I watched "The Sing-Off," we marveled at what those human voices were able to do musically, without any help from man-made pianos, guitars, or drums. And yet it is not so marvelous, when one considers that God specifically designed the human voice for the high and holy purpose of worshipping Him.

Our voices also have more power than any other instrument--for good or evil--to touch us on the deepest levels of our being. But therein lies a profound tragedy, for I believe that part of our rebellion against God is the misuse of our voices. In today's culture, so much of our speech and our singing is focused downward, towards the basest and most sinful elements of life. Ben Folds is one of the judges on "The Sing-Off," a very talented composer, pianist, and singer...and yet his songs are replete with gratuitous profanity, sexuality, and hedonism which make it difficult to respect the serious ideas that his lyrics (sometimes) contain.

Unfortunately, even Christians (including myself) have a way of misusing our voices: communicating anger rather than joy and peace, speaking words of judgment and hostility rather than words of grace and reconciliation. We raise our voices in these improper ways, and yet on Sunday mornings we do not raise our voices with the same level of intensity in our worship to God. That is, in my opinion, sinful, and it reveals the fallenness of the human voice and its need for redemption. If every Christian congregation sang with the same fervency and joy as "Nota" or "The Beelzebubs," I believe the world would be converted in no time.

Indeed, what Christian churches might learn from "Nota," "The Beelzebubs," and the other groups on "The Sing-Off" is how to incarnate an ensemble that resounds with the sonorous harmonies of the Gospel. For I believe if you asked any of those a cappella groups how they got to where they are, they would answer the following (in substance, if not exactly in form):

1 - Ensembles work only when each individual brings forth the best of who he or she is. Slackers, in the long run, will do more harm than good.

2 - Ensembles do not come into existence overnight. When you join a new ensemble, do not be too quick to judge if it does not perform exactly the way you think it should. Perhaps it is you who needs to alter your expectations.

3 - Becoming an ensemble is hard work: you must get to know and appreciate each others' voices, you must commit to learning your part of the score, and you must find a way to blend all the parts harmoniously, knowing when to hold back your own part and when to stand out.

4 - Becoming a good ensemble requires both task-oriented work (learning the music, perfecting the vocals, etc...) and relationship work (encouraging each other, learning to work together in a positive, affirming manner, etc...), and the leadership must be diligent in intuiting which type of work is called for.

5 - Coming together for rehearsal should never be seen as an end in itself. The purpose is always to go out and share the ensembles' gifts with others. If our music is only being heard by our own ensemble, why the heck are we bothering?

Serenity, Courage, and Wisdom

"God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

It has been over seventy years since that prayer was first penned by Neo-Orthodox theologian/ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr. Since then it has been adopted as the official prayer of Alcoholics Anonymous and is respected by individuals of different religious backgrounds...indeed, even by those of no religious background. The atheist philosopher Ayn Rand praised it as being "profoundly true, as a summary and a guideline: it names the mental attitude which a rational man must seek to achieve" (Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: Penguin, 1984, p. 23).

Personally, this prayer ranks as #3 on my list of favorites, right behind The Lord's Prayer and The Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. However, like all prayers (including the two aforementioned), The Serenity Prayer can take on the quality of a rote, formulaic mantra devoid of any personal meaning when uttered inattentively or without full understanding of its substance. Here is my humble attempt to shed light on the deep philosophical and theological meaning of the three separate statements in this prayer:

Serenity to accept the things we can not change. This seemingly simple statement involves the deepest issues of philosophy (specifically, the fundamental branch of metaphysics). For at its root is the acknowledgment that reality is what it is, that facts are what they are, independent of our own wishes or feelings. So much of the misery in human life comes from our psychological, emotional, or willful evasion of the plain facts of life, such as:

• God is quite willing to allow a great deal of suffering to take place out of respect for our own free will
  
• Human beings were made to be creative and productive, not to coast through life doing "as little as possible"
  
• Actions (and inactions) have consequences whether we like it or not


• No one else, and nothing else, can make us happy; we must choose happiness for ourselves and take responsibility to do those things which will make us truly happy


• We cannot force anyone to see things our way or to believe anything they don't want to believe

These are fairly commonsensical notions, yet people consistently contradict them in their daily lives when they question God and His will every time tragedy besets them, or when they make irresponsible decisions regularly and then wonder why "life" treats them so unfairly. This prayer challenges us to examine and confess every negative attitude we hold, discerning whether that attitude is a legitimate gripe or merely a spineless unwillingness to deal with hard truth.

Courage to change the things we can. If the first statement addresses the metaphysical issues of life (God and reality), then this statement addresses life's moral issues (personal responsibility). While there are certain fundamental facts about life in general that we can not change, God has granted each individual the freedom of choice concerning his or her own life for which each individual is personally responsible. In making these daily choices, most individuals resort to their "whims" or "feelings" as guides for what they will do, or they default to habits which may or may not be good ones. Then, when the undesired consequences of these choices are made manifest, rather than confess their responsibility, those same individuals assert that it was a situation "beyond my control," or they blame their bad choice on their upbringing or their brain chemistry, or they want the government to save them from the consequences, or - my favorite cop-out - acquiescently asserting that "shit happens."

It takes real moral courage to move beyond this victim mentality, to look at every moral situation we encounter, and then to face squarely the following questions:

1. Which aspects of this situation are directly within my power to choose and change, and which are not?


2. Based on my God-given reasoning ability (and the advice of others when available), what are the logical consequences of each option I have to choose, and am I personally willing to bear responsibility for those consequences?


3. Which option and which consequences seem most consistent with the teachings of Scripture?

This is truly the only way to effect significant "change" in our lives.

Wisdom to know the difference. This final statement addresses the practical issues of judgment and discernment. In many situations, knowing the difference between what we can and cannot change is merely a matter of common sense. But ultimately, wisdom in any situation comes to us when the chief emotion of our hearts is reverence (fear) of God. In other words, our ultimate focus should not be on the problem we face, but on the One who provides us with ultimate meaning and hope for our lives. Put another way, we should interpret the specifics of life through the lens of the general purpose of life, not the other way around. To give two specific examples:

• At this moment a major source of worry in my life are two individuals for whom I care a great deal, but who have been making a lot of unwise choices that are bringing upon them an immense amount of pain and depression. My worries impel me to rush head on to "save" them, to fix the situation and literally preach at them to make them see the folly of their ways. I confess that I have lost sleep over both of these dear people. Yet as I step back and allow wisdom to have her way, I see that both situations are things that I can not change and must accept with serenity. Both individuals are free agents who are responsible for their own lives and their own happiness: I can bring them to the throne of grace in my prayers, asking the Holy Spirit to work in their hearts. But I must let go of my worries, or my thoughts that I can do more than I actually can.
• Historically, I have not been very good at processing my own anger. I often allow it to become bottled up inside of me, and then it comes out all at once when one little thing sets me off. In the past, I have been good at blaming that one little thing for my outbursts. But as I have matured in wisdom, I have come to realize that this is an area of my life over which I alone am responsible. While I certainly need to rely on the graceful, sanctifying power of God, I acknowledge that this is an area in which I needed to make a change...I needed to process my negative emotions in a more godly way.

In a nutshell, my challenge to all of us is to pray the Serenity Prayer, but let us not pray it in the manner of a pious platitude. Let us pray it, rather, fully understanding the nature of the serenity, courage, and wisdom that we are asking God to grant us.

Happy Thanksgiving!

For the Christian, and even for the Jew, this day is kind of unnecessary.

Seriously, those of us who claim the Biblical story as our own should not need to set aside one day of the year for giving thanks. Thankfulness ought to be the consistent emotion of our hearts, given what we believe about who God is and who we are.

The Biblical account avers that each individual is a sinner who stands (deservingly) under God's judgment. Ironically, however, the Bible also affirms the incredible reality that God Himself continuously takes the initiative in reaching out to us in reconciliation and love.

In fact, Scripture's unique message is that true religion never consists of human beings trying to take the initiative with God. True religion is always a humble response to what God already has graciously done on our behalf.

God took the initiative in creating us in His Divine image and charging us with the holy responsibility of being stewards of creation. He took the initiative in seeking us out when we fell short of His standards. He took the initiative in creating a community of people - the Jews - who were called to live out His will in the world that all nations might be blessed. And he took the initiative to dwell among us in the Person of Jesus Christ, bringing the definitive revelation of God's character and purposes, and the definitive act of redemption in the scandalous beauty of the Cross.

And what is our part in this? Simply to respond...to repent, believe, and live a life worthy of the love that God has so freely given to us. We do not come closer to God by doing anything, certainly not be taking any initiative with God.

In fact, the Bible reveals with total honesty the horrors that result when we humans come before God with a grasping ambition. We need only think of Adam and Eve going for the fruit of the tree, the building of the Tower of Babel, Abraham's attempt to "force" God to give him the heir He promised, etc... In the long run, anything we do apart from God's grace will give us little reason for thankfulness.

So enjoy today: The parades, the football, the time with family, the food, and the shopping (well, maybe not the shopping...). But in your prayers ask God to cultivate within your soul a consistent "attitude of gratitude" that transcends this national holiday. Certainly the Pilgrims - those whom we commemorate on this day - would agree with me.

Jeff's Oscars - Pre-1980

For the years prior to 1980, I'll avoid personal commentary, and just list the year's winner, noting when I disagree with the Academy's final vote.

1979 - Kramer vs. Kramer (Jeff's pick: Apocalypse Now)

1978 - The Deer Hunter

1977 - Annie Hall (Jeff's pick: Star Wars)

1976 - Rocky (Jeff's picks: All the President's Men or Network)

1975 - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

1974 - The Godfather Part II (Chinatown is a close second!)

1973 - The Sting

1972 - The Godfather

1971 - The French Connection (Jeff's pick: Fiddler on the Roof)

1970 - Patton

1969 - Midnight Cowboy

1968 - Oliver! (Jeff's pick: 2001: A Space Odyssey or The Lion in Winter)

1967 - In the Heat of the Night (Jeff's Pick: Cool Hand Luke)

1966 - A Man for All Seasons

1965 - The Sound of Music (Jeff's Pick: Doctor Zhivago)

1964 - My Fair Lady (Jeff's Pick: Becket or Dr. Strangelove)

1963 - Tom Jones

1962 - Lawrence of Arabia (Jeff's Pick: To Kill a Mockingbird)

1961 - West Side Story (Jeff's Pick: Judgment at Nuremberg)

1960 - The Apartment

1959 - Ben-Hur

1958 - Gigi (Jeff's Pick: The Defiant Ones)

1957 - The Bridge on the River Kwai (Jeff's Pick: Witness for the Prosecution)

1956 - Around the World in Eighty Days (Jeff's Pick: Giant)

1955 - Marty

1954 - On the Waterfront

1953 - From Here to Eternity

1952 - The Greatest Show on Earth (Jeff's Pick: High Noon)

1951 - An American in Paris (Jeff's Pick: A Streetcar Named Desire or Quo Vadis)

1950 - All About Eve

1949 - All the King's Men (Jeff's Pick: Twelve O'Clock High)

1948 - Hamlet

1947 - Gentlemen's Agreement

1946 - The Best Years of Our Lives (Jeff's Pick: It's a Wonderful Life)

1945 - The Lost Weekend

1944 - Going My Way (Jeff's Pick: Double Indemnity)

1943 - Casablanca

1942 - Mrs. Miniver (Jeff's Pick: Yankee Doodle Dandy)

1941 - How Green Was My Valley (Jeff's Pick: Citizen Kane or The Maltese Falcon)

1940 - Rebecca (Jeff's Pick: The Great Dictator or The Philadelphia Story)

1939 - Gone With the Wind

1938 - You Can't Take It With You (Jeff's Pick: Boys Town)

1937 - The Life of Emile Zola (Jeff's Pick: The Good Earth)

And that's about as far back as I go, except to say that the Academy got it right in 1934 with It Happened One Night and in 1931 with Grand Hotel. Both great flicks!

Hope you enjoyed this stroll down Oscar lane!

No More Theology!

At least for the rest of 2009.

I recently made the commitment that I would read no more books of theology for the rest of the year, and instead focus on reading books only for pleasure, including some that I've been hoping to read for a while.

Apparently some friends of mine--and indeed my own wife--do not believe that I have the self-control and will-power to avoid the temptation of sneaking a peek at the writings of Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, or (God forbid) Wesley.

I usually make "reading lists" to keep me on task, so to prove to my friends that at least my intentions are true, here are the eight books I have slated to enjoy until the New Years' Day:

Walker Percy, The Thanatos Syndrome
Charles Williams, All Hallow's Eve
Agatha Christie, Death on the Nile
Dorothy L. Sayers, Clouds of Witness
Mickey Spillane, One Lonely Night
Henrik Ibsen, Rosmersholm
Edmund Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac
James Ellroy, Clandestine

So, to all you unbelievers out there, wish me happy reading!

C. S. Lewis on President Obama and the Congressional Democrats:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Jeff's Oscars - The 80's

1989
Oscar's Pick - Driving Miss Daisy
Jeff's Pick - Glory
How was this film not even nominated for Best Picture, while the feel-good flick Field of Dreams was? Glory is one of the best Civil War dramas ever made, based on the first African American regiment of soldiers to go into battle. It is a poetic story of African Americans as moral and military heroes, an inspiring true account of men who learn to fight and die together. Compelling cinematography, visual effects, costumes, and music. And most compelling of all is Denzel Washington, who deservingly won the Supporting Actor prize for his flawless portrayal as a bitter ex-slave who transforms his hatred into grace.

1988
Oscar's Pick - Rain Man
Jeff's Pick - Rain Man
Very simply, this is a character-driven drama that would have either risen or fallen depending the portrayal of the two brothers, especially the autistic Raymond. Dustin Hoffman did not disappoint...he played the part to the hilt and rightly was awarded the Best Actor Oscar. Tom Cruise elevated his image above that of a Hollywood pretty boy, and the chemistry of the two actors is what made the film worthy of the Oscar. Well, that and the fact that the other nominated films left a lot to be desired.

1987
Oscar's Pick - The Last Emperor
Jeff's Pick - The Last Emperor
From what I know, there were at least a few historical inaccuracies in this epic film by Bernardo Bertolucci. But artistically, no other film made that year could hold a candle to The Last Emperor. The performances (especially by John Lone and Peter O'Toole), the cinematography within the Forbidden City, the exotic musical score, and the artistic direction all are employed perfectly to entertain and inspire.

1986
Oscar's Pick - Platoon
Jeff's Pick - The Mission
My rejection of Platoon possibly stems from my general dislike of Oliver Stone, his leftist politics and his revisionist approach to history. But acknowledging this bias, I still think The Mission is a superior film...and the folks at the Cannes Film Festival obviously agreed with me when they awarded it the coveted Palme d'Or. Things that stand out to me are Chris Menges' cinematography, Ennio Morricone's music, the theme of worldly violence vs. Christian pacifism, and Jeremy Iron's heartfelt portrayal of a compassionate Jesuit missionary.

1985
Oscar's Pick - Out of Africa
Jeff's Pick - Witness
Harrison Ford is definitely more of a "star" than an "actor," but I truly believe he deserved the Oscar for his portrayal of Philadelphia cop John Book. Witness, which contrasts the violent corruption of the city with the pastoral simplicity of the Amish, is a true achievement of director Peter Weir. At its heart is the innocence of an Amish boy (superlatively portrayed by Lukas Haas) who witnesses a brutal homicide, but who is also a witness to the world-weary John Book that there is another way to look at life.

1984
Oscar's Pick - Amadeus
Jeff's Pick - Amadeus
Milos Forman's film, which tells the story of the rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, is a brilliant account of an artist (Mozart) yearning to break free from the restrictive maxims of his day that stifled his true creativity, and a portrait of another artist (Salieri) whose burning envy of that creativity literally drove him mad. F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce both give impeccable interpretations, and it is a historical drama of the highest order. Maurice Jarre, who won the Best Original Score Oscar for A Passage to India, should have been thankful that Amadeus' composer (Mozart himself) was ineligible to be nominated!

1983
Oscar's Pick - Terms of Endearment
Jeff's Pick - Tender Mercies
Like 1988, this was a year dominated by "small" films...but I think Terms of Endearment is a little too small. Tender Mercies features a performance by Robert Duvall, who is, in my opinion, one of the greatest film actors of all time. It's a serious story about one man's repentance and redemption, and it relies on genuine emotional drama to keep our attention (in contrast with Terms of Endearment, which relies on the overdone humor of Jack Nicholson).

1982
Oscar's Pick - Gandhi
Jeff's Pick - E. T.
I thought Gandhi was an honest, not-too-sentimental attempt to honor a true hero, and it certainly deserved highest honors. But in this case, I'm going with sentiment and picking one of the first films I remember seeing in the theater at age 9, with my brother Greg and my friend Jeff Poerstel. I'll always look at E. T. through the eyes of a 9-year-old, and I'm sorry...it was just a great film!

1981
Oscar's Pick - Chariots of Fire
Jeff's Pick - Chariots of Fire
Everybody thought that the Academy would stay true to its leftist politics and its penchant for awarding "big" films by giving the highest honor to Warren Beatty's Reds. What a refreshing surprise that they broke form and honored a truly great and inspiring film that uplifts Christian commitment, heroic optimism, and individual integrity...rather than a film that glorified collectivism and "revolution." My favorite line of the film: "My arrogance extends only as far as my conscience demands." Amen!

1980
Oscar's Pick - Ordinary People
Jeff's Pick - Ordinary People
This film does the same thing that American Beauty did 19 years later: it exposes the superficial facade that hides a deep alienation and spiritual emptiness among American suburbanites. But Ordinary People does it much better. The plot is less contrived, the characters more realistic, and the ultimate message less morbid. And as for the performances: Timothy Hutton as a confused and angry teen, Mary Tyler Moore as a repressed and superficial mother, and Judd Hirsch as the compassionate counselor... just great acting! Kudos to director Robert Redford for a great film!

Jeff's Oscars - The 90's

1999
Oscar's Pick - American Beauty
Jeff's Pick - The Insider
I enjoyed American Beauty mainly because of its open homage to other Oscar-winning films that I love, like The Apartment and Ordinary People. Its story and performances were a little overdone, in my opinion. The Insider, on the other hand, is an intense and complex story with a real issue of moral integrity, and it is executed flawlessly by director Michael Mann and actors Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. Again, Crowe should have one for this performance, not for Gladiator.

1998
Oscar's Pick - Shakespeare in Love
Jeff's Pick - The Thin Red Line
Terrence Malick is perhaps one of the most underrated directors in Hollywood, and I personally believe that The Thin Red Line is a masterpiece, both in its visual spectacle and its poignant script. Set during World War II, it contrasts the horror of modern warfare with the natural beauty of Guadalcanal and its native population. Even deeper, it allows the viewer to experience the internal conflicts and diverse perspectives of the American soldiers, most notably the character played by Jim Caviezel. A little slow-moving, yes, but well worth it!

1997
Oscar's Pick - Titanic
Jeff's Pick - L. A. Confidential
Oscar went with popular sentiment and voted for the "big" film, with 15 nominations and 11 wins. But seriously, L. A. Confidential stands with The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, and Chinatown as one of the classics of film noir. Kim Basinger's win for supporting actress should have been met with, at the very least, nominations for Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, and Guy Pearce...all who deliver pristine performances as 1950's L. A. detectives. In my opinion, L. A. Confidential is the iceberg that should have sunk Titanic.

1996
Oscar's Pick - The English Patient
Jeff's Pick - Fargo
Again, the "big" film won. And what exactly was the point of The English Patient? I mean, other than it being a way-overdone love story? Ethan and Joel Coen made a great film in Fargo. Is it a thriller? A comedy? A crime drama? (Apparently it's even based on a real-life story). And the acting from Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, and Steve Buscemi was just plain fantastic. When The English Patient won, all I could do is sit in...total silence.

1995
Oscar's Pick - Braveheart
Jeff's Pick - Braveheart
Okay, so sometimes I think the "big" film should win, and this is one clear example. Gibson took a great script by Randall Wallace and then weaved in the scenery of Scotland, evocative music, fervid battle sequences, and earnest performances to perfectly express the emotional depth of that script. In the category of historical dramas, this film rates as one of the all-time best.

1994
Oscar's Pick - Forrest Gump
Jeff's Pick - The Shawshank Redemption
I had a tough time on this one, because I do love Forrest Gump and think it's a great film. But in this particular case, I have a bias towards any films that were made in a town where I lived, and Shawshank was made in Ashland, Ohio where I attended college and seminary. (The old prison still exists in nearby Mansfield). Plus, it's based on a favorite short story by Stephen King, and I think Morgan Freeman should have won Best Actor for this one.

1993
Oscar's Pick - Schindler's List
Jeff's Pick - Schindler's List
I think The Pianist is a better Holocaust drama (see my last post), but after years of being snubbed by the Academy for other great films (Jaws, E.T., and The Color Purple) they finally rewarded Spielberg's brilliance for this mature, passionate movie. The black-and-white adds atmosphere, John Williams' score sets a perfect tone, Ralph Fiennes is absolutely remarkable in revealing the psychology of a Nazi, and the last scene with the real "Schindler Jews" was a great sentimental touch.

1992
Oscar's Pick - Unforgiven
Jeff's Pick - Unforgiven
It's been a while since I saw this film, but I remember being impressed with how different it was from earlier Eastwood westerns. It seemed less about the violence (although there was quite a bit) and more about the reflective nature of Eastwood's character. Definitely not your typical western, but one thoroughly deserving of Oscar.

1991
Oscar's Pick - The Silence of the Lambs
Jeff's Pick - The Silence of the Lambs
If it's possible for a horror film to be psychologically deep and philosophically intelligent, this film does that and more. Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster deliver two of the best performance ever to grace the screen. Director Jonathan Demme uses ever frame of film to deliver symbolism and reinforce the bizarre nature of the plot. Every time I watch this film, I catch something I missed before.

1990
Oscar's Pick - Dances with Wolves
Jeff's Pick - Goodfellas
Yeah, I like Kevin Costner's film, but it was a little too "politically correct" for my taste. Martin Scorsese is a great director, and crime drama is his forte. This is one of the films he should have won the Oscar for (Taxi Driver is another), and not for The Departed.

Jeff's Oscars - the 2000's

I am a movie buff, and I have been following the Oscars for at least twenty years. Like all democratic votes, sometimes we agree with the results, and sometimes we don't. In my opinion, some years Oscar has gotten it right, and other years it really missed the boat. So for the next few posts, here are my picks for "Best Picture of the Year" and how they square up with the Academy's vote:

2008:

Oscar's Pick - Slumdog Millionaire

Jeff's Pick - The Dark Knight

Don't get me wrong...Slumdog is a great film. But The Dark Knight brought powerful performances, philosophical insight, incredible cinematography, emotional depth, and cultural relevance to the popular superhero story. And it wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! Shame on you, Academy!

2007:

Oscar's Pick - No Country for Old Men

Jeff's Pick - No Country for Old Men

Oscar got it right, even though it had some stiff competition from There Will Be Blood. For my thoughts on this particular movie, check out my post earlier on this blog.

2006:

Oscar's Pick - The Departed

Jeff's Pick - Pan's Labyrinth

The Academy went sentimental and gave overdue kudos to veteran Martin Scorsese as an apology for overlooking his brilliant work in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Gangs of new York, and The Aviator. However, choosing not on sentiment but actual cinematic achievement, I think they should have picked the (again, not even nominated) Pan's Labyrinth, an aesthetically brilliant and emotionally touching fantasy by Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro.

2005:

Oscar's Pick - Crash

Jeff's Pick - Crash

A brilliant script, fueled by intense performance (many of which deserved to be nominated), and addressing a very sensitive topic of racism with honesty, integrity, and even humor...I literally cheered when Jack Nicholson read the envelope!

2004:

Oscar's Pick - Million Dollar Baby

Jeff's Pick - Hotel Rwanda

Okay, Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Million Dollar Baby was a good movie. But yet again, the Academy didn't even nominate Hotel Rwanda, which was a movie bigger in scope and a much more profound message. Don Cheadle and Sophie Okenado give amazing performances.

2003:

Oscar's Pick - Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Jeff's Pick - Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Peter Jackson did as good a job as anyone could in bringing Tolkien's masterpiece to the screen. It's just a brilliant film.

2002:

Oscar's Pick - Chicago

Jeff's Pick - The Pianist

I don't think Chicago can hold a candle to some of the great film musicals of the past, some of which did not win Best Picture. Now, don't get me wrong: I have no personal respect at all for Roman Polanski and think he should stay in prison. But hell, he's made some great films (Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, just to name two favorites). And The Pianist deals with the Holocaust in an honest, artistically humble, and historically precise way...rather than overtly sentimentalizing it like Spielberg did in Schindler's List. It is truly a masterpiece by a great director.

2001:

Oscar's Pick - A Beautiful Mind

Jeff's Pick - Gosford Park

I enjoyed A Beautiful Mind and think Russell Crowe deserved to win the Oscar for this performance, rather than for his bravado turn in Gladiator. But for my mind, Gosford Park combines a lucid theme, an incredible ensemble cast, a profound script, and magnificent artistry...all brought together by the beautiful mind of a humble but powerful director: Robert Altman. A favorite to watch with my wife!

2000:

Oscar's Pick - Gladiator

Jeff's Pick - Traffic

Gladiator was a visual spectacle...and a testosterone-packed guy film...and that's about the extent of it. Traffic probes the reality of drug trafficking and its effect on all segments of American society, and it is a sobering critique of the superficial means often used to address it (and other deep problems). It features another incredible ensemble cast, including riveting performances by Michael Douglas, Benicio Del Toro, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

More to come...

Inklings and Emergents

I have made no apology about my obsession with The Inklings, whose writings have shaped my thinking more than any others (except--hopefully--for the Bible). I also attempt to keep up on what is current in Christian thinking and practice, not because I'm particularly interested in being "relevant" or "with it" but because we must follow Christ's command to read the signs of the times. For that reason, I also am interested in listening to the leaders of the Emerging Church like Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball, Spencer Burke, and Tony Jones.

I recently brought these two stands of thought together and came up with a remarkable observation: the two groups of Christian thinkers have some interesting commonalities, as well as some telling divergences.

Here's what I think:

COMMONALITIES:

1 - Both groups regarded themselves as an "informal conversation" rather than a formal, structured church ministry. Their conversation generally occurred outside the framework of institutional religion - in fact, more often than not, it occurs in pubs with pints of beer in abundance.

2 - Both groups are "trans-denominational," drawing from all backgrounds and theological perspectives.

3 - Both groups were critical of modern rationalism which confines all truth to scientific categories and all religious belief into a shallow, respectable "churchianity."

4 - Likewise, both groups were critical of the modernist view of God (almost Deism) and sought to reclaim the free, wild, sovereign Christ who shatters all of our pretentions and dares us to follow Him.

5 - Both groups prefered to use the arts (rather than systematic treatises) to communicate the Christian faith, seeking to engage the "intuitive imagination" (rather than just reason) of their audiences.

6 - Both groups had severe criticism for the institutional churches of their age for being more interested in self-preservation than in communicating Christian truth to people in contemporary language and in practical ways.

7 - Interestingly (but perhaps superficially), both groups were composed of white males. This is not a criticism of either group. It does, however, point to an irony in the Emergent movement, a movement which claims to represent a more diverse Christianity than that of the modern church.

DIVERGENCES:

1 - While the Inklings were made up almost exclusively of laymen, most of the Emerging Christians are either pastors or have served in some official capacity in a local church.

2 - The Inklings may have been deeply critical of the open heresy and sin in various Christian communions, but they were entirely supportive of (and indeed, loved) The Church as an institutional reality. On the contrary, most Emerging Christians are (at the very least) critical of The Church as an institutional reality, some of them opting to leave the church entirely. They stress the relational aspect of the Gospel almost to the point that they believe that the Institution is more of a hindrance than a means of furthering the relationship.

3 - The Inklings believed that their role was to bring the Church back to its basic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to fight against a watered-down, relativistic gospel that seemed prevalent in many denominations. Emergents, on the other hand, seem to believe that their role is to bring the Church into a greater engagement with American Culture, even as they present a very watered-down, relativistic gospel...even to the point of denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ or His substitutionary atonement on the Cross.

4 - The Inklings followed the wisdom of the ancient and medievals writers who believed that, while our knowledge may not be 100% perfect, our minds are capable of reasoning, making judgments, and knowing the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Conversely, Emergent Christians are deeply suspicious of any truth claims and seem offended by any inference that a person must choose either/or.

5 - The Inklings, by and large, held a high view of the Bible and of the historic confessions of the Church. For them, these are not "living documents" to be updated in different cultural realities, but truth statements that confront all cultures and challenge people to repent and believe. Obviously, the Emergents have a much more watered-down view of Scripture and the Creeds, believing that nothing in Scripture is above culture. Therefore, cultural realities become the standard by which to interpret Scripture and the Creeds (rather than the other way around).

Well, that's what I think. What do you think?

Blessed Are the "Peace-talkers?"

President Barack Obama has been rewarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Interestingly, the deadline for nominations for the prize was February 1, less than two weeks after Obama took the Oath of Office. Before becoming President, Obama's major accomplishments were serving as a "community organizer" alongside corrupt Chicago politicians, voting "present" for a majority of Senate roll calls, and authoring two memoirs glorifying his own personal history and experience.

So apparently in less than two weeks as an actual national leader, "somebody" felt he had accomplished enough to merit being placed alongside the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa. (On the other hand, more recent Nobel Peace Prize winners include Al Gore and Jimmy Carter; apparently their standards have gone down considerably in recent years.)

Here is the reasoning behind the decision to award Obama:

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."
He added that the committee endorsed "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'" - KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers

Translation: "We do not recognize that Obama has achieved anything for the cause of peace. But, he himself is a 'symbol for peace' and he talks about peace an awful lot. By the way, we endorse his politics (and you can shove that up your you-know-what, George W. Bush!)."

If being a symbol of peace, and talking about peace an awful lot, and "capturing the world's attention" is enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize, why not give it to actor Ben Kingsley for his riveting portrayal of Gandhi? Or better yet, why not give it to David Letterman, who finally humbled himself enough to apologize to (and thereby make peace with) Sarah Palin?

Only history can judge if Obama's national and international political tactics will achieve a lasting peace. People are simply unable to view their own times objectively, and they are not able to fully grasp all the consequences of their ideas, decisions and actions. Simply speaking the language of peace means, in the long run, very little.

For example, in the 1930's, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain adhered to an international politics similar to Obama's - to meet hostile forces without preconditions, to apologize for his own nation's actions, and to seek compromise or agreement wherever possible. None of this did anything to deter the aggression of Nazi Germany or prevent World War II. Can we honestly call Chamberlain a "peace-maker?"

On the other hand, the 70-year-long Cold War was effectively ended, at least in part, due to three individuals: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. All three of them took a hard line stance against Soviet Communism, refused to apologize at all for their own positions, and (in the case of Reagan and Thatcher) strengthened their countries militarily in order to go to war if necessary. The result? The Communist bully backed down, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall was dismantled, and Western ideas such as freedom, justice, and Christianity are now openly proclaimed among the former Soviet peoples.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peace makers" - i.e., people whose concrete actions (of whatever sort) actually bring about peace in the world. (And as he said somewhere else, "The tree is known by its fruit" - i.e., not by its good intentions.)

On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah criticizes people who "dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace."

And the Apostle Paul warns, "While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."

All due respect to the Office of the President...but in my humble opinion, Barack Obama most certainly does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and his receiving it is an insult to all true peace-makers.

Then again, maybe I'm making too much of nothing. After all, past nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and yes, even Adolf Hitler. Maybe it's not the honor everybody thinks it is.

A Conservative Alternative

Earlier today I read an article written by Governor Bobby Jindal (R - Louisiana), which was published in The Washington Post. The article can be found in full here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003_pf.html

I have been praying that the Republicans would cease their usual method of merely attacking the Democrats' health care reform agenda (ala Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc...) or their equally odious method of kowtowing to the Democrats on all fundamental issues (ala John McCain and many, many others), and instead offer a rational, constructive vision for health care reform based on consistent conservative principles.

This article by Jindal is the first I've seen that seems a true answer to my prayers. It is intelligent and clearly outlined, and seems to be based on a desire to address the real concerns of the American people (rather than a discredited ideology and dubious special interest groups, as the Liberals' plan does). I realize this is just an outline, and I'm not saying I agree with every word of it, but it is nice to see this kind of proactiveness coming from the Right these days.

Many early analysis shows Jindal to be a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2012 Presidential election. I have seen him on TV only a few times, and I don't know his position on all issues facing our nation. But I intend to watch him with great interest in the future.

A Christian Horror Novel!

Recently, I re-read Descent into Hell by Charles Williams. Williams was an "Inkling," friend and colleague of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, whose work spans literary criticism (of Dante and other medieval writers), theology (specifically on the religious meaning of love), church history, and...believe it or not, popular thriller novels (of which Descent into Hell is perhaps his greatest).

C. S. Lewis was once asked to list the top ten books that influenced his own theological perspective. Lewis included Descent into Hell on that list, and one can discern clear influences from that work in many of Lewis' own books, including The Great Divorce, Till We Have Faces, and The Problem of Pain (just to name a few).

The book is a thriller in that several of its characters experience supernatural visions or revelations which are indeed frightening. But in its basic theme, it asks and then attempts to answer a very deep philosophical problem: Can something be both frightening and good at the same time?

In the novel, the characters who most clearly "descend into hell" are those who live lives of utter detachment from the world and other people, and choose to love only the vanity of their own thoughts and ideals. Out of fear of an imperfect reality, they retreat into their own minds and neglect the need to be confronted with anything "other," thereby depriving themselves of redemptive relationship. Implicitly narcissistic, they love only their own musings and emotions and offer only bitter contempt for actual reality.

This reminds me of a quote from one of Williams' contemporaries, T. S. Eliot: "Hell is oneself, hell is alone, the other figures in it merely projections. There is nothing to escape from and nothing to escape to. One is always alone." In their desire to protect themselves from the imperfection of this earth and of other people, lost people unwittingly secure their own damnation. For the first step to salvation is to love what is outside ourselves, frightening as that may be for us contemporary Americans who have made self-love, self-reliance, or self-esteem the summum bonum of life. Indeed, to love (and be loved by) a God who is wholly other than us requires that we deny ourselves all together and seek Christ.

While occasionally a cumbersome read, the book is filled with delightful humor, poignant moments of grace, and raw truthfulness about our predisposition to sinful self love. I won't give away any more of the plot, and thereby rob you of a great read. But I will offer you Williams' conclusion to the question raised above:

"Salvation is quite often a terrible thing--a frightening good."

[P.S. - Since Halloween is coming up, I plan on reading another of Williams' thrillers, All Hallow's Eve, and Lord willing I'll have a post on it before Oct. 31!]

A Political Re-Run

Today, in light of recent news in the American political scene, here is a "re-run" of a post that originally "aired" on January 5, 2008...a few days after the Iowa caucuses of the '08 Presidential Campaign. The Republican winner of those caucuses was Gov. Mike Huckabee, and the Democratic winner was then-Senator B. Hussein Obama. I specifically ask that, in light of the Democrats' insane attempts to literally force their health-care legislation on a skeptical American public, that you read the last two paragraphs. But definitely peruse the whole article, and memorize the second quote from G. K. Chesterton!





The other night, my wife Cherith and I were watching the results of the Iowa caucus. As usual, there were roaring crowds, enthusiastic candidates, and media pundits ready with their fast analysis of the results (which usually changes from day to day).

Obama, the Democratic victor, gave what was by far the most inspiring speech, focusing on the historic moment of the first African-American to win a presidential caucus/primary, and on the hope that he will bring as a candidate of change (although change to what, I haven't yet gotten from him).

The speech that caught my attention was Huckabee's, the Republican winner who seems to be championed by many Evangelical Christians. Certainly more "folksy" and less polished than Obama's, he made reference to a quote by G. K. Chesterton...one of my favorite writers and a major influence on all of the Inklings.

The quote was: "A true warrior fights not because he hates those in front of him, but because he loves those behind him." A great quote, which Huckabee proceeded to take totally out of context and misapply to his point.

However, Huckabee's use of Chesterton in a political speech made me think of another quote from Chesterton in his book, The Everlasting Man: "A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep."

A despotism is a tired democracy. What a statement.

I look around the US, and in many respects, a tired democracy is exactly what I see, even among faithful Christians.

I see religious conservatives wanting government to legislate their moral principles and allow Christian orthodoxy to intrude into the public sphere...rather than doing the hard task of building relationships, loving, evangelizing, and discipling those who are lost.

I see liberal-thinking Christians wanting government to demonstrate the compassion and justice of Scripture through government entitlement programs and universal health care, all the while using most of their budgets on congregational programs and structures that are often more culture-bound than biblically mandated.

I see the majority of Americans believing that government owes them something beyond being a source of impartial law, an enforcer of contracts among people, and a protector from criminals and foreign enemies...which was implicitly the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Government has gotten so large and has taken on so many functions, we would hardly recognize the very frugal and simple government that existed for the first 100 years of our nation. Ironically, when our national government was small and had limited functions, it was then that our local communities were strong and vibrant, because those local communities were empowered to do things for themselves rather than immediately relying on Washington, D.C.

Is America slowly on the road to becoming a despotism? Are American citizens really more interested in being "cared for" by the government, rather than trusting in God and relying on their own ingenuity and the willing generosity of family, friends, and churches in their communities? Is it even possible to return to the vision of a national government so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson: "...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"? Or has government become yet another idol in which we choose to put our unquestioning faith?

In conclusion, a brief lesson of history: In 1933, Adolf Hitler, perhaps the greatest despot of the 20th century, was elected into office. He did not seize power; it was given to him by the people of Germany, and as he usurped more and more authority while silencing his critics, the majority of Germans (including the church) chose to do nothing.

I pray to God that never happens here, but something tells me He might feel like teaching us the hard way.....

Waves

Yesterday I reconnected with a friend I hadn't seen in over 10 years.

He and I attended both college and seminary at the same time. We didn't exactly mingle with the same crowd, but we had a common interest in music and a desire to follow Christ. (At the time, we both were much better at the first than the second!). After seminary, he gave me the great honor of playing piano at his wedding.

For part of the day we went swimming in Lake Michigan. The weather here has been somewhat inconstant of late, and so yesterday we were able to enjoy an adventurous swim in incredibly choppy waters with waves eight feet tall (and taller) and a strong current that moved us as rapidly as a free-flowing river. At a public beach, they probably would not have allowed anyone to venture into such waters, but this was a private, swim-at-your-own-risk beach, so we went for it. Had my worrisome wife witnessed this behavior from her 36-year-old, out-of-shape, asthmatic husband, she probably would not have approved. (Sorry, honey).

We felt utterly ebullient as we enjoyed mother nature's aggressive side...yet my friend and I also delved into deep spiritual conversation. (Yes, even while treading water between the crashing waves). We talked about some doubts and struggles of ministry, we reminisced about the many immature decisions we made as college students, and in general we shared an authenticity that I find only infrequently among fellow Christ-followers, both clergy and laypeople.

I had hoped that my day's retreat with my friend would bring some fresh word from God to reinvigorate my ministry. God did not disappoint. He spoke to me in the waves. Just like my heroes, the Celtic Christians, who often boasted of their ability to see "glory in the grey," I am thankful to God for letting me see deeper meaning -- His meaning -- in that time of swimming.

The Celtic saints also believed that it is in the wildness, unpredictability, and ambiguity of life that the life of God is most intensely felt. Immersed in those waves, God challenged me to live my life with more boldness and authenticity than I have to this point. Too often I have allowed fear and cynicism to define how to relate to the world, other people, and even myself. I am uncomfortable with mystery and mess. I do not assert myself the way I should for fear of rejection and failure.

Do I trust God enough to be at peace in the waves of life...to fully immerse myself, even without full understanding? Can I let go of the destructive belief that everything in life must conform to my neat, rational categories?

Driving home last night, processing all that had transpired, God clearly spoke to me that I am missing out on much of what He has in store for me because I have been afraid to simply venture into, and enjoy, the waves of life. I see with abundant clarity some changes that I need to make in my own life, so that I can be more at peace with myself and more effective at sharing Jesus with others.

Lately, I have been asking a lot of questions of God. In true divine fashion, He responded, not by revealing answers, but by revealing Himself. And I'm pretty sure I'm satisfied.

Thanks, God, for a true experience of καιρος.

And thanks Charly and Christina, for a great afternoon of fellowship, music, and waves!

Wise Words from a Pretty Boy

First of all, a point of clarification: I am not the "pretty boy" referenced in the title of this post. I use that title to describe a young Hollywood actor, Chace Crawford, recently voted "Hottest Bachelor" by People magazine. His wise words, which I will quote later in this post, are an oasis of rationality in the inchoate worldview propounded by the cultural elite (include Hollywood, which makes his words all the more oasis-like).

In a nutshell, for several decades (perhaps much longer) Western culture has posed doubt to be the summum bonum of life. Our current cultural quest, it seems, is to rid our minds and hearts of any attachment to "absolute truths" as foundational to existence. This is the ultimate end of Western "individualism" - ridding our lives of any external, transcendant standards so that each individual may "define his or herself" however he or she wants, without any risk of accountability or judgment.

This can be seen in two current postmodern philosophies. Neo-pragmatism avers that the only standard of value in life is "what works for me." Deconstructionism propounds the meaning-laden theory that nothing means anything, so I can make anything mean whatever I want.

This is seen also in international politics, in which our current President seems utterly unwilling to take a clear moral stance towards the evil regimes in the Middle East, but only expresses his doubt about American goodness. In fact, it seems that any sense of absolute morality has been ejected from political discourse.

Hollywood recently put forth two films that explicitly address this topic.

The film Doubt, featuring riveting performances by its four cast members, superficially deals with a case of child-molestation by a Catholic priest. But the deeper issue in the film is the utter inability of people to have absolute certainty about anything. An older nun (superlatively portrayed by Meryl Streep) is the only character in the film who displays a sense of firm conviction about her faith; yet the climax of the movie comes when she despairingly cries, "I have such doubts!"

Religulous is comedian Bill Maher's satirical attempt to poke holes in the very notion of religion itself. In the film, he interacts with individuals who represent only the most absurd elements of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other faiths. He does all of this to prove that religion is pointless, that those who endorse it are ignorant rubes, and that it is much better to live in perpetual doubt.

Sadly, this attitude is infecting the Church as well, with "Jesus Seminar" followers destroying the credibility of Scripture and with some (though not all) Emergent Christians expressing disdain for orthodox Christian teachings or for the exclusivity of Christ as the unique Savior of humankind. I still haven't decided whether these phenomena are the result of Christians' prideful unwillingness to submit to the authority of God's revelation, or the result of Christians' sad proclivity for desiring to be "with it" even more than they desire to be "with God."

In any case, it's my opinion that the following simple quote from pretty boy Chace Crawford ought to be seen as prophetic to all disciples of Jesus Christ:

Doubt your doubts before you doubt your beliefs.

I called the quote simple but it is, in fact, quite profound. Think of it this way: When you are confronted with a proposition that claims to be an absolute truth, and your initial reaction is to doubt that truth, today's culture would say that you should go with your doubt not just about that particular absolute but about all absolutes.

Chace Crawford's words give us a different piece of advice. When we doubt a proposition that claims to be absolute, we should first ask ourselves why do we doubt it? Is it because we have thought carefully about the questions raised by the proposition, and have we looked at it logically? Or is it because there is something deep within us that doesn't want to acknowledge its truth?

If we reject a truth claim, is it because we have found a more logical proposition to answer the questions is raises? Or does the proposition so unsettle us that we'd rather dismiss it than deal honestly with its claims?

The ancient and medieval philosophers put it this way: We should not seek to conform the truth to my own mind and soul; rather, we should seek to conform my own mind and soul to the Truth. It is objective truth that critiques me, not I who critiques objective truth. When I am confronted with a proposition that claims to be absolute, like 2 + 2 = 4, I have only two options: I can conform my mind to that truth and accept it, or I can live in rebellion against its reality. There is no middle ground.

We Christians--indeed, all human beings--have been seeking to find middle ground in matters of faith for too long. In reality, we have only two options: we can doubt the Christian faith and reject it (as much of our culture is doing), or we can follow Chace Crawford's advice to doubt our doubts, and live boldly (not apologetically) in the truth of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Practical Significance of the Trinity

Tomorrow is Trinity Sunday, in which we acknowledge and celebrate one of the most distinctive theological tenets of the Christian faith.

Our confession that the Divine actually exists, and that we can know objectively true information about the Divine, distinguishes us from atheism and agnosticism. We distinguish ourselves from deism (as well as much of ancient pagan philosophy) by affirming that the Divine is a personal Being who continues to interact with the world He has created through revelation and miraculous acts.

However, we also classify ourselves differently from the pantheistic (or panentheistic) tendencies of Hinduism, Buddhism, and many current spiritual fads by affirming that the Divine is a transcendent Being who confronts all nature with His sovereign holiness. Finally, the Christian belief about God is at odds with Judaism and Islam in that, while we affirm God's unity, it is a unity that is expressed mysteriously in three distinct Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As a theological doctrine, the Trinity has been grappled with for centuries. Specifically, we owe a debt of gratitude to the great Cappadocian Fathers of the Eastern Church (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianus) and Saint Augustine of the Western Church for their masterful attempts of expressing the life of the Trinity. Today we are seeing a remarkable renewal of trinitarian thought among both Protestant and Catholic theologians.

However, in honor of Trinity Sunday, I would just like to share a few brief thoughts I've been thinking about this doctrine's practical significance in the everyday life of the individual believer, and in the life of the Church:

First of all, the Doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that Ultimate Reality is relational in nature. The highest Truth in existence is not a static, bare fact to be analyzed or reasoned about: Ultimate Truth is the creative, dynamic interaction—the perichoresis—among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who exist in intimate communion with one another.

Perhaps this should give us a clue as to how we should “package” the truths of our faith. While systematic theologies and rational apologetics serve an indispensable purpose as part of the package, Christians must understand that living out the truths of faith in intimate communion with others, and in a dynamic and creative way, is perhaps the best way to communicate truthfully the nature of the God we represent, worship, and serve.

Secondly, the Doctrine of the Trinity implies that unity and diversity need not be contradictory terms, but that they together give us a deep insight into the nature of truth and reality. The three Persons of the Trinity are clearly distinct; there is, therefore, diversity within the Godhead. At the same time, the Godhead is inseparably unified in essence and in purpose; thus, there is also unity.

This extraordinary fact of the Divine relationship may have something unique to say about human relationships as well, especially in the church. There are those Christian denominations that call for a unity that is almost “uniformity”—a situation that allows for no originality or creativity in communicating and living out our faith. At the other side of the spectrum are those who champion diversity at all costs, to the extent it is nearly impossible to acknowledge or articulate what truly unites us (the Gospel) without being labeled “offensive” or “doctrinaire.” Our Trinitarian God can be a model for us as we strive to acknowledge and celebrate the rich diversity that exists within the Christian community, while also unapologetically confessing a greater unity because of the reconciling work of Jesus Christ.

Finally, individual human beings (both male and female) are created in the Image of God (Genesis 1:27). As an individual I am a multi-faceted creature, and my identity cannot be reduced merely to my body, or my mind, or my emotions. All three constitute distinct parts of one being: me. As the Trinity is three distinct Persons in one God, I must strive to harmonize the distinct aspects of my personality into the single purpose of loving God and loving others (Mark 12:28-31).

Loving others, I must show respect for these different facets of personality in every person I meet. I can never view another human being as merely a body to be exploited, emotions to be manipulated, or a mind to be debated. I must view each human being as a whole person…as my neighbor…and as C. S. Lewis once aptly remarked, “Next to the blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses” (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory). May God daily grant me the ability to see His Trinitarian Image in my wife, my friends, my congregation members, and every person I meet, and may He give me the grace to love them as He loves them.

"Engaged With God" - A Biblical Look at Worship

WARNING: Before reading this blog entry, read Psalm 96. This is an adaptation of a sermon I preached a while back.


As is true with many terms among Christians, the word “worship” can become a cliché without any significant content if we don’t stop to consider its true meaning.
- Jerry Solomon, pastor

I take that quote seriously, because I think that there is a lot of confusion in the Body of Christ regarding what worship really is. Each of us defines it differently and has differing expectations, but we don’t often ask ourselves how God defines worship and what He expects from us.

And I know this is going to sound a little weird, but in order to get into that, I’d like to tell you about I proposed to my wife Cherith. Guys, when you proposed to your wives, how many of you got down on one knee?

I didn’t get down on one knee. I thought that it was sort of old-fashioned. But here’s what I did: I cooked dinner for her, I had a fire blazing in the fireplace, I had roses for her, and then I took her to the top of Mt. Washington in Pittsburgh. We just sat down on a park bench there, and I took out the ring and proposed. By the way, it was late November and about 20 degrees outside, so when I said, “Will you marry me?” her response was “y-e-e-s-s-s.”

Cherith told me that I did everything perfect that night. But in retrospect, I wish I had gotten down on one knee.

Since then I learned what that symbol really means. It’s from the days when warriors were knighted. They would get down on one knee before the rulers of the land, and it was basically a sign of unconditional faithfulness, a sign of their willingness to fight and even to die for their beloved country. And when this symbol was transferred to marriage proposals, it was the man saying the same thing to his beloved: I pledge my unconditional faithfulness to you, and I am willing to fight and even die for you.

Now, the reason I’m starting out with this is because I see a parallel with the Bible. In my opinion, the entire Old Testament is kind of like God’s courtship with His chosen beloved, His people. It’s God and Israel coming into a deeper and fuller understanding of each other, Israel coming to a greater awareness of what God’s heart is all about. And then in an incredibly dramatic act, God kind of got down on one knee. Like a medieval knight...or like a man in love...He humbled Himself and showed the depth of His commitment to us His beloved by affirming that He is willing to fight for us and to die for us — in fact, that He did die for us. In spite of our sin and rebellion, He is committed and wants to be united with us for all eternity.

Some people say that the Bible is God’s love letter to humanity. I would challenge that by saying that Scripture is God’s proposal of marriage to His Church. We are the “Bride-to-be” - that’s one of the major biblical images of the church. We are engaged to God. The wedding date is set some time in the future. And in the meantime, how we respond to God’s proposal is worship.

I told you how I proposed. Now I’m going to tell you 4 things that Cherith did in response to my proposal — and I think these 4 things are common to most young ladies in love. And I want to suggest that these 4 things can help us to interpret what Scripture says about worship.

The first thing Cherith did after accepting my proposal was she got emotional and she told me how much she loved me. And in the months of our engagement, she very creatively expressed how much I meant to her. She made me some home-made greeting cards for every holiday known to man, as well as a few holidays that she made up just for an excuse to give me a card. She wrote me an “old fashioned love letter” on three pages of notebook paper. Nowadays you can just whip out your cell phone and text "I luv u,” but she took the time to do it right. She expressed genuine and heartfelt gratitude to me just for being who I am. You might think it gave me a big head...maybe it did alittle, but on the whole it was quite humbling. As a man who had been a bachelor until age 32, I can’t tell you how much it meant to hear who I am in the eyes of the person I love.

And if that’s any indication of how God wants us to respond to His proposal, then a huge part of worship is simply expressing to God who He is in our eyes...what He means to us. This is the sense of the first words of Psalm 96: “Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing to the Lord, praise His name.” I think the first aspect of a biblical idea of worship is PRAISE.

Our culture has, in many ways, reduced worship to having music that I feel comfortable with, getting a sermon that addresses my felt needs, and that holds my attention for an hour or so. But if you look at Scripture, worship has very little to do with me...with us. We shouldn’t come to worship expecting to get anything for us; we should come to worship prepared to rejoice in God for all that He has already blessed us with. That is the biblical concept of worship.

But I’m afraid that America has become a place where it is easier to complain about what we don’t have or to act like a victim, rather than to take an honest look at the magnitude of what God has given to us. In preparing to write this, I did a little exercise. I sat at my computer desk with a blank page of Microsoft Word in front of me, and I challenged myself to take 20 minutes and list as many personal blessings from God to me. The result was an 8-page list with 30 blessings per page.

And that’s just what I was able to come up with in 20 minutes!

To praise someone is to recognize something that they are or something that they have done. That’s what we should be doing with God. Yet today, we look at everything we have and we see it as a deserved entitlement rather than as a gracious gift. We even see heaven itself as the rightful destination of everybody after they die, rather than a costly gift given only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. When we fail to see magnitude of what God has done on our behalf, what He has given to us, our worship will be inadequate regardless of the musical style, the technology, or anything else.

As a challenge to anybody who feels like taking it up: Next Sunday morning, before you come to church, take just 10 minutes, and make a list like I did, of all the blessings that you recognize in your life. And after church, see if your experience of worship was any different.

You see, to praise God requires that we adjust our attitude before we come to worship, rather than coming to worship hoping that God will adjust our attitude. As one of my seminary profs used to say, “We praise God not in the hope of receiving something from Him, but in the acknowledgment of what we have already received.”

But praise is only the first aspect of a biblical view of worship. And now I’ll go back to my illustration of Cherith’s response to my proposal.

After we returned home as an engaged couple, the first thing Cherith did was go to the phone and start calling people, telling them the good news: “He finally asked me!” She couldn’t wait to call her parents, my parents, her siblings, my siblings, and all of her girlfriends. And she didn’t just say, “Yeah I’m engaged.” She rehashed every single detail about it. And why? Because for Cherith, every time she told somebody about it, it was like she was reliving that moment for herself.

And I think that’s true not just of getting engaged, but of any meaningful experience in our lives...Marriages, family vacations, mission trips, births… When you talk about them with others, it adds a level of depth to your experience and somehow makes it more meaningful than it already was.

We look at the second part of Psalm 96, we see a similar theme: “Proclaim his salvation day after day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.”

If I can summarize this in one word, I would say PROCLAMATION.

Apparently worship isn’t just praising God and telling God how great He is, but it’s also telling other people how great He is too. It’s bearing witness to what you believe in the presence of others. Throughout the New Testament, one of the Greek words used for “worship” is aineo, and a real translation of that word is “to announce and to celebrate.”

We Americans have a “gentleman’s agreement” to kind of keep our religious commitments under wraps...mostly I think because we’re afraid of offending anyone or of looking like some “religious nuts.” But the truth of the matter is, if my relationship with God is just between Him and me...if I’m not testifying about that relationship to others...I’d say that relationship isn’t really all that important to me.

That would be like an engaged woman saying to her future husband, “Yes, we’re engaged, but I don’t want anyone else to know about it, and I don’t want to invite anyone to our wedding.” Does that sound like love? True worship isn’t just praising the beloved: it’s also proclaiming to others what the beloved means to us.

Some of the most moving worship services that I’ve attended included a time of personal testimony...when a someone, almost moved to tears, shares with the congregation the real experiences of God that they’ve had.

So worship includes both praise and proclamation.

But there’s a third element of our engagement with God, so let’s go back to my engagement to Cherith. After I proposed Cherith did what most engaged women do: she put on the ring that I gave her. And that was a sign to any other guy out there that might have been interested, that she put one above all the rest: that only one has the right to her total allegiance. So all those other guys would have to back off. I'm the man!!!!

Again, if we look at our Psalm for today, we see these words: “For great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before Him; strength and glory are in His sanctuary.”

These are great words, but they say something that’s very challenging to us. They say that to worship is to put God above anything else in our lives that might claim to be a “god” to us. Anything else that demands our unquestioning allegiance must be put second. A biblical understanding of worship means that we show a PREFERENCE for God above anything else in creation.

And let’s be frank, folks. In America today there are many “false gods” that we worship without question. We worship the god of money; we let our money control us instead of us controlling it…and we think that if we just spend more and have more we’ll be happy.

We worship the god of sex. I recently heard a statistic that 35% of all Internet usage is pornographic in nature. That’s a sad statistic. And that’s just one statistic that proves that we as a culture are obsessed with sex and it controls us.

And those are just two of many false gods: I could mention the government, which people think is the solution to all of their problems. I could mention sports and technology. And this might shock some of you, but even religion is a false god for many people who spend more time worrying about the trappings of “church” than about nurturing a vibrant relationship with our Creator.

And what does Psalm 96 say? That all these other “gods” are idols (wimps, nothings) and that God himself is to be put above them in our lives. And so it is an act of worship when we say, “Yes, money is good, but because God is more important to me than money, I will order my finances in a way that is pleasing to Him.” It’s an act of worship when we say, “Even though our culture worships not just sex but deviant sex, I will practice it only according to God’s standard in Scripture.” In short, it is worship when we show a preference for God’s Lordship in our lives, and we say that all these other “false gods” are secondary and must be submitted to His authority. If we are engaged to the one true God, then we must put Him above everything else.

And now we come to the final point. After I proposed to Cherith, the 4th thing she did was to start planning for the wedding. She got a subscription to those Bridal magazines, she put together a huge binder with all her plans and details. You ladies know what I’m talking about. She had a vision of exactly what she wanted: the invitations, the flowers, the dresses, the photographers, the reception, the wedding cake. She was motivated by the desire to have everything beautiful and perfect on that day.

Let’s look at the last few verses of Psalm 96: “Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it. Let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them; let all the trees of the forest sing for joy. Let all creation rejoice before the Lord, for he comes to judge the earth.” The Psalmist is artistically imagining the beauty and the glory of that day when God returns to earth; he’s anticipating it and it’s moving him to worship, and to invite all creation to worship with him.

I’ve been saying all along that we, the Church on earth, are engaged with God. But the whole point of engagement is that it’s only a temporary state. Engagement is only a time of
PREPARATION.

I think the real reason there are so many "worship wars" in churches isn't because of the style of music, or because of the pastor's preaching abilities, or because of the technology utilized. It's because we as a culture have become so focused on the the here-and-now, that we are no longer able to envision the reality of the future in which we will stand before Jesus Christ as His bride, and enjoy intimate fellowship with God Himself.

This life, that we sometimes take entirely too seriously, is nothing but a preparation for the great wedding feast between God’s people and God Himself. So let’s just take a moment and envision that day.

Think about the greatest piece of music that you have ever heard, a piece moves you to tears. And then multiply that by ten million.

Think about the greatest sight that you’ve ever seen: maybe it’s a sunset or a landscape or a newborn baby or a work of art. And then multiply that by ten million.

Think about the most enjoyable and intimate moment you’ve shared with another human being. And then multiply that by ten million.

Think about one loved one who has already gone to be with God, who you would give anything just to have one more hug or one more laugh with.

You see, the real reason I worship is that I firmly believe the greatest joys that we can experience on this earth are infinitesimal compared to what is in store for us in eternity with God.

When God down on one knee, on that cross of Calvary, he was communicating to us very clearly that He wants to be with us for all eternity, and that everything that He is and everything that He has, He is going to share with us.

And that’s a promise beyond anything that we can ask or deserve. But when we keep our minds focused on that, and put all of this earthly stuff in its proper perspective, then we are preparing ourselves to truly receive everything that God wants to give us.

And that is the ultimate reason to worship!