My Year in Film, Part 2

Continued from Part 1.

My last post featured some random thoughts on the movies I've seen this year, as well as the 5 worst movies I've seen this year. For this post, I'll be listing my top ten movies that I saw this year. Some of them will be films from this year, some will be older, but they're all films I saw for the first time this year. So, without further ado, my top ten list.

Narrowly Missed: Brick, Starship Troopers, Heat, Phone Booth, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

10: When Harry Met Sally - From 1987 to 1995, Rob Reiner made 6 movies, and 5 of them were great, with a few legitimate classics. Has he made anything worthwhile since then? Man, what happened to that guy? Anyway, when Harry Met Sally is everything that a romantic comedy should be. Billy Crystal absolutely owns the movie, and you can count on one hand the number of on-screen couples in the past 20 years who rival the chemistry of Crystal and Meg Ryan. It's a movie about the difficulty of being friends with the opposite sex, and how friendship and attraction can get mixed up. It works because Crystal and Ryan are so believable as friends and as a couple. The movie is funny and sweet and doesn't rely on the kind of ridiculous, contrived situations that romantic comedies so often fall back on.
-Available on Netflix Instant Watch

9: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - The first thing you'll notice is how gorgeous this movie is. Even if there were no plot behind it, the film is as beautifully cinematic as anything you'll ever see. Every shot seems worthy of being printed off and framed. The second thing you'll notice is the acting. This movie is like a masters class in acting, with some of Hollywood's best (Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck, Sam Rockwell, Jeremy Renner) giving great performances. It won't appeal to everyone. It's slow-paced, taking time to let the story breath and develop, and it demands that you pay attention and engage with it. It's worth it though, because the story told is powerful and character-driven, and the film is a joy to look at.

8: 12 Monkeys - A post-apocalyptic time travel movie by Terry Gilliam starring Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt? Sign me up. A really fun sci-fi movie with great performances by the two leads. This is the first movie where I really realized just how good an actor Brad Pitt is, as he does fantastic work as a completely unhinged crazy person. Gilliam always brings the fantastic and the imaginative, and his take on sci-fi is as entertaining as it is unique. The script is fantastic, twisting and turning and never quite showing its hand. Is Bruce Willis actually a time traveling convict, or is he just crazy? What is the army of the 12 Monkeys? Can history be changed anyway? It's a heck of a ride, with a brilliantly constructed story and some marvelous performances.

7: Inside Man - A good heist movie isn't about the what or the why. It rarely matters what the thieves are stealing, and why they're stealing it is often pretty straightforward. No, as Clive Owen's character states at the beginning of Inside Man, what matters is the how, "and therein, as the Bard would tell us, lies the rub." Inside Man is all about the how, and not just how the heist is done, but how the story is told. The movie has an energy to it, always interesting, always building tension, always adding new angles and new motivations. You shouldn't be rooting for the crooks, what with Denzel Washington being the good guy and all, but Clive Owen manages to be so charming that you just can't help it. One of my favorites to recommend, because it's just so entertaining. Honestly, I just can't see anyone not liking this movie, it's just great entertainment

6: The Brothers Bloom - I wrote a review of this movie here, so I won't spend too much time rehashing it. Writer/Director Rian Johnson (whose debut feature Brick just barely missed this list) weaves a fantastical fairy tale about two con men and their quest for the perfect con. While Brick is probably Johnson's more audacious, technically impressive film, Brothers Bloom is just so much fun. It's overflowing with joy and adventure, and seems to get better with each viewing.

5: Alien - I do not like horror movies. I don't get the point. Jump scares and gore just hold no appeal. That said, I love Alien. It's a sci-fi movie, sure, but it's undoubtedly a horror movie as well, and it's great. Even though it was made 30 years ago, it looks just as good as most modern sci-fi movies. The reason is that Ridley Scott had a consistent vision of a dark, grimy, industrial future that remains distinctive among all the shiny, clean sci-fi films we see every year, and because the creature design is so brilliant. Sure, today the alien could be made with CGI, and chase crew members through the halls, but Scott's alien is all the more effective because we hardly see it. More than anything, the word I would use to describe the film is "atmospheric". You literally feel like you're on this cramped ship with the walls pressing in on you. Also, a facehugging alien with acid for blood is downright terrifying already, but then...*shudder*.

4: Groundhog Day - A classic. Hilarious throughout, but surprisingly dark and philosophical at times. The screenplay is great and there are some great supporting characters, but the genius of the movie is Bill Murray's performance as Phil Connors. As one of my favorite online film reviewers puts it, Murray manages to be "sleazy but lovable at the exact same time." The thing is, we know Phil is a jerk and a sleazebag, but he's so darn charming that we're rooting for him to get the girl anyway. It's also layered with so many jokes and gags and little details that you'll probably pick up something new on each viewing. Is it ironic that a movie about a guy repeating the same day is also infinitely rewatchable?
- Available on Netflix Instant Watch

3: Inception - The top 3 films on this list changed places several times, and they're basically interchangeable. Inception is the kind of smart, thoughtful, idea-filled movie that we rarely get as a summer blockbuster. Despite its high concept, it isn't a hard movie to follow for the most part, and the credit for that goes to Christopher Nolan's direction. The editing is masterful, weaving together together the four different levels of dreaming in such a way that you never lose track of what's going on. There's no way a van falling in slow motion should be as suspenseful as it is, but the constant flashes to it work much like a clock counting down. It's both action-packed (the gravity-shifting hallway fight is as good as anything from the Matrix) and cerebral. The performances are uniformly excellent, with Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, and the criminally underrated Joseph Gordon-Levitt as standouts. It's an epic, powerful and entertaining look at hopes, dreams, and the lies we tell ourselves. One of my favorite moments in a movie this year is the scene where Cobb tells the dream version of his wife "I can't imagine you with all your complexity, all you perfection, all your imperfection. Look at you. You are just a shade of my real wife. You're the best I can do; but I'm sorry, you are just not good enough. "

2: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - If this list were simply which movie I will rewatch the most, this one would be number one with a bullet. Laugh out loud hilarious from beginning to end, and likely the closest thing you'll ever see to a comic book on screen. Director Edgar Wright (he of the hilarious Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead) edits the movie with a frenetic energy, and it just moves like no other film I've ever seen. I left my first viewing of it thinking that this was a very singular experience. There is nothing quite like it out there. It isn't a movie for everyone, but it's like Wright has a direct pipeline to my brain, everything just works for me. Practically everyone in this gives a great performance, but I have to highlight Kieran Culkin's turn as Scott's gay roommate Wallace as the funniest character I've seen this year. In a movie filled with hilarity, his moments are always highlights.

1: The Social Network - If you dismiss this as simply "that movie about Facebook", then you're missing out on a one of the most terrific, and timely, dramas in recent years. The combination of Aaron Sorkin's writing and David Fincher's direction is really kind of brilliant. Sorkin, who wrote A Few Good Men, The American President, and created The West Wing, is a master wordsmith. There's a beauty to well-written dialogue, and Sorkin's script just hums. The thing is though, it's easy for a movie like that to be just talking heads and people walking down hallways. The genius of pairing him with Fincher, one of the most exciting visual filmmakers working today, results in the most exciting movie you've ever seen about people talking. The film is non-linear, flashing back and forth between the story of Facebook's founding and the two depositions about whether or not Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea. It's a great framing device that makes the story really dynamic. The film is certainly never boring. Like most of these films, it's filled with great performances. I mentioned Jesse Eisenberg in the last post, and he's definitely the standout, but Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake and Armie Hammer (playing both the Winklevoss twins) are both great. From the fantastic opening scene to the close, with Zuckerberg refreshing the screen again and again, The Social Network is brilliant at every turn.

My Year In Film, Part 1

In the last couple years, I've started to become a bit of a movie buff. That started a while ago when I stumbled upon a film website I really like reading, and found out I could buy DVDs cheap off of Craigslist. It continued this semester, since I'm living with my grandparents, and my grandpa watches a lot of movies. All told, I've watched 73 movies this year that I hadn't seen before (at least, those are the ones I recorded. I've probably missed a few). I'm not going to post the full list here, because that would be ridiculous, but if you're interested in seeing it, here it is.

I love writing about movies, so I'm gonna take this chance to write about the movies I saw this year. Some will be from this year, some will be much older, but they're all movies I saw for the first time this year. Be aware, this post is going to be massive, so consider yourself warned. Without further ado, my year in movies.

Best Bad Movie: Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus - I'll be listing some of my least favorite movies of the year later on, but you will not find this movie on it. That's because Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus is hilarious. I have a soft spot in my heart for terrifically bad movies, and this one joins the pantheon beside hall-of-fame bad movies like The Room and Troll 2. I would describe the plot of the movie, but frankly, all you need to know is right there in the title. Also, it includes the greatest scene in cinema history.

Biggest Disappointment: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - This one wasn't disappointing because I thought it would be good. On the contrary, I was confident that they would screw up this adaptation (since I didn't particularly like the first two movies). However, since this was my favorite Narnia book, I was hoping that it would at least be the best of the 3 movies. Nope. Not even close. It's as generic an adventure story as you're likely to find, and filled with the worst kind of lazy storytelling. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you would take a beloved children's story from one of the 20th century's greatest writers and then feel the need to completely change huge chunks of it. The movie speeds along at a breakneck pace, hardly ever spending time to develop the characters. There's a scene near the end where Caspian refers to Edmund and Lucy as his only family, but it feels completely false because they have nothing even approaching a meaningful conversation, and in the previous movie Caspian spends all his time interacting with Peter and Susan. Things just happen because the story needs them two, and on several occasions characters pop up simply for the purpose of spouting off exposition, then disappear, never to be seen from again. At least it's interesting visually, with some dynamic sweeping shots of the Dawn Treader, and some pretty great creature design on the giant sea serpent at the end. The other bright spot is Simon Pegg as the voice of Reepicheep. He brings a noble, heroic spirit to the character that makes him easily the best thing about the movie. If only the rest of the movie had that same sense of adventure, maybe it could have been special. Instead, it's not so much a bad movie as it is mediocre and bland, and in a lot of ways, that's even worse.

Best Performance I Saw This Year: Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network - I haven't seen many of the performances people are raving about this year (Natalie Portman, Colin Firth, James Franco), but Eisenberg is really brilliant here. He absolutely sells the antisocial, hyper-nerdy portrayal of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. He's twitchy and uncomfortable, but also haughty and superior. It's a great performance, and one that I'm not sure anyone but Eisenberg could have pulled off. Out of several memorable moments, this is the one that will stick with you most once you leave the theater.

Best Scene I Saw This Year: This one. If I have to explain why...

Top Five Worst Movies I Saw This Year:

5) The Fifth Element - I think I was more forgiving when I first watched this movie, but looking back on it, I have absolutely no desire to ever revisit it. It should have been a great movie. A Sci-Fi action movie by the director of The Professional starring Bruce Willis, Ian Holm and Gary Oldman. Instead, it's a plotless slog that seems entirely designed to show off character designs. It's loud, annoying, and has absolutely no logic to it. Ugh.

4) Knowing - There's nothing quite like Nicholas Cage playing crazy, over-the-top parts. This movie featured a scene where Cage's character witnesses a plane crash, runs into the flaming wreckage, sees a survivor running away while on fire and yells "WAIT!" Um...what? It's an illogical movie that really makes no sense. It's terrible, but at least it's terrible in a humorous, entertaining way.

3) The Squid and the Whale - I watched this movie without really knowing what it was about, because I had seen it highly regarded on a movie website I frequent. Ugh. It's a "rich people with problems" movie, which is tough to pull off at the best of times. The actors give good performances, but the whole thing is so twisted and depressing that the movie is just a slog. I don't know, maybe I'm just not the intended audience. It's not a totally inept movie, but it's so joyless that it's a task to sit through.

2) The Notebook - I should be an easy mark for this movie. I actually kind of enjoy chick flicks if they're funny and charming and at least mildly competent. I love Rachel McAdams, and Ryan Gosling is a solid actor. Lots of people love this movie. I'm not looking for much in a movie like this, just something resembling a coherent story and solid chemistry between the leads. It at least gets the second part right, and the sheer charm and magnetic presence of McAdams almost single-handedly makes the film watchable. Almost. The story, however, is flimsy, predictable and so blatantly manipulative that it boggles the mind. Characters simply disappear or die off because the script has no use for them anymore. For example, Noah's father is killed off in the narration, not because he had an illness or we saw a gradual decline in his condition, but simply because the story needed Noah to be living alone. The actors aren't so much playing characters as they are plot devices. When the terrible storytelling causes you to giggle throughout the movie, it just kills the movie and keeps it from reaching any kind of emotional depth.

1) Ultraviolet - Ultraviolet is like a seizure put on screen. The other movies on this list are bad, but at least they won't give you a headache simply by watching them. The fact that this was made by the same director who made Equilibrium is incomprehensible. I would try to explain the plot to you, except I have no idea what it was. It's in the future, and there are these vampires, only they aren't really vampires, they're just really strong and fast. Vampires can infect other people, but it's not really clear how (is it airborne? Bloodborn? We have no idea), and it's unclear why this would be a bad thing. Milla Jovovich steals a package that happens to be a young boy whose blood contains pathogens to do...well, that's not really clear. Cue much running around, fighting people (including some soldiers whose armor appears to be made of glass), and Jovovich's character apparently develops a deep maternal connection to this boy in the course of 24 hours. We're really not sure why she keeps running around and what the final goal is. I'd say that there are plot holes, but that requires a plot for there to be holes in. All of this would at least be tolerable if the visuals were good. To put it lightly, they are not. All the scenes are intensely bright in a way that makes everything washed out and indistinguishable. The fight scenes and chases are just a series of shots without any kind of overall sense of what is happening. Worst of all, the CGI looks like it was pulled from a bad Playstation 1 game. It's atrocious, and carries none of the simple elegance that made Equilibrium so great. The plot is nonexistent, the acting is awful, and the visuals will make your head hurt. It's a perfect storm of terrible.

To be continued with my top 10 list in Part 2

The Glory of Christmas

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.
This is my story. This is my song.
Praising my Savior all the day long.

There's very little to write about Christmas that hasn't already be written a million times already, so I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Christmas is my favorite time of year for many, many reasons. I love hanging out with family and friends. I love the candy and cookies. I love just chilling out, playing games and watching the Muppet Christmas Carol. Most of all though, I love that every year, regardless of how hard I try to ignore it, God reminds me of himself.

The almighty God of the universe came down to dwell in human flesh. The very same God who speaks in thunder (Ex 19:18-19), whose word tears both rocks and hearts asunder (Jer 23:29, Heb 4:12). The God before whom angels hide their face (Isaiah 6:2), who stops the sun in the sky (Josh 10:10-13) and sets the stars in motion (Psalm 8:3-4). That's the God who came down to be born in a stable, to walk the earth with sinful men, and to die on a rude cross. He came down from glory to share the inheritance of heaven with us. He did it for you and for me, but mostly, he did it that his own name might be glorified (Rom 3:25-26, John 12:27-28). Christ came to save us, and he saved us for a purpose: that we might live our lives to glorify God.

This is our story. This is our song. Praising our Savior all the day long.

Finals, Papers, and Other Stuff

Hi all. It's been a while since I last posted, so I thought I'd take a quick break from writing papers to throw a little something up here. I went home last week for Thanksgiving and learned that there are actually people who read this blog, so I figured maybe I should post something.

This will be short, because of the aforementioned papers. I have quite a bit to finish up before the end of the year, which is rapidly approaching. Luckily, I have most of my required reading done for the semester. Unluckily, these papers keep refusing to write themselves. Also on the unlucky side of things, I seem to be coming down with a sore throat, which I'm hoping doesn't turn into something worse, because I cannot handle that right now. So, if you're reading this, I would covet your prayers over the next couple weeks as I try to survive my first semester of seminary.

Anyway, that paragraph was kind of a downer, so I'm going to spend the rest of this post listing things that are making my life better these days (mostly in the form of YouTube videos)

Things I Like

• This:

This season of Glee has been wildly inconsistent, but this is a fantastic performance. I don't care if you like Glee or not, if you can't enjoy this, I don't understand you.

• John Piper. Really, I love John Piper. One of the papers I'm writing now is on Soli Deo Gloria, so I've been reading tons of Piper (nobody has written more on the glory of God and its implications than Piper in the past few decades). He really has a passion for God that comes through in every talk that he gives and every book that he writes. I recently sent Shannon a sermon of his because I thought it was so cool. He's speaking on missions, and in the middle he just stops and sidebars for a minute to talk about how in the bulletin they listed the man who was saying one of the prayers, and it said "Dan Porch, Missionary". Piper says:
  

"That is a great title. Dan Porch. MISSIONARY. I just hope that that hits you like it hits me, 'Ambassador for King Jesus ' among an unreached people group. Go declare the amnesty, Dan! Go tell them if they lay down their arms of unbelief and swear fealty to King Jesus, they live forever, Dan! MISSIONARY! What a great title."

• X-Factor: I know I posted about this a while ago, but I thought I'd pass along a couple of the better performances that have come since then.

• Tap-Tap Revenge: This is a free app for the iPod Touch, and it's basically guitar hero, only instead of playing a guitar, you tap the notes as they get to the bottom of the screen. It's awesome for a free game, and super-addictive.

• Community: This deserves its own post, which I will get to once I have time, but suffice it to say that if you aren't watching this show, you should be. 8:00 on Thursdays. It's the funniest thing on TV, and nothing else is remotely close.
  

• Craig Ferguson: I don't watch late night talk shows very often, but I always make sure to check his interviews on YouTube every now and then. On most late night shows, the interviews are the weakest part, since the people are just there to promote their movie/book and the whole thing is a pretty boring affair. Ferguson is absolutely brilliant though. He doesn't work off cards, he's genuinely interested in his guests, and he's perfectly happy letting things get wacky and zany. I mean, this is a guy who did a full show just interviewing Stephen Fry (amazing) and won a Peabody for his interview with Desmond Tutu, but also has a robot skeleton sidekick and often ends his interviews with an awkward pause. Rather than posting an individual video, I'll simply link you to this amazing YouTube channel, where some fantastic fellow has taken it upon himself to post all of Ferguson's shows. Seriously, check out some of the interviews, this guy is awesome.

That's it for now. I'll check in again with a new post in a few weeks if I'm still alive.

So, I've Started Watching Glee

I don't really know why exactly. I watched a video of one of their recent songs on Youtube, and for some reason or another (I'm not quite sure why) I proceeded to watch a bunch of other Glee songs. So, I figured I might as well go ahead and check out the show in earnest. I've kind of been meaning to anyway. I realize I'm about a year and a half late on this, but whatever. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, I mean, it's a goofy-looking show about a high school glee club. That isn't exactly up my alley. Sure, it's massively popular, but so are Desperate Housewives, Survivor, Two and a Half Men, and Glenn Beck. However, I've watched the first 7 episodes now, and here's the thing: This show is good. It's really good.

I knew going in that the show would have good music. [random sidebar] Actually, more accurately I knew the show would have music I liked. I have terrible taste in music, so I'm hardly qualified to say whether the show's music is objectively good or not [/random sidebar]. What I did not expect was for the show to be as funny or fantastically zany as it is. Rather than trying to be a realistic little underdog story about a group of lovable misfits, Glee wisely chooses to embrace the absurdity of its concept, and the show is much better off for it. Characters break out into perfectly choreographed musical numbers, and every performance has a bit of a dreamlike quality to it. The whole football team can break out into the "Single Ladies" dance, and there isn't an ironic wink to the camera, it just is what it is (though, about those football scenes. If you're going to cast someone as a quarterback, maybe he should look like he has at least attempted to throw a football before). For my money, the best comedies are the ones that are able to throw reality out the window and embrace the zaniness (Community, 30 Rock and How I Met Your Mother are great examples of this. The best example is, of course, Arrested Development). Glee does that, and doesn't get too caught up in weighty issues or drama. In fact, the worst parts of the shows to this point has been the drama that has been rather clumsily handled (Quinn's baby, Will's incredibly unlikable wife). On the whole though, the show is pure fun and energy, and that's a great thing.

The cast is mostly great, though the younger actors have their moments of, well...not being very good. The adults are pretty excellent though. Two characters, though, stand out in particular. Jane Lynch has earned well-deserved accolades for her Sue Sylvester, the wickedly funny cheerleading coach. It's hard to describe just how fantastic she is in this role. Lynch steals basically every scene she's in, and much like Neil Patrick Harris's Barney in How I Met Your Mother, elevates the entire show. If you haven't seen the show, let me present you with a selection of quotes from Ms. Sylvester:

"I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty cat; and then on some dark cold night, I will steal away into your home, and punch you in the face."

"This is what we call a total disaster ladies. I'm going to ask you to smell your armpits. That's the smell of failure and it's stinking up my office."

“So you like show tunes. It doesn’t mean you’re gay. It just means you’re awful.”

"You think this is hard? I'm living with Hepatitis, *that's* hard!"

"I'll often yell at homeless people: 'Hey, how is that homelessness working out for you? Try not being homeless for once.' "

"I hear people say, "That's not how I define marriage". Well, to them I say, "Love knows no bounds." Why can't people marry dogs? I'm certainly not advocating intimacy with your pets. I, for one, think intimacy is no place in marriage. Walked in on my parents once, and it was like seeing two walruses wrestling. So, WOOF! on Prop 15, Ohio. "

Yeah, fantastic. The other character who I really love on the show is the other real breakout star, and that's Lea Michele as Rachel. The reason I love the character, besides the fact that she has a heck of a voice, is because she isn't just one of the misfits. She isn't unpopular because she isn't pretty or isn't talented, she's unpopular because really, she's a pretty insufferable egomaniac. She isn't simply misunderstood or a diamond in the rough or whatever, she's a really flawed character who often is the cause of her own misfortune. In a show that (so far) is populated by a lot of broad stereotypes, Rachel is a refreshingly complex character.

I'm surprised by how consistently funny the show is, and at their willingness to go to weird places to mine that humor. It certainly doesn't feel like a mainstream, super-popular show. But hey, sometimes you just catch the zeitgeist. The humor is sharp and zany. Some of the inner monologues are fantastic (particularly Puck), and the recurring joke with Finn's memory of running into a mailman is really well used. They mine humor out of pretty much every character, no matter how small a role ("Howard, if you cannot fold a fitted sheet, you cannot work at Sheets 'N' Things!"). The moment that killed me more than any other though, the moment where I knew this show was capable of awesome things, was in the 4th episode, when Stephen Toblowsky's Sandy Ryerson (I see what you did there Glee) has this exchange with another character.

"Who is Josh Groban?"

Sandy: "'Who is Josh Groban?!?' Kill Yourself!...He is an angel sent from heaven to deliver platinum records unto us, and if he were here right now, I would club you to death with his critic's choice award."

That right there is great comedy folks.

So, is Glee my new favorite show? Not even close. It's a lot of fun, and the music is usually very good, but it struggles to find its feet sometimes and the tone can swing wildly from episode to episode. It isn't capable of being non-stop, laugh-out-loud funny from beginning to end like Community or 30 Rock can do on their best of days. However, Glee is its own unique little animal, and it has certainly showed enough promise so far that I'll keep watching and try to catch up with the current episodes. It's a lot of fun, and as long as it doesn't veer to far into dramatic territory in the future (which would be terrible, terrible, terrible), I'll gladly spend time in the zany little universe Glee has created.

So, there it is, my thoughts on Glee. If you cared (I know you didn't, humor me). If you're still reading, congrats to you, you stubborn completist. If you aren't reading this and instead stopped after the first paragraph to avoid my nonsensical rambling, then good for you. Give yourself a gold star.

Work, School and John Wooden

So, I haven't posted in a while. Not terribly surprising, I was pretty positive that would happen when I started this thing :).

Anyway, life has been very busy recently. I started working as at tutor at Mathnasium recently (yes, I work at a place called Mathnasium, I am a nerd). That's been interesting. It's mostly tutoring younger students, which isn't really my strong suit. Pretty much all of my tutoring experience has been high schoolers, who are much easier to work with. With high schoolers, you just have to explain the concepts. With younger kids, it's as much babysitting as it is tutoring. All in all though, there are many worse jobs you could have, and tutoring really isn't that difficult.

Also encouraging on the job front is that I'm being considered for a youth ministry internship with a church in the area. That would be a tremendous blessing. Over fall break, I got to go on the Fall Retreat with the Peace Youth Group, and I realized just how much I've been missing working with youth. It would be really awesome to do that again (and also get paid, that's nice to).

So, other than work, I've been busy with a little bit of school as well :). I wrote my first sermon as a seminary student a couple weeks ago, on Philippians 3:1-11. I was pretty happy with the way it turned out, so I'm interested in seeing what kind of corrections I get. I also just finished a paper on John Wooden for my Leadership class that was really interesting to do. Fascinating man, and he really had an unorthodox approach to coaching.

There's all sorts of other stuff that's been going on as well. Beach for Fall Break. State Fair last weekend. Dominating my fantasy football leagues. Being reminded of how awesome John Piper is (this may warrant a whole blog post later). Anyway, that's been my life recently. Busy and hectic, but good. Hopefully I'll start finding a bit more time to keep making blog posts, but no promises. :)

To end, I'll leave you with my favorite John Wooden quote I came across.

"If I were ever prosecuted for my religion, I truly hope there would be enough evidence to convict me." -John Wooden

Be Ye Glad

This song was on my mind today. One of my absolute favorites. The lyrics just paint an amazing picture. It's awesome.

Be Ye Glad

In these days of confused situations.
In these nights of a restless remorse,
When the heart and the soul of the nation,
lay wounded and cold as a corpse.
From the grave of the innocent Adam,
comes a song bringing joy to the sad.
Oh your cry has been heard and the ransom,
has been paid up in full, Be Ye Glad.

(Chorus)
Oh, Be Ye Glad, Oh, Be Ye Glad,
Every debt that you ever had
Has been paid up in full by the grace of the Lord,
Be Ye Glad, Be Ye Glad, Be Ye Glad.

Now from your dungeon a rumor is stirring.
You have heard it again and again.
Ah, but this time the cell keys are turning,
and outside there are faces of friends.
And though your body lay weary from wasting,
and your eyes show the sorrow they've had.
Oh the love that your heart is now tasting
has opened the gate, Be Ye Glad.

So be like lights on the rim of the water,
giving hope in a storm sea of night.
Be a refuge amidst the slaughter,
for these fugitives in their flight.
For you are timeless and part of a puzzle.
You are winsome and young as a lad.
And there is no disease or no struggle,
that can pull you from God, Be Ye Glad.

Movies I Love: Gone Baby Gone

The first time I watched Gone Baby Gone was probably over a year ago, and I hadn't gone back and watched it again until recently. I didn't have to. This film leaves an indelible mark on your brain, and it's not one you're going to forget in a hurry. That said, I watched it for the second time a few days ago, and it blew me away again. It's as well-acted a movie as you'll find, and it delivers several gut-wrenchingly emotional scenes, like haymakers to the heart. And to think that this gem was directed by first-time director Ben Affleck. Yes, he of such monuments of cinematic achievement as Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Daredevil and Gigli shockingly crafted a minor masterpiece on his first try. It's less shocking now, since Affleck has reinvigorated his career a bit (this movie playing not a small part in that), and has a big film in theaters now (The Town, which he directed and acts in), but when this came out in 2007, Affleck was not exactly a hot name (to put it lightly). No small wonder, then, that this movie is as good as it is.

Now, before I get any further, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm writing these posts both because I love these movies and like to write about them, and to recommend the movies for those of you who actually read this blog, so that you can enjoy them too. I must warn you about this movie, it has an excessive amount of language in it. I mean, pervasive use of the F-Bomb, among other things. It's there for a reason; the movie is set basically in the seedy parts of Boston, and the dialogue realistically paints that picture. It's part of the atmosphere that makes the movie seem so real, and ultimately makes the movie work. However, there is a TON of cursing, and if you can't handle that sort of thing, don't watch this movie. Consider yourself warned.

The basic plot of the movie is that a little girl is kidnapped, and her aunt hires private investigators Patrick and Angie (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) to help the police find her. However, things aren't so straightforward in this case. The girl's mother (Amy Ryan) is a crackhead who may not have been completely honest with the police, and who doesn't seem nearly as worried about finding her child as the girl's aunt and uncle are. To reveal anymore would be a disservice to the film, and if you haven't seen it you really should go in knowing as little of the plot as possible.

Much like Good Will Hunting, the film Affleck won a "Best Screenplay" Oscar for over a decade ago (with co-writer Matt Damon), the city of Boston is ever-present in Gone Baby Gone. In most films, the setting is fairly generic, it could be taking place anywhere, but in Gone Baby Gone, even moreso that Good Will Hunting, the city feels real and alive. This is a small story, taking place largely within the confines of this small neighborhood of Boston. It's up close and personal, and a city that is raw and not given the typical Hollywood gleam gives the movie a tremendous sense of realness, and makes the final story hit that much harder.

The movie has some great acting all around, but it really hangs on two fantastic performances. First is Amy Ryan (who you might recognize as Holly from The Office) as the screwed-up mother whose little girl gets kidnapped. She has the thankless job of playing a character who is largely despicable. We should be more sympathetic, she has lost her kid after all, but Ryan really makes the character loathsome, and kind of annoying as well. On top of that, Ryan's Boston accent was so good that apparently Ben Affleck asked her in her interview what part of Boston she's from (she's actually from New York). The other great performance is Casey Affleck, who does a tremendous job as the baby-faced private investigator. It's not a showy performance; Affleck looks young and harmless, out of his depth as a PI. He's subdued, almost mumbling his lines at times, but then has moments where he transform into, for lack of a better word, a complete badass. He really carries the film, and his performance in the movie's pivotal scene is one of my absolute favorites.

I think one of my favorite things about the film overall is that there isn't really a villain, and our heroes, if you could call them that, aren't always very heroic. Nothing is clear-cut. In fact, if anyone is the "bad guy" in this movie, it would probably be Ryan's character. The movie doesn't tell you who's right and who's wrong, what the right decision is, and I love that about it.

Now, I can't properly address this movie without revealing something that would be a real spoiler for those who haven't seen it, and since part of the reason I'm doing this is to advise people to check these movies out, that would be counter-productive. So, I'm going to write a bit about that below, but I'm making the text the same color as the background (I actually can't get it to the same color, but I think it's close enough that you won't read it with a quick glance-over). If you have seen the movie, just highlight the text to reveal it, and if you haven't seen it, then what the heck are you waiting for? Go watch it, and come back and tell me what you think :).

[Begin spoiler text]
So, how about that ending folks? I knew it was coming the second time around, but it still hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't really get emotional with movies, but that scene with Affleck and Morgan Freeman at the end is so powerful, it absolutely kills me. Like I said above, I love that the movie doesn't tell you whether or not Patrick made the right choice. You're left with an honest to goodness moral dilemma, and that's something precious few movies do. For my part, I think it's a really bold thing to do to not only have Patrick make the hard, moral choice, but to show him having to live with the consequences. His girlfriend leaves him, and the mother seems completely unchanged by the experience. That scene where she finally gets her lost child back and still comes off as an attention-craving ("Thank you to all the policemen and the firemen. I feel like 9/11 right now") hypocrite ("just never let your kids out of your sight"), it's just heartbreaking. As the movie closes on Patrick and Amanda, we're left with the same question he is, "what now?" He made the hard decision, and now he'll have to live with the consequences.
[/spoiler]

Community

No, this is not a post about the comedy on NBC (though in case you're wondering, it's the best comedy on TV, and you should be watching it). Rather, it's about the awesome blessing of Christian community.

Shannon wrote on her blog a few days ago about the blessing of being part of a big "pseudo-family". I know what she means. For 22 years, I've been blessed with an amazing family of "adopted" aunts and uncles, and countless brothers and sisters, mostly people in the church. One of the hard things about moving to Charlotte has been not having that community around me anymore.

However, one of the great things about modern technology is that, even if I'm not around that family anymore, I can still be connected. This last week, I had a second interview for a job that I desperately need to get, so as I was on my way there, I shot off a quick text message to some of my Christian brothers to pray for me, and within minutes I had responses from a dozen guys praying for me. That's such an amazing blessing [also, I got the job :)]. God has blessed me with an awesome community of friends, and all too often, I take that for granted. With all the different methods available to stay in contact with people (email, text messages, facebook, skype, etc.), there's really no good reason not to be building one another up and praying for one another, no matter how far away we might be.

“It is grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian community.” – Dietrich Bohnhoeffer

A Question of Authority

This post comes out of something that was said in my Introduction to Pastoral and Theological Studies course about a week and a half ago, that I've been kicking around in my head. We were studying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and Dr. Anderson made the point that scripture is, by necessity, self-authenticating. What this means is that Scripture is true not because the church says it is, or even because all sorts of historical evidence confirms it, but simply because it IS true. Now, I understand why this is true and must be true, but initially I didn't really feel comfortable with it. It seems far too close to that often used parody argument of why Christians believe in God. You know:

"Why do you believe in Christianity?"
"Because the Bible says it's true."
"How do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because the Bible says it's true."

You can see Stephen Colbert parody this kind of circular reasoning in this classic clip from The Daily Show. So what's the difference? Why isn't the idea of the Bible being self-authenticating a logical fallacy? Well, lets back up a second. You may wonder what I mean when I say the Bible is self-authenticating, so lets start there.

What does it mean to say the Bible is self-authenticating?
In Christianity, the Bible is to be our highest authority. It is the word of God, and there is no authority greater than God, so his Word to us must be the highest authority in our lives. Because of this, there is nothing else on this earth which can authenticate the Bible. If something else could endorse the scriptures as true, it would, by very definition, be a higher authority. So, if the Bible is truly the word of God, it is self-authenticating. It doesn't rely on the church fro it's authenticity and authority (as the Roman Catholic Church believes), it doesn't rely on historical evidence, it doesn't rely on logical proofs. Those things may be good, but they don't grant the bible its authority, they can't. The bible is true simply because it is the Word of God, and it is true.

Ok, so how is that not circular reasoning?
The difference here is subtle. What we're stating is not that "The Bible is true because it says it's true." What we're saying is that the Bible is true because it IS true, and more than that, because it is THE truth. The authority of the Bible comes from the fact that the Bible is the Word of God, and we recognize the voice of our creator. The Bible itself attests to this. As Jesus says in John 10:1-5, "The follow him, for they know his voice." In verse 14 he says "I know my own and my own know me." 1 John 4:6 says "We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." ([aside]Note, I'm not citing the Bible to prove the Bible, I'm showing that the Bible internally supports the idea of itself being self-authenticating[/aside]) Is this illogical? Well, no. Consider the laws of logic. Most of us are not going to argue that the laws of logic are not true. For example, the law of non-contradiction, which states that two mutually exclusive propositions cannot be true at the same time. That's true, we know that instinctively. However, you can't prove the law of non-contradiction, because any kind of logical proof would require the very laws of logic that you are proving. We recognize the laws of logic because they are true, not because we can prove them. In the same way, we recognize the truth of the Bible because it is true.

Ok, so if that's true, why doesn't everybody acknowledge the truth of the Bible?
Well, the Bible has a pretty simple answer to that. Everybody does, in fact, know that the Bible is true. However, we've all rejected that truth because of our fallen nature. Romans 1:21 tells us that all men know the truth of God, but we reject him and our hearts are darkened, then later says "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie." Romans 8:7 says that "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot." In the passage I quoted from 1 John above, John says that "whoever is not from God does not listen to us." Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18 that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." The truth is the truth, regardless of whether or not people deny it. We've all rejected the truth, and it's only by the work of the Holy Spirit that some are able to recognize the Bible's authority.

Right, so why does this matter?
It all has to do with what our authority is. If the Bible is the highest authority and self-authenticating, one of the things that means is that it doesn't need us to defend it. In Amos 3, he says of God's Word that "The lion has roared; who will not fear?"and as Spurgeon says, "Scripture is like a lion. Who ever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose; it will defend itself." The Bible itself attests to its own truth. Now, don't get me wrong, there's definitely a place for apologetics and applying logic and science to the Bible. However, it's not the ultimate authority which gives authenticates the Bible. If the Bible is about a God who is beyond our comprehension, then we should expect that some things might not fit with our logic (the Trinity, for instance). If the Bible is about a God who is supernatural, then we shouldn't expect everything in it to be explainable by natural science. This isn't a problem, because the Bible is our highest authority. My favorite book on apologetics is Tim Keller's The Reason For God, and one of the reasons is because he goes over all these different evidences from logic and whatnot, but in the middle of it he says this: "I have not tried to prove the existence of God to you. My goal has been to show you that you already know God exists." It's the same principle. The fact that I don't have to defend the Bible is a tremendous comfort, for a couple reasons. First of all, it means that the Bible's authority doesn't rest on my ability to completely understand it. If I can't work out exactly how the Trinity works, I don't have to throw out the Bible because I can't logically explain it. Second, my ability to witness to other people doesn't rely on my ability to put forward an ironclad defense of the Bible. Ultimately it's the work of the Holy Spirit that will reveals the truth of the Bible to others, not my ability to debate and reason.

Watch. Laugh.

I have a big post coming that I'm working on, but for now, I have a little something to share. I was watching old clips from The Daily Show tonight, and was reminded of this, the single greatest clip of all time.



Enjoy

Movies I Love: The Brothers Bloom

So, I've decided to start this little feature called "Movies I Love", which I'll post semi-regularly on here. Over the past year or so, I've become kind of a movie geek, and I like to write about the movies I enjoy. Hence, this feature. These may be about movies I've watched recently, but more likely it'll focus on kind of lesser-known movies that I love, so that you, dear readers (yes, both of you), can go out and enjoy them too. So, we'll start this off with one of my favorite little gems that I rewatched recently, The Brothers Bloom.

The Brothers Bloom is a fantastical story of two con-artist brothers and their helpless mark. It's the second film from director Rian Johnson (whose first film, Brick, will probably show up in this feature sometime), and he crafted a funny, touching and beautifully shot film. The movie tells the tale of two brothers, Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody), who are the world's greatest con men. Stephen plans the cons, Bloom plays the parts. This is no Matchstick Men or The Spanish Prisoner though, and The Brothers Bloom aren't your standard breed of con artists. See, their cons are less dubious swindles as they are adventure stories. Sure, they get paid off in the end, but they've given their mark the ride of a lifetime, and in the end, everyone gets what they wanted. All of this is set up by the film's brilliantly poetic opening sequence, which lets you know right off the bat that this story is far more fairy tale than reality.

It's that fairy tale-type of atmosphere that might be the most appealing thing about The Brothers Bloom. Johnson has crafted a bright, vibrant world full of quirky, interesting characters, and you almost wish you could spend more time just wandering around and getting to know all of these characters better. Even the minor characters (like Robbie Coltrane's curator) feel fleshed out. There's a fantastic world that's been built here, and you'll catch little background details the 2nd and 3rd times around that add a tremendous depth to the movie.

The other thing that makes this movie so fantastic is the cast, which is uniformly brilliant. The three leads all give amazing performances. Brody is the character who undergoes the biggest arc, making a real transformation from dour and depressed to finding almost a childlike joy. It's the least flashy role in the movie, but the movie would fall apart without Brody anchoring it. Good as Brody is though, Rachel Weisz and Ruffalo are better. Weisz is absolutely fantastic as the eccentric shut-in Penelope. She brings a pure joy to the screen every scene she's in, but there's a vulnerability and sadness under the surface. She is, in short, great. Ruffalo is great as well, like he always is (seriously, one of the most underrated actors working today). He's got a natural charm and charisma, and he and Brody have a great chemistry.

Johnson's script is sharp and funny, and doesn't feel the need to hold the audience's hand and point out every detail that might come back into play later on. It took me a second viewing of the film before I really appreciated just how well-constructed the story is. It's not a hard plot to follow, but it rewards paying attention and multiple viewings. It's got some third act problems, but they certainly don't sink the film, and it ends on a high note.

There's a kind of child-like joy to a lot of The Brothers Bloom. It's a story about the tales we tell ourselves to get through life. As Weisz's Penelope says near the end of the film, "There's no such thing as an unwritten life, only a badly written one."

The Time Travel Question

I apologize in advance if I misspell some words. I spilled Gatorade on my laptop, and the "B" key on my keyboard doesn't work. I had to remap it to another key, but that's still taking some getting used to. So there may be some missing "B"s in here.

You have almost certainly been faced with the time travel question at some point. If you had a time machine, where/when would you go? This of course leads to a list of great moments in history that you would jump around and see. It probably also leads to questions like "can I change history?" and "can I speak the language?" Anyway, I recently read a post on The Onion's A.V. Club where they answered an interesting variation of this question (posed by comedian Patton Oswalt). I'll just go ahead and post the question in whole here, but you can also see it in the link above, along with their responses. Here's the question:

Where and when would you most want to live for five years, restricted to a five-mile radius?

Everyone says things like “Oh man, how cool would it be to be in Dealey Plaza during the JFK assassination, or see The Beatles during one of their Cavern Club concerts, or witness ancient Rome?” Well, what if you were given the chance?

Here are the conditions. You’ve been granted a hypothetical ticket to live, in comfort and coherence, during one five-year time period. Maybe you want to be in New York in Chicago during Prohibition, or Victorian London, or France right before the Revolution. (Or during—no judgments.) You’ll be able to understand and speak the language (if needed), have enough disposable cash to live at leisure, and experience whatever you want, with no need for a job. You’ll have a comfy apartment or house to return to, full period wardrobe, and as much time as you need before making this trip to study up on the period you’ll live in.

But you must stay within a five-mile radius of where/whenever you choose to live. Thus you can’t go see the Kennedy assassination, then go zipping around the world to London to watch the birth of the British Invasion, or New York for the early years of Greenwich Village. Want to see the Kennedy assassination? Fine. But then you’re stuck in Dallas for the next five years.

What historical period (and place), in your opinion, offers the most enticing experiences in one five-year period?

To that, I'll add a few caveats of my own.

1) You can't change history. When your fives years ends, you return to the present day, and everything goes back to the way it was. No going back a few years and investing in Google stock. No mucking about with history. Simply, what 5 year period would you like to experience?

2) The 5-mile radius seems to be more of a loose guideline given their answers, but the idea is that you're staying in basically one area.

So, those are the guidelines. Where/when would you like to spend 5 years?

For my answer, I immediately jumped to 3 different possibilities. I'm kind of obsessed with The Reformation right now, so I thought about 16th century Geneva. There are all kinds of interesting places to be during The Reformation, but most of them were too turbulent to want to stay there too long. I probably wouldn't want to spend 5 years in England, since the constantly shifting political and religious climate would likely end with me being burned at the stake. Geneva though, was a it more stale, and really was the heart of the Reformation. If I went to Geneva from 1555-1559, not only would I get to hang with Calvin, but that's also the period when John Knox was living and preaching there, along with all the other various reformers who fled to Geneva when driven out of their own countries.

Another possibility is, as mentioned by one of the A.V. Club staff, is Alexandria, sometime in the first few centuries. I mean, who doesn't want to hang out at the Library of Alexandria for a few years and read the most significant collection of documents in the ancient world? Ok, so, many people probably wouldn't, but I think it'd be pretty cool. Of course, it's also in Egypt (super cool) and was basically the major cultural center outside of Rome.

I'm tempted to go back to Albuquerque in 1983 simply to watch the greatest sporting event of all time (the 1983 Final Four, and the last time anyone cared about N.C. State basketball). It would almost be worth it, but then I'd have to spend the next 5 years in 1980s Albuquerque. Yuck.

Of course, the obvious choice is Jerusalem, circa 33 AD, and it's tough to argue with that. You get the crucifixion and Pentecost and you get to witness the beginning of the early church. Maybe Jerusalem from 31-35 (just to make sure we get the right year). That's hard to top.

So, I'd probably go with 1st Century Jerusalem narrowly edging out 16th century Geneva. That's tonight though, and the answer may be different tomorrow. There are tons of good answers to this, and since my knowledge of history is mediocre at best, I'm probably missing quite a few good ones. How about you, dear reader? Where/When would you go?

My Poor Musical Taste On Display

Watching American Idol is one of my guilty pleasures. Now, I don't actually watch the show when it comes on usually, I just catch replays of the performances online so that I don't have to wade through all the ridiculous padding they put in. Is the show a bit ridiculous and over the top? Yes. Are the judges complete self-parodies by now? Yes. Has the talent level thinned out the last couple of years? It does seem that way. However, the auditions with ridiculous people are occasionally funny, and ever now and then, you get some gems like these performances from last year:





As much as I kind of guiltily enjoy American Idol though, I really enjoy keeping up with the show X-Factor, which is kind of the British version of Idol. X-Factor, though, has several advantages over Idol. For one, everyone has fantastic accents, which really makes everything that much better. Also, the judges are less insufferable, and maybe it's just me, but they seem to find better singers. The biggest improvement though, is that they have their first auditions on a stage in front of a big crowd instead of just standing alone in front of the judges. The cool thing about that is that you get these normal, everyday people up on this stage, and occasionally one of them just has a natural stage presence, and you can just see it immediately. They get the crowd eating out of their hand, and it's completely different than these people just standing in front of some judges singing. It's crazy entertaining. For example, you may have seen this guy last year (this video made the rounds):



This guy was also one of my favorites from last year:



My favorites though, are the people who give no indication that they might be a great performer. The nervous or low-key people who look like they're going to be pretty bad, then as soon as the music starts up, they become a completely different person. That's always cool to me. Like this girl whose audition I saw this week. I'm not a huge fan of the song, but it's so fascinating to watch her go from super nervous to supremely confident in the blink of an eye, I can't stop watching it.



I don't know, I just think it's interesting to see these everyday people who just turn out to be natural-born performers. Anyway, since this post is really just an excuse for me to post a bunch of videos, here's a few more from this season that I like:

A Hidden City?

"Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred.

To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world."
- From A Letter to Diognetus (2nd century)

"We are so utterly ordinary, so commonplace, while we profess to know a Power the Twentieth Century does not reckon with. But we are "harmless," and therefore unharmed. We are spiritual pacifists, non-militants, conscientious objectors in this battle-to-the-death with principalities and powers in high places. Meekness must be had for contact with men, but brass, outspoken boldness is required to take part in the comradeship of the Cross. We are "sideliners" -- coaching and criticizing the real wrestlers while content to sit by and leave the enemies of God unchallenged. The world cannot hate us, we are too much like its own. Oh that God would make us dangerous!"
-Jim Elliot (1948)

"[Christianity] has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers and through their care of the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help we should render them."
- Roman Emperor Julian (4th Century)

"It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism, that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted prosperity."
– Frederic Huntington (1890)

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 5:14-16

Humility, Whether I Like It Or Not

So, I had decided to write a blog post on humility. I’d been mulling it over and thinking about some various things to write, and decided I had something to say on the subject. Then I got to my Hebrew class this afternoon. Let me tell you, I’m not sure I’ve had many more humbling experiences in my life than this first foray into Hebrew.

Look, I’m not very good at languages in the first place. I took my 2 years of German in high school and got out. Now, I'm excited about the idea of learning Hebrew. I think it'll be super-cool once I'm done, and I know it's important to preaching. The learning part though, that I'm not excited about. Have you ever seen the Hebrew alphabet? They all look the same. Seriously, take a look at these letters:

Those are all different letters. Crazy, right? That's not even accounting for the vowels or pronunciation. It's hard enough to just learn how to differentiate letters, much less learn full words. So Hebrew is going to be humbling for me, and that's a good thing.

I find that very often these days, as I look forward to learning how to be a better preacher, I have to reign in my pride. I slip into "I want to preach well so that others praise me" instead of "I want to preach well to be an instrument of God." It's something I wrestled with sometimes in preparing talks for youth group, unconsciously slipping into "Will people like this? Is this sufficiently clever and witty?" mode. Not to say that there's no place for wit in a talk or sermon, it just can't be the end in itself. There's a fine line to be walked, and it's especially dangerous in an environment where I'm learning so much. It's going to be easy to slip into thinking all this knowledge makes me better than others, makes me important. "Knowledge puffs up", and all that.

So Hebrew is good for me, keeps me humble. Another thing that keeps me humble is the reading we've been doing for my preaching class, which continual reminds, in no uncertain terms, that we are weak. Left to his own devices, even the greatest preacher in the world can't bring a single soul to Christ. It doesn't matter how much Greek and Hebrew you know. It doesn't matter how dynamic a speaker you are. If the Holy Spirit doesn't move people, if you aren't combining preaching with an urgent prayer for the Spirit to move through your words, then it's all for nothing. Here are a few great quotes on the matter.

"Ultimately, preaching accomplishes its spiritual purposes not because of the skills or the wisdom of a preacher, but because of the power of the Scripture proclaimed...The human efforts of the greatest preachers are still too weak and sin-tainted to be responsible for others' eternal destinies." - Brian Chapell

"A man's 'natural' gifts cannot add up to a probability that he should choose the ministry. God has chosen the weak and foolish, not the mighty and wise, so that it might be quite clear that he alone is the savior." - Edmund Clowney

"Apart from the quickening power of the Holy Spirit in the act of proclamation, even the best and most essential technique falls miserably short of transforming those to whom we preach." - Arturo Azurdia

"The best man here, if he knows what he is, knows that he is out of his depth in his sacred calling." - Charles Spurgeon

Adding on to that, I recently finished a fantastic book about the Reformation (it's call The Unquenchable Flame, and I highly recommend it). I started reading the assigned chapters, then just couldn't put it down. One of the things that is striking about the Reformation is that all these great men you associate with it: Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, etc. They were all great theologians, great preachers and expositors of the Word. They were galvanizing figures, and yet it wasn't really them that fueled the Reformation. No, the fuel for the Reformation was the Word of God, and getting it into the hands of people. Men like Erasmus, whose translation of the New Testament which differed from Rome's Latin Vulgate would be the basis for much of Luther and Zwingli's theology, and Tyndale, who was dedicated to translating an English bible and getting itin the hands of the people, were as influential, if not moreso, than any of those preachers. The Reformation was not a human-driven movement, and in fact the humans often threatened to clog it up royally. The Reformation was unstoppable because once people started getting their hands on the Word of God, Rome's days as the dominant power were numbered. Luther himself said "I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing...the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the Word did everything."

So pray for me. Pray for humility. Pray that I would constantly be reminded of these things that I'm writing here. Not just in preaching or my studies, but in everything. Ultimately, living by the Word through the Spirit is the only thing that's going to produce anything worthwhile in my life. I've tried to do things on my own enough to know that I'm really a great big screwup. I can't seem to remember that most days, but it's still true. God's going to do the work, he just needs me to get out of the way.

A Start

So, I've decided to write a blog.

Now, you may be saying, "Xan, you fool, why would you do something ridiculous like that? Aren't you going to be too busy reading and writing stuff for seminary to waste time on blogging?" Or perhaps you are saying "I predict 3 posts, maybe 4 before he gets busy and stops posting." Then again, perhaps you're saying "Who the heck is this guy?" if you have stumbled on my blog by accident. As I believe that's unlikely, I'll just go ahead and assume only my family and friends are likely to read whatever silliness I end up writing.

So, why blog? Well, I've been considering starting up a blog just to let people know how things are going for me at seminary, maybe share some things I'm learning. However, I decided that I didn't really have time, and I would probably rarely update it anyway. What changed my mind was a book I was assigned to read for my Intro to Preaching class called Why Johnny Can't Preach, by T. David Gordon. It's a fantastic and interesting read, a succinct 100 pages on how modern media and culture has created generations of people who don't have the basic skills necessary to be good preachers.

Gordon's assertion is that people who have grown up with telephone's rarely write letters anymore, so they don't naturally learn how to organize their thoughts. Similarly, people who grow up with television are used to a kinetic media that largely conveys inconsequential things, and so they don't read anymore, or when they do read, they don't read deep things and engage the text. Those who grow up with the internet are constantly bombarded with even more visuals and surface-level text. Everything is news, tidbits of information to be scanned over. There is no more laboring over volumes when you can simple "Google it". People nowadays, when they actually do read, only care about what is said, and not how it is said. The result of all this is that basic skills like how to write clearly and how to engage a text and appreciate good writing are lost on this current age (insert joke about popularity of Twilight here). That lack of verbal skills has led to preachers who, even if they have excellent theological knowledge, simply don't have the foundation to put together a coherent sermon.

I agree wholeheartedly with Gordon's argument, and I can definitely feel the effects of it in myself. I used to be an avid reader, but the more internet and television-dependent I become, the less interested I am in reading deep, challenging literature. I've been rereading Jim Elliot's writings in Shadow of the Almighty recently, and to see the radical difference in writing quality for someone who corresponded entirely (and often) in letters is jarring. Elliot read poetry, wrote letters and journaled prolifically, and it shows.

So, to that end, I've resolved to write more. Hence, this blog. The reading more often will happen whether I like it or not with the book list I've got for school. Through this blog though, I'm hoping to sharpen my writing skills, and write about the things I'm reading so that I engage them in an even deeper way. Maybe it'll make me a better speaker down the road. Maybe not. Maybe I'll get overwhelmed and stop posting in a few weeks, but hopefully not. I'm also planning on trying to email my friends and family more often. I've realized that between Facebook chat, Skype and my cell phone, almost all my correspondence these days is done in short, twitter-like bursts. I can't even remember the last time I sat down and wrote out a long, thought-out letter or email to someone.

So that's the plan. I'm pretty gung-ho for it right now, but who knows what tomorrow will bring. If I stop posting and anyone still cares, badger me about it and maybe you can guilt me into being more consistent. Hopefully I stay dedicated, and hopefully I write something worth reading on here. I'm planning to write about my life here in Charlotte, the books I'm reading, maybe even some of the movies I watch. If nothing else, I'll try to post a verse or a quote that I like every day to keep things interesting. I hope you keep reading, and I hope I can write some things that make it worth your time.

"Now we live in the age of electronic wherein we cultivate the sensibility (if it can be called that) of distracted multitasking." - T. David Gordon