Movie Review: Cinderella Man (****)

Cinderella Man is an excellent movie, and likely will be the best major studio release from Hollywood this year. The movie tells the story of James J. Braddock, a heavyweight contender of the 1920's and 30's. The movie introduces us to Braddock (Russell Crowe) as an up and coming fighter who ends up with a shot at the light-heavyweight title in 1929, and who lives in comfort with his wife and family in their New Jersey home. However, Braddock is unable to win the title, later breaks his hand and eventually had his boxing license revoked after the Great Depression began. The combination of the economic collapse along with Braddock's inability to box forces the family to live in poverty, unable to afford food or pay electril bills during the New York winter. The Great Depression was a horribly difficult time for millions of Americans, and Cinderalla man succeds at showing us the poverty and desperation of the period. Despite the tough times, Braddock's wife Mae (Renee Zellwegger) lovingly stands by her man. Through some good fortune, Braddock re-emerges in 1934 and '35 as a top contender culminating in a title bout with heavyweight champion Max Baer. The film is directed by Ron Howard, who may have the honor of winning another best picture to go along with A Beautiful Mind.

Cinderella Man accomplishes a wonderful thing. It presents the moviegoer with a portrait of a kind and decent family man in James J. Braddock. Braddock is both a loving husband to his wife Mae and a doting father to their three children Jay, Rosemarie, and Howard. Russell Crowe is brilliant in his portrayal of the man, presenting us with a kind, morally upright man who has self-respect but not arrogance, and displays wisdom in his actions. Braddock understands the importance of loving and supporting his family, and when he stages his comeback, he is motivated by putting milk on his family's table. Braddock is a wonderful example of what a man and a father should be, something sorely missing from today's cynical movies that assume every moral, good man must have skeletons in his closet.

Cinderella Man is beautifully shot, well directed and features multiple outstanding acting jobs. In addition to Russell Crowe's outstanding portrayal of Braddock, Renee Zellwegger turns in a good performance as Mae Braddock, who loves her husband and family with all her heart, but like Adrian from Rocky, fears for her husband's life in the ring. Mae is a strong woman, but Zellwegger is at her best when displaying her love and affection for her husband. Paul Giamatti of Sideways fame portrays Braddock's wise-cracking manager Joe Gould, and he and Crowe present us with an excellent portrayal of male friendship and you can see genuine affection between the numerous wisecracks and barbs the two men share. Craig Bierko also does a nice job in his small role as the charismatic Max Baer.

The old cliche is "If you are going to see only one movie this year, see (insert movie here)." Well, insert "Cinderella Man" at the end of that sentence. It is a movie that is well acted, well shot, well written, dramatic, and carries positive messages about family and perserverance. It's a knockout.

Cubs Finally Above .500, But Injuries Are Going To Be Damaging

The Cubbies have won 4 straight games and finally are over the .500 mark on the season. I have to agree with Rick Morrissey of the Chicago Tribune that Dusty Baker is actually doing a pretty good job of managing this team given all the injuries and holes that is has:

• Nomar Garciaparra injured until August.
• Kerry Wood injured since late April.
• Mark Prior hit by line drive and currently injured.
• Todd Walker (2B) injured for a month.
• Joe Borowski hit by line drive and injured for first month and a half.
• No true lead-off hitter.
• LaTroy Hawkins blowing saves.
• Team draws few walks.
• Aramis Ramirez off to a slow start. (appears to be heating up, though)

The Cubs have been able to keep from completely falling apart because Derrek Lee has been the best player in the National League, leading the league in all three of the triple crown categories. Other players have also played decently for the Cubs. Jeromy Burnitz has been solid and Neifi Perez has filled in nicely for Nomar. Carlos Zambrano and Greg Maddux have pitched decent baseball and Glendon Rusch continues to blossom into a pretty good lefty. However, the loss of Mark Prior, who was 4-1 with a sub 3.00 ERA when he went down, is going to really hurt this team. Prior is the team's superstar player and perhaps the best young pitcher in baseball when healthy. With Prior joining Kerry Wood on the DL, the Cubs will be forced to start Sergio Mitre and a random minor leaguer--this week it is John Koronka, who has a 5.05 ERA for AAA Iowa. This means that the club will be usually be facing a serious pitching disadvantage 2 of the 5 games it plays in each trip through the rotation. The inevitable result of which is that the Cubs will not be able to make a serious move towards the top of the standings unless everything goes perfectly (such as recently acquired Jerome Williams being called up and pitching well). If the Cubs are at .500 at the end of June, they should count their blessings, hope they get healthy, and try to make a wild-card run in the second half of the season.

Killearn DTS: Romans 11: 17-36

1) After explaining that the apostasy of Israel has benefited the gentiles, and that Israel's eventual acceptance of Christ will lead to even greater benefit, Paul explains why gentiles should not look down upon the Jews. In verses 17-20, Paul uses the analogy of the gentiles being branches from a wild olive tree being grafted into the olive tree of faith after some of that tree's branches have been broken off. However, the fact that the gentiles have been brought into the family of God should not give them cause to be prideful. In verse 21, Paul notes that if God was willing to let this happen to the natural branches (Israel), the same possibly could happen to the grafted branches (gentiles). Paul advises his readers to consider both God's goodness as well as his severity, stating that they can count on receiving God's goodness if they "continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (v. 22).

--Paul warns against having pride in once's position as a Christian to the extent that we use it to hold it over the Jews. Theologically, why shouldn't Christians exhibit pride? Why is it practically important that the Christian not exhibit pride? Who are some groups that today Christians often exhibit pride against?

--Wesley notes that when Paul tells the gentile believers not to have pride, but rather fear, that the fear being spoke of here has the effect of preventing against pride and security. Wesley takes the opportunity to say that Christians can fall from their faith, noting that Paul specifically states that God's goodness is experienced by those who continue in His goodness, but those who do not continue will be cut off. Calvin says it is a warning that does not change the fact that Christians are eternally secure. Calvin does this by saying Paul is addressing the gentiles as a group and saying that just as the Jews were broken off, the gentiles as a group could be also. Who do you think is right?

2) Paul states that if the Jews do not persist in their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree of the family of God. After all, if God could bring the gentiles into the family of faith, then it makes sense that He can bring the Jews back in since they are God's chosen people. (v. 23-24). Paul says that it is a mystery of God why the Jews have becomed partially blind towards the things of God, but that once all the Gentile believers are grafted in all Isreal will be saved, quoting scripture regarding God's covenant promises to Isreal. Paul quotes Isa 59: 20 to that effect. (v. 25-27). Paul points out that while the Jews are enemies of the Gospel, they are still loved by God for the sake of their forefathers because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (v. 28-29). For just as the gentiles were once disobedient but have been shown mercy, the same will apply to the Jews. (v. 30-31). Paul says that Paul has committed all over to disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all. (v. 32). Paul concludes with a brief meditation on the depth of God's wisdom and knowledge, and the impossibility of fully understanding the ways of God. Isaiah 40:13 and Jeremiah 23:18 and Job 41:11 are quoted in verses 34-35. Paul concludes this section of his epistle dealing with God's dealings with Israel celebrating the fact that God is the creator, sustainer and God (natch) of all things.

--Paul indicates that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Should we find comfort in this fact?

--Calvin states that verse 32 means that God has so arranged all of creation in such a way that every person would be guilty of unbelief, but that he does not directly cause the unbelief of these persons. This is done so that God can provide salvation that is depending solely on the goodness of God. Wesley interprets this passage less that God is arranging creation so that all will rebel against Him, but rather that God has permitted this to happen. With whom do you believe? How should we interpret the statement that God has allowed disobedience in order to "have mercy on all." If some reformed theologians teach that Romans 9-11 teaches that God has specifically bound all persons over to disobedience so that he can elect certain persons, doesn't this verse indicate that all persons will be saved? Because of this, all three chapters are best read as a discussion of God's dealing with his chosen people as a group, not as how he acts with regard to individuals.

--Why is it important that we recognize the impossibility of figuring out all the ways of God? Why do you think Paul ended this section of the epistle (ch. 1-11) the way he did, praising the sovreignty of God?

Establishment Clause Showdown in the Desert

As reported in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, the ACLU has won a federal appellate case that would require the removal of a six-foot tall cross erected in 1934 by WWI veterans to honor their fallen comrades from land designated a national preserve in 1994. The memorial is currently maintained by private citizens. Naturally, some old soldiers honoring their forebears with a cross has been interpreted as the establishment of religion in America. The pettiness and opportunism of such suits is striking. A desolate monument designed to honor brave men who died for this country should not be allowed to exist, simply because it uses the same religious symbol that can be found in Arlington National Cemetary to honor fallen soldiers of wars and deceased political figures. God forbid a person should be forced to see a religious symbol that our fellow citizens deem meaningful and erect in honor of their friends and loved ones on property that the government annexed 60 years after the erection of the monument. Additionally, as the Wall Street journal notes, the ACLU has cashed in on private citizens to the tune of $60,000+ by bringing this suit. Who knew that banishing all traces of religion from the public square could be so profitable? The establishment clause is designed to prevent a state church and government coercion designed to promote a particular faith. This monument is neither, but sadly our establishment clause jurisprudence is in such disarray that the ruling has a good chance of standing.

(Nod to the "Galley Slaves" weblog for pointing this story out)

The Devil Rays are Golden

My Tampa Bay Devil Rays are starting to show some signs of life, having swept the nefarious Oakland A's with their 2-1 victory. The day before, the Rays put up 10 runs in the first inning in a 14-6 victory. The Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, and the rest of the AL had better watch out, as the Rays are quickly becoming the talk of the universe with their 18-30 record. The Mariners are next, and might as well forfeit at this point.

Christian Political Shifts in the Wind?

David Brooks of the New York Times has an interesting Op-Ed piece here on the increasing willingness of many evangelical Christians and political liberals to join forces on social justice issues such as care for the poor. I hope that Brooks is correct that many evangelicals are broadening their political vision to seek and looking to apply their faith to a wider range of problems and issues facing the world today. A deeper Christian involvement in helping the poor and downtrodden, if done with wisdom, serves to show the love of Christ to an unbelieving world. You can read the article HERE if you have signed up for the free Times version on the web.

Motley Crue Files Suit Against NBC

Apparently, Motley Crue is suing NBC for refusing to put them on the airwaves after the band's lead singer used an expletitve in December 2004 on the Tonight Show. I would have thought a class action lawsuit against NBC for subjecting us to their "music" to be more apropos, but I guess it really is a wacky world that we live in. Click HERE to read the NY Times reporting on the story.

PS: Motley Crue is still making music? Seriously? Wow.

Stem Cell Veto

Kudos should go out to President Bush for his upcoming VETO of a bill that would expand federal funding for embyonic stem-cell research. The President stated that "This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake." I agree with the President on this one. I fear that humans being what we are, we will beginning a slow march where we are willing to use some humans, and alter humanity, for the purpose of bringing greater health and prosperity to some. In other words, use the weak and downtrodden to benefit those in power.

Catfish Hunter

If you want to see the catch of a lifetime, click HERE.

Movie Review: Star Wars Episode III--Revenge of the Sith (***):

( *** out of **** stars: Good)

The most eagerly awaited movie of the summer, Star Wars III details the fall of the Galatic Republic, the ascention of the Galactic Empire led (appropriately) by the Emperor Lord Sidious, and most importantly Anakin Skywalker's embrace of the dark side whereby he becomes Darth Vader. After two mediocre prequels in The Phantom Menace (**1/2) and The Clone Wars (**1/2), there has been quite a bit of trepidation regarding whether ROTS would finally provide moviegoers with a film that stands up to the films in the original trilogy. The answer is yes, this is a much better film than its two recent predecessors, though not the unparalled triumph that many have stated.

First, the positives. Director George Lucas did a fantastic job with special effects, and the movie really looks great. Also, the acting performances are much improved across the board, with Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine) giving the best performances. The light saber scenes are quite entertaining, particularly those involving Darth Sidious, and the battle between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader (Hayden Christensen) may be the best of all the Star Wars Movies. The pacing of the movie is also better than the two previous films, as things move briskly for the first half-hour and last 45 minutes of the film. Most importantly, Lucas does a pretty good job of connecting all the story arcs between these prequels and the original trilogy. Revenge of the Sith has much to recommend it, but it also has a few flaws that prevent it from achieving the heights that the original Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back reached.

The key flaw of the whole film, and indeed these prequels, is that Lucas decided to have the fall of Anakin largely due to his marriage with Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman). However, the "love scenes" in all three prequels between the two feature poor dialogue and a lack of chemistry between the two actors. It is hard for the viewer to relate to Anakin's desire to protect his wife by any means necessary since the movies fail to establish a convincing love and chemistry between the two. Thus, the dramatic and emotional heft of Anakin's tragic fall are greatly reduced. Other failures in the movie include the opening space battle scene, which looks great but lacks any dramatic tension. The reason it lacks tension is because the Jedi Heroes do not actually do any dogfighting with enemy pilots. Instead, they have to dodge missles coming from nameless, faceless fighters, and primarily need to get gremlin like mini-droids off their ship. The tension is missinig because we do not have any opponent we can root against in the battle.

No review of a Star Wars film would be complete without a brief discussion of the themes that Lucas presents in the film. Though I think it is wise not to take a Star Wars film too seriously, as Lucas is not a deep theological or moral thinker, the fall of Anakin is worth discussing briefly. First, as the movie goes on it becomes clear that Annakin is willing to use evil means to achieve the good of saving the life of his wife Padme, and that he is doing it not so much for her overall good, but rather to ensure that he will not lose her. In the end, he treats her as a means to his happiness and his love for her is turned to selfishness. It is a potential flaw in our love of any person not to care for their well being but rather use them to satisfy our needs. Anakin shows his supreme selfishness in that he is willing to betray his ideals, his friends, and in the end his wife to meet his own needs. To the extent that this theme is internalized by moviegoers, Lucas has shared a valuable truth with his audience.

In the end, Revenge of the Sith qualifies as a good move and one worthy of being a Star Wars film. However it is not a great movie. It is not a self-contained film like the original Star Wars that manages to introduce all its characters, revolutionize special effects, provide outstanding action, humor, and an iconic story all in one film. Nor does it pack the emotional wallop and surprises of Empire Strikes Back, a film that is also the best directed of the series. The force is with this one, but it is not the chosen one that some claim it to be.

Star Wars Geeks Get Hurt

Apparently, being a Star Wars geek can be hazardous to your health. See HERE.

Movie Review: The Interpreter

With the arrival of summer, there are finally some movies worth seeing and reviewing. Here are my thoughts on The Interpreter. (**** excellent, *** good, ** fair, * poor)

The Interpreter (**1/2*): The Interpreter is an international political thriller directed by Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa, The Firm) and starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman. Kidman plays Silvia Broom, a United Nations interpreter who hears whispers late one night that she thinks are a plot to assassinate a corrupt African dictator who is coming to the UN to give a speech defending his rule. She reports what she has heard, and US Secret Service agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) is given the assignment of investigating the potential assassination. Keller is suspicious of Ms. Broom's motivations and the movie focuses on the possible plot to kill the African dictator and the evolving relationship between Penn and Kidman's character. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this movie is that it is the first film shot inside the UN, and we should not be surprised since the film has only nice things to say about the organization. The plot is solid, but plods along at times. The film takes too long to reach its conclusion, and the change in the relationship between Penn and Kidman that takes place about midway through the film is not sufficiently explained or convincing. The Interpreter is a solid but unspectacular thriller that is worth renting on DVD once, but never again, as you will likely forget all about it soon enough.

Deception in Pat Tillman Death

As reported in the Washington post HERE, it is sad to see that the U.S. Army and our government's leaders apparently lied to the nation and the Tillman family regarding the fact that he died via friendly fire. In case you are not familiar with the story, Tillman was a millionaire NFL player who left his riches to serve as a soldier in the U.S. army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tillman was killed in April 2004, in what the Pentagon and U.S. government said was a battle with insurgents. Tillman was given a hero's funeral, but the truth surrounding his death was not widely known until a Washington Post December 2004 ARTICLE which detailed the facts surrounding his death via friendly fire (US troops). His parents have a right to be angry with the Army. If the Army and our political leaders did lie about Tillman's death in the immediate aftermath (when national attention, emotional interest, and press coverage were greatest) then we should all be disappointed as Americans in their conduct.

The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe Preview

C.S. Lewis classic children's book, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is coming to theaters this December. Since Lewis is my favorite author and this is an amazing children's book that can be read with profit by adults, I am cautiously very optomistic. If you'd like to see the trailer for the movie, click here

Killearn DTS Romans 11: 1-16

In Romans 11, Paul finishes explaining Isreal's current position with God in light of the coming of the Gospel. In v. 1 Paul states emphatically that God has not rejected the Isrealites, explaining that it could not be so since Paul himself is a Christian and also of Isreal. Calvin states that this is because adoption is dependent solely on God, and not on men, with which Luther agrees in his introduction. Paul then quotes 1 Kings 19:10, and draws a parallel between that time and his. Elijah despaired becaused it seemed to him that all had turned away from God. However, God informs him that not all have turned, and that God has reserved a remnant among Isreal who did not bow down to the false god Baal. In much the same way, there is a remnant among Isreal who believes in Christ (v. 6) that was chosen by God's grace and not works.

--Why is it in accordance with God's character that He has chosen not to reject the people of Isreal?

--Calvin states that only those Christians who are chosen by God (the elect) shall end up being saved, pointing out that though circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Isreal and God, it was only an outward sign that was ineffectual without faith. Calvin goes on to say that the only reason for God's electing some persons and not others simply because it is God has willed it to be so, for if he chose on the basis of who He knew would accept or who is most moral, then it would be based on works. This is something Calvin states God chose to do with His creation before the foundation of the world. Is believing in something a work?

--Wesley states that this passage, in particular v. 5, must be read in light of Romans 3:22, which states that the righteousness from the Gospel comes to all who believe. God's purpose is that all who believe will be saved, and this is the remnant chosen by grace. If God offers salvation to all, and man decides whether to believe in God, can God be assured that his purpose of having a remnant will be fulfilled? Does the concept of foreknowledge, which Wesley believed in, provide an answer?

Paul writes in v. 7, that the righteousness before God that Isreal attempted to achieve through works was instead obtained by the elect, while others were hardened. Paul then quotes passages from the O.T. to prove his point. He first quotes Deut 28:4, and Isa: 29:10, to the effect that the people of Isreal still do not truly understand the purposes and desires of God, and also quotes David from psalm 69 to the same effect. Paul is once again making the point that the chosen people have a long history of not understanding or obeying God.

--Wesley states that those whose hearts are hardened are in that state because of their own willful blindness. How does God harden hearts? Does He make the creature do evil? Does he withdraw His restraint?

Isreal has not fallen to the point that they cannot be redeemed (v. 11), rather God has used their rejection (of Christ) to bring salvation to the Gentiles and thus make Isreal envious. And since God has used evil to do good, how much more good will abound once Isreal comes to God (v. 12). Paul states that part of the motivation of his ministry to the Gentiles is to provoke his own people to have faith in Christ. (v. 13-14). Paul then appears to tie in the acceptance of Christ be Isreal with life from the dead. Whether this means that the dead nation of Isreal will eventually believe in Christ and become alive, or that all Isreal will believe when the resurrection of the dead occurs is not clear. Wesley states that v. 16 is a use of metaphor to indicate that the remnant of Isreal that believes will eventually lead to all of Isreal believing.

--Does the concept of provoking Isreal to envy and thus acceptance of Christ make sense in a Calvinist worldview whereby God alone decides who will believe in him? Does an Arminian view of salvation allow it to be possible for God to make the claim that all Isreal will believe? What does the faithfulness of God to Isreal reveal about His character?

Good Times in Ohio

My trip to visit Sarah in Canton, OH is over and I am back in Tallahassee. The extended weekend was a lot of fun. Friday night we went to a local Japanese restaurant and enjoyed a nice dinner and celebrated her birthday (on Friday the 13th, no less--naturally it rained and was lightning). Saturday was rather laid back as well. We visited the William McKinley National Memorial, where the President and his wife are entombed. It was quite impressive, and I must assume that all US Presidents have impressive monuments after visiting this one. Later in the day we watched The Interpreter (**1/2, look for a group of movie reviews in a little while) and then had a delicious meal at Sahara, a local Greek restaurant. Sunday was a very big day, as Sarah and I drove 4 hours to Niagra Falls in Canada. The falls are quite awesome, and I recommend a trip to see them if you haven't already. We rode the Maid of the Mist, a boat that takes you reasonably close to the falls in order to see them up close, and I recommend it heartily so long as you don't mind getting a bit wet. We stayed until nighttime, when they use klieg lights to light up the falls, and then drove home, not getting in until late in the evening. Monday, we drove up to Cleveland and watched the Cleveland Indians take on the LA/Anaheim Angels at Jacobs Field. The Angels won 3-1, but the ballpark was very nice and we had good seats behind home plate. My time with Sarah ended Tuesday afternoon after lunch at the Macaroni Grill. It was a very fun weekend, and both of us had a great time celebrating her birthday. I'll post a couple pictures taken during the weekend during the next couple of days so you can see a bit of what I am talking about.

Bible Study Cancelled Sunday May 15

Because I am out of town and most of the rest of the class will be also, the DTS class is cancelled. We will resume in Romans 10. Thanks for your understanding and I look forward to seeing you all on the 22nd.

Legislative Session Over; Good Times!

For those of you who check in on this weblog, rest assured there will be more content on the site now that the Legislative session is over, having ended Friday May 6. I will try and post more on things going on in my life, humorous links, commentary on various topics, my Bible study and topical articles, and more. So if you check in now, you will probably find more than my usual Bible Study outlines.

I am very excited to be visiting Sarah up in Canton, OH this coming weekend of the 13th. We plan to drive to Niagra Falls (about 3 hours in the car) and take that in for a day. It is Sarah's birthday, and she has always wanted to see the falls, so I think that will be a very nice time for the two of us. We also will be taking in the Indians vs. Angels game at Jacobs Field on Monday, something I know I will enjoy, and Sarah has stated that she thinks she will like it too and I hope she is right. Since she is a smart and discerning woman, I think she will.

Already, things are more laid back for me. It is nice to leave the office at 5pm again, rather than between 9 and midnight. It is also nice to have the time to eat a bit more healthy and get to the YMCA. I put on a few pounds like always during session, so I need to be sure to take them off the next month or two (like I usually do). I am also glad to finally get a bit of a raise, as with rising gas prices and inflaction in general, my salary hasn't bought as much as it did when I was hired. That also should reduce my stress level. Now, if the Cubs start winning a few games, things will be really going well.

Listen closely

For those of you who know some friggin idiots, perhaps this will help you relax a bit.

For those of you hoping to exact revenge, or who simply have a superior intellect, this might be a bit more helpful.

Killearn DTS Romans 10: 1-9

1) In Chapter 10, Paul focuses on the necessity of the Jews (and everyone) to obtain salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. He begins by reiterating his good motives and his desire that the Isrealites be saved. In verse 2, he states that the Jews are zealous for God, but that such zeal is not based on knowledge. Wesley notes that while the Jews of this time may have had zeal without knowledge, too often the Christians of Wesley's time had knowledge without zeal. Calvin takes the opportunity to make the point that ignorace of God is no excuse of bad actions and refusing to submit to God. Paul continues in v. 3 by saying that the Jews did not know the righteousness that comes from God, and instead attempted to create their own righteousness (via the law). Their lack of knowledge is seen in that they do not understand that Christ is the end of the law, and provides righteousness for those who believe.

--Why is it important that zeal and knowledge go together in the Christian life? What sorts of knowledge are necessary and how is it obtained?

2) In v. 5, Paul gives an example of the righteousness that comes through law, quoting Lev. 18:5, which states "the man who does these things will live by them." Wesley and Calvin both note that because it is impossible to perfectly keep the law, obtaining righteousness through the law is impossible. Paul then provides examples that the righteousness that comes through faith is not hidden to anyone or inacessible, but is obtainable. He quotes Deut 30: 12-13, modifying the meaning of the quotes. The language of going to heaven or descending to the deep was used in the original passage by Moses to tell the people that the law of God was given to them and is accessible. In similar fashion, the provision of Christ is not hidden, but rather accessible. Paul then quotes Deut 30: 12-13, to the effect that the word of the Lord is in the people's heart and mouth. Similarly, the righteousness from faith is available and readily known, for if a person confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes He was raised from the dead, that person will be saved.

--Moses told the people that the law was accessible and known to them, thus they could not try to excuse their behavior by saying that they do not know it. Does this contradict what Paul has to say about the impossibility of keeping the law? What were the purposes of the law being given?

--Paul is arguing that the Jews need to accept Christ. If God is wholly in charge of who accepts Him, what is the purpose of this passage? If belief and acceptance of Christ is wholly imparted by God, why doesn't Paul make mention of that fact in v. 9?

Rich Young Rulers: Part I

Recently, the leadership of my church announced that it is going to form a new church on the other side of town designed to appeal to the 21-40 age group. It is a noble goal, as this age cohort is far less likely to attend church than previous generations. I am 29 years old--planted squarely in the middle of this age group--and have had nearly a decade of dealing with my fellow Gen X and Y'rs. A church seeking to bring members of this generation to Jesus has to understand the attributes and desires of the group and deal intelligently with these traits.

Two attributes and two desires are greatly influenced by the pervasive influences of this age. The attributes are consumerism and confusion about truth. The deisres are a desire for commmunity and a desire for control. Some aspects of these attributes, concerns, and desires of the group are good, but often are sought improperly and in destructive ways. Others are problematic to the core from a Christian perspective. The negative aspects of these attributes and desires are a result of this generation's relentless pursuit of self-gratification.

Not every person in the generation will have all the same attributes, but I think that each attribute is applicable to a large number of people and it would be a very rare person indeed who is not effected by one of these for things. This article discusses each of these attributes and the challenges they pose to a church that seeks to have its members be imitators of Christ. This will be followed by an in-depth treatment of the cult of self-gratification. Subsequent articles will contain proposals and ideas regarding how we can counteract the negative aspects of these influences, both in our personal lives, in our communities, and the culture at large.

Consumerism

Personal autonomy is the demand of almost all Gen Y'rs. In this, it is unlikely that they are much different from many previous generations, but this demand has been directed more towards the satisfaction of personal desires by the fact that we life in a consumer society. Day after day, advertisements in all forms of media and the culture at large equate personal happiness with pleasure, which is obtained by purchasing certain items, engaging in certain actions, or experiencing certain things. And the advertisements do not try to convince the person to purchase them through reason and argument--the argument is usually not that the product is of the finest quality. Instead, the advertiser often appeals to the person's desires by using images and peer pressure.

These constant messages have multiple results. First, the listener becomes accustomed to a mode of thinking whereby he or she is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Who has the best cola? Well, I'll taste and decide for myself. Additionally, the criteria of whether something is valuable is not whether something is true or achieves excellence, but whether it brings pleasure or happiness. McDonalds doesn't say they have the best burgers, they just show people eating the food with a smile on their face and the caption "I'm lovin' it." It is also worth noting that modern advertising relies on images and evoking emotion rather than convincing a person via evidence that this product is the best. In making decisions, the listener is encouraged to make decisions on the basis of desire and emotion, often to the exclusion or limitation of reason. Finally, the listener is told that their status in society and among their peers will improve if they choose this product. In other words, an appeal to vanity is made. This can been seen in the facts that in advertisements it is almost always beautiful people and celebrities that are utilized, and that so many advertisers attempt to show that their wares are "cutting edge" and "trendy." The result is that people are trained to assume the utilitarian presumption that the maximization of happiness is the highest goal of life and society, but without the presumption that reason is the means by which to make the determination. The carnal desires are elevated, while reason is diminished and spirituality ignored.

Uncertainty About Truth

Many members of Generation Y are divided into two camps. In the first camp are those people who care whether things are true and may even consider it more important than personal pleasure. This does not mean that they necessarily believe that there is a God, or an objective moral law, or that there is a specific purpose to life. But they are willing to think about such matters and would concede that they are important. The second camp could care less about the truth, and is more than happy to use any means that will maximize happiness. Members of both camps are often cynical about the existence of truth and are quick to reject authority.

Among many who think truth is important, and especially among those who do not, there is a cynicism regarding whether truth exists. There are multiple reasons for this. As more people enter higher education, they come under the influence of a relativism in education that too often focuses more on debunking arguments through ad hominem attacks and claiming that all our intellectual predecessors were biased or simply trying to exercise power. Examining an argument on its merits is too often neglected. And while there are signs that the influence of relativism is lessening, its effects can still be seen in segments of society that teach that true tolerance is not giving in to the bigoted viewpoint that "if X is true, then not X is false." Evangelicalism deserves some blame for this state of affairs, having neglected the life of the mind, often despising reason, and failing to engage the world outside the church with a Christian worldview and ethic that encompasses all of life. As evangelical scholar Mark Noll puts it, it is a scandal, and one the church must work to remedy.

The result of all of this is that a cynical generation has emerged. Members of this generation who sense that the promises of the advertisers to bring happiness are bankrupt, are now wary of other promises to bring happiness. And those who continue to satisfy their needs chiefly through consumer culture generally do not believe or care that there may be a higher calling in life. The generation that has heard so many contrary voices of authority more concerned with publishing a novel paper than what is true or false (see academics) or winning an argument rather than discovering truth (see politicians) now distrusts authority. A world that says personal pleasure equals happiness and is the highest purpose in life, and that this is achieved through hedonism, cannot even deliver "the goods" (pleasure and temporary happiness) of this diminished goal through consumer culture. Thus it is no surprise that many do not believe that they have been designed with a purpose. As a result, it is very common for members of this generation to drift through life with an undefined life purpose. Too many drift through life, just trying to make the best of it and adopt a soft nihilism that creates low expectations and a life of limted joy.

Desire for Community

Generation Y'rs crave community. The lack of caring communities and meaningful interaction between friends has created a huge unmet need among today's young adults. There are multiple causes for this situation. First, families are far more likely to fragment. Everyone knows about the 50% divorce rate in our society. Another cause is the fact that young adults often leave home to go to school and try to "make it on their own" which takes them away from family and friends into new cities where they know few if any people. Even families that do not divorce increasingly separate to different parts of the country, and are only see each other on holidays. When Gen Y'rs get a job, it will often be for only a few years before they move to another job, in perhaps another city, thus even the work community is increasingly transitory. Our communities are filled with young adults who are lonely and searching for meaningful interation. A church potluck is not going to meet this need, nor are the handshakes and salutations that occur in the 5 to 10 minutes after a sunday worship service.

Another desire for community takes a different form. In addition to interaction, Gen Y'rs want to be part of communities where their talents are appreciated and valaued. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, a common interest is often the fertile ground in which friendship grows. To the extent that a young adult cannot find others in a community who share his or her interests, that person is not likely to have many friends. A person who cannot find friends within a community is going to feel isolated and not appreciated. Talent truly is on loan from God, but sadly our churches are too often places where the various talents of its members are squandered. If you can teach the Bible, or sing well, you're in luck. But God forbid if your talent is in painting, scientific inquiry, or a multitude of other areas of expertise or creativity.

Teaching our young how to use their talents for the glory of God is key if we hope to live in churches that bring the Gospel message of redemption to bear on all areas of our lives. As part of that message, however, we must also teach that the use of talent for God is done as an act of service. Too often, we are only willing to serve in ways that suit ourselves. After all, most of the "serious" members of a congregation can give a long outline of the deficiencies of our leaders in the clergy. We need to be willing to serve when asked, and perhaps even in ways that may not feed our egos or be totally within our control. We need to live that lesson out, and teach it to others.

Desire for Control

Generation Y--perhaps like most young adults in most generations--has an overwhelming desire to be in control of their own lives and tends to distrust authority. This does not mean that all members of this generation have purely selfish desires. Some may give their lives to causes outside themselves, but any such decision will be made by that person. We tend to be the captains of our own ships, with the possible exception of those who have unmet needs for community and may subbordinate their autonomy to meet that felt need.

As mentioned earlier, the consumer culture we live in creates habits of mind where we look to ourselves alone in making decisions. We consider satisfaction of our desire for pleasure as the key criteria in making decisions, and choose our options. We are told to seek out that which is trendy and stylish (two things that are in constant flux, unlike the objective moral truth of Jesus) as a means of setting ourselves apart. We are told to be one of the select few worthy of being considered better than those around us by buying a certain product--just like the other 10 million people who have seen the commercial.

And don't think about questioning this way of life for a second. If you do, that means that you are subjugating your freedom and not expressing your individuality. After all, what could be more freeing than spending all our time acquiring possessions, and more individualistic than joining the "hardy few" in our culture who are look to self-gratification as the ultimate purpose in life. As a church, we must show that it is in following Christ that we gain control of our lives. There is a reason Christ told us we cannot serve both God and money. Obviously, the main reason is because it is so easy for us to seek to gratify ourselves with false idols. But it is also because when we follow after the god "mammon" we end up in serving a God who tyrannizes us into a slavery where we seek pleasures and a purpose that false idol cannot provide; things that in the end dominate us. The question is whether we seek a life where our appetites dominate us, or instead choose to serve Jesus Christ, who transforms us into the people God designed us to be, and allows us the freedom that comes with contentment and being loved. For it is God who is the creator and ruler of the created order, and it is His command that we exercise dominion over all creation by loving and serving Him and one another. This is a vital lesson for our churches to teach, and one for many in my generation (including myself) to learn.

__________________________________________________

Thank you for reading this far. The next article in the Rich Young Rulers series will be an analysis of the "cult of self-gratification" that my generation and the culture at large has embraced. God Bless.

Killearn DTS Romans 9: 14-31

1) In verse 14, Paul asks a question in light of God choosing Issac and Jacob to receive the covenant blessings he began through Abraham. The question is whether God is unjust for having chosen one person over the other. It occurs to me that there are two objections that Paul may be addressing here. The first possible objection is "why doesn't God shower his grace upon all peoples?" In context of the passage however, it appears more likely that the issues are "has God's covenant with us failed, and aren't all Isrealites part of the kingdom of God since they are part of the community with which God has covenanted" (see verses 6 and 7). Paul cites the election of Issac and Jacob as examples to answer the objections regarding Isreal. God chose Issac and Jacob to receive the covenant blessing as a means of fulfilling his purposes. So we see God chosing to favor certain persons as a means of enacting the covenant, not causing it to be breached on God's side. As verse 15 tells us, God chooses to give his grace to those he wants to. We cannot dictate to God who will receive it. (v. 16) God's mercy does not depend on how much we want it or on our efforts to get it, but rather on God's forgiveness. As Wesley stated, the will of man is opposed to God's grace.

--Since God has decided to enact his purposes largely through man in the course of history, is it inevitable that he would purpose that certain men would receive blessing?

In verse 17, Paul cites the example of Pharoah in Egypt, who is told by God (through Moses) that he has been raised up to power in order that God might show his power, and that the peoples of the Earth would become aware of the His existence. Mission certainly accomplished by God, as the account of the Exodus is famous around the world. As Paul puts it (v 18) God has mercy on those He want to, and hardens those he want to. Wesley stated that in order to display His power, God rose to the throne in Egypt the most obstinant and proud man possible, but not a man whom God had made that way. In doing this, the punishment he received was more than just.

--If God created a person for the purpose of doing evil, and he does so, does that make God the author of evil? Explain your answer.

3) In verse 19, Paul anticipates an objection that the Isrealites might have to his argument. The objection is that if God has purposed for certain people to object Him and certain to accept, then how can we be held accountable, for who can resist God's will? In response, Paul quotes passages from Isaiah stating that the created should not question the will of the creator, just as the potter cannot be questioned by the pot for the way it was made, or the purposes it will serve. (v. 20-21). It is worth noting that in both examples from Isaiah, not only is the will of God being questioned, but also whether God sees the evil deeds of the people and will act.

Wesley states that God's dealings with us are invisible in some circumstances and clearly known in others. We cannot clearly see His purposes and working in things like when and where we live, our parents, our bodies and minds. These are ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules we do not know. On the other hand, God has revealed to us clearly how he deals with us as our Judge--he rewards every man in accordance with his works. Those who believe are saved, those who do not believe aren't. Because of this fact, it is not tyrannical of God to furnish his mercy to some, because God offers his grace to those who accept His terms (Jer 18:7). From Calvin's point of view, God may harden an unbelieving man not only because He is sovreign, but also because that man would automatically be opposed to God because it is in man's nature to be so. As all men are opposed to God, it is not unjust for God to only choose some to receive His grace, because it would be just for God to punish every person who ever lived because that is what our sins have merited.

--Since God is sovreign and all powerful, is the fact that some come to God and others do not evidence that he has purposed for only some to come to Him? What is the role that free-will plays here?

4) Paul then presents a hypothetical in verses 22-29. What if, he asks, God bore with patience the objects of His wrath--prepared for destruction--as a means of showing his power? What if He did this in order to show the glory of His mercies to those he prepared in advance for glory? Paul cites examples from scripture that show God has chosen people both from within and outside the covenant community of Isreal to deal with. He points out that God has told the people in certain contexts that only a few of the community would be saved, and that if it were not for God's intervention, the community would have already merited destruction for its evil acts (and thus is not without blame or receiving an unjust "punishment").

--In verse 23, is Paul making the case that without seeing God's wrath, we would not be able to comprehend his grace? Does this mean that it is necessary for God to have allowed sin to exist?

In verses 30-33, Paul once again says that the Gentiles have received a righteousness that comes from faith, even though the outside world never sought to obey God's law. This has happened because Isreal as a community has not fully understood that what God desires is faith and trust in Him. A love of God, not mere obedience of rules. It is a stumbling block for them, and that is why they have failed to understand the life and purposes of Jesus Christ (v. 33).

Killearn DTS Romans 8: 26-34

1) In v. 26-27, Paul points out that just as we desire and struggle (groaning) to be redeemed by God, the Spirit of God groans (desires and struggles) in helping us in that process, particularly in prayer. Paul points out that we often do not know what we should pray for, but that the Spirit of God intercedes for us. Additionally, Paul points out that God knows the hearts of his believers and the mind of the Spirit.

Martin Luther stated that the Spirit assures us that we are children of God, regardless of our struggles with sin, so long as we follow the Spirit and struggle against sin. In fact, for Luther, the struggle is important, as he says it is that struggle (the cross) that is often most effective in deadening the flesh. All of creation joins us in this struggle, as does God's Spirit. Calvin notes that the fact that the Spirit interceedes for us in prayer, and that God looks at our hearts, should fill us with confidence when praying.

--What do you think the "groans" mentioned by Paul are indicative of? What does the placement of this passage show us about the importance of prayer in our redemption?

2) Verses 28-30 contain of of the more famous passages of scripture, where Paul says that in all things, God words for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to his purpose. John Wesley says that this passage refers to God's provision of Jesus to save our lost world. Calvin points out that the passage refers to the fact that God answers our prayers by using even the evils we face in life to our ultimate advantage.

In verse 29, Paul talks about the aspects of God's calling of us, which is, of course, done according with God's purposes. Paul says that those God forknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, thus making Christ the firstborn of many brothers in the family of God. In verse 30, we read that those who are predestined are also called, those called are justified, and those justified are glorified.

Wesley states that those who are foreknown and predestined are those who are conformable to the image of God. In other words, those who God knows will submit to Him, given the opportunity, citing 2 Tim 2: 19 and Phillipians 3: 10, 21 as authority. Calvin states that Paul is detailing the order of election, and rejects that forknowledge is based on God knowing who would be willing to accept Him, for Calvin assumes that such a situation provides the creation with too much credit in the process.

--The interpretation of the term "foreknowledge" determines how a person will interpret this passage with regard to the process by which God calls a person and "predestines" him. What is your interpretation?

3) Paul says in v. 31 that in light of the great lengths God has gone to redeem us and make us holy, our response should be to realize that God is for us, and thus should not fear those who are against us. After all, if God is willing to sacrifice His Son on our behalf, then he is obviously willing to go to any lengths to provide us with what we need in our lives. Wesley and Calvin both note that verses 31-35 contain a series of exclamations where Paul details what our response should be to the difficulties of life in light of the fact of all God has done for us.

Paul goes on to say that we should not fear those who bring (false) charges against us, for it is God who justifies us and finds us acceptable (v. 33). As for those who condemn us, that should not lead us to fear because Christ was condemned on our behalf, and intercedes for us with God (v. 34).

--What sort of "charges" and "condemnation" does the world bring against Christians? Which are accurate, and which are unfair? What should be our response?

--

Killearn DTS Romans 8: 1-14

1) Paul begins in v. 1 with a conclusion: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because through Christ the Spirit of life sets me free from the law of sin and death. It is worth noting that Calvin thought that the "law of sin and death" referred to our fallen desires and death in general, not to the Old Testament law. His reason is that Paul, while speaking of the OT law's stirring up in us rebellion, is also quick to say that the law is good and from God. Wesley, on the other hand, thinks Paul is referring to the Old Testament. In verse 3, Paul goes on to say that wile the law was powerless to save us ecause it was weakened by the sinful nature, God was able to do by sending his Son to be a sin offering so that the righteous requirements of the law would be met in us. This is a good summary statement of the purposes of God in sending Jesus Christ to earth.

What are the different ways that the term condemnation can be understood in verse 1? Who do you think is right in the interpretation of the "law of sin and death" in verse 2? Keeping in mind that Paul is giving a theological history of God's interraction with humanity, how does this passage show what God's purposes are with regard to His relationship with us?

2) In verses 5-17, Paul talks about the difference in having a mind controlled by the Spirit and one controlled by the sinful nature. Paul begins by saying that whichever nature one lives according to, that is what a person's mind will be set on.

--What does this passage have to say about the interraction between the will/appetites and one's mind?

In verses 6-8, Paul states that the sinful mind is death and hostile to God's law, unable to submit to Him. As a result, the person controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Conversely, the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. Wesley notes that two signs of a spiritual life is that it brings life to others, and is at peace with God. Calvin is quick to note that this passage shows that the power of free will does not exist with respect to submission to God, and that this passage shows man is totally corrupt and totally unable to come to God, even with His help.

--What does it mean when Paul says a person controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God? How does this tie in to the fact that such a person cannot submit to Him?

3) In verses 9-11, Paul speaks of being controlled by the Holy Spirit. He begins by saying that a person is controlled by the Spirit and not the sinful nature if the Spirit lives within us. Further, any person not having the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him--is not a Christian. Wesley puts it as the person is not in a state of salvation. Calvin notes that gratutious salvation cannot be seperated from regeneration. Paul goes on to say that if we have Christ, our body is dead due to sin, but our spirit is alive because of righteousness and in the end God will provide us with eternal life.

--What does it mean to be controlled by the Spirit? What is our interraction with the Spirit? What should be the results?

4) In v. 12, Paul says we have an obligation not to live according to the sinful nature, and reiterates (v. 13) that to live according to the sin nature brings death, while to live according to the Spirit and put to death the misdeeds of the body means life and being a son of God (v. 14).

CANCELLATION: Sunday School 3/13/05

Due to an ongoing chest cold, I am forced to cancel this week's DTS bible study. We will resume next week with Romans 8. Thanks for your understanding.

Killearn DTS Romans 7: 14-25

In this section of Romans, Paul writes about his difficulty in following the law. Whether Paul is describing his pre-Christian experience or Christian experience has been a matter for debate among commentators.

1) Paul reiterates in v. 14 that the law is spiritual, but that "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." Wesley comments that this provides an indicator that Paul is speaking of the time when he was totally under the power of sin. Wesley considers the section of Romans that we are covering in this week's study an example of the process of coming to Christ. Calvin states that while the passage shows that the sinful nature itself is controlled by sin, but that here Paul is talking about a voluntary servitude of the Christian.

--Who do you agree with, Wesley or Calvin? Does Paul statement that he is sold as a slave to sin appear consistent with what he has said is pre-Christian experience or post-Christian experience? What is the context in which this passage is written?

2) Paul states that "what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do." (v. 15) In other words, his motivations are good, but he is unable to follow through on them. In acting contrary to the law, Paul understands that the law is good. (v. 16). Calvin states that this is a statement of Paul's struggle with sin as a Christian. We can see this conclusion in Calvin's theology. Since man is totally depraved apart from God, then Paul's statement that he cannot do what he knows is good and wants to do would not make sense in Calvinist theology. In that system, the pre-Christian person is totally depraved and would not have a motivation to do good.

--As a practical matter, do you see this maxim of Paul's at work in your life? If so, does that lend support to the view that this passage refers to current Christian experience?

3) Paul goes on to say that it is no longer he who commits these sins, but the sin living in him and that he is aware that nothing good lives in his sinful nature. (v. 17-18) He then reiterates his maxim that he acts contrary to his good desires, and says that since he really does not want to do these things, it is not he who commits the sin but rather the sin in him. (v. 19-20).

--Calvin states that the "Flesh" is "everything in man, except the sanctification by the Spirit." He goes on to say that the Spirit is the part of our soul that God regenerates when he saves us, but that the evil desires of the flesh remain. Since Calvin states that Paul is describing his current Christian experience, does that mean that God only changes the heart, but that in salvation the flesh (body) is not changed? Manicheeism is a dualistic view of the world in which everything that is mind/spirit is good and of God, while all matter is evil and of the Devil. St. Augustine was a Manichee before becoming an orthodox Christian, and his writing influenced Calvin. Is Calvin's view of regeneration Manicheean?

4) From his experience Paul develops a spiritual law, so to speak, that when he wants to do good, evil is right there with him. This means that although Paul delights in the law "in my inner being" (v. 22), he sees another law at work in his body that wages war against his mind and makes him a prisoner of the law and the sin at work in his fleshly body. (v. 23).

--Wesley, in backing up his view that this passage is a description of the process of coming to God, notes that Paul says here he delights in the law, which is closer to acceptance of God than agreement that the law is good (v. 16). Do you agree with Wesley, or is he making too much of these terms? Did you find that before you became a Christian, you engaged in a process of coming to God, whereby you slowly came to faith? If so, does this back up Wesley's view of the passage?

--Calvin states that this is an example of Christian struggle, quoting Augustine. Do you ever in your Christian experience actively desire to disobey the law? Not merely that you do what you do not want to do, but rather, that you commit sin and want to do it. Is this possible under Calvin's view of the passage?

5) After saying that he is a "prisoner of the law of sin" (v. 23), Paul asks "Who will rescue me from this body of death? (v. 24) He then provides the answer: "Thanks be to God--Through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (v. 25). The passage concludes with Paul reiterating that in his mind, he is a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature, a slave to the law of sin.

--Wesley states that through the struggle with trying to be a moral, but being unable to do it, a person is brought to the point of desperation and looks for rescue. The person's reason and conscience declare for God, but his fleshly desires remain and bring the person to the point of weariness. Does the fact that Paul is writing in the present tense throughout this passage contradict Wesley's argument that Paul is speaking of his past, pre-Christian experience? On the other hand, does Paul's statement that he is a prisoner of sin back Wesley's point up? Do you think Paul would have called the Christian life an imprisonment to sin?

-- When Paul says Christ will rescue him from the body of sin, is he referring to a rescue in this life, or in the life to come?

6) Chapter 8 may provide some answers as to what Paul is talking about. Read ahead and see whether that influences your opinion of the passage. Also, be sure to note what Paul says about how the battle against sin within us is changed in the Christian life. That will be the focus of the next lesson.

Killearn DTS Romans 7: 1-13

Chapter 7 contains the remainder of Paul's explanation of sanctification, dealing especially with the sort of life a Christian should lead after coming to faith in Jesus. Paul states that the Jewish law is only applicable when a person is alive, giving the example of marriage as an example (a woman may remarry if her husband dies, but if she marries while he is alive she is an adulteress). In similar fashion, we die to the law (Rom 6: 3-4). Calvin describes it as our conscience being freed from following the law and now should cling to it's second husband, Jesus Christ. Paul also states that we belong to Christ for the purpose of bearing fruit to God by serving in the way of the Holy Spirit, not out of obedience to the written law (v.6).

2) In verse 7, Paul discusses whether the law is sin, and discusses his struggles with sin. A major question is whether the discussion of struggling with sin refers to his pre-Christian experience, or is an example of his continuing life as a Christian. Both views have been heldby different commentators.

Paul begins by saying that the law is not sin, for he would not know what sin is unless the law had defined certain actions as such. Calvin states that the law does not encourage a person to sin, but does increase a person's awareness of sin. Wesley says the same thing, but includes the possibility that the law stirs up that action in us.

--With whom do you believe? What do you think of Calvin's statement that if the law could be said to cause our sin, then it would bear some guilt for our sin? Does Paul's statement in verse 8 that sin seizes the opportunity afforded it by the law and produces evil desire effect your opinion? Does Paul's statement that sin is dead apart from the law mean that it does not exist, or that knowledge of sin is not existent (Luther), or that it is less apparent and active (Wesley)?

3) In verse 9 Paul begins relating his own experience by stating that early in life he was alive apart from the law, but once the law came sin sprang to life and he died. Verse 10 states that the commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death, because sin deceived him and through the law put him to death (v. 10-11). Paul sconcludes by saying that the law is holy righteous and good.

--Luther says that the law makes sin more active and hostile because we cannot pay the debt required by the law. What is the debt requried by the law? Do you agree with Luther's statement? Why or why not?

--Wesley says that Paul's statement that he was alive apart from the law (v. 9) means that "I had much life, wisdom, virtue, strength: so I thought." However, the commandment, the characteristic of the law that restrains us, sin revives and whatever virtue and strength he had died away, making clear that he is liabile for death. What does Paul mean when he says he was alive apart from the law? Is Wesley correct that the life apart from the law is one of perception? Does verse 13 address this issue?

--In verse 10, Paul states the the commandment was intended to bring life, but instead brings death, because sin deceives us into disobedience, and we are thus put to death via the commandment. Both Wesley and Calvin state that the law is designed to show us a way that we can take to achieve righteousness and eternal life. Assuming God took our sinful nature into account in creating the law, how can it be said that the law was intended to bring life when in practice it does nothing of the sort? What does intended mean here?

--What does it mean to be deceived by sin (v. 11)?

--Wesley and Calvin both say that the law is good because it derives from the nature and personality from God. Is this the reason the law is good? Can you think of any other reasons?

4) In verse 13, Paul says that the law is good and did not itself become death to him. Rather, it produced death in him so that sin would be recognized for what it is.

--Why does God want sin to be seen for what it is? Does this statement shed lights on the previous questions addressed in this study? How does this fit into God's historical plan for humanity and our salvation?

Killearn DTS Romans 6: 8-23

1) After explaining that the Christian's old self dies and is thus freed from sin and capable of living a new life that is directed towards God, Paul further explains how this process works. In verses 8-10 Paul points out that since Christ resurrected, it is clear that death no longer has mastery over him. The death Christ died was onto sin, but after resurrection He lives a life onto God that has broken the bonds of sin and death. Similarly, we are told to count ourselves dead to sin, but alive to God via Christ (verse 11).

--Luther describes the process of living a holy life as a struggle between the Spirit and the flesh to kill of sins and sinful desires. What are some of the most difficult struggles that we deal with as individuals? As a church community?

2) In verses 12-14, Paul starts to give some practical and pastoral directions on how the Christian is supposed to live the holy life directed towards God that should be the normative experience of the Christian. We are told first not to let sin reign in our flesh, so that we will not obey its desires. Further, we are not tooffer the parts of our body to sin, but rather to offers ourselves to God as instruments of righteousness. This is possible because we are under grace and not law, and thus sin is not our master.

--Wesley points out that sin is a tyrant, while God is our lawful King. He then says that because we are under grace, and not law (v. 14), we are enabled to have complete mastery over sin through the Gospel. Do you think that the Gospel enables us to have complete mastery over sin? What is Paul saying in this chapter?

3) Paul brings us back to the original issue in verse 15, asking again whether we should sin because we are under grace, and reiterates his answer, "by no means!" We are then given a metaphor of sorts that tries to explain why we are obliged not to sin. Paul says that when a person offers to serve another, that person is a slave to the person they have chosen to obey. We are either slaves to sin, which leads to death, or choose to be obedient to God, a course of life that leads to righteousness. Paul gives thanks to God that the Christians he is writing to obeyed the teaching he made. He then states that they have been freed from sin and are now slaves to righteousness (v. 18). Paul makes the point that his examples of slavery were made to make the concept understandable to his audience. Paul reitierates in verses 19-20 his his instruction to offer our bodies in slavery to righteousness, which will lead to living a holy life. He also states again that at one time, the believer is a slave to sin and unable to live a righteous life before God.

--Calvin makes the argument that no one can be a slave to righteousness until Christ has set him free from the tyranny of sin. This happens according to Calvin via regeneration, whereby God chooses to change the hearts of the elect. Calvin says our free will has nothing to do with the transactions, since the gift is from God and only available because of His kindness. Do you agree with Calvin's argument? Is Calvin correct in presupposing that any exercise of free will would negate the Gospel being a gift, and salvation being totally from God?

--Wesley says that the center of the Gospel is faith, whereby a person chooses to embrace the righteousness of God, which is given to all who believe (Rom 3:22). How is the view different from Calvin's? Which do you think is correct?

4) Paul asks a question in verse 21, whether any benefits are realized from living in sin. Paul rightly points out that since such thinngs lead to death, it is hard to say they are worthwhile. However, in our new lives where we are freed from sin and slaves to God, our benefit is eternal life. As Paul puts it very well in verse 23, "[T]he wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eteral life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

--Luther says that God's grace gives us true freedom from sin and the law. It is a freedom to do good with eagerness and live a good life. The freedom does not suspend the law, but allows us to fulfill its requirements: eagerness and love. How can we improve in desiring to eagerly live a loving life? Is this what the law seeks? Is this God's goal for our actions?

Killearn DTS Romans 6: 1-7

This post is intended for members of the Killearn Dead Theologians Society sunday school class on Feb. 13, 2005, though folks who are bored and like reading Bible study outlines are more than welcome to peruse it. This week, we are covering the last two questions from class two weeks ago that we did not get to along with the seven verses at the start of Romans 6.

In Chapter 5, Paul explains how we are justified in God's sight, reconciled to God and have peace with Him through our faith in God because of the atoning acts of Christ on the cross. We are also told that we now have hope because Christ's resurrection and God's grace grants eternal life to those who believe. In this way, Christ is the "new Adam", for as Adam's decision to sin led to death for our race, eternal life is offered to our race through the work of Christ. Having established that those who have faith in the triune God are reconciled to Him, Paul address in Chapter 6 how Christians are to view sin in the light of God's grace exhibited in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul begins by tackling the question of whether God's grace gives the Christian a license to sin.

1) In Romans 5: 20-21, Paul points states that God's grace abounds (is more powerful) than our sin that leads to death, with the result being that God's grace (unmerited favor and love) reigns through righteousness (note that God is loving and holy) and leads us to eternal life through Jesus Christ. Paul then asks (Rom 6:1) whether the fact that grace is stronger than sin and death permits us to continue in sin, because the more we sin the more God can exercise his grace towards us. In other words, should we sin since it gives God the opportunity to display his love and forgiveness?

Wesley notes that Paul had already mentioned this issue in Romans 3: 7-8, where he writes that many people are "slandering" him by saying that the gospel he preaches tells people to do evil that good may result. It appears that Paul is intent on disproving the sort of argument that says humans may commit evil in order to bring glory to God, or to allow God to exercise His glory.

--What are some of the possible reasons that people had (have) for saying that the Gospel encourages sin? Do you think it is always impermissible for a person to do evil under the rationale that it will bring glory to God and allow Him to display His glory?

2) In Romans 6:2, Paul gives his answer, an emphatic "certainly not!" He then follows with a question, "We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?" Wesley explains what being "dead to sin" involves, namely, to be freed from the guilt and power and sin. Calvin uses the opportunity in his commentary to note that regeneration is necessary for a person to be reconciled to God and live a holy life, thus it is foolish to think that regeneration leads to sin.

Paul goes on to explain in verses 3 & 4 that once we become Christians we are baptized into Christ's death so that we can be raised to live a new life. To summarize, just as the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection had a purpose (to pay the penalty of our sins for the purpose of conquering death), our decision to submit to Christ results in his atonement being applied to us, freeing us from being slaves to sin and allowing us to live in love and holiness as God intended. Paul will expand upon this point for the rest Chs 6 and 7.

In verses 5-7 Paul states that we are part of Christ's death and resurrection, and that our old self was crucified with Christ and that we are no longer slaves to sin. Wesley states that the crucifixion of our old self takes place gradually by virtue of our union with him (recall Jesus' teaching of Him being the vine and we the branches). This crucifixion allows us to be freed both from the guilt of past sin, and the power of present sin. Calvin also states that the crucifixion of the old self takes place over tme and adds that we should not think that this doctrine is not true.

--What do you think are the keys to putting the old self to death? What does God contribute to the process? What do we contribute to the process?

--Christ's death is sufficient to pay the completely pay the penalty for our sins. Why is it that our baptism into His death does not result in the cessation of sin? Is it possible to eventually not sin? Explain your answer.

Killearn DTS Romans 5: 12-21

In Romans 5: 12-21, Paul explains how Jesus' redemtive acts on our behalf supersede the effects of original sin resulting from Adam's choice to disobey God. This Sunday 1/30/05 our discussion will focus on trying to understand the doctrine and effects of original sin, with a view towards having a better understanding of the present status of our fallen world. We will also try to reach a better understanding of God's purposes for this world given that he allowed us to fall, the penalties He imposed on this world, and the remedy He has provided through Christ. I look forward to seeing you all.

1) In the first 11 verses of Ch 5, Paul speaks of the fact that we have peace with God and can rejoice because of our justification by faith in God, a reconciliation made possible through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

In verses 12-14 Paul begins to further his exposition of the effects that Christ's redemptive acts of crucifixion and resurrection have on our lives by comparing our redemption through Christ with the disobedient act of Adam and its catastrophic effects. The first thing we must do in reading this section of the epistle is discuss the circumstances surrounding the fall and its effects.

--In Rom 3: 23, Paul tells us that all have sinned in that we have disobeyed God and missed the mark of His holiness. In Rom 5: 12we are told that all sinned as a result of the act of Adam. Think about the account of the fall. What were the key mistakes that Adam made that led him and his wife into sin? Calvin states that we have an innate and hereditary depravity because of the fall. What do you think he means by this?

--In Rom 5:13, Paul establishes that sin existed in the world prior to God's presentation of the law. Does this indicate that some actions are inherently evil regardless of whether there is a concrete law in place to condemn them? If so, what is the importance of this fact?

--Paul also says in 5: 13-14, that sin is not taken into account where there is no law. Yet he notes that death reigned over all those who did not sin by breaking a command. Why does death reign on those who do not sin by breaking a command? Wesley viewed this passage as refering to infants, while Calvin says it refers to those who lived before the law was given. Who do you agree with, Wesley, Calvin, both or neither?

2) In verse 15, Paul tells us that the gift of salvation through faith in Christ is dissimilar from Adam's trespass in that Christ's gift exceeds the death that resulted from Adam's sin. Paul then gives a logical proof in verse 16, saying that the judgment arising from Adam's sin followed only one disobedient act, while the God's gift of Christ followed many sins from all who had lived or were living at that point. Therefore the gift is wider in scope than than Adam's act. As Wesley says, these two points are brought together in verse 17 to reiterate the point that God's grace supercedes the damage wrought by Adam's sin and the fall of man.

--In a sermon on verse 15, Wesley attempted to give an answer to the question of whether God's punishment of all mankind because of Adam's sin is just, and whether God should have prevented the fall from occuring. Wesley's defense is that the fall ends up being good for mankind because without it, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement on our behalf and we would not have as full an understanding of God's grace. As a result, Wesley claims we can have more holiness and happiness on earth than we otherwise could have been, and that we will be happier in heaven as a result. Do you agree? If so, why so; if not, why not?

--Calvin says succinctly that we do not receive the punishment of death because Adam sinned, but rather that his sin is the cause of our sin. We earn it, in other words. Do you agree? Begin to think about the extent of our depravity because of original sin, as it should inform your answer to this question.

3) In verses 18-19 Paul reiterates his point that just as death reigns and all of Adam's progeny are made sinners through his sin, through the obedience of Christ in accepting his role as savior many will be made righteous.

4) In verse 20, we read that the law was put into place by God so that the trespass of it might increase, but that where sin increased grace increased all the more, being brought to its fullness in the life and actions of Jesus.

--What does Paul mean when he says that the law was enacted so that the trespass might increase? Wesley states that while it is the consequence of the law that sin increases, that was not its design. Do you agree? Why? Calvin states that a reason for this was to make man aware of his hopeless situation and the necessity of a savior. Can you think of any additional or alternative reasons God may have enacted the law?

5) The final verse of the chapter concludes Paul's thought from verse 20, and tells us that grace reigns through reghteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The statement that grace reigns through righteousness is the key thing to notice here, as it sets up the transition into chapter 6, where Paul will give us a more in depth treatment of the importance of righteousness in the Chrsitian life.



--

Norwegian Confusion

Being of one-half norwegian descent and being a Christian, I must say that President Bush's conduct at the inaugural has given me some pause. Perhaps I should have listened to Grandfather Twilight and the animals of the forest and voted for Dennis Kucinich.

Killearn DTS Romans 5: 1-11

This posting is for the Killearn UMC Bible Study on Romans that I lead, but those who are interested in following along at home or even posting your own thoughts as a response are invited to do so. Below you will find questions for thought that we will discuss in class this Sunday 1/23/05.

1) Both Wesley and Calvin comment on Paul's statement in 5:1 that we have peace with God as a result of our being justified by faith. Wesley notes that we have peace, hope, love, and power over sin as a result of our justification through faith, and says that each corresponds to chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Romans. Calvin defines the peace spoken of here as "tranquility of conscience", also defined as reconciliation with God. Given these statements, consider the following question

--Today many people do not accept the morals and claims of scripture, and some doubt the existence or relevance of a concrete moral law. As a result, they may not be as emotionally troubled by sin as the person born in church who is living contrary to scripture. Think of all the ways in which peace and reconciliation occurs between us and God and what would are the different ways to explain the concept.

2) Martin Luther stated that before good or bad works can happen there has to be present in the heart either faith or unbelief. In verse two we read that we have access to the grace of God (God's favor and kindness, as Luther calls it) through Christ by our faith. We also read that we can now stand on this grace and rejoice in hope of the "Glory of God", which includes all his attributes, including his personality, actions, and purposes. This being the case, consider the following:

--In what ways does is the dicta of Luther that faith/unbelief must precede good or bad works proven true or false by our observation of Christians and unbelievers?

--Paul says that we can now "stand" on the grace (favor) of God and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. What does it mean in the passage to stand on his grace? What aspects of God's glory give us hope?

3) In verses 3-5 Paul states that Christians are to "rejoice in our sufferings" because of the positive effects these have on our will, character and spiritual life. Wesley states that the Christian accepts such things as a token of fatherly love that prepares us for greater happiness. Calvin posits that Christians are to glory in difficulties because they are are provided by God for our good.

--Do you agree that our sufferings are from God? Why did you give the answer you gave? What do you think of the following statement by Luther?: The positive characterestics formed by suffering follow where faith is genuine. The reason they follow is because of the overwhelming good will (grace) God has shown us through Christ's atonement.

4) In verses 6-8, Paul tells us that Christ has died for each of us despite our not having acted in such a way as to merit such a sacrifice. By making such a sacrifice, Paul states that Christ demonstrated his love for us. Luther, Wesley and Calvin all echo these statements.

--How is it that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is different than that made by regular persons who give their lives for other people? Think about not only what it accomplished, but also who the sacrifice is for.

5) In verses 9-11, Paul elaborates on his teaching in verse 1 that we are justified (found innocent) through faith by saying we are justified by Christ's blood. He then argues that since this is the case, we are also saved from God's wrath through Christ. However, reconciliation is apparently only part of the story because he goes on to say that a further reconciliation occurs because of His resurrection. This further reconciliation refers to as our being saved.

--Wesley states that God's expression of wrath and love differ from the human expression of these things. Do you agree? If so, explain how they differ.

--What do you suppose that the further reconciliation (that Paul goes so far as to call being saved) entails? Name everything you can think of. What exactly did Christ's death accomplish and what exactly does his resurrection accomplish?

Links to Class Resources (click on them and save in favorites if you haven't already)

Luther on Romans

Wesley's Explanatory Notes on Romans

Calvin on Romans

Thoughts on the Tsunami; Reggie White

The recent tsunami that hit Indonesia and surrounding islands, as well as the death of former NFL All Pro Reggie White while not yet 45 years old, both struck like a bolt out of the blue. Such events draw a person toward contemplation of some of the "deeper issues" of life. I am no different and the following are some of my thoughts on each event. A natural disaster and an early death by no means unheard of events, though they are thankfully rare. My thoughts in no way are a comprehensive treatment of each event, but instead are what came to my mind while considering each occurance.

Tsunami

Death is always tragic. No matter how it happens, no matter when. The tsunami that killed 150,000 certainly is on a larger scale. Whenever one of these events happens, it is immediately stated that God did not cause the tragedy. I agree. God did not desire for a tsunami to kill 150,000 people. God is certainly good. However, we should keep in mind that each person on this planet dies. And the scriptures tell us that this is the punishment for sin, meeted out because man would descend to too great of evil if his life was not cut short. So, yes, in a very real sense God has imposed a death sentence on each of us. The sentence is just, we deserve it because of our rebellion and inherent selfishness. You and I will receive the same sentence as the tsunami victims. The only question is when. It may come early in life for me or you, or later. Either way, the same event occurs. In this sense, the tragedy in Indonesia is only different in the fact that a rare natural disaster was the cause of death, and that mass death was the result. Saying this about the tsunami tragedy is not an attempt to minimize it. Certainly the victims must be helped as soon as possible. Rather, my point is that each human life ends a death that is either meaningless (if there is no God), tragic (if there is a God, and human life ends in oblivion or worse), or somehow happily in redemption (if there is a God, and God has provided a way out of our predicament). The tsunami and other events like it serve, as C.S. Lewis said, as "God's megaphone" that each life ends--the unhappiest ending possible if God has not provided a way out of it. This is the situation we face, and this is the fact that should help to frame all of our thinking about what life is about, and what sort of life we should lead.

Reggie White

In the aftermath of Reggie White's death from a breathing condition in his sleep, many articles were written that extolled his strong Christian faith during his playing career. The articles detailed how he attempted to lead many of his fellow teammates into living moral lives, not sleeping around on their wives, managing their money, staying clean from illegal substances and more. Comment was also made on White's attempts to help the poor in his native Tennessee, including trying to rebuild churches for many of the poor. However, what was not discussed in many of these articles is the fact that White appeared to have lost his Christian faith after the churches that White helped rebuild for the poor were burned down--by their own congregants in an insurance scheme. He was searching the scriptures in Hebrew at the time of his death, to try and find otu the truth for himself, since he felt that what he had been tought about God in his Christian churches was not accurate or sufficient. White could not reconcile the teaching that Christ changes the heart of those who accept him with the sinfulness and hypocrisy of that he saw. I cannot say that White was not right to seriously doubt the truthfulness of the Gospel when looking at the actions of Christ's followers, and we will never know what Reggie White's studies would have led to. However, I think in the end, his reaction resulted from a misunderstanding of what God is doing in this world. That some Christians are hypocrites does not mean that all are. Additionally, almost all Christians continue to struggle with temptation and sin. It is called free will. If we want to rebel, God lets us enjoy the rotten fruit of our rebellion. Perhaps Reggie had not fully come to terms with this fact. We cannot be sure. What we do know is this: Christians who White tried to help, through their greed and duplicity, not only swindled Reggie White and others who helped them, but also were the catalyst for his loss of faith. It serves as a good example of how our sin and failure to live as Christ has called us can have negative consequences that we cannot anticipate, and can harm others in ways we cannot imagine. All the more important that we try to avoid such actions and pray for forgiveness and blessings on others when we do fall short.

December 2004 Movie Reviews

Over the holidays I have had the time to take in a few movies either at the theater or on DVD. My review system goes from zero to four stars (*=poor, **=fair, ***=good, ****=excellent):

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (**1/2)--T.L.A.W.S.Z is Wes Anderson's latest movie and stars Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Cate Blanchett, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum and Angelica Huston, with Murray and Blanchett giving the most memorable performances. The film centers around Steve Zissou (Murray), a Jaques Cousteau type who is undergoing a midlife crisis caused by the death of his best friend and confidant Esteban, a diminishing career, marital problems with his wife (Huston) and trying to be a father to a man who might be his son (Wilson). The film is a bit more melancholy than most Anderson undertakings, and attempts to provide a character study of Murray's unhappy Zissou while integrating Anderson's quirky comedy. However, Anderson's script fails to completely pull of its goals. The comedy is sporadic, though it does pick up during the last hour of the movie. I especially enjoyed a scene where Murray follows Owen Wilson throughout his boat, barking irritated commands to everyone he comes in contact with. The character study of Zissou is more skillfully executed than the comedy, but both aspects of the film tend to undercut each other, perhaps because the moments we learn about Zissou's inner character tend not to be that funny, while the funnier moments in the movie are irrelevant to the character study (The Royal Tennenbaums did a better job of integrating these moments while developing the title character's failings). If you are a Wes Anderson fan, be aware that this is a weaker effort than Rushmore or The Royal Tennenbaums, but you should still see the film. If you haven't seen an Anderson movie, watch one of his other efforts I listed above and wait till video to see this one. My verdict is that this is an above average film that looks good on the big screen, but fails to fully entertain.

National Treasure (**1/2)--The latest offering from Jerry Bruckheimer is an Indiana Jones type adventure where the heroes try to discover an ancient treasure hidden by America's founding fathers using Masonic clues left on the Declaration of Independence, the dollar bill, various historic landmarks and more. Our chief adventurer is Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nic Cage), who is carrying on the Gates family tradition of searching after the treasure. Gates is joined by his nerdy sidekick Riley and Abagail Chase, (Diane Kruger who is 25 and good looking and preposterously in charge of the national archives; perhaps the most laughable casting since Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies). He is opposed by a master criminal (Sean Bean) who is trying to steal the treasure for himself. National Treasure takes a while to get going, but once it cranks up it rolls along as a fun little adventure that the whole family can enjoy. The clues are reasonably clever and it is interesting to discover where they will lead next. If you are looking for a decent popcorn movie, you could do worse. This film also rates as above average and probably merits a matinee or dollar movie viewing.

Ocean's Twelve (*1/2)--The slogan for Ocean's Twelve is "Twelve is the new eleven", and like the slogan, the movie ends up being a miscalculation. The same cast of characters from Ocean's Eleven is back, plus Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie fails on a number of levels. Unlike O11, which focused on each of the character for a period of time, this movie centers only on the big stars: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts and Zeta-Jones. The result is that the film lacks the camaraderie between characters that the first movie enjoyed. Additionally, the twists in the movie do not satisfy. Julia Roberts' expanded role was unwelcome, and the trick ending is a disappointing letdown. There isn't much to recommend Ocean's 12, as it isn't as funny or clever as the original. It is a below average movie that only merits a viewing if you have nothing better to see or do.

Lemony Snicket's: A Series of Unfortunate Events (**)--Lemony Snicket's ASUE is what no children's movie should be: drab and dull. The story centers around the three recently orphaned Bauedelaire children and their evil count Olaf who is trying to murder them and steal their inheritance. The children use their inventiveness, intelligence, and a toddler's ability to bite things to escape their nemesis. The movie's star is Jim Carrey (Olaf and other characters in disguise) who gives a humorous performance and does a solid job as the villain. The problem with the film is that it has elements of an adventure movie for 8-year olds and a dark comedy, two elements I have only seen successfully integrated in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (there may be other examples). Thus you have a movie that features both a cute toddler running about helping to solve problems and man-eating leaches that kill the kids' aunt. The movie is too disturbing for small children, and the children's solutions to their predicaments are not clever enough to entertain teens and adults. The movie is mildly entertaining thanks to Jim Carrey, but is average at best and best viewed by an 8-year old on summer break with nothing better to do, or perhaps fans of the books.

The Incredibles (****)--The Incredibles is the best movie that I have seen in 2004, and this comes from a person who enjoys Pixar films but does not consider them the be-all, end-all of animation. Director Brad Bird had better get some awards for this one. The film follows the lives of the Incredibles, a family of one-time superheroes who have been forced into retirement in suburbia due to a public backlash against their exploits and lawsuits. The patriarch, Mr. Incredible/Bob Parr (Craig T. Nelson) works for a greedy insurance company while his wife Elastigirl/Helen (Holly Hunter) is a stay at home mom for the three children Dash, Violet, and baby Jack Jack. Mr. Incredible is having trouble adjusting to his new life and misses the excitement and adulation he enjoyed as a superhero. This inclines him to take a mysterious offer to return to his superhero days and eventually leads the whole family to come together to fight the evil Syndrome (Jason Lee), who is trying to kill all superheroes. The plot and pacing are excellent and I found myself invested in the characters' welfare and engrossed with seeing if they would succed and what would happen next. When was the last time you saw an animated family film with dramatic tension? The film is funny and extols personal and family virtues, sacrifice for others, and personal achievement tempered with humility. The look and sound of the film is also great, as it is wonderfully animated with bright colors and has a wonderful sound track reminiscent of 60's superhero and spy movies. Best of all, The Incredibles is a movie that is both for adults and kids and accomplishes this with a well-crafted storyline and humor suited for all ages (unlike the Shrek series which uses adult sexual entendres and pop-humor sure to grow stale faster than a saltine left on your counter). The Incredibles achieves pure excellence. Go see it in the theater and be sure to buy the DVD when it comes out.