6/25/2005
6/22/2005
Air Force Academy Flies Past Religious Intolerance Charge
It is good to hear that that the US Air Force Academy was not found to be a hotbed of evangelical Christian intolerance by an investigating panel. One of the more egregious acts of a campus chaplain was to tell new cadets to be born again or risk the fires of Hell. While that may be a bit extreme and probably should be moderated, one would hope that our future military leaders can handle the occassional heavy handed tactic by clergy. Other "charges" by the report border on the ludicrous. Apparently some have complained that chaplains have had the gall to pressure cadets to "attend religious services and receive theological training." Shocking! A chaplain telling folks to go to church and learn about their religion. Wow, clearly these chaplains need to understand that all roads lead to God, not make any recommendations regarding the spiritual life since feeling that God loves you is what is important, and become well-mannered ministers of secularism. Of course, the chaplains and cadets at the academy should respect the various religious and non-religious viewpoints of others. At the same time, however, if the Air Force wants to have religious chaplains it needs to be willing to let those folks express their religious creeds to those around them, for as too many secularists forget, tolerance is a two-way street.
Klansman Reminder of Southern Church's Heritage
The manslaughter conviction of Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers in Mississippi hopefully brings a measure of justice for the deaths of three young men (1 black and 2 white) who were murdered by a group of Klansmen for aiding the cause of ending segregation. In addition to his Klan membership, Killen was also an ordained Baptist minister. As most everyone is aware, many churches in the south during the civil rights era actively opposed the battle to end segregation. In a sad indictment of the Christian church of the time, Martin Luther King, Jr. had anticipated that white clergymen would see the rightness of the cause of black equality both under the law and in human hearts and that southern white churches would support his movement. However, many churches instead actively opposed the movement and never came en masse to effect change, leaving King disappointed and disillusioned. While few white churches in the south are actively racist today, the sins committed by Christians during the civil rights period continue to have long standing effects on the church today. Most churches remain racially segregated today, limiting the effectiveness the church has in enacting the social components of the gospel. And much of society looks at the moral stands that many theologically traditional southern churches take today against abortion, sexual immorality, and other issues and simply think that it is the same hateful, intolerant attitude of the 60's expressed in different ways. Granted, there are reasonable answers to this charge that I think are sufficient to rebut it, but the lesson to learn is that the wages of sin often are not only death, but last for generations thereafter.
6/19/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 12: 9-21
After commenting on the use of spiritual gifts within the church, Paul provides rules of conduct or Christian living that are to be followed by believers. First, he writes that love must be sincere. Calvin notes that often many people put on a false face when dealing with others and that this must be put aside. Additionally, we are told to cling to those things that are good, and hate evil. (v. 9). Christians are to love one another with brotherly love, and honor one another above ourselves. (v. 10). Wesley gives the practical advice that we should consider what is good in others in evil in ourselves, which will lead us to do this. The Christian should not lack in zeal, but instead maintain his or her spiritual fervor (v. 11). Wesley and Calvin both apply this verse to our work in business. Paul then gives an exortation to be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, and faithful in prayer. Wesley and Calvin both say that the hope of eternal life is important in doing these things, and Wesley adds the hope of holiness. (v. 12) Christians should help fellow believers in need and practice hospitality. (v. 13). As Calvin notes, when we help those in need, we cannot expect a personal gain and thus such service helps to show the legitimacy of our love.
--Why is Paul concerned that Christians act in sincere love with one another? What is the brotherly love that Paul exorts us to? Is it difficult to maintain spiritual fervor, and how should we maintain it? What is the importance of hospitality?
Paul provides rules for living in harmony, some of which are difficult. He tells us to bless those who persecute us and not to curse. This, Calvin notes, is arduous and wholly opposed to the nature of man. (v. 14). We are also to rejoice with those who are rejoicing, and mourn with those in mourning. (v. 15). We are to live in harmony with one another and associate with people of low positions, not being conceited. (v. 16). The Christian is not to repay retaliate for evil with an evil act. Additionally, we are to attempt to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone. (v. 17). To the extent it is possible, Christians are to live in peace with those around us. (v. 18). Revenge should not be taken by the Christian, but instead the matter should be left to God, and we should treat our enemies kindly for it will often have the effect of showing him his bad behavior and tormenting him. (v. 19-20). To summarize, we are not to be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good. (v. 21).
--How is it that we are to bless those that persecute us? Why is it important that we rejoice and mourn in community, and what does doing such things indicate about ourselves? Do our churches today associate with people of low position? What benefits do such association provide to individuals and communities? Why is it important to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone? What is "the extent possible" that Paul limits the requirement that Christians live in peace with those around them? Why should revenge be saved for God? Is Paul right that right kind actions against our enemies can torment them? When we retaliate in evil, how is it that we are thus overcome by evil? How is it that evil is overcome by good?
--Why is Paul concerned that Christians act in sincere love with one another? What is the brotherly love that Paul exorts us to? Is it difficult to maintain spiritual fervor, and how should we maintain it? What is the importance of hospitality?
Paul provides rules for living in harmony, some of which are difficult. He tells us to bless those who persecute us and not to curse. This, Calvin notes, is arduous and wholly opposed to the nature of man. (v. 14). We are also to rejoice with those who are rejoicing, and mourn with those in mourning. (v. 15). We are to live in harmony with one another and associate with people of low positions, not being conceited. (v. 16). The Christian is not to repay retaliate for evil with an evil act. Additionally, we are to attempt to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone. (v. 17). To the extent it is possible, Christians are to live in peace with those around us. (v. 18). Revenge should not be taken by the Christian, but instead the matter should be left to God, and we should treat our enemies kindly for it will often have the effect of showing him his bad behavior and tormenting him. (v. 19-20). To summarize, we are not to be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good. (v. 21).
--How is it that we are to bless those that persecute us? Why is it important that we rejoice and mourn in community, and what does doing such things indicate about ourselves? Do our churches today associate with people of low position? What benefits do such association provide to individuals and communities? Why is it important to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone? What is "the extent possible" that Paul limits the requirement that Christians live in peace with those around them? Why should revenge be saved for God? Is Paul right that right kind actions against our enemies can torment them? When we retaliate in evil, how is it that we are thus overcome by evil? How is it that evil is overcome by good?
6/17/2005
Wierd Scientology
With all the hulabaloo surrounding Tom Cruise's acting like a cheshire cat on methamphetamines while publicising his relationship with Katie Holmes, the religion/cult/scam of scientology has been in the news quite a bit. HERE is a link to a well known 1990 Time magazine cover story on the group. A good photo of the cover art can be found here. The Scientologists apparently sued over this one, but the US Supreme Court denied their petition. I don't think I'll be joining anytime soon. I don't have the money.
6/12/2005
Killearn DTS Romans 12: 3-8
After proclaiming that every Christian is to present his or her body as a living sacrifice onto God (live a life dedicated towards God as His servant), Paul states that the Christian should "not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." Calvin states that Paul is not here giving a general teaching promoting humility, though he does recommend it often throughout his epistles. In this passage, Paul is telling the members of the Church to accurately assess their own abilities and role in the community accurately, which involves having humility and discernment in being honest with one's self. This can be seen from the following verses (4-8) which talk about the various roles in the church.
In verses 4-8, Paul teaches that the church is a diverse community of people with different talents working in a unified fashion and serving as the body of Christ on Earth. Paul compares the church community to our own bodies, which have various different parts that each have a function, but are still all part of the same body. In much the same way, the people of the church form one body in wich each member belongs to the others. (v. 5). Because we are one body, we are to help one another. The members of the church body have different abilities that are gifts from God. As Calvin notes, accepting that different members of the community are more gifted in some areas than ourselves takes humility. The first gift Paul mentions is the gift of prophesy, which Wesley states is where "heavenly mysteries are revealed to men." Prophesy is to be undertaken in proportion to the person's faith. It is interesting that both Wesley and Calvin interpret this verse as referring to the exposition of scripture, with Calvin stating that it is being able to discern the will of God and not necessarily making predictions. (v. 6). Paul then mentions other gifts. A person who serves should do so. A person who can teach should serve the church by doing so. An encouraging person should act on that ability. A person who can help meet the needs of others should give generously. A leader should govern diligently. A person who shows mercy should do so cheerfully. (v. 7-8).
--What are the abilities that you have as a Christian? Weaknesses? How should you act upon your abilities? How should you act with regard to your weaknesses?
--What do each of the gifts mentioned here bring to a church and why are they important? What other gifts can you think of that are important?
In verses 4-8, Paul teaches that the church is a diverse community of people with different talents working in a unified fashion and serving as the body of Christ on Earth. Paul compares the church community to our own bodies, which have various different parts that each have a function, but are still all part of the same body. In much the same way, the people of the church form one body in wich each member belongs to the others. (v. 5). Because we are one body, we are to help one another. The members of the church body have different abilities that are gifts from God. As Calvin notes, accepting that different members of the community are more gifted in some areas than ourselves takes humility. The first gift Paul mentions is the gift of prophesy, which Wesley states is where "heavenly mysteries are revealed to men." Prophesy is to be undertaken in proportion to the person's faith. It is interesting that both Wesley and Calvin interpret this verse as referring to the exposition of scripture, with Calvin stating that it is being able to discern the will of God and not necessarily making predictions. (v. 6). Paul then mentions other gifts. A person who serves should do so. A person who can teach should serve the church by doing so. An encouraging person should act on that ability. A person who can help meet the needs of others should give generously. A leader should govern diligently. A person who shows mercy should do so cheerfully. (v. 7-8).
--What are the abilities that you have as a Christian? Weaknesses? How should you act upon your abilities? How should you act with regard to your weaknesses?
--What do each of the gifts mentioned here bring to a church and why are they important? What other gifts can you think of that are important?
6/07/2005
Florida Voucher Program Before Supreme Court
Florida's Opportunity Scholarship school voucher program, which provides roughly a $4,000 yearly stipend to the parents of children who are attending failing public schools for the purpose of sending them to a private school, is being challenged before the Florida Supreme Court today. (SEE HERE) The program is of limited scope as only students who attend double F public schools are eligible to qualify. To date, only 741 students have taken advantage of vouchers. However, as Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas POINTS out, if the Opportunity Scholarship program is found unconstitutional other voucher programs such as the McKay Scholarship Program which serves over 12,000 students may also be found unconsitutional, along with the newly enacted pre-K program and perhaps the Bright Futures scholarship program.
The most likely ground for a finding of unconstitutionality is Art I, Sect. 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[n]o revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or inderectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." It is likely that the state will defend the voucher program by drawing a distinction that the money is not going to aid the sectarian institutions (religious schools) but rather to aid students who control where the money is spent and are free to go to a non-religious private school. I would also expect the state to argue that since Art I, Sect. 3 begins with a statement prohibiting laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, this language should be considered the overarching purpose of the section and must be read in conjunction with the prohibition against state funds. Thus, the argument would be that the voucher program does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion, is not provided for the purpose of benefiting a sectarian instution, and thus is constitutionally permissible.
My job does not permit me to comment too strongly on an issue such as this, but let me say that I was struck by the large pro-voucher demonstration that I viewed outside my office window this morning. It had probably close to 2,000 people taking part, and racial minorities were the predominant protestors. To the extent that we continue to spend our money for new schools by placing them in affluent (largely white) neighborhoods, at some point we must provide access to high quality education for less affluent (and often more diverse) populations. Simply saying "public education is great and nothing is wrong" is not satisfactory. At least the protestors outside my window this morning don't think so. And I tend to agree with them.
The most likely ground for a finding of unconstitutionality is Art I, Sect. 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[n]o revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or inderectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." It is likely that the state will defend the voucher program by drawing a distinction that the money is not going to aid the sectarian institutions (religious schools) but rather to aid students who control where the money is spent and are free to go to a non-religious private school. I would also expect the state to argue that since Art I, Sect. 3 begins with a statement prohibiting laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, this language should be considered the overarching purpose of the section and must be read in conjunction with the prohibition against state funds. Thus, the argument would be that the voucher program does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion, is not provided for the purpose of benefiting a sectarian instution, and thus is constitutionally permissible.
My job does not permit me to comment too strongly on an issue such as this, but let me say that I was struck by the large pro-voucher demonstration that I viewed outside my office window this morning. It had probably close to 2,000 people taking part, and racial minorities were the predominant protestors. To the extent that we continue to spend our money for new schools by placing them in affluent (largely white) neighborhoods, at some point we must provide access to high quality education for less affluent (and often more diverse) populations. Simply saying "public education is great and nothing is wrong" is not satisfactory. At least the protestors outside my window this morning don't think so. And I tend to agree with them.
6/05/2005
Killearn DTS: Romans 12: 1-2
In the first 11 Chapters of Romans, Paul presents the reader with a historical and theological account of God's dealings with humanity. He explains why salvation is necessary, why it must be through grace, and how God is dealing with his chosen people of Israel now that the gospel of Jesus Christ has appeared. Beginning in Chapter 12, Paul changes tracks and gives practical, pastoral advice on why and how Christians are to live holy lives, and what it means to live a life of virtue and goodness. Chapter 12 begins with one of the most well known passages of scripture. Paul states that in light of the gospel of grace and all the kindness and mercy of God, we are to present our bodies as living sacrifices before God that are holy and pleasing to Him. Wesley notes that Paul says that it is because of God's mercy that we should offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, which is the converse of Romans 1: 8 where Paul says God is revealing his wrath against all forms of ungodliness. Calvin states that when Paul writes that we are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God, this refers to the whole person including the soul and spirit. Offering ourselves as a living sacrifice is the reasonable act of service that we are to present before God, says Calvin, and is a summary statement of how the Christian is supposed to live his or her life.
In addition to offering ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul tells us in v. 2 to not conform to the patterns of this world, but instead renew our minds in order that we may be able to discern that which is good, namely the will of God. As Calvin put it, our minds need to be renovated. Wesley adds that the good Paul is referring to that is the will of God are precepts of Christianity, or the rules for day to day living. God sets out before his people His will for how they are to live their lives, and the application of the rules in various contexts is a large part of what true wisdom entails.
--What type of living sacrifice does God find acceptable? What needs to be the condition of the sacrifice? What does it mean to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice? What aspects of the Christian's life should be offered?
--What are some of the patterns of this world that Paul refers to in v. 2? How is it that we are to renew our minds? What will this entail? What types of knowledge are we free to pursue under Christianity?
In addition to offering ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul tells us in v. 2 to not conform to the patterns of this world, but instead renew our minds in order that we may be able to discern that which is good, namely the will of God. As Calvin put it, our minds need to be renovated. Wesley adds that the good Paul is referring to that is the will of God are precepts of Christianity, or the rules for day to day living. God sets out before his people His will for how they are to live their lives, and the application of the rules in various contexts is a large part of what true wisdom entails.
--What type of living sacrifice does God find acceptable? What needs to be the condition of the sacrifice? What does it mean to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice? What aspects of the Christian's life should be offered?
--What are some of the patterns of this world that Paul refers to in v. 2? How is it that we are to renew our minds? What will this entail? What types of knowledge are we free to pursue under Christianity?
6/04/2005
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.
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.
5/31/2005
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.
5/29/2005
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?
--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?
5/27/2005
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)
(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.
5/25/2005
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.
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.
5/24/2005
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.
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.
5/23/2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)