Pain's Purpose

I discussed "accidental" forms of pain in an earlier post. I suggested that in some cases, pain might be used by God for our good in the same way a doctor might cause us pain to help us. I'd like to elaborate on why this might be so.

Much of this is influenced, or even paraphrased, from The Problem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis. It is a particularly brilliant work on an important and rarely-discussed subject. Pain can have some awful consequences: it can lead the devout away from God, or convince the unbeliever that God must not exist. But properly understood, it should not have these effects.

First, what is pain? Pain is a sensation which is disliked by the person experiencing it. It can be physical or mental in nature, but it is by definition unpleasant.

To understand why God might allow us to experience pain, let's consider the effects of pain. Pain is something which cannot really be ignored: we may ignore pleasure (who notices a comfortable pair of shoes after the first day?), we may ignore good, and we may ignore evil. We don't ignore pain.

How many times do we spend hours trying to find a way to sit that doesn't bother our back, or to walk that doesn't aggravate our sore foot, or a way to lay down that doesn't irritate our sunburned shoulders? We always react to pain; always seek a way to make it go away. Only if nothing works and we're forced to come to accept it do we stop trying to make it go away. Even then, though, we'll do much to stop it.

Pain, then, can be one of the strongest motivating factors for us. Awareness of a great evil often does not motivate us to action like awareness of a small pain.

Our reaction to pain is stronger than most all of our other priorities: a man whose conscience had not convinced him to stop an evil action he is committing would nonetheless stop if he suddenly experienced pain. This is true in both directions, of course; good actions are as likely as bad to be stopped dead in their tracks by pain.

It is a sad fact of human nature that choosing to rely on God, to depend on and obey Him, is very difficult for us. We must choose to do so against ourselves, sacrificing what we want for what He wants of us. This process is extremely difficult for the contented man -- what need have I for God, if all is well? What could he offer me if I'm already happy? As Lewis puts it:

Now God, who has made us, knows what we are and that our happiness lies in Him. Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for.

This seems unmistakably true; in my worse moments of contentment or satisfaction, I had little use for God. It was later, feeling unfulfilled, that I turned back towards Him. Without that feeling, that sort of mental anguish of confusion about the meaning or purpose of my life, I would not have returned to God. Pain motivated me to change for the better.

If a man is evil, but has all he wants, what would motivate him to seek God? Unless some sort of pain is present, why would he want to change?

Until the evil man finds evil unmistakably present in his existence, in the form of pain, he is enclosed in illusion. Once pain has roused him, he knows that he is in some way or other 'up against' the real universe: he either rebels (with the possibility of a clearer issue and deeper repentance at some later stage) or else makes some attempt at an adjustment, which, if pursued, will lead him to religion.

This leads us to a terrible point: God may allow pain into our lives, not out of cruelty, but out of necessity. What else can convince us that we must change? What else can drag us from our complacency to His arms?

It is just here, where God's providence seems at first to be most cruel, that the Divine humility, the stooping down of the Highest, most deserves praise. We are perplexed to see misfortune falling upon decent, inoffensive, worthy people -- on capable, hard-working mothers of families or diligent, thrifty little tradespeople, on those who have worked so hard, and so honestly, for their modest stock of happiness and now seem to be entering on the enjoyment of it with the fullest right. ... Let me implore the reader to try to believe, if only for the moment, that God, who made these deserving people, may really be right when He thinks that their modest prosperity and the happiness of their children are not enough to make them blessed: that all this must fall from them in the end, and that if they have not learned to know Him they will be wretched. And therefore He troubles them, warning them in advance of an insufficiency that one day they will have to discover. The life to themselves and their families stands between them and the recognition of their need; He makes that life less sweet to them.

This is an awful thought, but one borne of the awful evil within us. The good in us rejoices to be nearer to God, but much of our nature is happier with the easy path, the path of least resistance. There is much resistance within us to surrendering our will and our preferences to God; the easy path will be followed until it becomes hard.

And what does it tell us about God, that he would use this method to bring us to Him? Is He cruel, for allowing us pain? Or is He kind for doing whatever He must, suffering alongside us, to bring us to Him?

I call this a Divine humility because it is a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us; a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up 'our own' when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, He stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because there is 'nothing better' now to be had. ... It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell: yet even this He accepts. The creature's illusion of self-sufficiency must, for the creature's sake, be shattered; and by trouble or fear of trouble on earth, by crude fear of the eternal flames, God shatters it 'unmindful of His glory's diminution'. ... And this illusion of self-sufficiency may be at its strongest in some very honest, kindly, and temperate people, and on such people, therefore, misfortune must fall.

We see, then, that pain is a terrible but necessary tool to guide us to the right path. Without it, we would not recognize that we must change. God would not have been kinder to spare me the anguish of uncertainty that I once felt; indeed, to have spared me the pain which brought me to Him would have been cruelly indifferent.

God cares for us and will do what is best for us, though we curse or hate Him for it -- in the same way we cursed and hated Him when He came as a man to save us. How glorious He is, that He is so great and so humble at once! How lucky we are to serve a God who deserves all honor and praise and yet is not proud.

As we see, pain is a necessary instrument of God's kindness, though it does not appear as such at first. Our own nature is such that pain is often the only thing we listen to, louder even than our own conscience. May we choose to listen.

Iraqis Vote Peacefully: American President Silent

Iraqis voted again today. There is little fighting, and no reports of major violence as Iraqis go to the polls. We've won in Iraq. The people there now have the freedom to vote for politicians who will make their lives better; the voices of the people count.

The President of the United States ignored this important event in the lives of the Iraqi people in his weekly address. Instead he chose to talk solely about the economy and to extol the virtues of the tax cheat he has installed as Treasury Secretary, at the head of the IRS.

I want to be hopeful about this new administration, but it's hard to feel good about a man who could be so callous towards the fragile and important democracy he now has a great deal of responsibility for. Whatever his feelings about military action in Iraq, our President must do the right thing for them as well as for us: for their rights were bought at a great price to us, and we must support them.

Movie Review: On the Waterfront

SCORE

-4 out of 5-

CREDITS

• 
  
  Terry Malloy: Marlon Brando
• 
  
  Karl Malden: Father Barry
• 
  
  Eva Marie Saint: Edie Doyle
• 
  
  Lee J. Cobb: Johnny Friendly
• 
  
  Directed by Elia Kazan

STORY

This is a well-known film (it's from this film that we get "I coulda been a contender!") but I hadn't seen it. I'm not entirely certain what makes it so strongly remembered, but it is a great film.

The film is about Terry Malloy, who was once a prizefighter but is now a longshoreman. One of the most interesting parts of this film is its blue-collar focus, and immensely helping with that feel is the use of many actors who all seem to be average-looking people. It may be perception, or even the fact that the film is in black-and-white, but it seems that older films had lots of good actors around who looked like normal human beings, rather than the luminous Greek-sculpture people we see in every role in newer films.

In many ways the film is far more effective for its small focus on a group of dockworkers. The docks are run by a petty tyrant, Johnny Friendly, who leads the dockworkers' local union. He decides who gets to work, who gets the good jobs, and who needs to be brutalized back in line. Terry's brother is one of Friendly's lieutenants, and Terry has been conditioned to accept this as "the way things are." He goes along to get along, enjoying the privileges of his position but not really being involved in the seedier side of the arrangement he benefits from.

At the start of the film, Terry is used to lure a man to his death. Terry didn't know that he was leading the man to his death, and while it bothers him a bit it doesn't weigh heavily on his conscience until the man's sister, Edie, comes into his life looking for her brother's killer. As this is going on, Father Barry, the new local priest, is seeking men to stand up to Friendly's murderous racket.

The film is a study of Terry, a man who has been neutral between good and evil for a long time. Terry has been able to benefit from the evil committed by his brother and his brother's cronies without having to do anything unseemly himself, and until murder becomes a part of it he had gotten used to strongarm tactics as a way of doing business. Because it gets him the good and easy jobs, he has been willing to go along.

However, as things progress and the evil of Friendly's group becomes clear to Terry, he finds that he isn't willing to do what's asked of him. Unlike Friendly's men he has not chosen Friendly's side, he was merely resting on his brother's laurels. When the time comes where he must make a choice, he chooses to stand up to Friendly, with the help of Edie and Father Barry.

There are a lot of things to like about this film. The small focus keeps the film grounded -- how many films are there where the hero saves the universe, but it all feels insignificant because of the impersonal nature of the proceedings? In this film a scene where a man walks across a dock is given incredible tension and importance.

The performances are all very good. In some ways I hesitate to discuss how good the acting is, because it doesn't seem like there is any of it, but then I guess that's the best kind. Everyone in this films seems simply to be who they portray, and that may be the highest compliment for a group of actors.

I think the smallness of the film's events -- the miniscule nature of Friendly's authoritarian kingdom -- allows it to stand in for any such situation, no matter how small or large. Friendly is a man who values his power over everything; he could be ruling a third-world country and he would be exactly the same man.

The portrayal of organized crime in this film is refreshing. Filmmakers often get caught up in the mystique of "codes of honor," "honor among thieves," and all that sort of thing. That can make for interesting films, but I suspect that the thuggish tinpot dictator represented by Friendly is a far better reflection of those who engage in mob tactics. All that "honor" and "code" is used by Friendly to use his subjects' own consciences to keep them from standing up to him and doing what's right.

In the same way, Terry's struggle is our own. How many of us have gone along with a system or group who was no good, either because we benefitted or because of the pressure of our peers to accept a corrupt arrangement? We are reminded here that wrong is wrong, "code" or no "code."

Finally, it's great to see a positive portrayal of a man of faith. In a new film, Father Barry would have a terrible secret, or hidden motives; in this film he is a good man serving God the best way he can. He believes wholeheartedly in deposing Johnny Friendly because he sees the suffering in the eyes of his congregation and he can't stand it.

PROS: On the Waterfront is a very moral film, a film about how a man can't be neutral between good and evil. And as is the way with many great films, it does so without the use of vulgarity or gore. There are some deaths, but the film is confident enough in itself to not need to make them overly grotesque to make its point. Terry is a very fallen man who learns, better late than never, to stand up for what's right, that there can be no accommodation with evil without becoming evil oneself. We all need to be reminded of that.

CONS: This isn't a film for children; its themes get intense, even if it is not vulgar and doesn't contain gore. There are several deaths and a brutal beating late in the film, though the makeup is not as ugly as it would be today. I thought it was unfortunate that while Father Barry supports Terry, Terry doesn't consider where this strength might come from. There is no hint that Terry sees anything in Father Barry but a good man, though there may be hope for that in the future after the events of the film.

Final Thought: It's easy to see Terry as blind, having ignored the evil all around him for so long, but aren't we all the same? Don't we all go along with evil, at least partway? Who would fight against a system that benefits him, at least until it asks something of him he doesn't want to do? Who hasn't walked many miles on the road to Hell while ignoring the road signs indicating the destination?

This film is valuable to remind us that whatever we think of ourselves we're no better than Terry, and we need the Lord's help to do good. And just as Terry inspires those around him, if we choose to serve the Lord and not the world, we can inspire others around us as well.

Bottom Line: 4/5

Bad Things and Good People

A couple in my church recently had a pair of twin boys who lived for only a few short hours. In light of this sort of event, one's mind comes to the frequently asked question: Why do bad things happen to good people?

Many people, unfortunately including many Christians, don't have a good answer for this extremely important question. Answers exist, however: the whole truth about this question can be found in Christianity and nowhere else.

There are different kinds of "bad things" which can happen. The kind I'm going to consider, in light of the unfortunate loss of precious children to a medical condition mentioned above, is the "accidental": Why do good people get in car accidents and get sick? Isn't God in control of the natural world?

It's important to think about what's really being asked here. We know that human beings have free will, so they have the ability to drive drunkenly or generally poorly. We also know that diseases are a part of the world, and that people get sick every day. These are common events, so it's not as though tragic events happen only to good people.

What we're really asking is: Since we know that God has the power to make things happen or not happen, and since we know He has used this power to spare people in the past, why doesn't God make exceptions for those who worship Him, or even those who appear objectively like nice people?

I once saw a study purporting to measure the effects of prayer on disease; in that case, it was considered failure if the results of those who were prayed for were the same as those who were not prayed for. The assumption was that God would (or should) heal those who were prayed for more often or faster than those who were not prayed for, that he would give special treatment to His people.

There are several reasons that God may not choose to intervene in the way we want Him to. First, if God were to intervene to spare His people pain by manipulating the physical world as often as we'd like, how long would it be before His direct intervention was more the rule than the exception?

There's very little to stop this from invalidating the very nature of man's free will: after all, the very thoughts which lead us to evil acts are formulated via chemical processes in the physical brain. Should God turn off the chemical reactions which would lead us to evil thoughts, as well?

Secondly, who's to say that a given tragic "accident" does not serve God's purpose in some grander way? Doesn't the doctor cause us pain, sometimes tremendous pain, in the name of healing us? Sometimes the doctor acts on our behalf but without our consent, for instance if we were badly injured and could not bring ourselves to the hospital. It is his job to know that we need his services, whether we know to ask for them or not, and it is his job to inflict some pain to save us. For this, we consider him good. Can we not do the same for God?

It seems reasonable to think that if, in order to heal the body, the body must be made to suffer, then in order to heal the soul the body and soul may need to suffer. The doctor's first incision is an injury itself, a wound which is harmful. However, it is necessary for the operation, and it can and will be healed fully in the end. We can consider the incision good, then, for though it is in itself bad, through it healing is brought about.

Some of our tragic accidents are likely to be "incisions": injuries which can be used to heal us; surface wounds which expose parts of us that are diseased, so that they may be healed. How could the doctor have done his work without that incision?

Finally, these accidents may come about to glorify God in some unexpected way. Job's tribulations served primarily to inform us about God's nature, and show us our proper place below Him. Job learned from the experience, but his trials seem focused on illuminating God, rather than teaching Job. As a result of his troubles, billions of people have learned important information about the nature of God.

Tragic accidents are difficult for everyone, and seem somehow unfair and undeserved when they happen to those we love, to good people. However, God is good, and He need not intervene to prevent every unfortunate event to be so. With guidance we can see why these events may occur. Rather than turning from God or blaming Him for these things, we must learn to lean on Him in our times of trial, and to learn what we can from these events.

Sinners as Leaders: Follow-Up

I had some thoughts on John's post from the other day that I thought I'd write down.

The reaction of society at large to Christian leaders' sins when they're revealed publicly is often to think that, if every Christian is not better than every non-Christian, then Christianity must not be true. An agnostic coworker of mine saw this as a major reason not to believe in Christianity: its adherents claim to be in communication with an all-powerful, perfectly good God, but most of them don't seem particularly better or worse than others around them. If it makes no difference in their lives, if it doesn't make them remarkably different than everyone else, then what good is it? How can it be so powerful if its effects are so invisible?

This is a subtle logical fallacy that I would address with an analogy. Let's say James and Rick are both in the same field. James goes to college for a degree in the field, and Rick does not. Rick, without a degree, is more knowledgeable about the field than James is with his degree. Therefore, college is not valuable: people who did not go are still smarter than people who did go.

The false implication here is that in order for college to be acknowledged as valuable, every college graduate must be smarter than every person who did not go to college. This is an improbable condition to meet: Rick could be a genius, and no amount of education would elevate James over him. In this light we can see that this is not a necessary condition for college to be valuable. In what way is college valuable, then, if James is not smarter than Rick at the end of it?

The answer is this: college's value is not about making James smarter than Rick. Its value is solely in improving James. Its value can only be measured in terms of how much smarter the college experience made James than he himself was beforehand. Rick's intelligence is irrelevant and distracts us from what's truly being measured.

Christianity works the same way. Jesus doesn't promise to make you objectively better than the best non-Christian: if you let Him, He promises to make you better than you are. Thus, Christianity can have tremendous value without meeting our arbitrary standard of making every Christian better (in some objective sense) than every non-Christian. It would certainly be a momentous change for a murderer to be brought to the point where he is as good a man as his neighbors!

Returning to John's post, I have perhaps more reservations than John about those who have sinned publicly continuing to lead. I want very much to forgive them their sins; if we as Christians can't forgive each other then we don't really know our faith. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Nor is it easy to show forgiveness while revoking a leader's position; fair or not, necessary or not, it will feel like a punishment to the individual and may make him feel that his church does not truly forgive him. For instance, it feels very cruel to remove a pastor from his position because he's getting divorced. It feels like kicking him when he's down, wounding him when he needs support the most.

However, there are some kinds of sin which to me would seem to preclude the possibility of effective leadership. It's important to consider the circumstances. There are a few situations which could be outside the pastor's control -- his wife has decided to leave regardless of whether he grants a divorce, or she has committed adultery. On the other hand, what of the ever popular "irreconcilable differences"? What if he simply feels that "it isn't working anymore" and that both parties should move on, as is common in society at large?

I don't cite this example to indicate that those who divorce are the worst of sinners, or any such thing. "The wages of sin is death," big or small, public or private. However, some sins lead us into a place where everything we do is sinful; where simply leaving things as they are for another day takes us farther from God; where we cannot draw close to Him. We cannot be washed clean when we're standing in the mud.

If a man divorces his wife without Biblical cause, every step he takes which is not a step towards reconciliation with her in recognition of his sin is a step away from God. There can be no neutrality: everything he does, he does instead of doing what's right. In this state, how can he lead God's church?

We must forgive those who repent; our God commands it, and He knows I've needed that forgiveness many times and will again. I simply think it's important to recognize a man who has fully turned away from his sin and has turned back toward the light from one who has simply walked away from the sin. Leadership of God's church is too important not to consider it.

True religion in action.

As a followup to our post on what "true religion" is and why believers should be proud to call themselves "religious" (read it here), I'd like to point our readers to a minister who is practicing true religion. Take a look for yourself here.

Summed up, this minister put true religion into practice by selling his $50,000.00 Infiniti Coupe in order to save $600 a month. With those savings, he sponsors children through Compassion International. The idea is to live with less in order to give more.

So, what's the point? Do you need to sell your car and buy a clunker? That's not what I am preaching here, folks. However, I do support their idea: make reductions in your spending on material things and use it to ensure that the impoverished get to eat and sleep under a roof. James 1:27 teaches us that true religion is (1)being unstained by the world; and (2) aiding those in need. Isn't it interesting how those two things are related? It's easier to visit the needy when you've focused less on material gain.

So, you could buy that $50k car, or you could make do with one that costs $25k or even $15k. The $25-35k you save would do a lot for a ministry like Compassion. You don't have to sponsor a child - make a 1-time donation to the unsponsored children's fund. It doesn't obligate you to dfo more, and your money goes directly to support children who have no one to sponsor or support them.

If children aren't your conviction, then feel free to support Food For the Poor. Feeding the hungry is a powerful witness for the Christian faith.

Please, do not think that because you cannot give a lot that your donation won't mean a lot to organizations like these. If 100 people give a 1-time donation of $1, then these roganizations can use that $100 to provide food and shelter to many who don't have it. In many third-world economies, the US dollar still goes a long way. Ever dollar donated is a major victory for those in need. Please stop to consider their needa.

You do not need to be "convicted" to donate $1 or even $10. Do it because you know the Lord your God considers it to be true religion. Do it because you want to love as Jesus did: sacrificially. Do it because God considers it a loan that he will repay (Proverbs 19:17). Just don't do it to make yourself look pious or righteous in the eyes of others (Matthew 6:1-4).

Have a heart. There are many who are suffering in this world, and they need your help. Please, please, give to one of these organizations and practice the religion that you preach.

NEWSFLASH: Republicans slap democrats in the face...

NEWS: The "Goracle" speaks - hilarious.

I highly recommend you read this hilarious prophesises of Al Gore, the "Goracle" in the report by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post here.

Feel free to comment below - this may be the funniest news article yet.

Update regarding our earlier post on sexual immorality.

I recently read a blog about the former Regent dean of students I referenced in our earlier post on sexual immorality. Cited below is a comment I made at that blog in response to the absolute hatred being slung at Christians by the commenters. The source of this hatred? Because one Christian, formerly a law professor and dean, has stumbled, the world believes that Christians are hypocrites. Please, if you read my response to the commenters below and have an opinion, feel free to express it in the comment section below.

"I think it is important to remind people that Christians (those who actually follow Christ's teachings) profess to be neither perfect nor without sin. In fact, to be saved, one must admit that he is a sinner in need of Christ's sacrifice to pay the penalty for that sin.

Every sin is an offense against God. Every single one, no matter how great or how small, and sitting in a jail cell does nothing to undo that offense in the eyes of the Lord. There is nothing a human being can do, on his or her own, to reconcile or "make amends" with God.

Stephen McPherson has admitted to sinning against God and to breaking the law of man as well. The jail time will pay his debt to society. Only Jesus could pay his debt to God.

Being Christian is not about being righteous or sinless. It is about admitting that you are a sinner struggling with temptation to do evil and accepting Christ's blood as the sacrificial price to cover each time you fail in that struggle.

Stephen McPherson is no hypocrite. By being a Christian he is a self-professed sinner. Though his sins may be reprehensible, they are not unforgivable. He was forgiven the moment he accepted Jesus.

I do not approve of what he had admitted to doing with those girls, but he will be punished, and it is not my place or your to judge him. Rather, we should forgive him because we know that we have also sinned, though perhaps in different ways. If you ever want to be forgiven, then you must first forgive. At least, that's the Biblical perspective."

Sexual immorality in the Church: should sinners be pastors or leaders?

Priests and pastors are accused of sexual immorality at an alarming and ever-increasing rate these days. I attended Regent University School of Law, a Christian institution, and one of its former dean of students has pleaded guilty to sex crimes. A newer minister at my church was recently dismissed after confessing to adultery.

So, what do we take away from this? From reading recent blog entries, it appears that the secular community views Christians as hypocrites because some Christians sin in the area of sexual immorality. How can this be when we know God is not fond of hypocrites (reference Matthew 23)?

I believe that every sin committed by a believer is evidence in support of the need for Jesus Christ. After all, why would believers need Christ's sacrificial grace if we didn't sin? We aren't hypocrites when we sin - we're just honest examples of Christians incapable of fulfilling the law on our own and in desperate need of God's mercy, which is new each day (Lamentations 3:22-23). So, when a man stumbles, even when he causes harm to a child, this is not an excuse to lose faith. Instead, it should renew our faith in God's message: that even the best man is fallen and needs the saving grace and mercy the Lord has provided through Jesus Christ.

So, do we punish evil? Certainly the laws of God and of men must be enforced, and justice must be done. However, does that excuse us to condemn/excommunicate/hate the sinners? I suggest that we show mercy to those who stumble if we expect to receive mercy ourselves. I believe there is a verse for that, but it escapes me at the moment.

It is when we believers attempt to cover up or hide the fact that we sin that we are truly being hypocritical. Instead, we need to accept that believers sin, and, when the secular world says: "See - the Christians sin too," we need to address that by saying, "you have better believe we sin, and we know it, but praise the Lord we have Jesus to save us from it!"

Lets not, as the Church, judge the sinners (unless we are also judges) or focus on appearing perfectly righteous (which we aren't). Rather, lets focus on admitting we all sin and struggle against it. Perhaps then non-believers, also sinners, will feel welcome in the church building, comforted by the knowledge that they are surrounded by other sinners looking for mercy, forgiveness, and especially grace - just ... like ... them.

So, lets be slow to judge, quick to forgive even the most controversial/taboo sins, and accepting of imperfect people. We all believe (supposedly) that even a murderer can repent and be saved, but how many would go so far as to invite them to church? What if the murderer came and felt called to preach? Can Jimmy Swaggart, who was caught with a prostitute, continue to preach?

Show me a perfect preacher. Show me a preacher without sin. My father is a pastor, and he would tell you that he is far from perfect, but he knows that the people he preaches to need to hear about his struggles/experiences overcoming temptation and sin. People don't need a "perfect" preacher any more than they need a Pharisee to stand behind the pulpit. They need honest, real ministers with real experiences who they can relate to, that have something relevant to say about their daily struggle to live a life accepting to the Lord, unstained by the world (James 1:27).

One of the most amazing messages I ever heard preached was from a former pornography addict named Gene McConnell who came close to raping a woman before the Holy Spirit convicted him to release her. He spoke at a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting I attended at WSU, and the power of his message gives real, genuine hope to the men and women afflicted by pornography and sexual crimes, made only more potent by his personal experiences and testimony. So, should a man with a weakness for sexual immorality be preaching to college students on that subject? You bet he should.

Just read the comments on this blog about his message at OSU here (not appropriate for children). Note that this blog may or may not be endorsed by Gene (I found it through Google). Some of the student comments are particularly alarming:

• "While I agree 100% with the basic message, I wasn't impressed with some of the content. Frankly, hearing about many of the disgusting things the speaker has done in his past was a bit more than I bargained for."
• "Everything and anything, if done to excess can be harmful. I enjoy viewing porn, just like I enjoy drinking alcohol and other such things. That does not mean I am addicted to either or that my behavior is harmful. People that go around the country preaching the evils of porn are just pathetic. "

It is scary that there are people actually defending porn after hearing Gene's message and that others, who are believers, are too fearful to face the truth. Gene is a man who loves the Lord and has checked his pride at the door to share his sinful past with those men and women suffering from the "Power of Porn." I know several men at WSU were released from bondage after Gene's seminar. I embraced one friend who cried for almost 15 minutes as we prayed with Gene. He was the last guy I would have expected to have a problem with porn: he could have had any woman he wanted, a Bible study leader, etc. Did I feel betrayed that he, a Christian, had sinned? Of course not. He was struggling, but he was also a true believer all the same. Condemning a man for sinning is the height of hypocrisy.

I agree most with this comment regarding Gene:

• "Powerful. transparent. A message to those who thing this is too much info: powerful battles require powerful messages, and this one delivers."

So, the next time you look down on a Christian, be it a priest, a pastor, or just a friend, for sinning in an area the Church finds to be taboo, consider this: what sins have you committed that the other believers would frown on if they knew of them? What if the tables were turned?

So, should sinners be allowed to preach/lead/teach? I sure hope so, or we are all going to be short a few pastors/leaders/teachers. Sinners like Gene have great testimonies, and Gene's message proves that there can be victory over sin for men, not just Christ. Sure, we all believe that Christ conquered sin on the cross, but he didn't do it just as an example. He conquered sin so that we might be free!

I charge you all: bring back the sinners you have cast out from your church buildings. Remember that the real Church is the body of Christ, composed of believers, who are all sinners. Casting out a man or woman for committing a sin, even a taboo/sexual sin, is hypocritical and a bit looney toons.

That's just my take, though. Listen to Gene's message and judge for yourselves whether you want sinners behind the pulpit and in the classroom.

God bless you all.

NEWSFLASH: Iran may have nuclear capacity this year.

NEWS: Obama v. Kennedy...

See the report here.

Now that President Obama has attacked Rush Limbaugh, an easy target for a hyper-liberal, it seems that he is aiming his guns at Sen. Ted Kennedy regarding the construction of an off-shore "wind farm," designed to provide a "clean" energy source.

"Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project. "

Two democrats entrenched in a political over the environmental impact of a wind farm. Our president wants clean, alternative energies. Senator Kennedy claims that the wind farm will damage sean and animal life and that it will cost tourism and jobs. At least one of these gentlemen remembered to check whether there would be an effect on people, even if it was an afterthought.

"Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that. "

If the report is accurate, then we will spend barrels of federal tax dollars financing and subsidizing the construction of an energy source that, presenlty, accounts for a whopping 1% of our energy reserves. If we are lucky, then maybe we can get it up to 20% in a little over two decades. Of course, in that amount of time, our population will have likely grown enough to require 10-15% more electricity than we currently use (I am guessing - please provide reliable figures if you read this and have them).

So we have two democracts arguing over the environmental costs of building a wind farm that will likely do little to address the current energy demand, and we are supposed to ignore Rush Limbaugh (according to President Obama - see our earlier news post here)? I highly suspect that Rush would say something of the tune of, "Wind power is nice and clean, but what are you doing to create jobs and solve the existing energy demand? I mean, the current recession may be over in 20 years by the time wind power has an effect, if it has one at all."

And Rush would be right, hypothetically. Why are we arguing the environmental impact of a project that will cost plenty of tax dollars while providing very little benefit to the Americans who paid for it? Why are we not curtailing government spending on ventures that do not address our present economic crisis? I love animals and sea creatures, but they do not get priority status over people surely? At least Kennedy made a good point: jobs could be lost.

So, if I have to choose sides in this liberal debate, then I have to side with the senator. After all, it is his state. Were he not suffering from a brain tumor, I doubt President Obama would be crossing Senator Kennedy on a fight the man has been waging for nearly a decade. This proves something to me that I saw during the election season: Barack Hussein Obama is an opportunist. There's nothing especially wrong with being an opportunist, but when the opportunity you are seizing is precipitated by the possibly fatal illness of a long-time ally, surely you should at least consider the principles of loyalty and fair play? The logic I see being followed is this: Senator Kennedy's malignant brain tumor spells out a strong possibility that he will soon drop out of the political spotlight, so why should BHO care that he owes his present success, at least in part, to Kennedy's support?

Loyalty. It is a concept of which our president has no grasp. He abandons his allies when they are of no further use to him or when it will profit him to do so. Senator Ted Kennedy now joins the ranks of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The message here is clear: President Obama will accept your support, but do not expect to get so much as a cookie for it.

NEWS: Obama v. Rush...

See President Obama's attack on Rush Limbaugh here. See Limbaugh's response here.

Apparently the new administration feels that Rush Limbaugh is a threat: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders at the White House. Of course, the truth is that Republicans can't listen to Rush if they want to get Obama's agenda accomplished, but should that be there goal?

Minority parties have but one power in our country: to represent an opposing viewpoint and to force a deadlock on actions that strike a partisan tone. BHO's agenda, as our earlier posts elaborate, is a completely partisan one. He seeks special treatment for homosexuals, increased hate crime legislation, and the expansion of US taxpayer-funded abortions both at home and abroad. Why would any sound-minded Republican want to "get things done" when the things Obama wants to accomplish are so far from the GOP platform? If the GOP stopped listening to Rush and signed on with President Obama, then we would effectively have 1 party in this country rather than 2.

Most people I meet in my daily life would prefer that, if we change our political system, to have multiple, viable political parties - not fewer. Effectively, Obama is asking Republicans to admit defeat, tuck their tales, and join the victors. Well, certainly the DNP has won the battle for America this term, but there will be other elections, and the war is hardly over. I don't care what your party affiliations are: no man can honestly love the Lord and hate the unborn child. This isn't just an economic debate we are having. By prioritizing our pocket books, even with good cause, America has sold its soul for "economic stimulus." That has never been more apparent to me than when I read Obama's agenda at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Unfortunately, what America will see is a taxation on employers that drives up the unemployment rate and increased government spending that will give away our future as a nation, weaken us, and leave us broken.

It is no wonder President Obama is condemning Rush. I don't love the big guy. He's rude and crass at times, but then, he is speaking the truths Obama does not want you to hear. Read his response to Obama's attack, and you will have the opportunity to see what this administration does not want you to know.

NEWS: New York Representative Proves Exactly How Practical Green Energy Can Be

Just read this story. It's incredible.

I'm all for efficient forms of energy. Personally I think the best solution is nuclear power coupled with hydrogen fuel cell cars, eliminating the vast majority of our need for fossil fuels. I could even get behind a meaningful government initiative about energy -- perhaps offering big tax breaks to corporations who can prove they spent money on the research. I could even be persuaded that government research dollars could be used to research the fundamental elements of some of these new energy sources for the good of all.

However all this holier-than-thou grandstanding gets us nowhere. Here's something I think we can recognize from this story: Electric-only cars are not practical for long distances. Not now and probably not ever.

I can listen to a person who honestly discusses our options. Al Gore doesn't have to be a hypocrite -- if he discussed possible solutions to energy problems and why he believes in them, instead of trying to guilt the free world into economic suicide while releasing epic amounts of hated carbon to do so, then maybe I would listen. If the environmentalist community hadn't insisted for 8 years that Bush was pure evil, instead of recognizing him for his conservationist achievements and criticizing him reasonably for actions they disagree with, I might be willing to listen.

IMPORTANT NEWS: Obama's agenda filled with social issues and priorities, NOT just economic.

See the full report here, courtesy of the American Family Association, who copied it straight from the White House website. Rather than focusing on the economy, our president's priorities include support of abortion, special treatment for homosexuals, and expanded hate crime legislation. Sure, the economy is in his revised agenda now, but it's a very small part.

What is it about the unborn that our president hates? Why is his first and highest priority in office to target a fetus rather than a terrorist or the national debt? Whatever his politics, is killing the unborn children of this nation really more important than national security or the economy?

Speaking of the economy, how will affording special rights and privileges to homosexuals, at the taxpayer's expense, improve the economy? This hardly seems the time for more government funded programs and legislation. I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted. I disagree with their beliefs, but they have rights already. They CAN get married and enjoy the same financial benefits the law affords married couples. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex, however, just like the rest of us, as God intended. I don't want them to lose any rights, but the law already affords them the exact same treatment and rights as any heterosexual person. Legislation based on sexual orientation, like legislation based on race, can only serve to afford them greater or lesser rights under the law than heterosexuals. Either result is unacceptable, immoral, and completely wrong.

In this blogger's opinion, hate crime laws are racist by definition, and they discriminate not just against criminal defendants, but against their victims as well by segregating them into two categories: victims of crime and victim's of hate crimes (see a more detailed explanation here). The difference? One person is victimized because the perpetrator is, allegedly, a hateful racist or bigot. The other is victimized because the perpetrator is a hateful selfish person that apparently is neither a racist nor a bigot. So, different victims receive different amounts of "justice" depending on whether a judge/jury feel the perpetrator was hateful. I feel sorry for white victims, because they will never be the victims of "hate crimes." The Reverend Lowery's benediction, approved by our president, clearly shows that it is not racist or hateful to attack whites (see report here).

President Obama must hate whites: he failed to condemn the Rev. Lowery's racist benediction, and now he wants to segregate white victims from minority victims. I respect him as our president, because I believe we Christians must support our leaders (Rom 13:1) and because I believe as Americans we should respect the office of the president. However, I do not feel obligated to respect President Obama's agenda, his decisions, or his politics. I say that, having read his agenda, seen his preliminary decisions, and having heard his politics during the election, I respect none of them.

Mr. President: you claim that you want to reach across party lines like John McCain. Is that true, or is it merely a smokescreen? I cannot see that statement as anything but a bald-faced lie in light of the agenda you have adopted. How is death to the unborn, special treatment for homosexuals, or racist hate crime legislation reaching across the lines to the republicans who are sternly against all three? The answer is that you are either ignorant of what the GOP's positions are on these issue (doubtful), or you have lied to this nation and betrayed our trust after less than a week in office.

It is my prayer that our president decides to stand by his word, reconsider his partisan agenda, and unite this nation by first addressing universal issues like unemployment and the damaged economy. I hope that you will all join me in this praying for President Obama in this way.

NEWS: Rev. Lowery gives racist benediction.

*bumped*

Read the story here. Read an interesting blog post on-topic here.

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," Rev. Lowery said (emphasis supplied).

**For a complete transcript, click here.

I am terribly disappointed by these words that, if taken literally, imply that we live in a time that my entire race is wrong, having failed "embrace what is right." I realize that many Americans have been judged solely based upon the colour of their skin. Now all Caucasians join those ranks. The deliverer of the benediction for President Obama, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, has asked our president to help this nation "work for that day when ... white will embrace what is right." Omitting the other clauses in his rhyme does not alter the meaning of the words quoted. In fact, they are just as awful.

I have felt judge exclusively by my skin colour before, but never by anyone whose opinions had any weight with me. Now, the man who gave the inaugural benediction has judged all white Americans wrong because they are white. I found that remark to be offensive, and I hope President Obama will condemn this man's bigoted statements publicly.

EDIT: It's odd how the native American population has not raised a ruckus over being referred to as "the red man." I am certain that, if a white person said anything that Rev. Lowery did, then he would be called a racist. As such, this story has become the basis for my new motto: "I am white (racist)." This is apparently the Rev. Lower's way of thinking, at least. I would get a T-shirt printed, but that might qualify as a hate crime?

NEWS: Obama's first day priorities include abortion.

See the report here.

"Among the possibilities for the first day was the naming of a Middle East envoy, critical at a time of renewed hostilities between Israelis and the Palestinians; an order closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that will take considerable time to execute and comes on the heels of a suspension of war crimes trials there pending a review; prohibiting - in most cases - the harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists that have damaged the U.S. image around the globe; overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion; and lifting President George W. Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research" (emphasis supplied).

Well, it is clear that President Obama's priorities do not actually include compromise. To include abortion as a line item in his first day itinerary is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Not less than half of the people in this country consider themselves "pro-life." On his first day, our new president intends to offend 50% of the voter base, though I imagine he will try to minimize the attention this maneuver receives. Also, by engaging the abortion issue upfront, he is banking that people will forget about it four years from now. Good tactics, true, but his plan is immoral and evil.

We Christians may have to respect our president (Rom 13:1), but we do not have to refrain from criticizing his choices. I urge everyone to stay informed, because change is coming, but it doesn't appear to be for the better.

ROB: Some interesting context I found at another blog:

Tomorrow morning, President Obama’s first act will be what had also been Bill Clinton’s first act as president, to overturn the Mexico City Policy, thus allowing federal funds to be spent on abortions overseas.

Well, that does not give me much hope. This is interesting:

"President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.

President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it."

So, this policy keeps going back and forth - Republicans come in, they end funding for overseas abortions, Democrats come in, and the “first thing” they do is put the funding back.

It almost seems like the first thing they’re doing is making a token offering to Moloch - to the Culture of Death.

Movie Review: Lakeview Terrace

SCORE

-2 out of 5-

CREDITS

• Abel Turner: Samuel L. Jackson
  
• Chris Mattson: Patrick Wilson
  
• Lisa Mattson: Kerry Washington
  
• Directed by Neil Labute
  

STORY

Lakeview Terrace is the story of neighbors who become enemies. Abel Turner is a local cop who is well established in his home, raising his two children alone having lost his wife three years before. Chris and Lisa are a newlywed interracial couple who move in next door.

For the first third of the film or so, Abel and his neighbors are followed separately and seem to be in two different movies. Abel is a good, fairly strict father and a tough but strong cop. Chris and Lisa are a happy newlywed couple getting moved into their great new house.

These two stories intersect as Abel's possibly excessive security system bothers the newlyweds, and Chris and Lisa's newlywed exploits are too public for Abel to keep from his young and impressionable children.

A stark line is drawn between the kinds of people represented by Abel and his neighbors. Abel is presented as conservative, explicitly identifying himself as a Republican. Chris is presented in the opposite way, driving a Prius and talking about environmentalism. This is one of the many ways in which Abel and Chris clash.

I think this film's problem is that it (or possibly Samuel L. Jackson's performance) has created a character in Abel Turner that it doesn't understand. In the first half of the film Abel is very sympathetic, and often heroic. He may be a bit harsh or abrasive, but we're given a brief glimpse of what he deals with at work every day and it's hard to blame him.

Furthermore, whatever the film may think of him, Abel is right a lot of the time. "Climate change" is not settled science, as he points out; Chris ridicules his implication that not keeping a gun in the house is borderline negligent for his family's security, but Turner has the better end of the argument here too.

The extreme lengths Abel goes to later in the film seem forced. Up to a certain point Abel works within the law to make life unpleasant for his neighbors, but when he strays into outright criminality things become much less believable. I could imagine a cop character who is on a power trip and feels like he should get his way in his private life because of what he does for a living, and might be willing to break the law to pursue that end. Turner never gives off quite that impression, though, at least not that last part. Abel respects the law too much to perform blatantly criminal acts against his neighbors just because he doesn't like them. If he were to do something like that he would need a much better reason than he's given.

I identify with Abel Turner, if only because he may be the only self-identified Republican I've seen in a movie in a very long time who was in the least sympathetic (until later in the movie). Chris, on the other hand, ostensibly the "good guy," is unlikeable in the extreme. He's a whiny, complaining yuppie liberal, almost completely controlled by his wife who has very little respect for him or his decisions. While she comes off as a pleasant character most of the time, when you consider her actions she really cares only for her own desires. Chris is completely hung up on people giving him a hard time for marrying a black woman (which may have been interesting in a film about that, but just made him complain more in this one). On top of that he and his wife seem to be living off her Dad's money, completing the picture of a pair of spoiled, self-involved liberals.

I believe everything Chris does in the film, but as I said above I don't think this movie understands Abel Turner. He's a good man who may go a little too far but who is just trying to protect his family and mold them into good and morally upright citizens. He also hates rap, and I must say that earns a lot of points with me. Abel had to be the villain because he's a conservative and a Republican, and people like that can't be good or heroic in movies. I felt like the script forced Abel to do increasingly outlandish things that I never believed he would do just so he could manage, by the end of the film, to be even less likable than Chris.

PROS: I'm not sure what to put here. I loved Samuel L. Jackson's performance for the first half or so of the film; he really sells this character (though this just adds to the feeling of betrayal later). Samuel L. Jackson has incredible screen presence and he's always very enjoyable to watch. The early scenes with Chris and Lisa are alright, like something out of a lightweight drama or romantic comedy. I thought the first half or so really does a good job of showing the difference in perception between the oblivious newlyweds and the way they come across to the cautious and wary father trying to protect his kids.

I thought the exploration of the issues inherent in an interracial marriage was interesting, but out of place in this movie. Very large and complex issues are brought up but not really dealt with, since the last half was always going to be about escalating conflict between the neighbors.

I appreciate that the movie doesn't go the lowbrow route with lots of swearing or nudity. There are some scantily clad women onscreen, but it's reasonable in context and there's no nudity. There was some swearing but it wasn't pervasive.

CONS: I felt ripped off by the later section of the movie. The first half built up well, and if Turner weren't arbitrarily turned into a criminal I would've been very interested to see where things might go. Taking sides was unnecessary and makes the film much less worthwhile. If both sides were given their due, leading to a more ambiguous ending, perhaps the viewer would have something to think about after the credits. As it stands the film elects to tell you what you should think about the events depicted, just in case you might come to the wrong conclusion on your own.

This is especially unfortunate since the movie has set up both sides as representative of a political party or faction. Thus taking sides between the characters is a pretty explicit suggestion that one party is better than the other. Rarely would I say that Hollywood movies need more ambiguity, but this is one case where it would've been far better to make the events less cartoonish and let the audience decide who was right.

Final Thought: In some ways this was like watching a monster movie and eventually rooting for the monster, because the victims act stupidly and at least the monster is clever -- except in this movie I liked Turner from the start. The film wanted me to think of him as the bad guy by the end, but I question why it spent so much time making him sympathetic before trying to convince me that he was a bad person.

I don't think the writer had any idea what to do with a conservative or Republican character other than to make him deranged. I don't think he could stand the idea that the audience might think the Republican character was right. If there were movies in which Republicans actually were the heroes I wouldn't mind this, but since there aren't it's especially jarring, and it's a missed opportunity.

In the end this movie has no point, unless it was trying to make the case that spoiled yuppies who marry into money are better than hard-working men who protect and serve.

Bottom Line: 2/5

NEWS (to me): Brokeback Dove?

Check this out. Did anyone else realize that "Lonesome Dove," arguably the best "western" ever written, was authored by the same man that co-authored the script for "Brokeback Mountain," definitely the gayest "western" ever made? I will never be able to see Woodrow and Gus in the same light.

"Best-known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Lonesome Dove, the 72-year-old
McMurtry remains extraordinarily prolific. He contributes frequently to the New
York Review of Books. His screenplay for Brokeback Mountain, co-written with
Diana Ossana, won an Academy Award in 2006."

From Pulitzer to Poofter? Please Larry McMurtry, say it ain't so...

NEWS: Pray for Ted Kennedy.

Read the report here.

Excerpt:

"The Obamas then repaired to the Capitol's Statuary Hall for a traditional luncheon before this afternoon's inaugural parade.

"During the lunch, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) fell ill and was rushed away for treatment. Kennedy, 76, who was diagnosed last year with brain cancer, apparently suffered a violent seizure and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance, officials said."

"Obama paid tribute to Kennedy at the end of the luncheon. 'I would be lying to you if I did not say right now a part of me is with him,' the new president said."

Now, I am a conservative. I do not support Senator Kennedy's ideals. However, I believe he deserves our prayers. There is no such thing as a "good man," and we all fall short in different areas. Please, a Christian is only as good as his/her mercy: pray for Ted Kennedy.

NEWS: Pastor makes inaugural sci-fi blunder...

Read the report here.

"'Bishop T.D. Jakes, a senior pastor from Houston, used Scripture to offer the incoming president four lessons for his administration. "In time of crisis, good men must stand up," Jakes said. "God always sends the best men into the worst times." He also told the worshipers, "This is not a time for politeness or correctness; this is a time for people to confront issues and bring about change. . . . You cannot enjoy the light without enduring the heat.'
Looking directly at Obama, Jakes said, 'The problems are mighty and the solutions are not simple, and everywhere you turn there will be a critic waiting to attack every decision that you make. But you are all fired up, sir, and you are ready to go. And this nation goes with you. God goes with you.'
'I say to you as my son who is here today, my 14-year-old son -- he probably would not quote Scripture. He probably would use Star Trek instead. And so I say, 'May the force be with you.' "

Sigh. All nerds in this country feel betrayed at your lack of sci-fi knowledge sir. Star Trek is, "Live long and prosper." Star Wars is, "May the force be with you."

The nerve.

Clarification...

Regarding the political news posts today, I do want to make it clear that I am giving my respect and prayers to President Obama. Please see Romans 13:1 if you need a reason to join me in praying for our new president. I do not believe that Barack Obama would be president against God's will. That does not mean that he is right on every issue, but as Christians we should support and pray for our leaders.

For those of you who supported the president during the election, please do not be offended by our news posts. I am a self-professed right-winger, and I think Rob would say the same thing. All people are welcome here, however, regardless of their political views. Comments that disagree (politely) with a post on this blog are welcomed.

That said, if I believed in omens, then the news today would not call for optimism. The Obama presidency began with a flubbed oath (regardless of who is to blame), a bigoted benediction, and the most expensive inauguration in history. Fortunately, I put no faith in omens, only in the Lord, who never leaves us nor forsakes us.

Movie Review: Gone Baby Gone (4/5)

SCORE

-4 out of 5-

CREDITS

• Patrick Kenzie: Casey Affleck
  
• Angie Gennaro: Michelle Monaghan
  
• Jack Doyle: Morgan Freeman
  
• Remy Bressant: Ed Harris
  
• Bea McCready: Amy Ryan
  
• Directed by Ben Affleck
  

STORY

This film tells the story of a pair of private detectives. They're a young couple who specialize in finding people using their personal "street smarts" in their home city of Boston. This film depicts the last of a series of books about Patrick and Angie, written by the same author who wrote Mystic River.

Patrick and Angie are asked to work on a high-profile abduction of a young child by the victim's family. The family are very much working-class folks who ask the couple to investigate in order to supplement the police investigation, in the hopes that together they can bring the little girl home.

Make no mistake, there is much violence and vulgar language in this film. In some ways it's one of the "ugliest" films I've ever seen, in the sense that a great many of the actors and extras used in this film are not the usual pretty Hollywood stars, and accurately portray a cross-section of the poorest residents of Boston. It's also unfortunate that the main characters are a couple living together out of wedlock. Finally, Amy Ryan, as the mother of the kidnapped child, is very nearly a monster: a drug addict, a terrible mother, spewing vulgarity and hating those in her family who have done the most for her.

In this dirty world, however, shines a bright light of moral focus from the main character, Patrick. Patrick is probably a nominal or lapsed Catholic (judging by the excellent and deeply human introductory monologue), but like many he feels no compulsion to follow the tenets of the faith. However, ingrained in him is a strong need to do the right thing, a moral certainty that is in some ways even more admirable given what he chooses to surround himself with.

Throughout the film it is Patrick's need to do what's right that drives him. At one point he has done something terrible, which everyone around him assures him was justified -- the wrong thing for the right reason. In the face of all their praise, Patrick knows deep inside himself that what he has done is truly wrong, and he can feel only guilt for it.

Patrick is forced to make a major moral choice near the end of the film with serious personal and spiritual ramifications. I'm still not sure if I agree with his choice, but I can only hope that, facing a question of that magnitude and regardless of the consequences, I would do what I felt was right.

PROS: This is an extremely well-made film, with an excellent script and great direction from Ben Affleck (of all people), though there is a sort of break between two halves of the story which is jarring. Casey Affleck makes a surprisingly strong and effective leading man, and is fantastic, an antidote to wishy-washy and girly leading men. Amy Ryan completely sinks herself into the terrible human being she plays. Michelle Monaghan registers much less as Angie, but is good. Her character also has less to do than Patrick, but is well acted if not a standout. Morgan Freeman is excellent as always, as is Ed Harris.

The element of this film that impresses me most is that it is unwilling to go along with the idea that when moral issues start to become cloudy we can give up on trying to do the right thing. The moral choices are not as stark or obvious as those in something like The Dark Knight, and contain much ambiguity. However, Patrick retains his certainty that he must do the right thing, and always acts according to his conscience. He finds right choices in bad situations, and even if he's wrong in some cases his search for the morally upright solution is admirable. I especially appreciate his guilt over an action that others praise him for. He knows that, whatever others may say, his action was not justified and was wrong. This way of thinking points us toward God, whether we truly know Him or not.

Finally this film shows us glimmers of humanity in the otherwise black hole of Bea McCready's soul. At one point the terrible weight of the loss of her child finally seems to settle on her, and she worries whether "they" will feed her daughter. While a redemption for Bea is not part of the story, this crack in her unfeeling exterior helps us to see that she has a soul too.

It's also valuable to see what happens when we surround ourselves with bad people. Bea sees nothing unusual in her drug use and other offenses because her world consists mostly of people who see that as normal; what things may we do that others would find horrifying outside of our group?

CONS: As I said above there is much ugliness in this film, whether it be Amy Ryan's awful mother, a Haitian gangster, or the child molesters who are discussed as possible suspects in the child's kidnapping. The violence is not particularly graphic, but it is very intense as depicted. There is also much vulgarity, which the filmmakers apparently feel is necessary to show some of the lower-class people and criminals in Boston.

I feel that these things are excessive and not necessary to the extent they are used (see The Dark Knight for a film that uses implied violence effectively to reduce its dependence on graphic violence onscreen). One will need a fairly high tolerance for vulgarity and for dark themes to watch this movie.

The heroes of this film are also a couple living together out of wedlock, which is an unfortunate element. This is not played up, and if they had been married things would have been almost the same. I think, however, that in some ways the ending of the film may make some people consider this situation. The ending seems to be, if not critical of this arrangement, at least cautionary to those who might enter into a similar one.

Final Thought: This film follows a man committed to doing the right thing through some very dark and difficult situations. Patrick's certainty that he must do the right thing despite its cost is inspiring, though the ugliness and vulgarity of this film as depicted limit the audience it's appropriate for.

This makes a far better alternative to other gritty and dark films with no moral compass, though major caveats apply as mentioned above. If nothing else the ending will give the viewer something to think about for a while, and I think it's hard not to feel respect for the main character's decision.

Bottom Line: 4/5

Movie Review: Fool's Gold.

SCORE: 3/5.

CAST:

• Matthew McConaughey: Benjamin Finnegan.


• Kate Hudson: Tess Finnegan.


• Donald Sutherland: Nigel Honeycutt


• Alexis Dziena: Gemma Honeycutt


• Ewan Brenner: Alfonz


• Ray Winstone: Moe Fitch


• Malcom-Jamal Warner: Cordell

REVIEW:

Here is a fun movie with a few too many liberal political statements of the "in-your-face" variety. We have a film largely about treasure hunting, with two homosexual cooks just sort of thrown into the mix for no reason other than to be provide comedy. There are a few other political statements thrown in, but I digress. I wonder if even homosexuals like movies that introduce homosexual characters as a joke for the sole purpose of comic relief? I have my doubts. Anyway...

Aside from this, the movie is wildly entertaining, if somewhat implausible. Plausibility, hwoever, is not what this movie is about, though. It is about treasure hunters. What treasure really makes little difference. The story is really about Benjamin (McConaughey) and Tess Finnegan (Hudson), who spend the beginning of the movie getting divorced. How hard can it be to get divorced? Well, lets just say that it is difficult to get to court on time if your stranded in the middle of the ocean with only the henchmen of a rapper turned gangsta crime lord to save you. By the way, Cordell (Warner), is by far my favorite henchman. Seeing Theo Cosby returning to the big screen warms my heart, and he really delivers.

The point of the story, without giving too much away, is that the freshly-divorced Finnegans are forced to place aside their differences when Ben persuades Tess' employer (Sutherland) to finance their attempted recovery of a Spanish treasure lost at sea many years ago. Sutherland's motivation seems to be 2-fold: he likes the idea of a treasure hunt and wants to take his daughter (Dziena) on a good father-daughter vacation to repair their trying relationship.

Perhaps Dziena's character is a little to spacey for belief, but she does remind me of so many Hollywood Hilton-Lohan types that any lost credibility for the character is quickly regained by comparison. In fact, her materialism is almost too ridiculous to believe, as she protests her father's $50k limit for a shopping trip. Regardless, her character provides comic relief in a comedy without being too annoying (unlike the homosexual cooks), and that is a difficult feat.

Opposing the unlikely crew are both Moe (Winstone), Ben's former protege, and the crew of the rap star gangster, including Cordell. Our protagonists are beaten, shot at, and nearly drowned on multiple occasions, when they are not in-fighting, but the movie is never so serious that we really become concerned for them. This is the type of movie you rent betting on a happy ending, and, without giving any details, I think it delivers. You be the judge.

PROS: The movie is a lot of fun, and for the most part the violence is light-hearted. It is never graphic. The language is often profane, but it is less prevalent than other, similar films. This is a story where a divorced couple fall in love again, which is a rare positive note for Hollywood. In the end, family and friends support each other toward a common goal and positive result. The film is largely upbeat.

CONS: Foul language, implied (not shown) sex, numerous innuendos, and the homosexual cooks detract from the movie's attractiveness to the Christian community. Also, the yacht-sporting rich tycoon trying to buy his daughter's love is a played out storyline, and it should not have succeeded. In fact, the sublot about Honeycutt and his daughter is very difficult to believe.

Final Thought: This movie is a lot of fun, and that is all it really set out to do. the actors are A-list in my book, and they deliver. In retrospect, the movie would have failed to deliver with lesser talent. Its deep bench really is part of the appeal: the actors are all interesting in complimentary but not similar ways. This movie isn't really about plausibility, so its lack of realism isn't much of a detraction. The profanity and inappropriate innuendos, unfortunately, are.

Bottom Line: 3/5

NEWS: Obama's inauguration to cost $170 million during worst recession in years.

See the report for yourselves here. Mr. Obama to be President Obama, and I believe in respecting the office of the presidency. However, there is a substantial difference between respect and worship. At a price tag of over $170 million, this inauguration feels like more than just a ceremony given our national leader out of respect. Why the sudden increase in spending on this ceremony? We would be naive to assume that it is purely the result of increased security and and logistical spending. So what is the stimulus for this change? I guess, as Mr. Obama says, anything is possible, but paying off the national debt is not seeming like a possibility our nation will ever attain when indulging in such careless spending.

Or, at least, that is my two cents.

ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.

It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.

Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.

Movie Review: Star Wars Episodes 1-3

SCORE

-2/5-

CREDITS

Directed by George Lucas.

REVIEW

Not to put to fine a point on it: I expected more. I went expecting a true prequel to the trilogy of that began in the 70's, but what I got was a movie directed at a different audience: young children. This review is not about my expectations, though, but about the expectations of the filmmakers and their intended audience. Somehow, the first trilogy seemed directed more at young adults. Was this change in target audience intended? Was Lucas selling out our favorite franchise to make a profit? I do not have the answers to these questions, but I do have suspicions. At any rate, if this movie intended to please an audience of young adults, then it sorely failed. If it intended to entertain young children, then it succeeded. The first trilogy succeeded, I feel, in doing both.

Why review three films at once? I do this because the three movies, to the extent that they had design, were designed to be one story in three parts. I wish to make this abundantly clear: I have a lot of respect for what George Lucas gave those of us who came of age in the 70's, 80's, and even the 90's. My disappointment in the new trilogy does not reduce my enjoyment of the original, nor in any of the fiction it inspired. Lucas set a new standard with his original Star Wars trilogy by which other movies are judged, in terms of visuals, special effects, storytelling, and more. However, his second Star Wars trilogy clearly failed to live up to that standard.

Did episodes 1-3 accomplish what they were intended to do? At times, I feel that they did, but unless they were attempting to cater exclusively to the youngest audience members, characters like Jar Jar Binks, with dialogue so unforgivably horrid and unconvincing, the filmmakers could hardly have gotten a final product they were completely satisfied with. Sure, they stand behind their films, but methinks George doth protest too much. The folks at Lucasfilm have spent far more time explaining their reasons for doing some of the things that they did than humbly accepting any praise from their fans. If nothing else, prequels and sequels should find a home with the fans that made the originals a hit, but in the case of episodes 1-3, the Star Wars fans are often the harshest critics.

I will not attempt to discuss or outline 3 films worth of story, nor do I need to. Everyone caring enough to read this review already knows what these movies are about. Instead, I will focus on the good, the bad, and the ugly:

The Good: groundbreaking CGI, a continuation of a cherished franchise, and amazing music composed by veteran John Williams. Overall, the movies are entertaining and light-hearted. Yoda's fight sequences made episode 2 worth watching and satisfactorily answered many questions I had about him being a jedi. Some complained of this, but Yoda being air mobile was just fine with this reviewer.

The Bad: overuse of those same groundbreaking CGI makes each scene so "busy" that it is painful to watch them. The use of a term like "younglings" by a character as cherished as Yoda makes me really angry. I mean, come on George. Worse yet, the transition of Anakin to Vader was really forced (if you think that was a spoiler, then you deserve to be slapped - go ahead and do it yourself: I will wait). Him slaughtering the aforementioned "younglings" before he has become Vader is just plain unforgivable.

The Ugly: the dialogue is truly the worst part of all these films, and it was so consistently awful that picking an appropriate example becomes difficult. However, I do think Vader's "NOOOOOOOOO!" at the end of episode 3 was about as ugly as it gets.

PROS: This is a great movie for the kids, with none of the cursing or suggestive inferences that are creeping into so many other children's movies. The films support a decent take on good versus evil, without over-glamorizing sinful activities.

CONS: These movies would be enjoyable if we had not had our expectations raised by the previous trilogies, but the original movies did set up a religion in the "Force" that grinds against the notion of an all-powerful God. This might be less of an issue except that, unlike the original trilogy, these films resonate more with kids who are young and impressionable. There is a lack of violence and nudity/adult content, but there is considerable violence. Fortunately, the violence is not overly gory, though dismemberment by lightsaber isn't the least graphic way to fight someone in a movie children are begging to see.

Final Thought: These movies fail to live up to their own hype, and they all but die in the shadow of their predecessors. Had the originals never been made, these movies would have been a lot of harmless and entertaining fun, but I can only assume the filmmakers had the goal of increasing the quality of the films. They failed in that goal. Rather than intrigue, we received a CGI show that, while innovative, was unconvincing. The actors struggle to deliver lines that no one should have to read at all, much less in front of a camera. They had the legendary James Earl Jones, and the most compelling line they could come up for him to say was "Noooooooooooo!" sigh

Bottom Line: 2/5

Movie Review: A Man For All Seasons (4/5)

SCORE

-4 out of 5-

CREDITS

• Sir Thomas More: Paul Scofield
  
• Alice More: Wendy Hiller
  
• Thomas Cromwell: Leo McKern
  
• King Henry VIII: Robert Shaw
  
• Directed by Fred Zimmerman

STORY

This film is based on the true story of Sir Thomas More. More was a high-ranking official of the Catholic church during a period when many church decisions were being made for political reasons. More is a fiercely principled, yet quiet and humble man. He is asked to acknowledge that a particular action is right, and as he continues to refuse (quietly and humbly) to do so, more and more pressure is brought to bear upon him and his family.

What I like about this film is its precision. It's examining a particular man in a particular circumstance. Everything hinges on how far More is willing to go. His "obstinacy" (as higher-ups see his refusal to acquiesce) leads to repeated escalation of the stakes. "Everyone has a price," as the old saying goes; will More's price be reached?

Those familiar with More's story will of course know how it all ends, but getting there is fascinating. More is a man who absolutely will not compromise. In a world of corrupt men, he seems to stand alone as a man with integrity and without ambition.

A parallel story thread runs throughout the film, as a former protege of More is led by his ambition down a very different path. The protege character wants an endorsement to enter politics; More sees his ambition and denies his request. More entreats the man to consider a quiet life as a teacher, suggesting that he could be a truly great teacher -- "Who will know?" is the man's response. "You will know, and your students, and God. That seems like a good audience to me," More replies.

The relationships in the film truly help it to shine. More has a complicated (though very loving) relationship with his wife, and his lack of interest in the things of this earth sets him apart from all those around him. More's feelings towards his protege -- his heartfelt plea for him to turn away from politics, and his sincere regret over advice not heeded -- are powerful. Finally, the relationship between More and the King is beautifully characterized.

The King, though the cause of More's later persecution, is not portrayed as a bad man. He is generally very jovial and kind, though prone to fits of anger. He doesn't hurt More out of anger or spite: he is truly hurt that More won't agree with him about the issue that causes all this difficulty. It doesn't seem to occur to him that More's stance is not due to personal taste but due to the morals he holds most dear. All he really wants is for More, known to be a good man, to agree with him: in some way he seems to feel that if More would only agree then the King's action would truly be acceptable, as though More could make it so.

This film ends in a truly brilliant courtroom scene. More is well versed in the law and makes an amazing case for his innocence, using legal language which could be used today.

PROS: A Man For All Seasons is a truly moral film. There's no harsh language, violence, or anything else to prevent anyone who might be interested from watching. However it's a slow and cerebral film. There is little to no physical action; everything hinges on the internal workings of More's mind.

It's valuable to see different kinds of good Christian men. Here is a man who could save himself with but a few words, but who will not do so because those words would be a lie. Each good man we see on screen helps us to better understand our God. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different the saints."

This is a fairly spartan film based on a stage play. It feels like it comes from the theater -- few sets and no scenes with large crowds or with large scope. The costumes are excellent, however, and really convey the time period. Performances are uniformly excellent, with all the relationships yielding satisfying results.

The Catholic Church is presented in a realistic way here. Corruption is present; yet it has produced a truly good man. Though I'm very much a Protestant I didn't feel off-put or bothered by the Catholic trappings of the film.

CONS: This film takes place among the clergy of the Catholic church, and at one point More makes an argument that a man who has chosen to leave the Catholic church is a heretic. However this discussion is more against impulsiveness and capriciousness with regard to one's spiritual life than it is about Catholicism being better than Protestantism. I'm not certain but this may take place in the period leading up to Martin Luther's famous declaration, so there may not be an option at the time when this film takes place.

I feel as though the ending is a bit abrupt, though I'm not sure what I would expect to come after. A few pages of textual epilogue seems unworthy of the preceding film, however.

Final Thought: It's important for us to see what it looks like for a man to uphold the Biblical principles we hold dear. Sir Thomas More, if he was anything like the portrayal in this film, was an excellent (lesser) example after Jesus' own. If you don't mind the Catholic surroundings and less than spectacular events of the film it may be worth watching.

Bottom Line: 4/5

NEWSFLASH: The birds prove that Hitchcock was right, launching a kamikaze strike on a passenger jet.

NEWSFLASH: Bank of America gets bailout.

Movie Review: Gran Torino

SCORE

-4/5-

CREDITS

• Walt Kowalski: Clint Eastwood.
• Thao: Bee Vang.
• Sue Lor: Ahney Her.
• Father Janovich: Christopher Carley.
• Mitch Kowalski: Brian Haley.
• Trey: Scott Eastwood.
• Directed by Clint Eastwood.

REVIEW

"Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me." -Walt Kowalski.

This film is about men trying to be men. It might not seem that way at first glance, but the theme that was constantly rolling around in my head while watching Gran Torino was, "What does it take to be a man?" The answer to that question is obvious in the literal, anatomical sense. However, different societies and different cultures have different ideas about the metaphorcal passage from boy to man. What is manhood all about? Is it a function of physical growth alone, or do strength and athleticism play a role? What about intelligence?

This film will not answer the question entirely, but from the second Clint Eastwood shoves the barrel of his Korean War-era service rifle in the face of a teenage Asian gangster and shouts, "Get off my lawn," we have some idea of what it means to Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood). To him, being a man is about defending your honor, your country, and property lines. As an attorney, I find that last part to be especially wise.

The story is relatively simple. Walt's wife just passed away, and the film begins at her funeral. No one dares approach Walt, not even his sons, who whisper about past arguments from the pews. Walt is clearly offended by the words of the priest (Carley) that provide him little comfort, by the whispering from the pews that Walt is not supposed to hear but clearly can, and especially by his granddaughter, whose only purpose in the story is to annoy Walt in every scene she is in. She succeeds: watch carefully when she asks Walt if she can have his couch for her dorm room. Eastwood's expression is brilliant and apt.

Following the funeral, Walt realizes that he has no real relationship with his family, who encourage him to sell his house and to move into an assisted-living community that they market as a vacation resort, complete with brochures. Sure, they are well-intentioned, but the "support" they offer consists mostly of suggestions to change, and Walt never much cared for change. Of course, they are right to be concerned: Walt isn't in the best of health. While we're not told what precisely is wrong, those with a quick eye for detail will know enough.

At the same time, Walt's neighborhood is going downhill. Gangs have moved in, and soon all his neighbors are Asian. Of course, Walt is a racist, and he most especially hates Asians (he is a Korean war veteran, after all). But is he a racist, and does he really hate Asians?

If he is, and if he did, then why save his new neighbor, Thao (Vang), from gang members? Walt says it is because they were trespassing on his lawn, but we know better. Thao is an interesting character who first meets Walt as he tries to steal Walt's prize possession, a 1972 Gran Torino Walt assembled himself working the line in a Ford factory. Walt scares Thao out of the attempted theft, which we understand: getting caught in a dark room alone with Dirty Harry himself would turn anyone from a life of crime. Walt soon realizes that Thao isn't a bad kid, but a local gang is pressuring him. Walt is faced with a decision, and he does what is in his nature to do.

As a small part of that, Walt tries to show Thao how to "be a man": working construction, helping the elderly neighbor, and teaching him about tools, respect, and the usage of racial slurs as a term of endearment. When the gang persists in harassing Thao and Walt's other neighbors, however, Walt is forced to choose between looking to his own problems and showing the rest of the world what he believes it means to really be a man. When asked by his priest (Carley) what he intends to do, Walt responds: "Whatever it is, they don't have a chance."

PROS: Eastwood's portrayal of Walt shows a fallen, sinful man, who shows the ability to change. Here is a selfish man who squandered his life away drinking, blaspheming, and spreading misery to all, but when tested, he chooses to act in love by defending the fatherless, aiding widows, and seeking justice (Isaiah 1:17). He does all this without any thought for himself. I won't go so far as to say it is a story of redemption or that Walt's ideas about manliness are the right ones: certainly the macho bravado, racist slurs, excessive drinking, profanity, and general antagonism he flings at every person he meets are not part of what it Biblically means to be a man. However, Walt's work ethic, his dedication, and his generosity (for some), coupled with his decision to be a mentor for a boy he barely knows, resonate with me as being "manly" in a Biblical e sense. If nothing else, Walt's forgiveness of Thao, who tried to steal the legendary, titular Gran Torino, struck me as being Christlike.

CONS: Walt is no role model. Maybe no human is, though. None of us our perfect, and we all fall short of God's glory, but God knows that Walt is no different. He reminds me of my great grandfather, who had little use for people who weren't white, but who had an amazing work ethic and capacity for love, nobility, and honor. Like him, Walt is a man of strengths and weaknesses, with admirable traits and not-so-admirable traits. Unfortunately, the audience is forced to endure some of Walt's less admirable traits for the duration of the film, such as his non-stop profanity. Walt curses endlessly, uses the Lord's name in vain, and even refers to Christianity as a faerie-tale that priests tell superstitious old ladies on their deathbeds (referring to his wife - though he does seem to recant somewhat later in the film). To see Walt change for the better with the progression of the film, Eastwood apparently felt that the audience needed to first see him at his worst. While this may be logical, one wonders whether seeing Walt's progression is worth listening to him curse our Lord repeatedly.

Perhaps my largest trepidation: Eastwood makes you believe in Walt Kowalski, but does Walt deserve that sort of faith? His blue collar work ethic, veteran's sense of honor, and tough-guy demeanor are inspiring, but people are as much their flaws as they are their strengths. Walt has many flaws, and I hope that believers would be offended rather than inspired by those flaws, but somehow I doubt that will often be the case, given the applause I heard in the theater.

Final Thought: Eastwood's performance is amazing. The film is well-directed and produced. There are no special effects of note or amazing costumes/make-up, but this movie is about people. It is about the story, and even more to the point, it is about its characters, which it treats with a sort of reverance, losing no detail on even the most minor of their number. This movie may very well make you laugh, make you angry, and make you cry, all within 116 minutes of runtime. Eastwood does what he sets out to do in movies, both as a director and as an actor, and this movie is a likely contender for several academy awards, including "best picture." That said, there are many great character pieces out there, and this movie did not go beyond the boundaries of what has been done before. Nor can I say that it is the best example of any genre. What I will say is this: for good or for ill, it does not fail to deliver on any of its promises.

Bottom Line: 4/5