Skip to content

Category Archives for Reviews

The Happening

In a recent post I promised to review M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie,The Happening, once I saw it.  I did see it a couple of weeks ago, so I’ll try to review it the best I can considering my questionable short-term memory. For those of you bottom-line type folks, I’ll give it a thumbs up.  For the rest of you, keep reading and I’ll tell you why.  Caution, there may be plot spoilers.

First, let me say that I chose the “thumbs up” rating style because it’s kind of like the pass-fail grading system for movies. So, in a pass-fail world, The Happening passed, whereas movies like Peter Jackson’s King Kong didn’t.  It’s not the best movie Shyamalan has made, but it’s worth seeing, if you don’t mind blood, gore or Zooey Deschanel.

Overall, the film didn’t seem to me to be as tightly directed as most of his other films. It also doesn’t have the same kind of controlled setting like The Village or The 6th Sense, and as far as I caught, he didn’t use the same color clues he used in those films.  It’s definitely a horror film, even more so than The 6th Sense. In a way, it kind of draws on the old monster movles of the 50′s and 60′s, without the giant bugs or spreading green slime. And, it draws a bit from Hithchock’s The Birds, with its random acts of unexplained terror, although The Happening isn’t as random as it first seems. The point is made twice in the film, a bit heavy-handedly, that no matter how much science can explain the hows and whats, there are things about nature that science can not tell us. I had read something that suggested Shyamalan was taking a sort of ID position in the film, but I don’t think that’s true. If anything, there’s a kind of pantheism or self-evolved consciousness suggested, but he avoids use of the word “God” in favor of “nature.”

One of the things that I loved about the film was Shyamalan’s weird sense of humor; in this way, as I’ve mentioned before, he reminds me of Hitchcock.  In a film with sometimes grotesque violence and extremely intense situations, there are some brilliantly humorous moments. Then, when your’re off your guard, well, you can probably guess…

In general, I thought it was a fairly well-done film. I liked the concept, and I think Mark Wahlberg did a great job as the lead. He seems to handle both intense drama and humor well, even in the same scene.  I didn’t even mind Zooey Deschanel, who seemed well-suited to play the distracted wife of Wahlberg’s character. There are some other great characters, as there are in most of Night’s films. I can’t say much more about or I’ll give too much away.

I think the film would have been much better had it not relied so much upon graphic violence. The scene of the man having his arms ripped off by wild animals was way too long and unnecessary, as are a few other scenes. It seemed almost that he felt obligated to leave that in, when the movie would have been fine – and I think better – without it, or at least a shortened version leaving more to the imagination. Sometimes, what you don’t see is worse than what you do; the old filmmakers knew that.  This is not a shock-film like so many cheap horror flicks are, but sometimes the focus on almost gratuitous violence seems to distract from the movie’s focus.

I also thought that the dialog in this film didn’t live up to the standards Shyamalan set in his earlier films, and he should have had a bit of help in that area.  Some of the dialog is classic Shyamalan, but sometimes it seemed too contrived.

Overall, I think it ranks as my least-favorite Shyamalan film (The Lady in the Water and The Village being my favorites), but I’m still glad I saw it. I’ll probably watch it again when it’s released on DVD.

Written on 06 July 2008 by me under Reviews with No Comments
Tagged with , , ,

Clashing Culture

My friend Mike has become involved in a new co-op blog entitled Clashing Culture. It is an interesting concept, as the authors consist of 2 people who identify themselves as atheists, and 2 people who identify as Christians. Their logo is especially catchy, featuring both the new Atheist scarlet “A” in Clashing and a cross for the “t” in Culture.

However, as I read through some of the posts and the authors’ bios, it seems that they may have more culture in common – and therefore less “clash” – than they think. Certainly the question of God is a big issue; however, in this case it may simply be a disagreement within a culture than the clash of different cultures. Before I explain what I mean, let me say that there are some very interesting posts so far, and I don’t in any way mean to speak negatively about any of the authors or the blog. If you’ll notice, I’ve even added it to my blogroll and (possibly to their dismay) will likely be a regular reader and commenter. It will indeed be interesting to see where this blog goes, and I wish them well as it is a very clever concept.

So, here’s what I mean by “culture in common:” Two of the authors, my friend Mike and Anastasia (whose own blog is Genetic Maize) are by their own admission atheists (not that they need to be ashamed of this, it’s just that I want to clarify that I’m not putting words in their mouths); both were raised Catholic, and down the road decided that there was no empirical evidence of God and the supernatural. I presume they would both be okay with the descriptor “philosophical materialist,” meaning someone who has a worldview where all that exists is the material world, which can be seen, tested, prodded, and so on. Both are rationalists and committed to the scientific approach to knowledge. Both of them are also modernists, the predominant worldview of the 20th Century Western world.

The other 2 individuals are perhaps harder to categorize (and I do apologize, I am being very modernist in my analysis, but it’s just a tool, albeit a flawed one). Thomas Robey is a well-known blogger at Hope For Pandora and a MD/PhD student at the U of Washington. He is a professing Christian of the Presbyterian persuasion, who says he believes in the “basics of Christianity” but admits having trouble with the concepts of eternal life and miracles. He is an evolutionist, not believing in either young Earth creationism or intelligent design. He states, “When it comes to interpreting the Bible, I see scientific understanding as trumping metaphorical stories – particularly in the Old Testament.”

Steve Matheson is a developmental cell biologist who blogs at Quintessence of Dust. He teaches at Calvin College, attends a Reformed church, which I presume makes him a Calvinist. From his own blog, I gather that he is an evolutionist who believes in common descent. I haven’t read enough of him to know where he stands with regard to Intelligent Design except that he’s critical of some aspects of at least some aspects of it. (I have to say that I have a hard time seeing how a Calvinist could not believe in ID!) In any event, his states that the main theme of his blog is scientific explanation.

My intent is not to misrepresent or even criticize anyone, and if I have misunderstood anyone’s position, I apologize. My point here is this: While the 4 authors are split 50/50 on belief in God, they are all modernists. That’s not such a big surprise, as most Americans are, including most evangelical Christians. In looking at the blogs of Matheson and Robey, it appears that in keeping with modernist philosophy they are rationalists, approaching things – even religion – from a scientific culture and viewpoint (if anyone, Matheson would seem the most likely to clash with the others). This now places all four authors within a smaller subculture (which at least borders on scientism), as a large percentage of Western Christians – especially among evangelicals, Pentecostals and fundamentalists – would part ways in holding science to that level of authority (which tends to result in fractured worldviews on both sides of that fence). So, it would seem that at best, what we have is a clash between sub-cultures, if not sub-sub-cultures.

Again (and I want to make this abundantly clear), it is not my intention to be critical of the Clashing Culture site or its intent. As I mentioned recently I’ve been thinking lately about epistemology and worldview so this site just prompted more thinking. Congratulations to the CC crew on a great-looking blog. I have high hopes for you, so don’t disappoint me!

Written on 15 June 2008 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy, Reviews with 5 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Expelled reviewed

I went to the 7:10 showing of Expelled  last evening. I have to admit, I was a bit afraid to see it. You see, I am used to seeing things produced by Christians that are just embarrasing.  I was kind of afraid that the movie would go way over the top, make outrageous claims, and lose any credibility that they may have had.  The events of the last couple of weeks, with PZ’s black-listing and various claims of copyright infringement, didn’t help. So, I was prepared to write a review dealing with the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly.  I am surprised, then, to not have to do that.  Expelled is a pretty decent documentary.  In fact, it’s fairly brilliant.

Now, I know I’m going to be called delusional (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) for that last statement, but I’m just being honest. I thought they did a darn good job putting the film together, and that they acheived their goal.  It was pretty fast-moving, coherant, and at times humorous. I thought the editing was quite good. The use of old b&w film clips to make points was well-done.

However, it wasn’t perfect. I thought the opening b&w sequence really didn’t fit the rest of the movie. Certainly they continued to use b&w throughout, but it was a quite dark and depressing way to start the film, and really didn’t have the same feel as the movie itself.  Two things that could have been left out, in my opinion, are the two clips where copyright claims are being raised: The CGI bit on the inner working of the cell is cool, certainly, but really didn’t add to the movie, and actually seemed a bit out of place. The same is true, in my opinion, of the short Imagine bit. It wasn’t necessary, and if anything was distracting.  

Before I say any more about Expelled, let me offer a little autobiographical information. While I have always enjoyed science, until the last year or two I have not paid much attention to the whole Darwinism/ID debate. I have seen a few TV documentaries over the years, none of which were favorable at all to any non-Darwinian position, but other than that, I paid little attention. I enjoy astronomy, physics (I especially enjoy quantum theory) and cosmology, but have little interest in biology (other than going to the zoo) and don’t like chemistry at all.

It was only after I reconnected with my friend Mike that I started catching up on the Darwinism thing. I started reading a number of blogs and articles on various sides of the issues, finding that not all evolutionists agreed on all issues, and neither did the non-Darwinists (I’m using the terms generically). Since then I have formed my own opinions on a number of issues, and am still undecided on many. I accept that some evolution happens, as evolution is loosely defined. I don’t – at the moment – believe in common descent.  I am, overall, something of a skeptic, and that goes for religious issues as well as in science or any other topic. I always question the status quo, whatever it is. So, I have read all sides with a skeptical eye, discounting many on both sides of the issues.

What I found as I watched Expelled was that the film fairly represented the positions of those interviewed; in fact, most information came from the individuals themselves rather than from Ben Stein, who served to put the information into context.  I also thought that the overall point of the film, that there is a Darwinist establishment who is more concerned with self-protection than allowing any real questioning of the issues, reflected what I have seen in my own reading. 

The film won’t change the minds of any who are already entrenched in their positions. It doesn’t give any pat answers. What it does is expose issues that deserve to be brought to light. For those who are not already entrenched in their positions, it may prompt them to do further study, and will of course let them make up their own mind.

I thought Will Provine expressed best what I would expect from a true scientist, that people should be allowed to examine all of the evidence, and decide for themselves what to make of it, whether it be some form of ID, or as in Provine’s case, a purely materialistic (and fatalistic) viewpoint.  Eugenie Scott and PZ Myers were themselves; no real surprises there. Dawkins provided some comic relief, with his rambling thoughts about ID and aliens; pretty much the whole audience broke into laughter during that segment.

One thing that surprised me what that David Berlinski was not identified as an agnostic, which I think would have given his opinions a bit more punch, seeing as he is perhaps the only one interviewed who is not committed to either deism or atheism.

I also thought the segment dealing with the Darwin – Nazi connection was fairly well done. The interview with Uta George, the director of the Hadamar Gas Chamber Memorial, was absolutely shocking; I found her complete detachment to the horrors of eugenics – and her refusal to say anything negative about it – horrifying. My son thought she was only representing the Nazi position, but to me it seemed that she really bought into it. And, by the way, she emphasized several times that those in charge of the eugenics programs were influenced by Darwinism.

I saw the film tonite with my oldest son and his girlfriend (who chose to see Expelled rather than the new Jackie Chan movie). He commented that it seemed to him that the first part of the movie focused on how ID is not tied to religion, but the 2nd part seemed to try to tie the issues to religion. My other son wants to see it, but was sick, so I’ll probably watch it again with him in a couple of days and will comment further on this and any other new thoughts.

 

Written on 19 April 2008 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 13 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

Really good coffee…

It’s on my header, “really good coffee.”  The small print, of course, does say that I don’t provide the coffee.  The least I could do, however, is to give you some ideas about how to get some really good coffee on your own, so you could fully enjoy my blog experience.

The first suggestion, of course, is that you can go to Starbucks. I don’t care that they’re the big corporate thing, I just prefer Starbucks to any other coffee I’ve had; I drink Cafe Estima, which besides tasting great, is also a Fair Trade coffee. So, it makes me feel good, too.  In my opinion, Starbucks make the smoothest, most consistant and least bitter espresso that I’ve had.  And, I’ve had a lot of espresso over the years. (I will say, though, that there’s a little shop near me that makes a better mocha, but that’s more about the chocolate…)

However, if you want really, really, good coffee at home, here’s a couple of alternative coffee makers that you really should check out.

The first is the Toddy cold brew system.  I had heard about it from a friend late last year, and as it turned out, the non-Starbucks coffee shop that my son works for uses Toddy coffee for their cold coffee drinks. Lo and behold, I got one for Christmas (thanks in part to my Amazon wish-list).  The Toddy system is pretty simple, actually, it’s a white plastic container with a drain at the bottom, and a glass jar.  You put this really unique felt-like filter in the bottom of the plastic container, and put in a pound of coffee and 9 cups of cold water. Then, you let it soak for about 12 hours, after which you pull the little plug out of the drain and let it filter through into the glass jar. 

What you end up with is approximately 6 cups concentrated coffee that you store in your fridge. When you want a cup, you simply mix one part concentrate to 3 parts hot water.  The result is by far the smoothest, richest coffee I’ve ever tasted, with about 2/3 less acid that normally brewed coffee. It’s truly almost like a different drink (I decided to still drink regular coffee in the morning, as I need that “edge”).  It’s great hot, and even better cold.

The real downside to the Toddy (and there is a real downside) is that they misrepresent (in my opinion) the efficiency of the system.  If you drink 16 oz cups, and mix it per the dirctions, that means you are using 4 ounces of concentrate for every cup; that’s 16 wonderful cups of coffee from one pound of coffee grounds.  Considering I drink regular brew in the A.M., and drink cold-brewed decaf in the afternoon and evening, I barely make it through a week per pound. As I only buy Starbucks beans (seriously, I don’t even own stock), that means about 65 cents per cup; not bad compared to alot of other things, including coffee out (even at 7-11), but way more than you’re used to paying for home-brewed coffee.  I have found, however, that I don’t need quite as much concentrate as they say, so I probably get 20 good cups per pound.

However, it’s also the easiest cup of coffee I’ve ever made, and that’s worth a lot, too.

Now, for my 2nd recommendation.  A few weeks ago, EricW commented on my blog and told me about the Aerobie AeroPress.  I read up on it, and was so impressed that I bought one as a birthday gift for my brother-in-law (timing is everything).  I’ve had a few cups of his AeroPressed coffee, and I have to say that it’s quite good as well. It’s very smooth and non-acidy, better by far than a typical drip or even a French Press.

The AeroPress is kind of a manual espresso machine, making from 1-2 mugs at a time, depending on how strong you want it.  Full strength, it makes 4 shots of espresso in under a minute.  It’s essentially a plastic tube with a filter on the bottom (it uses paper filters) and a plastic plunger. You put the grounds and hot water in the tube, stir it for a few seconds, then slowly push the plunger to the bottom. The air pressure forces the water through the grounds, and that’s it.  Again, it’s essentially a hand-powered espresso machine. 

And, with the Aeropress, there’s no downside that I can see. The grounds just push out (it creates a neat little hockey-puck of packed grounds) so clean-up is way easier than a French press, and it uses less coffee per cup than a French press.

So, carpe caffeum.  (I think I’ve lived up to my header, now.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written on 02 April 2008 by me under Random Thoughts, Reviews with 2 Comments

Webber: The Divine Embrace 9: What now?

The final chapter in Webber’s The Divine Embrace is entitled Life Together, which is, of course, where all this ends, in church. One of my repeated critiques of a contemporary church experience is that it is essentially existential, focusing on the self. Webber agrees, saying that the problem is that spirituality itself is taught as generating from the self: “It is a view that seems to permeate the evangelical culture.”

Webber proposes that when spirituality is situated in God’s embrace, church and worship then reveals that to us. We are no longer cheerleaders (my term) that have to conjur up some sense of worship and spirituality, but are rather participants who have God revealed to us as we respond to his embrace. 

Webber criticizes the modern business model of the church, which has created, as you’d expect, a consumerist mentality. This has followed a natural progression, with churches focusing on what the unchurched want, and making the church culturally relevant. As a result, many churches merely reflect not only the look, but the “narrative of culture.” Churches offer programs to meet the needs and desires of the congregation, as opposed to nurturing new converts and discipling them.

This chapter also discusses what Webber calls the crisis of worship. As I have mentioned before, contemporary worship sees God as the object God who needs to be worshipped by us, which originates worship in the self. Webber believes that a Biblical and historical view of worship is that “worship does God’s story.” Worshp proclaims God and what he is doing, and in worship we enact the story. A worship that is nourishing focuses on historical events (not emotions), uses Biblical language, and includes prayer that discloses and echoes God’s story.

Since I’ve started reading this book, I have paid even closer attention to what kind of worship happens in the churches I attend, and I think Webber is correct. The further and further we have “progressed” into evengelicalism, our worship songs have become more and more meaningless, offering little if anything of the truth of the Gospel. Even in my own Vineyard culture, the contemporary worship songs have become less and less doctrinal. No longer is the Trinity mentioned (in fact, often the Persons are confused). In fact, it’s rare to find Biblical language used that hasn’t been edited and lost among less meaningful phrases.

What now?  As I’ve probably mentioned in the past, I really don’t have a great deal of hope that the Evangelical church will stop the nonsense and realign itself with a Biblical concept of spirituality. I also don’t have hope for the emerging church, which to me is simply modernism will the lid off.  That’s not to say I haven’t lost  faith in God’s church, or his ability to pull it together.

As for what I do, I’m not sure. Next Sunday is Easter, and at the moment, I’m looking for a good church that remembers what it’s like to celebrate a resurrection. Then, I’ll go to our church with my family.

 

Written on 20 March 2008 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, Reviews, Webber with 7 Comments

Webber: The Divine Embrace 8: Everything must change

Some of you might recognize Everything must change as the title to a rather poor book by Brian McLaren which I reviewed some time back. While McLaren – in my opinion – failed miserably in laying out a case for why everything must change, I think Webber does just that quite well in The Divine Embrace, although he doesn’t use those words.  I am surprised, though, that evangelicals could read and say they agreed with what Webber says, but then go merrily on their way.

This post, by the way, is the 8th article in my Webber series that is discussing the book. These next 2 chapters are entitled My life in his and His life in mind. In My Life in His, he states:

The Christian life does not oppose experience of the transcendant, but the Christian spiritual life is not an experience out of this world, it is an experience of transcendant meaning here and now in this world.

This is a key, I think, in distinguishing between the spirituality of the past and that of the present. We tend to think of transcendant experience in a Platonic sense, where we leave the physical (the secular) and reach the spiritual (the sacred). However, this is to deny the incarnational aspect of God’s work.  God did not only become incarnate once; he continues his incarnational work in his embrace of us and creation. Webber suggests, in fact, that few evangelicals really grasp the concept of the humanity of Jesus. The incarnation is so contrary to our modern sense of Platonic dualism that we have a hard time really accpeting it for what it is.

In Chapter 9, Webber deals with what he sees as the common misunderstanding that spritiual disciplines as the source of our spirituality. I would agree, from my own experience in dealing with various evangelical groups, that this is indeed the basic teaching: if you want to “grow,” you must pray, read the Bible, and so on. There is a constant tension in teaching that we are not saved by “works,” but that we require works to mature, or in some cases, even to continue being saved. However, Webber says that “our goal is never to become spiritual but to live out the spirituality we have” in continuing to live in the divine embrace.

Webber, however, lost me a bit in this chapter as he spends a lot of time discussing a Benedictine approach to the spiritual disciplines. As this chapter is drawing conclusions about how to respond to everything he has said in the prior chapters, I found this suggestion to follow a Benedictine approach a bit anticlimactic and disappointing.  Even so, his points about prayer, study and so on are well-taken.

As I sat in church this Sunday morning, I was very aware of how far the evangelical church has moved from any sort of Biblical understanding of spirituality. The “worship” songs had very little worship content in them (most celebrated our emotions) and the sermon gave us ideas on things we could do to grow. There was no celebration of God With Us, no sense that God is able to do all that He has set out to do.  Not too long ago, I just would have left disatisfied, not really knowing why. Webber has been beneficial in that now I can better see and understand what lies beneath these defects. It helps to know why… I didn’t leave angry. Sad, yes… disappointed, yes… but not angry. That’s progress.

 

 

 

Written on 09 March 2008 by me under Church, Reviews, Webber with 2 Comments

Webber: The Divine Embrace 7: What now?

Part three of The Divine Embrace is entitled “The Challenge: Returning Spirituality to the Divine Embrace,” which is an excellent encapsulation of Webber’s point: we don’t need to find anything new, we simply need to recapture the church’s original understanding of spirituality, rooted in God’s Story, in God’s Divine Embrace of us and the rest of creation. Crucial to this understanding is the concept of the Incarnation, of God fully embracing humanity. This is a 180-degree turn from much of the evangelical church today. Webber states

… Christian spirituality is not an escape from this world, rather it is the discovery and the experience of spiritual purpose in this world.

This morning I was reading a magazine devoted to church planting issues, and as is typical, the issue of being missional was addressed. As I read the discussion, it occurred to me that the reason that the issue of missional is such a hot topic today is that much of the evangelical and emerging church does not have a clear understanding of God’s story. If our lives are merely focused on “getting saved,” getting others saved, and getting to Heaven, we’re missing the big picture. This is something that the liturgical, confessional traditions have not forgotten. As Richard commented the other day, the liturgy is “the enactment of the story of God, of creation, incarnation, and re-creation, and of the reality of God’s kingdom, on Earth as it is in Heaven.” This is also what we, the Church, are all about.

Spirituality, or our mission, is to reenact God’s story of creation, incarnation and re-creation. This is “what the Father’s doing” as it’s put in the gospel of John; it is rooted firmly in our understanding of God’s incarnational embrace of us. This is God’s story.

The Bible presents 3 clear types or images that demonstrate God’s story:

  1. creation & re-creation: Jesus makes all things new
  2. 1st Adam & 2nd Adam: Jesus, God incarnate, did what we could not do
  3. exodus event & the Christ event: “The ultimate restoration of the whole world is pictured in the Exodus event.”

God’s incarnational embrace recapitulates the human condition; He is re-creating us, and will re-create his creation. He is making all things new.

As we can see, the central concept of the Incarnation, of God fully embracing humanity, without any implication that the physical is in any way less holy than the “spiritual,” is essential to understanding not only God’s story, but our story.

So how do we respond? In Acts 2, Peter preaches 1) repent, 2) be baptized and 3) receive the Holy Spirit. Setting aside the common transactional interpretation, both repentance and baptism reflect a rejection of an identity with the world, and an ongoing identification with the story and purposes of God. Receiving the Holy Spirit, as we know, is the seal, or guarantee, of that identity. As opposed to a typical evangelical understanding, even our repentance – our identifying with God and his purposes – is a response to God’s embrace. Baptism, then, also is not a testimony of our action, but a testimony of the Incarnation, of God’s embrace.

This, then, is our part of the story. God embraces his creation (us), and we respond daily, continuously to that embrace. In this ancient (pre-modern) understanding of the Gospel, the focus is not on us, but on God. If you have been raised with a modern Evangelical worldview, you can perhaps see that this way of thinking changes everything. As Webber states,

… the baptized life has a mission in the world. It is not life-denying or life-escaping. Rather, living the baptized life is a participation in God’s vision within the life of the world.

Written on 29 February 2008 by me under Church, Reviews, Webber with No Comments

Bourne again?

I heard yesterday that they are planning a 4th Bourne movie. The article I read questioned what they’d do, since Robert Ludlum only wrote 3 Bourne novels. However, if that author had ever read any of the novels, they’d have known that that wouldn’t matter, as the 2nd and 3rd movies had nothing whatsoever to do with the books.

I never could figure out why they used the book titles for the movies – even rereleasing the books with new covers that said “soon to be a motion picure!” – when they completely ignored the book plots. In fact, they managed to kill off 2 of the main characters of the latter 2 books in the first movie, and Bourne’s arch enemy, Carlos, the Jackal, never appears at all.  They could have come up with new, unrelated titles, like Bourne to be Wild, or something. How about a little creativity?

Now, I really enjoyed the first movie, and thought the 2nd movie wasn’t too bad, either. It was after seeing both movies that I decided to read the 3rd book (thinking, stupidly, that they had at least stuck to the same general plot).  I then went back and read the 1st two books.  Ludlum isn’t my favorite author, by a long shot, but he did create some very interesting characters, and very tight, extremely complicated plots. It’s too bad that the movies ignored them.

The changes that they made in The Bourne Identity, such as the different items in Bourne’s safe deposit box, were good. However, killing off Alex Conklin (who becomes Bourne’s best friend in the later books) was stupid. The major change in Bourne’s real identity and the nature of his original mission (which really comes to play in the 3rd movie) really bugged me. And, killing off Marie in the 2nd movie was, in my opinion, a major mistake.

I had heard from a number of people that The Bourne Ultimatum, the 3rd move, was the best of them all. However, I was very disappointed in that it didn’t really have a new plot… it was just a continuation of the same un-plot. And, what they revealed about Bourne’s past, as I mentioned, was a 180 from his character in the book. I just didn’t think it was good.

A 4th Bourne movie could now at least borrow parts of the plots of the original books, since they haven’t been used yet. Or, they could use a plot (or at least a title) from one of the 2 (soon to be 3) Bourne novels written by Eric Van Lustbader, which as books go, are pretty lousy.  Lustbader is a hack, who took a decent character, and stripped him of everything that made him interesting. First, he didn’t know how to deal with Marie (Bourne’s wife in the 3 original books) so he ignored her in one book, while he killed off 2 other main characters that he didn’t know how to deal with. Then, he simply kills off Marie. Overall, everyting that made Jason Bourne a good, complicated character is gone. They are a couple of the more underwhelming action novels I’ve read, and I will resist the temptation to read the next one when it comes out.

So, we’ll see what is next for Jason Bourne. Maybe he’ll find out that Marie isn’t dead after all. Or, perhaps he’ll finally find the Jackal. Let’s hope he at least finds a plot. That would be a really nice surprise.

 

 

Written on 28 February 2008 by me under Reviews with No Comments

Webber: The Divine Embrace 6 – Modern to Postmodern

In the opening paragraph to Chapter 4 of Robert Webber’s book, The Divine Embrace, Webber writes:

Spirituality has become situated in the narrative of the self. In this privatized spirituality evangelicals look to themselves for the confirmation of their spiritual condition. The self-focused spiritualities of the twentieth century have not emerged willy-nilly but are deeply rooted in the historical movements that separated spirituality from the vision of God… The problem of these dislocated spiritualities has been compounded by the current antihistorical, narcissistic, and pragmatic nature of evangelical Christianity.

In the 20th Century, three main forms of spirituality developed: legalism, intellectualism, and experientialism. The early century saw the rise of fundamentalism, which developed a legalistic mentality, a spirituality based on what a person does not do. These lists of don’ts is what separated one group from another, creating and us/them mentality. A doctrinal legalism also was developed, as fundamentalist groups defined their theology, adding extra, more defined articles of faith that one had to believe to be “orthodox.” For example, it was not good enough for the Bible to be inspired, you had to believe it was “inerrant.” As Webber states, legalism undermines the Gospel, and actually makes grace the enemy.

An intellectual spirituality also began to develop, grown out of a rationalistic, modern world-view. Spirituality became proof-oriented, a fact to be believed and argued. From this intellectual spirituality we saw the rise in apologetics. For liberals, who saw many of the Biblical stories as not fact-based or provable, they became myths whose purpose was to instruct about morality.

Then, romanticism and existentialism gave way to experientialism, where feeling God became another way of knowing God. Wesley’s experience, Webber posits, was universalized into the “defining mark of spirituality” and “feeling forgiven” became the goal of evangelism. Experientialism “elevates experience as the apologetic for faith.” Webber also suggests that the requirement to have a “personal relationship with Jesus” has led to a works-based mentality and an individualistic understanding to Christianity.

The later 20th century, with the cultural revolution of the 60′s, saw the development of antinomianism and narcissism, especially in worship, which also incorporated romanticism. Worship became about an emotional relationship which has to make us feel good in order to be true. With the influence of the “New Age” religions, it’s sometimes hard to tell Christianity from mysticism.

Another impact upon the church was the secular field of psychology; the thoughts of Freud, Carl Jung, and others led to the belief that we could be “healed” through self-discovery. The impact of this thinking on the contemporary church is obvious as we walk through any Christian bookstore, and see shelf after shelf of counseling and self-help books. Introspection and focus on the self has replaced meditation on the nature of God.

Finally, of course, we have the post-modern influence, which has rejected the Modernist concept of absolute truth. This is a rejection of the secular culture as well as the evangelical culture, both of which are rooted in modernism. For post-moderns, even experience is not prescriptive. Your story is not my story. I might be a Christian and believe that Jesus died for my sins, but it’s not necessarily right for everyone. Individualism is at an all time high. The “emerging” church seems to question everything, but accept eveything. Evangelical apologetics is essentially useless.

As I consider the many current forms of Christianity – most of them distinguished not by theology, but by the extra-Christian influences that they have adopted – it makes absolute sense that the result is post-modernism, or emergentism. As they say, something had to give. It seems that this cognitive dissonance of the modern church resulted in the letting go of truth (or what passed for it).

The answer to this mess, Webber believes, is that first the church must rediscover God’s story. It is here, that we go next.

Written on 25 February 2008 by me under Church, Reviews, Webber with 1 Comment

Webber: The Divine Embrace 5 – Putting it together

Lately I’ve been writing about Robert Webber’s final book, The Divine Embrace, which has been really helpful in putting together the thoughts that I’ve already been having about the state of American Evangelicalism. It’s really been a breath of fresh air, and has allowed me to finally shake off some of the unhelpful evangelical baggage that I’ve carried around. I’m sometimes tempted to feel that I’ve wasted a lot of time trapped in evangelicalism, but I am quick to remind myself that I am merely continuing my “walk around the elephant” that is God. I am now finding myself full circle, as it were, older, wiser, and more solidly appreciative of my Lutheran roots. My adventures in evangelicalism have given me a perspective that few have, and I am appreciative of that perspective.

Granted, there are areas of evangelicalism that I have never dallied in. As I surf the theological weblogs, I am encountering many mindsets and belief systems that I am glad I haven’t been a part of. I have tasted, perhaps, the better portion of evangelical thought; I am finding that there are areas of the elephant that one shouldn’t dawdle around. Of late, I have been reading and to some extent participating in a theology blog entitled Parchment and Pen, which began discussing “who is emerging?” and drifted into discussions trying to determine who is or isn’t orthodox. A few minutes there should be enough to see why Webber’s analysis is so important.

Throughout the first few chapters of the book, Webber traces the history of the church and how various heresies and philosophies impacted the church’s concept of spirituality (and theology). Before I talk about the next chapter dealing with the Modern period (1900-2000), it would seem that a brief recap would be in order.

It is Webber’s premise that for the early church, spirituality was not separate from theology, which was focused on God’s business of creation, incarnation and re-creation. First, the early heresies:

  • Gnosticism – taught a dualistic deity, a “good god” and a “bad god,” as well as a dualistic view that the physical was bad, and the spiritual was good. Through esoteric knowledge, the human spirit could be set free from the confines of the physical.
  • Arianism – denied the incarnation of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not equal to God, but was created). As I understand it, this grew from a dualistic belief that God could not have become a physical man.
  • Pelagianism – a 4th Century heresy, teaching that man through his own will could live a sinless life, or add to his spiritual achievements by doing good works. Augustine refuted this by saying that man’s free will only leads him to sin.

Non-Christian philosophies which have impacted the church include:

  • Platonic Dualism – saw the material world as separate and inferior to the spiritual world. God moved from subject (who reached out to man) to object (someone for us to reach out to).
  • Mysticism – in the late medieval period, the focus of contemplation moved from the purposes of God to man’s experience. Spirituality became separated from theology and became a “discipline.”
  • Rationalism – borrowing from Descartes, human reason became authoritative. Thinking became based on the separation from subject (“I”) and object (“it”); in other words, everything was studied “objectively.” Knowledge became preoccupied with facts, considered value-free. Anything not “objective” – such as religion – became opinion, rather than fact. As a result, theology also became rationalistic, leading to apologetics and systematic theologies. Spirituality became “right belief.” Sanctification was separated from justification and became works-oriented.
  • Romanticism – a rejection of rationalism, romanticism called for an intuitive, inner experience and sought for a more holistic, organic approach to spirituality. Knowing was through the imagination, the senses and the human will. Pietism and revivalism focused on personal experience and a human-willed conversion and “holiness.” The focus on God’s will and Christ’s experience became replaced with a focus on man’s will and experience. Spirituality originated with the self.

Now that we see the evolution of Christian thought (due to the influence of these secular philosophies) from an emphasis on God’s work to an emphasis on our work combined with a complete split of mind and emotion, the church of the 20th and 21st Centuries begins to make a bit more sense. However, explaining it does not justify it.

Next, from Modern to Emerging.

Written on 18 February 2008 by me under Church, Reviews, Webber with 2 Comments