Games women play

I try to be objective and fair, even with offensive sell-out trainwrecks like Christianity Today.

So when I saw an article titled Playing for Keeps, the introduction had me preparing myself emotionally to laud CT, if merited:

What follows are some of the most common games wives play in their marriages. If one of these has been a flame-killer in your relationship, take heart. You can begin to inspire, rather than require, intimacy in your relationship.

Promising start, eh? Yet I thought the article that followed fell short of my hopes. So it gets a mention, but not heaps of praise.

So here are my purposes in tossing it out to-you-wards:

1. What do you think of the article?
2. This blog's blessed with some regular visitors who strike me as pretty neat, practicing-Christian wives. Blog your own Biblically-oriented version of the premise, and I'll feature links to it, at least.

Over to you.

Funny stuff over at Sacred Sandwich

Check it out. Especially be sure to see Foxe's Book of Martyrs (American Edition), Emerjeans, and Spurgeon Bubble Gum Cigars ("Look like a theologian... without the cough!").

(h-t Calvinist Gadfly)

World Trade Center: a movie impression

I have heard for years that Oliver Stone was a skilled film-maker, and a rabid nutcase. Until Friday night, I had only known the latter to be true; now I can attest to the former.

In fact, here's my highest praise: if I hadn't been told that the movie was done by Oliver Stone, I'd never have guessed it.

World Trade Center, which I saw with my eldest son Matthew, is a fine picture. I'd categorize it with the World War II-era films with which Hollywood focused, encouraged, and united America -- the sort of films that the new Hollywood has miserably failed to produce during the current war against terrorism. I discussed that in this post, and posed this challenge:

Name the ten best movies produced since 9/11 depicting that event, or positively featuring some aspect of the Global War on Terror.

At the time, I knew of none. Now I can name two: United 93, and World Trade Center.

Like many, I groaned when I'd heard that Stone was helming this movie. He's with the nutcase crowd, living in the bubble (or DNC headquarters) that still chant "Bush lied, people died," that still actually believes that the war in Iraq was based on deliberate lies, that says it is unrelated to the war against terrorism, and so on. How would Stone screw up the narrative of this day?

I was surprised when conservative after conservative praised the movie, before and after its release. So I decided I'd go, and form my own opinion.

I meant to see it opening weekend, but that didn't work out. If I want to see a movie, I always try to see it that way, so that I can go in expecting nothing. I was one of relatively few, I guess, who saw Alien with no idea of what was coming up -- and I was up the back of my chair from the titles on! Then I went with someone whose brother-in-law had told her everything about it, and she just sat there, her experience spoiled.

So inevitably and in spite of my best efforts, I went in knowing more than I'd rather have known, and I think that made it less emotional for me. So I'll warn you when I am about to get specific, in case you've yet to (A) hear spoilers and (B) see the movie.

My son Matthew had not heard any spoilers. What was more, he was actually in the World Trade Center less than two months before 9/11, as part of the Boy Scouts' jubilee. He recognized not just the exterior, but the interior. So the movie resonated for him on a very emotional level.

WTC starts early the morning of 9/11/2001, focuses on just one particular aspect of that day and the next: what happened with several policemen who went in to rescue survivors from the rubble of the WTC.

Try as hard as I might to look for something to criticise, I cannot but say that the movie's tone and message is pro-America, pro-family, pro-Christian, pro-military, pro-cop, pro-bravery, pro-sacrifice, pro-friendship, and even arguably pro-war-on-Terror -- including the Iraq phase of that war.

It is absolutely gut-wrenching, and at the same time has heart-warming elements -- yet seldom (I can't say "never") approaches schmaltz. You leave both sobered, moved, and uplifted. I think WTC succeeds in achieving what it set out to do.

There is some bad language, but probably toned down from reality; there is also blood and death, but it is never Saving-Private-Ryan-gruesome.

Now, read no further if you've yet to see it and want to avoid details.

As I reflected on the movie with Matthew and my wife Valerie, I was struck by just how much Stone got into this movie.

He has been faulted by conservatives for minimizing the outrage of what was done. Some have said that Stone trivialized 9/11 by making a feel-good, uplifting, inspirational story out of it. They've also said he didn't highlight the terrorists enough, he didn't make the connection to the war on terrorism, he just tried to turn it into a small-scale human-interest Hallmark movie.

I went, perfectly willing to find these criticisms true; and left, appalled at the conservative critics.

First, this only covers 9/11 itself, and the next day. We knew hardly anything at the time about the larger picture. There were suspicions and rumors, and information began to trickle out. But the attack itself was a complete blind-side.

Second, the criticism simply isn't true. The focus is indeed on the men who went in, and on the two who were rescued. But additionally, Stone does show the collapse of the towers, and that from numerous angles. He captures some of the horror it caused at home and abroad. He also features people whose loved ones and coworkers did not come out. One vivid moment features a mother whose son was in the elevator when the tower fell, who wept because she had yelled at him the last time she spoke with him. You'd have to be made of stone not to share her anguish -- and that anguish was multiplied many-fold on that day.

Further, Stone shows what we vividly remember -- the walls full of picture after picture of the lost and missing who did not come out of the tower, the comment of Giuliani that the loss of life would be "unbearable." At the end of the movie, Stone enumerates the killed and wounded. He names dozens of port authorities and others who lost their lives.

But beyond that, what are we conservatives always griping and carping about, if it isn't the negative portrayal of faith, marriage, and the military, in modern movies? But this is precisely what WTC does. Stone features two men who deeply love (and are loved by) their wives, and are both men of some faith.

The third leading character is a Marine, Dave Karnes, deeply moved by his identifiably Christian faith to answer what he thinks is God's call to go and help rescue those trapped. He is depicted as a man of faith, courage, and unstinting self-sacrifice. He doggedly passes the restraining lines to get into the rubble where few are going, given its instability. He is clearly and unhesitatingly risking his life, and he is joined by another Marine. It is by doing this that they find, and enable the rescue of, our heroes.

But there's more.

The Marine's last words are something like, "They're going to need some good men to avenge this."

And Stone puts up the information at the movie's end that Karnes signed up for two tours of duty in Iraq. So, whether or not Stone has personally made the connection, the viewer is led to believe that this hero Karnes made the connection between 9/11, the larger fight against terrorism, and Iraq.

Other details go in the same direction. In fact, though a critical, conservative, Christian viewer, I'd have to say I didn't see the faintest hint of any anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-war agenda in this movie. Quite the contrary.

So what to make of the conservative critics?

If they didn't like the movie, they didn't like it. Tastes differ. No problem.

But conservatives have a reputation of being absolutely unpleasable, carping critics. That sort of griping about this movie will only underscore and validate this criticism, and render them irrelevant.

You may work hard to please someone with high standards. But if you find out that someone won't be pleased no matter what you do, you just give up. These hyper-critical conservatives are running the risk of taking the whole movement into that pit with them.

Stone made a good movie, a necessary movie, an overdue movie. Two and a half weeks after its release, the theater I was in was packed. I hope it does good business, and that a dozen others step up and start giving that event and this war the treatment that Hollywood's deadly liberalism has stifled thus far, the treatment that unified and encouraged our parents and grandparents during the dark days of World War II.

Pyro's... in... SPAAAAAAAACE (and other unrelated cool things)

And so, without further eloquence:

1. I challenge anyone to source what my title riffs off of. To dangle a preposition. Anyone except my son Matthew.
2. And then after that, I challenge anyone (again, other than Matthew) to source the first line of this post without Googling. And, having said that....
3. Look at this cool thing: Pyromaniacs (where I team-blog) has gone into outer space!

   

   Isn't that cool? Read more about it here.

4. Phil's Blogspotting post leads me to this fun-read series by Nathan Casebolt. Which leads me to...
5. This site recommended by James White, for use in responding to Islam.
6. Hinnsdays are back! With the return of "Father Brown" to blogging, I can look forward to a little midweek lift once again.

Dang, but this young lady "gets it" about men

Read My path to women's ministry. I'd skipped it when I saw it earlier, frankly, because the title didn't grab me. But then m'man Craig recommended it, so I went there, and was soon slack-jawed.

Worth the price of reading all by itself: "I believe that a man feels most loved when he knows that he is respected."

Whoa. Read that one again. Then join me in saying:

Sure you could say more. But saying that, you've said a lot, and said something that is not said clearly nor often enough. Christine either has been affected by someone of marked insight, or is such a person -- or both. Read between the lines here, and you see a young lady who (A) had a good, Biblical, Christian upbringing (from her mother?), and you see that (B) it took.

Marrieds may sniff, "That's easy for a single girl to say." I have three thoughts in response.

1. What does one's station in life have to do with whether a thing is true or not?
2. If she marries one day and falls short of the goals she sets out here, will that make the goals less Biblical, and so less God-centered, God-honoring, sane, true and right?
3. Sometimes one views a thing more clearly from without, than from within.

Ever wonder what Mrs. Benny Hinn is like?

She's like this:

The video isn't new, but it's new to me. So much one could say. I'll let you say it.

Whom do we "thank," historically, for women in the pulpit? Charismatics, or liberals?

POSTSCRIPT:

Now one more thought, a serious thought, before we leave this one. Here it is:

That poor woman.

I don't mean, "Poor woman, married to Benny Hinn." I could mean that, sure; but then, maybe they're a real match for each other. And maybe that's not entirely good.

But poor woman. She's out of shape physically, she's out of breath like someone who's run a mile, and she's making an absolute fool, an absolute spectacle, of herself.

It would be as if I were put in front of a classroom full of doctoral candidates in biology, or physics. I'd make an absolute fool of myself. Anyone who knew anything would be able to tell, within five minutes at the most, that I had no concept of my subject whatever.

And that's Mrs. Hinn's position, only worse. She's put herself in a position that she should not occupy, a position with eternal consequences, one for which she will be judged severely (James 3:1ff.) -- and she pretty apparently hasn't the vaguest concept of what to do with it.

Now in my doctoral class, every student would be wondering one thing: who in Gehenna put this guy up here?

And so I blame Mrs. Hinn for choosing to do this. She has the same Bible you and I do. She could have read it, studied it, understood it, believed it, obeyed it.

But I also blame her husband for (presumably) encouraging her to do this. My wife is an astonishingly, formidably capable woman. But I love her, and would no more encourage her publicly to do one of those very few things that she had absolutely no ability to do, than I would harm one of my children.

And I also blame the Charismatic movement, or at least that huge portion of it that has granted canonical status to feelings, hunches, and urges, and has given the platform to folks like Mrs. Hinn and her con-man husband to make fools of themselves, imperil or damage eternal souls, and shame the name of Christ.

Know a good Bible board game?

Full disclosure: I've pretty much come to despise almost all games. I know; terrible, isn't it?

But I love my family, and Valerie is making me had the great idea of having a family game night. (It really is a great idea.)

So does anyone know a really great Bible board game, particularly one that can be played by --or adapted for -- ages 6 and very goofy (Jonathan) to older-than-dirt and no fun at all (you-know-who)? The more contentful and challenging, the better, as far as I'm concerned. But I'll settle for whatever.

Just no Hinnopoly, or Osteenland, or Spongcheesi, okay?

If you don't know, ping your friends. Seriously. I'm desperate here.

James White totally Arrives

If you're a fan of the TV series 24, you probably know the "Facts about Jack Bauer" lists. (I won't link because, while some are hysterical, others are not for our homeschooling moms... well, really, they're not for any of us).

Well, now James White has arrived. This has to be the coolest thing for him: there is a Little-Known Facts About James White list, and it's terribly creative and funny.

(h-t -- who else? James White)

Dissing a book I haven't read

Just got an ad from Westminster bookstore for a new book: A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.

And my first thought is... must be a short book!

{ rimshot }

Actually, maybe it isn't short. Did you ever notice that it can take a lot longer to explain how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says, than to affirm that it does? Take this post over at Buggy's. He was asking his amillennialist friends to tell him what Isaiah 65:18-25 meant. Hundreds of words later, he still hadn't gotten a straightforward answer.

In the course, someone smitten with amillennialism asked me if I could give a dispensational interpretation. "Sure," I replied. "Means what it says."

Well, that was followed of course by many words from others, laboring manfully to steer away from letting the passage mean what it says.

So, on reconsideration, it can take a real truckload of words to make the Bible mean other than what it says.

UPDATE on the favorite-book meme

I thought this worth a separate post. I accepted a tag, and passed it along. Now Kevin Stilley has surveyed 275 responses and listed them out. You'll find it interesting.

Homeschooling: observation, and prediction

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, writes that homeschoolers have earned respect, but have not always received it at the legislative level.

He's right, of course. I am a hard convert to homeschooling, having moved from alarm and revulsion in the '80's to the wild-eyed fanatically supportive position I've maintained for the last twelve years or so.

But I'll make this prediction. Remember that the MSM (mainstream media, aka "lamestream media") is horridly and subtlely biased in its reporting. Remember that the MSM is in the hip pocket of the Democratic Party which, in turn, is in the hip pocket of the National Education Assocation (NEA). Remember that the NEA is horridly threatened by homeschooling, and would gladly seen it wiped off the face of the map in favor of government indoctrination camps.

Having said that: are the MSM or the NEA likely to roll over and quietly acquiesce to the outrageous overall success of homeschooling? Will they welcome, or even tolerate, the steady production of (on the whole) better-educated, better-disciplined, achievement-oriented, hardworking, independent-thinking, non-state-dependent citizens?

Not hardly.

So I predict that the MSM will try its best to do to homeschooling what it has tried to do to the prolife movement. It will selectively misreport.

That is, as the MSM has selected the submicroscopic fraction of prolifers who are violent, and made them the face of the prolife movement, so it will do with homeschooling. It will find some family, or families, who are genuine and dangerous nutcases -- and God knows the movement has them -- and it will focus intense attention on them. The goal will be to make them the public face of homeschooling. It will be to brainwash all Americans into seeing Bob and Marilyn Degenerate as representative homeschooling parents, and their children Drulie, Bark, and Boom as representative homeschool students.

It won't matter that they will comprise a subset of 0.0001% of the movement. It won't matter that the movement as a whole will univocally disown these parents with horror and repulsion. (Did it matter -- does it matter -- that the entire prolife movement roundly and unambiguously condemns all violence?)

Mark my words. You heard it here.

Political: Reason #4379 to hate and distrust the MSM

First, let me say plainly that I don't care a fig for Joe Lieberman's political future. Barring repentance, he will be eternally disgraced as the man who singlehandedly saved Bill Clinton's pasty white... self, by his "naughty, naughty -- now let's just move on" speech in the Senate. Ann Coulter said it best: Joe's always wrestling with his conscience, and his conscience is always losing. Lieberman is painted as a thoughtful, deep moderate, solely because he says moderate things, then votes hard-left. He's pro-abort, he sold his soul to support Bill Clinton and run for VP with Al Gore, and he was complicit in the attempt to steal the Presidental election of 2000. I pray for his conversion and salvation. But I have no respect nor use for him, whatever, as a politician.

Yes, I have an opinion about Senator Joe Lieberman. Got that? Those are my opinions. I'm telling you that, up-front. You can disagree with me, but you can't accuse me of being dishonest.

And so, having said all that, here is how the AP (Associalist Press) depicts last night's vote:

Voters in Connecticut turned him down, rejecting three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman for a political newcomer in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war.

Is that a true statement?

Well, yes -- in the sense that the statements "People believe that the earth is flat," or "Scientists state that the universe is XXX billions of years old," or "Scholars say that the Gospels were written decades after the events by non-eyewitnesses" are true. There are scholars, there are scientists, there are people who state and believe those things. Thus far, all these statements are true.

It is the intended implication of the statements that is untrue.

Not all people, not all scholars, not all scientists hold these conclusions. Some do.

And so, back to the AP. Did "voters" turn Lieberman down? Yes, indeed -- some did. Democrat primary voters in Connecticut did. No one else. And they did in a primary. He is still in the Senate. The final race hasn't even taken place.

And was it, as stated, "the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war"? Hardly. First, no evidence is presented that this was the motivation of this small subset of voters. But even if this opinion-expressed-as-fact were accurate for them, they are a subset of a subset, from a very liberal state.

And this is a classic example of what the MSM does. It is a biased opinion-piece presented as objective reporting. The MSM has an opinion about President Bush, about the war against terror, about our presence in Iraq, and about a host of other issues. That opinion colors their coverage, as they advocate and seek to persuade the public to share their opinions.

There is nothing wrong with seeking to persuade. But there is something wrong with doing it while dishonestly hiding under the pretext of unbiased, objective reporting.

The great motivator behind much political reporting today is Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is sheer hatred. And everything the MSM reports in the arena of politics should be read with that in mind.

He who hates disguises it with his lips,
But he lays up deceit in his heart.
(Proverbs 26:24)

Finally! I'm tagged! And it's about BOOKS! Woo-hoo!

Nobody ever tags me -- but my Christian sister-who-probably-talks-funny,-eh? Kim tagged me! My answers won't be as funny as her husband's, nor as Pastor Weaver's, but hey -- I'm cherishing the moment. So here we go:

1. One book that changed your life

I'm glad it doesn't say "The one book." Now, of course, I'm assuming you know that the Bible would be my answer to every question. Well, except #6 and #7. (My flesh asked me to say that there are parts of the Bible that do apply to #7. Shut up, flesh.) That'd be too easy, so just mentally supply "other than the Bible" to each.

Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius van Til. I say that, even though I'm no longer a total van Tilian. But the book was revolutionary to me in nailing down the all-effecting and inescapable role of presuppositions, coupled with the fact of the noetic effects of sin. (That is, our fundamental views and presuppositions color how we see everything, and those presuppositions are tainted by the universal mental effects sin.) This cured me forever of qualing before the Experts in psychology, science, etc. -- because if you start wrong, you'll finish wrong.

Also, van Til's introductory words about theology pretty well nailed my conversion to full-out Calvinism.

As I say, I'm not a total van Tilian; but you can easily see his influence in my own online attempt at apologetics.

Other books in this category would include Machen's What Is Faith? (as I discussed at some length here), and Garry Friesen's Decision-Making & the Will of God.

2. One book that you’ve read more than once

Just one? Ay yi yi. Well, Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings as one book, so that can count. Right? I read it several times before marrying, and Valerie and I have read it to each other several times; plus I've read it to our two older kids. Doing this forced me to read the poetry, which I had always pretty much skipped, and to appreciate both its cleverness and its relevance to the story.

Others would include Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Herriott's All Creatures Great and Small series, and some books by this guy named stephen king.

3. One book you’d want on a deserted island

Well, I said the Bible should be assumed, but I have to say it again. I love Buggy's answer:

"Shipbuilding Technology & Education by The Committee on National Needs in Maritime Technology."

Having said all that, it's a really hard choice. Maybe Calvin's Institutes? Or Charnock's Existence and Attributes of God? Yeah, one of those, I think.

And my one-volume Hebrew-Greek Bible.

4. One book that made you laugh

In a happy way? All Creatures Great and Small did, on a number of occasions (same answer as Kim's).

Also the National Lampoon parody Bored of the Rings -- but it's pretty profane in parts, so don't read this as a recommendation. But I love this part (I paraphrase from memory):

It was then that Goodgulf began to guess at the true significance of the ring.

He was, as usual, dead wrong.

In a not-happy way, Jack Deere's Surprised by the Spirit; just an absolutely sad, pathetic book.

5. One book that made you cry

Oh, now this is embarrassing.

The most recent to do that is... oh my gosh, I really shouldn't say this in public. (Drums fingers, looks away.)

Okay, okay. The most recent book to make me tear up considerably is... is.... Oh, boy.

It's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

If you've read it, you won't need me to tell you which part (and please, don't post spoilers) -- and I'll bet you agree. If you haven't read it, then boy, am I in for it.

Previous books that teared me up would include -- well, the scene Eowyn and the Nazgul in LOTR always does it to me. Okay, there's one with better literary bona fides.

6. One book that you wish had been written

S. Lewis Johnson's Systematic Theology.

A second: scholarly, high-level in-depth OT commentaries by Charles Lee Feinberg. (I spoke to him about this, as did many others; alas, to no avail.)

7. One book that you wish had never been written

Oh, boy. Just one? Well, Surprised by the Spirit is a really bad, depressing book, as I said. No doubt it's done a lot of harm. I'd hoped Deere would be overwhelmed by critical responses, and maybe come back at least towards Biblical faith, but I saw Deere went further down the path with one on hearing voices.

I wish neither Clinton had ever been published, because America had so come to its senses that they had no place in American public life except as cautionary, Boogeyman-type tales, and no publisher would touch their garbage. I could wish similarly for the Christian public as to books by Hinn, Robertson, Copeland, and their ilk.

8. One book that you are currently reading

To Be Continued?, by Sam Waldron.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read

Oh boy; again, Just one? I've started and not finished so many. The Christian in Complete Armor, by Gurnall. That's for personal profit.

Someday I'll probably read Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, by Gerstner, though detailed reviews indicate it's quite the hatchet-job riddled with inaccuracies and inexcusable misrepresentations. (Like, for instance, this review.)

That was fun. Thanks, Kim. Hm, whom to tag? I know: I'll tag Chris Anderson, and Carla Rolfe.

Charismatics, Adrian Warnock, Democratic politicians, the MSM, and me

This is a short post on my lo-o-o-ong series at Pyro, which you can dive into by starting HERE. That has all the links.

So, why'd I do it? Why'd I do it at all, and why in such depth?

Two main reasons... no, three.

First, because Adrian addressed his comments to me, Adrian's our friend, it seemed the right thing to do.

Second, "I believed, therefore I spoke."

Third, because charismatics and public Christians and Christian media are like the Democrats and the mainstream media.

Democrats say and do the most astonishing things, and the media just say (at most), "Okey doke," and report it. Or, if it's embarrassing and unspinnable, they don't report it.

John Edwards says that, if John Kerry were president, the lame would walk. No mainstream reporter evidently said, "Okay... what?!" Nor ran around asking (by contrast) sane people, "So, what about John Kerry bringing in the Millennial Kingdom? Hwere are you on that?"

I've just thought that countless times, in interviews I've read and seen, in articles. No reporter seems to think, nor ask probing, commonsense questions of the "Do you really mean that?" variety.

It isn't like in England, where they all meet together for congenial brawls on TV, and are forced to defend or explain their ideas in realtime. No, here in the US the politicians are all isolated. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Murtha, and all the rest say wildly irresponsible things in neat, tidy, safe, hermetically-sealed environments where they're never challenged, never forced to follow out the implications of their statements.

And so, similarly, Charismatics.

Benny Hinn goes on TBN. I don't think he's going to call James White's internet radio show. They just say things in friendly environments, and evidently are never in any position -- privately or publicly -- where their statements are latched onto, Biblically analyzed, followed through, and challenged. Where, in short, they're held to account for their statements.

Adrian made a number of statements that struck me as needing a "Wait a minute" moment -- like the one about Luke 11, and the one about why tongues might be only semi-sorta-Biblical because they're in the warmup stage, and how cessationists disobey Scripture, so on.

So what usually happens is charismatics talk among charismatics, and get agreement. They talk about cessationists among charismatics, and get agreement. Nobody is there with, say, Benny Hinn to say, "Wait -- you're saying people flew through the air at your meeting? When? Why didn't I read about that? Can you do that right now? Why not? What does that have to do with anything? What verse were you on? Can you name the books of the Bible? What's with your hair?"

And this isn't really good for anyone. It isn't good for the charismatics, it isn't good for cessationists, it isn't good for the church, it isn't good for the world we're supposed to evangelize together.

So, after weighing several options (no response, email to him, short response, etc.), I opted to interact with him seriously, and hope we all benefit by the dialogue.

BibleWorks 7 update

If you had been persuaded by my review here or at Pyro, you...

A. Would already have BibleWorks 7; and....
B. Would have just received, as a download, A. T. Robertson's magisterial Grammar of the Greek New Testament -- for free!

And it's fully-integrated, already, in the resources that automatically display on any verse.