And now, for a chuckle

Just posted something pretty heavy over at Pyro.

This isn't.

Merry Tossmas (little late, sorry)

I like it.

I think about these things #1

The Yahoo! email spam filter can be a bit overzealous, and has caught legitimate emails (including my own Yahoo! emails to myself). So I've set it to put them in a folder, where I can scan for deletion.

Mostly they're to do with changing things about myself or my life that I really can't or shouldn't (and don't want to), respectively. But one repeat email in particular has caught my eye lately. (Click to enlarge.)


Okay, now, losing 20 pounds overnight, that's a nice promise.

But... "Colon cleanse"?

Yikes.

What a night that would be.

I think about these things.

"I Am Legend" -- tension, Stupid Moment, God-talk, prophecy

THIS POST IS RATED "S"
(for Spoilery!)

Will Smith. I wanted to see Independence Day when it came out, but didn't really want to see Will Smith. All I knew of him was that he was some goofy rapper-type, and I was prepared not to like him. But he inhabited that role well, and then equally in Men in Black, followed by disciplined, credible performances every film I've seen him in. He's turned out to be a very capable, talented actor, and his name in a movie is a big plus to me.

Which is good in this case because Smith carries I Am Legend largely on his shoulders (unless you count the dog). Nor does he disappoint, for much of the movie. I'll get back to the qualifier in a moment.

The movie. The first two-thirds of the movie is really top-notch for the genre, very atmospheric and tense. Flashbacks (never my favorite device) are well-used to flash out the background, and the foreground is grim and gripping.

And tense. I saw the movie alone, and several sequences had me squirming and talking to the screen, warning and bracing myself against what I was sure (usually correctly) was a coming jump-scene. One of the sequences was among the tensest I've ever seen. As I said, the first two-thirds of the movie was great.

Ah, but then.

You know how some movies have their Stupid Moment, and never really recover? As if all the smart writers and directors got fired, and the second-string took over?

Well, there's a very moving moment roughly two-thirds of the way through. (Though it, itself, is occasioned by a stupid moment of its own.) The moment itself is a real showcase of Smith's talents, and is the sort of acting that in another genre might well get his name mentioned for an Oscar. The camera is in tight closeup on his face, and Smith's expressions (plus some sound-effects) very movingly and wordlessly tell us everything that is happening. Few could deliver such a scene as convincingly.

But then after that moment comes the Stupid Moment. We have to accept that Smith's character snaps for most of the rest of the movie. And I just really didn't. He pretty well lost me, and the movie went down to a disappointing climax that I didn't really fully understand.

For me, the first and larger portion was worth it, and I'm glad I went; the last prevents an unqualified thumbs-up.

God-talk. The premise of the movie is very interesting and plausible. A scientist "cures cancer" by engineering a virus -- which turns very, very bad, and turns just about everyone and everything except weeds into nearly-mindless zombie/vampire types. Could it happen? Absolutely. Could one or another of the plagues of Revelation couple with such an event? Possibly.

We know from Biblical prophecy that man will never wipe himself out nor destroy the earth. But we don't know that he will never come close. I've wondered more than once whether the prophecies of end times battles are even more literal than we literalists tend to take them, some catastrophe or series of catastrophes driving mankind back literally to arrows, swords and spears.

There is a fair bit of shapeless God-talk in the movie. Smith's character says "God didn't do this to us, we did it to ourselves." Posters in the very realistically ravaged city send messages such as "God still loves us." At a later point, Smith's character says "There is no god," but later a woman appears who says that God is talking to her. Turns out He evidently is talking to her, and later to Smith as well, and God saves the day. God saves mankind from himself.

Now there's nothing Christian about that, since saying "God" is like saying "food." Further, the God-hearing lady says she can hear God because it's so quiet, which in isolation is more New-Agey than Christian.

But it is nice for Hollywood to have any God-talk that isn't knee-jerk dopey boilerplate cynicism.

Best news in awhile

Purgatorio

(affectionately known around here as "Heinrich! You punk!")

is back!

(Unless he's just toying with our affections. Which he'd totally do.)

Striking Christmas painting

(h-t and thanks to Patrick for de-captioning it)

As I said, it isn't great art, but I find the thought moving.

Have you seen this painting?

I was looking for a painting which I'm sure art critics would see as heavy-handed and obvious, but it has stuck in my mind.

As I recall it: it was a likeness of Jesus as a little toddler in his father's carpentry shop. He is bending over to pick up a nail. The sun shines in, in the pattern of a cross.

Anyone know the painting I am describing? Got a link?

Name that theological position

NOTE: this is only open to those who do not know the answer. If you do, please refrain from comment until the answer is released.

What is the theological position of the man (or woman) who wrote this? Dispensational, covenantal, what?

The cry of the Christian religion is the gentle word, “Come.” The Jewish law harshly said, “Go, take heed unto thy steps as to the path in which thou shalt walk. Break the commandments, and thou shalt perish; keep them, and thou shalt live.” The law was a dispensation of terror, which drove men before it as with a scourge; the gospel draws with bands of love. Jesus is the good Shepherd going before his sheep, bidding them follow him, and ever leading them onwards with the sweet word, “Come.” The law repels, the gospel attracts. The law shows the distance which there is between God and man; the gospel bridges that awful chasm, and brings the sinner across it.

UPDATE: the source is Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening : Daily Readings, Complete and unabridged; New modern edition. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), December 16 AM. You can read the whole here.

My point in citing it is that one of the stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism is that it is supposedly inherently antinomian, or makes an overly sharp distinction between law and grace. It's an objection that should not be made by a fair and better-read person. Here's Charles Spurgeon, no dispensationalist, making that cut pretty sharply, as have Luther and others.

And here I am, unapologetically dispensational, and I wouldn't put it quite as sharply Spurgeon did. Not with Psalms 1 and 119 in my mind.

My Christmas wish

As long as I'm doing a Craig, let me jot this brief thought.

I wish people who wanted to sin would just be honest about it. (Then again, that's probably a large part of the problem, isn't it? I'll get back to that.)

In yesterday's sermon, we looked at Ahaz, who refused God's offer of a sign with the syrupy, super-pious "I will not ask, and I will not tempt the LORD!" Of course we know he didn't care a gnat's behind about the Lord. But it did make him look and sound so much better than if he'd told the truth.

The truth would have been something like,

"I know that once I began responding to God's word in faith, there might be no stopping. I know it would eventually mean repenting, humbling myself, admitting what an appalling mess I've made of my life and of the lives of everyone who trusts me. And frankly, I'm just not willing to do that. My stubborn pride means more to me than anything, and if I have to go to Hell with my pride, so be it. Tomorrow doesn't matter. God doesn't matter. Only I matter, and only today matters."

So I wish that people today who just want to sin would just say so. Just say, "I don't care about God, I don't care about the word of God; I don't want to think through the consequences of my choices. I know if I even began honestly applying the word of God, I'd be humbled and everything would have to change, and I just don't want any part of any of that. So I'm just going to sin."

If they would just do that, and not drag Christ's name into the sewer with them....

But then, that's the thing, isn't it? The nature of sin is that it deceives. It gets what it gets by deception. It never says, "How about a moment of fleeting pleasure in exchange for an eternity of permanent regret and misery?"

Sin gets what it gets by saying it is what it isn't, and isn't what it is. And it says it just wants a little bit, and then it will stop. But like fire, it never does; it's its nature to consume and consume until there's nothing left to consume.

Poor saps. Honesty is like truth, and truth has nothing to do with sin.

So my wish can never happen.

Okay, so my second wish is....

Immanuel

As I've said in the past, I don't know how many read this blog who don't read Pyro, but I've put up Immanuel: a Christmas Sermon at Pyro, along with the outline.

PDA / Bible software question

Hi gang.

I got this question via email:

Quick question, I have a Dell Axim X50v PDA and am looking for some Bible software to install in it. Do you have any suggestions? I don’t need anything too complicated, I would use it mainly for reference. Any help would be appreciated since I am not a PDA geek. I am also going to upgrade my CF Card from 512mb to a 1 gig – is this a good thing?

Frankly, I know what PDA stands for... and that's about it. But I do have a very sharp readership. So:

Anyone have some advice or input for my correspondent?

Beyond politics

I've written (and plan to write more) about responsible Christian citizenship and stewardship in the culture in which one lives.

But Spurgeon's evening thoughts for today sound an excellent, salutary, vital reminder:

“I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

— 1 Corinthians 9:22

Paul’s great object was not merely to instruct and to improve, but to save. Anything short of this would have disappointed him; he would have men renewed in heart, forgiven, sanctified, in fact, saved. Have our Christian labours been aimed at anything below this great point? Then let us amend our ways, for of what avail will it be at the last great day to have taught and moralized men if they appear before God unsaved? Blood-red will our skirts be if through life we have sought inferior objects, and forgotten that men needed to be saved. Paul knew the ruin of man’s natural state, and did not try to educate him, but to save him; he saw men sinking to hell, and did not talk of refining them, but of saving from the wrath to come. To compass their salvation, he gave himself up with untiring zeal to telling abroad the gospel, to warning and beseeching men to be reconciled to God. His prayers were importunate and his labours incessant. To save souls was his consuming passion, his ambition, his calling. He became a servant to all men, toiling for his race, feeling a woe within him if he preached not the gospel. He laid aside his preferences to prevent prejudice; he submitted his will in things indifferent, and if men would but receive the gospel, he raised no questions about forms or ceremonies: the gospel was the one all-important business with him. If he might save some he would be content. This was the crown for which he strove, the sole and sufficient reward of all his labours and self-denials. Dear reader, have you and I lived to win souls at this noble rate? Are we possessed with the same all-absorbing desire? If not, why not? Jesus died for sinners, cannot we live for them? Where is our tenderness? Where our love to Christ, if we seek not his honour in the salvation of men? O that the Lord would saturate us through and through with an undying zeal for the souls of men

(Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening : Daily Readings, December 7, PM reading)

Romney thinks (or hopes) we're all stupid

So today's his big "So what if I'm a cultist?" speech. Among good and sensible things that he (reportedly) will say, he (reportedly, and by contrast) will say this:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution.

No... no, it really wouldn't.

Here's Article VI of the Constitution (the part you either haven't actually read, Governor, or dearly hope we don't actually read):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Look, Governor, bubbula, -- can I call you Mitt? Mitt: I'm not a branch of the government, per se. I'm a voter. I'm a free citizen. I can ask you to explain anything I want to ask. I can ask you what your favorite color is, or whether you like extra-crispy or original recipe. And you can answer, or not.

Or I can ask a really fundamental, meaty question — like asking you about your worldview. Which necessarily requires a religious answer. To suggest that such questions are off-limits is, wellsir, it's really dumb.

See, Mitt: there's no Constitutional provision preventing private citizens from asking questions about religion. In fact, that very right is guaranteed, and in so m any words. You might recall the expression "freedom of speech." It's guaranteed in the first amendment.

Now, of course you can do what you've been doing — dodge, misdirect, mislead. And when you do that, you pretty much end up telling me what I need to know anyway.

And you can do this, too — what you're trying to do in this speech. You can try to tell me I'm violating the Constitution when I ask you these questions. you can try to make me feel bad for wanting to understand why a cultist thinks the way he thinks, and if I want a cult-thinker at the head of the Executive branch.

And, in a way, that tells me what I need to know, too.

It tells me that you're either really... em... uninformed about the Constitution.

Or it tells me that you hope I am.

Either way, it does shorten my list.

So... thanks!

Oh and by the way: we all remember that Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian Hugh Hewitt (here known as "Squish") has added "cult-apologist" to his resume. He's really excited about it, too -- more so than other things.

I was listening yesterday as he chatted with professional God-hater Christopher Hitchens. Here's what struck me: Hitchens droned on and on in his contempt for Christ ("alleged birth") and Christianity. Hugh's pulse never altered, he asked a few questions, really challenged nothing.

Oh, but then Hitch started talking about Romney, who he regards as a dangerously deluded nutcase.

My, then Hugh got worked up! He was animated, he was upset; he cut Hitchens off, interrupted him, challenged him again and again, and let him know how absurd he thought Hitchens was being.

So, from this I learned about Hugh's issue taxonomy:

Slander Christ and Christians: no big deal
Slander this year's designated cultist: BIG deal

UPDATE: a transcript of the speech is online. And yes, indeed, he said it just like this:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

Translation: "The Constitution says you can't ask any more embarrassing questions about my cult."

Has Huckabee learned?

I whacked presidential candidate Mike Huckabee pretty good once and twice when he gave very lame answers to questions for which he should have been far better prepared.

Well, let none say that I'm not fair.

Though I'm even less likely to vote for him than I was when I wrote those posts, I think he is reported as giving a much wiser response to the question of Romney's faith. In fact... you'd think he read my blog! Check it out:

"I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president"

"I don't think it's relevant to the presidency. I really don't," he said. "You know, I get all these questions about somebody else's religion. I only want to address the ones about my own, and I think some of those get a little bit almost unfortunately laborious because, you know, we ought to be talking about education and health care and energy independence and all these other things."

"If I'm invited to be the president of a theological school, that'll be a perfectly appropriate question, but to be the president of the United States, I don't know that that's going to be the most important issue that I'll be facing when I'm sworn in"

Isn't that almost exactly what I suggested he might have said, in the context of this race?

Everybody wave at the nice man!

UPDATE: but then, there he goes again: "Education is a state function."

The heck it is, Governor; or at least, the heck it should be.

Whatever happened to Reagan's vision to abolish the Department of Education? Good idea then, good idea now. (Sub-update: Huck then says "The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are." I say, the more parentally-controlled and the less state, the better off we are. And I reiterate: what about abolishing the Dept. of Ed? Is there any aspect of government he'd like to shrink?)

Goooolden Compass, Daaaaark Materials

Have you read the books, and do you have thoughts about this Friday's release? I haven't, and don't.

I keep seeing squawks and warnings, but they tend either to be from Roman Catholics, or by the same sorts who hear about (but don't read) books and condemn them nonetheless. Or snotty dismissals of any concerns about anything ("Well, then, let's not read Paradise Lost, either!"). (I have links giving examples of each of these, but let's stay focused.) To me, that a movie is critical of Roman Catholicism is not a minus; and I prefer criticisms to be informed. So:

Are you going to see this, will you take your kids?

That Pullman has a big mouth about how repulsive he finds Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia is a big minus to me. It's pretty well-established that he had a definite agenda to provide an atheistic alternative to Lewis, and I've read that his books are well-written propaganda tracts. I'm sure the child I'd be likeliest to take would love eye-candy and excitement and fantasy, and my subsequent discussion of any ideological poison in the movie would be accepted, but the affections would remain excited by the other aspects.

Yet, word is, Hollywood's toned down the "anti-religious" elements. Which to me is like saying Mengele tried a gentler form of scientific research.

So, any informed thoughts?

UPDATE: Al Mohler has informed thoughts; he discusses the movie and the books (thanks, Nicky Bacala).

More Charismatic contributions to the body of revelation

I've made this point a bazillion times here and at Pyro: the charismatic movement has had 101 years to show us new and improved revelation... and it hasn't shown much.

M'man Phil Johnson just sidebar-linked to a video making the point yet again. Note carefully — this is prophetic revelation that led to this kind of fantasy eisegesis, the intent (or at least the effect) being to put the blame for the nuttiness on God's shoulders: