Highlights and reflections from 2008

The first three tie for top place in different ways. The rest are in no particular order.

1. Fatherly Happiness I: one of the great grand highlights of the year was being able to attend my dear and only daughter's graduation, with a Master's degree, from Middlebury College in Vermont. I'm very proud of Rachael, and the purposeful, disciplined course she set for herself. Last place in the world you want to be is between Rachael and her goals. It was a great joy to Valerie and me, as was the tour of New England that we took — particularly including that dinner at Legal Sea Foods! (Thanks, Frank!) (Dang, it's 6am, and I'm salivating at the memory!)
   
2. Fatherly Happiness II: the moment my daughter's fiancé (and my imminent son-in-law, DV), Kermit, asked for Valerie and my blessing, instantly went into one of the happiest moments and memories of my life. I'd come to like, love, and think very well of Kermit; had rejoiced in his growth in the Lord; had been touched by his obvious love and care for my daughter. So it was with great happiness that I was able (after, my wife alleges, making him squirm for a moment or two) to give our wholehearted blessing. Though I told him I didn't much "bless" the prospect of their moving away, before we could even hang out and have happy moments with our new family spin-off! I was glad to see my daughter marrying someone who so clearly loves and cares for her. My heart was warmed at the respect Kermit showed for her family and parents — Valerie and me — by approaching us in this way. It instantly made a sweet memory for both of us.
3. All Sorts of Happiness: thanks to a gracious preaching invitation from Pastor Ted Steen of Calvary Community Church in Tennessee, Valerie and I made some new friends, enjoyed Together for the Gospel 2008, and got to hang with the Johnsons and the Turks. This entire time was simply a major highlight of the year. Everything about it was a blessing and a lifting of the heart. First, the Steens and their entire church were gracious, dear, loving hosts. Fellowshipping with them was a pure joy, as was ministering to them. They treated us far too well, and have a permanent and dear place in our hearts. Of course, the conference was amazing and a wonder. Valerie had her trepidations, what with all those pastors and theologians and all — but I never had a doubt that she could find it stimulating, encouraging, educational, and edifying. And she did. Plus, I was giddy at the prospect of seeing her meeting and getting to know the Turks and Johnsons. One of my greatest joys in life is either talking with Valerie, or watching her talk with others, and seeing them get a peek at what I see. Valerie is, after all, simply the most remarkable woman I've ever known. I could go on and on, there was so much to that trip. I love Phil and Darlene, and Frank and Tara, and loved the time we spent together. Hearing the T4G talks was wonderful. The books! Meeting "friends" I'd known through the blogs, meeting Thabiti, chatting with the Duncan boys. And the ongoing amazement of having people recognize me, introduce themselves, say my writing was helpful to them (in front of my wife! bonus! thanks, friends!). Seeing the beauty of the South, having time alone with Valerie. It was all good. Well... except the traffic between Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. But everything else!
   
4. The ongoing pleasure of working with Phil and Frank. I'll say again, it's a real treat to be associated with two guys of whom I count myself both their friend, co-laborer, and unabashed fanboy. I love and respect them, pray for them, learn from them. It means more to me than I can say.
5. The pleasure of seeing my online ministry being of some use in the hands of God. The joy of seeing folks informed, encouraged, uplifted, emboldened, convicted, pointed to Christ and to God's sufficient Word — it's a Godsend to me, I never forget it, I never lose sight of it, and I thank God for it. Seeing hits on the map from North America, Central America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, France, Great Britain, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda — knowing that only eternity will show the fruit born by the seed sown. It gives me hope and joy.
6. And I'll admit I don't mind causing some deserving heads to explode. Hey, someone has to do it. If not me, then who?
7. Picking up for the month Phil and Frank were otherwise occupied was fun, posting 2-5 times a day, branching out in what I covered, was a nice run.
8. The election outcome was a low point, as you know. But it did spark what I hope will be some useful theologizing and strategerizing.
9. I do end the year disappointed to find myself still not in fulltime ministry of the Word, after determining to seek it. That's the second bitterest disappointment of the year (the election is actually the third).
10. The year provided further underscoring of those 25 things I've learned, and that's not a particularly happy thing. I've seen them play out at a distance, and not so distant. Sin is deceptive and relentless. It's like cancer: you don't want any of it. If you find it, you want to seek God's grace, and use God's means, to get rid of all of it. Leave a bit of the root, and it will just grow right back, bigger and bolder than ever. Feed it a little pride, a little stubbornness, a little rationalization, and it will dominate.

So there you go. I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Blessed, joyous, God-honoring new year to you all.

Bad and embittering film news

Evidently conservatives and Christians who complain so loudly about the dearth of good movies to take their kids to failed to match wallet to mouth.

Disney has bailed on the Chronicles of Narnia series. It didn't make enough money, in their estimation. (This is a bit puzzling, though, given that Caspian was the tenth biggest worldwide box-office money-maker.)

The first two movies were, like all adaptations, imperfect. But they were lovely, good-faith efforts, and boasted some perfect key casting (notably Georgie Henley as Lucy). But big-talking culture-critics didn't go to the theaters, and Disney isn't a charity, so the series may be scuttled for good.

Bitter? Wait, it gets worse. 'Way worse.

No Dawn Treader - but filmgoers will be able to see Gilligan's Island on the big screen.

I'll retire to Bedlam.

Now to hope that someone else picks up the "franchise," and that filmgoers make Disney look like idiots by putting their money where their mouth is.

Caroline Kennedy: she knows!

Really-really-really.

The American MSM won't care, though. I mean, dude — she's a Kennedy!

It's not like she's a remarkably accomplished governor, who represents (A) positions the MSM loathes, and (B) poses a potential threat to The One's anointing!

More funny Dew action (to us, it's just a game....)

There's this:

...and there's this:

...and this:

Those commercials are hysterical, and I don't think I've seen but one or two of them. But then again, I don't watch much TV.

If Melissa Etheridge is to be believed, Rick Warren apparently...

...saw his meeting with her as something other than an opportunity to point her to Jesus.

In case you don't know, Melissa Etheridge is yet another performer who sees herself as heroic for having yielded herself to degrading passions, and as a martyr for not having succeeded in forcing everyone to approve of her perversion... yet.

If she is to be believed, Warren used his encounter with her mainly to try to make her like him, Rick Warren. Warren assured her that he's a fan, he affirms equal rights for gays, he's conflicted, he's sorry for what he said about her perversion... you know, talking about her perversion like it's a perversion or something.

Now, just in case I'm ever considered for such a situation, I don't want the "against" case to be unnecessarily weak. So let me be plain: I do unhesitatingly mention homosexuality and "gay" "marriage" in the same breath as pederasty and bestiality. Ethically, it's a "duh."

Homosexual advocates hate this argument because it's irrefutable: if you redefine "marriage" to include two same-sexers indulging in serial perversion, there is no rational, consistent case to be made against any redefinition of marriage, including incest, polygamy, a man and five women (or men or goats) — or a man and his favorite five-iron.

Here's the whole problem with the Etheridge-mindset. They want to exclude practicing Christians from public life, while denying that that is what they're doing. They're not opposed to Christianity, they say; they're opposed to homophobia — that undefined word that ends up working out to mean "admitting out loud that homosexuality is always and definitionally immoral."

They just don't get the difference between worshiping God and trying to be God. If you're opting for the latter, then of course they're right. Anything goes, literally anything. Define perversion as morality, sum up 2+2 as 2304985 - whatever. You're God. You get to call it. It's a perk.

But if there is an infinite-personal God, He gets to do the defining. And He defines homosexuality, bestiality, rape, and such things as always and everywhere immoral, no matter how much the perp "feels in his heart of hearts" that it is the right thing to do. Because if there is such a God, then it is He, and not mankind, who is the measure of all things.

So, while I'm waxing prolix, I'll anticipate the snippy snipe certain types would want to throw at me. "What would you have done, in Warren's shoes? Told Etheridge she was going to Hell?"

I'll answer straight up — after one disclaimer.

Disclaimer: As I've often said, I do not equate my big talk from the safety of my keyboard with actual Daring Deeds Done. Talk is talk, action is action, the two are not synonyms. God knows I have failed and buckled and chickened-out far too often to feel proud and boasty about what a wonderful job I would have done if I were in ____'s shoes.

HSAT:

Straight-up answer: What I hope I would have done is seen it as maybe the only time Melissa Etheridge has been in the same room / on the same line as a preacher of the Gospel, ever. What I hope I would have done is told her that she and I are in the same boat. We're sinners, lost and hopeless. Her sin-of-choice is a sexual perversion; but I've played host (even if only mentally) to enough sinful passions and schemes to send me to the deepest Hell forever and ever, justly and righteously. We are different peas from the same pod.

I hope I would have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus, the whole package. That I believed He was who He said He was - God in human flesh, come to save sinners like her and me. That I believed He was right in affirming the Word of God that condemns her darling passions as surely as it condemns mine.

Further, I hope I'd have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus was truthful in saying that He was the way, the truth and the life, and that no one could have a relationship with the Father except through Him. That the only hope and chance for her and me is that Jesus pays for our sins, and secures forgiveness and hope and deliverance for us.

And finally I hope I'd have told her that, believing in Jesus as I do, I take his word as non-negotiable. That if He said homosexuality was fine, I would too. But since He says murder, theft, homosexuality, adultery and such things are sinful, so must I. Because I believe Jesus, and He's Lord. Not me.

And because being a Christian isn't a process of negotiation.

That's what I hope I would have said.

And I think Warren, had he been more concerned about her soul than his popularity, might have said something like that.

If she's reporting the conversation accurately.

"Dan Phillips," yes — but SO not me

If I ever did do a Christmas album, this wouldn't be it.

Trivialest post ever on Satan

1. Don't love it when people sing "to save us all from Saydn's power." It's Sa-tan.
   
2. Mark Driscoll characteristically and very distinctly says "Say-den" (rhymes with "Paden"). Listen for it.

Just that.

Hating Nintendo / Wii so far

To get 15-mo warranty coverage, you have to register before you play.

But the Club Nintendo site was down. For "maintenance." All day, Christmas day. It's still down now. No further notices, explanation, ETA for repairs.

So I call the help line. Select to get a live Customer Service rep for Wii. I am immediately disconnected, after being told the call could be recorded for blah blah blah.

So I call again, select Wii help via a different route. It rings, then starts playing a triple-combo of ringing, three-tone "disconnect" sound and a voice — then I'm hung up on again.

Now going for my third try.

Grr-r-r-r.

UPDATE: I select to speak to a Nintendo representative, am informed the call may be recorded, and am immediately hung up on.

Is this some new company, without a financial base, unfamiliar with the concepts of repeat-business and customer service?

(That was sarcasm, BTW.)

UPDATE II: fourth try, I do finally get a recorded message assuring me chirpily that I will be routed to the next representative, and may have a "significant" wait-time. It's 10:02am PT.

UPDATE III: good news is I only wait about three minutes. Bad news: I get Ashley, who tells me I have to register online — using the web site that's down for maintenance.

But it (the web site that has been down for at least two days) should be up "very soon," ashley assures me, because they're "trying to get it up as fast as they can in a timely manner." I offer a few courteous but pointed thoughts, and Ashley puts me on hold.

Then Ashley says that we can play, and when the site comes up, we'll be extended the benefits promised for registering before playing, anyway. She says they'll do that, because they know the site was unavailable. I feel this is pretty tenuous, but.... Yikes.

I say again, as an IT professional: somebody, or some team of somebodies, should be looking for work pretty soon.

Lame, lame, lame.

Phillips Family Christmas Eve Pizza photo-essay

(Click to enlarge)

Start with Valerie's wonderful pizza dough, with nice big edges rolled up on a pizza stone.


Bake it for awhile, then add plenty of sauce.


You've got the start of a sizable pizza.

Add a base of mozzarella, preferably hand-grated by Jonathan:


Then add some of the meat (ground sausage and beef atop slices from a couple of different "logs," in this case).


Then for a nice Christmasy touch, the red and green chopped peppers:


Then still more meat (e.g. bacon, Canadian bacon, pepperoni), and mushrooms and olives for those who enjoy them.


Then the final snowfall of mozzarella (most years I mix cheeses; not this year).


Bake it up nice and golden at 425 degrees.


You've got yourself a substantial Christmas Eve pizza!


Now take a slice, and enjoy!



UPDATE: by popular demand, click here for the pizza recipe. My dear wife says, and I quote:

Although this recipe states that it’s for (3) pizzas, we used it all on a 15” stone. It made for a very thick, bread-like crust. Next year, I’d use a little less dough and increase the wheat flour a tad. Because we used the entire ball of dough, cook the dough for 10-15 minutes first before adding any toppings. Otherwise, it won’t be done when the toppings are cooked through. Overall, this is the best crust recipe we have tried.

Pray for Pastor David Wayne, the "Jollyblogger"

Whatever your Christmas eve and day, I hope it isn't rougher than what the Waynes are going through. The doctors discovered multiple tumors, beyond what they knew.

Check for updates.

Pray for this brother and his family.

That "bold" and "daring" Hollywood

I skimmed through a featurette on a movie called The Reader. As I haven't seen it, this won't be about the movie — it will be about about the movie.

With its very capable actors, The Reader (I gather) tells the story of a young man who has a sexual affair with a considerably older woman who turns out to have worked for the Nazis during WWII. Listening to the creative minds behind the story and the film, part of their intent is to blur moral judgment — how do you judge people when lives and situations are so complex? Regular people did atrocious things in WWII. How do you judge them, how do they judge themselves?

Springboarding off of this, I thought (not for the first time) about what makes the film industry see itself as bold, daring, courageous. This would be such a movie. The boy is 15, the woman is more than twice that. Were the sexes reversed, the relationship would be seen as statutory rape or child molesting, in America. See? "Daring." And humanizing someone who contributed to atrocities against Jews, blurring moral judgment (as I gather the movie does, from the doco) — bold, daring.

That's what's bold and daring in Hollywood. Humanizing murderers, rapists, homosexuals, pedophiles, adulterers, nihilists, and various forms of immoral and anti-social behavior. Not for the purpose of clarifying moral judgment, but for the purpose (as the doco states) of blurring the lines.

Now, my point isn't what you may assume it is. Obviously I can't fully judge a movie I've not seen. What I'm judging is Hollywood's narcissistic self-congratulation. It loves to tear down Christian values any way it can — though, paradoxically, it needs those values. Without at least ghosts and echoes of Biblical values, it can have no sympathetic characters, no uplifting message, no structure. But at the same time, it despises those values and wants to silence its own throbbing, guilty conscience by dismantling them - as well as anyone who affirms and tries to live by them.

It's Post-modernism on film. It's Romans 1:18-32, over and over and over again, in living color and CGI.

It's common for the artistic geniuses to "cover" themselves by saying, "I am not saying that [insert immoral/anti-social behavior here] is a good thing, but...."

Okay, fine. Let's accept the statement at face value.

So what would be a truly "daring, bold" film today?

How about a futuristic drama about post-abortion America, in which some pol or doctor or nurse or advocate is coming to grips with the bloody, human slaughter that (s)he'd enabled?

How about a drama about a couple in a sexual relationship, in which one converts to genuine Christian faith, and what follows — told from a perspective sympathetic to the convert?

How about a drama about a Christian family in which a member "comes out" as deciding to act on homosexual passions — told symphathetically from the perspective of family, opening up their self-reproach, doubt, fear; their struggling to understand how to keep God as God, and show love, grace and truth to the child who embarks on this path of repulsive self-destruction? How about portraying the "deeply religious fundamentalists" as compassionate, genuine 3D people?

You could suggest others, I'm sure.

But if the folks behind the last forty years of "bold, daring" movies truly aren't advocating and enabling and rationalizing the behavior they portray so symphathetically — then what could possibly prevent them from making movies such as these?

Except that they're not so bold and daring after all. And they really are advocates.

And they can't see it otherwise (Ephesians 4:17-19).

Singapore — my kind of place?

...and, as an unrelated bonus:

"All Things Are Better in Koinē" (video)

Check it out:

(Some explanation)

Well... it's true!

Amaziah: what a wretched epitaph

I think of epitaphs.

Not that I'm excessively morbid, mind you. I am, however, moribund. You are too, in the final analysis (Hebrews 9:27). We'd do well to keep the fact in mind (Ecclesiastes 7:2-4).

So I sometimes think about how I could be summed up after my death, what could be justly written on my tombstone.

My Bible reading today clanged me over the head with one summary I don't want written: "And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not with a whole heart" (2 Chronicles 25:2).

This is written of King Amaziah, and in his case it's a very charitable estimation. Amaziah did some things he knew pleased God. But Amaziah refused to do other righteous things that he knew would have pleased God, as well as committing wicked acts that he knew displeased God, and without repentance.

His son followed Amaziah's pattern (2 Chronicles 26:4): good beginning, pride, shameful end.

For my life in God's estimation, in the estimation of my family and friends, I don't want to leave that as my summary: Dan Phillips did what was right in the eyes of God — but not with all his heart.

This king's son would be ben-Amaziah; he'd bear Amaziah's name as his. My sons will bear the name Phillips. That is my gift to them. What will that name mean to them — being Phillips, being sons of Dan Phillips? What is the legacy my life will give that name?

I need to bear in mind that the legacy is being written now, it is being composed now. What I've done in the past is there, but if godly commitment is overwritten by a shameful end — which do you think will linger? The issue of finishing well looms larger as candles accumulate on the birthday cake. (Or as they get to be so many that your wife goes binary.)

The legacy I want to leave my sons and daughter is wholehearted commitment to God, His ways, His glory, His word.

Left to myself, I don't have the vaguest shadow of the echo of the hint of a hope of that being the case. Apart from God's enabling grace, a bad end is not a possibility. It's a certainty.

God grant grace and strength and faith and love, for His glory. God grant that it be so.

Hither and thither — 12/19/2008

And so...

• The One's Education Secretary-designate says, "I teached kidz to talk English reel gud!" Well, not really; but the school system administered by Arne Duncan since 2001, testing for 2007 revealed that only 17 percent of eighth graders read at or above grade level. Clearly this is the sort of excellence that drew The One to him, and not any kind of same-old-same-old cronyism. Because, you know, in that case, the MSM would be all over him. Srsly!
• I mentioned Rick Warren's choice to pray at The One's anointing. My good friend Al Mohler (well, I shook his hand once) weighs in on a couple of points. He discusses the storm of outrage The One has received for this pick, and gives a lengthy evaluation. Mine would be much briefer. Here it is: If Obama had a good soul and brain working together, he should simply have responded to the GLBT's, "So, is it your position that practicing Christians should be barred from public life altogether?" But, having sold his soul long ago to the worst elements in the nation, I'm sure 0 wouldn't want (nor find himself able) to pose that question. Because that pretty much is the position of today's Democratic Party.
• Mohler also says that he'd have declined the invitation to pray, because of Obama's appalling threats against the unborn. Of course I agree heartily with Mohler's horror at Obama's anti-child extremism. But he doesn't seem to entertain the possibility of praying a prophetic prayer that boldly, passionately and unambiguously preaches the Gospel and points the nation to repentance.
• How do you get a future in American politics? Well, you can work hard, focus, keep to your principles, and pile up a tall stack of impressive accomplishments... or you can be named "Kennedy." Just not "Palin."
• Breaking news! Stop the presses! Most Americans who say they are Christians don't have a clue what being a Christian means!
• As you know, I whacked away at the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still remake both here and at Pyro. Over there, I particularly took issue with the glowing review at Christian Post. A couple of commenters understandably thought it was a Christianity Today review. That would make sense, since the latter is, as a rule, far more interested in "today" than unpopular elements of Biblical "Christianity." However, it's interesting that the review in Christianity Today is similar to mine in some ways — except in objecting at any length to its contradiction to the Gospel.
• Well, this is just sad, and if you don't need sad, don't bother. Also, it is the MSM, and it is second-hand or third-hand. But AP says that disgraced NAE president Ted Haggard confesses to struggling with his sexuality. Now of course that's sad, but it isn't the saddest. Read the article (if you want to), and you can't but notice: it's all horizontal. Purely, drably, deadly horizontal.
• But as I said, that is the Associated Press, whose motto could appropriately be "The Uninformed Misinforming the Uninformed." Want another example? Check this article about the electors casting their votes for Obama. Particularly chew this sentence over: "Monday's voting was a largely ceremonial procedure, but one mandated by the Constitution." Seriously. Think that one over. Seriously. That's our mainstream media, doing all the thinking and knowing for us, so that we don't have to.
• And, finally: happy anniversary!
  

You think you're patient? Oy!

My wife passed me this, from her mother:

(Homeschooling moms may want to preview out of their kids' hearing... especially if said kids balk at English classes)

Oh, my — is my creation destined for a dictionary?

Click it.

(The original)

"Sins" and "mistakes"

I'm thinking along the lines of today's Pyro post — sin, repentance, forgiveness, and All That. The Willises find themselves dealing (again!) with how to respond to ex-Governor Ryan, now that he has "apologized."

Or has he?

Three times Ryan refers to the crimes that sent him to jail as "mistakes." Straight-up, that's not a good sign. One of the first and surest signs I remember indicating that The Nameless One had not even driven his El Camino in the same county as repentance was his repeated reference to his abuse of Monica Lewinsky as a "mistake." At the time, I scoffed, "'Mistake'! If he thought that was Hillary at the time, only to discover to his horror that it wasn't, that would be a 'mistake.' This wasn't a 'mistake.'"

When you add up some figures and accidentally get it wrong, that's a mistake. When you reach past the dented soup can to get the next one, and find out later that it was beef broth instead of chicken noodle, that's a mistake. If you tell everyone to turn to verse one when you should be saying verse twenty-one, that's a mistake. When you click "No" instead of "Yes" and lose a document you've worked on for four hours, that's a mistake.

Is sin a mistake? Well, in the sense of Oh dear God help me I should not have done that!, yes, it is a mistake. It is The Wrong Thing to Do. It is Something I Never Should Have Done. Yes, sin is a mistake.

Eve was indeed mistaken to believe the Serpent. Adam was indeed mistaken to follow his wife into sin to keep peace at home (or whatever lame excuse he made to himself). Cain was mistaken to think that murdering his brother would make him feel better in the long run.

Saul was mistaken to think he could be excused for doing a priestly act. David was mistaken to think he could run through the Top Ten and break every one because he was a king (or, again, whatever he told himself). The Jewish leaders were mistaken to think that getting Jesus lynched would solve their problems. Pilate was mistaken to think doing what he knew to be unjust was a good idea. They all were mistaken to think that their actions solved the "Jesus problem."

So yes, sin is a "mistake." It is always a "mistake," because it is always the wrong thing to do.

But sin is never just a mistake.

"Sin," the Holy Spirit tells us through John, "is ἀνομία," it is lawlessness. That is, it is thinking and acting as if the Law of God does not apply to me, as if I am a law unto myself. I consult myself and my feelings, tell myself that this is a good thing to do, and I do it. I act as a god.

When I call my sin a "mistake," I'm insisting that I'm really basically a good person. Why, I would never do something really wrong! I also say that what I did was not that big of a deal. It was just a slip, a goof, an oopsie. Anyone could do it. And I try to evade any consequences. I mean, good Lord, don't make a federal case out of it! It was just a mistake.

A repentant man does not view, nor approach, nor deal with his sin that way. He deals with it as sin, something done deliberately, inexcusably, and culpably. He blames only himself, he agrees with God in damning it (and himself for committing it), he judges it, and he deals with it as God lays out for him to do. The scope of his sin is the scope of his repentance. He takes full responsibility, names it, claims it, disowns it, begs forgiveness of God and all the wronged, and does anything and everything he must to make it right.

(Here's the irony: many people who would do most or all of that with a mere mistake, insanely won't do that with a sin.)

Sigh. Well, there's a lot more to unpack there. I guess I'll have to do (at least) one more post unpacking sin and repentance and forgiveness.

UPDATE: the timing of this post is interesting, in unintended. Did you know it's the eve of the tenth anniversary of The Nameless One's impeachment?

Rick Warren to pray at The One's inauguration

Clickety-click.

Before you come down on him too hard — I'd do it!

But they'd never have me back a second time.

Next year's Bible reading plan

I've done many different Bible Reading plans over the years. The worst and least successful were the no-plan plans.

Last year, for instance, I wanted to allow more time actually to study. So I purposed just to read, thoughtfully— no particular pace or plan. It was a miserable failure. Without a plan, I wandered and meandered and didn't really get anything done.

Now, I've done the M'Cheyne plan many times, and it certainly does march one right through the Bible. I did it this year, using Carson's For the Love of God as guide. Didn't love it, frankly, much as I love Carson. But he's no Spurgeon! (That's actually both a criticism and a compliment.)

However, much of a blessing as Spurgeon is, it's no reading plan at all.

What to do in 2009, if the Lord spares me?

So look: the Bible has 1,189 chapters. In a 365-day year, that's... mm, let's see... carry the 5... 3.2575342465753424657534246575342 chapters a day. I'm thinking of just reading it through, maybe concentrating on a topic such as Kingdom, or things relating to the CT/dispensationalism issue.

What have you done, hated, loved, rejected, adopted? Why?

What's your plan for 2009, should you live to see it?

Classic BibChr Christmas links

Christmas has long been a favorite season and event for me. Christmas carols pre-evangelized me, and it's always been a wonderful time. So I've got some links to my past writing (and some of your contributions, Dear Readers) to share you might have missed:

• From my web site, there's the essay To Tell the Truth, Virginia.... It's a Gospel presentation keying off of Isaiah 7:14.
• From December of 2004 comes the sermon Longing for Christmas, in which I preach on the flow of OT prophecy pointing to the Messiah, Jesus.

• Then in December of 2007, in the sermon titled Immanuel, I focus on the prophecy in Isaiah 7, taking note of both the Hebrew and the context. You'll see that I am unpersuaded by the approach many evangelicals take today.
• Though it isn't High Art, here is a painting I appreciated last year.
• I wondered in February of 2007 whether we have actually listened to the "angels we have heard on high."
• Under orders from my dear wife in 11/07, I sparked a good discussion of Christmas music. (You're the ones that made it a good discussion!)
• Then, moving seamlessly from the sublime to the gastronomical, there was the 2006 Christmas Eve pizza spread.
• Now from the gastronomical to the historical, in 12/06 we shut down the humbuggers' popular myth-conception that Christmas is just a pagan holiday.
• So, whatever its associations, should we use Christmas to preach Christ? My man Spurgeon says yes! (For the record, so do I.) (Also for the record, "Duh!")
  
• Back in 2005, I wondered whether "virgin conception" would be a better term than "virgin birth" — though the latter necessarily includes the former, while the reverse is not true. Got that? No? Ask your mom.
  
• And then, gliding to the silly-but-fun, I reviewed a Brian Setzer Orchestra Christmas concert.
• Still in a fun vein, a particular subset of my readers will especially enjoy "Open the present... NOW!!!"
• In a post austensibly about preaching, I sneak in my reasons for declining to lie to my children about Santa Pelagius.

Okay, so...

...THIS...

...is what happens when you do THAT.

Now you know that. Any questions? I mean, besides the obvious one?

NOTE: do not try that at home.

Or anywhere.

Hither and thither 12/15/08

And now... this!

• Best headline of last week? "Man sprays 'toilet-papering' teens with fox urine." Now, reading that, what is the first question that comes to your mind? Me too: how did he come by this substance? Furnishing further proof that the MSM doesn't think as we do, that question doesn't come up. We're left to envision a grimly-determined man with a roomful of foxes, a few buckets, dishes full of cold coffee (or beer), and a tiny little stool. The actual story is funny enough — "determined" certainly fits. Gent got night goggles and filled a squirt gun with the amber fluid. Local police found it less amusing. (I do share his sentiments about toilet-papering, for the record.)
• Oh, dear. I found the answer. And just a little bit more.
• And, ohh me. Poor, sad Britain. Produces clergymen the likes of Owen, Spurgeon, Ryle, Stott, Packer... and these guys. Britain's grand past makes me so sad for its present; but I think the very same for my own country. Edwards, Machen, Hodge, Warfield, Dabney... Maclaren, Schuller, Pagitt, Pinnock, Jones.
  
• Of course the big story of last week was the MSM's new nadir, in Newsweak's wholesale attack on Christianity. Oh, the specific is homosexual marriage, but the approach taken to the Bible leaves no authoritative voice outside of the reader's own imagination. It is rather an astonishing piece, written by one Lisa Miller, quoting "experts" of one persuasion and viewpoint only, and often speaking in her own voice as if she herself is a Biblical authority. If so, her reading has been far narrower than any Biblically-faithful pastor or scholar, as she somehow found herself able to find no representatives of the opposing view. Plus, her lame and tendentious "report" (tract) is riddled with silly mistakes and egregious errors.
• As if that's not bad enough, editor Jon Meacham springs upon this as yet another opportunity to make a fool of himself in public, poor soul. Meacham flings out a blurt that is, at the same time, full of chest-pounding faux-bravado (echoing John Kerry's "BRING - IT - ONNNN" — which, readers may recall, was immediately followed by Monsieur Kerry's assuming the fetal position the moment someone actually accepted the invitation), and of insultingly unserious silliness.
  
• I do kind of like this, though, from Miller's propaganda piece: "The great [!!] Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: 'There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.' The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, 'is not generally made with reference to particular texts [true, dat! — DJP], but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness.'" (Gee, I wonder if Brueggemann will come out with a new version, and call it The Bent Bible. It would sell in the millions.)
  
• So, there it is again. It isn't what the Bible actually says, it's what it would say, if it were a better book — that is, if we had written it! I had a few gentle words about this ploy when Luke Timothy Johnson tried it.
  
• IOW, the Bible advocates homosexual marriage in exactly the same place the Constitution guarantees abortion-on-demand: in the penumbra!
  
• Justin Taylor had more excellent articles and pointers on this than I can link. Just go here and search "Newsweek" and "Meacham" and "Miller," if you want further reading on this full-out Yuletide MSM assault on Christian faith.
• Is Bush an evangelical?, Irish Calvinist asks. He thinks not. Stickler that I am, I've tried to find a full, verbatim account of the Bush interview. I found this transcript, which does not contain the words most have objected to. It has a mixture of the miserably foolish, and the acceptably evangelical — if one makes allowance for the fact on which I've long remarked: that President Bush is a lamentably ineloquent, inarticulate man. To that, we can add "wretchedly-taught," by the Methodist churches he's frequented. Does that surprise us? Sadly, no. Sadder still, Bush doesn't say anything Billy Graham hasn't also said, more's the pity. So, if Billy Graham is an evangelical, nothing Bush said disqualified him from the same label.
• I meant that if, by the way. Perhaps Graham isn't the evangelical we wish he were. Read Iain Murray's excellent (and depressing) Evangelicalism Divided, and you'll know exactly what I mean.
  
• Last week I told you about Richard Cizik, Chief Lobbyist and Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, Obama-supporter, and otherwise? Well, he no longer occupies that post. CT also interviewed the NAE president.
• MSM "the coast is clear" alert: now that a Democrat has won, it's okay to report about good guys winning and bad guys dying.
• A "what if we had an objective media" thought: were the MSM objective — pause for the gales of laughter to die down — I would be interested in seeing reports comparing enlistment levels between this and previous Decembers, and months to come. I'll go out on a limb and say I expect to see them down, 'way down. I expect to discourage my 13yos, who has long considered military service, from doing so — if Obama (A) governs the way he campaigned and the way he promised, and (B) holds office. I am absolutely certain I'm not alone in that. Obama may have to re-institute the draft just to bring levels up, particularly if our enemies start taking advantage, should he govern as weakly and foolishly and cluelessly as he promised to do.
  

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake — a movie review (spoilerific)

Movie: The Day the Earth Stood Still
Length: 103 min
Rated: PG-13
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates, John Cleese, Jaden Smith
Director: Scott Derrickson
Producers: Paul Harris Boardman, Gregory Goodman, Erwin Stoff
Screenplay: David Scarpa

(You think: "'Spoilerific'? Oh, that's a bad sign." And you're right.)

A better title would be, "103 Minutes A Movie Stood Still," or "103 Minutes My Life Stood Still."

This is a bad movie. Oh, it has moments, but they're not worth it.

It's a bad remake. Let's just take one point of comparison: the 1951 movie was called "The Day the Earth Stood Still" because, you know, the earth stood still! It was a major plot point: Klaatu gets the attention of everyone in the earth by stopping all power, worldwide, at the same time. Everything on Earth. It stood still. On a day.

Here? Nope, no sir! Oh, well, briefly everything pauses at one point — as a side-effect of something else. Not to be confused with the pause that begins with the opening sequence and ends only with the abrupt end-credits. But this power-down is peripheral, a byproduct of something else that happens. I guess so they can keep the title.

What else is bad? Well, let's see: Keanu Reeves! At his best, Reeves is an actor of... how to say this nicely?... limited range.

But in this movie, it's as if the director said to him, "Say, Keanu — you know all that lively, heart-stirring, evocative, eloquent emoting and over-the-top embodying you always do? Well, don't do any of that!"

It reminds me of the comedian whose doctor told him to make sure his sick cat got plenty of rest. "Rest?" he laughed. "The cat sleeps 22 hours a day! If he got any more rest, I'd have to stuff him and mount him!"

This is that kind of a performance. The Sphinx is looking over at Reeves saying, "Dude. Move. Do something."

I don't really get his appeal. A couple of nameless supporting actors are far more handsome and far more expressive than he, but... ah, well.

Now, Jennifer Connelly — well, bless 'er, she's a pretty lady and a competent actress, and the one character you can almost care for. But she loses all credibility pretty soon, and never really gets it back. Then there's Jaden Smith (Will's son), who does his role, but it's an unsympathetic, predictable, annoying role, another big deficit in relation to the equivalent character (played by Father Knows Best's Billy Gray) in the original. Kathy Bates is always a good and capable presence, but also is not given a deeply-written nor thought-out character.

I went (A) to have fun with Valerie, (B) in spite of some things I'd heard already, and (C) figuring that at least there'd be some good eye-candy. Well: (A) mission accomplished; (B) mistake; and (C) nope, not so much.

In place of 1951's cool (for the time) flying saucer, we get a blurry, gauzy, unseeable mass of whatever, that resolves into a big marbled animated bowling ball. BO RING. And Gort is fairly cool, but doesn't do a great deal. He does however turn into the one fairly cool (if silly) special effect, as he dissolves into a swarm of what Valerie called "cutter bees" that eat everything up. Buildings, trucks, trees, they all dissolve; that's a pretty decent visual.

Oh my gosh, and then there's The Message. We're destroying the Earth! So these intergalactic AlGorean Democrats — always knowing better than the masses! — decide to kill us all to save the planet.

("Your planet?" Reeves challenges Bates archly at one point. To which one wishes to respond, "Yeah, well, a lot more so than it is your planet!")

To save the planet, ah, yes, fine. And... where did we come from? Of what ecosystem are we a part? What gives the intergalactic meddlers the right to decide that one dominant species on the planet is expendable, but by golly, the potato bugs and the maggots and the three-toed sloths must live!!!

Yep, it was eco-silliness preached with somber intensity. But at the last possible second Ke-laat-nu decides to give us a chance after he sees Jennifer Connelly and Jaden Smith hug. (Yep, they don't teach logic in space, either.)

It's accepted as a fact that we're destroying the planet, though Ke-laat-nu has no trouble finding an untouched forest to run through endlessly and pointlessly, and though one of his little ark-spheres in a nearby pond has all sorts of animals and creatures surviving and thriving and swarming off to leave us to our doom. Gee, thanks, Yertle.

(And, BTW, what happens with the GORT-storm ends? The planet is covered with metallic cutter-bees a mile deep? Yep, yessir, that will make for a verdant paradise!)

In sum: Save your money. How bad? We won't even rent it to show the boys for Burger Night when it comes out on DVD. We'll watch the original instead.

Thankfully, I know for a fact that we won't destroy the planet, because I know there will be a densely-populated world for Jesus to judge, return to, and rule over. It will be remade one day, and it will be a verdant Paradise one day — literally. But it won't happen through our recycling programs, solar panels, windmills, or odd-looking cars. It will be done by the triune God of Scripture.

So what we need to know most is not how to recycle, worthwhile though that is. We need to know Jesus.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son."
(Revelation 21:1-7)

BAD-NEWS POSTSCRIPT: Fox made history by selecting this (!) as the first movie to be beamed into deep space.

Causing one to picture this dialogue afterwards, in a distant galaxy, following a moment or two of silence:

ZIGGO: Glorp?
GLORP: Yeah, Ziggo.
ZIGGO: You know, before watching this, I wasn't even thinking of destroying that planet.
GLORP: Me neither.
ZIGGO: But now... now, after that....
GLORP: Right there with you, Ziggo. Right there with you.

UPDATE: a hapless Christian writer said nice things about the movie, provoking me to add a few thoughts over at Pyro.

Today's hither and thither...

...will probably go up tomorrow, or Monday. Sorry! Just got a bit crowded today!