Been wondering what the purpose of this blog is really supposed to be. Reviewing the stuff I see or read? I have some strong feelings about being a critic. I guess what is of more importance is taking the road from the world back to my faith.
Here's the thing. There is a disconnect between the Christian faith and the world it is supposed to be changing, at least as far as I can see. I know my bible (not as well as I should) and I know what I am supposed to believe, but that seems very abstract, very 'out there', not something livable. And I am just trying to live my life like everybody else, maybe make a difference, Lord willing.
So, "Rear Window", 1954, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly. Made 60 years ago, caught it on cable, recorded it, watched it all the way through. Last time I watched it, I was younger and more foolish. Took too much advantage of the FF button. Messed it up for myself.
What on earth can a movie made sixty years ago have to say to us today? Aside from presenting one of the ten most beautiful women in the world so far as I am concerned?
Anybody remember the name Arne Svenson from the news recently? Had an art show for his photographs in NYC in May, pictures he took of his neighbors. One he was seeking to sell for $7500 according to the website I found to refresh my recollections. Jimmy Stewart was a photographer in the movie, home from overseas assignments with a broken leg. He had nothing to do but look out the rear window of his apartment, and discovered a murder taking place.
Putting two diverse facts next to one another like that doesn't prove more than a coincidence, but it makes me reflective.
In "Rear Window", Hitchcock weaves together various stories from various apartments facing into the courtyard around the central story of the murder. Those details enhance the 'peeping tom' quality of the movie. How far do you do to meddle into the affairs of other people? Strangers in particular? When is it your business and when is it not your business?
I have a rule, meddling in the troubles of other people when it is not your concern is like pulling the ears on a Doberman.
Svenson is making money off of photographing his neighbors. "Why don't they just draw the curtains?" I have curtains open in my own home right now. What if I was the subject of the next art show? I would be royally ticked off.
So I need to work toward some profound Christian truth to wrap this up. Because there has to be a wrap up, right? I am not so sure. There may just be a coincidence of vocabulary.
Or there may be more. The central concept of our church work is 'neighborhood'. Our Anchor statements, as a church, are all written around what it is we will do in service to our neighbors. But is it busting into the lives of strangers for our own purposes, for good or for ill? Is there something morally questionable about doing something like that? Not illegal necessarily, but morally questionable?
Sharing our faith, if we can even begin to define what that really looks like, runs up against the rule of sharing it with neighbor. And there are a lot of neighbors who have been turned off by neighbors forcing a gospel message at them that they did not ask for, did not want, did not fit, and may actually have caused damage. And the people of faith hide behind the power of the Holy Spirit as an excuse.
"Jesus said go forth and make disciples of all nations" is the battle cry of the Great Commission. And there is case after case after case of people whose lives were made better by the introduction of the truth and power of the gospel into their lives.
Is it just about flipping the coin, rolling the dice, getting into the affairs of others with the good news of the gospel? Or is there something more profound that we need to be looking at. The characters in "Rear Window" did not need to involve themselves in the murder they thought they witnessed. But they pushed because they thought they were doing the right thing.
In the case of murder, right and wrong are quite clear. Not always in the rest of life.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Review: "Under the Dome"
"Under the Dome"
CBS TV, Monday nights
It's a lab experiment. It's "Blue Velvet" under glass. It does not promise to be a pleasant ride. Then again, it is Stephen King...
There is a big old church in the middle of town, but no sign yet of the preacher. Wonder how badly he is going to come off (or she) if and when they write around the preacher. You know preachers, highly knowledgeable in the things of the devil, have to be in order to truly present the grace of the Lord.
The sci-fi geek in me is crying out the question "Why don't you dig underneath it?"
Starting with the murder by the 'heroic stranger' in town, coupled with the wacked out rejected boyfriend, mixed with the corrupt town councilman (he is a real estate dealer after all, if I got that right), the rather rickety old sheriff (I liked him a lot in 'Silverado'), and a whole lot of propane.
This is going to be a Neighborhood with the ethics ripped out of its collective chest. They effectively cut out the fire department, much of the police department, the city leadership, the boy and girl scouts, and anyone else on the side of 'good' with a parade over in the neighboring town. Only then did the alien species (gotta be, right?) drop the lid on their petrie dish to see the worst in humanity.
And the violence was pretty gratuitous, I am talking about the cow in the line of the descending dome, really? Did you have to go there? Even in "Starship Troopers", a movie that is about as gratuitous as it gets, they had the decency to CENSOR the cow vs. giant bug scene.
But here is the pastor thinking now. This is going to be a closed group of highly flawed individuals who are probably (Stephen King...) going to do the worst to each other. I am intrigued at the possibilities. Makes me wonder just how much redemption could be brought to bear, if the storyline allows for it. Because if they can't find hope, if they can't find redemption, it is going to turn very ugly.
That is the antithesis of the Neighborhood that is the vision of our church. It is a mirror held up of what happens without faith, hope, and love. If you are going to watch it, I recommend middle school and up, at least, and with you present. Gotta talk about it. Stephen King is not for the faint of heart. And he has a way of getting at the darkness of humanity's soul that will make this disturbing television but without the "R" rating that movies would bring with them.
If it doesn't get silly. (Anybody watch "Haven"?)
CBS TV, Monday nights
It's a lab experiment. It's "Blue Velvet" under glass. It does not promise to be a pleasant ride. Then again, it is Stephen King...
There is a big old church in the middle of town, but no sign yet of the preacher. Wonder how badly he is going to come off (or she) if and when they write around the preacher. You know preachers, highly knowledgeable in the things of the devil, have to be in order to truly present the grace of the Lord.
The sci-fi geek in me is crying out the question "Why don't you dig underneath it?"
Starting with the murder by the 'heroic stranger' in town, coupled with the wacked out rejected boyfriend, mixed with the corrupt town councilman (he is a real estate dealer after all, if I got that right), the rather rickety old sheriff (I liked him a lot in 'Silverado'), and a whole lot of propane.
This is going to be a Neighborhood with the ethics ripped out of its collective chest. They effectively cut out the fire department, much of the police department, the city leadership, the boy and girl scouts, and anyone else on the side of 'good' with a parade over in the neighboring town. Only then did the alien species (gotta be, right?) drop the lid on their petrie dish to see the worst in humanity.
And the violence was pretty gratuitous, I am talking about the cow in the line of the descending dome, really? Did you have to go there? Even in "Starship Troopers", a movie that is about as gratuitous as it gets, they had the decency to CENSOR the cow vs. giant bug scene.
But here is the pastor thinking now. This is going to be a closed group of highly flawed individuals who are probably (Stephen King...) going to do the worst to each other. I am intrigued at the possibilities. Makes me wonder just how much redemption could be brought to bear, if the storyline allows for it. Because if they can't find hope, if they can't find redemption, it is going to turn very ugly.
That is the antithesis of the Neighborhood that is the vision of our church. It is a mirror held up of what happens without faith, hope, and love. If you are going to watch it, I recommend middle school and up, at least, and with you present. Gotta talk about it. Stephen King is not for the faint of heart. And he has a way of getting at the darkness of humanity's soul that will make this disturbing television but without the "R" rating that movies would bring with them.
If it doesn't get silly. (Anybody watch "Haven"?)
Friday, June 21, 2013
Review: "Inside the Mind of a Teenage Killer"
"Inside the Mind of a Teenage Killer"
By Phil Chalmers
Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2009
Completed June 21, 2013
I am not generally a reader or fan of "True Crime". It tends to be very sensational or voyeuristic. This book was on the resource table at a conference where Lt. Col. Dave Grossman was the speaker. Lt. Col. Grossman's words are prophetic to my mind and I picked up this book on his recommendation.
This book once again reinforces the need my church has for a youth group. As painful as it was, as disturbing as it was, I plowed through this book because there are two things that I need this knowledge for. First, on behalf of my youth, I need to know what I am looking at when there might be a killer in front of me. I don't want the youth in my care and in my flock to be at risk because I didn't do everything that I could to learn about what makes a killer kid.
The second thing I am taking from this book is the structure on how to build the antithesis of what it contains. What? This goes to the root of what good church does in our society. The very things that Phil Chalmers has taken the time and the energy to document are the very things that the church and people of faith HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO DECONSTRUCT THEM. In other words, from this book can be taken the lessons of what a church needs to do to build a culture that undercuts those things that go into raising teen killers in today's society.
I found his conclusions compelling because they are not simple. And they resonate with my own experiences as a minister and as a father. And he has taken a compassionate view with these kids that I bless him for. But this book is not for the faint of heart.
Is the book without failings? I could do without the reference at the end of every chapter to the resources Mr. Chalmers has documenting the cases in this volume in greater detail. And I am a lot more of a liberal when it comes to my views and opinions on gun control so I am not as convinced by some of Mr. Chalmers suggestions (although it is fun to shoot).
The final question I took away from this book was how Phil Chalmers restores his own soul in the face of all evil manifested in all the kids he's interviewed and worked with. He will be in my prayers.
SPOILER ALERT: Chapter 12; "Raising a Killer in Ten Easy Steps", really got me. Mr. Chalmers summarizes, step by step, the data he's presented through the book in a list written as a perverse primer on what parents should and ought to be doing to raise teenage killers. He's very clear at the beginning and the end of the chapter that he is intentionally doing this but his aim is to make us "see reality through absurdity". "Raising a Killer in Ten Easy Steps" could be a satirical self-help parenting guide, or, in my business, a twisted sermon series. For me, it is going to become the framework on which to build the youth program for next year.
By Phil Chalmers
Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2009
Completed June 21, 2013
I am not generally a reader or fan of "True Crime". It tends to be very sensational or voyeuristic. This book was on the resource table at a conference where Lt. Col. Dave Grossman was the speaker. Lt. Col. Grossman's words are prophetic to my mind and I picked up this book on his recommendation.
This book once again reinforces the need my church has for a youth group. As painful as it was, as disturbing as it was, I plowed through this book because there are two things that I need this knowledge for. First, on behalf of my youth, I need to know what I am looking at when there might be a killer in front of me. I don't want the youth in my care and in my flock to be at risk because I didn't do everything that I could to learn about what makes a killer kid.
The second thing I am taking from this book is the structure on how to build the antithesis of what it contains. What? This goes to the root of what good church does in our society. The very things that Phil Chalmers has taken the time and the energy to document are the very things that the church and people of faith HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO DECONSTRUCT THEM. In other words, from this book can be taken the lessons of what a church needs to do to build a culture that undercuts those things that go into raising teen killers in today's society.
I found his conclusions compelling because they are not simple. And they resonate with my own experiences as a minister and as a father. And he has taken a compassionate view with these kids that I bless him for. But this book is not for the faint of heart.
Is the book without failings? I could do without the reference at the end of every chapter to the resources Mr. Chalmers has documenting the cases in this volume in greater detail. And I am a lot more of a liberal when it comes to my views and opinions on gun control so I am not as convinced by some of Mr. Chalmers suggestions (although it is fun to shoot).
The final question I took away from this book was how Phil Chalmers restores his own soul in the face of all evil manifested in all the kids he's interviewed and worked with. He will be in my prayers.
SPOILER ALERT: Chapter 12; "Raising a Killer in Ten Easy Steps", really got me. Mr. Chalmers summarizes, step by step, the data he's presented through the book in a list written as a perverse primer on what parents should and ought to be doing to raise teenage killers. He's very clear at the beginning and the end of the chapter that he is intentionally doing this but his aim is to make us "see reality through absurdity". "Raising a Killer in Ten Easy Steps" could be a satirical self-help parenting guide, or, in my business, a twisted sermon series. For me, it is going to become the framework on which to build the youth program for next year.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Review: World War Z
World War Z
by Max Brooks
New York: Crown Publishers, 2006.
Completed June 19, 2013
I like zombie-stuff. "Night of the Living Dead", "The Walking Dead", "Marvel Zombies"... "Zombieland" is a movie my daughter and I share an affection for. World War Z takes it to a new level. First person narrative accounts in the aftermath of the war was the ideal way to tell the story. It provided a level of realism that took my breath away. I don't know how the movie will begin to touch the book. I hope, for Brad Pitt's sake, that he doesn't even try.
The best zombie 'stuff' is never about the zombies. It is about the human drama that is taken to an existential extreme because of the threat to our very existence. World War Z, in that vein, is not about zombies. Rather, it documents the human condition after the worst possible circumstances. And we come out hopeful.
I think Max Brooks did an amazing job drawing out the different perspectives of our global village, portraying national identities, defining individual stories, all tied together yet individual in their tellings.
SPOILER ALERT: There was one point that really cut me to the quick. It was the role of the chaplain, the minister of God, in the war. It had to be Russian. Novels, and in particular science fiction novels, let you think about things in ways that nothing else does.
I've run into this idea before, in the movie DOOM, in the second of the "Starship Troopers" movie, the idea of what happens to the human being when something takes over their mental faculties, what is their responsibility-and, by extension, what is God's love for them? Goes to an extreme in considering God's love for all of us, no matter who we are.
The answer in the above examples was the person taking their own life before being taken over. World War Z goes to another place with it. Typical zombie thing, they bite you, infect you, you become one of them. In the World War, there are soldier who get bitten, then infected. Brooks sets the scenario that the usual response, killing them outright, is not an option.
So who kills the infected? They haven't turned, but they are going to, it is inevitable. They will become the instruments of the destruction of their friends and comrades if something isn't done. At first, it is the responsibility of the officers and NCO's, who are quickly overwhelmed by the task. There is enough in leading these men and women to their possible deaths, much less pulling the trigger if they, in the combat against the undead, become infected by them. So the task then passes to the victims themselves, to end their own lives before they become the very thing their army fights.
So enters the chaplain, the presence of God in the lives of these people. How do you give pastoral care to those who are so doomed? Tie to that the sinfulness implicit in suicide in Christian thought and what is the natural progression? Should it not be the chaplain, the presence of God, who takes on the role of he or she that releases the souls of the doomed to God?
The passage describing the chaplain taking out his sidearm is chilling.
by Max Brooks
New York: Crown Publishers, 2006.
Completed June 19, 2013
I like zombie-stuff. "Night of the Living Dead", "The Walking Dead", "Marvel Zombies"... "Zombieland" is a movie my daughter and I share an affection for. World War Z takes it to a new level. First person narrative accounts in the aftermath of the war was the ideal way to tell the story. It provided a level of realism that took my breath away. I don't know how the movie will begin to touch the book. I hope, for Brad Pitt's sake, that he doesn't even try.
The best zombie 'stuff' is never about the zombies. It is about the human drama that is taken to an existential extreme because of the threat to our very existence. World War Z, in that vein, is not about zombies. Rather, it documents the human condition after the worst possible circumstances. And we come out hopeful.
I think Max Brooks did an amazing job drawing out the different perspectives of our global village, portraying national identities, defining individual stories, all tied together yet individual in their tellings.
SPOILER ALERT: There was one point that really cut me to the quick. It was the role of the chaplain, the minister of God, in the war. It had to be Russian. Novels, and in particular science fiction novels, let you think about things in ways that nothing else does.
I've run into this idea before, in the movie DOOM, in the second of the "Starship Troopers" movie, the idea of what happens to the human being when something takes over their mental faculties, what is their responsibility-and, by extension, what is God's love for them? Goes to an extreme in considering God's love for all of us, no matter who we are.
The answer in the above examples was the person taking their own life before being taken over. World War Z goes to another place with it. Typical zombie thing, they bite you, infect you, you become one of them. In the World War, there are soldier who get bitten, then infected. Brooks sets the scenario that the usual response, killing them outright, is not an option.
So who kills the infected? They haven't turned, but they are going to, it is inevitable. They will become the instruments of the destruction of their friends and comrades if something isn't done. At first, it is the responsibility of the officers and NCO's, who are quickly overwhelmed by the task. There is enough in leading these men and women to their possible deaths, much less pulling the trigger if they, in the combat against the undead, become infected by them. So the task then passes to the victims themselves, to end their own lives before they become the very thing their army fights.
So enters the chaplain, the presence of God in the lives of these people. How do you give pastoral care to those who are so doomed? Tie to that the sinfulness implicit in suicide in Christian thought and what is the natural progression? Should it not be the chaplain, the presence of God, who takes on the role of he or she that releases the souls of the doomed to God?
The passage describing the chaplain taking out his sidearm is chilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)