Sex, Money, and Power

Reading the book of Jeremiah, Counterfeit Gods, and The Screwtape Letters simultaneously has created a wonderful confluence of thought that I never foresaw. Idolatry is named and shamed (or in Screwtape's case, praised) in each text, with a similar cure offered to those who desire to stop turning something good into something ultimate.

Keller's diagnosis is simple and direct:

The human heart is indeed a factory that mass-produces idols.

The Big 3 -- sex, money and power -- get separate treatment in his book, with each idol shown to dehumanise the human that creates and worships it. But Keller does not end on a note of despair:

Is there any hope? Yes, if we begin to realise that idols cannot simply be removed. They must be replaced. If you only try to uproot them, they grow back; but they can be supplanted. By what? By God himself, of course. But by God we do not mean a general belief in his existence. Most people have that, yet their souls are riddled with idols. What we need is a living encounter with God.

C.S. Lewis says things as only C.S. Lewis can. At the end of The Screwtape Letters, the demon Screwtape is resenting the loss of a human to the Enemy's (God's) camp. He had instructed his protege Wormwood to create a continual flow of idols in the life of this new Christian, but the game is up. The young demon's efforts will be futile, for the Christian has discovered what Keller was talking about. So Screwtape laments:

All the delights of sense, or heart, or intellect, with which you could once have tempted him, even the delights of virtue itself, now seem to him in comparison but as the half nauseous attractions of a raddled harlot would seem to a man who hears that his true beloved whom he has loved all his life and whom he had believed to be dead is alive and even now at his door.

Such words of conviction and promise as found in Counterfeit Gods and The Screwtape Letters can only be uttered because of the primary utterances of God. Speaking to his beloved Israel, through the weeping prophet Jeremiah, YHWH says,

...my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. - Jer. 2:13

These are no shallow evils with a silver bullet solution. The problem, as YHWH goes on to say, is deep-seated:

The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is engraved on the tablet of their heart... - Jer. 17:1

What an image. The heart bears the marks of idolatry as if it were irrevocably engraved into the human constitution. The desire for counterfeit gods, the need to fashion our broken cisterns, is burned onto our innermost being. But YHWH would not let such engravings have the last word. He would do something new:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. - Jer. 31:31-33

Only the presence of God is powerful enough to remove words engraved with the tip of a diamond and to replace them with words of life. The lie of idolatry is that joy can be obtained when people create their own gods. The truth of the gospel is that joy abounds when God creates his own people. The vocation and privilege of the church is to be that people; people who, says Paul,

...are a letter from Christ...written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

A Proposal

Instead of the time of nonsense worship being before the preaching of the word, how about it coming after? The word initiates, reveals, tells, and the worship responds and includes the worshiper in the story of God's new creation, all the while maintaining the tension of already but not yet.

Is this something you'd like to see happen in your church (if it isn't already)? Why or why not?

His Morning and Evening Blast

I had what you might call a Corinthian Valentine’s Day.

On Sunday the 14th of February I indulged in not one but two communion services. Like a drug addict getting his morning and evening blast, I got my morning and evening fix of the elements. As in Aspen, this Valentine’s Day the blackcurrant juice flowed like wine, and I drank till I was merry.

I have to say, there was something quite special about breaking bread on Valentine’s Day, the day of love. Saint Valentine, after all, was (allegedly) a martyr for the sake of Jesus, who himself died for the sake of others. And before Jesus died, he had one final meal with the ones he called “friends”.

It was not an especially romantic meal, but love was in the air. True love. The kind of love that compels a master to wash his servant’s dirty, dusty feet. The kind of love that causes someone to dedicate themselves to having their body broken and their blood shed, for the sake of others and for the sake of newness and for the sake of making things right.

(It’s worth noting that there’s not even a hint of sex in the above description, which is so foreign to our thinking today that all but equates love and sex.)

At my evening fix, one of my fellow “young adults” gave a short talk before we shared in The Lord’s Supper which really brought things to life. He had several points, but one in particular resonated with me. It was simply this:

Jesus isn’t afraid of our sin.

So often we think that we have to get ourselves right before approaching God; before being in his presence. But in fact it is the very presence of God that makes us right. As Jesus demonstrated throughout his life and at his death, his wholeness is more powerful than our brokenness. It does not scare him away but rather incredibly, it draws him near; near enough to touch us and to change us. It is we who are afraid, but we needn’t be. We are encouraged to encounter god’s grace boldly, because we are dealing with a prodigal god who just can’t help himself when it comes to loving us.

Communion on Valentine’s Day was a moving way to remember this, and amidst all of the hype and pseudo-love, it helped me to fix my eyes on what love really looks like.

Nail pierced hands, wounded side
This is Love
This is Love

Stop Pretending

I was given the task of writing a short opinion piece with a contrary viewpoint in my journalism night class yesterday. Here's what I came up with, the topic roughly being that materialism at Christmas should be welcomed.

**warning**

contains words and concepts that I don't fully understand

**end warning**


The sooner it is admitted that Christmas nowadays is all about materialism the better. What matters to us in the Western world, is, well, matter, and the more we have of it the happier we will be.

This, and not the Christian worldview, is what dominates society’s thinking and decision making in general. It is high time this is consciously admitted by the masses and people -- both inside the church and out -- stop pretending that we can juggle both Christ and our version of Christmas. We have laid our secular bed; we must be prepared to sleep in it.

In our hypermodern world, one should not be embarrassed by the materialism surrounding Christmas. In such a world, materialism is, for lack of a better word, good; the only good, in fact. It permeates every other day of the year, so why not the 25th of December? The only embarrassment should be the mention of Jesus at this time of year. We have relegated him to irrelevance in our day to day lives; therefore his presence in the midst of rampant consumerism is at best confusing and at worst blatant hypocrisy, for as Charlie Brooker so graphically puts it, Jesus “would have doubtless vomited up his own ribcage in disgust at the mere sight of the hollow, anaesthetising capitalist moonbase” that is our take on Christmas.

Strange as it may sound, Christ and Christmas do not mix. Not today. The Christian Church will protest at this, and well it might, for we have betrayed the sacred traditions of Christmas – the celebration of the birth of a man who lived and died for the sake of others, for the sake things unseen, for the sake of true love. What was once a thanksgiving for the god who made himself nothing has now become a spending spree for people who want everything. But given our collective worldview, materialism can no longer be considered a distracting sideshow to the event of Christmas; rather, materialism finds its full expression at this time of year. Shops are the new churches, where people flock to for their most urgent needs. It is little wonder that they are planning for Christmas long before actual churches are.

The Church must concede that we live, for all intents and purposes, in a post-Christian world. No doubt the Church is largely to blame for this, as recent scandals within its Catholic expression lamentably testify to. Therefore until we as a society are willing to stand for that which Jesus stands for -- until the Christian Church is once again willing to stand for that which Jesus stands for -- materialism should be what Christmas is all about. Ironically, this will actually serve to benefit the Church, for only then will its shocking counter-cultural message begin to be understood by both Christians and non-Christians alike.

The One

- 'How many "ones" can you have?'

- '...Five...'

In Christian jargon there is much talk of "the one". From the age of say 18 onwards we begin the search for "the one". We do not know who he or she is, but we hold on to the seemingly sure hope that the one is out there somewhere, awaiting discovery. Or perhaps we have already met the one, but we just don't know it yet, and like some kind of romantic prank the one will be revealed to us as being a friend we "never looked at that way before" or an acquaintance we never took the time to get to know. The possibilities are, in some ways at least, endless, which is one of the many [?] thrills of singledom.

The math of this is simple. A person is only one person, and so that person can only end up with one person. The renegade Mormon in you might disagree, but the reality is that you will not end up with what Peter LaFleur likes to call "the jackpot". There is only one: "the one". Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find him/her.

To drag this into the realm of full-on Christendom, the popular mantra repeated ad infinitum by Christian singles whose dwindling confidence is balanced out by rapidly increasing desperation is that God knows who "the one" is. The one is roaming around the earth somewhere, and sooner or later paths are going to cross and true romance will be born.

We often hear stories that lend credence to such notions. I know someone who "just knew" who the one was after about two dates. Or even more dramatic, someone who simply saw a woman and said "There is the woman I'm going to marry". Turns out their optimistic instincts were right; they had indeed found the one they were seemingly destined to end up with. How did they know? As Jermaine discloses, "You just know".

Now that's all well and good when you're right, but what about when what you think you "just know" is actually misinformation? How many times have people been sure they have found "the one", only for destiny to slip through their fingers or run away scared? Who really is the one? Is there even a one, or like Jermaine posits, do we get "a few ones"?

I had this chat with a friend of mine last year and he is of the view that there is one one. There is "God's best" you might put it. Our goal is to find it. If we don't, then we make do with someone else down the pecking order. Think of it (rather crudely) as a few cars being lined up in front of us, and instead of choosing the Porsche we go for the Toyota. This way of thinking allows for human folly. As human beings, we don't always make the wisest choices. We can easily settle for something that's good now instead of something that's great later. In doing so we may miss out on the one and end up with number two or three instead, unbeknownst to us of course.

My questions are, Can we really miss out on the one, even if we never know it? What determines whether someone is the one or not? If you like them and they like you and you promise to like each other forever, does that mean that you have each found the one?

The Bible doesn't (as far as I know) tell us that God has a specific "one" for everybody. Nor are we told that we get five ones each. What we do know is that marriage is a lifelong commitment. So how do we know who the one is? To put it plainly, the one is the one on whose finger we place an overpriced ring. How we get to that place will vary: some may feel a tingling in their heart from first sight, some may gradually realise that this is a person they could really love the rest of their lives, some may have the decision made for them, others may be forced into it by a red-faced father bearing a shot-gun. There are wise paths to the alter and there are foolish paths; there are godly paths and there are ungodly paths. I guess maybe an ideal marriage ceremony is the celebration and consummation of godly wisdom. I had the pleasure of being the best man at one such ceremony this summer, where the guy of second date prescience fame realised his dream, or perhaps destiny.

But what about the slightly less than ideal ceremonies, brought about not so much by true love as by undeniable pregnancy? Is the one you accidentally impregnate the one? Christians, along with all mankind, make unwise decisions with undesired consequences. Where does that leave dreams of "the one"? Is it a case of having to settle for less?

The short answer is I don't know. But what I think might need to happen is that we stop putting all of our energy into finding the one and more time preparing ourselves to be people able to love just one woman or man for the rest of our lives. As my recently married brother will tell you, finding the one is the easy part - loving the one for the rest of your life is where it gets a bit trickier.

The Height of Morality

I remember an episode of Friends which got me thinking, of all things. Joey defied Phoebe to commit a completely selfless act, all the while saying that none exist. Every deed done has some hint of selfishness attached to it. This troubled me. Am I and everyone else really incapable of what may be considered a truly moral gesture?

The underlying philosophical assumption in Joey's challenge was that for an act to be moral there must be nothing "in it" for the doer. The doer can gain nothing from it; only give. I've held this to be true for most of my adult life, but upon reading the surprisingly fascinating book Desiring God I am in the process of coming to vastly different conclusions. An example will help illustrate the point.

Take two husbands. No, they're not two men married to each other; they're in separate marriages. One husband buys his wife flowers for her birthday because he knows it's his duty. Nothing in him wants to do it, but he goes through with the purchase and hands his wife the flowers. He feels no gain from the deed. The other husband cannot wait to hand a bunch of flowers to his wife. He loves her passionately, and so he delights in these moments. It makes him feel terrific to be able to buy this beautiful woman a bunch of flowers for her birthday. He is consumed by love for her, and so it is his pleasure to shower her with gifts.

Whose wife will be the happier?

In times gone by I would have said "But hang on a minute. The second husband is gaining from all of this. There's nothing selfless about what he is doing. It makes him feel good, and so of course he's going to do it". But such an interjection would be missing the nature of love completely, and also the nature of morality. The greatest deeds are not done begrudgingly. They are not done with a cold heart. They overflow from a heart which delights in doing good.

Only one of the above hypothetical wives will feel loved, because only one of them is truly loved. Her gain is her husbands gain, and her loss will be her husbands loss, which is the way it is supposed to be. The first husband is a dutiful husband, but he is not a loving husband, for his affections and desires lie elsewhere.

I used to think that the height of morality was doing things we don't want to do. Of course sometimes that is required, but true morality is when we take pleasure in doing what is good and right; when our hearts desire is to see others blessed, and as Christians, to ultimately see God glorified.

John Piper calls this Christian Hedonism. It's a complicated beast with many pitfalls to be avoided, but I can't help with agree with him and be excited about the consequences.

"Delight yourself in the LORD..." - Psalm 37:4

You're Already Dead

A paraphrase of the first indicative in Colossians 3:3: you're already dead.

I wonder how these words of Paul relate to the words of Lt. Spiers as he "comforts" Private Blithe on the outskirts of Carentan:




"...The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function is a soldier is supposed to function..."

The comparison ends with the call to no compassion or remorse, but I do think there is some profound theological truth in Speirs' seemingly bleak outlook on life as a soldier. If not, it's still a terrific scene from a great mini-series, and Spiers is still one of the most brilliant minor characters in television history. Proof:

Christian?

What makes somebody a Christian? What does it mean to be a Christian? It is quite clear that not everybody who professes to be a Christian is a Christian. Should Christians care about this, in the sense of doing something about it? At what point does one Christian have the responsibility to tell another professing Christian that they are not in fact a Christian at all? Or does nobody but God have the right and responsibility to declare our status, since he alone knows our hearts?

Is the Christian life a journey, or is it a one-time deal where once you're in you're in? Or is it somehow both?

Again, what makes somebody a Christian? A decision? A feeling? A thought? A lifestyle? A declaration? An act? Knowledge? Some kind of combination of two or more of these things?

What makes me a Christian? Because I pray semi-regularly? Because I got scared into salvation 14 years ago? Because I go to church on Sunday? Because I know that it's only by faith in Jesus that I am justified before God? Because I keep a pseudo-theological blog? Because I obey more of the rules than others? Because I claim to have accepted God's forgiveness and grace? Because I am constantly reading Christian literature?

A final point - if it's possible to profess Christianity and not be a Christian, is it also possible to deny Christianity and be a Christian, or am I just silly even asking that?

Anyway, let's discuss. I'm tired of feeling like I'm writing to myself all the time, even if it's true. If you identify yourself as a Christian, what makes that identity genuine? And if you're not a Christian, what do you think makes somebody else a Christian? If people respond then I'll try and tackle some of the above questions myself at some point, but if nobody responds then I'll assume disinterest amidst my readership and move swiftly on.

A Litmus Test

As I ponder the words of John Stott in The Cross of Christ, I am left wondering how far away we have veered from Paul's affirmation that "we preach Christ crucified". When it comes to Christian preaching, is that what is being heard around the world? Stott says that the only authentic Jesus is the Jesus who died on the cross. P.T. Forsyth states that "you do not understand Christ till you undertsand His cross".

I remembering hearing of someone who uses the following question as a sort of litmus test for preaching: In order for your sermon to be true, did Christ have to die?

A sort of corollary question might be asked of the congregation: In order for a sermon to have a genuine impact on you, does Christ crucified need to be proclaimed?

The message of the cross may have been a stumbling block to Jews. It may have been foolishness to Greeks. But one fears we are in an even more precarious position now, because to the 21st century inhabitants the message of the cross is seemingly irrelevant.

Paradoxes

Here is a paradox which Alister McGrath sets forth in one of his many books:

The 2oth century gave way to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerance and violence of that century were practised by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.

However, similarly paradoxical is the fact that Christianity has been the reason for some people to engage in crusades and warfare, while for other people it has been the reason to remain completely pacifist and anti-conflict. In short, it has been the motivation both for the militant and for monks.

I love paradoxes.

Question:

Would you sell your eyes for five million euro? Ten million perhaps? I heard that question asked today on UCB TV, and it got me thinking. More specifically, it got me thinking about the fact that I wouldn't do it, and I doubt there are very many non-blind people that would. In other words, my answer revealed to me that my eyes are priceless. There is no amount of money you could throw at me that would make me give up my eye-sight. It's just not going to happen, so I'd appreciate it if you would stop hassling me about it.

The UCB show went on to briefly relate this question to the soul. I don't know about you, but I believe I have a soul. You can study all the various parts of me under a microscope (though I'd really rather you didn't), but none of your findings will reveal much of Declan the person to you. You can surgically remove my heart or my brain, but they won't tell you anything about what I like or what I know or how I feel. There is something invisible, something unreachable in me that makes me who I am. And it's this something that makes me knowable to people, and ultimately, it makes me knowable to God.

We can call this the heart of a man, the soul of a man, the spirit of a man. Ultimately, its simply the invisible attribute of ourselves that gives the visible attributes life and meaning. My leg itself won't have much use or purpose if its detached from my body, and my body won't have much use if its detached from life.

The point I'm getting at in a roundabout, meandering way is that the soul matters. In fact the soul is vital, in the original sense of the word. The soul is life itself, because what are we if we have not got it? Well, we're no different from animals. But of course that's absurd, because we are very much different from animals. We don't think it unusual or wrong if a tiger mauls a man to death in the jungle. We don't bring that tiger in for questioning and make him stand before a jury. We understand that tigers aren't accountable as we are, because they don't have souls. They have no inner being that they need to feed and nurture and grow. We as humans however, do.

The point I wanted to get at in the previous paragraph before I meandered some more is that we need to be very wary of our souls. We wouldn't dream of selling our eyes for all the money in the world, yet we can treat our souls as if they were of no value at all. This applies to Christians and non-Christians a like.

For Christians, we can fall into the trap of thinking that once we "accept Jesus into our hearts" that's it, job done. Next stop heaven. However, we fail to realise that eternal life starts here and now. The new creations that we become when Christ comes into our lives are not going to die. These renewed spirits of ours are what we've got, from here to eternity. Therefore we must be careful to feed them, and to keep them from being tarnished. This is part of what sanctification entails, and it's a reality that is lost on many Christians today I fear, myself included.

For non Christians, neglect of the soul is perilous. As Jesus says to His followers,

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matt. 10:28

I wonder how people who think Jesus was just a good teacher feel about such a statement. These words come in the midst of some pretty hard lessons, but they emanate from the same lips as the One who said that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

It is clear from Jesus death on the cross that He values our souls. He values that which is unseen with the naked eye, but unmistakeably real nonetheless. He values it so much that He warns people about neglecting it with such strong words. What Jesus is telling us in this passage is to forget about our eyes, and start thinking about our souls. He's telling us to stop putting so much weight on things that will eventually perish and start putting weight on the things of eternal importance (not the only time He gave such a lesson it should be noted).

That's not to say you should sell your eyes for ten million euro if you get the chance. It's to say that if something so temporal as our eyes are of that much value to you, how much more valuable should the soul be?

I remember an episode of the Simpsons when Bart sold his soul to Milhouse for $5, simply because he didn't believe he had one to begin with. I feel like many people today would be just as hasty to do similar business, not realising what it is they are relinquishing. (In case I've left you in suspense, Bart did eventually realise the error of his ways and managed to get the piece of paper that said "Bart Simpson's soul" back, and promptly ate it.)

We must all be careful not to make such a mistake with our souls, because if we are to believe Jesus, it will be the biggest mistake of our lives.

I finish with another question: Can you say with the hymnist "It is well with my soul"? There are few questions of greater importance than this one, so think carefully.

Blessed Are The Greek?

Just before I go to class, I thought I'd quickly share one of the many interesting things I've learned over the past three days. I'm never been one to be overly concerned about what the Greek root of a certain word is and so forth, at least from a spiritual growth standpoint anyway. But sometimes such knowledge can really bring a Bible passage to life.

An example of this is found in Romans chapter 1, when Paul quotes that

'The righteous shall live by faith'.

However, as Dr Arden Autry pointed out, in the original Greek text, the words in that sentence are actually ordered

'The righteous by faith shall live'.

While both sentences are true, there is a distinct difference between them. Since I don't have time to go into the nitty gritty, I'll leave it to you to reflect on the respective emphases, and if you want to leave a comment or write me an email based on any findings you, um, find, then please do so. Let's make this interactive people! I'll try and do a post on this again in the near future so it would be cool to have a whole collection of thoughts instead of just the thoughts of this tired, old brain.

Mind Myself

For those of you who don't know, I'm about to start a year long course at the Emmaus Scripture School. In fact I start in less than 7 hours. This semester (I can't believe I'm calling periods of time 'semesters' again) I'll be taking 4 classes - The Life of Christ, Romans, Biblical Interpretation and Old Testament Survey. I have to say that I'm honestly excited about all 4 of the classes. There isn't one that I wish I could skip - unlike my previous stint at learning, when classes had names such as 'Metric Spaces', 'Topology' and 'Differential Equations'. Oh the pain of it all.

The benefits of doing this course are fairly obvious, but there are also a few things I need to look out for. It's very easy to distort a good thing, so I must be wary of that as I progress through the year. I guess one of the key verses when undertaking a course on the Word of God is found in James, where he writes,

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves."

This, above all else, is something I need to constantly search myself for. I don't want this year to become an exercise in hearing and learning, but with no change to character or lifestyle. If all I attain from this course is better head knowledge of the Bible, then I will not have achieved the courses goal. We are called not only to renew our minds, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

I agree with Charles Price when he says that all true spiritual experiences start in the mind. I mean "to repent" literally means "to change mind". But if what happens in your mind doesn't sink into the heart and work itself out in your day to day actions, then it will constitute a 'dead faith'.

R.C. Sproul writes,

"We can affirm a sound theology and live an unsound life. Sound theology is not enough to live a godly life. But it is still a requisite for godly living. How can we do the truth without first understanding what the truth is?"

This is almost a paraphrase of what James writes. Hearing the Word and being able to get 100% in a theology exam is not enough. Yes we are to hear the Word and let it penetrate our minds. Yes what we think matters, because as R.C. had written earlier, "when our thoughts are corrupted, our lives follow suit." But as I said before, if what we think doesn't change what we do, then our thoughts are worthless before God. A renewed mind and an understanding of the truth are necessary stipulations for spiritual growth, but as Sproul writes, these things are not sufficient in and of themselves. He says that,

"Without the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the mere presence of doctrine, even sound doctrine, will leave us cold."

This coldness is what I think I most need to be guarded from, and if anyone is reading this then some prayers in this area would be greatly appreciated.

Pride is another pitfall. Doing a course like this could so easily leave me thinking I'm better than other Christians, simply because I've taken a year out of my life to study the Word of God. It's up to me to continually humble myself before God and others, realising that it's not me, but the Spirit of God who brings His Word to life and writes it on my heart. It will be all too easy for me to detach the Word of God from the Spirit of God and allow myself to be puffed up by 'my own' knowledge, but this must not happen. I'm just thankful that I'm surrounded by a solid family and solid friends who have looked out for me spiritually up to this point, and who I know will continue to do so throughout the year.

There's more I could say, but I'll leave it at that for now. I'll be sure to keep you all updated on how things are going, and to share some of the wonderful truths that I'm bound to learn. However, given that I'll now actually be doing something with my life, my blog posting might get a little more infrequent. Then again, it might not. We shall have to see.

I'll end with the quote that hangs on the door of the room in which I'll be taking the classes. It reads,

"I am still learning."

At The Foot Of The Cross

I've gone to a DVD night every second Thursday for roughly the past two and a half years now. It's run by the Galway City Baptist Church, and they're very gracious for doing so. Anyway, last night we watched 'The Kite Runner'. Needless to say, I hadn't read the book, so I went into this movie not knowing what to expect from it, save for subtitles.

(On the topic of subtitles, as I was telling someone yesterday, every time I'm about to watch a subtitled film I always groan and complain about the fact that I have to 'work' while watching a movie. Then when I watch the movie, reading the subtitles becomes so effortless, and really adds to the overall experience. I'll proceed to make a mental note of that fact, lest I approach the next subtitled film with similar dread. Of course, the very next film I watch that contains subtitles will be greeted with boos and disapproval, and me once again complaining of having to 'work' while watching a movie. Never mind the fact that I've enjoyed nearly every subtitled film I've seen. That all goes out the window. How quickly we forget, eh?

This same viscious cycle applies to the film 'Waterworld' also. The first time I watched Waterworld I thought it was rubbish, which it was - just like virtually every film critic has ever said. However, every time Waterworld appears on the small screen (usually Thursday nights at 9.30pm on RTE 2), I say to myself, 'You know, maybe it's not as bad as I think'. And so I'll watch it in the vain hope that it may well be a decent flick. It's not, and I resolve straight after to never watch it again on the grounds that it really is as horrible as every one says. Of course next time RTE 2 decide to pull it out of the fire, Declan decides to give it another chance. Foolish Declan.)

OK all of that aside, I really enjoyed 'The Kite Runner' (as a warning, I don't want any of you pretentious purists telling me that the book is better than the film). There were quite a lot of issues to think through afterwards, which is always a good sign. And moreover, there were numerous religious themes and parallels to be drawn from the story, which I always appreciate in films (as long as they're handled with subtlety, just as Mel Gibson did with his acute film 'The Passion of the Christ' [!?]).

One of the more impactful scenes in the film is quite an horrific one. To give it some context (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT FOR THE REMAINING PARAGRAPHS), we're shown the story of two friends - one a servant to the others father. The servant (Hassan) is the braver of the two. He's only a boy, but he shows great moral courage, and displays all the characteristics of a true friend. The other boy is weak in comparison, and this weakness is no more evident than when his best friend is cornered by a group of older teens. These teens want to take the kite that Hassan 'ran' (I want explain what that means). Hassan refuses, stating that this is the kite which he ran for Amir, and he's not going to just hand it over.

All the while, Amir is watching this unfold from a far. He sees his best friend's display of loyalty and courage, but this moves him not an inch. He doesn't intervene, he doesn't cry for help. He just watches, paralyzed with fear and lacking any conviction. Hassan is beaten to the ground - kicked, punched, and eventually raped. Amir can't just stand by and idly watch any longer, which leads him into action - his action being to run the other way. He sits on a step and waits for his friend to emerge, hobbling quietly from the alley, blood dripping to the ground.

Amir plays dumb and greets his friend as if nothing happend. Naturally enough, Hassan is keen to do likewise.

The friendship between these two boys begins to deteriorate, all because of shame. Not because of shame on Hassan's part, but because of the shame that Amir feels for all that he didn't do. Amir can barely look his friend in the eye. Every time he sees Hassan he is reminded of his moral cowardess, his moral failings. He's too ashamed and too proud to admit of his wrong doing, so he sees no other choice but to get Hassan out of his life, for he can't bare to have him in it any longer.

He does this by falsely accusing Hassan of stealing, thus forcing Hassan and his family out of the picture. This is but temporary relief of course.

Having moved to America (the story leaps forward a number of years), Amir has graduated from college, is a successful author, and has married his childhood sweetheart (and by 'his childhood sweetheart' I mean 'a girl he knew for about 5 minutes'). However, he is beckoned back to Afghanistan by a friend of his fathers. He is given a chance for redemption.

Hassan has died, but his son has been taken prisoner by a Taliban official, Assef. Not too surprisingly, this offical is the same youth who violated Hassan's innonce all those years ago. To cut a long story short, Amir goes to Assef's house, and demands that Hassan's son leave with him. Assef proceeds to beat Amir to the ground, as he did Hassan that day. However, the boy (Hassan's son) slings a brass ball into Assef's face, and he and Amir escape. More importantly, Amir is finally redeemed.

Such a story might not seem true of you or me, but it is. We may not think we have blood on our hands like Amir did, but we do. History and the Bible tell us that every single person on this earth has the blood of a man on their hands; has the death of a man on their conscience. We are all guilty, just as Amir was. And just like Amir, we all know we're guilty. Romans 1 speaks of this knowledge. The question is, what do we do with this guilt?

There are really only two options. We can own up to our guilt, confess our wrong doing, and seek forgiveness and restoration. Or, like Amir, we can try to suppress our guilt and our shame. We can try and remove the Hassan from our lives, so that we don't have to look him in the eye and feel that brokenness over and over again.

However, as it was with Amir, this is but a temporary solution. For although we can change our environment, our very hearts carry in them the knowledge of right and wrong, and we know that we have wronged.

I was reading in a book the other day that when we see Jesus for who He really is, we can only either turn away or shamelessly adore him. The prostitute in Simon's house could have either turned away in sheer guilt and shame in Jesus' presense, or else bowed down at his feet and worshipped Him. She chose the latter, and her sins, though they were many, were immediately forgiven.

Unlike Amir, we dont have to make amends for our wrong doing by doing something right to balance the books. Jesus' death on the cross was enough to pay for all the sins of the world. So what do we do? Well as Paul says in his letter to the Galatians,

"...the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

To rest on that faith and live out of that faith is to be restored. To turn away from Jesus, to suppress the truth, to try and banish Him from your life, is to live in shame. It is to live with blood still on your hands. We have all been guilty of this from the beginning of our lives, and even I as a Christian find myself negoatiating the truth in order to appease my sin. It can't be done however. I can't hide, I can't cover up, I can't make excuses. All I can do -- all anyone can do -- is go to the foot of the cross, where love and sorrow meet, and where the wrath of God is satisfied, bringing forgiveness and restoration to whosoever believes.

Religious thoughts aside, this is a pretty good movie, so check it out if you can.

All Aboard

If you haven't seen 3:10 to Yuma then may I make a gentle suggestion to stop reading this blog and go rent 3:10 to Yuma immediately. You won't regret it. In fact one could make a strong case that if you stop reading this blog and do anything else you won't regret it, but let's not hurt feeling here. Anyway, if you have seen the movie in question, then by all means continue reading.

I'll admit right off the bat that I know very little about Westerns. I haven't watched many, with a few notable exceptions being classics such as Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood, Dances With Wolves with Kevin Costner, and Wild Wild West with Will Smith. In looking at the top 50 Westerns on IMDB, Unforgiven and Dances With Wolves are the only two I've seen in their entirety. So my point is, I don't exactly know what makes for a good Western or a bad Western.

However, I do know what makes for a good movie and a bad movie. For example, I know that Wild Wild West is not a good movie, and that The Godfather is a good movie. (See, I told you I knew.) And as for 3:10 to Yuma, I happen to think it's one of the best movies since the turn of the century, and here is why...

Characters. That is why I watch movies. Yes, I enjoy movies with lots of explosions; yes I enjoy movies that are just plain dumb (the two tend to overlap). But when it comes to my favourite movies, I'm all about the characters, baby. That is why Heat is possibly my favourite movie of all time. Yes it has got action and tension and about 30 minutes of non-stop gun-firing madness, but at the heart of it all are two extremely interesting and intense characters. Much like 3:10 to Yuma.

On one side of the law you have Dan Evans (Christian Bale), and on the other you have Ben Wade (Russell Crowe). Initially, I was much more drawn to Wade, because he's undoubtedly the 'cooler' of the two. I mean he's the outlaw, the expert gun-slinger, the ruthless boss of a deadly posse. Dan, on the other hand, is a rancher. A one-legged rancher at that. Is there anything more uncool than a rancher who doesn't have the use of both his legs?

Not according to Dan's son William, anyway. He looks at his 'Pa' with a certain disdain and almost embarrassment, while he's in awe of the great Ben Wade. However, as the movie progresses, we (like William) start to see things a little differently.

If you take things a little deeper, this movie gives us an insight into what society thinks is 'cool', and what is actually cool (for want of a better word). Like I said, initially it was Russell Crowe's Ben Wade that I was drawn too. I mean he hooked up with a woman simply by calling her skinny. What more can you ask from a man? He demonstrated in spades all of the things that we as "surface" people latch on to so easily - charm, wit, confidence - but at the expense of what is deeper. As The Wolf once said "Just because you are a character, that doesn't mean you have character". Never a truer word spoken by a guy who helps to clean up dead bodies for a living.

While Ben Wade was a character, it was Dan that had all the character, and I think this made Ben Wade a little jealous, but also intrigued and respectful. Dan obviously didn't have to escort Wade to the train, but he did it anyway. We might believe that he only did it for the money, but by films end that is not the full story. Dan wanted to bring a criminal to justice. He didn't want someone as dangerous as Wade wandering the streets, or deserts or whatever.

He also did it for his son. He knew the way his eldest boy looked at him, and he wanted to prove to the kid that he wasn't a complete failure. While Dan was by no means the perfect man, his innate sense of integrity eventually won over Ben Wade, and more poignantly, his own son. William went from resenting everything his father stood for to having the utmost respect for him, which was really quite the transformation. And what's more, it was a plausible transformation. A transformation that made sense.

And as for Ben Wade...well, I think the end of the movie speaks for itself.

There are other little details I could go into, but I won't. I think on a personal level, this film gave me clearer sense of what it means to be a real man, as cheesy as that sounds. Because of the age we live in, I'm lead to believe that Ben Wade is the bar and it is my duty to try and reach it. He is the yardstick by which all men are measured, and if you don't quite make it, then I'm afraid you're just not cool and you'll have to try harder. Maybe gather some new pick up lines or something.

That whole notion is a myth however - a myth that this film dispenses with. The more we strive to be like Dan Evans, the better the men we become, and the more positive influence we have on society. And of course since I'm a Christian, the same characteristics that draw me to Dan are found in their completeness in Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is a person of integrity, justice, and so forth. How often it is that we ignore these things and settle for something and someone so much less.

So yeah, if you have already seen 3:10 to Yuma then watch it again, perhaps with new eyes. If you haven't, then rectify the situation immediately.