Posts
Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently started a series on the book of Luke so I decided to explore what most scholars consider Luke's sequel, The Acts of the Apostles.
Acts has always been fascinating to me. Outside of the gospels, it is the only historical narrative that we have in the New Testament. While the 4 gospels focus on the life of our Lord and Savior, Acts reports the aftermath. It is the sequel. The followers of Christ owned His message and took His good news to the world- to Jew and Gentile. The book of Acts is exciting and shows the early church as contagious in their faith. Christianity started with Jesus, was passed to 11 disciples who quickly chose a 12th and then suddenly exploded with 3000 members (Acts 2:41). The message flourished among the poor but also encompassed people from all walks of life: from different cultures, races, religions and economic statuses. Today, this very gospel has almost been preached to every people group in our world which is approaching 7 billion people. The message all started here with the expansion of the church.
The statement that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts is not widely debated among scholars. The books are almost certainly written by the same author because they contain similar styles of writing (Greek grammar, word usage, etc) and Acts 1:1 ties the author of Acts to the writer of the gospel of Luke through the common name of Theophilus. Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all affirm that Luke is the author of both works. If the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were forged, as some liberal scholars maintain, it seems odd they would attach a relatively obscure figure to the title of the gospel. Luke is not often mentioned in the New Testament (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philemon v. 24). A forged work might have helped the circulation by attaching a more prominent apostle's name to the gospel in order to insure a greater readership.
Luke writes both his gospel and Acts to the mysterious Theophilus whose name only appears in these two books at the beginning of each. Luke verses 1:1-4 (ESV) state, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." In the beginning of Acts (1:1-2, ESV), Luke writes: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen."
Christian scholars often recognize Luke as an early historian. From what I have read, I don't consider Luke primarily a historian. Secondarily, for sure, but based on his comments to Theophilus, he was primarily an evangelist. He was writing an orderly account of the life of Jesus (gospel of Luke) and then the early church in order to persuade an audience (probably mostly Roman and Gentile) that Jesus was the Son of God. He also wrote to persuade that Jesus' immediately followers carried on His truth, frequently at risk of their lives, in order to get this true message out to the world.
Luke was a personal physician (Col. 4:14- called "beloved physician") and was a close traveling companion of Paul's. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul writes, "Luke alone is with me." 2 Timothy is widely viewed among evangelical scholars as being Paul's last epistle that was written at the end of his life. Earlier in 2 Timothy Paul writes, "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." (4:6-7) Logically, if Luke alone is with Paul at the end of his life, Luke stood as an important figure in Paul's life. Philemon verse 24 has Paul calling Luke his "fellow worker". These are the only references to Luke in the entire New Testament.
Luke, being a doctor, was very well educated in that culture. Simon Kistemaker's commentary on Acts says this, "Luke is an able writer who, compared with other Greek authors, deserves respect and admiration for composing a book that in style, word choice, grammar, and vocabulary takes a place between writers of Koine Greek and those of the classical period. In addition to excellent Greek (including use of the optative and numerous instances of the genitive absolute construction), Luke records many Aramaisms in his account...Perhaps because Luke was recording accounts that were reported to him orally, he often adjusted his style to write popular instead of literary Greek." (New Testament Commentary: Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker House Publishing, pgs 30-31) In other words, Luke would write in his highly stylized Greek but then when quoting what people said he would revert to the "popular" language that they would have spoken or how they would have spoken. Indeed, this speaks to the care and detail that Luke put into his two biblical compositions.
I look forward to exploring Luke's sequel, Acts, and further digging into the history of the early church and the theology that is apparent in this text. The passion and love that the apostles and the early church had for the truth of Jesus Christ is truly inspiring and no one can doubt that they risked all to get his message out to the world so that we could benefit from this message today and be changed.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Healthcare-a-plooza: America's Un-Civil War of Very Loud Shouting
Let the name-calling begin and the assorted partisan networks start airing their propagandizing banter. Their reporting sometimes resembling outright lies and at other times, a fresh dose of disingenuousness.
The so-called health care debate alas is not about health care. Instead, prominent politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lash out at protesters calling them "Nazis" and other names. Bloated, pompous radio show host Rush Limbaugh retaliates by stating that Pelosi is actually more like a Nazi than any health care protester because of her belief in a centralized government. Other democratic senators have labeled the protesters "KKK members". Conservative radio show host, Mark Levin, has labeled President Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and others as "tyrannical Marxists" while referring to himself and the millions who listen to him as the "resistance". From his perspective (or atleast the tone that brings him very good radio ratings), the liberal politicians are all but ready to send some of us to the Stalinist gulags. While people scream, "we want our country back!" the ever so provocative Bill Maher cynically asks, "What do you want your country back from...a black guy running it?"
And on and on we go. Not debating or yelling about health care, but yelling about how much the opposing side from us is some form of radical Nazism. A legitimate political debate about how to give people quality and adequate health care at an affordable rate has de-evolved into a sideshow freakfest. The fires of this festival are being fueled by pundits from both sides of the aisle, talking heads on cable news stations, multi-millionaire radio talk show hosts, and angry, screaming citizens. In simpler terms, people are really pissed off.
I can certainly understand why people are raging mad. Some of them are getting paid and organized to be pissed. Leftist organizations like ACORN are busing people in to counter protesters. Some of the protesters at town hall meetings have been linked to national conservative groups who are, in some cases, paying people to be disruptive. Others are inspired by talk show hosts who set their minds ablaze with anger and encourage them to protest. Most people, I think, disagree with policies or where the country is headed and are making their voices heard in rather loud, obnoxious ways.
Certainly, people have a first amendment right to scream and yell whatever the hell they want but I wish that the people of America (right and left) could have a rational and thoughtful conversation about health care without all the annoying drama. One thing that both sides can agree on (I hope) is how vital this issue of health is to our country and that we would wish for everyone to have access to the best health care in the world at an affordable rate.
I don't know how to do that. I want to make that abundantly clear. There is no magical answer I have to solve our nation's health care woes. I don't even think I'm smart enough by any stretch of the imagination to solve this very complicated issue. I do have some thoughts and questions that I would like to pose, to clear my mind, and prayerfully encourage rational and healthy civic debate.
1) The insurance plan, as presented, is a public option- NOT a government takeover. Many conservatives will say that the public option is a stepping stone to a mass government intrusion and maybe that is the case. Maybe President Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Ted Kennedy all meet in some back room of the White House with maniacal smiles as they plot the coming winds of power as they instill their centralized regime. Even if that were the case, this plan- as it is presented right now- is an option. In other words, private insurance would continue. This plan would theoretically compete with private insurance. How this would affect the private industry is certainly a legitimate question and one that is good for debating?
2) How in the hell will we pay for a public insurance option? This is a very important question that I think the left glosses over or completely ignores. Some liberals seem to think that money grows on trees, as the old cliche goes. They fail to realize that money is a finite resource. There is only so much money to go around to pay for government entitlement programs. Nothing is free. Everything costs somebody something.
The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) has calculated that the dynamic duo of mass government spending, President Bush and President Obama, have already handed our country a $12 trillion dollar debt which is where the number will be in 10 years. Obama's budget this year is expected to top $2 trillion dollars for the first time in American history. Obama, by himself, has spent more money than the fiscal policies of President George Washington to President George W. Bush combined. Now, many want to add health care to the mix.
The first report of the CBO estimated that the health care plan would cost us $1 trillion dollars and only cover 16 million of the 46 million (this number is hotly debated) Americans who are uninsured. They have since revised this plan a few times (after Obama has met with them) but I believe it is safe to assume that this plan will cost us over a trillion dollars.
Obama has said that he will not sign a bill that adds to the federal deficit or raises taxes on middle class Americans (how he defines a "middle class American" is up to your interpretation, of course). This is an absurd comment! He HAS to do one of the other. Rich people in our country (the top 2% of wage earners per household) already pay 55% of the taxes (this according to an article in the July 20th edition of Newsweek). There won't be enough of rich people's money to tax to pay for all of this spending. There will have to be other brackets of Americans that are taxed -OR- we will have to add to the deficit. Maybe there is another way that I don't see.
3) What will a government health insurance plan cover? Will a government plan cover people for everything? Will there be certain procedures that are excluded? If so, who will decide these things? The Left and MSNBC, in particular, want us to believe that rationing will not be a part of the health care bill. While it may be true that rationing doesn't literally appear in the bill, it seems a safe assumption that where ever we have a government program with a particular allocated budget that rationing will occur, will it not? Hypothetically, what if someone has cancer that is on the government plan. Maybe some options are to try an expensive, new therapy or drug which may or may not be effective. Of course, there are less expensive options for treatment for the particular cancer available but what if the expensive new treatment looks very promising? Is the government going to pay for the more expensive treatment or relegate someone to the cheaper option? Again, if this is the case, who makes these decisions?
4) Insurance companies look at all of us through risk analysis. This comment was not stated to make all insurance companies appear evil. I think some liberals go immediately to the simplistic reasoning that all insurance companies are villains. Some insurance companies do abhorrent and evil things...there is no question about that. Other insurance companies are legitimate businesses and do very good things. But, they are businesses and I work in insurance.
Health insurers, specifically, when wanting to cover a person will look at their lifestyle choices and in many cases, will have them get a physical. This is the risk analysis. How many premium dollars can they get from the person who wants to be insured versus how much they may pay out in claims? They are looking to make a profit off of these statistics. If there is someone who has had a few heart attacks and maybe is in poor health, many health insurers will decline to offer coverage to such individuals because they analyze that they may be paying claims out very shortly. This person, who has had multiple heart attacks, may find a company willing to insure them but the premium may be astronomically high.
5) What do we do about insurance companies excluding more and more coverages? The past couple of years, before the economy went down hill, health insurance premiums were going up. With the premiums going up, insurance companies were adding more and more exclusions to their policies. Many Americans, who assume that if they have health insurance are covered for everything, have found that they may not be covered for a particular operation that they may need. Suppose someone needs a kidney transplant or they are going to die. Than this person finds out that their insurance coverage does not cover this particular operation which may cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What will this person do?
6) Given the government's track record, how will the government run a health care program better than other programs? I'm not a fan of big government. Medicare, Medicaid and social security are all running out of money. Newsweek projects that social security will be bankrupt in 2040 or 2050. The Post Office is billions of dollars in debt (and raising stamp prices and may be stopping the delivery of mail on Saturdays). Public education, by a wide margin of opinion, is in deep trouble and in horrible shape. Why should we expect the government to do any better with health care? Can it do better? If so, how?
7) What about the poor in America who do not have access to good health care? This is a powerful question and one that conservatives are not addressing. If conservatives oppose the government getting involved in health care, what are ways that the free market can make health care available to the poor and disenfranchised in our country? This is an issue that needs to be dealt with. People can oppose a larger government which is a perfectly legitimate opinion (and one that I favor) but we have to offer alternative solutions to helping people in real need. I would like to hear the right talk more about this issue.
All in all, this issue is too large and complicated to cover every base or problem that arises with discussing it. But health care needs to be debated preferably without yelling and screaming and threatening people.
I worry about the state of our country. Liberals and conservatives are beginning to define morality, political philosophy, patriotism and other issues in increasingly different ways. They are growing farther and farther apart with any middle ground being swallowed up by partisan warfare. Both parties now have their own specific shouting platforms (MSNBC and Fox News) and other media outlets taking sides. The culture war continues to divide us as Americans and drive us farther and farther from resting on commonly held values.
I end with a quote from historian Will Durant when he was discussing the fall of Rome (which is quoted in the beginning of the film "Apocalypto"): "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within."
The so-called health care debate alas is not about health care. Instead, prominent politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lash out at protesters calling them "Nazis" and other names. Bloated, pompous radio show host Rush Limbaugh retaliates by stating that Pelosi is actually more like a Nazi than any health care protester because of her belief in a centralized government. Other democratic senators have labeled the protesters "KKK members". Conservative radio show host, Mark Levin, has labeled President Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and others as "tyrannical Marxists" while referring to himself and the millions who listen to him as the "resistance". From his perspective (or atleast the tone that brings him very good radio ratings), the liberal politicians are all but ready to send some of us to the Stalinist gulags. While people scream, "we want our country back!" the ever so provocative Bill Maher cynically asks, "What do you want your country back from...a black guy running it?"
And on and on we go. Not debating or yelling about health care, but yelling about how much the opposing side from us is some form of radical Nazism. A legitimate political debate about how to give people quality and adequate health care at an affordable rate has de-evolved into a sideshow freakfest. The fires of this festival are being fueled by pundits from both sides of the aisle, talking heads on cable news stations, multi-millionaire radio talk show hosts, and angry, screaming citizens. In simpler terms, people are really pissed off.
I can certainly understand why people are raging mad. Some of them are getting paid and organized to be pissed. Leftist organizations like ACORN are busing people in to counter protesters. Some of the protesters at town hall meetings have been linked to national conservative groups who are, in some cases, paying people to be disruptive. Others are inspired by talk show hosts who set their minds ablaze with anger and encourage them to protest. Most people, I think, disagree with policies or where the country is headed and are making their voices heard in rather loud, obnoxious ways.
Certainly, people have a first amendment right to scream and yell whatever the hell they want but I wish that the people of America (right and left) could have a rational and thoughtful conversation about health care without all the annoying drama. One thing that both sides can agree on (I hope) is how vital this issue of health is to our country and that we would wish for everyone to have access to the best health care in the world at an affordable rate.
I don't know how to do that. I want to make that abundantly clear. There is no magical answer I have to solve our nation's health care woes. I don't even think I'm smart enough by any stretch of the imagination to solve this very complicated issue. I do have some thoughts and questions that I would like to pose, to clear my mind, and prayerfully encourage rational and healthy civic debate.
1) The insurance plan, as presented, is a public option- NOT a government takeover. Many conservatives will say that the public option is a stepping stone to a mass government intrusion and maybe that is the case. Maybe President Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Ted Kennedy all meet in some back room of the White House with maniacal smiles as they plot the coming winds of power as they instill their centralized regime. Even if that were the case, this plan- as it is presented right now- is an option. In other words, private insurance would continue. This plan would theoretically compete with private insurance. How this would affect the private industry is certainly a legitimate question and one that is good for debating?
2) How in the hell will we pay for a public insurance option? This is a very important question that I think the left glosses over or completely ignores. Some liberals seem to think that money grows on trees, as the old cliche goes. They fail to realize that money is a finite resource. There is only so much money to go around to pay for government entitlement programs. Nothing is free. Everything costs somebody something.
The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) has calculated that the dynamic duo of mass government spending, President Bush and President Obama, have already handed our country a $12 trillion dollar debt which is where the number will be in 10 years. Obama's budget this year is expected to top $2 trillion dollars for the first time in American history. Obama, by himself, has spent more money than the fiscal policies of President George Washington to President George W. Bush combined. Now, many want to add health care to the mix.
The first report of the CBO estimated that the health care plan would cost us $1 trillion dollars and only cover 16 million of the 46 million (this number is hotly debated) Americans who are uninsured. They have since revised this plan a few times (after Obama has met with them) but I believe it is safe to assume that this plan will cost us over a trillion dollars.
Obama has said that he will not sign a bill that adds to the federal deficit or raises taxes on middle class Americans (how he defines a "middle class American" is up to your interpretation, of course). This is an absurd comment! He HAS to do one of the other. Rich people in our country (the top 2% of wage earners per household) already pay 55% of the taxes (this according to an article in the July 20th edition of Newsweek). There won't be enough of rich people's money to tax to pay for all of this spending. There will have to be other brackets of Americans that are taxed -OR- we will have to add to the deficit. Maybe there is another way that I don't see.
3) What will a government health insurance plan cover? Will a government plan cover people for everything? Will there be certain procedures that are excluded? If so, who will decide these things? The Left and MSNBC, in particular, want us to believe that rationing will not be a part of the health care bill. While it may be true that rationing doesn't literally appear in the bill, it seems a safe assumption that where ever we have a government program with a particular allocated budget that rationing will occur, will it not? Hypothetically, what if someone has cancer that is on the government plan. Maybe some options are to try an expensive, new therapy or drug which may or may not be effective. Of course, there are less expensive options for treatment for the particular cancer available but what if the expensive new treatment looks very promising? Is the government going to pay for the more expensive treatment or relegate someone to the cheaper option? Again, if this is the case, who makes these decisions?
4) Insurance companies look at all of us through risk analysis. This comment was not stated to make all insurance companies appear evil. I think some liberals go immediately to the simplistic reasoning that all insurance companies are villains. Some insurance companies do abhorrent and evil things...there is no question about that. Other insurance companies are legitimate businesses and do very good things. But, they are businesses and I work in insurance.
Health insurers, specifically, when wanting to cover a person will look at their lifestyle choices and in many cases, will have them get a physical. This is the risk analysis. How many premium dollars can they get from the person who wants to be insured versus how much they may pay out in claims? They are looking to make a profit off of these statistics. If there is someone who has had a few heart attacks and maybe is in poor health, many health insurers will decline to offer coverage to such individuals because they analyze that they may be paying claims out very shortly. This person, who has had multiple heart attacks, may find a company willing to insure them but the premium may be astronomically high.
5) What do we do about insurance companies excluding more and more coverages? The past couple of years, before the economy went down hill, health insurance premiums were going up. With the premiums going up, insurance companies were adding more and more exclusions to their policies. Many Americans, who assume that if they have health insurance are covered for everything, have found that they may not be covered for a particular operation that they may need. Suppose someone needs a kidney transplant or they are going to die. Than this person finds out that their insurance coverage does not cover this particular operation which may cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What will this person do?
6) Given the government's track record, how will the government run a health care program better than other programs? I'm not a fan of big government. Medicare, Medicaid and social security are all running out of money. Newsweek projects that social security will be bankrupt in 2040 or 2050. The Post Office is billions of dollars in debt (and raising stamp prices and may be stopping the delivery of mail on Saturdays). Public education, by a wide margin of opinion, is in deep trouble and in horrible shape. Why should we expect the government to do any better with health care? Can it do better? If so, how?
7) What about the poor in America who do not have access to good health care? This is a powerful question and one that conservatives are not addressing. If conservatives oppose the government getting involved in health care, what are ways that the free market can make health care available to the poor and disenfranchised in our country? This is an issue that needs to be dealt with. People can oppose a larger government which is a perfectly legitimate opinion (and one that I favor) but we have to offer alternative solutions to helping people in real need. I would like to hear the right talk more about this issue.
All in all, this issue is too large and complicated to cover every base or problem that arises with discussing it. But health care needs to be debated preferably without yelling and screaming and threatening people.
I worry about the state of our country. Liberals and conservatives are beginning to define morality, political philosophy, patriotism and other issues in increasingly different ways. They are growing farther and farther apart with any middle ground being swallowed up by partisan warfare. Both parties now have their own specific shouting platforms (MSNBC and Fox News) and other media outlets taking sides. The culture war continues to divide us as Americans and drive us farther and farther from resting on commonly held values.
I end with a quote from historian Will Durant when he was discussing the fall of Rome (which is quoted in the beginning of the film "Apocalypto"): "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Review: The Hurt Locker
Talk about a movie that an audience member still thinks about days after wandering into a darkened, air conditioned theater to partake, "The Hurt Locker" is a tense military combat thriller. The setting is our current Iraq war, Baghdad 2004, and the film follows an army unit that defuses IEDs. This war film is arguably the best and most intelligent movie made on the Iraq war.
The theme is setup at the very beginning of the film, "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." (a quote by Christopher Hedges). Why are soldiers, only some not all, seemingly addicted to the chaos of conflict? These are the questions that the film asks.
Staff Sgt William James (brilliantly played by Jeremy Renner) is the central character of the film. He is not a summer action, cartoonish character but a bomb defusing specialist. His calmness in situations defusing a bomb, his cocky swagger, and even his reckless attitude becomes a rather disturbing matter for the two guys he works with- Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). Sgt James walks confidently toward a bomb in the middle of an Iraqi street, maybe in full view of the person who planted the bomb whom the audience suspects may be looking down upon the situation from a balcony or tower nearby...waiting with a cell phone. One scene has James taking off his bomb suit declaring that there is a big enough bomb to "blow us all to Jesus" so he wants to die comfortably without a suit on...if he dies at all.
The suspense that this film generates is uncanny. It's one thing for a movie to have lots of action and characters who swing machine guns around wildly. It's quite another to have a movie get under an audience's members skin and almost kill them with sheer tension. One can feel the painstaking detail and every ounce of terror as these troops work to diffuse roadside bombs. Hitchcock would have been proud of this film.
The director of this movie is Kathryn Bigelow, a veteran of film whom most people are probably not familiar. One can only imagine how hard she had to lobby to get a film like this made among a bunch of politically correct Hollywood studio heads who want highly budgeted toy commercials made. A person can almost sense the criticism she received,"Why should a woman direct a movie about guys in war?" (There aren't that many female directors in Hollywood oddly enough). Well, she absolutely nails this movie and should be (if this film gets the attention it deserves) on the short list for a best director nomination. Not only is this movie impeccably made, it features great acting from a largely unknown cast. My belief is that great acting from people not as established or from bad actors who happen to turn in a good performance is unequivocally related to a great director. Finally, this was filmed on location in Jordan (which neighbors Iraq) and reportedly, there was trouble finding a production crew that was willing to go to the middle east to make this film to create the aura of authenticity.
Most importantly the movie tells a great story and doesn't delve into political discussions of the Iraq war. This is not about crackpot, liberal politicians preaching to us about this desert war from the confines of their air conditioned Washington DC office. Nor is this about millionaire, blowhard radio talk show hosts who drape themselves in flags and talk about situations of which they have never been involved. This is about the feelings of those in combat as they are consistently involved with painstaking life and death situations and impossible moral dilemmas. One moment, their buddy is next to them and joking with them. The very next moment, he is gone forever in the midst of chaotic and out of control battle. Why would someone become addicted to these situations? How could they get to the point where they love a situation like this even more than they love their family back at home?
The film is too smart to offer any easy answers. My friend, who has been to Iraq, says this is the most accurate movie he has seen on this war which speaks to the exhaustive research of screenwriter Mark Boal, director Bigelow and lead actor Jeremy Renner (who reminds us of a young Russell Crowe). It stands as one of the best movies I have seen in 2009. Now, it needs more attention and more people seeing this work. That means you.
The theme is setup at the very beginning of the film, "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." (a quote by Christopher Hedges). Why are soldiers, only some not all, seemingly addicted to the chaos of conflict? These are the questions that the film asks.
Staff Sgt William James (brilliantly played by Jeremy Renner) is the central character of the film. He is not a summer action, cartoonish character but a bomb defusing specialist. His calmness in situations defusing a bomb, his cocky swagger, and even his reckless attitude becomes a rather disturbing matter for the two guys he works with- Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). Sgt James walks confidently toward a bomb in the middle of an Iraqi street, maybe in full view of the person who planted the bomb whom the audience suspects may be looking down upon the situation from a balcony or tower nearby...waiting with a cell phone. One scene has James taking off his bomb suit declaring that there is a big enough bomb to "blow us all to Jesus" so he wants to die comfortably without a suit on...if he dies at all.
The suspense that this film generates is uncanny. It's one thing for a movie to have lots of action and characters who swing machine guns around wildly. It's quite another to have a movie get under an audience's members skin and almost kill them with sheer tension. One can feel the painstaking detail and every ounce of terror as these troops work to diffuse roadside bombs. Hitchcock would have been proud of this film.
The director of this movie is Kathryn Bigelow, a veteran of film whom most people are probably not familiar. One can only imagine how hard she had to lobby to get a film like this made among a bunch of politically correct Hollywood studio heads who want highly budgeted toy commercials made. A person can almost sense the criticism she received,"Why should a woman direct a movie about guys in war?" (There aren't that many female directors in Hollywood oddly enough). Well, she absolutely nails this movie and should be (if this film gets the attention it deserves) on the short list for a best director nomination. Not only is this movie impeccably made, it features great acting from a largely unknown cast. My belief is that great acting from people not as established or from bad actors who happen to turn in a good performance is unequivocally related to a great director. Finally, this was filmed on location in Jordan (which neighbors Iraq) and reportedly, there was trouble finding a production crew that was willing to go to the middle east to make this film to create the aura of authenticity.
Most importantly the movie tells a great story and doesn't delve into political discussions of the Iraq war. This is not about crackpot, liberal politicians preaching to us about this desert war from the confines of their air conditioned Washington DC office. Nor is this about millionaire, blowhard radio talk show hosts who drape themselves in flags and talk about situations of which they have never been involved. This is about the feelings of those in combat as they are consistently involved with painstaking life and death situations and impossible moral dilemmas. One moment, their buddy is next to them and joking with them. The very next moment, he is gone forever in the midst of chaotic and out of control battle. Why would someone become addicted to these situations? How could they get to the point where they love a situation like this even more than they love their family back at home?
The film is too smart to offer any easy answers. My friend, who has been to Iraq, says this is the most accurate movie he has seen on this war which speaks to the exhaustive research of screenwriter Mark Boal, director Bigelow and lead actor Jeremy Renner (who reminds us of a young Russell Crowe). It stands as one of the best movies I have seen in 2009. Now, it needs more attention and more people seeing this work. That means you.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Love and (early) marriage?: My response to "The Case for Early Marriage" in Christianity Today
Trust me. This topic is not some vain attempt to get people to read my blogs (or is it?). I was reading the recent issue of Christianity Today (August 2009) which had a cover article entitled "The Case for Early Marriage" so I immediately became intrigued and read the piece. I know people (myself included) who have been known to poke fun at or mock couples who have gotten married rather young. Of course, I'm dumb for mocking them because what do I know about marriage? Not much. I just find it sort of odd that people might get married, say, before age 20 or even right out of college at age 22.
My thinking was rather rational. I have read scientific studies that say the male brain, on average, really doesn't mature until about age 25. I know what some of you ladies are saying, "Well, I know a guy whose 40 and..." Yes, we all know guys who are forty who are...well...maturation challenged.
The thinking goes deeper. Should we really consider marrying someone when we really don't know who we are yet? In other words with the way our society is setup, can we really know ourselves right after graduating college before we even jump into a career or join the "real world" (whatever the hell that is?) When do we truly "know ourselves"? What rite of passage do we need to travel through?
This article in Christianity Today was written by a sociologist at the University of Texas named Mark Regnerus. Indeed, he states he has gotten quite a bit of crap for his position of advocating for earlier marriages. He states: "..after years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I've come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex (remember all those youth group abstinence talks) but are becoming slow and lax about marriage- the more significant, enduring witness to Christ's sacrificial love for His bride. Americans are taking flight from marriage. We are marrying later, if at all, and having fewer children." (pg. 23)
His primary reason for wanting earlier marriages appears to be to eliminate sexual tension in Christian young people. The assumption here is that if someone truly does love Christ and wants to live for Him, they will want to follow His commands (John 14:15) and remain chaste until marriage. The average marriage age of women in the United States is 26. For men, it is 28 (and I'm now 29 and past that). The author compares these statistics to 1970: the average age for marriage back then was 21 for women and 23 for men.
Looking at these stats, the dilemma is quite obvious. Christian people who are striving to follow Christ and hopefully trying to remain pure in their single life are waiting longer to get married. In doing so, they are going through the most intense time in their lives as far as sex drive is concerned. Scientists routinely identify that hormonally, a man's sex drive is more powerful from 18-24 than it will be the rest of his life. Most Christian guys are going through this period being single.
The apostle Paul has a rather interesting instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." This seems like Paul is saying something similar to the author of the article. If one really wants to have sex, they should get married. However, it is important to understand the context of this passage. Many Biblical scholars have postulated that the apostle Paul believed that the return of Christ is coming very soon as in before he would die. I don't know if this is true but later on in the passage, Paul does talk about this "present crisis" (v.26) and for my money, the crisis is that Christians were being burnt at the stake in Nero's garden parties. In other words, why be focused on marriage when persecution is heavy and we may all die soon? Many have interpreted 1 Corinthians 7 as Paul downgrading marriage. I think he does no such thing.
Having said all of this, is the instruction really helpful to tell young people to get married so they can have sex? I'm assuming as a 29 year old guy knowing nothing about marriage that marriage is a whole lot more than sex. Ha! Probably safe to say, right?
This is perhaps my main objection to the article although I will put myself in the category of certainly understanding the author's point. To be clear, he is not saying sex is the only reason to marry young but he definitely argues that this would help the sexual tension in believers who are seeking to follow the Lord.
He identifies objections to young marriage in the article and offers his thoughts. I will summarize the points and add my questions/thoughts:
1) Economic insecurity. I think this is an important factor for sure and one that is touted often. Biblically, a guy and girl should be concerned about how they would potentially provide for a family. Then again, there are many people who marry in poverty and have wonderful marriages. How much money does one need in order to be ready for marriage?
2) Immaturity. I already touched on this one earlier in my blog but here is my thought now: Who is EVER ready for marriage? Who is EVER as mature as they can be for marriage? We are all constantly growing, learning, repenting and so on. How do you know that you are ready when you are probably never going to feel ready or as ready as you want to be?
3) A poor match. Compatibility is important and people against earlier marriages again cite this reason as a case against it. Does a person really know who they want to spend the rest of their life with at 20? How about 22? But then again, how about 30? Marriage is a commitment no matter what age a person is at the time of marriage. My friend Jake Wilkinson (who is married) says that "Love is a learned response to commitment over time". I like that quote.
Whether we agree with an article like this or not, I think we can all agree that the piece argues a provocative topic. Why do many of us delay marriage for so long? I can certainly ask this of myself and there are many reasons as to why I'm single. Are we holding out for good reasons? Maybe we are looking to get economically stable which may not be a bad thing. Maybe God is working with us on things about our character and there are sins we would like to conquer before thinking about marriage.
I would like to think that a lot of us have good reasons but I suspect (including myself) that more often than not, our reasons may wade into selfish territory. Perhaps a lot of us have unrealistic expectations. This is defined as us demanding a member of the opposite sex be a certain way (more often than not- physically) before we would consider dating them. Maybe we have let a very self-indulgent culture contribute to our own thinking and we avoid commitment because we don't want to be sacrificial. We like our single lives and refuse to consider drastically changing our lives to include someone else.
Of course, we can't judge others because these matters are all about the heart. People can marry at any age, within the will of God, and it certainly is clear that people can be happy (or miserable) after marrying at any age. Most of our reasons are probably very complex and I guess that's why I wanted to write this blog. To explore the issues/thoughts/dilemmas that may keep some of us from settling down.
Also, this entire blog is written with the full knowledge that singleness and marriage are both good things. One is not better than the other. God values singleness but He also, clearly, values marriage by providing Adam and Eve (thereby the rest of us) with this gift.
My thinking was rather rational. I have read scientific studies that say the male brain, on average, really doesn't mature until about age 25. I know what some of you ladies are saying, "Well, I know a guy whose 40 and..." Yes, we all know guys who are forty who are...well...maturation challenged.
The thinking goes deeper. Should we really consider marrying someone when we really don't know who we are yet? In other words with the way our society is setup, can we really know ourselves right after graduating college before we even jump into a career or join the "real world" (whatever the hell that is?) When do we truly "know ourselves"? What rite of passage do we need to travel through?
This article in Christianity Today was written by a sociologist at the University of Texas named Mark Regnerus. Indeed, he states he has gotten quite a bit of crap for his position of advocating for earlier marriages. He states: "..after years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I've come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex (remember all those youth group abstinence talks) but are becoming slow and lax about marriage- the more significant, enduring witness to Christ's sacrificial love for His bride. Americans are taking flight from marriage. We are marrying later, if at all, and having fewer children." (pg. 23)
His primary reason for wanting earlier marriages appears to be to eliminate sexual tension in Christian young people. The assumption here is that if someone truly does love Christ and wants to live for Him, they will want to follow His commands (John 14:15) and remain chaste until marriage. The average marriage age of women in the United States is 26. For men, it is 28 (and I'm now 29 and past that). The author compares these statistics to 1970: the average age for marriage back then was 21 for women and 23 for men.
Looking at these stats, the dilemma is quite obvious. Christian people who are striving to follow Christ and hopefully trying to remain pure in their single life are waiting longer to get married. In doing so, they are going through the most intense time in their lives as far as sex drive is concerned. Scientists routinely identify that hormonally, a man's sex drive is more powerful from 18-24 than it will be the rest of his life. Most Christian guys are going through this period being single.
The apostle Paul has a rather interesting instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." This seems like Paul is saying something similar to the author of the article. If one really wants to have sex, they should get married. However, it is important to understand the context of this passage. Many Biblical scholars have postulated that the apostle Paul believed that the return of Christ is coming very soon as in before he would die. I don't know if this is true but later on in the passage, Paul does talk about this "present crisis" (v.26) and for my money, the crisis is that Christians were being burnt at the stake in Nero's garden parties. In other words, why be focused on marriage when persecution is heavy and we may all die soon? Many have interpreted 1 Corinthians 7 as Paul downgrading marriage. I think he does no such thing.
Having said all of this, is the instruction really helpful to tell young people to get married so they can have sex? I'm assuming as a 29 year old guy knowing nothing about marriage that marriage is a whole lot more than sex. Ha! Probably safe to say, right?
This is perhaps my main objection to the article although I will put myself in the category of certainly understanding the author's point. To be clear, he is not saying sex is the only reason to marry young but he definitely argues that this would help the sexual tension in believers who are seeking to follow the Lord.
He identifies objections to young marriage in the article and offers his thoughts. I will summarize the points and add my questions/thoughts:
1) Economic insecurity. I think this is an important factor for sure and one that is touted often. Biblically, a guy and girl should be concerned about how they would potentially provide for a family. Then again, there are many people who marry in poverty and have wonderful marriages. How much money does one need in order to be ready for marriage?
2) Immaturity. I already touched on this one earlier in my blog but here is my thought now: Who is EVER ready for marriage? Who is EVER as mature as they can be for marriage? We are all constantly growing, learning, repenting and so on. How do you know that you are ready when you are probably never going to feel ready or as ready as you want to be?
3) A poor match. Compatibility is important and people against earlier marriages again cite this reason as a case against it. Does a person really know who they want to spend the rest of their life with at 20? How about 22? But then again, how about 30? Marriage is a commitment no matter what age a person is at the time of marriage. My friend Jake Wilkinson (who is married) says that "Love is a learned response to commitment over time". I like that quote.
Whether we agree with an article like this or not, I think we can all agree that the piece argues a provocative topic. Why do many of us delay marriage for so long? I can certainly ask this of myself and there are many reasons as to why I'm single. Are we holding out for good reasons? Maybe we are looking to get economically stable which may not be a bad thing. Maybe God is working with us on things about our character and there are sins we would like to conquer before thinking about marriage.
I would like to think that a lot of us have good reasons but I suspect (including myself) that more often than not, our reasons may wade into selfish territory. Perhaps a lot of us have unrealistic expectations. This is defined as us demanding a member of the opposite sex be a certain way (more often than not- physically) before we would consider dating them. Maybe we have let a very self-indulgent culture contribute to our own thinking and we avoid commitment because we don't want to be sacrificial. We like our single lives and refuse to consider drastically changing our lives to include someone else.
Of course, we can't judge others because these matters are all about the heart. People can marry at any age, within the will of God, and it certainly is clear that people can be happy (or miserable) after marrying at any age. Most of our reasons are probably very complex and I guess that's why I wanted to write this blog. To explore the issues/thoughts/dilemmas that may keep some of us from settling down.
Also, this entire blog is written with the full knowledge that singleness and marriage are both good things. One is not better than the other. God values singleness but He also, clearly, values marriage by providing Adam and Eve (thereby the rest of us) with this gift.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Spiritual Citizens: What is a Christian's Responsibility in the Realm of Politics?
The other night, I got into a good discussion with friends about the very important issue of what a Christian's involvement in politics should be.
If there is any issue that causes great debate these days within the confines of Christian community, the examination of a Christian's responsibility in the area of political activism is sure to elicit a passionate response. We are blessed to live in a nation where anyone can air their political views (no matter how radical) and with this truth, several questions arise as to how much a Christian should be involved in national political affairs and specifically what the church should do.
Should a Christian have a role in a nation's politics? If so, to what extent? What issues should a Christian give a passionate voice toward? Should a Christian align themselves with a particular political party?
As we know, the latter question can especially be a divisive one. In the late 1970s, after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1972, influential Christian personalities such as Jerry Falwell and Dr. James Dobson heavily persuaded millions of Christians to embrace the Republican party which had adopted a pro-life platform. President Ronald Reagan (the hero of the conservative wing of the Republican party) was elected in 1980, spoke often of being pro-life, and was heavily voted for by evangelical Christians. Many Christians to this day support the Republican party largely because of the pro-life issue. Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's architect of his two election campaigns, called evangelicals the key to victory in 2000.
Other Christians, of course, have remained skeptical of the Republican party's involvement with evangelical Christians. Many Christians, who way very well be pro-life as well, embrace the democratic party because of the focus on the government helping the poor, needy and oppressed voices in society. Jim Wallis and his sojourners have criticized the Republican party for cynically manipulating faith in order to get votes. Singer Derek Webb provocatively sings, "There are two great lies that I've heard. The day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die. And that Jesus Christ was a white, middle class Republican..." (from "A King and a Kingdom" on Mockingbird). Of course, the statement is absurd to say that Jesus is a republican just like it is absurd to say that Jesus is a democrat or libertarian. Still more Christians around the world live under monarchys, communist governments (even regimes), or European-brand socialism.
I believe the fact is quite clear that a Christian can be anyone of these options. A Christian can even believe in non-involvement in government policies which many Mennonites (starting with Menno Simons) and other denominations have done. The body of Christ is certainly diverse in the realm of political perspectives.
What does the Bible say about involvement in politics and what did Christ teach? Not too much, in my opinion. The Old Testament deals with a theocracy with the nation of Israel and then a monarchy. The New Testament talks a lot about Christ's coming kingdom which is definitely spiritual and physical and tied to the 2nd Coming. There are a few nuggets to be gleaned from the Scripture on a Christian's involvement in government and politics:
In Matthew 22:20-22, Jesus tells His disciples to pay taxes:
20"and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away." (NIV)
Obviously, this would have been a shocking sentiment. A lot of Jewish people living in this culture and time did not like Roman rule over them. In some their minds, they awaited a Messiah who would lead a revolt against Roman rule. Jesus said similar things in: Mark 12:16-18 and Luke 20:24-26.
A powerful and telling comment by Jesus in regard to the relationship with the state is found in John 18:35-37:
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (NIV)
Jesus in saying "My kingdom is not of this world" establishs an important precedent for all Christians, regardless of their political persuasions to keep in mind. Our allegiance as believers is to a higher kingdom. This is a kingdom of our Lord where sin does not reign and a kingdom that is coming led by Him who we look forward to seeing. On these points, all believers can have unity as we discuss our political differences.
With these facts, the questions still arise. What should our level of involvement be? Faith in Christ affects every aspect of one's life and also should change our thinking to be in line with His teachings.
I myself, obviously, believe we have a tremendous opportunity to make our voices heard in the free society of America. However, we have to keep in mind that this country was founded on religious freedom. The right that we have to express our beliefs and views is the same right that other religions (of whom we disagree) have to express their beliefs as well as atheists and agnostics. America is not a theocracy and should not be one.
If there is any issue that causes great debate these days within the confines of Christian community, the examination of a Christian's responsibility in the area of political activism is sure to elicit a passionate response. We are blessed to live in a nation where anyone can air their political views (no matter how radical) and with this truth, several questions arise as to how much a Christian should be involved in national political affairs and specifically what the church should do.
Should a Christian have a role in a nation's politics? If so, to what extent? What issues should a Christian give a passionate voice toward? Should a Christian align themselves with a particular political party?
As we know, the latter question can especially be a divisive one. In the late 1970s, after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1972, influential Christian personalities such as Jerry Falwell and Dr. James Dobson heavily persuaded millions of Christians to embrace the Republican party which had adopted a pro-life platform. President Ronald Reagan (the hero of the conservative wing of the Republican party) was elected in 1980, spoke often of being pro-life, and was heavily voted for by evangelical Christians. Many Christians to this day support the Republican party largely because of the pro-life issue. Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's architect of his two election campaigns, called evangelicals the key to victory in 2000.
Other Christians, of course, have remained skeptical of the Republican party's involvement with evangelical Christians. Many Christians, who way very well be pro-life as well, embrace the democratic party because of the focus on the government helping the poor, needy and oppressed voices in society. Jim Wallis and his sojourners have criticized the Republican party for cynically manipulating faith in order to get votes. Singer Derek Webb provocatively sings, "There are two great lies that I've heard. The day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die. And that Jesus Christ was a white, middle class Republican..." (from "A King and a Kingdom" on Mockingbird). Of course, the statement is absurd to say that Jesus is a republican just like it is absurd to say that Jesus is a democrat or libertarian. Still more Christians around the world live under monarchys, communist governments (even regimes), or European-brand socialism.
I believe the fact is quite clear that a Christian can be anyone of these options. A Christian can even believe in non-involvement in government policies which many Mennonites (starting with Menno Simons) and other denominations have done. The body of Christ is certainly diverse in the realm of political perspectives.
What does the Bible say about involvement in politics and what did Christ teach? Not too much, in my opinion. The Old Testament deals with a theocracy with the nation of Israel and then a monarchy. The New Testament talks a lot about Christ's coming kingdom which is definitely spiritual and physical and tied to the 2nd Coming. There are a few nuggets to be gleaned from the Scripture on a Christian's involvement in government and politics:
In Matthew 22:20-22, Jesus tells His disciples to pay taxes:
20"and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away." (NIV)
Obviously, this would have been a shocking sentiment. A lot of Jewish people living in this culture and time did not like Roman rule over them. In some their minds, they awaited a Messiah who would lead a revolt against Roman rule. Jesus said similar things in: Mark 12:16-18 and Luke 20:24-26.
A powerful and telling comment by Jesus in regard to the relationship with the state is found in John 18:35-37:
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (NIV)
Jesus in saying "My kingdom is not of this world" establishs an important precedent for all Christians, regardless of their political persuasions to keep in mind. Our allegiance as believers is to a higher kingdom. This is a kingdom of our Lord where sin does not reign and a kingdom that is coming led by Him who we look forward to seeing. On these points, all believers can have unity as we discuss our political differences.
With these facts, the questions still arise. What should our level of involvement be? Faith in Christ affects every aspect of one's life and also should change our thinking to be in line with His teachings.
I myself, obviously, believe we have a tremendous opportunity to make our voices heard in the free society of America. However, we have to keep in mind that this country was founded on religious freedom. The right that we have to express our beliefs and views is the same right that other religions (of whom we disagree) have to express their beliefs as well as atheists and agnostics. America is not a theocracy and should not be one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)