Part of the reason I love John Piper so much is he's not afraid to tweet something like this:

You don't want to hear God speak these final words: "Fool, how did all that pointless play put my glory in display?"

What's more, he's one of the few (only?) mega-popular preachers out there who would even have the courage, or inclination, to say such a thing.

Not a joke. Watch this.

... though I've never met them.

1. C.S. Lewis. I feel like the man is my brother. When I read his work, I'm mentally transferred to the man's family room, pipe in hand, shoes kicked off, ready to bask in his intelligent warmth. I truly feel love for Lewis -- a strange, beautiful feeling.

2. John Piper. Here's another man who I love dearly, though I've only known him through his sermons and writings. If Lewis is like a brother to me, Piper is like a father. His wisdom resonates through my soul, and his prophetic voice convicts me and forces me to cheer, because the world -- especially the Christian world -- needs prophets like John Piper.

3. Bono. I dare say he's the greatest poet of his generation. His voice, mind, and pen have provided the soundtrack for my life. He's not a moral giant and he's not a preacher, but in his own realm his voice is prophetic. I love him like a brother, and hope to meet him one day.

For all of the men mentioned above, the feeling I have for them really is love. That's what makes them more than just, in my mind, good writers, preachers, or musicians. They're like dear friends.

I met a new friend for lunch a few weeks ago and the topic of the polygraph came up. In the particular instance we were talking about, the polygraph had revealed a deception. My friend, naturally curious, said, “So those things work?” Ironically, my short answer was no. My long answer is below. . . .

I have lots of experience taking polygraph exams. Over the past several years, I’ve taken probably 20 of them, maybe more.

The polygraph -- popularly known as “the lie detector” -- is a device that measures certain physiological responses like blood pressure, respiration, etc. The theory is when people lie, those physiological responses change. The problem with the theory is it has no scientific validity.

In a landmark 2003 study titled The Polygraph and Lie Detection, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) states:

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. Although psychological states often associated with deception (e.g., fear of being judged deceptive) do tend to affect the physiological responses that the polygraph measures, these same states can arise in the absence of deception. Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results.

From my experience, I can say that the polygraph as truth verifier is somewhat accurate. In other words, if someone takes a polygraph and passes, there’s a decent chance that they’re telling the truth. On the other hand, the polygraph as lie detector (what it is popularly known and used for) may be only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin -- and there’s no true way to substantiate even that level of accuracy. As a scientist friend of mine told me, “There are simply too many variables.” In my own experience over the years, the polygraph was exactly 50 percent accurate.

Anecdotally, if I had to put an overall number to the accuracy of the polygraph, I’d give it 65 percent. Furthermore, the more someone is educated on polygraph procedure, and the more inquisitive someone’s mind may be, the more likely the machine will give false results by finding a truthful person to be “deceptive.” To put it more bluntly, the polygraph may be more accurate -- or, at the very least, more effective -- on simple-minded people, but again, the very foundation of polygraphy (linking deception to certain physiological responses) is ill-conceived. The previously mentioned NAS report states, “The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception.”

While it may have some efficacy within certain contexts, the illusion of “lie detection” is too great a power and is often abused by authorities who choose to rely on it. Thus, the fruits of polygraphy are false accusations, job losses, family disruptions, unfounded distrust, and an overall laziness by those who choose to employ the machine.

By and large, the polygraph as lie detector simply doesn’t work as advertised.

I don't know anything about polygraphs, and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people. -- Richard Nixon

In an attempt to better accommodate the personality of the modern air traveler, here are some recommended rules for traveling apt to provide a harmonious assimilation.

1. When going through terminal security, a TSA agent will likely be shouting simple instructions about what to remove from your person. Do not obey him. He is speaking to the crowd, not to you. He will give these instructions directly to you when you try to pass through the metal detector. Don't forget to act surprised, because "you didn't know."

2. When boarding your flight, do not immediately find an empty seat and sit down. That would just be silly.

3. You are allowed one carry-on bag and one personal item aboard the plane, so feel free to bring your steam trunk and/or hope chest onto your flight. Yes, if shoved hard enough, your footlocker from your time in the armed forces should fit neatly in the overhead bin. Try turning it lengthways.

4. While the flight attendant is going over the customary contingency plans and locations of the emergency exits, everyone should completely carry on conversations that drown her out. This makes her feel good inside.

5. No electronic devices may be used until the plane has reached its cruising altitude. This rule does not apply to you.

6. No cell phones may be used on the plane during any portion of the flight. But you may use yours because you are a very important person with very important calls to make to other, less important persons you need to give instructions to that you'd like others to overhear.

7. When the beverage service commences, order a bloody mary. You can't get these anywhere else, or at least we assume, since we only see people drinking these on airplanes.

8. If you are a morbidly obese person, check in for your flight late so you can get one of those prized middle seats. The laps of your companions on either side will make excellent arm rests. And wear a sleeveless shirt.

9. If your neighbor is wearing headphones and has his eyes closed, he is signaling to you that he'd like to have an in-depth conversation about your adorable/successful grandchildren and/or your idiot/overrated coworkers.

10. If you need a reading light, press the button overhead with the image of a person holding a drink tray. Nobody knows what that button with the image of a light bulb on it does.

11. As soon as your plane lands, turn on your cell phone and make a call. People have been waiting -- dying even -- to hear from you. Two hours is too long to go without contact from you.

12. Unfasten your seatbelt upon landing, before the seatbelt sign is turned off. This makes your flight crew feel heard and respected.

13. As soon as your plane reaches the gate and the seatbelt sign is turned off, immediately stand up in the aisle. Then complain about how long it takes for the jetway to connect to the plane door. Then roll eyes and sigh when people do not teleport out of your way. This is completely normal behavior.

14. If you experience any delays or inconveniences during your trip, due to any thing, including but not limited to bad weather, treat every airline employee you meet with utter contempt and exasperation. They are all out to ruin your life.

15. When making your way through the airport terminal, make sure to really saunter around. Meander like the dickens. At no time and for no reason should you walk in a straight line at a brisk pace or in any other way give evidence that you're actually going somewhere.

Inspired by two (seemingly) unrelated pieces I read online this morning.

1- Should Women be allowed in Combat?
I just heard on the news this week that women will now be officially allowed combat roles for the first time in the U.S. Military. This is because in the past 10 years of the "War on Terror", there have been woman who had to take on combat roles by necessity, even if that wasn't their primary role.

In response, Rick Santorum just re-articulated the two basic and traditional arguments against it:

As one reason, Santorum cites “the emotions of men.’’ The White House hopeful says there is the potential that men will not be focused on their combat mission but on what he calls a “natural instinct’’ to protect a woman.

Santorum also questions having women in combat roles because of what he says are “all sorts of physical issues’’ relating to the capabilities of men and women.

I include this quote from him not because I want to discuss Santorum on this thread, but because I expect, for the first time, these two traditional arguments to be mocked and scoffed. He had the audacity to say them out loud and to many these arguments will seem outdated and sexist.

I don't think they are. I think these are timeless and timely arguments. I have never served in the military, but for various reasons I've been blessed with many, many close relationships with those who have. And every soldier I've ever talked to about it re-articulates the two arguments above.

I remember in particular my Junior ROTC instructor, an army ranger who voluntarily served two tours of duty in Vietnam say, "Combat is bad enough with men, your brothers, dying all around you. But still it is a totally different experience to see a woman with her face blown off. There's just something naturally ingrained into men. You have to protect her...and then you will compromise the mission. You won't be able to focus on what you need to do."

It's been over 20 years...and I still remember the soft tone that this very tough man took and the horror I felt, when he said, "woman with her face blown off".

Combat is ugly, ugly business. And yes, it's far uglier when women are a part of it.


2- Why are Hollywood portrayals of women in the role of men always tragic?

From the Plugged-In review of the new movie "Albert Nobbs" about a woman who spends her life pretending to be a man.

A postscript: While addressing the issue of historical gender disparity so profoundly illustrated in Albert Nobbs, I feel compelled to make an observation about its modern incarnation in movies. What happens when one gender plays the other? When men put on a dress and lipstick, the intended effect is almost always laughter. Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie. Tyler Perry's turns as Madea. Adam Sandler as brother and sister twins in Jack and Jill. John Travolta as Edna Turnblad in Hairspray.

When women play men, however, the outcome is more often tragic. Sooner or later, we've been taught to anticipate, these vulnerable women's well-cloaked secret—usually under layers of femininity-disguising clothes—will be revealed. And their worlds will explode. Or end. The most prominent example of this (before Albert Nobbs)? The story of Brandon Teena (played by Hilary Swank), horrifically illustrated in 1999's Boys Don't Cry.

I thought of a couple more examples that the reviewer, Adam Holz, didn't mention.

Men as women: Tom Hanks' TV sitcom - Bosom Buddies, Tony Curtis in "Some Like it Hot", Martin Lawrence in "Big Momma's House", Two Wayans brothers as "White Chicks", Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, Barry Watson in Sorority Boys, "Juwanna Man". I'm sure you all could think of more, or look it up. All of them are comedies and not just comedies, but madcap ridiculous comedies.(or at least are supposed to be.)

Women as men: First of all, there aren't as many. There were two comedies, "Just one of the Guys"(1985) and "She's the Man" with Amanda Bynes. (2006) But these are exceptions, and even those had serious undertones and sections. Usually women disguised as men aren't funny. It's usually serious, but more often tragic. Barbara Streisand as "Yentl"; The Ballad of Little Jo, in which a woman must dress as a man to survive in the west, when she is found out post-mortem the pain is expressed as violent anger. In "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" Eowyn dressed as a male soldier so that she can ride into combat, though she performs admirably, her little foray still ends with violence and sadness.

These are serious movies, and the storyline of "woman disguised as a man" never ends well and almost always tragically (both in the dramatic and emotional sense.)

Even Hollywood with all it's liberal sensibilities can't seem to quite escape from...

(yes, I'm going to go ahead and be bold enough to say it)

...our God-given gender roles.

Had this thought while I was running this morning: in my lifetime, the adjective "irreverent" has gone from being a criticism to being a compliment.

From National Review Online, The Gospel According To Peanuts:

“We got a call from Coca-Cola,” remembered Melendez. “And they said, ‘Have you and Mr. Schulz ever considered doing a Christmas show with the characters?’ and I immediately said ‘Yes.’ And it was Wednesday and they said, ‘If you can send us an outline by Monday, we might be interested in it.’ So I called Sparky on the phone and told him I’d just sold ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas,’ and he said, ‘What’s that?’ and I said, ‘It’s something you’ve got to write tomorrow.’”

We learned in that American Masters series that Schulz had some ideas of his own for the Christmas special, ideas that didn’t make the network suits very happy. First and foremost, there was no laugh track, something unimaginable in that era of television. Schulz thought that the audience should be able to enjoy the show at its own pace, without being cued when to laugh. CBS created a version of the show with a laugh track added, just in case Schulz changed his mind. Luckily, he didn’t.

The second big battle was waged over voiceovers. The network executives were not happy that the Schulz’s team had chosen to use children to do the voice acting, rather than employing adults. Indeed, in this remarkable world created by Charles Schulz, we never hear the voice of an adult.

The executives also had a problem with the jazz soundtrack by Vince Guaraldi. They thought the music would not work well for a children’s program, and that it distracted from the general tone. They wanted something more . . . well . . . young.

Last but not least, the executives did not want to have Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke. The network orthodoxy of the time assumed that viewers would not want to sit through passages of the King James Bible.

There was a standoff of sorts, but Schulz did not back down, and because of the tight production schedule and CBS’s prior promotion, the network executives aired the special as Schulz intended it. But they were certain they had a flop on their hands.

A Charlie Brown Christmas is a glorious achievement. It's hard to imagine it being made today.

I'm thankful that Sparky hung tough, and I hope to catch a showing of A Charlie Brown Christmas sometime this season.

May your Christmas season be joyous and Christ-filled.

Black pepper Friday? Walmart shopper in LA pepper-sprays rivals

Bargain hunters at a Walmart in Los Angeles were hurt when a fellow shopper attacked them with pepper spray as the doors opened on the US's holiday shopping season.

Authorities said the woman was trying to keep the other shoppers from merchandise she wanted during early opening on "Black Friday", the name given to the post-Thanksgiving shopping day.

"Somehow she was trying to use it to gain an upper hand," Police Lieutenant Abel Parga told the Associated Press. Authorities said the woman was "competitive shopping".

Officials said 20 people suffered injuries. Matthew Lopez, one of the shoppers, told a Los Angeles Times blog: "I heard screaming and I heard yelling. Moments later, my throat stung. I was coughing really bad and watering up."

Parga said police were still looking for the woman. The store remained open and those not affected by the pepper spray continued shopping.

We are the 100%.

We are not in a battle against flesh and blood. But all we like sheep have gone astray, so we forget that. We are consumed with greed and covetousness and set ourselves against others made in the image of God.

We forget our brothers in need, we envy and rail against those who have what we desire. We place our hope in men and systems and media and money and rage.

You can divide yourself from others and categorize yourself as a 99 or a 1.

I'm in the 100% that need Jesus.

HT: Abraham Piper

Our President recently decided - shortsightedly, I believe - to pour fuel on the always-simmering fires of class envy in order to help enact his agenda and, consequently, aid his re-election. And, evidently, it's working. And so, the Occupy Wall Street movement was born.

In observing this phenomenon, I've been trying to determine which of the following is the most relevant:

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's. (Exodus 20:17 ESV)

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. (James 5:1-5 ESV)

The Exodus passage is among the most ignored commandments in Scripture. The passage from James is one of the most ignored warnings in Scripture.

It's sobering to consider that, certainly in James' times and culture, the term "rich" would have probably described almost all of us in the affluent west. That includes the white, middle-class Occupy protesters demanding that someone else pay their college loans.

In America, certainly from a historical perspective and even from a current world-wide perspective, almost all of us are the 1%.

So, what to make of the Occupy movement? I don't know. It seems to me that it is predominantly a case of the slightly less-rich storming the gates of the ultra-rich.

I don't think much good is going to come from it.

As most of you know, Steve Jobs died yesterday. I think almost everyone can agree, whether you like Apple products or not, that Mr. Jobs was a genius and his company produced devices and computers that have changed the way we interact with technology and even with each other.

I'm not a Mac-bigot. I don't own an iPhone or an iPad, though we do have a Mac desktop computer. But I have often observed that Apple products all have a common trait. They just work, melding aesthetic beauty with breathtaking technological competence. We're all used to iPhones now. Twenty years ago we would have fallen over if someone had shown us a working model of one.

Kevin Williamson makes an observation here that I think is worth considering.

I was down at the Occupy Wall Street protest today, and never has the divide between the iPhone world and the politics world been so clear: I saw a bunch of people very well-served by their computers and telephones (very often Apple products) but undeniably shortchanged by our government-run cartel education system. And the tragedy for them — and for us — is that they will spend their energy trying to expand the sphere of the ineffective, hidebound, rent-seeking, unproductive political world, giving the Barney Franks and Tom DeLays an even stronger whip hand over the Steve Jobses and Henry Fords. And they — and we — will be poorer for it.

And to the kids camped out down on Wall Street: Look at the phone in your hand. Look at the rat-infested subway. Visit the Apple Store on Fifth Avenue, then visit a housing project in the South Bronx. Which world do you want to live in?

[H/T Instapundit]

And now, O sons, listen to me,and do not depart from the words of my mouth.
-- Proverbs 5:7

As we cling doggedly to the theology our fathers fought for and passed down to us in good faith, the doctrinal dilettantes of the day nag, "What ever happened to semper reformanda?", positing evolving boundaries, a flexible orthodoxy, working on the assumption that our position in history gives us a better understanding of what the Bible really says.

The way we play with the shape of evangelical theology today arises from straight-up chronological snobbery.

In the New York Times last April we find this historical item related to the recent tsunami and devastation in Japan:

The stone tablet has stood on this forested hillside since before they were born, but the villagers have faithfully obeyed the stark warning carved on its weathered face: “Do not build your homes below this point!”

Residents say this injunction from their ancestors kept their tiny village of 11 households safely out of reach of the deadly tsunami last month that wiped out hundreds of miles of Japanese coast and rose to record heights near here. The waves stopped just 300 feet below the stone.

“They knew the horrors of tsunamis, so they erected that stone to warn us,” said Tamishige Kimura, 64, the village leader of Aneyoshi.

Hundreds of so-called tsunami stones, some more than six centuries old, dot the coast of Japan, silent testimony to the past destruction that these lethal waves have frequented upon this earthquake-prone nation. But modern Japan, confident that advanced technology and higher seawalls would protect vulnerable areas, came to forget or ignore these ancient warnings, dooming it to repeat bitter experiences when the recent tsunami struck.

Their ancestors knew what they were talking about. They had learned the hard way. And they erected markers: Don't build past this point. But we post-postmoderns are arrogant. We know better. We are smarter, more enlightened. And we have to accommodate more and more people. So we ignore the markers. We want to grow!

We must be reminded that semper reformanda does not mean "always morphing." It does not mean that the faith is ever changing, progressing into something better. In many respects, to be always reforming is to be always returning to the gospel. It is to be continually sloughing off the baggage of doctrinal add-ons and distractions, cutting out the ever-rising innovations, theological and otherwise. To be always reforming is to keep going back to the ancient markers in the face of constant temptation and taunting from those who'd have us play with heterodoxy ever-newly. Let us keep contending, keep trusting, keep returning.

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.
-- 2 Timothy 1:13-14

Abraham Piper reports: "Soon after The Simpsons debuted, People Magazine quoted Barbara Bush as saying it was one the stupidest things she’d ever seen. Here’s is Marge’s respectful response . . ."



And here is Mrs. Bush’s response:

Dear Marge,

How kind of you to write. I’m glad you spoke your mind; I foolishly didn’t know you had one.

I am looking at a picture of you, depicted on a plastic cup, with your blue hair filled with pink birds peeking out all over. Evidently, you and your charming family — Lisa, Homer, Bart and Maggie — are camping out. It is a nice family scene. Clearly you are setting a good example for the rest of the country.

Please forgive a loose tongue.

Warmly,

Barbara Bush

P.S. Homer looks like a handsome fella!

Skye Jethani has a neat piece at Out of Ur today reflecting on Leadership Lessons from Superman's Underpants. You should read the whole thing because it's interesting and neat. But I want to pontificate on a point only tangential to his aims.

Commenting on the fanboy rage erupting in the discovery that the new Superman reboot will depict the Man of Steel sans those iconic red undies -- he won't be nekkid, of course, he'll just have the blue jumpsuit that's underneath them -- Jethani writes:

[W]hen Warner Brothers handed the responsibility for penning a new Superman script to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, the same team behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, they wanted to bring the same realism to the Man of Steel they had brought to the Caped Crusader. But the Superman character, unlike Batman, is utterly unrealistic. He’s an alien who can fly, repel bullets, and fire lasers from his eyes. If we are to accept all of that, is it really too much to ask a modern audience to believe Superman would wear red underwear over his pants?

First, I think it's a good thing that Nolan and Goyer are taking over the Superman reigns. Their storytelling chops, cinematic instincts, and mythological depth can give the Superman mythos the gravitas it deserves.

But I honestly think one of the worst things that can happen is if they turn Superman into a brooding, gray-toned Dark Knight-esque mope-athon. The problem with the Superman reboot of a few year's ago was not that it tried to stay colorful and maintain the iconic Superman look/feel, it's that it failed as a movie. It was stupid, campy, poorly acted, and misfired on all cylinders of internal logic. But it did not fail because it wasn't gritty and "realistic." It was a terrible script and was handled by a hamfisted director.

I like the Nolan Batman movies a lot. The second one in particular is a towering cinematic achievement. But as a comic book fan, I still think Spider-Man 2 is the best *comic book movie* of all time. (Although this year's Captain America really wowed me.) To repeat and clarify: I think Nolan's Batman films are better than Raimi's Spider-Man films. The Dark Knight is clearly a better movie than Spider-Man 2. But if I want a movie that captures the wonder, the sparkle, the adventure, the razzmatazz of the days this ten year old couldn't wait to get Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman with his allowance from the spinner rack at Carl's Grocery Store in McAllen, Texas, Spider-Man 2 wins hands down.

And it didn't hurt that it was written by award-winning literary novelist Michael Chabon and directed with frenetic genius by Sam Raimi.

So, you see, Superman reboot honchos, you don't have to turn Superman into an emo kid with seasonal affective disorder or give him a bastard child to hand-wring over or even, God forbid, ditch the red undies, to make a good Superman movie that people will love. You just have to have talented people who will be able to capture the spirit of the Superman mythos. It better have color; it better have life; it better totally buy into the ridiculousness of the Superman premise; it better honor the standard backstory; it better move, baby. If you botch this again, we will hatess you forever, preciousss.

I had a meeting yesterday with a fellow in our church who has been unemployed for several months now. His wife now works two jobs, he is on unemployment and daily sending out resumes and appearing for interviews for things he is vastly overqualified for (which, ironically, does not help him get those jobs), and basically just trusting God. If anybody had a reason for envy, this dude's got it. But as we started talking about the economy in general he said something I'll never forget: "I love rich people."

Why? Because he's smart enough to know it's not poor people handing out jobs. My friend was/is a designer of kitchens (mostly cabinetry). In his line of work, it's rich people who bring him into company employ and it's rich people who (typically) remodel their kitchens or build houses with fancy new ones.

In this current election cycle we are hearing more class warfare rhetoric. A lot it boils down to further punishing rich people -- they don't pay enough taxes or what-have-you -- and a lot of it is calculated to stir up envy and resentment. This post from Kevin DeYoung today complements my conversation with my friend yesterday. An excerpt:

I thought it might be worthwhile to think about where private sector jobs come from. Most basically, new jobs come from people with money to spend who want to spend their money on more people. This means:

(1) The employer must have money. He may spend his own money. Or he may borrow money from investors or the bank. But somehow he has to have money.

(2)The employer must believe that spending his money on new employees will be good for his business. We may wish that employers hired people just cuz. But that’s not the way the world works. When employers want to be charitable they give to church or to their alma mater. But with their business they know they need to make money. Consequently, they hire new workers only when they believe that paying more people will eventually be offset by making more money.

(3) The employer must be willing to take a risk. Very few new hires are sure things. Employers don’t know exactly what they are getting with their new employees. More important, they don’t know what will happen with their profits. They follow trends and track receipts and keep money in reserve, but in the end every expansion of business is a risk.

(4) The employer must be somewhat confident in his projection of the future. Yes, risk is inevitable. But shrewd businesses look to minimize risk. They want to know what their taxes will be, whether existing laws will be fairly enforced, what regulations will be like, what’s happening with their competitors, what’s happening with the prices of things they need to buy, what’s happening with markets overseas. There are a thousand things they’d like to know. They can’t know them all. But the more predictable their future looks, the more apt they will be to take risks.

This is just basic economics. The rest is good too.

As we near voting time, let's consider tuning out the rhetoric that would have us either punishing the rich or the poor and think logically, not emotionally or resentfully about taxes, jobs, and economics. Let's not hate our neighbor because he has what we want. We may end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.

-- Titus 2:7-8

Titus was told to model sound speech -- which probably meant that he never said things like, "Like, dude, like, an awesome thing, dude, is the fact that, man, I like, totally don't know what to say."

-- Doug Wilson, Future Men (Canon Press, 2001), 43.

Here is Taylor Mali with a good reflection-via-representation on this phenomena:



What do you think? Does this sort of youthful manner of speech apply to Paul's words on sound speech?

I think Mali's parting shot helps us see that it might, particularly as it relates to speaking with authority and conviction.

"If you have faith, anything is possible. Anything at all."

That's a line from Soul Surfer one of the more recent "Christian movies" to enjoy some measure of success. The good news is that it is a fair bit better in quality than most films that bear the modifier "Christian." With a cast that includes Dennis Quaid, Helen Hunt, Kevin Sorbo, and Craig T. Nelson, you can be guaranteed some serviceable performances, even if the script stunk. And the script isn't great, but it doesn't stink.

There are a few maudlin moments, where the movie loses its tone for real life, but in general it is easily watchable, which is a rarity for this genre. The only exception is the performance of Carrie Underwood who plays a youth minister. Underwood might be able to knock the crud out of a song, but she is a huge acting fail.

Anna Sophia Robb plays Bethany Hamilton, the real life teen girl who loved surfing until a shark attack took her left arm. Then she loved surfing more. Hamilton and her family are devoted Christians, and their faith -- and its motivation in Bethany's life to relearn surfing and compete -- is the basic plot of the film. It is a story about triumph over the odds.

But is it a Christian movie?

Here's my beef, and I'm sure I will take some flack from somebody for this. Bethany Hamilton's story is inspiring and encouraging, and I'm sure she has real saving faith in Jesus Christ, but the message of the movie Soul Surfer appears to be "I can do all things through moralistic therapeutic deism which strengthens me." This doesn't make it a bad movie; it just makes it as easily a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness movie as it does a Christian one.

The quote that opens this blog post is a line that closes the movie. It is a good summation. But it begs the question: faith in what? At one point in the movie, as Bethany is summoning up the courage to reenter the water with one-armed gumption, she quotes Philippians 4:13. Well, not the whole thing. Just the first part that says "I can do all things." Not, you know, how.

There is plenty of God talk in the movie, actually, but I don't remembering hearing the word Jesus once. I could've missed it, but the overwhelming point appears to be that if you work hard enough, God will bless you with being able to do cool things like surf with one arm.

When I was a kid I had a poster on my wall of a dude dunking a basketball with Philippians 4:13 as a caption. I got pretty good at basketball as I got older, but I'm sorry to say that, despite my earnest faith, not literally everything is possible.

I don't think that every movie (or book) created by Christians ought to have the clear plan of salvation in it. That is not how I discern a movie's "Christianity." BUT. If you're going to put explicit faith-in-God talk into a movie -- and call it Christian -- I think you ought to go all in and have the courage to make it Christian talk.

Of course, the way Soul Surfer approaches faith is exactly how many Christians in real life do. This is a real problem and it's not the movie's fault. But in the end, if the explicit message about God you're communicating is that believing in yourself can help you succeed because of a benevolent God, you ought not call your movie Christian. Soul Surfer posits a quote-unquote "God" palatable for any religious soul itching to be inspired without any uncomfortable gospel of Jesus stuff. It's for the same "evangelicals" who don't understand what the big deal is about Mormons being considered Christian. (None of us has perfect theology, right?) And it's for the Mormons too.

I am guessing Bethany's remarkable story deserved much better.

Janet Reitman has written a provocative book detailing the inner workings of the very secretive world of Scientology. Having read up a bit on L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction-slash-religion creation before, I was familiar with the charge that in the early “auditing” process, budding Scientologists reveal their deepest darkest secrets to the church, who in turn may eventually use those to emotionally blackmail would-be deserters and dissenters. In an interview reprinted by Reuters, Reitman elaborates:

Q: There are all these rumors that celebrities like Cruise remain Scientologists because the church knows all their secrets and they fear blackmail. Any truth to that?

A: I didn’t go into that too much in my book, but it seems obvious. They have the goods on everybody. A great part of the Scientology experience is the confession that happens in the auditing experience. You are constantly being asked to write up your transgressions, maybe even your unspoken transgressions. They know everything about you. They would know everything about Cruise in the same way that they would know everything about me if I were a member.

What a racket.

And what a wonder, then, that Christians are forgiven and saved by a God whose filing cabinet of records against us is empty. Or, rather, is filled with the obedience of Jesus.

I, I am he
who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)