 |
Disclaimer: Boundless had nothing to do with the production of "Hitched or Ditched" on The CW.
"Hitched or Ditched" is a one-hour reality show focusing on couples who are in long-term relationships but have not yet taken that big leap into marriage. Nominated by a friend who believes it's either time for the couple to tie to the knot or break up, each episode features a different couple who accept their friend's proposition to set a wedding date in one week’s time.
Throughout the week leading up to the big day, the couple is put through a series of personalized exercises that test their relationship, all while planning their dream wedding. They may have to confront their problems ranging from mending relationships with future in-laws to dealing with jealousy issues. When the wedding day arrives, the couple will make the final decision - will they tie the knot or call the whole thing off?
This week's episode:
Boston couple Anissa, 22, and Jesse, 31, have been dating for four years and their up-and-down relationship has left them looking for more. When Jesse's brother presents the couple with a surprise invitation to their own wedding, Jesse, a mortgage banker, struggles to convince Anissa's family that his playboy past is behind him, while Anissa, a systems analyst, defends their relationship to a long list of discerning friends and family.
When Jesse gets cold feet the night before the wedding, Anissa questions whether he will ever change his ways. There are five days until the wedding; will they be HITCHED OR DITCHED?
Final Disclaimer: This blog post is not an endorsement of "Hitched or Ditched."
HT: Boundless reader Elisabeth May
Michael Jackson is dead. I heard it first through a CNN email news alert yesterday only minutes after it was confirmed. I read some of the follow-up stories and tributes, reminisced with coworkers, then drove home to a marathon set of his music being played on local radio.
I didn't cry. Despite being an icon of my generation, MJ sufficiently distanced himself from the public, the press, and, well, reality -- so as to not endear himself personally to many in recent years. It was easy to forget he was still around sometimes.
But I remember him. And I certainly remember his influence on me and my peers. I recall one day in junior high, the day after Thriller was released. One of my classmates walked into choir class at Graham Middle School with a shiny new copy of the album (the LP, of course). She had stood in line hours the night before to purchase it, and now placed the record on a table, still gleaming in its plastic wrapper, as we gathered around to gaze upon it in wonder. I still remember the hush over our circle as we admired Michael's crisp white suit and back-lit frame. He amazed us. And when Thriller went multiplatinum and MTV, Pepsi, Disney and others took MJ's image and shaped it into something otherworldly, we thought he was unstoppable.
But time and life proved otherwise. Fast-forward about 20 years. I was sitting at Focus on the Family, listening to Christian apologist Lee Strobel speak in an employee chapel. Lee looked out over the crowd and issued what I think he called the 1:1:1 Challenge. He asked us all to think of one unsaved person to pray for at 1pm each day, for one minute. I love challenges, and being an overachiever who happens to have many non-Christian friends, I decided to do a 5:5:5. I thought of several friends and family immediately. But I wondered about a fifth. I asked God to help me think of the person whom I believed to be most out of his reach -- someone who, if I was being honest, I didn't think would ever come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. And just like that, into my mind popped Michael Jackson.
And so every day for weeks, then months, then years, I prayed for the salvation of Michael Jackson. I followed him casually in the news, and it never looked good. He got weirder, wilder and more erratic in his behavior. But I continued to pray. Because that's what God called me to do.
As of today, I have no idea where Michael Jackson stood spiritually at the time of his death. But God knows. And God will decide what He does with Michael's soul. It may sound cliche, but it's devastatingly true: The King of Pop will be called to give an account to the King of Kings.
Friends called me yesterday, and, knowing my prayer connection to MJ, asked me if I'm OK. I am. For my part, I extend my sympathies to Jackson's family, friends and fans. And I'm going to keep praying. Because the power that was Michael Jackson was real, especially to a pop-loving girl in the 80s.
But the power that is Jesus Christ is greater -- great enough to snatch souls from the fires of hell. And it is this power that gives me life. And it gives me hope for that next person I'll be called to pray for. I can't wait to find out who it'll be.
According to this blurb in Variety, Facebook is coming to a theater near you.
Columbia Pictures is in advanced talks with David Fincher to direct "The Social Network," the Aaron Sorkin-scripted film for Columbia Pictures about the formation of Facebook.
The film will focus on the evolution of Facebook from its 2004 creation on the Harvard campus by sophomore Mark Zuckerberg to a juggernaut with more than 200 million members.
It's interesting that Hollywood chose to make a movie about the formation of Facebook instead of creating a story (or stories) about how the advent of social networking has affected our lives. You know, like what they did with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in "You've Got Mail."
What about you? Does a movie about the evolution of Facebook sound compelling enough to go see?
Our friend Nathan Clark George performed at my church on Sunday. Which was a real treat. He's in Colorado all summer leading worship at Horn Creek retreat center for the various Christian groups coming through.
Yesterday, I noticed that USAToday.com excerpted from a Christianity Today article featuring Nathan on how the recession is affecting Christian artists. Here's what he had to say:
Nathan Clark George has taken minimization of overhead to an extreme — by living with his family in an RV and by playing smaller churches that can't afford big-name acts.
When they know they can't pay you, thankfulness is way up, because they know you're sacrificing, just like they are. People have been very generous. They have handed me a ham, or they've given me broken guitars, since I've blogged about how I like to fix old guitars."
(Check George's blog where he cheerfully recounts some heart-stopping/wallet-sapping misadventures with their van but keeps making music.) George tells CT:
This recession, along with the general industry collapse, is getting rid of the whole stardom mindset, and that's a great thing. If I never make it big and sell 400,000 copies of my CDs, that's just fine. I don't think the Bible says we need stars. The Bible says we need servants."
Nathan and his family of seven (soon to be eight) have been living in their RV for four years, traveling across the country for gigs in
coffee houses and churches. I would think that's taking minimization to the extreme. And probably atypical from other Christian artists, which he acknowledges.
From Nathan's website:
"People in coffee houses appreciate the scripture songs as much as anything else," he says. "I'm just a musician who is willing to go anywhere and sing for anybody. I really don't follow the Christian music scene so I don't know where, or if, I fit in. I just try to be cognizant of where God wants me and try to stay within that framework. Even if it means another year in the RV."
Because the Bible says we need servants, not stars.
With the weekend release of Up, Pixar has once again left toy merchandisers frustrated. Back in April, the New York Times noted that while Pixar consistently delivers artistic triumphs, toy retailers haven't appreciated the challenges of selling toys based on movies about rats, rusty robots and now an old man.
But Pete Docter, the director of Up says Pixar believes "that telling the best stories they can is a better way of ensuring a good financial return than mimicking the content that worked for other animated releases." Docter's explanation of Pixar's approach appears in an excellent World magazine review by Megan Basham:
"What makes people want to buy stuff is that they like the story and the characters. The dolls are like a souvenir of the movie, so if you like the movie, you'll want a souvenir, and if you don't, then you won't. Our job as far as merchandising goes is to make the characters in the movie likeable. I look at the character of Carl [the old man] and think, 'Who doesn't want an action figure of an old guy like that?'"
Basham closes the review with an interesting perspective on Pete Docter's method for developing compelling characters:
It is a story's ability to draw people into common experience that Docter, who is like his Pixar colleague Andrew Stanton a Christian, says best allows him to exercise his faith in his work. "There's something of the divine in the way we respond to stories and how we're created as people—that we're so driven by relationship that even when we know we're just looking at a bunch of drawings, we still connect emotionally. In making these worlds I feel closer to God through working out the details of my creation as He must have worked out the details of His creation."
Taking our big kids to Up over the weekend, Candice and I were amazed by how effectively Pixar can connect with audiences of all ages. We laughed and cried and were inspired to be more creative. That's what great stories do.
"Can you read me a story, Papa?" my daughter asks as I tuck her in for the night. Of course I've got time to read VeggieTales or The Velveteen Rabbit or Boz or Belle or something from her Children's Bible.
I try to take my time reading to her, pausing and inflecting words just so to make the story more engaging.
And sometimes we put aside the books and just tell each other stories we've made up from our imaginations. Her favorites: the fairies' magic bouncy house and the mysterious rooms beneath our home that you can only access through a hidden trap door behind the stove.
In our neighborhood, parents are doing the same thing for their kids: giving them a pleasant narrative before they drift off to sleep. Indeed, it's not just our neighborhood, but all around the world, and for as long as people have existed on this planet. Old Testament prophets told stories, Jesus told stories, medieval playwrights told stories.
And it's not just kids who enjoy a good night-night story. I remember reading the missionary biography Bruchko, where the Amazon tribe would gather together in their hammocks at night and tell each other stories by firelight. What great times enjoying creativity, enjoying community, enjoying a story.
If nobody is around to tell you a story, whether a parent or fellow tribesman, you can always pick up a book and read by night light.
Or you can flick on the TV and have someone far away unfold a story for you.
Yeah, all this went through my mind as I read Motte's recent blog post, "Entertainment Cravings." Motte felt embarrassed for having watched three movies over the course of three nights. Though it's likely that his having watched "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" was, as he said, a "waste," I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with watching TV. It's simply another medium through which to engage a story.
I affirm the Boundless articles that encourage godly media discernment, such as "Like to Watch," "Discriminating the Movies," "Minding Our Media" and "It's Never 'Just a Movie'." It's probably wise to avoid a lot of what you'll find on TV, programs that pollute and inure.
While we've published a few articles challenging us to watch less TV, and to use wisdom as we decide what to watch and how to interpret what we watch, you won't find anything on Boundless saying that TV -- an electronic audio-visual medium -- is by nature shameful.
It's true that too much passive watching can dull our senses. It's true that at times we may find ourselves addicted to it, craving relief from the TV rather than looking to the Holy Spirit for comfort. And it's true that having a friend share a story with you is much more personal and relational. But here's the thing: A story told by the cold tube in the corner is at its most fundamental level simply a story.
So tonight, as you curl up in front of the TV with your chicken wings or Pad Thai, consider that you're engaging in a tradition that spans the globe and spans all of history. You are enjoying a good story before bedtime. And that's something for which to be thankful to our Creator, the greatest storyteller of all.
Last Friday, I became a member of Blockbuster for the first time in five years. Then, over the long weekend, I went on a movie watching binge, renting three movies in three nights.
I'm not proud of it. In fact, I'm quite embarrassed by it. But it happened. Now I'm left to wonder why.
It could be that I really don't watch a lot of movies throughout the year, whether at home or in the theater. So a lot of (seemingly) good ones pile up that are on my radar for one reason or another.
Or it could be that we're fresh off season finale week and all of our television shows are over. So we're going through some entertainment withdrawals.
And I do think I am going through some sort of withdrawal. Which is why this John Piper article caught my attention today. It's an audio transcript with someone asking, "How do I break this hold that entertainment has on my heart?"
Pastor Piper gives some very practical advice involving prayer, immersing yourself in the Bible, joining groups that talk about serious things, and sharing your faith. But this final thought was most helpful, at least to me:
One last suggestion: think about your death. Think about your death a lot. Ask what you'd like to be doing in the season of life, or hours or days, leading up to meeting Christ. I do that a lot these days. I think about the impact of death, and what I would like to be found doing, and how I would prepare to meet him and give an account to him.
Sobering advice. Especially after wasting an hour and a half last night with Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Somehow, I don't think Christ would be amused. I sure wasn't.
Does anyone know why CDs and DVDs are released on Tuesdays?
Like for instance, today's the day Hollywood released The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and the Blu-Ray version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off--a movie I'm depressed to say I saw at the theaters before some of our readers were born.
I was excited to see a new CD released by The Newsboys today.
Books don't always follow the Tuesday trend, but today also happens to be the day a new book by Dr. Al Mohler was released. It's called The Disappearance of God: Dangerous Beliefs in the New Spiritual Openness. It's inexplicable how Dr. Mohler finds the time to write as much quality stuff as he does...and to say interesting things on Twitter on top of that.
Hope you enjoy the newness of this Tuesday.
We got an e-mail from Arthur Blessitt!:
I read your column blog "Blessed By Blessitt" and I was very touched. You really got the point and message. God bless you. Thanks for the profound words. It truly is about Jesus, knowing and following Him and having Jesus change us. May you be blessed in all things. Was refreshing to read your words.
Peace,
Arthur
Thanks for writing, Arthur!
By the way, I'm reminded of one other part of the movie that actually upset me. Tell me what you think:
Arthur recounted his walk through an African country, and how he heard about a retreat center for missionaries in need of rest. He planned to stop there and stay for a couple of days in order to regroup and refresh. Upon arriving, however, the missionary couple in charge told him he couldn't stay, informing him that the rooms were reserved for "real" missionaries, or something to that effect. There was vacancy, and he was willing to pay, but was turned away. The couple was sorry, but they couldn't break "protocol" and welcome him.
Oh my word, I burst into tears in the theater!
The story continued: Arthur started down the hot, dusty road, wondering where he'd stay for the night, and saddened that his much-awaited opportunity for rest was not to be. After walking for a while, he turned around to see a couple chasing him down the road. They caught up and asked him if he was the guy walking around the world with a cross. He said yes, and they replied that they had heard about him, and would he be willing to stay with them for a few days, get some rest and share of his travels? He gratefully accepted, and returned with them to their home, wondering who these kind folks were to take him in and meet his needs.
They were atheists.
So Arthur was turned away by the Christians, and welcomed by the atheists.
Does anyone else just blaze away upon hearing this? I mean really, the point isn't about atheists showing kindness...far from it. My atheist friends are some of the most understanding, generous, caring people I know. My point is that we Christians, who have been given a mandate, spelled out in Scripture<, to care for the needs of others, can still miss the mark so obviously and egregiously. Heaven help us!
Thoughts? Have you become more aware of the needs of hurting people recently? What's gotten you there? How are you intentional in this area? Have you missed an opportunity, or messed it up? What did you learn as a result?
Last night I saw The Cross: The Arthur Blessitt Story. I went to a late showing with two friends. We were the only people in the theater, and it was our final opportunity to see the film before it got bumped today for the likes of X-Men, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past and Obsessed.
I loved it. Not because it had awesome production quality, script, score or cast. It was pretty sketchy on all those fronts. I loved it because I love what I learned from Arthur Blessitt. For those who don't know, Arthur Blessitt spent 40 years carrying a 12-foot wooden cross around the world. He's been in every country, major island group and territory. Along the way he talked to businessmen, drug addicts, terrorists, aborigines and world leaders, passing out tracts, stickers, a hug and a handshake. His message is simple: "Jesus loves you, died for you, and wants a relationship with you." The film shows him praying with people, feeding them, talking to them, and, more importantly, listening to them.
Blessitt carried the cross through war zones and jungles, across freeways and deserts, and around riots, brothels, Muslim army camps and beyond. He summarizes his experience by saying that he was following his call. God told him to preach not to churches, stadiums or via satellite, but to the next person he meets. He did that for forty years, and has some amazing stories to tell. At the end of the film, after quietly recounting everything from miraculous escapes to encounters with the Pope and Yasir Arafat, Blessitt says, "All I've been is God's donkey. I want to lift Jesus up."
What I learned from this film:
1) I am weak. I don't believe God enough. I don't believe his power, his protection, his Word, his love and his desire to draw people unto himself, in his way and in his timing.
2) If we have such a big God, we're silly not to follow him. "There's no safer place to be than in God's call," says Blessitt. And sometimes that call is just one step forward.
3) What does it look like for me to be "God's donkey" and lift him up? What if I redirect all attention from me to the cross? Hm.
4) When we tell people about Jesus, if he wants their hearts to change, they will. It doesn't matter who they are or what situation they're in, or how lame I am in presenting the Gospel. Again, it's not about me. [a theme is surfacing here]
5) Sometimes this reformed girl likes getting a little charismatic. I did the "JESUS" chant with Arthur during the movie, and even shouted "Amen!" a few times. Liberating.
Check out the movie if you get a chance. Find theaters here or wait for it to come out on DVD. I'm sure it will.
Several years ago, I saw a made-for-TV-movie about P.T. Barnum--the famed American showman from the 1800's who founded the circus that would later go on to become the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus. I remember very little of it, except for one particular scene.
In the movie, Barnum had heard of a famous Swedish opera singer, Jenny Lind, who had toured with amazing success throughout Europe. Barnum sank every penny he had (and some that was not his) to secure Lind to tour through America, though he'd never even seen her perform.
The scene I remember is when Barnum finally meets Lind backstage before one of her performances. She is small and she is plain and he is clearly shocked at her lack of, shall we say, charisma or star qualities. She recognizes the disappointment in his face and takes him a little bit to task on it. He should have more faith. Appearances aren't always what they seem.
Don't worry, she says finally with a wry, little smile, when I sing I become beautiful.
At that, she walks out on stage. Barnum watches closely and finds himself, like the audience, swept away by her amazing voice. He understands.
I thought of that scene yesterday, as I watched a video clip of Susan Boyle (you can see it here). Boyle is a 47-year-old unemployed woman who decided to compete in the television reality series, Britian's Got Talent. As Boyle first stands on stage, you can see that the judges are clearly unimpressed. Simon Cowell even rolls his eyes. But, by the time she finishes her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Miserables, the crowd is on its feet and Cowell is smiling from ear to ear.
I rather doubt if the scene between Barnum and Lind actually took place. But there was a piece of truth in it, I think. Even if we don't meet the world's threshold for physical beauty, we can become beautiful by what we do.
God's Word speaks to that, as well. In both 1 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2, Christian woman are encouraged to seek the inner beauty of a "gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight" and to "dress modestly ... with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."
If that's the kind of beautiful that's of "great worth" to God, then I know where my focus should be. So, today, I will strive to be beautiful, and it has absolutely nothing to do with how I look.
Congratulations, Miss Boyle.
Last night I watched Bolt. After scrolling through the movie choices at my local grocery store, it seemed like Bolt would be the cleanest and most enjoyable. Plus, I like kids movies.
I wish I could say my media choices were always so innocent. While I try my best to stay away from anything trashy, I get into trouble when I go to see a popular chick flick without checking out the Plugged In Online review. Or even sometimes when I let my radio dial stay on a certain station with sketchy lyrics for days.
Today's featured Boundless article conveys a message that is not entirely comfortable to the modern Christian. While I try to avoid overtly "un-Christian" movies, music and TV shows, I relish my freedom in Christ and right to choose. In "What You Watch," author Bob Waliszewski starts with some familiar ground:
A lot has been made of the concept "garbage in equals garbage out." Occasionally we hear warnings about desensitization. Sometimes even the culture worries about media influence (cigarette advertising, for instance). Although these concerns are valid, I think it's more than that. I believe that during repeated exposure to problematic media, a follower of Christ could find his or her fervor for God dwindling.
I have an e-mail from a young adult who explained how this happened in his life, dampening his spiritual excitement and stunting his spiritual growth. His lack of passion wasn't due to dabbling in drugs. It wasn't because of sexual compromises. It wasn't rebellion. But for him, it was his poor entertainment decisions. Sadly, this is the story for many Christians.
The cumulative spiritual effect of poor media choices is something to consider. Here's a weird example. A few years ago, I watched the first three seasons of Gilmore Girls on DVD. (The content in seasons one through three is generally clean, but read the review!) In the series, the mother, Lorelai, 32, and her daughter, Rory, 16, eat sweets and junk food incessantly (and somehow remain perfectly thin). During the months when I was consuming the show, I found myself snacking more and more. The junk food culture of the Gilmore's world began invading my real life.
Think of this in terms of moral values. Watching one movie with questionable content may or may not be damaging to your spiritual life. However, a constant media diet of characters and scenarios that conflict with God's way cannot help but invade your thinking. What about being culturally relevant? Waliszewski writes:
Sadly, I believe we have many among us who use the excuse of becoming culturally relevant to justify their unhealthy media consumption. These are Christians who claim that their knowledge about movies, TV shows, albums, and so on, helps them to witness. But does the exposure to pollution really enhance witnessing abilities?
In my experience, no. I've watched a few movies I shouldn't have, and they've never provided a single opportunity to share Christ's love with someone. In fact, I believe those who do not know Christ sometimes feel comforted by the innocence of a Christ-follower. It is a position on life that stands out. What do you think? How have your media decisions shaped you?
Last week, I was intrigued by a headline in my local paper: "New Take on Bible Stories: NBC's Kings a modern David-and-Goliath tale."
So I started reading the description of this new NBC drama. Evidently, there's a King Silas, the monarch of a fictional kingdom called Gilboa, who takes his orders from a higher power. There's a protagonist, David Shepherd (wonder if his middle name is "the"), who performs a heroic act of saving someone by facing down a tank called ... you guessed it ... Goliath. "Hmmm," I'm thinking, "a modern day David and Goliath? I wonder how that got by the TV execs?" It didn't take me too long to find out.
"So we drew from a lot of different sources, and we just let the story take us wherever it was going to take us," says creator-executive producer Michael Green. Translation: We like using the familiarity of the Biblical account to draw people in, but have absolutely no intention of honoring it.
Chris Egan, who plays "David Shepherd", seems to realize where a lot of their source material is coming from, but tries to maintain a kind of tolerant-speak: "I think the story is fantastic, of a king with a young guy who he thinks could be a protégé (his son is viewed as weak), could be an enemy, could be a rival, who knows? But he takes a chance with him. And, of course, it's ordained by somebody else. It's got nothing to do with what Silas does in the end. It's far greater forces at work like fate, kismet, Sanskrit, karma, whatever you want, whatever language, whatever religion or whatever you can refer to."
David and Goliath? Fate, Sanskrit and karma? I threw the paper across the breakfast table in disgust.
Then, a few nights ago, I caught a section of the History Channel's new special, Battles BC--David: Giant Slayer. The battle scenes in these specials tend to be a little gory for my taste, but I left it on thinking it might prove interesting. Interesting, it was. It only took about three minutes for my ears to perk up. The narrator described how David and his six hundred men fled from Saul to the Philistines. Then, (the narrator's voice lowered and darkened) David had to prove his loyalty to the Philistines by raiding Israel villages.
"Wait," I told my working-on-the-computer hubbie, "that's not right!" Hubbie gave me a "hmmm", but I was busy listening again. Then, the narrator continued, the Philistines made David the king of Israel because they knew they could trust him. So David continued on his next mission-- (dark and lowered voice again) the annihilation of Saul's blood line.
"This is such malarky!" I cried as I ran to look up 1 Samuel. "See? See?" I jabbed at Hubbie, who was by now kindly listening to my David rant. "They say he raided Israel, but he didn't. And they say he tried to annihilate Saul's blood line, but he refused to touch Saul and even gave Mephibosheth Saul's lands!"
I was a tad red in the face by now. "Well, hon," Hubbie asked. "Did you really expect them to tell it correctly?"
And it hit me. I did. I did expect them to tell it correctly. Or to at least acknowledge that "though the Bible says such and such, we simply don't believe it and have come up with our own power narrative." I did expect NBC to at least have some semblance of respect for a Biblical account if they were going to name their main character after a man after God's own heart.
But they didn't. And I realized once again that I won't find God's truth out in the world. Only in His Word.
According to Adobe-sponsored Beet.TV, there's a dramatic shift coming in the way we consume media because more and more young adults are watching videos on their personal computers instead of their televisions.
Online video is replacing television for consumers 25 years and younger as part of a dramatic demographic shift. Watching video on a personal computer is becoming the principal way young adults consume video.
On Tuesday, I spoke with Adobe business development chief Bill Rusitzky. For many young adults 25 and under, there is a greatly diminished interest in watching television as video consumption is shifting dramatically to the PC, he told me. He says that as this population grows, there will be a big change in media consumption patterns over the next ten years.
I can see the appeal. Having our programming whenever and wherever we want it is nice. But it's difficult cozying up to a PC, especially with another person. Trying to position a laptop on your knees so that neither of you pulls a neck muscle isn't easy. When the shows over, you feel like you've been on a two-plus hour plane ride. Maybe the trick is standing up and stretching half-way through a show.
I've enjoyed a show or two online. But it's usually one of my second tier shows like Heroes. I'll stick with programming my antiquated DVR for watching LOST on the big screen while resting comfortably on my couch. For me, the "wherever" doesn't matter nearly as much as the "whenever."
There was a good reality television moment on American Idol the other night when Simon told Kris Allen -- season 8's married heartthrob -- that he "brought his wife out" too early. I don't mean that what Simon said was good, just that the unscripted moment it generated (from Kris' wife) was good.
Here's a recap in case you missed it.
Before each performance, AI shows a video of contestants going through their daily lives, pre-Idol. Kris' video was about his five month-old marriage and included multiple shots of the newlyweds in their apartment. After Kris performs, Simon let's him know that he should have kept his wife hidden a little longer. Meaning, he'd get more votes from swooning teenage girls if he didn't make a point of being married. Then, not missing a beat, the AI camera crew cut to Kris' wife (who was in the audience), catching her noticeably annoyed.
Maybe she felt she was being dismissed or disrespected (which she was) or maybe it was because she knows that her husband's looks and talent will get the adoration of many young ladies. Whatever it was, it was sincere.
But is Simon on to something? Can a married guy (or girl for that matter) be the next American Idol? Well, if the marital status of past finalists (top two) is any indication, it seems unlikely.
I can't recall all of the previous finalists, but I'm pretty sure none of them were married. And it's not as though there's been a lack of talented married contestants to choose from. Think of season five's 4th place finisher Chris Daughtry. His debut album has sold more -- a lot more -- than 10 previous Idol winners or runners-up. Did Daughtry's marital status prove prohibitive to his advancing to the finals?
Now I'm not going to make this another culture-against-marriage post. Though I could go there. I just don't want a bunch of tweens skewing the results of, um, my second favorite reality television show.
My first confession is that I saw the movie, Confessions of a Shopaholic.
My second is that I liked it.
I confess these things knowing full well that I will be the receipient of scorn. After all, it wasn't high art. It didn't have an intricately crafted script or inventive cinematography or brilliant acting. It wasn't produced by a church. It was cotton-candy McFluff.
I have nothing to say in my defense except that every once in a while a girl just likes a cheeseburger. And, for this girl, if she can have it with a small side of financial wisdom ... all the better.
Of course, maybe, I was just thrilled, like Motte, to watch something where I didn't have to close my eyes during the course of the film. But I think, more than anything, was the fact that I could relate to Rebecca Bloomwood, the main character.
Now, I'm not a shopaholic. Much more likely I'm a debt-a-phobic. But as the opening scene unfolded, with young Rebecca's thrifty parents pleased as punch over her plain, ordinary, painfully useful brown shoes while Rebecca saw the other girls squealing with delight over their glittering pink ones, who couldn't relate? Just because I work to be debt-free, doesn't mean I don't understand the lure of pretty shoes.
As my daughter tells me when trying to explain why her favorite color is "rainbow sparkly," "it's because it's so beautiful, Mommy." We all want to be beautiful. Maybe shoes aren't our thing, but we understand the desire. It's not that we want to be runway perfect. We just want daddies who delight in us and husbands who are satisfied with us alone.
In the movie, Rebecca describes her shopping this way:
"When I shop, the world gets better, the world is better. And then it's not anymore, and I need to do it again."
And that's the problem with earthly beauty. Our shoes get scuffed. Our hair gets out of style. Our clothes wear out. Our manicures get chipped. And we have to do it all over again. Even if we do, magically, somehow get all the plates spinning together at the same time, there's still that knowledge that someday, at some time, beauty will fade.
Rebecca's solution was to buy herself into confidence. On the way to her dream job interview, she stops to buy herself a green scarf. That scarf is perfect. It makes her, she thinks, into the person she wants to be. Yes, the perfect dream job applicant would be wearig that perfect green scarf. Never mind that she has to spread the price among multiple credit cards (because they've reached their limit) and beg the final 20 bucks off the street.
But, through the story (and her out of control credit card debt), Rebecca realizes that stereotypical--but also very biblical--wisdom that money can't buy happiness, even if it is pink and glittery.
Would that I would remember that too. That I would remember that my beauty should not come from outward adornments. Instead, it be that of my inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. Of great worth in God's sight.
How does that look in daily life? After three decades on this earth, I'm still working that out. Is it important to maintain health and attractiveness for myself and my spouse? I think so. Should it be my ruling passion? Absolutely not. How do I maintain a balance? How do I make sure that clothing myself doesn't become more important than clothing the needy? How do I maintain modesty and squelch pride and self-absorption? I think, perhaps, it starts in immersing myself in God's perspective of beauty.
At the end of the movie, Rebecca repents from her high-spending ways and has a giant, designer garage sale to pay back her debt. When the movie was over, I gave a little chuckle and then headed to the store to return some new black boots. Yeah, they were on clearance. But I just didn't need them. And, all of a sudden, they just weren't that pretty anymore.
The day before we recorded our "Oscar-worthy" podcast, the Boundless team -- proving that we're a little uncultured -- decided to go see some of the nominees so we would have something to discuss. The problem was, there were only three still playing in theaters -- Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Lisa called Slumdog, Steve volunteered for Benjamin, and I was left with The Wrestler. Yuck, I thought.
Thankfully (see Plugged In review), it didn't play out that way. In the end, only Lisa and I ended up going (not together). And we both saw Slumdog Millionaire. Which was awesome. But not because the Academy deemed it so. More because it exceeded my low barrier of what I consider a good movie ... when it's non-offensive and mildly entertaining, in that order.
I've grown to give movies a lot of grace if they can just meet those two criteria. (Having a good message is a bonus.) So when someone asks me about a movie I've just seen, I respond with either "waste of time," "pleasantly surprised," or "awesome." Sometimes I'll add an "Aside from ..." with "waste of time" and "pleasantly surprised." For example, "Aside from a couple of s-words and inappropriate uses of Jesus' name, I was pleasantly surprised."
I think part of being sensitively (not necessarily easily) entertained has to do with growing in Christ. The moment not grieving the Spirit matters more than entertainment value is when you know you've cultivated a heart for media discernment.
I knew I had arrived when I gave high marks to a movie like Fireproof. It met my low barrier movie enjoyment threshold, and then some ... non-offensive and mildly entertaining with a great message.
Anyone who's spent any amount of time watching American Idol will be struck by one thing: a lot of people see getting on the show as their ticket to changing their entire lives. Never mind that most who try out have little to no talent. Even those blessed with a natural gift seem to want the shortcut to fame and success. Why go through the hard job of learning to improve your talent, working your way through the system, trying and sometimes failing when you can just get on a TV show and, presto, you're catapulted to the top? Listen to how many times you’ll hear some variation on, "This will change my life" or "I really need this" during the show's auditions.Witness the emotional and often profane meltdowns when people see their supposed one ticket to success denied them. Turn your eyes away as contestants debase themselves by outright begging.
Compare this to what happened a few weeks ago during U.S. Airway's very brief Flight 1549 from New York's LaGuardia airport to the Hudson River by way of a flock of geese. (Yes, it seems a great leap of logic from American Idol to here, but bear with me.) A lot of people have described the actions of the plane's captain, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, as "heroic" and the plane's safe landing as a "miracle."I beg to differ. That is not to take away anything from the pilot or crew of that flight. They performed magnificently. But what transpired with Flight 1549 was the result of years of hard work and careful training. There was nothing heroic, truly defined, in what Captain Sullenberger did.
Patrick Smith,a professional airline pilot, says it well:
Nothing [Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles] did was easy, but on the whole they did what they had to do, what they were trained to do, and what, we should hope, most other crews would have done in that same situation. I reckon Sullenberger and Skiles would readily admit as much. Not out of false modesty but out of due respect for their colleagues everywhere. It was not heroics that saved the day; it was, to use a word I normally dislike, professionalism.
Sullenberger was a 1973 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and had, over many years, worked his way up to the left seat of a major commercial airliner. He had thousands of hours in the cockpit of one type of aircraft or another. It was that experience—years and years of hard work—that contributed to the happy outcome for Flight 1549. The years of experience and hard work of the all the crew members, including flight attendants Donna Dent, Doreen Welsh, and Sheila Dail, paid off that day.
Back to American Idol. Sure, the outcome of any TV show is not life-and-death, but you wouldn't know that by the way the show's participants act. What bothers me is the attitude of the typical Idolcontestant. Compare it to the cool professionalism of that U.S. Airways crew. Who needs years of hard work and experience to be successful? Just wow the judges and a few thousand adoring fans for a relatively brief period of time. What else could explain a Sanjaya Malakar? A David Archuleta? (Let the brickbats fly!) The numerous winners and runners-up who fade into obscurity once out of the artificial environment of Idol?
We're in danger of becoming a nation of Idol contestants, wanting a quick ride to the good life without the hard work and patience to actually earn it. (Set aside for the moment that many of us define the "good life" quite differently anyway.) What else could explain the election of a callow, inexperienced president who ran as a messiah but has been proved in the past few weeks to have feet of clay—which any sentient being should have been able to predict. What explains our culture's increasing reliance on lotteries and gambling to fund essential functions of government? The mountains of debt racked up by many Americans too impatient to actually save for the things they want?
I know there are a lot of other Chesley Sullenbergers out there. They're the ones we should emulate and praise, not for heroics or miracles, but for doing hard work, day in and day out, and doing it well—often for little reward. Let's see American Idol for what it is: ephemeral fizz that within weeks dissipates into the essential nothingness that it is.
I've got my opinions about music. Of course, they're well-informed. Through the decades of my life I've listened to a variety of artists, a variety of genres, a variety of production approaches ... and have earned the right to my good opinions. The weight of my 1,000+ CD collection is a testament to the weight of my opinion.
And the music you listen to just stinks.
Hm. Or maybe that odor is coming from me. Maybe the high opinion I have of my opinions betrays my musical snobbery. To put that in biblical terms, perhaps the expression of my musical opinion is a sign of ungodly pride.
As I read through Bob Kauflin's list of "ten reasons why musical forbearance might be good for our souls," I am convicted.
Do I get offended when someone critiques my favorite song, group or style of music? Well, yes, I do. Well, that may be a sign of idolatry.
Do I trash a song after hearing just the first 20 seconds, or after hearing it only once? Hm, yeah, I do. Then maybe I'm not giving the song a fair shake.
Am I better than you "masses of people" because I enjoy some obscure music, like Silers Bald, Enfield, Melissa Tawlks, Chris Eaton, Arvo Part, the Robert Shaw Festival Singers? Conversely, am I a better person because I enjoy massively popular music, like Stephen Curtis Chapman, Third Day, Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin? Nope, I'm not.
Hm. Maybe it'd be good for me -- and good for our relationship -- to listen to the music you like, that I don't currently care for. Maybe I can come to better appreciate the Lord's creativity by further expanding the collection of stuff I listen to, even "unsophisticated" stuff.
Bob's closing paragraph sums it up for me: Let me be clear. No song is above evaluation and there are truly bad songs. We just might serve others and ourselves more effectively if we expressed our musical opinions with a little more grace.
Hm. With a little more grace. Yeah.
So, what was that song you wanted me to listen to?
As you may remember, one of my friends, Eli Bremer, is an Olympic pentathlete. He finished a disappointing 23rd in Beijing, but a happy 3rd at the World Cup Finals in Portugal.
Well, the sad news is that the sport has been experiencing some hard times, and some cuts have become necessary. Seems the financial markets aren't the only things contracting. Yup, the number of events that make up the sport has diminished from five to four. ESPN explains: Shooting and running will now be combined in a fourth and final discipline. The starting order of the final event is determined by the points accumulated after the first three, so the leading competitors get a head start. The overall winner is the first to cross the finish line.
Now, athletes should be able to ride horses, shoot and run at the same venue. The idea is to make the event easier for fans to follow.
I watched Eli compete when he was in China; the events were broadcast deep into the night and into the morning over the Internet. To be honest, if he weren't involved, this wouldn't be a sport I'd follow. It takes some endurance from those watching to hang in there for up to 12 hours while athletes move from venue to venue, with lengthy breaks between each. Though the change introduces some logistical challenges, I think it's a good one for spectator and participant alike.
I suppose they can continue calling this a "pentathlon," as there are still five disciplines represented in the four events. I'm going to propose, though, that -- out of solidarity with those struggling in this difficult financial downturn with its budget cuts and layoffs -- the sport be renamed "the modern quadathlon."
I'm told that, "whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10: 31). So, as a musician who listens to music, I find myself pondering how I might do so for "the glory of God."
I suppose I could keep from listening to music that tempts me to sin, either because of the lyrics or because of what the music brings to mind. I could be aware of how much time I listen to music, and whether doing so isolates me from friendships or keeps me from my obligations. And I should question when it might be best for me to seek energy and happiness from the very personal Author of music, God, rather than from mere impersonal tones.
Bob Kauflin, pastor and Director of Worship Development for Sovereign Grace Ministries, explored this in a recent post on his blog, Worship Matters.
The foundation for his thoughts on the matter are that sin exists: outside us, and within us. It's therefore helpful to be aware of how music might stir these sinful desires in harmful ways. Indeed, as he says, "Listening to music without discernment and godly intent reveals a heart willing to flirt with the world."
He goes on to list six things to be aware of when listening to music. Ones obvious to me include the lyrical content of a song, the amount of time we listen to music, and the emotions produced within us when we listen to a song. He also lists "submission," "associations," and "conversion."
Submission is always a tough one, though I do realize that just as I am in authority over others, I am under the authority of others. Even in the area of music, perhaps. Hm.
What do you think? Is it even possible to listen to music "for God's glory"? If so, what might that look like for you?
I can't let Ted and Steve get away with going all mushy on us without contributing my own deeply insightful poetry. My initial foray into the category achieved limited renown, but I won't let that stop me. I do it for the art, despite the philistines who don't appreciate it. There once was a man from Toledo
Who loved to go swim in his Speedo
He thought he'd be cool
Diving in the kids' pool
Now his head is exceedingly bleedo.
There once was a man from Las Vegas
Who managed a chain of bodegas
He ran out of beef tacos
With fresh red tomakos
Now no money to give his employas.
There once was a man from Havana
Who detested the taste of banana
Show up with the fruit
And he'd give you the boot
Then crush you with falling piana.
There once was a concert pianist
Who was known to be somewhat dishonest
At Carnegie Hall
He spun tale quite tall
Of throwing a piano the farthest.
There once was an old scuba diver
Who fancied himself a MacGyver
He defused a big bomb
With a stick of lip balm
He's now the shipwreck's sole survivor
There was once a ski downhill racer
Who was also a bit of skirt-chaser
"Don't I know you somewhere?"
He asked with great flair
Her slap mark is still on his facer.
There once was a fast-food employee
Who worked despite his ennui.
"Want fries with that?"
He asked a young brat
"Have it your way," he said with lethargy.
There once was a poetry writer
Who considered himself so much brighter
Than the philistine boor
Whose background was poor
Too bad he wasn't a fighter.
This week, Ben Roethlisberger and the 5-2 Pittsburgh Steelers travel to FedEx field to battle the 6-2 Washington Redskins ... and their scantily clad cheerleaders.
Forget about the much anticipated match-up between the Steelers stingy run defense and the NFL's leading rusher Clinton Portis, can Big Ben keep from being distracted by the Redskins' cheerleaders who do their pre-game stretching near the opposing team?
Here's the report from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "I'm not a big fan of playing there because it is loud, they're really good at home and they try to make their cheerleaders stretch in our tunnel before we come out of the locker room. That's just not good," Roethlisberger said yesterday.
The practice by the Redskins cheerleaders was so legendary around the league that when commissioner Roger Goodell sent out a memo to all teams last year banning the practice some dubbed the "Redskins Rule."
"The couple of preseason games I've played down there, we've seen it," Roethlisberger said.
And it's a distraction?
"It can be, let's be truthful. They've done it before. I've heard a rumor that they're not allowed to do it anymore."
Of course it's a distraction for the players. And it's a temptation for the viewers. It's one of the reasons I'm glad I don't watch NFL games anymore. My wife's loving "Turn away!" still rings in my head. =)
A college professor once asked my class a thought-provoking question: "What makes music Christian?" Is it the words of the song, the heart-state of a composer, the person who sings it? If Eminem sings "Amazing Grace," is it a Christian song? If Michael W. Smith sings "Jingle Bells" (and he has) is that a Christian song?
Well, I think you can make a case that the songs themselves are amoral. Sure some lyrics are more God-glorifying than others, just as some artists are more in tune with God than others. But what is the relationship between Christ and music about Christ?
Here's what has me thinking about this topic. I'm going to step on some toes here, but one of the most popular TV shows today, Grey's Anatomy, is highly immoral.
When the show first hit the air, Plugged In had this to say:
The hip dramedy joins a prime-time practice already including House, Scrubs, ER, Medical Investigation and Nip/Tuck. It samples from each of these series. The result is a character-based show sprinkled with a few laughs, lots of blood and extremely gray morals.
And so I find it a little surprising that the show regularly—and sometimes prominently—features CCM tunes. Artists featured on the show have included Lifehouse, Mat Kearney, Derek Webb, Patty Griffin, Caedmon's Call and Kendall Payne. Caedmon's Call received an especially dominant play earlier this year.
Caedmon's Call's lyrically compelling song about redemption, "Ten Thousand Angels" will receive a rare and lengthy place on an upcoming episode of the ABC hit drama series Grey's Anatomy on January 10th. Featuring vocals by Derek Webb, the song will play for five consecutive minutes during an emotionally charged final scene.
"It's an honor to be asked to help carry some of the emotional weight of a powerhouse show like Grey's," says Webb. "I think the spiritual significance of a song like "Ten Thousand Angels" will have some really special chemistry with what is bound to be an important episode in the season."
On another recent episode, these powerful Kendall Payne lyrics were heard:
Though the wind and waves
Beat against your faith
You were on my mind
When the world was made
Trust in me my child,
Trust in me my child.
I find the inclusion of these songs perplexing. Through the music, Grey's is asking people to look past the day-to-day to something deeper and more profound. However, the actions and lifestyles of its characters affirm the opposite. With rampant promiscuity, adultery and homosexuality, their lives reflect the sad truth of Ephesians 4:19: "Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more."
The show promotes a wholly worldly perspective (1 John 2:16) while teasing the eternal to add weight to its themes. I am reminded of Paul's words in Philippians 1:18: "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached." I suppose you could say that in some muted way Christ is being preached, but it's a shame that the show itself so obscures the way to the God it's touting.
I pray that the Christ-centered words of these songs would reach the millions of Grey's viewers despite the show's ungodly messages. If nothing else, the incorporation of these songs shows that those who live by their own rules still crave something otherworldly—still long for redemption. And perhaps the truth breaking through is what makes a song Christian.
Some of you have seen the movie Fireproof. I'd like to share with those who haven't yet seen it the comments from those who have seen it. These are all taken from Boundless Line blog posts "Watching 'Fireproof'" and "Kirk Cameron Made Me Cry."
Laurie wrote:
My boyfriend and I went to see Fireproof yesterday. It was excellent. I didn't really care that it was low budget or whatever, because I went to hear the message. The message of the movie is powerful. My boyfriend and I were both crying almost the whole movie through! It was a wonderful conversation starter for us, and very encouraging. We are telling all of our friends to go see it!
Victoria wrote:
I almost didn't see this movie because of some of the negative comments about it, but my husband and I had already purchased tickets. Going in we both had really low expectations about the quality of this film. However, we both thought it was not just a great Christian movie, it was a great movie, period....
I thought it was incredibly well-done, made me laugh in some places and cry in others, and the story kept my attention. Not to mention that although my husband and I are definitely not emotional and almost never cry in movies, we were both BAWLING at the end.
Shame on any Christian who pretentiously dismisses it or is needlessly critical. We should be encouraging others to see this film, not talking it down so much that others would think it is awful and won't see it (as I almost did).
Geneva wrote:
Christians bashing other Christians' efforts is grating on my nerves these days. And for the record, I saw Fireproof and thought it was a great movie.
Ceres wrote:
I just watched it and I loved it! Much better than I anticipated.... Great movie!
Holly wrote:
It exceeded all my expectations.
Josh wrote:
Bottom line, this film is lengths and strides better than their last film, Facing the Giants. These guys have tightened up the plot and the dialogue. Places where I was worried they were going to hammer me, they were subtle instead.
Sure there's room for growth, but they had me crying and I went in cynical, as is my bent. The pacing of the change in their marriage is perfect, and you don't get the payoff until near the end.
Worth seeing.
David wrote:
What it will do is challenge you and your commitment to your marriage. It will strike close to home for many who fight the urge to confront their spouses about their shortcomings. Above all, it will demonstrate the awesome power of restoration and forgiveness that can be found in the Word.
I would encourage you to avoid measuring the success of this picture with a traditional movie industry ruler. Instead, if success must be measured, think of the number of lives that will be changed, relationships restored and renewed commitments to family that will be made. In the end, I think Fireproof, judged by those criteria, will surpass everyone's expectations.
Amir wrote:
It will promote some very important realities dear to Christians and vital to the Christian message: the persevering work of Jesus Christ, demonstrated on the cross; the sanctity of the marriage covenant; that tough marriages are–more often than not–salvageable. For those reasons alone, it is worth the viewing. For the Christian considering marriage, it is recommended for reasons on which I will elaborate....
Still, there are themes that make the movie worth watching: (a) the Gospel is well-represented, especially against the backdrop of a husband’s heartfelt attempt to woo his wife, and her rejection of him; and (b) the sanctity and permanence of the marriage covenant. Those items alone make the movie a good one to see before you get married.
Mrs. R wrote:
I went to see Fireproof yesterday afternoon by myself. The message of the movie was so encouraging to me. I personally thought that it was beautifully done and that this was the best acting I've ever seen by Kirk Cameron.... I would have gladly paid $20 instead of the $10 that I paid to see this movie in order to support these Christian filmmakers.
Alyss wrote:
The amazing message totally conquers any other silly audio/visual technicalities that even the most harsh moviegoer could possibly conjure up. To all the haters: listen to the dialogue, think of all the families/couples that you know whose marriages and lives could be saved if only they applied some of these concepts revealed in the movie.
Karen wrote:
My husband and I saw the movie yesterday. I thought it was refreshing to see people acting more closely to the real life persons in my life. I have friends like the nurses at the hospital, the parents were very much like mine, and the firemen reminded me of stories my dad tells from work. Too often the "good" actors in the movies portray people too perfect, too funny, too everything to be real. The message was good and I'm recommending it.
Lorraine wrote:
I just saw the movie today and it was fantastic!!
Kimberly wrote:
At a preview screening I attended, nearly every man in the building was sobbing or at least had tears. A full month later, all of us as wives can testify that we have been pampered beyond comprehension (big grin), which to me says it all. My hubby is a great guy anyway, but he has gone the extra mile after experiencing quite a bit of conviction watching Fireproof, and another couple I know who were (unbeknownst to us) having problems have experienced restoration and renewal they didn't think possible.
Carrie wrote:
I would say that this is way more than a movie. It's life-changing. For those who are married, aren't married, or are considering it as an option, I'd say see this movie. It will help you prevent a truck-load of pain. I cried at Facing the Giants, but this one had me shouting, clapping and booing too.
This final comment was submitted by Catherine, who hadn't yet seen the movie but was already benefiting from its messages powerfully told. She wrote:
My husband and I have been separated for 8 months. We started talking about the possibility of getting back together and making our family work about a month and a half ago. We decided that we DID want our marriage to work. The very next Sunday, our pastor announced that he was starting a month-long series on marriage based on the movie. God's timing amazes me!
Looking back at the last month... we have begun the process of not only putting our marriage back together... but making it FIREPROOF!
Those who've seen the movie have been deeply touched by it. And that is not a bad thing -- to be provoked toward godliness by a film.
Let me encourage those who haven't yet seen it not to knock it. Your uninformed ignorance may discourage someone from being blessed by this film.
As for me, if I can be a conduit of the Lord's blessing, how cool is that? So I say, unabashedly, "See this movie."
And then urge your church to follow the innovative, brave, trail-blazing ways of Sherwood Baptist Church ... by producing engaging, enjoyable, life-changing movies for the glory of God and the blessing of those for whom Christ died.
Last night we watched the movie for the second time. And though we tried to engage with the story, a number of production "artifacts" were a bit distracting.
On numerous occasions, I noticed errors of "continuity" -- within the same scene, for example, when a camera angle changed, actors had magically changed position. That can be kind of jarring, but I did my best not to let that keep me from enjoying the film.
And there were problems with the audio. Dialog would cut off abruptly, though the ambient sound of a hallway or chamber would remain. The very quality of audio was less than I've come to expect from modern movies. Maybe they were using microphones developed in the 1930s.
The music wasn't what I'd consider "distracting," but don't look for the soundtrack in a Wal-mart near you. Mediocre, to be blunt.
The quality of the actual picture on the screen, though pretty good considering the equipment used to film the movie, left something to be desired. I noticed some "noise" throughout the film, but again, I tried not to let that derail my engagement with the story.
And the movie ended too abruptly. Just as the action climaxed, before any loose ends could be satisfactorily resolved, the closing credits began scrolling up the screen. What's with that? Hm. Perhaps the director just figured that'd be the best way to make the audience wrestle with what they'd just witnessed.
The story was what kept our attention. The theme was a lofty one, one that everyone can relate to. We also loved seeing character development -- the leading lady whose heart was softened by the leading man's pursuit of admirable ideals, the senator who wrestled with his conscience, which finally got the best of him.
Senator? Oh, right. The film we watched last night was "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Frank Capra's classic featuring Jimmy Stewart, Claude Rains (who played Captain Renault in Casablanca), and Jean Arthur.
You know what? Despite the film's "poor production values," I found my heart elevated by the story. I adjusted my expectations based on the limitations placed on the film crew because of the available expertise and technology, and was able to engage the story to my benefit.
Maybe a few more of us could hold such a reasonable and humble attitude toward "Fireproof." Just as I was encouraged by Capra's "Mr. Smith," they will find themselves appreciating "Fireproof" who take into account the innate limitations imposed on those who brought us "Fireproof."
I attended a special screening of the movie Fireproof a couple of months ago and one thing stands out: Kirk Cameron made me tear-up ... twice! [Spoiler Warning] They were scenes of true repentance expertly acted by Cameron. That's right, expertly acted by Kirk Cameron, people!
As for the merits of the movie overall, Plugged In Online's review nails it, particularly this portion: You might notice that some of the lines in Fireproof feel a little wooden. And you might notice that the script indulges more dialogue (most of it spiritual) than you're used to hearing in movies about firemen. But the honest truth is that you don't really care by the time the credits roll, because you're too busy feeling your own feelings and thinking your own thoughts about your own relationships. This is the kind of movie that succeeds, sometimes despite itself, because it does a superlative job of digging into serious issues that so deeply affect so many of us every day.
It's true. That's why we're recommending it to our friends and even offering babysitting to some so they'll go and see it.
Okay, we all know a guy needs skills -- you know, like nunchuku skills, bow-hunting skills and computer-hacking skills. Apparently, though, the editors of Popular Mechanics seem to think that's not enough. This month they provide a list of 100 skills they say every man needs. (Let's set aside the sexism argument for the moment.) It's an interesting list, and I was doing quite well until the technology section. (When they say, "Ditch your hard drive," do they mean on purpose?)
But I have no idea what a stick welder is or does. I'm not even sure why it's considered an automotive skill. I can't use a sewing machine, and I can't home-brew beer. I can grow food -- if you count the green slime on that otherwise unidentifiable blob at the back of the fridge. And I can not only change a single-pole light switch, but I can change a three-way switch and rewire your kitchen at the same time. (I wrote the book on home wiring for the Time-Life home-repair series.)
I can certainly shoot straight. (Anyone who makes it through Marine Corps marksmanship training will be a good shot.) And I can escape a rip current, having had to do it more than once while growing up as a long-haired surfer dude in Florida. Overall, I came in at 89 percent.
But there are some key skills left off the list.
How to let a child believe you're going to buy that pony she desperately wants without actually promising you'll buy it. A gentle pat to the head accompanied by "We'll see" usually does the trick.
How to win at Monopoly. Buy everything you land on, go deeply into debt, then hope you get lucky. Oh wait, that's general American consumerism.
How to do a wicked doughnut in a car. Get a '67 Chevy Impala, put 10 guys in the trunk, cut the wheel sharply as you floor the gas pedal. Call ambulance(s).
How to watch football on TV. Yell loudly at players that they're supposed to catch the ball or tackle the guy. Gesture broadly and exclaim great oaths when they don't seem to hear you.
How to explain American football to a European wife. Yeah, I know -- trick question.
How to enjoy watching cricket on TV. Beat head repeatedly against brick wall. You will enjoy doing anything after that.
How to play chess. Start to move piece while watching opponent's face. If his eyebrows go up, slowly put piece back where it was. If his eyebrows remain stable, keep moving piece until eyebrows go up again, then stop move. Occasionally shout "checkmate!" while watching opponents eyebrows. If they become deeply furrowed, say, "Oh wait, never mind." If they go up in surprise, look at board again and say, "Really?"
How to respond when wife asks if this outfit makes her look fat. "Just shoot me now."
How to avoid sneezing at inopportune times. Press down hard on the bridge of your nose. (This one actually works.)
I wish I could talk politics with you guys. It's a passion. But as Ted wrote last week, we really can't get into the "nitty gritty" (meant to be read with a Nacho Libre accent) without mentioning candidates. So I thought I bring up another passion of mine, college football.
(If you girls reading this are like my wife, feel free to abandon this post here.)
We're almost three weeks into the best game on the planet. And I've enjoyed every moment so far: expert analysis, forums, rankings, expectations, all culminating into a crescendo of gridiron glory every Saturday.
There's a great article today on Boundless from Stephen Altrogge that helps explain our love of sports. It's about how we enjoy excellence because it's a reflection of God's character.
When we excel at sports, we are in a very small way reflecting the excellence of God's character. This is part of the reason why we experience so much joy in playing sports. Doing things excellently is a reflection of God, who does all things with excellence. The same is true of watching sports. When we see an athlete perform exceptionally well, we're seeing a small portion of God's character.
I certainly agree. But my appreciation for sports is as much about determination and effort as it is excellence. There's excellence all over the field that'll go unappreciated if a team's heart isn't in it.
Stephen uses a great Eric Liddell quote from Chariots of Fire to illustrate his point. But I'll go with Rock Balboa from Rocky when he said, "It's not about how hard you hit. It's how hard you get hit and keep moving forward."
That's darn right!
I finally had a chance to watch "The Dark Knight" yesterday afternoon, catching it at the local IMAX theater.
I didn't like it.
What was there to like? Did I "like" when the Joker tortured his victims, catching their terror on his shaky handheld videocamera? Did I "like" when the hospital blew up, or when the police station blew up, or when the other buildings that blew up blew up? Did I "like" when loved ones were murdered, or when loved ones were threatened with death? Did I enjoy watching the Joker so casually knife someone or shoot someone or manipulate the mentally handicapped or giggle at the corruption of others?"
No, I didn't enjoy this film.
My reaction as I walked out of the theater? I nearly wept. My heart was heavy, and to tell you the truth, I'm still not sure exactly why. I think it had to do with the pain, the hopelessness, the darkness, the chaos, the brokenness -- the evil that humans are capable of. That humans are capable of portraying, perhaps.
I don't know if this movie was good for me. (And, after all, isn't that the only reason to watch a movie?) On one hand it may be a difficult but helpful film for me, one that provokes me to think deeply about the twisted fringes of humanity and our Lord's response to it. About chaos and meaninglessness ... and about the bright purity of our Lord's order and the way He brings meaning to life.
Or it may simply provide a pleasurable opportunity to rub shoulders with evil from the safety of a comfy chair, to see how close I'm able to flirt with darkness without darkening my soul, to enable me to engage in a type of voyeurism that's not going to raise the suspicions of my neighbors.
Was this movie good medicine, horrible tasting yet good for the soul? Or was it a poison pill? Honestly, at this point I don't know.
I do think it's worth the effort to evaluate why this film moved me so much, and why I'm drawn to this and other psychological thrillers.
In his recent article "A Knight Too Dark?" Matt Kaufman concludes, "We can glimpse into the darkness from time to time, but we look too long at our peril. We need to spend most of our time looking into, and living, in the light."
How long is "too long"? Hm. Not sure. For me, "too long" might be one viewing.
Or not.
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
You may recognize that challenge from Philippians 4:8, something I've wrestled with ever since I first read it decades ago. How is that even possible this side of Heaven? How do I engage my culture, for example -- which is often polluted by lies, dishonor, injustice, impurity, ugliness and the like -- when Scripture seems to encourage a disengagement from such things?
Specifically, how do I engage with cultural artifacts such as movies, when so often they're tainted by perversity and vulgarity? And even more specifically, in light of this verse, what are the moral issues involved in watching -- or even deciding whether or not to watch -- the latest and darkest Batman flick, The Dark Knight?
Join Boundless author Matt Kaufman as he wrestles with this problem in today's featured article, "A Knight Too Dark?"
Volleyball, boxing, gymnastics, diving, swimming, softball, wrestling, ping pong, trampoline, artistic dance.
Yawn.
The most comprehensive sporting event of the Olympics, the one that tests skills inherent in a Napoleonic warrior courier, the one that requires half a day to complete, is taking place within a few hours: The Modern Pentathlon.
The fact that I'm friends with the U.S. Modern Pentathlete most likely to win a medal, Eli Bremer, and that I maintain his Web site, affects my opinion not in the least, of course. The fact that he spent some time with us on a recent episode of The Boundless Show podcast, similarly, does not influence my passion for this "sport of sports."
Beginning at 8:30 p.m. EST (5 p.m. PST) I'll be watching as much of the competition as I can, and TiVo-ing or catching online what I can't see live. If you have any interest in athletics, I urge you to do the same.
And, on a serious note, if you'd pray that the Lord work through Eli for His glory, both he and I would appreciate it.
Usain "Lightning" Bolt's record-setting performance in the Olympic 100-meter final was a dominating victory, the likes of which hasn't been seen in an Olympic sprint event since Michael Johnson smashed the world record for 200 meters 12 years ago in Atlanta. Like millions of viewers around the world, I was awed by just how easily Jamaica's Bolt bested the rest of the field, literally coasting past the finish line in 9.69 seconds as his seemingly pedestrian competitors were left to battle amongst themselves for the leftovers -- silver and bronze.
Bolt so thoroughly dominated the race that the other sprinters seemed like an afterthought.
At just 21, Bolt's upside seems limitless. He's been running the 100 for less than a year and has just begun to tap his potential. The ease with which Bolt broke his own world record stunned NBC analyst Ato Bolden, himself a four-time Olympic sprint medalist. Trouble was, Bolden observed, Bolt might have run a 9.59 if he hadn't started celebrating prematurely.
Ordinary sprinters are taught to continue running all the way through the finish line, even to lunge forward at the last possible moment. But Bolt is clearly no ordinary sprinter. He could tell with about 20 meters to go that he was about to win, and he wasn't about to let the moment pass. He eased up on the gas, spread open his arms, and finally, right before the finish line, pounded his chest in triumph. Bolt's bravado made it feel more like the NBA playoffs than the Olympics.
Bolt then proceeded to soak up the crowd's adulation. "It took him fewer than 10 seconds to run 100 meters but at least 10 minutes to complete his victory lap," wrote Yahoo! Sports' Josh Peter. "He pulled off his gold spikes and held them aloft, wrapped himself in a Jamaican flag and clowned as if he were on stage at a karaoke bar rather than on the biggest stage of the Olympics."
I know, I know. Bolt is only 21 years old and likes to have fun. But I always thought there was something that set Olympic athletes apart from the macho-posing so commonplace in American pro sports. I typically associate this sort of grandstanding with end-zone celebrations and post-dunk glares. I certainly can't fault anyone for relishing the joy that comes with winning a gold medal, but -- like NBC's Bolden -- I can't help but wonder how fast Bolt could have run if he'd postponed the party until the race was actually over. After all, this wasn't a preliminary heat, but the once-every-four-years Olympic final.
But maybe Bolden and I are in the minority. Are we the only ones who wanted more speed and less showboating?
We'll see what happens later this week when Bolt goes for a second gold -- perhaps a second world record? -- in the 200 meters. Believe it or not, the 200 is Bolt's real specialty.
Part of me can hardly wait.
It's obvious we have a lot of Olympic fans here at the Boundless Line. So I thought you'd enjoy this link I found over at World Mag Blog. It's an interactive map provided by the New York Times of the Olympic medal counts from 1896 to the current games in Beijing.
Here are some observations from blogger Harrison Scott Key: It's rich to see which countries were dominant in which years. The first Olympics was a surprise. Then see the U.S. emerge as a world power in the early 20th century. See England's former glory. See Germany in 1936. See the Communist Bloc in the 1980s. Great informational delivery.
It is interesting to see how the Olympics reflect a little of what's going on in world history. I totally forgot that the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow in protest to the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
I really enjoy the Olympics. I love the thrill of competition, the human interest stories, the national pride ... the cheating. Well, I don't really "love" the cheating. But what would the Olympics be without a little controversy? And from a Milli Vanilli opening ceremony to their itty bitty gymnasts, China has definitely given the world a "little" controversy.
After China took the gold in women's gymnastics last night, the controversy about underage Chinese gymnasts seemed to heighten with the U.S. coach [Martha Karolyi] saying, "It could be true. One little girl has a missing tooth."
The Karolyis have been pretty open about their suspicions all along. And as Selena Roberts of SportsIllustrated.com writes, their suspicions seem to have merit. The Chinese gymnasts could have picked out their leotards from Thumbelina's closet as they performed gymnastics in miniature on Wednesday. Wearing blue eye shadow with their hair pulled back, He Kexin, Jiang Yuyuan and Yang Yilin looked like girls who had just rummaged through their mothers' makeup. This was a ladies' final, though somehow it was hard to see how they qualified as women.
Amid pre-Olympic hand-wringing over why the birthdates of He, Yang and Jiang didn't jibe with other registration materials that showed they might be as young as 14, China swore on its stars' passport stamps that the tots are the legal tumbling age of 16. But while the tiny trio helped their nation whisk the gold medal away from a suddenly clumsy U.S. group in the team competition, it was impossible to deny the visual evidence of something unjust in China.
The article goes on to contrast the body types of the Chinese gymnasts with their American counterparts while standing on the podium. Just take a peek at the big lugs who stood next to the Chinese team. The U.S. squad is filled with women who are short to be sure, but with a curve to their bodies, muscle on their bones and driver's licenses in their wallets. This is gymnastics, so truth in aging is often blurred by a brutal sport laden with underdeveloped teens. ...
I saw it too. But the American gymnasts aren't making any excuses. Alicia Sacramone, who fell while mounting the balance beam, took the blame for the Silver medal finish saying, "It was my fault." Which is the mature response you would expect of someone who's 20 years old. I'm not sure how she would have responded if she were only 14.
"What kind of idols do we have these days?" my husband, the awesome Sunday School teacher, asked our class this last Sunday.
"American," I quipped. Te-hee.
Comedy moment aside, we were studying Acts 17, which tells us that while Paul was in Athens, "his spirit was troubled within him when he saw that the city was full of idols." There aren't many statues of greek gods around my town. So what, we were trying to figure out, is an idol in our days?
Several answers came out. Work. Money. Power. Fame. The standard Sunday School stuff. But we realized that the question is a complicated one. Literally, in biblical times, an idol was something that people bowed down and worshiped. Literal idols, of course, still exist. But most of us think of idols today as something that we make more important than God.
So I was interested to see a recent blog by Brent Nelson titled "When Does Sport Become Idolatry?" Nelson asks a good question: How do we know when things become "idols" in our lives?
Here's one test Nelson recommends: "One of the ways we can identify idolatries is to ask, 'Where are the sacrifices made?'" For sport, he gives some examples of sacrifices that signal a problem: sacrificing health through drug use; sacrificing the well-being of families; sacrificing integrity; or pushing children to their limits and beyond to elicit performance.
In other words, when we are sacrificing things that the Lord has told us are good (our bodies, families, character and compassion), we're in dangerous territory. (You might enjoy listening to Olympian Eli Bremer talk about the balance in his life on our recent podcast.)
"Above all," Nelson writes, "the greatest sacrifice one can make to the idol of sport is the sacrifice of our soul."
Both, I think, are questions I can relate to my life. 1) Is there something in my life more important than God? 2) Am I sacrificing those things that God has told me to honor or do in order to have it?
I think I'd also add a third question: What does God's Word tell me about it? After all, there are certain things (e.g. power and money and fame) that the Bible warns us about pursuing. Then, there are certain things that Bible encourages us to pursue (e.g. marriage and family and service). While I suppose the second group could technically become an idol (though I have my doubts about how often that really happens), I should be much, much more concerned about the first.
Nelson ends his blog with a verse from 1 Thessalonians. "May it be said of you and me, 'you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.'" Amen!
I don't mean to be a downer but I just couldn't watch the half-naked women playing volleyball last night. I'm not torn up about it or anything. I really don't expect modest sportswear in the Olympics. The skimpiness was just a little too much, that's all. So we had to skip our nightly Olympics viewing as a family because it didn't end before our kids' bedtime.
Funny thing about kids though. They notice stuff like that without provocation. Before we turned off the TV, they made comments about them "wearing underwear" and such. It proved to be a teaching moment.
We mused for a little about why they might need to wear really, really small and really, really tight tops and bottoms. You know, for uninhibited movement for a sport that requires quickness. (Not that that necessarily would make it OK.) But then we saw the men's volleyball team with their much bigger and loose fitting tops and bottoms. So that was out.
We'll address it further in this Friday's podcast but here's a chance to get a head-start on the discussion if you're interested. Are some sports fashions really all about maximizing athletic ability? I just think they're often about style and higher ratings, particularly in the case of women's volleyball.
What do you guys think? Or am I the only one that's a little uncomfortable with all the "underwear"?
I am loving the Olympics! If I don't blog (or sleep or eat or socialize at all) much in the next two weeks it is probably because I am glued to my TV set.
For some reason, I just can't get enough of watching athletes flipping on four-inch-wide beams or smashing volleyballs in each other's faces. And, oh my goodness, who saw the men's 4x100 relay on Sunday night?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! It was the most amazing thing ever. If you haven't seen it, watch this smashing performance right now. Then come back here to share in my excitement. Unless you're French.
It's been interesting watching the human interest stories that go along with the Olympics. There is such a different mindset between America and the rest of the world. When they interview many of the athletes of eastern countries, they seem to be competing mainly for the honor of their country. It is less about them and more about bringing glory to their nation.
Most of the American stories focus on the athlete's goals. They are doing this for themselves -- oh and sometimes the USA gets mentioned, usually as an afterthought. Many of our athletes seem to be in this for their own glory -- most likely a product of the individualism that we've been fed since youth. However, the U.S. men's basketball team seems to be doing a better job of being at the Olympics to redeem our nation's reputation. After being embarrassed in Athens, they seem to be trying to refocus on bringing gold back to the U.S. and participating as a team.
Anyway, have you noticed this type of individualism in the Americans or am I just looking to criticize?
Or if you're not in the mood for all that deep stuff, just let me know which Olympic sport is your favorite to watch. I'm still looking forward to mine -- track and field!
Tim Tebow, a junior University of Florida star quarterback, has won a lot of awards in his day. In high school, he was Florida's Mr. Football and a Parade All-American. As a collegiate, he won the ESPY award for Best Male College Athlete and, last season, became the first sophomore to ever win the coveted Heisman Trophy.
But there's one award Tebow won't get: He won't be a part of the Playboy pre-season All-American college football team.
Now, first of all, who knew that Playboy had an All-American team? Evidently, those named to the team get to pose for the magazine and also attend Playboy's "weekend ceremony." Yeah, wonder what that's like.
So, why won't Tebow be a part of the party? Well, if Tebow had refused the award, he'd still have a thumbs up in my book. But, get this. According to USA Today, Florida's Assistant Sports Information Director Zack Higbee said he chose not to nominate his quarterback for the Playboy spread based on what he knew about Tebow's spirituality.
"I've been working with Tim since his first day here and I know his priorities and his family," Higbee said. "He has that trust in me to make the decision."
That's a double thumbs up in my book. Not only does Tebow hold certain beliefs dear--the article describes his homeschool upbringing, his Christian missionary parents and how he went on mission trips to the Phillipines, Croatia and Thailand this year. But his beliefs are so clear, that those around him know exactly where he stands.
Playboy's reaction was a little laughable. According to the article, "Playboy Sports Editor Gary Cole downplayed the university's decision, however, and said that Tebow would not have made the team anyway." Uh huh. Because, you know, who would want the Heisman winner on their team?
Evidently, Tebow isn't the first to pass on Playboy. Danny Wuerffel, another past Heisman winner and Florida player, turned down the award in 1996 and Georgia Tech player Andrew Gardner turned it down this year.
Refreshing. In a world where Hugh Hefner and his three "girlfriends" are deemed worthy of a prime time television show, it's nice to see that there are still some who realize that certain awards are no honor at all.
Honestly, summer is not quite as exciting once you are in the work force. You may take a week or two off, but the majority of those sweet summer days are spent indoors.
However, the sun stays out longer and we do get to enjoy the outdoors a bit more. Once you're worn out from biking, swimming or hiking, I recommend sitting outside with some lemonade and a good book.
I've been reading a lot more fiction lately, thanks to my new roommate and her stack of books that I've never read. She introduced me to one of my new favorites, Leif Enger's "Peace Like a River." It's well-written and quite entertaining.
I've also re-read a couple of Frank Peretti books this summer. Although his type of writing is not what I normally go for, it's been kind of fun to enjoy the suspense -- to cheer for the angels and encourage the prayer warriors to get to work.
I spent much of my spring reading through all of the Anne of Green Gables books and I also started re-reading good ole "Jane Eyre."
If fiction's not your thing, no worries. I also enjoyed these non-fiction reads:
"UnChristian" by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons (great insights into what people think of the church)
"Our Father Abraham" by Marvin R. Wilson (fascinating stuff about the Jewish roots of Christianity)
"Ask Me Anything 2" by J. Budziszewski (more great advice from Professor Theophilus!)
"Real Sex" by Lauren Winner (practical and insightful thoughts on chastity)
"The Promised Power" by Roc Bottomly (balanced view on the working of the Word and Spirit)
OK, that should be enough to get you started. If you're not into books, there's always the excellent articles that Boundless and TrueU have to offer.
What have you been reading this summer? Let me know -- I'm always looking for a good book!
 Several years ago I was waiting to check into a quaint local hotel in a resort town when a man reeking of beer barged into the tiny lobby. He pushed ahead of a customer at the counter and asked the clerk, "Anywhere I can get a beer around here?"
Trying to hide her annoyance, she answered, "There's a brew pub three blocks down."
He took an unsteady step back, aghast, and asked, "Anything closer?"
I couldn't help but think of that incident when I read a recent Wall Street Journal article about the closing of 600 Starbucks coffee shops around the country. A manager at a financial-services company in New York City was devastated to learn that the Starbucks in the lobby of her building was on the death list. "Knowing Starbucks, there's probably [another] one within a few blocks," she said. "But that's probably two blocks too far."
Really, now, are we that addicted to our Starbucks? I like coffee probably a bit more than the average person, and I really like Starbucks' Gold Coast Blend when I need a good kick-in-the-neurons hit of java. But I really don't need Starbucks.
I remember not too long ago when people actually tried to stop Starbucks from opening in their towns, complaining that the global chain was homogenizing our tastes and crushing mom-and-pop shops in the process. There seemed to be a Starbucks just about everywhere you looked, leading to this great line in the movie Best in Show: "We met at Starbucks. Not at the same Starbucks, but we saw each other at different Starbucks across the street from each other."
Now we want to save our Starbucks. But why? Starbucks introduced many people to the idea of good coffee, but there were a lot of places making good coffee before they came along. In fact, Starbucks' chief accomplishment has been to homogenize the look of coffee shops.
Too many businesses have mistaken the ambiance for the coffee. Any coffee establishment that wants to compete today must have a lot of comfy chairs scattered about, wireless Internet, and trendy indie rock playing in the background. In fact, as I write this I'm sitting in a non-Starbucks coffee shop. Comfy chairs? Check. Trendy indie rock? The Neville Brothers, actually, but to my mind that's better anyway. Wireless Internet? In theory, but it's intermittent today. But the coffee? Meh. Not bad, but I've had better. But some things remain constant: The barista is talking about "people who are coffee drinkers and people who think they are coffee drinkers but aren't."
Okay, whatever. I suppose the same is true of baristas.
I've been drinking coffee a long time, from really bad C-ration powdered stuff -- in the Marines when we were on the move we just chewed the powder and washed it down with canteen water -- to African chicory blends to sublime Arabic coffee roasted, ground, and brewed before my eyes. I think I know my coffee, and while comfy chairs and whatnot are okay, I'd rather just have a good strong cuppa joe without paying for all the extra ambiance -- and snobbery.
And I'm willing to walk two blocks for it.
Anne of Green Gables has long been one of my favorite books. After reading the entire series in high school, I desperately wanted to visit Prince Edward Island. So much so that I considered signing up for a missions trip going there. I was too young at the time.
It has been 100 years since L.M. Montgomery's story about an imaginative red-headed orphan named Anne Shirley became an almost instant success, selling 19,000 copies in five months. And now, it seems, Anne is getting her due. Slate's culture critic Meghan O'Rourke writes:
Today, Anne of Green Gables and its seven sequels are the basis for a small industry. More than 50 million editions of the first volume are in print around the world. The books have spun off movies, musicals, miniseries, and an assortment of bric-a-brac, from tea sets to light switches. But perhaps the greatest tribute to Anne's enduring vitality is the decision by the solemn eminences who edit the Modern Library to issue and heavily promote a centennial edition of the first volume in the series. Tolstoy and Anna Karenina, meet L.M. Montgomery and Anne Shirley.
This acclaim is a bit surprising, according to O'Rourke. Why? Because Anne becomes a wife and mother.
To some, this canonical promotion of a writer who would probably now be classified as a Y.A. (young adult) author might seem preposterous. To certain left-leaning cultural theorists who won't embrace a heroine with a less-than-revolutionary CV — Anne, once the Island's best young scholar, chooses to become a devoted wife and mother of six — the Modern Library's decision may appear to be a reactionary cave-in to nostalgic sentimentality.
The writer goes on to explain that the book's appeal lies in Anne's imagination. This overwhelming characteristic affects everything in Anne's life, from school to friendships to marriage.
It's unusual for a book about a girl to champion fantasy over the facts of life, such as they were ordinarily defined. This doesn't make Anne an ethereal sprite herself, though. Later in the series, she does grow up. She goes to college, develops her writing, marries Gilbert (but only after he almost dies, and out of abiding friendship, not fear of loneliness), and becomes the mother of six children.
The outlines of Anne's life may not resemble the models of feminine success as it's conceived of nowadays. By the series' end, she has put aside her dreams of writing. And she channels into family life a large part of the energy that might have fueled her as an artist.
Wow. And this is a novel girls and women have cherished for 100 years. Congratulations, L.M. Montgomery, for writing a beautiful story that teaches us that imagination finds a home in both academic and professional pursuits, and marriage and motherhood.
Over the weekend, I read the eulogy of former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in the Wall Street Journal. Among all the newsworthy items the story could cover, it included the following: He developed an unlikely friendship with the rock star Bono, who convinced Helms to back AIDS funding and alleviate poverty in Africa by channeling more foreign aid through private sources.
I noticed that Bono popped up in a few other articles about Helms. I realize I'm biased as a U2 fan, but I started thinking about how often Bono is mentioned in news stories about high-profile deaths. Consider these stories tied to the deaths of:
Pope John Paul II
Johnny Cash
Frank Sinatra
Luciano Pavarotti
Joey Ramone
Michael Hutchence (INXS)
Roy Orbison
Is Bono the Forrest Gump of celebrity deaths? Who else from the music world ends up associated with so many significant people and then has a newsworthy connection to them when their eulogies are written?
Perhaps I've spoken too much about sports already, but the NBA draft is tonight, and I just can't resist. Through the fortunate bounce of some numbered ping pong balls, the Chicago Bulls won last month's draft lottery and will thus have the first pick of the night.
Until recently, Michael Beasley of Kansas State was the consensus number one choice of most hoops experts. He's big, athletic and is a great scorer and rebounder. In fact, he was a dominating power forward as a college freshman, the likes of which hasn't been seen in years. Yet in the past few weeks, Derrick Rose of Memphis has jumped ahead of Beasley in almost everyone's mock draft. So what happened? Well, in addition to some inspired play from Rose in the NCAA tournament, the truth is that Beasley has suffered from what pro scouts describe as "character issues." They question Beasley's focus, his maturity and his tendency to gravitate toward trouble -- especially during his high school days, from which he is barely a year removed.
Thus the inevitable question: How important is character in sports? Should teams simply draft the best player available to them, or is it more important to look at citizenship first and ability second? It's a dilemma for many teams, as we all know plenty of questionable characters who've led their teams to victory. When it comes to sports, nice guys don't always finish first.
NBA general managers don't get paid to fill their rosters with nice guys; they get paid to fill their rosters with winners. But as the Portland Trailblazers and the Indiana Pacers have learned the hard way in recent years -- thanks to off-court troubles with several of their players -- sometimes talent alone isn't the most important factor when building a team.
So, when does an athlete's "baggage" start to outweigh their value to the team?
I found this list interesting. It's the top 10 websites you can't live without.
1) Wikipedia
2) Yahoo! Finance
3) Craigslist
4) ESPN
5) Yelp
6) Facebook
7) Digg
8) Google
9) TMZ
10) Flickr
I only use Craigslist and Google from this list. But it got me thinking about the ones I can't do without. There's only about five that I'd really miss (not including anything work related). Here they are with a personal take:
1) Drudgereport -- I've been hooked ever since the Monica Lewinski animated-gif siren.
2) National Review Online -- Just great content on world affairs. And their blogs were way ahead of the MSM in the 2004 presidential election when all the exit polls showed Kerry was a lock.
3) Google -- Obvious. But I had to include it because I use it daily.
4) USA Today -- I love the McPaper. It's a great one stop shop for all things culture.
5) The Tigernet -- I fully admit that Clemson sports is an excess in my life. And this site is where that excess begins.
OK. I feel a bit exposed now. My frequency on these sites say something about me. Maybe I've overshared.
But what about you guys? Care to overshare?
HT: WorldMagBlog
I just stumbled upon a very cool, though ultimately not very meaningful, little application that creates "beautiful word clouds" from collections of words.
Curious, I wanted to see what our article "Biblical Dating: An Introduction" would look like. Here it is (click on the image to see it full size):
And here's what "Brother, You're Like a Six" looks like:
Who knew that such doctrinally engaging articles on relationship could look so cool?
My dad took a class in medical school that dealt with emergency care. Over the course of the semester, his professor showed the students photos of gruesome car accidents, bloody shooting victims, gray bloated drowning victims, victims of suicide, and so on. They saw every kind of horror you can imagine.
Initially the images were nauseatingly shocking. But over time, as the students grew more familiar with grisly death, they became less disturbed. Eventually, the sight of death for these medical students became common. They had become inured.
Another series of visual images have similarly desensitized me: movies.
I was in college, and had gone to see the latest psychological thriller. As the closing credits of "Silence of the Lambs" crawled up the screen, I remained in my seat, stunned. I was deeply affected by the fascinating story, the masterful acting and production, the insights into sexual perversity and cannibalism.
Years later I found myself similarly moved by "Fargo" and, to a lesser degree, "The Professional."
One night I came home from work, and my roommate had gathered some friends to watch "Fight Club" in our living room. I joined them, and that eerie feeling returned. I could feel my heart hardening, becoming brittle and dark, could feel it grow less sensitive, more cynical. As I sat at the top of the stairs following the movie, I had no choice but to determine not to continue doing this to myself. For the sake of my heart, what Scripture calls "the wellspring of life," I must not pour into it things that make it less sensitive to the gentle voice of my Lord.
Gradually, my sensitivity has returned. Last time I watched "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," for example, I was surprised and embarrassed at how much sexual innuendo was threaded throughout, something I hadn't noticed years earlier.
I've wanted to watch the "Matrix" sequels, but after reading what was in them, determined that they would probably not be good for me. The trailers for "Sin City," a modern film noir, fascinated me. So did the ones for "300." But in an effort to "guard my heart," I chose not to ingest these films.
These edgy movies may help me explore intriguing aspects of life. They may spark fascinating discussions with my unsaved friends. But the potential benefits aren't worth the damage they might inflict on my heart and mind. To paraphrase from a recent Plugged In Online review, the danger in watching these movies was that I might become just a little bit more comfortable with my own sinful self.
Sometimes I have to say "no" to my inclination to see a movie, despite its cultural significance. Yes, for the sake of spiritual sensitivity and at the expense of cultural relevance, sometimes I have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Two weeks ago it was the Red Wings over the Penguins for the Stanley Cup. Last night it was the Celtics over the Lakers for the NBA Championship. And in both cases, Boundless readers had plenty to say -- some of them quite passionately -- about their favored teams.
I remember more than one occasion when I was younger, when the score was perilously close heading into the final minutes, I would fold my hands and bow my head during a time-out (the commercial breaks were mercifully shorter back then) to say a quick prayer for my team of choice. Something haunting and poetic, such as: Dear Lord, please help [my team] to win. Please! There were no mentions of honorable competition or good sportsmanship or character building of any kind. Plain and simple, I wanted my favorite to emerge victorious. I wasn't concerned with the other team's hopes and dreams, what they were going through, or even how many fans were praying for them. Just give us the win, in Jesus' name!
To be honest, I don't ever recall uttering those prayers in Christ's name, because deep down I somehow knew that Jesus probably wasn't taking sides in the Super Bowl or the World Series. Indeed, as I got older and more mature in my faith, my fervent pleas for a God-sanctioned win became more infrequent. Eventually I stopped saying them altogether.
That's right -- I no longer believe that God plays a major role in the outcome of sporting events. I don't believe He tallies up the number of professing Christians on each team. For that matter, I don't believe He counts the number of heathens, either. Most of the time, it's the team that plays the best defense, or whose shots are falling, or simply the one that "wants it more" that ends up hoisting the trophy. I don't care how enthusiastically a coach or athlete credits God in the post-game interview, I am convinced that speed, strength, skill and coaching have more do with winning than currying the favor of heaven.
Am I suggesting that God doesn't care about professional sports? Well, kind of. I have no doubt that He cares immensely about each player and coach and every single person involved in every single game or match, but I don't for a second believe that He's rooting for one club over another -- because that means that for every team He chooses to win, He must also pick another team to lose. (Sounds a bit Calvinist when you think about it, but that's another debate.) Perhaps I've watched too many rosters filled with believers get blown out by the statistical leaders in nightclub brawls and out-of-wedlock-children.
Now, my personal theology won't keep me from cheering for my favorite team when a championship is on the line. In fact, I will even admit to still bowing my head on occasion. But the words I use nowadays are a bit different: Dear Lord, please help [my team] to play their best. And if they happen to win -- well, that's certainly OK with me.
So, do you think God heeds the prayers of loyal sports fans? Have you ever prayed for your team to win?
Last week I wrote a blog post imploring the editors of CT to reconsider their ongoing advocacy for the movie "Sex and the City."
Since then, a number of folks have joined in the conversation, which I think can be helpful. Sadly, some of them have mistaken what I was calling for, have gotten distracted by my "sanctimonious" deference to Scripture, and have misunderstood my motivation for writing that post.
Let me clear things up.
I wasn't condemning those who choose to watch this movie. I wasn't even primarily challenging Camerin Courtney's review of this movie. I was calling on the editors of CT to re-think their stance on media consumption, summed up in the following quote: "It's good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved."
(As if we're so unfamiliar with sin that we need a movie to introduce us to the concept. To be honest, when I need to look through the eyes of "the depraved," all I have to do is open mine. I don't need a movie to help me understand what breaks God's heart and disrupts lives.)
Let me condense my concerns down to two points:
1) The original review observed that SATC is "soft-core pornography," perhaps made more palatable because the characters explore themes relevant to single women. The thing is, in order to have "enjoyed" this movie, in order to find the themes "refreshing," you'll have had to endure "a lot of sex and nudity," "a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex," "sex scenes between married folk," and so on.
2) The defense of this review encourages CT constituents to engage media that allows them to "enter into the minds" of "the depraved." In this context, that means that CT is encouraging their constituents to view SATC, an admittedly "depraved" movie. Sitting through the "muck" of SATC is "good," they are saying.
Put point 1 and point 2 together, and what we have is a prominent Christian publication clearly saying to their constituents that watching pornography is "good." There are other worrisome things about their review of this movie -- the cynicism about Christian messages regarding sexual purity, for example, or the demeaning objectification of men as "eye-candy" -- but this diminishing of the dangers of pornography is what I was primarily drawing attention to in my blog post.
I felt that that was a watershed moment for CT, and felt that I had to draw a line in the sand.
I'm embarrassed for CT. And for the sake of their constituents and their credibility, I've called on them to change their position, to, by definition, "repent."
Sometimes we have to choose not to watch something that will pollute our souls, even though that thing has the potential to help us grapple with important themes. Even though the trailers look fascinating. It's not worth the cost.
All of us have different thresholds; some of us don't watch R-rated movies, some do. Some tolerate sexual innuendo or graphic violence or degrading language, and others choose not to. That's up to the individual's conscience, of course.
The thing is, I firmly believe that there's a point where the content of a film is such that the benefit to our minds is not worth the cost to the purity of our souls. I firmly believe this movie, which I haven't seen, crosses that threshold.
It's my prayer that the stewards of CT's legacy rightly identify that threshold and take a stand for purity and righteousness.
Oh my goodness. Who saw the game Thursday night?
Let me tell you right now -- it made me very happy. I'm definitely cheering for the Celtics to win over the Lakers in this series. And last night's comeback victory was amazing to watch. Here are the reasons:
1. The Lakers annoy me.
2. All of the celebrities who are suddenly Lakers fans just because they moved to southern California also annoy me.
3. I love Kevin Garnett. He does not annoy me.
3. The Celtics are a good defensive team -- something you rarely see in the NBA.
4. I like the green jerseys better than the yellow.
5. The L.A. Lakers used to be the Minneapolis Lakers, which makes much more sense. They should've changed their name when they moved.
6. Seriously, I really like KG.
I'm from Minnesota, so I watched Kevin Garnett play with the Timberwolves for a long time. He's an intense player, he's a hard worker, and he deserves to win a championship. I hope this is his year.
Who are you cheering for?
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments