Time Travel

I totally lifted this off of a comment on another blog, but it was such a cool idea I couldn’t help myself:

Make a Time Machine! (My cousin Phoobia is the one who discovered how to do this)

You’ll need:

* A large box
* Zinc foil
* Electronic stuff, with dials and switches
* A clock

Select a box large enough for you and your time-travelling supplies. Cut a door in one side. Cover it completely, inside and out, with zinc foil. Put your electronics inside the time machine, and connect them to the interior layer of zinc foil. Don’t worry too much about wiring diagrams – the design is a robust one, and will work just as well with the electronics in almost any configuration. Connect your clock to the electonics with some wire. Now you have a time machine.

To use it, sit inside and close the door. Now wind the clock, and turn on the electronic stuff. The clock will show your progress into the future. When you’ve gone far enough, just open the door and exit the Time Machine.

CAUTION: As presently designed, the Phoobia Time Machine can only be used to travel forward in time. Due to this limitation, you should not travel any great distance into the future, since there is currently no way to return. It is hoped that further research will overcome this limitation, as well as enabling the machine to travel faster through time.

posted by: Suri Lemur, Madagascar (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:23 PM)

Focus Issues

Sometimes it’s funny what can get you thinking. Today, it was the phrase “…the growing lack of integration of the Christian faith into all of everyday life.” This was included as part of the summary of a book by an author for whom I have a significant amount of respect. The thing is, it touches very close to a nerve. It reminds me of one of those things that make people that don’t accept Christ look at those of us who do and say “why would I want to be like that?” What I am talking about are those that claim the name, then spend much of their time clamoring and groaning about how the rest of the world fails to live like it has embraced the same principles and values. This clamoring is often focused around a few hot button issues. Don’t immediately assume that I’m on a different side of these issues. On most, I’m probably not. The problem I have is that these same folks haven’t exactly worked out to perfection all of God’s plan for righteousness in their own lives. None of us can achieve perfection by God’s standard on this side of paradise. But if we’re gonna talk about trying, it ought to be about achieving it ourselves, rather than demanding it of others. At that point, we can start picking up stones.

A Spirit of Adoption

To me, this story absolutely reflects the kind of love Christ calls for us to have.  What might have happened to Natalie had her new Mom not insisted on loving her as she was?  What might have happened to us had Christ not decided to love us as we are?  God bless this Mom and Natalie.

The Lifeboat and Cutting Line

Have you ever read something that you knew applied to you in a way that was both true and made you profoundly uncomfortable? That happened to me not too long ago. It bugged me so much that I had to dog-ear the page so I could finish being bugged later. This particular something was in a book by one of my favorite authors, Donald Miller.

In this particular section of Miller’s Searching for God Knows What, he’s recounting a story of standing in line at his favorite coffee shop. As he is standing there, this guy blatently cuts in front of the guy in front of him. What happens next rather clearly separates me from the guy in front of him. The guy in the story gets all bent out of shape and starts staring a hole through the cutter. I would never have done this. I would have started with, “Excuse me.” and escalated things as necessary until he relocated his impertinant backside to the end of the line where he belonged. Thus the conviction the following commentary visits upon yours truly. As if the hook weren’t well and truly planted in my pride at this point, he adds to the problem by augmenting this story with another story of another friend that goes particularly nuts when someone cuts him off in traffic. In my own defense, I am past the road raging of my younger years. This fact does not change the fact that there are few things that aggrevate me more than being cut off in traffic.

Here’s where the problem begins: Miller questions if the reactions that I and others like me have are nothing more that a manifestation of insecurity. Are these a reflection of the fact that I take the possibility that others could succeed in cutting line on me in traffic (or Starbucks) as a sign that I am not worth as much as they?

The convicting part to me is the implication that I am deriving my self worth from somewhere other than where I should be. Intellectually (and theologically) I know that my ultimate worth doesn’t come from either my position in some global line or the fact that I allow no disrespect to go unanswered. The problem is, neither my actions not my emotions seem consistent with that fact. I’ve always known I had these reactions, but I thought I was simply defending (in a manly way) my “honor” (or something like that anyway).

Miller talks throughout this book about the idea of lifeboat theory. Its based on the ethics/morals exercise in which there is a sinking ship and a lifeboat of limited capacity. The list of potential lifeboat passenger candidates exceeds the capacity of said lifeboat by some amount. Participants in the exercise must sort out who gets the seats and who falls sinking into the abyss with Leonardo DiCaprio. Miller makes the point that humans often seem to be involved in some global game of lifeboat in which we are all trying to secure our positions by ensuring that we are either of great value, or that someone else is of lesser value. This in turn guarentees that we will not be the one left off.

If I allow that guy to cut me off in Starbucks, that implies he is more worthy of the lifeboat seat than I. As a result, I am willing to behave in a manner that witnesses would probably not attribute to my Christian faith, but instead to a rather surly disposition.

If one believes that we are all just the result of some cosmicly improbable evolutionary accident, and that we are no different from apes and wart hogs, then I suppose this sort of behavior would not be all that disturbing. I don’t believe that, however. I believe that I (and the rest of the human race) were the result of a deliberate act of creation by a loving and (thankfully) forgiving God. Intellectually (an theologically) I know that I have inherent value as a person and that this value comes from the fact that I was 1) Uniquely created by God 2) in His image and that 3) the same God came as Christ, suffered, and died for my sins that I might share eternity with Him. Yet somehow, I lose track of this. Somehow, I still want to fight for my seat on the lifeboat from time to time.

Ancient Thought Meets the Emergent Church

A Review of Ian Morgan Cron’s Chasing Francis: A Pilgrim’s Tale
I’ve been a bit hesitant to review this book, as I am still very much in the process of digesting it. However, after thinking about it a bit, I decided a review of what the book IS may be in order, even if a review of what it MEANS may be some time in coming. Besides, perhaps if I review it, others of you will be intrigued enough to read it and join me in the interpretation thereof.

The book itself is written in the style of (as the author himself describes it) “wisdom literature”. By this, he means that the story is the authors unabashed attempt to convey a message by way of a long-form parable. This isn’t a case of your eighth grade English teacher exhorting you to “find the meaning” in Mary Poppins or The Grapes of Wrath. In this case, the author will present a problem to the protagonist that he or she believes many readers are encountering as well, and then will lead the protagonist through the proces of discovering the authors suggested solution.

Our protagonist, in this case, is a self styled conservative evangelical that has founded what has become a very “successful” megachurch. We quickly learn that this lead pastor has recently been suffering the early stages of a crises of faith. The senseless death of a young child in his congregation acts as the final straw. Chase Falson, the pastor in question, has the incredible bad timing to not only have his “spiritual meltdown” in the middle of his sermon (the one just after the funeral), but to also express this fact over his microphone. It doesn’t take the elders long to meet and inform him that he will be taking a forced sabbatical to figure out what the deal is. Enter Kenny, Chase’s Baptist-turned-Fransican-monk uncle who lives in Italy. When he calls Kenny on impulse while struggling with what to do next, his uncle’s suggestion to come for a visit to “meet someone” doesn’t sound any crazier than anything else. This sets the stage for the author to convey his belief that the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi has much that it can teach the post modern church. As it turns out, Francis is the “someone” that Kenny wants him to meet. As Chase learns of and follows Francis, so does the reader. There is more plot to the story, but I’ll leave that to the reader to discover. The real meat of the text is the commentary about Francis and the applicability of his teachings today.

Things I liked:
1. Learning about Francis – This was one of the main attractions to this book. I’d heard a few quotes from St. Francis along the way that really appealed to me, and I wanted to know more. What you learn from this book will include a few specific stories from his life, and some of te principles of his teachings.
2. Writing style – This “wisdom literature” style is one that I have enjoyed in a few business titles I’ve read (Death By Meeting (Lencioni) and Leadership and Self Deception (Arbinger Institute) to name a couple) and it really works for me. It makes what could be a dry read much more enjoyable and encourages the author to think about context and applicability of what they are selling.
3. Being challenged – There are parts of the book that absolutely pull NO punches. There was at least one phrase in the book that I never expected to read in Christian literature. If you read the book, you will know it when you see it. I don’t agree with every thing he calls the church to be in there, but there are some things that were very convicting.

Things I didn’t:
1. If you aren’t Emergent, you just aren’t enlightened yet – This part was oddly the worst at the beginning of the book. It came around some at the end though, too. This seems to be one of the primary Kryptonites of this wierd aggregation of folks we label Emergent. While they don’t all agree on what Emergent is, most seem to thing that everyone else just isn’t quite as enlightened as them. I happen to believe there are things to be learned from a lot of different approaches to faith, but NONE of them have a monopoly on truth. “For we all know in part and prophesy in part…”
2. Learning MORE about Francis – I wished I could have heard more about who Francis was. The notes on the book suggested that Chase would follow “in the footsteps of Francis”. Well he does, but he tends to jump around the path a good deal. I guess I expected something a bit more comprehensive in regards to learning about the Saint, but in fairness, that wasn’t really the authors primary objective.
3. Inconsistency on the political thing – This particular comment applies more to the “liberal” side of the church in general, but certainly has applicability to this book as well. One criticism they consistently have is that conservatives in the church integrate the church with their politics to advance a conservative social agenda, all in the name of God. The problem is, folks like the author turn around and advocate using the church as a body to lobby the government for issues like the environment and other things. My problem with all of this is that Christ didn’t call on the government (US or Roman) to feed the poor, save the whales, or clothe the naked. He called on Christians to do these things. Personally. With THEIR money, not TAX money. I have seen no historic evidence that any close alignment between government and Christianity has worked out particularly well for God’s mission for His church. I have no reason to believe this will be more true if the alliance is on the liberal side rather than the conservative. Render unto Ceasar the government of nations. Render unto God the focus of His church.

All things considered, this was a great book for me to read and it was the perfect time for me to read it. It was a bit unsettling to read about St. Francis and his work with the poor while I was on a cruise ship, but that is probably good for me as well. I’ve dogeared numerous pages, some of which I will blog about and others I will patiently wait for someone else to have read the book so I can discuss them. If you want to hear a point of view that blends ideas from the past with ideas from the Emergent perspective, and perhaps find something that you can use in your life, this is probably a worthwhile title for you. I give it a 7 out of 10.

Sneakin’ In Da Movies

This should about catch me up on movies for now. Some good, some… well… not so much.

First, there was Hollywoodland. This is the true story of an actor that started out playing in a few significant films, but never as the star. As his career progressed, he found himself relegated to lesser roles than for which he had hoped. He had a “pose” for every situation, and relied on his good looks and strong chin to lead the way for him, but he never garnered significant respect for his acting. Instead, he relied upon his connections with other more successful people in the movie industry to keep him afloat. No, the film isn’t actually about Ben Affleck, but he does portray the actor in question. The movie analyzes the events leading up to and surrounding the apparent suicide of George Reeves, the man best known for his portrayal of Superman in the 50’s television series. In fairness to Mr. Reeves, the tv series was wildly successful with its target audience for a time. What I liked about the movie: I can’t vouch for its accuracy (I never lived in the 1950’s), but the sense of time for the film seemed very real to me. I also appreciated the performances of particularly Adrien Brody and also Diane Lane. Their characters were both rather real for me and moved through a developmental arc throughout the picture. It will not surprise you to hear that though the role provided the opportunity, Affleck’s character didn’t develop quite as much. The various scenes portraying alternative explanations for the end of his life may have had something to do with the muddled mess the character seemed to be. I also could have done without the multiple gratuitous bare buttocks shots I had to endure from Mr. Affleck. Overall, I don’t find this piece of history to be terribly compelling, but it was a nice period piece with a bit of noir/big hollywood feel. IMDB gives it a 6.6, and for what it is, that probably is close enough.

For our next entry, let’s take a look at Eragon. This film was based on a book I read a couple of years ago. Picking up the book, I thought I was getting something in the vein of Harry Potter, or other similarly good literature aimed at children. Although not nearly as good as Rowling, the book did not disappoint in this regard. Some folks have opined that Eragon lifted a bit too shamelessly and liberally from the works of Tolkien. I believe this only to be true insomuch as both relied on heroic archetypes. That was the book. This is the movie. The story was not the movie’s problem. One incredibly horrible screenplay was. Or was it slash and burn editing? Hard to tell. The one thing for certain is that the movie was a near-incoherent mess. The characters were incredibly shallow and unsympathetic. The action scenes were OK in places, but in most unremarkable. If this was to serve as the foundation for a movie on Paolini’s second book, Eldest, the whole mess will undoubtedly sink into a fantastical abyss under it’s own weight. The 4.9 it received on IMDB is generous, but anything under a 5 really isn’t worth rating with any greater specificity.

Next was the Guardian. This Costner/Kutcher flick was in many ways predictable. Its a tale of a “changing of the guard” of a sorts within the US Coast Guard, as one legendary rescue swimmer takes a role training the next generation. You could cynically condense the film into Officer and a Gentleman meets the Perfect Storm meets Top Gun. While this distillation may be cynical, its not far off either. However, I wouldn’t dismiss the film on these grounds. Here are the points of redemption: 1) Costner is likable. Has he even not been? He’s fun to watch and easy to identify with. 2) Kutcher is actually believable. This is one of the questions I watched the movie to answer. Would I constantly be waiting for him to grin and tell me I had been Punk’d for renting it? As it turns out, no. He does a good job creating the character for which the script was written. If the right movie comes along, I’d want to see him in another dramatic role. 3) This is a good flick. It’s not great, and it’s not high art, but it is a good story with good characters and, yes, good special effects. IMDB gives up a 6.6. I’d probably push it over the 7 mark.

Finally (for this installment, anyway) there is Million Dollar Baby. To me, one of the marks of a truly great film is its ability to continue to insinuate itself into your consciousness for days or even weeks after you see it. I don’t mean this in the sort of way that some annoying children’s tune or 80’s song gets in your head either. I mean in the sort of way that you know you have seen something significant and that there are questions poised that just aren’t that easy to puzzle out. That there are images that are so enduring you know it will take a long time to shake them. Being left with the feeling that not only did you not see something coming, but that when you are caught off guard by it, it wasn’t just trickery or emotional or intellectual dishonesty that caused the story to go that way, but rather fantastic story telling. This is that sort of film. Here’s the really great thing though: this film is not only good strategically. It’s also excellent tactically. I’m not giving away any spoilers to say that when the film is over, I wanted to listen to Frankie and Scrap banter more. I wanted to know Maggie better. I wanted to know what the deal was with the minister. I simply wanted more and knew there wasn’t any more. You may be saying at this point “Are you going to tell us what the movie is about?”. In short, no. In part, that’s because I am still working that part out. And that, in part, is why this movie is as great as it is. IMDB gave this one an 8.3. That’s too dang low. Buy it, watch it, then watch it again.

Must Not See List

I just got through watching Benchwarmers with Becky. If you like, you can consider that statement a confession of sorts. Keeping it real, I didn’t expect it to actually be good. I just didn’t expect it to be this bad. Don’t get me wrong. There were definately portions of the movie that had me laughing out loud. Most of them revolved around John Lovitz’s character, an uber-nerd that became a millionaire. He uses his wealth to get all of the toys nerds of my generation aspired to, including a personal robot and multiple life-size statues of starwars characters in his house. Beyond that, most of the laughs were of the “no they didn’t just do that” variety. Let me keep it simple: this is lowest common denominator humor. It’s not just that it was crude. It was also cheap. The thought I came out of my viewing with was, “Of all the movies in the history of hollywood, I just watched this”. To hammer home the point, if Jon Heder picked his nose in this movie less than 50 times, I would be amazed. IMDB gave it a 5.4. There is much generosity in the IMDB votership. Think sub-4. Don’t buy. Don’t rent. Don’t collect $200.

A Mission or a Church?

This entire story is inspiring. If you read it, make sure you read all the way to the bottom. While the whole of the story is inspiring, it is the quotes in the last paragraph that really bring it home. This is the kind of thing that challenges me on a personal level and in terms of what it means to be a member of Christ’s Body.

KB – Separated At Birth, part II

Did my loyal readership know that KB is on Dancing with the Stars this year? He’s actually doing pretty well. As it turns out, he also used to sing with NSynch…

End of the Drought

It goes without saying that I’ve been in the midst of a significant blogging drought. It’s not so much that I don’t have anything to say, but more that what I have to say I have not wanted to say here. However, I have decided that it’s time to break the silence and to do so in a way that is innocuous, but perhaps useful.

Many of my readers (both of them) know that I have become a rather compulsive collector of movies. In order to prevent this activity from breaking my personal bank, I have also refined my ability to find the movies I buy at bargain prices. In fact, a rarely broken rule is that any movie I buy must be less than $10.

In recent months, however, my journeys down the aisles of Blockbuster, Circuit City, and Target had begun to yield less and less fruit. The problem seems to be that there are fewer and fewer movies that meet the intersection of “desired price range” and “worthy of ownership”. In the interest of preventing my habit from driving me to purchase any more films like Oceans 12, I had to find another approach. Enter my new Blockbuster Online account. Going in this direction presented several immediate benefits: 1) I could scout for movies that might be worthy of ownership, 2) I could intentionally watch movies I suspected were bad but possibly fun, and 3) I would get one free game rental per month. All of these benefits could be had for the cost of 2 copies of Oceans 12, and with none of the associated regrets.

With this preamble, I now enter the crowded and contentious territory of movie reviews. Please understand that there are MANY more movies in category 2 (listed just above) than in category 1 (also listed above). As a result, I will kindly suggest that if you are going to mock my choice in movies, that you at least make such mockery entertaining for the other(s) that read this esteemed blog. I will, at least, attempt to make the depth of review of marginal movies consistent with the depth of quality. Unless a film reaches to new depths of abysmalality, I will not give bad films much ink (many pixels?). Without further ado, here are the first round:

Accepted – I selected this film because I wanted the answer to one question: If a person wanted to create a completely fictitious university, how would that person go about it? While the movie, as expected, did not delve too deeply into the answer to this question (or any other for that matter), it did provide some (very) cheap laughs. Let me be clear: this movie relied on crude humor, merciless stereotyping, and a predictable plot line. This isn’t Shakespeare, folks. Still, it was more or less fun in a I-should-be-disappointed-in-myself kind of way. If there was nothing else to see, I might have caught it once at the dollar theater. It does, by the way, give you a chance to see the “I’m a Mac” guy on a slightly larger stage. IMDB: 6.2 – that’s in the right ballpark.

Fantastic 4 – When I was a kid, I liked to watch the SuperFriends. I even owned a comic book or two. Now that I’m grown up, I really like a great superhero movie, like Batman Returns. I also get really annoyed when Hollywood puts out junk in the guise of a super hero movie, like Batman and Robin. My definition, in fairness, tends to include that the movie have grown-up appeal, if a protagonist in tights (Shakespeare not included) can be considered grown-up. I think people like me are the reason that Fantastic 4 got panned. The thing is, when you think about the 5-8 year old set, Fantastic Four was actually a decent flick. As it turned out, my oldest daughter (6.5 years old) watched most of this one with me and actually liked it. The savvy reader may deduce from this that the movie was pretty tame. The savvy reader would be right. There were plenty of special effects. I imagine that the human torch and Thing would be the two favorites among little boys. Sorry, Plastic Man. Reed Richards is a pretty lame dude. That’s just the way it is. I’m curious to see what they do with the soon-to-be-released Silver Surfer Sequel. IMDB: 5.9 – For a kid-friendly flick, I think this is low. If you’re comparing it to Batman Begins, it may be a bit high.

Invincible – It’s a sports movie. It’s based on a true story. It involves a bartender that tries out for and makes the NFL. There’s nothing much left to the imagination after that. Yeah, we’ve all seen movies like this. They don’t make “based on a true story” sports movies about the wannabe baseball pitcher, football player, or Olympic hockey team that gave it their all and fought through adversity to still, well, suck. This movie is nothing if not predictable. But I liked it anyway. Seeing the 70’s cars, haircuts, clothes, and hearing the pretty cool soundtrack were half the fun. And while the heroes never suck in the end of movies like this, the bottom line is that they are all based on compelling stories. The only thing I wanted at the end was a little more “where they are now”, particularly a bit about his ex-wife. If you’ve seen the movie, you know what I mean. IMDB: 7.0 – Sounds good to me.

Casino Royale – Bond, James Bond. To say that this movie redefines the character may in fact be understating the point. Gone is the reliance on cheesy gadgets and cheesier villains. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t know that I have ever seen a Bond movie that I didn’t enjoy on some level. The fact is, however, that Bond was becoming more and more like Dirk Pitt (for those of you that have read a Cussler novel). This movie reverses that trend. James is still skilled, suave, and fun to watch. But this time around, there is an attempt to make things a bit more realistic. For instance, the primary plot device is not “villain bent on destroying all of human kind”. There is also more depth to James. You actually see something bordering on emotion. Furthermore, there is an attempt to explain some of what we have seen of Bond in other movies. Don’t take all this to mean that 007 spends the entire movie staring at the moon and thinking about his inner self. This movie has some classic scenes in it. Near the beginning of the movie is what may very well be the best “on foot” chase scene I have ever seen. There is also a torture scene a bit further along that will leave the guys that see it cringing just a bit. The bottom line is that this is a rental that I will go back and buy. If you care for spy flicks at all, you should check this one out. IMDB gives this one a 7.9. I would probably bump it to 8.5.

I would like to dedicate this post to MA and JS, who have harassed me without ceasing about my absence from the blogosphere. This one is for you.