Movie Notes

Here’s some brief thoughts on the movies I can remember watching in the past couple of months.

Steal — Watched this yesterday and it was a complete waste of time. Not a very inventive take on the heist/double-cross genre. Terrible acting; lame action; and no real plot to speak of.

Blitz — I honestly expected more from this one. Jason Statham flicks are usually pretty good. This one was boring. You know who the killer is from the jump and you just wait 90 minutes to see him get killed. Not much going for it.

Coastlines — I honestly can’t remember what this was about, which should tell you how good it was. Completely forgettable. All I know is that Timothy Olyphant was in it.

Hostel: Part III — Nothing will ever top the first installment in this franchise but this is definitely the worst. I don’t think Eli Roth had anything to do with this one, which clearly hurt it. Still, it was better than most Saw sequels. It had an ending similar to the remake of The Last House on the Left or the Masters of Horror episode “Family.”

Super 8 — Way better than I thought it would be. I watched this with my daughter and was a little put off by all the cursing, which came mainly from the hefty kid, but it had that classic Spielberg feel to it. J. J. Abrams did a great job with this one. I thought the story was good, the action was intense, and the acting was believable.

Seeking Justice — I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Nicholas Cage flicks are hit or miss. This one could go either way. I like the idea of it (a semi-secret society of vigilantes who right the wrongs that the law just can’t), but I’m not sure they pulled it off as well as they could have.

Warrior — Awesome film about two estranged brothers who end up reuniting in an MMA tournament. They’re both fighting for different, yet noble, reasons, but there can only be one winner. Great story; greater acting; and the fighting was authentic.

Medium Raw — If they weren’t speaking English I would have thought that this was a foreign film. It was lame. Some stupid riff on Little Red Riding Hood with a cop and some others trapped in an Asylum where the homicidal patients are on the loose. Not worth anyone’s time.

The Howling Reborn — If you wanna reboot a series this isn’t the way to do it. I couldn’t follow the story and I couldn’t bring myself to care about any of the characters or anything that was happening. It made me long for the horrible Howling flicks of my youth because no matter how bad they were, they were better than this!

Son of No One — Another lame movie with a lackluster plot. Some kid killed a couple of people when he was like 8 or 10 or something; he grows up to be a cop; and all of a sudden it starts to come out. Only the person telling isn’t after the kid turned cop; they’re after the cops who covered up the murders 20 some-odd years earlier. This might have been the biggest waste of talent (Ray Liotta & Al Pacino) that I’ve ever seen.

The Dark Knight Rises — I preferred The Dark Knight to this one; but that’s not to say that this wasn’t brilliant. Bane was a nice change of pace even if he didn’t prove to be the real villain running the show. I liked how Nolan integrated the previous two films into this one and this definitely felt like the most psychological out of the bunch.

So as you can tell; I haven’t seen a lot of good movies (that I can remember at least) in the last couple of months. Hopefully that’ll change.

B”H

Why This Looks Weird…

I haven’t written a lick about the Jesus Wife Gospel fragment because (1) I don’t care about it; (2) everyone else already has; and (3) I don’t care about it. But Mark Goodacre posted this video of Christian Askeland (of Evangelical Textual Criticism fame—if you don’t know you better recognize!) where he explains why the fragment looks weird to people who know about this sort of thing. I found the video to be highly informative and instructive. It’s something that is useful well beyond thinking and talking about this particular forgery. Enjoy.

B”H

Theatrical Battles

Over the past couple of days I’ve been watching various rap battles on YouTube. They’ve all been sponsored by SMACK/URL and held in theaters. They’ve all been very theatrical. Very exaggerated movements; monologue type deliveries; props; etc. This isn’t something I’m used to. It’s normal for rappers to be animated when reciting their verses but this went past anything that I’d consider regular (and I say this as someone who has watched, listened to, and participated in countless battles). It got me wondering whether or not the venue had anything to do with the delivery. Did being in a big theater make the rappers perform like stage players rather than battle rappers?

Take the recent battle between Iron Solomon and Murda Mook. Iron Solomon rapped his verses with a delivery that we’d expect to hear if he was recording in the studio. That was a bit unusual for a battle as well (usually the cadence is slowed so that the words can be emphasized and easily understood); but he was rapping nonetheless. But Murda Mook seemed like he was putting on a one man stage show. What I find so interesting is that there was another video of Mook reciting parts of his verses for Beanie Sigel in a hotel room away from the theater and he actually rapped them. He didn’t perform at all like he did in the theater. So was it the stage that made him act different? I don’t know. But it’s something I’m going to continue to ponder.

B”H

Answered Prayer

There’s been a situation at my church where I’ve seen something that the pastors haven’t seen—I won’t get into specifics but it’s kind of a big deal—and when I attempted to bring it to their attention they definitely weren’t seeing things my way. I saw early on that it would be pointless to keep pressing the issue so I decided to commit the situation to prayer rather than pressing the issue with them. I’m happy to say that I spoke with one of the pastors at length yesterday and she now sees what I see. I was relieved, overjoyed, thankful, and satisfied all at the same time after that conversation. I’m confident that God will continue to reveal the things to them that I’ve seen and that the situation will be set straight. Thank God for answering prayer!

B”H

Lazy Errancy

Yesterday I inserted myself into a conversation between Lisa Robinson and Scott Lencke on Twitter concerning apparent contradictions/discrepancies in the Bible and the doctrine of inerrancy. It’s a hefty subject and Twitter doesn’t afford one the space to say all that they’d like, so I’m gonna share one my issues with the way discussions like this are generally carried out.

Scott’s main point of contention was that the Bible is a “library” in that it is a collection of books, so we shouldn’t be surprised or bothered when we find contradictions. Each author has his own thing to say and his own way of saying it. Scott says that he’s happy with contradictions/tensions because it means that he doesn’t have to “try & reconcile everything. [He] can freely, but not blindly, accept Scripture.”

That sounds nice and open and honest (I’ll leave the “blindly” part alone, which sounded a little condescending), but it also strikes me as a bit lazy, which I’ll explain below, and also somewhat humanistic in the sense that it focuses on the many human authors and doesn’t account for the one divine author. When I jumped into the conversation my point was that talking about contradictions in Scripture takes their existence for granted. Lisa brought up Article XIV of the Chicago Statement:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Scott said he didn’t like this point, presumably because it starts with the presupposition of inerrancy, and then seeks to reconcile apparent contradictions and discrepancies according to the understanding that Scripture is the word of God, and since God cannot err, neither can his word. But taking apparent contradictions as actual contradictions without at least trying to reconcile the discrepancies is to operate according to the same basic kind of presupposition, namely that Scripture is the words of different men, and since men can and do disagree, so can their words.

I don’t really care if one holds to inerrancy or not; but I’d like to see either position argued for. Simply assuming the existence of actual contradictions because some things seem contradictory is lazy. Not trying to reconcile apparent contradictions because the Bible has a bunch of human authors who can disagree if they want is lazy too. Take the time to see if there is a way to reconcile the problem and then draw your conclusion. If there’s  not then what have you lost? If there is then you’ve gained all the more.

B”H

Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith

Reeves, Michael. 

Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith

Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Pp. 135. Paper. $15.00.

Amazon | CBD

.

.

With thanks to IVP Academic for this review copy!

In Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith Michael Reeves (theological adviser for the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship) has produced what might be the finest introductory work on the Trinity that I’ve read to date. The same volume is published in the UK (by Paternoster) as The Good God: Enjoying Father, Son and Spirit. Each title highlights an important aspect of Reeves’ project.

Introductions to the Christian faith abound, as do introductions to the doctrine of the Trinity; but how many introductions to the Christian faith are specifically about the Trinity? Not many. Why is this? Some might like to lay the blame at the feet of Friedrich Schleiermacher who treated the Trinity in an appendix of his The Christian Faith; I’m not so sure. We need to ask a more fundamental question—one that precedes the placement of the doctrine of the Trinity in published books on the Christian faith—we need to ask what exactly the Christian faith is.

Reeves says that it’s delighting in the Trinity; enjoying Father, Son, and Spirit. The Christian faith is all about sharing in the love that the Father has had for the Son in the Spirit for all eternity. And this is what Reeves spends the entire book talking about. He neatly arranges his chapters to speak of Father, Son, and Spirit respectively, but he can never speak of any one Person without reference to the other two. And he can’t speak about their love for each other without speaking about how that love overflows resulting in creation and salvation.

A friend asked on Twitter whether or not this was an apologetic book and my initial response was to say that it wasn’t. After thinking for a moment I tweeted back that it was—and it is—a brilliant one at that! Building on key insights from Richard of St. Victor, this is one of the finest expositions on 1 John 4:8 (“God is love”) that has ever appeared in print, and Reeves uses this in the service of showing just why this is only possible with the Trinity, and in doing so he ably dismantles Unitarian and polytheistic conceptions of God.

But this isn’t a unique example; equally impressive is how he manages to take some of the most significant theological insights from Christian thinkers such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Jonathan Edwards, to name but a few, and present them in language that even the most uninitiated person can understand. Aside from incorporating their ideas into the main text, there are 16 sidebars that break up the reading but help to strengthen the point of the section. One can imagine these sidebars serving as a devotional to be enjoyed every couple of weeks.

I could go on and on about how Reeves brilliantly makes a case for the importance of the Father’s monarchē by pointing out how starting with the Father, who loves the Son in the Spirit, helps us to avoid thinking of some nebulous “God stuff” standing behind the Trinity like an impersonal fourth member; or mention how he rightly points out that God’s holiness is not inconsistent with his love but rather the outworking of his love; or even how the Trinity was the key to solving the issues that were at stake in Augustine’s debates with Pelagius; but you really need to read this all for yourself.

What I love so much about this book is that Reeves manages to teach the reader about the immanent Trinity, the economic Trinity, perichorēsis, essential attributes, personal properties, the eternal trinitarian taxis, and so much more, and yet he never once has to resort to using any of these technical terms and he manages to keep Scripture at the foundation without resorting to proof-texting. The reader gets all of the key info in language that’s easy to understand. Reeves’ tone is conversational; his wit and humor apparent; but most importantly, his love for the Trinity is written all over every page; he’s an evangelist and an apologist in the best senses of each word.

I’ve been asked countless times to recommend introductory texts on the Trinity and I’ve always suggested Gerald O’Collins’ The Tripersonal God because it’s short, covers the biblical foundation, the historical development, and delves into some contemporary discussions; and I still think it’s a great book; but it has just moved to #2 on my list of recommendations. Delighting in the Trinity/The Good God is my new #1 pick. I’m convinced that Christians, new or old, should take a few moments and spend some time enjoying Father, Son, and Spirit with Reeves.

B”H

4 Great Reasons to Have Netflix

B”H

Pride Goes Before a Fall/Destruction

Listen up I got a story to tell (bonus points if you can tell me what song that’s from)…

So I was going to my mom’s for dinner and I wanted to show her my name in print so I grabbed Chris Tilling’s Paul’s Divine Christology and was ready to go. But then I thought that I didn’t want such an expensive volume getting damaged, so I considered packing it up in a leftover box that I had from a Peeters volume I got for review. Their boxes are great since they don’t allow the book to shift. But then I thought that I wouldn’t need that much protection so I ended up sticking it in the original padded envelope that Chris sent the book in.

I handed it to my daughter for safe keeping in the car and when we arrived at my mom’s my daughter left it on the front seat. I grabbed it and when I stepped out of the car I heard a thud. I looked down and there was the book laying in the street! I had been holding the envelope upside down and the open end was on the bottom! The book slid right out! I was so mad that I wanted to curse. So now there’s damage to the spine and back cover. It’s not too severe but it’s enough to make the book look sad next to my other WUNT volumes (although a couple of them are dinged up as well).

So I guess Proverbs 16:18 had it right when it said that pride/haughtiness goes before a fall/destruction. Here’s the end result:

B”H

And Just in Case You Forgot… I’m Still Famous!

B”H

Paul’s Divine Christology on Google Books

Those interested in Chris Tilling‘s work but who can’t afford a copy of it at the moment would do well to start reading Paul’s Divine Christology on Google Books while they’re saving up for it.

B”H